MBB: NESCAC

[lefrakenstein]

You're right that our general assessment of Toomey is that his performance this season was not deserving of a first-team all-american selection. You are wrong that "everyone who decides these things has disagreed with you" because again, people make decisions without explicitly writing their agreement or disagreement. There are many reasons why people may not express their opinion one way or the other (most often because they are sick of our argument as someone will surely soon say).

I grow tired of this, but...

Let me first clarify that by "everyone who decides these things" I mean, everyone who actually publishes these awards, and then let me ask, are you aware of any dIII all-american first teams that Toomey is not on? 

and

And finally, you are correct that many people have explicitly disagreed with us. That is a strange way of determining correctness as you seem to be suggesting. Imagine if we had made an argument last year that Nolan Thompson was the best defender in the NESCAC, as we believed. Wouldn't there have been a number of people who explicitly disagreed with us then too? But if you would prefer to simply tally agreements or disagreements as a measure of an argument, by all means go ahead.

While formal logical certainly says that agreement and disagreement have no bearing on an argument's validity, back in the real world, when the overwhelming majority of smart, knowledgeable people on a topic disagree with an argument relating to that topic, it's not really a great sign for that argument's credibility.

[Panthernation]

You're right that our general assessment of Toomey is that his performance this season was not deserving of a first-team all-american selection. You are wrong that "everyone who decides these things has disagreed with you" because again, people make decisions without explicitly writing their agreement or disagreement. There are many reasons why people may not express their opinion one way or the other (most often because they are sick of our argument as someone will surely soon say).

I grow tired of this, but...

Let me first clarify that by "everyone who decides these things" I mean, everyone who actually publishes these awards, and then let me ask, are you aware of any dIII all-american first teams that Toomey is not on? 

Do you know that everyone who participated in the NABC voting placed Aaron Toomey on their first team? Was that a unanimous decision? It might have been, though I imagine that decision mirrored the discussion that has taken place here, with a majority of voters thinking that Toomey was a 1st Team selection (hence the selection) and a smaller group arguing against it.

[Panthernation]

While formal logical certainly says that agreement and disagreement have no bearing on an argument's validity, back in the real world, when the overwhelming majority of smart, knowledgeable people on a topic disagree with an argument relating to that topic, it's not really a great sign for that argument's credibility.

But formal logic exists for a reason and has bearing on reality. Large groups of intelligent people are often wrong. The topic of evaluating athletes' value is not an exception. That you are appealing to this argument is not a great sign for yours.

[lefrakenstein]

While formal logical certainly says that agreement and disagreement have no bearing on an argument's validity, back in the real world, when the overwhelming majority of smart, knowledgeable people on a topic disagree with an argument relating to that topic, it's not really a great sign for that argument's credibility.

But formal logic exists for a reason and has bearing on reality. Large groups of intelligent people are often wrong. The topic of evaluating athletes' value is not an exception. That you are appealing to this argument is not a great sign for yours.

The point is that large groups of intelligent people are right more often than they are wrong. If I were arguing that the fact that the majority of intelligent, informed people disagreed with you made your argument conclusively wrong, then I would be in contradiction to formal logic and be in trouble.

But I'm not saying that. I'm saying that overwhelming disagreement by informed observes bodes poorly for an argument, not that it decides the argument conclusively. The fact that you continually take what people say and tweak it slightly in a way that makes it significantly easier to attack (this is what a "strawman" argument is, since you seem to be unaware), is very frustrating.

I can't believe I'm arguing about logic with college student on a basketball board.

[Panthernation]

While formal logical certainly says that agreement and disagreement have no bearing on an argument's validity, back in the real world, when the overwhelming majority of smart, knowledgeable people on a topic disagree with an argument relating to that topic, it's not really a great sign for that argument's credibility.

But formal logic exists for a reason and has bearing on reality. Large groups of intelligent people are often wrong. The topic of evaluating athletes' value is not an exception. That you are appealing to this argument is not a great sign for yours.

The point is that large groups of intelligent people are right more often than they are wrong. If I were arguing that the fact that the majority of intelligent, informed people disagreed with you made your argument conclusively wrong, then I would be in contradiction to formal logic and be in trouble.

But I'm not saying that. I'm saying that overwhelming disagreement by informed observes bodes poorly for an argument, not that it decides the argument conclusively. The fact that you continually take what people say and tweak it slightly in a way that makes it significantly easier to attack (this is what a "strawman" argument is, since you seem to be unaware), is very frustrating.

I can't believe I'm arguing about logic with college student on a basketball board.

We accurately quoted what you said and said that you "appealed to that argument," which you have now done three times. We did not at any point say that you used that argument exclusively, rather that by appealing to that argument at all suggests that you would prefer to make a sweeping statement that applies in many cases and not in some, with little explanation why this case falls under the former and not the latter. This does demonstrate a weakness in your argument.

