see post #30 in the thread linked too above.

Some good points in there by Simmons, who I normally don't like. I too got curious about the HBP stat, I hadn't read your line at first, when I read the article I thought "didn't someone at BTF post something like that?" Hmm, two cases of plagarism by ESPN in as many days?

As Artie Johnson would say, "very interesting..."

They really need to stiffen the penalty for interfering with balls in play. Kick them out, and make them give up the ball. The first thing I thought of when I saw the play was "all those idiots reaching for the ball are going to cost the Red Sox a run."

home plate umpire Greg Gibson submitting the single-worst umpiring performance in the history of baseball. Gibson was so gawd-awful, he was immediately hired by David Stern to work the NBA playoffs this spring.

Wasn't Angel Hernandez behind the plate during Wednesdays' game? That's some serious back-to-back sucky umpiring.

i don't think you can call using the same stat plagarizing, technically, anyway, I am off to the Yankees Game.

i don't think you can call using the same stat plagarizing, technically

I wasn't being serious. But it is interesting.

don't think you can call using the same stat plagarizing

Its plagarizing, just not a violation of copyright.

But two people can arrive at the same stat in different ways, and if you can't prove that Simmons read the comments then how do you know it is plagiarizing.
I can tell you Joe D. had a 56 game hitting streak, I don't think I'm plagiarizing.

Maybe the smartest thing Simmons has ever written. Let me just add one more thing . . . a lot of people trying to guess the "intent" of Probably Drunk Fan.

Why? When we're judging Sheffield's actions, it doesn't matter a jot what PDF *meant* to do; all that matters is what he *did* do, because Sheffield can't be expected, in the middle of a play, to base his reaction on PDF's intent.

Simmons is right: the fan's actions weren't really all that bad, Sheffield's weren't bad at all, and we should save the replays for when something really *does* happen. -rob

But two people can arrive at the same stat in different ways, and if you can't prove that Simmons read the comments then how do you know it is plagiarizing.
I can tell you Joe D. had a 56 game hitting streak, I don't think I'm plagiarizing.

I don't know that its anything. But when the stat ends at an arbitrary cut off point that is not relevant to the point or the ability to gather information, its pretty strong evidence that both instances derive from the same source.

So get off your "can't prove" horse and use some fukking common sense.

Maybe it isn't that arbitrary of a cut off point. It certainly could be something as simple as 2000 being a year when more Red Sox got beaned than Yankees, so both chose to exclude 2000 and start at 2001. I have no idea if this is true, but I don't think we need to call people out to "use some fukking common sense" until its more apparent that it was plagerized.

Much ado about nothing, Rob.

But you employer needs the hype, correct?

Simmons says he got it from his editor. If you believe him, then he didn't knowingly plagiarize.

I guess what I would call a "stretch" you would call "common sense"
c'est la vie.

The beginning of a year is arbitrary? Now, if he'd have referenced a specific date like, say, July 20, 2001 and SJ had posted a stat starting from July 20, 2001 then maybe my "common sense" would have kicked in. Otherwise, just looks like coincidence to me.

SJ probably got his data from the ESPN stats page anyways. :)

Kevin, I don't think ESPN *needs* anything. People are going to watch SportsCenter whether they show Sheffield and PDF eight or nine times (as they did last night) or twice. But yes, ESPN and -- more to the point -- the media does have fetish for anything with even the whiff of controversy or scandal, at least if there are good pictures (I don't remember the media doing much with Selig fixing the sale of the Red Sox to John Henry). If I were a TV producer or an editor, I'd do my best to change things. But as a lowly scribe, all I can do is what I'm doing at this moment.

Much ado about nothing, Rob.

But you employer needs the hype, correct?

Simmons says he got it from his editor. If you believe him, then he didn't knowingly plagiarize.

I have no idea if this is true, but I don't think we need to call people out to "use some fukking common sense" until its more apparent that it was plagerized.


Man this place is full of literalists and apologists.

(1) I never said Simmons plagirized anything; I stated that using the same stat is plagarizing. If you develop the information yourself, you post it unattributed. If it arrives from another source, you cite it.

(2) Yes Simmons attributed his source. He not only didn't knowingly plagarize, he didn't plagirize.

(3) But that doesn't mean his editor didn't plagirize.

(4) If the reason to have a cutoff point is not self-evident, explain the reason for the interval.
(a) During the seventies; Since the deadball era, Since Theo Epstein took over; etc. would explain the interval.
(b) If its just because it weakens your argument, not stating why is a little dishonest.

I don't care if Simmons did or did not plagarize. I like the guy. With Thompson dead, he's probably my favorite writer in the place.

Simmons says he got it from his editor. If you believe him, then he didn't knowingly plagiarize.

Which he probably did. The question is, how did the editor come to that cutoff point?

What's irked me most about Simmons' writing recently is that he uses "euphemism" when he means "synonym."

