Contra-Gottlieb Stats

[Zelda Zonk]

Over the past 16 seasons... number of conference wins... in the best basketball conference in the land:

Syracuse — 179 w — avg. 11.1875 per year
UConn — 179 w — avg. 11.1875
Pitt — 162 w — avg. 10.125
Notre Dame — 156 w — avg. 9.75
Georgetown — 152 w — avg. 9.5
Villanova — 150 w — avg. 9.375

While Dougie and I both have contra-JB arguments, I'm not sure how the above numbers aren't critically relevant to the discussion.

 

[jdubs30]

Because Gottlieb thinks the sole judgement of how good a coach is is based on what he does in a 2 week stretch in March, ignoring the other 16 weeks of the season

 

[44cuse]

Because Gottlieb thinks the sole judgement of how good a coach is is based on what he does in a 2 week stretch in March, ignoring the other 16 weeks of the season

I think most here are pretty fair when it comes to this analysis (which DG is not). We definitely under perform in the tourney and there really isn't any doubt about that.

But, as can be seen above, we usually do very well in conference.

This is like the argument in football where you are only a great QB if you multiple championships.

44cuse

 

[realorange]

I think most here are pretty fair when it comes to this analysis (which DG is not). We definitely under perform in the tourney and there really isn't any doubt about that.

But, as can be seen above, we usually do very well in conference.

This is like the argument in football where you are only a great QB if you multiple championships.

44cuse

Yeah, I wonder how Dan Marino feels about that. Don't know how he ever got into the Hall of Fame. Or Oscar Robertson. He never amounted to much of a BB player either because his team never won an NCAA. And the list could go on and on.

 

[44cuse]

Yeah, I wonder how Dan Marino feels about that. Don't know how he ever got into the Hall of Fame. Or Oscar Robertson. He never amounted to much of a BB player either because his team never won an NCAA. And the list could go on and on.

Exactly. And if you have that argument here (or on the FBall where it has actually happened many times), you are told that Marino sucks because he never won a championship (or enough championships...see LBJ as well who, for some, said he wasn't even in the top 3 or 4 players due to no championship)

But when it comes to JB, it's the opposite. But that's the board.

All of these guys are great. Just like JB is.

44cuse

 

[Flora'cuse]

Gottlieb is playing an old con and everyone (except 'cuse fans) is buying it.
There is something like 300 teams in D1 Basketball. If SU doesn't win it all, he says I told you so.
Gottlieb takes 299 teams, we get 1. Odds are in his favor.

This reminds me of the time he stole his roommate's credit card and charged $900.00 on it ... but I regress.

 

[Sgt Cuse]

I think most here are pretty fair when it comes to this analysis (which DG is not). We definitely under perform in the tourney and there really isn't any doubt about that.

But, as can be seen above, we usually do very well in conference.

This is like the argument in football where you are only a great QB if you multiple championships.

44cuse

There actually is a bit of doubt about the underperform criticism. ESPN created a metric for evaluation and JB scored well. SWC's analysis showed about a 50/50 split according to seed.
And that would include last years, where while technically SU was the higher seed, SU was the underdog in Vegas.

Generally the criticism revolves around anedotal evidence and the upsets stick out. Since SU has been so consistently good, SU has not had the opportunity to be the big underdog.

 

[44cuse]

There actually is a bit of doubt about the underperform criticism. ESPN created a metric for evaluation and JB scored well. SWC's analysis showed about a 50/50 split according to seed.
And that would include last years, where while technically SU was the higher seed, SU was the underdog in Vegas.

Generally the criticism revolves around anedotal evidence and the upsets stick out. Since SU has been so consistently good, SU has not had the opportunity to be the big underdog.

Sry, but normally (like nearly all the time!) I'm a stats guy. But SU just doesn't pass the smell test for me in terms of tourney performance. We should have better (deeper) runs than we have IMO.

44cuse

 

[Knicks411]

Sry, but normally (like nearly all the time!) I'm a stats guy. But SU just doesn't pass the smell test for me in terms of tourney performance. We should have better (deeper) runs than we have IMO.

