As far as I can tell the problem with Pinkel is not his ability to coach but his ability to recruit. He performs better than his talent would suggest an average coach would. He does not bring in sufficient talent to reach an acceptable standard though, relative to his capabilities.
As far as I can tell the problem with Pinkel is not his ability to coach but his ability to recruit. He performs better than his talent would suggest an average coach would. He does not bring in sufficient talent to reach an acceptable standard though, relative to his capabilities.
Bingo. And that's why trying to remove the players variable from college coaching doesn't tell us much, IMO, because the coaches are largely responsible for obtaining the players. Obviously recruiting to Alabama is easier than recruiting to Michigan State, and we need to adjust for context. But Pinkel's recruiting is nothing special, even for Mizzu. He'd probably be better at UW since UW naturally attracts better players than Mizzu, and he can clearly coach 'em up, but we'd still likely be dissatisfied with him, just not as dissatisfied as we have been the last couple of clowns (Sark is better than Ty!)
As far as I can tell the problem with Pinkel is not his ability to coach but his ability to recruit. He performs better than his talent would suggest an average coach would. He does not bring in sufficient talent to reach an acceptable standard though, relative to his capabilities.
Yeah kinda seems like it. I was basing my previous statement on Pinkel (which may have been a bit overboard) based on the fact that he does seem to do well with the talent he has (not great, but clearly is above average in the "coaching effect" stats).
But i guess that is a major flaw in some of these stats. A coach could have a good "coaching effect" simply because he is a shitty recruiter but a decent developer of talent/gameday coach. Obviously you need some way to factor in recruiting ability as well.
As far as I can tell the problem with Pinkel is not his ability to coach but his ability to recruit. He performs better than his talent would suggest an average coach would. He does not bring in sufficient talent to reach an acceptable standard though, relative to his capabilities.
Yeah kinda seems like it. I was basing my previous statement on Pinkel (which may have been a bit overboard) based on the fact that he does seem to do well with the talent he has (not great, but clearly is above average in the "coaching effect" stats).
But i guess that is a major flaw in some of these stats. A coach could have a good "coaching effect" simply because he is a shitty recruiter but a decent developer of talent/gameday coach. Obviously you need some way to factor in recruiting ability as well.
Problem is if you're going to look at it that way then if you find the guys who bring in the best talent and are also great at developing talent, then you might as well just look at wins
What you need to do is find a way to remove the circumstance variables - tradition, location, etc. That would be the golden goose but I suspect some of those factors are temporally variable enough that it would be possible to de-trend.
As far as I can tell the problem with Pinkel is not his ability to coach but his ability to recruit. He performs better than his talent would suggest an average coach would. He does not bring in sufficient talent to reach an acceptable standard though, relative to his capabilities.
Yeah kinda seems like it. I was basing my previous statement on Pinkel (which may have been a bit overboard) based on the fact that he does seem to do well with the talent he has (not great, but clearly is above average in the "coaching effect" stats).
But i guess that is a major flaw in some of these stats. A coach could have a good "coaching effect" simply because he is a shitty recruiter but a decent developer of talent/gameday coach. Obviously you need some way to factor in recruiting ability as well.
Problem is if you're going to look at it that way then if you find the guys who bring in the best talent and are also great at developing talent, then you might as well just look at wins
What you need to do is find a way to remove the circumstance variables - tradition, location, etc. That would be the golden goose but I suspect some of those factors are temporally variable enough that it would be possible to de-trend.
As far as I can tell the problem with Pinkel is not his ability to coach but his ability to recruit. He performs better than his talent would suggest an average coach would. He does not bring in sufficient talent to reach an acceptable standard though, relative to his capabilities.
Yeah kinda seems like it. I was basing my previous statement on Pinkel (which may have been a bit overboard) based on the fact that he does seem to do well with the talent he has (not great, but clearly is above average in the "coaching effect" stats).
But i guess that is a major flaw in some of these stats. A coach could have a good "coaching effect" simply because he is a shitty recruiter but a decent developer of talent/gameday coach. Obviously you need some way to factor in recruiting ability as well.
