NCAA Tournament Success by Coach Since 2000 vs KenPom and Seed Expectation

[DukeTrinity11]

I ran into this interesting table compiled by Bart Torvik that evaluates the success of all Division 1 Tournament coaches in the NCAAT compared to their KenPom and NCAA Seed Expectation going into the tournament.

http://barttorvik.com/cgi-bin/ncaat...00&yrhigh=2018

Ole' Roy is #1 in both followed by Izzo and Cal while K is #340 in the KenPom ranking and #358 vs Seed Expectation.

This is really eye opening to me because it shows how many missed opportunities we've had over the past 2 decades to add to Coach K and Duke Basketball's legacies.

Are there any takeaways from this as to why our brand of basketball isn't translating to the tournament given expectations while our rival is outperforming expectations constantly despite also getting a very high seed each year?

For what its worth, UVA's Bennett sits dead last amongst all Division 1 coaches in both rankings. I guess losing to a 16 seed does that to you...

[left_hook_lacey]

I ran into this interesting table compiled by Bart Torvik that evaluates the success of all Division 1 Tournament coaches in the NCAAT compared to their KenPom and NCAA Seed Expectation going into the tournament.

http://barttorvik.com/cgi-bin/ncaat...00&yrhigh=2018

Ole' Roy is #1 in both followed by Izzo and Cal while K is #340 in the KenPom ranking and #358 vs Seed Expectation.

This is really eye opening to me because it shows how many missed opportunities we've had over the past 2 decades to add to Coach K and Duke Basketball's legacies.

Are there any takeaways from this as to why our brand of basketball isn't translating to the tournament given expectations while our rival is outperforming expectations constantly despite also getting a very high seed each year?

For what its worth, UVA's Bennett sits dead last amongst all Division 1 coaches in both rankings. I guess losing to a 16 seed does that to you...

May the odds forever be in your favor...

[AGDukesky]

Thank you for sharing- I was just thinking of a way to try to capture this type of comparison. Now I will have to try to breakdown the scoring..

[CDu]

Well, several things. We've been a 1, 2, or 3 seed in nearly every season over that span. Seriously. We've been a 1 or a 2 seed in 15 of 18 seasons, and a 3 seed once, a 4 seed once, and a 6 seed once. It's hard to overachieve in the tournament when "overachieving" requires making the Final Four. On the flipside, an early exit as a high seed has substantial negative impact on your standing.

Conversely, if you are a 7 seed or lower, it's easier to accumulate a big gain and hard to really underperform to any meaningful degree.

So a big part of it is just that: we haven't had much opportunity for upward mobility but have had lots of chances for downward mobility.

Beyond that, "the program" has not been some monolithic thing, so there isn't any single reason innate to the program. Up through 2010, we were one type of program (generally the 3-4 year guys). From 2011-2014, we were another type (3-4 year guys with a one-and-done mixed in). From 2015 onward, we've been largely driven by the one-and-dones with a couple of 3-4 year guys mixed in. So the reasons for earlier-than-hoped losses is different for those different eras.

From 2000 through 2004 (and actually spanning back to 1998), all of our tourney losses were to a team that won the title or made the title game. The 2005 and 2006 teams were overachieving veteran squads with no scoring depth that eventually ran into a team that did enough to limit Redick and Williams to pull upsets, and both of those losses were to Final Four teams. The 2007-2009 teams were younger, less athletic teams that got bounced by by athletic and physical opponents (in 2009, that opponent made the Final Four). The 2011 team dealt with the reintroduction of Irving and ran into a hot opponent. The 2012 team was beaten in the first round by an underseeded opponent who had more experience and the best individual player on the court (future NBA star CJ McCollum). The 2013 team lost in the Elite 8 to the #1 team who eventually won the title now vacated. The 2014 team was a very inexperienced and awful defensive team that was picked apart by a veteran squad. The 2016 team lost to the #1 seed who made the Final Four. The 2017 team lost essentially a true road game against a team that got hot and made the Final Four. And the 2018 team lost in the Elite 8 to the 1 seed.

