The Logical Fallacy Some Fans Have Embraced To Justify Their Criticism Of Boeheim | Page 2 | Syracusefan.com

The Logical Fallacy Some Fans Have Embraced To Justify Their Criticism Of Boeheim

Gotta put things in context, we have a coach with a history of playing a short bench and putting bench players on a short leash. It was really painful earlier in the season to watch Buddy and/or Joe have some of those 3 for 14 shooting games while Kadary sat. It was painful when we had to watch Alan on some of his off games go for an 0 fer while Bras sat, it was painful watching Marek get out muscled and outsized while Edwards sat. It was not coaching genius that determined keeping in starters, who were playing ineptly, would make us a better team. It was stubborness. Thankfully, even Jimmy eventually came around.

I am with Dasher on this one.
 
You're pointing at a correlation and then assuming that it implies causation that fits your preconceived notion that Boeheim doesn't know how to wisely judge the risks/rewards of playing inexperience players when the game is in doubt. The only problem is that the same correlation also works for Boeheim & his approach, as well. That you guys feel it is so >obvious< that JB's an idiot coach is beyond amazing to me.

I think it fits into the concept of group-narcissism.
I am taken back. You are far dumber than I thought. never once have I said anything about Boeheim being an idiot coach. Just the opposite. He isn't perfect. I am one of his biggest ans. I stood up for JB when it was a lot more difficult than it is now. I just don't kneel at his alter, like you do.
 
truth be told, if Jb had played some folks earlier, we might not have had to sweat it out to make the tournament.
I guess that’s possible, although we only know what actually happened - not what might have happened.
 
Ceerqqq, you can't be Mr. Logical Fallacy pointer-outer in this thread and then drop that Strawman Argument bomb. No one thinks JB is an "idiot coach."
It's the last refuge.
 
Schadenfreude is so sweet this time of year.

A month or so ago, those fans who've always felt somehow superior to Jim Boeheim stirred each other into a fevered chorus of criticism of Boeheim over the struggles this year's team was having early on. To them, Boeheim's retirement could not come soon enough. They felt the problem was obvious: Jim Boeheim couldn't see the potential in Kadary Richmond, Jesse Edwards, and Robert Braswell. He was making a serious coaching mistake by not giving his best players the lion's share of the available PT (as they saw it from their living rooms).

Now that the season has turned around, these same critics are now proclaiming that because the increased effective participation of these key reserves in recent weeks has coincided with the impressive string of victories the team has pulled off, is definitive proof that they were right and Boeheim was wrong a month ago when they were clamoring for KR, JE, and RB to be playing more.

It's a logical fallacy.

It presumes that Boeheim was not aware of the contributions that those three players could make by the end of the season, but there is zero evidence that this is true. Indeed, Boeheim was the first to identify their potential, long before any fans were aware, but he was also aware of the mistakes they were making in practice, the kind that could cause his team to lose games with unforced turnovers and/or missed opportunities.

At no time did Boeheim say anything to suggest that he didn't believe these guys would eventually be able to help the team later in the season. He only said that he didn't think they were ready to play more...yet. So THE difference of opinion between Jim Boeheim and his harshest fan critics was only ever over when these players should be getting more minutes in games. Now...or later? The fans said now, Boeheim said later.

Boeheim said later for a reason. He's been coaching teams for decades, has seen them develop over the course of a season, correcting their mistakes, getting the newer players to a level of familiarity with The Plan to where they can come into games without putting victories in jeopardy with their errors. This is why--especially early in the season--Boeheim will ALWAYS go with more experienced players if/whenever a game is in doubt.

Let the record show that Boeheim did not play them more earlier as the fans said he should. He played them later. And we now know the outcome of Boeheim ignoring the advice of fans and stubbornly coaching his team his way. He did start to give these player more PT when he felt they might be ready to contribute, and not before. That his team has turned out to be a smashing success is a supreme tribute to Jim Boeheim's coaching genius, his ability to develop a team over the course of a season into a competitive tornado.

