Painter Adjustments

[lylegolf72]

Longtime lurker but rarely post...I'm not a Painter basher actually quite the opposite but I keep mulling over his greatest area for improvement. He really worked this past offseason on offensive style and handling the press.

- Recruiting - balancing offense vs defense and basketball skills vs athleticism

- Rotation - playing the matchups and getting the right lineup on the floor, situational substitutions

- Coaching Style - watching other elite coaches they often throw in wrinkles that throw off the other teams rhythm

Thoughts?

 

[Do Dah Day]

He is somewhere around the 15th best coach in the nation - more or less - based on his body of work. He has flaws ... so do every other coach in existence. His flaws are less than about 335 other D1 coaches (351 NCAA D1 teams). PU is not a blue-blood - not Painter's fault. There are 26 5-star players in this years recruiting class. Ten are guards. We won't get any. Not Painter's fault. Can he get better? Sure, every one of US can get better at what we do. Life long learning. Has he shown willingness to improve? I think he has. Would I take a chance on a coach who has shown he has some ability to coach at a higher level? Assuming Painter is a top 16 coach - HELL NO. Why? to risk becoming a top 32 team when we are a top 16 team? really?

 

[nagemj02]

Longtime lurker but rarely post...I'm not a Painter basher actually quite the opposite but I keep mulling over his greatest area for improvement. He really worked this past offseason on offensive style and handling the press.

- Recruiting - balancing offense vs defense and basketball skills vs athleticism

- Rotation - playing the matchups and getting the right lineup on the floor, situational substitutions

- Coaching Style - watching other elite coaches they often throw in wrinkles that throw off the other teams rhythm

Thoughts?

He will really have to improve in all three areas (of your highlighted topics), especially Coaching Style.

 

[lylegolf72]

Do Dah Day

I wasn't complaining but rather interested in which area you think would help him get to the next level. I really think he can get us there but like you say each coach has his flaws. There was a time in Painters tenure when I thought we would never avg 83 pts / game but he has proved me wrong.

 

[Do Dah Day]

Do Dah Day

I wasn't complaining but rather interested in which area you think would help him get to the next level. I really think he can get us there but like you say each coach has his flaws. There was a time in Painters tenure when I thought we would never avg 83 pts / game but he has proved me wrong.

OK. No problem ... my take is that he is doing the best he can with recruiting. I could write paragraphs, but wont. Rotation: I agree that often coaches know when 19/20 year old kids need a blow and they don't agree. I think he's fine with that. Style: sure, he is dedicated to certain aspects and not open to others (at least up to this point), so I will vote for style. More because I think he is fine with the other two rather than that he NEEDS to improve his style.

 

[TheBoris]

- Coaching Style - watching other elite coaches they often throw in wrinkles that throw off the other teams rhythm

Thoughts?

I'll address Coaching Style. The college coach for whom I have the most loathing is Rick Pitino. He is a cheater, a goon, a liar and an asshole. But his genius is that he keeps the opponent off balance all the time.

Defense is man-to-man then 3-2 zone then man then full court press exactly at the time that it makes no sense then 1-3-1 then man again. After about 15 minutes in the first half, the opposing point guard is more worried about what they're doing next than the offense that he's supposed to be running.

To a lesser extent, Pitino's offense is the same - - - continuous change. Offense is working well, change it anyway.

It takes guts to change something when what you are doing right now is working well. But that's why it's successful. When the opponent adjusts to what you have been doing well, you're then doing something else.

 

[ChoiceBeef]

I do agree on mixing it up on defense. Not saying traditional zone but maybe a matchup zone? Agree with pressing and trapping. Granted these things require the right kind of athletes who can do it.

I do believe Painter has become better at making adjustments and will continue to get better.

 

[lylegolf72]

There are more ways to mix up your defense than simply changing to a zone. Painter can still switch up his D within man to man.

- pressure man
- pack the paint man
- defending the pick n roll style
- man to man matchup changes
- sag off certain players
- double teams

 

[rustcr]

He is somewhere around the 15th best coach in the nation - more or less - based on his body of work. He has flaws ... so do every other coach in existence. His flaws are less than about 335 other D1 coaches (351 NCAA D1 teams). PU is not a blue-blood - not Painter's fault. There are 26 5-star players in this years recruiting class. Ten are guards. We won't get any. Not Painter's fault. Can he get better? Sure, every one of US can get better at what we do. Life long learning. Has he shown willingness to improve? I think he has. Would I take a chance on a coach who has shown he has some ability to coach at a higher level? Assuming Painter is a top 16 coach - HELL NO. Why? to risk becoming a top 32 team when we are a top 16 team? really?

