Opinion Chris Scott's coaching - Part II [NEW POLL ADDED]

[JumpyHolden]

Scott is the best coach in the AFL, according to Mike Sheehan

http://www.geelongcats.com.au/news/2017-07-17/sheahan-praises-scott

“This bloke has a win rate of higher than 70 per cent. No one in the history of the game, with a completed career has had a 70 per cent win rate. He’s got a superior record to Alastair Clarkson head to head...”

Yeah but like Mike says, Scott was gifted the 2011 flag in which case the win rate percentage is distorted. Any coach given the players he was given is a chance of achieving what Scott has.
He may have a superior head to head record against Clarkson but that means SFA, same as Bucks having a better head to head record against Scott, come back and brag when he has a better grand final record than Clarkson. Matter of fact I reckon Clarkson will develop that team and win another flag before Scott does at Geelong.

 

[Spazz Cat]

This is an hilarious argument and is the perfect example of selective stats being used to prove a point. Why did we finish 3rd in 2014 then? No danger!!! Perhaps we had a bad year in 2015 but no it is all dangerfield that accounts for the difference according to you. PLEASE!!!

Selective stats I've used like say, record amount of Brownlow votes, Leigh Mathews trophy, Carji, most inside 50's and metres gain ever. 10th to 2nd.
Wow those stats are so ambiguous.
While all you can do is say 3rd in 2014.
Strange how when other teams stars fall away or retire then fall down the ladder they are in decline.
But then with us it was just a bad year.
Amazing! It almost doesn't seem real.
Surprised we even bothered to recruit Danger when we're going to bounce straight back up to 3rd again without him.
Icing player I guess.

 

[catempire]

Selective stats I've used like say, record amount of Brownlow votes, Leigh Mathews trophy, Carji, most inside 50's and metres gain ever. 10th to 2nd.
Wow those stats are so ambiguous.
While all you can do is say 3rd in 2014.
Strange how when other teams stars fall away or retire then fall down the ladder they are in decline.
But then with us it was just a bad year.
Amazing! It almost doesn't seem real.
Surprised we even bothered to recruit Danger when we're going to bounce straight back up to 3rd again without him.
Icing player I guess.

Look up "outlier" in the dictionary Spazz.

 

[romeohwho]

Selective stats I've used like say, record amount of Brownlow votes, Leigh Mathews trophy, Carji, most inside 50's and metres gain ever. 10th to 2nd.
Wow those stats are so ambiguous.
While all you can do is say 3rd in 2014.
Strange how when other teams stars fall away or retire then fall down the ladder they are in decline.
But then with us it was just a bad year.
Amazing! It almost doesn't seem real.
Surprised we even bothered to recruit Danger when we're going to bounce straight back up to 3rd again without him.
Icing player I guess.

Danger makes a significant difference but we aren't sitting 2nd on the ladder because of one player are we Spazz? Just one of those changes is presumably his presence helps enable others to craft their skills a bit more, let alone the modelling of behaviour/attitudes etc.

 

[goyoucatters]

Yeah but like Mike says, Scott was gifted the 2011 flag in which case the win rate percentage is distorted.

It's farcical to suggest that you can get a more objective read on someone's overall performance by excluding results that are legitimately part of their record.

But it's also in perfect keeping with the spirit of Blighty to ignore factual information that doesn't suit the cherry-picking agenda that is being pursued.

So, just to demonstrate how 'distorted' our coach's record really is, here's an analysis of Scott's coaching career with 2011 conveniently excised from history.

Chris Scott's overall winning percentage is 72.15% (113-2-43), making him the coach with the best winning percentage in VFL/AFL history (of coaches who have coached more than 80 games).

So, when you exclude 'the gift' that was 2011 (22W-0D-3L), his winning percentage stands at 69.17%.

Which is still the best winning percentage of any coach in VFL/AFL history (for more than 80 games coached).

So it seems pretty clear what's actually being meaningfully distorted here.

 

[Spazz Cat]

Look up "outlier" in the dictionary Spazz.

I did! (Googled it). Something about different rock formations.

 

[catempire]

I did! (Googled it). Something about different rock formations.

Ok. 2015 is the valley surrounded by mountains.

 

[Spazz Cat]

He wasn't the best player in the AFL at that point. He was among the top ten but he wasn't the best, no idea how you consider that fact? Might need to look up the definition of a fact, it isn't a subjective opinion.

He took his game up to that level only under Scott as coach, so Scott gets the credit for making him go to that level. Just like Thompson gets credit for Ablett junior Bartel etc going to a level in 07, Scott gets the same credit for having Dangerfield go up another level. He didn't arrive like that, it took a pre season under Scott to get him there.

Yeah agree he wasn't the best player in 2015 but I reckon he was last year. Also thought Buddy was very good but Danger prob better.
Yeah credit to CS for whatever he did to go up another gear.
I don't really give Bomber all that much credit for bringing players like Gaz and Scarlett to champion levels really. More so in their younger development.
I think players of that ilk are usually self motivated to get to that extra level and have a huge hunger for success.

 

[JumpyHolden]

It's farcical to suggest that you can get a more objective read on someone's overall performance by excluding results that are legitimately part of their record.

