Originally Posted by

**freshmanjs**
To go along with the Words thread:

- During 1st game in the baseball series vs. Texas Tech (best of 3), announcers were making a big point that the winner of game 1 has a 79% chance of winning the series. As if that were remotely surprising. It would be surprising if it wasn't around 79%

- When JJ Redick played at Duke and was a 90% FT shooter, he was taking 10+ FT per game. Yet, inevitably, when he missed a FT, the comments followed like "Wow, a rare miss for JJ Redick." When, in fact, a miss at some point during the game was very likely.

Math and logic are very weak spots in this country today - and of course, math IS logic, and vice versa.

I remember when Nate Silver's 538 was predicting an 83% chance for Hillary to win the election and a 17% for Trump. When many of Nate's friends and followers started acting like it was a done deal, Silver harshly warned them in one of his posts. As he said, 17% is about like taking a single die and rolling a 3. You wouldn't predict it necessarily, but you wouldn't be shocked either.

So to be remain bi partisan (though I'm hardly that, and very involved) - the left (who assumed 83% meant a sure win) and the right (talk radio making fun of Nate Silver after the fact) both got it wrong.

I only bring it up to buttress the point of the thread - that so many people don't really understand logic/math, or use it correctly. And sports announcers are, in general, particularly bad at this.

This is also why the media was wrong, and K was right to order Zoubek to miss the second FT versus Butler. Zoub was a 50% FT shooter...and the odds were in Duke's favor if their players knew it would be a miss, while Butler's did not. As it turned out, Heyward got a 1% perfect bounce right to him, and almost made a 1% shot. But K was right on the odds. You replay that 100 times, and Butler probably never comes as close as they did.

**"...with Kam Fong as Chin Ho..."**