Talent vs. Coaching Impact

[SDakaGordie]

Everyone who reads this board regularly knows my positions, so I’ll expect many to dismiss this comment out of hand. But, it seems indisputable to me that player talent makes up at least 90% or more of the difference in today’s college basketball game. I believe this percentage has increased over time, and that’s a function of increased athleticism and the increased popularity of the NBA and the game at large across the population. Today’s game is so largely driven by ball screens, 1-on-1 moves and penetration, and kick outs to 3-point shots. The vast majority of baskets are initiated by creative 1-on-1 plays by individuals. The ability to counteract that on the defensive end requires very high levels of athleticism. And these athletic guys physically take up so much more of the court than prior generations that spacing of the court is the only offensive approach that can work.

The coach who can get NU more talent and athleticism will be more successful. The coach’s ability to write up X’s and O’s is just not nearly as needed as it used to be, by A LOT.

 

[GatoLouco]

What you said is 100% true one the game tips off.

It’s wildly inaccurate before the game. And why, for example, WI, or IA, or RU, or, or, or, or, win.

 

[loyolacat]

I think it is a very real combination of both....Loyolas Final Four team simply, put were not great athletes...but Porter Moser coached to a fine line...with expectations for every single movement on the court. and yes the athletes had to perform,,but for a team like that the coach had to create the maximun opportunities for them and get them to develop. You can also go through Coach Moser and this year Coach Valentine's record and they almost always shut down the other teams top scorer, significantly....I also remember walking into LU's prep room for a Conference Tournament game , by mistake, It looked like an Arthur Murray dance studio...there were cut out footprints everywhere on a taped out outline of a basketball floor. on how to exactly defend certain players, There was also a game plan that had to be 40 pages. Also in their defeat against U of I....they had a game plan to contain Ayo and keep the ball away from Cockburn... Sometimes I wonder if the problem for Chris Collins is that when at Duke he just coached blue blood 4 and 5 stars....and when he recruits developmental players he struggles maybe in teaching the fundalmentals.. But as this year shows even with the same coaching, Coach Moser did not have the same success as he was in a dominant Conference with better athletes.....So I will stand with , it takes both.

 

[NUCat320]

As we’ve seen, NU can’t get better players - program-changing players, at least consistently.

The interesting thing— if you consider the tourney team, I’d say Mc and Law and Pardon, probably in that order — were the most important players. Two of the three were scouting victories far more than ‘recruiting’ victories. Chasing the star ratings seems to have increasingly been the approach of late, and it hasn’t worked to bring actual, real talent.

As I said a few weeks ago, CCC doesn’t have a defining philosophy. His strategy is find the best talent he can, and coach ‘em up. But when he can’t get the talent, what’s he left with?

Other teams that don’t get program-changing players: Wisconsin, Iowa.

We should have a coach more like Fran or Gard. CCC isn’t that coach.

 

[phatcat_rivals223240]

As we’ve seen, NU can’t get better players - program-changing players, at least consistently.

The interesting thing— if you consider the tourney team, I’d say Mc and Law and Pardon, probably in that order — were the most important players. Two of the three were scouting victories far more than ‘recruiting’ victories. Chasing the star ratings seems to have increasingly been the approach of late, and it hasn’t worked to bring actual, real talent.

As I said a few weeks ago, CCC doesn’t have a defining philosophy. His strategy is find the best talent he can, and coach ‘em up. But when he can’t get the talent, what’s he left with?

Other teams that don’t get program-changing players: Wisconsin, Iowa.

We should have a coach more like Fran or Gard. CCC isn’t that coach.

I'd like a coach like Gard, just to annoy Jawan Howard

 

[SDakaGordie]

NU had the 7th fewest turnovers in the nation, was 26th in assists per game and was 3rd in assist / turnover ratio. We were 254th in field goal %. We were 197th in fouls per game, 130th in blocked shots per game, 152nd in field goal defense %, and 230th in 3-point defense. My belief is that this looks like a pretty well-coached team that can’t put the ball in the basket and doesn’t have the athleticism to defend better than an average NCAA team. I watched every game and these stats and observations largely confirm what I saw. This was a team running good offensive sets, mostly not one chucking up desperate shots at the end of the shot clock as we’ve seen for decades. There were just a high number of missed open shots, especially layups. And this was a team that largely could not prevent penetration and defend the kick-out 3. This last point was extremely frustrating. I just can’t believe our coaches can’t / didn’t teach this - it has to be on the players (Boo comes to mind first and foremost).

 

[GatoLouco]

I think it is a very real combination of both....Loyolas Final Four team simply, put were not great athletes...but Porter Moser coached to a fine line...with expectations for every single movement on the court. and yes the athletes had to perform,,but for a team like that the coach had to create the maximun opportunities for them and get them to develop. You can also go through Coach Moser and this year Coach Valentine's record and they almost always shut down the other teams top scorer, significantly....I also remember walking into LU's prep room for a Conference Tournament game , by mistake, It looked like an Arthur Murray dance studio...there were cut out footprints everywhere on a taped out outline of a basketball floor. on how to exactly defend certain players, There was also a game plan that had to be 40 pages. Also in their defeat against U of I....they had a game plan to contain Ayo and keep the ball away from Cockburn... Sometimes I wonder if the problem for Chris Collins is that when at Duke he just coached blue blood 4 and 5 stars....and when he recruits developmental players he struggles maybe in teaching the fundalmentals.. But as this year shows even with the same coaching, Coach Moser did not have the same success as he was in a dominant Conference with better athletes.....So I will stand with , it takes both.

