|
|
Post by beaveragain on Jul 28, 2019 15:18:27 GMT -8
I’ve read in various websites about how some coaches don’t develop their players and others do. But how can you measure that? I decided to try in order to compare Rueck and Graves and then expanded it to other coaches to see if the comparison held up. The easiest place to get the statistics together was at Her Hoop Stats and their data starts in the 2015-16 season so that is when my data set starts. I added up from year to year each time a player’s stat’s improved. The stat’s I looked at were points/game, rebounds/game, assists/game, effective field goal %, free throw %, and assist/turnover.
For instance, Jo was at OSU two seasons during this time span and from one season to the next she increased in points/game, rebounds/game, effective field goal %, and free throw % for a total score of 4.
For a players score to count they have to have at least an average of 10 minutes/game in consecutive seasons and have played in 10 games during each season.
If a player transfers I deducted one point from the total score. Not a lot but I figure the coach should suffer some penalty for either failing to coach the player or a failure in judging the player in the first place. If it was a graduate transfer I did not deduct a point due to my inability to determine whether they left for playing or educational purposes.
There weren’t a lot of players who could score 3 points (the max) on a skill, but the only ones who did were Kennedy Burke, and Alanna Smith. Indicating that improving year after year isn’t easy to do, but it’s what the very best achieve, sometimes.
I figure the most interest would be in Pac-12 coaches. The Universities not included had coaching turnover.
Roberts Utah 35 - 4 = 31
Gottlieb Cal 46 - 1 = 45
Graves U of O 52 – 6 = 46
Thorne ASU 56 – 2 = 54
Close UCLA 66 – NA = 66
VanDerveer Stan 79 – 1 = 78
Rueck OSU 80 – 1 = 79
Pretty much follows how I would rank them without knowing the numbers. Now Graves followers can screech and howl in protest at how wrong this is.
|
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Jul 28, 2019 17:27:12 GMT -8
Except... improving in those various categories could have zero to do with direct coaching.
Could be personnel related, more PT, familiarity with a system, personal growth in strength and BB IQ, etc.
Plus, SR for instance has less individual coaching on bigs than some assistants. A player can actually "improve" but decline in some areas statistically.
Loved the effort, but too many factors involved to analyze such a concept. Plus, transfers in or out could have zero to do with development.
|
|
|
|
Post by beaveragain on Jul 28, 2019 18:44:32 GMT -8
" improving in those various categories could have zero to do with direct coaching" Then what does direct coaching help with? Calling plays during the game? Good rah rah speeches at half time?
"Could be personnel related" Yes, and the coach is who hires the personnel.
"more PT" Everyone has 40 minutes to divvy out. Why would that make any difference from team to team?
"familiarity with a system" Everyone gets the same chance at familiarity from team to team. Why would that favor one person/team over another?
"personal growth in strength and BB IQ" If the coach isn't effecting these then why do we have coaches?
"SR for instance has less individual coaching on bigs than some assistants" Of coarse, and SR then evaluates whether they are doing a good job and retains or fires them based on that.
"A player can actually "improve" but decline in some areas statistically" I made no attempt to calculate defense due to its difficulty to measure easily. But if that was added in don't you think SR would be even farther ahead of most of them? What other areas of improvement do you think could be included?
" transfers in or out could have zero to do with development" I only have transfers at -1. But I think that it does have something to do with the effort the coach is taking with the player. The players are obviously unhappy or why leave? Transfers are either a failure in evaluating the player originally or failing them after they entered the program. Either way it seems to me it is a coaching failure. Other opinions may differ.
Thanks for replying with your thoughts base.
|
|
|
|
Post by mike74 on Jul 28, 2019 19:12:22 GMT -8
Think it would be easier to evaluate coaches' role in player development by doing what you started with: look at individual player development - Marie Gulich & Coach Rueck; if you followed the same path with other coaches - Satou Sabally & Coach Graves, K Ibis & Coach Thorne, Coach Vanderveer/Alanna Smith, etc. you might be onto something. Guessing in the end, you'd find Coach Rueck, Coach Vanderveer and Coach Graves would be at the top just as their W/L records suggest they should be.
