JB vs. Top Coaches

[billsin01]

I noted Knight, Krzyzewski, Izzo and Huggins not because they are the only coaches who play man for man but because they are the names that usually come up when that defense is discussed. Maybe Dixon's should as well. But even that leaves JB at 19-14 against that group.

Interesting original post, SWC. A couple thoughts:

-- Will be interesting to see how K does as he adjusts to playing JB regularly. His teams aren't really built for beating this zone, per se, in that they aren't overly athletic and they rely a lot on the 3. Note, I'm not suggesting they don't have talent or won't find ways to score, merely that it's an intriguing matchup. Will be fun to watch K tweak and adjust.

-- I've always felt Dixon's success has as much to do with the Pitt offense as the Pitt man-to-man. They bump and grind defensivly and that's obviously not a terrific matchup as we tend to be long but not always dynamic off the dribble. But offensively, Pitt does a great job overloading the zone, making it move and shift constantly and generally finding pretty good looks.

 

[moqui]

No we wouldn't have to look at other coaches to see if if JB is great coach. a .575. winning percentage against the top coaches speaks for itself.

no, it doesn't. It exists in a vacuum. We don't know whether .575 is top 10, top 25, or top 50. it speaks for itself only if it is the only voice in the room.

I can see putting Dixon in the group but why would you take Huggins out?

you are making my point for me - your selection of "man to man" coaches was entirely arbitrary. Why take Huggins out? Well, why leave Dixon out in the first place?

I noted Knight, Krzyzewski, Izzo and Huggins not because they are the only coaches who play man for man but because they are the names that usually come up when that defense is discussed. Maybe Dixon's should as well. But even that leaves JB at 19-14 against that group.

they are most certainly not the only names that come up . . . the point is that you picked 4 coaches based on no real protocol

it doesn't matter, and everyone knows that I am one of JB's biggest fans, so I am not trying to denigrate him at all. But others in this thread have stated that they are going to use this "analysis" in other message board debates, but I'm just pointing out that it won't look decisive to any objective observer (let alone fans of other coaches). Just the fact that you picked only 4 coaches against which JB had a winning record, when there were others you could have put in there, gives the appearance of cherry picking your data, and people will pounce on that.

 

[OttoMets]

I'm sure that Norm Stewart was long gone by the time of our '03/'04 home-and-home. Don't recall if he was retired when we played them in the Preseason NIT a few years before.

 

[SWC75]

no, it doesn't. It exists in a vacuum. We don't know whether .575 is top 10, top 25, or top 50. it speaks for itself only if it is the only voice in the room.



you are making my point for me - your selection of "man to man" coaches was entirely arbitrary. Why take Huggins out? Well, why leave Dixon out in the first place?



they are most certainly not the only names that come up . . . the point is that you picked 4 coaches based on no real protocol

it doesn't matter, and everyone knows that I am one of JB's biggest fans, so I am not trying to denigrate him at all. But others in this thread have stated that they are going to use this "analysis" in other message board debates, but I'm just pointing out that it won't look decisive to any objective observer (let alone fans of other coaches). Just the fact that you picked only 4 coaches against which JB had a winning record, when there were others you could have put in there, gives the appearance of cherry picking your data, and people will pounce on that.

Looking at a coaches winning percentage against coaches who won 500 games or 70% does not "exist in a vacumn". I'm not trying to prove he's the greatest coach so how other coaches do against the same field isn't really relevant. .575 against this field is obviously pretty good.

And I think anybody who listed the coaches who are famous for man-to-man defense would start with Knight, Krzyzewski, Izzo and Huggins. You can go on from there if you want but they would certainly be the first names on any such list. It wasn't chosen to make JB look good.

 

[moqui]

Looking at a coaches winning percentage against coaches who won 500 games or 70% does not "exist in a vacumn". I'm not trying to prove he's the greatest coach so how other coaches do against the same field isn't really relevant. .575 against this field is obviously pretty good.

the average of all-vs-all is going to be .500 . . . all you can say about .575 is that it is better than average, but not how much better. the value of .575 exists in a vacuum unless you know how high it is in the rankings or, preferably, how many standard deviations it is from the mean. Otherwise the number is the statistical equivalent of a Pop Tart - just empty calories. The statistically literate on this board know what I am talking about.