Wanted to call out your post. Really enjoyed your examples regarding Moser.

They exemplify the work of a coach before the game. Not all, but the part about prepping for a game.

I am totally getting these numbers off my behind. Coaching:
50% recruiting
40% pre game (teaching fundamentals, routines, development, decision making, strategy, etc)
10% in game

We get a good look at the 50% of recruiting, as well as the 10% of the in game part. The 40%, we see signs and clues during the game. But no one has an even remotely good grasp of what's going on. Ultimately Wins and Losses, is what it comes down to. If you lose, your 40% are, in all likeliness, not being well managed.

Here's an example of another coach, and my view, from the limited observation of the Purdue program:
1) Painter is a great recruiter. Here are the rankings of the guys still on the team (and on rotation). Not exactly the recruiting rankings of a blue blood. Yet, resulting in a fabulous team:
-Stefanovic #374
-Williams #154
-Hunter #150
-Newman #126
-Thompson #211
-Gillis #220
-Ivey #89
-Edey #440
2) Painter is very good with the pre game stuff. Teaches well, routines well, coaches good decisions, motivates well, etc
3) Painter has serious flaws in game. Personal opinion is that he usually has a good game plan. But has no ability to adjust. Things go wrong and he struggles with finding ways to adjust.

Full circle back to NU. Collins is just not good at 50% of what the coaching job entails.

 

[phatcat_rivals223240]

Wanted to call out your post. Really enjoyed your examples regarding Moser.

They exemplify the work of a coach before the game. Not all, but the part about prepping for a game.

I am totally getting these numbers off my behind. Coaching:
50% recruiting
40% pre game (teaching fundamentals, routines, development, decision making, strategy, etc)
10% in game

We get a good look at the 50% of recruiting, as well as the 10% of the in game part. The 40%, we see signs and clues during the game. But no one has an even remotely good grasp of what's going on. Ultimately Wins and Losses, is what it comes down to. If you lose, your 40% are, in all likeliness, not being well managed.

Here's an example of another coach, and my view, from the limited observation of the Purdue program:
1) Painter is a great recruiter. Here are the rankings of the guys still on the team (and on rotation). Not exactly the recruiting rankings of a blue blood. Yet, resulting in a fabulous team:
-Stefanovic #374
-Williams #154
-Hunter #150
-Newman #126
-Thompson #211
-Gillis #220
-Ivey #89
-Edey #440
2) Painter is very good with the pre game stuff. Teaches well, routines well, coaches good decisions, motivates well, etc
3) Painter has serious flaws in game. Personal opinion is that he usually has a good game plan. But has no ability to adjust. Things go wrong and he struggles with finding ways to adjust.

Full circle back to NU. Collins is just not good at 50% of what the coaching job entails.

which 50%? Seriously, if you mean "good recruiter/bad coach", I'm not buying it. I think his recruiting is an ****-show, with decommits, run offs, etc.

 

[GatoLouco]

which 50%? Seriously, if you mean "good recruiter/bad coach", I'm not buying it. I think his recruiting is an ****-show, with decommits, run offs, etc.

Yes, that's exactly what I mean. Good recruiter, bad coach.

Decommits? Lathon, meh. Bamisile/Brumbaugh, TBD. Don't have any data, but suspect a decommit here and there is not that uncommon.

Run offs? Gaines/Benson/Rap/Ash/Falzon/Brown, meh. Amazingly I am actually one of the few who thought Kopp leaving was a big deal. Young, huge deal. But that's where the program is. A joke. It wasn't a joke until we won 6 and 7 games in the last two seasons. We had the bodies to rebuild, we looked promising.

Here's where the decommits and run offs are a bigger deal: not filling schollies. That hurts. Depth is overrated, but having proper bodies in practice makes a huge difference in raising the level of other players. We went through the desert on that one. No excuse to not fill the schoolies with senior, even if mediocre, big bodies, from the mid majors. Seniors, so you have said schollies down the road.

So why is he a good recruiter? Because no one has even come close to bringing in actual B1G bodies to NU. Vukusic/Coble/Shurna/Thompson/Crawfor, even Young (split) or Demps, all great players. Members of teams with pathetic overall athleticism. Close to impossible to overcome.

You can argue about the talent of the "bodies". Fine. Arguing talent is, to a great extent, pointless as it is so subjective. I can accept anyone saying we have bigger and faster bodies but they are not very good. I don't agree, but accept it as it's subjective. My personal opinion is that the bodies we have had for years were plenty good to develop into a pretty good team. Has not happened. And that the 50% after recruiting.

 

[phatcat_rivals223240]

Yes, that's exactly what I mean. Good recruiter, bad coach.

Decommits? Lathon, meh. Bamisile/Brumbaugh, TBD. Don't have any data, but suspect a decommit here and there is not that uncommon.

Run offs? Gaines/Benson/Rap/Ash/Falzon/Brown, meh. Amazingly I am actually one of the few who thought Kopp leaving was a big deal. Young, huge deal. But that's where the program is. A joke. It wasn't a joke until we won 6 and 7 games in the last two seasons. We had the bodies to rebuild, we looked promising.

