Coach Williams - Seeing the Game Through a Different Lens

[mattyv1908]

Just read PRN and mattys banter. Quite entertaining.

Not quite sure whether that's a good thing or not.

[Mutaman]

Let's say you have been wrongly accused and being prosecuted for a murder.  You didn't commit a crime and are facing a life sentence.  Would you rather have the hardest working lawyer who passed his BAR exam on the 4th try with a mixed bag of results in run of the mill criminal trials or do you want the hot shot attorney who you rarely hear from for long stretches yet has a spotless trial record resulting in zero convictions for his clients?  Talent is paramount in life and in basketball.

It all depends. Which one of these two lawyers knows the judge?

Bear in mind what the great attorney Louis Nizer said: "I'm at my most brilliant at 1:00 AM alone in my law library".

[forgetful]

Not quite sure whether that's a good thing or not.

I'd say very interesting, good or bad there is no answer.  It did inform me on where a lot of differences lie, and it honestly is seeing things through a different lens.

Your business examples are ok, but you miss key vital aspects.

Every small or large business owner I know says the same thing about hiring their team (at least the successful ones).  The most important thing is passion, drive and dedication.  Intelligence (ability) is a far lesser concern.  The second most important thing is that you create a culture of personalities.  If everyone gets along and has the same mentality it will sustain itself or (those that don't fit the mold will leave).  That is why, passion drive and dedication need to be the most important initial aspects.

That doesn't mean you throw ability away.  There is a baseline level of talent that is required as a minimum, that minimum talent level that with the appropriate passion, drive and dedication you can mold into a star.  One person (whether the most talented...aka Carmelo) that doesn't fit that persona can kill a team/organization...bigger entities can survive based on sheer number...no team mentality, but small companies and hence basketball teams require that all members maintain the team culture.

You have likely heard of specific examples like at Microsoft where Gates will find a guy that is brilliant (passion, drive or not) they are given a job and let go to work, hoping for brilliance.  The difference is for large entities the marginal cost of a gamble is minimum, and the sheer numbers of employees will assure that they won't change company mentality...very different scenario and not apt for comparison to basketball.

The interesting thing is, like your use of statistics, you recognize key aspects that are important, but miss the key peripheral details needed to properly analyze the situation.

[tower912]

  Let's say you have been wrongly accused and being prosecuted for a murder.  You didn't commit a crime and are facing a life sentence.  Would you rather have the hardest working lawyer who passed his BAR exam on the 4th try with a mixed bag of results in run of the mill criminal trials or do you want the hot shot attorney who you rarely hear from for long stretches yet has a spotless trial record resulting in zero convictions for his clients?  Talent is paramount in life and in basketball.

Is this a movie pitch for a combination of "A Time to Kill" and "My Cousin Vinnie"?   

[brandx]

Davante did not start for one reason, and one reason only. Otule wins nearly every tip he does, Davante would barely win any, and it was evident early in the season that Davante cannot play the 4. Pretty simple really.

Tip really doesn't matter cuz the other team gets the ball at the next tip situation. Pretty flimsy excuse.

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

Tip really doesn't matter cuz the other team gets the ball at the next tip situation. Pretty flimsy excuse.

I also wonder about the benefits of winning the tip, but being without your most reliable offensive weapon for the ensuing possession.

[mattyv1908]

I'd say very interesting, good or bad there is no answer.  It did inform me on where a lot of differences lie, and it honestly is seeing things through a different lens.

Your business examples are ok, but you miss key vital aspects.

Every small or large business owner I know says the same thing about hiring their team (at least the successful ones).  The most important thing is passion, drive and dedication.  Intelligence (ability) is a far lesser concern.  The second most important thing is that you create a culture of personalities.  If everyone gets along and has the same mentality it will sustain itself or (those that don't fit the mold will leave).  That is why, passion drive and dedication need to be the most important initial aspects.

