Katz on coaches who never played ball

[NYWarrior]

this coming from an ESPN analyst who never played the game--not many exist.

Andy Glockner, Kyle Whelliston, Mark Schlabach,Tim Kurkjian, Peter Gammons, Matthew Berry, Jayson Stark, Jerry Crasnick, Jim Caple, John Clayton, Seth Wickersham, Buster Olney, Bruce Feldman

[Schoolyard]

SJS...typical form by you...ignoring my argument and only attacking the low hanging fruit.  How do you defend TC's nearly perfect record in pre conf tourneys, many against high profile, high powered teams?

[muarmy81]

this coming from an ESPN analyst who never played the game--not many exist.

Andy Glockner, Kyle Whelliston, Mark Schlabach,Tim Kurkjian, Peter Gammons, Matthew Berry, Jayson Stark, Jerry Crasnick, Jim Caple, John Clayton, Seth Wickersham, Buster Olney, Bruce Feldman

John Clayton didn't play pro football?  I could have swore he played offensive line for the chicago bears... http://www.theonion.com/content/from_print/1985_photo_reveals_espns

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

IMHO it comes down to the fact that TC never played the game even at a HS level and he just doesn't know when to lay off the gas. You can do Tae Kwon Do, talk to Tony LaRussa till he's sober and audit a Bill Parcells practice all you want but there is something to be said for having a little game experience.  He is all book knowledge...I remember a coach who once preached about street smarts.

This is a big year...i we play to our seed in the BET / NCAAs a lot of perceptions can change.  I hope we do, I hope I'm proven wrong.

I can see how you would think that (seems to make some sense on the surface)... but here is something to chew on:

Crean has already proven that he is a pretty good coach (one of the better ones in D1). Now, you can argue that he isn't an elite coach (yet) for the reasons you stated above.

However, I think the logic then becomes something like "Crean cannot be (or isn't) an elite coach because he never played highschool basketball."

I'm just not sure that lack of playing experience at the high school or even college level is limiting his ability to become an elite coach. He may or may not become an elite coach... but I don't think playing time when he was 17 really makes a difference.

Now, if he couldn't coach at all... and MU was terrible... then I think the experience thing could come into play.

[ChicosBailBonds]

SJS...typical form by you...ignoring my argument and only attacking the low hanging fruit.  How do you defend TC's nearly perfect record in pre conf tourneys, many against high profile, high powered teams?

Pre-conference tournaments are a mix of good, average and bad teams.   Some of those tournaments we've played games on our home court.  The NCAAs are packed with elite teams all on neutral sites.

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

"I remember a long time ago that Fran Fraschilla [now an ESPN analyst and another former coach who didn't play] told me that when you're starting out as a coach, you're two laps ahead from the guys who are [still] playing," Crean said.

This really rings true. As an example, I listen to a lot of music -- both live and recorded. And, although I do not play any instruments, my passion is talking to people about how to properly play guitar and suggesting ways they might improve. They always appreciate it.

In fact, I have a friend who's a golf coach and he can't break 110. But he's watched the Masters every year since 1986. He's in high demand.

Oh, and I write letters to people. Did you know that?

[jmayer1]

"I remember a long time ago that Fran Fraschilla [now an ESPN analyst and another former coach who didn't play] told me that when you're starting out as a coach, you're two laps ahead from the guys who are [still] playing," Crean said.

This really rings true. As an example, I listen to a lot of music -- both live and recorded. And, although I do not play any instruments, my passion is talking to people about how to properly play guitar and suggesting ways they might improve. They always appreciate it.

In fact, I have a friend who's a golf coach and he can't break 110. But he's watched the Masters every year since 1986. He's in high demand.

Oh, and I write letters to people. Did you know that?

(Rolling Eyes)

[muwarrior87]

SJS...typical form by you...ignoring my argument and only attacking the low hanging fruit.  How do you defend TC's nearly perfect record in pre conf tourneys, many against high profile, high powered teams?

Pre-conference tournaments are a mix of good, average and bad teams.   Some of those tournaments we've played games on our home court.  The NCAAs are packed with elite teams all on neutral sites.

well, as neutral as the tourney selection committee wants.  It still is an advantage to be a top seed playing close to home even if it is on a 'neutral' court

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

"I remember a long time ago that Fran Fraschilla [now an ESPN analyst and another former coach who didn't play] told me that when you're starting out as a coach, you're two laps ahead from the guys who are [still] playing," Crean said.

This really rings true. As an example, I listen to a lot of music -- both live and recorded. And, although I do not play any instruments, my passion is talking to people about how to properly play guitar and suggesting ways they might improve. They always appreciate it.