There are several reasons to keep Painter at this point, but risk of getting a worse coach should never be a reason. You judge a coach based on expectations and performance and go from there.

 

[Lionheart1]

Today Carolina mixed it up with a zone to throw Kentucky off just enough. I think it's smart to have that option available.

 

[JohnnyDoeBoiler]

Longtime lurker but rarely post...I'm not a Painter basher actually quite the opposite but I keep mulling over his greatest area for improvement. He really worked this past offseason on offensive style and handling the press.

- Recruiting - balancing offense vs defense and basketball skills vs athleticism

- Rotation - playing the matchups and getting the right lineup on the floor, situational substitutions

- Coaching Style - watching other elite coaches they often throw in wrinkles that throw off the other teams rhythm

Thoughts?

Painter's main issues come in the form of in game substitution patterns. You saw it last season against UALR with a lineup that had never played together trying to break a press with no point guards on the floor. You saw it again against Iowa State as well.

It seems as though Painter had made adjustments but that when the pressure is on, he tends to revert. Not unlike anyone else who struggles in pressure situations..you will revert back to what is comfortable. Over time he may get that issue corrected but at this point, it may just be one of the weaknesses CMP had as a coach.

 

[boiler-deuce]

Painter's main issues come in the form of in game substitution patterns. You saw it last season against UALR with a lineup that had never played together trying to break a press with no point guards on the floor. You saw it again against Iowa State as well.

It seems as though Painter had made adjustments but that when the pressure is on, he tends to revert. Not unlike anyone else who struggles in pressure situations..you will revert back to what is comfortable. Over time he may get that issue corrected but at this point, it may just be one of the weaknesses CMP had as a coach.

We already fully grasp that being a good "game coach " is the capacity to make adjustments to other coaches adjustments in minutes not days. You must recognize, process and decide quickly, unless you are really good and have accurately predicted a move your opposing coach has made. I think Painter is weak in this area.

 

[mryankee2397]

the teams that are moving on have been able to mix up their defensive schemes for at least part of the game. painter has to evolve from his man to man all the time or we wont be more than a sweet sixteen team.

 

[Dakota Girl]

Longtime lurker but rarely post...I'm not a Painter basher actually quite the opposite but I keep mulling over his greatest area for improvement. He really worked this past offseason on offensive style and handling the press.

- Recruiting - balancing offense vs defense and basketball skills vs athleticism

- Rotation - playing the matchups and getting the right lineup on the floor, situational substitutions

- Coaching Style - watching other elite coaches they often throw in wrinkles that throw off the other teams rhythm

Thoughts?

Rotation - this is limited by your personnel. If you have players with length, athleticism, and skill, as well as lots of them, you can be very good at always having the right combinations in the game. If you have players with only some these assets you won't always be able have the best matchups. Compared to Rutgers we are terrific at controlling matchups but against Kansas fair much worse.
Coaching Style - You will need to define wrinkles. The biggest complainers rarely know what they are actually seeing out there so think this one through (there are several who do get it though). Again, the players capabilities determine how many things a coach can do and the players able to do it well
Recruiting - as you have likely surmised, I think this is the key to the other two areas. Do I think Roy Williams or bill Self could come in here as Purdues coach and out recruit Painter? Yes. Do I think the young less known versions of those same coaches could? No.
I think we are where we will be +/- 2 rounds of tournament performance at the extremes.
Could a new coach make a difference. Maybe 40 or 50 years ago with luck and money commitment. Now? I doubt it. Definitely not without huge financial outlays and a do anything to win, including looking the other way, approach by the school.

 

[Dryfly88]

For me it's very simple: Recruiting

Everything else we talk about is predicated on getting the best players possible. Can you catch lightening in a bottle (George Mason), of course. But that isn't going to happen very often. You need to win a bunch of games in the regular season, get a high seed, and then have the horses to make a 6 game run. That takes talent and recruiting is essential.

I've been one that has supported CMP and his overall contributions to our school. I like the way he runs a program. If we are going to get to the levels I dream about for my school however, recruiting needs to pick up.