Some of it was just bad luck. As you can see, 11 of our 16 losses came to teams that made the Final Four or better. The reasons for the other losses are widespread. One of the other losses came to a team with the best player on the floor (2012). Two others were because we were just a woefully inexperienced team (2007, 2014). Another was a combination of "hot hand" and us trying to regain our chemistry with the return of a ball-dominant PG (2011). The other was to a team that was just way more athletic and physical than us (2008).

[gam7]

I ran into this interesting table compiled by Bart Torvik that evaluates the success of all Division 1 Tournament coaches in the NCAAT compared to their KenPom and NCAA Seed Expectation going into the tournament.

http://barttorvik.com/cgi-bin/ncaat...00&yrhigh=2018

Ole' Roy is #1 in both followed by Izzo and Cal while K is #340 in the KenPom ranking and #358 vs Seed Expectation.

This is really eye opening to me because it shows how many missed opportunities we've had over the past 2 decades to add to Coach K and Duke Basketball's legacies.

Are there any takeaways from this as to why our brand of basketball isn't translating to the tournament given expectations while our rival is outperforming expectations constantly despite also getting a very high seed each year?

For what its worth, UVA's Bennett sits dead last amongst all Division 1 coaches in both rankings. I guess losing to a 16 seed does that to you...

For teams consistently ranked highly in KenPom or with consistently high seeds, it is extremely difficult to exceed the seed expectation. In fact, if you are #1 ranked in KenPom and have a #1 seed expectation, it would be impossible to exceed expectations. Duke is in the tier of schools that have consistently been ranked near the top in both categories, so this would clearly be a factor. I'd put UVA in that category too (although it's really been the last 5-10 years where they have been in the stratosphere).

I suspected Kevin Ollie would be high on the list, and sure enough he's top 10 - UConn won the NCAA tourney under his watch as a 7-seed I believe. But he only coached 6 years. This list has some flaws...

[fidel]

There's K...right below Sendek.

whoa.

There are a lot of one-hit wonders (and two-hits), but that's still pretty far down. One could argue that everyone brings their best game, but still.

[Ian]

Let's not sugarcoat this, K has underachieved in the tourament since 2000. We can debate why this is without ignoring facts. Maybe it's just bad luck, maybe it's we are getting screwed by the commitee and put in more difficult brackets/matchups. Maybe because we overachieve in the regular season. Maybe it's because we have a target on our chest and teams get up more for us. Maybe K's short bench leads to players worn out by the end of the season. All plausible explanantions.

[brlftz]

I expected to hear about the "we're always highly ranked so it's hard to over achieve" factor, but then how do you explain the over achievement of Ol' Roy, Izzo, and Cal?

[Acymetric]

There's K...right below Sendek.

whoa.

There are a lot of one-hit wonders (and two-hits), but that's still pretty far down. One could argue that everyone brings their best game, but still.

I wonder what the numbers would look like if you could remove the Lehigh and Mercer years. I'm sure Bennett took a huge hit because of UMBC last year (literally last place).

[Troublemaker]

Many of the coaches towards the bottom are just coaches who overachieve during the regular season. Some of the high seeds that Mike Montgomery achieved with his unathletic Stanford teams, for example, or Duke getting 2-seeds in 2008 and 2009 despite playing Singler and Thomas at center. Those teams are ripe for upset come tournament time.

But yeah, part of it is that Coach K hasn't been a great tournament coach since the mid-90s.

[Troublemaker]

Let's keep this in perspective, too.

In the timeframe mentioned, Coach K is tied for the most national championships with Roy Williams at 3. (If you go back one more year, then Jim Calhoun joins the club).

So, essentially, one could argue that only UNC fans would not trade their coach for Coach K during that timeframe. (But then you get into that pesky issue that Duke and UNC are rivals, and Coach K has the head-to-head win-loss edge on Roy).

[CDu]

In fact, if you are #1 ranked in KenPom and have a #1 seed expectation, it would be impossible to exceed expectations.

This isn't quite true. Even a team ranked #1 with a 1 seed would not be expected to win it all mathematically. That team would be expected to win, probably about 4 or 4.5 games. So you can indeed overachieve even as a 1 seed and even as the #1 overall. You just can't overachieve by much.

Where the model falls apart is that one good run as a 7-seed or worse basically blows up the model. For example, Calipari's numbers are largely inflated by making it to the title game as an 8 seed back in 2014. That gave him an extra ~4-4.5 wins above expectation. Boeheim's numbers are inflated by two Final Four runs as a lower seed.

