- Posts: 2,112
- And1: 787
- 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.
- Posts: 46
- And1: 10
- Joined: Oct 27, 2015
- Location: Orinda, 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.
- Posts: 11,947
- And1: 2,464
- Joined: Jan 20, 2007
oceanlife wrote:Phenomenal recruiter. Good coach, but X's and O's don't matter as much when you have the talent he routinely puts out.
I admire him for not guilt tripping his players into staying instead of going pro. For example: I remember watching Maryland basketball late 90's early 2000's and Gary Williams convinced potential lottery picks like Terrance Morris to stay in school. This was in no way in the players best interest (Morris ended up a second rounder two years later). Gary Williams just wanted to win games and made no secret of that fact.
It helped Gary Williams short term, but he was never able to build up a great reputation of getting kids into the NBA so he never got great recruiting classes.
Enter Calipari. He doesn't like calling his players student athletes, he pushed his players to declare for the draft when he thought they were ready. He built up a reputation with prospects for A) Being upfront with players and B) putting his players first. I even heard it said he cares more about getting kids drafted than winning championships.
Good article on him:
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/john-calipari-ncaa-honest-man-article-1.1055394But a much more compelling case could be made that Calipari is a wolf in a land of foxes. Why? Because he’s honest about the realities of a very corrupt collegiate system that uses terms like “amateurism” as a cover for an operation that generates billions on the backs of unpaid teenagers.
The NCAA’s 14-year Final Four contract with CBS alone is worth $10.8 billion.
The Calipari way relies on recruiting star high schoolers to make a run at a championship before, at age 19 or 20, taking their talents to the NBA. He makes no claim that he is coaching “student-athletes” — a terminology that, much to the NCAA’s chagrin, he refuses to use.
He calls his a “players-first program” and has written that “when the season is over, when our TEAM is done playing, my job is to help them make the best decisions, with the best information I can give them, for them and their families. I’m not trying to convince them to come back if that’s not in their best interest. Likewise, I’m never trying to shove anybody out the door.”
I didn't know this about Cal. My respect for the man went up. The NCAA is a disgrace. At least he acknowledges it.