Westy's Web(er)
So my reply to Westy's comment for my Caught in a Web(er) post was too long, so I'm turning it into a follow-up post.
I'm not making any claims that Matta would have taken the job. I'm just saying that we should have gone after him hard, and that he would have been a great choice (and one that I would have very much been for). As I recall, I was in the minority then - Illini Nation wasn't big on Matta, and preferred Bruce and the guy from Creighton (Dana Altman, maybe?) who we definitely sent feelers out to, but explicitly turned us down. I was concerned about the Gene Keady pedigree, but was open to the idea that he could do well (he had done a really nice job building that SIU program). But I dug Matta, as the job that he did at Xavier was solid.
In any case, I'd argue that the best bet for making valid points would be to illustrate things that Bruce has done well and to explain why things are looking up for the Illini, and not to try to point out things that Matta hasn't done (particularly with the hypothetical question of how Matta would do with less elite players). Because at that point, you're sort of making stretches, I'd venture.
With regard to the claim that Matta would not be able to do well w/out talent, there are two issues there. One, he gets talent, so the point is moot. Also, getting talent is part of the job description. It's not like there's a salary cap and a forced draft like in the pros. And, two, his first season at OSU, he took a team that was slightly sub-.500 the year before, and won 20 games, despite being on probation (no post-season). And even when he missed the dance the year after Oden/Conley left, they went off and won the NIT. And in one fewer season (and 2 fewer post-season opportunities), Matta has 3 trips to the Sweet 16 and beyond, compared to only 2 for Bruce.
What I'm particularly impressed by is that Matta took Ohio St. to a high ranking last year with Evan Turner (a wing) as the lead player. And has turned around and done it again with Sullinger (a big), with a team that runs different points of emphases on offense. Last year, it was letting Turner be the man from the wing and top of the key, taking advantage of his size over smaller guards. This year it's running things through the low block, with Sullinger and Diebler on the same side of the offense.
As for Craft/Diebler, I just picked two white dudes who got run with Ohio St., and who seem to have been placed into good situations by Matta. We may have different definitions of "top recruits." When I use that term, I'm thinking national top 40 sorts of players. Guys that project out to eventually being lead players on NCAA teams. In any case, I had no idea what sort of hype they had in HS, but...
...according to Rivals, Craft was the #111 rated HS player from 2010. Diebler was the #60 player from 2007. Certainly both legit major-level D-I sort of guys. Part of my point was that even the white kids that Matta gets are legit players, whereas we give a lot of run to guys like Meachem, who were a cut below the the sort of players that legit contenders run out there. But we can use those guys as case studies.
Neither was the caliber of recruit of, say, Rich McBride (#31 in 2003), which would probably the most obvious point of comparison that I would make with Diebler. There's probably not much argument to the claim that Matta got more out of Diebler than Bruce did out of Richie (who I wanted to like, and who I think took more flack from Illini Nation than he deserved).
In terms of recruiting ratings, Diebler was in the same ballpark as Brian Randle (#56 in 2003) or Dimitri MacCamey (#72 in 2007)or Brian Carlwell (#77 in 2006) or Shaun Pruitt (#78 in 2004). I'd venture a guess that most folks would prefer Diebler's college career over the Illini guys (save possibly MacCamey). Craft is in the ballpark of Mike Tisdale (#125 in 2007), Joseph Bertrand (#128 in 2009) and Tyler Griffey (#120 in 2009). We'll see how these guys pan out. I'm very pleased with how Tisdale developed, actually (despite the howls from Illini Nation).
Don't get me wrong, I think that these recruiting ratings (once you get past the top 5 sort of can't miss kids) are generally nice for ballpark ideas of where players are, but are largely junk when you dissect them. But it's not like Bruce hasn't gotten some kids that were recruited by other schools, and has been working with a bunch of walk-ons. And I'm sure that Matta has whiffed with some "top recruits" as well (though nothing comes to mind quickly). And he's had a lot of guys leave early for the NBA (obviously, Oden, Conley, Turner, but also Koufos and Mullen), while we've had guys leave for other, less awesome reasons.
But once you start comparing Weber to guys like Coach K and Roy Williams, who have a bunch of Final 4's and multiple titles on their resume, you're stretching a lot. Coach K took some time to build up the Duke program, but from his 4th year, forward, has never missed the dance (even in '94-'95, he was 9-3, before he took his leave of absence), and has made the Sweet 16 in 17 of 25 years. Roy Williams has been head coach 23 years, and after his first season when Kansas was ineligible for the postseason, has made 21 dances, with the Sweet 16 or better in 14 out of 21 tries. Those guys are absolutely untouchable in terms out their performances. They just don't have stretches like Bruce has had, and if they had, there would be all sorts of rumblings. In fact, about halfway through the season, before North Carolina got hot (right around when Drew quit on the team, coincidentally), there were rumblings about Roy perhaps having lost touch, despite having all these McD's All-American sorts of players. I never bought into it because of the track record, but still, it's realistic to say that rumblings emerge when the expected success doesn't show up.
Your better comparison would be, say, Billy Donovan. Your argument would be better suited to say that if you get a guy that builds a program, you have to be patient with him, and just wait for that right mix of players to show up (like Horford, Noah, Brewer, and Co.). I'd counter with the argument that there still needs to be flexibility to allow people to grow and develop their skill sets and that the systems should allow for these different skills. And we'd argue about the philosophy of having a firm system in place, versus having flexibility. You can talk about how Bobby Knight ran that motion offense for years and years and won a bunch of titles. I'd talk about how his protege, Coach K, has updated the look of Duke basketball, taking what he's picked up with Team USA. You'd talk about how John Wooden did things a certain way for years. I'd argue about how Gene Keady did things the same way for as many years, but underachieved. And the argument would continue.
But at least, we'd be focusing on Bruce and the Illini program, and not Matta (which really, was my intent, and if you look at the entirety of my original post, most of the middle of that post was all thoughts about the Illini program - really, I was just using Matta/Self as the comparison points because they are natural comparisons in my mind and because they're the top 2 teams in basketball this year).
Incidentally, I'm not so sure that Matt Painter has really surpassed Bruce.. VCU? A play-in 11-seed? Yikes. I think that the Boiler Faithful may be about to boil over :-)
-Chairman
11 comments:
Roland, I think you're confusing aspects of this discussion. We're talking about coaching ability. To me that means pre-game, in-game, and post-game strategy. You're including recruiting in your analysis. And yes, while recruiting is an important component for a college 'coach', that's not what I'm talking about. I've always agreed with you that Matta is/was a better recruiter than Weber. That doesn't matter for the conversation I thought we're having. (although I do kind of think it's a moot point so long as we have Jerrance, or whoever is capable of bringing in top recruits; if a program can bring in top guys and also have a passable set of coaches, they'll be fine).
To analyze pure coaching, you need to have equal players. And I don't think that's happened. The only time Weber had comparable players to what Matta's had multiple years, the Illini went to the 'ship. Let's look at recruiting classes:
(per Scout rankings)
2005: Illinois, NR; OSU, NR
2006: NR, #2
2007: NR, #7
2008: NR, #2
2009: #22, NR
2010: #11, #3
It's clear which team was going to be better over the last 5 years, and that's exactly as it's played out. I have hope that's swinging as Illinois starts to actually bring in good players.
Even if we agree on the definition of "coaching ability," there are some issues. The thing is, it's really, really difficult to isolate any one of those factors with any sort of validity. By your definition, there's no way to show that some AAU coach is any better or worse than Phil Jackson or Pat Riley or John Wooden, because there's different players involved.
I'd suggest that there's a feedback loop, or at least some external validity, that suggests that recruiting is influenced by those factors. A coach who is superior in overall strategy and in-game tactics will win more and get better recruits, all things being equal. If there's a significant different in recruiting, that's evidence of a difference in the in-game tactics and overall strategy.
I'd argue that having two coaches at similar institutions in the same conference, would make for a very natural comparison, and probably as good as you can legitimately get. Then to try to normalize the comparison, my point was to take similarly ranked HS players, and to see the outcomes. You'd assume that a better coach would get better outcomes with similar raw pieces.
But your argument has been, roughly, Bruce is as good as Matta because you can't prove otherwise. However, I've made some points about what I like about Matta's strategy (the ability to be flexible with his offense to make the most of his star players), and I've commented on my impression of Bruce's rigidity and lack of ability to run offense through our best options (that table w/ the FG attempts, where Pruitt was getting as many looks as Trent, for example). And I've got issues with Bruce's in-game tactics (baseline in-bounds plays; the inability to respond to changes in defense; not taking advantage of mismatches on offense, particularly in the post; not forcing the high-low when that is an very efficient option)
So what is it that you like about Bruce, other than we can't prove that he's not as good as any other coach out there?
Bruce is a great defensive coach. Consistently near the top of KenPom in Defensive Efficiency. That's a great feat. I personally think defense is more about being smart and working hard than is offense. And he's coached that. That's one example.
In regards to the rest of your reply, I totally disagree. I think recruiting and coaching are often quite disparate. And further, I absolutely believe there are younger coaches, or those without experience, or junior high coaches for crying out loud, who are just as talented as top NBA or NCAA coaches. That they've never had the players is no indictment of their pure coaching ability.
You could be the top coach in the world, and your high school kids won't compete with an NBA team. I firmly believe that there are many many coaches who just never get their shot, or who prefer not to move up, who are just as good as many coaches we know. It's still about the players they are fortunate enough to have.
Bruce's defensive efficiency is good. I've always noted how good our defense is in my Illini previews. But, it's not quite as good as you're making it out to be. Compare his results to Kansas, which has been top 10 every year since 2006. And in the last 2 years, we've had much worse perimeter defense (playing freshmen and DMac's lack of a stopper mentality), which has exposed our bigs, and that's been reflected in the ratings (19th and 49th the last 2 years).
So how would you evaluate Bruce's strategy and in-game tactics on offense?
If you really believe that you're going to see junior high coaches that are as good as, say, Gregg Popovich, because you can't prove otherwise, then I suppose that the discussion is over. I'll agree completely that you can't conclusively prove that a coach is better/worse. You're sort of saying that the argument stops there. But you can provide a lot of evidence.
For example, if you were to evaluate recruiting beyond the top 25 incoming classes, and further rank (or to create ratings based on the number of stars each player has), you could actually statistically measure the impact of recruiting on performance. This lets you isolate the impact of other factors (which you could argue was coaching, though technically could be factors like weather or the stock price of GE). If you look at our recruits, we get enough recruits so that our rosters will have a collection of top 150 players. I'd venture a strong guess that if we were to do this sort of thing, that Bruce wouldn't qualify as "elite" (top 15). Of course, I have zero clue where Matta/Self would pan out. But it would be a relatively valid method.
One interesting stat in KenPom is "Luck," which measures the deviation of performance, from expected ratings. I think that you could make an argument that coaching impacts this the most. Most teams should go back and forth between lucky and unlucky. However, if a team were consistently "lucky" or "unlucky," then you could probably attribute that to coaching (in-game tactics at the very least).
However, since 2005, Illinois has been on the "unlucky" side of things every year. Including in 2008, where we were the single most unlucky team in college hoops. On the other hand, Ohio St. has had 2 years of being unlucky, and 5 years of being lucky. And Kansas has had 4 years of being lucky, 2 years of being unlucky, and on year of being neutral.
The interpretation is that we've underachieved (based on our efficiency stats) each season, Matta's and Self's squads have overachieved more than underachieved.
Who knows, maybe Bruce Weber is the best we can do in terms of having a good coach who won't leave Illinois for greener pastures. But speaking of leaving for greener pastures, is there any chance for the Illini to land Brad Stevens?
Oh well. I'll leave you with a YouTube video that sums up how I'll remember the McCamey era of Illini basketball: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cTPso49LlE
Or we could have just been unlucky...? I don't think luck is any indication at all of coaching. It has to do with opponent FT%, odd bounces, etc. And I do think it will even out.
You note: If you really believe that you're going to see junior high coaches that are as good as, say, Gregg Popovich...
I do believe that. Obviously it's going to be rare, as most good coaches move up. But certainly there are cases. The level at which a coach is at alone does not mark his ability. For instance, take Bobby Hurley Sr. He's had offers at high D-I and maybe even NBA programs. That he chose to stay in HS says nothing about his coaching ability.
I don't think Bruce is the best coach in the land. Of course you're going to find teams that have done better on D over the last few years. But not OSU. There are better coaches out there, though. But does it really matter that much? Again, I don't think so.
With the failures of your boys Matta and Self this weekend, do you blame them, or their players?
I realize that 6 or 7 seasons is a small sample size for something like that "luck" stat, but the stat is based on the gap between actual performance and the components that comprise the power ratings. When you see something consistent, when you'd expect randomness, then that's a pattern of something. The odds of this result (being the wrong end of 7 consecutive 50-50 flips) is 1 in 128). It's easier to argue that there's nothing significant with the Matta and Self results, since they deviate pretty little from random chance.
I guess that the question is whether it's more likely that luck will even out, or is it more likely that you're looking at a rigged game?
I'd argue that it's more likely a rigged game, since the other alternate explanations don't hold water across a season. Do you really believe that Opp FT%, bad bounces, etc. are the best explanation for this? These things explain variance in a game, but not over a season.
With regard to defense - Ohio St. is solid, but on the tier below at Illinois. The ranks of Matta (Xavier in '03 and '04), Weber (SIU in '03), and Self (Illinois in '03):
2003: 28 vs. 102 vs. 8
2004: 20 vs. 35 vs. 13
2005: 20 vs. 11 vs. 18
2006: 24 vs. 21 vs. 2
2007: 15 vs. 3 vs. 1
2008: 18 vs. 21 vs. 1
2009: 65 vs. 4 vs. 7
2010: 24 vs. 49 vs. 8
2011: 6 vs. 19 vs. 7
If you drop the high and low score from each group, you see some clear differences on defense. Self's teams are elite. Weber's and Matta's teams are very good.
As far as this weekend's games go, I think that Matta got beat by Calipari. Sure, Buford's brick of a game had a major factor, but the quality of shots that they got wasn't as good. On that last play, it was a good, open look (though you sort of wanted to see Craft know the clock and the situation just a little more, and wait a split-second to let either Lighty or Diebler get that open shot on the right, instead).
So it wasn't an effort from Matta that should have been condemned. But Kentucky controlled the flow of that game, and Ohio St. never tried to established size (look at playing time for Lauderdale and Thomas). Matta was content to let Kentucky have the matchups that it wanted, and it cost them. All season, Ohio St. had bigger wing guards, but against Kentucky, that wasn't the case, and Matta didn't adjust.
Kansas? They did what they wanted on D, really. Held them to about 40% overall, and VCU shot really well from outside. It was on offense where they had problems. Missed FT's and open 3's were their downfall. It wasn't like they were jacking up contested 3's from the wrong players or getting bad looks. It was catch and shoot 3's that missed (very badly at times) from players that shot much better all season. Don't fault the in-game tactics of Self as much as I would Matta. So by your definition of tactics, no, I don't blame Self. But if you look at how the offense went bad, it's a little different than when you watch what Illinois has been doing over the last 3 seasons. We have a lot of possessions with just bad looks.
However, I'm of the belief that the head coach is the CEO, who controls everything, and the buck stops with him. And winning is what matters. I'd argue that the evaluation of the quality of a college coach has to include all of those other factors, otherwise they're sort of like position coaches or coordinators in football. From that standpoint, in 2005, would you rather be Illinois or Ohio St.? In 2011, would you rather be Illinois or Ohio St.? Who runs those shows? It's the head coach that's the impact.
As for Self, he's different than Weber and Matta, since he's won the big one. But it's on Self to make sure that the team is on top of things, doesn't let those runs in the 1st half happen, etc. He gets a rap for underachieving in the NCAA tourney, and it's deserved, when you lose before you should. I still think that he's one of the top 5 in the game, but he gets some of the same critique that Coach K got before they finally broke through in '92, and what Roy Williams got before he finally broke through in '05.
Self > Weber, Matta, I'll agree w/ you there. He has his quirks, but overall, yes, we'd take that trade. It was the Matta comps I wasn't sold on. Yes, he won the recruiting wars, and so from a CEO standpoint, is winning. But I feel okay now that player talent is evening up.
Again, though, just like in the business world CEOs get too much credit/blame for companies' success, players make the biggest difference in basketball, and not the 'CEO coaches'.
Interesting little piece on Self from Loren Tate: http://bit.ly/fmasnN My take is that there wouldn't be the vitriol from the Illini faithful if we didn't believe that just about anyone else would be a step down.
I liked the 60 Minutes piece on Hurley. Sure, he's the exception, in that he's the institution, and was content to stay. Could be a successful coach at a top college? Maybe. He certainly felt like Bobby Knight.
But there is evidence where coaches make the jump from HS to college as head coach, and it's often ugly (think Faust at ND or Todd Dodge at North Texas in football). More common are coaches who become grad assistants or assistant coaches. If you're a successful HS coach, by the time you become really good, you're probably at too late a stage of life to go off an be an assistant (very high year-to-year turnover).
But he made an interesting point. He doesn't recruit. The players all say that they came to be coached by him because they win, and he develops players. That's definitely evidence of that virtuous circle (or feedback loop or whatever you want to call it).
Post a Comment