Comments on: Two Successful Coaches, Two (Seemingly) Opposing Styles

By: Steve Bzomowski

Steve Bzomowski — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 04:21:23 +0000

Ed - -

You’re right and I sit corrected. Ruland and Mahorn. Guess I was too excited thinking about Parish decking Laimbeer and Johnny Most screaming approval. As far as the NY Times post, I guess after a certain while, the Times allows access to links only for NY Times Select subscribers (which they charge for but is free to those who subscribe to the print paper, even on Sundays only, as I do).

By: Ed Wolf

Ed Wolf — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 18:51:16 +0000

Is there a way to read the Laimbeer article? When I click the link I only get the first paragraph and a message that I have to pay to read the rest.

And to nitpick, I think McFilthy and McNasty were Ruland and Mahorn from Mahorn’s Washington days.

Thanks for these posts Steve.

By: Greg Herr

Greg Herr — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 15:23:34 +0000

Josh has it about right. There’s that odd old coaching expression, “He can take his’n and beat your’n, and he can take your’n and beat his’n.” If the coaches traded squads in mid-season, what would happen? Laimbeer’s Bowdoin team might play harder and go a game or two deeper in the tournament, but several players would choose not to come back the next year. The Shock would play to the level of their character. It could be a KC Jones after Bill Fitch blossoming of a group of veterans, or a Flip Saunders after Larry Brown descent into disarray.

By: Josh Kratka

Josh Kratka — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 20:50:05 +0000

It’s probably not this clear-cut, and I like Laimbeer’s sense of humor, but Pemper seems to be teaching “excellence” while Laimbeer is teaching “winning.” The reason I’d want my son/daughter on Pemper’s team is summed up by this line: ”If I’m doing this right, they should be able to coach themselves,” Pemper said.

By: Damian

Damian — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 19:59:49 +0000

Tough call when you make it apples to apples - assuming both teams would have the same winning % (because at the pro level that matters for the players financially in addition to emotionally), I’d still go with Pemper - quality o’ life is important.

By: Steve Bzomowski

Steve Bzomowski — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 19:24:45 +0000

Okay, Damian, if your daughter were playing for the Shock, who would you prefer coach her, Pemper or Laimbeer?

By: Damian

Damian — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 18:41:45 +0000

Pemper without a doubt - she is developing full individuals. The Shock are great, but the other question to be asked here is how many of the people on the college level want to play on the pro level? In this way, Pemper is actually true to the phrase “student athlete” where the word student comes first.