SirClintonPortis
09-22-2010, 02:47 AM
30gut, you've already insulted me by oversimplifying or completely misunderstanding my sentences, and I'll be damned if I let that continue. I'll play nice though, and copy and paste your sentences so as to not stoop to your level.
So, onto an analysis of the article itself. Hopefully, this will clarify some crap.
The point is that many NFL head coaches seem quick to pull their black quarterbacks if they don't play well and replace them with a white quarterback, and let that white quarterback play out of a bad game.
After his block supporting points, he then infers:
This is an awful pattern that's emerging. Hopefully, it doesn't continue through the year.
Premise 1: NFL head coaches seem quick to pull their black quarterbacks if they don't play well
Premise 2: They replace them with a white quarterback
Premise 3: They let that white quarterback play out of a bad game.
Conclusion: This is an awful pattern that's emerging. Hopefully, it doesn't continue through the year.
And if that is visually challenging:
1. NFL head coaches seem quick to pull their black quarterbacks if they don't play well
2. They replace them with a white quarterback
3. They let that white quarterback play out of a bad game.
_________________________________________________
Therefore, This is an awful pattern that's emerging. Hopefully, it doesn't continue through the year.
So, let's examine premise 1.
First part: NFL head coaches seem quick to pull their black quarterbacks
Declarative statement
Key verb: "seem".
Second part: if they don't play well
Makes the statement a conditional.
Third part: replace them with a white quarterback
Completes the main idea of then sentence.
So, WITHOUT LOSS OF MEANING, this can be written as:
1. If they don't play well, then NFL head coaches seem quick to pull their black quarterbacks and they replace them with a white quarterback.
2. They let that white quarterback play out of a bad game.
-------------------------------------------------------
Conc: This is an awful pattern that's emerging. Hopefully, it doesn't continue through the year.
Now, without any of your help, I'll try to tackle this article to achieve the same aim, but in a far more systematic manner so everything will be put out in the open.
Objection to premise 1:
Without deeper examination into the QBs play then just comparing a few stats, then all that can be said is that it just seems that way.
No deeper examination is provided. Hence, the statistical analysis is suspect.
Why is a deeper examination necessary? Because your support relies on stats, and the stats are INSUFFICIENT to describe exactly how and where they were so bad. Two players can both a 4 INTs games, but the aggregate "badness" is ALSO affected by how they play on all of their other plays, mainly their other pass attempts.
The IDEAL remedy is studying the TV broadcast, as the TV broadcast has the least amount(still has some) of data loss.
If stat analysis must be used, then it must be more complete or problem of inconclusiveness will not be remedied. Citing the play-by-play, YPA, etc are just a few things that can be cited.
Analysis of premise 2: It is just a declarative statement that leads to the conclusion.
Conclusion: This is an awful pattern that's emerging. Hopefully, it doesn't continue through the year.
Analysis of the conclusion: He infers that this is "an awful pattern". As anyone can tell, the [B]apparent double standard is between bad performances and qbs being benched. According to him, white qbs are more likely to have poor day and not be benched than black qbs.
Things I find wanting in the conclusion:
Problem 1.
Throwing a bunch of INTs and/or losing a bunch of fumbles are an indicator that it is a bad day for the qb in the aggregate. Perceptually, the at least 50% of the "aggregate" badness is because of those turnovers, WHEN ONE IS LOOKING AT THE STATSHEET.
However, these three-five plays are insufficient reason to bench a quarterback. What needs to be known is the "trend" in the quaterback's play prior to his benching. That means giving some sort of info stuff like miscommunications, accuracy woes, misreading defense, wide receiver drops, etc.
None was to be found in the article.
Now to repeat myself again and again
Did you read my post or are you just being difficult.
Where did i say anything about wether the QBs play was conclusive?
Like i said in my previous post i don't want to quible about individual performances.
But it appears your intent on quibling over non-relevant issues.
Can you agree that net-net throwing 4 or more INTs would indicate a bad game?
Nice try.
You want me to agree with you about a ton of turnovers being a bad game and then say "Ha, see they both had bad games. The black qb is benched in bad games while white qb isn't".
So, these turnovers are supposed to be a large part of a QB's "aggregate" badness in game. This aggregate badness is a standard for benching QBs
It can be summarized in the statement "If a qb commits a lot of turnovers, then he should be benched".
Now, for the syllogism:
If a qb commits a lot of turnovers, then he should be benched.
White QB John Doe was not benched.
----------------
Therefore, he must have not committed a bunch of turnovers.
HOWEVER, he actually did commit a bunch of turnovers. This contradicts the syllogism. Something is wrong. It has to be racism.
O wait, could the first premise be a load of bull in the first place?
