Who is the most overrated coach in the country?

[HOFCeluck]

Any list that calls a guy with two NCs and a whole bunch of FFs overrated is a dumb list.

Anyone who makes this arguement is a dumb poster.

 

[PoppyHart]

I'm guessing that the only team on our schedule this year with more talent is Louisville, and even that is debatable.

Accordingly, if JB loses more than 2 games in the regular season I suppose he would be deemed to underachieve.

Brilliant.

 

[Bayside44]

I don't think it is necesarily - it depends how much you consider recruiting as part of coaching. I think people can make perfectly rational arguments that some coach isn't great in games, but recruits much better and as a result achieves better results.

If you have top 5 talent EVERY year, but only make the FF once every 5 years - is that overrated? I don't know, considering it's a one and done tourney and very difficult to survive (unless you're Duke and they pave the way ), it probably isn't, but if you watch the guy coach and have an informed opinion it may have some validity in spite of that success - 2 NC's and a bunch of FF's.

Joe Torre was the losingest manager in baseball history until he had a $200M payroll - now he's regarded as an all-time great manager. Is he overrated now? Circumstances matter. If Phil Jackson got a job in Minnesota instead of the Bulls he might be a nobody to this day - who really knows. I'm sure plenty of people would argue he would have made it regardless, and just as many would argue he would have floundered. If you're in the latter group you would probably argue he's overrated in spite of his billion titles because he always had far superior talent on the floor. It's a fine line.

College basketball coaches are their own general manager and to an extent owner, that's where the Torre thing is different.

Plenty of guys fell of the Carolina coaching tree that were flops, hard to say that just because of the Smith pedigree that he somehow got pushed to the front of the line. He did win two titles and is generally always in the hunt, like JB has a system in place and finds the right players - generally - to play it.

 

[Bayside44]

Anyone who makes this arguement is a dumb poster.

I'll side with banners hanging on the rafters any time.

 

[OttoMets]

I'm guessing that the only team on our schedule this year with more talent is Louisville, and even that is debatable.

Accordingly, if JB loses more than 2 games in the regular season I suppose he would be deemed to underachieve.

Brilliant.

That's what I'm thinking.

Boeheim's like .850 in the past three years, but I'm sure Syracuse has had more talent that its opponents in at least 85% of the games. Those numbers aren't indicative of whether a coach is under-, over-, or properly rated. Heck, by that measure, Boeheim was an under-achiever even last season - Cincinnati and Notre Dame were both less talented than Syracuse (Notre Dame significantly so) and I don't think any of our wins came against more talented teams.

 

[moqui]

I've always found it amusing that Roy Williams get stuck with the "overrated" or "just a recruiter" label.

especially since recruiting is probably 90% of what it takes to succeed as a college coach

for that reason, I pick Steve Donahue as the most overrated coach in the game today. two solid and one very good season at Cornell landed him a gig in the ACC, but he simply does not recruit at an ACC level. BC was on the rocks to begin with, but this is going to prove to be a disastrous hire.

 

[Ghost]

College basketball coaches are their own general manager and to an extent owner, that's where the Torre thing is different.

Plenty of guys fell of the Carolina coaching tree that were flops, hard to say that just because of the Smith pedigree that he somehow got pushed to the front of the line. He did win two titles and is generally always in the hunt, like JB has a system in place and finds the right players - generally - to play it.

I agree 100%, my point is that if you divorce recruiting from coaching (which in college basketball is difficult if not impossible as Moqui points out) I think people could formulate an argument where they think someone is overrated in spite of the success. I'm not saying I can do it for Roy, but I can see why people would vote that way.

Hell, we are a great recruiting school, but I doubt our best year in the last 10 is much better than the worst a Carolina, UK or Duke pulls in most years (if you give credence to HS player rankings).

 

[NKR1978]

What Wooden would have trouble with would be the lack of discipline and work ethic in many of todays players who try to get by on superior physical ability.

Thanks for the response, definitely gave me a different perspective John Wooden's impact on the sport, beyond just wins and championships. The only thing I disagree with is the notion that today's players lack discipline and work ethic. Elite basketball players pretty much turn basketball into a profession at a younger age than anything done in Wooden's era. The year-round AAU tournaments and countless summer camps and recruiting showcases go far beyond what existed even twenty years ago. When you add the amount of time they spend at practice and at high level competitions with the amount they spend in the weight room, you have to respect their work ethic. These kids, for the most part, spend their lives focused on basketball or their sport of choice.

