great sight for SEC basketball stats and such
- Thread starter Coach34
- Start date
a couple urban myths i noticed on the team stat page: UK is leading the league in fewest fouls committed per game, and WE are 2nd in the league in free throw percentage...1st one we all knew I'm sure, but the 2nd one-i hope we keep shooting them around 80%.
http://statsheet.com/mcb/coaches/compare?c1=bruce-pearl&c2=rick-stansburyFlabLoser said:
<div>
</div><div>The Recruiter still has a losing record in games decided within 6 points</div>
http://statsheet.com/mcb/coaches/compare?add=trent-johnson&c1=rick-stansbury
Thought you might like to know how Saint Trent has done over the years.
Thought you might like to know how Saint Trent has done over the years.
Trent Johnson, Mike Anderson, and Billy Donovan are all sub .500 in close games. Therefore Andy Kennedy is the best coach of all of them...right?
http://statsheet.com/mcb/coaches/compare?add=billy-donovan&c1=andy-kennedy&c2=mike-anderson&c3=rick-stansbury
http://statsheet.com/mcb/coaches/compare?add=billy-donovan&c1=andy-kennedy&c2=mike-anderson&c3=rick-stansbury
...4th in the west.
He is sixth in overall winning percentage, 3rd in the west.
He is 8th in conference winning percentage, 3rd in the west.
Whatever that means.
He is sixth in overall winning percentage, 3rd in the west.
He is 8th in conference winning percentage, 3rd in the west.
Whatever that means.
Games like that way too often come down to luck or officiating. Should Stans get credit for Tennessee's screwup last night? Should he get discredit for calling the right play but getting an unlucky break (like the Kentucky game in 2004)?<div>
</div><div>If a coach is supposed to lose big and almost wins, losing at the end, he did a good job coaching, not a bad one. Similarly, a coach who should win a blowout shouldn't get much credit for only barely winning. Yet, measuring a coach's record in close games ignores that fact.
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div><div>I'd rather look at a percentage of games go in each category:</div><div>5 - blowout win</div><div>4 - comfortable win</div><div>3 - close</div><div>2 - comfortable loss</div><div>1 - blowout loss</div><div>
</div><div>And even better, a comparison of which category the games are (C) and what they "should" be (C'). A good coach will have average (C-C') be positive, and a bad coach will have a negative (C-C').</div><div>
</div><div>Last night, it should have been a 4, but it was 3, so Stans gets a -1. However, Baylor should have been a 2, and it was a 3, so Stans gets a +1. That time a few years ago when terrible Charlotte team came into the Hump and kicked our ***, Stans would get a dreaded -4. Etc.</div> </div>
</div><div>If a coach is supposed to lose big and almost wins, losing at the end, he did a good job coaching, not a bad one. Similarly, a coach who should win a blowout shouldn't get much credit for only barely winning. Yet, measuring a coach's record in close games ignores that fact.
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div><div>I'd rather look at a percentage of games go in each category:</div><div>5 - blowout win</div><div>4 - comfortable win</div><div>3 - close</div><div>2 - comfortable loss</div><div>1 - blowout loss</div><div>
</div><div>And even better, a comparison of which category the games are (C) and what they "should" be (C'). A good coach will have average (C-C') be positive, and a bad coach will have a negative (C-C').</div><div>
</div><div>Last night, it should have been a 4, but it was 3, so Stans gets a -1. However, Baylor should have been a 2, and it was a 3, so Stans gets a +1. That time a few years ago when terrible Charlotte team came into the Hump and kicked our ***, Stans would get a dreaded -4. Etc.</div> </div>
...while officiating comes in to play, it is a rough measure of whether or not your coach is good at putting players in a position to win a game. Are you drawing up plays that are working? Are you managing the game well late? In short, it's as much of a measure of a "floor coach" as anything. Regardless of how you got there, you find yourself in a close game. How successful are you in that situation?
Frankly, I'm surprised that he is not in the bottom 3rd.
Donovan wins championships because he brings in superior talent. This stat basically throws recruiting out the window, except to the extent that teams win tight games with superior talent.
Frankly, I'm surprised that he is not in the bottom 3rd.
Donovan wins championships because he brings in superior talent. This stat basically throws recruiting out the window, except to the extent that teams win tight games with superior talent.
I have read repeatedly on here (mostly by one particular poster of course) that Trent Johnson is such a great bench coach.Yet the numbers say otherwise if that stat is to be believed.DowntownDawg said:
Believeme, I think Stansbury is terrible at the end of games.Many times when we win a close game it is because of a good defensive play and not a drawn up offensive play. My point is that there are some darn good coaches that are under .500 in close games so this particular stat is a poor measure. Even Coach K does not have the win percentage in close games that most of us would expect for his stature.
Players win games. Bottom line. End of story. At the highest level, the best player gets the ball at the end of the game (basketball) for a reason.
He lost a close game, but come on...he clearly did an great job by making the game close and putting his team in position to win at the end when they should have gotten blown out. However, in the minds of some on this board, he'll just get another loss in the all-important "win % in close games" stat...