For All Cal Bashers; 2010-15 Is 3rd Best 6 Year Run In UK's Glorious History
- Thread starter dlh331
- Start date
man, you Heisenberg, crest and some others...just can't resist.
Do you guys get some joy out being contrarian?
If not, and your so unhappy with the results...smh...why the insanity, of preaching the exact same message over and over?
So 2010 and 2015 were weak years on Cal's resume?
2010 - his first year as coach at new school, had to implement a new system with a team full of players he did not know and count on freshmen that had zero upperclass support because they were all learning at the same time. Upset in the Elite Eight.
2015 - the man won 38 in a row before being upset by the #3 team in the country in the final four.
Those are your weak years? If you want to go undefeated every year go play a video game.
Attention seeking. If you ever had children you'd understand. Most of the time they grow out of it, but some never do I guess.
I have a 5 and 7 year old...lol...you are right! Once their mind is on something, they ask the same question a hundred times?
![[roll]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/roll.r191677.gif "roll [roll]")
There are some great stats from the '46-'51 run, the 3 NCAA titles first among them, but more amazing to me is that nearly 92% overall record as well as only 1 loss in the post season. I realize both #1 and #2 predate a lot of fans experience, the first even mine, but clearly there have been other era's like the one we're in now. That's the perspective I have, and would like to see a few more have from the crowd who proclaim this the best era ever. Really it isn't except in the number of guys drafted, but that's about the NBA not college basketball.
I've never seen anyone proclaim this is the best era ever. Everyone knows the Rupp era from 1946-1952 is...or hell 1948-1958 if you want to go a decade span.
I think it is pretty clear now this is the 2nd best era any one coach has put on here.
The Pitino run from 1992 through the Tubster's 2nd year in 99 was probably the 2nd best era overall. That saw 7 Elite 8's, 4 Final Fours, 3 title game appearances and 2 titles. We obviously have to combine those two coaches eras to top Cal's though, as by themselves they do not top his IMO. 1 title and 4 Final Fours trumps 1 title and 3 Final Fours, and certainly 1 title and 1 Final Four.
Not weak years, but years he had the best team and didn't win it. 2010 might be the most talented team I can remember, and 2015 had it all.
Look, you guys are happy with our results and so am I. I think we could have done more, and I think you all do too. I definitely harp on it more because I feel like we could have propelled ourselves into a different stratosphere had we capitalized on some of those years (2010, 2015) in particular.
But I have a different opinion about Cal as a coach. I think he will always accumulate the talent to get us close, but I don't see him winning another title at UK. Hope I'm wrong obviously, but I don't think he can get it done. He won in 2012 with a transcendent star. That team had a will to win and would not be denied. His other team at Memphis that lost the title (that they should have won) also had a transcendent type star in Derek Rose. No one had seen a guard with elite athleticism like him before. He was unstoppable much like AD and Cal still didn't win it.
Cal is amazing, but I don't think he'll win it again. He gets too tight in the end. Pulls the team back, and it costs him. It's a trend. Do it once? Yeah ok, mistake. Do it multiple times and it becomes who you are.
If Cal pledged to stay 10-20 more years (similar to a Coach K type of tenure) then I could see him overcoming this. But he won't be here that long to see that through. He said himself on Cowherd "this is NOT a 10-15 year job". I don't see him here much longer because of statements like that. What else am I supposed to think?
Again, the run has been incredible, but there is no denying we could have done more. Many on here will say, "what more do you want etc" and will defend to the death what we have done. Only a few will actually admit "yes we could ha e done more". I think the one title is all we will win and to me it's kind of a travesty given all the talent and momentum we've had these last 6 years.
A
anon_9qtxg60vqzy0y
Guest
Once again, you show how ignorant you are. 2014 Championship Game vs. UCONN, we shoot 13-24 from the free throw line. UCONN shoots 10-10. We left 11 points on the table and lose by 6. Is it Cal's fault we missed 11 freebies? You know nothing about basketball. Stop pretending you're hopeful Cal will win another championship because it isn't true. You're hoping Cal comes up short just so you can say "Told ya so". Do us all a favor and get lost.
