Jim Boeheim Is The New King of March Madness via FiveThirtyEight

[dasher]

I use statistical analysis all the time; the stuff 538 comes up with is absolute garbage. I can’t tell if it’s because they need content and cant develop quality content fast enough - or if they think things like this are valid.

I’d like to believe that they know many/most people are mathematically illiterate, so they put stuff like this out knowing that it’s trash - but has numbers and stuff so it looks legit. I think it’s more likely that Nate Silver is a dope that got wildly lucky in 2008, and has successfully convinced other dopes that he and his band of imbeciles are intelligent. Good for him...doesn't change the fact he’s a dope - just makes him a lucky, wealthy dope.

Nate Silver has been more successful than just 2008

 

[ClamOtto]

They're not saying he's the best coach - just that he's most consistently outperformed expectations in the tournament. He's been helped by low recent seeds. The specific rankings obviously have lots of noise, but in general these look like what you'd expect in terms of under and over performing. You could argue that it would be better to have high seeds and win more championships than to exceed expectations, but it's hard to argue that Boeheim has done better than he should have, given the teams he had.

 

[kuethstheman]

Seems like this should be normalized based on the number of opportunities. e.g. if you're always a #1 seed, it would be impossible to exceed your seeding. If you're usually a high seed, it would be very difficult to get that number as high as a program that's often a lower seed.

 

[omniorange]

Interesting. Yesterday I decided to look at JB's record in the tourney over a specific period of time. I decided to begin with SU's first major run in the tourney under Jimmy, which was 1987 forward overall (the article's data began two years earlier). I was going to wait until this tourney was over before posting this, but since I believe the data supports the above article, I will post now.

My approach was based upon seedings. I divided it into three seed-levels. How well the Orange did against teams that were seeded at least two levels below SU (e.g. 1 vs 3 or lower), against teams that were seeded at least two levels above SU (e.g. 4 vs a 2 or a 1), and against teams which were seeded at the same level or "+" or "-" one (e.g. 2 vs 2, 10 vs 11, or 9 vs 8).

Overall, the data is for 32 seasons of which our Orange made the tourney 25 times (the 7 seasons not part of the tourney include 2 seasons of probation and 5 not being chosen)

For all 25 seasons the Orange made the tourney, the overall records currently (through the round of 32 this year) stand at:

Against teams seeded at least two levels below SU:

37-9 - 80.4%

Against teams seeded at least two levels above SU:

7-6 - 53.8%

Against teams seeded at the same level or within 1 of SU:

9-7 - 56.3%

Then I divided the 32 seasons into two groupings of 16 seasons and the results for the 1986-87 through 2001-02 seasons were as follows:

Against teams seeded at least two levels below SU:

21-3 - 87.5%

Against teams seeded at least two levels above SU:

0-5 - 0%

Against teams seeded at the same level or within 1 of SU:

4-4 - 50%

For the seasons of 2002-03 through the round of 32 games of 2017-18 the results were:

Against teams seeded at least two levels below SU:

16-6 - 72.7%

Against teams seeded at least two levels above SU:

7-1 - 87.5%

Against teams seeded at the same level or within 1 of SU:

5-3 - 62.5%

What I found interesting with the "two eras" breakdown was that JB has done much better recently against teams the Orange should not have beaten in the tourney but slightly less well against those teams that theoretically they should have beaten.

I believe the former is the result of our having two decent runs (2016 and the current one) as a double digit seed, although our NC year as a 3 beating two 1 seeds helped as well. As for the latter (which somewhat brings into question the notion of our Orange not losing to teams seeded below them as much as we did in the past) I sum up to the Orange being overseeded in 2005 (with a wounded GMac) up against an A&M team that was even more vastly underseeded that year and of course Onuaku's injury in 2010. Take either one of those losses and toss it into the more evenly matched category and the only standout statistical imbalance would be how much better the Orange is performing against teams we shouldn't be.

LGO and let's keep beating those teams seeded two levels or more above us.

Cheers,
Neil

 

[SU94]

Interesting. Yesterday I decided to look at JB's record in the tourney over a specific period of time. I decided to begin with SU's first major run in the tourney under Jimmy, which was 1987 forward overall (the article's data began two years earlier). I was going to wait until this tourney was over before posting this, but since I believe the data supports the above article, I will post now.

My approach was based upon seedings. I divided it into three seed-levels. How well the Orange did against teams that were seeded at least two levels below SU (e.g. 1 vs 3 or lower), against teams that were seeded at least two levels above SU (e.g. 4 vs a 2 or a 1), and against teams which were seeded at the same level or "+" or "-" one (e.g. 2 vs 2, 10 vs 11, or 9 vs 8).

Overall, the data is for 32 seasons of which our Orange made the tourney 25 times (the 7 seasons not part of the tourney include 2 seasons of probation and 5 not being chosen)

For all 25 seasons the Orange made the tourney, the overall records currently (through the round of 32 this year) stand at:

Against teams seeded at least two levels below SU:

37-9 - 80.4%

Against teams seeded at least two levels above SU:

7-6 - 53.8%

Against teams seeded at the same level or within 1 of SU:

9-7 - 56.3%

Then I divided the 32 seasons into two groupings of 16 seasons and the results for the 1986-87 through 2001-02 seasons were as follows:

Against teams seeded at least two levels below SU:

21-3 - 87.5%

Against teams seeded at least two levels above SU:

0-5 - 0%

Against teams seeded at the same level or within 1 of SU:

4-4 - 50%

For the seasons of 2002-03 through the round of 32 games of 2017-18 the results were:

Against teams seeded at least two levels below SU:

16-6 - 72.7%

Against teams seeded at least two levels above SU:

7-1 - 87.5%

Against teams seeded at the same level or within 1 of SU:

5-3 - 62.5%

What I found interesting with the "two eras" breakdown was that JB has done much better recently against teams the Orange should not have beaten in the tourney but slightly less well against those teams that theoretically they should have beaten.

