I often find your level of sarcasm is way beyond the parameters needed to make a solid impact around here.....
I once had an art professor try to explain the genius of a painting that had the top half solid light blue and the bottom half solid dark blue with a purple line dividing the halves....I like to think I've studied quite a bit of art but this "professor" was full of shit.....it wasn't great art....it was house painting. He had the masters degree though.
I know a guy in business who looks for trends. Once he finds one - like last year it was cryptocurrency and Bitcoin - he learns it, creates some product around it, and proclaims himself the "expert". He then gets paid tons for his supposed expertise. Last year he launched a crypto podcast and it's uber successful. I've seen him do this a few times in different subjects. So the lesson is, call yourself an expert and other people will often follow suit.
I'm going to agree with @Wade Garrett on this one; separate from affecting how ones existing knowledge is presented, emotion can also easily color perception, and thereby limit or restrict acquisition of further knowledge and understanding. Dispassionate analysis from disinterested parties is generally more reliable than analysis coming from those with an emotional investment, all other things being equal.
I don’t think there’s such a thing as a “basketball expert.” Expert implies you know everything there is to know. There’s always something to learn, as the game is constantly evolving. I think any coach, player, or executive would tell you the same. So if they wouldn’t consider themselves “experts” I don’t see why anyone else would either.
If I were to point out one guy who can talk basketball more in depth than anybody I've heard talk about the game it's Hubie Brown but man...I can only take so much at a time during a game....he's known as one of the great teachers the game has ever had though outside of his tv gig
I can echo that (for myself!) at least when it comes to X's and O's of basketball having never played more than pickup games. But having watched a ton of basketball throughout my life, I think I can tell roughly how well a player is helping hurting the team by simple things like "was that a quality shot" or "did he overplay defensively and let his guy blow by" or "look he consistently boxes out (or he doesn't)" etc. But if you asked me how to change a struggling offense I would be limited to "every one is standing around get moving" or "set a damn screen so Dame can get some breathing room" or "Quit driving 1 on 3 and look around guys are wide open". Beyond that, I wouldn't have a clue about the finer points. And then I like stats and think they are underrated as a way to make judgments.
I enjoy talking stats with you, though I think sometimes I disagree on how good of a picture they paint, but it's still fun.
I couldn't disagree more but I think you're arguing a slightly different point. If someone is watching a basketball game that has no interest in basketball they wouldn't ever have as much knowledge about it as someone who is passionate and thirsts to learn everything they can. I get what you're saying if we're talking about biased opinions being formed by emotion but knowledge itself can be biased with or without emotion. Besides wouldn't being calm and disinterested also be considered emotions?
I have enjoyed it too. I do realize probably more than I let on that stats have limitations, especially when it comes to the assessing the interplay between players. I like to think of a basketball team as like a machine with moving parts that all have to work in unison together. Take this year's Lakers. If I wanted to assess that team, I wouldn't just pump in the stats and come out with a number. I look at that team and say, they have Lebron the ultimate creator with 3 big men who are all alley-oop threats for Lebron to lob to, and surrounded by a bunch of otherwise kinda shitty guards/sfs 4 of whom are ~40% from 3 plus Danny Green who is a 40% 3 point shooter and great defender. So that team has TONS of threats for Lebron to pass too and it has an interior defense to offset the bad defense of their guards, plus AD's offense when Lebron is sitting. So to me that's a damn lethal team, better than the sum of it's "stat" parts.
Never claimed to be an "expert" - just an experienced fan. Sports evaluation is a constant balancing of results with process. As a fan, I lean toward results. To be an expert, you have to be objective enough to focus on process. I'm not wired that way.