Consider that your mother might wonder "what could have been" in similar fashion. Doesn't mean you had much control if she wanted a brain surgeon. The rest of your post suggests that you fail to consider all the other factors in actually winning the tournament. Never under estimate luck, the path to the finals, match ups, etc. Talent does NOT assure you of squat. You must have enough talent, but there are other very critical factors.
A
anon_9qtxg60vqzy0y
Guest
Your perspective is skewed. The era you used as an analogy is pre-68 team tournament as well as inferior athleticism. Today's athlete is far more superior and it's really not even close. Apples and Oranges.
No, but it was Cal's fault in allowing the team to get behind by 17 points in the first half simply because he refused to switch out of his beloved M2M defense that was getting gashed. He was lauded at halftime for switching defenses the last 5 minutes of the first half to get UK back in the game. The problem was he waited far too long to do it. Anyone with any basketball IQ could tell by the first TV timeout that they were much to quick at the guard spot for us to defend properly thus we gave up easy basket after easy basket. I have no problem in saying that Cal does a tremendous coaching job most of the time but there are times he simply doesn't do the simplest of things and it usually comes at a time when we can ill afford a coaching gaffe'
For some perspective, in a typical year, the NCAA tourney favorite is given less than a 30% chance to win. UK has had a couple of teams that were given better than a 30% chance of winning (2015 was 44% and 2012 was 33%).
Here are the odds - entering the tourney - during Cal's time at UK:
2010: 20%
2011: 3%
2012: 33%
2013: 0%
2014: 1%
2015: 44%
Now, without getting into the theory, it turns out that you can just add up these percentages and it will tell you the expected number of titles that Kentucky would win (based on these probabilities from Vegas). The answer turns out to be 1.01.
That's right, Vegas says Kentucky would be expected to win 1.01 titles during the 6 years Cal has been here, and they have won one title. That's hardly under-achieving in the NCAA tournament.
If you could go back and find odds of making a final four, you would find that UK has made probably 1.5 to 2 more final fours than Vegas would have predicted. That's certainly over-achieving.
I think too many of our fans seem to think that being the favorite (or even the second favorite as in 2010) means that we SHOULD win the title. It just doesn't work that way when there are so many teams in the field. Even the favorite is rarely an overwhelming favorite, and even an overwhelming favorite (as we were this past year) is never better than 50/50 to win it all.
Here are the odds - entering the tourney - during Cal's time at UK:
2010: 20%
2011: 3%
2012: 33%
2013: 0%
2014: 1%
2015: 44%
Now, without getting into the theory, it turns out that you can just add up these percentages and it will tell you the expected number of titles that Kentucky would win (based on these probabilities from Vegas). The answer turns out to be 1.01.
That's right, Vegas says Kentucky would be expected to win 1.01 titles during the 6 years Cal has been here, and they have won one title. That's hardly under-achieving in the NCAA tournament.
If you could go back and find odds of making a final four, you would find that UK has made probably 1.5 to 2 more final fours than Vegas would have predicted. That's certainly over-achieving.
I think too many of our fans seem to think that being the favorite (or even the second favorite as in 2010) means that we SHOULD win the title. It just doesn't work that way when there are so many teams in the field. Even the favorite is rarely an overwhelming favorite, and even an overwhelming favorite (as we were this past year) is never better than 50/50 to win it all.
I see Cut Nets is still putting down Cal every chance he gets. The ignore feature is great. I suggest more use it. Cut would rather have Bruce Pearl here than Cal. That alone should be enough to know he has no business commenting on the game of basketball.
There's also a nice little feature where you can report a post by clicking on "report" in the post. Do that to trolls.
There's also a nice little feature where you can report a post by clicking on "report" in the post. Do that to trolls.
