Comments on: “Narratives” vs. analysis: can’t we all just get along?

By: Roger Moore

Roger Moore — Tue, 16 Oct 2012 04:42:18 +0000

The game may have a story, but nobody really knows what the story is until the game is over. That’s why the play the game, right? The problem comes when writers decide they know what the story is before the game even starts. They fit the events of the game to their preconceived story, rather than basing their story on the events of the game. That kind of fitting the real events to the preconceived story is what people mean when they talk about The Narrative* (note capitalization).

*This is not at all limited to sports. It happens with lazy reporters in any branch of the news. If you’re a political junkie, you can see it happening all the time.

By: historiophiliac

historiophiliac — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 23:47:06 +0000

Upon reflection, I would like for Old Gator to run down the next Stankees-Tigers game, Slaughterhouse-Five style.

By: historiophiliac

historiophiliac — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 23:45:18 +0000

Um, The Game is a narrative…

By: Roger Moore

Roger Moore — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 23:42:46 +0000

I think a worse case is when they have a long-running narrative that they feel compelled to force-fit every piece of evidence into. It can be about anything, but is most often about players’ character. Two different players can do exactly the same thing but have it interpreted completely differently because of their established narrative. If a popular player gets angry and breaks something after striking out in a key situation, it shows how much he cares about the game; if an unpopular one does the same thing, he’s throwing a tantrum. If a popular player goes meekly to the bench after striking out, he’s showing quiet professionalism; if an unpopular one does the same thing, he’s proving that he’s indifferent. Worst of all, fitting those actions into the narrative just strengthens it, so there’s practically nothing a player can do that will undermine the narrative.

By: historiophiliac

historiophiliac — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 20:21:50 +0000

And, of course, we carry narratives we’ve already developed forward with us, so we insert new happenings into that as we go along (so that it seems invisible — the construction) — or modify the narrative, if it no longer works for us (or start a new one, if the new seems unreconcilable with the past story).

By: stex52

stex52 — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 19:34:58 +0000

Philiac, I think you are going a little deeper, to the fact that to be human is to compose narratives. Then we sit around the fire and tell those narratives because they are an attempt to define who we are. And then we must fit ourselves within that narrative to find our place in the world.

Am I correct?

If so, then I also agree with your observation that the narrative must be told in the past tense. Close to what I said above. It can be used as a parameter for future actions, but narratives change. But the narrative only changes when observed in retrospect.

And the historian analyzes the narrative to determine whether it conforms to fact. But again, only in retrospect.

By: historiophiliac

historiophiliac — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 19:03:14 +0000

I’m not even gonna argue with you, but I don’t think you can even understand the event until after the fact…when you put a narrative to it.

By: wretchu

wretchu — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 18:58:50 +0000

You should hear Mike Shannan on our broadcasts. He would probably give Brantley a run for his money.

By: paperlions

paperlions — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 18:18:14 +0000

Wait a second….Passan took exception to something and got snippy? I’m shocked!

By: paperlions

paperlions — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 18:16:48 +0000

The problem is the perception of cause/effect. Event happen within the context of narrative and DRIVE narrative….but many act as if the narrative created post hoc is the REASON for the event.

For example, teams that win have great chemistry, because winning is fun. When was the last time there was an article written about a losing team with great chemistry? Chemistry is more of a result of winning than a cause of the winning, though you can not completely dismiss either direction of the effect.

By: paperlions

paperlions — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 18:08:02 +0000

Exactly. That is the point Wyers was making…..post hoc narratives that are twisted to fit what happened and then used as if they are insightful or explain both what happened and what will happen are the narratives people make fun of.

If this same Yankee team won each game scoring 8+ runs/game, Passan would STILL have to consider them frauds and STILL have to think Yankee fans recognized them as such for his narrative to work (i.e. be true). Of course, if the Yankees had scored 8 runs/game and were up 2 games to none, Passan wouldn’t have said the Yankees were frauds and Yankee fans wouldn’t have sat on their hands all game long….meaning his narrative is post hoc huey.

By: bmh9500

bmh9500 — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 18:03:59 +0000

This is the worst narrative of them all, right now.

By: rbilotta

rbilotta — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 17:47:26 +0000

My problem with Passan’s piece is that is conclusory. As people have noted, it just supposes things based hindsight. Anyway when you click to Passan’s piece, the funniest thing is under his name is the designation “Expert”. That provided me some good laughs.

By: natstowngreg

natstowngreg — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 17:10:03 +0000

Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

The thing about narratives is not so much that they’re “superfluous” or “fake.” Rather, that they’re simplistic and made for the lowest common denominator. The Yankees’ narrative is about A-Rod because his huge salary and poor production makes him an easy target. Or, about how the team can’t function without Derek Jeter. Generates more newspaper sales and TV ratings and blog views. Such is the way media work, whether it’s about jocks, politicians, or actors.

