ARTICLE: Gil Brandt accused of plagiarizing Football Outsiders article

[dwmyers]

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

The difference between theft and plagiarism is a bibliography. Fair use doesn't condone outright theft. Fair use implies giving credit for what is used.

 

[dwmyers]

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?

Well, anybody can do math too, but if in a math exam, the girl who sits behind you has the same score you do, missed the same problems you missed, and missed them in the same way you did, don't you think there is a high probability of her copying your answers?

Gil's numbers are identical to numbers published in the ESPN version of the FO article. That's the peculiar and quirky thing about Gil's analysis. What FO points out is the ESPN numbers have some bizarre irregularities, which Gil apparently copied.

Take home --> It's not Gil's work. And FO makes its living off their original analysis, and so they're sensitive to the issue.

David.

 

[dwmyers]

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

This citation from the Wikipedia article on plagiarism treats this better than I did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism

Plagiarism is different from copyright infringement. While both terms may apply to a particular act, they emphasize different aspects of the transgression. Copyright infringement is a violation of the rights of the copyright holder, which involves the loss of income and artistic control of the material when it is used without the copyright holder's consent. On the other hand, plagiarism is concerned with the unearned increment to the plagiarizing author's reputation. Both plagiarism and copyright infringement are concepts that vary by culture. In Western thought, both are viewed negatively, many assert that this is due to the relative affluence of these nations and the monopoly they hold on information. In many other cultures, plagiarism and copyright infringement are seen as either a product of necessity, or the most expedient means to an end.

 

[AbeBeta]

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.

There is no question that Brandt can use that information -- but he needs to cite where he GOT the information. Otherwise it comes off as his work rather than a summary of someone else's - regardless of the importance of the information you need to cite your sources if they came from someone else's analysis of the data rather than your own.

 

[AbeBeta]

I think the source of this problem is that Brandt is not a journalist - this isn't so much like Ron Borges plagarizing as it is likely the product of lack of journalistic training and poor editorial supervision. Regardless, Brandt should come clean here.

 

[BouncingCheese]

Gil should have given credit to the article I guess. I think it is a moot point; but that is just me.

 

[AbeBeta]

Gil should have given credit to the article I guess. I think it is a moot point; but that is just me.

How is it a moot point? Gil shouldn't try to make a living by stealing someone else's work.

 

[AbeBeta]

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.

That's pretty funny -- that's exactly the excuse used by every student who has even been caught plagarizing. "Oh, it is a remarkable coincidence"

That sort of "match" is possible, but highly highly unlikely. Given that this would be Brandt's 2nd strike (that we know about) the evidence is tilting against him.

 

[bbgun]

That's pretty funny -- that's exactly the excuse used by every student who has even been caught plagarizing. "Oh, it is a remarkable coincidence"

That sort of "match" is possible, but highly highly unlikely. Given that this would be Brandt's 2nd strike (that we know about) the evidence is tilting against him.

Exactly. Any undergraduate would have been bounced out of school for a similar offense, and "ignorance" or "sloppiness" is not a defense.

 

[5Stars]

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.

David...what the hell did you just say?


:laugh2:

 

[jterrell]

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.

I am with you here.

If you read, say 100 web articles a week and then make comments chances are thoughts from those columns will filter into your take. Doesn't mean you stole the idea. Especially if it was a generic idea such as games started in college is a key predictor of NFL success.

Brandt is getting pretty old. He may be less than thorough but the guy is not disingenuous imho.

What good will it serve for him to lose his job over this nonsense?

BTW, it would take about 30 seconds to find the number of college games started by current NFL QBs of interest. If you wanna list Brady, Peyton wet all as seems logical and popular then it is hard to claim that is a some genius idea only to cross one person's mind ever.

the number of people using Gosselin's list to form their own is probably embarassingly long. And why not when he is so accurate. I definitely use his list as a starting point. I want to know where I disagree with him and it prevents having a solid player be completely off your board based on an oversight.

 

[jumanji]

Gil's numbers are identical to numbers published in the ESPN version of the FO article. That's the peculiar and quirky thing about Gil's analysis. What FO points out is the ESPN numbers have some bizarre irregularities, which Gil apparently copied.

David.

the numbers would be the same for anybody who looked them up...period. stats are stats....they are historical facts that are there for everyone to reference. mcnabb started for 4 years in college and his completion % is the same no matter who looks it up. why should i have to cite FO for that? FO made an interpretation of the stats that they are trying to copyright. it simply isn't an original interpretation. if you follow the draft enough, you'll note that it has been said many times that qbs that start for 4 years historically do better in the nfl. john clayton said as much before the draft...even said how cade mcnown was an exception to that rule. should FO have cited him? it's not an original idea.

you know...i haven't seen an article lately that says that 40 times and how many times a wr catches the ball vs drops the ball is a good indicator of his success. let me whip that up so i can copyright it. you can copyright your work, but not an interpretation based on facts. other people have the right to come up with the same interpretation.

the gallup poll...usatoday...abcnews...all have predictors for political races...do they reference each other? i guarantee they make similar interpretations over raw data.

 

[AdamJT13]

the numbers would be the same for anybody who looked them up...period. stats are stats....they are historical facts that are there for everyone to reference.

And I suppose it's just coincidence that Brandt cited the exact same stats for the exact same players in the exact same order?

 

[AbeBeta]

the numbers would be the same for anybody who looked them up...period. stats are stats....

But the idea to ANALYZE them in a certain way is not "just stats" -- the numbers are there for anyone to look them up -- but someone has to put value X with value Y

 

[jumanji]

But the idea to ANALYZE them in a certain way is not "just stats" -- the numbers are there for anyone to look them up -- but someone has to put value X with value Y

so nobody else from this point on say that 4 year starters in college historically do better in the nfl? do you think scouts and gms don't know this already? are you that naive? this is not new knowledge. are you saying that brandy couldn't have made this analysis himself? you don't know that.

adamjt13, sure, the people referenced sure make it look oddly coincidental, but how may 4 years starters can you reference right now?

look, it's quite possible, probably likely, he plagiarized some stuff from the article. if you plagiarize research, then that sucks. this isn't research...these are facts and those facts are available to everyone.

 

[AbeBeta]

so nobody else from this point on say that 4 year starters in college historically do better in the nfl? do you think scouts and gms don't know this already? are you that naive? this is not new knowledge. are you saying that brandy couldn't have made this analysis himself? you don't know that.

adamjt13, sure, the people referenced sure make it look oddly coincidental, but how may 4 years starters can you reference right now?

look, it's quite possible, probably likely, he plagiarized some stuff from the article. if you plagiarize research, then that sucks. this isn't research...these are facts and those facts are available to everyone.

So why did he cite completion percentage as well? That's a far less "obivious" value. Coincidence that those two predictors are exactly what the other article focused on? Why did he refer specifically to games started (the stats cited elsewhere) instead 4-year starters?

The fact is IF scouts and GMs knew this already then you would NEVER see picks like Harrington, Smith, and Leaf.

 

[Zimmy Lives]

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.

Not sure about that but he lost his edge years ago and is always trying to recapture his long lost years of success and exposure with the Cowboys.

I do not doubt for an instant that he was aware of the other articles and proceeded to present them as his own anyway. Poor old Gil, he enjoyed a good run but his legacy will always be his failed #1s at the end of his career: Kevin Brooks, Howard Richards, Danny Noonan, Rod Hill, etc....

 

[Iago33]

Listen. It's clear he took information from a source and didn't cite the source. Anyone who's been through Freshman Comp (or High School) should recognize plagiarism. Are we really doing that poor a job of teaching this stuff?