rockaction
Footballguy
Thinking about Le'Veon Bell maybe -- maybe (!) -- signing with Kansas City got me to thinking about CEH, his talent, and necessary and sufficient conditions for success.
What do I mean by this? I posit that looking at logic is similar to looking at fantasy situations. That a situation, however desirable, does not determine professional success. Think of it this way: When CEH went ahead of Taylor and Swift in many drafts, the reason largely given (by most except for a few rare ones) was that his situation was so good, he'd stockpile points in the years -- and then it became weeks once Damien Williams opted out -- to come. It was agreed upon by most of the cognoscenti that he was to be the fruitful bearer of the lion's share of everything; passes, goal line touches, points galore -- you name it!
But what we've seen has been a bit different. Once the first game's admittedly wonderful glow against a now 1-4 Houston team wore off, we saw some limitations. Strength between the tackles. Goal line running. Making smaller defensive backs miss or get run over.
Now we're worried that Bell might sign in KC so that they might make another Super Bowl run with a proven veteran in the backfield. Owners/GMs (I prefer GMs) of CEH are surely worried for their own production right now as the decision gets made. But what does this tell us moving forward as a lesson, no matter where Bell signs?
First, I'd argue that studs are studs. They're situation-proof. CEH is not that. Nor is Jonathan Taylor. Nor was D'Andre Swift (and I'll get to him).
Secondly, I'd argue that we can look to the discipline of logic to help us clarify some things about situation/talent that we often conflate, misuse, etc. I'd posit that the situation in making a rookie pick after the NFL draft depends on situation and talent, but that situation is a necessary condition. Here we look to an LSAT instructor to explain to us what this means. We look to ping pong as an example. I pulled this from Khan Academy, that paragon of at-home learning.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Here we take the following situation. Two people are positing rules for a game:
https://www.khanacademy.org/test-prep/lsat/lsat-lessons/logic-toolbox-new/a/logic-toolbox--article--if-x-then-y--sufficiency-and-necessity
Imagine that Willie and Lola are creating a game to play in the garage. What are the rules?
Willie: I have to hit the ball over the net in order to score a point during my shot.
Lola: Right, but if your ball doesn’t hit the table, then you lose the point.
Willie: Okay, but during my serve, I need my served ball to hit my side of the table first before going over the net in order for the serve to count.
Lola: Agreed! Then, if my returned ball goes into the net, then I lose the point.
You may recognize this game as ping pong (or table tennis), but it doesn’t matter what the game is—the point is that every game is made up of rules. We could also call these rules conditions—if one thing happens or doesn’t happen, then another thing happens or doesn’t happen.
In this article, we’ll show you how logical statements that have sufficient and necessary conditions act just like game rules, and we’ll talk about how Willie’s rules are of a different nature than Lola’s rules.
If you understand this distinction and its implications on the LSAT, then you will be rewarded with a higher score!
Necessary conditions don't guarantee any kind of result.
What does this mean? Well, Willie has to hit the ball over the net in order win the point, but that doesn’t mean that the ball going over the net guarantees that Willie gets the point. Perhaps if Willie hits the ball over the net but the ball never hits the table, then Willie doesn’t score. In other words, Willie hitting the ball over the net is just one element (among many, perhaps) that’s necessary in order for him to win the point.
The same is true with the second rule. Willie could meet the necessary condition—and his served ball hits his side of the table first before going over the net—but that doesn’t guarantee that the serve counts! The ball could go over the net and never hit the other side of the table (for instance)—in that case, the serve would not count (according to actual table tennis rules).
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
And there we have it. Necesary conditions, like situation, are not a guarantee of professional success in fantasy football. If Bell signs with KC, it will be a reminder of this. Success in fantasy football -- even when the conditional clause is met -- is not sufficiently met from mere conditionals, or in this case, the condition.
Now take Swift. Where does he fit into this? He never even met the necessary conditions in most people's minds. To most people, Swift getting drafted to Detroit was his death knell for several years. People saw Matt Patricia bringing Pats West to Detroit and stayed far away. So far, we've seen him in a James White role. Could he break through? Possibly. But it's likely that we're using this paradigm again. If Swift goes to a team that would use him, we might or might not see his talent fly. But the condition of situation, viewed by many as being a necessary but not sufficient one, caused buyers to not even take Swift. He couldn't even satisfy the necessary condition that is situation.