By: mazblast

mazblast — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 16:19:47 +0000

If you think the “Iron Man’ reference is bad, you should listen to Reds games when the Brennemans are both on. Idiot son Thom calls his father “Dad” on the air, reinforcing the view that Idiot Son has never gotten a job in his life without the help of “Dad”. The good news is that Idiot Son spent most of his time on the TV side this season; the bad news is that when Idiot Son is on TV, we get Jeff Brantley on the radio, someone whose every statement about baseball is a crime against common sense. An example from this year–”When you’re standing still, you have no momentum”.

I’m with you about the announcers. I try, I really do, but there comes a point at which it is necessary to preserve what’s left of one’s sanity by turning off the sound. We can always turn it back up if anything happens for which “analysis” is desired.

By: Uncle Charlie

Uncle Charlie — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 16:18:30 +0000

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BU1VQbnC_zE?rel=0&w=560&h=315%5D

By: mazblast

mazblast — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 16:13:07 +0000

Where I have a problem is in announcers and reporters putting The Narrative ahead of The Game. It’s as if everything is decided in advance, and anything that doesn’t fit The Narrative is ignored. Sometimes I wonder if the announcers are watching the same game I’m seeing–or paying any attention at all.

By: beelza

beelza — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 15:14:31 +0000

Sabr metrics could not stop Verlander from being awarded the AL MVP last year. Sabr matrics will not stop Miguel Cabrera from being awarded the AL MVP this year.

By: lazlosother

lazlosother — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 15:07:33 +0000

No. We cannot all get along. That’s my narrative and I’m sticking to it.

By: chill1184

chill1184 — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 14:12:11 +0000

I got a nice laugh out of the cartoon that Wyers posted and that mental midget Passan took exception to it because it describes his “journalism” to a T. As with most MSM hacks err I mean “writers”

By: historiophiliac

historiophiliac — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 14:06:49 +0000

The amusing thing here is that some people still think humans function outside of narratives. Annoying.

By: willclarkgameface

willclarkgameface — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 13:59:29 +0000

That exchange between those 2 dudes is ALMOST as bad as listening to Ernie Johnson kiss “Iron Man” ass for 4 hours a night. And yes, he referred to Cal as Iron Man. Who does that?

I so want everyone on mute while I watch these games. The shitty announcers. The sabermetrics geeks. The sideline reporters. I just want the games. The games have been pretty decent and it’s really just all about that, right?

By: nategearhart

nategearhart — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 13:59:03 +0000

I think a lot of the issue stems from the Hall of Fame debates. The importance of narrative runs deep in many voters’ minds (the case for Jack Morris, for example, is probably around 80% narrative, while Blyleven took so long to get in because he had virtually no narrative whatsoever). Younger voters/interested parties are looking for more concrete facts in the debate. It gets quite passionate every year. And because the stakes are so high, those opposed to almost exclusively using narrative have developed a severe distaste for it, so much so that now you sometimes see people lashing out against any stories being told whatsoever.
I’m with Craig; tell the stories! Just don’t let them explain what is happening on the field blindly.

By: churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged

churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 13:56:08 +0000

It’d probably also help if people weren’t taking the worst offenders on each side and holding them up as beacons for the respective positions. Many of us on the stat side could use an adjustment in tone when educating those who want to genually learn about new information. For instance, there’s this thread(1) on The Book Blog between fangraph’s Dave Cameron and UZR creater MGL. These are two of the top people in the SABR world, and look how they treat each other? Then on the other side you get the Bill Plaschke’s and Maury Chass’s of the world, who look down at the SABR guys like little kids who “just don’t know any better”?

How about we all just try to act a bit more civilized and not like 5 year olds.

1 – http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/is_side_arming_darren_oday_a_lefty_killer/#comments

By: urdoingitwrongreds

urdoingitwrongreds — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 13:56:06 +0000

I blame Arod for Passan’s inability to blame Arod for the economy.

By: Craig Calcaterra

Craig Calcaterra — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 13:55:48 +0000

Damn. Busted.

By: urdoingitwrongreds

urdoingitwrongreds — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 13:54:11 +0000

This story is fitting tweets to its narrative.

By: zzalapski

zzalapski — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 13:52:18 +0000

Starting with Passan’s breathless exposition of Derek Jeter’s bathroom break in Game 1 against Baltimore, I’ve been underwhelmed with his writing this postseason. I’m half-expecting him to blame A-Rod for the economy before the postseason is through.

By: craggt

craggt — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 13:48:54 +0000

I’m for anything that involves XKCD. And for as many articles as possible that point out that the Tigers are ripping the Yankees guts out.

By: stex52

stex52 — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 13:48:31 +0000

Actually the problem with both is that they are only really understood in retrospect. You can analyze current data or you can compose your story line. Neither one really tells you about what is going to happen tomorrow. For instance, there is no big reason to believe the Yankees won’t start hitting in game 3 (although, with Verlander, I wouldn’t bet too much).

Whichever you choose, it involves a lot of speculation to project it forward. But that adds fun to the whole fan-boy experience.