Myth Busting With Facts

[Ricky Del Rio]

What were the records of each team in the first year after the coaching change?

Coach Cohen: 10-19

Coach Thompson: 10-17

Coach Smithson: 14-13

Coach Turgeon: 9-19

[vbird53]

What were the records of each team in the first year after the coaching change?

Coach Cohen: 10-19

Coach Thompson: 10-17

Coach Smithson: 14-13

Coach Turgeon: 9-19

Wow, we're pretty much in that same ballpark. We'll finish with no more than 15 wins this year. Build for the future with Marshall's own recruits.

[Ricky Del Rio]

All,

Thanks for your puts. I was a little fuzzy on players like Marvin Hill.

I have changed the ratings to reflect your ideas and I have added a special category for a very special player, Jason Perez.

Also, I added Ramon Clemente.

Factors such as recentcy, player position, stats and future potential are certainly significant. However, it is too much for my fried brain to figger out a precise, all encompassing and defining formula to bust the myth perfectly.

[Aargh]

Unfortunately, the only yardsticks we have available for measurement are the comparisons between a S16 coach and a number of coaches whose contracts were bought out.

[Fatguy]

Ricky Thank you for trying to put some numbers... facts... rational thinking to this agrument. still difficult to say for sure about the bare cupboard agruement but there is a definite clearer picture now to the past... thanks again... my vote for post of the year!

[rrshock]

I find it interesting that Randy was the only coach with a winning record his first year. I know Perez contributed quite a bit to that, as did his Juco guys he brought with him. Maybe Thompson wasn't that bad at recruiting, but just in knowing how to use those players that he recruited.

[60Shock]

Great effort, Ricky. Gives us at least some measure of how "bare the "
cupboards" have each been in comparison to the departure of our previous coaches.

The obvious fact has been that the following year is not going to be positive. This is, I guess, only natural when a coach gets fired because he hasn't been winning and bringing in average or above average talent. But in MT's case, where a coach is "moving up" to a higher paying job at a larger school, we should expect the remaining talent to carry us over until the new coach establishes his program. Unfortunately, it did not happen.

[wsu789]

Yes, and it didn't happen with Fogler, either. It probably only ever happened with Miller to Gary Thompson.

In regard to the Thompson to Smithson transition, didn't Hill and Arnold both leave almost immediately? It seems like Hill was gone very early and Arnold about a third of the way into the season. They were certainly 3s or 4s before they left, but not on the court under Smithson. For Smithson, they were 0s or 1s. (Similar to Davis and Drumgole for Turgeon.)

The way I recall, the only upper classmen who had any contribution at all that first Smithson year were Darin Miller and Goolsby. Perez was new and the other two contributed little or nothing. I guess this is my long way of saying I think the Thompson to Smithson numbers are way high.

[jdmee]

I would be interested to see the same chart but comparing this years new coaches in the MVC.

[Maggie]

Interesting thread but I agree with those that have stated that simply applying a numeric formula does not tell the entire story.

I am not going to quibble with the ratings too much. However, if you are going to create an extra special category then I think John Cooper belongs there. In my opinion and I could get slammed for this, when healthy Cooper was ever bit as good and probably better than Perez.

[NCAABound]

Interesting thread but I agree with those that have stated that simply applying a numeric formula does not tell the entire story.

I am not going to quibble with the ratings too much. However, if you are going to create an extra special category then I think John Cooper belongs there. In my opinion and I could get slammed for this, when healthy Cooper was ever bit as good and probably better than Perez.

But that's exactly why he can't be listed at the same level as Perez. Cooper definitely could've been "extra special" -- if he were to stay healthy.

[Ricky Del Rio]

Interesting thread but I agree with those that have stated that simply applying a numeric formula does not tell the entire story.

I am not going to quibble with the ratings too much. However, if you are going to create an extra special category then I think John Cooper belongs there. In my opinion and I could get slammed for this, when healthy Cooper was ever bit as good and probably better than Perez.

Yes, I agree. It is an oversight. Thanks.

I loved John Cooper.

[Ricky Del Rio]

Yes, and it didn't happen with Fogler, either. It probably only ever happened with Miller to Gary Thompson.

In regard to the Thompson to Smithson transition, didn't Hill and Arnold both leave almost immediately? It seems like Hill was gone very early and Arnold about a third of the way into the season. They were certainly 3s or 4s before they left, but not on the court under Smithson. For Smithson, they were 0s or 1s. (Similar to Davis and Drumgole for Turgeon.)

The way I recall, the only upper classmen who had any contribution at all that first Smithson year were Darin Miller and Goolsby. Perez was new and the other two contributed little or nothing. I guess this is my long way of saying I think the Thompson to Smithson numbers are way high.

Your comments are interesting.

I think that regardless of how the analysis is sliced or diced, Coach Cohen has the distinction of leaving the cupboard most bare. And that conclusion can almost be reached by casual examination of the players' names, who were inherited by Coach Thompson.

[Maggie]

Interesting thread but I agree with those that have stated that simply applying a numeric formula does not tell the entire story.

I am not going to quibble with the ratings too much. However, if you are going to create an extra special category then I think John Cooper belongs there. In my opinion and I could get slammed for this, when healthy Cooper was ever bit as good and probably better than Perez.

But that's exactly why he can't be listed at the same level as Perez. Cooper definitely could've been "extra special" -- if he were to stay healthy.

I understand that Perez had the better career; however, the rating system that RDR created does not seem to take into account player injury. If it did MB would not have a 4 rating.

It is just my opinion but I think Cooper was "extra special" before the injuries started to take a toll.

[WstateU]

Interesting thread but I agree with those that have stated that simply applying a numeric formula does not tell the entire story.

I am not going to quibble with the ratings too much. However, if you are going to create an extra special category then I think John Cooper belongs there. In my opinion and I could get slammed for this, when healthy Cooper was ever bit as good and probably better than Perez.

But that's exactly why he can't be listed at the same level as Perez. Cooper definitely could've been "extra special" -- if he were to stay healthy.

I understand that Perez had the better career; however, the rating system that RDR created does not seem to take into account player injury. If it did MB would not have a 4 rating.

It is just my opinion but I think Cooper was "extra special" before the injuries started to take a toll.

No question "COOP" was a special player... it was a shame the way his career ended.
I hope my memory is correct? If so, our Sweet 16 run was especially "sweet" for John Cooper.

:good: