Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2018 12:34:49 GMT -8
Let's do a simple "gedanken" experiment to clarify things. Two identical twins who are coaches with identical coaching ideas in all aspects: One coaches at Alabama and one coaches at Podunk University (PU for short). Now, by your own admission, the Alabama coach has a greater pool to choose from. They both want assistant X, but the PU coach has to settle for some lesser choice while the Alabama coach gets his first choice. So the greater pool has PROBABLY resulted in a better assistant for Alabama. So right down the line, it's clear that Alabama has an advantage. Therefore, higher win probability. So it DOES taint the approach of picking best coach according to win/loss percentage: We started with the assumption of identical twins, who of course are equally good at coaching. The same reasoning can be applied to the pool of recruits available to each school. I don't know how you can argue that. You seem to completely ignore facts that make you look silly... it doesn't guarantee said assist is a good coach because Bama twin had the advantage. PU twin might be a far better judge of talent/ability and find an equal but unheralded asst. Lol... how do you think the Meyer's of the world get started. They are not all from blue blood programs. Some PU head coach recognized talent and took a flying leap while in that same hiring year the Bama's hired flame outs. No, you're forgetting the assumption: Identical twins with identical abilities, including their ability to judge "talent/ability". You need to think in terms of probabilities, too: Of course there are no guarantees of making the "right" choice, but we're talking probabilities, here. There are no certainties, only probabilities. The convergence of these probabilities will make the Alabama coach look much better, even though the coaches are equal in every way. Poor underprivileged PU coach. |
|
|
|
Post by ochobeavo on Jan 9, 2018 13:11:28 GMT -8
Just wanted to say that this WBB thread is amazing. I apologize that I don't have anything cool to add. But really, this thread already has it all - Wooden, Geno, Belichick, Saban, Rueck.. and TWINS!!!  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2018 13:15:23 GMT -8
Just wanted to say that this WBB thread is amazing. I apologize that I don't have anything cool to add. But really, this thread already has it all - Wooden, Geno, Belichick, Saban, Rueck.. and TWINS!!! I didn't mention that the twin coaches were both young beautiful women, so there's that, too! |
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Jan 9, 2018 13:22:17 GMT -8
Just wanted to say that this WBB thread is amazing. I apologize that I don't have anything cool to add. But really, this thread already has it all - Wooden, Geno, Belichick, Saban, Rueck.. and TWINS!!! I didn't mention that the twin coaches were both young beautiful women, so there's that, too! With EQUAL 'talents'!!!! |
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Jan 9, 2018 13:32:04 GMT -8
Since I'm on my phone and can't highlight your first couple sentences... but, baloney. First, the HC and hiring the right assts have a LOT to do with their great coaching. We just witnessed what poor hiring does! GA's legacy here is based on his extremely poor hiring, thus terrible coach. Second. Have more prestige or $ doesn't make hiring assistants "easier". It may give the HC a bigger "pool", but being paid more at a "prestigious" school doesn't make them a good asst coach, let alone better than others being paid less. Hiring is more than just a resume... as many have seen the last decade. Meaning... Saban and Myer don't have great assts at every spot. Just doesn't happen. All you have to do is track the shuffle of position coaches. Hiring coaches is never easy, and in 99% of cases, temporary. It was this same inane thought process that drove me crazy at the old State/Metro coach's meetings. COY conversation usually came down to some "idiot" saying, "... how bout whoever wins the title?" Like the guys outside the high profile talent areas couldn't coach or deserve recognition. I had plenty of colleagues that could coach circles around some of the said COYs! Let's do a simple "gedanken" experiment.. Let’s not. |
|
|
|
Post by green85 on Jan 9, 2018 16:17:03 GMT -8
Every major basketball program in the country from the 50's thru the 70's had their own version(s) of UCLA's Sam Gilbert. Even Saintly Slats, Padre Paul and Righteous Ralph's program in lil ol' Cornvalley. People who want to belittle Wooden's accomplishments: 1. Probably never saw his teams play 2. Dismiss the fact that he won an NCAA title with a team whose tallest player was 6'-5" (1964). An undefeated season to boot. 3. Think that someone else must be more deserving of his accomplishments but for the life of them can't tell you who. I've got no time for those folks. FWIW, John Wooden's salary when he retired in 1975 after winning 10 NCAA championships in 12 years was $32,500. I never belittled his accomplishments. I just said it is politically incorrect to belittle him. Any sports commentator who questioned his coaching skills today would be summarily fired. That was one of my points. He may have been a good coach. If you look at what I said, it was that you can't judge a coach by his win/loss record when he's loaded with talent. But just for the record, here's some fact checking: 1) I've seen his team lose to an OSU team with far inferior talent that was coached by Ralph Miller. 2) They had 2 players on that UCLA team who were 6'7" tall. One of them scored 8 points in the championship game. And when a team has 3 players on the team who each go on to play 10+ years in the NBA, then yeah, I EXPECT that team to win the NCAA championship, especially when one of them is Walt Hazzard. Wooden's $32500 salary back then was enough to buy a house. It would be equivalent to probably $300,000 today. I'm not feeling sorry for him. But what really bugs me is that you apparently totally misunderstood my 2 major points, and that I did NOT say he was a bad coach. On his coaching, I really have no opinion, which is the best anyone can really say about him for sure because his teams were loaded with talent. It would be interesting to see a list of the criteria you have to measure whether a coach is a good coach. Having spent some time observing college basketball coaches over the last 4 decades I can honestly say that John Wooden was a great coach by any measure. His teams were taught basketball skills and fundamentals that played well in the college and pro game of his era. His players understood the discipline required to play possession basketball and how to maximize opportunities to score through team play. By the way, those criteria would equally apply to Ralph Miller as evidence of his great coaching ability. Add Wooden's motivational skill and his ability to reach his players with cerebral aspects of the game in a way that affected the team's chances to win, and you start to understand some of his genius as a coach and mentor. Wooden himself was an outstanding All-American guard in his playing days. As happens with that type of talent, his high school and college coaches referred to him as a coach on the floor. I do not care how many top recruits and players were on his roster, Wooden molded his teams into winners on an order of magnitude that greater than simply having individual talent run around on the court. Great coaches like John Wooden tend to have gaudy winning records because they are great coaches that reach their team with teaching and coaching and motivation - and they lead their coaching staff in ways that make the assistants better coaches, which in turn makes the players play better in games [e.g. execution]. Again, by many of these measures Ralph Miller rises to the level of great coach. Others that rise to meet the high performance levels of great coaching (by MY criteria and observation) include: Coach K Coach Roy Williams Coach Bill Self Coach Bobby Knight (I never cared for him, but he effectively led his teams) Coach Mike Montgomery Coach Lute Olsen |
|
|
|
Post by TheGlove on Jan 19, 2018 23:17:01 GMT -8
UO goes undefeated in conference this year. You heard it here. Nope. |
|