 

[lbodel]

For me it's very simple: Recruiting

Everything else we talk about is predicated on getting the best players possible. Can you catch lightening in a bottle (George Mason), of course. But that isn't going to happen very often. You need to win a bunch of games in the regular season, get a high seed, and then have the horses to make a 6 game run. That takes talent and recruiting is essential.

I've been one that has supported CMP and his overall contributions to our school. I like the way he runs a program. If we are going to get to the levels I dream about for my school however, recruiting needs to pick up.

I mean, there's a lot of "inbetween" when it comes to what you're talking about.

Tom Izzo's last 2 Final Fours/deep runs past Sweet 16 came as #4, #5 and #7 seeds. The last three as a #1, 2 or 3? Hasn't gotten past the Sweet 16.

People keep creating these rules for making deep runs in the tournament - there's no such thing. There are SO many factors involving your original draw (ask Villanova this year), how your draw develops (ask Florida who did not face a single better seed than them), etc. Look at our history - how many times have we gotten to to avoid that #1/#2 seed our situations? Hasn't happened one time. The best situation for what we've seen is to avoid the #1 seed and be in that #2 seed slot - but depending on the year/draw, #2 seeds can be just as tough.

I'd just point out that the options are not just "catch lightning in a bottle" ala George Mason and being a perennial #1/2 seed.

 

[nagemj02]

To me, Coaching Style and Rotation would trump Recruiting (staying with OP's three main topics regarding Painter) with him because I can imagine a scenario where he would have two five-star types on a team, surrounded by mostly four-star type players, and he and his staff still wouldn't have the goods to get that team to a Final Four or further.

 

[nagemj02]

I mean, there's a lot of "inbetween" when it comes to what you're talking about.

Tom Izzo's last 2 Final Fours/deep runs past Sweet 16 came as #4, #5 and #7 seeds. The last three as a #1, 2 or 3? Hasn't gotten past the Sweet 16.

People keep creating these rules for making deep runs in the tournament - there's no such thing. There are SO many factors involving your original draw (ask Villanova this year), how your draw develops (ask Florida who did not face a single better seed than them), etc. Look at our history - how many times have we gotten to to avoid that #1/#2 seed our situations? Hasn't happened one time. The best situation for what we've seen is to avoid the #1 seed and be in that #2 seed slot - but depending on the year/draw, #2 seeds can be just as tough.

I'd just point out that the options are not just "catch lightning in a bottle" ala George Mason and being a perennial #1/2 seed.

#7 seed Gonzaga beat #2 seed Stanford in 2000, allowing #6 seed Purdue to play and beat #7 seed Gonzaga

 

[Dryfly88]

I mean, there's a lot of "inbetween" when it comes to what you're talking about.

Tom Izzo's last 2 Final Fours/deep runs past Sweet 16 came as #4, #5 and #7 seeds. The last three as a #1, 2 or 3? Hasn't gotten past the Sweet 16.

People keep creating these rules for making deep runs in the tournament - there's no such thing. There are SO many factors involving your original draw (ask Villanova this year), how your draw develops (ask Florida who did not face a single better seed than them), etc. Look at our history - how many times have we gotten to to avoid that #1/#2 seed our situations? Hasn't happened one time. The best situation for what we've seen is to avoid the #1 seed and be in that #2 seed slot - but depending on the year/draw, #2 seeds can be just as tough.

I'd just point out that the options are not just "catch lightning in a bottle" ala George Mason and being a perennial #1/2 seed.

Fair enough on the GM reference, but I was using that to illustrate the rarity of someone coming from a very low seed to the final four.

Back to the topic: Your bolded statement is the problem. No one, including me has said that it is a "rule" that you have to be a high seed to make the final four. Obviously it's not a rule, it's just a fact that you have a much better chance the higher your seed. I have posted links giving the stats on this for the past 32 years. You can give exceptions to this (like PU) but it doesn't change the fact that if you are a #1 or #2 seed you have a better chance of making the final four and winning the title than lower seeds.

My point was/is that by recruiting better you give yourself a chance to get one of those high seeds and thus give yourself the best chance to go farther in the tournament. That is why I selected recruiting from the list the OP provided.

 

[tjreese]

Longtime lurker but rarely post...I'm not a Painter basher actually quite the opposite but I keep mulling over his greatest area for improvement. He really worked this past offseason on offensive style and handling the press.