To those fans who are now trying to take credit for the team's current success, I say feel free to embrace whatever delusional rationalizations you wish, but understand that the coincidence of the team winning big end-of-season games and the greater participation of key reserves does NOT prove your case that they should have played more earlier.

Since Boeheim did not play them earlier, it is not logically possible to infer that doing so would have achieved anything. That experiment was not tried so it's not possible to declare it a success. But Boeheim's approach was tried and the results have been spectacular. He's made his case, but you're left with an unproven theory that is extraordinarily weak and unpersuasive, IMO.

Well, we are living in a COVID world, so I'm curious as to how many 'variants' of these type threads that you've created recently do you plan on? Possibly, you have the same number in mind as to the amount of years we have consistently and perennially been a middling/middle of the pack team in our conference? Or, perhaps the same number (as we have in years) in which we have gone without being ranked during the regular season come January? Which, by the way, is 2014.
 
Come on OP not playing our bench this year was ridiculous. There was no drop off from the starters to the 6-9 guys. Taking this tournament run out of the picture we still have to hope all we lose as a result is Woody (which even then I don't.)

Very good players got DNP'd for games at a time.

That said after we lost ot GT and the season was 'over' JB did what he does and got the team to rally and right now we are in as good position as you'll ever be to win the whole thing.
 
to me there are two clear criticisms of JB that you‘d think some would hammer home that he looks like a genius for...his trust in Buddy and his trust in the zone.

the way he played the bench early/middle this year just isn’t a positive, but people can try to spin it anyway they want I guess.
I think we all recognized early on that we needed greater contributions from Richmond, Edwards, and Braswell. It’s the getting there where we disagree. You can say more PT means more improvement, others will say you improve through practice. And it can be different with each player.

For example, there were games where everyone but Edwards got some run in the middle. (JBA, Anselem, even Q.) COVID or an undisclosed injury notwithstanding, that’s a psychological tactic on JB’s part. That’s the same coach who pushed Otis Hill into walking off the court and all the way back to South Campus. Maybe there was a different way - a better way - to coach Hill into the monster he was against KU and Mississippi State...JB’s way did work, though. And it’s fair to suggest his way is also working with Edwards.
 
Ceerqqq, you can't be Mr. Logical Fallacy pointer-outer in this thread and then drop that Strawman Argument bomb. No one thinks JB is an "idiot coach."
Yeah, that’s given me pause every time I’ve given him a like in this thread.
 
Ceerqqq, you can't be Mr. Logical Fallacy pointer-outer in this thread and then drop that Strawman Argument bomb. No one thinks JB is an "idiot coach."
You deny that you thought JB was being a stubborn idiot for not playing the reserves more?

All you're disavowing, as I see it, is that you hold an overall judgment of Boeheim as an 'idiot' (which would be really hard to defend) while maintaining that his rotation decisions were 'idiotic.'

You disagree?
 
Hey, we all have opinions and that's fine. What I find repellent is the added smug insinuations that Boeheim doesn't know everything that fans know plus a hell of a lot more. It's ridiculous.
We will agree to disagree on some points. My main point is basing the criteria on the tournament (which has at least some luck, no matter what), isn't the best way to judge.

I agree some fans take it too far with their criticism, and you are fair to call them out when it happens. For example, I have been upset about Kadary's playing time all year, but have considered their are some health reasons and we don't know more than the staff there.
 
You deny that you thought JB was being a stubborn idiot for not playing the reserves more?

All you're disavowing, as I see it, is that you hold an overall judgment of Boeheim as an 'idiot' (which would be really hard to defend) while maintaining that his rotation decisions were 'idiotic.'

You disagree?
I've never once called JB an idiot or anything close to it. I'm not aware of anyone else here calling him that either. It seems like you're making a hasty generalization which is #7 on the list of the 15 most common logical fallacies.

