ARTICLE: Gil Brandt accused of plagiarizing Football Outsiders article

[WoodysGirl]

Familiar Words
5/18/2007

In Pro Football Prospectus 2006, we ran an article by David Lewin that introduced a new system for projecting rookie quarterbacks based on college statistics. As far as we know, this research was the first of its kind. We’ve talked a lot about the college quarterback projection system since then. We feel it is one of the signature pieces of Football Outsiders research, on the same level as DVOA ratings, the third-down rebound theory, and the inconsistency of fumble recovery.

As some of you may know, three weeks ago Gil Brandt wrote an article on NFL.com previewing quarterbacks for the draft. This article contained a section about projecting rookie quarterbacks based on college games started and completion percentage that resembled David Lewin’s research.

Since this article ran on April 26, FO has not commented on the Brandt article publicly. However, it is now three weeks since this article ran. Although our editors at ESPN The Magazine are still trying to settle this matter with NFL.com, we feel that we need to say something before our research is permanently identified with another writer.

We hope that two article excerpts will help people understand why we feel so strongly about this issue, and why there is more to it than coincidence or similarity in concept.

First, these are the first two paragraphs in an article written by Aaron Schatz for the ESPN NFL Draft 2007 magazine. You can find it on page 31, at the start of the section on quarterbacks:

In 1998, the Indianapolis Colts faced one of the most important decisions in franchise history. With the No. 1 overall pick, would they take Manning or Leaf? Peyton proponents argued that he was more mature and accomplished. Leaf backers argued he had the stronger arm and more growth potential. But all the Colts really needed to know was four numbers: Manning started 45 college games, completing 63% of his passes. Leaf started just 24 games, completing 54% of his passes. The future couldn’t be more clear.

It’s true: College statistics really can predict NFL performance. For our 2006 Pro Football Prospectus, we studied 10 years’ worth of drafts and discovered that the greatest indicator of NFL success for QBs taken in the first two rounds is the number of college games they started. Philip Rivers, for one, started 51 games at NC State. Donovan McNabb started 49 college games and Carson Palmer started 45. On the flip side, busts-to-be Joey Harrington (28), Jim Druckenmiller (24), and Akili Smith (19) had relatively little starting experience.
​

Second, this is the fourth paragraph in an article written by Gil Brandt on NFL.com, posted April 26:

There seem to be two important predictors for success when drafting quarterbacks. One is games started. Peyton Manning started 45 games and completed 63 percent of his passes. Ryan Leaf started 24 games and completed 54 percent of his passes. Philip Rivers started 51, Donovan McNabb 49 and Carson Palmer 45; all three have quarterbacked teams to playoff games. Joey Harrington started 28 games, Jim Druckenmiller 24 and Akili Smith 19. All were first-round picks in the past 10 drafts, two are no longer in the league and Harrington will be playing for his third team in three years.
​

Readers can come to their own conclusion about what is going on here, but we would like to point out two oddities:

• The third paragraph of the ESPN Draft article, not printed above, talks about college completion percentage as the second predictor of quarterback success. The Brandt article introduces two important predictors for success, and then only addresses one.
• The original ESPN rough draft listed McNabb with 45 starts, because Lewin’s research only used regular-season games. A fact-checker at ESPN added McNabb’s four bowl games, but did not add bowl games to the total for any other quarterback. In the Brandt article, Donovan McNabb is the only quarterback listed with bowl games included as collegiate starts.

posted 5-18-2007 at 11:53 AM by The Outsiders || Ramblings ||

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/2007/05/18/ramblings/5144/

 

[WoodysGirl]

From one of the comments posted:

TMQ flagged this in his post-draft column.

He credited this to GIl Brandt initially, and then cam this addendum:

“Addendum: After this item ran, I learned that material similar to parts of Brandt’s column previously appeared on the independent Web site FootballOutsiders.com, in the book “Pro Football Prospectus 2006,” and in the publication ESPN NFL Draft. Original research into the relationship between college starts and pro quarterback success was conducted by David Lewin for “Pro Football Prospectus 2006″ and FootballOutsiders.com; analysis was written for ESPN NFL Draft by Aaron Schatz, founder of Football Outsiders. I called Brandt, who said he had not seen their work. In his first career as general manager of the Dallas Cowboys, and in his second career as a sportswriter, Gil Brandt has compiled voluminous statistical research into football and its players, and become an important voice in helping the public understand college and professional gridiron. I can tell you Gil is a kind and generous guy, and repeatedly in his professional life has gone out of his way to help others. Many little-known college players from modest personal backgrounds never would have gotten their chance in the NFL without Brandt, while he has long made himself and his stats files available to writers and broadcasters at their convenience rather than his. But comparison makes clear Brandt should have credited the research in his column to David Lewin and the analysis to Aaron Schatz..

