Once you add in JP's niceness factor it really puts us over the top in the Pomeroy rankings.

I still don't understand how some people can overlook the many great coaches who started their careers (or started new assignments in mid-career) with records the same or worse than Pastner's. In my mind, like so many of those coaches did, Pastner is starting to hit his stride with a few years under his belt. Yet some have been riding him since day one. Why is year 5 THE year he had to "do it" (whatever "it" is)?

The trolls don't WANT to "get" it. Because when you combine arrogance and stupidity no one is as perceptive and as intelligent as you are. The main problem is they don't believe decency can win. They want to prove that nice guys finish last.

(12-02-2013 09:49 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I'm reading that article differently than most of you. As Pomeroy says in the article, the title is misleading. Nothing in there says Pastner is a good coach, or not. What the article is about is that we have no good way to evaluate coaches except on the extremes of winning a lot, or losing a lot, which leaves evaluation of everybody in the middle up for grabs.

Excerpt: "The title of this post is misleading because I’m not going to defend Josh Pastner’s coaching ability. It’s really about highlighting the primitive state of coaching evaluation."

He says that judging a coach by his top 25 record is a poor way to evaluate performance, b/c most coaches are going to have losing records. He said Memphis was at a particular disadvantage b/c we only played one of those at home, and it was against the #1 team in the country. And he said it is dumb to discount the St. Mary's win, b/c they were a ranked team.

He also says it takes luck to beat the best teams, so you can be lucky or unlucky. And finally, he says if you look at it statistically, Pastner should have won about 5 of those 15, and he only won two, so if you want to think Pastner is not a good coach, then 2-13 is a damning statistic. He also said if you thought Pastner was a bad coach before yesterday's game, then one win should not sway your opinion.

So essentially, he says using Top 25 wins is a terrible way to judge a coach's true ability. I don't see it as a vindication of Pastner, but as a damnation of the Top 25 wins as a method to evaluate coaches. He says there really is no way to fairly judge a coach who isn't clearly a roaring success or a miserable failure.

Yeah but he's saying beating a top twenty five team is hard based on the premise that ANY team beating a top twenty five team is hard to do.

That's true, but you have to take into account who is the team playing those top twenty five teams. We were ranked four years in a row and lost every challenge. We weren't Sienna. How many times were we ranked and lost to a top 25 team? There were several. It wasn't too hard for the teams playing us and that's the difference,

You can't have it both ways. We were either not worthy of the ranking meaning our team was over valued four years in a row, or we underachieved which is either the players or the coaches fault. Or both.

I can buy our kids were over valued coming out of high school every year. I can buy that we had a young coach who was learning out to win against top tier opponents. I can buy we were just unlucky.

I can't buy all of it though. Somewhere along the line we underachieved imo. Are we supposed to be ok with that? I'm not.

Lets just hope its all behind us now and we start turning things around. Last night was a great first step.

(12-02-2013 10:40 PM)Blackman Wrote:  

(12-02-2013 09:49 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I'm reading that article differently than most of you. As Pomeroy says in the article, the title is misleading. Nothing in there says Pastner is a good coach, or not. What the article is about is that we have no good way to evaluate coaches except on the extremes of winning a lot, or losing a lot, which leaves evaluation of everybody in the middle up for grabs.

Excerpt: "The title of this post is misleading because I’m not going to defend Josh Pastner’s coaching ability. It’s really about highlighting the primitive state of coaching evaluation."

He says that judging a coach by his top 25 record is a poor way to evaluate performance, b/c most coaches are going to have losing records. He said Memphis was at a particular disadvantage b/c we only played one of those at home, and it was against the #1 team in the country. And he said it is dumb to discount the St. Mary's win, b/c they were a ranked team.

He also says it takes luck to beat the best teams, so you can be lucky or unlucky. And finally, he says if you look at it statistically, Pastner should have won about 5 of those 15, and he only won two, so if you want to think Pastner is not a good coach, then 2-13 is a damning statistic. He also said if you thought Pastner was a bad coach before yesterday's game, then one win should not sway your opinion.

