KU Tourney Success
by Marty_ on Feb 21, 2012 6:51 PM CST
Email
PrintI often see comments, even here occasionally, that knock KU for their performance in the NCAA tourney. Bucknell, Bradley, Northern Iowa, and VCU are often mentioned. As a fan I felt the sting of those losses but I always thought that KU was doing about as well as the other higher seeded teams did over the years.
A few days ago I saw a comment here on RCT that gave Bill Self and KU much love and praise, but ended with “Except in the tournament sometimes.” This time, instead of being mildly annoyed with the comment and saying nothing (as I usually do), I decided to go gather some statistics to prove my gut feeling that KU does about as well as the other BB powerhouses in the NCAA tournament. So I spent several hours going through archived brackets at http://www.allbrackets.com/ and converting the results into spreadsheet data.
Guess what I found!
Over the last 10 years, no other team has won as many NCAA tourney games as KU!
Not Uconn. Not Mich. St. Not Duke. Not UNC. Not Kentucky. Nobody!
Despite those early flame-outs, which are all included in the last 10 years, KU has still won more tourney games than anyone else!
Here are the top 15 teams in total NCAA tourney wins over the last decade (2002-2011):
| School | Conference | Wins |
| Kansas | BIG 12 | 27 |
| Connecticut | Big East | 25 |
| North Carolina | ACC | 24 |
| Duke | ACC | 23 |
| Michigan State | Big 10 | 19 |
| Kentucky | SEC | 18 |
| Florida | SEC | 17 |
| Texas | BIG 12 | 17 |
| UCLA | PAC-12 | 17 |
| Butler | Horizon League | 15 |
| Pittsburgh | Big East | 15 |
| Arizona | PAC-12 | 14 |
| Memphis | C-USA | 14 |
| Wisconsin | Big 10 | 14 |
| Syracuse | Big East | 13 |
So why do people criticize KU and Bill Self for their tournament performance, when no one else has even been able to equal it over the last decade? My guess is that's because of expectations. KU keeps winning the Big 12 year after year. The Big 12 has consistently been one of the top 3 conferences, so naturally KU keeps getting a very high seed in the tournament. And that leads to high expectations.
But, expectations aside, no one else has been better in recent years and I believe we KU fans should all take some time to think about what it means to be the most successful NCAA tournament team of the last decade.
Rock Chalk!
If anyone would like me to email them my spreadsheet of tournament data, just let me know.
57 comments
|
5 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Great work.
I’d have never guessed this.
Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
Rock Chalk Talk
This is great work
I couldn’t believe that we had more than all of those other programs, but when I run through the numbers, both KU and UConn’s numbers are correct.
Great work!
KU by the years:
2002: 4 wins (Final Four – loss to Maryland)
2003: 5 wins (Natl Championship – lost to Syracuse)
2004: 3 wins (Regional Final – loss to Georgia Tech)
2005: 0 wins (First Round – loss to Bucknell)
2006: 0 wins (First Round – loss to Bradley)
2007: 3 wins (Regional Final – loss to UCLA)
2008: 6 wins (Natl Champions)
2009: 2 wins (Regional Semifinal – loss to Michigan State)
2010: 1 win (Second Round – loss to Northern Iowa)
2011: 3 wins ((Regional Final – loss to VCU)
We lead in wins even after 2 O'fers
The name of that song played at KC Comets games in the '80's was Giorgio Moroder's "The Chase." Now you know.
thank you
Im gonna use this every time I get in an argument with a mizzou fan and they bring up the early exits
by Jordan w on Feb 21, 2012 8:10 PM CST via mobile reply actions
It is.
I did it. Thought it was a funny reply to an assumption about a group I’m probably considered a member of.
Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
Rock Chalk Talk
PASE compares average performance of seeds, it's entirely empirical.
I’m not sure your criticism applies to it. BTW neither does this post’s observation that KU has the most tournament wins in the last 10 years. That’s an awesome stat but doesn’t really have anything to do with PASE. Which is why my original response was a meaner version of “huh?”
the reason I said that about the "PASE crowd"
Was because the overall tenor of this post is that Bill Self’s KU squads have actually done pretty well in the tournament, whereas those I’ve heard reference Self’s PASE numbers typically use them as some type of proof that he’s a choke artist.
Use the forks
by PenHawk on Feb 23, 2012 6:21 AM CST via mobile up reply actions
Sure they've done pretty well. However, this post also includes 11 wins from Roy Williams.
Take those out and these numbers aren’t far off from what the PASE numbers suggest. Nobody’s calling for his head but some are acknowledging that his teams have underperformed in the tournament compared to expectations. I’ll take what he’s done during his time here over any other school, doesn’t mean I have to bury my head in the sand about losing games in the tournament they shouldn’t lose.
Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
Rock Chalk Talk
and I'm not burying my head in the sand
and trying to claim we’ve never underperformed in the tournament. I just think it’s exaggerated in the minds of some, and PASE is thrown around as a cheap (and flawed) way of “proving” it.
Use the forks
by PenHawk on Feb 23, 2012 9:28 AM CST via mobile up reply actions
I understand the rationalizations of PASE
but I am inherently untrustworthy of something that is based on such a small sample size at best, and prioritizes such a small sample size over a much longer track record of results at worst
I write everywhere. You're probably better off following me on twitter
Just beacuase you apply math to somehting doesn't make it have value
I still believe the assumptions undelying the PASE methodolgy are flawed.
The RPI is purely empirical. Does make it better than the AP poll?
I always drink the Kool-Aid
Going for #8 in a row!
I really need to get a spell checker
on my browser at work.
I always drink the Kool-Aid
Going for #8 in a row!
It assumes that a higher sees will win when percentages don't bear that out.
It assumes that the seeds are predictive. They are not. They seeds are based on the seasons body of work, not who they think will win.
I always drink the Kool-Aid
Going for #8 in a row!
actually it sets an expectation based on how that seed has performed historically
My issue is that, given the inaccuracy of the seeding process, it’s a poor judge of what a team “should” do in a given year, or over a relatively small sampling of years. Especially given the recent trend of underrated mid-majors making deeper tournament runs.
Use the forks
by PenHawk on Feb 24, 2012 8:47 AM CST via mobile up reply actions
Not sure about "should" do.
It’s just wins against seed average. For what it measures, it says Bill Self’s KU teams are below average so far.
You seem to be arguing with people in your head who blow PASE out of proportion, and using those straw men as grounds to just dismiss PASE entirely. I think that’s weird. I don’t like seeing people rejecting PASE for silly reasons.
In the case of your original comment up there, having the highest total number of tournament wins—that matters, yet PASE is pointless?—is not inconsistent with below-average PASE. If you’re not the most efficient shooter, you can still earn the most overall points by being in a position to take more shots. Just ask LaceDarius Dunn.
For me, the usefulness of PASE to KU fans is when we look at years besides 2008 and wonder, “Does this happen to other teams too, it’s just we never notice it?” The answer PASE provides is: nope, we’ve got a heavier than average load of sucky losses, for whatever reasons those losses happened. How much of it is luck or coaching or whatever, PASE doesn’t say.
I don’t think HCBS is perfect. My overall verdict though is that 2008 means a whole hell of a lot more than some crummy PASE score Please, HCBS, win us another.
by sax solo on Feb 24, 2012 12:31 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Is 1.98 wins over eight seasons really that big of a difference?
2 4 seeds: 3.04 expected wins
2 3 seeds: 3.58 expected wins
4 1 seeds: 13.36 expected wins
Total: 19.98 expected wins
Actual: 18 actual wins
http://www.databasesports.com/ncaab/collegepage.htm?teamid=109
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=3286167
That's pretty close to average,
but then, the average tournament doesn’t have a NC in the last 8 years.
Note, though, that I was talking about looking at the years besides 2008 to get a feel for how they stack up to the average. Eight games off over 7 seasons seems like a biggish difference, yeah.
I think if you're going to remove KU's championship run
You’d probably want to use PASE statistics calculated without national champions.
Otherwise, I’d guess just about every school underperforms their PASE if you remove their best year.
Good point.
6 wins carries a lot of weight. And it should in all aspects.
Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
Rock Chalk Talk
Eh, I doubt Roy's would, for example.
Everyone’s average will go down (or stay the same), sure, but not at all necessarily below the original average; that doesn’t follow at all.
I think you feel the pull of wanting a universal rating but that’s not what I was going after. If you take a test twice, I can compare your lower scoring test to the overall average to make a point about how you really boned that test. I could also compare your worst test to everyone else’s worst test, or just to the B students or whatever, but that would be going after a different point. There’s an assumption of independence there, true dat.
PASE on its own doesn't bother me at all
It can be semi-useful to provide a very general look at how a team/coach fares in the tournament based on their seeding. I just remember last year hearing a lot about it (not all at this site) and people using it to suggest that KU chokes in the tournament. If I seem to get a little too bent out of shape about it, it’s probably because I’ve started to associate it with people suggesting that Bill Self is somehow a bad coach as soon as the Big Dance starts.
