Robot Journalist Writes A Better Story On College Baseball Perfect Game

from the who-what-when-where-why dept

A few weeks back, there was a fun story about how the website GWsports.com, which (as you might imagine) covers sports at George Washington University, became something of the laughing stock of the press world by publishing a game recap on a game between GW and the University of Virginia. The game recap reads pretty straightforward, opening with the fact that the GW team lost, and then spending a few paragraphs covering the various efforts by different GW players. It's only in the seventh paragraph, out of a grand total of eight, that it finally gets around to mentioning that the opposing pitcher, Will Roberts, threw a perfect game. If you're not a baseball fan, a "perfect game" is extremely rare. As the article does (finally) note, this is only the eighth such perfect game in NCAA Division 1 history (since 1957) and the first since 2002. Normally, you would think that any press coverage would start with the perfect game bit.

The national press, including the Washington Post, picked up on this and GW folks tried to defend the writing by noting that they're only in the business of promoting their own teams, not others:

“This is the George Washington website,” GWU sports information director Dave Lubeski tells Romenesko. “We’re in the business to promote our athletes and our team. We’re not claiming to be journalists.” What some call “the buried lead” was discussed after the story was posted, says Lubeski, and it was mentioned that the perfect game could have been noted in the sub-hed. But “we’re not in the newspaper business,” notes the SID.

I had sent that story around to a few people, because I thought it was pretty funny, but didn't have any obvious reason to post it here... until now. Apparently, in covering the story, Deadspin wondered if perhaps the original article hadn't actually been written by a newfangled automated software program that's been touted as being good enough to write sports stories.

Well, it turns out that the people who wrote that software, Narrative Science, were offended that their program might be thought of as having written an article so badly written, and fed their program the data from the game, and it popped out much better versions. They actually did two versions, a "neutral" point-of-view one, and one designed for GW fans. The "neutral" one brings up the perfect game in the first paragraph. The GW POV one does wait until the third paragraph, but still seems much better than the original...

So, perhaps the author of the original has passed the reverse Turing test, when you can't tell if a human is actually a human or a robot...

Filed Under: baseball, george washington university, journalism, perfect game, reporting

The Amazing Ability Of People To Simply Ignore Data That Proves What They Believe Is Wrong

from the the-hall-of-shame dept

Nate Silver, who, before he became famous as a political data analyzer on his FiveThirtyEight website (now hosted by the NY Times), was famous to a much smaller group of folks for his similar data analysis of baseball data at Baseball Prospectus. Every so often, he jumps back to baseball analysis, such as with his recent effort to question some of the common wisdom concerning the Baseball Hall of Fame. There's a common complaint among fans and some in the press that the Hall of Fame has become "watered down" in some way, and that they're letting in players who really shouldn't qualify. The comment that is repeated way too frequently is "It's the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Very Good." However, Silver breaks down the actual data, and notes that percentage-wise significantly fewer players are getting into the Hall of Fame today than in the past. He shows the following chart to help prove the point: As he notes, the point is not to say that one period is correct, and the other is not, but simply to challenge the suggestion that admission to the Hall of Fame has become much easier today. And, yes, he also discusses some of the obvious counterpoints -- such as the fact that, thanks to expansion, there are now more players -- and why there are other equalizing forces (the internationalization of the game, for example).

It's an interesting article if you're interested in that kind of thing. But, what's most entertaining is that a large number of the comments on the story seem to simply refuse to accept what the data says. They don't refute the data. They don't suggest explanations that would explain the data. They flat-out ignore it and insist that the Hall of Fame has been watered down these days. I noticed this thanks to King Kaufman who aggregated some of the sillier comments. Here are a few:

• "Too stringent"? Au contraire. Over the last couple of decades they have admitted so many bums that it defies description. If anything, the standards should be tightened. There are perhaps six active players who should EVER be considered.
• We've dumbed down America and now you want to water down what makes a true athlete great. They should measure up or not be considered!!!! That's the problem with America continually relaxing standards and codes.!!!!
• The statistical look at the question is entirely misdirected. There have been a handful of standout players in the game, something less than 50 in total.
• i thought the hall was for extraordinary accomplishments not just very good ...the hall is so diluted these days.

