The CardBoard
My letter to Bernard Muir - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: My letter to Bernard Muir (/thread-9088.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Re: My letter to Bernard Muir - 76lsjumb - 04-09-2015

(04-09-2015, 07:53 PM)winflop link Wrote:[quote author=Publius link=topic=12000.msg116456#msg116456 date=1428627802]
Dawkins is a good recruiter and appears to be better at individual development than team development

What planet does this come from?  IMnsHO Dawkins has been below average on individual development and has absolutely sucked on team development.
[/quote]

Well, from Planet Nastic, Planet Powell, Planet Huestis, and, for that matter, Planet Randle and even Planet Fields, and, although it's still a little far out and hard to see, perhaps even Planet Humphreys.

It's always a little dicey to attribute individual development, since there are a number of factors that may have made things click.  Could be personal work [the article about Nastic makes it sound like that was big for him]; could be an assistant coach; could be the head coach; or could be something else.  Nevertheless, anyone who actually attended games over the past several years would have to concede [if not simply committed to a storyline regardless of evidence] that each of those players ended up being a lot better than when they started [and, in Fields case, when he played prior to Dawkins taking over], at least in terms of their individual skills and ability to contribute.  Powell as a freshman could hardly stay on the court he fouled so quickly, so much, and so...inartfully -- and he missed more dunks than anyone I can think of.  Nastic is nothing short of a miracle.  Randle, of course, became the all-time leading scorer despite frequently not being [talent-wise] the best guard on the court.  Even Humphreys [prior to being injured] went from almost wholly ineffective to a "double-double" machine [okay, perhaps a little hyperbolic  ;D ] this season.

Team development, though, not so much.  What impressed me about the NCAA tourney teams was that they moved the ball around with much greater confidence and precision.  Frankly, it didn't seem to me that many of the offenses really looked that different from Stanford's, but the decisions were faster, the screens were more forceful, and the passes were more precise.  That is what the team seems to be missing. 

That, and fans who actually attend the games...

Re: My letter to Bernard Muir - winflop - 04-10-2015

(04-09-2015, 08:31 PM)76lsjumb link Wrote:[quote author=winflop link=topic=12000.msg116463#msg116463 date=1428634421]
[quote author=Publius link=topic=12000.msg116456#msg116456 date=1428627802]
Dawkins is a good recruiter and appears to be better at individual development than team development

What planet does this come from?  IMnsHO Dawkins has been below average on individual development and has absolutely sucked on team development.
[/quote]

Well, from Planet Nastic, Planet Powell, Planet Huestis, and, for that matter, Planet Randle and even Planet Fields, and, although it's still a little far out and hard to see, perhaps even Planet Humphreys.

It's always a little dicey to attribute individual development, since there are a number of factors that may have made things click.  Could be personal work [the article about Nastic makes it sound like that was big for him]; could be an assistant coach; could be the head coach; or could be something else.  Nevertheless, anyone who actually attended games over the past several years would have to concede [if not simply committed to a storyline regardless of evidence] that each of those players ended up being a lot better than when they started [and, in Fields case, when he played prior to Dawkins taking over], at least in terms of their individual skills and ability to contribute.  Powell as a freshman could hardly stay on the court he fouled so quickly, so much, and so...inartfully -- and he missed more dunks than anyone I can think of.  Nastic is nothing short of a miracle.  Randle, of course, became the all-time leading scorer despite frequently not being [talent-wise] the best guard on the court.  Even Humphreys [prior to being injured] went from almost wholly ineffective to a "double-double" machine [okay, perhaps a little hyperbolic  ;D ] this season.

Team development, though, not so much.  What impressed me about the NCAA tourney teams was that they moved the ball around with much greater confidence and precision.  Frankly, it didn't seem to me that many of the offenses really looked that different from Stanford's, but the decisions were faster, the screens were more forceful, and the passes were more precise.  That is what the team seems to be missing. 

That, and fans who actually attend the games...
[/quote]

So on average one player out of every recruiting class is a competent starter.  That's not good enough.  It's a part of why the benches have been so shallow and injuries that every team faces have had a bigger impact on Stanford.  Finally, I give you Planets Harris, Bright, Gage, Mann, Verhoeven, Sanders, and Rimmer - all scholarship players who to one extent or another could be called busts.  Not to mention there isn't a single non-scholarship in this era who has ever contributed in a material way.

Don't get me started on getting what talent is there to play as a cohesive unit...

Re: My letter to Bernard Muir - winflop - 04-10-2015

Three years in and neither of them can get meaningful court time?  I know Verhoeven was injured for most of the season but when he was playing he looked completely lost and at least a half-step slow.

Curious to understand what you've seen out of them.  If either of them is getting significant minutes next year this team will be sub-.500

Re: My letter to Bernard Muir - washingtonismoney - 04-10-2015

Not sure why you categorize Randle as a guy who's been developed well by Dawkins. If anything I think he's been a bit of a disappointment. Randle's still more a pure scorer than he is an all-purpose point guard, and I don't see a ton of skills -- offensive or defensive -- that he didn't have as a freshman.

I'd put Nastic, Huestis and Fields as the "good work there!" examples of Dawkins's development. That's...not terribly good from an overall perspective. Particularly when Dawkins has been such a strong recruiter, Muir's protests notwithstanding. (Literally: Muir's protests are unable to stand.)

Re: My letter to Bernard Muir - Bruce Wang - 04-10-2015

(04-09-2015, 07:53 PM)winflop link Wrote:[quote author=Publius link=topic=12000.msg116456#msg116456 date=1428627802]
Dawkins is a good recruiter and appears to be better at individual development than team development

What planet does this come from?  IMnsHO Dawkins has been below average on individual development and has absolutely sucked on team development.
[/quote]

Possibly the same planet as you.  If you read my wording carefully, you will see that it does not contradict your opinion.  "below average" is better than "absolutely sucked".

My opinion of Dawkins's success individual player development is higher than yours.  Powell and Huestis did get drafted.  Nastic has improved considerably.  Randle broke the all-time scoring record.

Re: My letter to Bernard Muir - CompSci87 - 04-10-2015

Some of the development of the top players is down to the private coaches they individually hire to work with in the off season. The college staff only gets a limited amount of time they're allowed to work with players. So citing a few examples of players who've improved greatly over their four years doesn't necessarily prove the head coach is good at individual player development. There needs to be a pattern where most players improve steadily.

Re: My letter to Bernard Muir - Leftcoast - 04-10-2015

I cheered bringing in an AD with a basketball pedigree but now I'm not so sure.  Perhaps Muir's time at Georgetown, Brown, Notre Dame and Delaware taught him the wrong lessons. 

Perhaps he truly believes that Stanford should be content with a scrappy team, a sleepy arena and an occasional black swan Sweet 16 appearance. 

After all, Muir wasn't here when Stanford basketball mattered.  Only FANS remember walking into Maples before a critical UofA or UConn showdown and feeling an electric atmosphere of anticipation.  FANS remember beating Duke and being ranked #1 for most of two seasons.  FANS believe that game day at Maples can matter nationally once again.

Doesn't matter.  Until MUIR believes Stanford basketball can matter again we never will.


Re: My letter to Bernard Muir - terry - 04-10-2015

(04-09-2015, 06:03 PM)Publius link Wrote:Bernard Muir.  You had one job.  Fix MBB.

No, Muir doesn't have just one job. He has a number of important priorities: run a clean program, graduate athletes, manage the budget, keep the administration happy, keep admissions happy, cultivate donors, hire and fire coaches in all sports, manage the athletic department staff. Hiring or firing the men's basketball coach is an important part of the job. But I wouldn't put it in Muir's top 3 or 4 priorities.

Re: My letter to Bernard Muir - Bruce Wang - 04-10-2015

Muir inherited an athletic department in great shape.  Of course, he has lots of things to do, but they are generally of a caretaker nature.  Fixing MBB is Muir's biggest opportunity and challenge.  That's why I exaggerated to describe it as his only job.  He should embrace it as a chance to make his mark rather than just accepting the status quo and making excuses.  Very un-Stanford.

Re: My letter to Bernard Muir - CTcard - 04-10-2015

(04-09-2015, 11:10 AM)terry link Wrote:I just got a call from Muir. At least he's listening.

Terry - I suspect from your silence that you don't want to say anything more about your conversation than that. But just in case, is there anything more you would say and/or would you characterize your conversation any differently than winflop characterizes his?

Of course I understand if you don't wish to answer.

Re: My letter to Bernard Muir - fullmetal - 04-10-2015

Going to a seminar with Muir as the speaker in 15 min.  Send questions my way if you want.

Re: My letter to Bernard Muir - washingtonismoney - 04-10-2015

"What are your expectations for Stanford basketball? Over a five year period with an average coach, how often should Stanford reach the tournament?"

Re: My letter to Bernard Muir - BostonCard - 04-10-2015

When evaluating head coaches, what metrics do you use to gauge whether they are effective?  What are the most important attributes and measureables?

BC

Re: My letter to Bernard Muir - winflop - 04-10-2015

(04-10-2015, 09:40 AM)garvin link Wrote:Sanders was out his entire sophomore season with an injury. This season he was behind Chasson Randle, which severely limited his minutes. But he got into 35 games and was certainly no mere mop-up guy. Let's see what happens next year. As for Verhoeven, he started four games this season before getting hurt. I doubt he's ever going to be our main man at the post, but he still might be a valuable bench player, which is not at all the same thing as "complete bust."

Most of this season Cartwright backed up Randle at PG, not Sanders (11.1 min/gm vs 7.8).  When Sanders was out there he looked like a deer in the headlights - horribly overmatched at both ends of the court.  The offense went completely stagnant when he was running it.

Bust.

Re: My letter to Bernard Muir - winflop - 04-10-2015

(04-10-2015, 01:42 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:Going to a seminar with Muir as the speaker in 15 min.  Send questions my way if you want.

