Mad Son's Ramblings: Year Three is Prove-It Time for Petersen
Comments
-
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.Dennis_DeYoung said:
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.
He deserves a medal. -
Mad Son you are a tard. Year 3 isnt "prove-it" time for ANY coach, at ANY level of big time football. Especially at Washington, where Sark left a program worse off than USC after 3 years of brutal sanctions.
Read Weak 1...at least Its accurate, truthful and relevant -
Puppy wanted Sark to have a 6th year. People forget that.
-
I am glad you explained that. I didn't want to ask and look stoopid.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.
-
I don't know what this means but I think it explains why youDennis_DeYoung said:
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.Dennis_DeYoung said:
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.
He deserves a medal.havehad a Maserati and I don't. -
Uh, pup wanted him gone before he ever stepped on field dipshit.PurpleJ said:Puppy wanted Sark to have a 6th year. People forget that.
-
Basically you want to know the probability that Petersen is a good coach given you've seen his record so far. The odds of you seeing that are the odds of his record given he is good, times the odds of him being good, normalized by the overall chances of him having that record (like if he is good or if he is bad, or inbetween). The more we see the more we understand about the odds of him being good.Swaye said:
I don't know what this means but I think it explains why youDennis_DeYoung said:
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.Dennis_DeYoung said:
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.
He deserves a medal.havehad a Maserati and I don't. -
Mad Cunt sit down, im going to knock some smarts into your ignant little gine.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.
Petersen ran the ball last year ahead of schedule. If you watched the 1st half, when Browning Was throwing the ball, you saw Gaskin was shredding Rutgers on toss sweeps, stretch plays and other runs indicitive of a building and powerful oline run or pass.
Your dumbass is drawing conclusions from a team up by 30-something, simply trying to burn clock. Everyone includ I ng Rutgers knew Browning was done taking shots downfi e ld. Pedderson and Smith were simply working on the running game versus an 8-man box and the strength of Rutgers, the defensive line.
Now just shut your hole and watch the running game going forward, with the threat of the pass, the long ball to Ross, Pettis; Chico, the wheel route to Dotson (who has great hands. Didnt know that did you Sonny?), etc that we saw in the 1st half. See the reason now that Gaskin found yardage more difficult to find in the 2nd half? Everyone knew the run was coming in case you didnt understand.
You armchairs qb's crack me up. You MadSon the starter. 1st team dipshit, backed up by J, then Boob. Race on the practice squad. -
Liar. You openly campaigned for his 6th year.puppylove_sugarsteel said:
Uh, pup wanted him gone before he ever stepped on field dipshit.PurpleJ said:Puppy wanted Sark to have a 6th year. People forget that.
-
J that aint close to true. I was here bashing Sark in 2013. I bashed Sark on Dawgman from day 1, whic h is why I got banned. Now here, I remember why I dont come here...but will as I like to drag your pussy through the mud.PurpleJ said:
Liar. You openly campaigned for his 6th year.puppylove_sugarsteel said:
Uh, pup wanted him gone before he ever stepped on field dipshit.PurpleJ said:Puppy wanted Sark to have a 6th year. People forget that.
Now if your going to lie about Pup wanting Sark, find proof. I was the original on the topic Ty's 0-12 team Sark took over was better than Sark's team when he left. Now I see your brain firing up a memory , which are few and far between -
What a Goddamn'd waste of time reading this thread was. Fuck me.
Have at it Mad-Son. Good thing others will engage you.
I'd bar you from my tailgate party for whining and being insufferably boring.
Christ Almighty. At least Puppy is funny when he rants. -
GrundleStiltzkin said:Gladstone said:
Win. Period. Anything else after fifteen years of wandering the desert is a pretty tough sell.
-
That should be 'priors' not 'prices'. Fucking AutoCorrect.Dennis_DeYoung said:
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.Dennis_DeYoung said:
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.
He deserves a medal.
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? -
No one was harder on Sark than puppy was.puppylove_sugarsteel said:
J that aint close to true. I was here bashing Sark in 2013. I bashed Sark on Dawgman from day 1, whic h is why I got banned. Now here, I remember why I dont come here...but will as I like to drag your pussy through the mud.PurpleJ said:
Liar. You openly campaigned for his 6th year.puppylove_sugarsteel said:
Uh, pup wanted him gone before he ever stepped on field dipshit.PurpleJ said:Puppy wanted Sark to have a 6th year. People forget that.
Now if your going to lie about Pup wanting Sark, find proof. I was the original on the topic Ty's 0-12 team Sark took over was better than Sark's team when he left. Now I see your brain firing up a memory , which are few and far between -
A better way of saying this then would be that I'm looking forward to signs that this team has improved on the OL and in the running game (and in fairness, the running game IN GENERAL was fairly good last year as it began to solidify as inexperienced players gained experience) ... after the first game of the 2016 season, the grade for this is INCOMPLETE given the nature of Rutgers defense, their tendency to sell out to stop the run (at the expense of the vertical passing game), and the outcome of the game being decided by no later than halftime.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.
