Author Topic: Lowery Interview on 1350  (Read 64884 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline CHONGS

  • Master of the Atom
  • Administrator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 19381
    • View Profile
    • goEMAW.com
Re: Lowery Interview on 1350
« Reply #450 on: February 20, 2015, 10:49:40 AM »
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_succession
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_three_%28statistics%29

Offline MakeItRain

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 44804
    • View Profile
Re: Lowery Interview on 1350
« Reply #451 on: February 20, 2015, 11:18:14 AM »
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.

LOL, dax is that you? People accurately predicting the most likely outcome based on recent history morphed into absolutes and certainties, well played ChumDax.

Offline sys

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 40472
  • your reputation will never recover, nor should it.
    • View Profile
Re: Lowery Interview on 1350
« Reply #452 on: February 20, 2015, 11:26:31 AM »
basically, i agree with chum1. in that predicting a coach's performance is always going to be a fairly imprecise endeavor, because the data are inadequate to allow much confidence.  but i guess i disagree that it's a pointless exercise.  you do the best you can with the information available to you.
"experienced commanders will simply be smeared and will actually go to the meat."

Offline chum1

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 21893
    • View Profile
Re: Lowery Interview on 1350
« Reply #453 on: February 20, 2015, 11:28:21 AM »
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.

LOL, dax is that you? People accurately predicting the most likely outcome based on recent history morphed into absolutes and certainties, well played ChumDax.

What is the most likely outcome that you are referencing? Are you sure it is the same thing that I'm referencing? Do you think that the level of confidence in your most likely outcome exhibited by many here is proportional to its likelihood?

Offline chum1

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 21893
    • View Profile
Re: Lowery Interview on 1350
« Reply #454 on: February 20, 2015, 11:36:24 AM »
basically, i agree with chum1. in that predicting a coach's performance is always going to be a fairly imprecise endeavor, because the data are inadequate to allow much confidence.  but i guess i disagree that it's a pointless exercise.  you do the best you can with the information available to you.

I agree it's not pointless, but also think it's a mistake not to recognize when you're working with incomplete data and allow yourself to draw unsupported conclusions. It possible that there may be a little bit of that going on here.

Offline michigancat

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 53674
  • change your stupid avatar.
    • View Profile
Re: Lowery Interview on 1350
« Reply #455 on: February 20, 2015, 11:43:20 AM »
basically, i agree with chum1. in that predicting a coach's performance is always going to be a fairly imprecise endeavor, because the data are inadequate to allow much confidence.  but i guess i disagree that it's a pointless exercise.  you do the best you can with the information available to you.

I've thought about this a lot with regards to how few coaches have successfully rebuilt programs. It's really hard and I think a lot of successful coaches that have made wise career moves would struggle with a rebuilding job. It doesn't mean they're bad coaches, just that it's a difficult job and prior success is probably a very imprecise indicator.

One thing that made oscar's situation perhaps more predictable than many hires is that each program he took over was at a very similar level when he was hired: power conference teams with prior coaches leaving on their own and leaving behind talented returning rosters. So, even though this type of hire was extremely rare, it was perhaps one of the most predictable trajectories you'll ever find.

Offline chum1

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 21893
    • View Profile
Re: Lowery Interview on 1350
« Reply #456 on: February 20, 2015, 11:48:14 AM »
Are you satisfied, Mr. Bread?

Offline Mr Bread

  • We Gave You Bruce
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 7867
  • I've distressing news.
    • View Profile
Re: Lowery Interview on 1350
« Reply #457 on: February 20, 2015, 11:52:24 AM »
My prescience is fully engorged.  It throbs with righteous accuracy.  I am sated. 
My prescience is fully engorged.  It throbs with righteous accuracy.  I am sated.

Offline sys

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 40472
  • your reputation will never recover, nor should it.
    • View Profile
Re: Lowery Interview on 1350
« Reply #458 on: February 20, 2015, 12:13:45 PM »
it's a mistake not to recognize when you're working with incomplete data and allow yourself to draw unsupported conclusions. It possible that there may be a little bit of that going on here.

pointing out to people that their currently on track predictions extended beyond the support of the data is a thankless task.
"experienced commanders will simply be smeared and will actually go to the meat."

Offline chum1

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 21893
    • View Profile
Re: Lowery Interview on 1350
« Reply #459 on: February 20, 2015, 12:19:27 PM »
I don't know which of the last two responses I enjoy more.

