|
|
Post by contextmatters on Aug 5, 2022 15:38:34 GMT -5
I understand that from a statistics point of view that there may not be enough games to make a scientific determination about how 'good' or 'bad' a particular coach is in the tourney. Heck, I am not sure that there are enough games in a college season to necessarily meet that kind of criteria. But it doesn't matter. In college hoops the object of the whole dang thing is to win in the tourney. So it may not be fair - anymore than it is fair to say that Marv Levy wasn't a good Super Bowl coach, but I still think when your record is as unfortunate as Deacon's for as long as it has been that it is ok to say that his coaching doesn't translate to the tourney well.
I don't have any problem with anyone saying that Barnes has had disappointing results in the tournament . . . particularly at Tennessee. But the size of the numbers become critical when we start asking "why" questions--explanations, cause and effect, etc.--which is what I think Ham's original comment was directed to: "I really wish I could explain the high rate of short stays though." And that's even more true when people start trying to use past results to predict future ones.
As to the questions originally posed to Ham--Barnes' record or something else?--your first paragraph kind of illustrates the point: "I am not sure that there are enough games in a college season to necessarily meet that kind of criteria." You're right. We can't draw conclusions from a season's worth of data, and generally not from several season's of data. But that's essentially all we have if we start by assuming there is a difference between "tournament coaching" and "regular season coaching." Even a geezer like Barnes only has a around 50 tournament games, basically equivalent to a season-and-a-half.
More importantly, there aren't enough other geezers to provide meaningful context. Even if 50 games would be enough to draw conclusions, we have so few coaches with that many games (and several of those partially predating the current format), that we can't draw a good baseline for comparison.
Any real cause and effect determinations should apply not only to Barnes but to similar coaches as well. The same causes should have similar effects. But with one exception, I can't see find the necessary correlations to even start a cause/effect analysis. And if can't find those things, then the variation between "regular season" and "tournament" results may just be noise (or primarily noise).
. |
|
|
|
Post by cherokee04 on Aug 5, 2022 16:55:44 GMT -5
I understand that from a statistics point of view that there may not be enough games to make a scientific determination about how 'good' or 'bad' a particular coach is in the tourney. Heck, I am not sure that there are enough games in a college season to necessarily meet that kind of criteria. But it doesn't matter. In college hoops the object of the whole dang thing is to win in the tourney. So it may not be fair - anymore than it is fair to say that Marv Levy wasn't a good Super Bowl coach, but I still think when your record is as unfortunate as Deacon's for as long as it has been that it is ok to say that his coaching doesn't translate to the tourney well. Yeah, I'm not really looking at this from a SVRS point of view either. But I do think there's enough, over a long enough period of time, and at more than respectable basketball programs, to come to that conclusion. But I respect that others don't think so. I just don't buy the data argument. |
|
|
|
Post by hamiltonvol on Aug 6, 2022 14:08:03 GMT -5
If I’m honest, the loss this year irritated me and I swore to myself never to defend RB’s postseason record again.
And I’m still irritated. And I will not for one second believe we will make it out of the first weekend this year even if we are undefeated at that point and matched up against a middle school team in round 2.
So have no fear—emotionally, I’m right there with everyone about RB’s lack of NCAAT success, especially in the years we clearly have the roster to at least play one more game.
At a gut level I buy it. But at a brain level, my intellect won’t agree. Intellectually, I can’t add up a tiny handful of games, years apart, with wildly different teams, against wildly different opponents, and claim it’s somehow predictive. I just can’t.
(Especially when we are using a handful of tournament games to discount like 1200 regular season games.)
