Talk:Mike McCarthy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
||
 |
This article is part of WikiProject National Football League, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the NFL on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | |
 |
Mike McCarthy is part of WikiProject College football, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to college football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. |
[edit] "Metrics"
When I rewrote the article, I referenced the "yards gained" and "points scored" metrics. Inasmuch as the term "metrics" has been thrice edited out, I won't reinsert it, but I should like to observe here that my formulation, whilst perhaps atypical of an NFL article, was, technically, superior grammatically and syntactically to the version with which we are now left. I understand the reasons for which the change was repeatedly made, but I think that, as a general rule, we needn't to choose between preferred structure and readability, and I think my version balanced concerns about each well. It's no big deal, though, and if the changes make the article "better" (in the meta-sense of the word), who am I to object? Joe 20:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- I think that nearly everyone who reads the article will have no idea what the word "metrics" means in this sense; the word is never used to refer to such NFL statistics and therefore, in my opinion, is inappropriate for the article. I'm not sure that anyone familiar with the NFL would contend that said versions were grammatically and syntactically superior. --Maxamegalon2000 20:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
It's not that nobody understands the word metrics, it's a simple, common term. Technically, it is appropriate as well. However, nobody uses "metrics" when discussing sports statistics, ever... it sounds sterile and snobby, for lack of a better explanation.
Even as I am but a soft prescriptivist, I can't abide one's asserting that the syntactic and grammatical propriety of a particular usage depends exclusively on the identity of the prospective visitor, see, e.g., Maxamegalon's asserting that "[no one] familiar with the NFL would contend that [Joe's versions] were grammatically and syntactically superior". Notwithstanding, though, the grave doubts I have about his formulation of a proper calculus by which to adjudge a given usage (objecting, notably, to the false dilemma he seems to construct betwixt encyclopedic language and comprehensbility; were such dilemma exists, in any case, it should always be resolved in favor of a "more encyclopedic" if less generally understood version), the contention "metrics" is not used when discussing sports statistics is wholly incorrect. Many uses are found when one combs the archives of Sports Illustrated and ESPN: The Magazine, for example, here, where the term is used in reference to Michael Vick's statistics, or here, where the term is used in reference to an uber evaluation of hockey players; the latter usage concerns fantasy sports, of which practitioners, amongst whose number I count myself, frequently use the locution "metrics". Even the relatively lower-brow The Sporting News features the term, to-wit, in this interview with Theo Epstein, who, when queried as to the most overrated statistic in baseball says, in pertinent part, "Batting average is not as indicative of run-scoring as on-base percentage or a series of other metrics". Notably, even USA Today Sports Weekly, which seems reticent ever to use a word likely to be found in the vocabulary of any but one having completed an education to no more than the third grade, appears to use the term with some frequency. Even assuming arguendo that those who visit the McCarthy biography are likely only to be familiar with such terms as might readily be found in one of the sports mags enumerated supra, the contention that such readers would be unfamiliar with "metrics" (in the sense used here) seems rather unsubstantiated. One final reference, this to an article in SI apropos of the life of Paul Tagliabue: in the second sentence of the article, which appears, IIRC, as bold, oversized text in the print version, Karl Greenfeld writes, "No matter which metric you employ--revenue, ratings, attendance, merchandise--the NFL's statute..."; though not used in reference to a sports stat, the term is still used in a sports periodical and in the same sense as it was used here. In sum, irrespective of the question as to whether one should prefer readability to grammatical correctness, it seems that the usage I essayed was indeed readable and at the very least in the mainstream of usage throughout the sports media (I should note that, when in past times I was a sportswriter for a newspaper, I frequently employed the "metrics" construction, which perhaps explains my strident defense of the use). And, with respect to the unsigned comment above, which I think is accurate as far as it goes, I don't particularly find sterility and snobbishness in an encyclopedia to be off-putting; after all, an encyclopedia, while it needn't to be bland, is, to be sure, clinical. Joe 04:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
