On your first not sure I understand it ..
the variable rating +/- is an adj score based on that team's raw talent (raw talent is determined by combining PER, or average PER, + ratings from various people sources. giving us both a "valuable" opinion to balance out the PER). vs it's success or failure (in conference, in tourney, in non conf) and then adj into a value that equals points.
On point two. You are correct. Izzo was an example I used earlier. He doesn't do well with a team built of blue chips. He is though phenomenal with teams built of role players. Coach K doesn't either, he seems to fall just under his expectations when he has pro talent teams. He's better when he has a good mix and especially an experienced mix. the opposite also holds true. Roy William needs, absolutely needs, a cookie cutter lineup. When he has one, he's ranked one and tends to equal those expectations. Give him an average Pg, or any other missing piece and he's having a bad year.
Yea, this rating isn't magical or scientific, it's a starting point and a different perspective. This is my standard disclaimer. It adds to what you know about a coach, and if you followed for years it starts showing these types (what you just mentioned) trends. Everyone mentioned as a good coach today has a positive rating. So it fits our perspective. I would also bet most coaches perceived as bad, also rate badly.
There's no real epiphanies or anything here and very few surprises. What surprises me is Self being a +1.5 which is usually reserved for mid major coaches, and Fisher rating top 10. But if I use the same logic to say Bo Ryan is top 3 and I apply that logic to the two mention, well. It fits. Self doesn't have down years even when his talent is down. He can coach role teams, and star filled teams equally well.
On your last, "exactly". The coaching variable was created to add to preseason predictions. It wasn't meant to be a coaching rating, exactly. To make a decent coaching rating from it - it needs to be combined with an SOS weighted winning %, after all that is the major goal.
This post was edited on 3/16 7:46 PM by Guy_Fawkes
the variable rating +/- is an adj score based on that team's raw talent (raw talent is determined by combining PER, or average PER, + ratings from various people sources. giving us both a "valuable" opinion to balance out the PER). vs it's success or failure (in conference, in tourney, in non conf) and then adj into a value that equals points.
On point two. You are correct. Izzo was an example I used earlier. He doesn't do well with a team built of blue chips. He is though phenomenal with teams built of role players. Coach K doesn't either, he seems to fall just under his expectations when he has pro talent teams. He's better when he has a good mix and especially an experienced mix. the opposite also holds true. Roy William needs, absolutely needs, a cookie cutter lineup. When he has one, he's ranked one and tends to equal those expectations. Give him an average Pg, or any other missing piece and he's having a bad year.
Yea, this rating isn't magical or scientific, it's a starting point and a different perspective. This is my standard disclaimer. It adds to what you know about a coach, and if you followed for years it starts showing these types (what you just mentioned) trends. Everyone mentioned as a good coach today has a positive rating. So it fits our perspective. I would also bet most coaches perceived as bad, also rate badly.
There's no real epiphanies or anything here and very few surprises. What surprises me is Self being a +1.5 which is usually reserved for mid major coaches, and Fisher rating top 10. But if I use the same logic to say Bo Ryan is top 3 and I apply that logic to the two mention, well. It fits. Self doesn't have down years even when his talent is down. He can coach role teams, and star filled teams equally well.
On your last, "exactly". The coaching variable was created to add to preseason predictions. It wasn't meant to be a coaching rating, exactly. To make a decent coaching rating from it - it needs to be combined with an SOS weighted winning %, after all that is the major goal.
This post was edited on 3/16 7:46 PM by Guy_Fawkes
