Why do we care so much about what's overrated?
Reply to Topic
Or maybe I post whatever I want and don't give a damn about what others say.
__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0
I really just want you all angry and confused the whole time.
X
Favorite Movies
Obviously, you still have to work on the second part.
__________________
You talkin' to me?
You talkin' to me?
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
I'll make a slight defense of calling something overrated, if done the right way.
"Overrated" shouldn't just mean you didn't like it as much as other people. I'm not saying you shouldn't talk about liking things less than other people, but I think the term "overrated" doesn't totally fit that purpose. A good use of overrated also has some discussion about what the metrics involved in the "rating" aspect are.
Let's take something in a somewhat more "objective" but still heated area of overrated players in sports. There's been a surge in statistical interest in pretty much every sport over the last decade or two. One of the metrics that seems to have a lot of currency in nearly ever team sport is a generalized "wins above replacement" concept. That is to say, what a single player really brings to the team represented by the distance between that player and what they'd be "replaced" with (the opportunity cost of that player, essentially). I think it's fairly non-controversial to say that one of the sturdiest measures of what a player brings to a team is "winning more because of them".
For example, let's take a basketball player who is one of the best scorers in the league. Someone tells me how amazing she is at basketball, she's clearly one of the best players in the league, she scores a lot of points, and that's what you need to win!
I might respond with "You're right, you need the most points to win, which is why I think she's overrated. She scores a lot of points sure, but she only makes 30% of her shots. The rest of her team averages 40%, so actually she's making it harder for her team to win because her team would score more points without her playing".
This sort of response calls in a simple model of rating, shot percentage. And that model rests on a basic premise, winning games. This is what a good use of "overrated" feels like to me. It appeals to a widely held basic criterion (good players are ones that help their team win) and makes an argument to say why the player doesn't meet that criteria (she shoots worse then her teammates).
And maybe even, I might be wrong! Maybe she only takes shots when the clock is about to run out and it just looks bad, or maybe she only shoots threes so it's alright for her FG% to be lower, or maybe her leadership on the team brings the whole team together. Those could all be fine follow-ups to the initial point, because they still serve a shared premise of "good players help their team win more".
Overrated, to me, implies a "rating system" in the first place. And it's only really useful to discuss rating systems if they share SOME premises. Once you leave the territory of shared premises and the discussion is just "well I didn't like this movie", then it's totally boring to me, and basically only useful as a statistic.
I like calling stuff overrated!
"Overrated" shouldn't just mean you didn't like it as much as other people. I'm not saying you shouldn't talk about liking things less than other people, but I think the term "overrated" doesn't totally fit that purpose. A good use of overrated also has some discussion about what the metrics involved in the "rating" aspect are.
Let's take something in a somewhat more "objective" but still heated area of overrated players in sports. There's been a surge in statistical interest in pretty much every sport over the last decade or two. One of the metrics that seems to have a lot of currency in nearly ever team sport is a generalized "wins above replacement" concept. That is to say, what a single player really brings to the team represented by the distance between that player and what they'd be "replaced" with (the opportunity cost of that player, essentially). I think it's fairly non-controversial to say that one of the sturdiest measures of what a player brings to a team is "winning more because of them".
For example, let's take a basketball player who is one of the best scorers in the league. Someone tells me how amazing she is at basketball, she's clearly one of the best players in the league, she scores a lot of points, and that's what you need to win!
I might respond with "You're right, you need the most points to win, which is why I think she's overrated. She scores a lot of points sure, but she only makes 30% of her shots. The rest of her team averages 40%, so actually she's making it harder for her team to win because her team would score more points without her playing".
This sort of response calls in a simple model of rating, shot percentage. And that model rests on a basic premise, winning games. This is what a good use of "overrated" feels like to me. It appeals to a widely held basic criterion (good players are ones that help their team win) and makes an argument to say why the player doesn't meet that criteria (she shoots worse then her teammates).
And maybe even, I might be wrong! Maybe she only takes shots when the clock is about to run out and it just looks bad, or maybe she only shoots threes so it's alright for her FG% to be lower, or maybe her leadership on the team brings the whole team together. Those could all be fine follow-ups to the initial point, because they still serve a shared premise of "good players help their team win more".
Overrated, to me, implies a "rating system" in the first place. And it's only really useful to discuss rating systems if they share SOME premises. Once you leave the territory of shared premises and the discussion is just "well I didn't like this movie", then it's totally boring to me, and basically only useful as a statistic.
I like calling stuff overrated!
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
I'll make a slight defense of calling something overrated, if done the right way.
"Overrated" shouldn't just mean you didn't like it as much as other people. I'm not saying you shouldn't talk about liking things less than other people, but I think the term "overrated" doesn't totally fit that purpose. A good use of overrated also has some discussion about what the metrics involved in the "rating" aspect are.
Let's take something in a somewhat more "objective" but still heated area of overrated players in sports. There's been a surge in statistical interest in pretty much every sport over the last decade or two. One of the metrics that seems to have a lot of currency in nearly ever team sport is a generalized "wins above replacement" concept. That is to say, what a single player really brings to the team represented by the distance between that player and what they'd be "replaced" with (the opportunity cost of that player, essentially). I think it's fairly non-controversial to say that one of the sturdiest measures of what a player brings to a team is "winning more because of them".
For example, let's take a basketball player who is one of the best scorers in the league. Someone tells me how amazing she is at basketball, she's clearly one of the best players in the league, she scores a lot of points, and that's what you need to win!
I might respond with "You're right, you need the most points to win, which is why I think she's overrated. She scores a lot of points sure, but she only makes 30% of her shots. The rest of her team averages 40%, so actually she's making it harder for her team to win because her team would score more points without her playing".
