22 Responses to “Which Coaches’ Teams Underperform Their Seeds?”

1. false~cog Says:
   March 21st, 2011 at 2:19 am

   My only issue is that you accept the seeding of the committee at face value. I think it’d be neat to use the same method but based on oddsmakers values or other sources’ rankings @ season’s end.

2. reservoirgod Says:
   March 21st, 2011 at 9:06 am

   What about using Ken Pomeroy ratings to eliminate the effect of teams being poorly seeded by the selection committee?

3. Neil Paine Says:
   March 21st, 2011 at 10:41 am

   Good points, I might be able to do that at some point. It would probably have to be with our Simple Rating System (SRS), though, since Kenpom doesn’t go back past 2003. Also, the big reason to use seeds is to capture public perception — this may be unfair, but the public’s expectations are based largely on the committee’s seeds, so this does measure how well the coaches have done relative to those expectations.

4. Toby H Says:
   March 21st, 2011 at 5:27 pm

   My biggest problem with this is that coaches are ranked better for getting to the same round when they are coaching a lower seeded team. This means a coach is getting rewarded for underperforming during the regular season and receiving a worse seed, and a coach gets hurt by overachieving during the regular season and getting a high seed.

5. Jahiegel Says:
   March 21st, 2011 at 7:07 pm

   Pete Tiernan undertakes annually to evaluate coaches and conferences by performance against seed expectation (an objection to which endeavor I share with Reservoirgod, although I am inclined to think that neither performance against seed expectation nor performance against objective [i.e., metric-based] expectation is sufficiently revelatory on its own), and the second set here, as it should, tracks closely with his most recent rankings when given on a per-tournament basis. I wonder whether some combination of the two methods you propose isn’t better, though; I consider that we should conclude that a coach whose team, seeded first, loses in a regional semifinal to a twelve has oftener than not underperformed more severely than a coach whose team, seeded first, loses in a regional semifinal to a four, even as the second method would detect no difference.

6. Matt Says:
   March 22nd, 2011 at 1:38 pm

   Very interesting. What happens to the list when you also factor into the equation the number of games played?

   Meaning, it took Barnes 39 games to sink to -4.31 while it only took Purnell 6 games to get to -3.24. Likewise Coach K is at +7.91 over 100 games while Rollie’s 5.94 was in just 15 games.

7. Jahiegel Says:
   March 22nd, 2011 at 3:15 pm

   @Matt Tiernan’s rankings are given as PASE by tournament, which is similarly useful. Purnell, for instance, is 0.804 games below seed expectation per tournament, whilst Izzo, first on the list of active coaches, is (through last year) 1.013 games above seed expectation (amongst the retired coaches whom Tiernan examines, Rollie is well first [1.473 games ASE], whilst Eddie Fogler [0.950 games BSE] is last).

8. Wally Says:
   March 22nd, 2011 at 3:21 pm

   Looking to see what Bo Ryans record is; since he isn’t listed he must be mediocre – meaning not in the best 30 and not in the worst 30.

9. Scott Says:
   March 22nd, 2011 at 3:28 pm

   The connotation here is that under performing coaches are bad. Shouldn’t titles won carry some serious weight? Bob Knight is under performing? Three titles and only one of them was as a number one seed (1976). Too many variables to hold any credibility for most on this “study” (number of games played, subjectiveness of the assigned seed, time frame of reference, i.e. only doing this since 1985, and more). Most of Bob Knight’s best coaching was done prior, as well as others. There are several listed on the “under performing” list I would choose any day to coach my school.

10. PB Says:
    March 23rd, 2011 at 3:21 pm

    Please don’t try to get fancy with data if you don’t know how to use numbers.

    Your silly model is a counting stat that punishes coaches for having greater opportunity. Rick Barnes has a -4.31 differential? Well, yeah, he’s had 24 expected wins.

    If you want to be fair about it, you should be using a rate stat. That is, for every X expected wins, the coach wins Y percent of them. By that measure, Barnes wins 82.3% of the games he should. By contrast, Kelvin Sampson only wins 79.2% of the games he should.

    Yet another lazy, dumb attempt to make Barnes out to be worse than he is.

11. Brian Says:
    March 24th, 2011 at 8:50 am

    Very interesting. I would agree with some of the posters that it needs to be adjusted for a number of games. For instance, Mike Krzyzewski has won 7.91 games more than would be expected. On a percentage basis, that’s 11% more wins than would be expected. Tom Izzo has 20.8% more wins than would have been expected. Some of the others, such as Rollie Massimino, have 100% or more wins than would be expected. I think you need to use a minimum number of games as a cut off. Perhaps 20 tournament games overall. Anything less than that and the numbers lose meaning.

12. Alan Says:
    March 28th, 2011 at 12:01 am

    Did you include Bob McKillop of Davidson in you analysis? In 2008, #10 Davidson beat #7 Gonzaga, #2 Georgetown, and #3 Wisconsin before losing to #1 Kansas.

13. Ali Says:
    April 6th, 2011 at 1:24 am

    Curious why there was no Bill Self stats in this analysis?

14. giantslor Says:
    April 12th, 2011 at 11:55 am

    I, too, was surprised not to see Bill Self in the list of underperforming coaches. What gives? Has he overperformed in other years?

15. Sicajwax Says:
    September 3rd, 2011 at 8:54 am

    Which university are you at? hailey little sex 47267

16. אימון אישי Says:
    September 5th, 2011 at 6:16 am

    Thank you for your data!
    I loved!

17. Mjvkayzf Says:
    September 6th, 2011 at 1:28 am

    I’m unemployed hot porn teen video 8389

18. Ynpdizbm Says:
    September 24th, 2011 at 7:14 pm

    I like it a lot Sex Models Upgrading
    >:-)))

19. Filiberto Roseth Says:
    October 18th, 2011 at 6:31 pm

    Magnificent site. Lots of useful information here. I am sending it to several pals ans additionally sharing in delicious. And naturally, thank you to your effort!

20. Berenice Dolinger Says:
    October 21st, 2011 at 4:11 pm

    We stumbled over here different website and thought I should check things out. I like what I see so now i am following you. Look forward to looking into your web page again.

21. Maurice Yarish Says:
    October 27th, 2011 at 3:01 pm

    Unemployment will improve once we have a new administration.

22. brindes Says:
    February 7th, 2012 at 9:15 pm

    I really delighted to find this internet site on bing, just what I was searching for 😀 too bookmarked.