 

[moqui]

the thing that would give Wooden trouble is the balance in basketball. In his era, almost all the best teams were located east of the Mississippi, and he faced little competition for either players or victories in the West. This was most evident come tournament time. In those days, the NCAA regions were truly geographic and there was no effort made to make the four regions competitively balanced, so while the best teams were beating each other up in the eastern regions, UCLA had a relative cakewalk in the West. Also remember that it took only two victories to make it to the Final Four in those days - two victories in a weak regional, year after year. To his credit, once he got to the Final Four he won the games, you can't dispute that, but it's very unlikely that he would win 90% of his games or make 9 straight Final Fours in the modern era. Indeed, I've met people here in LA who claim that Wooden's surprise retirement (he announced it in the middle of the 1975 Final Four after he barely survived a tough game against Louisville) came about because he saw the writing on the wall (the tournament expanded to 32 teams that year and began shipping eastern teams out west to create competitive balance in the regions) and he wanted to go out with his streak intact.

 

[Knicks411]

let's not forget a lot of the UCLA players were being paid

 

[rmtsu]

Thanks for the response, definitely gave me a different perspective John Wooden's impact on the sport, beyond just wins and championships. The only thing I disagree with is the notion that today's players lack discipline and work ethic. Elite basketball players pretty much turn basketball into a profession at a younger age than anything done in Wooden's era. The year-round AAU tournaments and countless summer camps and recruiting showcases go far beyond what existed even twenty years ago. When you add the amount of time they spend at practice and at high level competitions with the amount they spend in the weight room, you have to respect their work ethic. These kids, for the most part, spend their lives focused on basketball or their sport of choice.

I should have clarified what I meant about lack of work ethic. Its about the lack of fundamentals. Do the elite players play alot and work hard, absolutely, the problem I have is that they don't work on the basic fundamentals of the game. Part of the problem is that they are not being taught at an early age, the other problem is that even when they are they don't work at them. Sure there are exceptions, but I've been to plenty of AAU tournaments and the lack of players with good fundamentals and knowledge of how to play the game is lacking. Most coaches, even AAU coaches will agree, but many of the players are so physically gifted that they don't need to be fundamentally sound to have success especially in high school. It is very difficult today to teach good fundamental basketball because it takes time and effort on both the coach and players part. That's a big reason for my appreciation of Wooden's skills, he was innovative in his approach, he was unwavering in his belief of what and how basketball needed to be taught, and was patient enough to keep teaching the fundamental drills till the players got it. Practices were mostly drills on fundamentals with the thought that you needed to break the fundamentals down to teach them, that scrimmaging didn't allow for the teaching of the finer points of the game.

Today when I try and run these drills there is no appreciation for them from the players and even other coaches. They aren't interested. They just want to play and scrimmage. I have to laugh when I see some youth practices or games and see kids missing layups while playing and I mention to the coaches they might want to work on layups, and then work on some defensive drills to teach the kids how to play on the ball defense and also help defense instead of scrimmaging and they look at me like I'm speaking a foreign language. Having gone through a program that did that and seeing the success they had year after year with out the benefit of having very many physically gifted players I have an appreciation and understand what it takes to have a great basketball program. Many will never understand. Some coaches give lip service to some of the basic fundamentals without taking the time to actually teach them and make sure the kids understand and are willing to do them. But I wasn't questioning the amount of time spent playing and working out the kids do, just the commitment to truly learning the game of basketball and working on the fundamentals of the game. Just watch a high school game or high level AAU game, and the mistakes made especially on defense, and lack of fundamental play is very glaring, Doesn't mean it can't be exciting and a fast pace game, but sometimes very hard to watch if you are looking for good sound basketball played at both ends of the court.

What I find interesting is that some are questioning how much success Wooden would have today, many would measure it by wins and losses, but he would measure it by how much a player improved both as a player and as a person while he was coaching him. He was more interested in the growth of the player as a player and a man and not neccesarily the wins or losses. Bill Walton realized that after he had graduated, after his sophmore year they had been undefeated and he had been named player of the year. He came back for the first practice with longer hair and beard that Wooden didn't allow (not because he didn't like long hair but believed it could get in your eyes and hinder your play). He mention to Bill he needed a haircut. Bill said he had no right to tell him how long he could keep his hair. Wooden responded that Bill was right and he admired him for expressing his beliefs, but he then said that I do have the right to decide who plays and that they would miss Bill that year. Bill saw the look in Woodens eyes and ran out got on his bike rode quickly into town and got a haircut and shave and got back quickly. Not another word was said about it. While Wooden did handle different players differently in terms of handling mistakes on the court, he did not waver in being consistant in handling players with the rules he set. Didn't matter who you were it was Woodens way or no way.