There are probably some decent explanations for these kinds of mass delusions. I would guess that people who either never actually saw some of the Hall of Fame players from an earlier generation, or saw them so long ago and are overcome with nostalgia, are dealing with a bit of confirmation bias -- where they only remember (or know about) the highlights, and ignore the rest. With more recent players, they've probably seen them a lot more, or remember things a lot more clearly, and thus the "great" feats are diluted in their heads by the fact that they weren't preternaturally good (but, no one is).

That said, we often see this sort of thing around here. I've presented numerous studies concerning certain areas of interest, and almost immediately we get comments that don't try to rebut the data, or point to errors in the studies (and there may very well be errors or confounding factors), but to simply insist that what they've always believed simply must be true. It seems like a form of cognitive dissonance on display in ways that are both troubling and amusing. It's the basis of what I call "faith-based" decision making, where actual data is simply ignored for what "must be" true.

Filed Under: baseball, data, hall of fame, studies

MLB Issuing Tons Of YouTube Takedowns; Don't Try To Share Your Love Of Baseball

from the illegal-fandom dept

A few folks have sent over the news that a whole bunch of YouTube videos containing short clips of Major League Baseball games were taken down recently. Considering the fact that a bunch were taken down at once, I'm guessing that MLB just uploaded a bunch of video to YouTube's Content ID system, and the system matched up a bunch of videos. The site that talks about this (a Philadelphia sports blog) points out how incredibly short-sighted this is in annoying fans. It also points out that the NHL actually encourages fans to share videos, and monetizes them with ads:

When it comes to online video, the NHL is an example of a league that just gets it. Instead of combing YouTube and other video sites, the NHL allows fans and bloggers to embed videos right on their site. In case you haven't noticed, most of our Flyers highlights are taken directly from PhiladelphiaFlyers.com. They encourage it. Why? Because it raises awareness for their product and is sometimes laced with an ad. Many news outlets do this too. People can use their videos, so long as they watch a :30 second ad prior to it. A fair trade off.

Of course, the site also claims that MLB's actions are "legal in every sense of the word." While that might be true in some cases, it sounds like certainly not all. The blog notes that many of the videos taken down have exceptionally brief clips of MLB coverage, suggesting that with at least some of them, there's probably a decent fair use claim:

I noticed that YouTube had sent me a few of my own. They removed eight videos that, when pooled together, included about 20 seconds of game play footage (they were mostly screenshots of fans, including guys in Nacho Libre masks).

If it's actually true that his videos contained a grand total of 20 seconds of MLB coverage across eight videos, you'd have to imagine that there's at least a reasonable possibility that the videos were protected by fair use. Unfortunately (thanks to the take downs), I can't actually see the videos to get a better determination of whether or not they were likely fair use. Either way -- whether fair use or not -- the site is right. Pissing off fans, out of some bizarre need to "control," when you could instead excite fans by enabling them to share their fandom, just seems incredibly short-sighted on the part of Major League Baseball.

Filed Under: baseball, copyright, dmca, takedowns, youtube

Thank Copyright Infringers For Still Being Able To Hear Great Moments In World Series History

from the giants-win-the-pennant dept

If you're a baseball fan, you know that the World Series is going on right now, between the San Francisco Giants and the Texas Rangers (with the Giants looking damn good so far). On the night they won the League Championship Series to advance to the World Series, I was actually out walking my dog, listening to the game on the radio (it was a pretty nerve-wracking finish), and was actually a bit disappointed that radio announcer Jon Miller didn't pull out the obvious "The Giants win the pennant!" line, even though they had, in fact, won the pennant. As you hopefully know, that line was the famous call -- considered one of the greatest broadcasting moments in history -- back in 1951, when the (then) NY Giants' Bobby Thomson hit a homerun off the (then) Brooklyn Dodgers' Ralph Branca to secure the National League championship: Now, what you might not know is that the only reason we have that recording, is because someone recorded it at home. Reader Stephen points us to Joe Posnanski's absolutely awesome article on the best sports calls in history (which I'd actually read, but had missed this point), which notes that:

The man we all need to thank is someone named Larry Goldberg, a travel agent who had the good sense to ask his mother to tape Russ Hodges' call so he could listen to it after work. Because of Larry, we have the most joyous call in the history of sports to enjoy forever.