Here's where the decommits and run offs are a bigger deal: not filling schollies. That hurts. Depth is overrated, but having proper bodies in practice makes a huge difference in raising the level of other players. We went through the desert on that one. No excuse to not fill the schoolies with senior, even if mediocre, big bodies, from the mid majors. Seniors, so you have said schollies down the road.

So why is he a good recruiter? Because no one has even come close to bringing in actual B1G bodies to NU. Vukusic/Coble/Shurna/Thompson/Crawfor, even Young (split) or Demps, all great players. Members of teams with pathetic overall athleticism. Close to impossible to overcome.

You can argue about the talent of the "bodies". Fine. Arguing talent is, to a great extent, pointless as it is so subjective. I can accept anyone saying we have bigger and faster bodies but they are not very good. I don't agree, but accept it as it's subjective. My personal opinion is that the bodies we have had for years were plenty good to develop into a pretty good team. Has not happened. And that the 50% after recruiting.

Unless they 40/10 that you have in coaching includes teaching guys to shoot the basketball, vs having the talent to do so in the first place, I remain unimpressed with recruiting. Remember the "make shots" shirts? That's the key. Make shots. We don't. and so we lose. Perhaps some of it is coaching, I think a good share of it is that he is recruiting guys that aren't very good shooters, and he doesn't develop them as part of 40/10

 

[GatoLouco]

Unless they 40/10 that you have in coaching includes teaching guys to shoot the basketball, vs having the talent to do so in the first place, I remain unimpressed with recruiting. Remember the "make shots" shirts? That's the key. Make shots. We don't. and so we lose. Perhaps some of it is coaching, I think a good share of it is that he is recruiting guys that aren't very good shooters, and he doesn't develop them as part of 40/10

If you play the game, not even at a high level, at an organized and competitive level, could be the Estonian league, you will gain appreciation for fractions of a second. I say it could be in any competitive level because you will be going up against comparable bodies, speeds, etc.

Why are fractions of seconds important? Because that's the difference between a 20% and a 40% 3 pt shooter.

What can give you that fraction of a second extra to get your shot up? Talent can, height can, speed can. But what else? Good coaching over time. The more limited you are, the more time it requires. It will never overcome 5 Ryan Greers going up against 5 Paolo Bancheros. But good coaching will teach you the fundamentals.

Simple and basic examples:
1) How you set or go through a screen. You will be amazed how many good players will have a screen set and no go by it close enough, rendering it useless. Or will see a defender jumping it and not adjust by going a different route.
2) How you call a play to go to the player being guarded by the weak link. Resulting in said player getting a better shot, or penetrating and seeing the defense collapse, creating a good shot for someone else. Or seeing the defense overhelp and get unbalance and someone gets a better shot.

Those are two of many, many examples. Takes coaching to provide those fractions of seconds. Takes coaching to make you more confident. Takes coaching to help you decide what is a good shot and what isn't.

And I've just spoken about offense.

Again, if you believe our players are just bad shooters, fine. We can agree to disagree. Subjective. Like I said, no amount of coaching is going to overcome huge talent deficits. But, like many times mentioned as an example by me and others, there's Loyola just a few miles away.

 

[phatcat_rivals223240]

If you play the game, not even at a high level, at an organized and competitive level, could be the Estonian league, you will gain appreciation for fractions of a second. I say it could be in any competitive level because you will be going up against comparable bodies, speeds, etc.

Why are fractions of seconds important? Because that's the difference between a 20% and a 40% 3 pt shooter.

What can give you that fraction of a second extra to get your shot up? Talent can, height can, speed can. But what else? Good coaching over time. The more limited you are, the more time it requires. It will never overcome 5 Brian Greers going up against 5 Paolo Bancheros. But good coaching will teach you the fundamentals.

Simple and basic examples:
1) How you set or go through a screen. You will be amazed how many good players will have a screen set and no go by it close enough, rendering it useless. Or will see a defender jumping it and not adjust by going a different route.
2) How you call a play to go to the player being guarded by the weak link. Resulting in said player getting a better shot, or penetrating and seeing the defense collapse, creating a good shot for someone else. Or seeing the defense overhelp and get unbalance and someone gets a better shot.

Those are two of many, many examples. Takes coaching to provide those fractions of seconds. Takes coaching to make you more confident. Takes coaching to help you decide what is a good shot and what isn't.

And I've just spoken about offense.

Again, if you believe our players are just bad shooters, fine. We can agree to disagree. Subjective. Like I said, no amount of coaching is going to overcome huge talent deficits. But, like many times mentioned as an example by me and others, there's Loyola just a few miles away.

Yeah, I'm thinking of a couple of examples - Boo and Audige this year vs, say, Shurna. I don't see enough games, recently, to judge Boo/Audige, but there is surely a great wailing and gnashing of teeth when we lose and the two of them are combined 5 of 20 on 3PFGs. Further, Kopp left, went to a tourney team, and STILL can't shoot, even though that's his gig. Whereas Shurna had the worst looking shot I've ever seen, he looked like a middle schooler with that two handed horizontal push he did, until it went in, again and again.

Now, I know about as much about basketball as you can put in your hat, so if you tell me Carmody was a better coach of shooters than Collins, I'll accept that. I think Collins is a dreadful coach on the technical level.