And I think anybody who listed the coaches who are famous for man-to-man defense would start with Knight, Krzyzewski, Izzo and Huggins.

they might start with them but they wouldn't end with them. and they would notice what looks like a conscious decision to end the counting once you acquire a big lead.

 

[SWC75]

the average of all-vs-all is going to be .500 . . . all you can say about .575 is that it is better than average, but not how much better. the value of .575 exists in a vacuum unless you know how high it is in the rankings or, preferably, how many standard deviations it is from the mean. Otherwise the number is the statistical equivalent of a Pop Tart - just empty calories. The statistically literate on this board know what I am talking about.


they might start with them but they wouldn't end with them. and they would notice what looks like a conscious decision to end the counting once you acquire a big lead.

I'ts not all vs. all. I'd JB vs. coaches who have won 500 or 70%. And tell us who you would add to the list of "leaidng propo0nents of man to man defense.

 

[moqui]

I'ts not all vs. all. I'd JB vs. coaches who have won 500 or 70%.

it is all vs all within your sample: it is basic math, SWC - for every coach with a win there is another one with a loss. therefore, the average record of your database of coaches (500 .700) vs coaches (500; .700) is going to be .500. JB's .575 is obviously better than average, but in a vacuum, we have no way of knowing how much better.

And tell us who you would add to the list of "leaidng propo0nents of man to man defense.

I already told you I would put dixon in there. Put Jim Calhoun in there, too. I don't think anyone would object to them being listed among the great proponents of man to man defense.

once again, I think JB is one of the greatest coaches of all time. I'm just trying to point out to you why your analysis falls short in "proving" that. there could be value in your approach, but it's incomplete.

it's constructive criticism. but I'm done; I understand that you are not receptive.

 

[SWC75]

it is all vs all within your sample: it is basic math, SWC - for every coach with a win there is another one with a loss. therefore, the average record of your database of coaches (500 .700) vs coaches (500; .700) is going to be .500. JB's .575 is obviously better than average, but in a vacuum, we have no way of knowing how much better.



I already told you I would put dixon in there. Put Jim Calhoun in there, too. I don't think anyone would object to them being listed among the great proponents of man to man defense.

once again, I think JB is one of the greatest coaches of all time. I'm just trying to point out to you why your analysis falls short in "proving" that. there could be value in your approach, but it's incomplete.

it's constructive criticism. but I'm done; I understand that you are not receptive.

A .5000 record against coach who have won 500 games or 70% is a really good record: it means you are that good. A .575 record against them is better than that. There may be a short list of others with a better record but that doesn't make it it a worse record. JB is 28-28 vs. Calhoun, so that isn't going to change much. 14-3 + 5-11 vs. Dixon plus 28-28 vs. Calhoun is still 47-42 vs. what some seem to think is a superior system.

 

[moqui]

A .5000 record against coach who have won 500 games or 70% is a really good record: it means you are that good. A .575 record against them is better than that. There may be a short list of others with a better record but that doesn't make it it a worse record. JB is 28-28 vs. Calhoun, so that isn't going to change much. 14-3 + 5-11 vs. Dixon plus 28-28 vs. Calhoun is still 47-42 vs. what some seem to think is a superior system.

if you were comparing some coach from outside the 500/.700 fraternity then, yes, a .500 record might be pretty good.

but you are comparing only 500/.700s with 500/.700s. within that sample, .500 is necessarily the average.

.575 is clearly good, and I'm pretty sure it would prove to be more than one and possibly more than 2 standard deviations above the mean, which would make it exceptional. but we can't say we've proven it without a lot more analysis.

 

[All4SU]

Jim Boeheim’s total record against these 55 coaches is 207-156, a winning percentage of .575. He’s got a winning record against 31 of them and a losing record against 16 of them. That proves that he’s not only among the greatest coaches but is better than most of them. Against the leading proponents of man-to-man defense, Bobby Knight, Mike Krzyzewski, Tom Izzo and Bob Huggins, JB is 14-3.[/quote]

Good post. That last line is incredible. I'll bet no one has ever heard that.

 

[HOFCeluck]

I think the reality is that you can throw as many stats as you want out there but the only thing that most fans focus on is March performance.

Also, why would anyone waste their life arguing on ESPN message boards?