OT: Geno Rips His Team

[whaler11]

Geno had no problem with the starters in the first quarter.
I don't think Geno did this to intentionally embarrass the backups. They did that on their own.

Based on his comments they met his expectations was my point.

 

[InKembaITrust]

Damn Whaler, you just owned like 6 or 7 dudes on the boneyard.

Usually I feel the effort isn't worth it and give up after my 1st retort.

Props

 

[jibsey]

Brett Gardner is a better baseball player than Babe Ruth in an absolute sense? This is sense-less.

 

[nomar]

I got your point about Phelps. It’s a bit different comparing coaches to athletes because coaching is more similar over time than athletic competition.

It’s easier to compare say Chuck Noll to Bill Belechick than it is to compare Mark Spitz to Michael Phelps.

Brett Gardner is a better baseball
player in an absolute sense than Babe Ruth but clearly Ruth is more accomplished.

Geno is more accomplished than say Gregg Marshall - is he an absolute better coach? Probably but I don’t think the gap is anywhere near the gap in their accomplishments.

I think it’s a lot easier to compare Dean Smith to John Calipari than it is to compare Michael Jordan to Lebron James if your goal is ‘who is better’.

And I agree if you ask me who the ten best athletes of all time are I wouldn’t just name 10 people from the Rio Olympics.

Jibsey hit on this, but I think Babe Ruth would probably be a lot better than Gardner, today. He was so far above the hitters of his era, I have to think he could turn on a 95 MPH fastball and hit good off-speed stuff. Plus, he'd benefit from video scouting, strength training, etc.

 

[whaler11]

Jibsey hit on this, but I think Babe Ruth would probably be a lot better than Gardner, today. He was so far above the hitters of his era, I have to think he could turn on a 95 MPH fastball and hit good off-speed stuff. Plus, he'd benefit from video scouting, strength training, etc.

That’s if Ruth’s DNA was born in 1995, not if you picked him up and dropped him in a game today.

2017 Brett Gardner dropped into the mid 1920’s AL would be ridiculous. He would destroy that league.

 

[nomar]

That’s if Ruth’s DNA was born in 1995, not if you picked him up and dropped him in a game today.

2017 Brett Gardner dropped into the mid 1920’s AL would be ridiculous. He would destroy that league.

I don't think Brett Gardner would put up Babe Ruth's numbers in 1920.

If you went into a time machine, grabbed Babe Ruth, and returned to 2018, put him with a trainer and a nutrition, and showed him what video scouting was, he'd do just fine.

 

[whaler11]

I don't think Brett Gardner would put up Babe Ruth's numbers in 1920.

If you went into a time machine, grabbed Babe Ruth, and returned to 2018, put him with a trainer and a nutrition, and showed him what video scouting was, he'd do just fine.

So you think baseball is immune to what would happen in every other sport?

I know a lot of people think that - but I don’t agree.

 

[nomar]

So you think baseball is immune to what would happen in every other sport?

I know a lot of people think that - but I don’t agree.

Not immune, but when a guy hits more homers than EVERY TEAM but one (which is what happened in 1920), I'm going to say that he was a transcendent talent whose skills would still yield good results today.

 

[TouchdownHusky]

Babe Ruth is a top 10 baseball player to most people. If you dropped 1925 Ruth into the 2017 American League he couldn’t compete.

Which Babe Ruth? The Homerun King? Or the Cy Young Pitcher. Please don't make ridiculous comments like that. Babe Ruth, for those reasons, was the best MLB player to ever have played the game.

 

[whaler11]

Not immune, but when a guy hits more homers than EVERY TEAM but one (which is what happened in 1920), I'm going to say that he was a transcendent talent whose skills would still yield good results today.

So not the sport - just this one guy.

Who was trancendent against a tiny pool of players compared to today.

Who ran up numbers against starting pitchers who didn’t come out of games and didn’t have to worry about advanced defensive shifts etc.

Who had a swing that had him hitting with a windup and hitch off his front foot.

He’d just show up and play better than Brett Gardner.

Maybe I guess. Seems like quite a stretch to me with everything else we know about sports.

 

[nomar]

So not the sport - just this one guy.

Who was trancendent against a tiny pool of players compared to today.

Who ran up numbers against starting pitchers who didn’t come out of games and didn’t have to worry about advanced defensive shifts etc.

Who had a swing that had him hitting with a windup and hitch off his front foot.

