RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

Plum and the league agenda
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » WNBA
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
UK1996



Joined: 03 Sep 2015
Posts: 403



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/12/17 6:26 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Double post



_________________
Kentucky Wildcats, Sky, & Spurs
Silky Johnson



Joined: 29 Sep 2014
Posts: 3302



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/12/17 6:51 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

calbearman76 wrote:
Silky Johnson wrote:

LOL. Tomato, potato... You say "conceeded [sic] that point and amended his position", I say "moved the goalposts."

It seemed to me that @calbearman76's original argument was based on the premise that Janel McCarville had a better career than Sancho Lyttle, because McCarville got a ring, which makes about as much sense to me as saying that Le'Coe Willingham had a better career than Sophia Young. Why @adamj95 decided to 1) defend what I'd consider to be an indefensible position, and 2) thought that he'd actually laid down the Big Joker with "best post passer in the WNBA" is completely mystifying to me.


Okay. I tried to stay out of this tangent that I started. I didn't realize I was opening up such a hornet's nest, but since my name was invoked I will respond. What I said was:

"Janel McCarville was also a serviceable player but never an All-Star. The only All-Stars were Sancho Lyttle and Kara Braxton, but neither had a better career than McCarville."

Note that I didn't say that McCarville was better than Lyttle. I believe they had comparable careers, and I said that within the broader context of arguing that none of these sub par #1 picks were terrible choices based on other players that were available. My comment was not intended as a slight towards Sancho Lyttle or a ringing endorsement of Janel McCarville. Both players were starters and role players on teams that had some success. Lyttle has better stats overall, but was never the leading scorer on her team, generally more of a third option. What stands out most is that she had more longevity, so on that basis I may give her a small nod. I also noticed that Sancho Lyttle was the number one choice in the dispersal draft of 2009 (ahead of Matee Ajuvon and Mistie Williams), whereas McCarville was only the #3 choice in the 2007 dispersal draft (behind Monique Currie and Tangela Smith). On the other hand in McCarville's six years as a starter her teams won at a .593 clip, while Lyttle's teams won only .497 in her 8 years as a starter.

So if people want to continue this who is better argument so be it; that was never my point. My point is that, just as in 2005, 2017 did not have any great options as the overall number 1. If Kelsey Plum winds up having a career that is comparable to either McCarville or Lyttle that may be enough to be the best of a bad crop from 2017.


But she hasn't had a better career than Lyttle. Lyttle is the more accomplished player, both in the WNBA and internationally. If you think that McCarville has had the better career, you're essentially saying that the one ring that McCarville got as a coattail-rider trumps everything else that Lyttle achieved in her career, which strikes me as ridiculous. I am also intrigued by the notion of you pointing out that Lyttle was "generally" the third option on her team, seemingly as a way of dismissing her numbers, while disregarding the fact that McCarville spent most of her career as a fifth option, or worse.

In terms of the thread's original premise, whether or not McCarville was a "terrible" pick depends on your definition of "terrible." In terms of the team they had at the time, Charlotte probably would have been better off with Lyttle, Braxton, Tan White or Tanisha Wright, but none of them had any business being the #1 overall pick, either. With the benefit of hindsight, the Sting should have traded down; frankly, that should be the go-to move of any team that has the #1 overall pick in a year where there isn't a consensus "can't miss" Number One-type player in the draft. Since I don't watch college sports, I don't know whether or not anyone considered Kelsey Plum to be a "can't miss" type prospect, but it'll probably be 3-4 more years before anybody knows whether she was a "terrible" pick.

P.S. - FWIW, McCarville and Lyttle both had two seasons in their respective careers in which they were one of the Top 2 scoring options on their team (at least in terms of FGA/gm). The combined records for those respective seasons: McCarville 32-36, Lyttle 38-30.