 

[br801]

I should have clarified what I meant about lack of work ethic. Its about the lack of fundamentals. Do the elite players play alot and work hard, absolutely, the problem I have is that they don't work on the basic fundamentals of the game. Part of the problem is that they are being taught at an early age, the other problem is that even when they are they don't work at them.

I think this is accurate.

 

[Knicks411]

I think in general it's human nature to talk about how the players of today didn't have the fundamentals of the players from the past. We'll probably read the same thing 20, 50, 100 years from now.

In the Bill James historical abstract he would print quotes from the entire history of baseball from players talking about how the players of the current era didn't have the same work ethic or commitment to the fundamentals that the players of the older era's did. There were quotes from guys in 1925 talking about how players didn't have the attention to detail that the earlier era did and they only worried about how their investments in the stock market were doing.

 

[br801]

I think in general it's human nature to talk about how the players of today didn't have the fundamentals of the players from the past. We'll probably read the same thing 20, 50, 100 years from now.

In the Bill James historical abstract he would print quotes from the entire history of baseball from players talking about how the players of the current era didn't have the same work ethic or commitment to the fundamentals that the players of the older era's did. There were quotes from guys in 1925 talking about how players didn't have the attention to detail that the earlier era did and they only worried about how their investments in the stock market were doing.

Valid points. But find me some teams today playing the game like Auerbach's Celtics and Holzman's Knicks. Then show me all the guys playing today with polished mid-range games and show me all the big men that can play effectively with their back to the basket. These skills used to be commonplace at the highest levels. Today they are not.

 

[Knicks411]

Valid points. But find me some teams today playing the game like Auerbach's Celtics and Holzman's Knicks.

7 seconds or less Suns?

I think that's more about the evolution of the game than anything else; the game is much slower than it was in the past. Teams don't really get up and down like they used to. I'm not sure that has anything to do with the fundamentals. I'd love to see the fast break game make a come back to the league and I'm not totally sure why the game is so much slower than it was in the past (one of my pet theories is that with every game on tv coaches are more scrutinized and want to have more control over the game).

Then show me all the guys playing today with polished mid-range games

I think this once again has a lot to do with the evolution of the game. There are guys who have mid-range games (Melo, Kobe,Durant spring to mind) but the three most efficient places to score are the foul line, the 3 point line, and the paint. There is less emphasis on the mid-range game because it's not as effective as other places on the court. I could turn it around and say show me the 7 footers in the 50's or 60's who could step out and make shots from 25 feet out like Dirk or Durant do now.

These skills used to be commonplace at the highest levels. Today they are not.

I definitely think there is something with post play; if nothing else it seems like there isn't as much as there used to be. But there are skills that are commonplace now that weren't there in the past either; it goes both ways. I picked a random season; 1961. The league as a whole shot 41.5% from the field. Throw out this year because the lockout usually drags down percentages; in 2011 the league shot 46% from the field. That's a pretty big difference and that doesn't even take into account that in 1961 there were no 3 pointers so there were a lot fewer long distance shots being taken.

And to take it a step futher; Nate Thurmond, who was a HOF who played in the 60's and 70's, and was possibly one of the guys you were referring to when you mentioned how low post skills were commonplace in the past; he shot 42% from the field for his career. A HOF big man; 42% from the field! Willis Reed; another HOF Center; 47.6% from the field for his career.

Ball handling skills have probably improved now. They didn't start tracking turnovers until the 70's; picking a random year again; in 1978 the league turned it over on 16% of their possessions. 2011 was 13.4%. (Part of that is also probably the slowing down of the league, to be fair)

 

[PoppyHart]

I think in general it's human nature to talk about how the players of today didn't have the fundamentals of the players from the past. We'll probably read the same thing 20, 50, 100 years from now.

In the Bill James historical abstract he would print quotes from the entire history of baseball from players talking about how the players of the current era didn't have the same work ethic or commitment to the fundamentals that the players of the older era's did. There were quotes from guys in 1925 talking about how players didn't have the attention to detail that the earlier era did and they only worried about how their investments in the stock market were doing.

In hindsight, those players were probably right to be so focused on their investments.

 

[br801]

7 seconds or less Suns?

I think that's more about the evolution of the game than anything else; the game is much slower than it was in the past. Teams don't really get up and down like they used to. I'm not sure that has anything to do with the fundamentals. I'd love to see the fast break game make a come back to the league and I'm not totally sure why the game is so much slower than it was in the past (one of my pet theories is that with every game on tv coaches are more scrutinized and want to have more control over the game).



I think this once again has a lot to do with the evolution of the game. There are guys who have mid-range games (Melo, Kobe,Durant spring to mind) but the three most efficient places to score are the foul line, the 3 point line, and the paint. There is less emphasis on the mid-range game because it's not as effective as other places on the court. I could turn it around and say show me the 7 footers in the 50's or 60's who could step out and make shots from 25 feet out like Dirk or Durant do now.