In fact, I have a friend who's a golf coach and he can't break 110. But he's watched the Masters every year since 1986. He's in high demand.

Oh, and I write letters to people. Did you know that?

Do you think Crean would be a better coach if he played 8 mins/game as a 17year old on a crappy high school team?

He's already proven he's one of the better coaches in the country, while somebody like Clyde Drexler has VERY limited success.

Hell, even Bo Ellis' track record as a head coach isn't too impressive.

[Murffieus]

I defiinetly think TC would be a better caoch had he played at a high level in college. His learning curve has been greater as a result of not having had that experience. He's locked into the "school of hard knocks" as a result, which has lengthened his learning curve.

Case in point----had he been an athlete he would understand that players are human beings and not machines and then they would have a great deal more gas left in the tank in the last month of the season if he would pace them----he works them too hard early on!

Outside of that----he does a good job in the first 2/3 to 3/4 of the season!

[77fan88warrior]

Since when is good top 20? I don't think Bill Russell would say top 20 ='s good. Me thinks top 50 is good.

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

"I remember a long time ago that Fran Fraschilla [now an ESPN analyst and another former coach who didn't play] told me that when you're starting out as a coach, you're two laps ahead from the guys who are [still] playing," Crean said.

This really rings true. As an example, I listen to a lot of music -- both live and recorded. And, although I do not play any instruments, my passion is talking to people about how to properly play guitar and suggesting ways they might improve. They always appreciate it.

In fact, I have a friend who's a golf coach and he can't break 110. But he's watched the Masters every year since 1986. He's in high demand.

Oh, and I write letters to people. Did you know that?

Do you think Crean would be a better coach if he played 8 mins/game as a 17year old on a crappy high school team?

He's already proven he's one of the better coaches in the country, while somebody like Clyde Drexler has VERY limited success.

Yes, I do think he'd be a better coach if he'd played 8 minutes a game on a crappy high school team.

Drexler was a bad coach because he put no effort into recruiting.

[Marquette84]

SJS...typical form by you...ignoring my argument and only attacking the low hanging fruit.  How do you defend TC's nearly perfect record in pre conf tourneys, many against high profile, high powered teams?

I ignored your argument because it's equally false.  You want to be attacked?  Fine--here are the flaws wiich make your argument just as weak as Murffs:

MU had a 12-2 record overall, but only 3 of the 12 were in the RPI top 50 (so much for your argument of  "many high powered, high-profile" games).  MU did win those 3 games against the top 50 (Duke in 07, Indiana and Gonzaga in 02).  But lost two of the 9 others (Oklahoma State, South Alabama).

99:  Hawaii:  Lost to Oklahoma State, Beat Nicholls State
00:  No pre-season tourmament
01:  Lost to South Alabama, 1st game of NIT
02:  Great Alaska Shootout--beat NIT team Tennesse, Gonzaga, Indiana
03:  CVC:  Beat NIT team Villanova
04:  no pre-season tournament
05:  no pre-season tournament
06:  Great Alaska Shootout--beat three marginal teams: South Carolina, EWU, and ORU
07:  Beat two marginal teams--Idaho State and Detroit--and Duke and Texas Tech.


Next, even those wins against those "high powered, high profile" teams arent' really as tough as the teams MU lost to later in the year.  For example,  you can't argue that MU should have beat Louisville, Georgetown and Alabama in late 2006 because they beat EWU, South Carolina and ORU early in the year--especially considering that losses to Winthrop and Nebraska flanked that GAS championship. 

You can't even argue that Duke and Texas Tech in 2007 would top Georgetown, ND, Louisville or Pitt in terms of how impressive the teams played during the year.   

And even at that, you're cherry picking by including only the non-conference tournaments.  Along with the wins over Duke and Texas Tech last season were losses to Wisconsin and North Dakota State.  Don't those losses count?

Along witht the GAS championship in 02 were losses to Wisconsin and Wake Forest.  So even in the non-conference slate, the record was hardly "nearly perfect" as you suggest.

The bottom line is that MU didn't play any worse at the end of the season as they did at the beginning. 

[Murffieus]

Only SJS/84 would argue that MU plays as well the last 1/4 of the season as it does prior to that. Never mind the fact that MU is 50-20 from Jan 2 just prior to the first loss in February and only 35 - 44 with the first loss
in February to the end of the season.

[Marquette84]

Only SJS/84 would argue that MU plays as well the last 1/4 of the season as it does prior to that. Never mind the fact that MU is 50-20 from Jan 2 just prior to the first loss in February and only 35 - 44 with the first loss
in February to the end of the season.

Only Murff would argue that starting the confernce season 4-7 is playing BETTER than finishing 4-1.