44cuse

I guess it depends on how you look at it; but we've had some really good (somewhat unexpected) runs that can cover for some of the early flameouts.

We won our title as a 3 seed. We made the final four as a 4 seed. Neither of those are incredibly rare, but they can make up for a flameout as a 2 seed.

Also, something I was thinking about. We've been a 3 seed or better the last 4 years running. But prior to that, there was a pretty long stretch where we didn't reach that level. From the 1992 tournament to the 2008 tournament, we were a 3 seed or better once. (In 2003. We did ok that year, if I remember). That's 17 years in a row where we were a 3 seed one time; you wouldn't expect a whole lot of deep runs with those seeds. But we made 2 final fours and won a title in that span. Now if you want to say we should have achieved greater seeds than we did, I'm not necessarily going to argue with you.

 

[Sgt Cuse]

Sry, but normally (like nearly all the time!) I'm a stats guy. But SU just doesn't pass the smell test for me in terms of tourney performance. We should have better (deeper) runs than we have IMO.

44cuse

Okay, I understand you would have liked deeper runs.

But you extend that into "We definitely under perform in the tourney and there really isn't any doubt about that." But there is doubt as shown by several metrics that are out there.

Many SU critics and fans can look at past upsets and claim we under perform. But most consistently successful programs have similar upsets.

 

[Sgt Cuse]

I guess it depends on how you look at it; but we've had some really good (somewhat unexpected) runs that can cover for some of the early flameouts.

We won our title as a 3 seed. We made the final four as a 4 seed. Neither of those are incredibly rare, but they can make up for a flameout as a 2 seed.

Also, something I was thinking about. We've been a 3 seed or better the last 4 years running. But prior to that, there was a pretty long stretch where we didn't reach that level. From the 1992 tournament to the 2008 tournament, we were a 3 seed or better once. (In 2003. We did ok that year, if I remember). That's 17 years in a row where we were a 3 seed one time; you wouldn't expect a whole lot of deep runs with those seeds. But we made 2 final fours and won a title in that span. Now if you want to say we should have achieved greater seeds than we did, I'm not necessarily going to argue with you.

I'm with you right up to your last line. What do you mean we should have been greater seeds? That JB should have won more in the regular season? Or that the committee underseeded SU? In the last few years I think SU has been overseeded. The number ones reflected the season work but did not reflect the teams going into the tourney w/o the starting centers. JB purposely led on the committee to get a higher seed. Obviously JBs focus has been on the best possible position to succeed over any metric that evaluates how he does versus his seed. The team last year should have been a 2 seed.

I think the current level of our success has us now take sweet sixteens for granted.

 

[Knicks411]

I'm with you right up to your last line. What do you mean we should have been greater seeds? That JB should have won more in the regular season? Or that the committee underseeded SU?

What I'm saying is, the argument that we should have had deeper runs based on our seeds is not true. But you could make the argument that we should have won more games and earned a higher seed than we did: I'm not sure I agree with that or not. But based on our seedings, we have pretty much performed as you would have expected.

.

JB purposely led on the committee to get a higher seed. Obviously JBs focus has been on the best possible position to succeed over any metric that evaluates how he does versus his seed. The team last year should have been a 2 seed.

If Fab doesn't play all last year then a 2 seed might be generous.

 

[moqui]

Okay, I understand you would have liked deeper runs.

But you extend that into "We definitely under perform in the tourney and there really isn't any doubt about that." But there is doubt as shown by several metrics that are out there.

Many SU critics and fans can look at past upsets and claim we under perform. But most consistently successful programs have similar upsets.

I think you are right . . . the problem is that many confuse "fanbase expectations" with "performance per seed" . . . a fanbase can see a 3 seed and a bracket and decide there is a clear path to the final four, but the fact of the matter is that, if you are not seeded 1 or 2, then you are not expected to advance beyond the S16, and if you are not seeded 1, you are not expected reach the Final Four. SU has rarely been seeded 1 or 2. That has changed with recent success, but those two years most fans give the Orange a "pass" because they lost their centers on the eve of the tournaments.

