0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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.
I just don't get the doom and gloom.
There's plenty of basis for it. The mistake is to base your predictions solely on metrics.
Quote from: chum1 on February 20, 2015, 07:31:19 AMTo 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.
Quote from: chum1 on February 20, 2015, 07:31:19 AMTo 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.
Quote from: ksu_FAN on February 20, 2015, 07:39:13 AMQuote from: chum1 on February 20, 2015, 07:31:19 AMTo 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".
Crystal ball?
Quote from: michigancat on February 20, 2015, 07:49:44 AMQuote from: chum1 on February 20, 2015, 07:31:19 AMTo 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.
just wondering, how many seasons do you need to collect for you to accept the empirical evidence in front of you?
Quote from: chum1 on February 20, 2015, 07:52:51 AMQuote from: michigancat on February 20, 2015, 07:49:44 AMQuote from: chum1 on February 20, 2015, 07:31:19 AMTo 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?
Who said that with any degree of certainty?
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.
Quote from: ksupamplemousse on February 20, 2015, 08:02:58 AMchum1 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.
It's an issue of proportionality between evidence and confidence. And it's not according to me. It's according to math.
I think oscar is probably closer to a 28% shooter though
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.
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.