Or that starting a season 0-5 is playing BETTER than finishing 5-4.

Or that there is no difference at all between 8 teams with an average RPI rank of 105 and 8 teams with an average of 38.

As long as you exclude these relevant factors, then your argument is a half-truth.  No matter how many times you repeat it. 

Frankly, if you want to talk about late season folds, no era is worse than MU in the 1950's. 

You want a late season fold--start talking about about the 1957 team, which had ZERO wins after the first loss in February.  Worst performance of any MU team in history. 

Or how about 1955?  Which started the year 22-1, but lost HALF of its games starting with the first loss in Feburary. 

Or 1956--which was 3-6 starting with the first loss in February?  Or 1958 which was 2-4 starting with the first loss in Feburary? 


 

[Murffieus]

I'm not saying that other era's at MU or other programs didn't or don't have their swoons at year end (you talk like since it happens elsewhere it's OK)-----but over the last 8 years there is a pattern here at MU----there is a HUGE difference between 50 wins & 20 losses-----and 35 wins & 45 losses (last 1/4 of the season)!

Take out the 2003 season when we had the super star and the swoon is much worse collectively!

[Marquette84]

I'm not saying that other era's at MU or other programs didn't or don't have their swoons at year end (you talk like since it happens elsewhere it's OK)-----but over the last 8 years there is a pattern here at MU----there is a HUGE difference between 50 wins & 20 losses-----and 35 wins & 45 losses (last 1/4 of the season)!

Take out the 2003 season when we had the super star and the swoon is much worse collectively!

Your conclusion that 2003 is the only year MU did not swoon requires one to suspend all rational belief. 

In other words, to conclude that a team "swooned" or "ran out of gas" you have to believe:

. . .that there is no difference between a team ranked 38th and one ranked 105th (as in 2007)

. . .that starting 0-5 then finishing 6-5 is a swoon--a decline in performance. (as in 1999)

. . .that starting 4-7, then finishing 4-1 is "running out of gas." (as in 2004)

. . . that starting conference play 6-5, then finihsing 4-1 to take a 1st round bye in the BET is a swoon (as in 2006)

So far, you haven't been able to explain ANYTHING about the 2007, 2006, 2004, or 1999 seasons. 

Instead, you just keep averaging good and bad seasons together, and then calling them all bad.

What you are doing is akin is averaging Al McGuire's .787  winning percentage with Bob Dukiet's .459, and declaring that neither coach was very good.

If you want to single out the 2001 or 2001 seasons and say that the team ran out of gas in THOSE seasons, you'd get no argument from me.  The facts would support that conclusion.

But as I said, you have to suspend disbelief to conclude that there was a swoon in 1999, 2004, 2006, or 2007.

The fact that you can't talk about individual years--you can only talk about  all the years averaged together--shows me that you simply don't care about the truth.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

"I remember a long time ago that Fran Fraschilla [now an ESPN analyst and another former coach who didn't play] told me that when you're starting out as a coach, you're two laps ahead from the guys who are [still] playing," Crean said.

This really rings true. As an example, I listen to a lot of music -- both live and recorded. And, although I do not play any instruments, my passion is talking to people about how to properly play guitar and suggesting ways they might improve. They always appreciate it.

In fact, I have a friend who's a golf coach and he can't break 110. But he's watched the Masters every year since 1986. He's in high demand.

Oh, and I write letters to people. Did you know that?

Do you think Crean would be a better coach if he played 8 mins/game as a 17year old on a crappy high school team?

He's already proven he's one of the better coaches in the country, while somebody like Clyde Drexler has VERY limited success.

Yes, I do think he'd be a better coach if he'd played 8 minutes a game on a crappy high school team.

Drexler was a bad coach because he put no effort into recruiting.

Ok, we can agree to disagree.

I think he is already one of the better coaches in college hoops, so I don't think that him playing high school hoops 20 years ago would make him any better now.

[Murffieus]

Having played college BB would have taught TC one very important lesson that he hasn't learned yet-----and that is that players are human beings and not machines and therefore a coach needs to pace human beings during the seasons so that they have plenty of gas left in the tank going into the last 1/4 of the season, which is the most important part of the season.

TC does a lot of things well, but needs to better understand the physical limits of his "troops"!

[mviale]

Murf pulls a lot of stuff out of his ..., but Murf may have something here.  Seems like other teams grow to a peak later in the year, while we always look very good prior to March.

However, blame is never 100%.  These players need to get behind a leader.  Novak could only take a group of FRosh so far.  Diener was always hurt towards the end.  Wade was a leader.

[Marquette84]

Seems like other teams grow to a peak later in the year, while we always look very good prior to March.