That doesn't mean you throw ability away.  There is a baseline level of talent that is required as a minimum, that minimum talent level that with the appropriate passion, drive and dedication you can mold into a star.  One person (whether the most talented...aka Carmelo) that doesn't fit that persona can kill a team/organization...bigger entities can survive based on sheer number...no team mentality, but small companies and hence basketball teams require that all members maintain the team culture.

You have likely heard of specific examples like at Microsoft where Gates will find a guy that is brilliant (passion, drive or not) they are given a job and let go to work, hoping for brilliance.  The difference is for large entities the marginal cost of a gamble is minimum, and the sheer numbers of employees will assure that they won't change company mentality...very different scenario and not apt for comparison to basketball.

The interesting thing is, like your use of statistics, you recognize key aspects that are important, but miss the key peripheral details needed to properly analyze the situation.

Let's clarify a few things as I think you have the wrong read on me regarding statistics.

I'll use an example I've used before and forgive me if I don't have the exact ORtg and DRtg on hand.  Look at Gardner and Otule again.  One is perceived to be the better offensive talent.  One is perceived to be the better defender.  In this particular case Gardner's ORtg is significantly higher than Otule's (and everyone elses on this team as well), yet Otule's DRtg is a fraction better than Gardner's.

Does this mean I think Gardner is an equal defender to Otule?  No, it just means that for whatever reason the team gives up the essentially the same amount of points regardless of who's in the game between the two.  And situations make a difference, for example if we're up 2 defending the last shot I think Otule should definitely be in the game over Gardner.  Do I think Otule's better defense compared to Gardner is a reason your team's leading offensive player should only get 26 minutes a game?  Absolutely not.

Buzz said himself this team didn't have any margin for error.  I know he values defense, but with the exception being 2012 he hasn't had good defensive teams.  I honestly think this season would look better in regards to wins and losses with Gardner playing more.  You may disagree and that's ok.

As far as real life business is concerned, I believe there is a big difference between being paid solely on production or being paid what someone else values your time at a set rate.  I consult in an industry that regardless of how big or small your earnings were for a month/year you get paid exactly what you were worth.

And please don't be so naive to believe that favoritism, special treatment, job perks, different pay plans, scheduling concessions don't happen in the work place because they do in every field across the country and it's exactly what should be happening if you want to keep talented employees.  People with real talent understand that the company needs them more than they need the company.  That's an empowering situation when a person actually grasps that and it changes the paradigm.  Most people that actually are a revenue source for a company realize this.  Most people that are a necessary expense don't realize this and are offended by those that do.

Human Resources, accounting, customer relations, warranty claims, reception, stocking, shipping and receiving are all examples of positions within a company that are necessary expenses.  Trust me, as soon as companies can find a way to operate without these individuals through automation and what not these jobs will be cut.  They cost revenue.  They're required in day to day operations but in no way actually contribute to the profitability of a company.

Sales and advertising is where your actual revenue is generated.  Individuals and companies need to be compelled to purchase said item/ad space/professional service/etc.  These people are a net contributor and without them no one else is collecting a paycheck.  To find truly gifted people in these fields companies will go to great lengths to find them and this is where rules are bent daily to keep these people employed.  It's here that companies put up with all kinds of behavioral quirks from these individuals because you cannot simply replace one cog for another as a company's actual income is on the line.  Owners, board of directors, and managers will look the other way unless a grievance is truly so detrimental to the company that a termination is necessary.  The trade off is that once you stop producing your behavioral quirks become a detriment and not worth your lack of productivity, but if you truly can move the needle your employers will usually put up with anything to keep you producing.

Here's my one core belief I try to instill in the people I have trained.  YOU'RE TRADING YOUR TIME/LIFE FOR A MONETARY SUM.  That's a profound realization.  Either love what you do or make your time so valuable/profitable that it's worth the trade off.

How it relates to basketball can be summed up with this.  If your son was a top 5 high school prospect and could choose between playing for Buzz at MU or Coach K at Duke I'd tell him every time to go to Duke.  If your son was a low 3 or 4 star high school player who really doesn't have the ability to play in the NBA and he could choose between Marquette and a dozen other top 25-40 programs nationally I'd tell him to play for Buzz.