Obviously, we have some awful, inexplicable losses in the tournament under Bill Self. Self, like any other coach, isn’t perfect. We do have some incredible wins as well (and, as you mentioned, a nice little NC trophy). Mostly it just irks me this time of year when people start talking about KU choking in March. Not that it hasn’t happened, but it gets an inordinate amount of focus at times.
Use the forks
Lets just hope the next couple of years can put the myth to rest.
Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
Rock Chalk Talk
great stuff
what do we rank just in the Bill Self years? I ask only because the two years prior were both FF years. I’d still put us top 5 but I’d figure those two 0’s hurt.
by I need more Esteban on Feb 21, 2012 10:44 PM CST reply actions
02 & 03 NCAA Tournament wins
Total wins for those two years
Kansas: 9 wins
UConn: 5 wins
UNC: 0 wins
Duke: 4 wins
Michigan St: 3 wins
Kentucky: 5 wins
So it looks like that leaves us fourth
04-11 Tournament wins:
UNC: 24 wins
UConn: 20 wins
Duke: 19 wins
Kansas: 18 wins
Michigan St: 16 wins
Florida: 16 wins
UCLA: 15 wins
Memphis: 14 wins
Kentucky: 13 wins
Butler: 13 wins
Texas: 11 wins
Pittsburgh: 11 wins
Wisconsin: 11 wins
Somebody check my math on these, but I think they’re right.
So, Roy Williams
has had a pretty good decade…
The name of that song played at KC Comets games in the '80's was Giorgio Moroder's "The Chase." Now you know.
"Early" exits
I think early is the key word here. It would imply that the team did not live up to the seeding they were given. The “Early” factor could be calculated by taking the difference in seeding. If a 9 beats an 8, it is -1 for the 8 seed. If a 12 beats a 5, then it is -7 for the 5 seed. It would seem there needs to be some compensation for a team that exceeds seeding expectations, but not sure what that looks like. It would seem that there also needs to be a penalty for not making the dance – at least -16.
A Brief Response:
Since it appears it was my comment that gave rise to this fan post, I thought I’d try to back up what I said in Grad’s 4 theories article.
First things first, though: VERY well done post, Marty!
The total wins stat is helpful, but I was interested to look into the average seed disparity in the NCAA games we’ve lost under HCBS.
Let’s take a look at the numbers since Bill Self took over at KU:
2004: KU 4; GT 3 (1)
2005: KU 3; Bucknell 14 (-11)
2006: KU 4; Bradley 13 (-9)
2007: KU 1; UCLA 2 (-1)
2008: National Champs
2009: KU 3; Mich. St. 2 (1)
2010: KU 1; UNI 9 (-8)
2011: KU 1; VCU 11 (-10)
Average seed disparity in losses: 5.28
Some quick math gives us (only counting NCAA tourney losses) an average seed disparity of 5.28 seeds higher than the opponent that beat us. The context of my original comment (that spurred this post, it seems) was that Bill Self takes all the advantages that are built into a job like KU (Grad’s 4 theories, if you will) and actually maximizes every one of them, which has made him more successful than probably any of us could have hoped for. The one place (and it’s a small sample size, I know, but he’s been here for 9 years now) that HCBS has for some reason had far less comparative success is in the tournament. I think the numbers I’ve presented above bear that out.
What I don’t have time to do is to take the top 10 teams on the NCAA wins list during the Bill Self era and crunch their numbers as well. If/when I do, I may do a fan post of my own in response. I strongly suspect, though, that no other team on that list has a loss-seed-disparity higher than -5.28.
And that’s the reason I wrote what I wrote.
Criticize FHOFNCHCBS at your own risk...
Please do.
I’d be very interested in what you find with it.
Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
Rock Chalk Talk
Yes, it was your post that got me thinking about this.
And I think you may be correct about the seed differential.
I think there is a statitics argueement here.
what is the expected value of final fours we should have made base on our seeds vs. the actual. sample size is 9. Is it statiscally significant? I’ll be back later, hopefully with an answer.
I always drink the Kool-Aid
Going for #8 in a row!
OK - 1st data set
Historically #1 seeds make the final four 40.9% of the time. We have been a #1 seed 4 times.
Chance of no final fours 12.19%
Chance of one final four 33.77%
Chance of two final fours 35.06%
Chance of three final fours 16.17%
Chance of four final fours 2.80%
This is just the data for when we were 1 seeds. I am making the assumption that the chance of #1 seed gettting to the final four is same every year. But it shows that getting only 1 final four or less out of those years has 45.96% chance.
I always drink the Kool-Aid
Going for #8 in a row!
What are the chances of a one-seed making an elite eight?
We’ve done that three of four years.