We did not twist your words or tweak what you said. Somehow you managed to do that yourself.

[nescac1]

I, for one, am glad that Toomey is only a junior, so we can all look forward to another 12 months of this discussion, which has not grown stale in the least.  For instance, I anticipate with eagerness Panternation's January 15, 2014 post on why James Jensen is more valuable than Aaron Toomey. 

[Panthernation]

I, for one, am glad that Toomey is only a junior, so we can all look forward to another 12 months of this discussion, which has not grown stale in the least. 

We apologize for the stale argument. We posted no commentary on the boards about the selection. Lefrakenstein quoted our twitter on the boards in order to have an argument to argue against, so we responded.

[amh07]

While formal logical certainly says that agreement and disagreement have no bearing on an argument's validity, back in the real world, when the overwhelming majority of smart, knowledgeable people on a topic disagree with an argument relating to that topic, it's not really a great sign for that argument's credibility.

But formal logic exists for a reason and has bearing on reality. Large groups of intelligent people are often wrong. The topic of evaluating athletes' value is not an exception. That you are appealing to this argument is not a great sign for yours.

Applying formal logic to the real world is like eating jell-o with chopsticks.  You will look fancy, but you won't pick up anything.

Formal logic is only good for rhetoric and math, not sports.

[frank uible]

Your correspondent preferred it when the discussion was about the Goat.

[Panthernation]

Applying formal logic to the real world is like eating jell-o with chopsticks.  You will look fancy, but you won't pick up anything.

Formal logic is only good for rhetoric and math, not sports.

Yes. Sports dialogue would be well served if no argument could be checked by any objective standard. Unfortunately, too many sports fans feel this way. (As Old Guy put it, the "your team suck's worse!" variety.)

[daoustian]

It's clear what's happening here -- this is a well disguised ploy by Toomey and Hixon to put the focus on Toomey instead of on the rest of the Amherst team heading into the national championship game.  Mary Hardin Baylor and its fans are thoroughly distracted trying to keep tabs on this debate on the NESCAC boards as the main source of info for scouting Amherst, and when MHB starts double and triple teaming Toomey to keep up with the national player of the year, other players will get open looks.  Watch for Tom Killian to have a career game with 20+ points (giving new meaning to the phrase "late bloomer" in his final collegiate basketball game ever), and for the Amherst Public Affairs office to receive outsized bonuses in a couple of months when the fiscal year ends for all of the overtime they've been working to ensure the success of this misdirection. 

[lefrakenstein]

It's clear what's happening here -- this is a well disguised ploy by Toomey and Hixon to put the focus on Toomey instead of on the rest of the Amherst team heading into the national championship game.  Mary Hardin Baylor and its fans are thoroughly distracted trying to keep tabs on this debate on the NESCAC boards as the main source of info for scouting Amherst, and when MHB starts double and triple teaming Toomey to keep up with the national player of the year, other players will get open looks.  Watch for Tom Killian to have a career game with 20+ points (giving new meaning to the phrase "late bloomer" in his final collegiate basketball game ever), and for the Amherst Public Affairs office to receive outsized bonuses in a couple of months when the fiscal year ends for all of the overtime they've been working to ensure the success of this misdirection.

Killian is a junior, but nice post.

And I promise to stop reading PantherNation's twitter feed (or at least stop referencing it on this board.) 

[gordonmann]

There's a basketball game this weekend? I thought the season ended weeks ago.

[amh63]

PN....has classes started?
LeFrak....you know that you are dealing with two guys at least.

Speaking of the "Goat"....was walking in downtown Ithaca and saw a store called The Goat.  Reminded me of the outdoor store in Williamtown called The Mountain Goat....is it still there Frank?

[amh07]

Applying formal logic to the real world is like eating jell-o with chopsticks.  You will look fancy, but you won't pick up anything.

Formal logic is only good for rhetoric and math, not sports.

Yes. Sports dialogue would be well served if no argument could be checked by any objective standard. Unfortunately, too many sports fans feel this way. (As Old Guy put it, the "your team suck's worse!" variety.)

Epistemology is a really interesting thing.

By definition, arguments using formal logic (or, not, etc) are sound only when everyone knows their propositions (their underlying Ps and Qs) are true.  In sports, there is usually disagreement on the truth of the arguments' propositions (e.g. that PER is an accurate measure of player value).  Therefore, in sports, formal logic is unable to produce a sound conclusion (one that every reasonable person would agree is correct).

That is why fuzzy (or probabilistic) logic is a better fit for sports (and the real world).  We make observations and use Bayesian reasoning to identify propositions that are probably true.  Then, using fuzzy logic, we can draw conclusions that may or may not be true.  Fuzzy logic is humble; it admits that it can't reach conclusions that everyone will agree with.  That is why it (and not formal logic) is suited to sports.

It is not a coincidence that those exposed to the real world embrace fuzzy logic whereas those who are not don't.