PDA

View Full Version : A strange stat for Mark Few



MickMick
01-02-2013, 05:57 PM
I would preface this by saying that a big difference between GU and common BCS teams is that GU typically front loads their schedule with tough OOC opponents for the purpose of building a resume for the selection committee.

BCS teams, on the other hand, will often schedule "cream puffs" knowing that league play will build their resume. There are, of course exceptions to the rule to include "feast week" tournaments and conference challenges primarily designed for television revenue.

Taking this in to account, this link (http://basketball.realgm.com/article/224651) is very interesting.


Pythagorean winning percentage for each coach for the time periods listed duplicating the formula used on kenpom.com, over their career.


Coach........................Current Team.....Nov/Dec.....Jan/Feb.....Mar/Apr

Mike Krzyzewski...........Duke.................0.969... ......0.950.......0.893
Bo Ryan.....................Wisconsin...........0.940 .........0.929.......0.877
Rick Barnes.................Texas................0.931. ........0.923.......0.881
Bob Huggins................West Virginia.......0.903.........0.903.......0.855
Jamie Dixon.................Pittsburgh..........0.915... ......0.902.......0.915
Billy Donovan...............Florida...............0.917. ........0.900.......0.917
Bruce Weber................Kansas St..........0.891.........0.871........0.850
Jay Wright...................Villanova...........0.875 .........0.871........0.835
Mark Few....................Gonzaga............0.895... ......0.859........0.882
Dave Rose...................BYU..................0.883. ........0.854........0.771
Sean Miller...................Arizona.............0.851 .........0.837........0.809
Tony Bennett...............Virginia..............0.837. ........0.834.......0.827
Mick Cronin..................Cincinnati...........0.786 .........0.723.......0.639


Note that Billy Donovan finishes strong throughout his career.

To gleen further from this I will use it to support an argument I have used here in the past. GU is at a disadvantage of being required to "peak" early in the season.

I have quoted references to Vince Lombardi in the past when describing the concept of peaking. Vince believed that a team could only peak for about a half of a season including the playoffs. He intentionally suppressed his teams in the first half in an attempt to get them "peaking" in the second half. I absolutely agree with the concept that a team cannot peak for an entire season. Perhaps Butler's most recent title game run is a great example of a team that started very slow and peaked at the right time.

Mark Few is required to take his team on a roller coaster. First they must peak for their non conference opponents to build their resume, then they must peak down the stretch to be prepared for the post season.

You can tell from the table, that coach Few actually gets this done to some degree, but his teams do not fully regain their early season form. For example, Pargo, Downs, Heytfelt and Co. go down to Orlando and take an extremly tough Old Spice Classic field and then come home to lose to Portland State.

I personally believe this is a major contributer toward the post season "ceiling" that GU has endured for the last decade.

This is also a reason I would not discount SMC or BYU. They obviously have not peaked yet and conversely, perhaps SCU is peaking at the wrong time.

awberke
01-02-2013, 06:49 PM
Great stuff mick, thank you. :clap:

Oregonzagnut
01-02-2013, 09:56 PM
I would preface this by saying that a big difference between GU and common BCS teams is that GU typically front loads their schedule with tough OOC opponents for the purpose of building a resume for the selection committee.

BCS teams, on the other hand, will often schedule "cream puffs" knowing that league play will build their resume. There are, of course exceptions to the rule to include "feast week" tournaments and conference challenges primarily designed for television revenue.

Taking this in to account, this link (http://basketball.realgm.com/article/224651) is very interesting.


Pythagorean winning percentage for each coach for the time periods listed duplicating the formula used on kenpom.com, over their career.


Coach........................Current Team.....Nov/Dec.....Jan/Feb.....Mar/Apr

Mike Krzyzewski...........Duke.................0.969... ......0.950.......0.893
Bo Ryan.....................Wisconsin...........0.940 .........0.929.......0.877
Rick Barnes.................Texas................0.931. ........0.923.......0.881
Bob Huggins................West Virginia.......0.903.........0.903.......0.855
Jamie Dixon.................Pittsburgh..........0.915... ......0.902.......0.915
Billy Donovan...............Florida...............0.917. ........0.900.......0.917
Bruce Weber................Kansas St..........0.891.........0.871........0.850
Jay Wright...................Villanova...........0.875 .........0.871........0.835
Mark Few....................Gonzaga............0.895... ......0.859........0.882
Dave Rose...................BYU..................0.883. ........0.854........0.771
Sean Miller...................Arizona.............0.851 .........0.837........0.809
Tony Bennett...............Virginia..............0.837. ........0.834.......0.827
Mick Cronin..................Cincinnati...........0.786 .........0.723.......0.639


Note that Billy Donovan finishes strong throughout his career.

To gleen further from this I will use it to support an argument I have used here in the past. GU is at a disadvantage of being required to "peak" early in the season.

I have quoted references to Vince Lombardi in the past when describing the concept of peaking. Vince believed that a team could only peak for about a half of a season including the playoffs. He intentionally suppressed his teams in the first half in an attempt to get them "peaking" in the second half. I absolutely agree with the concept that a team cannot peak for an entire season. Perhaps Butler's most recent title game run is a great example of a team that started very slow and peaked at the right time.

Mark Few is required to take his team on a roller coaster. First they must peak for their non conference opponents to build their resume, then they must peak down the stretch to be prepared for the post season.

You can tell from the table, that coach Few actually gets this done to some degree, but his teams do not fully regain their early season form. For example, Pargo, Downs, Heytfelt and Co. go down to Orlando and take an extremly tough Old Spice Classic field and then come home to lose to Portland State.

I personally believe this is a major contributer toward the post season "ceiling" that GU has endured for the last decade.

This is also a reason I would not discount SMC or BYU. They obviously have not peaked yet and conversely, perhaps SCU is peaking at the wrong time.

Then we need to be in a tougher conference so we peak in the 2nd half of the season. However Duke still has almost the toughest non-conference slate you can get so there are exceptions obviously. Some teams are just plain better no matter when they peak. Catching your opponent when they aren't peaking is just as important then?

Seems legit to me Mick Mick!! Nice read. Why isn't Few listed higher than Dixon? Or are they not necessarily in order.

MBAGael
01-02-2013, 10:11 PM
Interesting! It looks like Few gets his team almost back to the Nov/Dec level in Mar/Apr but Rose does not.

Also from the article:

One other trend in the table is worth noting. The best mid-majors tend to show a pattern of less impressive play in January and February. (See Dave Rose and Mark Few.) I think the issue here is that it is hard to blow out conference opponents by 20 points every night, even if they are inferior teams.

MickMick
01-02-2013, 10:12 PM
I bolded Pythagorean winning percentage because it is adjusted via Ken Pomeroy's formula. Supposedly, it takes several factors in to account including the level of opponents a team is facing.

We all know that Mark Few is second to Roy Williams in flat winning percentage, but these win percentages have been tweaked.