"Coaching" vs. "Talent"

[RChildress107]

FFS

you're making the claim that all of Bz's teams had more talent than last years' squad

that is a laughable assertion

CJ Harris as a sophomore vs. Crawford as a sophomore
JT Terrell as a freshman vs. Keyshawn Woods
Gary Clark vs. Austin Arians
Travis McKie as a freshman vs. Mitoglou
Carson Derosiers as a freshman vs. Collins

this is a joke

I’m making the claim that [Redacted]’s teams had a higher combination of experience and perceived talent (coming out of high school) than Manning’s teams until this year.

This is data.

 

[thatguy2016]

I’m making the claim that [Redacted]’s teams had a higher combination of experience and perceived talent (coming out of high school) than Manning’s teams until this year.

This is data.

no

the "scores" you are presenting are not data; they rely on your assumptions regarding experience, star ratings, weighting scores based on minutes played

when a model produces output like one that says "WFU 2011 had more talent than WFU 2017", the model needs an overhaul

 

[RChildress107]

no

the "scores" you are presenting are not data; they rely on your assumptions regarding experience, star ratings, weighting scores based on minutes played

when a model produces output like one that says "WFU 2011 had more talent than WFU 2017", the model needs an overhaul

Feel free to propose a different one.

I made the assumption that recruiting rankings are generally accurate (they are) and that basketball players generally get better with age until their mid to late 20s (they do). My model is admittedly crude since not all 4* are created equally and even moreso for 3* and player progression with age is probably not perfectly linear, even in the aggregate. However, the further down in the recruiting rankings you get, the less accurate they are, so averaging all 3 stars together and all 4 stars together felt somewhat justifiable.

Clearly the 2017 team was more talented than the 2011 team, my model doesn’t say otherwise. My point all along has been that Manning deserves credit for the difference between the team’s talent on paper and its actual talent since it means that he either a great discoverer of talent, a great developer of talent, or both. This model gives him that credit.

My point has also been that on average teams with a higher talent rating under my system will perform better than teams with a lower rating. While not being anything close to a full blown statistical analysis, the limited data represented on this thread seems to support that theory.

 

[bcobbdeacs]

My two cents:
Lefty Drissell(sp) was a great assembler of talent but a mediocre bench coach
Carl Tacy was an indifferent assembler of talent but a very good bench coach

Both were good overall coaches

 

[Complacent Deac]

My two cents:
Lefty Drissell(sp) was a great assembler of talent but a mediocre bench coach
Carl Tacy was an indifferent assembler of talent but a very good bench coach

Both were good overall coaches

Agree.

Those guys were from the Big 80's where the only word that comes to mind is LEGENDS (Dean, Jimmy V, Cremins, Lefty, Terry Holland, Kazooski etc.)

Kind of like 80's NASCAR vs. now (the King, Cale Y., Bobby and Donny A., Earnhardt, David Pearson, Waltrip, Buddy Baker etc.) real characters, not cookie cutter at all.