- Recruiting - balancing offense vs defense and basketball skills vs athleticism

- Rotation - playing the matchups and getting the right lineup on the floor, situational substitutions

- Coaching Style - watching other elite coaches they often throw in wrinkles that throw off the other teams rhythm

Thoughts?

There is NOTHING new under the sun. Coaches borrow from each other all the time. Colleges are filled with different coaching styles, but I think I would be very confident in a statistical study if it were possible (nto enough data to make it possible though without all teh confounding) to show the greatest sum of squares in the model would be in recruiting. 100% sure that recruiting would be the biggest source of variation with all the sources of error, interactions and minor main effects. The "error" within "recruiting" would be in the evaluation of "recruiting" and would deviate some amount from "star power" in magnitude, but not direction.

Give a team enough talent under the conditions at the time and coaching style is insignificant. Rotation is highly subjective. It can be based upon a lot of things and well thought out and just not work out.

Now none of this is to diminsh the role of rotations or coaching styles and there must be some better than others...but that bad style, rotations that mystify fans can all fall within a winning team if enough talent. Now defining "talent" and defining it under the conditions that it will be evaluated may be a little blurry, but make no mistake if you don't hae the horses you are more often than not beat the teams with the horse when the game is important enough for the horse to run hard...

 

[mathboy]

When you look at this year's team, and make conclusions about adjustments, I think very few are taking into consideration of how thin we were at the front line. Most of Painter's adjustments and strategy revolved around protecting those 3 players he had. Lose one: Vince, Haas, or Biggie, and the whole complexion of Purdue's strategy would change.

The PG situation was handled well enough with PJT and Spike. Carson, Cline, and Mathias did well enough at SG, with Mathias playing the 3 role sometimes. I hesitate to use the numbers on the positions since they are mostly meaningless. I think you can see that the limited number of players available this year really handicapped Painter, and what he could do with this team. Actually, he did a masterful job keeping everyone fresh, while winning 27 games.

 

[Dakota Girl]

To me, Coaching Style and Rotation would trump Recruiting (staying with OP's three main topics regarding Painter) with him because I can imagine a scenario where he would have two five-star types on a team, surrounded by mostly four-star type players, and he and his staff still wouldn't have the goods to get that team to a Final Four or further.

And this tells me that you have never coached anything.
A team lacking speed, length, athleticism, and skill will rarely defeat one with those attributes regardless of the X's and O's. the major exception is when a coach loses the trust and belief of his team such as Indiana this year.

 

[z_one]

And this tells me that you have never coached anything.
A team lacking speed, length, athleticism, and skill will rarely defeat one with those attributes regardless of the X's and O's. the major exception is when a coach loses the trust and belief of his team such as Indiana this year.

You really believe that our team lacked all of those attributes? Our team was a match up nightmare for most of the teams we faced this year.

 

[tjreese]

When you look at this year's team, and make conclusions about adjustments, I think very few are taking into consideration of how thin we were at the front line. Most of Painter's adjustments and strategy revolved around protecting those 3 players he had. Lose one: Vince, Haas, or Biggie, and the whole complexion of Purdue's strategy would change.

The PG situation was handled well enough with PJT and Spike. Carson, Cline, and Mathias did well enough at SG, with Mathias playing the 3 role sometimes. I hesitate to use the numbers on the positions since they are mostly meaningless. I think you can see that the limited number of players available this year really handicapped Painter, and what he could do with this team. Actually, he did a masterful job keeping everyone fresh, while winning 27 games.

Foul trouble..injury...the front line was always a concern for me

 

[tjreese]

You really believe that our team lacked all of those attributes? Our team was a match up nightmare for most of the teams we faced this year.

If this Purdue team was 5-10 years ago...it would have been a nightmare for most teams

 

[Dakota Girl]

You really believe that our team lacked all of those attributes? Our team was a match up nightmare for most of the teams we faced this year.

No. At no point in my statement "A team lacking speed, length, athleticism, and skill will rarely defeat one with those attributes regardless of the X's and O's." did I use the word Purdue.
I in fact believe that Purdue has many of those attributes. I don't think Purdue currently possesses any one player with all of those attributes. Do you? The point of the discussion is that I don't believe that a team, any team, with a deficit in those attributes is going to consistently overcome those deficits with coaching maneuvers. You can counter a few areas in which you are lacking but the wider the attribute gap the less likely this becomes, no matter how brilliant you may be.