_________________
Professional Hater. The Baron of #HateHard

My team no longer exists, so I'll have to settle for hating yours.
Randy



Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 10911



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/12/17 7:04 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
Silky Johnson wrote:
justintyme wrote:
The only thing that was arguably incorrect here was "the best post passer" premise. And he did what any intelligent person should do in a debate: when confronted by a resonable counter, listen to it and adjust your argument accordingly. Here he was presented with someone who could be considered a better post passer, so he conceeded that point and amended his position to "best center". This is a much stronger position, and is the way debate/discussion should work.


LOL. Tomato, potato... You say "conceeded [sic] that point and amended his position", I say "moved the goalposts."


I teach all my students to always be revising their positions as counter arguments are presented. It is a sign of a flexible and intelligent mind.

Moving the goalposts involves ignoring a valid counter-argument by changing the debate as a whole (as in what was being argued about, or by changing the standards by which the debate was to be judged). In this case he accepted the counter-argument and adjusted his premise to a more accurate position, agreeing that his original premise was flawed. He kept the same conclusion.

While I agree that the conclusion was flawed, I would not call it "indefensible" nor should it be a source of ridicule.


There was no response that I noticed to my pointing out Sancho's superior stats, All Star and 5 time All WNBA defensive team recognition either.


justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/12/17 7:20 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Randy wrote:

There was no response that I noticed to my pointing out Sancho's superior stats, All Star and 5 time All WNBA defensive team recognition either.

And that is why I agree with you that the conclusion he drew was flawed. IMO he cherry picked stats to support his conclusion while ignoring that Lyttle was a much, much better defender (I tend to not put much weight on the whole All-Star thing for obvious reasons, but the All-Defense selections is something that cannot be ignored.)

But there is a difference between a conclusion I disagree with and one that can be called "indefensible" or is laugh-worthy. And the main point was that he neither "edited" his post nor "moved the goalpost", which is what I was actually objecting to--that he was being treated unfairly, and somewhat rudely, in this discussion.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
Silky Johnson



Joined: 29 Sep 2014
Posts: 3302



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/12/17 8:03 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

If the argument is not indefensible, then what is the defense? I mean, seriously, contrary to popular opinion, not all opinions are equally valid. Sometimes a person is objectively wrong. And he's wrong about this.



_________________
Professional Hater. The Baron of #HateHard

My team no longer exists, so I'll have to settle for hating yours.
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/12/17 8:13 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Silky Johnson wrote:
If the argument is not indefensible, then what is the defense?

That McCarville's offensive abilities as a passer, screener (she was considered one of the best in the league at setting screens), and shooter, along with her ability to stretch the floor outweighs Lyttle's defense and post-up ability.

It is a significant stretch to make that claim, and pilight highlighted the easy test for how that all balances, but a legitimate prima facie case could, in fact, be made.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
calbearman76



Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 5152
Location: Carson City


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/12/17 8:42 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Silky Johnson wrote:
calbearman76 wrote:
Silky Johnson wrote:

LOL. Tomato, potato... You say "conceeded [sic] that point and amended his position", I say "moved the goalposts."

It seemed to me that @calbearman76's original argument was based on the premise that Janel McCarville had a better career than Sancho Lyttle, because McCarville got a ring, which makes about as much sense to me as saying that Le'Coe Willingham had a better career than Sophia Young. Why @adamj95 decided to 1) defend what I'd consider to be an indefensible position, and 2) thought that he'd actually laid down the Big Joker with "best post passer in the WNBA" is completely mystifying to me.


Okay. I tried to stay out of this tangent that I started. I didn't realize I was opening up such a hornet's nest, but since my name was invoked I will respond. What I said was:

"Janel McCarville was also a serviceable player but never an All-Star. The only All-Stars were Sancho Lyttle and Kara Braxton, but neither had a better career than McCarville."