Now remember, Duke wasn't a blue blood before Coach K.  He build that program to what it is now.  I also don't believe Buzz Williams wants to simply build a perennial tournament team with regular runs to the sweet 16.  If he truly doesn't have championship aspirations for this program after his success so far then he is indeed the wrong man for the job.  I personally think he has the real desire to win it all, and therefore he will have to transition from coaching every last bit of talent out of guys that give maximum effort to coaxing every last bit of effort out of guys that have always had the supreme talent to never have to work hard.

High Major NCAA basketball is not the same as little league where everyone gets a trophy.  The corporate world doesn't care how many times your parents tell you you're special because at the end of the day you're not.

In both cases natural talent is rewarded and most hard workers never really succeed unless they belonged in the former group to begin with.

[Mutaman]

Is this a movie pitch for a combination of "A Time to Kill" and "My Cousin Vinnie"?   

Agreed. The "hot shot" lawyer who glances at the file over his coffee and then walks in and conducts a brilliant cross doesn't exist. This poster has been watching too many movies. In any event, comparing such a character with an athlete is pretty meaningless. The  Babe and the Mick might have played hung over and still knocked a few out of the park, but I suspect these days in Division 1, just having natural talent is not enough.   

[Litehouse]

I personally think he has the real desire to win it all, and therefore he will have to transition from coaching every last bit of talent out of guys that give maximum effort to coaxing every last bit of effort out of guys that have always had the supreme talent to never have to work hard.

I've been thinking along these same lines.  Buzz's coaching style worked better with his rosters the past few years.  As he gets more talented players he is going to have to adjust his style.

[Mutaman]

I've been thinking along these same lines.  Buzz's coaching style worked better with his rosters the past few years.  As he gets more talented players he is going to have to adjust his style.

I don't think we are going to get more talented players than Crowder, Matthews or Butler, and his style seemed to work ok with them.

[forgetful]

Now remember, Duke wasn't a blue blood before Coach K.  He build that program to what it is now.  

It's interesting that you bring up Coach K.  He did build a program (an empire) and he did it by establishing a culture...The Duke Way.

You could be the most talented basketball player on the planet, but if they didn't subscribe to the Duke way, best case scenario they are sitting on the bench, worst case they are off the team.  He made it a blue blood and can take a few more chances now, because he created a culture and continues to recruit to that culture.

Buzz is trying to do the same thing.  He wants to create his own empire.  That means creating the Marquette way and playing people that subscribe to his ideology and work ethic.  If you deviate from that plan you can destroy everything you created. 

[Litehouse]

I don't think we are going to get more talented players than Crowder, Matthews or Butler, and his style seemed to work ok with them.

Maybe talent isn't the best word.  Buzz has had the most success with players having a chip on their shoulder playing with an "us against the world" mentality, and needing to prove something.  A lot of these players have been juco's, but I think Vander and Matthews fit that role also.  They may have been highly rated, but they had a lot of crap to deal with coming to MU from Madison.  Vander was underappreciated by our fans, and some of his off the court stuff also put him in that position.  Matthews was overlooked as the 3rd amigo.  Buzz helped instill that toughness, but his development continued after he left MU.  Buzz has to continue to learn new ways to motivate players that have experienced success their whole lives.  Buzz likes the diamond in the rough types, but the odds of finding those are slim.  If he is going to continue building this program into a Final Four/Championship contender he needs to continue bringing in highly rated talent that has a better chance of panning out and get the most out of that talent.

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

Maybe talent isn't the best word.  Buzz has had the most success with players having a chip on their shoulder playing with an "us against the world" mentality, and needing to prove something.  A lot of these players have been juco's, but I think Vander and Matthews fit that role also.  They may have been highly rated, but they had a lot of crap to deal with coming to MU from Madison.  Vander was underappreciated by our fans, and some of his off the court stuff also put him in that position.  Matthews was overlooked as the 3rd amigo.  Buzz helped instill that toughness, but his development continued after he left MU.  Buzz has to continue to learn new ways to motivate players that have experienced success their whole lives.  Buzz likes the diamond in the rough types, but the odds of finding those are slim.  If he is going to continue building this program into a Final Four/Championship contender he needs to continue bringing in highly rated talent that has a better chance of panning out and get the most out of that talent.

