just google it you fool

[disjunction]

[ QUOTE ]
depends on how you gauge smarter. Do they know more players names, more stats, yeah. But I think a majority of people still don't know a whole lot about their favorite sport. BTW, ask people what they know about Iraq, or France even, what do you think most people know about these countries. Where do you think they "learned" most of this stuff. I mean its pretty silly. I would say America, on average, is getting dumber and lazier.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that it's too tempting to forget about all the dumb people that used to be around 30 years ago. These people have always been around. If anything, I think they stand out more now because it's now mildly unacceptable not to know anything about Iraq, or the difference between Sunni and Shiite, whereas it used to just make you folksy.

In sports, I look at John Madden and Tim McCarver. These two were widely regarded as the best analysts in their sport in the 80's, now they are widely lampooned on 2+2 as terrible. Madden as a coach and McCarver as a catcher discussed strategy that we had never heard before. I don't think that these guys have significantly changed over the years, it's just that we already know what they have to say.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anybody who is under 15 right now will be able to use Google flawlessly, and yes, they will be able to reason and think even better than you or I.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your discussion did not support this assertion.

[/ QUOTE ]

It did not need to. My discussion was regarding the utility of Google.

My speculation at the end was just food for discussion. A post is part of a conversation, not an op-ed piece.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was just extremely weak. You really want to have your cake and eat it too, here. For shame!

[Dids]

"In sports, I look at John Madden and Tim McCarver. These two were widely regarded as the best analysts in their sport in the 80's, now they are widely lampooned on 2+2 as terrible. Madden as a coach and McCarver as a catcher discussed strategy that we had never heard before. I don't think that these guys have significantly changed over the years, it's just that we already know what they have to say."

I'm too lazy to give the full explanation, but this is wrong.

Madden's issue is style, not substance.

McCarver is just wrong a lot of stuff, and that's because the conventions that existed when he played have been questioned and found to be incorrect by people who ARE asking the questions like Ray suggests. The people that still enjoy McCarver are the googlers not looking deeper at things than the easy answers that come first.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

McCarver is just wrong a lot of stuff, and that's because the conventions that existed when he played have been questioned and found to be incorrect by people who ARE asking the questions like Ray suggests. The people that still enjoy McCarver are the googlers not looking deeper at things than the easy answers that come first.

[/ QUOTE ]

On the contrary; I think a lot of the people who have become real baseball statheads in the new mold are just reading what a few people (who have really done the groundwork in terms of statistical analysis) are telling them. I think this is kind of the opposite of what you're going for.

[Dids]

Gump,

I respectfully and totally disagree.

Yes, there are people who just parrot stathead stuff and don't really think, but I don't think that defines the whole community at all. There's a ton of folks who have really expanded upon the work of Bill James and continue to do so (holla @ Nate).

That aside- the point is more that McCarver makes a perfect example for the folks who are just taking answers and not critically thinking at all.

[CrayZee]

Search tech is very useful for researching things, but you still have to be critical of the sources. Sometimes people don't have the time or know how to debate, calculate, determine, etc., the answer themselves; this is esp. true if they don't have great knowledge of the subject at hand.

Personally, I think this stuff makes smart people smarter and/or more knowledgeable. Heck, you can do independent study for MIT courses these days because of this netweber computer junk. That's cheaper than auditing a class at a comm. college.

[Aloysius]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

McCarver is just wrong a lot of stuff, and that's because the conventions that existed when he played have been questioned and found to be incorrect by people who ARE asking the questions like Ray suggests. The people that still enjoy McCarver are the googlers not looking deeper at things than the easy answers that come first.

[/ QUOTE ]

On the contrary; I think a lot of the people who have become real baseball statheads in the new mold are just reading what a few people (who have really done the groundwork in terms of statistical analysis) are telling them. I think this is kind of the opposite of what you're going for.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gump - I think we are on the same page, so let me extend your thought (if I've got this right).

Generally speaking, there will always be in any community: 1) people who construct their own thoughts and question the information available to them, and 2) those who will just parrot the conventional wisdom.

What stat heads have done is broaden / deepen the level of analysis for the sport they cover. So the "conventional wisdom" is now probably, on average, "wiser".

To your point... what that says about this particular community is unclear: likely, the % of "thinkers" is higher, just because the analysis demands some thought to comprehend fully. But who knows.

At any rate, today compared to years past, even the "followers" are likely better informed overall, just cause the information is more free-flowing, and again, today's conventional wisdom is a better informed way of approaching sports.

-Al

[Bicycles_Biatch]

Basically I can't appreciate anything Ray Zee says... a buddy of mine tried to sell him tournament chips at the WSOP... and he tried to hustle him... fair enough... good for Ray trying to use his superior math skills and intellect to gain a few extra bucks....

However, when my buddy wouldn't take the shaft end of the deal... Ray got all pissy and rude.

Thank god my buddy googled the idea of +EV prior to going to the WSOP... if not... Ray might have hossed him for $300.00

[Kneel B4 Zod]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

McCarver is just wrong a lot of stuff, and that's because the conventions that existed when he played have been questioned and found to be incorrect by people who ARE asking the questions like Ray suggests. The people that still enjoy McCarver are the googlers not looking deeper at things than the easy answers that come first.

[/ QUOTE ]

On the contrary; I think a lot of the people who have become real baseball statheads in the new mold are just reading what a few people (who have really done the groundwork in terms of statistical analysis) are telling them. I think this is kind of the opposite of what you're going for.

[/ QUOTE ]

sure. but one reason that people tend to quote this stuff is that it's fairly complex and not intuitive. I mean here is the definition of .eqa

Equivalent Average. A measure of total offensive value per out, with corrections for league offensive level, home park, and team pitching. EQA considers batting as well as baserunning, but not the value of a position player's defense. The EqA adjusted for all-time also has a correction for league difficulty. The scale is deliberately set to approximate that of batting average. League average EqA is always equal to .260. EqA is derived from Raw EqA, which is (H + TB + 1.5*(BB + HBP + SB) + SH + SF) divided by (AB + BB + HBP + SH + SF + CS + SB). REqA is then normalized to account for league difficulty and scale to create EqA.

that's not exactly what Joe 6 Pack is going to intelligently analyze with this buddies. most people aren't even capable of.

another reason is that some people like to be smarty pants and this gives them ammo to accomplish this aim.

[Kneel B4 Zod]

[ QUOTE ]
who are just taking answers and not critically thinking at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

dids I'm still waiting to hear what critical thinking led you to believe that Hasselbeck is better than Brady [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]