"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics"
OT blowhard alert....
I hate that quote. Math and specifically stats are so misunderstood it's scary.
That quote is from a "wannabe" who couldn't tell the difference between a truly normalized dataset and a spreadsheet full of nonsense violating all inference and collection assumptions. Then he ran a bunch of crap paired - t or chi tests to show some null hypothesis rejected as well as his publication attempt.
The researchers and scientists that can't grasp Stats ( and believe the above quote) are either now cutting keys at Home Depot or teaching Bio/Chem/Phys 101 at Meatball State.....
This is where they come up with lame dick quotes like this after years of crying himself to sleep after his statistical prowess was embarrassed by his fellow peers.
Sincerely, QSci superiority guy
The quote is usually attributed to Mark Twain although that is up to some debate. The fact remains that you can manipulate statistics in ways to fit your narrative. Which I believe was the purpose of the article.
It makes no sense to attribute a statistical analysis to the potential for coaching success. There are way too many variables to make a mathematical analysis. Thus, the article comes out looking like something that should be on the front page of dawgman.com
The quote is usually attributed to Mark Twain although that is up to some debate. The fact remains that you can manipulate statistics in ways to fit your narrative. Which I believe was the purpose of the article.
It makes no sense to attribute a statistical analysis to the potential for coaching success. There are way too many variables to make a mathematical analysis. Thus, the article comes out looking like something that should be on the front page of dawgman.com
Great job!
People get paid good money to analyze systems that are far more complicated.
The issue that you seem to have lies with the fact that any one measure is not that robust in something with as many variables as coaching. If there were any measure that was close to 100% accurate, people wouldn't ever hire shitty coaches if they had the money to outbid other schools.
Statistics can help give you likelihoods, and its certainly more helpful than a blind guess if done right. It's very hard to do correctly. Do you include outliers or account for them? How many parameters do you include? Do your parameters reflect "real" things, or are they just an abstraction?
Mariota is perfect for the college game, one of those once in a generation type players. I can't speak to how he will do in the NFL with his relatively thin frame and dependence on his legs for dictating how defenses play him in CFB vs. the Not For Long ranks where mobile QBs don't stay mobile for too long if they test the bigger, faster, stronger DEs, LBs, and DBs early and often.
Frankly, the changes in the college game since Dick Rod and Urban Meyer came along has made it harder for NFL execs to predict how mobile QBs' success in CFB will translate to the NFL game. The best QBs in the NFL have always been deadly accurate and only use their legs if they have to rather than relying on the HUNU read-option to create big windows....think Brady, Manning, Aaron Rodgers. Alex Smith was Meyer's QB at Utah and was the #1 pick but he's been only pretty good. Cam Newton was Malzahn's NC winning QB at Auburn and was the #1 pick but Newton has been somewhat injury prone and his performance has been erratic. Newton is basically the archetype of the new CFB offense but how will he do on the road against the Seahawks when Cliff Avril, Michael Bennett, Bruce Irvin, Bobby Wagner, KJ Wright, and Bam Bam Kam are coming after him? But I digress...
Anyway, I don't really care about Oregon right now as we won't even beat Stanford next year if the staff doesn't figure out the QB position and the OL....not much sense in discussing if someone else's clean house will get dirty in 2015 when our house needs attention ASAP.
Newsflash: vast majority of coaches fail. In any situation. No matter what parameters you select you're going to get the same results.
Unfortunately Oregon has many built in advantages at this point that make them an exception. Helfrich very well might suck. But at Oregon he could suck and still be successful.
It's surprisingly hard for programs to stay on top. UW was until Oregon and USC led the charge to topple James. USC was on top with Carroll but then Carroll leaving and sanctions took them down. Stanford was briefly on top but then Harbaugh and Luck left and they haven't really been the same. Oregon is clearly on top this year but what happens with Mariota and a bunch of Kelly recruited / coached players move on?
Regardless, UW won't get back to the top of the league until we fix our own house. That starts with stability at the coaching position, at QB, and on the OL / DL. We obviously won't have turnover at HC but we'll probably have a new starting QB, 4 new starters on the OL, and an entirely new starting DL for 2015.
At least Charles is back at LG, Brostek will be taking his RS off for RG, and Tufunga and Shelton started a few games each in 2014.
Newsflash: vast majority of coaches fail. In any situation. No matter what parameters you select you're going to get the same results.
Unfortunately Oregon has many built in advantages at this point that make them an exception. Helfrich very well might suck. But at Oregon he could suck and still be successful.
