Best tournament coaches according to 537

[niels_boar]

Look who is #15 among active coaches (#39 overall since 1985).  Their metric is number of wins over expected wins at the beginning of the tourney. CNR is #18 overall. CES is #60.  Obviously you would ideally like to have a large number of expected wins and then exceed them.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/jim-boeheim-is-the-new-king-of-march-madness/

[bvillepig]

Thanks Niels.
Looks like to much negative in here to give credit where credit is due. I appreciate the info.

[FineAsSwine]

Surprising to see Sutton at 60. Wow.

[Fan701]

Look who is #15 among active coaches (#39 overall since 1985).  Their metric is number of wins over expected wins at the beginning of the tourney. CNR is #18 overall. CES is #60.  Obviously you would ideally like to have a large number of expected wins and then exceed them.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/jim-boeheim-is-the-new-king-of-march-madness/

Thanks for this interesting post.  Nonetheless, showing that MA hasn't done too badly will do little to stop the braying mob, but you probably already know that.

[Deep Shoat]

9-9 for MA.  Average seed 8.1

Pretty much the definition of mediocrity.

[hogwood]

Am I missing something? #15 is Frank Martin not CMA. And I don't see CMA listed...

[Deep Shoat]

Am I missing something? #15 is Frank Martin not CMA. And I don't see CMA listed...

39th.

But the metric they use seems a bit flawed.

[The_Iceman]

9-9 for MA.  Average seed 8.1

Pretty much the definition of mediocrity.

Mediocre Mike.

[rzrbackramsfan]

Am I missing something? #15 is Frank Martin not CMA. And I don't see CMA listed...

Active coaches.

[rzrbackramsfan]

Mediocre Mike.

Idk what I hate worse, that I disagree or that you use Trump tactics to spread you POV.

[raz1965]

Way I counted list was take away inactive coaches an Mike would be 16th on active list, rated 39th all time.

[Gonzo]

Look who is #15 among active coaches (#39 overall since 1985).  Their metric is number of wins over expected wins at the beginning of the tourney. CNR is #18 overall. CES is #60.  Obviously you would ideally like to have a large number of expected wins and then exceed them.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/jim-boeheim-is-the-new-king-of-march-madness/

It's an interesting look at coaches performance to be sure, and I definitely agree with your last thought about the best thing would be being consistently seeded in such a way that many wins are expected and achieved.

That being said, as is often the case with stats, one can take away reinforcement of their view of MA, no matter if it's positive or negative.

On the face of it, being 39th out of 559 coaches since 1985 and 15th among active coaches sounds pretty decent. It could certainly be a lot worse. However, of those 559, only 52 (slightly less than 10%) are more than 2 games either side of a true neutral performance with regard to seeding or expected wins, 35 at the top and 17 at the bottom. Granted, MA is on the cusp of that top with exactly 2 wins above, tied with 4 other coaches for essentially 36th. Also, a very large crowd is smack in the middle of that group with zero wins against virtually zero expected wins, all the crowd that have only one to a few appearances as very low seeds. In other words, the vast bulk of those 559 have performed pretty much according to seeding, with MA being slighly on the upside of that bubble.

His performance at each stop:

UAB - 3 appearances in 4 years, average seed 9.7, record 3-3, slighly above expected. His personal best year was his first there, taking a 9 seed to the Sweet Sixteen, his only appearance that was appreciably over expectation, although he did win one game the next year with an 11 seed.

Mizzou - 3 appearances in 5 years, average seed 8, skewed a bit by a 3 seed in his first appearance there, record 4-3, largely as expected (the 3 seed, his best team at any stop, was right on par with an Elite Eight), one win as a 10 seed.

Arkansas - 3 appearances in 7 years, average seed 6.7, record 2-3, largely as expected, a one-and-done as a 7 seed this year being his most disappointing tourney appearance relative to seeding, though only slightly.


In essence, his teams have performed largely as expected according to seeds, outside of his first at UAB. None of the 3 stops are a large sample size, but one could argue his tourney perfomance at Arkansas has been slighly below how he fared at the previous two stops.

Again, it could be better, it could be worse. The essential questions for Hog fans, is his performance enough/satisfactory? Is he, or can he become, a difference maker against his counterparts? There is room for reasonable opinions on both sides. The results so far are muddled imo, particularly when (as I see it) the deficiencies that arise seem to be virtually the same every season. But who knows what the future holds, that's the gamble, either way.


