Mistakes We Make When We Talk About Baseball

Part of the fun of following the Blue Jays is all of the spirited debate, and (hopefully) friendly arguments born out of discussions about our favorite team. With the rise of blogging, Twitter, and the continued prominence of things like talk radio, we are able to have these debates whenever we want, with virtually whomever we want.

Whether you’re discussing the merits of signing Jose Bautista or moving Aaron Sanchez to the bullpen, there are a set of missteps that every good debater should try and avoid: fallacies. Fallacies are different errors in logic we make when forming arguments. Many of the baseball discussions we read online and listen to on the radio are filled with these illogical arguments. In an attempt to have some nerdy fun, here is a look at some of the most common fallacies we hear in baseball discussions about the Toronto Blue Jays these days.

False Cause

“The Jays are playing better without Jose Bautista in the lineup, so if they want to keep winning, they should continue to start Ezequiel Carrera when Bautista returns from the DL.”

A false cause (also known as Questionable Cause) is a flaw in reasoning where someone assumes that when two things happen, the first one is causing the second.

We tend to hear this type of reasoning in baseball whenever an injured player is close to returning from the DL. In this example, the argument assumes that the Jays are winning more games because Bautista is out and Carrera is replacing him.

However, correlation does not equal causation. In this example, the Blue Jays’ winning ways have more to do with improved performances from their bullpen, and their middle of the order hitters – Edwin Encarnacion’s torrid June and the return of Troy Tulowitzki; not Bautista’s absence.

False Dichotomy

“If the Jays lose David Price, they won’t have an ace and their pitching will be terrible.”

Also known as the excluded middle, a false dichotomy is when someone assumes two different options when there are in reality, far more.

David Price is a great pitcher, and he would make any team he plays on better (except the 2016 Red Sox apparently…), but losing David Price doesn’t mean that the Blue Jays will not have good starting pitching. It is not a case of one or the other – the Jays’ could have excellent pitching without Price, they could have average pitching, slightly below average pitching, etc. The argument is fallacious because the range of outcomes is far greater than the two presented. The Jays’ 2016 rotation results are a perfect example of why this kind of argument presents a false dichotomy.

Appeal to Tradition

“Umpires and the league shouldn’t get involved when Josh Donaldson or other players get beaned. Players have always policed the game themselves and things have worked out fine.”

An appeal to tradition is when you assume that a position, idea or argument is correct solely based on it its longstanding acceptance.

This is one of the most commonly used fallacies in daily life. Because something has been done a certain way in the past is not sound reasoning for why it should continue to be done this way in the future.

Major League Baseball has historically chosen not to discipline (read: barely discipline) pitchers for hitting batters intentionally. It does not logically follow that the league should continue to ignore the practice moving forward. The most vivid example of the appeal to tradition is slavery – just because slavery was acceptable in the past, doesn’t mean that it is acceptable now.

Bald Man / Continuum Fallacy

“There has been no strong evidence that suggests the Verducci Effect and innings increases for young pitchers are related to increased injury risk, so we shouldn’t be worried about workloads for young starters like Aaron Sanchez.”

This logical failure occurs when someone rejects a claim because it is not precise – just because something is vague does not necessarily mean that it is untrue.

While the first part of this statement is no doubt accurate (there isn’t compelling evidence for strict innings limits), it is also inexact. Just because we haven’t determined the particular parameters of how or why young pitchers get injured, it does not mean that there are no risk factors related to workload. While those risk factors may not be completely understood yet, they are still likely present.

Just like we can’t say the exact number of hairs on a person’s head that makes them either bald or not bald, we do acknowledge that point does in fact exist.

Appeal to Authority

“Mark Shapiro obviously knew what he was doing when he hired Ross Atkins from Cleveland because he had been a successful front office executive for a long time.”

Appeal to authority is where you assume that because someone is an expert, they are able to make the right decision without an explicit reasoning behind it. This is always a failure of deductive reasoning – if an expert always made the right decision, they would never be wrong, which is obviously not the case – look at the record of even the best GMs. While authority or expertise does come with an increased likelihood that someone is correct, it certainly doesn’t prove it.

Admittedly, Shapiro likely has many strong reasons for hiring Atkins (Atkins’ pedigree as an executive, their strong working relationship etc.) but Shapiro’s tenure as a General Manager and team President in and of itself is not one of them.

Begging the Question

“The Blue Jays don’t hit well in pressure situations because they just don’t know how to come through with the game on the line.”

Begging the question is when the premise in the first part of your argument asserts the conclusion without providing any evidence that it is true. It’s also known as circular reasoning.

Said another way, this argument contends the same thing as both its premise and conclusion. Saying the Blue Jays don’t know how to come through with the game on the line is just another way of saying they don’t hit under pressure. The arguer has offered no information in their argument as to why the Jays won’t hit under pressure, they simply assert the same statement twice, in two different ways.

Straw Man

“Mark Shapiro acknowledges he might not re-sign Jose Bautista and Edwin Encarnacion this off season. It sucks that is he looking to rebuild a team that was so good.”

Now, if you’re a fan of Keith Law or many other great baseball writers, you’ve probably heard of the straw man fallacy. However, many cited instances of straw man are actually different causal fallacies. A straw man fallacy is when someone takes a weak or exaggerated version of an argument and proves/disproves the embellished version, instead of addressing the more realistic and viable argument or statement their opponent is making.

In this case, while it is true that Shapiro acknowledged that it may be difficult to keep their free agent sluggers, it does not mean that he thinks the Blue Jays will not contend in 2017. Instead, he believes the best path to contention may not include signing two more older players to long term contracts. To suggest he is looking to rebuild because he may not sign two specific players inaccurately exaggerates what he is  saying when he talks about Joey Bats and EE.

There you have it. Your unofficial, but by no means exhaustive, list of fallacious arguments related to the Blue Jays. Next time you find yourself trying to convince someone to pump the breaks on their off season assumptions, or why they need to cut bait on R.A. Dickey after a few bad weeks, hopefully some of the above mentioned failures in reasoning will help explain to your co-worker/drunk uncle/twitter friend why they should rethink their position.

————————————————-

Major thanks to Dr. Mat Savelli and Dr. Mike Sonne who helped vet the vague pieces of logic theory I may or may not have absorbed correctly in between intramural sports and binge watching the Wire 10 years ago at McMaster. If logic and baseball is your jam, USS Mariner provided a breakdown you might like to check out too.

Lead Photo: Nick Turchiaro-USA TODAY Sports