I have no problem with arguing. This is a sports blog and it's expected that we all share our sports opinion on different topics. And as expected, we're not all going to agree on the opinions we have. And that's perfectly fine. It's fine that in a post we express something and then someone disagrees with that opinion in the comments. But there is most certainly a right way and a wrong day to comment. Eckstein does this the wrong way.
If you've never heard of logical fallacies, a fallacy is an argument which may convince others but is not logically sound. Note that the truth of the conclusions of an argument does not determine whether the argument is a fallacy - it is the argument which is incorrect. Using basic LSAT terms, in every argument there is a conclusion, evidence, and an assumption. The conclusion is the final statement of fact (i.e. Kevin Youkilis will be better than Carlos Pena next year), the evidence is data to prove the conclusion (i.e. Carlos Pena has been injury prone recently therefore he won't produce like he can. Also, Youk has improved every year he has been in the majors), and the assumption is what bridges the evidence and the conclusion and this is often unstated (i.e. Using what a player had done in the past is a good way to measure how the player has done in the future). This is the right way to make an argument. This is also something that myself, The "Bright" One, and Cubsfan4evr have done often.
But not David "MVP" Eckstein.
He uses logical fallacies often to destroy evidences and create assumption in order to prove a conclusion. And this is bullshit. The reason fallacies are bad is because they destroy credibility to arguments and blur truth from being known.
Two recent fallacies Ecketin has committed recently, The Red Herring and Ad Hominem.
The Red Herring fallacy is where a person takes a trivial point of an argument and argues that trivial point in order to create a contradictory conclusion to the original arguers main conclusion(done in "Random White Sox Notes")
The Ad Hominem fallacy is where a person attacks the arguer instead of the argument. Politicians do this all the time, like calling Obama a Muslim. (done in "Boston Red Sox v. Tampa Bay Rays)
These are just two examples and I'm sure more have been done. Frankly, I'm sick of it. Eckstein uses blinders when reading posts and uses fallacies to win arguments. Eckstein, you try to defeat the arguer instead of trying to win the argument and I'm calling you out on it.
By Eckstein always using fallacies, it beings down the credibility of this blog. You're actions and words affect the other three authors.
Please stop doing this. I have no problem with arguing against what everyone says but stop doing what you normally do to win almost every argument I've seen you enter.
Also, please stop putting your name as a label for every post. It's arrogant and annoying. I've asked you to stop this once before and if you continue, then I'm going to start putting your name as a label for all my posts.
Now despite my harsh tone and words, I mean no disrespect to Eckstein personally. This sole focus of this post is aimed at the specific actions that you, Eckstein, do in relation to your arguing skills and post labels, and that's it.
Thank you and have a great day.
catfight
ReplyDeleteIt's called constructive criticism.
ReplyDeleteSeriously, am I the only one pissed about this?
Really? Really?
ReplyDeleteYou take my over-the-top comments that seriously?
Fine, I'll do this "the right way"
Kevin Youkilis has never before last year eclipsed 20 home runs. He's barely ever slugged over .450. He's never had an ISO above .170 before this year. His BABIP was 10-15 points above his career average. He DOUBLED his career high rate in HR/FB% and his FB, LD, and GB tendencies did not change at all from previous years. ALL of these signs point to a significant decline in production for 2009. Think somewhere in the 18-21 HR range tops. Thats what a guy with a career HR/FB% of 9.6 should be able to do in a good year. Now, you must also consider that Youkilis is above average at defense. He's worth somewhere between 1/2 and 1 run above the replacement level.
On the other hand, we look at Carlos Pena. His defense is also above average, but about half as good. He is worth somewhere between 1/4 and 1/2 a win above the replacement level. However, we don't look at Pena for his defense.
Carlos Pena has never posted a HR/FB% below 12.5% (good for 25+ HR). His career line, which he often approaches each season, is more to the tune of 19.6%. Pena is slightly more prone to groundballs (.83 GB/FB ratio vs Youkilis' .75) but also much more prone to the longball with a career low in HRs (18) in his half season in detroit in 2005. Those 18 home runs are 2 more than Youkilis has ever hit in a full season before 2008. Furthermore, Pena, who has never accumulated 500 ABs in his career, always puts up more in his limited PAs. If Pena was able to accumulate 60 more ABs a season, there is no reason he would not be a perennial 35+ HR guy with just as many walks, but a higher average than players like Adam Dunn and Jim Thome. Mind you, he does this while playing decent defense (unlike certain Ryan Howards of the world). Pena is the kind of guy who can rack up over 60 XBH by only playing 85% of a full season;
youkilis typically accumulates 60+ XBHs a season, but he also hits less of those XBHs out of the yard and see's about 40 more times at the dish than Pena.
Both are valuable assets, but Youkilis is nothing more than Derrek Lee (not 2005 DLee) with slightly worse defense and slightly more walks. On the other hand, Pena is a powerhitting, powerwalking machine with above average defense. The injury prone Pena, by the way, walked 35 more times than Youkilis last year. Pena also walked 30 times more than Youkilis in 2007.
So while you may say Youkilis has gotten better year to year, I say Youkilis had a statistically unsustainable season of outperforming his abilities.
http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=1935&position=1B/3B
Take a look. You'll note his Iso's don't improve very much year to year and that all of his advanced batting peripherals remain almost static from year to year. The only thing that changed was that his Walk rate has been down three years in a row and that his HR/FB ratio spiked. You have to look at HR distances and career avgs to determine the flukiness of this number, but something tells me Pena's moonshots go much farther than Youk's.
Oh, also, Youks and Pena tend to get he name of PA's per season
ReplyDelete(which undermines a lot of the "pena is too injury prone" argument, as he's played just as healthy baseball the past two years)
ReplyDeleteWhile again, you missed the point of argument by going on this Youk/Pena tangent, yes, you get the idea that's the proper way to argue something! See that wasn't so bad was it!
ReplyDeleteDude, the point of me adding the Youk/Pena debate in that post was purely for an example to explain to readers about conclusion, assumptions, and evidence
hey nice insight information sharing, expect this is genuinely a good choice for everybody
ReplyDeleteFor me personally it's a very desirable article. I'd prefer to examine more relating to this kind of subject.
ReplyDeleteThanks anonymous
ReplyDelete