Go Hogs!

[niels_boar]

Surprising to see Sutton at 60. Wow.

Sutton had the same problem as Bennett, but not to the same degree.  His deliberate pace, especially at Arkansas, was great at keeping Arkansas in games over more talented teams like Phi Slamma Jamma and Jordan's UNC team.  However, it also kept opponents in striking range of Arkansas, which can be fatal in the NCAAT environment.  I can remember Billy Packer gushing about Walker and Robertson being the fastest backcourt in the nation during an NCAAT game as we were walking the ball up the court.  I had become a big fan of the Laker's Showtime teams and just groaned.

[FineAsSwine]

Sutton had the same problem as Bennett, but not to the same degree.  His deliberate pace, especially at Arkansas, was great at keeping Arkansas in games over more talented teams like Phi Slamma Jamma and Jordan's UNC team.  However, it also kept opponents in striking range of Arkansas, which can be fatal in the NCAAT environment.  I can remember Billy Packer gushing about Walker and Robertson being the fastest backcourt in the nation during an NCAAT game as we were walking the ball up the court.  I had become a big fan of the Laker's Showtime teams and just groaned.

Nolan Never had guard tandems like Walker and Robertson. Nor did he have a threesome like the Triplets. Nolan would have won two or three more championships with those guys.

[niels_boar]

39th.

But the metric they use seems a bit flawed.

The metric makes some sense if the tournament environment is all you are measuring.  Winning more games that you are supposed to lose than losing games that you are supposed to win over many tournaments can be an indication that something you do is more conducive to winning tournament games. 

The fact that over 500 coaches are so clustered around 0 implies to me that the tournament has some aspects of a random walk.  Most surprising deep runs that might be construed as brilliant coaching are generally going to be balanced by many upset losses.  You can only lose once every tournament but can pile up wins in a magical year like Martin did last season.  That may also explain why hiring the flavor of the latest tournament may not be the soundest hiring criteria if NCAAT success is your primary objective.

There are exceptions to the rule, but one aspect that I find interesting is that eyeballing the list there seems to be a preponderance of coaches that like pace at the top and coaches that don't like pace at the bottom. 

[niels_boar]

It's an interesting look at coaches performance to be sure, and I definitely agree with your last thought about the best thing would be being consistently seeded in such a way that many wins are expected and achieved.

That being said, as is often the case with stats, one can take away reinforcement of their view of MA, no matter if it's positive or negative.

On the face of it, being 39th out of 559 coaches since 1985 and 15th among active coaches sounds pretty decent. It could certainly be a lot worse. However, of those 559, only 52 (slightly less than 10%) are more than 2 games either side of a true neutral performance with regard to seeding or expected wins, 35 at the top and 17 at the bottom. Granted, MA is on the cusp of that top with exactly 2 wins above, tied with 4 other coaches for essentially 36th. Also, a very large crowd is smack in the middle of that group with zero wins against virtually zero expected wins, all the crowd that have only one to a few appearances as very low seeds. In other words, the vast bulk of those 559 have performed pretty much according to seeding, with MA being slighly on the upside of that bubble.

His performance at each stop:

UAB - 3 appearances in 4 years, average seed 9.7, record 3-3, slighly above expected. His personal best year was his first there, taking a 9 seed to the Sweet Sixteen, his only appearance that was appreciably over expectation, although he did win one game the next year with an 11 seed.

Mizzou - 3 appearances in 5 years, average seed 8, skewed a bit by a 3 seed in his first appearance there, record 4-3, largely as expected (the 3 seed, his best team at any stop, was right on par with an Elite Eight), one win as a 10 seed.

Arkansas - 3 appearances in 7 years, average seed 6.7, record 2-3, largely as expected, a one-and-done as a 7 seed this year being his most disappointing tourney appearance relative to seeding, though only slightly.


In essence, his teams have performed largely as expected according to seeds, outside of his first at UAB. None of the 3 stops are a large sample size, but one could argue his tourney perfomance at Arkansas has been slighly below how he fared at the previous two stops.