Yes, thanks to infringement, we have that moment in history.

And it's not the only one. Just about a month ago, the news came out that video tapes of the (previously lost) 1960 World Series had been found in the former wine cellar of Bing Crosby, who had been a part-owner of The Pirates. The final game of that series is considered one of the greatest games ever (well, less so if you're a Yankee fan...), but it had been lost... until last month. Crosby apparently couldn't bear to actually watch the game, he was so nervous (he went to Europe instead), but wanted to be able to watch it later, so he actually hired a film crew to record the official broadcast, and they were just recovered (actually, right outside of San Francisco...) last month.

So here we have two of the greatest moments in baseball that we only have the archive of the actual game recordings because of people technically infringing.

Filed Under: baseball, copyright infringement, world series

Did The FCC 'Rebroadcast Or Retransmit An Account' Of MLB Game On Twitter?

from the bogus-copyright-claims dept

You all know the routine. Towards the end of the sporting event you're watching, one of the announcers will remind the audience that the sports league in question holds the copyright, and you can't do a damn thing about it. It's slightly different per league, but the NFL one reads: "This telecast is copyrighted by the NFL for the private use of our audience. Any other use of this telecast or of any pictures, descriptions, or accounts of the game without the NFL's consent, is prohibited." We wrote about that a few years back when law professor Wendy Seltzer posted a clip of just that NFL warning to show how the NFL was exaggerating its rights... and got a takedown notice. The MLB one is a bit different. It reads: "Any rebroadcast, retransmission, or account of this game, without the express written consent of Major League Baseball, is prohibited." We wrote about that one because one guy asked MLB for permission to describe a game to his friend, and MLB wouldn't give it. The FTC has been asked to stop sports leagues from making such overly broad (and legally misleading) claims, but hasn't done anything.

I'm reminded about all of this because, as a part of the silly retransmission fight between Fox and Cablevision, where some viewers were blocked from seeing some of the MLB postseason games airing on Fox, apparently the FCC decided to make something of a statement on the issue by tweeting an ongoing account of one of the blacked out games, along with a link to its own consumer alert about the retransmission fight. Here's an example tweet from the FCC's official Twitter account:

Matt Cain relieved after 7 strong, 2 H, 0 ER. Giants scored on two singles, throwing error. SF up 3-0 top 9

Of course, this has some questioning whether or not the FCC just did a rebroadcast or retransmission of an account of the game without (one assumes) express written consent of Major League Baseball. Of course, MLB's random attempts to enforce its bogus claims of ownership on data have all failed, and I'm sure it knows better than to take on the FCC in a losing cause, but it does a nice job of highlighting just how ridiculous the "warning" is from the MLB, and makes you wonder why the FTC doesn't crack down on what appears to be copyfraud.

Filed Under: baseball, copyfraud, copyright, rebroadcast
Companies: fcc, mlb

MLB.com Writers Told They Can Only Tweet About Baseball

from the twitter-failure dept

It's no secret that MLB.com, the online wing of Major League Baseball, is a bit of a control freak at times. It fought a long battle claiming to own the "facts" of a baseball game -- which it eventually lost. It's falsely taken down videos that were clearly fair use. Worst of all, it issued rules on how independent reporters could report on games. We're still amazed that any self-respecting newspaper would agree to such rules -- though, to be fair, it appears that MLB has not chosen to enforce many of those rules.