He’d just show up and play better than Brett Gardner.

Maybe I guess. Seems like quite a stretch to me with everything else we know about sports.

Right, the guy who twice out-homered almost every team in MLB. He was pretty special!

You've well stated the argument against Babe Ruth excelling today. I think he'd be a lot better than Brett Gardner in any era.

 

[HuskyBandDad]

Damn Whaler, you just owned like 6 or 7 dudes on the boneyard.

Usually I feel the effort isn't worth it and give up after my 1st retort.

Props

Oh great. Just what we need. A bigger Whaler head.

 

[TouchdownHusky]

So not the sport - just this one guy.

Who was trancendent against a tiny pool of players compared to today.

Who ran up numbers against starting pitchers who didn’t come out of games and didn’t have to worry about advanced defensive shifts etc.

Who had a swing that had him hitting with a windup and hitch off his front foot.

Bet his record for 1st trip to the plate was pretty good (maybe someone will Google that). Oh, and he didn't have 25 different ways to scout (i.e., watch tape) of opposing pitchers. Note to Aaron Judge - and Gary Sanchez - the pitchers you face will be throwing sliders, low and away. Again and again and again. Most of those pitches - especially early in the count - will be outside the stike zone. I know this because I watch games and replay after replay. In fact, I gotten so familiar with the pattern, I can practically predict the pitching sequence. So, how about gluing the bat to your shoulder and taking enough pitches that eventually they will have to bring them up into the strike zone. I know this flys in the face of modern day thinking "I don't get paid to walk, I get paid to hit". News flash, you don't get paid to be an automatic out in key situations either.

As for those advanced shifts, here's a thought. Bunt down the third base side (or 1st) of the field til they stop shifting. Think of how many more hits you'd have, how much of a increase in OB % and runs scores. Chicks may dig the long ball, put they are put off by strikout after strikeout or grounding out into the shift 3 to 4 times a game.

 

[TouchdownHusky]

So let's get this straight: kids who don't play a lot got the yips in the game. Yet the second period score wasm16-16 (not at all uncommon in realty based basketball). Should have reamed them at halftime and sent thm back out to see how they responded. Bet that would have made for fairer assessement. I also agree that for the balance of the season, he should put one or two of these players in with his top players and let them have the chance to relax and do their thing.

 

[Sonova]

(Not to knock Calhoun, at all, but we lucked out by getting 3* and 4* guys who stayed 3 or 4 years. He beat better recruiters because they had more turnover.)

What? Thats just absurd. To begin with, we had an equal share of early departures throughout the 90s and 00s. Too many to list actually. You think we “lucked out” because we had older players or lesser players that stayed until graduation? We weren’t Bucknell. Take a look at how many guys we had in the NBA (most of them early entrants). We flipping led all of college basketball at one point. For years we had more guys in the league than any other school. Not sure how you measure “better recruiters,” but it needs some serious calibrating. If you meant to suggest that he was better at evaluating and developing talent...we couldn’t agree more. Aye yae yae.

And John Wooden couldn’t be John Wooden today. That’s a crazy post

 

[Husky68]

Ty Cobb stacked up with the Babe, the Babe Stacked up with Lou G., Lou G. stacked up with Jolting Joe, Jolting Joe stacked up with the Splendid Splinter, the Splendid Splinter stacked up with the Say Hey Kid, the Say Hey Kid stacked up with Reggie, Reggie stacked up with Mike Schmidt, Mike Schmidt staked up with Bonds, Bonds stacked up with Alex Rodriguez, Alex Rodriguez stacked up with Mike Trout.
All these stars mentioned 1st in each group were the equivalent of the new stars (mentioned second) that came in later in their careers. Does it mean Ty Cobb would be as good Mike Trout today, hardly, all it means is that guys who are good can compete (given the same rules) with the guys who came later in their careers who competed well with guys who came later in their careers, etc..
As Oscar once famously said (or maybe not but sounds good) when asked if he could beat Michael Jordon one on one, he pondered for a few seconds and said "I think so, but you know I'm almost 60 now".

 

[mauconnfan]

He also banged a tranny, that has to count for something.

Ok

 

[The Funster]

But what if Geno coached Babe Ruth. How good a basketball player would he be?

 

[joober jones]

That's like complaining about being poor because you only have a few million in the bank.

 

[joober jones]

But what if Geno coached Babe Ruth. How good a basketball player would he be?