Probably too late, but "How many more years of not making the NCAAs do you expect the few remaining MBB fans to tolerate?"

Re: My letter to Bernard Muir - fullmetal - 04-10-2015

Looks like he's been making a lot of phone calls about this.  He had his answer rehearsed and ready to go, which basically was comprised of the following points:

1. College basketball has changed.  We can't really compete with other programs to get those transfers, McD A-A's, or otherwise top recruits who are one-and-done talents necessary for success.
2. MBK isn't in terrible shape--we're not at the 1-11 level that football was.  No need to panic.
3. MBK was a few FTs+missed shots from winning more games that would have put us in the Big Dance.  We were in contention with the committee until the last minute.  (Muir worked the committee this year, I think.)
4. It's not Dawkins's fault.

So pretty much nothing new. 

AD initiatives are the $3500 living expenses stipend for scholarship student-athletes, the nutritionist, the sport psychologist (this year or next), and expanding food options for student-athletes.  I might have recorded his talk--we'll see if technology failed me.  But he focused a lot about improving the student-athlete experience and also improving the fan/alumni experience.  Apparently we've sold 30k season tickets for the '15 campaign, and he's also working on bringing that to the 33k sell-out level.  Lots of branding talk and core messages of the external relations/marketing team.

Re: My letter to Bernard Muir - BostonCard - 04-11-2015

I'd like to see Muir challenged on the idea that college basketball has materially changed because of the one-and-done rule, especially outside of the top 5 teams or so.  If anyone has access to the data, it would be very instructive to find out whether the game really has changed or not.  The NBA changed its draft rules in 2005 (starting in the 2006 draft), which was the first to disallow students to go straight from high school to the NBA.  But there were never that many players (between 2001 and the change in the rules, only 28 players, or about 6 a year, went straight from high school to the NBA).  It is hard for me to believe that having an additional 6 or so players in college who would have been in the NBA would make that dramatic of an impact, beyond the Kentucky's and Duke's of the world being that much better than everyone else.  But, for example, Utah and Oregon made it to the NCAA tournament this year; do either of them have a one-and-done?  (I assume Arizona does, does UCLA)

So, here is the analysis I'd love to see.  First off, since 2000 (capturing both before and after the rule change), how many freshmen have declared for the NBA draft each year?  How many in the Pac-10/12.  Secondly, since 2000, what proportion of Pac-10/Pac-12 teams had at least one freshman declare for the NBA draft each year?  Finally, what proportion of NCAA tournament teams had a freshman declare for the NCAA draft each year?  My guess is that the numbers have no changed dramatically, and that the "one-and-done" while probably relevant in the final four (though again, Wisconsin would be an exception, no?), is probably not relevant to teams expected to be seeded 4 - 10, which is I think is what we can reasonably expect for the team most years.

A decade ago, when the administration was adamant that admissions standards had not changed for athletes at Stanford, a few enterprising individuals looked at the data and proved that admissions requirements had, in fact, gone up during the Mamlet era.  That brought about important change that made our recent success in football possible.  This may be a similar case, where we are tolerating mediocrity because we lack the data to see otherwise.

BC

Re: My letter to Bernard Muir - fullmetal - 04-11-2015

Garvin, I also met Peter Bhatia '75 :)

Re: My letter to Bernard Muir - winflop - 04-11-2015

(04-10-2015, 10:51 AM)CompSci87 link Wrote:There needs to be a pattern where most players improve steadily.

This for me is probably the biggest contrast between the Dawkins and prior eras.  The hit an miss on player development is really shocking.  Averaging only one success per year is about the same as Dawkins' win rate in close games - nowhere near good enough.

Re: My letter to Bernard Muir - winflop - 04-11-2015

(04-10-2015, 05:24 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:Looks like he's been making a lot of phone calls about this.  He had his answer rehearsed and ready to go, which basically was comprised of the following points:

1. College basketball has changed.  We can't really compete with other programs to get those transfers, McD A-A's, or otherwise top recruits who are one-and-done talents necessary for success.
2. MBK isn't in terrible shape--we're not at the 1-11 level that football was.  No need to panic.
3. MBK was a few FTs+missed shots from winning more games that would have put us in the Big Dance.  We were in contention with the committee until the last minute.  (Muir worked the committee this year, I think.)
4. It's not Dawkins's fault.

1.  How many McD AA's did Montgomery recruit?  Probably no more than 5 (Jacobsen, Childress, Collins twins).  Montgomery got everything he could out of his rosters, and then some.  How many AA's did each of this year's Sweet Sixteen teams have?  I bet there were a handful who had NONE.

2.  MBB is in terrible shape - look no further than season ticket sales and Sixth Man attendance.

3.  MBB has been a few missed shots from making/missing the Dance each of the last five years.  At some point you have to ask yourself if that's good enough.  Yes, Muir was on the committee and Stanford was the Next Four Out.

4.  If the last five years of MBB aren't Dawkins' fault then whose fault are they?  You can't keep making the same excuses for him year after year.