Matthews was under appreciated as a "third amigo" because Crean was too busy stroking James' fragile ego.

[mattyv1908]

It's interesting that you bring up Coach K.  He did build a program (an empire) and he did it by establishing a culture...The Duke Way.

You could be the most talented basketball player on the planet, but if they didn't subscribe to the Duke way, best case scenario they are sitting on the bench, worst case they are off the team.  He made it a blue blood and can take a few more chances now, because he created a culture and continues to recruit to that culture.

Buzz is trying to do the same thing.  He wants to create his own empire.  That means creating the Marquette way and playing people that subscribe to his ideology and work ethic.  If you deviate from that plan you can destroy everything you created. 

Coach K was a different coach compared to he is today and the players are different players then they were as well.

He's adapted.  Look how long it was before someone left early for the NBA at Duke.  It was something like 19 seasons before Mike lost an underclassman to the NBA draft.  Since then his team's have suffered some of the worst attrition in the country with something close to 23+ college seasons not played.  Once again, the old mantra for Coach K and Duke is a distant memory and not rooted in what's currently the culture of Duke basketball.  It's a myth at this point that once was true but has is in no way reality today.

Lombardi's power sweep is something his teams were famous for, but how does that relate to this current Packers team?

These top recruits today have had privledges and special treatment from an extremely early age.  Most have been conditioned through youth, AAU and prep schools as superstars.  If you can't relate to those types of kids the program will suffer.  It's easy to get guys that were overlooked (DJO, Crowder, Butler) and passed over to buy in.  It's more difficult to get that out of someone who everybody wants on their team.  It's Buzz's job to find out how to connect with them.  If he fails to do so then he's probably not destined to win an NCAA championship whether it be at MU or elsewhere.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Interesting topic, talent versus hard work.

Personally, I think it is a silly argument. Call me greedy, but I want both.

Teams and companies only go as far as their superstars get them. As Matty pointed out, a superstar is a rare person with tons of talent who is also willing to put in the hard work to become better. Best example I can come up with is Aaron Rodgers (yay Julius Peppers!). He obviously has god-given talent, but when the Pack lost to the 49ers in the playoffs this season, the first thing he said in the postgame was "I am finding the best trainers and I will work this offseason until I am in the best shape of my life."

Here is why I love Buzz. He has recruited both talented players and hard working players. You need both in order to win. He doesn't settle by letting the talented players just be talented. He wants them to be hard working as well. If he plays the hard working players (Buzz actually says toughest players), he may inspire the talented players to become more hard working. It doesn't work in reverse.

Playing the talented players doesn't make the hard working players more talented. But playing the hard working players can make the talented players more hard working.

In the past, Buzz has had the most talented players buy into this culture. Wes, Lazar, Jimmy, DJO, and Jae had great talent but also worked their arses off to become even better. From the sound of things, this team didn't do the same. How could the coach retain any credibility with his players if he told them that the "toughest players play" (direct quote from Marquette Basketball revealed)...but then he just plays the talented?

If you want to see what an all talent, no work ethic team looks like, look at St. John's. Lavin gets arguably the best recruiting classes of anyone in the BEast. But he's been to the tournament once. Yes, they kicked our butts this season, but we usually won't have none of the talented players buying into the culture, and we usually won't have hard working kids with such little talent.

I liked the lawyer example that was brought up. It's true, as a defendant, I would pick the hot shot lawyer every time. But I bet you that the hot shot lawyer will never get his name on the door. The senior partners would never allow some one with zero work ethic to make partner with talent alone. Just like the hard working lawyer will never make partner because he doesn't have the talent.

You need talent and hard work to win. Buzz was trying to get the talent to work hard. He failed to do that this season. It is on the players some, but it is ultimately on Buzz for not getting them to buy into the culture. But I see nothing wrong with the philosophy and the rotations.