This might be the dumbest write up I've ever read. This looks like something you'd find on DawgFag. It's easy to say he'll take a step back no other place to go but down after a national title. Who fucking cares if they take a step back. A step back for Oregon is still 10 steps ahead of the Huskies. If Helfrick has red flags how many does Peterman have??
For what its worth if Helf follows what I expect his record would be something like this the next 4 years:
11-2 10-3 9-5 8-5
I don't think its an extreme view to say he will regress. Fair to disagree but you can't paint it as extreme given the strong history behind these types of hires.
This article does a great job of proving one thing. The minute anyone talks slightly negatively about Oregon, it's fans go into pissy little faggot tantrums.
Let's be honest, this site is an alternative to the humorless drivel on places like dawgman. A lot of what is posted here is self depreciating towards the team this site is named after and a lot is tongue-in-cheek. There are some duck fans here that contribute to such discussions and give the huskies a good natured ribbing as well. However, as AZDuck has demonstrated in this post, they get all serious and turn into 12-level pussy mouthbreathers the minute anything negative is slightly suggested about the Ducks.
This article does a great job of proving one thing. The minute anyone talks slightly negatively about Oregon, it's fans go into pissy little faggot tantrums.
Let's be honest, this site is an alternative to the humorless drivel on places like dawgman. A lot of what is posted here is self depreciating towards the team this site is named after and a lot is tongue-in-cheek. There are some duck fans here that contribute to such discussions and give the huskies a good natured ribbing as well. However, as AZDuck has demonstrated in this post, they get all serious and turn into 12-level pussy faggots the minute anything negative is slightly suggested about the Ducks.
I enjoy a little good natured ribbing among rival fans
This article does a great job of proving one thing. The minute anyone talks slightly negatively about Oregon, it's fans go into pissy little faggot tantrums.
Let's be honest, this site is an alternative to the humorless drivel on places like dawgman. A lot of what is posted here is self depreciating towards the team this site is named after and a lot is tongue-in-cheek. There are some duck fans here that contribute to such discussions and give the huskies a good natured ribbing as well. However, as AZDuck has demonstrated in this post, they get all serious and turn into 12-level pussy mouthbreathers the minute anything negative is slightly suggested about the Ducks.
Not the case.
Why should I have any patience for wishful thinking unsupported by evidence or analysis?
With Helfrich finishing his second season, it seems too early for any comparisons to be made. There are things re. Oregon and Helfrich which I find to be positives for Oregon's future.
First, how did the ducks get to where they are? My answer is that Chip had a brilliant offensive system that he developed out of the lime light in New Hampshire.
Next Chip needed the horses that would make his system go. He turned to Willie Lyles and the openly dishonest running back coach, Gary Campbell to cheat their way to a good roster.
The ducks started to win; win a lot. Once they became "big time" through winning and Nike fashion, the recruits wanted to come to Eugene. Oregon was not only a good football team, but Nike made them a fashion showcase that eighteen year old kids loved. Winning is the best recruiter that there is.
Now along comes Helfrich. He learned the duck system under its inventor and geru. He's bright and honest which, after establishing a winning program, it is an asset not a liability.
I've followed Mark since he was in high school and knew his father, a local banker in Coos Bay. His original plan was to go premed ot Oregon, but couldn't leave football so he played QB at Southern Oregon followed by climbing the coaching ladder. He has the tools to keep getting better.
He will run a clean, disciplined and fair program. He may not be a great speaker, but players and fans alike love him.
If it weren't for their terrible fan base, I could be a fan except when they play the Dawgs. I can't go on hating the program forever because its roots are firmly planted in Chip's dishonesty. I don't like Uncle Phil's support of the program, but wouldn't mind it if those donations were going to the Huskies and we could learn something about promoting the program from Nike.
I believe that the ducks biggest problem will be when a clever defensive coordinator comes up with the perfect defense to stop the Kelly system. I don't have a clue re. Helfrich's imagination.
This article does a great job of proving one thing. The minute anyone talks slightly negatively about Oregon, it's fans go into pissy little faggot tantrums.
Let's be honest, this site is an alternative to the humorless drivel on places like dawgman. A lot of what is posted here is self depreciating towards the team this site is named after and a lot is tongue-in-cheek. There are some duck fans here that contribute to such discussions and give the huskies a good natured ribbing as well. However, as AZDuck has demonstrated in this post, they get all serious and turn into 12-level pussy mouthbreathers the minute anything negative is slightly suggested about the Ducks.
Who has been having a tantrum in this thread? Looks like it is you.
Tell you what, the next time I am feeling uppity, I'll wear a condom with the appropriate ribbing for your pleasure and you can keep your tongue in your cheek for it, okay?