(1) I never said Simmons plagirized anything; I stated that using the same stat is plagarizing. If you develop the information yourself, you post it unattributed. If it arrives from another source, you cite it.

I think there's a bit of gray area here. I think the attributions in the Yahoo player notes are totally silly and unneccesary ("The Fort-Worth telegram reported that Hank Blalock went 3 for four with an RBI yesterday...") but other, more involved stats should probably be attributed.

In this instance it would have been nice if there were an attribution, but it doesn't seem like anything to get worked up over. Plagiarism seems like too strong a word for it. It's certainly worlds away from what happened with the Gammons column.

What's irked me most about Simmons' writing recently is that he uses "euphemism" when he means "synonym."

Well, "euphemism" is a euphemism for "synonym".

"I'm so tired of taking the high road," Jack-O complained. "This team has no [euphemism for something that guys have that girls don't have]. We're a bunch of [euphemism for something that you could also call a group of cats]

I assume you're referring to this. Euphemism is the correct term. "Euphemism" means another way of saying something, generally more politely. "Synonym" means two words that mean the same thing. Simmons is giving phrases instead of words, and it's very clearly a euphemism.

Oh, and euphemism is not a euphemism for synonym, and Mark S., if you were being sarcastic, then ignore the first 9 words in this sentence.

Well, actually, he's reversing "euphemism", but it's closer to euphemism than it is synonym.

Technically, to be correct, he would have to say that, "We're a bunch of [bad word that is something you could call a group of cats].

Oh, never the #### mind.

Kevin, I don't think ESPN *needs* anything. People are going to watch SportsCenter whether they show Sheffield and PDF eight or nine times (as they did last night) or twice.

Well, to be honest, I don't watch nearly as much Sportscenter as I used to, exactly because they show this kind of stuff 8 times. Now, I agree with the fact that ESPN is doing just fine, and doesn't *need* anything, but the second sentence is actually false in my case.

That, and the fact that "Berman's Top 10" sucks the left nut of the old "Plays of the Week".

Euphemism isn't the correct term. Euphemism is basically the opposite of what he's doing (e.g. saying that "balls" is a euphemism for "something that guys have that girls don't have").

It would be more accurate to say that "something that guys have that girls don't have" is a euphemism for "balls" than the other way around.

I don't really understand how you could misunderstand this, unless you don't know what "euphemism" means.

I think what he should say is "We're a bunch of [vulgarity for something that you could also call a group of cats]".

Well, actually, he's reversing "euphemism", but it's closer to euphemism than it is synonym.

Technically, to be correct, he would have to say that, "We're a bunch of [bad word that is something you could call a group of cats].

Oh, never the #### mind.

Yep, it's all back asswards.

Let's call the whole thing off.

I don't really understand how you could misunderstand this, unless you don't know what "euphemism" means.

If you'll see my next post, you'll see that I corrected myself. And in basically the same exact words that you did. So nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah.

Hey Jeff K.: Slightly Saber

(3) But that doesn't mean his editor didn't plagirize.

(4) If the reason to have a cutoff point is not self-evident, explain the reason for the interval.

It's a lousy little fact, why the hell should proper attribution be a concern at all?

If this is the standard for plagiarism, I certainly wouldn't want to write another word in my life. Proper attribution of facts is a nice gesture, not a right. Nobody owns facts.

From Malcolm Gladwell:
Should a charge of plagiarism ruin your life?

He discusses plagarism, copyright and fair use.

Should a charge of plagiarism ruin your life?

There sure is no lack of faultless people willing to throw the first stone (and second, and third) today...

Proper attribution of facts is a nice gesture, not a right. Nobody owns facts.

Good lord, please reread where I say ITS NOT A COPYRIGHT VIOLATION.

Good lord, please reread where I say ITS NOT A COPYRIGHT VIOLATION.

But you say it's plagiarizing and that's stupid. Either you dilute that term to nothing or you castigate people for no good reason.

How many facts are there in a typical 1000 word article? Should i dredge up from my memory where I learned everything and insert the proper attributions? That would be totally insane.

I say it's okay to state something as a fact and not attribute it. It's obviously wrong to claim you found it of course, but that's not the point.

But you say it's plagiarizing and that's stupid. Either you dilute that term to nothing or you castigate people for no good reason.


I'm not diluting the term. If the fact comes from somewhere else you are suppose to cite it. This isn't some willy nilly, Information wants to be free, let's steal other peoples code, copyleft world. If all you can do is free ride on others, go right ahead, it will catch up to you, then you can come moan about how all the people making decisions are idiots.

How many facts are there in a typical 1000 word article? Should i dredge up from my memory where I learned everything and insert the proper attributions? That would be totally insane.


No you are insane and inexperienced, and I doubt you have to worry about it. Its not about dredging up from memory, its about using information from other sources.

