Monday, October 28, 2013

Today's Heresy: Lou Reed's Death Makes Me Miss MTV News

Of course.  As with the death of any legend, the news of Lou Reed's death takes us back to all the bad-ass places Lou  Reed's music took us:  locking eyes with a sultry stranger across a gin-soaked lounge in the East Village as "Take A Walk on the Wild Side" implored us to hold our gaze just long enough that we had no choice but to go dance with one another; smoking "hubbly-bubbly" with the patriarch of a conservative Muslim family in the Himalayan foothills of Kashmir, oddly inspired to write nonsense poetry about "All Tomorrow's Parties" as the stoned villagers hunt for ducks over picturesque Daal Lake, because even though you had no idea this place existed, you "& Nico" was the album you wanted to be listening to on repeat when you were here; jamming to the iconic changes of Sweet Jane around a campfire, warbling only the chorus because the neophytes didn't know the lyrics and the devotees were of course too banged up to remember them... and that's the obvious point:  Lou Reed's music took us to way fucking cooler places than other music, because Reed was way fucking cooler than other musicians.  In this era of 24 hour news cycles and fan-Wikis and blogs and blogs about blogs, the truest remaining measure of "cool" is remaining underrated despite the fact that all anyone ever talks about is how underrated you are.  This is Lou Reed underrated.  This is Lou Reed cool.

But what saddens me about Lou Reed dying in 2013, although he would not give a tenth of an iota of a flying feces about this, is the way Lou Reed's death will be digested by the public, and how the occasion calls for something "the occasion" probably has never called for before:  MTV News.

When Kurt Cobain committed suicide in 1994, it was the biggest news story in the history of MTV1.  I was stunned, mostly because my big sister was stunned, and everything I learned about how to consume, appreciate, and judge music was learned from her, but also because I knew this guy and his music, and Kurt Loder interrupted my viewing of the "Basketcase" video in order to tell me about it ("Goddammit Kurt Loder, you only ever say boring stuff!  Let's get back to Green Day!  Holy crap!  Kurt Cobain died?!  Lauren is crying.  I better listen to Kurt Loder.).  Regardless, I knew that Kurt Cobain was cool, and it was a big deal that he had died, whether MTV told me so or not.

A year later, though, Jerry Garcia died, and MTV interrupted my broadcast of Naughty By Nature's "Feel Me Flow" to tell me about it.  Ten year old me reacted in much the same way:  "Goddammit Tabitha Soren! You're not even hot!  Kurt Cobain was a big deal, but the old dude from the Grateful Dead?  I mean, the skeleton stuff in the "Touch of Grey" video was cool, but back to the videos!"

But MTV told me that this was a big deal.  There were candlelight vigils.  Crying fans.  Ice cream tributes.  Even the president was asked to talk about him!  Maybe there was more to this Jerry Garcia character than I had realized.  So I hunted through my sister's and my dad's mix tapes, and found some more Grateful Dead songs, and I discovered Casey Jones and Scarlet Begonias, and I discovered that some bands that I already liked were influenced by him!  Like Blind Melon and Sublime (sadly, Jerry influenced them in many ways)!  And I dove into reading about the endless touring, and made my dad tell me what DeadHeads were, and generally developed a deeper understanding and appreciation for the Grateful Dead, and music in general, and in turn, I eventually let Lou Reed's music take me to all those cool places.

All this because Kurt Loder told me this person was important.  What saddens me about Lou Reed dying in 2013 is that some ten-year-old kid who likes music will not have his Buzzfeed browsing interrupted to be told that this man, who just died, was important.  He may happen to click on a link to 15 of the Coolest Lou Reed moments (a link sponsored by Natural American Spirit cigarettes, mind you), or he may opt to peruse 19 More Funny Cats in Diapers instead.  That kid may miss out on a lot.  Where are you when we need you, Kurt Loder?  I need you.  The kids need you.  Lou Reed needs you.

Strike that.  There's no way in hell, where Lou is probably having a blast, that Lou Reed needs Kurt Loder.

1:  Approximation made by me based on absolutely nothing.

Sunday, October 20, 2013

This Article Is Weird, Annoying, and Backward

This article by Barry Petchesky is a lazy mash-up of two headlines that are lazy in and of themselves: "Rex Ryan Don't Know Much O-Fense" and "Quarterback Rating is an Overrated Statistic" are hackneyed on their own; cobble them together and what do you get?  A messy, masturbatory exercise that essentially comes to the conclusion that statistics are useless because Rex Ryan likes them, which: huh?

Petchesky basically takes the position that Ryan... wait.  Let's take a look at the position Petchesky is taking:


"The amazing thing is at first, I was like, What is this?” Ryan said, referring to his understanding of passer rating. “It wasn’t that big a deal to me."

That was until Ryan realized the correlation between a higher passer rating and victory—fairly steady around 80 percent over recent seasons.


