Lowery Interview on 1350

[chum1]

To me, the most self-delusional thing is the certainty with which Weber's performance was (and still is) forecasted. There's just not actually that much basis for it. And the way I read it, this is exactly what GOSP was calling into question.

[kso_FAN]

To me, the most self-delusional thing is the certainty with which Weber's performance was (and still is) forecasted. There's just not actually that much basis for it. And the way I read it, this is exactly what GOSP was calling into question.

Seems to me the forecast has been pretty accurate. Like by a lot.

[rob mccolley]

There's plenty of basis for it. The mistake is to base your predictions solely on metrics.

To me, the most self-delusional thing is the certainty with which Weber's performance was (and still is) forecasted. There's just not actually that much basis for it. And the way I read it, this is exactly what GOSP was calling into question.

But GOSP's metrics were bad, too.

[chum1]

This is controversial here:

I just don't get the doom and gloom.

[chum1]

There's plenty of basis for it. The mistake is to base your predictions solely on metrics.

Crystal ball?

[michigancat]

To me, the most self-delusional thing is the certainty with which Weber's performance was (and still is) forecasted. There's just not actually that much basis for it. And the way I read it, this is exactly what GOSP was calling into question.

oscar's tenure was more predictable than most because of his lengthy track record that led to him getting fired from a comparable situation.

I didn't expect this year to go so poorly or his first year to go so well, but neither season should have surprised anyone because of his tenure at Illinois.

[chum1]

To me, the most self-delusional thing is the certainty with which Weber's performance was (and still is) forecasted. There's just not actually that much basis for it. And the way I read it, this is exactly what GOSP was calling into question.

Seems to me the forecast has been pretty accurate. Like by a lot.

Honestly, this is embarrassing for someone who's supposed to be a "data guy".

[pissclams]

just wondering, how many seasons do you need to collect for you to accept the empirical evidence in front of you?

[chum1]

To me, the most self-delusional thing is the certainty with which Weber's performance was (and still is) forecasted. There's just not actually that much basis for it. And the way I read it, this is exactly what GOSP was calling into question.

oscar's tenure was more predictable than most because of his lengthy track record that led to him getting fired from a comparable situation.

I didn't expect this year to go so poorly or his first year to go so well, but neither season should have surprised anyone because of his tenure at Illinois.

This was the only possible outcome and we knew it all along.

[kso_FAN]

To me, the most self-delusional thing is the certainty with which Weber's performance was (and still is) forecasted. There's just not actually that much basis for it. And the way I read it, this is exactly what GOSP was calling into question.

Seems to me the forecast has been pretty accurate. Like by a lot.

Honestly, this is embarrassing for someone who's supposed to be a "data guy".

Heh. I'm not embarrassed in the least.

The general trend of early success and struggles by his 3rd year is what many people thought would happen.

[rob mccolley]

Take your last two games, for example.

Crystal ball?

You guys are 1-and-1 including a win over a top 20 team. Your loss was a conference road game.

Not bad right? The data says the mood around here should be pretty good, right?

[michigancat]

To me, the most self-delusional thing is the certainty with which Weber's performance was (and still is) forecasted. There's just not actually that much basis for it. And the way I read it, this is exactly what GOSP was calling into question.

oscar's tenure was more predictable than most because of his lengthy track record that led to him getting fired from a comparable situation.

I didn't expect this year to go so poorly or his first year to go so well, but neither season should have surprised anyone because of his tenure at Illinois.

This was the only possible outcome and we knew it all along.

Who said that with any degree of certainty?

[chum1]

just wondering, how many seasons do you need to collect for you to accept the empirical evidence in front of you?

There isn't a realistic scenario that would lead me to conclude with very high confidence that oscar's first three years would more or less go how they have gone.

[chum1]

To me, the most self-delusional thing is the certainty with which Weber's performance was (and still is) forecasted. There's just not actually that much basis for it. And the way I read it, this is exactly what GOSP was calling into question.

oscar's tenure was more predictable than most because of his lengthy track record that led to him getting fired from a comparable situation.