I'll give you the same challenge I gave murff--Year by year, tell me why you think the four seasons I listed above--1999, 2004, 2006 and 2007--represented a late season decline.  Because I think three of them--99, 04 and 06--were tremendous improvements, and 2007 is more a result of schedule (and injury) than declining performance.

Take last season:  do you really think we were better than Georgetown--that losing to them was a fade after beating Providence and Seton Halll?  Do you really think that we could have been the one team in conference to win at ND?  Do you really think that UL without Charachter is the same team with him?  Or can you agree that is there some validity to the fact that the schedule got a tad bit harder at the end of the year.

Do you really think that in 2006, when we were mired in the middle of the Big East pack with a 6-5 record, that our 4-1 finish to take a first round bye wasn't the peak of the season? 

Do you really think that in 2004, when MU started 4-7 in conferecne that our 4-1 finish wasn't a peak from earlier play?  Granted, because of the earlier problems that finish only brought us to 8-8, but the end was still better than the start.

Murffs problem is that he comes to his conclusion first, then force fits data to make that conclusion sound plausible, no matter how wrong it might be.  In this case, he has a convoluted "first loss in February" statistic, which is ludicrous.  For example, under his stat, that 4-1 finish doesn't matter, becuase in the first two weeks in February MU had a four game losing streak. Most people would look at the end of January/start of February as the low point of the season.  Not Murff--it doesnt' matter to him that MU lost most of their conference games before the middle of February--he wants to make it sound like the team collapsed at the end of the year--even though they recovered and played well at at the end.

Furthermore, his manuplation is specifically designed to count any early february losses as a late season loss, but exclude all early-february wins.

So in 2005, the February 2nd loss to UAB is evidence of a pattern of late season collapse.  But in 2007 wins against Providence on 2/3 and Rutgers on 2/7 don't count. 

Don't fall in to his trap.

As I said, if he accurately pointed out that in 2000 and 2001 MU faded down the strecth, he'd have a valid point.  The problem is he's been saying the same thing since 2001--even though the probem has long since been corrected.  There is no eight year "pattern" of late season collapse.

[Murffieus]

35 wins against 44 losses beginning with the first loss in February collectively over the past 8 seasons is hardly a "manipulation". SJS can always find an exception to the rule and usually bases his arguments on that exception.

But the overall record for roughly the last 1/4 of the season collectively over the past 8 seasons of 35 wins vs 44 losses is what it is!

[ecompt]

You're unbelievable, Murff. Would you at least admit that losing the best all-around guard in MU history hurt us one year and losing our best all-around player last year MIGHT have had something to do with our late-season record? And you've NEVER attended a late-season practice, so you don't know what they are like. Bobby Knight's practices probably TC's look like choir rehearsal.   

[Marquette84]

35 wins against 44 losses beginning with the first loss in February collectively over the past 8 seasons is hardly a "manipulation". SJS can always find an exception to the rule and usually bases his arguments on that exception.

But the overall record for roughly the last 1/4 of the season collectively over the past 8 seasons of 35 wins vs 44 losses is what it is!

Look, you can repeat the numbers as much as you want.  I've already told you how it's a manuplated number (you count early Feburary losses, but not early February wins).  An honest comparison would include ALL games in February--but you won't do that becasue it doesn't give you the conclusion you want.

So fine--with your manipulation, your numbers are accurate.  Howver, the conclusion you draw from those numbers is false.  Period.

There are only two seasons (2000, 2001) out of the last nine where there has been a real decline when taking SOS into account

In three others, the team was consistent at the end of the year (2003, 1999, 2005)--no better or no worse.

In at least three seasons (1999, 2004, 2006) the team improved measurably toward the end of the year.

In one season (2007), the record declined, however the schedule was SIGNIFICANTLY more difficult (105 RPI vs 38 RPI).

You can repeat your statement of "35 wins against 44 losses beginning with the first loss in February collectively over the past 8 seasons" all you want.  Collectively, using your manipulated forumula the numbers are correct.  Season by season, however, your conclusion has been proven false. 

There is NO pattern of decline. 


Lets agree on this:  If a team has 2 years of decline, 3 years of improvement, 3 flat seasons, and one year with a much more difficult schedule, they will wind up with a late season record of 35 wins against 44 losses beginning ewith the first loss in February.  Any other conclusion is wrong.

[Murffieus]

ecompt----I talk to people about the practices.

You talk about injuries -----everyteam has injuries----have to have someone ready to replace guys that can't go. Last year we had Kinsella, Cubilan, and Fitz step up and ..who more than made up for the loss of McNeal. Remember that with McNeal we had lost 4 of 5 games immediately before he went down late last year!

Why hide this under the rug-----needs to be talked about as we are going no where until this is corrected.