Enduring Coach Miller

[Xpectations]

Recently I posted some research detailing Xavier’s decade-by-decade improvement to demonstrate the degree at which the program has improved on a longer-term, macro scale. This post is about a more micro level, specifically, The Miller Years.

I’ll get right to it. Below are some of the metrics by which we can assess improvement during Coach Miller’s four seasons.

FOUR YEARS UNDER COACH MILLER
Year__Record__Win %__RPI__SOS__Top 50__Off. Eff__Def. Eff.__Total Eff.__Sagarin __ NCAA
2005__17-12___58.6%__133__149 ___0-4____110.7___100.0_____+10.7_____ 81 _____ NA
2006__21-11___65.6%___77__106 ___3-5____109.7____97.0_____+12.7_____ 41 _____ 0-1
2007__25 - 9___73.5%___33___82 ___4-3____117.5____94.7_____+22.8_____ 40 _____ 1-1
2008__30 - 7___81.1%____9___24 __11-5____118.4____91.7_____+26.7_____ 11 _____ 3-1

Glossary:
SOS = Strength Of Schedule
Top 50 = W-L versus Top 50 RPI opponents
Off. Eff. = Number of points scored per 100 possessions adjusted for each opponent’s defensive efficiency
Def. Eff. = Number of points against per 100 possessions adjusted for each opponent’s offensive efficiency
Total Eff. = Point differential between offensive and defensive efficiency
Sagarin = Final Sagarin Predictor Ranking
NCAA = Record in the NCAA Tournament

As you can see, there has been dramatic improvement across the board each and every season under Coach Miller. I recall the skeptics after Coach Miller’s first season saying, “17 does not equal 26,” as their proof and evidence that Coach Miller wasn’t anywhere close to Coach Matta (the 17 referring to wins in Miller’s first season, and the 26 referring to XU’s win total during the Matta’s seasons). NOTE: For the record, I still believe Matta is a terrific coach, but I’m glad we have Coach Miller.

I argued that such logic was silly at the time and I still believe that. Here is what Matta inherited from Prosser versus what Miller inherited:

MATTA'S TOP 5 RETURNING PLAYERS
Player ____ PPG __ RPG __. APG
West_____ 17.8 __ 10.9 ___ 2.0
Frey _____ 11.4 ___ 6.3 ___ 1.1
Sato _____ 10.7 ___ 5.4 ___ 1.4
Chalmers __ 8.9 ___ 2.2 ___ 1.9
Young_____ 2.5 ___ 1.1 ___ 0.2
------------------------------------------
Totals ____ 51.3 ___ 25.9 __ 6.6

MILLER'S TOP 5 RETURNING PLAYERS
Player ____ PPG __ RPG __ APG
Finn ______ 8.5 ___ 2.1 ___ 3.4
Doellman __ 7.3 ___ 3.6 ___ 1.7
Cage______ 4.6 ___ 3.4 ___ 1.1
Caudle ____ 2.8 ___ 2.0 ___ 0.1
Jackson ___ 2.4 ___ 1.5 ___ 0.7
------------------------------------------
Totals ____ 25.6 ___ 12.6 __ 7.0


Clearly Matta was dealt a better hand than Miller in terms of returning players. Matta inherited what was arguably the best players in XU history at three different positions (West, most certainly at the 4, Sato is easily among the best at the 2, and Chalmers is among the best at the 1).

Matta also inherited over twice the scoring and rebounding of Coach Miller Matta inherited four players who outscored Miller’s highest scoring returnee. Matta inherited three players who far and away outrebounded Miller’s top returning rebounding. The next time someone says “17 doesn’t equal 26,” please remind them that “51.3 doesn’t equal 25.6 (returning ppg), and 25.9 doesn’t equal 12.6 (returning rpg)” either.

In fact, the degree of difference in player production that Matta inherited versus Miller far exceeds the difference in winning percentage. The doubters never mentioned that though.

