Stupid Logic
The world and all it's goings on would be a whole lot simpler if only logic were not involved. For example, I owe the good folks at Citi Bank a fair amount of money since they were kind enough to lend it to me so I could pay for and there by attend college. I would love for nothing more than to be free of this debt, but it being fairly sizable and me not being that wealthy it's going to take a while. Now of course, there are ways for me to make money quickly and in large sums to help pay down the debt. Say a series of robberies or maybe I could dabble in peddling controlled substances to make a lot of money quick. But then there's that part of my brain that says "Hold on, there are consequences for your actions and the ones of these actions are generally bad." Now that's a pretty simple example of logic bear in mind, but really I wanted to set a point to bring up a couple of examples where the logic, is well, flawed.
Example #1 - Former Patriots Video Assistant Matt Walsh's Attorney
OK, if you're familiar with the whole Patriots spygate thing, you know who Matt Walsh is, but if you don't here' the cliff notes version. He was a former Pats video assistant who claims to have tapes and knowledge of more of the Pats illegally taping opposing teams signals.
Alright, so the NFL wants to talk to this guy and see what he may have or may not have as the case may be. His lawyer, a fellow by the name of Michael Levy is seeking to get his client protection from being sued. OK, I guess that makes sense, looking to protect your guy so he doesn't get hung out to dry, cool people get that. But see, here's the thing, Esquire Levy wants protection for his client even if his client lies through his teeth about what he may know.
Pardon, come again? This is where things go askew. See the whole idea of immunity is to get protection from prosecution yourself in exchange for truthful testimony, that makes sense. But why in name of all that is holy should you get protection for lying? Isn't that like rewarding bad behavior. Plus, if this guy wants nothing more than the truth to come out, then why must he worry about consequences if he lies, which he apparently does not want to do. As his lawyer says, "Under our proposal, Mr. Walsh will only be protected if he is in good faith truthful and he will be."
Alright, so where's the issue here, he wants to be truthful, you say he will be truthful and the NFL has said if he is truthful then no harm shall come of him, so what's the problem? It appears that Walsh wants not only to have his cake and eat it too, but he wants some ice cream on the side and maybe a glass of milk to wash it all down. Basically he's looking for carte blanche to tell the truth and whatever the hell else he wants and not get in trouble for it.
How does that make any sense? It defies any and all logic to get protection against prosecution for being truthful and maybe lying. All that does is make your man look like he's dirty. If he's been assured that nothing bad will come to him if he tells the truth, then why does he need further protection? Now, this man is a lawyer, which makes me pretty confident he went to law school and passed the bar exam, which would again lead me to believe that he's a fairly intelligent fellow, but he sure doesn't seem to be showing it here.
Example #2 - Memphis Coach John Calipari
A wise man once told me and he was told from a wise man himself, that winning and losing a basketball game more often than not boils down to making lay-ups and foul shots. This isn't world bending philosophy and it won't be knocking Socrates or Locke or hell even John Maynard Keynes, but more often than not it is true.
There was a great college basketball game on the other night between then undefeated and number one ranked Memphis and second ranked Tennessee. Memphis is a great basketball team. They are athletic, physical, can score in transition and in even the half court some. But they are Achilles like in the regard that they have a weakness, that may seem minor, but could at some point cause them to crumble.
That weakness is foul shooting. Memphis as a team is currently shooting 58.5% from the charity stripe as a team. In case you're not familiar with basketball, that's god awful and at some point it will come to bight you in the ass or so many people have thought. Memphis head coach John Calipari would not be one of those people.
During the week he proclaimed that he wasn't worried about his team's foul shooting. That if he listed 25 things he looked for in a player that free throw shooting would be 26th. He also said that his team made the "when they count" (ie - down the stretch of games) and that they shot over 80% in the last four minutes of ballgames.
Let's tackle the last thing first and the first thing last. OK, so you make 80% in the last four minutes of games, great. But that in all honesty is a bloated and useless stat. If you say could tell me how you shot in last four minutes of a game with a margin of victory of less than ten points and then maybe it's meaningful. But the ones you made in the last four minutes in all those blowout wins you had? Well that kind of makes that stat useless.