Perhaps the the easiest path, statistically - advanced, would be to determine which coaches are able to improve the defensive skills of their players over four years; as you know, it's generally accepted that the greatest weakness of most players coming out of high school is on the defensive end of their game.
But in the end, player development is most properly manifested by evaluating performance against top 50 opponents - again it's Vanderveer, Rueck & Graves well above all other PAC 12 coaches.
|
|
|
|
Post by beaveragain on Jul 28, 2019 19:47:29 GMT -8
Rueck 79 and Vanderveer 78 are at the top. Graves 46 is not.
I've wondered about Graves sudden success at Oregon. If you read the extensive article written by Rob Moseley in 2015 he quotes the players from that #3 ranked class that U of O got that year. The players talk about how Mark Campbell had been recruiting them for years and so had decided to go to U of O. But all those years of recruitment had been while Mark was at OSU. So basically Graves success has been from buying OSU's almost entire recruiting class of 2005 through buying Campbell. It's the way the college game is played.
|
|
|
|
Post by nwhoopfan on Jul 28, 2019 20:06:11 GMT -8
I think when you consider what Graves did at Gonzaga, it's ridiculous to think he's not a top notch developer of talent. I'm really not sold on Close being the 3rd best coach in the conference in this department. I applaud the effort of the OP, but I think this goes beyond a formula and some number crunching.
|
|
|
|
Post by mike74 on Jul 28, 2019 21:25:57 GMT -8
Rueck 79 and Vanderveer 78 are at the top. Graves 46 is not. I've wondered about Graves sudden success at Oregon. If you read the extensive article written by Rob Moseley in 2015 he quotes the players from that #3 ranked class that U of O got that year. The players talk about how Mark Campbell had been recruiting them for years and so had decided to go to U of O. But all those years of recruitment had been while Mark was at OSU. So basically Graves success has been from buying OSU's almost entire recruiting class of 2005 through buying Campbell. It's the way the college game is played. Beaver again - tried to point out the flaws in your "points" analysis. Nice effort but does not support the concept of player development. Using your "numbers", let's take two German players that were recruited by Rueck and Graves, Marie Gulich and Satou Sabally. Again, use your "numbers" approach to compare the development of each between their 1st and 2nd years in their respective programs and tell us which coach developed their player the most. The easy answer by a long shot would be Graves - but I'm not buying because the number of variables that demonstrate player development go well beyond the grouping of season stats that you used. In fact, the most significant piece of Sabally's development came on the defensive side of her game and I'm not sure which of your "numbers" cover that. As NW hoopfan pointed out, Graves has a long record of success through player development that has continued at Oregon. That does not diminish the success that Rueck has achieved. Both are top notch coaches. |
|
|
|
Post by fridaynightlights on Jul 28, 2019 21:38:25 GMT -8
It is not difficult to use whatever categories you want and manipulate the numbers to get the results you want. IMO the head coach is not as influential as some think in individual player development. Most of the players now have private trainers/coaches who help them develop their game. It is not rocket science. Practice and work on your skills...relentlessly. Play as much as you can. There are a million drills out there on various aspects of player development both online and in books. I am sure you have all read stories about players who would find a way to get in the gym late at nights to work on their game. I have been around some very accomplished basketball coaches and one thing they will say to their players is; if you want to be great you need to work on your game as much as possible on your own time. Here is a good article/video of what Haley Van Lith has done to develop her game. link |
|
|
|
Post by beaveragain on Jul 28, 2019 21:51:12 GMT -8
I have no knowledge of what Graves did at Gonzaga other than he record, which is obviously good. All I can look at is what is happening now, and the record now is that his players are not measurably developing from year to year. It is one thing to recruit very good players, and another to improve them.
And on Close not being that good a coach. She has been to the sweet 16 or elite 8 each of the past 4 years, how good does she have to be to be a good coach? The usual knock on her is that she has such good players she should be even better. Graves last season had two players who were judged the best in the country at their position, a PG who is now starting in the WNBA, a power forward that I'm assured is AMAZING, and the weak sister was the best 3 point shooter in the Pac-12. Sooo, what is the excuse for him ending up 3rd to 4th in the country based on your ranking of choice? My conclusion is that Graves and Close are pretty much the same, but that her players steadily improve, while his have stayed the same from year to year.
