ClayK said:
For me, the real metric for a coach -- which is impossible to quantify -- is how close the team came to its potential.
No team gets 100% of its potential, and no team gets 0%. The difference, though, lies in the margins.
And there are other factors too. Some coaches are better with marginal talent; some coaches are better with elite talent. It's not a simple job.
But if you look at the talent on the team, and the turnover in the roster, how many more wins should Charmin have had?
And more important, how many coaches who are available to Cal could have done better?
Potential is subjective. What is potential based on? A scouting analyst's report? My analysis of a player? Your analysis. So what is the baseline potential, a subjective whim of someone. That someone is likely biased in some way or another.
Rather than look at, "...how close the team came to its potential.", perhaps one should look at the canvas (blank) Charmin handed herself at the beginning of the season and what she painted. Is last year and this year her potential?
I feel when one watches Cal WBB that frustrations are heightened when college women are consistently and regularly making basic fundamental mistakes. Mistakes that have been drilled since middle school. I tend to not get that frustrated because while I don't feel ~ most nights ~ they play to their "potential" they are pretty close. They are close enough to their ceiling.
Do I feel Charmin would have a better record with the Louisville or Duke players? Yeah, I do. No idea what her
potential to have better records then those teams current coaches, that would be subjective.
