• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Institutional Malpractice

RChildress107 said:
That averages out to 6. Seems reasonable (though maybe a little low) based on your claims about Manning.

Would have put us at 24-6 (14-4), #11 in Kenpom. I’m looking forward to that top 3 seed in 2022.
Click to expand...

What part of “phases of the moon” do you not understand?
 
RChildress107 said:
Care to share your thoughts? Or have you realized this will lead you somewhere you don’t want to go?
Click to expand...

My thoughts are that we would have been a better team with a better coach. This isn't rocket surgery.
 
RChildress107 said:
That averages out to 6. Seems reasonable (though maybe a little low) based on your claims about Manning.

Would have put us at 24-6 (14-4), #11 in Kenpom. I’m looking forward to that top 3 seed in 2022.
Click to expand...

1) It actually averages to 5.97073 if you fail to take into account the moon.

2) You failed to take into account the moon phases on the days that the games were played.

3) The entire point of my post is to make fun of your "how many points better" argument as if you can measure the affects of a different coach by simply adding a few points to the results of each game and assessing where that would land us in Kenpom. But then, you're smarter than that, I think. Maybe not. Or maybe you're just trying to start an argument.

4) If we're going to argue, please redo your analysis based the low end of my given range representing a new moon and the high end representing a full moon. You can assume that the points step evenly up and down by day throughout the phases. Only then can you see how much of a difference a better coach would have made on any given day. We could get a little more technical and apply a correction factor for the difference in height of a new coach compared to Manning, but it's extremely minimal and I don't think we need to go that far.
 
RacerDeac said:
1) It actually averages to 5.97073 if you fail to take into account the moon.

2) You failed to take into account the moon phases on the days that the games were played.

3) The entire point of my post is to make fun of your "how many points better" argument as if you can measure the affects of a different coach by simply adding a few points to the results of each game and assessing where that would land us in Kenpom. But then, you're smarter than that, I think. Maybe not. Or maybe you're just trying to start an argument.

4) If we're going to argue, please redo your analysis based the low end of my given range representing a new moon and the high end representing a full moon. You can assume that the points step evenly up and down by day throughout the phases. Only then can you see how much of a difference a better coach would have made on any given day. We could get a little more technical and apply a correction factor for the difference in height of a new coach compared to Manning, but it's extremely minimal and I don't think we need to go that far.
Click to expand...

You’re ignoring the impact of @DoveMensCare, which is obviously immense
 
deac29 said:
What point are you trying to make, RChill? That Manning is a good coach? That we shouldn’t fire him?
Click to expand...

I think I can clear it up for you: Manning is an awful coach with awful results, but there wasn't enough data to justify firing said awful coach for his awful results until the point earlier this season when RChill determined that there was enough data to justify firing an awful coach with awful results. Turns out RChill has agreed with us all along and we should have just agreed with everything he said, because he's extremely right in every regard. Also, Kenpom rulez.
 
RacerDeac said:
1) It actually averages to 5.97073 if you fail to take into account the moon.

2) You failed to take into account the moon phases on the days that the games were played.

3) The entire point of my post is to make fun of your "how many points better" argument as if you can measure the affects of a different coach by simply adding a few points to the results of each game and assessing where that would land us in Kenpom. But then, you're smarter than that, I think. Maybe not. Or maybe you're just trying to start an argument.

4) If we're going to argue, please redo your analysis based the low end of my given range representing a new moon and the high end representing a full moon. You can assume that the points step evenly up and down by day throughout the phases. Only then can you see how much of a difference a better coach would have made on any given day. We could get a little more technical and apply a correction factor for the difference in height of a new coach compared to Manning, but it's extremely minimal and I don't think we need to go that far.
Click to expand...

What’s the purpose of imagining a different coach at the helm of Wake’s program if not how much better the team on the floor will be? Do you have a different way of measuring a team than how many points they score relative to their opponent?
 
RChildress107 said:
How much better seems like a relevant question. Surely you will set the bar for our next coach higher than “better than Manning”.
Click to expand...

Surely. But it will be at least Y5 before I'm willing to commit to anything.
 
RChildress107 said:
What’s the purpose of imagining a different coach at the helm of Wake’s program if not how much better the team on the floor will be? Do you have a different way of measuring a team than how many points they score relative to their opponent?
Click to expand...

Things like wins and losses come to mind.
 
RacerDeac said:
1) It actually averages to 5.97073 if you fail to take into account the moon.

2) You failed to take into account the moon phases on the days that the games were played.

3) The entire point of my post is to make fun of your "how many points better" argument as if you can measure the affects of a different coach by simply adding a few points to the results of each game and assessing where that would land us in Kenpom. But then, you're smarter than that, I think. Maybe not. Or maybe you're just trying to start an argument.

4) If we're going to argue, please redo your analysis based the low end of my given range representing a new moon and the high end representing a full moon. You can assume that the points step evenly up and down by day throughout the phases. Only then can you see how much of a difference a better coach would have made on any given day. We could get a little more technical and apply a correction factor for the difference in height of a new coach compared to Manning, but it's extremely minimal and I don't think we need to go that far.
Click to expand...

4) that puts us at 23-7 (13-5) roughly the same place in KP. We sweep Duke though, so there’s that.
 
I think we just need to appreciate the fact that Manning squeezed every last drop of potential out of the 16-17 Squad while somehow only winning 13 additional games in the other three and a half years he's been here with a pretty good collection of talent
 
ChrisL68 said:
I think we just need to appreciate the fact that Manning squeezed every last drop of potential out of the 16-17 Squad while somehow only winning 13 additional games in the other three and a half years he's been here with a pretty good collection of talent
Click to expand...
It was a magical year!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top