Nate Silver: 2/3 of America's op-ed columnists are "worthless"

http://time.com/12551/nate-silver-fivethirtyeight-hiring/

Worth nothing. Completely without value. So says the numbers whiz. I'd be curious to see if he actually measured their worth on a scale, or if he's, you know, bloviating.

He's set the bar high for himself and his staff. Nobody will be more rigorous, empirical or quantitative. He used a grap to hire them, after all.

He'd better know Deadspin lurks at every turn to pop his and ESPN's balloon. (Presuming Deadspin can.)

 

Two-thirds sounds a little low, to be honest.

 

This'll make Nate's head explode.

http://www.trentonian.com/opinion/20140304/la-parker-trentons-wild-mayoral-race-divides-citizens-families

And that's just one of hundreds.

 

I don't know if the typical op-ed columnist ever adjusted to the Internet. The reason people "noticed" what they wrote or why their opinion "mattered" was that some paper gave them space two or three times a week - people figured what they said had some weight.
Now you read columns with little reporting or much of an attempt to verify facts. (which I get the impression would only serve to undermine their argument).

 

NERD!!!!1111

 

If I'm cynical, colloquially riffing on the state of the biz, hell, I might agree. It's a joke, a line, a bloviated idea.

But this is the one journalist who's not supposed to do colloquial, anecdotal or the off the cuff. I found it an interesting thing to say. Many op-ed columnists are too caught up in the game of wordplay, innuendo and gut feeling, but to label them "worthless" and the "crap quadrant?"

 

Hey, he calls 'em like anyone with a functioning brain sees 'em.

Want me to start posting Mitch Albom and Dan Shaunghessy greatest hits from the last couple years?

 

And that makes his comment different from most op-ed columnists in what way? That their brains don't function? You have proof? Does he? Is 2/3 off the top of his head.

And I know I'm being on the nose here. If somebody called Nate Silver "overrated," he'd be on the nose.

When a guy uses a graph measuring rigor and empiricism to hire his reporters, lectures all the HR departments he's never been in about how they should hire, then tosses off a criticism that most op-ed columnists might use, I'm going to be on the nose. Nate Silver knows better. Fine. Do the knowing better and let the "crap quadrant" stay where it is.

 

I write this without having read the article but that sounds a bit off base. Lots of sports fans aren't number-crunching analytical diehards and don't want to read statistically-driven articles. I usually try to find a solid balance with my own writing.

Personally, I've embraced advanced statistics, for the most part, and one of the biggest issues I have is when those who "get it" look down upon those who do not.

 

That reminds me. Shaughnessy just got APSE columnist top-10. Boston Strong, bitches.

 

Columnists don't have to do number-crunching or embrace advanced stats to be effective.

But they, (a) shouldn't be willfully wrong; and (b) should make some effort at constucting cogent, defensible arguments; and (c) should know sports, including front-office inside baseball and Xs and Os.

 

I love Silver's work. But I'm not that excited for the new site. I'm greeting its arrival the way a lot of people probably thought about Grantland when it started. Shoulder shrug. Or maybe I've been reading too many books lately about the quants who played a role in nearly destroying economy so am worn out by the religion of numbers.