Thinking Bigger

[GP1]

When I was still working in corporate America, I had a business manager once ask me, "What do we do wrong at Company X?". I really didn't like working at that company so I just decided to tell him the truth, which can be a huge problem in corporate America. My response was, "Too many action plans. Not enough action." Being a former General Electric manager, the guy made a funny face as if I called his mother a prostitute. The spread of GE managers into American business has been a disaster for this country, but that is another topic.

Now that I own my own business, I think about that conversation a lot and the fact that business manager is still toiling away for thankless shareholders. I prefer action to action planning. People spend too much time action planning and not enough time in action largely because one mistake in corporate America means getting fired so they have to create the illusion of work without really doing anything. Action plans are a good way to do that. Easily the best survival method.

"Think Bigger" should be replaced with "Act Boldly". Thinking isn't action. Thinking is what you should do before you act. KD has been at this for eight years now. Replace much of the thinking with bold action. He should have been acting more boldly 3-4 years ago when he went past the point where one mistake or a change in Athletic Director would get him fired. It's the perfect position to be in if you want to act boldly.

Will we get more decisive action or will we get more farting around with the rotation for half the season?

Will we get more decisive action or will we get the guy who likes to develop players entirely too slowly?

Will we get more decisive action in terms of staff changes or will we continue to get the same reaffirming ideas?

[Dr Z]

Will we get more decisive action or will we get more farting around with the rotation for half the season? Will we get more decisive action or will we get the guy who likes to develop players entirely too slowly? Will we get more decisive action in terms of staff changes or will we continue to get the same reaffirming ideas?

One of the best predictors of the future is past behavior. "Act Boldly," I like it.

[Dave in Green]

@GP1, I like your thoughts on acting boldly. That's something that should be part of any good action plan. However, I still haven't seen any evidence to prove your oft-stated theory that Coach Dambrot changes the lineup too much for the players he has to work with and doesn't do a good job of developing these players.

An obvious example is Deji, who many on this forum thought would never develop into an effective player. Coach Dambrot kept giving Deji opportunities to perform by putting him in and taking him out of the rotation. Near the end of the season Deji went back into the starting lineup and was one of the team's most effective players. Giving up on Deji early and sitting him at the end of the bench would have hurt the team at the end of the season.

The players are real people with real differences. Coach Dambrot and his staff do a good job of understanding this and developing them at whatever speed each individual is capable of developing and willing to be developed.

[GP1]

doesn't do a good job of developing these players.

I don't say he doesn't develop players. He does. He develops them too slowly and rarely does a player take a big jump in ability from is first year to his second year. I'll put this in terms you understand best.

Assume a player comes to a school and his starting point for his ability is at 1. Over a four year period, his ability increases to a 10. At 1 he is at his starting ability and 10 he is at his ability as a senior. This scale only applies to individuals and is not applied to a group as a comparison between players. Most players improve and that has been the case under KD in most cases.

This is what I would like to see based upon the ability to maximize a player's ability over a four year period and this is what really good coaches get out of players:

Frosh year 1

Soph year 6

Junior year 9

Senior year 10

1 + 6 + 9 + 10 = 26

26/4=6.5 On average, the player functions at 6.5 over a four year period. That's good player development.

The way I see KD is we get:

Frosh year 1

Soph year 4

Junior year 7

Senior year 10

1 + 4 + 7 + 10 = 22

22/4 = 5.5

"But GP1, that's only one point so your math is silly." Is it? The really good coach gets an average of 7.5 out of a player his middle, soph and junior, seasons while the bad player developer is getting the same as his overall average...5.5.

The really good coach gets accelerated performance, accelerated results and better results from his players over a four year period. The poor player developer simply doesn't. I'd also argue that the 10 number reached by the good player developer has gotten more out of his player than the 10 the player under the poor developer gets because if you are bad at development, players never reach a higher potential.

[Dave in Green]

@GP1, I appreciate you making the effort to introduce a numerical system to express your theory. I've never seen that system applied to player development before, so I assume that your average numbers for really good coaches vs. Coach Dambrot are part of your theory as opposed to an actual analysis.

While I respect the fact that this is what you think you've been seeing, there are so many complex details and variables involved in doing a comprehensive analysis of the relative speed of player development from coach to coach that I don't think anyone has ever seriously tried to take on that project.

It's still interesting to speculate about even if it can't be proven or disproven with any degree of confidence. As with any speculation, some will have a tendency to think there could be something to it while others will be more skeptical.

[Zipmeister]

If the superscript function worked the following would be much easier to express.

The numerical example can also be applied to other situations, for example the Ivy league:

frosh year = 5X to the 4th power

Soph year = 20X cubed

junior year = 60X squared

senior year = 120X

[a-zip]

When you guys want to criticize KD on developing players there is one player nobody has factored in to the formulas……do I have to say his name? Hint…..best player on the planet.

[LZIp]

lets change the slogan to "Think like Dayton"

[LZIp]

When you guys want to criticize KD on developing players there is one player nobody has factored in to the formulas……do I have to say his name? Hint…..best player on the planet.

lol. I have to say KD played a very small role in the development of Lebron. He coached him..one or two seasons? And lets not act like Lebron isn't a natural beast.