Again, it could be better, it could be worse. The essential questions for Hog fans, is his performance enough/satisfactory? Is he, or can he become, a difference maker against his counterparts? There is room for reasonable opinions on both sides. The results so far are muddled imo, particularly when (as I see it) the deficiencies that arise seem to be virtually the same every season. But who knows what the future holds, that's the gamble, either way.


Go Hogs!

Beating a #1-seeded UK team in 2003-2004 was a pretty big +1 in exceeding expectations.  That UK team had pummeled #5-seed UF twice in the previous two weeks.  They had lost once since January.

[niels_boar]

Idk what I hate worse, that I disagree or that you use Trump tactics to spread you POV.

What I don't get is following recruiting closely while publicly undermining your coach.

[Dr. Starcs]

What I don't get is following recruiting closely while publicly undermining your coach.

He said he was all on board last year if CMA made the tournament. Then he started his same old crap this year. Sure got quiet during the last part of the season though. Until we lost of course.

[Drop the Mike]

Not surprising to see bill self at #188 with an average seeding of 2.7

[rzrbackramsfan]

What I don't get is following recruiting closely while publicly undermining your coach.

This is also true.

[Gonzo]

Beating a #1-seeded UK team in 2003-2004 was a pretty big +1 in exceeding expectations.  That UK team had pummeled #5-seed UF twice in the previous two weeks.  They had lost once since January.

Yes it was, I believe I noted that tourney was his best performance against expectation.


Go Hogs!

[Paul]

So Frank Martin is 24 spots higher than Mike?

[HogBreath]

What ever. 

Those numbers started after '85, and don't include all but one of Sutton's teams here, if they were included, it would add a final four, an elite eight, and two sweet 16's in a period of time about the same as Mike has been here, doing his exciting, fast forty thingey.

But Mike's a much better tournament coach?  Sure thing. 

Including Eddie's Arkansas teams on his total would give him more wins than Nolan and Mike put together.

MOP logic failed again.

[hawkhawg]

Including Eddie's Arkansas teams on his total would give him more wins than Nolan and Mike put together.

MOP logic failed again.

Eddie coached for almost 40 years.  Nolan only coached d1 for 22 years.  So of course eddie would have more wins.

[GoHogs1091]

It won't be surprising if Ben Howland moves up this list.

He has coached a team to 3 NCAAT Final Fours.

This season, he has coached an extremely young team to a NIT Final Four.

Some people can coach, and some people can't coach (or are average Coaches).  Howland can coach.

[HogBreath]

Eddie coached for almost 40 years.  Nolan only coached d1 for 22 years.  So of course eddie would have more wins.

Why'd you leave Mike out of the equation?  His years would have evened things out.

Eddie had 30 win seasons and final fours before Nolan ever got started and also after he was finished.

But read the thread and link by the OP, it had Nolan and Mike both ahead of Eddie.

[Dr. Starcs]

It won't be $urpri$ing if Ben Howland move$ up this li$t.

He ha$ coached a team to 3 NCAAT Final Four$.

Thi$ $ea$on, he ha$ coached an extremely young team to a NIT Final Four.

$ome people can coach, and $ome people can't coach (or are average Coache$).  Howland can coach.

Fify

[The_Bionic_Pig]

Mediocre Mike.

He exceeded your expectations didn't he?

L - @LSU
W - SC
W - Vandy
L - @OM
W - A&M
L - UK
L - @Bama
L - Auburn
L - @Mizzou

Final Record: 18-13 (7-11 SEC).

NIT Bound. Mike should lose his job. But too many nostalgia fans and boosters will be too scared to fire him and will convince themselves we "can't do better" and will stick with him. We will further decend under Mediocre Mike and miss the Tournament again in 2019. Finally, intelligence will win out and we will let Mike go, a year too late.

[GoHogs1091]

Fify

If Howland was violating NCAA rules, then he would be landing recruiting classes like Kentucky's, Duke's, and North Carolina's.

Howland couldn't even keep one of his Assistant Coach's son committed to MSU (Garrison Brooks), who North Carolina somehow flipped (probably North Carolina using shady recruiting practices). 

Probably a good sign/signal that a Head Coach is not violating NCAA rules when he can't keep committed the son of one of his Assistant Coaches.

[ArkansasI]

Goodness gracious. What are you trying to prove with this?  I doubt Mike would argue that he is a better coach than Dean Smith, Bill Self and John Thompson. You rank well on this ranking by entering the tournament ranked poorly and making it to the second round. Thank God Mike hasn't won his conference, he'd plummet on this ranking.

