Live data from Hacker News

Nate Silver Went Against the Grain for Some at The Times

publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com

11–20 of 94 posts

Re: Nate Silver Went Against the Grain for Some at The Times

#11
post #9
post #8

It's interesting that he would go to a sports network over the culture clash between statistics and narrative. Sports has traditionally been extremely negative on "stats geeks", and favored narrative explanations, along with factors like "grit" and "determination" and that kind of thing. Silver's own former work in sabermetrics was a frequent target of pot-shots from ESPN commentators for years. There used to be a bl…

I actually think the opposite: Sports is full of stats geeks. The whole essence of sports is statistical: Who gets how many points? Who runs faster? Who throws faster? Who's taller? Heavier? Who's highest ranked? Stories glue all of this together, but sports = stats.

I think of that as more akin to how political pundits use polls: they cite numbers, but they object to the use of statistics as an analytical tool to tie them together. The Moneyball approach in baseball was hugely controversial, as were (are?) sabermetricians like Silver trying to push predictive statistics like VORP and FIP over the more traditional descriptive statistics. Perhaps more to the point, also to challenge traditional narratives (not that different from the political horse-race narratives) of "momentum" and "choking" and "playoff runs" with statistical analysis. The above-cited Joe Morgan (ESPN commentator 1990-2010) was a famous example of ranting on air constantly about this kind of thing. One of his more notorious comments was that on-base percentage (OBP) is a stupid statistic because he doesn't like people "clogging up the basepaths". Perhaps that genre of ESPN commentator is finally on the way out.

Re: Nate Silver Went Against the Grain for Some at The Times

#12
Not surprised that political journalists at the time were so threatened by his work, since it renders what they do utterly useless, and entirely about manufacturing drama and conflict and personality narratives when the numbers tell a more complete and more accurate story.

Re: Nate Silver Went Against the Grain for Some at The Times

#13
post #8

It's interesting that he would go to a sports network over the culture clash between statistics and narrative. Sports has traditionally been extremely negative on "stats geeks", and favored narrative explanations, along with factors like "grit" and "determination" and that kind of thing. Silver's own former work in sabermetrics was a frequent target of pot-shots from ESPN commentators for years. There used to be a bl…

>"Sign of a more general change?"

Possibly, ESPN had some struggles this year [0].

I hope they're looking to change up the formula. I find the traditional sports pundit and the fans who ape them unbearable.

0: http://deadspin.com/espns-ratings-are-way-down-this-year-wha...

Re: Nate Silver Went Against the Grain for Some at The Times

#14
I was skeptical when Nate Silver first got picked up by the NY Times; I was an avid follower of his site when it was independent (during campaign years).

But, the Times really did a great job of supporting his work. The infographics and visualizations and interactive graphs that they produced -- typically with D3.js, which was cool to see -- were really second-to-none. (Who can forget http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/11/02/us/politics/pa... ?)

Visualizations don't seem to be Nate Silver's bailiwick, so that leaves me feeling a little disappointed to see him leaving.

Nate's a clever fellow though, I'm looking forward to seeing what he does with ESPN.

Re: Nate Silver Went Against the Grain for Some at The Times

#15
Sell any NYT stock you are holding. Nate was one of the last honest things at the increasingly craven, frumpy NYT, where Occupy didn't merit coverage until the third month, and the Iraq war got the greased-rails treatment.

Don't forget who has forsaken their credibility. Never forget that. It is only by remembering who has lied that we avoid future lies.

Would you lend money to a bankrupt company? No? Why then do you read the NYT?

Re: Nate Silver Went Against the Grain for Some at The Times

#17
post #8

It's interesting that he would go to a sports network over the culture clash between statistics and narrative. Sports has traditionally been extremely negative on "stats geeks", and favored narrative explanations, along with factors like "grit" and "determination" and that kind of thing. Silver's own former work in sabermetrics was a frequent target of pot-shots from ESPN commentators for years. There used to be a bl…

All the fantasy sports nuts I know are very into stats...

Re: Nate Silver Went Against the Grain for Some at The Times

#18
post #4

I feel like traditional pundits got pissed off because he kept wrecking their narratives. And he upset them further by turning political prognostication into something understandable by common readers -- instead of something only pointy-hatted political wizards could divine with the right amount of eye-of-newt and other secret ingredients. Anyway: The New York Times should've worked harder to keep him. They should fi…

I couldn't agree more. My respect for the NYT is shaky and them letting Nate Silver leave while keeping the vacuous talking heads you named is just shameful.

Re: Nate Silver Went Against the Grain for Some at The Times

#19
post #8

It's interesting that he would go to a sports network over the culture clash between statistics and narrative. Sports has traditionally been extremely negative on "stats geeks", and favored narrative explanations, along with factors like "grit" and "determination" and that kind of thing. Silver's own former work in sabermetrics was a frequent target of pot-shots from ESPN commentators for years. There used to be a bl…

You don't watch much sports do you? Sports is all about stats.

Re: Nate Silver Went Against the Grain for Some at The Times

#20

Meta comment: the institutionalized role of the "public editor" as a kind of quasi-independent internal advocate for the interests of the public has fascinated me for a while. They generally have no real power, but are given a platform and considerable independence, and are supposed to help hold newspapers to their stated interest in informing the public, with an expectation that they will be critical to some degree.…

"Public editor" is basically a particular incarnation of ombudsman. One thing common to ombudsman roles is that they're powerless and routinely ignored. They're the equivalent of "We are taking this seriously.", a meaningless gesture designed to distract and obfuscate. The people who take such roles are simply pawns.

I think this is a needlessly cynical take on the issue, especially in the context of a news disseminating organization like the NYT. The purpose of the public editor is not necessarily to change anything, but to give some insight into the machinery of the news process. Unlike ombudspersons (yeah, went there), they do not need to be heeded to be effective at their role, which is to give the audience context to evaluate the news.
Post reply on HN