[Dave in Green]

Right, the players who've developed well under Coach Dambrot are all naturals and the ones who haven't are all his fault.

[UAZip0510]

lol. I have to say KD played a very small role in the development of Lebron. He coached him..one or two seasons? And lets not act like Lebron isn't a natural beast.

I have to say you need to do a little bit more research on Dambrot's influence on LeBron's development.

[Dave in Green]

@LZip, didn't mean to make fun of you. A lot of people aren't familiar with all the fine details about the relationship between LeBron and Coach Dambrot. They first met when LeBron was in the 4th or 5th grade and LeBron was just starting to get interested in basketball after previously playing Pee Wee football. LeBron and his friends started playing basketball at the Jewish Community Center where Keith Dambrot happened to be a volunteer. Coach Dambrot took an interest in LeBron and began teaching him fundamentals. Coach Dambrot was later named head coach of St. V HS, and LeBron ended up electing to play there under his old rec-league coach. They have a close relationship that stretches from the time LeBron first started playing basketball as a little kid to his HS days and beyond. I may not have every detail exactly correct, but that's a pretty fair approximation. I invite you to do your own research.

Their unique relationship was briefly cited by Brian Windhorst in this ESPN story:

James has very few people in his life that he trusts and even fewer that he confides in. There's his small group of friends who double as business partners. There's Lynn Merritt, an executive at Nike who has been with him since he was a teenager. There's William "Wes" Wesley, that hard-to-define advisor who James respects. There's Jay-Z, James' idol/friend. There's Keith Dambrot, his old high school coach who has been one of the few in his life who doesn't tell him what he wants to hear.

Those who want to make the case that Coach Dambrot is not that great of a coach or not that great at developing players or whatever try to downplay all of this. That's fine. But anyone who's tempted to buy into that line should really do their own research. I never ask anyone to trust anything I say. I always suggest that everyone do their own research and not just listen to the smoothest talker. The truth is out there for those who are willing to invest the time to find it on their own.

[Balsy]

Dayton...Dayton, Dayton, Dayton. Now why can't we do that?

[Hilltopper]

Dayton...Dayton, Dayton, Dayton. Now why can't we do that?

They don't flush millions of $$$ on football.

[GP1]

They don't flush millions of $$$ on football.

Nonsense. Some of you are going to have to get over the fact that a new basketball arena isn't going to improve our situation.

Dayton is doing this because they have recruited better players, done a better job of developing their players and they have a better coach. Put all of that together and they get the big wins when they matter.

[Hilltopper]

Nonsense. Some of you are going to have to get over the fact that a new basketball arena isn't going to improve our situation.

Dayton is doing this because they have recruited better players, done a better job of developing their players and they have a better coach. Put all of that together and they get the big wins when they matter.

I didn't say a thing about a new arena. UD spends twice yearly what UA does for basketball, $4mill vs $2mill. They have been outspending UA for the last 20 years or more. If a recruit has a chance to choose between the two schools, which one do you think they will choose. UD has the history and pedigree of big time. UA has no history until KD arrived. Now he needs to work on the pedigree. Rome wasn't built in a day.

[LZIp]

@LZip, didn't mean to make fun of you. A lot of people aren't familiar with all the fine details about the relationship between LeBron and Coach Dambrot. They first met when LeBron was in the 4th or 5th grade and LeBron was just starting to get interested in basketball after previously playing Pee Wee football. LeBron and his friends started playing basketball at the Jewish Community Center where Keith Dambrot happened to be a volunteer. Coach Dambrot took an interest in LeBron and began teaching him fundamentals. Coach Dambrot was later named head coach of St. V HS, and LeBron ended up electing to play there under his old rec-league coach. They have a close relationship that stretches from the time LeBron first started playing basketball as a little kid to his HS days and beyond. I may not have every detail exactly correct, but that's a pretty fair approximation. I invite you to do your own research.

Their unique relationship was briefly cited by Brian Windhorst in this ESPN story:

Those who want to make the case that Coach Dambrot is not that great of a coach or not that great at developing players or whatever try to downplay all of this. That's fine. But anyone who's tempted to buy into that line should really do their own research. I never ask anyone to trust anything I say. I always suggest that everyone do their own research and not just listen to the smoothest talker. The truth is out there for those who are willing to invest the time to find it on their own.

Thanks for the info. Didn't realize how far back it went. It appears I did downplay the exent of the relationship. However, I still believe that myself, you, or about 99% of the people on this forum could have coached Lebron to the NBA. (That doesn't mean we are great coaches or that KD is a bad coach).

What I'm trying to say is using Lebron to make a point for KD makes as much sense to me as using the development of a walk-on as a point against KD. Let's use some more relevant data, not the extreme outliers.