Note that I didn't say that McCarville was better than Lyttle. I believe they had comparable careers, and I said that within the broader context of arguing that none of these sub par #1 picks were terrible choices based on other players that were available. My comment was not intended as a slight towards Sancho Lyttle or a ringing endorsement of Janel McCarville. Both players were starters and role players on teams that had some success. Lyttle has better stats overall, but was never the leading scorer on her team, generally more of a third option. What stands out most is that she had more longevity, so on that basis I may give her a small nod. I also noticed that Sancho Lyttle was the number one choice in the dispersal draft of 2009 (ahead of Matee Ajuvon and Mistie Williams), whereas McCarville was only the #3 choice in the 2007 dispersal draft (behind Monique Currie and Tangela Smith). On the other hand in McCarville's six years as a starter her teams won at a .593 clip, while Lyttle's teams won only .497 in her 8 years as a starter.

So if people want to continue this who is better argument so be it; that was never my point. My point is that, just as in 2005, 2017 did not have any great options as the overall number 1. If Kelsey Plum winds up having a career that is comparable to either McCarville or Lyttle that may be enough to be the best of a bad crop from 2017.


But she hasn't had a better career than Lyttle. Lyttle is the more accomplished player, both in the WNBA and internationally. If you think that McCarville has had the better career, you're essentially saying that the one ring that McCarville got as a coattail-rider trumps everything else that Lyttle achieved in her career, which strikes me as ridiculous. I am also intrigued by the notion of you pointing out that Lyttle was "generally" the third option on her team, seemingly as a way of dismissing her numbers, while disregarding the fact that McCarville spent most of her career as a fifth option, or worse.

In terms of the thread's original premise, whether or not McCarville was a "terrible" pick depends on your definition of "terrible." In terms of the team they had at the time, Charlotte probably would have been better off with Lyttle, Braxton, Tan White or Tanisha Wright, but none of them had any business being the #1 overall pick, either. With the benefit of hindsight, the Sting should have traded down; frankly, that should be the go-to move of any team that has the #1 overall pick in a year where there isn't a consensus "can't miss" Number One-type player in the draft. Since I don't watch college sports, I don't know whether or not anyone considered Kelsey Plum to be a "can't miss" type prospect, but it'll probably be 3-4 more years before anybody knows whether she was a "terrible" pick.

P.S. - FWIW, McCarville and Lyttle both had two seasons in their respective careers in which they were one of the Top 2 scoring options on their team (at least in terms of FGA/gm). The combined records for those respective seasons: McCarville 32-36, Lyttle 38-30.


I never said that McCarville had the better career. Indeed I acknowledged that on the basis of longevity I would give the nod to Lyttle. But to consider her time with Minnesota as just being a "coattail-rider" is false. She was an important piece of the offense and the defense, at least according to the advanced net ratings (from WNBA.com). Indeed her +23.4 from 2013 was the highest on the team. This suggests that she was far more than a "coattail-rider", and instead was an important part of the championship.

As for your contention that Charlotte should have traded the pick, do you honestly believe that there was a willing trading partner that would have given any significant compensation for that choice. Indeed it seems as if that was the gamble that San Antonio tried this year, believing they could make a deal with Chicago to switch positions and get some extra benefit. Presumably they didn't want to directly draft Alaina Coates at #1 because a team with so many needs didn't want to draft someone that would likely not play this year. They gambled and lost.


As an aside I didn't remember who the Rookie of the Year was in 2005 so I looked it up. It was Tameka Johnson, another serviceable player who had a decent but not outstanding career. Was she better than either McCarville or Lyttle? I won't even opine. But she was picked sixth, right behind Lyttle.


Randy



Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 10911



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/12/17 9:00 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
Silky Johnson wrote:
If the argument is not indefensible, then what is the defense?

That McCarville's offensive abilities as a passer, screener (she was considered one of the best in the league at setting screens), and shooter, along with her ability to stretch the floor outweighs Lyttle's defense and post-up ability.

It is a significant stretch to make that claim, and pilight highlighted the easy test for how that all balances, but a legitimate prima facie case could, in fact, be made.


Prima facie case is a pretty low bar.