So essentially, he says using Top 25 wins is a terrible way to judge a coach's true ability. I don't see it as a vindication of Pastner, but as a damnation of the Top 25 wins as a method to evaluate coaches. He says there really is no way to fairly judge a coach who isn't clearly a roaring success or a miserable failure.

Trips I think you are reading it exactly the way everybody else is reading it. But the top 25 record is the ONLY thing that Pastner's detractors keep bringing up.

If the only way to detract from the job Coach has done and even that is a faulty measurement, then it can be reasoned that we have the perfect coach for this moment in time for our program.

Good recruiter...check
Good representative of the university...check
Graduates players...check
Keeps off court incidents to a minimum...check
Wins lots of games...check
Young, energetic and bound to get better...check


There is not much ammuntion for people who dont want him as coach but a LOT of reasons to keep him and as KP showed that top 25 thing is really flimsy.

^this^

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

(12-02-2013 11:32 PM)Chi-TownTiger Wrote:  

(12-02-2013 09:49 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I'm reading that article differently than most of you. As Pomeroy says in the article, the title is misleading. Nothing in there says Pastner is a good coach, or not. What the article is about is that we have no good way to evaluate coaches except on the extremes of winning a lot, or losing a lot, which leaves evaluation of everybody in the middle up for grabs.

Excerpt: "The title of this post is misleading because I’m not going to defend Josh Pastner’s coaching ability. It’s really about highlighting the primitive state of coaching evaluation."

He says that judging a coach by his top 25 record is a poor way to evaluate performance, b/c most coaches are going to have losing records. He said Memphis was at a particular disadvantage b/c we only played one of those at home, and it was against the #1 team in the country. And he said it is dumb to discount the St. Mary's win, b/c they were a ranked team.

He also says it takes luck to beat the best teams, so you can be lucky or unlucky. And finally, he says if you look at it statistically, Pastner should have won about 5 of those 15, and he only won two, so if you want to think Pastner is not a good coach, then 2-13 is a damning statistic. He also said if you thought Pastner was a bad coach before yesterday's game, then one win should not sway your opinion.

So essentially, he says using Top 25 wins is a terrible way to judge a coach's true ability. I don't see it as a vindication of Pastner, but as a damnation of the Top 25 wins as a method to evaluate coaches. He says there really is no way to fairly judge a coach who isn't clearly a roaring success or a miserable failure.

Yeah but he's saying beating a top twenty five team is hard based on the premise that ANY team beating a top twenty five team is hard to do.

That's true, but you have to take into account who is the team playing those top twenty five teams. We were ranked four years in a row and lost every challenge. We weren't Sienna. How many times were we ranked and lost to a top 25 team? There were several. It wasn't too hard for the teams playing us and that's the difference,

You can't have it both ways. We were either not worthy of the ranking meaning our team was over valued four years in a row, or we underachieved which is either the players or the coaches fault. Or both.

I can buy our kids were over valued coming out of high school every year. I can buy that we had a young coach who was learning out to win against top tier opponents. I can buy we were just unlucky.

I can't buy all of it though. Somewhere along the line we underachieved imo. Are we supposed to be ok with that? I'm not.

Lets just hope its all behind us now and we start turning things around. Last night was a great first step.

I think its important to understand we ALL think he underachieved in those games.

Were we disagree is the level of underachievement based on the circumstance.

(12-02-2013 10:59 PM)BIGDTiger Wrote:  I agree. I think pastner did a great job of prepping for this game. However, the same folks giving him all the credit for this win, are the same ones that blame every loss on the players. Can't have it both ways.

Care to name names?
Who are these "same" people?

When you have no history of being highly successful you will always be questioned if you will become highly successful until you succeed.