[Dave in Green]

@LZip, you know I have no problem researching data to prove or disprove a point. In the case of measuring how quickly or how well some college basketball coaches develop players compared with other coaches, I've already said that's far beyond my capabilities to determine. In fact, I believe it's beyond anyone's capabilities. There are too many fine details and too many variables to produce an accurate scientific study. How would you even begin to accurately measure the progress of player A under coach X at a school with major resources against player B under coach Y at a school with modest resources?

If it were possible to produce such a study, there should be evidence of one out there somewhere. No such study can be found. All you can find are anecdotal stories about some coaches being good at developing players. They're mostly big name coaches at major programs who tend to get the most talented and most motivated players to begin with. I see no way that anyone can definitively "prove" that Coach Dambrot is either good or mediocre at developing players. It's a classic sports forum debate with no answers and no end.

[GP1]

I didn't say a thing about a new arena. UD spends twice yearly what UA does for basketball, $4mill vs $2mill. They have been outspending UA for the last 20 years or more. If a recruit has a chance to choose between the two schools, which one do you think they will choose. UD has the history and pedigree of big time. UA has no history until KD arrived. Now he needs to work on the pedigree. Rome wasn't built in a day.

Before making a post like this, please at least do a basic Wiki search. Since 1990, Dayton's success can be described as modest at best. Certainly not a top mid major.

If money matters that much, how in the heck did they beat Syracuse yesterday?

I know it's a "building process". That's most of the problem.

[Hilltopper]

Before making a post like this, please at least do a basic Wiki search. Since 1990, Dayton's success can be described as modest at best. Certainly not a top mid major.

If money matters that much, how in the heck did they beat Syracuse yesterday?

I know it's a "building process". That's most of the problem.

2007-08 Brian Gregory 23-11 8-8 NIT Quarterfinals 2008-09 Brian Gregory 27-8 11-5 NCAA 2nd Round 2009-10 Brian Gregory 25-12 8-8 NIT Champions

[Dave in Green]

Looking at the Wikipedia page on Dayton basketball, Dayton is not a perennial national power. They're just a step up from UA, playing in a better conference with a bigger budget and more fan support that helps attract higher level players. In the early years basketball at UD was secondary to football. In 1947 UD made the decision to prioritize basketball. Since then they've had ups and downs, but they've generally played a step above UA. No single factor is responsible for this. But having a strong commitment from those who run the school that basketball is the premier sport at UD is certainly one of many factors.

[GP1]

2007-08

Brian Gregory

23-11

8-8

NIT Quarterfinals

2008-09

Brian Gregory

27-8

11-5

NCAA 2nd Round

2009-10

Brian Gregory

25-12

8-8

NIT Champions

NIT... Makes me yawn. A lot of teams who win the NIT look more excited the season is over than they won. . A win in the first round is good, but a lot of mid majors do that now. North Dakota did it for crying out loud. There are some mid majors who expect to do at least this.

Making money points ignores all of the success mid majors have had against the big boys in recent years. Apologists also like to use it as a deflection from focusing on the real problems.

[Dave in Green]

It's always a sign of weakness when one side starts trying to pin labels like "apologist" on the other side instead of presenting valid data points to support their case. The reality of mid-major success against the big boys is that there are more than 200 mid-major teams and only a few have had success. Those few are played up in the media while the hundreds of teams that don't pull an upset or two are not publicized. The reason they're called upsets is because they happen only infrequently, which is what makes them newsworthy, i.e. dog bites man is not news; man bites dog is.

Many of the mid-major teams that have been the most successful have allocated resources to their basketball teams that are closer to high-major teams than the poorest of the mid-majors. The percentage of mid-majors with modest resources that pull the occasional upset of the big boys is exceedingly small. Resources (including money) are not the only factor. I don't know anyone who claims that. But resources certainly are a factor. Is there anyone who denies that?

Meanwhile, ruminate on these numbers:

3,421 = average attendance at Dayton football home games this season

12,316 = average attendance at Dayton basketball home games this season

[LZIp]

I wonder what came first with some of these programs, on court success or pouring money into the program?

[Dave in Green]

@LZip, I think if you looked at individual programs you'd see different scenarios. We've discussed this many times here over the years. I remember researching Gonzaga. They were slowly building their program up and started having success. But as soon as they did their coach left for another, higher-paying position. School executives met and decided the only way they could have a consistently good program was to significantly increase the budget.

Part of the allocation of more resources was to pay the head coach a high enough salary that he wouldn't leave for a high-major program once he produced a consistently winning program. But it went way beyond that. The school bought a private jet for the coach to use to literally fly around the world to recruit the best players from Europe, South America, Africa and Australia. That's really when Gonzaga ceased being a true mid-major, even though they remained in the decidedly low-rent West Coast Conference, where St. Mary's was their only real challenger year after year.

Butler went through a similar process to Gonzaga, where they made a huge increase in budget far beyond any other team in the Horizon League. They locked in Brad Stevens as head coach with a high-major salary and spent lots of money on all the amenities that the high-major schools have to attract high-major talent. They ended up losing Stevens to the Boston Celtics, and in their first season without him, and now playing in the much tougher Big East, they had their first losing season in years.

Each story is a little different, so you'd have to research each school you're interested in.