I believe the former is the result of our having two decent runs (2016 and the current one) as a double digit seed, although our NC year as a 3 beating two 1 seeds helped as well. As for the latter (which somewhat brings into question the notion of our Orange not losing to teams seeded below them as much as we did in the past) I sum up to the Orange being overseeded in 2005 (with a wounded GMac) up against an A&M team that was even more vastly underseeded that year and of course Onuaku's injury in 2010. Take either one of those losses and toss it into the more evenly matched category and the only standout statistical imbalance would be how much better the Orange is performing against teams

The main reason for the discrepancy is, and this does not fit the current narrative, but Boeheim's first 18 or 19 teams at SU played much more man than zone defense. The 1996 run changed everything forever (other than the one-year blip when one of Jonny Flynn's teams played quite a bit of man).

 

[omniorange]

The main reason for the discrepancy is, and this does not fit the current narrative, but Boeheim's first 18 or 19 teams at SU played much more man than zone defense. The 1996 run changed everything forever (other than the one-year blip when one of Jonny Flynn's teams played quite a bit of man).

Not quite sure what you are trying to say here. The major difference between the two arbitrary points in time I chose happens to be (imho) in how we are doing against teams seeded two or more spots above us. As you state, we have primarily been zone only since 1996, yet now we are performing basically at the same level as we did previously when looking at our record against same level teams and teams seeded two or more spots below us. Not sure going zone only fully accounts for more victories against teams seeded above us while somehow not significantly impacting the percentages of victory against teams on the same level or below us (although as stated in my original post, we actually lose more now against teams seeded beneath us than we did from 1986-87 through 2001-02).

Thoughts?

Cheers,
Neil

 

[RoatanCuse]

I love JB but this stuff is goofy. If you are a great coach that is supposed to win every game because your team is great because you are great, then you're not considered great because you didn't outperform the great expectations of everyone who knows how great you are

Great post.

 

[SU94]

Not quite sure what you are trying to say here. The major difference between the two arbitrary points in time I chose happens to be (imho) in how we are doing against teams seeded two or more spots above us. As you state, we have primarily been zone only since 1996, yet now we are performing basically at the same level as we did previously when looking at our record against same level teams and teams seeded two or more spots below us. Not sure going zone only fully accounts for more victories against teams seeded above us while somehow not significantly impacting the percentages of victory against teams on the same level or below us (although as stated in my original post, we actually lose more now against teams seeded beneath us than we did from 1986-87 through 2001-02).

Thoughts?

Cheers,
Neil

I don't think I spelled it out too well. I am just saying, everyone everywhere acts like Boeheim's teams have played zone since the advent of time. Not true, we were predominantly a man team in the 80s and right thru the early 90s. Then 1996 happened, while playing zone, and it's gone unchanged since.

And beginning with that 1996 run, that's when the lump sum of JAB's postseason success has occurred. Which largely synchs up with you data findings.

 

[Orangepace]

He definitely knows what he's doing, but I'm not sure that's always a compliment.

Those guys know they're operating here on a tiny sample size with a ton of noise, and that the results they're spitting out are largely crap. There's probably some directional validity to it (Jim Boeheim is good, Rick Barnes is terrible), but pretending that there's much more to it should be embarrassing.

I think it's pretty simple. Syracuse has been the media darling all week. Boeheim alone was on 5-6 different national shows/broadcasts this week alone; and rightfully so, he has a brand to continue nurturing. So, 538 decided they wanted to get in on the mix, so they crunched some numbers until it fit their story and there you have it.

 

[Arangeman]

I think it's pretty simple. Syracuse has been the media darling all week. Boeheim alone was on 5-6 different national shows/broadcasts this week alone; and rightfully so, he has a brand to continue nurturing. So, 538 decided they wanted to get in on the mix, so they crunched some numbers until it fit their story and there you have it.

They have been doing that analysis for a while now. They had it up a week ago, JB was like 6-7 and Izzo was #1 at +14 or so.

 

[Millhouse]

If you want to consider 1991 and 1993 the end of his career.

I do actually. he looked like he was 80 when he was 40

when cheney had great teams, he didn't go far.

when he had less great teams, he went just as far

his bad teams were forgettable, I remember all those teams that hardly ever lost until they played better competition

boeheim is a little bit like him except with more success with great teams. i don't want boeheim to be remembered for squeezing a win or two out of lesser teams. it's fun but i want him to be remembered for having great teams

 

[Day2]

I do actually.

He retired in 2006.

 

[Millhouse]

He retired in 2006.

it was weekend at bernies by then

weekend at cheney's

 

[SWC75]

...at beating teams he's not supposed to beat, per 538:

Who’s The Best At Coaching In The NCAA Men’s Tournament?

 

[KaiserUEO]

Yes he most certainly is.