This Fanpost was written by a reader and not a Cardiac Hill contributor.
I decided to go back through the Pomeroy rankings since Dixon took over as head coach to see how they compared to Vanderbilt over that time.
| Pitt | Vandy | |
| Overall rank | 24.8 | 50.7 |
| Adj O rank | 21.4 | 53.2 |
| Adj D Rank | 53.6 | 85 |
| Adj. Tempo Rank | 285.2 | 201.8 |
If we get rid of Pitt's glory days and only compare the last five years of relatively disappointing Pitt hoops, the numbers look likes this.
| Pitt | Vandy | |
| Overall rank | 43.8 | 57 |
| Adj O rank | 27.8 | 92 |
| Adj D Rank | 91.8 | 57.8 |
| Adj. Tempo Rank | 314.8 |
249 |
A few observations:
1) To say that Stallings plays an offensive minded fan friendly style seems disingenuous. Vanderbilt on average ranked in the lower half of D1 in possessions per game during Stallings' tenure and played significantly less efficiently on the offensive end compared to Pitt. Pitt fans can expect to see a little bit more transition basketball but those fans expecting a revolution will probably be disappointed
2) Stallings' reputation as an offensive mastermind seems as false as Dixon's reputation for coaching defense. The last five years have seen Vandy play more efficiently on the defensive end of the court (the offensive rankings were skewed by two awful seasons in '13 and '14). While that might not jive with Scott Barnes' vision as to how he wants to see Pitt play, it might be what Pitt needs in the short term.
3) Vandy only ranked above Pitt three times in the overall rankings. All three times came in the last five years ('12, '15 and '16).
4) Like Pitt, Vanderbilt has been slightly worse in the last five years than they were last decade. While the drop off wasn't as steep, it's a bit of a head scratcher to see a program that is losing momentum hire a coach from another program losing momentum.
Pitt has obviously been the better program since Dixon took the reigns, but this is to be expected as Pitt seems to have more resources and is probably the easier coaching job. None of this means that Pitt made a good hire or a bad hire, time will only tell as far at that is concerned.
What we can gather is that Barnes may have missed the mark on his stylistic vision for the program and that Stalling's style of play is not as drastic a departure from Dixon's as some have made it out to be.
|
|
