I've had it with Inside NU...

[iskaboo]

Early in the season, I defended Inside NU and Henry Bushnell against some criticism on this Board, explaining that he and his colleagues did a pretty good job considering they are studentt journalists.

Now, he's lost even my support. He has written a stupid article that contains the stupidest sentence I have read in the 50+ years in which I have been reading sport writing:

"But the true effectiveness of a team should not be measured in wins and losses."​

Then, I ask, what is the purpose of playing the game?

Henry, if you're reading this, I would delete the article from your site before a prospective employer reads it.

http://www.insidenu.com/2015/11/17/...vanced-stats-second-order-wins-win-expectancy

 

[Hungry Jack]

I actually enjoy the advanced metrics in baseball. But in football, I am skeptical.

Here is an idea: Have all the teams play three quarters, or maybe like 55 minutes. End the games before any final outcome. Collect all the data, run the stats, and then rank the teams. That way, no one will get tortured with W-L records.

 

[VirginiaWildcat]

InsideNU is an absolute joke. I don't support any publication that goes out of it's way to tear down a program (and take joy in it's struggles...which it certainly has), a program it seemingly should be supporting. That place has become a haven for negative thinkers, rather than a gathering place for fans who want more information about their team. Henry Bushnell in particular does NOT like a Fitzgerald coached NU football team and will do whatever he can to diminish its success.

 

[JournCat]

This is what happens when two dangerous trends collide: Journalists with no math background try to do stats, and journalists raised on a steady hot take diet try to offer "analysis." Brutal.

 

[FloridAlum]

They seem to feel compelled to say something even when they do not have anything to say. They do have a true talent for taking positive things and twisting them into something negative. We have at least a couple of people like that around here.

 

[thewildcat2011]

Eh, I used to get mad about their articles and have the same reaction. Now I just realize that they are arrogant kids for the most part. One of the main challenges of "growing up" is knowing what you don't know and realizing that perhaps you're not as smart as you think you are. They're not quite there yet.

I doubt I did a better job when I was writing these types of pieces back in the day.

 

[MrCat95]

Early in the season, I defended Inside NU and Henry Bushnell against some criticism on this Board, explaining that he and his colleagues did a pretty good job considering they are studentt journalists.

Now, he's lost even my support. He has written a stupid article that contains the stupidest sentence I have read in the 50+ years in which I have been reading sport writing:

"But the true effectiveness of a team should not be measured in wins and losses."​

Then, I ask, what is the purpos of playing the game?

Henry, if you're reading this, I would delete the article from your site before a prospective employer reads it.

http://www.insidenu.com/2015/11/17/...vanced-stats-second-order-wins-win-expectancy

They strike me as nerds who should probably stick to playing dungeons and dragons or whatever it is that young nerds do these days.

I stopped reading when I came across "But the true effectiveness of a team should not be measured in wins and losses." That statement is totally devoid of the common sense that anyone who has ever played, coached or even just watched the game of football would have acquired.

I also liked the following gem... I wish somebody told me a long time ago that playing well vs. playing crappy is just "random variation." Players and coaches throughout history have apparently wasted a lot of time and energy practicing hard, scheming, sleeping right, eating right, rehabbing injuries, watching film and otherwise preparing mentally and physically for football games.

What we're actually talking about is random variation. Here's how the Wildcats have been lucky: They've essentially (and inadvertently, by chance) allocated as much bad performance as possible into two games (at Michigan, Iowa), and into six others (excluding Minnesota and Eastern Illinois) they've allocated just enough good performance to win all six.

 

[techtim72]

MRCat95, great comments. I do think there is meat in Bushnell's article, but it is ruined by such a flip remarks. The statement "... inadvertently, by chance ..." is just an incredibly idiotic assessment by someone who undoubtedly is very bright.

 

[T_Levine]

Matt,

Clearly you did not butt heads hard enough during your career. That was way too intelligent and articulate for this Northwestern alum ;-)

 

[MrCat95]

MRCat95, great comments. I do think there is meat in Bushnell's article, but it is ruined by such a flip remarks. The statement "... inadvertently, by chance ..." is just an incredibly idiotic assessment by someone who undoubtedly is very bright.

