Because yall needs stats to prove Painter is...

[mathboy]

Here’s my take on Painter. He can coach the X’s & O’s of basketball very well. But there is something definitely missing. I cannot put my finger on it but I occasionally wonder if he’s not a narcissist. On the surface he seems unable to believe his ways are not the best. Which seems to cause him to never change anything. His relationships with his players come across as business only and somewhat robotic. I.E. I could never see a Painter coached team coming to hug & celebrate with him reaching a Final Four. Those relationships matter...at ALL levels of sports. I see his teams are close, but him not being a part of it. I hope I’m wrong but the years are flying by and every March I watch the same rerun over & over again.

Intrsting take on Painter. I think you need to watch the games in person or be aware of the bench shots. Perhaps, watch the players as the come off the court. I think Painter is pretty close to those guys. It's not huggy-kissy. Players who go through the program emrege as men. Mature, responsible men.

I think Painter forces the kids to take personal responsibility for their actions, their play, and their motivation. He is old school in that way. No, you won't see a bunch of "I'm your buddy" crap going on. This head coach is not there to be your friend. Talk to his ex-players some time. Your perspective will change. They all have strong admiration for him and are pretty close to him.

 

[BoilerBloodline]

Intrsting take on Painter. I think you need to watch the games in person or be aware of the bench shots. Perhaps, watch the players as the come off the court. I think Painter is pretty close to those guys. It's not huggy-kissy. Players who go through the program emrege as men. Mature, responsible men.

I think Painter forces the kids to take personal responsibility for their actions, their play, and their motivation. He is old school in that way. No, you won't see a bunch of "I'm your buddy" crap going on. This head coach is not there to be your friend. Talk to his ex-players some time. Your perspective will change. They all have strong admiration for him and are pretty close to him.

Oh...I’m not saying it is my perspective. I’m simply trying to look from all perspectives. I’ve always said the team owns 60% and the coach own 40% for the outcome of a game. But when factoring in a coach recruiting those players, the owness becomes larger. Painter is a good coach. Unfortunately greatness is weighed by success. To be really precise, Post season success. I don’t mind how Painter coaches his team. I’m implying there is something missing in his style. Whether that has anything to do with my thought, I don’t know. I simply see outrageously great play vs opponents Painter knows vs a not so great record vs those he does not. A perfect example of that simply within the B1G is our home loss to O$U (although he did lose to him when at Butler) and our struggle to beat Illinois...another first year coach. His ways do not seem to translate well when not swimming in known waters.

 

[mathboy]

Oh...I’m not saying it is my perspective. I’m simply trying to look from all perspectives. I’ve always said the team owns 60% and the coach own 40% for the outcome of a game. But when factoring in a coach recruiting those players, the owness becomes larger. Painter is a good coach. Unfortunately greatness is weighed by success. To be really precise, Post season success. I don’t mind how Painter coaches his team. I’m implying there is something missing in his style. Whether that has anything to do with my thought, I don’t know. I simply see outrageously great play vs opponents Painter knows vs a not so great record vs those he does not. A perfect example of that simply within the B1G is our home loss to O$U (although he did lose to him when at Butler) and our struggle to beat Illinois...another first year coach. His ways do not seem to translate well when not swimming in known waters.

Another interesting point. You have pointed out that Painter often struggles against unknown teams, teams he has not faced before. I don't think I had noticed that. Maybe others can confirm.

If your hypothesis is true, then let me add a corollary. Perhaps Painter's teams fail sometimes because there is not the opportunity to scheme against them. In other words, if we have to play a team straight up, we have to depend solely on the skills and athleticism of the players. Maybe (until recently) we don't always get the most skilled players at all positions.

If it is a team we are familiar with, Painter will most often win the chess game and put his team in a better position to win. That's my thinking about the "familiarity advantage" you point out.

 

[Purdue85]

Another interesting point. You have pointed out that Painter often struggles against unknown teams, teams he has not faced before. I don't think I had noticed that. Maybe others can confirm.

If your hypothesis is true, then let me add a corollary. Perhaps Painter's teams fail sometimes because there is not the opportunity to scheme against them. In other words, if we have to play a team straight up, we have to depend solely on the skills and athleticism of the players. Maybe (until recently) we don't always get the most skilled players at all positions.

If it is a team we are familiar with, Painter will most often win the chess game and put his team in a better position to win. That's my thinking about the "familiarity advantage" you point out.

If that's the case, his team should perform better the 2nd time around. Here's a listing of teams we played more than once, with margin of victory:

Butler 1: 15
Butler 2: 15

Rutgers 1: 31
Rutgers 2: 2
Rutgers 3: 7

Michigan 1: 1
Michigan 2: 4
Michigan 3: -9

Maryland 1: 5
Maryland 2: 8

Wisconsin 1: 28
Wisconsin 2: -4

Penn State 1: 3
Penn State 2: 8

Minnesota 1: 34
Minnesota 2: 24

I did that quickly, but I think I got those numbers correct.

It's mixed, but, if anything, there's a trend that Painter's teams perform worse (at least this year) in repeat games.

 

[Yoderboy89]

EVERYONE NEEDS TO KNOW AND ACCEPT THAT OUR B-BALL PROGRAM HAS A CULTURE OF CHOKING.