"A hasty generalization is a general statement without sufficient evidence to support it. A hasty generalization is made out of a rush to have a conclusion, leading the arguer to commit some sort of illicit assumption, stereotyping, unwarranted conclusion, overstatement, or exaggeration."
 
I think we all recognized early on that we needed greater contributions from Richmond, Edwards, and Braswell. It’s the getting there where we disagree. You can say more PT means more improvement, others will say you improve through practice. And it can be different with each player.

For example, there were games where everyone but Edwards got some run in the middle. (JBA, Anselem, even Q.) COVID or an undisclosed injury notwithstanding, that’s a psychological tactic on JB’s part. That’s the same coach who pushed Otis Hill into walking off the court and all the way back to South Campus. Maybe there was a different way - a better way - to coach Hill into the monster he was against KU and Mississippi State...JB’s way did work, though. And it’s fair to suggest his way is also working with Edwards.

that’s certainly a fair assessment with Jesse and Bras...my pushback is the idea that “JB plays to win every game” = “players aren’t ready”
 
Exactly, we know that when they started playing, we started winning.
And the fact that JB played them when he thought it was a good idea doesn't resonate with you at all?

Oh, that's right. You think he only did so against his stubborn nature and his tendencies to play favorites. You guys are amazing...
 
And the fact that JB played them when he thought it was a good idea doesn't resonate with you at all?

Oh, that's right. You think he only did so against his stubborn nature and his tendencies to play favorites. You guys are amazing...
Thank you. And I believe he did only play them when he thought it was a good idea. That was the problem. He was wrong.
 
Wasn’t this the same poster that wrote a whole article on why SDSU should win? Cuse didn’t even have to play “optimal at every level “ to win that game either btw.
 
Thank you. And I believe he did only play them when he thought it was a good idea. That was the problem. He was wrong.
So do you count yourself among those who feel that JB is the luckiest coach on earth, who in spite of his flaws somehow continues to find players who can coach themselves into amazing post-season performances?
 
So do you count yourself among those who feel that JB is the luckiest coach on earth, who in spite of his flaws somehow continues to find players who can coach themselves into amazing post-season performances?
Please find where I said that. This is where you make yourself look like a fool. No one said that. No one called JB an idiot coach. What we said was that on this issue, he was too slow on playing a couple of guys that are now key to helping us win close games. Simply as that. But to make any suggestion that JB isn't perfect and makes no mistakes is a bridge too far for you. Learn to make a coherent debating point. No one is calling jb dumb. No one is calling jb a bad coach. Just the opposite. But along with your other faults, you can't read and understand.
 
So do you count yourself among those who feel that JB is the luckiest coach on earth, who in spite of his flaws somehow continues to find players who can coach themselves into amazing post-season performances?
Ceerqqq my friend, you are like a rapper in a strip club right now making it rain, except the dollar bills are logical fallacies.
 
Schadenfreude is so sweet this time of year.

A month or so ago, those fans who've always felt somehow superior to Jim Boeheim stirred each other into a fevered chorus of criticism of Boeheim over the struggles this year's team was having early on. To them, Boeheim's retirement could not come soon enough. They felt the problem was obvious: Jim Boeheim couldn't see the potential in Kadary Richmond, Jesse Edwards, and Robert Braswell. He was making a serious coaching mistake by not giving his best players the lion's share of the available PT (as they saw it from their living rooms).

Now that the season has turned around, these same critics are now proclaiming that because the increased effective participation of these key reserves in recent weeks has coincided with the impressive string of victories the team has pulled off, is definitive proof that they were right and Boeheim was wrong a month ago when they were clamoring for KR, JE, and RB to be playing more.

It's a logical fallacy.

It presumes that Boeheim was not aware of the contributions that those three players could make by the end of the season, but there is zero evidence that this is true. Indeed, Boeheim was the first to identify their potential, long before any fans were aware, but he was also aware of the mistakes they were making in practice, the kind that could cause his team to lose games with unforced turnovers and/or missed opportunities.