Her passing ability is over stated because she averaged almost as many TO's as assists (1.9 v 1.7) and scarcely beat Lyttle at 1.6A to 1.5TO. There are no stats or objective measures as to who sets good screens or not so that is just a matter of unsubstantiated opinion. There is, after all, no "All Screen Setting" team, but this is an all defensive team. McCarville had a better shooting percentage, but failed to score as many points, grab as many rebounds, or make as many steals.

Further, its worth point out that Lyttle has played every WNBA season since 2005. McCarville played when she felt like it, or liked the team who held her rights, and did not play in 2011, 2012 and 2015. Lyttle showed up in with a proper playing weight and condition while in later years, at least, McCarville was overweight.


pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66773
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/12/17 9:10 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

calbearman76 wrote:
As an aside I didn't remember who the Rookie of the Year was in 2005 so I looked it up. It was Tameka Johnson, another serviceable player who had a decent but not outstanding career. Was she better than either McCarville or Lyttle? I won't even opine. But she was picked sixth, right behind Lyttle.


Mighty Mouse certainly had a better rookie season than Lyttle or McCarville. McCarville couldn't get playing time on a terrible Sting team while Lyttle looked like she'd never seen a basketball before in Houston.

I was going to try similarity scores to show the difference between the two, but it isn't helpful. McCarville has decent comps with a handful of reasonably close matches....

924 Kara Braxton
914 DeMya Walker
913 Tari Phillips
911 Murriel Page
902 Tamera Young
900 Ann Wauters
893 Armintie Price
892 Ebony Hoffman
891 Nakia Sanford
887 Latasha Byears
884 Nicole Ohlde

Lyttle, OTOH has no matches as close as any of McCarville's top 10...

872 Janel McCarville
867 Tamika Whitmore
864 Camille Little
862 Asjha Jones
859 Murriel Page
856 Erika Desouza
850 DeMya Walker
849 Rebekkah Brunson
843 Crystal Langhorne
842 Sophia Young
837 Wendy Palmer

Lyttle's list is better, but they don't match nearly as closely as McCarville's.



_________________
Let us not deceive ourselves. Our educational institutions have proven to be no bastions of democracy.
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/12/17 9:18 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Randy wrote:

Prima facie case is a pretty low bar.

I agree completely. But "indefensible" was the claim that I was objecting to, and that is an exacting standard. It's like calling something "inconceivable"....


As for passing, that is one of those "stop looking at the stats and watch the game" things. McCarville would actually initiate and run the offense in many different sets. You show film of the two side by side and it would be clear as day that McCarville was in another league altogether with her vision and passing as compared to Lyttle. Especially if you factor in degree of difficulty of the sorts of passes she made.

And the shooting percentage is more impressive when you consider that she was a stretch center, and her average shot was from a greater distance than Lyttle.

Again, not enough that I would suggest that she was better than Lyttle overall, but enough that a case could be made without ridicule.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8151
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/12/17 9:43 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Best passing post player vs. best passing center? I love positional nomenclature.

What's the difference between a post player and a center, theoretically or practically? Which one is McCarville? Why one and not the other?

To return to the topic, Plum, I don't think there's any connection between how the league advertises and how VJ coaches. The league should feature whatever players it thinks will draw the most interest to the league. Advertising is not a Player of the Week award. Has Plum in fact received more league promotion than other highly decorated college stars? To answer this, it must be kept in mind that the being the NCAA's leading scorer in history is a rather unique decoration.

As to what coach VJ is doing, it's nothing more than a search to develop the best team she can. That's a subjective process with no objectively right answers. Perhaps she's doing that well or perhaps not. I suspect she may be starting Plum over Jefferson in order to give Plum both experience and mental confidence, and because she doesn't think bringing Jefferson off the bench will diminish Jefferson's confidence.

It's MUCH too early to judge Plum.
sportsfan48



Joined: 17 Nov 2004
Posts: 1228



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/12/17 10:08 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

So...getting back on topic, I just went to the WNBA website and the only photo of Plum on the front/home page is a very little one in the bottom left corner.