Here's something I made for Oregon. On the top are the QB's for each year, the bottom are the coaches. Green is team recruiting ranking for the arriving class according to Rivals.
Here's my prediction:
How did I make the prediction?
Most people agree on a couple of things 1) Chip was an excellent coach 2) Mariota is an excellent college QB.
There is a dropoff in PPG between Chip's last year and Helf's 2 years. The system is still very similar. I assumed Mariota did not develop much (influence stayed about even. Assuming that the uptick in points per game Chip's last year is due to Mariota. Also assuming that the dropoff post chip was due to losing his influence (could be due to roster turnover too, but that happens every year).
So, I simply took the rise in points by adding Mariota and subtracted it from the current points. Most of the additional assumptions I would make would make Chip seem like a better coach, so I think this is a good middle ground. This scoring amount would likely amount to a 7-2 or 6-3 in conference finish. Sounds reasonable to me.
This article does a great job of proving one thing. The minute anyone talks slightly negatively about Oregon, it's fans go into pissy little faggot tantrums.
Let's be honest, this site is an alternative to the humorless drivel on places like dawgman. A lot of what is posted here is self depreciating towards the team this site is named after and a lot is tongue-in-cheek. There are some duck fans here that contribute to such discussions and give the huskies a good natured ribbing as well. However, as AZDuck has demonstrated in this post, they get all serious and turn into 12-level pussy mouthbreathers the minute anything negative is slightly suggested about the Ducks.
Not the case.
Why should I have any patience for wishful thinking unsupported by evidence or analysis?
The evidence is pretty clear that these types of hires don't work out in the long run. It also shows they can have huge success in their first few years. Its fair to disagree with the conclusion and say he will be Tom Osborne or Oregon is like Michigan and will remain consistent. Saying there is no evidence or analysis is FS and shows you are butthurt over the conclusion.
Here's something I made for Oregon. On the top are the QB's for each year, the bottom are the coaches. Green is team recruiting ranking for the arriving class according to Rivals.
Here's my prediction:
How did I make the prediction?
Most people agree on a couple of things 1) Chip was an excellent coach 2) Mariota is an excellent college QB.
There is a dropoff in PPG between Chip's last year and Helf's 2 years. The system is still very similar. I assumed Mariota did not develop much (influence stayed about even. Assuming that the uptick in points per game Chip's last year is due to Mariota. Also assuming that the dropoff post chip was due to losing his influence (could be due to roster turnover too, but that happens every year).
So, I simply took the rise in points by adding Mariota and subtracted it from the current points. Most of the additional assumptions I would make would make Chip seem like a better coach, so I think this is a good middle ground. This scoring amount would likely amount to a 7-2 or 6-3 in conference finish. Sounds reasonable to me.
Not unreasonable, absent the evidence. The evidence shows that Oregon has two underclassmen 5-star running backs in Tyner and Freeman who have both played really well. I'm guessing that the offensive scheme will shift away from the QB toward the RBs. Whether that is enough to go 8-1 in-league I don't know. With what we have coming back Oregon should be able to win the North and contend for the league title in 2015.
Here's something I made for Oregon. On the top are the QB's for each year, the bottom are the coaches. Green is team recruiting ranking for the arriving class according to Rivals.
Here's my prediction:
How did I make the prediction?
Most people agree on a couple of things 1) Chip was an excellent coach 2) Mariota is an excellent college QB.
There is a dropoff in PPG between Chip's last year and Helf's 2 years. The system is still very similar. I assumed Mariota did not develop much (influence stayed about even. Assuming that the uptick in points per game Chip's last year is due to Mariota. Also assuming that the dropoff post chip was due to losing his influence (could be due to roster turnover too, but that happens every year).
So, I simply took the rise in points by adding Mariota and subtracted it from the current points. Most of the additional assumptions I would make would make Chip seem like a better coach, so I think this is a good middle ground. This scoring amount would likely amount to a 7-2 or 6-3 in conference finish. Sounds reasonable to me.
Comments
It makes no sense to attribute a statistical analysis to the potential for coaching success. There are way too many variables to make a mathematical analysis. Thus, the article comes out looking like something that should be on the front page of dawgman.com
Great job!
The issue that you seem to have lies with the fact that any one measure is not that robust in something with as many variables as coaching. If there were any measure that was close to 100% accurate, people wouldn't ever hire shitty coaches if they had the money to outbid other schools.
Statistics can help give you likelihoods, and its certainly more helpful than a blind guess if done right. It's very hard to do correctly. Do you include outliers or account for them? How many parameters do you include? Do your parameters reflect "real" things, or are they just an abstraction?