At no time did Boeheim say anything to suggest that he didn't believe these guys would eventually be able to help the team later in the season. He only said that he didn't think they were ready to play more...yet. So THE difference of opinion between Jim Boeheim and his harshest fan critics was only ever over when these players should be getting more minutes in games. Now...or later? The fans said now, Boeheim said later.

Boeheim said later for a reason. He's been coaching teams for decades, has seen them develop over the course of a season, correcting their mistakes, getting the newer players to a level of familiarity with The Plan to where they can come into games without putting victories in jeopardy with their errors. This is why--especially early in the season--Boeheim will ALWAYS go with more experienced players if/whenever a game is in doubt.

Let the record show that Boeheim did not play them more earlier as the fans said he should. He played them later. And we now know the outcome of Boeheim ignoring the advice of fans and stubbornly coaching his team his way. He did start to give these player more PT when he felt they might be ready to contribute, and not before. That his team has turned out to be a smashing success is a supreme tribute to Jim Boeheim's coaching genius, his ability to develop a team over the course of a season into a competitive tornado.

To those fans who are now trying to take credit for the team's current success, I say feel free to embrace whatever delusional rationalizations you wish, but understand that the coincidence of the team winning big end-of-season games and the greater participation of key reserves does NOT prove your case that they should have played more earlier.

Since Boeheim did not play them earlier, it is not logically possible to infer that doing so would have achieved anything. That experiment was not tried so it's not possible to declare it a success. But Boeheim's approach was tried and the results have been spectacular. He's made his case, but you're left with an unproven theory that is extraordinarily weak and unpersuasive, IMO.
Could you possibly also address the concept of creating a false dichotomy?
 
Wasn’t this the same poster that wrote a whole article on why SDSU should win? Cuse didn’t even have to play “optimal at every level “ to win that game either btw.
Seems you didn't read the article, or at least didn't finish it, since you didn't mention that in spite of the fact that The Numbers + all the experts said SDSU should win, I said I thought they wouldn't?

I would also challenge your assertion that they didn't play "optimal at every level" in their victory over SDSU. (Before you mention mistakes/errors they made in the game, "optimal effort" refers to intensity of effort/focus, which was abundantly on display in that game.)
 
This is ridiculous. This guy keeps posting in absolutes like his opinion is fact. Its like he's JBs mother defending him from playground bullies and most of the posts lately have been way over the top. Theres a lot of really good posters here that disagreed with how things went this year and they're were legitimate concerns. I think everyone is pretty damn happy with how things are going and the way JB is coaching this team but we can still disagree about some of the regular season decisions that were made...smh...a lot... :)
 
Gotta put things in context, we have a coach with a history of playing a short bench and putting bench players on a short leash. It was really painful earlier in the season to watch Buddy and/or Joe have some of those 3 for 14 shooting games while Kadary sat. It was painful when we had to watch Alan on some of his off games go for an 0 fer while Bras sat, it was painful watching Marek get out muscled and outsized while Edwards sat. It was not coaching genius that determined keeping in starters, who were playing ineptly, would make us a better team. It was stubborness. Thankfully, even Jimmy eventually came around.

I am with Dasher on this one.
I generally don't care too much either way about this argument. (I have no idea who really deserves to play, and whatever I think does not matter one iota, anyway.) But I have to take issue with the highlighted statement above, because I've seen many similar statements lately.

In the great debate about whether JB was right or wrong to have a shorter rotation in December/January, can't we all agree on this: Kadary got minutes all year long! I know that people were advocating for Kadary to play more, or to flip-flop the starting role and/or minutes played with Joe... but it's not fair to say that Buddy and/or Joe had multiple 3-for-14 outings while Kadary sat on the bench. Which games are you referring to with this claim?
 

Forum statistics

Threads
170,057
Messages
4,868,243
Members
5,988
Latest member
kyle42

Online statistics

Members online
99
Guests online
988
Total visitors
1,087


...
Top Bottom