Blackfoot wrote:You'd be right.
I am 18. And you are right on your assumption, there are more young dudes more willing to accept new ideas because they are, well young. Basically every new thing that is supposed to be universal will be more used by younger dudes than older dudes despite the design being for everyone.
I remember that age. The adult awakening happens at about 13 and by the time you hit your age, you've reached the point where you can put all of your intellectual tools together and use them effectively. Sponge-like mind at age 18, bro. Enjoy it. I learned more than I've ever learned between ages 16 to 22.
At age 26, I'm by no means ancient, but I'm starting to enter a strange period where I'm a little more mellow overall, yet my methods and routines have been a little more set in their ways and it's begun turning me into a crotchety old man. I'm really stretched between the old guard of traditional stats; the means of understanding most often used in the 90's and early 2000's (what I consider, the Golden Age of basketball) and new school advanced stats that are used to find value in players like Tyson Chandler and Shane Battier; players who put up laughable traditional stats (by 90's/2000's standards), but get tons of love because of their less tangible advanced stats.
I ultimately land with 8th Ave on this subject: nothing can substitute watching the games. Stats will never be as effective as observation. With all due respect to your previous statement, there are some things that just aren't quantifiable.