 

[NJCat]

It will never overcome 5 Brian Greers going up against 5 Paolo Bancheros.

Brian??

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

If you play the game, not even at a high level, at an organized and competitive level, could be the Estonian league, you will gain appreciation for fractions of a second. I say it could be in any competitive level because you will be going up against comparable bodies, speeds, etc.

Why are fractions of seconds important? Because that's the difference between a 20% and a 40% 3 pt shooter.

What can give you that fraction of a second extra to get your shot up? Talent can, height can, speed can. But what else? Good coaching over time. The more limited you are, the more time it requires. It will never overcome 5 Ryan Greers going up against 5 Paolo Bancheros. But good coaching will teach you the fundamentals.

Simple and basic examples:
1) How you set or go through a screen. You will be amazed how many good players will have a screen set and no go by it close enough, rendering it useless. Or will see a defender jumping it and not adjust by going a different route.
2) How you call a play to go to the player being guarded by the weak link. Resulting in said player getting a better shot, or penetrating and seeing the defense collapse, creating a good shot for someone else. Or seeing the defense overhelp and get unbalance and someone gets a better shot.

Those are two of many, many examples. Takes coaching to provide those fractions of seconds. Takes coaching to make you more confident. Takes coaching to help you decide what is a good shot and what isn't.

And I've just spoken about offense.

Again, if you believe our players are just bad shooters, fine. We can agree to disagree. Subjective. Like I said, no amount of coaching is going to overcome huge talent deficits. But, like many times mentioned as an example by me and others, there's Loyola just a few miles away.

This also explains why teams that shot 33% from distance would light us up. All too often.
We were just poor perimeter defenders.

 

[peatymeanis]

Everyone who reads this board regularly knows my positions, so I’ll expect many to dismiss this comment out of hand. But, it seems indisputable to me that player talent makes up at least 90% or more of the difference in today’s college basketball game. I believe this percentage has increased over time, and that’s a function of increased athleticism and the increased popularity of the NBA and the game at large across the population. Today’s game is so largely driven by ball screens, 1-on-1 moves and penetration, and kick outs to 3-point shots. The vast majority of baskets are initiated by creative 1-on-1 plays by individuals. The ability to counteract that on the defensive end requires very high levels of athleticism. And these athletic guys physically take up so much more of the court than prior generations that spacing of the court is the only offensive approach that can work.

The coach who can get NU more talent and athleticism will be more successful. The coach’s ability to write up X’s and O’s is just not nearly as needed as it used to be, by A LOT.

Is anyone saying that recruiting talent isn't the most important thing? Of course it is the most important thing. That is in fact the main problem with CCC; he hasn't recruited well*

*Recruiting well means being able to build a philosophically consistent team year after year, identify and bring in players for key positions, don't have too many strikeouts, occasionally find a diamond in the rough. Those are things that CCC has failed at since his first 2 recruiting classes and that is why we suck.

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

Beyond that discussion (I think we have talented players and a coach who didn't know what to do with them) there's the original poster's use of statistics to attempt to justify his opinions.

As if "assist/turnover ratio" somehow indicates good coaching and "Bad FG%" and "bad perimeter defense" indicates untalented players who just won't do what the coach tells them to do.

Essentially, any stat where we look okay on paper is "proof" that we are a well-coached team.
And similarly, any stat where we don't look good on paper is "proof" that our players have no talent.

I'm gonna take a wild guess and suggest that the coach told his perimeter defenders that they had to help when the ball goes into the low post. We saw it, literally, all season long.

Or to put it another way, if the coach asks the players to do the impossible, its not really on the players when they can't.

 

[SDakaGordie]

Wanted to call out your post. Really enjoyed your examples regarding Moser.

They exemplify the work of a coach before the game. Not all, but the part about prepping for a game.

I am totally getting these numbers off my behind. Coaching:
50% recruiting
40% pre game (teaching fundamentals, routines, development, decision making, strategy, etc)
10% in game

We get a good look at the 50% of recruiting, as well as the 10% of the in game part. The 40%, we see signs and clues during the game. But no one has an even remotely good grasp of what's going on. Ultimately Wins and Losses, is what it comes down to. If you lose, your 40% are, in all likeliness, not being well managed.

Here's an example of another coach, and my view, from the limited observation of the Purdue program:
1) Painter is a great recruiter. Here are the rankings of the guys still on the team (and on rotation). Not exactly the recruiting rankings of a blue blood. Yet, resulting in a fabulous team:
-Stefanovic #374
-Williams #154
-Hunter #150
-Newman #126
-Thompson #211
-Gillis #220
-Ivey #89
-Edey #440
2) Painter is very good with the pre game stuff. Teaches well, routines well, coaches good decisions, motivates well, etc
3) Painter has serious flaws in game. Personal opinion is that he usually has a good game plan. But has no ability to adjust. Things go wrong and he struggles with finding ways to adjust.

Full circle back to NU. Collins is just not good at 50% of what the coaching job entails.

