Mike Anderson - Recruiting, Coaching, Etc.

FWIW if you delete 19-20 (Anderson) and everything before 14-15 (Big Big East), then in the 5 years that are remaining we were basically dead-league average in makes and attempts (average rank 5.6 in makes and 5 in attempts) and a little below average in percentage (average rank 6.5).

So we haven't been as bad as the fan perception is (I am definitely guilty of that) which as noted is probably by comparison to some of the teams we see, but we haven't been good either (with the exception of a few bright spots).

I suspect that this year's team is going to be better than our usual effort on that front if Earlington either continues to make shots or doesn't throw good money after bad if they aren't going in. I expect Williams, Cole, Alexander, and Champagnie to all be capable if not spectacular three-point shooters (hopefully we will get spectacular from Cole, though). If Earlington can shoot some then it could be one of our better years from distance.
 
Last edited:
[quote="lawmanfan" post=396441]FWIW if you delete 19-20 (Anderson) and everything before 14-15 (Big Big East), then in the 5 years that are remaining we were basically dead-league average in makes and attempts (average rank 5.6 in makes and 5 in attempts) and a little below average in percentage (average rank 6.5).

So we haven't been as bad as the fan perception is (I am definitely guilty of that) which as noted is probably by comparison to some of the teams we see, but we haven't been good either (with the exception of a few bright spots).

I suspect that this year's team is going to be better than our usual effort on that front if Earlington either continues to make shots or doesn't throw good money after bad if they aren't going in. I expect Williams, Cole, Alexander, and Champagnie to all be capable if not spectacular three-point shooters (hopefully we will get spectacular from Cole, though). If Earlington can shoot some then it could be one of our better years from distance.[/quote]

Thanks for the numbers you provided. I'm sure as fans we have a distorted view visually. It appears that our opponents make a very high % of wide open 3's we give them, and when we shoot wide open threes maybe we are at the #'s you provided.

A wide open three is like hitting home runs against a batting practice pitcher, or so it seems. I just cant say of all the guys Moose listed, even Harrison, that a wide open look from three was money in the bank. It appears though that when we play a Butler, let's say, we pay dearly for every crisp sequence where the ball gets kicked to a wide open shooter from the perimeter.

It sure as heck isn't in depth analysis, but perhaps there is some truth to it when Mullin didn't have a single team that was consistently good, nor did Lavin outside of maybe parts of year 1. So maybe there is some truth of about knocking down threes when it counts translating to wins, and having a few guys, even a single guy, who was a deadeye shooter when open.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Lavin could recruit but, in no way, could he coach his way out of a paper bag. Watching him "not coach" games made my hair turn gray. Well, turn all the way gray.
 
[quote="OhioFan" post=396477]Lavin could recruit but, in no way, could he coach his way out of a paper bag. Watching him "not coach" games made my hair turn gray. Well, turn all the way gray.[/quote]

I'll say this about Lavin, and I'm pretty sure it's accurate since my seats were close to the court and faced the SJU bench: During timeouts, which he ran, every single kid focused their attention on him. That wasn't the case with some of the other guys we've had in that position. I'm pretty certain that he had all of his kid's respect, and whether that translates to anything in terms of coaching acumen, I'm not sure. I would agree that it translates to something, but not everything. IF he was a total dunce that people try to make him out to be as a coach, he wouldn't command that kind of respect in the huddle. Main problem to me was that our rosters were too short in length, and in depth as well.
 
[quote="Beast of the East" post=396479][quote="OhioFan" post=396477]Lavin could recruit but, in no way, could he coach his way out of a paper bag. Watching him "not coach" games made my hair turn gray. Well, turn all the way gray.[/quote]

I'll say this about Lavin, and I'm pretty sure it's accurate since my seats were close to the court and faced the SJU bench: During timeouts, which he ran, every single kid focused their attention on him. That wasn't the case with some of the other guys we've had in that position. I'm pretty certain that he had all of his kid's respect, and whether that translates to anything in terms of coaching acumen, I'm not sure. I would agree that it translates to something, but not everything. IF he was a total dunce that people try to make him out to be as a coach, he wouldn't command that kind of respect in the huddle. Main problem to me was that our rosters were too short in length, and in depth as well.[/quote]
Maybe he was talking to them about choosing whom among them he would be taking to dinner with him that night. :dry: :unsure: ;) :)
 
[quote="Beast of the East" post=396479][quote="OhioFan" post=396477]Lavin could recruit but, in no way, could he coach his way out of a paper bag. Watching him "not coach" games made my hair turn gray. Well, turn all the way gray.[/quote]

I'll say this about Lavin, and I'm pretty sure it's accurate since my seats were close to the court and faced the SJU bench: During timeouts, which he ran, every single kid focused their attention on him. That wasn't the case with some of the other guys we've had in that position. I'm pretty certain that he had all of his kid's respect, and whether that translates to anything in terms of coaching acumen, I'm not sure. I would agree that it translates to something, but not everything. IF he was a total dunce that people try to make him out to be as a coach, he wouldn't command that kind of respect in the huddle. Main problem to me was that our rosters were too short in length, and in depth as well.[/quote]

Think the kids truly liked Lavin, and respected him to some degree. Lavin is engaging, so it's no surprise to me that he had the kids' attention. Here's the thing, there's a CMA "type of kid". You can see that in his short time here. Kids who will run through a brick wall for him. Lavin took best talent available. Which certainly made for some excitement, but also for a lot of disappointment. Felt like many of Lavin's kids were playing for themselves(auditioning for next level), where as CMA's kids-at least so far-seem to be all about the team.
 
[quote="Beast of the East" post=396474][quote="lawmanfan" post=396441]FWIW if you delete 19-20 (Anderson) and everything before 14-15 (Big Big East), then in the 5 years that are remaining we were basically dead-league average in makes and attempts (average rank 5.6 in makes and 5 in attempts) and a little below average in percentage (average rank 6.5).

So we haven't been as bad as the fan perception is (I am definitely guilty of that) which as noted is probably by comparison to some of the teams we see, but we haven't been good either (with the exception of a few bright spots).

I suspect that this year's team is going to be better than our usual effort on that front if Earlington either continues to make shots or doesn't throw good money after bad if they aren't going in. I expect Williams, Cole, Alexander, and Champagnie to all be capable if not spectacular three-point shooters (hopefully we will get spectacular from Cole, though). If Earlington can shoot some then it could be one of our better years from distance.[/quote]

Thanks for the numbers you provided. I'm sure as fans we have a distorted view visually. It appears that our opponents make a very high % of wide open 3's we give them, and when we shoot wide open threes maybe we are at the #'s you provided.

A wide open three is like hitting home runs against a batting practice pitcher, or so it seems. I just cant say of all the guys Moose listed, even Harrison, that a wide open look from three was money in the bank. It appears though that when we play a Butler, let's say, we pay dearly for every crisp sequence where the ball gets kicked to a wide open shooter from the perimeter.

It sure as heck isn't in depth analysis, but perhaps there is some truth to it when Mullin didn't have a single team that was consistently good, nor did Lavin outside of maybe parts of year 1. So maybe there is some truth of about knocking down threes when it counts translating to wins, and having a few guys, even a single guy, who was a deadeye shooter when open.[/quote]

I think our fans have a deluded view of 3 point shooters. Yes we give up lots but yes we hit our fair share. But this isn't the NBA when the player is wide open its a guarantee and going in.

I think if we have guys hitting somewhere above 37% for the year thats a pretty darn good indicator. I had researching energy before but now I don't. I'm sure someone can find what the team average is across the BE, and NCAA. The problem I personally have is not whether a guy is 35 or 37 or 41 percent. I have a problem when those guys who can't shoot 30% keep throwing 3 after 3 after 3. Know your game.
 
[quote="Moose" post=396483][quote="Beast of the East" post=396474][quote="lawmanfan" post=396441]FWIW if you delete 19-20 (Anderson) and everything before 14-15 (Big Big East), then in the 5 years that are remaining we were basically dead-league average in makes and attempts (average rank 5.6 in makes and 5 in attempts) and a little below average in percentage (average rank 6.5).

So we haven't been as bad as the fan perception is (I am definitely guilty of that) which as noted is probably by comparison to some of the teams we see, but we haven't been good either (with the exception of a few bright spots).

I suspect that this year's team is going to be better than our usual effort on that front if Earlington either continues to make shots or doesn't throw good money after bad if they aren't going in. I expect Williams, Cole, Alexander, and Champagnie to all be capable if not spectacular three-point shooters (hopefully we will get spectacular from Cole, though). If Earlington can shoot some then it could be one of our better years from distance.[/quote]

Thanks for the numbers you provided. I'm sure as fans we have a distorted view visually. It appears that our opponents make a very high % of wide open 3's we give them, and when we shoot wide open threes maybe we are at the #'s you provided.

A wide open three is like hitting home runs against a batting practice pitcher, or so it seems. I just cant say of all the guys Moose listed, even Harrison, that a wide open look from three was money in the bank. It appears though that when we play a Butler, let's say, we pay dearly for every crisp sequence where the ball gets kicked to a wide open shooter from the perimeter.

It sure as heck isn't in depth analysis, but perhaps there is some truth to it when Mullin didn't have a single team that was consistently good, nor did Lavin outside of maybe parts of year 1. So maybe there is some truth of about knocking down threes when it counts translating to wins, and having a few guys, even a single guy, who was a deadeye shooter when open.[/quote]

I think our fans have a deluded view of 3 point shooters. Yes we give up lots but yes we hit our fair share. But this isn't the NBA when the player is wide open its a guarantee and going in.

I think if we have guys hitting somewhere above 37% for the year thats a pretty darn good indicator. I had researching energy before but now I don't. I'm sure someone can find what the team average is across the BE, and NCAA. The problem I personally have is not whether a guy is 35 or 37 or 41 percent. I have a problem when those guys who can't shoot 30% keep throwing 3 after 3 after 3. Know your game.[/quote]

Yea, I agree that as fans it appears our guys miss all the open threes and opponents make all. IT's distorted from a fan's view and I agree with your numbers.
 
[quote="Monte" post=396481][quote="Beast of the East" post=396479][quote="OhioFan" post=396477]Lavin could recruit but, in no way, could he coach his way out of a paper bag. Watching him "not coach" games made my hair turn gray. Well, turn all the way gray.[/quote]

I'll say this about Lavin, and I'm pretty sure it's accurate since my seats were close to the court and faced the SJU bench: During timeouts, which he ran, every single kid focused their attention on him. That wasn't the case with some of the other guys we've had in that position. I'm pretty certain that he had all of his kid's respect, and whether that translates to anything in terms of coaching acumen, I'm not sure. I would agree that it translates to something, but not everything. IF he was a total dunce that people try to make him out to be as a coach, he wouldn't command that kind of respect in the huddle. Main problem to me was that our rosters were too short in length, and in depth as well.[/quote]

Think the kids truly liked Lavin, and respected him to some degree. Lavin is engaging, so it's no surprise to me that he had the kids' attention. Here's the thing, there's a CMA "type of kid". You can see that in his short time here. Kids who will run through a brick wall for him. Lavin took best talent available. Which certainly made for some excitement, but also for a lot of disappointment. Felt like many of Lavin's kids were playing for themselves(auditioning for next level), where as CMA's kids-at least so far-seem to be all about the team.[/quote]

I guess the point is it wasn't so much his coaching as his inability to recruit talented bigs and a deep bench, and fanned on all the 5 stars he tried to recruit. It wasn't that he didn't coach enough - he didn't recruit enough for a guy who isn't a great bench coach, or for anyone really.

CMA has a system for certain, the Nolan Richardson system. Annoy the hell out of opponents on defense, wear them down, and push the ball up court. Lack of high level talent in his system will only get him so far.
 
[quote="OhioFan" post=396477]Lavin could recruit but, in no way, could he coach his way out of a paper bag. Watching him "not coach" games made my hair turn gray. Well, turn all the way gray.[/quote]

Couldn’t “coach his way out of a paper bag “ yet has a .630 career winning percentage better than all current Big East coaches besides Jay Wright and Mike Anderson (but has a way better NCAA Tourney record than Anderson).
 
[quote="PharmDJohnnie11" post=396521][quote="OhioFan" post=396477]Lavin could recruit but, in no way, could he coach his way out of a paper bag. Watching him "not coach" games made my hair turn gray. Well, turn all the way gray.[/quote]

Couldn’t “coach his way out of a paper bag “ yet has a .630 career winning percentage better than all current Big East coaches besides Jay Wright and Mike Anderson (but has a way better NCAA Tourney record than Anderson).[/quote]

I don't think Calipari is a particularly good coach, but he's probably going to be the all-time wins leader and have an .800 win percentage when he retires.
 
[quote="SJUNC" post=396541]Maybe he is better than you think ?[/quote]

The missing piece here is what do we mean by "a good coach?" Just results is one measure. Good tactician is another.

Calipari is very, very good in a Phil Jackson sort of way. His genius is in getting players to play for him (also in getting players, period). Almost every year he has an almost-entirely new roster of players who were all The Man in high school. And every year he gets them to play together and win a lot of games. He may not be the best tactician (although honestly I think he's a bit underrated there because of all the focus on the talent he brings in), but the results are the results.

Lavin is sort of Calipari Lite. Not as good a recruiter, also not as good of a coach. And there's only so far recruiting can take you if you can't coach at all.

Izzo and Coach K are complete package, of course.

For a high level tactician but maybe not so much recruiter, you could look at Beilein. (Obviously he recruited well at Michigan, but it's Michigan which makes it easier - but he won everywhere else, too). Or Buzz Williams.
 
Yeah, unfortunately at the time of Jakarr's highlight reel dunk in Q1 this morning they were off on a tangent and it got nary a mention much less a replay.
 
[quote="L J S A" post=396522][quote="PharmDJohnnie11" post=396521][quote="OhioFan" post=396477]Lavin could recruit but, in no way, could he coach his way out of a paper bag. Watching him "not coach" games made my hair turn gray. Well, turn all the way gray.[/quote]

Couldn’t “coach his way out of a paper bag “ yet has a .630 career winning percentage better than all current Big East coaches besides Jay Wright and Mike Anderson (but has a way better NCAA Tourney record than Anderson).[/quote]

I don't think Calipari is a particularly good coach, but he's probably going to be the all-time wins leader and have an .800 win percentage when he retires.[/quote]

I disagree on this. The more and more I see of him the more one should appreciate how good a coach he really is. And specifically his defensive coaching. His teams starting at UMASS just were always nasty defensively. And if you ask his contemporaries they will tell you he gets his teams prepared as well as anyone.
 
[quote="fordham96" post=396600]

I disagree on this. The more and more I see of him the more one should appreciate how good a coach he really is. And specifically his defensive coaching. His teams starting at UMASS just were always nasty defensively. And if you ask his contemporaries they will tell you he gets his teams prepared as well as anyone.[/quote]

Agree. Nobody is going to compare his coaching to Bobby Knight, but it's a very different time and a very different game. But it's not correct to say "well he's just a great recruiter" (legitimately or otherwise) and stop there. If you watch the games, he does make a lot of the right adjustments. He knows how to get talent, how to use that talent, how to get those players to play together, and his coaching puts them in a position to win on a regular basis.

People may lose sight of the fact that he's almost never coaching a group of 3-year or 4-year players who have had a lot of experience in his system and can do it for themselves to some extent. Not easy taking a bunch of one-and-dones and getting them all on the same page all the time.
 
[quote="lawmanfan" post=396606][quote="fordham96" post=396600]

I disagree on this. The more and more I see of him the more one should appreciate how good a coach he really is. And specifically his defensive coaching. His teams starting at UMASS just were always nasty defensively. And if you ask his contemporaries they will tell you he gets his teams prepared as well as anyone.[/quote]

Agree. Nobody is going to compare his coaching to Bobby Knight, but it's a very different time and a very different game. But it's not correct to say "well he's just a great recruiter" (legitimately or otherwise) and stop there. If you watch the games, he does make a lot of the right adjustments. He knows how to get talent, how to use that talent, how to get those players to play together, and his coaching puts them in a position to win on a regular basis.

People may lose sight of the fact that he's almost never coaching a group of 3-year or 4-year players who have had a lot of experience in his system and can do it for themselves to some extent. Not easy taking a bunch of one-and-dones and getting them all on the same page all the time.[/quote]
Cal teams despite so many big ego one & done types always defend, not an easy task.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Agreed. Cal consistently gets kids who plan to stay in college 1 or 2 years maximum, and have every incentive to develop/showcase their offensive game, to play defense and buy into that end of the court. It's underrated what he does consistently in that regard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top