I tracked first year coaches. Benchmarked them against what the previous coach did last year. I looked at 15 coaches at programs with some relevance or relation to Memphis. Overall schedule is meaningless due to wide SOS variation. So I used conference standings and Sagarin ratings as the metrics. Results are listed - first as the change up or down in conference standings, and second as the movement up or down Sagarin ratings. There are also A, B, C grades assigned for each metric and explained below.
Tubby +2, -7 A/B
Dunleavy (Tulane) +1, -43 A/C
Dawkins (UCF) +4, +107 A/A
Pastner 0, -33 B/C
Stallings (Pitt) -4, -33 C/C
Ford (SLU) +2, -46 A/C
Beard (TTU) 0, +11 B/B
Underwood (Ok St) +4, +72 A/A
Dixon (TCU) +2, +80 A/A
Pikiell (Rutgers) 0, +147 B/A
Stansbury (WKU) 0, -54 B/C
Menzies (UNLV) -4, -108 C/C
Haase (Stanford) 0, +4 B/B
Drew (Vandy) -3, -22 C/B
Weir (NM St) -1, +10 C/B
Of these 15 new coaches, 4 dropped in conference standings (C grading). 5 others stayed the same (B grading). 6 coaches saw improvement in conference standings (A grading).
In Sagarin, 8 coaches saw drops, while 7 coaches saw improvement. A more detailed grouping shows that 6 coaches had drops in rankings > 30 spots ©. 5 coaches saw their rankings stay relatively the same ranging from -22 to +11 (B). And 4 coaches experienced big improvements > 70 spots (A).
So there are 3 clear winners - Dawkins (who was fired), Underwood (who took a bigger job), and Dixon (who took a lesser job at his alma mater). I think there are also 3 failures so far - Stallings (got out of town before the firing squad), Menzies (bigger job but widely recognized as a mess), and Drew (supposed to be a home run hire).
The remaining 9 of us are a mixed bag. Jury is still out. Different levels of rebuild. Shows that it's rare that a program turns around in the first year. And that it's also rare to be able to judge after 1 year.
Another note is that none of the 15 coaches won their conference. In fact, only 1 finished better than 4th place - Weir came in 2nd in the WAC. Furthermore, 10 of the coaches finished in the bottom half of their leagues.
Take your shots guys, but please bring data.
(03-06-2017 02:50 PM)Tiger87 Wrote: [ -> ]Take your shots guys, but please bring data.
Just the arbitrariness of what YOU consider to be an A/B/C
Interesting you put the + limit on "B" to 11 in the Sagarain--exactly what Beard is at at Tech.
Also, winning 1 extra game vs. the year before is the same as a 6 game improvement? And the opposite--losing 1 more would be the same as losing 8 more?
I honestly believe that if the 1st half of the season somehow swapped with the 2nd half of the season, many people would consider this a successful season. The past few weeks have put a damper on a decent season.
And yes, I think we definitely should have finished the season much stronger.
(03-06-2017 02:46 PM)Tiger87 Wrote: [ -> ]I tracked first year coaches. Benchmarked them against what the previous coach did last year. I looked at 15 coaches at programs with some relevance or relation to Memphis. Overall schedule is meaningless due to wide SOS variation. So I used conference standings and Sagarin ratings as the metrics. Results are listed - first as the change up or down in conference standings, and second as the movement up or down Sagarin ratings. There are also A, B, C grades assigned for each metric and explained below.
Tubby +2, -7 A/B
Dunleavy (Tulane) +1, -43 A/C
Dawkins (UCF) +4, +107 A/A
Pastner 0, -33 B/C
Stallings (Pitt) -4, -33 C/C
Ford (SLU) +2, -46 A/C
Beard (TTU) 0, +11 B/B
Underwood (Ok St) +4, +72 A/A
Dixon (TCU) +2, +80 A/A
Pikiell (Rutgers) 0, +147 B/A
Stansbury (WKU) 0, -54 B/C
Menzies (UNLV) -4, -108 C/C
Haase (Stanford) 0, +4 B/B
Drew (Vandy) -3, -22 C/B
Weir (NM St) -1, +10 C/B
Of these 15 new coaches, 4 dropped in conference standings (C grading). 5 others stayed the same (B grading). 6 coaches saw improvement in conference standings (A grading).
In Sagarin, 8 coaches saw drops, while 7 coaches saw improvement. A more detailed grouping shows that 6 coaches had drops in rankings > 30 spots ©. 5 coaches saw their rankings stay relatively the same ranging from -22 to +11 (B). And 4 coaches experienced big improvements > 70 spots (A).
So there are 3 clear winners - Dawkins (who was fired), Underwood (who took a bigger job), and Dixon (who took a lesser job at his alma mater). I think there are also 3 failures so far - Stallings (got out of town before the firing squad), Menzies (bigger job but widely recognized as a mess), and Drew (supposed to be a home run hire).
The remaining 9 of us are a mixed bag. Jury is still out. Different levels of rebuild. Shows that it's rare that a program turns around in the first year. And that it's also rare to be able to judge after 1 year.
Do you think it's fair to compare to previous coach's last year as usually it's a situation where he was fired or pushed out so probably his worst year-certainly was Pastner's. A lot of of variable make it a tough comparison.
(03-06-2017 03:25 PM)ballhog Wrote: [ -> ]I honestly believe that if the 1st half of the season somehow swapped with the 2nd half of the season, many people would consider this a successful season. The past few weeks have put a damper on a decent season.
And yes, I think we definitely should have finished the season much stronger.
Given the schedule that wasn't ever going to happen but I see the point. The team improves from start to finish and is playing much better at the end of the season than at the beginning.
For evaluation purposes, I primarily look at big wins and post season success (especially the NCAA Tourney). After the season, I will compare for each first year coach the post season results before and after their arrival. A coach able to acheive the NCAA Tourney after just one season will receive high marks (although - like always - the causes may not be entirely tied to coaching ability).
(03-06-2017 03:25 PM)ballhog Wrote: [ -> ]I honestly believe that if the 1st half of the season somehow swapped with the 2nd half of the season, many people would consider this a successful season. The past few weeks have put a damper on a decent season.
And yes, I think we definitely should have finished the season much stronger.
I guess that's where, in the absence of good recruiting and being a vibrant face of the program, the promise that "he'll coach em up" has fallen flat. If anything, one hopes a team will get better as the season goes, as the players get all "coached up" in February and March.
(03-06-2017 03:21 PM)salukiblue Wrote: [ -> ] (03-06-2017 02:50 PM)Tiger87 Wrote: [ -> ]Take your shots guys, but please bring data.
Just the arbitrariness of what YOU consider to be an A/B/C
Interesting you put the + limit on "B" to 11 in the Sagarain--exactly what Beard is at at Tech.
Also, winning 1 extra game vs. the year before is the same as a 6 game improvement? And the opposite--losing 1 more would be the same as losing 8 more?
Nothing in the least arbitrary about it. Statistical methods often look for clean breaks to categorize data. The ranges I used are where the gaps are, in order to group the data into rough-thirds. You disagree with the groupings - show me a better range. And I don't have anything about number of games won. That's the problem with SOS variation that's excluded. This is all based on conference standings and national rankings.
(03-06-2017 03:36 PM)Penny Lane Wrote: [ -> ] (03-06-2017 02:46 PM)Tiger87 Wrote: [ -> ]I tracked first year coaches. Benchmarked them against what the previous coach did last year. I looked at 15 coaches at programs with some relevance or relation to Memphis. Overall schedule is meaningless due to wide SOS variation. So I used conference standings and Sagarin ratings as the metrics. Results are listed - first as the change up or down in conference standings, and second as the movement up or down Sagarin ratings. There are also A, B, C grades assigned for each metric and explained below.
Tubby +2, -7 A/B
Dunleavy (Tulane) +1, -43 A/C
Dawkins (UCF) +4, +107 A/A
Pastner 0, -33 B/C
Stallings (Pitt) -4, -33 C/C
Ford (SLU) +2, -46 A/C
Beard (TTU) 0, +11 B/B
Underwood (Ok St) +4, +72 A/A
Dixon (TCU) +2, +80 A/A
Pikiell (Rutgers) 0, +147 B/A
Stansbury (WKU) 0, -54 B/C
Menzies (UNLV) -4, -108 C/C
Haase (Stanford) 0, +4 B/B
Drew (Vandy) -3, -22 C/B
Weir (NM St) -1, +10 C/B
Of these 15 new coaches, 4 dropped in conference standings (C grading). 5 others stayed the same (B grading). 6 coaches saw improvement in conference standings (A grading).
In Sagarin, 8 coaches saw drops, while 7 coaches saw improvement. A more detailed grouping shows that 6 coaches had drops in rankings > 30 spots ©. 5 coaches saw their rankings stay relatively the same ranging from -22 to +11 (B). And 4 coaches experienced big improvements > 70 spots (A).
So there are 3 clear winners - Dawkins (who was fired), Underwood (who took a bigger job), and Dixon (who took a lesser job at his alma mater). I think there are also 3 failures so far - Stallings (got out of town before the firing squad), Menzies (bigger job but widely recognized as a mess), and Drew (supposed to be a home run hire).