Of course, in this day and age, with social media making it easier and easier for anyone to communicate with anyone else, trying to overly aggressively control messages has proven to be a bit more difficult -- and, for the most part, that's probably a good thing. Last year, we had a story about baseball beat reporters using social media to build up a strong community, and build a really strong relationship with fans. Part of the reason why this worked was because those reporters talked about more than just baseball. Some of my favorite baseball reporters also talk about things like music, movies and TV shows, which makes them a lot more interesting and human. It's part of building a connection with a community, which is a necessity these days.

So it's disappointing to see that Major League Baseball appears to have gone way overboard in its new Twitter guidelines for MLB.com reporters (sent in by many, but first by Scott Crawford). Now, we've already seen other sports leagues, like the NBA and the NFL issue Twitter guidelines for players and officials. While those sometimes seem to go way overboard (such as fining a player for Tweeting a happy message after winning), you can understand the basic premise behind the plan. Of course, some players obviously have decided not to pay much attention to the official policies.

In this case, Major League Baseball apparently also sent out some "guidelines," to both players and MLB.com reporters. Many are guessing that this is in response to a former major league player, Mike Bacsik, who got fired from his radio job after Tweeting a racist remark. It might also be in response to Chicago White Sox manager Ozzie Guillen and his Twitter account, which has been known to make news as well. Apparently, the guidelines for players are more or less common sense. However, it's a bit trickier with MLB.com writers.

What makes it tricky is that MLB.com has a pretty large staff of reporters itself. And while there were concerns early on that they wouldn't be independent enough, their coverage has actually been quite good and in many cases the equivalent of newspaper beat reporters. And many have built up followings on their own. For example, I've followed MLB.com reporter Bryan Hoch on Twitter for a while. Part of the reason I follow him was due to some very amusing discussions last year about his movie-watching habits (or lack thereof -- he hasn't seen many "classics").

But, apparently, that sort of thing won't be allowed any more. Supposedly, the word from on high from Major League Baseball is that all MLB.com reporters may only use Twitter to talk about baseball. All other topics are strictly forbidden. This seems likely to do a lot more harm than good. It takes away many of the reasons why people like following certain reporters, and takes away the connections they build up with fans. It's a symptom of an old way of thinking: once someone (anyone) does something "bad" with a tool, ban all other uses, even if there are many good things. It's an idea that is doomed to fail.

Filed Under: baseball, mlb
Companies: twitter

Man Sues Bon Jovi, MLB, Others For $400 Billion Over Song He Claims Was Copied

from the idea-expression-dichotomy dept

We see stories all the time of people who write a story or a script and then when they see someone else has success with a similar idea, they assume that it was "stolen" and they're owed millions. Or, as the case may be, billions. A Red Sox fan named Samuel Bartley Steele, who apparently wrote a song called "(Man I Really) Love this Team," in 2004 got upset when he saw singer Bon Jovi release a song "I Love This Town" which was then used by Major League Baseball to promote the playoffs in 2007. He claims that he gave copies of the song to Red Sox execs, Red Sox players and MLB execs -- and thus Bon Jovi's song must have stolen from Steele's song. Of course, the two songs are apparently entirely different -- and even Steele's own musicologist testified that the songs were different. The district court tossed out the case, noting that no reasonable jury would find a similarity, but the guy has appealed and is asking for $400 billion, yes, with a b. If he won that much, perhaps he could donate some to the team to pick up a free agent outfielder or two this off-season, but I imagine that this case won't last very long.

Filed Under: baseball, bon jovi, copyright, red sox, samuel barley steele

Is It Really A Problem That 'Only' 31 Newspapers Sent Reporters To The World Series?

from the really? dept

Earlier this year, we had a discussion on the changing nature of sports beat reporting in the internet era, and one of the points we made is that there really is an awful lot of overlap and duplication in effort in some cases (such as the NY media). And yet, as pointed out by Jay Rosen old school baseball reporter Murray Chass is complaining that about half of the newspapers that have baseball beat writers did not sent a reporter to the World Series this year, calling it a "sign of a dying industry." Apparently there are 60 newspapers in America that have beat reporters who travel with the teams they cover, but only 31 of those papers sent reporters to the World Series.