The defensive scheme is another thing entirely. I think the freshmen didn't play because the defense is too complicated. You either recruit for your defense (JJJ's HS team played zone for example), or you change your defense to match your personnel.

[Litehouse]

Interesting topic, talent versus hard work.

Personally, I think it is a silly argument. Call me greedy, but I want both.

Exactly, you need both to be truly great. Buzz has shown he's good at squeezing talent out of effort. Now I think he needs to work on getting effort out of talent.  As coach, he needs to find ways to motivate different types of players.

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

Interesting topic, talent versus hard work.

Personally, I think it is a silly argument. Call me greedy, but I want both.

Teams and companies only go as far as their superstars get them. As Matty pointed out, a superstar is a rare person with tons of talent who is also willing to put in the hard work to become better. Best example I can come up with is Aaron Rodgers (yay Julius Peppers!). He obviously has god-given talent, but when the Pack lost to the 49ers in the playoffs this season, the first thing he said in the postgame was "I am finding the best trainers and I will work this offseason until I am in the best shape of my life."

Here is why I love Buzz. He has recruited both talented players and hard working players. You need both in order to win. He doesn't settle by letting the talented players just be talented. He wants them to be hard working as well. If he plays the hard working players (Buzz actually says toughest players), he may inspire the talented players to become more hard working. It doesn't work in reverse.

Playing the talented players doesn't make the hard working players more talented. But playing the hard working players can make the talented players more hard working.

In the past, Buzz has had the most talented players buy into this culture. Wes, Lazar, Jimmy, DJO, and Jae had great talent but also worked their arses off to become even better. From the sound of things, this team didn't do the same. How could the coach retain any credibility with his players if he told them that the "toughest players play" (direct quote from Marquette Basketball revealed)...but then he just plays the talented?

If you want to see what an all talent, no work ethic team looks like, look at St. John's. Lavin gets arguably the best recruiting classes of anyone in the BEast. But he's been to the tournament once. Yes, they kicked our butts this season, but we usually won't have none of the talented players buying into the culture, and we usually won't have hard working kids with such little talent.

I liked the lawyer example that was brought up. It's true, as a defendant, I would pick the hot shot lawyer every time. But I bet you that the hot shot lawyer will never get his name on the door. The senior partners would never allow some one with zero work ethic to make partner with talent alone. Just like the hard working lawyer will never make partner because he doesn't have the talent.

You need talent and hard work to win. Buzz was trying to get the talent to work hard. He failed to do that this season. It is on the players some, but it is ultimately on Buzz for not getting them to buy into the culture. But I see nothing wrong with the philosophy and the rotations.

The defensive scheme is another thing entirely. I think the freshmen didn't play because the defense is too complicated. You either recruit for your defense (JJJ's HS team played zone for example), or you change your defense to match your personnel.

This is much more eloquent than the point I was trying to make, but I agree wholeheartedly. Matty also makes good points, but it think you all understand the point I was trying to make. Buzz cannot sacrifice a particular team/season for the program he is trying (and has) built.

[keefe]

Matthews was under appreciated as a "third amigo" because Crean was too busy stroking James' fragile ego.

You are wrong Nightmare. Crean was too busy stroking his own outsized fragile ego

[Class71]

Let's clarify a few things as I think you have the wrong read on me regarding statistics.

I'll use an example I've used before and forgive me if I don't have the exact ORtg and DRtg on hand.  Look at Gardner and Otule again.  One is perceived to be the better offensive talent.  One is perceived to be the better defender.  In this particular case Gardner's ORtg is significantly higher than Otule's (and everyone elses on this team as well), yet Otule's DRtg is a fraction better than Gardner's.

Does this mean I think Gardner is an equal defender to Otule?  No, it just means that for whatever reason the team gives up the essentially the same amount of points regardless of who's in the game between the two.  And situations make a difference, for example if we're up 2 defending the last shot I think Otule should definitely be in the game over Gardner.  Do I think Otule's better defense compared to Gardner is a reason your team's leading offensive player should only get 26 minutes a game?  Absolutely not.

