- Posts: 2,112
- And1: 785
- Joined: Jul 08, 2016
He's a great recruiter and that actually hinders him as a coach. It hurts him because he gets some of the top talent but he only gets about 7 months to even work with them. Because he gets so many great/top recruits he loses out on the next tier of guys because they want playing time and he can't give it to them. So his teams end up being filled out with mostly average or extremely raw players after those top 1 and dones. How is he supposed to coach kids up? Plus, these top recruits are used to doing things their own ways and aren't as receptive to coaching in lots of cases. The one time Calipari had recruits (not top though) and years together with them was at Umass. Being from Western MA that time was magical for me and my friends. But they didn't win and he got severely outcoached in both those elimination games. After all is said and done, he has gotten arguably the best players for most of his career and has what? One championship? imo if he was half the coach he is a recruiter he'd have more titles despite whatever defense he can receive because of the one and done dynamic he helped create.
- Global Mod
- Posts: 31,068
- And1: 11,579
- Joined: Feb 06, 2009
- Location: Austin
- Posts: 37
- And1: 6
- Joined: Oct 27, 2015
- Location: Walnut Creek, CA
Duke4life831 wrote:If Cal was getting just solid recruiting classes, he wouldn't be talked about as an elite coach which is why I think a NBA team paying big bucks for him would be a huge mistake.
I completely agree. He might catch an owner's eye or something, but there's not a market for his "talents" in the NBA. Donovan and Hoiberg were considered good coaches in college, and they're getting exposed for their lack of X's and O's. Neither are good coaches, but both are better than Calipari.
They've all embraced analytics fairly recently but none are true analytics coaches. Of the 3 FH has the best chance to be "that" kind of coach.
Of the 3 coaches listed Hoiberg is probably the brightest. Even still he's barely above average. I doubt very much Cal could do simple algebra, and Donovan isn't much brighter if he is at all. IIRC Hoiberg did his own analytics, while the other two had to hire assistants that could actually do HS level math. I've also heard Cal doesn't listen to his.
The used car salesman trait that both BD and JC share does them well in college where recruiting is the key to success. In the NBA, it helps them very little. Look at all the really good NBA coaches. They're intelligent, not sly, and slimy.
Fwiw - Brad Stevens is the king of analytics.. the NBA and a majority of college is now based on analytics. Many good coaches use them - most of the best.
Fwiw - Ha, I found a quip about Tom Crean ... while seeing if two dumbies like JC and BD use advanced metrics. I also heard him say this in a short interview. He's an idiot. As far as I know, there is no possible way to find weakness in opposing +/-. It's a stupid stat designed to see output of lineups, but it's also dependent on who the opponents opposing lineups have been and other things.. too many things..
What a useless stat, what a useless coach. Talking to hear himself speak and sounding like he doesn't understand a damn thing.
Indiana's Tom Crean is another coach who didn't quite crack the list you see below of analytics-friendly coaches, but he utilizes advanced metrics more and more each season. He said he relies on the plus-minus of opposing lineups to attack certain weaknesses.