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.
-
Here's the only metric that matters: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.
8-10 -
You are the ring leader when it comes to saying pre season polls and rankings are bullshit.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
God forbid we ever have standards.HuskyInAZ said:
This is beyond stupid. The right answer is the hype is meaningless. The coaches and players have done nothing to ask for the hype, nor have they done anything to deserve it.Gladstone said:Also take slight issue with your point about the hype being negative. The hype can only be a good thing IMO, light shines ever brighter if we* fall short. Questions will be asked etc.
"But the hype can be a good thing, 'cause if they underperform that (unearned) hype, questions will be asked." Give me a fucking break.
I don't know why they even bother to keep score.
If Petersen wins only 8 (or even 9) games this season i am pretty sure most everyone (except for PLSS maybe) will be door.ass.out with Pete. It won't be because he failed to live up to the bullshit media hype. It will be because he failed to have a great season with a talented roster.
All people are saying is Petersen hasn't done shit to ask for his team to be hyped up (He's actually had been swatting down the hype whenever asked about it because he knows he hasn't done anything to this point to earn it). Not sure why this is so hard to understand.
The hype is irrelevant. Win or LEAVE! -
Your logic is flawed.Mad_Son said:
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.FremontTroll said:
All coach effect does is compare recruiting rankings to results.Mad_Son said:
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.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.
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.
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. -
The pussy punt against Oregon was much worse.FremontTroll said:
Your logic is flawed.Mad_Son said:
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.FremontTroll said:
All coach effect does is compare recruiting rankings to results.Mad_Son said:
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.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.
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.
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. -
Yeah probably.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
The pussy punt against Oregon was much worse.FremontTroll said:
Your logic is flawed.Mad_Son said:
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.FremontTroll said:
All coach effect does is compare recruiting rankings to results.Mad_Son said:
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.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.
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.
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.
Also as far as the design of the offense goes there is no way to accurately quantify any negative or positive coordinator effect IMO. There is no way to accurately control for all other variables as Mad_Son wants to do. Bartoo does have a coordinator effect ranking though so I guess you could try starting there instead of with the broader coach effect. -
Why worry about the hype? Either we'll live up to it or we won't. If we do, it will help us build recruiting momentum. If not, it won't make any difference.
I am sick of unrealized potential. That's what I don't like. Let's fucking live up to our potential as a team.
Hype? Who fucking cares? That's sports radio bullshit. It's all fucking hype. You know what's not hype? Orphan's dying of starvation, women getting raped as instruments of war, people dying slow deaths of diseases alone. That's real shit. Literally everything to do with college football is bullshit. It's all just us fucking around.
Any taking it seriously makes you a fucking moron in my book. So, I am not fucking worried that ESPN is talking about us. It's all bullshit, who cares? I'll just enjoy it on whatever level.
What I *am* sick of, though, is our fucking fag ass Doog fans that want not to be disappointed so much that they scorn top ratings and accolades.
Who gives a fucking shit?
What I care about is wins. Win or GTFO. Care about wins or GTFO. -
Win. Period. Anything else after fifteen years of wandering the desert is a pretty tough sell.
-
Petersen is responsible for the coordinators. That is part of the coach effect.FremontTroll said:
Yeah probably.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
The pussy punt against Oregon was much worse.FremontTroll said:
Your logic is flawed.Mad_Son said:
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.FremontTroll said:
All coach effect does is compare recruiting rankings to results.Mad_Son said:
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.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.
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.
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.
Also as far as the design of the offense goes there is no way to accurately quantify any negative or positive coordinator effect IMO. There is no way to accurately control for all other variables as Mad_Son wants to do. Bartoo does have a coordinator effect ranking though so I guess you could try starting there instead of with the broader coach effect.
So this is an article about Petersen because everything is on the head coach. It was like trying to blame Kent Baer for Willingham's problems. If Smith is a failure (which Bartoo gives him a C+, adjusted to D when compensated for talent) then that is Petersen's fault for having him. The over all coach effect should be the sum total of all aspects of the program, which it is in effect once you normalize for talent.FremontTroll said:
Yeah probably.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
The pussy punt against Oregon was much worse.FremontTroll said:
Your logic is flawed.Mad_Son said:
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.FremontTroll said:
All coach effect does is compare recruiting rankings to results.Mad_Son said:
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.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.
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.
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.
Also as far as the design of the offense goes there is no way to accurately quantify any negative or positive coordinator effect IMO. There is no way to accurately control for all other variables as Mad_Son wants to do. Bartoo does have a coordinator effect ranking though so I guess you could try starting there instead of with the broader coach effect.
I am not sure why you don't think play calling matters and that running random plays would not have a detriment on a team... When we start playing with house money I'll ask Petersen to try that as an experiment. -
Also when you start typing on your phone and it saves a draft and then you come to your computer to respond that last post is apparently the outcome...
-
1) Stats/Data is great at trying to frame the unobservable or when needed to isolate information ... where I get bent out of shape is when trying to get data to explain information that you can see with your own eyes
2) when it comes to evaluating what Pete has done the first two years, you don't need some kind of advanced data to back up any conclusions ... using the advanced data if anything makes you sound less educated than not -
This post actually does not suck.Tequilla said:1) Stats/Data is great at trying to frame the unobservable or when needed to isolate information ... where I get bent out of shape is when trying to get data to explain information that you can see with your own eyes
2) when it comes to evaluating what Pete has done the first two years, you don't need some kind of advanced data to back up any conclusions ... using the advanced data if anything makes you sound less educated than not
We all see Peterman underachieving, just look at his record. -
The other thing about the article is that the initial perception of the article is this bias that Pete isn't the guy and looking for evidence that confirms your conclusion ...
