Welcome - Paul Mills

[Stickboy46]

The metric data between this year and last year shows little change.

Last year's data was compiled with an NBA PG leading the team. This year's data is compiled with a "shoot first" SG running the team.

With such a radical difference at that position, the fact that the metrics have remained steady approaches miraculous and demonstrates what a great job Mills has done. Every element of the team has been elevated enough to offset the difference of losing a PG who's on rookie of the year lists in the NBA with a converted SG.

I just thought I'd point out how "data" can be used to prove any number of points. I would wager that Stick never even walked past a Statistics class, let alone took one.

Guaranteed I've been through a few more of them than you.

With that said, you've literally said the same thing I've been saying this whole time. I agreed with Kung Wu and said that losing CPj was definitely a reason why you would have expected the numbers to be WORSE than last year. I also called out that coaching and chemistry offset that. So yes it's not a bad thing numbers are close to the same (said that multiple times). I'm not sure why everyone has their pitchforks out besides just hating me.

Where you and I differ is where you consider the scope of HCPMs job. His job is to not only coach who is here, but to find talented players to play here. He's showing he has promise in the coaching part but it's still TBD on the finding talent part. Ultimately he's not graded on just one of the categories. He's graded on the ultimate output. Which is exactly what I was comparing.

No one including myself is calling for his job. It's just analyzing the data that we have available at this time.

[AZ Shocker]

The bias came into play when you chose to compare the first year season of a coach with a bare cupboard and limited recruiting time to a coach that had some years to recruit and develop.

For an unbiased comparison, compare Mills' first year with Marshall's (who adopted a bare cupboard). And Turgeon's (who adopted a bare cupboard). And Smithson's (also a bare cupboard). IB did not adopt a bare cupboard, so his first year wouldn't be valid.

And there it is. 100%. I gotta give Stickboy and MikeKennedyRulZ credit though. I appreciate their data analysis but let's just roll the ball out boys and see where it all ends up in March. But...keep it coming. Good read.

Go Shocks!!!

[Aargh]

The metric data between this year and last year shows little change.

Last year's data was compiled with an NBA PG leading the team. This year's data is compiled with a "shoot first" SG running the team.

With such a radical difference at that position, the fact that the metrics have remained steady approaches miraculous and demonstrates what a great job Mills has done. Every element of the team has been elevated enough to offset the difference of losing a PG who's on rookie of the year lists in the NBA with a converted SG.

I just thought I'd point out how "data" can be used to prove any number of points. I would wager that Stick never even walked past a Statistics class, let alone took one.

[ShockerExpress]

I would be curious to know what our variance in KenPom was last year vs. this years and what the early season numbers were.

We were much better at the end than the beginning last year from what I remember, which would make sense with both these team’s minutes continuity.

If we’re being real, most people here under valued last years team. I remember specifically posting that 9-9 would end up being about the conference record, and got berated for it - and they finished exactly 9-9. Is that good? No. But no one seemed to predict near that record at the time.

I actually see a lot of that on here with this team too tbh. KenPom has us finishing with 18 wins, most negative people here are projecting quite a few less than that. Heck we had 8 wins as a season projection from a pretty solid poster.

[Kung Wu]

The data is two completely different teams. Nothing can be called out to "question" the data comparison. That's not possible. It's literally just a comparison of the exact same measurements of data for two teams. The data says that entirety of the team including players and coaches are producing roughly the same results so far this year as the players and coaches did for the entirety of last year.

The bias came into play when you chose to compare the first year season of a coach with a bare cupboard and limited recruiting time to a coach that had some years to recruit and develop.

For an unbiased comparison, compare Mills' first year with Marshall's (who adopted a bare cupboard). And Turgeon's (who adopted a bare cupboard). And Smithson's (also a bare cupboard). IB did not adopt a bare cupboard, so his first year wouldn't be valid.

[Woodrow]

Data is data. Excuses are excuses. Data isn't flawed. You are just building in your own biases to not believe the data. That's on you .. not the data. There may be lots of reasons why, but we are basically playing at the same level as last year.

That said, its not the worst thing in the world to not have a drop off in year one. It might end up being a really good thing as long as things improve. Plenty of time for him to figure that out. I'm just looking unbiased at the data.

EDIT:
I seem to be the one always getting stones thrown at me. But i rarely see others putting out their ideas of what exactly would "good" look like to them. I'm curious what would others deem successful for this year? Something that is meaningful and measurable. What RESULTS would people like to see for this year to feel good. Same with next year. What would people like to see in year 2? I'm willing to guess, when comparing those things with what i've laid out as my expectation, most people probably aren't too far off.

8-3 at this point is better than most if not all thought at the beginning of the year so I'm good with it. I believe we will finish with a better record this year than last so Id be good with that too. If we end up with 18 to 20 wins HCPM is a miracle worker. I like what I see and hear from HCPM and he is doing it with half the recruiting time to build a team. Remember FHCGM was 11-20 his first year and he turned out ok.

[Stickboy46]

So you are admitting that you are trying to make comparisons using two completely different teams? And we're supposed to use this to come to some logical analytical conclusion? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of a COMPARISON? Makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense. I'm not sure why you are struggling with this. It's comparing the results and outcomes of two different teams. It's no different than comparing the stats and outcomes of WSU vs KSU. It's just comparing two WSU teams. The stats and outcomes are nearly exactly the same. There are lots of reasons why it's not better or worse. That's irrelevant to the concept that the actual outcomes are nearly the same.