Tis what it Tis

(12-02-2013 11:39 PM)Jedi Master Sipho-Dyas Wrote:  

(12-02-2013 11:32 PM)Chi-TownTiger Wrote:  

(12-02-2013 09:49 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I'm reading that article differently than most of you. As Pomeroy says in the article, the title is misleading. Nothing in there says Pastner is a good coach, or not. What the article is about is that we have no good way to evaluate coaches except on the extremes of winning a lot, or losing a lot, which leaves evaluation of everybody in the middle up for grabs.

Excerpt: "The title of this post is misleading because I’m not going to defend Josh Pastner’s coaching ability. It’s really about highlighting the primitive state of coaching evaluation."

He says that judging a coach by his top 25 record is a poor way to evaluate performance, b/c most coaches are going to have losing records. He said Memphis was at a particular disadvantage b/c we only played one of those at home, and it was against the #1 team in the country. And he said it is dumb to discount the St. Mary's win, b/c they were a ranked team.

He also says it takes luck to beat the best teams, so you can be lucky or unlucky. And finally, he says if you look at it statistically, Pastner should have won about 5 of those 15, and he only won two, so if you want to think Pastner is not a good coach, then 2-13 is a damning statistic. He also said if you thought Pastner was a bad coach before yesterday's game, then one win should not sway your opinion.

So essentially, he says using Top 25 wins is a terrible way to judge a coach's true ability. I don't see it as a vindication of Pastner, but as a damnation of the Top 25 wins as a method to evaluate coaches. He says there really is no way to fairly judge a coach who isn't clearly a roaring success or a miserable failure.

Yeah but he's saying beating a top twenty five team is hard based on the premise that ANY team beating a top twenty five team is hard to do.

That's true, but you have to take into account who is the team playing those top twenty five teams. We were ranked four years in a row and lost every challenge. We weren't Sienna. How many times were we ranked and lost to a top 25 team? There were several. It wasn't too hard for the teams playing us and that's the difference,

You can't have it both ways. We were either not worthy of the ranking meaning our team was over valued four years in a row, or we underachieved which is either the players or the coaches fault. Or both.

I can buy our kids were over valued coming out of high school every year. I can buy that we had a young coach who was learning out to win against top tier opponents. I can buy we were just unlucky.

I can't buy all of it though. Somewhere along the line we underachieved imo. Are we supposed to be ok with that? I'm not.

Lets just hope its all behind us now and we start turning things around. Last night was a great first step.

I think its important to understand we ALL think he underachieved in those games.

Were we disagree is the level of underachievement based on the circumstance.

I get that. I think we underachieved on the big stage. Not always. Kansas and Arizona were very good losses if there is such a thing. Especially Arizona.

(12-02-2013 11:32 PM)Chi-TownTiger Wrote:  

(12-02-2013 09:49 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I'm reading that article differently than most of you. As Pomeroy says in the article, the title is misleading. Nothing in there says Pastner is a good coach, or not. What the article is about is that we have no good way to evaluate coaches except on the extremes of winning a lot, or losing a lot, which leaves evaluation of everybody in the middle up for grabs.

Excerpt: "The title of this post is misleading because I’m not going to defend Josh Pastner’s coaching ability. It’s really about highlighting the primitive state of coaching evaluation."

He says that judging a coach by his top 25 record is a poor way to evaluate performance, b/c most coaches are going to have losing records. He said Memphis was at a particular disadvantage b/c we only played one of those at home, and it was against the #1 team in the country. And he said it is dumb to discount the St. Mary's win, b/c they were a ranked team.

He also says it takes luck to beat the best teams, so you can be lucky or unlucky. And finally, he says if you look at it statistically, Pastner should have won about 5 of those 15, and he only won two, so if you want to think Pastner is not a good coach, then 2-13 is a damning statistic. He also said if you thought Pastner was a bad coach before yesterday's game, then one win should not sway your opinion.