I would answer hell yes. There other aspects of QB play that make up their aggregate "good/bad-ness" on gameday. Some things are under his control, like being accurate, being poised under pressure. Some things are beyond his control, like wide receivers dropping his passes. Others are a mix of both, like accuracy. If he's stinking up the joint these other areas, which coaches would certainly pay attention to as they KNOW how to evaluate these things to some degree, then benching him seems plausible.
Now, if the guy really wasn't playing that badly and was benched, then yes, that CERTAINLY is cause for concern.
However, you did not consider whether it is a SUFFICIENT condition to being benched.
I do not believe "4 INTs being a bad game" and "4 INTs being a sufficient condition to being benched synonymous". Do I need to clarify at this point?
I do not believe 4 INTs is a sufficient condition to being benched. Other factors must be considered. Still following?
Those other factors are how the QB is performing. Namely, his other pass attempts. You do not believe this.
Like i said in my previous post i don't want to quible about individual performances.
But it appears your intent on quibling over non-relevant issues.
It's quite clear that you want to me to say something general on something that can't be generalized very well. I'm not biting. First prove to me that 4 INTs in themselves is a sufficient condition to being benched. In fact, I'll even put the statement in if...then form. If a QB throws 4 INTs in a game, then he must be benched regardless of race.
Nice, classy posting style.
Its in keeping with someone that can't make their point understood and stoops to patronization.
There's no need to complicate the issue here.
Given poor QB play are black QBs getting benched/yanked quicker then there non-black counter parts? I believe you are deliberately trying to mis-characterize I say. Hence, extra verbosity and pauses. I'll gladly sacrifice politeness for clarity and the searing of premises into a person's mind.
For someone posting in such a patronizing manner one would expect your own arguements/inferences to be logical.
For a psuedo-intellectual like yourself you should be above such an obvious logical fallacy. You talking about inductive or deductive reasoning here? I'll admit I should have added a "likely" to the sentence to make my statement "it is probable...".
Oh I see, I didn't account for CONFOUNDING VARIABLES? That's a flaw in my METHODOLOGY. And yes, by definition, I'm a hypocrite. I'm 2 for 2 here. But at least I try to find the most probable argument.
With all that said, the author's inference sure is quite a jump given all the CONFOUNDING variables that go into a benching deicision.
I doubt you can prove me to be a pesudo-intellectual. The "explain the opponent's argument, analyze it, and post your objections" has been standard for a long time.
A pseudo-intellectual tries complicate stuff and post sophist arguments. My vocab isn't fancy and all the sentences should not be difficult to read except where there are grammatical errors.
So, onto an analysis of the article itself. Hopefully, this will clarify some crap.
The point is that many NFL head coaches seem quick to pull their black quarterbacks if they don't play well and replace them with a white quarterback, and let that white quarterback play out of a bad game.
After his block supporting points, he then infers:
This is an awful pattern that's emerging. Hopefully, it doesn't continue through the year.
Premise 1: NFL head coaches seem quick to pull their black quarterbacks if they don't play well
Premise 2: They replace them with a white quarterback
Premise 3: They let that white quarterback play out of a bad game.
Conclusion: This is an awful pattern that's emerging. Hopefully, it doesn't continue through the year.
And if that is visually challenging:
1. NFL head coaches seem quick to pull their black quarterbacks if they don't play well
2. They replace them with a white quarterback
3. They let that white quarterback play out of a bad game.
_________________________________________________
Therefore, This is an awful pattern that's emerging. Hopefully, it doesn't continue through the year.
So, let's examine premise 1.
First part: NFL head coaches seem quick to pull their black quarterbacks
Declarative statement
Key verb: "seem".
Second part: if they don't play well
Makes the statement a conditional.
Third part: replace them with a white quarterback
Completes the main idea of then sentence.
So, WITHOUT LOSS OF MEANING, this can be written as:
1. If they don't play well, then NFL head coaches seem quick to pull their black quarterbacks and they replace them with a white quarterback.
2. They let that white quarterback play out of a bad game.
-------------------------------------------------------
Conc: This is an awful pattern that's emerging. Hopefully, it doesn't continue through the year.
Now, without any of your help, I'll try to tackle this article to achieve the same aim, but in a far more systematic manner so everything will be put out in the open.
Objection to premise 1:
Without deeper examination into the QBs play then just comparing a few stats, then all that can be said is that it just seems that way.
No deeper examination is provided. Hence, the statistical analysis is suspect.
Why is a deeper examination necessary? Because your support relies on stats, and the stats are INSUFFICIENT to describe exactly how and where they were so bad. Two players can both a 4 INTs games, but the aggregate "badness" is ALSO affected by how they play on all of their other plays, mainly their other pass attempts.
The IDEAL remedy is studying the TV broadcast, as the TV broadcast has the least amount(still has some) of data loss.