It's really not a hard concept at all.

[MikeKennedyRulZ]

The data is two completely different teams. Nothing can be called out to "question" the data comparison. That's not possible. It's literally just a comparison of the exact same measurements of data for two teams. The data says that entirety of the team including players and coaches are producing roughly the same results so far this year as the players and coaches did for the entirety of last year.

You can point out things why we aren't better than last year (missing CPJ) or why we aren't doing worse than last year (improved coaching and chemistry) but nothing changes that we are still roughly the same results to this point as last year.

Now we can revisit the data at the end of the year and it might be different at that point, but that doesn't change this data comparison.

The bias comes in when you try to say "the data is wrong because I want to believe it's better than last year". Which is exactly what you are trying to do. To this point, it hasn't been. Which as stated before, isn't the worst thing because we haven't gotten worse either which happens a lot with coaching changes.

So you are admitting that you are trying to make comparisons using two completely different teams? And we're supposed to use this to come to some logical analytical conclusion? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of a COMPARISON? Makes no sense.

[Stickboy46]

Data can be skewed by many factors. In this case, two very significant factors have been pointed out thus far that call in to question your data comparison. No bias on my part at all.

The data is two completely different teams. Nothing can be called out to "question" the data comparison. That's not possible. It's literally just a comparison of the exact same measurements of data for two teams. The data says that entirety of the team including players and coaches are producing roughly the same results so far this year as the players and coaches did for the entirety of last year.

You can point out things why we aren't better than last year (missing CPJ) or why we aren't doing worse than last year (improved coaching and chemistry) but nothing changes that we are still roughly the same results to this point as last year.

Now we can revisit the data at the end of the year and it might be different at that point, but that doesn't change this data comparison.

The bias comes in when you try to say "the data is wrong because I want to believe it's better than last year". Which is exactly what you are trying to do. To this point, it hasn't been. Which as stated before, isn't the worst thing because we haven't gotten worse either which happens a lot with coaching changes.

[MikeKennedyRulZ]

Data is data. Excuses are excuses. Data isn't flawed. You are just building in your own biases to not believe the data. That's on you .. not the data. There may be lots of reasons why, but we are basically playing at the same level as last year.

That said, its not the worst thing in the world to not have a drop off in year one. It might end up being a really good thing as long as things improve. Plenty of time for him to figure that out. I'm just looking unbiased at the data.

EDIT:
I seem to be the one always getting stones thrown at me. But i rarely see others putting out their ideas of what exactly would "good" look like to them. I'm curious what would others deem successful for this year? Something that is meaningful and measurable. What RESULTS would people like to see for this year to feel good. Same with next year. What would people like to see in year 2? I'm willing to guess, when comparing those things with what i've laid out as my expectation, most people probably aren't too far off.

Data can be skewed by many factors. In this case, two very significant factors have been pointed out thus far that call in to question your data comparison. No bias on my part at all.

[MikeKennedyRulZ]

PM didn't even have a full recruiting cycle. You can't judge his recruiting when he only had a few months to build a staff and recruit.

Another good point.

[ShockHat]

Honestly, there’s a value add here too beyond just rest. Punishment, or rather, substitution when they’re making dumb mistakes or playing poorly. Right now if they play bad, we’re stuck.

[ShockTalk]

An interesting stat is how much worse the team performs when BELL isn’t on the floor. That surprised me. I don’t have the stat but taylor referenced it once

Makes sense. We currently have NO point guards playing and Bell is the best substitute. He goes out, it gets worse. The key is going to be "just how much better will it be when Cortes is at PG and Bell is out". Can Cortes make up for Bell on the bench? Less fatigue for Rogers and Bell may be the biggest plus.

[ShockHat]

What I think will be interesting to see is "who all are going to lose minutes to Cortes and how many minutes will he get"? It won't be Rogers (maybe 1-3 minutes to Bell). Logically, it would be who Cortes is replacing, Bell. And while our hope is that Cortes will improve not only our PG position, but the team as a whole, we will most likely see a fair number of minutes lost by our #2 scorer currently at 15 ppg. How much improvement can we expect in assists (2-4?) and fewer TOs (probably minimal at best, .5).

Cortes played 17+ MPG last year, but only scored 3.2 PPG, despite having a good 3pt %. He also had 2 assists per game, but also 1.4 TO per game.

I'm not sure, from at least past performance, we can expect too much outside of giving Rogers and Bell more rest each game and not having as much leg fatigue. Hoping it will be better than I think.

An interesting stat is how much worse the team performs when BELL isn’t on the floor. That surprised me. I don’t have the stat but taylor referenced it once

[ShockTalk]

What I think will be interesting to see is "who all are going to lose minutes to Cortes and how many minutes will he get"? It won't be Rogers (maybe 1-3 minutes to Bell). Logically, it would be who Cortes is replacing, Bell. And while our hope is that Cortes will improve not only our PG position, but the team as a whole, we will most likely see a fair number of minutes lost by our #2 scorer currently at 15 ppg. How much improvement can we expect in assists (2-4?) and fewer TOs (probably minimal at best, .5).

Cortes played 17+ MPG last year, but only scored 3.2 PPG, despite having a good 3pt %. He also had 2 assists per game, but also 1.4 TO per game.

I'm not sure, from at least past performance, we can expect too much outside of giving Rogers and Bell more rest each game and not having as much leg fatigue. Hoping it will be better than I think.