Babe Ruth would've been brutal in the old NBL. Had it happened and I weren't born in 1974, I'd have paid top dollar to see it.

 

[nomar]

What? Thats just absurd. To begin with, we had an equal share of early departures throughout the 90s and 00s. Too many to list actually. You think we “lucked out” because we had older players or lesser players that stayed until graduation? We weren’t Bucknell. Take a look at how many guys we had in the NBA (most of them early entrants). We flipping led all of college basketball at one point. For years we had more guys in the league than any other school. Not sure how you measure “better recruiters,” but it needs some serious calibrating. If you meant to suggest that he was better at evaluating and developing talent...we couldn’t agree more. Aye yae yae.

And John Wooden couldn’t be John Wooden today. That’s a crazy post

To be clear, I was talking about 2011 and 2014. Look at those rosters. We had the perfect blend of talent and veterans. That's why we won. If Kemba and Shabazz were 6'6" and we'd have been fortunate enough to get them, they would've been gone after their sophomore years. In other years, we didn't have good upperclassmen, because of the turnover. Caron etc. And that hurt, just like it hurts UK and Duke these days. Nothing beats a veteran guard.

Calapari, Coach K, Williams, Donovan and Self were better recruiters. Not better coaches, but better recruiters. Developing a guy like Hilton Armstrong into a pro makes JC a great developer, not a great recruiter. Calhoun got killed here his last 6-7 years for not doing well enough on the recruiting trail. JC did have a knack of identifying talent (Emeka, Boone, Lamb) but there's an element of luck to that. Gordon was a consolation prize. We wanted Doron, not Jeremy. Fox was the choice over Emeka. Etc.

 

[Sonova]

I don’t know where to begin to disagree so I won’t. You do realize that your definition of good recruiters is synonymous with being at Kentucky, Kansas, Duke, UNC and (even Florida) right? Bill Guthridge got McDs at Carolina.

Yeah, Calhoun got “lucky” for 30 years. Luck is always a part of recruiting but it’s crazy to suggest that he was the beneficiary of excessive luck for that long.

Last thing - the “Calhoun got killed here” argument is pathetic by all who make it. A message board being “angry” in the midst of 2 , a Sweet 16, a Final 8 and a National Championship doesn’t lend much creadence to any argument

 

[Stinger92860]

In all seriousness, what does that have to do with anything?

UConn women’s basketball doesn’t translate to the real world.

I guess the sarcastic coach bouncing between killing the fanbase and then saying their should get their money back is entertaining to a degree - but there isn’t anything to be learned or copied.

They generate a profit and positive cash flow for the university. That should be copied. And the positive press, but besides that, your right, they bring nothing to the table.

 

[whaler11]

They generate a profit and positive cash flow for the university. That should be copied. And the positive press, but besides that, your right, they bring nothing to the table.

I didn’t say they bring nothing to the table and they don’t actually run at a surplus - but other than that you nailed it.

 

[nomar]

I don’t know where to begin to disagree so I won’t. You do realize that your definition of good recruiters is synonymous with being at Kentucky, Kansas, Duke, UNC and (even Florida) right? Bill Guthridge got McDs at Carolina.

Yeah, Calhoun got “lucky” for 30 years. Luck is always a part of recruiting but it’s crazy to suggest that he was the beneficiary of excessive luck for that long.

Last thing - the “Calhoun got killed here” argument is pathetic by all who make it. A message board being “angry” in the midst of 2 , a Sweet 16, a Final 8 and a National Championship doesn’t lend much creadence to any argument

You are either negligently or purposely misreading what I wrote.

I just said I was referring to 2011 and 2014. Not sure how you missed that. I also didn't suggest, let alone say, that Calhoun won because he was lucky. Don't be daft. He was an incredible coach, in all regards. Don't pretend I'm not giving him his due with some BS strawman argument. I've never said a bad word about Calhoun in 18 years of posting here. Pointing out he's not as good a recruiter as Calipari doesn't make me some JC hater.

Your "synonymous" argument is ridiculous. Guthridge rode coattails; he wasn't a great recruiter. Neither was Doherty. Gillespie was nothing special, although I think recruiting was the least of his problems. Donovan made UF what it is. Are you disputing that the guys I named were great recruiters?

Last thing - that wasn't an argument. It was a fact. It wasn't cool to see but it happened.

Not sure who peed in your Cheerios this morning but you're comin' in real hot.