If stat analysis must be used, then it must be more complete or problem of inconclusiveness will not be remedied. Citing the play-by-play, YPA, etc are just a few things that can be cited.
Analysis of premise 2: It is just a declarative statement that leads to the conclusion.
Conclusion: This is an awful pattern that's emerging. Hopefully, it doesn't continue through the year.
Analysis of the conclusion: He infers that this is "an awful pattern". As anyone can tell, the [B]apparent double standard is between bad performances and qbs being benched. According to him, white qbs are more likely to have poor day and not be benched than black qbs.
Things I find wanting in the conclusion:
Problem 1.
Throwing a bunch of INTs and/or losing a bunch of fumbles are an indicator that it is a bad day for the qb in the aggregate. Perceptually, the at least 50% of the "aggregate" badness is because of those turnovers, WHEN ONE IS LOOKING AT THE STATSHEET.
However, these three-five plays are insufficient reason to bench a quarterback. What needs to be known is the "trend" in the quaterback's play prior to his benching. That means giving some sort of info stuff like miscommunications, accuracy woes, misreading defense, wide receiver drops, etc.
None was to be found in the article.
Now to repeat myself again and again
Did you read my post or are you just being difficult.
Where did i say anything about wether the QBs play was conclusive?
Like i said in my previous post i don't want to quible about individual performances.
But it appears your intent on quibling over non-relevant issues.
Can you agree that net-net throwing 4 or more INTs would indicate a bad game?
Nice try.
You want me to agree with you about a ton of turnovers being a bad game and then say "Ha, see they both had bad games. The black qb is benched in bad games while white qb isn't".
So, these turnovers are supposed to be a large part of a QB's "aggregate" badness in game. This aggregate badness is a standard for benching QBs
It can be summarized in the statement "If a qb commits a lot of turnovers, then he should be benched".
Now, for the syllogism:
If a qb commits a lot of turnovers, then he should be benched.
White QB John Doe was not benched.
----------------
Therefore, he must have not committed a bunch of turnovers.
HOWEVER, he actually did commit a bunch of turnovers. This contradicts the syllogism. Something is wrong. It has to be racism.
O wait, could the first premise be a load of bull in the first place?
I would answer hell yes. There other aspects of QB play that make up their aggregate "good/bad-ness" on gameday. Some things are under his control, like being accurate, being poised under pressure. Some things are beyond his control, like wide receivers dropping his passes. Others are a mix of both, like accuracy. If he's stinking up the joint these other areas, which coaches would certainly pay attention to as they KNOW how to evaluate these things to some degree, then benching him seems plausible.
Now, if the guy really wasn't playing that badly and was benched, then yes, that CERTAINLY is cause for concern.
However, you did not consider whether it is a SUFFICIENT condition to being benched.
I do not believe "4 INTs being a bad game" and "4 INTs being a sufficient condition to being benched synonymous". Do I need to clarify at this point?
I do not believe 4 INTs is a sufficient condition to being benched. Other factors must be considered. Still following?
Those other factors are how the QB is performing. Namely, his other pass attempts. You do not believe this.
Like i said in my previous post i don't want to quible about individual performances.
But it appears your intent on quibling over non-relevant issues.
It's quite clear that you want to me to say something general on something that can't be generalized very well. I'm not biting. First prove to me that 4 INTs in themselves is a sufficient condition to being benched. In fact, I'll even put the statement in if...then form. If a QB throws 4 INTs in a game, then he must be benched regardless of race.
Nice, classy posting style.
Its in keeping with someone that can't make their point understood and stoops to patronization.
There's no need to complicate the issue here.
Given poor QB play are black QBs getting benched/yanked quicker then there non-black counter parts? I believe you are deliberately trying to mis-characterize I say. Hence, extra verbosity and pauses. I'll gladly sacrifice politeness for clarity and the searing of premises into a person's mind.
For someone posting in such a patronizing manner one would expect your own arguements/inferences to be logical.
For a psuedo-intellectual like yourself you should be above such an obvious logical fallacy. You talking about inductive or deductive reasoning here? I'll admit I should have added a "likely" to the sentence to make my statement "it is probable...".
Oh I see, I didn't account for CONFOUNDING VARIABLES? That's a flaw in my METHODOLOGY. And yes, by definition, I'm a hypocrite. I'm 2 for 2 here. But at least I try to find the most probable argument.
With all that said, the author's inference sure is quite a jump given all the CONFOUNDING variables that go into a benching deicision.
I doubt you can prove me to be a pesudo-intellectual. The "explain the opponent's argument, analyze it, and post your objections" has been standard for a long time.
A pseudo-intellectual tries complicate stuff and post sophist arguments. My vocab isn't fancy and all the sentences should not be difficult to read except where there are grammatical errors.