The data is interesting, but much of the analysis and conclusions come from a place of naivety. That's often the case with articles over at InsideNU. I'm not outraged by that site, but am often irritated by it. Good for them because it keeps nimrods like me going over there to read it, which increases their clicks.

It would be kind of nice to know if they believe what they write, or if they're just trying to spark outrage for clicks. It's hard to know anymore.

Perhaps I've turned into any angry out of touch old man, but much of what they write makes me want to slap their prepubescent faces and yell at them to get off my lawn.

 

[nycat33]

I think they often try too hard to not be seen as homer so they end up hating on NU more than they should.

 

[pawildcat_rivals209725]

The data is interesting, but much of the analysis and conclusions come from a place of naivety. That's often the case with articles over at InsideNU. I'm not outraged by that site, but am often irritated by it. Good for them because it keeps nimrods like me going over there to read it, which increases their clicks.

It would be kind of nice to know if they believe what they write, or if they're just trying to spark outrage for clicks. It's hard to know anymore.

Perhaps I've turned into any angry out of touch old man, but much of what they write makes me want to slap their prepubescent faces and yell at them to get off my lawn.

Well, it's the era of the Interweb, MR, and everyone is an instant sports analyst, film critic, political expert etc. You name it. Actually, I'm probably about 25 years older than you and I'm kind of past the angry old guy stage as I've become more and more aware of how little I actually know. I'm also aware that, despite my best intentions, I'm not going to stop idiocy in our time. I've kind of adopted the George Carlin attitude that human beings are probably going to blow the whole thing up one of these days, but that it can still be amusing to watch the journey.

 

[chicagocatfan24]

I love the baseball comparison. I'm a diehard Sox fan, and absolutely despise Chris Rongey on the Score. He's the biggest stat nerd ever. He'll shove WAR, xFIP, defensive runs saved, yada yada yada down callers throats because he knows they don't know what he's talking about. It makes him sound smart, but he doesn't know how to dissect the innards of baseball like people who have spent their entire lives around the game do. I don't know a THING about hockey, but I could spew out corsi stats, etc. and sound intelligent to another casual fan, when a true hockey fan would be able to sniff out that I have no idea what the hell I'm talking about.

Advanced stats are best used to aid in analysis of a player or team when combined with a person's eyeball test. Both matter. Stat nerds that think they're the end-all-be-all in baseball, (and now apparently football like the InsideNU idiots), have never in their lives "strapped it on", stepped foot on a mound, etc. They rely on being able to spew stats that the common person doesn't understand to make themselves sound smarter, when in reality it's more or less a defense mechanism to hide their own lack of knowledge of the game.

Sorry, I ranted right there. I just really hate Chris Rongey

 

[PurpleHaze525]

I think they often try too hard to not be seen as homer so they end up hating on NU more than they should.

This. They just take their site too seriously as a journalistic pursuit as opposed to a fan site and think any hint of homerism is an affront to their integrity as journalists. That's fine, they are Medill kids who are trying to practice for the career they want. Honestly I think they do a decent job of covering the team objectively like, say, ESPN would (or should.) It's just not what most people want or expect out of an SB nation team blog.

 

[Turk_rivals223269]

insidenu is a very very good site that has exclusive interviews; great recruiting articles: practice reports; etc.

It is legitimated by Fitz recognizing it as well.

The commentary exhibits journalistic heroism as it unpacks the good and the bad at the cost of torking off homers, shills, and pollyanas.

very very good insights!

 

[thewildcat2011]

insidenu is a very very good site that has exclusive interviews; great recruiting articles: practice reports; etc.

It is legitimated by Fitz recognizing it as well.

The commentary exhibits journalistic heroism as it unpacks the good and the bad at the cost of torking off homers, shills, and pollyanas.

very very good insights!

Kiss of death.

 

[Styre]

Now, he's lost even my support. He has written a stupid article that contains the stupidest sentence I have read in the 50+ years in which I have been reading sport writing:

"But the true effectiveness of a team should not be measured in wins and losses."​

Then, I ask, what is the purpose of playing the game?

I dunno, but I hope if you consider wins and losses the be-all and end-all of college football, you're prepared to explain how Houston is a better team than Alabama...

I don't think advanced stats are as predictive in football as in baseball, but this is a well-researched article examining NU's season from a statistical perspective. People, as always, just get irritated when statistics don't back up the "eye test."