Does this mean the league has pre-judged her and given up on her too?


tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9543



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/12/17 11:19 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

sportsfan48 wrote:
So...getting back on topic, I just went to the WNBA website and the only photo of Plum on the front/home page is a very little one in the bottom left corner.

Does this mean the league has pre-judged her and given up on her too?


Did you check the Stars page? This is the photo they are running along with their mention of an upcoming open practice:



Silky Johnson



Joined: 29 Sep 2014
Posts: 3302



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/12/17 11:45 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

calbearman76 wrote:
As for your contention that Charlotte should have traded the pick, do you honestly believe that there was a willing trading partner that would have given any significant compensation for that choice. Indeed it seems as if that was the gamble that San Antonio tried this year, believing they could make a deal with Chicago to switch positions and get some extra benefit. Presumably they didn't want to directly draft Alaina Coates at #1 because a team with so many needs didn't want to draft someone that would likely not play this year. They gambled and lost.


Hell, if I were Chicago, I wouldn't have, either. You don't give up assets to move up one spot in a weak draft. If San Antonio was serious, they shouldn't have been trying to trade with the team that had the second pick, they should have been trying to trade with the team that had, like, the 6th or 7th picks. Or maybe see if they could con Fred Williams out of two of his three first-round picks.


LATE EDIT - Also, since I forgot to include this the first time:

calbearman76 wrote:
I never said that McCarville had the better career...

What difference does it make that you never said that McCarville had a better career than Lyttle, if you did say that Lyttle didn't have a better career than McCarville, and that is objectively false?



_________________
Professional Hater. The Baron of #HateHard

My team no longer exists, so I'll have to settle for hating yours.


Last edited by Silky Johnson on 06/12/17 11:53 pm; edited 1 time in total
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8151
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/12/17 11:48 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
Did you check the Stars page? This is the photo they are running along with their mention of an upcoming open practice:



Looks like she's mirror posing in the bathroom of an interstate rest stop. Plus, her shoes don't work.
Silky Johnson



Joined: 29 Sep 2014
Posts: 3302



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/12/17 11:49 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
Randy wrote:

Prima facie case is a pretty low bar.

I agree completely. But "indefensible" was the claim that I was objecting to, and that is an exacting standard. It's like calling something "inconceivable"....


Quote:
in·de·fen·si·ble
[ˌindəˈfensəb(ə)l]
ADJECTIVE

not justifiable by argument:


I stand behind my statement.



_________________
Professional Hater. The Baron of #HateHard

My team no longer exists, so I'll have to settle for hating yours.
J-Spoon



Joined: 31 Jan 2009
Posts: 6775



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/12/17 11:54 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Yes for me it is the choice of the coach to start Plum ahead of Jefferson is what I find confusing. I could be wrong but IMO Jefferson was clearly the future (and current) starting PG for the Stars. When SA traded Robinson it seemed clear that Jefferson was the future of that position in SA to the point where they would trade their veteran PG and hand the reigns over. I believe it was after that point that some future early declarees who were slated top picks decided to stay in school that Plum became the main option for the #1 pick. And even then for us basement dwellers it seemed clear that the conversation was can you play Plum and Jefferson together a la Hammon and Robinson? (with the secondary question being is McBride big enough for the 3?), or will Plum have to come off the bench? (More like Perkins.) I don't think it crossed any of our minds that Plum might start instead of Jefferson. And while Plum has a nice resume, Jefferson was a #2 pick (behind a generational talent) and was the PG of a 4 time NCAA championship team running a pro style offense, that isn't a player you send to the bench IMO. So who know what is going on in SA?


root_thing



Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 7365
Location: Underground


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/13/17 12:09 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

In Plum's first start, the announcers said that Jefferson wasn't fully healthy. I don't know if anything else has been said since then. The other possibility is that SAS is still trying to unload Plum, and the only way they can get her trade value up is if she plays and performs well. However, if they don't know how to use her and Kelsey performs badly...

