NCAA and "Wins Above Expected"

[tzznandrew]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/...ach-in-modern-ncaa-tournament-history-by-far/

Interesting article here. It argues (not unfairly) that Izzo is the "best NCAA tournament coach by far." I'd disagree due to titles. But when taking starting seeds into consideration, he does go further, on average, than anyone else.

Calhoun is--no surprise--among the best. KO also appears on this list, higher than luminaries such as Roy Williams, Dean Smith, and Coach K.

Don't be confused by the titles, since it starts in 1985, and therefore cuts off some of the titles by older coaches.

 

[CallMeBruce]

Calipari is disqualified, since he made a final with the preseason #1 team that was seeded 8th because he didn't do any coaching for most of the year.

 

[tzznandrew]

I'd argue, based off this list, that, in fact, Calhoun is the best tournament coach of all time.

Currently 4th highest WAE, and most titles among the Top 15.

 

[tzznandrew]

Calipari is disqualified, since he made a final with the preseason #1 team that was seeded 8th because he didn't do any coaching for most of the year.

That actually added somewhere in the vicinity of 4 wins to his total. When a championship game appearance with that group should have put him closer to Belein and Massamino.

Still impressive, but less so.

 

[BUConn10]

So are we just going to act like a win in the Sweet 16 carries the same weight and value as a win in the Final Four or say the Title Game? The fact that Calhoun is #3 overall by their metric, AND has 3 titles, is all I need to see to make my decision on this subject.

 

[auror]

Yeah this is fun, but pretty shallow analysis. Doesn't adjust for actual seed path either, just pre-tourny expected path (which almost never is how it actually plays out for any team making a reasonable run).

 

[Tenspro2002]

I'd be interested in seeing the bottom of this list -- who most badly underperforms?

Based on who isn't already on there, combined with common sense, I'd expect to see Jamie Dixon, Bill Self, and Mark Few.

 

[CallMeBruce]

I'd be interested in seeing the bottom of this list -- who most badly underperforms?

Based on who isn't already on there, combined with common sense, I'd expect to see Jamie Dixon, Bill Self, and Mark Few.

I was astonished that Boeheim comes out in the black on this, given that he's lost to a double-digit seed more than anyone else ever.

 

[Kitaman]

Even though I also disagree it doesn't bother me to see Izzo at the top. Let him have his fun.

I will say of all the coaches listed you certainly can say Izzo is Mr. March (irrespective of titles). In March you will see Coach Izzo in the Tourney 'news' year in and year out.

 

[msgordon]

538 affiliated articles on espn have been such basic crap. they seem to always take a decent concept and stop before the level of inspection that would truly make it interesting. izzo might or might not be the best in march, hes great, but to not even mention the avg seed coaches have started with or to acknowledge their formula can penalize teams with higher seeds by capping their ability to 'add wins' is a joke. as is the title 'izzo is the best BY FAR'... no, a guy with one title is not the best by far when K has 22 sweet 16s, 11 final 4s, 8 title game appearances and 4 rings. based on their methodology, a coach who starts tomorrow could lead their team to the next 5 championships but would still be behind izzo if they had started as the #1seed every year. its pathetic and completely intellectualy dishonest to only dig as 'deep' as they did if theyre going to go with some dumb headline grabber like 'by far' the best. wouldnt bother me as much but everyone of their articles is like this. theyve seriously added nothing to espn analytically, which is hard to do

 

[tzznandrew]

538 affiliated articles on espn have been such basic crap. they seem to always take a decent concept and stop before the level of inspection that would truly make it interesting. izzo might or might not be the best in march, hes great, but to not even mention the avg seed coaches have started with or to acknowledge their formula can penalize teams with higher seeds by capping their ability to 'add wins' is a joke. as is the title 'izzo is the best BY FAR'... no, a guy with one title is not the best by far when K has 22 sweet 16s, 11 final 4s, 8 title game appearances and 4 rings. based on their methodology, a coach who starts tomorrow could lead their team to the next 5 championships but would still be behind izzo if they had started as the #1seed every year. its pathetic and completely intellectualy dishonest to only dig as 'deep' as they did if theyre going to go with some dumb headline grabber like 'by far' the best. wouldnt bother me as much but everyone of their articles is like this. theyve seriously added nothing to espn analytically, which is hard to do

To be fair, I said it was based off seed. Apparently, less about seed rather than "pre-tournament Simple Rating System."

 

[whaler11]

538 affiliated articles on espn have been such basic crap. they seem to always take a decent concept and stop before the level of inspection that would truly make it interesting. izzo might or might not be the best in march, hes great, but to not even mention the avg seed coaches have started with or to acknowledge their formula can penalize teams with higher seeds by capping their ability to 'add wins' is a joke. as is the title 'izzo is the best BY FAR'... no, a guy with one title is not the best by far when K has 22 sweet 16s, 11 final 4s, 8 title game appearances and 4 rings. based on their methodology, a coach who starts tomorrow could lead their team to the next 5 championships but would still be behind izzo if they had started as the #1seed every year. its pathetic and completely intellectualy dishonest to only dig as 'deep' as they did if theyre going to go with some dumb headline grabber like 'by far' the best. wouldnt bother me as much but everyone of their articles is like this. theyve seriously added nothing to espn analytically, which is hard to do

Simpler. 538 has been crap since it moved to ESPN.

 

[Walker11]

How bout when that guy from 538 used Wiggins' first 30 games to suggest that his ceiling could be lower than James Posey's. Poor guy will always be remembered for that farce.

 

[DALTX]

I'd like to see the table redone with multiplying the win by the round (1-6) of the tournament.

 

[msgordon]

How bout when that guy from 538 used Wiggins' first 30 games to suggest that his ceiling could be lower than James Posey's. Poor guy will always be remembered for that farce.

heh..this is the exact article that stood out and when i started realizing how terrible 538 had become