There is NOTHING out of the first (or really first 3) games of the season that will confirm or not. At best we will know the answer if he isn't by the bye or have an idea that he is by the end of November. -
In response to your prior post, I am glad you clearly see Petersen is underachieving, I don't think everyone realizes that. I don't think mentioning coach effect was superfluous.Tequilla said:The other thing about the article is that the initial perception of the article is this bias that Pete isn't the guy and looking for evidence that confirms your conclusion ...
There is NOTHING out of the first (or really first 3) games of the season that will confirm or not. At best we will know the answer if he isn't by the bye or have an idea that he is by the end of November.
So I actually went into the season optimistic that he was the guy. The top thing I look for in a first game of the season is how the lines play. Things go weird on the first game but I expect to see a good team control the lines. Sure, as the season goes on they will assuredly improve (as will everyone across the country) but I want to see an indication that this is a team that can run the ball. I already mentioned that maybe we schemed the way we did because it was the first game and we were taking the path of least resistance. The thing is I haven't seen any improvement. Maybe there is change but I haven't seen it.
I guess a way to talk about this in the way you want to is: what is your null hypothesis? For any given team, do you assume they have gone from a 7-6 team to a conference champion or do you assume they are still a 7-6 team?
I have shown that Petersen has been deficient, (for two primary reasons I identified) as the head coach at UW, and that there has been little indication that there has been any improvement. The possibility that it is too early to tell was included because it is the beginning of the season, but everything I mentioned about judgement is that it occurs based on the end of season win total... -
To say that a coach lost 3 games in a season is high end and better be supported with CLEAR examples of how that was the case. Taking Stanford out of the equation, that leaves 5 games from which to pin 3 losses directly on Pete (Boise, Cal, Oregon, Utah, ASU) ...
Your premise of wanting to see good line play is based on the eye of the beholder ...
If you just look at the stats you would say the OL and running game was brutal and hopeless ... if you watched the game/tape it becomes very clear that Rutgers sold out to stop the run and force Browning to beat them deep ... also looking at the OL play requires looking at how the protection was and in the case of a vertical passing game, something had to be going right there
With all due respect, the right decision on Saturday was to take what Rutgers was giving us and it was even better to see that we were capable of hitting the big play when teams sell out to stop the run.
I know that the narrative with Smith is that he throws too much for the liking on this board. Smith surely has much to prove as the year progresses. I'd argue though that there was a lot more done right on Saturday with regards to play calling than not. -
Gladstone said:
Win. Period. Anything else after fifteen years of wandering the desert is a pretty tough sell.
-
A/S/L?Dennis_DeYoung said:Why worry about the hype? Either we'll live up to it or we won't. If we do, it will help us build recruiting momentum. If not, it won't make any difference.
I am sick of unrealized potential. That's what I don't like. Let's fucking live up to our potential as a team.
Hype? Who fucking cares? That's sports radio bullshit. It's all fucking hype. You know what's not hype? Orphan's dying of starvation, women getting raped as instruments of war, people dying slow deaths of diseases alone. That's real shit. Literally everything to do with college football is bullshit. It's all just us fucking around.
Any taking it seriously makes you a fucking moron in my book. So, I am not fucking worried that ESPN is talking about us. It's all bullshit, who cares? I'll just enjoy it on whatever level.
What I *am* sick of, though, is our fucking fag ass Doog fans that want not to be disappointed so much that they scorn top ratings and accolades.
Who gives a fucking shit?
What I care about is wins. Win or GTFO. Care about wins or GTFO. -
14/F/LatviaCokeGreaterThanPepsi said:
A/S/L?Dennis_DeYoung said:Why worry about the hype? Either we'll live up to it or we won't. If we do, it will help us build recruiting momentum. If not, it won't make any difference.
I am sick of unrealized potential. That's what I don't like. Let's fucking live up to our potential as a team.
Hype? Who fucking cares? That's sports radio bullshit. It's all fucking hype. You know what's not hype? Orphan's dying of starvation, women getting raped as instruments of war, people dying slow deaths of diseases alone. That's real shit. Literally everything to do with college football is bullshit. It's all just us fucking around.
Any taking it seriously makes you a fucking moron in my book. So, I am not fucking worried that ESPN is talking about us. It's all bullshit, who cares? I'll just enjoy it on whatever level.
What I *am* sick of, though, is our fucking fag ass Doog fans that want not to be disappointed so much that they scorn top ratings and accolades.
Who gives a fucking shit?
What I care about is wins. Win or GTFO. Care about wins or GTFO. -
meh, pass.Dennis_DeYoung said:
14/F/LatviaCokeGreaterThanPepsi said:
A/S/L?Dennis_DeYoung said:Why worry about the hype? Either we'll live up to it or we won't. If we do, it will help us build recruiting momentum. If not, it won't make any difference.
I am sick of unrealized potential. That's what I don't like. Let's fucking live up to our potential as a team.
Hype? Who fucking cares? That's sports radio bullshit. It's all fucking hype. You know what's not hype? Orphan's dying of starvation, women getting raped as instruments of war, people dying slow deaths of diseases alone. That's real shit. Literally everything to do with college football is bullshit. It's all just us fucking around.
Any taking it seriously makes you a fucking moron in my book. So, I am not fucking worried that ESPN is talking about us. It's all bullshit, who cares? I'll just enjoy it on whatever level.
What I *am* sick of, though, is our fucking fag ass Doog fans that want not to be disappointed so much that they scorn top ratings and accolades.
Who gives a fucking shit?
What I care about is wins. Win or GTFO. Care about wins or GTFO. -
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!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.
