Comments on: Rhetoric, Logical Fallacies and Baseball

By: Mike

Mike — Sun, 16 Oct 2005 04:03:58 +0000

Lemmie throw my favority fallacy in the ring:

Falsus in unum, Falsus in omnibus (False in one, false in everything).

Baseball example:

The A’s 2002 draft didn’t produce that well, so everything else written in moneyball is obviously false.

By: David J Corcoran

David J Corcoran — Sat, 15 Oct 2005 17:35:46 +0000

this deserves a spot in the sidebar. That’s just my $.02

By: Jason B

Jason B — Sat, 15 Oct 2005 13:07:23 +0000

JMHawkins: well, you may in fact be old, but if so it’s not because you remember CalvinBall. Depending what you call “old” that is. I liked the CalvinBall sequence and still go back to it every now and then.

By: Gomez

Gomez — Sat, 15 Oct 2005 00:08:51 +0000

A great example of argumentum ad antiquitatum is: it’s okay to retaliate for a beanball taken by a teammate by beaning one of the other team’s batters, because pitchers have done so to protect their guys since the beginning of baseball. It’s part of the game.

By: goodbye baseball

goodbye baseball — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 23:43:58 +0000

Sorry about getting political earlier. I didn’t see anything in the guidelines, but I had grappled for about 30 minutes over whether to post anyway. Should’ve trusted my instincts. Oh well.

Anyway, a certain U.S. pizza chain is trying to capitalize on Mr. Eddings’ call: http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/051014/cgf050.html?.v=4

By: JMHawkins

JMHawkins — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 23:25:46 +0000

Phil, since I attributed the post to the wrong USSM staffer in my comment (I had Derek instead of Jeff, but someone helpfully corrected my idiocy) I plead misery.

But I do think we’ve demonstrated that the dropped third strike rule creates inconsistency within the rule set. For instance, 1-2 count, and the pitch is in the dirt (or not, if Eddings is behind the plate). If the batter swings at the bad pitch, he can run for first. If he keeps the bat on his shoulder like he should, he gets no such opportunity. CalvinBall I tell ya (and am I really old if I know what CalvinBall is?).

By: Phil

Phil — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 22:32:16 +0000

JWHawkins: I apologize for being unclear, I was merely trying to help with the parsing of rulebook-ese by providing a reasonably well understood analog – not aruging whether the rule is right or not.

So argumentum ad logicum yourself buddy.

Honestly, I’ve never understood why the batter isn’t allowed to advance at his own risk on any wild pitch should he be dumb enough attempt to do so, either. I can think of a million reasons why you wouldn’t want to, but no compelling reason why you shouldn’t be able to try.

Advance on a dropped foul ball? Same deal: you should be able to, but I can only see one case where you’d want to even try, and even then it’d be a marginal decision.

So I think what we have here is a little implicit “common sense” rearing it’s ugly head.

Unless, of course, you’re advocating that the batter be automatically awarded first base… (How d’ya like THAT strawman?)

By: Evan

Evan — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 22:23:32 +0000

There’s a cum hoc ergo propter hoc in there, too: the suggestion that moving to right field will grant Reed more power.

By: collison

collison — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 21:14:23 +0000

A fine mixture of argumentum ad antiquitatem with a non sequitur – heard often during the just-completed season.

“The corner positions are traditionally manned by power hitters, so Ichiro should move to CF and Reed to RF to improve his slugging %.”

- Arma virumque cano…

By: Evan

Evan — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 20:51:56 +0000

I majored in philosophy AND astrophysics. I’m even more pedantic and annoying.