Ok thanks - gives better insight into where you are coming from. Sorry I didn’t recognize it as sarcasm (a lot gets lost in text conversations sometimes). Won’t debate you - you know I disagree with most of what you said there and that’s okay. Just different opinions. Biggest area we agree on Beilein is that his teams are awful on the defensive end. Drives me absolutely nuts during games.
It was obvious sarcasm on my behalf, I would actually choose JB over Hewitt or Davis. The reason I went so extreme is based on Sane's ridiculous theory that it is "absurd" to even compare those 2 with JB. The career records/% are almost identical when looking at blind resumes as it relates to 2 of the coaches. So, in terms of objective data you can't really make a claim that one coach is vastly superior to the other. You can talk about the inherited situation and interpret that all you want, it's subjective at best. I'm not going that route because the raw numbers paint a more objective picture in terms of blind resumes. The whole point is that the bias around here is damn near vomit inducing because it's so far away from being reasonable it's unreal.Honest opinion - JB is a good, not great coach. He is a good teacher and average/below average salesman/recruiter. Overall he’s a bit ahead of the typical coach - you give him good talent and he’ll give you a good team. You give him shitty talent and he’ll give you a competitive team. 2 problems with JB - not a very good recruiter, so that means he will have problems assembling the raw talent, and he’s not good defensively. He’s able to compensate playing gimmick ball with the 3 on offense, and it’s fun to watch and wins games, but not championship worthy. JB is the Mike Antoni of college ball.
Why is it that anyone who disagrees with you is subjective and you are the paragon of objectivity? A blind resume is just that - numbers without any context. I provided some context - where they coached, the programs that they took over, what they actually accomplished. When you examine the full facts, Hewitt falls short of Beilein. You call it subjective only because it contradicts your views. The only commonality is that both made it to an NCAA final. Beilein won two conference titles in the #1 conference in college hoops. Hewitt never sniffed one. Maybe your point is that Beilein, being just a good coach with lots of flaws, will suffer the same fate as Hewitt, i.e. Michigan will fade into a sub .500 team from here on out like GT did.
You say that Beilein is not all that. Not a good recruiter. Gimmicky offense, bad defense. Was last season’s B1G title by three games a fluke? Did he have the best talent in the B1G? If yes, then he’s a pretty good recruiter. If no, then he did a helluva coaching job. But let’s not, as you say, confuse the issue with subjectivity. Let’s just look at the raw W/L record. That’s objective to you, right? 28-9, elite 8, and the B1G title by three games. Scoreboard!
Sane - numbers are inherently objective because they aren’t fluid, they are what they are. Which is why looking at overall records/% is the best measure in my view. Context is just that, a bunch of mitigating/supporting factors that can be used in any way to support any narrative without any numerical value. In other words, your context is simply garbage that you use to promote your narrative. You call it context only because the raw data doesn’t support JB being Jesus Christ.
In the context of one season, or even 2, JB has been great, but does that make him a great coach? He won a conference championship by 3 games and went 28-9…and still couldn’t beat an 8 seed from a bad conference. 75-72 - that’s the real scoreboard
MattD…so you actually would take Beilein over those other guys, but you’re using THAT to support an argument that YOU’RE right in this debate? In what universe does that make sense?
And reducing Kentucky to “an 8 seed from a bad conference” after all the slurping you do for Calipari and his talent and his style of play…that’s just disingenuous.
Not to mention one or two seasons is too short for JB, but one game, that’s the “real scoreboard”.
Laughable.
My premise, as it relates to the contention that comparing JB to Davis/Hewitt, is that it isn’t absurd to compare the 3 based on the objective data, IE the wins/losses and win %. How is that laughable when the data supports my contention?
I didn’t reduce UK to an 8 seed, just using that as an example that any team that won the almighty B10 by 3 games with Jesus as the coach should surely be able to beat an SEC team that wasn’t expected to do much.
Whole point is this, stop giving JB oral pleasure for 2 seasons, that doesn’t make a coach great, especially when said coach faces a reasonable possibility of not being so good this year and beyond based on recruiting trends and current roster. 12 years of data at the high major level dictate JB is a good coach, but not great. Maybe he can turn into a great coach, or maybe not, but as of right now, he isn’t in my opinion.
Regardless of how bad anyone loves that man, my opinion remains. End of story
One last question for Matt, you hold the opinion that JB is a good, but not great coach. I was wondering if you’d be willing to ponder and then share which active coaches in the college game are great in your opinion? Also, what are your most weighted criteria in identifying them as great? Is it W-L record, Final Fours, NC’s, recruiting, players advancing to the NBA, or other factors?
It’s really hard to say a coach is great unless said coach has a ring. Great implies limited company, I think some are guilty of being much too loose with that term.
He did beat an SEC team that wasn’t expected to do much. They were called Tennessee. Then he played one that people reasonably wondered if it would lose a game all season before the season started.
Anyway, you’re obviously entitled to your opinion. I just think you’re doing some serious yoga to support a few points.