I'm really searching to see how this is a problem. First of all, those 29 other papers are all papers whose local teams are not in the World Series, meaning less interest. Second, those beat reporters are equally capable of watching the games on TV from the comfort of their own home and getting their quotes from the televised press conferences afterwards. It's not as if a player on the Yankees is going to break an important story to the Braves beat reporter for the Atlanta Journal Constitution. All they'd really be doing is adding to the media scrum around the players before and after each game, adding absolutely nothing of value. On top of that, the count of papers also leaves out the national media reporters -- such as those from ESPN and Sports Illustrated -- as well as the the reporters employed by MLB.com. I'd argue that the fact that about half of the papers decided not to send their own beat reporters is a sign of (finally) smarter newspaper management in not wasting money on a boondoggle for a baseball reporter.

Filed Under: baseball, journalism, reporting, world series

MLB Refuses To Give Permission To Guy To Describe Game To A Friend

from the expressed-written-permission dept

A couple years ago, law professor Wendy Seltzer used the NFL as an example of sports leagues performing copyfraud, by claiming copyright control beyond what is allowed by law. Specifically, she was talking about the warning mentioned at some point during every game. For the NFL it was: "This telecast is copyrighted by the NFL for the private use of our audience. Any other use of this telecast or of any pictures, descriptions, or accounts of the game without the NFL's consent, is prohibited." In Seltzer's case, amazingly, the NFL sent a DMCA takedown of her posting that clip to YouTube -- giving her another "teachable moment" on copyright abuse.

And yet, sports leagues still continue the copyfraud. One of the fine folks over at Consumerist, Phil Villarreal, found the wording of Major League Baseball's warning quite questionable:

"Any rebroadcast, retransmission, or account of this game, without the express written consent of Major League Baseball, is prohibited,"

Unlike the NFL one, at least it didn't say "descriptions," but "account" is pretty close. So, Villarreal contacted MLB to request "express written consent" to provide an "account" of the game he had watched to a friend. To its credit, MLB responded and asked him to call someone in its business development department... who (perhaps reasonably) thought it was a joke and did not provide the written consent (and stopped responding to calls and emails).

Now, obviously, this is a bit of a joke (and a funny one), but it does highlight a rather serious problem. Copyright holders are pretty regularly claiming significantly more rights than they actually hold over content, and many people simply assume that they can do this. This leads to them to think that they don't have basic rights concerning not just "fair use" but stuff that is obviously not covered by copyright, such as an "account of this game." There really should be sanctions against such copyfraud.

Filed Under: baseball, copyfraud, copyright, permission, sports
Companies: mlb.com

Finally, A MLB Team Gets A Deal For In-Market Online Streaming

from the water-stone-etc. dept

Major League Baseball has long contended that fans should watch games in the manner in which it chooses, rather than how the fans themselves want to. This is the thinking behind its local blackout policies, first intended to "protect" ticket sales by not allowing the TV broadcast of games that weren't sold out, and lately, intended to "protect" local TV broadcasts by making it impossible for fans to watch their local team online. It takes the blackouts so seriously that it's even patented a way to black out local users from online streams, an absurd show of pride in something that basically just frustrates fans and customers. But there may be some cracks appearing in the local online blackouts, as the New York Yankees, Cablevision and MLB have reached a deal for in-market streaming of games. At first glance, the negotiations sound pretty convoluted, especially considering the Yankees own a stake in YES, the local TV rightsholder. But not surprisingly, the result -- that people in the Yankees' local market can only buy the online subscription if they're Cablevision subscribers that get the YES network in their cable package -- seems like it's par for the course for MLB, which has a penchant for trying to lock down everything baseball-related online.

The amount of baseball that's broadcast on TV has boomed over the past couple of decades, having escaped the thinking that making the game harder for fans to follow on TV was somehow actually good for it. Now, the same thing is playing out online, where MLB seems hellbent on frustrating fans who want to see all of their teams' games online. What makes online different than TV, in that putting up these walls in front of the game's most dedicated fans is somehow a good thing?

Filed Under: baseball, markets, streaming
Companies: cablevision, mlb.com, yankees