The Contrarian urges us to be mindful when evaluating the reliability of “scoops.”
Our resident preacher Nathan Weselake recently wrote articles about the death of the scoop, part one and part two. I am here to say that reports of the scoops death have been greatly exaggerated. (The line is paraphrasing a quote by Mark Twain about the reports of his death)
There will always be a scoop
Someone will always provide the scoop. From breaking down the results of a trade or reporting the status of a player who unexpectedly got hurt trying to eat pancakes, the information will be reported.
Nathan focuses on who gets credit for the scoop but it does not matter to the end consumer. The questions are how scarce the information is, how quickly it is reported and how accurate it is. That determines the value of the reported information. It builds credibility and reliability for the source.
Economist and philosopher Adam Smith touches upon this very subject in his book called "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations". He is looking at this from the perspective of nation building during the time of industrial revolution. He was not in any hockey pool at the time but the theory remains the same.
Nations had to make decisions based on the information they got especially from their colonies. This information had to be reliable, had to arrive in a timely manner and accurate. We are the nations and we look for the same things regarding our fantasy leagues.
Unless I happen to be walking down the street to the Air Canada Center and I see a Maple Leaf player step off a bus, slip on some ice and twist his knee, the chances are that I will not provide any rare and raw information for the consumption of our readers.
The best I can do is to evaluate and analyze what I read and then provide my opinions about the matters.
Other writers here might have more of an advantage because they might be in better proximity to the players and coaches. That is the nature of the beast.
He is correct that the major information gets reported by the main stream media and then by hundreds of other people. That makes the raw content less rare but the evaluations and interpretations of the authors are value added bonuses. Even if you do not agree with the writers conclusions because it helps you formulate your own position.