Bottom line, I am huge Beilein zealot for a lot more than 2 seasons, and frankly for more than his win-loss record or number of Big Ten titles, but…if coaches were stocks, I’d still be rich and get richer going long on JB.
And short on Rick Barnes.
And frankly, Tom Izzo is looking a bit Sears-ish (Kmart? Kodak?) these past few years.
You’re right, he did beat an SEC team not expected to do much…by the skin of his teeth.
No yoga, raw data simply dictates JB isn’t that good. He’s on par with other above average/good coaches, it’s really that simple.
If you love JB, I have no issue with that. Quite frankly, I think he’s a great person and a good coach. If you don’t like Izzo, hey im with you, but to question his coaching ability is misguided in my view, especially if you are going to label JB as great.
Sane - numbers are inherently objective because they aren't fluid, they are what they are. Which is why looking at overall records/% is the best measure in my view. Context is just that, a bunch of mitigating/supporting factors that can be used in any way to support any narrative without any numerical value. In other words, your context is simply garbage that you use to promote your narrative. You call it context only because the raw data doesn't support JB being Jesus Christ.Hewitt's ACC record at GT is a fact. There's nothing subjective about it. Context is providing additional FACTS that give more meaning to other facts. You presented your facts. I presented mine. At that point, you punted and simply claimed that your facts are objective, but mine are subjective. There was the argument that you made, in addition to the raw numbers, that Hewitt took over a destitute GT program. I pointed out that Canisius, WVU and Richmond were also destitute when Beilein took over. Your point is objective fact, but mine is subjective "garbage"?In the context of one season, or even 2, JB has been great, but does that make him a great coach? He won a conference championship by 3 games and went 28-9…and still couldn’t beat an 8 seed from a bad conference. 75-72 - that’s the real scoreboard
You’re pointing to a buzzer beater loss to Kentucky in the elite 8 as a mark against Beilein? Really?
You're right, he did beat an SEC team not expected to do much.......by the skin of his teeth.
And the margin in the Kentucky game was not similarly slim? Nope, that was “real scoreboard”.
I didn’t make that argument, I simply provided blind resumes, which support the fact that Davis is at least on the same level as JB. I never claimed the inherited situation at GT should be applied to the debate, I simply tagged on someone else’s observation that Hewitt inherited a mess. Get your facts straight. The only facts I presented are the blind resumes, which support my contention irrelevant of your context, opinion, or whatever term you’d like to label your excuses for JB.
You're right, he did beat an SEC team not expected to do much.......by the skin of his teeth.And the margin in the Kentucky game was not similarly slim? Nope, that was “real scoreboard”.
And the score against KU in the S16 was not similarly slim? Nope, that was JB being a genius. What a joke. You’re going to support an argument premised on JB making the F4 based on pure luck? Really?
It's really hard to say a coach is great unless said coach has a ring. Great implies limited company, I think some are guilty of being much too loose with that term.
So if having a ring is the prerequisite to potentially being a “great coach” we are talking about the following guys:
CoachK (4)
Roy Williams (2)
Billy Donovan (2)
Pitino (2)
Izzo (1)
Calipari (1)
Boeheim (1)
Steve Fisher (1)
Dollar Bill Self (1)
Tubby Smith (1)
Larry Brown (1)
Kevin Ollie (1)
Would Beilein be in the great category had things went differently down the stretch of the Louisville game? Is it that black and white to you? Is Tubby Smith a better coach than Beilein? Fisher? Kevin Ollie? Is Sean Miller not a great coach simply because he hasn’t won one yet? When he wins one (perhaps even this season) is that what makes him great?
Anyways I guess I’ll stop there, thanks for answering the questions…man are you ever miles apart from me on so many of these topics. Not saying I’m right, it’s just crazy how differently you think about hoops than I do.
And the score against KU in the S16 was not similarly slim? Nope, that was JB being a genius. What a joke. You're going to support an argument premised on JB making the F4 based on pure luck? Really?
Not sure if you’re talking to me because I never mentioned any of those things (so spare the exasperation). In fact, your argument supports MY personal opinion which is there is a ton of luck involved with most individual tournament runs and, while I totally agree that coaches are measured on March, it also is an unreliable indicator due to the one and done nature. I do think you can measure general tournament performance in aggregate, and I believe Beilein rates pretty well:
http://wp.bracketscience.com/?p=668
When viewed in context of the schools where he coached when the majority of this data was collected, that looks, dare I say, great?
The question is whether he can now leverage the inherent advantages of a top 10-15 program and truly compete with the big boys. I think he’s off to a pretty tremendous start, with a chance for another golden generation if he can get the '16 class he wants.
So we’ll see. I’ll take my chances with him at the helm.
Guys - great debate, but I think I’ll concede the battle. You think he’s great, I think he’s good. Maybe im wrong, maybe you are right, who the hell really knows. All I know is I’ll be rooting like crazy in roughly a week or so for the maize and blue.