I say it's okay to state something as a fact and not attribute it. It's obviously wrong to claim you found it of course, but that's not the point.

I don't care what you think. That's the rule; that's the honor code at most schools. That's the honor code for most publications.

Even if you independently derived the information, you should discuss or note the method.

You don't take someone else's work and pass it off as your own.

<quote>But you say it's plagiarizing and that's stupid. Either you dilute that term to nothing or you castigate people for no good reason.</quote>

Is the term "murder" diluted by the fact that there are degrees thereof? Perhaps an imprecise analogy, but the point remains that so long as one keeps in mind the idea of degrees of fault, the term needn't be diluted.

You don't take someone else's work and pass it off as your own.

Which wasn't what I was arguing.

You're discussing writing a research article, which obviously follows a different set of rules. Mostly social and practical in nature, you cite me, I cite thee. Even there there are a lot of facts that are just stated, not cited.

There are other kinds of texts, you know. Where attribution is a nice courtesy, but certainly not expected. Simmons didn't write a scholarly article to my knowledge.

Which wasn't what I was arguing.


No you started out arguing about rights and I don't think I could fill a eyedropper with what you know about copyrights. The fact that you even equate plagiarism with right is very telling.

Then you start talking about dredging from memory. Then you start meandering all over the place. And in 50% of what you wrote, you wre wrong, and in the other 50% you clearly showed that you didn't understand the point under discussion.

OK, big fella, what are the other "rules", where did you learn them, and where can I get a copy of them.

I am sure the Columbia School of Journalism is happy to know that Swedish Chef has stated that you don't have to attribute facts. I bet they can revise their curriculm.

Even there there are a lot of facts that are just stated, not cited.


When you use the work of another, you provide a citation. Its simple, its unambiguous. Its not "if its a fact" You start copying somebody's presentation then you are going to have a copyright problem.

I think Simmons comes off as a prick in this article.

I love when people get on their high horse and say, "You can't react like Sheffield did; you just can't." Really? You're putting yourself in the shoes of a guy who's just been taunted for eight innings, doesn't feel safe to begin with and just got popped in the mouth (and had a beer thrown on him) during a play?

He poses too many rhetorical questions. It makes him seem accusatory and unnecessarily argumentative. Rhetorical questions are weak substitutes for backing up one's point.

When you use the work of another, you provide a citation. Its simple, its unambiguous. Its not "if its a fact" You start copying somebody's presentation then you are going to have a copyright problem.

Jesus, talk about meandering. I'm not talking about copyright. Im talking about my ability to use simple facts without attribution. If I write a magazine article about swiss watches I'm not going
to cite chapter and verse.

I will simply write: "In the 17th century... blah blah blah". Nothing about where I got those facts. Nobody is interested in that.

And about writing from memory, not all texts are meticulously researched pieces. But I understand that thanks to lawyers running wild, you need to cover your ass more in the US.

You don't take someone else's work and pass it off as your own.

Which raises an interesting question. We all agree that Simmons didn't pass the work off as his own. There's also no evidence that the intern did either; I would guess that the intern presented it to Simmons as something he read somewhere, rather than having done the work himself.

Has Simmons found a loophole? You just get a middleman to feed you whatever information you need, and then write it as "my buddy X told me Y"? Obviously that wouldn't fly in a scholoarly treatise, but maybe it's a semi-sneaky way for a writer to use information without having to get too geeky ("This guy who calls himself SJ was writing on a site called baseballthinkfactory.org and..."

Jesus, talk about meandering. I'm not talking about copyright. Im talking about my ability to use simple facts without attribution. If I write a magazine article about swiss watches I'm not going to cite chapter and verse.

I have no idea what the actual rules state, but this isn't just a "fact". It's not Johnny Damon's batting average, or something like that. You can't just go to MLB.com and go to the charts of how many times each team has hit another team since 2001. While factual, this information required someone to go find and assemble it. It seems to me that the proper thing to do is to cite the source. In this case, Simmons did that by referencing the editor.

Has Simmons found a loophole? You just get a middleman to feed you whatever information you need, and then write it as "my buddy X told me Y"? Obviously that wouldn't fly in a scholoarly treatise, but maybe it's a semi-sneaky way for a writer to use information without having to get too geeky ("This guy who calls himself SJ was writing on a site called baseballthinkfactory.org and..."

I don't consider it an ethical loophole, and as far as legality, its not a copyright loophole. If I state according to Tangotiger's LI work ... and it was really mgl that put it together, I've met my ethical obligation. I have not claimed the work as my own. I've given the credit that I think is due to the person I thought it was due.

If I send a research assistant or an editor off to do something, I trust they have done the research and the proper attribution. You usually give team credit in the masthead, not the work itself.

If its a fact and its misattributed, its just a mistake. There was no intent to claim something as your own.