Gonna have to dig into the data to do that.
if some one can find the percent of time a 1 seed makes it to the elite 8, I can figure the chance of making it 3 out 4.
I always drink the Kool-Aid
Going for #8 in a row!
I hope you don't mind, but I decided to do a few.
UConn: -7.00
UNC: -1.60
Duke: -3.29
MSU: -0.50
UConn was a bit of a shocker. I knew they had some big losses (George Mason came to mind), but didn’t figure it would be that high. Probably helps that two of their losses (1 to 11, 2 to 10) came in the two years following a championship.
UNC’s number is impressive given their typically high seeds. Only one loss to a non top 4 seed, and similar to UConn it came the year after a championship.
Ok fine but here is the problem
KU in that stretch has one national title (fine) and only one Final 4 appearance (wtf).
When you have a top team, you need to crash the Final 4. UNC took advantage of two loaded teams to the tune of two titles in that span. UConn did the same. Now I don’t think its necessarily bad coaching, but still.
Also, we were discussing Self in that article. Your stats include 2002 and 2003 which were both Roy years with two loaded teams. Roy got 9 wins in those two trips, while Seld has 18 wins in 8 years. That is a big difference.
I think as of right now, the title in 2008 outweighs almost everything. But in four or five years, if Self still only has one Final 4 appearance (despite having possibly 12-13 league titles in a row and a top 2 seed every year and this is extremely possible) attitudes are going to change.
Shit happens when you win championships
Yes, I did include 2 Roy years to make a full decade.
My post was mostly about KU and not so much about Bill Self. The last 2 Roy years just happened to both be final 4 years.
But even taking out those 2 years and only looking at the last 8 years, as KSinDC calculated above, we would still be in 4 place behind UNC, Uconn, and Duke but ahead of Michigan Sate, Florida and all the rest. Is that so terrible?
No not at all
I just think the last two tournaments skew things. I mean, imagine if Self had left after 2008. If you included his last two years with the next coach’s first 8 years, they would get a huge boost too after a national title and elite 8 run.
I think the biggest thing I got from your post was heartache. How many times we were painfully close to a title and couldn’t get it (2002, 2003, even last year when considering the remaining field) mixed with teams we came up unquestionably short (2009, 2005).
THe point I tried to get at is this – we have a good to great team every year. Shouldn’t we have cashed in on more hardware given how many chances we have had? Maybe no, I’m not trying to sound greedy. But this post proves we have had a good team in the big dance every year. The worst seed in that list is what, a 4? Mix in several one seeds, a two seed, a three, two fours… I mean damn!
Shit happens when you win championships
by Andrew Clark on Feb 22, 2012 9:34 PM CST up reply actions
Half empty or half full
Self has four elite eights in eight years.
Self has one final four in eight years.
I’m not sure why final fours are the standards by which coaches should be judged.
I agree with this...
I will say, though, that the Elite 8 does appear to be a bit of an Achilles Heel for Bill. His team’s tighten up every time. Even when he got over the hump against Davidson, it wasn’t because we lit the world on fire. As soon as the hurdle was cleared, everyone loosened up and we ran UNC off the floor. I’m really not sure why this is, but I do know that last year’s loss was about as inexcusable as they come.
by hiphopopotamus on Feb 22, 2012 3:55 PM CST up reply actions
Because its the Final 4
Is all I’ve got. Still, fair or unfair, its a benchmark used in historic evaluations of coaches and programs. We hang Final 4 banners in the phog. We don’t hang elite 8 banners.
Shit happens when you win championships
by Andrew Clark on Feb 22, 2012 9:31 PM CST up reply actions
Butler at 15 is impressive
Brad Stevens is gonna get paid a lot if/when he leaves Indy for a BCS school
I thought he would be the next coach at Indiana
Until Tom Crean finally got them turned in the right direction this season. I wonder if Kentucky rolls the dice on him after the upcoming Anthony Davis saga that will get Calipari fired. Might be too big a jump.
He’ll end up going to a Pac12 school and losing a lot, and then be a top MVC coach. Not because he is a bad coach by any means, just seems like what will happen. I don’t know why.
Shit happens when you win championships
by Andrew Clark on Feb 23, 2012 8:53 AM CST up reply actions
let's give him 2 mil per to be the coach in waiting. screw it.
I write everywhere. You're probably better off following me on twitter
I don't see him leaving Butler
I’d be more surprised if Stevens left than I would be if Mark Few left Gonzaga. Butler has their best-ever recruiting class coming in, and he’s making as much money as he would at any other school, but with way more job security. I don’t know why he’d ever leave (although it wouldn’t surprise me to see Butler eventually jump to the MVC).
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