I DON’T GIVE A RAT’s ass about stats. We are known for choking. And that’s the thing that has to be conquered or nothing else matters.


Painter has not changed that culture.

What will? That’s the only question that needs answered.

 

[BoiledSteel]

EVERYONE NEEDS TO KNOW AND ACCEPT THAT OUR B-BALL PROGRAM HAS A CULTURE OF CHOKING.

I DON’T GIVE A RAT’s ass about stats. We are known for choking. And that’s the thing that has to be conquered or nothing else matters.


Painter has not changed that culture.

What will? That’s the only question that needs answered.

What a seriously ignorant statement. I'd take the time to refute it, but anything I would post would go right over your head.

 

[mathboy]

EVERYONE NEEDS TO KNOW AND ACCEPT THAT OUR B-BALL PROGRAM HAS A CULTURE OF CHOKING.

I DON’T GIVE A RAT’s ass about stats. We are known for choking. And that’s the thing that has to be conquered or nothing else matters.


Painter has not changed that culture.

What will? That’s the only question that needs answered.

I'd say we have an unusually high injury rate at the worst possible times in the NCAA tournament. I really don't think of that as "choking".

I guess if you stand back far enough that the details become less obvious, you could draw the conclusion that we choke. I think you do a disservice to the team and completely miss the real causes, but if you want to say we choke, then who am I to correct a fool?

 

[BoilerBloodline]

Another interesting point. You have pointed out that Painter often struggles against unknown teams, teams he has not faced before. I don't think I had noticed that. Maybe others can confirm.

If your hypothesis is true, then let me add a corollary. Perhaps Painter's teams fail sometimes because there is not the opportunity to scheme against them. In other words, if we have to play a team straight up, we have to depend solely on the skills and athleticism of the players. Maybe (until recently) we don't always get the most skilled players at all positions.

If it is a team we are familiar with, Painter will most often win the chess game and put his team in a better position to win. That's my thinking about the "familiarity advantage" you point out.

Just as an all around Purdue fan asking. With a national championship on the line and Matt Painter at the helm, how high is your confidence level that he will put everyone in the RIGHT MINDSET and draw up the best play for his team to succeed? Now, I ask the exact same question but insert a Jeff Brohm. In one year that man has not only talked the talk, but walked the walk. Delivering at every turn. He knows he is a winner. I’m just not certain that Painter knows that he is as well.

 

[BoilerBloodline]

If that's the case, his team should perform better the 2nd time around. Here's a listing of teams we played more than once, with margin of victory:

Butler 1: 15
Butler 2: 15

Rutgers 1: 31
Rutgers 2: 2
Rutgers 3: 7

Michigan 1: 1
Michigan 2: 4
Michigan 3: -9

Maryland 1: 5
Maryland 2: 8

Wisconsin 1: 28
Wisconsin 2: -4

Penn State 1: 3
Penn State 2: 8

Minnesota 1: 34
Minnesota 2: 24

I did that quickly, but I think I got those numbers correct.

It's mixed, but, if anything, there's a trend that Painter's teams perform worse (at least this year) in repeat games.

I understand why you put that together and I appreciate that you did so. Although I did use O$U & Illinois from this past season, what I’m speaking of seems to really show up when CMP is coaching against a new face (not a coach he is up against regularly) in the NCAA tournament. Cincy, Ark LR, Xavier, Kansas (once when very beatable) , Florida, Uconn, VCU (got crushed) & TT. Those are just the CMP years. Year in and year out we compete at a high level near or at the Top of the B1G (possibly the toughest conference top to bottom) yet when we play teams at our level from other conferences, we seem to falter. I’m simply speculating out loud on this. But since 1981, Purdue has played the exact style of basketball and been a #1 Seed at least twice under Keady and only reached 2 Elite 8’s and we have only reached the Sweet 16 under CMP. That’s a really long time to have damn good teams close to year in and year out not make a Final 4.

 

[PU pit bull]

Just as an all around Purdue fan asking. With a national championship on the line and Matt Painter at the helm, how high is your confidence level that he will put everyone in the RIGHT MINDSET and draw up the best play for his team to succeed? Now, I ask the exact same question but insert a Jeff Brohm. In one year that man has not only talked the talk, but walked the walk. Delivering at every turn. He knows he is a winner. I’m just not certain that Painter knows that he is as well.

Do you not think CMP did the same thing when he took over?

 

[BoilerBloodline]

I understand why you put that together and I appreciate that you did so. Although I used did use O$U & Illinois from this past season, it seems to really show up when CMP is coaching against a new face in the NCAA tournament. Cincy, Ark LR, Xavier, Kansas (once when very beatable) , Florida, Uconn, VCU (got crushed) & TT. Year in and year out we compete at the Top of the B1G (possibly the toughest conference top to bottom) yet when we play teams at our level in their own conferences, we seem to falter. I’m simply speculating out loud on this. But since 1981, Purdue has played the exact style of basketball and been a #1 Seed at least twice under Keady and only reached 2 Elite 8’s and has only been to the Sweet 16 under CMP. That’s a really long time to have good teams nearly year in and year out not make a Final 4.

Do you not think CMP did the same thing when he took over?

He did okay with what he inherited