[Cracked Sidewalks] Coaching Carousel Redux

[CrackedSidewalksSays]

Coaching Carousel Redux

Written by: noreply@blogger.com (Tim Blair)

We're pleased to welcome Dr. Blackheart back to the blog for an historical overview of the coaching carousel.  Originally, this was scheduled for last week, but then "stuff" got in the way.  Regardless, the content in this post is well worth revisiting after yet another road loss.
_______________________________________________________

Back in 2008, right after Tom Crean left Marquette for the “Quadruple I”, the Bleacher Report published an article on fast risers in the college coaching profession.   Among the names listed at the time were Anthony Grant of VCU, Brad Brownell of Wright St., Sean Miller of Xavier, Tony Bennett of Washington St. and Keno Davis of Drake (who had just been named National Coach of the Year).  All were rumored to have been potential candidates for the vacant Marquette job.  Absent from the list was one Brent “Buzz” Williams, a virtual unknown even to ardent MU followers.

Fast forward to February 2011, and each of these names have assumed the head coaching throne at a new, top BCS-level job:  Grant to Bama, Brownell to Clemson, Miller to Arizona, Bennett to UVA and Davis to Providence.  Also on the list with MU connections besides Crean were former assistant Darrin Horn (who had just taken the South Carolina spot at the time of this article) and Kevin O’Neill, former head coach, who has now assumed the USC lead.  And, of course, Buzz has moved down the hall to the corner office in “The Al”.

Recently, blogger Dan Hanner of the Yet Another Basketball Blog (YABB) revisited the coaching hires over the past three years to evaluate which of these head coaches have made a difference.   Hanner used Pomeroy efficiency statistics to rate these new coaches versus their predecessors.  The surprising results:

• Besides John Calipari and Mike Montgomery, no other 2-3 year head coach has improved the lot of their new teams more so than “The Buzzer”.  Considering that the other two have NBA experience and past high NCAA success, Buzz has been able to move the needle in the right direction for MUâ€"past the “Three Amigos+Zar” era and now with his own recruitsâ€"and Crean had left him with a much higher bar to beat than either Coach Cal or Montgomery inherited.
• Yet, the shadow of doubt and his predecessor still seems to hang over the one not on the 2008 list.  Quoting Hanner:  â€œIs Buzz Williams a better coach than Tom Crean? His teams have had better efficiency margins than Crean’s did. And this data includes Crean’s team with Dwayne Wade. Until Williams gets to a Final Four, I think the answer is no. But I will say this: Buzz Williams' teams almost never get blown out.  (editor's note - the next Cracked Sidewalks t-shirt will have the "no double-digit losses" banner on the back)
  
• Three first year Big East Coaches made the “Positive Impact” list including former MU assistant Mike Riceâ€"along with Steve Lavin of SJU and Kevin Willard of Seton Hall. Each of these also was left with seasoned upperclassmen.  The question will be if any of these three will be “one hit wonders”, a tag that Buzz is starting to put behind him?
• On the “Negative Impact” list are eleven names with 2-3 years on the job at their current gig, including four of the rising stars mentioned with MU in 2008, and MU coaching alumni Crean, O’Neill and Horn.  Brownell, in his first year at Clemson after taking over for Oliver Purnell, is near break even.  Grant seems to have Bama on the right path with defense, as the Crimson Tide is 8-2 and contending in the weaker SEC West.

So, is MU a much better job than the pundits and the so-called “hot coaches” are willing to admit or recognize?  Is Buzz still underestimated, even by the MU faithful?  Is the grass always greener at these high visibility jobs? On a day like today, when the fan base questions how good a coach Buzz actually is, the remainder of the season awaits to help answer these questions.
______________________________________________________

Excellent post, Dr. Blackheart.   Thank you very much!

http://www.crackedsidewalks.com/2011/02/coaching-carousel-redux.html

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

Great post. I admit, I wanted Brownell to get a hard look. I'm very happy with Buzz, even if I've just about had it with this year's version of the Warriors.

[ringout]

There is always next year. In Buzz we trust.

Buzz is going to get the Tater (Ted Thompson hater) treatment until he goes deep into the tourny.  Based on this article, I think we are moving in the right direction.

[JMcSteal]

not hatin on buzz, but some of these have done really well, sean miller and grant are doin pretty good

[ChicosBailBonds]

I appreciate the analysis, thanks Blackheart.  My only nit to pick with these types of analysis is the inability to determine the substitution effect.  It can't be done, so it's not a complaint against the analysis but I think a healthy caveat that needs to be taken into account.