OK, now on to the first part, the whole "We make them when they count." Apparently I missed some sort of memo on this one. You see I was under the impression that free throw, regardless of when you took them. Of course if your team is down by one and you go to the line for a pair and lets say you miss both, those are going to stick out like a sore thumb. But if someone else hadn't bricked a pair back in the second quarter, you're not down by one when you head the stripe, instead you're up by a point. So please save the, we make them when they matter deal. They always matter and they always count. Every free throw is big whether it's a minuted into to the game or there's a minute left. The next time you see a close basketball game, check out the stats at the end and look at the free throws made and more often than not, had a team been just that much better at the line, they could have pulled it out.
Another thing, drop the whole bravado thing about not being concerned with how poorly you shoot free throws. It's OK to say you have a weakness that you need to work on, nothing wrong with that. If you're truly not worried about it, then I guess it's no bravado then, maybe just hubris and well more often than not that will trip you up.
So yeah, the other night it was Tennessee that came out on top of Memphis 66-62. It was a great game, Memphis led for much of it, it was back and fourth. Tennessee to the lead for good at 62-61 inside half a minute to go. Then after a Memphis possession the resulted in a turnover, J.P. Prince (who was shooting around 47% from the line on the season) canned a pair of free throws for Tennessee to make it a three point game. No big deal, still a chance for Memphis to get off a three point shot. That is of course unless your team is terrible at shooting free throws so you're opponent would rather foul you and let you have your shot at the line to score with the clock not moving than let you get off a three. Surprise, what did Tennessee do, but foul to prevent the three point shot. Memphis' Derrick Rose made the first and then intentionally missed the second, but the rebound came to Tennessee and Chris Lofton knocked down both to put the lead to four with just over two seconds to play, ball game over.
So the Tigers fell by four points, close game. How'd they do from the line you wonder? The finished 8-of-17 (47.1%) on free throws for the game and the whole making them when they matter? Well, they went 1-of-6 down the stretch of the game. Good stuff. Perhaps my favorite part of all of this would be this tid bit. Memphis had their 8-of-17 from the line and Tennessee didn't exactly light the world on fire with the freebies, but they hit 12 of the 18 that they took.
Look at those numbers of made free throws again and look at the final score. Now I know there were other factors, like the fact Tennessee owned the rebounding edge and Memphis got cold shooting the three, but look at the numbers again. Tennessee made four more free throws in the game and the final margin of victory was four.....hmmmmmm.....could the two possibly be related? Just maybe? Methinks so, but then again, that's just what methinks and I have to wonder if maybe Coach Cal maybe is thinking a bit of the same thing after that game.
And that will wrap up this round of me sounding like a bitter old man. Hope you enjoyed, maybe some lighter fare next time around, but until then...
Example #1 - Former Patriots Video Assistant Matt Walsh's Attorney
OK, if you're familiar with the whole Patriots spygate thing, you know who Matt Walsh is, but if you don't here' the cliff notes version. He was a former Pats video assistant who claims to have tapes and knowledge of more of the Pats illegally taping opposing teams signals.
Alright, so the NFL wants to talk to this guy and see what he may have or may not have as the case may be. His lawyer, a fellow by the name of Michael Levy is seeking to get his client protection from being sued. OK, I guess that makes sense, looking to protect your guy so he doesn't get hung out to dry, cool people get that. But see, here's the thing, Esquire Levy wants protection for his client even if his client lies through his teeth about what he may know.
Pardon, come again? This is where things go askew. See the whole idea of immunity is to get protection from prosecution yourself in exchange for truthful testimony, that makes sense. But why in name of all that is holy should you get protection for lying? Isn't that like rewarding bad behavior. Plus, if this guy wants nothing more than the truth to come out, then why must he worry about consequences if he lies, which he apparently does not want to do. As his lawyer says, "Under our proposal, Mr. Walsh will only be protected if he is in good faith truthful and he will be."
Alright, so where's the issue here, he wants to be truthful, you say he will be truthful and the NFL has said if he is truthful then no harm shall come of him, so what's the problem? It appears that Walsh wants not only to have his cake and eat it too, but he wants some ice cream on the side and maybe a glass of milk to wash it all down. Basically he's looking for carte blanche to tell the truth and whatever the hell else he wants and not get in trouble for it.
How does that make any sense? It defies any and all logic to get protection against prosecution for being truthful and maybe lying. All that does is make your man look like he's dirty. If he's been assured that nothing bad will come to him if he tells the truth, then why does he need further protection? Now, this man is a lawyer, which makes me pretty confident he went to law school and passed the bar exam, which would again lead me to believe that he's a fairly intelligent fellow, but he sure doesn't seem to be showing it here.
