Factually incorrect, but never invalid

In the recent re-debut of The Field Report, I linked to an article by Josh Silvestri on CFB as an example of a good fundamental analysis of the components of the metagame.
Josh and I have clearly been on the same wavelength, as he busted out an excellent article in his regular weekly column at GatheringMagic.com that takes another stab at discussing the sentimental component of metagame analysis.
In case you’re lost as to what sentimental analysis is, I go into it elsewhere, but the short version is “It’s what people think the metagame will do” (as contrasted with what the metagame has done already and evaluation of the parts that make up the metagame — the decks).
Josh is right on the money with this remark:
“User perception can be factually incorrect but never invalid”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.