For me, I think the biggest disappointment for Syracuse is that they usually start very strong, raising expectations in November/December/January, whereupon they stumble either mid-season or end of the year. When a team starts out 16-1 and raises to top 5 in the polls, high expectations get cemented in the collective fanbase psyche, even if they go 9-5 down the stretch against the more difficult competition.

 

[Knicks411]

I think you are right . . . the problem is that many confuse "fanbase expectations" with "performance per seed" . . . a fanbase can see a 3 seed and a bracket and decide there is a clear path to the final four, but the fact of the matter is that, if you are not seeded 1 or 2, then you are not expected to advance beyond the S16, and if you are not seeded 1, you are not expected reach the Final Four. SU has rarely been seeded 1 or 2. That has changed with recent success, but those two years most fans give the Orange a "pass" because they lost their centers on the eve of the tournaments.

Yeah I was thinking about this re: 2005. It was terrible to lose in the first round, but I think a lot of people had us penciled in for a final four run that year, which makes the loss seem worse. The reality is we were a 4 seed who was probably what, 10-15% to make the final four that year?

For me, I think the biggest disappointment for Syracuse is that they usually start very strong, raising expectations in November/December/January, whereupon they stumble either mid-season or end of the year. When a team starts out 16-1 and raises to top 5 in the polls, high expectations get cemented in the collective fanbase psyche, even if they go 9-5 down the stretch against the more difficult competition.

I see this in baseball all the time as well. Take 2 players. One hits 400 the first month (for the sake of argument we'll accept BA as an all encompassing stat) and hits 250 the rest of the year and ends up at 275 for the year (the math probably doesn't work out, but whatever). The second guy hits 180 the first month and then rallies over the next 5 months to finish 275. Most people will probably think the first guy had the better year, because he was hitting 400 at one point, and the other guy had to fight all year just to get to 275, but in reality, they had the same year.

 

[djcon57]

For me, I think the biggest disappointment for Syracuse is that they usually start very strong, raising expectations in November/December/January, whereupon they stumble either mid-season or end of the year. When a team starts out 16-1 and raises to top 5 in the polls, high expectations get cemented in the collective fanbase psyche, even if they go 9-5 down the stretch against the more difficult competition.

Yep...hello 1999-2000.

 

[orange2win]

The SU record in the NCAA tournament since 1985 has been greatly enhanced by its performance in the Final Four. Of those teams with three or more FF appearances, only SU and Michigan have a 100% advance record.

Compare that to UNC who has made it to the FF nine times since 1985, but advanced to the championship round only 3 times. A 33% advance record.

 

[SWC75]

I think most here are pretty fair when it comes to this analysis (which DG is not). We definitely under perform in the tourney and there really isn't any doubt about that.

But, as can be seen above, we usually do very well in conference.

This is like the argument in football where you are only a great QB if you multiple championships.

44cuse

And even that is all about the Sweet 16. JB has a good NCAA record both before and after that. Other coaches have more Final Fours and more titles because they have more teams make it that far.

 

[44cuse]

Now if you want to say we should have achieved greater seeds than we did, I'm not necessarily going to argue with you.

You know that's exactly what I'm gong to say.

44cuse

 

[44cuse]

And even that is all about the Sweet 16. JB has a good NCAA record both before and after that. Other coaches have more Final Fours and more titles because they have more teams make it that far.

That's exactly the point. We have had teams that have underperformed. Vermont...that SU team was probably my least favorite SU team of all time. But should they have beaten? Hell yes.

Sry, I just don't buy that there are people here saying that SU is great tourney team. Our numbers aren't better because we have underperformed. I don't give a stuff about how we compare to other schools. I care about what we do in the tournament. Sure, we won it as a three...but UCONN won it as a three and so did Florida and Arizona won it as a four.

Look, I'm not saying we're awful. I'm the one in this thread that said JB is great and the stats are BS. But this argument that SU is good tourney team is what makes people laugh at SU fans. There is plenty to brag about with this program...the tourney isn't one of them.