|
|
|
|
Post by pdlglm on Aug 6, 2022 14:19:48 GMT -5
If I’m honest, the loss this year irritated me and I swore to myself never to defend RB’s postseason record again. And I’m still irritated. And I will not for one second believe we will make it out of the first weekend this year even if we are undefeated at that point and matched up against a middle school team in round 2. So have no fear—emotionally, I’m right there with everyone about RB’s lack of NCAAT success, especially in the years we clearly have the roster to at least play one more game. At a gut level I buy it. But at a brain level, my intellect won’t agree. Intellectually, I can’t add up a tiny handful of games, years apart, with wildly different teams, against wildly different opponents, and claim it’s somehow predictive. I just can’t. (Especially when we are using a handful of tournament games to discount like 1200 regular season games.) This is exactly where I am, except that since I am not a mathematician or a statistician or whatever, I don't care what my brain tells me about sample size. I'm gonna assume that we don't make it out of the first round no matter how good a regular season or how bad the opponent. Now in the SECT I will have hope but I expect nothing from the NCAAT, between Deacon's ineptitude, and let's face it, our program's ineptitude in the big dance.... I will believe it when I see it. |
|
|
|
Post by cherokee04 on Aug 6, 2022 14:33:49 GMT -5
I understand that from a statistics point of view that there may not be enough games to make a scientific determination about how 'good' or 'bad' a particular coach is in the tourney. Heck, I am not sure that there are enough games in a college season to necessarily meet that kind of criteria. But it doesn't matter. In college hoops the object of the whole dang thing is to win in the tourney. So it may not be fair - anymore than it is fair to say that Marv Levy wasn't a good Super Bowl coach, but I still think when your record is as unfortunate as Deacon's for as long as it has been that it is ok to say that his coaching doesn't translate to the tourney well.
I don't have any problem with anyone saying that Barnes has had disappointing results in the tournament . . . particularly at Tennessee. But the size of the numbers become critical when we start asking "why" questions--explanations, cause and effect, etc.--which is what I think Ham's original comment was directed to: "I really wish I could explain the high rate of short stays though." And that's even more true when people start trying to use past results to predict future ones.
As to the questions originally posed to Ham--Barnes' record or something else?--your first paragraph kind of illustrates the point: "I am not sure that there are enough games in a college season to necessarily meet that kind of criteria." You're right. We can't draw conclusions from a season's worth of data, and generally not from several season's of data. But that's essentially all we have if we start by assuming there is a difference between "tournament coaching" and "regular season coaching." Even a geezer like Barnes only has a around 50 tournament games, basically equivalent to a season-and-a-half.
More importantly, there aren't enough other geezers to provide meaningful context. Even if 50 games would be enough to draw conclusions, we have so few coaches with that many games (and several of those partially predating the current format), that we can't draw a good baseline for comparison.
Any real cause and effect determinations should apply not only to Barnes but to similar coaches as well. The same causes should have similar effects. But with one exception, I can't see find the necessary correlations to even start a cause/effect analysis. And if can't find those things, then the variation between "regular season" and "tournament" results may just be noise (or primarily noise).
. I don't think anyone (maybe I'm just speaking for myself) is trying to use it to predict future NCAAT results though, or even to say we have an explanation. I think it is pretty well understood that explaining the difference (assuming we think there is a difference) is beyond our ability. And it is 50+ games, but over almost 30 seasons. That, to me, says it's not just a matter of saying that 50 games isn't enough time and I think negates the idea that 50 games = a season and a half. If we were talking about an actual season and a half of coaching data, I think anyone would agree that there is not nearly enough data from which to draw a conclusion. But this is over a lengthy career, over which time the NCAAT record has been almost exclusively built upon two traditionally good basketball programs. I also don't know that we need a comparable number of games from other coaches for context. If we did have several coaches like that, then we'd be talking about the differences in their situations - who has been at better programs and therefore had better seedings, whose performances more closely mirror their regular season success rather than appearing to depart from it in one direction or another. And then I suspect that if 50+ games over 30ish seasons were not considered enough data, then it's unlikely that 5 or 10 or 15 coaches, especially with varying situations in their coaching careers, would be considered enough data. I'm personally not too obsessed with finding cause and effect - I think that is likely beyond