So essentially, he says using Top 25 wins is a terrible way to judge a coach's true ability. I don't see it as a vindication of Pastner, but as a damnation of the Top 25 wins as a method to evaluate coaches. He says there really is no way to fairly judge a coach who isn't clearly a roaring success or a miserable failure.

Yeah but he's saying beating a top twenty five team is hard based on the premise that ANY team beating a top twenty five team is hard to do.

That's true, but you have to take into account who is the team playing those top twenty five teams. We were ranked four years in a row and lost every challenge. We weren't Sienna. How many times were we ranked and lost to a top 25 team? There were several. It wasn't too hard for the teams playing us and that's the difference,

You can't have it both ways. We were either not worthy of the ranking meaning our team was over valued four years in a row, or we underachieved which is either the players or the coaches fault. Or both.

I can buy our kids were over valued coming out of high school every year. I can buy that we had a young coach who was learning out to win against top tier opponents. I can buy we were just unlucky.

I can't buy all of it though. Somewhere along the line we underachieved imo. Are we supposed to be ok with that? I'm not.

Lets just hope its all behind us now and we start turning things around. Last night was a great first step.

Perhaps it's all of the above. Perhaps Pastner did underachieved in some games but that doesn't mean all of them. Part unlucky, part undervalued players, part mismanagement but the point of Kenpom and others is that it's utterly ridiculous to judge a coach good or bad based on how many top 25 wins they have under their belt. I didn't realized that only one of those previous top 25 games were at home and that game took the refs to help out Louisville get back into the game.

(12-02-2013 10:43 PM)BIGDTiger Wrote:  Good read. I love metrics. Metrics is what pans out in the end, barring injuries & natural disasters.

Liars figure and figures lie. Statistics say that you flip a coin 50 times you should come out with approximately 25 heads and 25 tails plus or minus a couple each way, all things beingequalEvery individual toss is 50/50 but with each toss the chances of it being a certain result increases with every unexpected result. So in theory you could end up 30/20 or 40/10 but odds say keep flipping and it evens out.

During the past five years, all things have not been equal. Seedlngs and game location have skewed the results in a negative way. That's before player evaluation.

Bottom line Josh hasn't had the success we had hoped for but factor in expected results and you get nothing more than a poor tourney record.

Bottom line is Pomeroy says you can't use top 25 records to prove or disprove the value of a coach.

We all seem to agree Pastner's teams underachieved. We just don't agree on the implications of said underachievement. Acceptable or not?

For now, the win over OSU has rendered the debate moot, IMO. We all hope this win is a breakthrough to a new trend that will lead to more of the same, not always, but more often than in the past.

(12-03-2013 12:57 AM)Tigerx3 Wrote:  

(12-02-2013 10:43 PM)BIGDTiger Wrote:  Good read. I love metrics. Metrics is what pans out in the end, barring injuries & natural disasters.

Liars figure and figures lie. Statistics say that you flip a coin 50 times you should come out with approximately 25 heads and 25 tails plus or minus a couple each way, all things beingequalEvery individual toss is 50/50 but with each toss the chances of it being a certain result increases with every unexpected result. So in theory you could end up 30/20 or 40/10 but odds say keep flipping and it evens out.

During the past five years, all things have not been equal. Seedlngs and game location have skewed the results in a negative way. That's before player evaluation.

Bottom line Josh hasn't had the success we had hoped for but factor in expected results and you get nothing more than a poor tourney record.

Pomeroy has the Tigers rated 11 right now.
Are you going to argue with that, too?

(12-03-2013 01:08 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Bottom line is Pomeroy says you can't use top 25 records to prove or disprove the value of a coach.

We all seem to agree Pastner's teams underachieved. We just don't agree on the implications of said underachievement. Acceptable or not?

For now, the win over OSU has rendered the debate moot, IMO. We all hope this win is a breakthrough to a new trend that will lead to more of the same, not always, but more often than in the past.

Yes. Broke the ice, got over the hump, or any other metaphor you want to use. The first one is always the sweetest.

