Unaccustomed as I am to these arenas, and apparently for good reason having read this thread, now that it has been brought to my attention perhaps it is time to light a couple of candles.
MajorStats has purchased packages for multiple statistical sources in the development of the product, including the feeds from SportsTicker mentioned above. It is all public knowledge, and would not have taken a private investigator to find out. I know this because my group is one of the statistical providers. And as such, we do have an interest in purveying the truth when any of our clients is impugned in any way.
That this should have become a thread in such a forum is actually sophomoric, and is indeed permeated with the aroma of agenda. That word will properly not be taken well, but…
We can begin with Lander. Since we are in the business of statistical classification, the categories in this case would appear to be either “agenda” or “naïve” from the very start. For someone to think that it is much of an issue for SportsTicker feeds to appear on a given site shows an extreme lack of industry knowledge. SportsTicker is in the very business of selling its services to sites like ESPN, CNN, USAToday and other outlets (over 100 current customers), and their extensive range of products is one of the reasons why MajorStats went in that direction. SportsTicker has been around long enough to have the kind of quality control and legal staff that is not going to allow any casual re-distribution of services.
This is why “agenda” seems the more likely category. Why would anyone this naïve post in a public forum about a subject they know so little about? And, boys and girls, there are also some other nice little indicators, which you can also use to help sort through future manure.
It was easy for Lander to copy and paste two pieces of information that were similar. And of course by doing that, there may be the intention of implying that all of the information is similar. He was shocked, shocked, to find the similarities. But all it would take for anyone genuinely interested in finding out the truth is a few more minutes of research to see that MajorStats has many numbers that do not appear at ESPN, or any other site. This would not have taken hours, merely minutes. And one would think that before entering a public forum, and run the risk of making themselves look foolish, they would at least spend a few minutes doing their homework. Unless they have an agenda.
As for Shrink, it might be even worse, in some ways.
“YOU MEAN IT’S NOT THEIR OWN?” in caps, with the corresponding emoticon, begins the commentary.
And then “I am naïve with this sort of stuff…Is this against the law?”
I really enjoyed that one.
But later, when challenged “I was not suggesting that at all…”
Which means that you think that using CAPS and cute little artwork is not suggestive. Bravo sir. I understand that this is your job, and I applaud you because in this case you did it well.
And maybe all of that winking is really just a stigmatism.
So here is the “truth”, in case you are interested. There are many sources being used at MajorStats, and we are familiar with them because of our own participation in some of the layout and number-crunching. Baseball was just a start, in a few weeks there will be no doubt about any of the above innuendo when all of the product is released. It would have taken no trouble at all for anyone to find this out BEFORE heading into a public posting forum.
But having learned out a little about this forum before joining, I have a deal for you Shrink. Lander was able to show a SportsTicker feed that is available in a myriad of places on the Internet, and make innuendo that MajorStats was sopying. To get to the bottom of the truth, I can post numbers from MajorStats that do not appear anywhere else. After all, would not that solve this?
The only question is what the going “rate” is. Is it by word, by post, or by thread?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