the data and/or beyond our ability to correctly interpret the data. But I do believe that the number of games, over the number of seasons, and taking place at very respected or better programs, is meaningful, and more than just noise. The wins over higher seeds vs. losses to lower seeds is relevant here too, I think. Finally, if we look at this and the determination is that there isn't enough data, then there just frankly aren't many, if any, coaches for whom we would ever say there is enough data. If the difference in regular season winning vs. NCAAT winning were less pronounced, then I wouldn't find an issue in CRB's NCAAT numbers. But a guy with the winning record that he has overall, yet a career losing (barely, but losing) record in the NCAAT that includes results from 26 tournaments I believe, I cannot dismiss as not enough data or noise. JMO |
|
|
|
Post by cherokee04 on Aug 6, 2022 14:36:21 GMT -5
If I’m honest, the loss this year irritated me and I swore to myself never to defend RB’s postseason record again. And I’m still irritated. And I will not for one second believe we will make it out of the first weekend this year even if we are undefeated at that point and matched up against a middle school team in round 2. So have no fear—emotionally, I’m right there with everyone about RB’s lack of NCAAT success, especially in the years we clearly have the roster to at least play one more game. At a gut level I buy it. But at a brain level, my intellect won’t agree. Intellectually, I can’t add up a tiny handful of games, years apart, with wildly different teams, against wildly different opponents, and claim it’s somehow predictive. I just can’t. (Especially when we are using a handful of tournament games to discount like 1200 regular season games.) Agreed, except nobody (at least not me) is really making the claim that it is predictive. I'm assessing what has happened and saying that I think it falls short of regular season performance for whatever (who knows?) reason. And it doesn't really IMO have anything to do with "discounting" regular season results. It's precisely the regular season results that make the NCAAT performance jump out at me. |
|
|
|
Post by cherokee04 on Aug 6, 2022 14:38:38 GMT -5
If I’m honest, the loss this year irritated me and I swore to myself never to defend RB’s postseason record again. And I’m still irritated. And I will not for one second believe we will make it out of the first weekend this year even if we are undefeated at that point and matched up against a middle school team in round 2. So have no fear—emotionally, I’m right there with everyone about RB’s lack of NCAAT success, especially in the years we clearly have the roster to at least play one more game. At a gut level I buy it. But at a brain level, my intellect won’t agree. Intellectually, I can’t add up a tiny handful of games, years apart, with wildly different teams, against wildly different opponents, and claim it’s somehow predictive. I just can’t. (Especially when we are using a handful of tournament games to discount like 1200 regular season games.) This is exactly where I am, except that since I am not a mathematician or a statistician or whatever, I don't care what my brain tells me about sample size. I'm gonna assume that we don't make it out of the first round no matter how good a regular season or how bad the opponent. Now in the SECT I will have hope but I expect nothing from the NCAAT, between Deacon's ineptitude, and let's face it, our program's ineptitude in the big dance.... I will believe it when I see it. Yes, on an emotional/gut level I fully await the March crotch kick, even if we are coached by someone other than Barnes. And with Barnes I expect it at least as much as usual, maybe more. But intellectually, I won't make a prediction or try to assign an explanation. I will only say that I think something is amiss. That's as far as I can go, which is farther than others which I understand. |
|
|
|
Post by pdlglm on Aug 6, 2022 14:43:48 GMT -5
yep. who cares if it is predictive.
Heck, I don't think Ken Pom or shot quality or hoop-explorer or synergy or whatever is really predictive. Those metrics are just designed to tell you what a team has done. They may or may not tell you what they will do.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stopspopsdrops83 on Aug 6, 2022 14:57:13 GMT -5
Since Barnes record in the SEC tournament is very respectable, I know we have beaten Kentucky multiple times, does anyone know what his record in the Big 12 tournament looks like? And what would everyone perceive to be the difference in conference post season tournaments and the NCAA, increased pressure and intensity? I could see Barnes approach to coaching causing some guys to internalize the pressure aspect of a one and done game on a big stage
|
|
|
|
Post by cherokee04 on Aug 6, 2022 15:04:52 GMT -5