Let’s discuss late-game situations. You assume 10% of the coach’s impact is in-game. I’ll increase it to 25% to account for prepping the team in these late-game situations. So, simple math would tell me that a coach’s influence in a close game situation at the end of the game is likely 1/40 * 25% = 0.625% to maybe 2%. And it’s Collins’s fault we lost all those close games…

 

[SDakaGordie]

Is anyone saying that recruiting talent isn't the most important thing? Of course it is the most important thing. That is in fact the main problem with CCC; he hasn't recruited well*

*Recruiting well means being able to build a philosophically consistent team year after year, identify and bring in players for key positions, don't have too many strikeouts, occasionally find a diamond in the rough. Those are things that CCC has failed at since his first 2 recruiting classes and that is why we suck.

I think 90% of the discussion has been on Collins’ coaching, not recruiting, ability. But you have been consistent in talking about recruiting. We all wish it were better. Our NCAA team had better players. He had a story that sold early on; the story is just not as compelling since then, it appears.

 

[peatymeanis]

I think 90% of the discussion has been on Collins’ coaching, not recruiting, ability. But you have been consistent in talking about recruiting. We all wish it were better. Our NCAA team had better players. He had a story that sold early on; the story is just not as compelling since then, it appears.

The story I think is the thing that he actually kept doing well. Enough to close the deal with a number of high 3 or 4 star recruits - Kopp, Falzon, Rap, Benson, Beran, Nance etc. Problem is he has a really high strike out rate for those guys and you just can’t afford that at this level. Also none of them are PGs, or big men that are capable of matching what Pardon did for us.

 

[TheC]

You can argue about the talent of the "bodies". Fine. Arguing talent is, to a great extent, pointless as it is so subjective. I can accept anyone saying we have bigger and faster bodies but they are not very good. I don't agree, but accept it as it's subjective. My personal opinion is that the bodies we have had for years were plenty good to develop into a pretty good team. Has not happened. And that the 50% after recruiting.

I'm going to argue anyway. I think we have guys whose bodies fit the part of P5 college basketball more than ever before, but they lack the skill of the top players. They are highly ranked because they look like the kind of high school athlete that could turn into a really solid college player. Our guys don't. I'm guessing that goes to the lack of coaching/development argument you are trying to make.

 

[GatoLouco]

Let’s discuss late-game situations. You assume 10% of the coach’s impact is in-game. I’ll increase it to 25% to account for prepping the team in these late-game situations. So, simple math would tell me that a coach’s influence in a close game situation at the end of the game is likely 1/40 * 25% = 0.625% to maybe 2%. And it’s Collins’s fault we lost all those close games…

If I'm understand correctly your logic is that 1 minute equals 0.625% of responsibility? That seems weird, you are either responsible for the entire game, or you are not.

In any case, I stated the numbers come from my behind, it was never my intention to debate its accuracy, just to state my opinion on where I think Collins does well and where I think he fails miserable.

Your opinion is that our players suck, it's not the coach's fault. I find that bizarre, either he happens to get every guys whose rankings are overestimated, or he fails to develop the players. It either goes back to Collins being bad at recruiting or bad at development. Ending in the same place: failure

 

[SDakaGordie]

If I'm understand correctly your logic is that 1 minute equals 0.625% of responsibility? That seems weird, you are either responsible for the entire game, or you are not.

In any case, I stated the numbers come from my behind, it was never my intention to debate its accuracy, just to state my opinion on where I think Collins does well and where I think he fails miserable.

Your opinion is that our players suck, it's not the coach's fault. I find that bizarre, either he happens to get every guys whose rankings are overestimated, or he fails to develop the players. It either goes back to Collins being bad at recruiting or bad at development. Ending in the same place: failure

I have not said the players suck; I said they are the main reason we are not better. Recall that I’ve been the one touting their improvement.

Feel free to dismiss the data-driven argument I made to counter the endlessly-repeated idea that we lose close games due to Collins, and just say it’s Collins’ fault throughout the game, from here to eternity, amen. And then pray for your miracle coach to arrive.

 

[GatoLouco]

I have not said the players suck; I said they are the main reason we are not better. Recall that I’ve been the one touting their improvement.

Feel free to dismiss the data-driven argument I made to counter the endlessly-repeated idea that we lose close games due to Collins, and just say it’s Collins’ fault throughout the game, from here to eternity, amen. And then pray for your miracle coach to arrive.

Data driven?

Unsure if what you are referring to is that assists/turnover ratio is good coaching, FG% (and others) are lack of talent?

If it is, that is more non sense to try to fit your narrative. Here's a counter argument, just as valid: assists/turnover show our players are talented, FG% shows they're poorly coached.

 

[JT2311]

Obviously recruiting is the most important factor when it comes to building a college program. It is true in both football and basketball. So my first question on Collins is, is he recruiting the right type of player for the type of team he wants to have? Lately there has been a lot of talk of how Ryan Young doesn’t fit Collins’ style. Well then I guess we can blame that one on the general manager? The tournament team was built through under recruited players (like a lot of good Big Ten teams) that maximized their potential. Getting a highly rated local kid was the cherry on top. Now, what changed after that? Did Collins change how he evaluated prospects and attacked recruiting? Was it more about rankings than style and fit? We’re guys like Krutwig and Williamson (who the whole Big Ten missed) overlooked locally or will we just go with “academics” as an excuse.
Once we get the players on campus it is fair to ask on whether or not the Head Coach is maximizing the talent on the roster. Would anybody say that this is happening here? Call me crazy but I think there is more talent on this roster than what we’ve seen from a results standpoint. That’s on the coaching staff. We have on program on campus that I think has done a much better job over driving results based on talent and one that has come up way short.