Maybe the moral of the story is that you should only draft players you really want. Or if you already have a trade lined up. Chicago is seemingly in the same boat with Coates.



_________________
You can always do something else.
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/13/17 1:20 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Silky Johnson wrote:
justintyme wrote:
Randy wrote:

Prima facie case is a pretty low bar.

I agree completely. But "indefensible" was the claim that I was objecting to, and that is an exacting standard. It's like calling something "inconceivable"....


Quote:
in·de·fen·si·ble
[ˌindəˈfensəb(ə)l]
ADJECTIVE

not justifiable by argument:


I stand behind my statement.

Since a valid argument can be made for it, even if it is a very weak one, it cannot be called "indefensible"

You are taking a subjective issue like who was "better" and treating it as if it were an objective question. As the multiple answers showing up in the "who is the best player in the WNBA" thread should demonstrate this question is always subjective, unless some specific metric by which to objectively judge is agreed upon by all parties. It isn't like there is some line where suddenly the difference in the talent level between two players makes a "better than" debate objective. That just simply isn't how the concept works, even if at some point the agreement on the subjective question becomes unanimous.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
Silky Johnson



Joined: 29 Sep 2014
Posts: 3302



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/13/17 12:15 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:

Since a valid argument can be made for it, even if it is a very weak one, it cannot be called "indefensible"


Quote:
val·id
[ˈvaləd]
ADJECTIVE
(of an argument or point) having a sound basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent:


You and I do not appear to be working from the same definition of "valid."



_________________
Professional Hater. The Baron of #HateHard

My team no longer exists, so I'll have to settle for hating yours.
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/13/17 1:43 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Silky Johnson wrote:
justintyme wrote:

Since a valid argument can be made for it, even if it is a very weak one, it cannot be called "indefensible"


Quote:
val·id
[ˈvaləd]
ADJECTIVE
(of an argument or point) having a sound basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent:


You and I do not appear to be working from the same definition of "valid."

I provided a valid argument above. As did Adam. They are just not, IMO, nearly as strong as the valid arguments supporting Lyttle. However, because this is a subjective debate that ultimately comes down to how an individual wants to weigh numerous competing factors, it is not limited to one "correct" answer, no matter how many people agree with one position or another. To make one of these "invalid" we would have to objectively define "better" by some standard everyone agrees with. As it is, there's just way too much room to meet the technical requirements for validity. The topic is just too loose, and too subjective. Which again, the other thread should demonstrate clearly, or the LeBron vs. Jordan debates occuring all the time.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
willtalk



Joined: 13 Apr 2012
Posts: 1088
Location: NorCal


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/13/17 2:00 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I do not really know much about the two players this argument revolves around, however anyone with the name Sancho was obviously born to play second fiddle.


stever



Joined: 16 Nov 2004
Posts: 6916
Location: https://womensbasketballdaily.net


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/13/17 2:07 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

willtalk wrote:
I do not really know much about the two players this argument revolves around, however anyone with the name Sancho was obviously born to play second fiddle.


You're just tilting at windmills now.



_________________
Women's Basketball Daily
Celebrating the Women's Game Since 2005
WBBDaily Mobile Edition
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8151
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/13/17 4:37 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I like this discussion of logic, validity, etymology and literature.

Syllogisms, by definition, provide logically true conclusions. What's wrong with this syllogism:

Major premiss: No center can pass as well as Janel McCarville.

Minor premiss: Sue Bird is no center.

Conclusion: Sue Bird cannot pass as well as Janel McCarville.
Randy



Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 10911



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/13/17 4:51 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

The conclusion should be Sue Bird can pass as well as McCarville.



No center can pass as well as McCarville. (Major Premise)

Sue Bird = No Center (Minor Premis)

So substitute Sue Bird for No Center and you have

Sue Bird can pass as well as McCarville.


Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » WNBA All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 4 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin