|
Post by Phaedrus on Apr 2, 2019 10:13:47 GMT -5
sloanreview.mit.edu/audio/how-much-do-coaches-actually-matter/?utm_medium=adv&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=counterpoints&fbclid=IwAR3cl12WDioGl5t4uORTKLE_FXjM6kuMAAAcSRcwBBwU30xn35kmiyS5EwYBill Snyder at Kansas State. Eddie Robinson at Grambling. Mike Krzyzewski at Duke. Gregg Popovich with the Spurs. It’s hard to underestimate the impact these coaches have had on their organizations. But are coaches always an X factor? Just look at the Golden State Warriors. Dominating as they have been under Steve Kerr’s steady guiding hand, they have been every bit as successful — actually statistically even more successful — during Kerr’s two extended absences from the team when Luke Walton and then Mike Brown (not exactly Hall of Fame coaches) took the helm. Which brings us to the question of the day: How much do coaches actually matter? Well, two researchers from the University of Chicago just might have the answer.Their conclusions might surprise you, given the present day ethos. Their methodology takes a lot of getting used to and understand.
|
|
|
Post by sgtschultz on Apr 2, 2019 10:49:22 GMT -5
Coaches matter. A group of talented athletes can have their abilities driven backwards when they have a dingleberry as their coach.
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on Apr 2, 2019 10:51:18 GMT -5
I'm an autodidact so I would like to say coaches don't matter, but I suspect they do, mostly because players are under 30 and when you're under 30, you're stupid. You do stupid things. You believe in stupid ideas. You follow your stupid friends. Even your laugh is kind of ridiculously stupid.
|
|
|
Post by bigfan on Apr 2, 2019 11:03:56 GMT -5
I'm an autodidact............... I thought you were a polymath
|
|
|
Post by Winbabywin on Apr 2, 2019 11:14:06 GMT -5
A few years ago,John Calipari was asked if it was hard to coach such talented athletes and make them into a cohesive team. He replied, "You wanna know what's hard? Coaching bad players, that's hard" I agree completely that coaches matter; however, if you put Russ, Cook, Wise, Dunning, Wooden, Coach K...name the legend, with a team that has no talent, those players may get better, but they ain't winnin. PLAYERS win and lose games (pretty sure Bobby Knight said that)
|
|
|
Post by Phaedrus on Apr 2, 2019 11:32:23 GMT -5
From the interview.
Anthony Fowler: Coaches matter a lot. We found that coaches across basketball, football, baseball, and hockey account for something like 20-30% of the variation in their team’s success.
Ben Shields: Now, that’s a fascinating finding, but it’s a much different conclusion from the existing literature on coaches, which suggests that coaches are interchangeable.
|
|
|
Post by Winbabywin on Apr 2, 2019 11:42:46 GMT -5
I guess you could look at the 2 aspects of coaching: Practice vs. Games Coaches are much more influential and important in practice, preparing players to be their best. But once it comes to game time, I would (unscientifically) predict that coaches have very little outcome on the result of a game. Obviously, there are some end-of-game scenarios, a brilliant play call or substitution, that could affect things, but overall, players win and lose games. A coach might win a moment, but not an entire game.
|
|
|
Post by boh on Apr 2, 2019 11:59:44 GMT -5
I'm an autodidact so I would like to say coaches don't matter, but I suspect they do, mostly because players are under 30 and when you're under 30, you're stupid. You do stupid things. You believe in stupid ideas. You follow your stupid friends. Even your laugh is kind of ridiculously stupid. I'd like to think the average person isn't stupid anymore before 30, but there are a lot of people that are stupid forever so that probably brings the average age way up. But what if the coach is one of those people that is stupid too, then the coach doesn't matter....so much stupid makes it hard to decide
|
|
|
Post by sisyphus on Apr 2, 2019 12:06:08 GMT -5
I listened to this podcast when it was released and really enjoyed it. Interesting research and perspectives.
|
|
|
Post by hammer on Apr 2, 2019 13:28:12 GMT -5
I tend to think it is more than just coaches, although they are one part of the puzzle. Probably the best word is organization, and to be effective a school must build a good one that operates with effective and streamlined processes. Good organizations are self-critical and have the ability to collect data about their behavior and are empowered to make decisions to improve their results.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2019 14:02:50 GMT -5
I'm an autodidact............... I thought you were a polymath No. He's from California. Polymaths are from those small Utah towns. Duh.
|
|
|
Post by Brutus Buckeye on Apr 2, 2019 14:06:37 GMT -5
If the coaches are the ones recruiting the talent, then they matter quite a bit.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Apr 2, 2019 14:22:21 GMT -5
If the coaches are the ones recruiting the talent, then they matter quite a bit. The study seems to have been done of pro leagues, which have an entirely different dynamic than college teams.
|
|
|
Post by vup on Apr 2, 2019 14:25:55 GMT -5
It varies.
|
|
|
Post by azvolleydad on Apr 2, 2019 15:18:37 GMT -5
If the coaches are the ones recruiting the talent, then they matter quite a bit. This.
|
|