TMQ has it spot on. If Borges (or any other journalist) can’t do this, niether should Gil Brandt.

:: James, London — 5/18/2007 @ 1:25 pm

Re: 20 / Easterbrook
I called Brandt, who said he had not seen their work.
If this is true, I am quite disturbed by the fact that a professional football writer is ignoring Football Outsiders, who are doing the most important work in football analysis that is widely publicly available. If you want to understand football, and, even more so, if you claim to understand football, you should be reading the work of the Outsiders. Period.

Let me suggest one possibility that would cast Brandt in a slightly less negative light: Perhaps Lewin’s ideas have become so pervasive in NFL circles that Brandt obtained the ideas originally developed by Lewin through another source. Then, perhaps a research intern pulled the specific data from Aaron’s article. If that were the case, it’s still lazy. It’s still plagiarism. It’s still bad journalism. But it’s not necessarily as callous as most of us are assuming. Just throwing that out there as a possibility before we all bust out the torches.

By the way, see the link in my name for a brief apology by Brandt to Rick Gosselin for supposedly accidentally borrowing his work. That was published on NFL.com today.

:: CA — 5/18/2007 @ 4:03 pm

Link: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/10187537

 

[WoodysGirl]

POSTED 4:49 p.m. EDT; UPDATED 5:01 p.m. EDT, May 19, 2007

HAS GIL BRANDT BEEN A BAD BOY?

Our newest colleague, Michael David Smith, also writes for FootballOutsiders.com, an independent site that has always been good to us.

MDS, along with about of our 76 readers, have pointed out to us an item on FootballOustiders raising a curious question regarding whether Gil Brandt of NFL.com lifted research and/or content from FootballOutsiders without attribution.

The issue is set forth right here, and we find it compelling to say the least. The real question is whether NFL.com or Brandt will acknowledge the matter, and whether NFL.com will take any action because of it.

Several months ago, proof of similar pilfering became the undoing of Ron Borges of the Boston Globe. Apparently, Brandt wasn't paying attention. Or maybe Brandt just assumed no one would notice it or, possibly, that no one would care.

In fairness to Brandt, we also can't rule out the possibility that Brandt suggested to his editor(s) that credit should be given to FootballOutsiders.com, and that the editor opted not to drive traffic away from NFL.com by mentioning the name of the site.

Regardless of how it happened, an explanation (at a minimum) is warranted.

 

[burmafrd]

I give Gil the benefit of the doubt unless proven otherwise

 

[dwmyers]

Ok.

This brings back something that happened to me in grad school. I was looking at steady state enzymology, and the method used to solve for steady state rate equations. The method is straightforward and takes advantage of the mapping between enzyme species, the transformation between enzyme forms, and the mathematical concept of a graph. Enzyme species become vertices, the transformations are directed edges, and so you can apply all kinds of graph algorithms to the solution of these systems.

What happens if the number of enzyme species becomes large is that the resulting equation also becomes large and unmanageable without computer assistance. But the nature of the original equation that you solve to get your formulas is that it's a non homogenous linear equation. So, instead of solving for a forumula using this linear equation, you can simply plug numbers into each of the elements of the linear equation and solve numerically. I called this approach the "matrix method". I hadn't seen this in any literature on the subject so I got this algorithm (and 2 others) published in Computer Applications in the Biosciences, vol 1 number 2.

A month later I was reading the literature and found that a Professor Garfinkle of the University of Pennsylvania had used the technique in the past. It was clearly the same thing we had published so I told my prof and we had an addendum added to the journal stating that it was prior art and who had used it. The question wasn't one of theft; the question was one of proper accreditation. He was first. He deserves the credit.

There is a sloppy habit in the Internet world to engage in wholesale theft of ideas. I've seen posts of mine on alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys get lifted and published as someone else's work on the Eagles alt.sports board, published word for word. The guy who did it was a well known Cowboys troll there and when called out for his theft he pretended it didn't happen (The Eagles regulars there tore him a new one, I didn't need to do anything but point out the theft and give the links). When someone copies your stuff it has to be called out.

The problem here is that Gil's work is clearly a copy of the FO stuff. It shares the same quirky numerical errors as the FO stuff. That doesn't happen by accident. Some copying had to occur. It *doesn't matter* if Gil did or did not read the FO article. Someone who has been giving Gil numbers must have.

If they don't recant, Gil and NFL.com can be sued for plagiarism. It's really that simple. If Gil is as honest as people claim he is, he'll publish a notice of the prior work.

As far as my "matrix method" goes.. I saw at least 2 other people independently develop the exact same method over the years I was active in the sciences and they did not know about any prior work. Some ideas become "obvious" once the science reaches a certain stage and are independently invented over and over again as a function of necessity. But I don't think that's true in the Brandt case, because he wouldn't have copied the FO data errors. His numbers would have been true to some other paradigm, or had their own original quirks.

Idea theft in the sports world isn't new. If Moneyball can be believed, when the Elias Sports Bureau wrote their own books to counter what Bill James was doing in sabermetrics, their product stole many of Mr James' ideas while using their publication to insult him.

David.

 

[AbeBeta]

I give Gil the benefit of the doubt unless proven otherwise

Proven?

It is clear that what he wrote comes directly from someone else's analysis. You can "prove" he took it unless he admits that but a reasonable person would admit very close agreement without proper attribution.

 

[AdamJT13]

Gil Brandt already had to apologize for "mistakenly" using Rick Gosselin's Top 100 draft list.


http://www.nfl.com/news/story/10187537

Clearing up a draft-day mistake

On the night of April 28, after the first day of the 2007 NFL Draft was complete, I wrote a recap of the first three rounds for NFL.com. In that column, I referred to my top 100 prospects and how many of them were still undrafted. Regretfully, with all the paperwork I had at my disposal that night, I referred to the wrong list. It was actually the top 100 prospects as compiled by Dallas Morning News football columnist Rick Gosselin. Rick is a friend with whom I share information, which is why I happened to have his list among all my own information.

I apologize to Rick for the misunderstanding, and I apologize for any misinterpretation of the circumstances. Rick is a good friend, and he also is one of the most respected NFL writers in the country. It is a credit to Rick's draft research that 88 of his top 100 prospects were drafted in the first three rounds, Honestly, the fact that his projections were so good is why it didn't occur to me that I was looking at the wrong list when I used it. For the record, 85 of my top 100 were drafted on the first day. Ten of my remaining 15 players were among Rick’s remaining 12.

I hope this helps clear up any confusion regarding this incident. Now we can begin focusing on the 2008 draft!

Gil Brandt


---------------------------------------------------------------

The story where Brandt claimed 88 of his top 100 were drafted on the first day has been pulled from NFL.com. (Link: http://www.nfl.com/draft/story/10156966)

Here's what Brandt wrote in that article --

Here are 12 players from my top 100 who didn't get taken on Day 1:

* Antonio Pittman, RB, Ohio State (47)
* Tanard Jackson, CB, Syracuse (60)
* Doug Free, OT, Northern Illinois (77)
* Paul Soliai, DT, Utah (78)
* Antonio Johnson, DT, Mississippi State (80)
* Josh Beekman, G, Boston College (82)
* David Clowney, WR, Virginia Tech (88)
* Leroy Harris, C, North Carolina State (89)
* Jay Moore, DE, Nebraska (90)
* Michael Coe, CB, Alabama State (95)
* Jermon Bushrod, OT, Towson (96)
* Allen Barbre, OT, Missouri Southern (100)

Now compare that to the 15 guys in Gosselin's list who didn't get drafted on Day 1 --

47. Antonio Pittman HB Ohio St.
60. Tanard Jackson S Syracuse
77. Doug Free OT N. Illinois
78. Paul Soliai DT Utah
80. Antonio Johnson DT Miss. St.
82. Josh Beekman G Boston Col.
88. David Clowney WR Va. Tech
89. Leroy Harris C N. Car. St.
90. Jay Moore DE Nebraska
92. Brian Robison DE Texas
94. Michael Bush HB Louisville
95. Michael Coe CB Alabama St.
96. Jermon Bushrod OT Towson St.
98. Brannon Condren S Troy
100. Allen Barbre G Missouri Sou.


So not only did Brandt "mistakenly" use Gosselin's list, he also miscounted the number of guys who didn't get drafted on the first day.

 

[Jay-D]

Look at all the media nerds fighting over things nobody cares about.

 

[jumanji]

so the article was based on stats....ugh...anybody can use stats. so if football outsiders says the best superbowl performance by a running back is timmy smith because he gained 204 yds in that game, the most ever.....what?...no one else can say that?

i don't think you should steal work, but if you're just looking at stats, how is that proprietary?

 

[AbeBeta]

Look at all the media nerds fighting over things nobody cares about.