I think the in game coaching is also questionable at times. The refusal to try something new with minutes and rotations this year was frustrating, too many times we would let Boo and Audige just dribble around, forcing a bad shot and burning a possession instead of calling a TO to regroup (see end of Indiana at home end of last year). He is a one trick pony in busting out the zone that everyone was eventually prepared for and was late to get out of it so we’d end up burned too often.
Coaching impact is more than just Xs and Os. Can anybody say what Collins does well? It’s not recruiting, it’s not development, it’s not Xs and Os. What is it?

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

I have not said the players suck; I said they are the main reason we are not better. Recall that I’ve been the one touting their improvement.

Feel free to dismiss the data-driven argument I made to counter the endlessly-repeated idea that we lose close games due to Collins, and just say it’s Collins’ fault throughout the game, from here to eternity, amen. And then pray for your miracle coach to arrive.

To call this weird argument "data driven" is really insulting to data.
You made up some numbers.
Thats not data. Its your opinion masquerading as math.

 

[peatymeanis]

Coaching impact is more than just Xs and Os. Can anybody say what Collins does well?

He’s really good at losing close games

 

[NUCat320]

He’s really good at losing close games

He’s UNLUCKY!

 

[peatymeanis]

He’s UNLUCKY!

So unlucky. Born the son of a NBA coach and is getting paid $30M guaranteed to do a job he’s not qualified for.

 

[GatoLouco]

He’s really good at losing close games

To be fair he's also good at losing not close games

 

[Purple Pile Driver]

It’s going to be fun around hear getting 12 more months of this!

 

[Purple Pile Driver]

To be fair he's also good at losing not close games

The whole program is a blue blood in losing. Always has been.

 

[GatoLouco]

It’s going to be fun around hear getting 12 more months of this!

You're welcome!

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

Here are our close games in chronological order...

Wake Forest. (L) Young was +7 for game, but benched with 8:08 to go in regulation. We lose in OT. Young does not play in OT, Young and Nance do not play together all night. Loss due primarily to Collins.

@Maryland. (W) Young and Williams lead a 7-0 run to put NU up 47-39 with 12 minutes to go. Beran joins Nance on court with 8:43 left. Maryland goes on 6-0 run to cut NU lead to 53-50. We hold on as Greer and Buie play the last 3:21 with Nance, Beran and Audige.

Mich St. (L) NU led 33-26 at halftime on strength of Nance/Williams frontcourt going on 7-0 run. In second half, Nance/Beran frontcourt got outscored 24-13. Nance fouled out with 3 minutes left, MSU leading 65-60. We lost.

Penn State. (L) Nance and Beran play the last 7:35 with Audige and Buie, turning a 57-53 lead into a 74-70 loss. Collins gets much of the blame for this one.

Maryland. (L) Young benched with 11:11 left in regulation. Nance, Beran and Buie play the last 11:11 together. Game goes to OT. Nance, Beran, Buie and Berry play the entire OT together. Game goes to double OT. Same four continue on, we fall behind, Collins pulls Nance with 2:43 left. Young and Beran can't get it done. Loss to Collins.

@Mich St. (W) Nance and Williams both out. Nicholson and Beran in the frontcourt produce 30 points and allow 21 in a mere 13 minutes. Young wills the team to a victory in crunch time, with spirited play from Roper.

Wisconsin. (L) Young and Nance dominated the Badgers 44-36. With Young, Nance, Buie, Audige and Roper on the floor, NU cuts the deficit to 73-68 with 2:41 to play. Collins removes Nance, inserts Beran and Badgers go on 5-0 burst to seize the game. Unfortunate move by the coach.

@Michigan. (L) NU trailed 50-41 with 14:49 to play, before Young and Williams sparked a 7-1 run and cut the deficit to 51-48 with 10:47 left. Collins sat Young and played Nance with either Williams or Beran and the momentum continued... Hunter Dickinson picked up his 4th foul with 7:25 to play and went to the bench, NU leading 58-55. Collins put Beran in the game and NU extended the lead to 62-55 on a Beran layup with 5 minutes to play. Howard brought Dickinson back into the game and Collins removed Beran and uncharacteristically went with Williams in crunch time. Michigan immediately responded with a 7-0 run to tie it at 65 with 2:44 left. Collins played Nance and Young together for the last 1:50, but trailing 72-69, Young missed the 2nd of two free throws, we got the rebound, Nance got fouled and then missed 2 more free throws with 9 seconds left, essentially sealing our fate.

Illinois. (L) NU trails 24-19 at the half. Nance picks up a foul 27 seconds into the 2nd half and Collins sits him. With Young and Nicholson alternating at center, NU rallies to a 32-31 lead with 13:25 to play. Collins brings back Nance, pairs him with Williams and they play the rest of the way with Ryan Greer. Young and Nicholson benched. We lose 59-56. Collins gets much (most?) of the blame here.

Rutgers. (W) NU leads at halftime 43-25. Rutgers changes defenses, Collins refuses to remove Beran and Audige for the last 11:21 of regulation as 17 point lead disappears. Audige misses a 3 pointer with 6 seconds to go and NU leading 70-68, triggering a wild scramble and a game tying Omoruyi dunk with 1 second left. Amazingly, Young and Nance split time in OT and NU re-groups to win by 1.