Example #2 - Memphis Coach John Calipari
A wise man once told me and he was told from a wise man himself, that winning and losing a basketball game more often than not boils down to making lay-ups and foul shots. This isn't world bending philosophy and it won't be knocking Socrates or Locke or hell even John Maynard Keynes, but more often than not it is true.
There was a great college basketball game on the other night between then undefeated and number one ranked Memphis and second ranked Tennessee. Memphis is a great basketball team. They are athletic, physical, can score in transition and in even the half court some. But they are Achilles like in the regard that they have a weakness, that may seem minor, but could at some point cause them to crumble.
That weakness is foul shooting. Memphis as a team is currently shooting 58.5% from the charity stripe as a team. In case you're not familiar with basketball, that's god awful and at some point it will come to bight you in the ass or so many people have thought. Memphis head coach John Calipari would not be one of those people.
During the week he proclaimed that he wasn't worried about his team's foul shooting. That if he listed 25 things he looked for in a player that free throw shooting would be 26th. He also said that his team made the "when they count" (ie - down the stretch of games) and that they shot over 80% in the last four minutes of ballgames.
Let's tackle the last thing first and the first thing last. OK, so you make 80% in the last four minutes of games, great. But that in all honesty is a bloated and useless stat. If you say could tell me how you shot in last four minutes of a game with a margin of victory of less than ten points and then maybe it's meaningful. But the ones you made in the last four minutes in all those blowout wins you had? Well that kind of makes that stat useless.
OK, now on to the first part, the whole "We make them when they count." Apparently I missed some sort of memo on this one. You see I was under the impression that free throw, regardless of when you took them. Of course if your team is down by one and you go to the line for a pair and lets say you miss both, those are going to stick out like a sore thumb. But if someone else hadn't bricked a pair back in the second quarter, you're not down by one when you head the stripe, instead you're up by a point. So please save the, we make them when they matter deal. They always matter and they always count. Every free throw is big whether it's a minuted into to the game or there's a minute left. The next time you see a close basketball game, check out the stats at the end and look at the free throws made and more often than not, had a team been just that much better at the line, they could have pulled it out.
Another thing, drop the whole bravado thing about not being concerned with how poorly you shoot free throws. It's OK to say you have a weakness that you need to work on, nothing wrong with that. If you're truly not worried about it, then I guess it's no bravado then, maybe just hubris and well more often than not that will trip you up.
So yeah, the other night it was Tennessee that came out on top of Memphis 66-62. It was a great game, Memphis led for much of it, it was back and fourth. Tennessee to the lead for good at 62-61 inside half a minute to go. Then after a Memphis possession the resulted in a turnover, J.P. Prince (who was shooting around 47% from the line on the season) canned a pair of free throws for Tennessee to make it a three point game. No big deal, still a chance for Memphis to get off a three point shot. That is of course unless your team is terrible at shooting free throws so you're opponent would rather foul you and let you have your shot at the line to score with the clock not moving than let you get off a three. Surprise, what did Tennessee do, but foul to prevent the three point shot. Memphis' Derrick Rose made the first and then intentionally missed the second, but the rebound came to Tennessee and Chris Lofton knocked down both to put the lead to four with just over two seconds to play, ball game over.
So the Tigers fell by four points, close game. How'd they do from the line you wonder? The finished 8-of-17 (47.1%) on free throws for the game and the whole making them when they matter? Well, they went 1-of-6 down the stretch of the game. Good stuff. Perhaps my favorite part of all of this would be this tid bit. Memphis had their 8-of-17 from the line and Tennessee didn't exactly light the world on fire with the freebies, but they hit 12 of the 18 that they took.
Look at those numbers of made free throws again and look at the final score. Now I know there were other factors, like the fact Tennessee owned the rebounding edge and Memphis got cold shooting the three, but look at the numbers again. Tennessee made four more free throws in the game and the final margin of victory was four.....hmmmmmm.....could the two possibly be related? Just maybe? Methinks so, but then again, that's just what methinks and I have to wonder if maybe Coach Cal maybe is thinking a bit of the same thing after that game.
And that will wrap up this round of me sounding like a bitter old man. Hope you enjoyed, maybe some lighter fare next time around, but until then...
posted by MC at 1:41 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home