The remaining 9 of us are a mixed bag. Jury is still out. Different levels of rebuild. Shows that it's rare that a program turns around in the first year. And that it's also rare to be able to judge after 1 year.
Do you think it's fair to compare to previous coach's last year as usually it's a situation where he was fired or pushed out so probably his worst year-certainly was Pastner's. A lot of of variable make it a tough comparison.
Ten of these were firings, 5 were voluntary leaves. Yes - many were not good situations that the new coaches were walking into. Which leads to the final statements I made in bold above.
Pretty random ideas here. There are tons of stats.
But...an easy conclusion...and you can bring all the stats you want...Memphis was a little better overall this season than last. Without the crushing finish, it would have been even better.
Should we lose to UCF, considering our team made a run to the conference finals last year, it is arguable we did not improve from soup to nuts. One win in the tourney will solidify the improvement, while a loss makes us 2-7 down the stretch without a conference tourney win.
That would mean no soup for us.
We had a more talented and balanced team last year. We have major holes in this team.
WE WON 19 GAMES THIS YEAR WITH SIX PLAYERS ALL SEASON LONG...WHO IN THE HELL CAN WIN WITH SUCH LIMITATIONS???
Victor Enoch will be playing in the state championship game. He's trying to win back to back titles according to Joe Esposito. Welcome, Victor to Tigernation Baby!!
(03-06-2017 06:46 PM)Ttaylor Wrote: [ -> ]WE WON 19 GAMES THIS YEAR WITH SIX PLAYERS ALL SEASON LONG...WHO IN THE HELL CAN WIN WITH SUCH LIMITATIONS???
Take a look at the schedule. That's why.
@RexRogers1 is Victor Enoch' s twitter name. He has an NBA body already; great physical specimen. Tubby is going to put together a winning team. Do not listen to the miserables as they find misery in every aspect of their entire lives. Go Tigers!!
(03-06-2017 06:53 PM)bluebacker Wrote: [ -> ] (03-06-2017 06:46 PM)Ttaylor Wrote: [ -> ]WE WON 19 GAMES THIS YEAR WITH SIX PLAYERS ALL SEASON LONG...WHO IN THE HELL CAN WIN WITH SUCH LIMITATIONS???
Take a look at the schedule. That's why.
Come on, Blubecker!! Let's give the guy a chance, please!
(03-06-2017 06:28 PM)Mimi Wrote: [ -> ]Pretty random ideas here. There are tons of stats.
But...an easy conclusion...and you can bring all the stats you want...Memphis was a little better overall this season than last. Without the crushing finish, it would have been even better.
Should we lose to UCF, considering our team made a run to the conference finals last year, it is arguable we did not improve from soup to nuts. One win in the tourney will solidify the improvement, while a loss makes us 2-7 down the stretch without a conference tourney win.
That would mean no soup for us.
Absolutely, but we had no high expectations coming into this season...period! The miserables are trying to as usual fault find because of their hatred for Coach Tubby Smith! Everyday they spread negativity without any rational validation. We lost horribly Saturday! It's freakin called a rebuilding of the program. Cal had to do it.
(03-06-2017 07:02 PM)Ttaylor Wrote: [ -> ] (03-06-2017 06:53 PM)bluebacker Wrote: [ -> ] (03-06-2017 06:46 PM)Ttaylor Wrote: [ -> ]WE WON 19 GAMES THIS YEAR WITH SIX PLAYERS ALL SEASON LONG...WHO IN THE HELL CAN WIN WITH SUCH LIMITATIONS???
Take a look at the schedule. That's why.
Come on, Blubecker!! Let's give the guy a chance, please!
I haven't seen one post calling for Tubby to be fired. I have seen (mine included) bitching about the late season performance and the apparent lack of effort to recruit for THIS year's roster.
I predicted a 19-12 regular season record based on the returning players and the slaw schedule. Doesn't mean I didn't expect a balls to the wall effort to EXCEED that prediction. I didn't see and don't see balls to the wall effort.
Unless Tubby pulls a Tic Price or has a 10 win year or something like that he's going to have at least 3 more years to build a team. I don't like a lot of what I saw this year. I'm not convinced he's going to be successful but I could be wrong just as easily as I could be right.
If he adds more quality recruits to this year's class and gets into the NCAA next year; then continues on with a win or two the year after and we can all clearly see what he's building I'll happily admit I missed on Tubby. I'll be happy about the direction of the program.
At this point, if Tubby is worried about whether people on a message board do or don't believe he's the man then he's not the man.