AE 87
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 13,030
Okay. Let's keep the discussion tied to the context of our recent games, and let's allow each person to explain what they meant.
I'll begin. I understood the context of the discussion to be whether Marshall or Skov deserves the bulk of the carries and the role that preparing guys for next season plays in that decision. You repeat the criteria of preparing for next season here as a reason for giving the bulk of the carries to someone other than Skov.
So, when I used the phrase, "always play," I intended that context: you always put winning that game above preparing for next year. You choose who gets the bulk of the carries on that basis. Now, if you want to say that a strict reading of my words removed from that context can have the meaning you inferred, I'll concede that, but it was not, and is not, my point. Okay, so hopefully, my that point is now clear.
Now, of course, I never said that playing Marshall is conceding defeat. What I intended to communicate by what I said, I just explained. I was responding to your point about preparing guys for next year. I didn't pass judgment on who gave us the best chance to win today, but just asserted that that's the question you ask, and without reference to next year. Of course, when the game is in hand you can look to get guys experience. In other words, if the coach thinks Skov gives us the best chance to win now, he should play Skov and not worry about next year. That was my point.
IIuc, an appeal to authority is not a fallacy in and of itself. It can becomes fallacious if the person to whom appeal is made is not an authority. For example, someone, presumably like yourself, who not only has not seen players competing with each other in practice but also has little experience in assessing talent and how practice translates to performance on the field should not be considered an expert whose opinion should be accepted just because they assert it. Appeal to such an authority would be fallacious.
So, one form of such a fallacious appeal to the authority would be: I assert that Marcus Marshall is a better talent based on a handful of carries in a few games. Prove me wrong. It establishes the true until proven false criteria on the basis of fallacious authority.
On the other hand, someone who has 30+ years of experience watching how practice translates to performance on the field and has watched the performance of players competing with each other in practice--and who has the assistance of coaches with similar experience (albeit for fewer years) advising the decision--would be considered an expert. An appeal to such an authority would not be fallacious.
For completeness sake, it must be noted that the topic under discussion is not an absolute truth but a probable truth. It's not addressing the question of what is true in the sense of "it happened" or "it happens as a rule," but the question of what is most likely to happen. Obviously the expert would have to be a prophet if we were to treat the probable truth of what is most likely to happen as the same as the absolute truth of what will happen.
Beyond that, we only have limited data available to us. In the 2 games against winning FBS opponents, Skov has averaged 3.81 yards/carry and Marcus Marshall has averaged 2.33 yards/carry. Skov has averaged 19.5 yards/catch, and MM has not yet had a reception. The coach says that Skov blocks better.
Btw, I agree with all your points in this thread so far.