[niels_boar]

Goodness gracious. What are you trying to prove with this?  I doubt Mike would argue that he is a better coach than Dean Smith, Bill Self and John Thompson. You rank well on this ranking by entering the tournament ranked poorly and making it to the second round. Thank God Mike hasn't won his conference, he'd plummet on this ranking.

1. What are you implying?  That the extreme Anderson apologists over at 538 came up with this metric to prop him up.  I just linked to the article.  The article is not even claiming this is a ranking of best overall coaches.  You might be surprised to learn that this result was done completely independent of Jump Ball debate on Anderson.

2.  If Anderson got to coach Michael Jordan, James Worthy, Patrick Ewing, Allen Iverson, etc., he would probably be favored in more NCAAT games.  Total wins was not the metric they chose because obviously that is influenced by talent.  When you can physically overwhelm your opponents in multiple rounds, that's not a great validation of pure tournament coaching, though this metric gives you credit for not screwing it up with a push.  Their hypothesis, not mine, was that coaching margin shows up in the NCAAT when you wins games in which you are the underdog or lose when you are favored. 

3.  I already made the point in the OP that "obviously you would ideally like to have a large number of expected wins and then exceed them."

4.  Good luck with getting that knee back in the joint.

[Pork Twain]

39th.

But the metric they use seems a bit flawed.

Any metric that puts MA in the top 30 in NCAA success is more than a little flawed.  Of course his one and only run with Mizzou skews that.  Also, you cannot lose in the NCAA if you do not make it.

[Inhogswetrust]

Am I missing something? #15 is Frank Martin not CMA. And I don't see CMA listed...

Based solely on the metric used it is right. However there is more to it than that. No way Kevin Ollie and others belongs on a list of great coaches. Yet in the tourney his and others win percentage are good enough to make the list for the data used.

[hogwood]

Active coaches.

I can't seem to find the active coaches list in this link. All I can see is the 1985-2018 one, which led to my confusion. I guess you just counted the ones on the list with current teams listed.

[toxichog]

It won't be surprising if Ben Howland moves up this list.

He has coached a team to 3 NCAAT Final Fours.

This season, he has coached an extremely young team to a NIT Final Four.

Some people can coach, and some people can't coach (or are average Coaches).  Howland can coach.

If he was as good of a coach as you think.........I promise he wouldn't live in Starkville, Ms.......but if he continues to recruit .."Adidas Style" he may well move up the list.

[nwahogfan1]

Seems to me this stat means that if you come into the NCAAT lowly ranked and win a couple games then your a super coach. If true the Loyola Chicago Coach who came in like 12 seed and now in the final 4 is #1 on that list and a Super coach for now.

I like exceeding expectations but I also like to have a very high bar to exceed. Mike to me has meet his expectations at Arkansas if we expected mediocrity.  Let's expect more. Let's raise the bar. I hope this is what AD Yurachek will tell Mike at their evaluation meeting.   I am hoping his bar will be raised. 

[Dr. Starcs]

He exceeded your expectations didn't he?

Nice find. He's flip flopped so many times he can't even keep up.

[niels_boar]

Seems to me this stat means that if you come into the NCAAT lowly ranked and win a couple games then your a super coach. If true the Loyola Chicago Coach who came in like 12 seed and now in the final 4 is #1 on that list and a Super coach for now.

I like exceeding expectations but I also like to have a very high bar to exceed. Mike to me has meet his expectations at Arkansas if we expected mediocrity.  Let's expect more. Let's raise the bar. I hope this is what AD Yurachek will tell Mike at their evaluation meeting.   I am hoping his bar will be raised.

If Loyola's ELO predicted that that they would lose any game that they won, yes, he gets a +1 for those games. 

Once again, their stated purpose was not to measure what coach was best a building a powerful team that should be a favorite.  They wanted to know if that coach or perhaps his system demonstrated some ability to exceed his teams expected performance in the tournament.  They normalized on whether the coach was supposed to win any particular game. The thought here is that the tournament is a different beast than the regular season.  That's why Boeheim is number one.  He keeps squeaking into the tournament and making deep runs.  Obviously there IS something about his system that is more advantageous to the tournament than winning regular season conference championships.  Clearly Bennett is on the opposite extreme.