Plagarism is something everyone should care about -- guys like Brandt are getting paid to do their own research -- not steal someone else's work.

I've written work that someone later plagarized -- it pisses me off - it is dishonest and unethical.

 

[AbeBeta]

so the article was based on stats....ugh...anybody can use stats. so if football outsiders says the best superbowl performance by a running back is timmy smith because he gained 204 yds in that game, the most ever.....what?...no one else can say that?

i don't think you should steal work, but if you're just looking at stats, how is that proprietary?

It isn't the stats -- it is the interpretation of the stats. Does it really sound like Brandt went through all the possible predictors of NFL success and came up with this on his own?

Someone had to collect the data, analyze the data, and interpret it. There is far more to that than "just stats" -- Statistical analysis is WORK - how is that not proprietary?

 

[bbgun]

Look at all the media nerds fighting over things nobody cares about.

You'd be singing a different tune if somebody stole the fruits of your labor. Most of us do care about honesty and integrity.

 

[theogt]

Brandt is senile. Has been for awhile now. When you read his columns they're filled with all sorts of errors. The guy is 100% a great individual with a heart of gold and a wealth of knowledge. He's just old and senile and has lost quite a bit upstairs (if he ever had it). He may honestly not remember reading the article despite actually reading it.

 

[burmafrd]

Is it so hard to think that two people can think the same way about something. Just listening to some of the people here- they have no idea of the term COINCIDENCE. It has happened. Some of the slurs at Gil here make me vomit. BUT considering their sources, I am not suprised.

 

[cowboyz]

wasn't gil part of the original team that used metrics to predict success?

 

[ZeroClub]

http://www.***BANNED-URL***/sharedcontent/dws/img/04-06/0416brandt4.jpg

Gil Brandt is worthy of much respect. He got to where he's been through hardwork and talent. I attribute the recent problems to honest mistakes.

The nature of his current work means that errors and oversights are made in public.

Here's a link to an interesting article (written by Barry Horn) on Gil Brandt:

http://www.***BANNED-URL***/sharedcontent/dws/spt/football/nfl/stories/041606dnspobrandt.352a373.html

 

[Reality]

So, what am I missing? It must be something because all I see are a couple of references to games won and completion percentage.

I've read over everything twice and still can't find anything wrong so I would appreciate it if someone could explain it.

 

[AbeBeta]

So, what am I missing? It must be something because all I see are a couple of references to games won and completion percentage.

I've read over everything twice and still can't find anything wrong so I would appreciate it if someone could explain it.

One source did a detailed analysis of QB success. Brandt took the meat of that analysis and does not give credit to the original source. Keep in mind plagarism doesn't mean taking something word for word -- it means using the work of others in a way to give an appearance that it is your own.

 

[Reality]

One source did a detailed analysis of QB success. Brandt took the meat of that analysis and does not give credit to the original source. Keep in mind plagarism doesn't mean taking something word for word -- it means using the work of others in a way to give an appearance that it is your own.

But the Fair Use clause of copyright law states that you can summarize or paraphrase the work of other people legally.

Meaning, if I were to do a study on which quarterbacks where the most accurate in games played while raining, someone else could come along and say "The best quarterbacks in the rain are ?????, ????? and ?????" and it would not be illegal.

Now, should you list your sources? Absolutely, but primarily when you are pulling some really unique content or it is a big focus of your story, not just a reference.

For example, if I wrote my QB/rain story and someone else wrote a story on QBs in the rain, then yes, they should list me as a source. However, if their story is about the best quarterbacks in the NFL and they pull a couple of stats about QBs in the rain from my report/story, I don't see a reason to list sources.

 

[theogt]

But the Fair Use clause of copyright law states that you can summarize or paraphrase the work of other people legally.

Meaning, if I were to do a study on which quarterbacks where the most accurate in games played while raining, someone else could come along and say "The best quarterbacks in the rain are ?????, ????? and ?????" and it would not be illegal.

Now, should you list your sources? Absolutely, but primarily when you are pulling some really unique content or it is a big focus of your story, not just a reference.

For example, if I wrote my QB/rain story and someone else wrote a story on QBs in the rain, then yes, they should list me as a source. However, if their story is about the best quarterbacks in the NFL and they pull a couple of stats about QBs in the rain from my report/story, I don't see a reason to list sources.

That's not quite what the fair use defense to copyright infringement says, but whether this is legally actionable or not isn't really even the question. It's the principle. It's pretty apparent that he (or someone working for him) used another's research and tried to pass it off as new research, intentionally or not.