You'd almost have to do this as a logistical model rather than a model of win counts relative to expectation. Because it is much harder to accrue extra wins against expectation when you are a high seed than it is when you are a lower seed.

That being said, I'd absolutely agree with those who note that Calipari and Williams have been better tournament coaches over the past 19 years than Coach K. Those coaches have generally not had the early exits in the tournament that Duke has had. I just don't think the difference is nearly as much of a difference as is being suggested by this type of analysis.

And, as Troublemaker notes, we do still have 3 titles, a Final Four, and two Elite 8s in that time frame.

[Troublemaker]

Let's keep this in perspective, too.

In the timeframe mentioned, Coach K is tied for the most national championships with Roy Williams at 3. (If you go back one more year, then Jim Calhoun joins the club).

So, essentially, one could argue that only UNC fans would not trade their coach for Coach K during that timeframe. (But then you get into that pesky issue that Duke and UNC are rivals, and Coach K has the head-to-head win-loss edge on Roy).

In case anyone wonders how both the bolded above and Coach K's ranking of #340 can exist at the same time, it's basically just that this statistical analysis (arguably) doesn't weigh national titles enough. (I haven't dug into it, but I doubt it does ANY weighing of specific outcomes.)

Also, essentially, Duke has been an "all or nothing" type tournament team in the past two decades. We either win it all (3 times) or we get upset early. The difference between post-2000 Coach K and early career Coach K is that we used to make Final Fours even in non-title years. Since 2000, we've "only" made 4 Final Fours, but thankfully our conversion rate of Final Fours into National Championships has been extremely high (75%).

[freshmanjs]

There are other ways to look at how we have performed as a 1 seed. Overall, in that data set, 1 seeds made the final 4 29 out of 76 times, for 38%.

Duke in that time frame was a #1 seed 9 times (i think) and made the final4 4 times. So that's a bit more than normal. Of course, we lost in the sweet 16 several times as a #1 also.

Our performance as a #2 hasn't been great.

[gam7]

This isn't quite true. Even a team ranked #1 with a 1 seed would not be expected to win it all mathematically. That team would be expected to win, probably about 4 or 4.5 games. So you can indeed overachieve even as a 1 seed and even as the #1 overall. You just can't overachieve by much.

What you say is right. My thinking was a bit more rudimentary. I'm not sure exactly how these rankings are calculated, but - the way I am thinking about it, if the analysis is whether you meet the expectation of your tourney seed, then it is irrelevant whether you win the championship or make the finals. The analysis on that element would end after the regional finals. The one seeds can only meet their seed expectation.

And if you are a 1-seed that is also #1 in kenpom, then the expectation is that you will finish as the #1-ranked team in the country.
So, if you win the championship, you can only reach the level of #1; there's no higher you can go. So, on those two elements, you can only meet expectations...

[Tripping William]

In case anyone wonders how both the bolded above and Coach K's ranking of #340 can exist at the same time, it's basically just that this statistical analysis (arguably) doesn't weigh national titles enough. (I haven't dug into it, but I doubt it does ANY weighing of specific outcomes.)

Also, essentially, Duke has been an "all or nothing" type tournament team in the past two decades. We either win it all (3 times) or we get upset early. The difference between post-2000 Coach K and early career Coach K is that we used to make Final Fours even in non-title years. Since 2000, we've "only" made 4 Final Fours, but thankfully our conversion rate of Final Fours into National Championships has been extremely high (75%).

This prompted a thought-experiment (at least for me): As a Duke fan, if forced to choose, would you take K's first 19 years (1981 to 1999) or his second 19 years (2000 to 2018)?

Recall that if you take the former, you not only get seven Final Fours in nine years and back-to-back natties (plus two other title game losses), but you also get Concerned Iron Dukes, the 43-point loss to UVa, and the Back Surgery Season, among other things. If you take the latter, well, this thread has described that fairly well thus far.

[Acymetric]

This isn't quite true. Even a team ranked #1 with a 1 seed would not be expected to win it all mathematically. That team would be expected to win, probably about 4 or 4.5 games. So you can indeed overachieve even as a 1 seed and even as the #1 overall. You just can't overachieve by much.