Offline CHONGS

  • Master of the Atom
  • Administrator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 19381
    • View Profile
    • goEMAW.com
Re: Lowery Interview on 1350
« Reply #460 on: February 20, 2015, 12:24:45 PM »
I would enjoy it if this turned super math nerdy.  chum1, are you an actuary or something?  I suspect sys had to do some stats with observos maybe?

Offline CHONGS

  • Master of the Atom
  • Administrator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 19381
    • View Profile
    • goEMAW.com
Re: Lowery Interview on 1350
« Reply #461 on: February 20, 2015, 12:25:35 PM »
What I am saying, is let's all validate each other and our math skills. Right here in the basketball forum for KSU sports fans.

Offline _33

  • The Inventor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 10142
    • View Profile
Re: Lowery Interview on 1350
« Reply #462 on: February 20, 2015, 12:30:00 PM »
I'm sick of data. Is data even a real word? K-State basketball is not good and oscar is annoying and weird.  Put that on a chart and study it data dorks.

Offline CHONGS

  • Master of the Atom
  • Administrator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 19381
    • View Profile
    • goEMAW.com
Re: Lowery Interview on 1350
« Reply #463 on: February 20, 2015, 12:41:57 PM »
Here's a chart of my feelings _33....

Offline chum1

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 21893
    • View Profile
Re: Lowery Interview on 1350
« Reply #464 on: February 20, 2015, 12:47:54 PM »
Earlier this week, I was thinking about when I should register for the Flying Pig Marathon. So, naturally, I proceeded to plot the distribution of last year's results.  :nerd:


Offline MakeItRain

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 44804
    • View Profile
Re: Lowery Interview on 1350
« Reply #465 on: February 20, 2015, 08:28:11 PM »
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.

LOL, dax is that you? People accurately predicting the most likely outcome based on recent history morphed into absolutes and certainties, well played ChumDax.

What is the most likely outcome that you are referencing? Are you sure it is the same thing that I'm referencing? Do you think that the level of confidence in your most likely outcome exhibited by many here is proportional to its likelihood?

It wasn't my most likely outcome, I never projected an outcome positive or negative. I simply pointed out your cheap trick of converting the predictions of some into statements of absolute certainty to strengthen your point. My level of confidence in the outcome is of no consequence.

Offline chum1

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 21893
    • View Profile
Re: Lowery Interview on 1350
« Reply #466 on: February 20, 2015, 08:44:51 PM »
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.

LOL, dax is that you? People accurately predicting the most likely outcome based on recent history morphed into absolutes and certainties, well played ChumDax.

What is the most likely outcome that you are referencing? Are you sure it is the same thing that I'm referencing? Do you think that the level of confidence in your most likely outcome exhibited by many here is proportional to its likelihood?

It wasn't my most likely outcome, I never projected an outcome positive or negative. I simply pointed out your cheap trick of converting the predictions of some into statements of absolute certainty to strengthen your point. My level of confidence in the outcome is of no consequence.

I didn't ask you about your views. I asked you about the views of others that you were referencing. Are you attempting to employ some sort of cheap trick here?

Offline hatingfrancisco

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 4515
    • View Profile
    • Tweet Tweet
Re: Lowery Interview on 1350
« Reply #467 on: February 20, 2015, 09:32:11 PM »
IMO, what Weber's tenure at Illinois has shown is if you put a premium on shooting and don't shoot well your offense will struggle. Even the last 6 years, Weber's teams have consistently out-shot their opponents (eFG%), an average of nearly 4% better per season. For Frank's teams the difference was slightly less than 1%. But the difference in TO% and OR% for Frank's teams are both dramatically better than Weber's and that's why Frank's offensive efficiency was much better. Weber's teams have had better defensive efficiencies (89.7 his last 6 years compared to 91.2 for Frank's 5), but it wasn't enough to make up for the offensive issues.

Wow. 

Offline nicname

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 15788
  • Deal with it.
    • View Profile
Re: Lowery Interview on 1350
« Reply #468 on: February 20, 2015, 09:42:31 PM »
My prescience is fully engorged.  It throbs with righteous accuracy.  I am sated.

I imagined this being said by E.B. Farnum to Richardson. It was glorious.
If there was a gif of nicname thwarting the attempted-flag-taker and then gesturing him to suck it, followed by motioning for all of Hilton Shelter to boo him louder, it'd be better than that auburn gif.