Enjoy

(12-02-2013 09:49 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I'm reading that article differently than most of you. As Pomeroy says in the article, the title is misleading. Nothing in there says Pastner is a good coach, or not. What the article is about is that we have no good way to evaluate coaches except on the extremes of winning a lot, or losing a lot, which leaves evaluation of everybody in the middle up for grabs.

Excerpt: "The title of this post is misleading because I’m not going to defend Josh Pastner’s coaching ability. It’s really about highlighting the primitive state of coaching evaluation."

He says that judging a coach by his top 25 record is a poor way to evaluate performance, b/c most coaches are going to have losing records. He said Memphis was at a particular disadvantage b/c we only played one of those at home, and it was against the #1 team in the country. And he said it is dumb to discount the St. Mary's win, b/c they were a ranked team.

He also says it takes luck to beat the best teams, so you can be lucky or unlucky. And finally, he says if you look at it statistically, Pastner should have won about 5 of those 15, and he only won two, so if you want to think Pastner is not a good coach, then 2-13 is a damning statistic. He also said if you thought Pastner was a bad coach before yesterday's game, then one win should not sway your opinion.

So essentially, he says using Top 25 wins is a terrible way to judge a coach's true ability. I don't see it as a vindication of Pastner, but as a damnation of the Top 25 wins as a method to evaluate coaches. He says there really is no way to fairly judge a coach who isn't clearly a roaring success or a miserable failure.

This.

(12-03-2013 01:08 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Bottom line is Pomeroy says you can't use top 25 records to prove or disprove the value of a coach.

We all seem to agree Pastner's teams underachieved. We just don't agree on the implications of said underachievement. Acceptable or not?

For now, the win over OSU has rendered the debate moot, IMO. We all hope this win is a breakthrough to a new trend that will lead to more of the same, not always, but more often than in the past.

0-1 vs top 25 at home.... that is what I got out of the article... ( and anyone who saw the game knows what happened there)

what is sad is some who claim to be our fans ran with the stupid 0-13 versus top 25 AP teams just after we beat a top 25 team.. it is expected that other fans would look for such bs, but any of our fans who repeated it are very weak minded..

(12-03-2013 08:46 AM)BinghamptonNed Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 01:08 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Bottom line is Pomeroy says you can't use top 25 records to prove or disprove the value of a coach.

We all seem to agree Pastner's teams underachieved. We just don't agree on the implications of said underachievement. Acceptable or not?

For now, the win over OSU has rendered the debate moot, IMO. We all hope this win is a breakthrough to a new trend that will lead to more of the same, not always, but more often than in the past.

0-1 vs top 25 at home.... that is what I got out of the article... ( and anyone who saw the game knows what happened there)

what is sad is some who claim to be our fans ran with the stupid 0-13 versus top 25 AP teams just after we beat a top 25 team.. it is expected that other fans would look for such bs, but any of our fans who repeated it are very weak minded..

Many of those fans are long time Tiger fans, too......well, 2006 was a long time ago, right?

Great read, thanks.

(12-03-2013 12:57 AM)Tigerx3 Wrote:  

(12-02-2013 10:43 PM)BIGDTiger Wrote:  Good read. I love metrics. Metrics is what pans out in the end, barring injuries & natural disasters.

Liars figure and figures lie. Statistics say that you flip a coin 50 times you should come out with approximately 25 heads and 25 tails plus or minus a couple each way, all things beingequalEvery individual toss is 50/50 but with each toss the chances of it being a certain result increases with every unexpected result. So in theory you could end up 30/20 or 40/10 but odds say keep flipping and it evens out.

During the past five years, all things have not been equal. Seedlngs and game location have skewed the results in a negative way. That's before player evaluation.

Bottom line Josh hasn't had the success we had hoped for but factor in expected results and you get nothing more than a poor tourney record.

I think each individual toss is 50/50 even if you toss 1 million times. That never changes.