Welcome - Paul Mills

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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!!!

[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.

[Stickboy46]

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.

I'll pull all of those up later (or what's available). None of those including comparing last year have any bias (unless there was a change in how something was calculated between now and then). There are plenty of factors to use when analyzing why the data landed the way it did. Including exactly what you called out. Those teams were left cupboard bare. Other things like say rule changes since then, transfer portal, NIL, the fact that the valley was a pretty Strong conference back then are all reasons why you might expect one year to be better than the other.

Just comparing two years isn't biased as long as you are open to all the variables that could have affected them

[MikeKennedyRulZ]

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.

You've basically said your data analysis is pointless. And as others have pointed out, there are a multitude of reasons to come to that conclusion. IB had three seasons as the head coach. HCPM has been at WSU less than a year and you want to blame him for not having a stock pile of PG's in the stable. That is a joke.

[Stickboy46]

You've basically said your data analysis is pointless. And as others have pointed out, there are a multitude of reasons to come to that conclusion. IB had three seasons as the head coach. HCPM has been at WSU less than a year and you want to blame him for not having a stock pile of PG's in the stable. That is a joke.

Ironically we are saying the same thing.

Let me ask this a different way.

We've already seen the output is nearly the same as last year. If you had to state 2-3 reasons why it's not better than last year what would it be.

Then if you had to state 2-3 positive reasons that despite those reasons mentioned above are why we are still at the same output.

I'd bet mine and yours answers would be very close