If its a significant amount of expression, then copyright law comes into play. At that point its no defense that you were misled by your editor. If you infringed the copyright, you infringed the copyright.

Commonly known items don't need attribution. I can say that Columbus sailed to America in 1492 as a general proposition without attribution. I don't know where my original source of information was, nor is it that relevant.

However, if I am going to cite the boxscore for a game on June 5, 2001, I should credit retrosheet. If I am going to post something like career length/saves and I just googled it from somewhere else, I should cite the person who came up with career lenght/saves.

I can't say that every time that I've posted last year's batting average, I have said "from baseball reference.com" but I would if it were any publication longer than a mere post. (In fact this is a good example as I think bref gets its data from Lahman, and Lahman gets it from ?; a bref cite is appropriate).

This brings back memories of a case I was reading about in my business law class. Feist Publications vs. Rural Telephone Service Co.

As Backlasher has said, facts are not copyrightable generally. But, factual compilations can have the requisite originality to be copyrightable. Given this data is at least somewhat creative (and only very slight creativity has to be shown), based on the specific time frame, I think it could be considered copyrightable.

But then again, I'm not a lawyer, not a law student, and I'm not aspiring to be either, so you can ignore everything I've said if you so choose.

In an attempt to bring this pedantic discussion back to the article:

Did anyone hear Tito's postgame comments? The ump behind home plate claimed that he read Ron Jackson's lips and therefore threw him out.

Tito: The ump can read lips from the dugout? He can't see the ####### ball a foot in front of him!

As the local sports station pointed out, this outburst is new for Tito and may be a sign that he is more secure in his position. And it is damn funny. I want to hear more.

^^

Last week Chris Russo interviewed the guy who wrote the "The Three Days in August" book about Tony LaRussa (can't remember his name), and he said that while Tino was in St. Louis he was a complete malcontent and tried to turn the rest of the team against LaRussa, ####### about his playing time, said the Cardinal organization was no Yankee organization, etc... That went against everything I had ever heard about Martinez before, so who knows what he's really like.

As Backlasher has said, facts are not copyrightable generally. But, factual compilations can have the requisite originality to be copyrightable. Given this data is at least somewhat creative (and only very slight creativity has to be shown), based on the specific time frame, I think it could be considered copyrightable.

Facts are absolutely not subject to copyright. The presentation of facts may be subject to copyright, but the protection is thin and extends only to the presentation itself, not the underlying data.

whoa, i was sort of joking, I didn't mean to start a big argument.

I have no beef with Simmons or his editor, other than the Peyton Manning thing.

while Tino was in St. Louis he was a complete malcontent and tried to turn the rest of the team against LaRussa, ####### about his playing time, said the Cardinal organization was no Yankee organization, etc... That went against everything I had ever heard about Martinez before

There were a few stories that came out (TLR leakage?) in the papers about Tino Martino's lump spreading attitude in the Cards clubhouse (being moved down in the lineup, sitting against lefties, lack of bristly combs for his perfect hair, etc.)

BTW...Buzz Bissinger is the author.

Technically, to be correct, he would have to say that, "We're a bunch of [bad word that is something you could call a group of cats].

The correct word ought to be kakaphemism.

Posted by Lionel Hutz on April 16, 2005

I'll need to refer to the case: "Finders vs. Keepers".

Just to clear up any confusion, I'm the "editor" who gave Simmons the stat, although I'm not actually his editor. I did see the numbers originally here, although I verified the totals before passing along to Bill. I wasn't trying to hide anything or not credit the source - it wasn't necessary. The presentation wasn't even the same. And it's hardly an original thought to point out that the Red Sox have hit more Yankees in recent years. Here's another fact I heard: I was told last year's Yankee-Red Sox season series had more HBP than any series in baseball history. I couldn't check that one, so didn't use it.

Anyway, it seems a few people need to take a deep breath and relax just a wee bit.

Also, somebody was ripping ESPN for blowing the Sheffield thing out of proporation. I won't disagree, but I noticed the link on this site to the incident has 355 comments. So I guess fans were interested in it ...
-David Schoenfield

Man, Schoenfeld is turning into a regular Primate this week. May God have mercy on his soul.

Also, somebody was ripping ESPN for blowing the Sheffield thing out of proporation. I won't disagree, but I noticed the link on this site to the incident has 355 comments.

Well, we're pretty good at blowing things out of proportion too. It's actually our specialty.

Well, we're pretty good at blowing things out of proportion too. It's actually our specialty.

Especially if the thread has something to do with steroids...

Or the Yankees.

I love it when writer's stop in.

And nice new name, ladodger34.

writer's

*writers

I love it when writer's stop in.

Thanks.

Well, we're pretty good at blowing things out of proportion too. It's actually our specialty.

I thought our specialty was snarky comments.

I thought our specialty was snarky comments.

For some of us. Your specialty is attempted snarky comments.

I thought our specialty was snarky comments.

