Mad Son's Ramblings: Year Three is Prove-It Time for Petersen
Comments
-
Mike Leach does very well in his system with lower tier talent and that isn't a fluke. That is exactly what coach effect measures. All of those coaches you named may have been more successful, but that may be just because they aren't nut jobs and can attract top recruits. It sounds to me like you're afraid the Cougs are going to win the Apple Cup this year.BlowItUp said:
any metric that has Mike Leach as a better coach than David Shaw, Dabo Sweeney, Jimbo Fisher, Nick Saban and Urban Meyer is probably stupid and needs to be re-worked.Mad_Son said:
Is this because you hate quantifying things and looking at more than the win-loss column? Do you hate trying to understand root cause and to figure out what the source of the failures are? Coach Effect is a perfectly valid angle to look at performance versus recruiting. There are caveats with that but most of us are capable of understanding them...BlowItUp said:wtf'd for using coach effect.
-
Wow, just wowMad_Son said:
Mike Leach does very well in his system with lower tier talent and that isn't a fluke. That is exactly what coach effect measures. All of those coaches you named may have been more successful, but that may be just because they aren't nut jobs and can attract top recruits. It sounds to me like you're afraid the Cougs are going to win the Apple Cup this year.BlowItUp said:
any metric that has Mike Leach as a better coach than David Shaw, Dabo Sweeney, Jimbo Fisher, Nick Saban and Urban Meyer is probably stupid and needs to be re-worked.Mad_Son said:
Is this because you hate quantifying things and looking at more than the win-loss column? Do you hate trying to understand root cause and to figure out what the source of the failures are? Coach Effect is a perfectly valid angle to look at performance versus recruiting. There are caveats with that but most of us are capable of understanding them...BlowItUp said:wtf'd for using coach effect.
-
That is not a problem with new metrics. That is a problem with all metrics. If you want to account for luck, injuries, youth, etc you have to come up with new fangled, fancy things - the sort of thing that Chest was derided for.Tequilla said:The problem with some of these new dangled metrics is that they assume conditions and variables are constant and fail to account for circumstance or situation.
For example, if a team scores the same amount as they give up, the expectation is that this is a .500 team. And perhaps when this data is populated it is normally distributed. But there are still plenty of examples where there are teams that are 1-2 deviations outside the mean.
The question that you have to ask at that point is what drives those instances where teams are outside the norm? Luck? Bad coaching? Injuries? Youth? Turnovers?
I noted there are caveats and you mentioned that you have to try to understand the outliers that result from some of the assumptions made so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Does the fact that this metric indicates Washington is underperforming under Chris Petersen surprise you? I don't think anyone looks at our recruiting classes and thinks "Yup, perennial .500 team there". I think that when you are consistently hovering around the top 25 in talent you should be hovering around the top 25 in rankings... which has been elusive for us to achieve come the end of the season so far... -
Ah downvotes, the last result of the idiot who is wrong and has run out of excuses.
-
coaching effect is a stupid metric and you guys only use it cause it makes petersen look bad and ignore all the ones that make him look fine. bash petersen all you want for the '14 AZ game, the two minute (lol) drill against oregon, the 2nd half vs ASU, etc. i don't give a fuck. i'll just be over here scared of that coach that has a Apple cup record of 1-3 and been outscored by an average of 15 points a game. -
I don't mind metrics, but Coach Effect has to be the most tenuous. Using it is at least two, probably three steps of inference down the chain, based on Ecklunds view of a group of kids' hips in high school 2-4 years prior.
-
The thing with the Coach Effect is that it is more geared to finding coaches getting less with more. If you are the worst recruiter in the country and go 0-12, your coach effect is 0. If you are the best recruiter in the country and you go 12-0 your coach effect is also 0.
I do like CE, because it can help find those coaches that get less with more. But yeah. -
I mention it because it is one of the few things that looks at the big picture. You just listed a bunch of issues but seemingly don't care. Petersen is by and large a good coach. He had done many very good things. That isn't the point. The point is he has issues that can hold us back from greatness. We have under achieved relative to our talent level and that is what this measures. I think the only two things wrong with the program are coaching - gameday management and the offensive playcalling (we'll see on ol performance). Everything else is great but as long as we're under performing then those great things aren't enough. The defense may have been a year ahead developmentally but I haven't seen anything that shows our offense is there yet. It is too early to see if management issues have been fixed.BlowItUp said:
coaching effect is a stupid metric and you guys only use it cause it makes petersen look bad and ignore all the ones that make him look fine. bash petersen all you want for the '14 AZ game, the two minute (lol) drill against oregon, the 2nd half vs ASU, etc. i don't give a fuck. i'll just be over here scared of that coach that has a Apple cup record of 1-3 and been outscored by an average of 15 points a game.
This is not a fire Petersen article. It is a we aren't there yet article. It is a don't get lulled into diminished expectations because we've been losers for so long article. -
Right, we however are in a valid range to test positive and negative effects.CokeGreaterThanPepsi said:The thing with the Coach Effect is that it is more geared to finding coaches getting less with more. If you are the worst recruiter in the country and go 0-12, your coach effect is 0. If you are the best recruiter in the country and you go 12-0 your coach effect is also 0.
I do like CE, because it can help find those coaches that get less with more. But yeah. -
It works on a population level. Obviously since classes are bigger and smaller. Some kids are sleepers and other are busts. Fundamentally I don't think recruiting rankings are invalid for gauging gross talent levels.GrundleStiltzkin said:I don't mind metrics, but Coach Effect has to be the most tenuous. Using it is at least two, probably three steps of inference down the chain, based on Ecklunds view of a group of kids' hips in high school 2-4 years prior.