But I could be wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by beaveragain on Jul 28, 2019 21:58:53 GMT -8
fridaynightlights- I chose the categories that would show scoring, rebounding, passing efficiency and how it changes over time, if you want other categories list them and I'll add them.
"manipulate the numbers to get the results you want" Gosh, thanks. So am I liar then or what? LOL
So player development is all on the players and the coaches don't matter? Why do we have coaches and their million dollar contracts then?
|
|
|
|
Post by willtalk on Jul 28, 2019 22:18:11 GMT -8
One can use any sort of statistic to come to any sort of conclusion that you want. There are entirely too many variables involved that are not included in the numbers. Injuries or the type of players a school is able to recruit. Some players peak earlier than others. Often a roster will dictate players playing time and that playing time will contribute to the numbers that are used for the evaluation. The school and the draw a coach has to work with will also dictate the type of players that they are able to bring into the program. Coach Roberts at Utah is an example of a coach who is behind the 8 ball in respect to the type of player she is able to recruit. Whereas Gottlieb started with a full cupboard, with Cal being a real draw for the value of its degree, but she left the cupboard bare when she left. As someone who has followed Cal, I can tell you that she is not even in the same class as Roberts, but her score is higher. Development just can not be quantified via stats.
|
|
|
|
Post by fridaynightlights on Jul 28, 2019 23:20:16 GMT -8
beaveragain - there is one thing we both agree on.... you could be wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by fridaynightlights on Jul 28, 2019 23:35:28 GMT -8
One can use any sort of statistic to come to any sort of conclusion that you want. There are entirely too many variables involved that are not included in the numbers. Injuries or the type of players a school is able to recruit. Some players peak earlier than others. Often a roster will dictate players playing time and that playing time will contribute to the numbers that are used for the evaluation. The school and the draw a coach has to work with will also dictate the type of players that they are able to bring into the program. Coach Roberts at Utah is an example of a coach who is behind the 8 ball in respect to the type of player she is able to recruit. Whereas Gottlieb started with a full cupboard, with Cal being a real draw for the value of its degree, but she left the cupboard bare when she left. As someone who has followed Cal, I can tell you that she is not even in the same class as Roberts, but her score is higher. Development just can not be quantified via stats. Thank you. You did a much better job then I of arguing why using statistics to determine something as complex as this is pointless. IMO If you really wanted to come closer to finding a more meaningful answer you would need to spend time around the various coaches, practices and programs. |
|
|
|
Post by beaveragain on Jul 28, 2019 23:40:41 GMT -8
Staring at the ceiling trying to go to sleep and realized the worm eating at the back of my mind was that I'd changed the parameters halfway through to only count those who had 10 minutes of average playing time. Need to redo the earlier calculations.
Will- Yes, it is not perfection. So few things are. But if one player isn't playing then another player is, and so it should even out. Roberts has actually done very well in finding good recruits, she just can't keep them. If Robert's is a good coach then even the lousy players she has should get better shouldn't they?
I have to admit I'm a little surprised at the push back I'm getting. It's a small data set so it's not going to be terrific, but it seems to follow what I would have expected and how I think most people would have expected accept for Graves. Is it that wrong?
|
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Jul 29, 2019 6:22:30 GMT -8
Staring at the ceiling trying to go to sleep and realized the worm eating at the back of my mind was that I'd changed the parameters halfway through to only count those who had 10 minutes of average playing time. Need to redo the earlier calculations. Will- Yes, it is not perfection. So few things are. But if one player isn't playing then another player is, and so it should even out. Roberts has actually done very well in finding good recruits, she just can't keep them. If Robert's is a good coach then even the lousy players she has should get better shouldn't they? I have to admit I'm a little surprised at the push back I'm getting. It's a small data set so it's not going to be terrific, but it seems to follow what I would have expected and how I think most people would have expected accept for Graves. Is it that wrong? Im glad you shared it. Thanks for the analysis. You clearly spelled out your parameters. And within those parameters, it was illuminating. |
|