And when all else fails.. name calling.

I love it when writer's stop in.

Thanks.

Mug, he wrote "stop in", not "stop writing".

The correct word ought to be kakaphemism.

Cacophemism

Mug, he wrote "stop in", not "stop writing".

Why I co-wrote an article that appeared here days ago.

And if David or Rob is still around, I think a fitting way to thanks us for providing that stat would be to link this site's Mariner preview at their site.

Why I co-wrote an article that appeared here days ago.

You're just swimming in SMK's wake, Daniel.

Schoenfield rocks. I should've known that he must've been the man behind the curtain on a decent Simmons baseball column.

You're just swimming in SMK's wake, Daniel.

True strength means knowing when you can't do it alone.

True strength means knowing when you can't do it alone.

That sounds like a commercial announcing the merger of two investment firms.

That's exactly the sort of depth and resonance I strive for.

I agree 100 percent with Schoenfield's comments made in #52.

BTW, I know a lot of people b1tching about ESPN blowing the Sheffield thing out of proportion, but I disagree 100 percent.

First, sports are all about blowing things out of proportion anyway.

The sports story of the year (at least, year defined by Red Sox celebration-to-2005 World Series) has got to be the Pacers fight. Sheffield even referenced Ron Artest. Anything remotely resembling a situation like the Detroit game is of news interest, especially as fan violence is in the news this week with the mess in the Italy (granted, not much interest in anything going on in soccer here).

When you put that into the context of Red Sox-Yankees and a player who's controversial to begin with, it's a pretty huge story. It's something everyone has an opinion on, there's a lot of disagreement, and it could eventually lead to suspensions and/or change in MLB policy.

There was nothing wrong with ESPN's coverage of it.

I wasn't trying to hide anything or not credit the source - it wasn't necessary.

"Ethics, copyright laws, and courtesy to readers require authors to identify the sources of direct quotations and of any facts or opinions not generally known or easily checked."--
Chicago Manual of Style, 15th edition (Chicago: Chicago Univ. Press), p. 594

"3. Acknowledge the sources of all references you use.
4. Acknowledge the source of an “organization or [argumentative] structure” (Lunsford
396; SJS, Academic par. 13).
5. “Acknowledge a source when your own [argument], analysis or conclusion builds
upon that source” (LWI, Rules par. 4).
6. Acknowledge the assistance of anyone who may give you significant ideas for your
text (Lunsford 395)." - LBJ Writing Center, University of Texas at Austin

"Always identify the sources of your information as you are gathering it. If you are paraphrasing, be sure to include the source. ... Note your sources: book title, author, page number; address of a Web page (you'd be wise, given how often links expire, to make a printout).
" - Columbia University School of Journalism

http://www.colum.edu/undergraduate/journalism/no_plagiarism/3avoid.html

I know the WORLDWIDE SPORTS LEADER thinks they make the rules, but this is amazing. A senior editor admits that he took something from a web site and then comes out and says he doesn't need to identify his source.

Its too bad the New York Times doesn't read this. There is no retreat from this one, we have an admission that information was taken, and then a declaration that he didn't need to attribute the source.

This fact was not generally known, and this idea was originated in another place.

There is no retreat from this one, we have an admission that information was taken, and then a declaration that he didn't need to attribute the source.

It would be more accurate to say he got the idea for the fact here. He did not, however, use it blindly. He went back and checked it for accuracy. So he took a concept, and the confirmed the accuracy of it.

That may be a distinction without a difference, but it is worth noting, because the internet, as you know, is full of a lot of facts that ain't necessarily so.

The continuing controversy over this is ridiculous.


"Ethics, copyright laws, and courtesy to readers require authors to identify the sources of direct quotations and of any facts or opinions not generally known or easily checked."--
Chicago Manual of Style, 15th edition (Chicago: Chicago Univ. Press), p. 594

As David noted, the idea that Red Sox pitchers hit more Yankee batters than Yankees hit Red Sox batters is hardly original, and it's something that anyone can easily check.

i have updated the topic header.

As long as we've got people from the Simmons/Page 2 camp here I've got a couple points I would like to make to Simmons:

- You wait 86 years to win a championship and then spend the entire offseason questioning the management team that ended the drought for not doing things the way the old guard did. This makes no sense.

-You noted that there would be no problem finding 350-400 ABs for the Sox 4th outfielder (ie Dave Roberts). This is one of the reasons he wasn't brought back. They wanted someone better (Payton) to have those ABs.

-You were a leading proponent of Reese over Bellhorn last year. After seeing how that turned out maybe you could consider giving Renteria a little more time before starting up the "cabrerawouldhavemadetheplay.com" site

As David noted, the idea that Red Sox pitchers hit more Yankee batters than Yankees hit Red Sox batters is hardly original

The baseline of 2001 is unique. Look SJ doesn't care, and I just answered SJ's question. Then I was assailed by utter sophistry about common sense. I was right.

