Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

Mad Son's Ramblings: Year Three is Prove-It Time for Petersen

1…79111213

Comments

  • AEB
    AEB Member Posts: 3,023
    Dennis_DeYoung said:

    Dennis_DeYoung said:

    Dennis_DeYoung said:

    Mad_Son said:

    I feel like a broken record. I know Rutgers was keying on the run and giving us the pass. That doesn't change that I didn't see the results I needed to see that something had changed. Null hypothesis is that things are the same until shown otherwise.

    THIS!
    The other night I was Dilaudid-sext-ranting to Coker about Bayesian analysis and why you have to take all years of Petersen as meaningful prices.

    He deserves a medal.
    That should be 'priors' not 'prices'. Fucking AutoCorrect.

    It's hard.

    But yeah, as my class poaster friend @Mad_Son is saying the idea is this:

    The important premise is we are predicting something that changes, but is not random.

    Given that the pattern of data is not random, data already gathered can help you make more accurate (not 100% accurate, just MORE accurate) predictions about the future.

    So, we just look at what we've gotten out of Pete so far... let's make it simple and not even use stats, just grades.

    2014 Offensive Grade: C-
    2014 Defensive Grade: B+

    2015: Offensive Grade: D
    2015 Defensive Grade: A-

    What are the grades for 2016 likely to be?

    And then, even more than that... Given our prior knowledge, what new information would we view as satisfactory evidence that a new pattern was emerging?
    And you're comfortable that 27 observations of a dynamic portfolio of 85 units (most of which Pete had no choice to include or not) is a large enough sample from which to draw conclusions? Askin for a fren
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Baseman
    Baseman Member Posts: 12,379
    edited September 2016
    FremontTroll said:

    Mad_Son said:

    FremontTroll said:

    Mad_Son said:

    FremontTroll said:

    Coach effect does not equal game management.

    You'd have to be regularly punting on third down to cost your team three wins in one season via game management.

    Game management is wrapped up in there. It is a much larger term that encompasses nearly every aspect of the team, as I tried to acknowledge. I maybe wasn't as explicit in mentioning the offense there as I had intended to be. Basically those are the areas where we are under-performing and it is costing us games.
    All coach effect does is compare recruiting rankings to results.

    So, assuming the recruiting rankings are unbiased, coach effect attempts to measure every single aspect of coaching from identifying underrated talent to development to roster management to motivation to team-building to game management, etc.

    Game management is the most visible aspect of coaching but also the most overrated. A lot of awful fourth down decision makers have won Super Bowls and crystal footballs.
    Yes, so my logic is that if everything other than game mangement and the offense is good then those are what is costing us three games as per CFBMCE. Realistically if we are overachieving in say defense and off-season stuff then those two bad aspects are potentially costing us more than three wins. I acknowledged I did a poor job of showing game management and offense were linked concepts in the context of CFBMCE. I shouldn't have made offense a separate paragraph or I should have separated out game management into the offense paragraph.
    Your logic is flawed.

    Once again- a monkey picking plays using a random play generator wouldn't cost his team three full wins in a season. It's ludicrous

    Take CP's most derided decision - to hand off to Cooper. An overly generous estimation would be that UW's win probability decreased from 99.5% to 95%.

    In other terms that decision, as fucktarded as it was, cost UW less than .05 wins in expectation.
    Not so fast, Two games, Oregon and Arizona, were pissed away through poor play calling and game management. Utah? Is that three? And oh yeah, that decision to punt? Pure pussy.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • doogville
    doogville Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 1,244 Swaye's Wigwam
    Rutgers didn't really sell out to stop the run. They were playing with 2 safeties back.

    UW lineman just straight whiffed on some blocks (or weren't in sync with each other). It's concerning, but also the type of shit that can be cleaned up quick.

    Either way it will be interesting
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Gladstone
    Gladstone Member Posts: 16,425
    doogville said:

    Rutgers didn't really sell out to stop the run. They were playing with 2 safeties back.

    UW lineman just straight whiffed on some blocks (or weren't in sync with each other). It's concerning, but also the type of shit that can be cleaned up quick.

    Either way it will be interesting

    There were plays were all five OL just whiffed. The safeties also would read run based on the formations as well. You're right, they didn't stack the box that much. We just telegraphed everything like the pedestrian, unimaginative fucks we are.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Gladstone
    Gladstone Member Posts: 16,425
    RoadDawg55 said:

    there is no reason the OL will be worse.

    Coaching.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • DongJames
    DongJames Member Posts: 69
    edited September 2016
    image
    Hardcore_Husky said:


    Mad Son puts a lot of time into his Ramblings. We should all thank him for his service.

    Read the full story here


    I cannot in good conscience thank Mad Dog for his service.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • TurdBomber
    TurdBomber Member Posts: 20,051 Standard Supporter
    Mad Dog TSIO = Too Soon. Drink heavily and relax 'til game #4. Utterly meaningless games 'til then.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter