A well-coached team

[420seriouscat69]

WGAF? My grandpa is in the Kansas Teachers Hall of Fame and he's a monster. They'll put anyone in those things.

you open about that with Ms WC08 bud?

Oh she knows. She's met him. That mother effer use to give me thee worst "rug burns" on my face with his 5 o'clock shadow beard.

[420seriouscat69]

WGAF? My grandpa is in the Kansas Teachers Hall of Fame and he's a monster. They'll put anyone in those things.

My Grandma is in it too and she was a god damn saint

So 50% rate of good vs evil then? That's what my math is showing.

[kso_FAN]

Let's get to the point here, the real question people are dodging around is "why do people keep saying oscar has well coached teams?" I mean, this is what we are getting at right; most don't like him, the team is losing, yet this year we hear nearly every commentator say oscar is doing a great job with this group.

oscar has a good reputation with the media. Much of that is earned and based on merit and part because he gets along with them. He started by doing a good job at So Illinois, but more importantly he took what Self left him at Illinois and made it great; his first 3 Illinois teams had great offenses. He built a reputation for being a motion offense guru based off of that. Then after he lost (or wasn't able to recruit) offensive talent like Self left him, his Illinois teams became known for their man defense. He coached in a NC game and has had tournament teams 2/3 of the seasons he's coached. Plus, whether warranted or not, a lot of the media respect him for not being a "dirty" recruiter while at Illinois. Then he comes to K-State and wins the Big 12 with Franks guys by building a very good offense (again) and then follows it up with a much better than expected 2nd season. Most media people give him a pass for last year because the turmoil became a story that they believed. Even with the 1-5 Big 12 start, most are viewing this season favorably given the roster turnover.

As a result he is keeping his reputation and we will continue to hear that his team is well coached. His reputation is what it is and it will buy him time and he's extremely safe right now because of it.

[CHONGS]

OK, so imagine I am sitting there watching a basketball game with you.  Team A is getting beat by 20 points, but you say to me "oh but they're a well-coached team, they just don't have the talent to compete with Team B".   What measurable thing(s) can you point out to me to back up that claim?  That's what I want. 

[meow meow]

against Baylor the announcers said oscar was a good coach, but can't remember if that was before or after we had 7 straight possessions that ended in turnovers.

[420seriouscat69]

X's and O's. How many open looks the offense is getting, but not converting? Defense, Help D, shot clock expiration, etc. For instance, we looked really good against WVU full court press. That was coaching in practice going into the game. oscar still sucks overall tho. I bet he would crush at the HS level tho. 

[kso_FAN]

OK, so imagine I am sitting there watching a basketball game with you.  Team A is getting beat by 20 points, but you say to me "oh but they're a well-coached team, they just don't have the talent to compete with Team B".   What measurable thing(s) can you point out to me to back up that claim?  That's what I want. 

I think it varies quite a bit based on style of play, but most of these guys will play slower.

Offensively its going to be about low TOs and "good flow" to the offense. Does it generate good shots? Does it get everyone involved? Does it get opportunities to score for the best players? Some might add offensive rebounding and getting to the free line (and making them), but those aren't as often part of the "well coached" narrative.

Defensively it will be about good man defense. Most people don't think of zone as "well coached" even though great zone defense requires great coaching. Solid help defense, taking charges, and rebounding well are also important. Are the players sound in close outs and not allowing easy jump shots and lay-ups? Does the defense take the offense out of what they want to do? Do they prevent the best players from getting the ball to the spots they want on the floor?

Stuff like that.

[420seriouscat69]

against Baylor the announcers said oscar was a good coach, but can't remember if that was before or after we had 7 straight possessions that ended in turnovers.

oscar didn't turnover the ball, doofus. He did refuse to call a TO however.

[CHONGS]

Let's get to the point here, the real question people are dodging around is "why do people keep saying oscar has well coached teams?" I mean, this is what we are getting at right; most don't like him, the team is losing, yet this year we hear nearly every commentator say oscar is doing a great job with this group.

oscar has a good reputation with the media. Much of that is earned and based on merit and part because he gets along with them. He started by doing a good job at So Illinois, but more importantly he took what Self left him at Illinois and made it great; his first 3 Illinois teams had great offenses. He built a reputation for being a motion offense guru based off of that. Then after he lost (or wasn't able to recruit) offensive talent like Self left him, his Illinois teams became known for their man defense. He coached in a NC game and has had tournament teams 2/3 of the seasons he's coached. Plus, whether warranted or not, a lot of the media respect him for not being a "dirty" recruiter while at Illinois. Then he comes to K-State and wins the Big 12 with Franks guys by building a very good offense (again) and then follows it up with a much better than expected 2nd season. Most media people give him a pass for last year because the turmoil became a story that they believed. Even with the 1-5 Big 12 start, most are viewing this season favorably given the roster turnover.