Yet despite that, Coach Matta actually did leave us in better hands than any prior coach in XU history – not because of the players he left behind, but because of the coach he left behind. Without Coach Matta there would be no Coach Miller – at least at XU.

Despite my respect for Coach Matta’s abilities, I can say with complete confidence that if I could wave a magic wand and make either of them our coach for the next 15 years, I would choose Coach Miller without hesitation. And it has nothing to do with any ill feelings for how Coach Matta left. It has everything to do with their respective coaching abilities – which are extraordinary in both cases.

I believe Coach Miller will take us to our first Final Four, and dare we say it, beyond. Can you imagine the accomplishment the players on those first-ever teams will feel in taking a program to a place it has never been?

I believe next year we’ll have some challenges, especially early, given our youth in the backcourt. However, I believe we’ll see our players continue to develop over the course of the year and playing their best basketball again in March.

And as for Coach Miller, I say “Four More Years!” … and then some.

P.S. God bless you, Brian. I know you’ll be right there with us when Xavier Basketball experiences new heights. And you’ll have the best seats in the house.

[xavierj]

Oh dear god I think one the mod's head is about to explode.

[Mr. Neutral]

Actually, our heads have already exploded. What you're seeing now is the aftermath.

[Shadow]

KaBoooooom!

[Wisexuowl]

Outstanding post XPECT.
Great research, and logic.
No matter what others say, numbers do matter.

[xuhuh!]

X and Matta's abilities served each other well. Matta had other ambitions. Matta was smart enough to have Sean Miller on his staff. Thanks, in part, to Matta; in parting Matta created an opening for Miller. Sean will be the best coach X has had, much to the credit of the previous coaches...

[Mr. Neutral]

<<Outstanding post XPECT.
Great research, and logic.
No matter what others say, numbers do matter.>>

Wise, you are SUCH an easy audience.

[_LH]

Great post. Miller also had to deal with some devestating injuries in his first two seasons as head coach.

[Wisexuowl]

<Wise, you are SUCH an easy audience.>

Whatever that is supposed to mean.
"Easy" that I enjoyed the post?
"Easy" that I complimented the poster?
"Easy" that he showed what an excellent coach Sean is?
"Easy" that I believe in numbers?
Just what is your point in taking another stupid and silly shot at me?

I was not always a believer, but I have come around to the "numbers" game in the past 6 or 7 years studying the success of Oakland and Boston in MLB, and now Houston in the NBA. Their theories can well be applied to college athletics ... and have been for a long time.

And hey "N", did you take note that whatshisname's "program" at osu-C-Bus is being slapped with the loss of a scholly for failure to maintain even the lowest NCAA graduation level.

[Mr. Neutral]

<<Outstanding post XPECT.
Great research, and logic.
No matter what others say, numbers do matter.>>

'Fess up, Wise, you fired the first shot, as usual.
You're an "easy" audience in that all anyone has to do is post "I love Xavier! It's fabulous!", "Miller's great, Matta stinks!", etc., and your response is a predictable "great post!", "well said!", "wish I had said that!", etc.

It's actually kind of funny in that the same guys (i.e., you) who now think of Matta as Evil Incarnate were praising him while he was here, and hoping he'd stay during the offseasons when his name would come up for other jobs.

But because your panties remain in a bunch over his leaving, everything Matta is terrible and everything Miller is wonderful. You might want to get over it at some point.

And, in your typical "I'll get part of the story" fashion, the loss of a scholarship, while not a program selling point, is primarily due to Greg Oden's withdrawing from classes and going to the NBA. That's what happens when you recruit the #1 player in the draft. Maybe it's not the Harvard ideal, but it's a fact.

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/sp ... 9SH3I.html

As you know, X prides itself (and justifiably) on its 100% graduation rate of guys who play as seniors. But we've had our share of transfers, problem children, etc., though admittedly less than some others.

There are NO academic "virgins" at this level of Div. I basketball. Anyone who thinks otherwise is blind.