This sort of response calls in a simple model of rating, shot percentage. And that model rests on a basic premise, winning games. This is what a good use of "overrated" feels like to me. It appeals to a widely held basic criterion (good players are ones that help their team win) and makes an argument to say why the player doesn't meet that criteria (she shoots worse then her teammates).
And maybe even, I might be wrong! Maybe she only takes shots when the clock is about to run out and it just looks bad, or maybe she only shoots threes so it's alright for her FG% to be lower, or maybe her leadership on the team brings the whole team together. Those could all be fine follow-ups to the initial point, because they still serve a shared premise of "good players help their team win more".
Overrated, to me, implies a "rating system" in the first place. And it's only really useful to discuss rating systems if they share SOME premises. Once you leave the territory of shared premises and the discussion is just "well I didn't like this movie", then it's totally boring to me, and basically only useful as a statistic.
I like calling stuff overrated!
"Overrated" shouldn't just mean you didn't like it as much as other people. I'm not saying you shouldn't talk about liking things less than other people, but I think the term "overrated" doesn't totally fit that purpose. A good use of overrated also has some discussion about what the metrics involved in the "rating" aspect are.
Let's take something in a somewhat more "objective" but still heated area of overrated players in sports. There's been a surge in statistical interest in pretty much every sport over the last decade or two. One of the metrics that seems to have a lot of currency in nearly ever team sport is a generalized "wins above replacement" concept. That is to say, what a single player really brings to the team represented by the distance between that player and what they'd be "replaced" with (the opportunity cost of that player, essentially). I think it's fairly non-controversial to say that one of the sturdiest measures of what a player brings to a team is "winning more because of them".
For example, let's take a basketball player who is one of the best scorers in the league. Someone tells me how amazing she is at basketball, she's clearly one of the best players in the league, she scores a lot of points, and that's what you need to win!
I might respond with "You're right, you need the most points to win, which is why I think she's overrated. She scores a lot of points sure, but she only makes 30% of her shots. The rest of her team averages 40%, so actually she's making it harder for her team to win because her team would score more points without her playing".
This sort of response calls in a simple model of rating, shot percentage. And that model rests on a basic premise, winning games. This is what a good use of "overrated" feels like to me. It appeals to a widely held basic criterion (good players are ones that help their team win) and makes an argument to say why the player doesn't meet that criteria (she shoots worse then her teammates).
And maybe even, I might be wrong! Maybe she only takes shots when the clock is about to run out and it just looks bad, or maybe she only shoots threes so it's alright for her FG% to be lower, or maybe her leadership on the team brings the whole team together. Those could all be fine follow-ups to the initial point, because they still serve a shared premise of "good players help their team win more".
Overrated, to me, implies a "rating system" in the first place. And it's only really useful to discuss rating systems if they share SOME premises. Once you leave the territory of shared premises and the discussion is just "well I didn't like this movie", then it's totally boring to me, and basically only useful as a statistic.
I like calling stuff overrated!
X
Favorite Movies
We care enough about movies to join a forum where we talk about them with complete strangers.
most of the time I dont care, but if a movie is a real piece of s*** and everyone talking about it like its a masterpiece, I get a swollen vein. 
most of the time I dont care, but if a movie is a real piece of s*** and everyone talking about it like its a masterpiece, I get a swollen vein.
I only get like that with reality tv when people carry on about it being the bees knees, and I'm a terrible person for not enjoying the idea of destroying my last functioning brain cells to watch scripted crap like the bachelor. If they enjoy it, that's fine, but dont try to drag me into the squealing over a water cooler. My sister does this and it drives me up the wall.
No! if someone is enjoying reality TV its not "fine", they need help! you selfish!
I sort of think some people like to kick off their shoes after a hard day and turn their brain off so that's fine by me if that's the sort of entertainment they want to watch, as long as they dont impose it on me. We all have different taste. For that reason I dont talk to her about how great I thought Hannibal tv show was, because I know it's not her thing.
My girlfriend watch all the reality shows thats on, 90% of our fight its on that. I cant stand it, it drives me nuts
My sister's husband couldn't take it any more and left her after years of marriage. Sure there were other problems but it tipped him over.
ohhh man, I need to think twice now
I cannot understand how anyone can sit through that stuff, I really can't. I've seen bits here and there when getting the TV ready to watch something else, and not only are they all the same and as dumb as hell, but they're all so... BORING.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
I like some reality shows. I really liked some of the Real Housewives shows for years, but I seem to have weaned myself off all of them now.
__________________
I’m here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. That’s why I’m here now.
I’m here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. That’s why I’m here now.
I'm seriously amazed by the immediate conclusions of this thread. Do you seriously buy that "overrated", one of the most common buzzwords in movie talk, is actually brought to demean other opinions? Do you really think that the only thing people can think about when they come with the term is trying to make others look like they are in the wrong? No. It's an expression of disagreement and dissension with a majority on whatever specific subject they are talking about. Any of the following interpretations you guys make is part of each individual's personality.
You talk about the huge influx of these "overrated" threads as proof that the term is used to reinforce one's own opinions and I wonder if the actual issue is that people just enjoy posting and expressing thoughts that are rare or go against a common majority, simply because they are different and make conclusions that are not the usual repeated and beaten ones. That is, for the sake of bringing and reading something new that draws attention.
You talk about the huge influx of these "overrated" threads as proof that the term is used to reinforce one's own opinions and I wonder if the actual issue is that people just enjoy posting and expressing thoughts that are rare or go against a common majority, simply because they are different and make conclusions that are not the usual repeated and beaten ones. That is, for the sake of bringing and reading something new that draws attention.
X
Favorite Movies
X