Last edited:
I don't know, is it? Are free throws a reflection of a coach's emphasis on them? Why does Duke consistently shoot free throws really well? Has Coach K just gotten lucky and all of the players he recruits are solid from the line? No, he places an emphasis on them and I imagine spends a lot of time practicing them. Cal used to always say "Im not worried about free throws, they'll make them when it counts". Really? Guess by your example they sure as hell didn't make them when it counted. I think you are the dumb ass that knows nothing about basketball. Next...
Bruce Pearl isn't just some stiff behind a computer screen Jay, the guy can coach.
A
anon_9qtxg60vqzy0y
Guest
You're really blaming a coach for something he absolutely no control over? Placing emphasis on it doesn't matter. Shaq, arguably one of the most dominant centers had free throw gurus trying to help him improve his free throw shooting his entire career. Look at DeAndre Jordan of the Clippers. If you can't shoot, you can't shoot. Simple as that.
A
anon_9qtxg60vqzy0y
Guest
Yeah, Pearl can coach alright. He only cost Tennessee a trip to the Final Four against Ohio State in Chris Lofton's junior year. They were up 20 points on OSU and lost. Tennessee had the ball in the last possession with an opportunity to go ahead and Pearl doesn't call a timeout. Smith takes the ball downcourt and jacks up an ill-advised clunker and OSU won. Good strategy right there.
How about we revisit the actual point of this thread. There is NO objective measure that indicates that Cal has under-achieved during his time at UK. His NCAA tourney success has been impressive. His regular season success has been impressive. His ability to bring in talent has been impressive.
I already showed that the teams have more than lived up to the impressive odds that Vegas has given them going into the tournament. The only possible criticism left might be that a "better coach" could have taken that talent to even more impressive odds going into those tournaments. But I find that kind of hypothetical criticism to be meaningless. During his time at Kentucky, UK has twice had some of the best odds in modern history (2012 and 2015). The 2010 team was just a few percentage points behind a Kansas team (that got upset early) but also had excellent odds and an amazing regular season. The 2014 team underachieved during the season but STILL made the title game.
Are there better "sideline" coaches than Calipari? Perhaps. But can any of them bring in the talent that he can? Certainly not. Coach K is the only coach who has demonstrated the ability to bring in a lot of talent and win consistently in the tourney, but he hasn't matched Cal's level of talent, and the recent opening round tourney losses are something Cal hasn't experienced. If we traded Duke's past 6 years for our own, the same "fans" that are complaining about Cal would almost certainly still be complaining. Some people aren't happy with anything...
I already showed that the teams have more than lived up to the impressive odds that Vegas has given them going into the tournament. The only possible criticism left might be that a "better coach" could have taken that talent to even more impressive odds going into those tournaments. But I find that kind of hypothetical criticism to be meaningless. During his time at Kentucky, UK has twice had some of the best odds in modern history (2012 and 2015). The 2010 team was just a few percentage points behind a Kansas team (that got upset early) but also had excellent odds and an amazing regular season. The 2014 team underachieved during the season but STILL made the title game.
Are there better "sideline" coaches than Calipari? Perhaps. But can any of them bring in the talent that he can? Certainly not. Coach K is the only coach who has demonstrated the ability to bring in a lot of talent and win consistently in the tourney, but he hasn't matched Cal's level of talent, and the recent opening round tourney losses are something Cal hasn't experienced. If we traded Duke's past 6 years for our own, the same "fans" that are complaining about Cal would almost certainly still be complaining. Some people aren't happy with anything...
So coaching has absolutely zero bearing on how well a "team" shoots free throws? You said against Uconn "WE" (meaning the team) shot 13/24 from the line. We're not talking about "one" player. So I guess you are saying that coaching has zero to do with free throw shooting. Then why do Coach K's teams consistently shoot well from the line? God you are dumb
A team that, on average, makes 70% of its free throws (which is the median for NCAA DI teams) would make 13 or fewer free throws in roughly 7.5% of games in which they got 24 attempts (and that ignores the pressure of the title game and what some claim is the complication of shooting in a dome). That UK managed to have that kind of bad day on a big stage is unfortunate, but a typical team has that kind of bad day about three times per season. That's just the way it is.