The idea about the "beanballs" is fine, and that is what Simmons wrote about. The 2001 baseline and the corresponding number was something that SJ posted, Schoenfeld lifted, and gave to Simmons. Schoenfeld did not attribute the idea or the number to SJ. That is wrong. Him coming out here and saying he didn't have to means the worldwide leader is setting their own standards. If its based on an economic principal of not linking to other sites that I think would be of interest. If its based on the fact that their senior editor does not think they have to attribute the ideas and statistical information posted by someone else that would also be of interest.

If you don't care, fine. If SJ doesn't care, fine. I'd be a little interested at what Caprizzi has to say. I'd even be interested in what Enders has to say. I'd even be a little interested in what Furtado has to say.

It looks like I am the only one that cares or thinks that you should attribute your sources. I guess that is another limb I'm on all by myself. I can handle the isolation.

I can handle the isolation

One could say that you thrive on the isolation.

As David noted, the idea that Red Sox pitchers hit more Yankee batters than Yankees hit Red Sox batters is hardly original, and it's something that anyone can easily check.

Originality has nothing to do with it.

Anyone know what the number of HBP were for Yanks-Sox in 2000?

"Ethics, copyright laws, and courtesy to readers require authors to identify the sources of direct quotations and of any facts or opinions not generally known or easily checked."

I'm pretty much agnostic wrt ESPN, but I'm pretty sure that the hit batsman stat is easily checked. All you need is Retrosheet, 20 minutes and a calculator or a pen and paper.

The presentation wasn't even the same.

Then you don't have to worry about SJ suing you for copyright violation if he changes his mind.

And it's hardly an original thought to point out that the Red Sox have hit more Yankees in recent years.

Its an original compilation to show the number from 2001; and you didn't come up with it.

Anyway, it seems a few people need to take a deep breath and relax just a wee bit.

I think you need to have long conversation with your ethics ombudsman.

I'm pretty much agnostic wrt ESPN, but I'm pretty sure that the hit batsman stat is easily checked. All you need is Retrosheet, 20 minutes and a calculator or a pen and paper.

not generally known or easily checked

Easily checked doesn't get you off the hook. And as you mentioned it takes effort to arrive at the number. Moreover, it wasn't Schoenfeld's idea to use 2001 as a baseline.

He took someone else's idea, and he believes because he repeated the work, it became his idea. That is not true. Its not a date; its not a genuinely posted number.

Backlasher, if the same process had happened, but Schoenfeld had supplied Simmons with data starting in 2000 or 2002, would you have a problem?

You're harping a lot about the 2001 baseline, and this would resolve that problem, wouldn't it?

But the 2001 baseline was just a convenience. They could have used a different line. It wouldn't change the information or the argument. Nothing is gained by picking the 2001 date, at least as far as I can see.

Backlasher:

Writers should certainly cite their sources. However, the number of Red Sox HBP vs. Yankees HBP is not proprietary information and is certainly readily available. The idea of setting the starting point at 2001 is not copywritable material. IMO, this does not not pass the sniff test to be some kind of ethical issue or a matter of plagiarism or copywrite infringement.

If we were to compare this to the Gammons issue, which, at this point, seems to be a non-matter (seems to have been an honest, if sloppy, mistake and apparently LA Times has accepted this), it would be like comparing a baseball player buying a $2 scratch off ticket at a convenient store to Hal Chase.

The standard of source attribution you seem to be calling for simply does not exist anywhere in journalism.

Isn't anyone outraged by the arbitrary endpoint here?

Backlasher, if the same process had happened, but Schoenfeld had supplied Simmons with data starting in 2000 or 2002, would you have a problem?

You're harping a lot about the 2001 baseline, and this would resolve that problem, wouldn't it?

But the 2001 baseline was just a convenience. They could have used a different line. It wouldn't change the information or the argument. Nothing is gained by picking the 2001 date, at least as far as I can see.

I wouldn't have known about the problem if they used a different endpoint. If Schoenfeld independently decided that HBP numbers were something worth researching to show the animosity that may exist between these clubs then there is no problem.

Instead, if he read someone else using HBP numbers from 2001 upwards to show the animosity than the idea was not his. If he was just trying to CYA by going to 2000 or bumping to 2002 then the same problem exists. He still took someone else's idea without attribution.

We just probably would have never known about it. From Schoenfeld's explanation about the series of events, its possible that this type of thing may not be an isolated incident.

If he read what SJ wrote, and he did a detailed study of HBP in rivalries over history, showed the difference in rates between HBP with the Sox/Yankees rivalry compared to the Dodgers/Yankees or something, then maybe there its a little more gray. But just rerunning the numbers does not make it your idea.

However, the number of Red Sox HBP vs. Yankees HBP is not proprietary information and is certainly readily available.

