|
|
Post by green85 on Jul 29, 2019 8:45:50 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? I think you demonstrated what you intended to demonstrate with your stats ... Graves sucks and Rueck is greatest in player development. Question: If a player is at an elite D1 level as a freshman (e.g. their stats for their freshman season equal or surpass the stats for an experienced player at her position in the same conference), then what measure of player development would indicate they have improved in their sophomore season and beyond? Sometimes FEWER points per game from the top scorer helps a TEAM progress to win more games. BTW, I am not sure there are many fans of women's basketball that would provide a current assessment of Coach Rueck as less than great at just about any metric (player development, winning their conference, progress in the NCAA tourney, etc.). |
|
|
|
Post by 411500 on Jul 29, 2019 9:18:54 GMT -8
Just a few general observations on the idea of player development during their career under a particular head coach....
I present them as ideas worth thinking about (hopefully). I've never studied player development in a formal, stats driven method as some of us are talking about here...
But, I think it is commonly accepted among people who know the game that some coaches are better at developing players than others...
And, obviously, some are known as being less skilled at developing players than others...
Again, just to think about:
1. A coach does not need to develop every single player on the roster to be considered a good developer of talent...Making GREAT progress with one or two key players, Hamblin and Gulich for example, could qualify a coach as a developer of talent. Even though several players on the same roster make very little improvement.
2. The higher the player's talent level upon entering the program the harder it is to make dramatic improvement in the player's overall game.
3. The lower the talent level upon entering the program the easier it is to make dramatic improvement in the player's overall game. (Assuming they are good enough to be recruited in the first place).
4. Sometimes a player's overall improvement is basically a matter of reducing errors and turnovers, which is to say the player improves not from increasing his general skill set but from reducing his error count. (Ralph Miller was a master at this, and so is Rueck).
5. Good recruiters recruit players they believe have high ceilings. Not every player fits this description (for example, Thropay and Grymek - - good players but not players for whom greatness is anticipated.) For players with high ceilings great improvement is reasonably expected. (Trish Morris is thought of by her coaches as a high ceiling player, hence she is more likely than a low ceiling player to demonstrate high improvement in her career). All players are not high ceiling players, but if you recruit a bunch of them you are likely to see great development among some of them because they have a higher ceiling to develop toward.
6. Bottom line: player development can be explained in part by excellent coaching, and in part by the abilities the players bring to the coach.
OK that's it.....
GO BEAVS !!
|
|
|
|
Post by mike74 on Jul 29, 2019 11:46:16 GMT -8
Well stated, 411500. And interesting comments and observations by all.
|
|
|
|
Post by sparty on Jul 29, 2019 11:48:11 GMT -8
The analysis of player development is like the review ratings on Amazon. A guy gives a one star rating to a product because the shipping box was damaged or the color of the item was too dark or whatever.
What is a good movie or bad movie,how about restaurant reviews. Good new car or a bad one.
That is criteria is what you want it to be.
Winning and putting butts in the seats is all that really matters. Does Cori Close do that at UCLA?
|
|
|
|
Post by bvrbooster on Jul 29, 2019 15:00:15 GMT -8
Agree with the above. Coaches should be judged on just 2 criteria - their integrity, and the results. And the results are to be found in developing players to maximize their contribution to the team as a whole, not their individual stats.
|
|
|
|
Post by beaveragain on Jul 29, 2019 23:16:41 GMT -8
While reading an article about transfers I noticed one that I wasn't aware of before. So in going back and rechecking things I found a couple of others that I didn't take into account. In my defense they were all carefully hidden by the schools involved. So in redoing the data there are several changes.
1 VanDerveer Stan - 75 - 1 = 74
2 Rueck OSU 64 - 1 = 63
3 Close UCLA 62 - NA = 62
4 Thorne ASU 57 - 2 = 54
5 Gottlieb Cal 48 - 1 = 47
6 Graves U of O 41 - 6 = 41
7 Roberts Utah 34 - 4 = 34
Now before the Graves fans scream character assassination, or rigging the data let me say that I was puzzled at the result and looked back at the U of O data. The problem for his score is that this time period coincides with Ion. joining the team. And when that happened the offense switched over to running through her. That meant that the four players there before her had all of their absolute scores (points, rebounds, assists) go down, and stayed down for two years. That means his team lost out on a potential of 24 points, but the team went from winning 24 games to 33 games so I can't claim this was a bad thing.
bvrbooster- "Coaches should be judged on just 2 criteria - their integrity, and the results" I completely agree with this, although I'd say results is just how many games you win.
sparty- "The analysis of player development is like the review ratings on Amazon" Ok, we are going to have to completely disagree.
"Winning and putting butts in the seats is all that really matters. Does Cori Close do that at UCLA?" Winning yes, but Close has a lot of competition for those butts in LA that
Rueck doesn't have to deal with. Not a fair comparison.
411500- 1- I think the data shows that the best coaches do improve a number of players. The Aleah's and Hebert's are found, developed, and then convinced to stay by the best coaches.
2- "The higher the player's talent level upon entering the program the harder it is to make dramatic improvement in the player's overall game." I would have thought that was
true, but it seems the opposite. The truly good ones just keep getting better. The lesser talents actually tend to keep getting worse.
4. "Sometimes a player's overall improvement is basically a matter of reducing errors and turnovers" for instance the two coaches with the best record of constant improvement on
assists/turnover by their players are VanDerveer and Graves. Rueck's record during this time is mixed due to switching PG's, Jo, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by sparty on Jul 30, 2019 5:58:43 GMT -8
Gottlieb at CAL developed players? Maybe one, Anigwe. Their recruiting success was pathetic.
If you follow to where they were to where they are at now it is a case study in itself on how a program was totally destroyed by a coach.
Gottlieb would have been axed after this season so she was smart to move on.
It would be interesting to add U-Conn, ND and Baylor to the analysis.
|
|
|
|
Post by beaveragain on Jul 30, 2019 23:26:15 GMT -8
So after more head scratching I realized that with a 4 year time span the teams with more seniors in the first year will lose out of a year of being able to score points from the first year to the next. For instance, VanDerveer had no seniors in 2015-16 who averaged 10 minutes, so she lost no potential points, whereas Graves had 5 seniors that year who averaged over 10 minutes a game, and thus he could only have a couple of players score points that first two seasons. With 5 seasons this all averages out, but at 4 seasons it messes things up. So I've tacked on a score based on how many seniors with 10 minute playing time you had times 2 (the lowest score anyone got). Giving points based on average players would have put Rueck way out in front and Graves in third but it just seems too much like a cheat. If you care to know, based on player averages Rueck would have had a 87 score and Graves a 66 score.
1 VanDerveer Stan - 75 - 1 = 74 + 0 = 74
2 Rueck OSU 64 - 1 = 63 + 8 = 71
3 Close UCLA 62 - NA = 62 + 4 = 66
4 Thorne ASU 57 - 2 = 54 + 8 = 62
5 Graves U of O 41 - 6 = 41 + 10 = 51
6 Gottlieb Cal 48 - 1 = 47 + 0 = 47
7 Roberts Utah 34 - 4 = 34 + 6 = 40
|
|