@Penn State. (L) NU had a 28-22 halftime lead. Out of halftime, Penn State goes on an 18-9 run to take a 40-37 lead with 12:50 to go. Williams replaces Beran and after 7 more minutes it is 49-48 Penn State with 5:16 to play. Beran returns to the game with Nance, Audige, Roper and Buie and PSU goes on an 11-2 run over the next 4 minutes to lead 60-50 with 1:15 left. Young and Nance never saw each other on the court. Collins gets most of the blame.

Nebraska. (W) We were trailing 39-25 at halftime in our Big Ten tournament opener. Robbie Beran was -16 in the first half. The Young/Beran frontcourt had been eaten alive, 14-1 in less than 4 minutes. On the other hand, Young with Williams had outscored Nebraska 6-2. To Collins' credit, he benched Beran with 16:39 to play, with NU trailing 45-33. A surprise move to Casey Simmons with Williams, Nance and Berry sparked a 13-6 run to get NU within 56-53. After some back and forth, Collins finally went with Nance and Young together for the last 7 minutes of the game and NU overwhelmed the Huskers, turning a 62-57 deficit into a 71-69 victory.

Those were our close games. The coach was a significant factor in most of the losses.

 

[Purple Pile Driver]

Lord have Mercy!

 

[NUCat320]

Lord have Mercy!

Lee Elia: “85 percent of the world is working, 15% are at Wrigley, and @PurpleWhiteBoy is improbably writing recaps of games from four months ago on a limited traffic message board.”

 

[phatcat_rivals223240]

So unlucky. Born the son of a NBA coach and is getting paid $30M guaranteed to do a job he’s not qualified for.

In case it is not clear to you, I am pretty sure the reference was to how we have the worst "luck stats" in the country.

All of this "good at losing" stuff reminds me of one of my favorite Seinfeld scenes;

George: I'm the bad boy...I've never been the bad boy.
Jerry: You've been the bad employee, the bad son, the bad friend...
George: Yes, yes...
Jerry: ...the bad fiance , the bad dinner guest, the bad credit risk...
George: Okay, the point is made.
Jerry: The bad date, the bad sport, the bad citizen... The bad tipper!

 

[The Purple Knight]

Everyone who reads this board regularly knows my positions, so I’ll expect many to dismiss this comment out of hand. But, it seems indisputable to me that player talent makes up at least 90% or more of the difference in today’s college basketball game. I believe this percentage has increased over time, and that’s a function of increased athleticism and the increased popularity of the NBA and the game at large across the population. Today’s game is so largely driven by ball screens, 1-on-1 moves and penetration, and kick outs to 3-point shots. The vast majority of baskets are initiated by creative 1-on-1 plays by individuals. The ability to counteract that on the defensive end requires very high levels of athleticism. And these athletic guys physically take up so much more of the court than prior generations that spacing of the court is the only offensive approach that can work.

The coach who can get NU more talent and athleticism will be more successful. The coach’s ability to write up X’s and O’s is just not nearly as needed as it used to be, by A LOT.

We’ll stated. The game has definitely evolved to where athleticism rules. If you’re not a great athlete, you better be a great shooter. That being said, without good coaching it would turn into undisciplined street ball. The best programs have the athletes AND coach who can recruit the athletes on a consistent basis and mold them into a “team”. The championship coaches are able to make adjustments half to half, game to game, and opponent to opponent and get their “athletes” to play very tough defense.

Athletes 70%
Coaching 30%

 

[Purple Pile Driver]

We’ll stated. The game has definitely evolved to where athleticism rules. If you’re not a great athlete, you better be a great shooter. That being said, without good coaching it would turn into undisciplined street ball. The best programs have the athletes AND coach who can recruit the athletes on a consistent basis and mold them into a “team”. The championship coaches are able to make adjustments half to half, game to game, and opponent to opponent and get their “athletes” to play very tough defense.

Athletes 70%
Coaching 30%

Interesting that most of the successful tourney teams have not have the traditional Big man dominating inside. Positionless basketball with everyone attacking the glass.

 

[vee4three]

I don't know the right apportionment of credit/blame between players and coaches in a close loss. And while I understand that every minute of the game should count equally in theory, performance down the stretch had an outsize impact for this team. So .625% or whatever ain't it.

The table below is populated with data from KenPom. Against every opponent with a pulse (Georgia might be a stretch), it has Northwestern's win probability entering the game, win probability with 5 minutes to go, and the outcome. I'm sure there are individual data points to quibble with, but keep in mind we've got a 25-game sample:

Team	Loc	Starting Win Prob	5-Min Win Prob	Win Prob Change	Outcome	Final Win Prob Change
Prov.	N	59.5%	8.7%	-50.8%	L	-8.7%
Georgia	N	86.3%	99.5%	13.2%	W	0.5%
Wake	A	56.1%	34.4%	-21.7%	L (OT)	-34.4%
MD	A	41.9%	70.0%	28.1%	W	30.0%
MSU	H	48.5%	31.5%	-17.0%	L	-31.5%
PSU	H	77.8%	68.8%	-9.0%	L	-68.8%
OSU	A	22.8%	1.9%	-20.9%	L	-1.9%
MD	H	73.2%	58.9%	-14.3%	L (2OT)	-58.9%
MSU	A	18.3%	50.2%	31.9%	W	49.8%
Wisky	H	51.4%	12.6%	-38.8%	L	-12.6%