Its not about proprietary information. Have I mentioned the term "trade secret" even once.

The idea of setting the starting point at 2001 is not copywritable material.

This is getting fukking annoying. How many times have I said in this thread IT IS NOT A COPYRIGHT VIOLATION.

IMO, this does not not pass the sniff test to be some kind of ethical issue or a matter of plagiarism or copywrite infringement.


Then you should re-read the sources that report the ethics on plagiarism. Plagiarism is not about violation of trade secret or copyright. You bet its different than what Gammons did. Gammons committed a violation of copyright. Its about taking the work of another and passing it off as your own.

If you are talking about a baseline piece of information, when the Treaty of Versailles was signed, you don't have to attribute it. If its the work of someone else you do.

I am a little amazed. First, everyone was talking some horsesh1t about parallel discovery. That didn't pass the sniff test and I was right. Now, you have a full blown admission that Schoenfeld took someone elses idea and appopriated it for himself and his employer.

Seriously, what do you think you can take from somebody else. If I tell you "that team J had y road home runs over z time and that was more than any other team in the major leagues. This shows that manager r has his team ready for road games" , how much of that do you think you can appropriate as your own idea. Its obviously non-proprietary, its obviously accessible to anyone. Do you think if you redo the math, you don't have to attribute it. Do you think that because manager r is in high regard its generally known so you can take that part too.


Its still taking someone else's idea. By the same token, if you still an apple from the grocery store is that ok. Obviously you can get an apple from somewhere else. How about if you pick it off someone else's tree. How about if you steal it from a food shelter. How about if its a truck load of apples from any of those places.

The size of the transgression can lead to the level of punishment. The type of transgression can lead to its criminality. But the ethics of the transgression is the same in all contexts.

As I said, it doesn't matter much. SJ doesn't care. Bprime is surely not going to stand up to ESPN on behalf of its constituency.

The standard of source attribution you seem to be calling for simply does not exist anywhere in journalism.

I think I've actually provided you material that shows that it does exist. I'm not just coming at it from my POV. If you think you have something that suggests some authority concurs with you, post it.

Backlasher, I get where you're coming from. The part that I think is wrong is this:

The size of the transgression can lead to the level of punishment. The type of transgression can lead to its criminality. But the ethics of the transgression is the same in all contexts

You're very upfront that there are types of information for which citation is totally unnecessary (the Treaty of Versailles, etc.). And there are types of information where citation would CLEARLY be necessary to everyone.

There's a line in there somewhere where it becomes necessary. Since information is very fluid by nature, I think it's probably impossible to create a brightline. That means the question of whether it is ethical does vary based on context.

It seems to me that most people find the place where you set the line to be unnecessarily strict. I think I agree.

But since these things are, by their nature, a little subjective and debatable, the ethics can't be quite so clear cut.

Clearly, it would have been better if SJ had been cited. So, in the sense of "is there a way this could have been dealt with ethically in a perfect fashion," the transgression might have been unethical. And, if that's all you meant, then we have no disagreement. I just think it's important to recognize that the unwieldiness of a world where everything has to be traced back due to obsession with perfect ethical behavior probably outweighs whatever problems there are with imperfect citation.

But, like I said, it's all a matter of context. Some situations warrant outrage. I'm not convinced this is one of them.

Consider this from Brandeis' web site on plagiarism.

. "Plagiarism is the academic and literary equivalent of robbery, taking somebody else's property. If you copy somebody's test
answers, take an essay from a magazine and pass it off as your own, lift a well-phrased sentence or two and include them without crediting the author or using quotation marks, or even pass off somebody's good ideas as examples of your own genius, you are guilty of intellectual thievery. If you are caught you should expect punishment or contempt or both." Quote from Robert M. Gorrell and Charlton Laid, Modern English Handbook, 6th edition
(Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1976), p. 71.
...

2. Avoidance of plagiarism: "Acknowledge indebtedness ":


a. whenever you quote another person's actual words;
b. whenever you see another person's idea, opinion, or theory, even if it is completely paraphrased in your own words; and
c. whenever you borrow facts, statistics , or other illustrative material-unless the information is common knowledge." William W.
Watt, An American Rhetoric, 4th edition (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1970) p. 8.


at http://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/usemplagiarism.html

or visit Indiana University's web site on it:

http://www.indiana.edu/~wts/pamphlets/plagiarism.shtml

Here you get the specific reference of saying the election of a president is ok, but Bush policies hindering family leave requires a citation. If you read most political threads around here, people would say that is common knowledge.

But the most abundant and on point clarification comes from Concordia University.

What counts as "other people's ideas"?

All words quoted directly from another source.
All ideas paraphrased from a source
All ideas borrowed from another source: statistics, graphs, charts.
All ideas or materials taken from the Internet
What doesn't count?

