clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

Fine, but you picked this fight

New, 2 comments

The great Trojan debater, Link, has challenged me to a round of sparring! And who am I to resist? I guard this kingdom with the tenacity of a pit bull on steroids, so let's have at it.

Link begins by quoting my jab at BFJ and then makes several wild declarations, which we'll address:

"The bottom line: Leinart hasn't even been a better passer than Young."

"To be specific, Leinart has one more touchdown and one fewer interception. As for the 603 extra yards through the air, it's simply a matter of opportunity."

"And golly gee willickers, you just gotta love how he smiles for the cameras!  Christ, the above arguments are why Leinart is better qualified to win a People's Choice Award than the Heisman trophy."

"But please, if you're going to make a case for him winning the Heisman trophy, at least attempt to present an argument with something resembling factual evidence."

It could just be me and my west coast bias, and my stupid USC courses, (which are higher quality than UT, i've taken both, thanks for that), but that first is definitely a slap at Leinart, even when BFT has specific factual evidence about how Leinart is statistically a better passer.  More touchdowns (1), less interceptions (1), and a LOT more passing yards.  That is factual evidence, and you are hypocritical to dispute it and then throw in that last jab.

We'll take these one by one.  Link first asserts the academic superiority of USC to Texas. While I actually think the universities are equally strong, he certainly diminishes his cases by writing so poorly (e.g. run on sentences, using `less' instead of `fewer'). But never mind that; let's just deal with the arguments.

Link argues that I'm taking a slap at Leinart because I'm arguing that BFJ made a terrible case for Leinart. To the contrary, Link, I said that Leinart hasn't been a better passer than Vince Young, and I (1) showed why BFJ's "factual evidence" didn't make the case he intended it to make, and (2) concluded that the total body of statistical data shows that Young and Leinart have been equally good passers. Thus, BFJ's claim that Leinart is a better passer is inaccurate.

(To the point of this debate: you can't seem to figure out that the difference between criticizing BFJ's arguments and criticizing Matt Leinart. Seriously, work on this BASIC concept before attempting to argue.)

Link then decides that he needs to explain away the evidence I've presented (Vince Young's higher yards per attempt and yards per completion):

And about those 603 yards, and more attempts, that puts the case even more strongly in Leinart's favor.  The longer an event continues, or the more attempts are made, the less impressive it becomes statistically.  It is easier to complete a higher percentage of less passes than maintain that percentage after throwing more passes.  Just like flipping a coin, the more times it is flipped, the more likely it will even out.  The fact that the two are statiscally comparable after such a large number of passes gives that edge to Leinart.

Readers, I'm sorry you had to try to sift through that. It's dense and doesn't make much sense, but we'll try, together.

The longer an event continues, or the more attempts are made, the less impressive it becomes statistically.

So are you saying that because Matt Leinart has made more attempts, his lower completion percentage is less impressive?  Or more?  Or something else?  It's not clear.  We'll plod on anyway.

It is easier to complete a higher percentage of less passes than maintain that percentage after throwing more passes. Just like flipping a coin, the more times it is flipped, the more likely it will even out.  The fact that the two are statiscally comparable after such a large number of passes gives that edge to Leinart.

(Again, note the horrific writing.)  As for that argument, that's simply bullshit. You're drawing a false conclusion from your own analogy. A quarter always has a 50-50 chance of landing on heads in any given trial. No matter how many times you flip it, the odds are exactly the same. Thus, according to your analogy, it would make no difference how many times Leinart, or Young, threw the ball--the likelihood of a completion, or incompletion, would remain the same for each independent trial.

Of course, that's pretty much true. Young, and Leinart, are both 65% passers. And if the analogy that YOU BRING UP is applied, it won't make a lick of difference if Leinart has more, or fewer, pass attempts than Young. You've drawn a false conclusion from a true premise. Dumbass.

The comment about how the arguments show Leinart is a better candidate for the People's choice award than the Heisman trophy is an ad hominem attack against BFT's sexual preference, and ignores the statistical evidence you claim to require.

Oh, now we're getting in to the low blows. You don't have a real argument, so accuse me of gay bashing. Right. Got it.

This is ridiculous on many levels, but for the purposes of this argument, I'll entertain your claim. If you actually bothered to read my post, I objected to BFJ playing the stupid character card as a reason for Leinart winning the Heisman. What I implied (and you didn't pick up on) was that said argument better applies to an award other than "Most Outstanding Football Player" (read: Heisman Trophy). Specifically, something like The People's Choice Awards (which is more a reflection of character and popularity). Nowhere, anywhere, ever, have I called BFJ's sexual preference into question.

We'll wrap this up quickly now, with the conclusion to your comments:

You're blowing out steam, and aren't even addressing my arguments, and there are clear antagonistic biases in the post.  Forgive me for mentioning Reggie Bush, I assumed in a Heisman story, it was legitimate to include all three frontrunners.  My mistake, I'll limit commentary to the two quarterbacks, and ignore the man who is 2nd in virtually every Heisman poll.

Funny, Link, I think we've just shown that you're the one not addressing the arguments.  More specifically, you're misunderstanding the arguments entirely. The point of the post was not, as you seemed to gather, that "Matt Leinart is undeserving of the Heisman Trophy." It was, if you bother to read it, "BFJ has made a terrible case for Matt Leinart winning the Heisman Trophy."

And that last point--you know, the point of the article--is exactly why Reggie Bush wasn't mentioned. THE ARTICLE WAS NOT AN ARTICLE ABOUT WHO SHOULD WIN THE HEISMAN TROPHY. It was about why BFJ can't make a case for Matt Leinart.

And apparently, Link, you can't make a case for anyone--BFJ, yourself, Matt Leinart, or USC.

Wanna try again?
--PB--