By substitution effect I mean comparing what happened here vs what some other coach did elsewhere is fine, but what would have happened if the roles were substituted?  If Brownwell came to MU with McNeal, James, Hayward, Matthews, etc....would he have had a great year?  Would Keno Davis?  Etc, etc?  Probably.  Would that have helped them in their causes?  What would Buzz have done at Clemson with the same inherited players as Brownwell?  What would Buzz have done at Providence in the same situation?

It's impossible to tell, but this is a caveat people should take into consideration IMO.  Because coach X has a better record than coach Y and Z could be because they are a better coach or it could be because the situation they walked into, the players they had, etc, etc were a lot different.

I lived in Cleveland for a number of years when Bill Bellichek was the head coach.  He couldn't get it done there...now he's a Hall of Fame coach.  Did he get smarter or did he have a better situation?  Examples a plenty.  It's also why I think it merits evaluating coaches over the long haul, not based on a small sample, especially when the small sample is made up almost exclusively of players from a previous regime. 

Ultimately time tells the tale.

[Dr. Blackheart]

Thanks for the comments...let me address a few points and add a few.

• Miller and Grant are on the upswing.  Miller has a monster class coming in next season.  I was really impressed with Grant's coaching last year in Orlando for the Old Spice.  That said, Miller has a high mark to beat in Olson...and Grant is in a very weak side of the SEC. Do I think they will meet or beat their predecessors?  Yes.
• Substitution?...I really don't now how you could address this to compare. The purpose of Hanner's analysis was to first level set via the statistical with the premise that improvement vs. the previous coach(es) at that particular school as the metric (which was why a coach was hired at that job to start with--a good fit). The short period of time is one confounding factor as are the situations a coach was asked to come in and clean up (Crean) which makes it hard to compare.  For me here the key comparison is "expectation vs. the past" which is why schools pay these names big bucks for a turnaround...and then the qualitative assessments around it to be discussed. Buzz is in good standing....let's see how we net out here in the easier part of our BE schedule.

What I found most interesting was the number of MU names on this list. For the past 50 years, MU has been ranked in the Top 25 the 14th most times. Why isn't this a destination job?  I keep seeing these coaches run to the bigger name state schools--many of them football first--and then getting eaten up. NBA arena, Doc, DW3, Wes, Zar, Novak, Diener and the long history before them.  Yes, Milwaukee, cold and tougher academic standards are barriers but it hasn't hurt the MU program over the long run.  Only in the dark Dukiet years when the school support was horrid and he was just not a good fit at MU.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Thanks for the comments...let me address a few points and add a few.

• Substitution?...I really don't now how you could address this to compare. The purpose of Hanner's analysis was to first level set via the statistical with the premise that improvement vs. the previous coach(es) at that particular school as the metric (which was why a coach was hired at that job to start with--a good fit). The short period of time is one confounding factor as are the situations a coach was asked to come in and clean up (Crean) which makes it hard to compare.  For me here the key comparison is "expectation vs. the past" which is why schools pay these names big bucks for a turnaround...and then the qualitative assessments around it to be discussed. Buzz is in good standing....let's see how we net out here in the easier part of our BE schedule.

Yup.  Hopefully I stated that it would be near impossible to do a substitution effect.  I was merely pointing out that people need to be careful with these comparisons.  As an example, I sometimes here things like "Thank God we didn't hire X coach" or "see, X coach is doing poorly at Y university".  Well, that doesn't mean they wouldn't have done great at MU or that Buzz or anyone else would do just as poorly where those other coaches are.  Not all situations are created equal but I think a lot of fans make comparisons as if the jobs, the recruits, the returning players, the conference, etc, etc are all the same and then they simply say Coach Z had 5 more wins than Coach A.  Doesn't work that way in reality.

Appreciate the analysis...good work on your part as usual.

[Dr. Blackheart]

Yup.  Hopefully I stated that it would be near impossible to do a substitution effect.  I was merely pointing out that people need to be careful with these comparisons.  As an example, I sometimes here things like "Thank God we didn't hire X coach" or "see, X coach is doing poorly at Y university".  Well, that doesn't mean they wouldn't have done great at MU or that Buzz or anyone else would do just as poorly where those other coaches are.  Not all situations are created equal but I think a lot of fans make comparisons as if the jobs, the recruits, the returning players, the conference, etc, etc are all the same and then they simply say Coach Z had 5 more wins than Coach A.  Doesn't work that way in reality.

Appreciate the analysis...good work on your part as usual.

Yes...I got your initial comments and appreciate the caveats too. Thanks again for the comments.