To suggest that the OL performed poorly or whatnot in a game where the team won 48-13, played significant depth even leading into the eventual pulling of the starters, and was working through the 2nd and 3rd units by the middle of the 3rd quarter at the latest is insanely FS to me. -
You saying that no one ever talks about the times that Peterman was right?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. -
Unlike Mad_Son you may actually understand Bayesian analysis.Dennis_DeYoung said:
That should be 'priors' not 'prices'. Fucking AutoCorrect.Dennis_DeYoung said:
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.Dennis_DeYoung said:
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.
He deserves a medal.
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?
Regardless, John Ross' +3 wins cancel out CP's -3 wins ergo we are a 10 win team. Boom. -
Chest?
-
Wow, some actually follow.EsophagealFeces said:
No one was harder on Sark than puppy was.puppylove_sugarsteel said:
J that aint close to true. I was here bashing Sark in 2013. I bashed Sark on Dawgman from day 1, whic h is why I got banned. Now here, I remember why I dont come here...but will as I like to drag your pussy through the mud.PurpleJ said:
Liar. You openly campaigned for his 6th year.puppylove_sugarsteel said:
Uh, pup wanted him gone before he ever stepped on field dipshit.PurpleJ said:Puppy wanted Sark to have a 6th year. People forget that.
Now if your going to lie about Pup wanting Sark, find proof. I was the original on the topic Ty's 0-12 team Sark took over was better than Sark's team when he left. Now I see your brain firing up a memory , which are few and far between -
Translation Plagiarism...good stuffTequilla said:
A better way of saying this then would be that I'm looking forward to signs that this team has improved on the OL and in the running game (and in fairness, the running game IN GENERAL was fairly good last year as it began to solidify as inexperienced players gained experience) ... after the first game of the 2016 season, the grade for this is INCOMPLETE given the nature of Rutgers defense, their tendency to sell out to stop the run (at the expense of the vertical passing game), and the outcome of the game being decided by no later than halftime.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.
To suggest that the OL performed poorly or whatnot in a game where the team won 48-13, played significant depth even leading into the eventual pulling of the starters, and was working through the 2nd and 3rd units by the middle of the 3rd quarter at the latest is insanely FS to me. -
I pray to REAL God that you're the greatest whoosh in the history of whooshes. The more likely case is that you're the dumbest fucking Doog in the history of dumb fucking Doogs.puppylove_sugarsteel said:
Wow, some actually follow.EsophagealFeces said:
No one was harder on Sark than puppy was.puppylove_sugarsteel said:
J that aint close to true. I was here bashing Sark in 2013. I bashed Sark on Dawgman from day 1, whic h is why I got banned. Now here, I remember why I dont come here...but will as I like to drag your pussy through the mud.PurpleJ said:
Liar. You openly campaigned for his 6th year.puppylove_sugarsteel said:
Uh, pup wanted him gone before he ever stepped on field dipshit.PurpleJ said:Puppy wanted Sark to have a 6th year. People forget that.
Now if your going to lie about Pup wanting Sark, find proof. I was the original on the topic Ty's 0-12 team Sark took over was better than Sark's team when he left. Now I see your brain firing up a memory , which are few and far between -
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 frenDennis_DeYoung said:
That should be 'priors' not 'prices'. Fucking AutoCorrect.Dennis_DeYoung said:
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.Dennis_DeYoung said:
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.
He deserves a medal.
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? -
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.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. -
I'm comfortable doing the fucking analysis, I'll tell you that.AEB said:
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 frenDennis_DeYoung said:
That should be 'priors' not 'prices'. Fucking AutoCorrect.Dennis_DeYoung said:
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.Dennis_DeYoung said:
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.
He deserves a medal.
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 your bit about the 85 "units" not of his choosing is so fucking retarded I don't even know what to do.
Even though I'm in a wheelchair I'm not going to cripple fight some stats retard. -
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.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 -
I'm late to the thread.
On hype: agree with those that don't give a fuck. As Dennis said, it's all bullshit. The only pathetically true part about this hype is if Petersen goes 8-4 this season, the AD will hype him up for getting us all the way to #6 (or whatever) because it's our highest ranking in 15 years.
Running game: Not really worried. Gaskin had a great season last year and there is no reason the OL will be worse. It's one game.
Browning: He's good, not great. I don't love him but he's good enough to win.
If you haven't realized that some of Petersen/Smith's hard headed fuckery isn't going away, I don't know what to tell you. Hopefully we can win in spite of that.
-
Coaching.RoadDawg55 said:there is no reason the OL will be worse.
-
I cannot in good conscience thank Mad Dog for his service.Hardcore_Husky said:Mad Son puts a lot of time into his Ramblings. We should all thank him for his service.
-
Mad Dog TSIO = Too Soon. Drink heavily and relax 'til game #4. Utterly meaningless games 'til then.