 

[z_one]

No. At no point in my statement "A team lacking speed, length, athleticism, and skill will rarely defeat one with those attributes regardless of the X's and O's." did I use the word Purdue.
I in fact believe that Purdue has many of those attributes. I don't think Purdue currently possesses any one player with all of those attributes. Do you? The point of the discussion is that I don't believe that a team, any team, with a deficit in those attributes is going to consistently overcome those deficits with coaching maneuvers. You can counter a few areas in which you are lacking but the wider the attribute gap the less likely this becomes, no matter how brilliant you may be.

I would say that Vince comes the closest to having all those attributes. Carsen is minus the length.

 

[Dakota Girl]

I would say that Vince comes the closest to having all those attributes. Carsen is minus the length.

Agree. Vince only loses a comparison to the future NBA types and hopefully for him he gets there too.
Carsen lacks the length but man he has the speed and skill. He nice learns, look out.

 

[tjreese]

No. At no point in my statement "A team lacking speed, length, athleticism, and skill will rarely defeat one with those attributes regardless of the X's and O's." did I use the word Purdue.
I in fact believe that Purdue has many of those attributes. I don't think Purdue currently possesses any one player with all of those attributes. Do you? The point of the discussion is that I don't believe that a team, any team, with a deficit in those attributes is going to consistently overcome those deficits with coaching maneuvers. You can counter a few areas in which you are lacking but the wider the attribute gap the less likely this becomes, no matter how brilliant you may be.

...and you and I are pretty brilliant

 

[Dakota Girl]

...and you and I are pretty brilliant

Ha! I keep telling my wife that...she's not buying in.

 

[BuilderBob6]

Foul trouble..injury...the front line was always a concern for me

And Haas and Biggie did a GREAT job staying out of foul trouble. Not a ton of stupid fouls. Some fans complained they didn't challenge enough......or Haas needed to be much more aggressive. There was a reason and it worked out pretty good.
Good point about injury. We were one high ankle sprain away from being screwed.

 

[nagemj02]

"Give a team enough talent under the conditions at the time and coaching style is insignificant."


That's not true very often. Just this season alone, tell that to coaches like John Calipari, Mike Krzyzewksi, Bill Self, Sean Miller, Steve Alford, Jay Wright, Leonard Hamilton, and Rick Pitino. Or with some of the teams that were considered underachievers this season, tell that to Kevin Ollie, Shaka Smart, or Tom Crean (if you can find him).

 

[nagemj02]

And this tells me that you have never coached anything.
A team lacking speed, length, athleticism, and skill will rarely defeat one with those attributes regardless of the X's and O's. the major exception is when a coach loses the trust and belief of his team such as Indiana this year.

This team had some speed, length, and athleticism (ex's: CE and Smotherman). You're making excuses for the coaches.

Also, I have coached before.

 

[BuilderBob6]

This team had some speed, length, and athleticism (ex's: CE and Smotherman). You're making excuses for the coaches.

Also, I have coached before.

A freshman and a player that ate his way through a redshirt year and couldn't stay on the team. How did we lose a game with all that athleticism?

I'll be nice and choose to ignore the last comment.

 

[nagemj02]

A freshman and a player that ate his way through a redshirt year and couldn't stay on the team. How did we lose a game with all that athleticism?

I'll be nice and choose to ignore the last comment.

You act like players like Vince Edwards, Caleb Swanigan, and Isaac Haas have no athleticism at all. That would be selling them short.

In the spirit of this thread as it pertains to Purdue, changing and improving their Coaching Style is my choice as the most urgent need for this staff. Recruiting isn't too far behind and then Rotation would be my third choice.

Also, I doubt you could do much more (if more at all) as a coach than myself.

 

[TwinDegrees2]

Longtime lurker but rarely post...I'm not a Painter basher actually quite the opposite but I keep mulling over his greatest area for improvement. He really worked this past offseason on offensive style and handling the press.

- Recruiting - balancing offense vs defense and basketball skills vs athleticism

- Rotation - playing the matchups and getting the right lineup on the floor, situational substitutions

- Coaching Style - watching other elite coaches they often throw in wrinkles that throw off the other teams rhythm

Thoughts?