Since Barnes record in the SEC tournament is very respectable, I know we have beaten Kentucky multiple times, does anyone know what his record in the Big 12 tournament looks like? And what would everyone perceive to be the difference in conference post season tournaments and the NCAA, increased pressure and intensity? I could see Barnes approach to coaching causing some guys to internalize the pressure aspect of a one and done game on a big stage I don't know what Barnes has done overall in the Big 12 Tournament, but I'd bet it's pretty good. As far as the difference between the conference and NCAA Tournaments, I would have to assume the pressure is similar for teams who need to win an automatic bid to extend their season into the NCAAT or at least need to win some number of games in their conf tourney to feel like they have done enough for an at-large bid. For the teams that know they are already in the NCAAT, it is likely not that big of a deal usually. As far as whether the pressure aspect has anything to do with how CRB's teams perform in March, I have no idea. I'm sure it impacts every team in some way. |
|
|
|
Post by hamiltonvol on Aug 6, 2022 18:43:54 GMT -5
Since Barnes record in the SEC tournament is very respectable, I know we have beaten Kentucky multiple times, does anyone know what his record in the Big 12 tournament looks like? And what would everyone perceive to be the difference in conference post season tournaments and the NCAA, increased pressure and intensity? I could see Barnes approach to coaching causing some guys to internalize the pressure aspect of a one and done game on a big stage Differences: 1. Quality of competition. No offense to middling power 6 teams, but the quality in the NCAAT is much higher. 2. In a conference tourney, everyone has scouted everyone all year long. You’ve broken down game film on the opponent at least once already, played them at least once, and have a real good idea of what worked against them and what didn’t. The NCAA is definitely more like “here’s a couple days to prep a handful of teams you’ve never scouted.” Probably the coach’s influence is actually more limited in the ncaat, due to the lack of prep time. I’d say older teams have an advantage (some of the one-and-done flameouts probably bear this out). I’d also say teams that just have a lot of very good players have an advantage. That’s obviously true in every game, but likely more so as the prep time decreases. In even rounds you’re gonna have to roll the ball out and just play a lot of the time. Seems like teams that hide their weaknesses well with smoke and mirrors are probably doomed in the ncaat? |
|
|
|
Post by govols85 on Aug 11, 2022 15:08:30 GMT -5
Since Barnes record in the SEC tournament is very respectable, I know we have beaten Kentucky multiple times, does anyone know what his record in the Big 12 tournament looks like? And what would everyone perceive to be the difference in conference post season tournaments and the NCAA, increased pressure and intensity? I could see Barnes approach to coaching causing some guys to internalize the pressure aspect of a one and done game on a big stage I don't know what Barnes has done overall in the Big 12 Tournament, but I'd bet it's pretty good. As far as the difference between the conference and NCAA Tournaments, I would have to assume the pressure is similar for teams who need to win an automatic bid to extend their season into the NCAAT or at least need to win some number of games in their conf tourney to feel like they have done enough for an at-large bid. For the teams that know they are already in the NCAAT, it is likely not that big of a deal usually. As far as whether the pressure aspect has anything to do with how CRB's teams perform in March, I have no idea. I'm sure it impacts every team in some way. CRB has won two conference tournaments. |
|
|
|
Post by contextmatters on Aug 31, 2023 14:26:26 GMT -5
I don't know what Barnes has done overall in the Big 12 Tournament, but I'd bet it's pretty good. As far as the difference between the conference and NCAA Tournaments, I would have to assume the pressure is similar for teams who need to win an automatic bid to extend their season into the NCAAT or at least need to win some number of games in their conf tourney to feel like they have done enough for an at-large bid. For the teams that know they are already in the NCAAT, it is likely not that big of a deal usually. As far as whether the pressure aspect has anything to do with how CRB's teams perform in March, I have no idea. I'm sure it impacts every team in some way. CRB has won two conference tournaments. By my count, the Big XII tournament record was 22-17 (about the same as his NCAA tournament record at Texas), with no tournament championships, but six runners-up. The runner-up years involved losses to Kansas four times, an OU final four team, and an OSU final four team. Which means . . . ? |
|
|
|
Post by cherokee04 on Aug 31, 2023 15:31:11 GMT -5
CRB has won two conference tournaments. By my count, the Big XII tournament record was 22-17 (about the same as his NCAA tournament record at Texas), with no tournament championships, but six runners-up. The runner-up years involved losses to Kansas four times, an OU final four team, and an OSU final four team. Which means . . . ? I have no idea what it means. Heck, that was the first post in this thread in over a year. |
|
|
|
Post by contextmatters on Aug 31, 2023 15:49:54 GMT -5
By my count, the Big XII tournament record was 22-17 (about the same as his NCAA tournament record at Texas), with no tournament championships, but six runners-up. The runner-up years involved losses to Kansas four times, an OU final four team, and an OSU final four team. Which means . . . ? I have no idea what it means. Heck, that was the first post in this thread in over a year.
Good time for the bump, though, since pdlglm is no doubt working on the 2023 update as we speak. |
|