 

[PURPLECAT88]

Stat nerds that think they're the end-all-be-all in baseball, (and now apparently football like the InsideNU idiots), have never in their lives "strapped it on", stepped foot on a mound, etc. They rely on being able to spew stats that the common person doesn't understand to make themselves sound smarter, when in reality it's more or less a defense mechanism to hide their own lack of knowledge of the game.

This couldn't be more wrong. I have long read and corresponded with many of the earliest SABRmetric guys and found that nearly all of them love baseball, watch more baseball than you or I could possibly imagine and have a full understanding of how incomplete statistical analysis can be. In the early days (15-20 years ago, before Moneyball was published) they often had to be loud and/or abrasive just to get noticed and that reputation stayed with them. But nearly all of them, from Bill James to Rob Neyer to Voros McCracken to Joe Sheehan and the hundreds more who do the math and spread the gospel, played, watch and love baseball, and baseball is better for their analysis.

 

[Hungry Jack]

insidenu is a very very good site that has exclusive interviews; great recruiting articles: practice reports; etc.

It is legitimated by Fitz recognizing it as well.

The commentary exhibits journalistic heroism as it unpacks the good and the bad at the cost of torking off homers, shills, and pollyanas.

very very good insights!

Their stories on NU recruits were horrifically shallow, based on star ratings and offer lists, and then went the extra mile by insulting high school players on our coaches' recruiting efforts when our recruiting classes did not resemble those of OSU, USC or Alabama. GCG and I fairly blistered them in the comments after a few of these "articles", suggesting they try to looking at some film and maybe toning down the stardust a bit. They seemed to listen a bit. But up to that point, their reports on recruiting were rubish rubbish.

 

[Styre]

This couldn't be more wrong. I have long read and corresponded with many of the earliest SABRmetric guys and found that nearly all of them love baseball, watch more baseball than you or I could possibly imagine and have a full understanding of how incomplete statistical analysis can be. In the early days (15-20 years ago, before Moneyball was published) they often had to be loud and/or abrasive just to get noticed and that reputation stayed with them. But nearly all of them, from Bill James to Rob Neyer to Voros McCracken to Joe Sheehan and the hundreds more who do the math and spread the gospel, played, watch and love baseball, and baseball is better for their analysis.

Yeah, but Chris Rongey disagrees with drunk "I'M A DIE SOX WHITE FAN!" callers on White Sox postgame, so clearly stats-focused people hate baseball!

 

[thewildcat2011]

I dunno, but I hope if you consider wins and losses the be-all and end-all of college football, you're prepared to explain how Houston is a better team than Alabama...

I don't think advanced stats are as predictive in football as in baseball, but this is a well-researched article examining NU's season from a statistical perspective. People, as always, just get irritated when statistics don't back up the "eye test."

The thing is that statistics actually back up the eye test this season if you're paying any attention. No one should be pretending that we're an elite or extremely good team. No one should be thinking that winning out is likely at all if you've watched these games.

The problem is: Why should I feel worse about an 8-2 season because statistical models tell me that we should have only won 5 or 6 games so far?

 

[Hungry Jack]

The baseball metrics go a long way toward explaining what we see on the field, but in a way that is fascinating and insightful, rather than making you feel like you have to suspend belief. The INU article is basically arguing that an 8-2 team is a mirage because it appears to be very lucky.

I just don't trust the sample sizes in football sabermetrics, though I cannot say I am intimately familiar with all the methods. Baseball metrics can literally quantify every play in a game--a pitch, a batted ball, a defensive play, a baserunning play, and so on. In baseball mterics, every player is accounted for, and the data sets can be enormous. And all of it can generally be aggregated into run expectancies (scored or prevented), which go a long way toward predicting a team's success over a season (we discussed a few exceptions to Pythagorean records in another thread).

You just don't have this in football. Way too many variables left unmeasured. Small sample sizes. Far too much variability.

 

[Styre]

The problem is: Why should I feel worse about an 8-2 season because statistical models tell me that we should have only won 5 or 6 games so far?

I agree with you -- but who is telling you that you shouldn't feel good about the season? Certainly not the article.

 

[Gladeskat]

InsideNU is an absolute joke. I don't support any publication that goes out of it's way to tear down a program (and take joy in it's struggles...which it certainly has), a program it seemingly should be supporting. That place has become a haven for negative thinkers, rather than a gathering place for fans who want more information about their team. Henry Bushnell in particular does NOT like a Fitzgerald coached NU football team and will do whatever he can to diminish its success.

And I get ripped for confronting these jerks.

I like the fact that NM still takes shots at MRCat95 and me via Twitter.

 

[thewildcat2011]

I agree with you -- but who is telling you that you shouldn't feel good about the season? Certainly not the article.

I'd disagree because calling something "lucky", subject to "random variance", and saying that there's such a thing as a measure of "true effectiveness" is to inherently devalue the achievements of this team so far.

 

[Deeringfish]

You could and should just as easily say that they are the best team in College football because while playing one of the most difficult schedules and facing the most rigorous academics, they managed to have the heart and ability to over come the advanced metrics of the game.

 

[DocCatsFan]

Early in the season, I defended Inside NU and Henry Bushnell against some criticism on this Board, explaining that he and his colleagues did a pretty good job considering they are studentt journalists.

Now, he's lost even my support. He has written a stupid article that contains the stupidest sentence I have read in the 50+ years in which I have been reading sport writing:

"But the true effectiveness of a team should not be measured in wins and losses."​

Then, I ask, what is the purpose of playing the game?

Henry, if you're reading this, I would delete the article from your site before a prospective employer reads it.

http://www.insidenu.com/2015/11/17/...vanced-stats-second-order-wins-win-expectancy

First of all disclosure: my son does work for InsideNU and Henry is his roommate. OK, that said:

You are missing the point of the article. The very paragraph before the one you quote states, "Northwestern has been remarkably successful if success is only measured by wins and losses — which it is. With regards to what has already happened this season, without considering the future, win-loss success is all that matters. It does not matter how Northwestern has reached 8-2, it only matters that it has." He is trying to make the distinction between "good" and "successful". If he had said "the true measure of how good a team is..." maybe you wouldn't have objected. The article is an effort to try to objectify how "good" a team is which may or may not be reflected in its record. Surely we can all agree that Alabama is a "better" team than Iowa. Henry is trying to use stats to make this distinction and the difference between a team's record and how good that team actually is would be classified as "luck."

This paragraph might explain it a bit better: "These stats should not diminish the accomplishment that an 8-2 record is. It does not take away reason to celebrate close wins over Penn State and Nebraska. What it does do is explain why Northwestern is and should be a double-digit underdog at Wisconsin this weekend. The Wildcats simply haven't been as good as their 8-2 record indicates." I'm not sure that there is much controversial about that.

You may or may not like sabermetrics applied to football, and that's fine. But nobody is making a conscious effort to tear down NU. Believe me. I know these guys.

 

[Catreporter]

First of all disclosure: my son does work for InsideNU and Henry is his roommate. OK, that said:

You are missing the point of the article. The very paragraph before the one you quote states, "Northwestern has been remarkably successful if success is only measured by wins and losses — which it is. With regards to what has already happened this season, without considering the future, win-loss success is all that matters. It does not matter how Northwestern has reached 8-2, it only matters that it has." He is trying to make the distinction between "good" and "successful". If he had said "the true measure of how good a team is..." maybe you wouldn't have objected. The article is an effort to try to objectify how "good" a team is which may or may not be reflected in its record. Surely we can all agree that Alabama is a "better" team than Iowa. Henry is trying to use stats to make this distinction and the difference between a team's record and how good that team actually is would be classified as "luck."

This paragraph might explain it a bit better: "These stats should not diminish the accomplishment that an 8-2 record is. It does not take away reason to celebrate close wins over Penn State and Nebraska. What it does do is explain why Northwestern is and should be a double-digit underdog at Wisconsin this weekend. The Wildcats simply haven't been as good as their 8-2 record indicates." I'm not sure that there is much controversial about that.

You may or may not like sabermetrics applied to football, and that's fine. But nobody is making a conscious effort to tear down NU. Believe me. I know these guys.

Well, Doc it certainly was a thought provoking article that got a lot of response and that's a good thing. I think stats and sabermetrics can tell us a lot, but I think there are a lot of variables, particularly in football, that they don 't account for. And Bill Connelly's site ranking Minnesota way ahead of NU is really telltale in that regard. We totally wiped the field with the Gophers. Does he take that into account? Who cares if they came close to Iowa and Michigan. They lost, just like we did.

 

[DkeCat]

First of all disclosure: my son does work for InsideNU and Henry is his roommate. OK, that said:

You are missing the point of the article. The very paragraph before the one you quote states, "Northwestern has been remarkably successful if success is only measured by wins and losses — which it is. With regards to what has already happened this season, without considering the future, win-loss success is all that matters. It does not matter how Northwestern has reached 8-2, it only matters that it has." He is trying to make the distinction between "good" and "successful". If he had said "the true measure of how good a team is..." maybe you wouldn't have objected. The article is an effort to try to objectify how "good" a team is which may or may not be reflected in its record. Surely we can all agree that Alabama is a "better" team than Iowa. Henry is trying to use stats to make this distinction and the difference between a team's record and how good that team actually is would be classified as "luck."

This paragraph might explain it a bit better: "These stats should not diminish the accomplishment that an 8-2 record is. It does not take away reason to celebrate close wins over Penn State and Nebraska. What it does do is explain why Northwestern is and should be a double-digit underdog at Wisconsin this weekend. The Wildcats simply haven't been as good as their 8-2 record indicates." I'm not sure that there is much controversial about that.

You may or may not like sabermetrics applied to football, and that's fine. But nobody is making a conscious effort to tear down NU. Believe me. I know these guys.

Was about to write the same thing, but you beat me to it. Poorly worded line, but the gist is that we sit 8-2, which is great, but our record is better than how we played. Whether that's true is debatable, and can understand the uproar, but don't think that was the intention.

 

[Seattle_Cat]

insidenu is a very very good site that has exclusive interviews; great recruiting articles: practice reports; etc.

It is legitimated by Fitz recognizing it as well.

The commentary exhibits journalistic heroism as it unpacks the good and the bad at the cost of torking off homers, shills, and pollyanas.

very very good insights!

I do think that analyzing college athletes as deeply as the pro games is not really justified. They are just kids. They make mistakes and don't have years of experience to guide them.

 

[DocCatsFan]

Well, Doc it certainly was a thought provoking article that got a lot of response and that's a good thing. I think stats and sabermetrics can tell us a lot, but I think there are a lot of variables, particularly in football, that they don 't account for. And Bill Connelly's site ranking Minnesota way ahead of NU is really telltale in that regard. We totally wiped the field with the Gophers. Does he take that into account? Who cares if they came close to Iowa and Michigan. They lost, just like we did.

Yes. And I don't think that your comments refute the article in any way whatsoever.

 

[VirginiaWildcat]

First of all disclosure: my son does work for InsideNU and Henry is his roommate. OK, that said:

You are missing the point of the article. The very paragraph before the one you quote states, "Northwestern has been remarkably successful if success is only measured by wins and losses — which it is. With regards to what has already happened this season, without considering the future, win-loss success is all that matters. It does not matter how Northwestern has reached 8-2, it only matters that it has." He is trying to make the distinction between "good" and "successful". If he had said "the true measure of how good a team is..." maybe you wouldn't have objected. The article is an effort to try to objectify how "good" a team is which may or may not be reflected in its record. Surely we can all agree that Alabama is a "better" team than Iowa. Henry is trying to use stats to make this distinction and the difference between a team's record and how good that team actually is would be classified as "luck."

This paragraph might explain it a bit better: "These stats should not diminish the accomplishment that an 8-2 record is. It does not take away reason to celebrate close wins over Penn State and Nebraska. What it does do is explain why Northwestern is and should be a double-digit underdog at Wisconsin this weekend. The Wildcats simply haven't been as good as their 8-2 record indicates." I'm not sure that there is much controversial about that.

You may or may not like sabermetrics applied to football, and that's fine. But nobody is making a conscious effort to tear down NU. Believe me. I know these guys.

Do sabermetrics measure a team's indomitable will to win close games time and time again?

To me, it comes down to this. If NU is their favorite team, and they're excited about the current record, WHY IN THE BLOODY-HELL would you go out of your way to make a case that the team is undeserving of their record and not nearly as good!!?? It's just so stupid. We WANT others to see our team in a positive light. We don't need more ******** bashing us for the hell of it.