Anyway, just a thought exercise.
What do I mean by this? I posit that looking at logic is similar to looking at fantasy situations. That a situation, however desirable, does not determine professional success. Think of it this way: When CEH went ahead of Taylor and Swift in many drafts, the reason largely given (by most except for a few rare ones) was that his situation was so good, he'd stockpile points in the years -- and then it became weeks once Damien Williams opted out -- to come. It was agreed upon by most of the cognoscenti that he was to be the fruitful bearer of the lion's share of everything; passes, goal line touches, points galore -- you name it!
But what we've seen has been a bit different. Once the first game's admittedly wonderful glow against a now 1-4 Houston team wore off, we saw some limitations. Strength between the tackles. Goal line running. Making smaller defensive backs miss or get run over.
Now we're worried that Bell might sign in KC so that they might make another Super Bowl run with a proven veteran in the backfield. Owners/GMs (I prefer GMs) of CEH are surely worried for their own production right now as the decision gets made. But what does this tell us moving forward as a lesson, no matter where Bell signs?
First, I'd argue that studs are studs. They're situation-proof. CEH is not that. Nor is Jonathan Taylor. Nor was D'Andre Swift (and I'll get to him).
Secondly, I'd argue that we can look to the discipline of logic to help us clarify some things about situation/talent that we often conflate, misuse, etc. I'd posit that the situation in making a rookie pick after the NFL draft depends on situation and talent, but that situation is a necessary condition. Here we look to an LSAT instructor to explain to us what this means. We look to ping pong as an example. I pulled this from Khan Academy, that paragon of at-home learning.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Here we take the following situation. Two people are positing rules for a game:
https://www.khanacademy.org/test-prep/lsat/lsat-lessons/logic-toolbox-new/a/logic-toolbox--article--if-x-then-y--sufficiency-and-necessity
Imagine that Willie and Lola are creating a game to play in the garage. What are the rules?
Willie: I have to hit the ball over the net in order to score a point during my shot.
Lola: Right, but if your ball doesn’t hit the table, then you lose the point.
Willie: Okay, but during my serve, I need my served ball to hit my side of the table first before going over the net in order for the serve to count.
Lola: Agreed! Then, if my returned ball goes into the net, then I lose the point.
You may recognize this game as ping pong (or table tennis), but it doesn’t matter what the game is—the point is that every game is made up of rules. We could also call these rules conditions—if one thing happens or doesn’t happen, then another thing happens or doesn’t happen.
In this article, we’ll show you how logical statements that have sufficient and necessary conditions act just like game rules, and we’ll talk about how Willie’s rules are of a different nature than Lola’s rules.
If you understand this distinction and its implications on the LSAT, then you will be rewarded with a higher score!
Necessary conditions don't guarantee any kind of result.
What does this mean? Well, Willie has to hit the ball over the net in order win the point, but that doesn’t mean that the ball going over the net guarantees that Willie gets the point. Perhaps if Willie hits the ball over the net but the ball never hits the table, then Willie doesn’t score. In other words, Willie hitting the ball over the net is just one element (among many, perhaps) that’s necessary in order for him to win the point.
The same is true with the second rule. Willie could meet the necessary condition—and his served ball hits his side of the table first before going over the net—but that doesn’t guarantee that the serve counts! The ball could go over the net and never hit the other side of the table (for instance)—in that case, the serve would not count (according to actual table tennis rules).
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
And there we have it. Necesary conditions, like situation, are not a guarantee of professional success in fantasy football. If Bell signs with KC, it will be a reminder of this. Success in fantasy football -- even when the conditional clause is met -- is not sufficiently met from mere conditionals, or in this case, the condition.
Now take Swift. Where does he fit into this? He never even met the necessary conditions in most people's minds. To most people, Swift getting drafted to Detroit was his death knell for several years. People saw Matt Patricia bringing Pats West to Detroit and stayed far away. So far, we've seen him in a James White role. Could he break through? Possibly. But it's likely that we're using this paradigm again. If Swift goes to a team that would use him, we might or might not see his talent fly. But the condition of situation, viewed by many as being a necessary but not sufficient one, caused buyers to not even take Swift. He couldn't even satisfy the necessary condition that is situation.
Anyway, just a thought exercise.
Last edited by a moderator:
There he is! Always know I've done well (in some way) when Kafka comes out of the woodwork.