I didn't expect this year to go so poorly or his first year to go so well, but neither season should have surprised anyone because of his tenure at Illinois.

This was the only possible outcome and we knew it all along.

Who said that with any degree of certainty?

Probably anyone willing to burn it down?

[kso_FAN]

Who said that with any degree of certainty?

I wasn't one of them, but I think many posters were pretty certain there would be early success and the program would get worse over the course of time. No one was saying exact scenarios, but the general trend was predicted well by many posters based on oscar's history.

I'm sure part of this is just chum's devil's advocate BBSing, which can be effective and entertaining.

[ksupamplemousse]

chum1 is so completely out to rough ridin' lunch on this. According to him, you'd need 5 or so lengthy tenures at relatively similar institutions to really even start to be able to make valid predictions about a coach's future performance. Anything before that and you're basically using Chinese Fortune Sticks.

[chum1]

chum1 is so completely out to rough ridin' lunch on this. According to him, you'd need 5 or so lengthy tenures at relatively similar institutions to really even start to be able to make valid predictions about a coach's future performance. Anything before that and you're basically using Chinese Fortune Sticks.

It's an issue of proportionality between evidence and confidence. And it's not according to me. It's according to math.

[ksupamplemousse]

chum1 is so completely out to rough ridin' lunch on this. According to him, you'd need 5 or so lengthy tenures at relatively similar institutions to really even start to be able to make valid predictions about a coach's future performance. Anything before that and you're basically using Chinese Fortune Sticks.

It's an issue of proportionality between evidence and confidence. And it's not according to me. It's according to math.

You're just not going to get the amount/variety of data that you're looking for when predicting future success for college coaches. So, we can all sit around and lament the fact that all of our guesses would be meaningless, and then try to find something else to talk about...OR, we can make predictions based not only upon numbers, but also on human nature and personality traits that we feel will influence the success/failure of a certain coach. Then when we're right/wrong we can either talk crap or eat crow. It's kind of how being a sports fan works. If we all waited for the data to clearly point to a certain outcome, then there'd be no need for predictions anymore.

[rob mccolley]

If you rely solely on data, and remove qualitative elements of humanity from the equation,

It's an issue of proportionality between evidence and confidence. And it's not according to me. It's according to math.

you will certainly come up with oscar Weber.

[catzacker]

Jesus christ.  If a guy who shoots 35% from 3 has a stretch where he shoots 45%, are we to be surprised that he has a stretch that he shoots 25%?   oscar's trajectory (his average) is looking like what alot thought it would look like.  Of course there isn't absolute certainty to it. Call it confidence or whatever you rough ridin' like to make yourself feel better about being wrong I guess.

[8manpick]

I think oscar is probably closer to a 28% shooter though

[ksupamplemousse]

I think oscar is probably closer to a 28% shooter though

I don't think you have near enough data to say that with any certainty. If it ends up being true, then I think we can all agree that you're a witch.

[chum1]

Jesus christ.  If a guy who shoots 35% from 3 has a stretch where he shoots 45%, are we to be surprised that he has a stretch that he shoots 25%?   oscar's trajectory (his average) is looking like what alot thought it would look like.  Of course there isn't absolute certainty to it. Call it confidence or whatever you rough ridin' like to make yourself feel better about being wrong I guess.

I didn't make any predictions. Although, if I had, I would have included the actual last three year span in a range of possibilites. So, I couldn't have been wrong.

I just think there's been a misinterpretation of data. That' s my issue. And I'm not saying anything stupid like that we must have absoute certainty either.

[chum1]

Actually, I didn't state my entire issue quite right. I think judgements which are actually unsupported by data about Weber have been made under the guise of being supported by data. 

[michigancat]

Actually, I didn't state my entire issue quite right. I think judgements which are actually unsupported by data about Weber have been made under the guise of being supported by data. 

ok, chum