Problem is if you're going to look at it that way then if you find the guys who bring in the best talent and are also great at developing talent, then you might as well just look at wins
What you need to do is find a way to remove the circumstance variables - tradition, location, etc. That would be the golden goose but I suspect some of those factors are temporally variable enough that it would be possible to de-trend.
As far as I can tell the problem with Pinkel is not his ability to coach but his ability to recruit. He performs better than his talent would suggest an average coach would. He does not bring in sufficient talent to reach an acceptable standard though, relative to his capabilities.
Yeah kinda seems like it. I was basing my previous statement on Pinkel (which may have been a bit overboard) based on the fact that he does seem to do well with the talent he has (not great, but clearly is above average in the "coaching effect" stats).
But i guess that is a major flaw in some of these stats. A coach could have a good "coaching effect" simply because he is a shitty recruiter but a decent developer of talent/gameday coach. Obviously you need some way to factor in recruiting ability as well.
Problem is if you're going to look at it that way then if you find the guys who bring in the best talent and are also great at developing talent, then you might as well just look at wins
What you need to do is find a way to remove the circumstance variables - tradition, location, etc. That would be the golden goose but I suspect some of those factors are temporally variable enough that it would be possible to de-trend.
As far as I can tell the problem with Pinkel is not his ability to coach but his ability to recruit. He performs better than his talent would suggest an average coach would. He does not bring in sufficient talent to reach an acceptable standard though, relative to his capabilities.
Yeah kinda seems like it. I was basing my previous statement on Pinkel (which may have been a bit overboard) based on the fact that he does seem to do well with the talent he has (not great, but clearly is above average in the "coaching effect" stats).
But i guess that is a major flaw in some of these stats. A coach could have a good "coaching effect" simply because he is a shitty recruiter but a decent developer of talent/gameday coach. Obviously you need some way to factor in recruiting ability as well.
Problem is if you're going to look at it that way then if you find the guys who bring in the best talent and are also great at developing talent, then you might as well just look at wins
What you need to do is find a way to remove the circumstance variables - tradition, location, etc. That would be the golden goose but I suspect some of those factors are temporally variable enough that it would be possible to de-trend.
the fuck is de-trend?
#ihatewhenpeoplearesmarterthanme
To remove the trend!
Some of the coaches a result produces will be inherent in his own capabilities but part of it will be result of the circumstances he is provided. Obviously any given coach will probably get different results if he coaches at WSU versus if he coaches at Alabama. Ok, maybe that is a bad example. #HiMikePrice Anyways, if the amount of help you got from coaching at Bama was constant over time and the amount of hurt you got from coaching at WSU was also constant over time, it would be easy by comparing different coaches to remove the effect (trend) of the school. Since that effect surely changes over time (Minnesota was probably an easier place to coach at in 1960 than it is now) it makes it hard to identify the trend and remove it to isolate a coach's contribution to the results.
Comments
But i guess that is a major flaw in some of these stats. A coach could have a good "coaching effect" simply because he is a shitty recruiter but a decent developer of talent/gameday coach. Obviously you need some way to factor in recruiting ability as well.
What you need to do is find a way to remove the circumstance variables - tradition, location, etc. That would be the golden goose but I suspect some of those factors are temporally variable enough that it would be possible to de-trend.
#ihatewhenpeoplearesmarterthanme
Some of the coaches a result produces will be inherent in his own capabilities but part of it will be result of the circumstances he is provided. Obviously any given coach will probably get different results if he coaches at WSU versus if he coaches at Alabama. Ok, maybe that is a bad example. #HiMikePrice Anyways, if the amount of help you got from coaching at Bama was constant over time and the amount of hurt you got from coaching at WSU was also constant over time, it would be easy by comparing different coaches to remove the effect (trend) of the school. Since that effect surely changes over time (Minnesota was probably an easier place to coach at in 1960 than it is now) it makes it hard to identify the trend and remove it to isolate a coach's contribution to the results.