Where the model falls apart is that one good run as a 7-seed or worse basically blows up the model. For example, Calipari's numbers are largely inflated by making it to the title game as an 8 seed back in 2014. That gave him an extra ~4-4.5 wins above expectation. Boeheim's numbers are inflated by two Final Four runs as a lower seed.

You'd almost have to do this as a logistical model rather than a model of win counts relative to expectation. Because it is much harder to accrue extra wins against expectation when you are a high seed than it is when you are a lower seed.

That being said, I'd absolutely agree with those who note that Calipari and Williams have been better tournament coaches over the past 19 years than Coach K. Those coaches have generally not had the early exits in the tournament that Duke has had. I just don't think the difference is nearly as much of a difference as is being suggested by this type of analysis.

And, as Troublemaker notes, we do still have 3 titles, a Final Four, and two Elite 8s in that time frame.

Actually, by my count (which spans 33 years but I'm not sure exactly which 33 years, it definitely doesn't include 2018 so not the freshest data but still a good sample) it is closer to 3.4 wins expected for a #1 (or at least that is the average number of wins for a #1 seed over that 33 year span), a number we narrowly outperform.

We have outperformed the average wins for our seed 8 times since 2000: 2001, 2003, 2004, 2010, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2018 and underperformed in the other 11.


Here is a chart showing what I found (obviously 3, 4, and 6 don't mean much since they comprise only 4 years between the three seedings)

Seed	Duke Avg. Wins	National Avg. Wins
1	3.6	3.4
2	1.4	2.4
3	1	1.8
4	2	1.6
6	0	1

Overall, we would be expected to average 2.7 wins, and average about 2.4 (6 more wins over the past 19 years would put us above the average).

[CDu]

I expected to hear about the "we're always highly ranked so it's hard to over achieve" factor, but then how do you explain the over achievement of Ol' Roy, Izzo, and Cal?

Izzo has a number of appearances as a low seed. He made the Final Four twice as a 5 seed and once as a 7 seed. That accounts for most of his wins above expectation. Izzo has had a slightly worse record with worse seeding. If this was done on a logistical model, I'd imagine that they would be pretty close.

Cal and Williams have been better tournament coaches during this span, no question. They've both achieved better winning percentages with similar seeding (slightly worse).

I think it's entirely appropriate to say that Coach K was a poor tournament coach from 2002-2009, and again from 2011-2014. Since we have committed fully to the one-and-done model, though, his results are pretty good: 1 title, 1 elite 8, 1 sweet sixteen as a 4 seed, all of which slightly or substantially exceeded win expectations. Just the one early exit in that span. But it's hard to make up for about a decade's worth of tourney struggles from when your team constantly overachieved all season.

[CDu]

Actually, by my count (which spans 33 years but I'm not sure exactly which 33 years, it definitely doesn't include 2018 so not the freshest data but still a good sample) it is closer to 3.4 wins expected for a #1 (or at least that is the average number of wins for a #1 seed over that 33 year span), a number we narrowly outperform.

My 4-4.5 was just a guesstimate for the #1 overall team, not just any 1 seed.

[dukelifer]

I ran into this interesting table compiled by Bart Torvik that evaluates the success of all Division 1 Tournament coaches in the NCAAT compared to their KenPom and NCAA Seed Expectation going into the tournament.

http://barttorvik.com/cgi-bin/ncaat...00&yrhigh=2018

Ole' Roy is #1 in both followed by Izzo and Cal while K is #340 in the KenPom ranking and #358 vs Seed Expectation.

This is really eye opening to me because it shows how many missed opportunities we've had over the past 2 decades to add to Coach K and Duke Basketball's legacies.

Are there any takeaways from this as to why our brand of basketball isn't translating to the tournament given expectations while our rival is outperforming expectations constantly despite also getting a very high seed each year?

For what its worth, UVA's Bennett sits dead last amongst all Division 1 coaches in both rankings. I guess losing to a 16 seed does that to you...

Despite what many on this board think- Roy is arguably among the best coaches of all time. This UNC team with Luke Maye as the leader has a legit chance at a National Championship. Roy does not have K’s presence and overplays his good ol boy persona- but he is as good as they come. If he wins another this year- it will be very hard to deny his greatness even by the most ardent critic.