Bottom line is Henry doesn't like Fitz, and is desperate to find ways to diminish the success and joy we're having this year. What a great supporter of the team...

 

[SciCat_rivals]

Yes. And I don't think that your comments refute the article in any way whatsoever.

Most people are giving Henry the credit for running all stats. It's VOX that does them. They run the stats for all their network web affiliates. Henry just packages the info into an article.

 

[GlideCat]

...our record is better than how we played.

Since this thread is becoming about semantics, then I believe that the above quote is not possible. Since our record is by definition a tally of our wins and losses. And since the definition of a win is playing better than your opponent (judged by points on the scoreboard) on one given field on one specific day. And losses are the opposite. Then our record - again by definition and since it is a compilation of data points which are established - is exactly equal to how we played.

When we get into the realm of "play that game ten times on a neutral field" types of arguments, then you are not talking about "how we played" but how someone subjectively thinks we would play under slightly different conditions. That is not our record but someone's opinion.

 

[DocCatsFan]

Do sabermetrics measure a team's indomitable will to win close games time and time again?

To me, it comes down to this. If NU is their favorite team, and they're excited about the current record, WHY IN THE BLOODY-HELL would you go out of your way to make a case that the team is undeserving of their record and not nearly as good!!?? It's just so stupid. We WANT others to see our team in a positive light. We don't need more ******** bashing us for the hell of it.

Bottom line is Henry doesn't like Fitz, and is desperate to find ways to diminish the success and joy we're having this year. What a great supporter of the team...

Again, the point is missed. First of all, the whole point of sabermetrics is to rid the world of fuzzy concepts like "the indomitable will to win." Remember the movie "Money Ball" (the movie, not the book). When the scout says "did you see his girlfriend? It shows he lacks confidence." That line results in laughter because it's laughable. Believers of this type of analysis of sports would tell you that the "will to win" is also laughable. I'm not saying it is or it isn't, but the point of the article is to QUANTIFY things. The "will to win" is not quantifiable.

Nobody is "going out of their way to say the team is underserving of their record." The article is offering food for thought. Obviously you partook in the meal, and so it was successful.

Henry is not an ******* and he is not bashing "us" for the hell of it. He's a serious writer and he's going to up there with guys like Wilbon some day.

 

[Styre]

To me, it comes down to this. If NU is their favorite team, and they're excited about the current record, WHY IN THE BLOODY-HELL would you go out of your way to make a case that the team is undeserving of their record and not nearly as good!!?? It's just so stupid.

You know, different people enjoy things in different ways. Some people get the most enjoyment from uncritical flag-waving; others get more enjoyment from digging deeper. Neither approach is wrong. But writing an article that isn't 100% positive is not the same as pursuing some sort of vendetta against the program.

 

[Purple Pile Driver]

insidenu is a very very good site that has exclusive interviews; great recruiting articles: practice reports; etc.

It is legitimated by Fitz recognizing it as well.

The commentary exhibits journalistic heroism as it unpacks the good and the bad at the cost of torking off homers, shills, and pollyanas.

very very good insights!

What? You have outdid yourself this time. Great recruiting articles? Name one? In fact, I stopped taking them seriously when they ripped our recruiting based on a very flawed star rating. Practice reports? Since when? Have we forgot practice is closed? The best part of that site by far is Nate Williams and even his analysis can at times come off as a shot at certain folks, but at least he clearly has insight.

Sometimes I think you take an opposing view just to piss off people you don't care for in this board. Can you lose the "homers, shills, and Pollyanna" BS. I am sick of the division of our fan base that this garbage promotes.

 

[MrCat95]

And I get ripped for confronting these jerks.

I like the fact that NM still takes shots at MRCat95 and me via Twitter.

He does? I wasn't that hard on him.

 

[VirginiaWildcat]

Just curious, do you not believe that there are many teams that are better coached than us?

Just curious, does Henry Bushnell think Fitz is doing a good job?

 

[DocCatsFan]

Just curious, does Henry Bushnell think Fitz is doing a good job?

I have no idea what he thinks about him nor do I care. Perhaps the "luck" that has gotten us to be more successful than we are "good" is because of great coaching? It certainly is possible-- I don't think there is a higher-order statistic for that parameter yet.