On Sep 1, 9:12=A0am, "Frankie" <billy_berrou(no_spam)@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> Jacob. =A0I am an expert. =A0Today. =A0Making this statement, in and of
i=
tself
> does not make me an expert. =A0Winning a national champion****p also does
=
not
> make me an expert. =A0Writing a book about tactics and techniques does
no=
t
> make me an expert. =A0 Playing on a winning team does not make me an
expe=
rt.
What external characteristic does, in your mind, identify an expert?
You say things, then respond to criticism with an appeal to authority,
claiming that you're right because you're an expert. Appeal to
authority is a logical fallacy to begin with, but even if it weren't,
we'd need some way of confirming your expertise. If a hypothetical
observer (this isn't about me or him, it doesn't matter who) doesn't
believe a statement you make, what cause would they have to believe
you when you sup****t that claim by saying that you're an expert, so he
should trust you? If anything, your sup****ting claim is more
tendentious than the claim that it's sup****ting...
> History will be the judge that I've been an expert of Ultimate long
befor=
e
> 2008 so you won't need to worry about the chronology. =A0
Okay, so history is the external characteristic? There's a reason why
Bush uses this sort of "appeal to posterity" to defend his currently
unpopular decisions. It's not immediately falsifiable.
> I'm an expert by
> virtue of the fact that compared to the 15 top teams in the country
playi=
ng
> this weekend in Santa Cruz, my thinking offensively is light years ahead
=
of
> everyone else. =A0Don't confuse thought with obsession. =A0Not that I
don=
't
> suffer from OCD but there have been decades of thought that has gone
into=
my
> expertise.
So you're an expert because your ideas are better than those of the 15
teams you saw? That is what an expert means, but it's not evidence,
it's a re-phrasing. If your involvement on this matter doesn't
constitute obsession, what would an obsession look like, and what's
the difference between that state and yours?
> These teams are doing absolutely nothing strategically to have an impact
=
on
> the defense. =A0
They're scoring, how does that not impact the defense?
> They run harder and jump higher than ever before but they are
> still *winning* by sheer overpowering their opponent.
I don't concede the point that there is no value in current offenses
beyond pure brute force, but even if there were, that doesn't
invalidate the s****t any more than it invalidates, e.g., the 100m
dash. I'd love to see more feints and misdirection, but I do think
this is a factor even now, and even if it weren't that the s****t would
remain interesting. On the other hand, I think that the more
interesting "side of the ball" in ultimate is defense itself, since
the O scores so often. Even a marginal increase in turnovers forced
will make a major difference in terms of your team's results. When
teams can score 15 times with only 4 or 5 turns, there really isn't
that much room or incentive to improve offensive efficiency (which I
understand is part of your motivation for changing the rules).
> As long as the experts in this s****t are defined as those who play on
> winning teams, this s****t is going nowhere.
Do you have a better definition? You know, one that's objectively
testable and doesn't depend on poor proxies like games played or years
played? The biggest challenge as I see it is that players don't win,
teams do. A great player could be on a bad team and vice versa. The
metrics guys have stats like value-over-average, but then we'd have to
agree on what metrics to use for the averages... =3D)
~p
|