44cuse

 

[44cuse]

The SU record in the NCAA tournament since 1985 has been greatly enhanced by its performance in the Final Four. Of those teams with three or more FF appearances, only SU and Michigan have a 100% advance record.

Compare that to UNC who has made it to the FF nine times since 1985, but advanced to the championship round only 3 times. A 33% advance record.

This is crux of the argument:

Would you rather get to the final four 9 times or get there 3 times?

44cuse

 

[CorduroyG]

This is crux of the argument:

Would you rather get to the final four 9 times or get there 3 times?

44cuse

 

[Zelda Zonk]

Look, I'm not saying we're awful. I'm the one in this thread that said JB is great and the stats are BS. But this argument that SU is good tourney team is what makes people laugh at SU fans. There is plenty to brag about with this program...the tourney isn't one of them.

44cuse

But, (some of) the stats are the foundation of the argument for JB being "great."

Do we have to ignore the stats we don't like and magnify the ones we do like, just to validate our positions?

I'm not sure which "people" are laughing at SU fans based on tourney performance. There are only a handful of teams who've done better over a reasonable sample size. Sure, we should have done more/better, but our history is nothing to laugh at.

 

[44cuse]

But, (some of) the stats are the foundation of the argument for JB being "great."

Do we have to ignore the stats we don't like and magnify the ones we do like, just to validate our positions?

I'm not sure which "people" are laughing at SU fans based on tourney performance. There are only a handful of teams who've done better over a reasonable sample size. Sure, we should have done more/better, but our history is nothing to laugh at.

These aren't the stats that make JB great! JB does not need anything more than what he has to be great. That's the whole point. Take it for what it is.

But let's stop with the we are a great tourney team thing. Some of it comes down to really bad luck (AO and Fab).

Syracuse has been to the Elite 8 four times in 24 years. UCONN (Cue Marsh) has been to the Elite 8 nine times during that stretch including 5 times in the last 10 yrs (I think).

Look, I'm not sitting here saying SU is a horrible program. Whether its this thread or the other...I'm saying DG has no idea what he is talking about (and I don't hate DG) but he clearly has an ax to grind with his latest piece.

But 5 Elite 8's in 26 yrs is underperforming IMO given the talent we have had (and yes, seeding...over or under...plays a role there).

44cuse

 

[SWC75]

That's exactly the point. We have had teams that have underperformed. Vermont...that SU team was probably my least favorite SU team of all time. But should they have beaten? Hell yes.

Sry, I just don't buy that there are people here saying that SU is great tourney team. Our numbers aren't better because we have underperformed. I don't give a stuff about how we compare to other schools. I care about what we do in the tournament. Sure, we won it as a three...but UCONN won it as a three and so did Florida and Arizona won it as a four.

Look, I'm not saying we're awful. I'm the one in this thread that said JB is great and the stats are BS. But this argument that SU is good tourney team is what makes people laugh at SU fans. There is plenty to brag about with this program...the tourney isn't one of them.

44cuse

But the issue isn't with the whole tournament. It's about the Sweet 16. Is it just as fluke that we seem to do so poorly in that round? The most common explanation is that we are playign a strong team that ahs a week to prepare for the zone. But that's also true in the antional semi-finals, where we are 3-0. Why do we do so poorly in the Sweet 16?
20-4, 16-9, 5-11, 3-2, 3-0, 1-2

 

[Sgt Cuse]

But the issue isn't with the whole tournament. It's about the Sweet 16. Is it just as fluke that we seem to do so poorly in that round? The most common explanation is that we are playign a strong team that ahs a week to prepare for the zone. But that's also true in the antional semi-finals, where we are 3-0. Why do we do so poorly in the Sweet 16?
20-4, 16-9, 5-11, 3-2, 3-0, 1-2

I think the main reason for the poor Sweet 16 record is that for most of the years SU has been a top 20 team but not a top 10 team. Losing in the Sweet 16 is generally where SU should lose.