You do not have to cite sources for knowledge that is generally known, like the dates of famous events in history or the names of past Prime ministers. Similarly, phrases like the "Y2K problem" or "the generation gap" indicate concepts generally understood by the public.
Also, within your field, there may be terms which are "common knowledge" because they are part of the knowledge shared by people in that field, like the "language experience approach' for educators, or the term "Impressionism" for art enthusiasts.



For years I have come here and I've seen every person think they can spin language and decide in their own mind what words mean. You have told me over and over what you thought. Show me something that supports your point of view. Show me something beyond the sophistry. The only thing close to an authority is an ESPN senior editor saying "I don't have to." I think my sources pretty much trump an ESPN senior editor.

It seems to me that most people find the place where you set the line to be unnecessarily strict. I think I agree.

See my previous post. You aren't arguing with my opinion, its what is considered plagiarism. I've provided defining language and illustrative examples from multiple sources. I have yet to see one example that is not just an individual opinion that says contrary.

But, like I said, it's all a matter of context. Some situations warrant outrage. I'm not convinced this is one of them.


I'm not outraged, except the extent an ESPN senior editor says, "Yeah I took it. No, I didn't cite it. And you no what I don't have to."

To be honest, I almost posted on the Gammons thread to say "simmer down Enders, it was probably an honest mistake." I didn't think that was a huge deal. But now we are seeing an ESPN editor tell us, yeah we take things and I'll continue doing it. I have no obligation to cite anything.

Someone here speculated that there was a "don't cite to other sources" policy. If so, that does take me to the level of outrage when coupled with Schoenfeld's statements.

I don't see how you can say that being easily checked doesn't get you off the hook -- it seems to me that that's exactly what that passage you cited is saying: if a piece of information is generally known OR easily checked, attribution is not necessary.

You can debate on the point of whether checking the Yankees' and Red Sox HBP totals is "easily checked" or not; I believe that any information that anyone can do with a minimal amount of time and the Internet (or possibly a Lahman database or something of that sort) is "easily checked."

(attach to above)

We are now talking about a pattern of behavior. There isn't speculation anymore.

I believe most of the opposition to Backlasher's POV is based on how it doesn't *feel* right to call this plagiarism.

I see nothing wrong with holding a journalist responsible for abiding to the letter of professional ethics when they are operating in their professional capacity. Whether the standard is too exacting is a separate issue from the responsibility to act within it and (in the case of any doubt) act under an abundance of caution.

You can debate on the point of whether checking the Yankees' and Red Sox HBP totals is "easily checked" or not; I believe that any information that anyone can do with a minimal amount of time and the Internet (or possibly a Lahman database or something of that sort) is "easily checked."


I don't need to. I've provided specific examples of what is considered easily checked. I've also provided specific examples that say "statistics" fall in the plagiarism category.

But if you continue to only view it from your own mindset, consider this. Who are Simmons primary readers? How many of them have the Lahman database? How many of them could easily check it?

If context matters so much, this isn't a Bprime post. This is an article read by Chris from Dorchester.

Moreover, sardonic, the very idea of using HBP to measure animosity was not Schoenfelds. Appropriating an idea is verboten under any circumstances.

See my previous post. You aren't arguing with my opinion, its what is considered plagiarism. I've provided defining language and illustrative examples from multiple sources. I have yet to see one example that is not just an individual opinion that says contrary.

You're citing definitions of plagiarism.

I am discussing the ethical ramifications of information sharing.

You may be right that what took place is "plagiarism" in a definitional sense. I am not invested enough in this to bother looking it up. I am suggesting that even if it (or another situation like this) is technically plagiarism, that doesn't really reveal much.

I'm just concerned that you don't seem willing to recognize that ethical implications can vary based on context.

But like I said, if all you're trying to say is that the ethics of the situation are the same in all contexts only in the sense that it's still an ethical concern even if the degree of that concern is significantly different, then we have nothing to disagree about.

It is almost as if you are fighting over jaywalking, or spitting on the sidewalk. Both are technically criminal acts, in the sense that they violate the law. Both are considered by the "common man" to be fairly innocuous offenses.

Backlasher is correct that this was plagiarism. Whether or not this is the sort of plagiarism that most people care about is a secondary issue.

If ESPN regularly appropriates the ideas of others without acknowledging the source, and is as callous as BL characterizes them, then one day, they're going to cross over the line in a way that isn't so innocuous, and then they're going to have a pretty serious problem.

My personal opinion on the matter is that certain aspects of plagiarism policy, particularly in the world of academics, are a bit heavy-handed and should be somewhat relaxed. When the policy extends to the point where utilizing the same style of formatting in a paper as one with an entirely different topic is considered to be plagiarism*, I think the policy over-reaches. My law school's policy specifically cautions against this.

*without attribution

I'm just concerned that you don't seem willing to recognize that ethical implications can vary based on context.

You don't perceive the failure to adhere to professional norms a problem in and of itself?