Purdue	A	9.7%	1.3%	-8.4%	L	-1.3%
Mich	A	22.4%	78.5%	56.1%	L	-78.5%
Illinois	H	37.1%	63.3%	26.2%	L	-63.3%
Rutgers	H	77.9%	98.4%	20.5%	W (OT)	1.6%
Nebby	A	70.5%	100.0%	29.5%	W	0.0%
Indiana	H	52.7%	89.1%	36.4%	W	10.9%
Illinois	A	17.1%	16.5%	-0.6%	L	-16.5%
Purdue	H	34.5%	1.1%	-33.4%	L	-1.1%
Minny	A	57.3%	0.9%	-56.4%	L	-0.9%
Nebby	H	90.0%	99.8%	9.8%	W	0.2%

PSU	A	40.3%	40.5%	0.2%	L	-40.5%
Iowa	A	14.8%	0.0%	-14.8%	L	0.0%
Minny	H	75.4%	98.4%	23.0%	W	1.6%
Nebby	N	75.5%	51.7%	-23.8%	W	48.3%
Iowa	N	17.4%	0.0%	-17.4%	L	0.0%
Total	W	12.3	11.8	-0.5	9	-2.8
Total	L	12.7	13.2	0.5	16	2.8

That's a massive amount of variation from expected record due to how the team played at the end of games, even if it's not that surprising. For comparison, Penn St's expected record in similar games was 9.4-15.6, its expected record with 5 minutes left was 8.5-16.5, and its final record was 9-16 -- nothing too extreme in that profile. (That was the first team I checked because they played a lot of the same teams and had almost identical advanced metrics. I'm happy to figure this out for others, though.) As bad as this is, it doesn't really suggest that we should blame Collins for 6-8 extra losses, either.

 

[CappyNU]

I don't know the right apportionment of credit/blame between players and coaches in a close loss. And while I understand that every minute of the game should count equally in theory, performance down the stretch had an outsize impact for this team. So .625% or whatever ain'it it.

The table below is populated with data from KenPom. Against every opponent with a pulse (Georgia might be a stretch), it has Northwestern's win probability entering the game, win probability with 5 minutes to go, and the outcome. I'm sure there are individual data points to quibble with, but keep in mind we've got a 25-game sample:

Team	Location	Starting Win Prob	5-Min Win Prob	Win Prob Change	Outcome	Final Win Prob Change
Prov.	N	59.5%	8.7%	-50.8%	L	-8.7%
Georgia	N	86.3%	99.5%	13.2%	W	0.5%
Wake	A	56.1%	34.4%	-21.7%	L (OT)	-34.4%
MD	A	41.9%	70.0%	28.1%	W	30.0%
MSU	H	48.5%	31.5%	-17.0%	L	-31.5%
PSU	H	77.8%	68.8%	-9.0%	L	-68.8%
OSU	A	22.8%	1.9%	-20.9%	L	-1.9%
MD	H	73.2%	58.9%	-14.3%	L (2OT)	-58.9%
MSU	A	18.3%	50.2%	31.9%	W	49.8%
Wisky	H	51.4%	12.6%	-38.8%	L	-12.6%

Purdue	A	9.7%	1.3%	-8.4%	L	-1.3%
Mich	A	22.4%	78.5%	56.1%	L	-78.5%
Illinois	H	37.1%	63.3%	26.2%	L	-63.3%
Rutgers	H	77.9%	98.4%	20.5%	W (OT)	1.6%
Nebby	A	70.5%	100.0%	29.5%	W	0.0%
Indiana	H	52.7%	89.1%	36.4%	W	10.9%
Illinois	A	17.1%	16.5%	-0.6%	L	-16.5%
Purdue	H	34.5%	1.1%	-33.4%	L	-1.1%
Minny	A	57.3%	0.9%	-56.4%	L	-0.9%
Nebby	H	90.0%	99.8%	9.8%	W	0.2%

PSU	A	40.3%	40.5%	0.2%	L	-40.5%
Iowa	A	14.8%	0.0%	-14.8%	L	0.0%
Minny	H	75.4%	98.4%	23.0%	W	1.6%
Nebby	N	75.5%	51.7%	-23.8%	W	48.3%
Iowa	N	17.4%	0.0%	-17.4%	L	0.0%
Total	Wins	12.3	11.8	-0.5	9	-2.8
Total	Losses	12.7	13.2	0.5	16	2.8

That's a massive amount of variation from expected record due to how the team played at the end of games, even if it's not that surprising. For comparison, Penn St's expected record in similar games was 9.4-15.6, its expected record with 5 minutes left was 8.5-16.5, and its final record was 9-16 -- nothing too extreme in that profile. (That was the first team I checked because they played a lot of the same teams and had almost identical advanced metrics. I'm happy to figure this out for others, though.) As bad as this is, it doesn't really suggest that we should blame Collins for 6-8 extra losses, either.

Isn't this basically just the equivalent to Kenpom's "Luck" metric? Your numbers say you should have X record, but in reality you have Y record, and the Luck is the deviation.