My thoughts and I ask that no one take offense.....Matt Painter is coaching at Purdue, which is a great institution for higher academic learning....but it is not now, nor ever has been, somewhere top talent is going to consistantly come to play basketball. First, the academics are tougher and expected, second it's not a destination for the kind of players the schools I mention later come to. I think Painter at another institution where academics are less, and where it's a known basketball school, would do much better. Put him at Kentucky, South Carolina, Cincy, Kansas, Louisville, UNC, Florida, or even Texas.....he'd get more of the cream of the crop, he'd win more games, and his teams would be more consistent in post-season play.

I think he's doing well in all three aspects you mentioned...maybe as best he can do where he is.

Just my honest thoughts.

 

[TwinDegrees2]

"Give a team enough talent under the conditions at the time and coaching style is insignificant."


That's not true very often. Just this season alone, tell that to coaches like John Calipari, Mike Krzyzewksi, Bill Self, Sean Miller, Steve Alford, Jay Wright, Leonard Hamilton, and Rick Pitino. Or with some of the teams that were considered underachievers this season, tell that to Kevin Ollie, Shaka Smart, or Tom Crean (if you can find him).

Don't be surprised to see Crean stay in Bloomington the rest of the year. His son is on the IU baseball team and he was at the women's NIT game yesterday supporting the women.

 

[z_one]

My thoughts and I ask that no one take offense.....Matt Painter is coaching at Purdue, which is a great institution for higher academic learning....but it is not now, nor ever has been, somewhere top talent is going to consistantly come to play basketball. First, the academics are tougher and expected, second it's not a destination for the kind of players the schools I mention later come to. I think Painter at another institution where academics are less, and where it's a known basketball school, would do much better. Put him at Kentucky, South Carolina, Cincy, Kansas, Louisville, UNC, Florida, or even Texas.....he'd get more of the cream of the crop, he'd win more games, and his teams would be more consistent in post-season play.

I think he's doing well in all three aspects you mentioned...maybe as best he can do where he is.

Just my honest thoughts.

No offense to you, I've heard these excuses before and I just don't buy it. Other than obvious bluebloods. Purdue has more to offer than Cincy or South Carolina. Since when did East Lansing become a destination except for Izzo and an AD that knew what he was doing. Cameron versus Mackey? Notre Dames ACC? Lol. I'm tired of people selling Purdue short. Look at what Few has done at Gonzaga. Anyone think Gonzaga has more resources than Purdue? It's a tired old argument that is nothing but an excuse for not climbing the mountain.

 

[BuilderBob6]

You act like players like Vince Edwards, Caleb Swanigan, and Isaac Haas have no athleticism at all. That would be selling them short.

In the spirit of this thread as it pertains to Purdue, changing and improving their Coaching Style is my choice as the most urgent need for this staff. Recruiting isn't too far behind and then Rotation would be my third choice.

Also, I doubt you could do much more (if more at all) as a coach than myself.

 

[tjreese]

"Give a team enough talent under the conditions at the time and coaching style is insignificant."


That's not true very often. Just this season alone, tell that to coaches like John Calipari, Mike Krzyzewksi, Bill Self, Sean Miller, Steve Alford, Jay Wright, Leonard Hamilton, and Rick Pitino. Or with some of the teams that were considered underachievers this season, tell that to Kevin Ollie, Shaka Smart, or Tom Crean (if you can find him).

********************
here is some more of what was said. Read it a few times..particularly on what is "said" as opposed to what you want to be said...and think about it. if you don't get it in a day or so, let me know and I'll explain it. In addition to teh following, do you really think that VCU team was lacking talent or just that Shaka was not quite the success before or after as outliers as his shining moment? Crean won and lost with what some would call good recruits. Anyway...here is most of what you could have quoted and pay attention to the recruiting information on good recruits ...
"
There is NOTHING new under the sun. Coaches borrow from each other all the time. Colleges are filled with different coaching styles, but I think I would be very confident in a statistical study if it were possible (nto enough data to make it possible though without all teh confounding) to show the greatest sum of squares in the model would be in recruiting. 100% sure that recruiting would be the biggest source of variation with all the sources of error, interactions and minor main effects. The "error" within "recruiting" would be in the evaluation of "recruiting" and would deviate some amount from "star power" in magnitude, but not direction.

Give a team enough talent under the conditions at the time and coaching style is insignificant. Rotation is highly subjective. It can be based upon a lot of things and well thought out and just not work out.