Buzz said himself this team didn't have any margin for error.  I know he values defense, but with the exception being 2012 he hasn't had good defensive teams.  I honestly think this season would look better in regards to wins and losses with Gardner playing more.  You may disagree and that's ok.

As far as real life business is concerned, I believe there is a big difference between being paid solely on production or being paid what someone else values your time at a set rate.  I consult in an industry that regardless of how big or small your earnings were for a month/year you get paid exactly what you were worth.

And please don't be so naive to believe that favoritism, special treatment, job perks, different pay plans, scheduling concessions don't happen in the work place because they do in every field across the country and it's exactly what should be happening if you want to keep talented employees.  People with real talent understand that the company needs them more than they need the company.  That's an empowering situation when a person actually grasps that and it changes the paradigm.  Most people that actually are a revenue source for a company realize this.  Most people that are a necessary expense don't realize this and are offended by those that do.

Human Resources, accounting, customer relations, warranty claims, reception, stocking, shipping and receiving are all examples of positions within a company that are necessary expenses.  Trust me, as soon as companies can find a way to operate without these individuals through automation and what not these jobs will be cut.  They cost revenue.  They're required in day to day operations but in no way actually contribute to the profitability of a company.

Sales and advertising is where your actual revenue is generated.  Individuals and companies need to be compelled to purchase said item/ad space/professional service/etc.  These people are a net contributor and without them no one else is collecting a paycheck.  To find truly gifted people in these fields companies will go to great lengths to find them and this is where rules are bent daily to keep these people employed.  It's here that companies put up with all kinds of behavioral quirks from these individuals because you cannot simply replace one cog for another as a company's actual income is on the line.  Owners, board of directors, and managers will look the other way unless a grievance is truly so detrimental to the company that a termination is necessary.  The trade off is that once you stop producing your behavioral quirks become a detriment and not worth your lack of productivity, but if you truly can move the needle your employers will usually put up with anything to keep you producing.

Here's my one core belief I try to instill in the people I have trained.  YOU'RE TRADING YOUR TIME/LIFE FOR A MONETARY SUM.  That's a profound realization.  Either love what you do or make your time so valuable/profitable that it's worth the trade off.

How it relates to basketball can be summed up with this.  If your son was a top 5 high school prospect and could choose between playing for Buzz at MU or Coach K at Duke I'd tell him every time to go to Duke.  If your son was a low 3 or 4 star high school player who really doesn't have the ability to play in the NBA and he could choose between Marquette and a dozen other top 25-40 programs nationally I'd tell him to play for Buzz.

Now remember, Duke wasn't a blue blood before Coach K.  He build that program to what it is now.  I also don't believe Buzz Williams wants to simply build a perennial tournament team with regular runs to the sweet 16.  If he truly doesn't have championship aspirations for this program after his success so far then he is indeed the wrong man for the job.  I personally think he has the real desire to win it all, and therefore he will have to transition from coaching every last bit of talent out of guys that give maximum effort to coaxing every last bit of effort out of guys that have always had the supreme talent to never have to work hard.

High Major NCAA basketball is not the same as little league where everyone gets a trophy.  The corporate world doesn't care how many times your parents tell you you're special because at the end of the day you're not.

In both cases natural talent is rewarded and most hard workers never really succeed unless they belonged in the former group to begin with.

You have just defined capitalism, that is also human nature. Those who deliver get rewarded since the tribe leadership benefits and indirectly all tribe members benefit to a lesser degree. While it is true talent and work effort are required to reach the peak of success, many with lesser talent also succeed at a lower level if we work hard. Thankfully that is good enough for most of us. In basketball finding 5 star players that learn the motivation, teamwork, etc. skills is very rare as it is in business. Therefore, teams of highly motivated 3-4 stars beat low motivated, non team oriented 5 star teams. Since most of us, including me are not 5 star players in life, we just love when Kentucky looses or a team from Milwaukee goes to the elite eight or wins a national championship.