I definitely think there is something with post play; if nothing else it seems like there isn't as much as there used to be. But there are skills that are commonplace now that weren't there in the past either; it goes both ways. I picked a random season; 1961. The league as a whole shot 41.5% from the field. Throw out this year because the lockout usually drags down percentages; in 2011 the league shot 46% from the field. That's a pretty big difference and that doesn't even take into account that in 1961 there were no 3 pointers so there were a lot fewer long distance shots being taken.

And to take it a step futher; Nate Thurmond, who was a HOF who played in the 60's and 70's, and was possibly one of the guys you were referring to when you mentioned how low post skills were commonplace in the past; he shot 42% from the field for his career. A HOF big man; 42% from the field! Willis Reed; another HOF Center; 47.6% from the field for his career.

Ball handling skills have probably improved now. They didn't start tracking turnovers until the 70's; picking a random year again; in 1978 the league turned it over on 16% of their possessions. 2011 was 13.4%. (Part of that is also probably the slowing down of the league, to be fair)

Originally, I was only making the observation that there are some fundamental skills (mid-range shooting and post play) and styles of play that seemed to be stressed and exhibited more in the past. I was not suggesting they are non-existent in today's game, nor was I claiming that there is any "right" or "wrong" way to play the game, today or in the past. I'm also aware that the game has evolved and continues to evolve for numerous reasons.

Nice job of cherry-picking Nate Thurmond out of left field though.

 

[Knicks411]

In hindsight, those players were probably right to be so focused on their investments.

Haha yes, that was part of why I remember the quote 10 years after I read it

Nice job of cherry-picking Nate Thurmond out of left field though

Haha yes, I remember the stats from the Simmons book.

 

[br801]

Haha yes, I remember the stats from the Simmons book.

I'll see your Nate Thurmond and raise you a Jerry Lucas.

 

[Knicks411]

I remember reading all of the 60's stats as a kid in the 90's and being amazed at how many rebounds these guys were pulling down. Jerry Lucas averaged 16 rebounds per game and had 2 seasons over 20! Wilt averaged 23 per game for his career. Took me a while to realize that there were a ton of missed shots in that era. But as a 12 year old kid, I was blown away.

Just as a for instance, Wilt had 3 years where they tracked total rebound%; he was right around 19 and he averaged about 19 rebounds per game in those 3 years. Dwight Howard has a career rebound% of 21, and averages 13 per game. (You can't compare the two directly, they didn't even track rebound% until the final 3 years of Wilt's career)

 

[orangefan13]

I don't understand how calipari isn't in the top 3.

 

[br801]

I remember reading all of the 60's stats as a kid in the 90's and being amazed at how many rebounds these guys were pulling down. Jerry Lucas averaged 16 rebounds per game and had 2 seasons over 20! Wilt averaged 23 per game for his career. Took me a while to realize that there were a ton of missed shots in that era. But as a 12 year old kid, I was blown away.

Just as a for instance, Wilt had 3 years where they tracked total rebound%; he was right around 19 and he averaged about 19 rebounds per game in those 3 years. Dwight Howard has a career rebound% of 21, and averages 13 per game. (You can't compare the two directly, they didn't even track rebound% until the final 3 years of Wilt's career)

When I first became aware of the game, Lucas was toward the end of his career and I didn't even think of him as an elite rebounder. As for Wilt, he almost certainly was a more effective rebounder percentage-wise earlier in his career, plus his totals were also boosted by the fact that he rarely came out of game. But you are right about those raw rebounding numbers from that era -- look at what SF Elgin Baylor did on the glass.

 

[Eric15]

I don't understand how calipari isn't in the top 3.

Here's the reason... he's an incredible recruiter and an incredible coach.

 

[Knicks411]

Here's the reason... he's an incredible recruiter and an incredible coach.

Other than that...

I do think the guy is a hell of a coach. He has a bunch of kids who are mostly going pro after one year and he gets them to buy in to the system and play really good defense every year.

 

[raf4488]

I don't understand how calipari isn't in the top 3.

Well, he's taken UMass to the Final Four- UMass! Look at where they were before Cal, and look where they are now.
He should've won a title at Memphis, a good hoops school that had never been close to a title before.
Then he goes to UK, turns around the program almost instantaneously, and has been to 3 Elite 8s, 2 FFs, and has 1 title in 3 years.

Look at how UK played this past year- a bunch of guys with certain NBA futures completely buying in- they played with max effort all year and were incredible defensively. A mediocre coach wouldn't have that team playing like that.

So Cal's overrated? Give me overrated, then.