As a result he is keeping his reputation and we will continue to hear that his team is well coached. His reputation is what it is and it will buy him time and he's extremely safe right now because of it.

I understand why the sport media says it (they are a combination of lazy and dumb).  But if one wants to argue against this claim they need evidence.  I prefer empirical evidence.

[420seriouscat69]

oscar's teams have had really good defenses. It's pretty amazing that everyone talked about this with frank, because we played angry and screamed a lot, but oscar doesn't get any play for it. Unfortunately, these same teams, don't know how to score.

[Trim]

An accurate concept of well-coach'n probably ends w/like 6th-8th grade teams.

[manpow5]

The real question is, can we win 7-8 more games? (What it will probably take to get us in to the tourney)

[CHONGS]

X's and O's. How many open looks the offense is getting, but not converting? Defense, Help D, shot clock expiration, etc. For instance, we looked really good against WVU full court press. That was coaching in practice going into the game. oscar still sucks overall tho. I bet he would crush at the HS level tho. 

I think it varies quite a bit based on style of play, but most of these guys will play slower.

Offensively its going to be about low TOs and "good flow" to the offense. Does it generate good shots? Does it get everyone involved? Does it get opportunities to score for the best players? Some might add offensive rebounding and getting to the free line (and making them), but those aren't as often part of the "well coached" narrative.

Defensively it will be about good man defense. Most people don't think of zone as "well coached" even though great zone defense requires great coaching. Solid help defense, taking charges, and rebounding well are also important. Are the players sound in close outs and not allowing easy jump shots and lay-ups? Does the defense take the offense out of what they want to do? Do they prevent the best players from getting the ball to the spots they want on the floor?

Stuff like that.

Now we are getting closer. Tie these ideas to something one can measure.  We can measure TOs but what is a good measure of flow?  We can probably measure a good shot (albeit once we can define a good shot).  The "well-coaching metric" doesn't have to be a single number, it can be a collection of numbers.

[CHONGS]

oscar's teams have had really good defenses. It's pretty amazing that everyone talked about this with frank, because we played angry and screamed a lot, but oscar doesn't get any play for it. Unfortunately, these same teams, don't know how to score.

What evidence do you have to back up this claim (I am assuming you are claiming his teams have had as good as or better defense than Frank's teams)? 

[meow meow]

X's and O's. How many open looks the offense is getting, but not converting? Defense, Help D, shot clock expiration, etc. For instance, we looked really good against WVU full court press. That was coaching in practice going into the game. oscar still sucks overall tho. I bet he would crush at the HS level tho. 

I think it varies quite a bit based on style of play, but most of these guys will play slower.

Offensively its going to be about low TOs and "good flow" to the offense. Does it generate good shots? Does it get everyone involved? Does it get opportunities to score for the best players? Some might add offensive rebounding and getting to the free line (and making them), but those aren't as often part of the "well coached" narrative.

Defensively it will be about good man defense. Most people don't think of zone as "well coached" even though great zone defense requires great coaching. Solid help defense, taking charges, and rebounding well are also important. Are the players sound in close outs and not allowing easy jump shots and lay-ups? Does the defense take the offense out of what they want to do? Do they prevent the best players from getting the ball to the spots they want on the floor?

Stuff like that.

Now we are getting closer. Tie these ideas to something one can measure.  We can measure TOs but what is a good measure of flow?  We can probably measure a good shot (albeit once we can define a good shot).  The "well-coaching metric" doesn't have to be a single number, it can be a collection of numbers.

wacky said you can't use TOs as a measurable because it's not oscar throwing the passes, nice try tho

[kso_FAN]

oscar's teams have had really good defenses. It's pretty amazing that everyone talked about this with frank, because we played angry and screamed a lot, but oscar doesn't get any play for it. Unfortunately, these same teams, don't know how to score.

What evidence do you have to back up this claim (I am assuming you are claiming his teams have had as good as or better defense than Frank's teams)? 