The correlation isn't a surprise. The passer rating formula takes into account completion percentage, yards per attempt, TD percentage, and INT percentage. If you win those battles, you're generally going to win the war. 

I don't understand.  We're holding it against Rex that he values a statistic that measures 'those battles that you need to win to win the war'?  If anything, we should be lauding Ryan for finally taking an "analytics-based" (lol) interest in the offensive side of the ball.    

But while compressing four separate statistics into a single one makes for simple shorthand, it tells you less about a quarterback than if you consider each one individually. 
 
If Petchesky were going to write an interesting article, it would have happened here.  How, precisely, does considering yards per attempt and TD percentage separately give the fan a clearer understanding of how his/her quarterback, or team, played in a given sample?  The answer to that question would make for a (mildly) interesting article. That article is not what Petchesky wrote.

But here's the kicker:  

It's like assuming Adam Dunn and Brett Gardner are similar players because they have near identical OPS figures.

Yikes.  OK first things first.  [hops on internets for 31 seconds].

Adum Dunn - Career OPS .861 / 2013 OPS .762
Brett Gardner - Career OPS .733 / 2013 OPS .759

So we can safely assume Petchesky means 2013 OPS.  We should point out that Dunn's season was one of (likely) decline, while Gardner in turn slightly overperformed his career marks.  Much more importantly: this analogy illustrates the point (completely undermining what we can only conjecture is Petchesky's actual point) that statistics which aggregate other statistics, while quick, dirty, and imperfect, can help us draw meaningful comparisons between players or teams that may otherwise seem apples-to-oranges.  No one who has ever watched baseball would ever argue that Gardner and Dunn are "similar players," but (gasp!) based on their OPS numbers this year, one might say that Gardner and Dunn were more comparably productive, offensively, than they had been in previous years.  That's the beauty of aggregating statistics!  And Rex Ryan loves them!  That, of course, is what we're talking about with this Adam Dunn/Brett Gardner analogy, right?  Right??  

To go one step further toward doing Petchesky's job for him:
Brett Gardner  OBP .352 / SLG .381
Adam Dunn  OBP .320 / SLG .442
Gardner and Dunn both put up very similar OPS numbers in 2013, in very different ways:  Dunn slugged his way to his ~.760, while Gardner OB'd his way to his.  Again, this deconstruction of these statistics could/would have been the "meat" of his article, but he glossed over the part that was the, er, "point."

To go two steps further toward doing Petchesky's job for him (is someone paying me yet?) (**this time using ultra-novel ACTUAL NFL FOOTBALL QUARTERBACK STATISTICS!):

Player:     TD/INT/YdsPerAtt/Comp%/Rating
7.  Locker  6 / 0 / 6.50 / 62.2 / 99.0
8.  Wilson 11 / 4 / 7.96 / 61.5 / 97.2
9.  Cutler  12 / 6 / 65.9 / 7.51 / 95.2

From this breakdown of traditional Quarterback Rating, we can say things like "Quarterback Rating overvalues INT's, as Locker's zero picks puts him in the top 7 despite a weak 6.5 yd/att," or "Quarterback Rating might lead you to believe Wilson and Cutler are totally comparable players, but this ignores Wilson's rushing numbers."  Again, Petchesky does not do this here.  He talks about how statistics only tell us what happened after the fact.  In baseball.   

It's tough to find a stat that's predictive. Giving significant weight to passer rating is akin to saying a quarterback is good because his quarterbacking stats are good. It isn't much more than a tautology.

Yes, dingbat.  Statistics allow us to keep track of and evaluate what happened in the sports that we watch.  That is their ontological purpose, vis a vis sports.  We can then decide which players to play, based on their performance, on the assumption that they can continue their performance.  Why am I saying this?  Oh, cause we're saying stupid, meaningless stuff?  OK.        

To kick a dead horse while he's down (or something):  Petchesky points out that quarterback rating "elides contributions from the other 21 players on the field."  But to hear Rex tell it, as he did in the post-game, you'd notice he has an almost holistic approach to QB rating.  He seems to understand that if his team has a good game, then his QB will have had a good rating.  Petchesky does not seem to understand that Rex understands this.  Or (more likely) he refuses to acknowledge it and writes what he wanted to write anyway, because it's easier and fits the Rex Ryan narrative.  How very ESPN-y of you, Barry.

The point is that if the NYT source article had been about, say, "number of plays" and "Chip Kelly," Petchesky would not be writing this article denigrating statistics as "unable to predict the future," but since Rex was finally agreeing with the VORPies (and again, not really - it's not like Rex was talking Football Outsiders' DYAR or even ESPN QBR ), Petchesky found it the right time to blast them.  I hate to defend Rex and his recent discovery of statistics, but this, I think, is even worse.  What a big mess.