> It's a really silly 'debate' technique
>and only serves to have individuals dig their heels in
>further.

advanced stats didn't arrive here as a means of understanding or discussion
it arrived as a way for ppl to argue positions that few agreed with (kobe vs. hollinger)
what's most interesting to me is how AS transitioned from being something universally clowned here not even 2 yrs ago to now having a large following


>
>I agree with you that traditionalists tend to be dismissive,
>but some of the stats cats often do act very arrogant and
>pretentious which only serves to feed into the stereotypical
>'stat geek' image, and limit discussion.

ppl are being pretentious even in this thread
and it's kind of hilarious because i know dudes like dula, guinness, frank longo, and you etc probably have no idea what hadoop is
and probably couldn't implement a mapreduce algorithm if your lives depended on it (not being pretentious just being realistic....guinness and longo are writers i believe(!))
data is every where folks and some ppl actually use it for meaningful things. professionally even (lol)
i don't think anyone is even questioning the math so it's weird that it's constantly brought up as the disconnect
you'd think these guys were sitting at their laptops with calculators instead of regurgitating precompiled numbers off of a website for whatever petty argument their having at the moment
shits ridiculous actually