I took a course in logic when I was in college. It was in the philosophy department. I was good at it because it was basically the rules of arithmetic. The concepts seemed intuitive to me, but it was Swahili to many of my classmates.
They couldn't understand that "nothing is good" is not the same as "not everything is good." They couldn't understand that if every Saturday we wash the car, and we've washed the car, that doesn't necessarily mean it's Saturday. They couldn't understand that a sample size of one does not constitute a scientific proof. They couldn't understand that just because every time A happens, so does B, that does not mean that A causes B.
These were smart people. Consequently, I conclude that most people are failures at logic. (This may be illogical.) This explains much of what I hear on sports talk radio, and that's before anyone calls in.
I heard an intelligent and respected sports talk radio host assert that Justin Verlander is the AL MVP because the Tigers are 20-8 when he's on the mound and .500 when he's not, thus, he's the reason they will win their division.
Did you count the flaws in logic there? I found five on a quick fly-by. All told, this reasoning is utter nonsense, yet I'll bet that neither the host nor anyone else involved in the broadcast is even vaguely aware that what he said makes no sense. Because most liberal arts majors don't learn how to think in college, reporters are generally ill-equipped to deal with questions of logic like this one. Let's examine it.
First, let's stipulate that Justin Verlander is a certified stud. He's led the league in innings and strikeouts twice and his ERA is 23% better than average over his six-year career, during which time he's 102-57, 3.55. This year, he's the leading Cy Young candidate, 19-5, 2.28 with 212 strikeouts, fewer baserunners than innings and a K/BB ratio nearing five. Yowzah. Certainly, he's helped the Tigers amass a winning record.
But Verlander isn't even the most valuable Tiger. That would be catcher Alex Avila, who plays everyday at a key position, hits like a left fielder (.304/.397/.529), handles the backstop well and has added 5.5 wins to the club. Miguel Cabrera (.965 OPS), Jhonny Peralta (.863 OPS at short), Victor Martinez (.815) and Brennan Boesch (.799) have added all-star quality batting lines. The rest of the lineup has also furnished some runs, so that Detroit has the fifth best offense in the American League. Justin Verlander hasn't contributed a wink to that.
Detroit pitching is another story, ranking 10th of 14 AL mound staffs. No other Tiger starter has delivered even an average performance this year, yet the next three members of the rotation sport a 33-24 record. In other words, the Tigers are a very good hitting club with lousy pitching. If they had a few good starters, they'd be challenging for the league's best record. When they do put their one outstanding pitcher on the hill, the results are, well, outstanding.
So let's review the logical flaws:
1. The Tigers are 20-8 when he's on the mound, therefore he's great. But as we've seen, much of any pitcher's record is a function of the hitting (and fielding) behind him.
2. The team is only .500 when everyone else pitches, so Verlander must be the main reason the Tigers win. As we've seen, Max Scherzer, Rick Porcello and Brad Penney have a combined .578 winning percentage. In fact, most of the problem is the record of fifth starter Phil Coke (2-8) and the relief corps.
3. The Tigers succeed when Verlander pitches, therefore he's the reason for their success. It happens that there is a great deal of truth here, but correlation is not causation. Lots of bad pitchers have good records.
4. Because Verlander is the difference between a .500 team and a division winner, he's more valuable than other players whose contributions don't alter the standings. Even ignoring that the premise is false, and that the Tigers would still lead their division right now with a .500 record, the conclusion makes no sense. Does the speaker suggest that if Verlander were 28-0 with a zero ERA and 400 strikeouts but the Tigers were otherwise winless he'd be less of an MVP candidate?
5. The same conclusion fails another logical test. If the same Detroit contingent played in the AL East, where a 71-59 record would leave them battling for third place, would the same Verlander performance be less valuable?
The same host dismissed Jose Bautista's candidacy because Joey Bats' Blue Jay pitching teammates rank in the bottom third of baseball. Bautista leads all of baseball in home runs, on base percentage, slugging, OPS, True Average, Value Over Replacement Player (at the position that features the best hitters) and Wins Against Replacement, all (except homers) by wide margins. Because he takes the field every day, Bautista ranks 82% more valuable to his team than Justin Verlander. That doesn't even account for the credible case you could make that if Toronto had an AL Central schedule while Michigan had to face NY, Boston and Tampa 18 times each, their records might be reversed.
The old saying about never arguing with a fool applies to illogical people, as Adlai Stevenson pointed out. There is no way to explain to a logically-deficient person that they're making no sense because they lack the tools to comprehend it. It's like advertising a great TV picture on TV. So reporters, talk show hosts and others with soapboxes from which to opine about baseball but without the requisite logic skills will continue to make these kinds of statements. And there's not much the rest of us can do about it but try to become a majority.
b
No comments:
Post a Comment