Count this year, 2 of 4 years are top 20 in efficiency.The other 2 were around 50.
Frank had 3 top 25 defenses in 5 years. The other 2 were around 50.

That's fairly comparable if this year's numbers hold. I'd guess this year will probably finish outside the Top 20 though, but inside the top 50.

[kso_FAN]

Now we are getting closer. Tie these ideas to something one can measure.  We can measure TOs but what is a good measure of flow?  We can probably measure a good shot (albeit once we can define a good shot).  The "well-coaching metric" doesn't have to be a single number, it can be a collection of numbers.

Besides low TO% (oscar has had plenty of teams bad at this BTW), people will look at shooting (not great under oscar) and assists on made shots (oscar's teams are very good here). oscar has also maintained really good OR% here which is a bit of a surprise.

[meow meow]

this thread is a _FAN dream

[kso_FAN]

this thread is a _FAN dream

Its interesting, but ultimately well coached = winning IMHO. That's why I keep going back to it as a media talking point because that's usually what it is, especially for likable coaches that don't win a lot.

[CHONGS]

oscar's teams have had really good defenses. It's pretty amazing that everyone talked about this with frank, because we played angry and screamed a lot, but oscar doesn't get any play for it. Unfortunately, these same teams, don't know how to score.

What evidence do you have to back up this claim (I am assuming you are claiming his teams have had as good as or better defense than Frank's teams)? 

Count this year, 2 of 4 years are top 20 in efficiency.The other 2 were around 50.
Frank had 3 top 25 defenses in 5 years. The other 2 were around 50.

That's fairly comparable if this year's numbers hold. I'd guess this year will probably finish outside the Top 20 though, but inside the top 50.

This is how this should be done. 

We can possibly disagree about efficiency being a good measure of defense (I think its pretty good), but at least it's evidence of something.

[420seriouscat69]

oscar's teams have had really good defenses. It's pretty amazing that everyone talked about this with frank, because we played angry and screamed a lot, but oscar doesn't get any play for it. Unfortunately, these same teams, don't know how to score.

What evidence do you have to back up this claim (I am assuming you are claiming his teams have had as good as or better defense than Frank's teams)?

Yeah, We've been #1 in 3 point scoring defense this year in the country. We slop up games like Baylor, so we can stay in them. What was the total in two overtimes? Like 70 something? His first two years, his teams ranked like #1 in defense in the Big 12.

[CHONGS]

this thread is a _FAN dream

Its interesting, but ultimately well coached = winning IMHO. That's why I keep going back to it as a media talking point because that's usually what it is, especially for likable coaches that don't win a lot.

Let's strive to be better than the media then.  What would YOU consider to be empirical indicators of a well coached team (or poorly-coached team)?  Of course with the handicap of not using W/L.

[420seriouscat69]

If we could get frank and bill self to recruit for weber, we might be on to something.

[CHONGS]

oscar's teams have had really good defenses. It's pretty amazing that everyone talked about this with frank, because we played angry and screamed a lot, but oscar doesn't get any play for it. Unfortunately, these same teams, don't know how to score.

What evidence do you have to back up this claim (I am assuming you are claiming his teams have had as good as or better defense than Frank's teams)?

Yeah, We've been #1 in 3 point scoring defense this year in the country. We slop up games like Baylor, so we can stay in them. What was the total in two overtimes? Like 70 something? His first two years, his teams ranked like #1 in defense in the Big 12.

See, it's not hard to back up your claims with evidence.  Now I happen to think that 3-pt scoring defense is not necessarily a indicator of a great defense, but that we can argue.  We can't argue that KSU is #1 in that metric though (assuming you are correct).

[CHONGS]

oscar's teams have had really good defenses. It's pretty amazing that everyone talked about this with frank, because we played angry and screamed a lot, but oscar doesn't get any play for it. Unfortunately, these same teams, don't know how to score.

What evidence do you have to back up this claim (I am assuming you are claiming his teams have had as good as or better defense than Frank's teams)?

Yeah, We've been #1 in 3 point scoring defense this year in the country. We slop up games like Baylor, so we can stay in them. What was the total in two overtimes? Like 70 something? His first two years, his teams ranked like #1 in defense in the Big 12.

Also, what do you mean by "#1 in defense"?  How are you measuring defense?  Points allowed? Efficiency (as defined by kenpom and others)?