Frankly, the changes in the college game since Dick Rod and Urban Meyer came along has made it harder for NFL execs to predict how mobile QBs' success in CFB will translate to the NFL game. The best QBs in the NFL have always been deadly accurate and only use their legs if they have to rather than relying on the HUNU read-option to create big windows....think Brady, Manning, Aaron Rodgers. Alex Smith was Meyer's QB at Utah and was the #1 pick but he's been only pretty good. Cam Newton was Malzahn's NC winning QB at Auburn and was the #1 pick but Newton has been somewhat injury prone and his performance has been erratic. Newton is basically the archetype of the new CFB offense but how will he do on the road against the Seahawks when Cliff Avril, Michael Bennett, Bruce Irvin, Bobby Wagner, KJ Wright, and Bam Bam Kam are coming after him? But I digress...
Anyway, I don't really care about Oregon right now as we won't even beat Stanford next year if the staff doesn't figure out the QB position and the OL....not much sense in discussing if someone else's clean house will get dirty in 2015 when our house needs attention ASAP.
Unfortunately Oregon has many built in advantages at this point that make them an exception. Helfrich very well might suck. But at Oregon he could suck and still be successful.
Regardless, UW won't get back to the top of the league until we fix our own house. That starts with stability at the coaching position, at QB, and on the OL / DL. We obviously won't have turnover at HC but we'll probably have a new starting QB, 4 new starters on the OL, and an entirely new starting DL for 2015.
At least Charles is back at LG, Brostek will be taking his RS off for RG, and Tufunga and Shelton started a few games each in 2014.
Fuck off
11-2
10-3
9-5
8-5
I don't think its an extreme view to say he will regress. Fair to disagree but you can't paint it as extreme given the strong history behind these types of hires.
Let's be honest, this site is an alternative to the humorless drivel on places like dawgman. A lot of what is posted here is self depreciating towards the team this site is named after and a lot is tongue-in-cheek. There are some duck fans here that contribute to such discussions and give the huskies a good natured ribbing as well. However, as AZDuck has demonstrated in this post, they get all serious and turn into 12-level pussy mouthbreathers the minute anything negative is slightly suggested about the Ducks.
Why should I have any patience for wishful thinking unsupported by evidence or analysis?
First, how did the ducks get to where they are? My answer is that Chip had a brilliant offensive system that he developed out of the lime light in New Hampshire.
Next Chip needed the horses that would make his system go. He turned to Willie Lyles and the openly dishonest running back coach, Gary Campbell to cheat their way to a good roster.
The ducks started to win; win a lot. Once they became "big time" through winning and Nike fashion, the recruits wanted to come to Eugene. Oregon was not only a good football team, but Nike made them a fashion showcase that eighteen year old kids loved. Winning is the best recruiter that there is.
Now along comes Helfrich. He learned the duck system under its inventor and geru. He's bright and honest which, after establishing a winning program, it is an asset not a liability.
I've followed Mark since he was in high school and knew his father, a local banker in Coos Bay. His original plan was to go premed ot Oregon, but couldn't leave football so he played QB at Southern Oregon followed by climbing the coaching ladder. He has the tools to keep getting better.
He will run a clean, disciplined and fair program. He may not be a great speaker, but players and fans alike love him.
If it weren't for their terrible fan base, I could be a fan except when they play the Dawgs. I can't go on hating the program forever because its roots are firmly planted in Chip's dishonesty. I don't like Uncle Phil's support of the program, but wouldn't mind it if those donations were going to the Huskies and we could learn something about promoting the program from Nike.
I believe that the ducks biggest problem will be when a clever defensive coordinator comes up with the perfect defense to stop the Kelly system. I don't have a clue re. Helfrich's imagination.
Tell you what, the next time I am feeling uppity, I'll wear a condom with the appropriate ribbing for your pleasure and you can keep your tongue in your cheek for it, okay?
Here's my prediction:
How did I make the prediction?
Most people agree on a couple of things
1) Chip was an excellent coach
2) Mariota is an excellent college QB.
There is a dropoff in PPG between Chip's last year and Helf's 2 years. The system is still very similar.
I assumed Mariota did not develop much (influence stayed about even. Assuming that the uptick in points per game Chip's last year is due to Mariota. Also assuming that the dropoff post chip was due to losing his influence (could be due to roster turnover too, but that happens every year).
So, I simply took the rise in points by adding Mariota and subtracted it from the current points. Most of the additional assumptions I would make would make Chip seem like a better coach, so I think this is a good middle ground. This scoring amount would likely amount to a 7-2 or 6-3 in conference finish. Sounds reasonable to me.