But it's also in perfect keeping with the spirit of Blighty to ignore factual information that doesn't suit the cherry-picking agenda that is being pursued.

So, just to demonstrate how 'distorted' our coach's record really is, here's an analysis of Scott's coaching career with 2011 conveniently excised from history.

Chris Scott's overall winning percentage is 72.15% (113-2-43), making him the coach with the best winning percentage in VFL/AFL history (of coaches who have coached more than 80 games).

So, when you exclude 'the gift' that was 2011 (22W-0D-3L), his winning percentage stands at 69.17%.

Which is still the best winning percentage of any coach in VFL/AFL history (for more than 80 games coached).

So it seems pretty clear what's actually being meaningfully distorted here.

Except that for most of his coaching tenure at Geelong he's had players that were not developed by him so even the 69.17% is distorted.

 

[catempire]

Except that for most of his coaching tenure at Geelong he's had players that were not developed by him so even the 69.17% is distorted.

So according to that theory his winning % should be going down as 'Bomber's boys' retire.

*bzzzt*

 

[Art Vandelay_]

The lengths people go to in order to discredit him is hilarious. No feat matters for Scotty.
Unless we lose then it all matters.

 

[JumpyHolden]

So according to that theory his winning % should be going down as 'Bomber's boys' retire.

*bzzzt*

It has, his 1st three years at the club he averaged 76.4% winning record and the last three years the average has dropped to 65.4 %.

 

[catempire]

It has, his 1st three years at the club he averaged 76.4% winning record and the last three years the average has dropped to 65.4 %.

Yeah nah. It's not dropping.

 

[JumpyHolden]

Yeah nah. It's not dropping.

View attachment 394058

Well from 88 to 68.8 is a drop in my world.

 

[catempire]

Well from 88 to 68.8 is a drop in my world.

Myth busted. Scott is still winning a high percentage of games as Bomber's players have left.

 

[goyoucatters]

Well from 88 to 68.8 is a drop in my world.

Remember, you don't credit him with the 88.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Remember, you don't credit him with the 88.

Even if they did, 88% is a stratosphere that cannot be maintained.

 

[JumpyHolden]

Myth busted. Scott is still winning a high percentage of games as Bomber's players have left.

No they haven't', virtually the whole of Bombers spine is still there, Loners, Taylor, Selwood, Menzel and Hawkins. Without those 5 he would be an average coach.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

No they haven't', virtually the whole of Bombers spine is still there, Loners, Taylor, Selwood, Menzel and Hawkins. Without those 5 he would be an average coach.

You are pulling someone's leg surely. He joined the club in Selwood's and Hawkins' 5th season, Taylor's 4th, Menzel's 3rd and yet he can't be judged positively until they are gone. Do you understand how absurd you sound right now?

 

[Vdubs]

No they haven't', virtually the whole of Bombers spine is still there, Loners, Taylor, Selwood, Menzel and Hawkins. Without those 5 he would be an average coach.

Menzel has played in ZERO GF's. Hardly Bomber's boy.
Lonergan has played in 1 winning GF with CS, 1 losing GF with Bomber.
What is it really that you don't appreciate about CS's coaching?
It sure is not logical.

 

[Vdubs]

No they haven't', virtually the whole of Bombers spine is still there, Loners, Taylor, Selwood, Menzel and Hawkins. Without those 5 he would be an average coach.

Which coach is not average once their spine of 5 players is removed?

 

[catempire]

No they haven't', virtually the whole of Bombers spine is still there, Loners, Taylor, Selwood, Menzel and Hawkins. Without those 5 he would be an average coach.

You can have three of those as Bomber-developed. 3 of 45. Still batting at 70-75%. You're wrong.

 

[JumpyHolden]

Menzel has played in ZERO GF's. Hardly Bomber's boy.
Lonergan has played in 1 winning GF with CS, 1 losing GF with Bomber.
What is it really that you don't appreciate about CS's coaching?
It sure is not logical.

Look at what level those 5 players were left to Scott even if it was only 3 years under Bomber, now if Scott was to leave do you think any of the players he's developed would be equivalent, don't think so. He's just poor at developing and he would most likely have a similar record like his brother if he hadn't of inherited the players he did.

 

[Vdubs]

Look at what level those 5 players were left to Scott even if it was only 3 years under Bomber, now if Scott was to leave do you think any of the players he's developed would be equivalent, don't think so. He's just poor at developing and he would most likely have a similar record like his brother if he hadn't of inherited the players he did.

CS has developed Lonergan into a highly regarded KB. Under Bomber, he was returning from serious injury.
Dangerfield has become the #1 player in the comp, under CS.
Stewart has been plucked from a VFL team and is a revelation.
Tuohey came from Carlton and again has become a revelation under CS.
Similarly, Henderson is playing consistent career best footy, under CS.
Parsons has been picked up as a rookie, and has shown immense potential and maturity in a foreign position for hm, under CS.
Need I go on? It is actually enjoyable going on as there are so many holes in your assertions, I wonder if you really mean all this, and in reality, you like reading all the reasons we rate CS and think he is the man for the job.

 

[Boultzboi]

Can't believe ppl are bitching about a 65% winning record. With or without 'bombers players.'

Let's go back to the days of 7-10 wins a season (83ish-88ish) and be happy with that

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk