|
Post by Tummygoat on Jan 6, 2003 21:48:48 GMT -5
The sky is not falling. The world has not ended. I'm sick and tired of dealing with people thinking UK basketball is doomed. Sure we've had better days in our past, but you can't look at the past to know what you have now. You have to look at teams around you because the times change. Basketball today is not the same as it used to be. The players aren't the same. Everything is more equal. But guess what? One thing remains...Kentucky is at the top in basketball. Let's look at the top 5 programs (Indiana, North Carolina, Kentucky, UCLA, and Kansas). You will see Kentucky is right up there with the other "power programs" and leads at the most crucial stage.
THE LAST SIX YEARS.
WINS 1. Kansas (150) 2. Kentucky (141) 3. N. Carolina (126) 4. Indiana (118) 5. UCLA (115)
LOSSES 1. Kansas (38) 2. Kentucky (46) 3. Indiana (55) 4. UCLA (57) 5. N. Carolina (59)
Coaching percentage 1. Roy Williams (.798) 2. Tubby Smith (.754) 3. Knight/Davis (.682) 4. Guth/Doherty (.681) 5. Steve Lavin (.669)
Now. The most IMPORTANT stat because this is how championships are made.
Avg tournament round 1. Kentucky (3.6) . . . 2. Kansas (2.8) 3. UCLA (2.6) 4. North Carolina (2.5) 5. Indiana (less than 2.5)
|
|
|
Post by Tummygoat on Jan 6, 2003 23:02:47 GMT -5
"You think the last four years really make a difference? While you might think Kentucky has gone down, so have the other programs, but we are still on top with tournament victories and near the top with record. Take the last two or three and the results are the same. Point is, out of the major schools, UK has not fallen off and you'd better start to relax and enjoy things now, because friends things could be a whole lot worse and if you want these numbers like North Carolina and UNC you may just get your wish. Complaining to Barnhart about Tubby and trying to kick him out the door is going to give you a program on the decline. Barnhart's already shown that he's not the best at finding coaches. Dont cry wolf."
1. Kansas (115-35) (.771) 2. Kentucky (106-42) (.701) 3. Indiana (98-45) (.693) 4. UCLA (91-48) (.655) 5. UNC (92-55) (.626)
|
|
|
Post by truth on Jan 6, 2003 23:13:41 GMT -5
uhhh, what am I missing here with the 6 year to 4 year switch? 6 year data is defensible as a dataset - it's all the data. 4 year data is cherry-pickin'. Why do that?
|
|
|
Post by kj on Jan 6, 2003 23:48:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Jan 7, 2003 0:13:21 GMT -5
uhhh, what am I missing here with the 6 year to 4 year switch? 6 year data is defensible as a dataset - it's all the data. 4 year data is cherry-pickin'. Why do that? We're trying to confuse. Getting the synapses to fire. Number crunching. ;D
|
|
|
Post by catzfaninohio on Jan 7, 2003 7:44:59 GMT -5
the losses will come the big thing about orlando is not making it past the 16 the last few years and last year not even winning 1 game in the SEC tourny i think it all comes down to the players he gets
a good player or two and the rest mostly role players plus the way he uses the players i keep reading and hearing why kelenna is not playing much and as far as i can tell its because of his defense
you think JJ redick from duke would be sitting the bench if he was at UK you bet he would be we need consitant scoring and kelenna would give it to us if he got 15 -20 mins a game
|
|
|
Post by still_busted on Jan 7, 2003 10:51:21 GMT -5
I guess that is why the RPI has UK ranked at #28, 18 down from UoL
|
|
|
Post by Tummygoat on Jan 7, 2003 11:17:19 GMT -5
I only did the four year busted because DD people thought that would make a differnce to prove Kentucky has fallen from its power. Our overall pattern stayed about the same in the last four years and even the last two so the point was no matter what years you start from Kentucky has not fallen from prominence.
Now, considering the past, is a little different. We may not be as good as we used to be, but even then numbers could go back and with the exception of losing 1o games, our win totals and tournament win totals would be comparable or above nearly 20 years in Kentucky history. so why are things so bad when in reality they arent?
|
|
|
Post by kj on Jan 7, 2003 11:26:25 GMT -5
Did you watch UK play USC in the SEC tourney last year, TG? I know you did. How many other games has our team looked like it was sleepwalking las well as the coach catnapping on the bench. I think a coach's demeanor is reflected by his team. Tubby much of the time is very laid back, his team reflects that attitude frequently. Wonder if he is that laid back when fast breaking that fat paycheck to the bank?
|
|
|
Post by Tummygoat on Jan 7, 2003 11:36:46 GMT -5
I agree kj. The whole purpose of my records was to show as much people as possible that Kentucky has not fallen off the face of the Earth with respect to the other top 5 programs. Bashing Tubby based on 10 loss seasons and Sweet 16 berths will never get anyone anywhere.
my point is if you are going to dislike the status of kentucky basketball...it should not be based on numbers or stats because its not justifiable and made not knowing what the real facts are.
Things that most people wont argue with are some of what you just mentioned. I wont argue with someone that says we cant get motivated in the middle of games, or sleep walk throgh periods. Or for the last 4 years not playing exciting basketball when the fans AND PLAYERS want it like we are finally doing. Our coach has ignored the requests of its fans and done his own style and those are some of the things that I would expect to hear complaints about and most people would not argue with unless they are sold that Kentucky is the best program on Earth right now and we are untouchable (then they need a dose of reality). As long as numbers and falisifiable stats come around as a basis to fire our coach, I will always be around to put some spin and evidence around it as to why thats not a good reason. I think YOUR post has the most credible part of a non-Tubby fan I've seen in a while and logical thinking makes a whole lot of difference on these boards.
|
|
|
Post by kj on Jan 7, 2003 21:52:34 GMT -5
Can't say that I agree that a 70% winning % or sweet 16 finishes are enough for me. Adequate, but not great by any means. Your analysis seems to include everybody but Duke, why is that? They along with us were the team of the 90's. Why have we fallen and they haven't? You can't say maintaining that level is impossible, TG. Duke has done it, why can't we?
It's not a dishonor to lose as long as everything is left on the floor by the coaches, players and everyone involved. Off games happen but not at the rate they have at UK. Why is that? Motivation? Does it belong in the hands of the coach or players? Either way you answer that question it still falls in the coach's lap. Who brought in the players? We are now beyond players with the mark of the beast so they have to be Tubby's players.
As far as nobody as good for a replacement, I have my doubts. Tubbys record was a couple of sweet 16's and a 70% winning % pre UK, if you think there are no coach's out there willing to take this job with those same resumes, I think you are wrong. After all as I have heard many times Pitino nor Tubby made UK the converse is true. There are people out there who could do as well or better than Tubby. We'll see soon enough imo.
|
|
|
Post by MyBlueHeaven on Jan 7, 2003 22:56:10 GMT -5
Although, as many know by now, I am not a firm supporter of our current head coach, I pose this question with a pure neutral intent: How many of you out there, when hearing that RP was leaving UK, immediately thought "We should try to hire Smith as our next coach."? For me, he was a secondary thought that I didn't disapprove of. I liked the things that he had done at Tulsa and UGA. But, he was not a name that I immediately tagged. Given this, I have a hard time convincing myself that there wouldn't be someone else out there that would make a better fit and yet interested in the job if the opportunity arose. Totally, off the subject....how about the latest RPI? Polls are polls, but the RPI has it's clout.
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Jan 7, 2003 23:04:27 GMT -5
Can't say that I agree that a 70% winning % or sweet 16 finishes are enough for me. Adequate, but not great by any means. Anyone think 70% would be the norm if we played a different type of schedule? The type that many teams employ today?
|
|
|
Post by kj on Jan 8, 2003 0:01:22 GMT -5
Anyone think 70% would be the norm if we played a different type of schedule? The type that many teams employ today? Does anybody think if we had won 75% of the games that we lost when we were playing opponents we should beat that a 70% win % would be in the books for the last 4 years?
|
|
|
Post by Tummygoat on Jan 8, 2003 0:16:28 GMT -5
If we had Duke's schedule we would have won 80% of our games. Our only losses would have come in the SEC. Look we played Ohio as one of our "creampuffs" (even though they are good). That would have been Duke's toughest game. They'll play a good team every now and then, but mostly they rely on their high rankings off cake plays. Even the great Dean Smith avg wasn't 80% so why do we expect that in Tubby's 6th season?
|
|