AOW 12/19: Manning's Colts

This week's article comes from Bob Kravitz of the Indianapolis Star. He writes about the effect of Peyton Manning being out for the whole season on the performance of the home town Indianapolis Colts. The Colts are currently 0-13 and are one or two losses away from securing the number one overall pick in the NFL Draft. It is much more significant because the guaranteed number one pick this year is Stanford quarterback Andrew Luck, arguably the best prospect out of college since John Elway. Kravitz's purpose is to explain how Peyton Manning was the foundation of the Colts and how Luck could affect the future of the Colts. The main audience he writes to are football fans, especially Colts fans. He appeals heavily to logos and basically shows the pros and cons of the many options the Colts are going to have in the offseason. He logically explains the steps and concludes by selecting an option that would be best for the Colts. His claim was for the franchise to cut ties with Manning and begin the Luck Era in Indianapolis. He uses some syllogisms to support a claim that Manning is the NFL's most valuable player without taking a single snap. He supports this claim by showing that the Colts are good with Manning then shows the minor premise that they are horrible without him. He connects these ideas effectively together and shows that Manning was the reason why the Colts have won a Super Bowl and exhibited great success in the past decade. He also supports his point by bringing in examples of the Patriots team who lost Tom Brady for the season. Even though they did not make the playoffs, the Patriots went 11-5 and exhibited success without their franchise quarterback. By using that example as a reservation, he was able to support his initial assertion. He accomplishes his purpose because he stresses how Manning is the reason why the Colts were good even with other good players around him. He also stresses how Andrew Luck could change the Colts.

AOW 12/12: Moneyball 1

Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game, is written by Michael Lewis and follows the 2002 Oakland Athletics, who are trying to revolutionize the game. After losing big free agents and facing a tight budget, A's General Manager Billy Beane and assistant GM Paul DePodesta begin to use advanced statistics to help scout and build their team. Their usage of  sabremetrics, advanced statistics, help Beane put together a relatively inexpensive team. Their faith in sabremetrics goes against the "rules" of old baseball; they don't factor in physical traits about the player, such as build, personality, and mentality. Lewis also writes briefly about the baseball superstar that was not, Billy Beane. He writes about his brief career and how he transitioned into the head of the Oakland Athletics. Lewis writes many books about economics, now mostly concerned with the downward economy, but he writes Moneyball with the approach of discussing baseball economics. His inspiration for the story came from him following the low-budget A's in 2002 and also the story of Bill James. James is baseball's most renown expert in sabremetrics and has established many of the stats and guidelines still used today. Currently James is an team sabremetrics advisor for the Boston Red Sox. He uses diction that combines these two ideas, he uses many terms that would be found in the front offices of baseball and other professional sports teams, but he also includes many terms and connections that could be found in the offices of stock brokers, financiers, and economists. He effectively shows the syllogisms expressed from Beane's philosophy, "'We want players who get on base.' 'But Billy he isn't in Baseball America's Top 25 catchers.' 'But he gets on base and walks, a lot'" This syllogistic thinking of Billy Beane shows that in order to succeed with a low budget, statistical measures must be taken to ensure success. Lewis accomplishes his goal because he is able to use conversations from Beane that show the economic factor of baseball.

AOW 12/05: Goldilocks Planet

This week's article comes from Dennis Overbye of the New York Times. In this article, Overbye discusses the findings of a "Goldilocks" planet, a planet that is not to hot or too cold that would be able to sustain life. He cites many scientists who are both optimistic and pessimistic about the new findings. He says many scientists are beginning to search for as many "Goldilocks" planets within a viewable of Earth. This article was written because of the recent announcements of new planetary discoveries. Scientists have been continually researching planets that are "Earth Like." He writes this for the purpose to inform people about the progressive research of planetary bodies that may be able to sustain life. He is able to do this through his diction by describing the components of each planet found. He confirms the findings by saying the new found planet is the right distance away and has the proper atmosphere that could sustain life. He also uses quotes and opinions of other scientists to qualify the claims of the optimistic scientists. He says that scientists will be able to find planets, but it will take a long time to find them. He also discusses the limitations of scientific equipment, because much of that equipment cannot see further into the universe. He effective uses the Toulmin Model because he creates a claim with valid grounds (testimonies, reports) and qualifies his claim as well. He writes this article to higher educated audience as shown by his diction. Overbye uses a lot of technical terms and uses them to help support his claim or explain a concept of his claim. He does define some of the jargon, but the reader would need further education to fully grasp the concepts mentioned. He accomplishes his purpose because he is able to inform the audience about both sides of a controversial and progressive topic. By using the Toulmin model, he was able to address both sides and fortify his claim about the possible existence of life-supporting planets.