I don't need to prove he's inaccurate.
I actually did a breakdown of it, using real analysis not just fanhood.
I put it up for debate in case anyone had a differing opinion but no one bit.
I don't need to prove he's inaccurate. Time will tell. If you watched every throw he made you know he made more than 3 bad throws on deep balls.
How about a friendly sig/avatar bet...
If I take the time to post a video that shows him making more than 3 bad deep ball throws (>20 yards), I get to control your sig and avatar for a month
If I don't do it, you get mine.
Actually, if you're going to positively claim that he IS inaccurate, yes, you do. If you watched every throw he made you know he made more than 3 bad throws on deep balls.
Essentially, this is a logical fallacy (argument from authority) working in reverse. It is deemed a fallacy for the reason that information is legitimate or illegitimate without needing the person stating it (you) to be an expert or even authoritative. If someone is an expert then they may know more on the subject, may be more likely to be correct or be more believable, but that doesn't discredit the information.
Also, address this better:
On throws over 0 yards, his accuracy drops significantly, indicating that his numbers are inflated by easy throws a 3rd grader could make.
Zone coverage is when you need to be accurate to fit the ball into tight windows but his numbers are significantly worse when facing zones.
I want real numbers and a credible source. Otherwise, you are making up statistics and claiming victory. And even IF you're right, it is a non sequitur argument. That is, if A is true, B is true. B is true, therefore, A is true. It takes form like this, for you: if his stats are based solely on passes <0 yards, then his accuracy is worse when throwing >0 yards. His stats are worse when passes are >0 yards; therefore, his accuracy drops on passes longer than 0 yards. See how that doesn't make sense? What about dropped passes?
Also, you're committing the "petitio principii" logical fallacy; otherwise known as "begging the question." You're assuming your conclusion in the premise. "Cam is inaccurate because he has fewer completions >0 yards." Granted, it is semantics. But, if you want to build a convincing argument, you may want to clarify and restate.
Edited by XLightsOutX, 03 August 2011 - 06:35 PM.