I don't believe it is a perfect measure of anything.  However, it has the merit of being objective, and it isn't a lunatic fringe idea.  A baseball analogy is that it was obvious that the Atlanta Braves were built to win in the regular season in the 90's, but that many of their strengths disappeared in the postseason, which was a different entity than the regular season.  Cox was simultaneously impressive at guiding a team to a hundred division championships in a row and less than inspiring in turning that apparent power into postseason success.

[Dominicanhog]

Idk what I hate worse, that I disagree or that you use Trump tactics to spread you POV.

he's proven over and over, he's nothing more than a big mouth POS...

[MakingPlays]

He exceeded your expectations didn't he?

LOL Busted him.

[195bc]

Not surprising to see bill self at #188 with an average seeding of 2.7

He has a positive game rating of .1 with that very high average seeding. You realize that means he enters the tournament at an average seed of 2.7 (near the best in the business) and wins every game he's supposed to win. That's not a bad thing. That has resulted in 9 Elite Eights, 2 Final Fours, and 1 championship. That's not Coach K type tournament success, but I'd take a coach like Bill Self any day of the week.

[hobhog]

Way I counted list was take away inactive coaches an Mike would be 16th on active list, rated 39th all time.

This ranking system is ridiculous.. You take a national poll of coaches, ADs, or sport writers and I guarantee you MA would be nowhere near that ranking.

[nwahogfan1]

He has a positive game rating of .1 with that very high average seeding. You realize that means he enters the tournament at an average seed of 2.7 (near the best in the business) and wins every game he's supposed to win. That's not a bad thing. That has resulted in 9 Elite Eights, 2 Final Fours, and 1 championship. That's not Coach K type tournament success, but I'd take a coach like Bill Self any day of the week.

Bill Self at KU has let me down on my NCAAT brackets several times but maybe with this years team he can turn it around.  Bennett at Va was a huge let down this year. Maybe biggest upset ever.   Huge issue to get his team to bring their A game to the NCAAT.   I bet he is feeling some heat and some disappointments from the boosters.

[PonderinHog]

If he was as good of a coach as you think.........I promise he wouldn't live in Starkville, Ms.......but if he continues to recruit .."Adidas Style" he may well move up the list.

Maybe he wants to get busted, so he can get out of Starkville.

[hawgfan4life]

It won't be surprising if Ben Howland moves up this list.

He has coached a team to 3 NCAAT Final Fours.

This season, he has coached an extremely young team to a NIT Final Four.

Some people can coach, and some people can't coach (or are average Coaches).  Howland can coach.

And some coaches are much better with players bought and paid for in their program.

So you are saying if MA can squeeze a final four in the NIT next year, it will finally settle that he can coach?

[GoHogs1091]

If he was as good of a coach as you think.........I promise he wouldn't live in Starkville, Ms.......but if he continues to recruit .."Adidas Style" he may well move up the list.

It is not a matter of me thinking he is a good Coach.

3 NCAA Final Fours and a NIT Final Four shows that he is a good Coach.

[MikePiazza]

It is not a matter of me thinking he is a good Coach.

3 NCAA Final Fours and a NIT Final Four shows that he is a good Coach.

If he was not the coach at Mississippi State, would he be considered a good coach? Let's not act like it was him doing all the work at UCLA. The brand that Wooden built is what got those Final Fours. Hell, Jim Harrick won a title at UCLA.

Howland is good, but he isn't what you think he is because you can't take your maroon goggles off.

[rzrbackramsfan]

Malik Newman is way better for Kansas than he was under MSU and Howler.'

[Adam Stokes]

Even more interesting is if you scroll down to the very bottom. Rick Barnes is the second worst all-time at underperforming, at a -4.1 . Mark Fox was also in the bottom 50.

[steveaustin69]

If he was not the coach at Mississippi State, would he be considered a good coach? Let's not act like it was him doing all the work at UCLA. The brand that Wooden built is what got those Final Fours. Hell, Jim Harrick won a title at UCLA.

Howland is good, but he isn't what you think he is because you can't take your maroon goggles off.

John Wooden hadn't been at UCLA in thirty years when Howland took over.  Bill Self isn't all that because he took over Kansas by this logic.