Facts for the idiot running rampant through this thread.
UK team FT% last year: 72.6
Duke team FT% last year: 69.9
UK team FT% last year: 72.6
Duke team FT% last year: 69.9
First very well written post. No name calling or anything
1. please stop harping....everyone knows your feelings.
2. that is your opinion and that is fine...but again you have stated it soooo many times
3. I think most honest fans would say yes they are disappointed we don't have more titles; and yes the most, "potentially" talented teams don't not always win (in any sport). ESPECIALLY, if the majority of that talent is freshman.
What does this even mean? Titles are incredibly hard to come by. A coach at UK should be judged by how many F4's we appear in, winning the title is simply too hard.
It cracks me up when I read things like this though. IMO, it has to come from adolescents or folks that just don't like Cal's style.
Everyone wishes that we accomplished more. Everyone wishes we could win the title every year. What makes you irritating is the belief that we should have, and that it is a big failure that we didn't. I'm sure you will deny this, but that's what you are very strongly insinuating. You just come off like a spoiled brat who can't appreciate that we are lucky to have accomplished what we did, because it could very easily not have happened. If you want to mope all the time go do it by yourself.
True, because it's really possible to compare those eras. 3 games to win the title.
Long Island/NC St/Utah
Columbus/Holy Cross/Baylor
CCNY
Those are the few of the teams we played in the tournament. Talent was not spread out like it is now. Rupp was great, but you can't compare what he did to now, it was much easier for the programs on top to stay on top.
Yes we "should" have won the title in 2015, and its a big failure that we didn't. I don't think thats an outrageous proclamation. We had 3 straight shot-clock violations in the semi-finals. Hell yeah we should have won it all. We were 38-0 going into that. Yes we should have won it all. We had the best player in the country in KAT. Yes we should have won it all. Shew how dumb are you?
Wait, did we have the best player in the country or the number one draft pick? Cause you've told us those are unrelated and that NBA players don't translate to titles.
And you still don't know how probability works. It's ridiculous to say one team "should" have won a 68 team single elimination tournament, especially when the brackets are arranged by humans with consideration to things like geography, conferences, storylines, etc., participants are teenagers, and officiating is inconsistent.
Folks in Vegas make a lot of money by impartially estimating how likely each team is to win the title. Most of the Vegas lines had Kentucky at below 50% to win it all last year - even with KAT and a 38-0 record. That means that we SHOULDN'T HAVE won it all - even while being one of the biggest favorites of the modern era. We could have won it all. We were far more likely than any single other team to win it all. But the other 67 teams combined were more likely than us to win it all. That's the nature of the NCAA tournament. The whole system is designed to make it really hard for the best team to win it all. That's why the TV ratings are so high every year.
(And yes, I know that the Vegas lines aren't exactly what those experts would pick as the probabilities of a team winning the title. But last year, with UK being such a popular team, any deviation in the line would have tended to inflate their estimate of the actual probability. So if anything, those experts would probably have had Kentucky at about 40% or so.)
To call it a failure when a team that is below 50% to win it all fails to win it all is worse than calling it a failure every time a coin flip comes up heads.
Kentucky:
2014-15 72.6%
2013-14 68.2%
12-13 64.2%
11-12 72.3%
10-11 71.0%
Duke:
14-15 69.9%
13-14 72.3%
12-13 73.9%
11-12 70.1%
10-11 75.3%
Which basically confirms that teams who run the most offense through their bigs shoot lower percentages, unless you have a guy like Towns that shoots them well. It's a difference in style of play and recruiting. Just like we block way more shots, or just like some teams make a certain percentage of threes.
There's virtually no correlation to be drawn between FT percentage and team success. Why fans obsess over it is beyond me.
2014-15 72.6%
2013-14 68.2%
12-13 64.2%
11-12 72.3%
10-11 71.0%
Duke:
14-15 69.9%
13-14 72.3%
12-13 73.9%
11-12 70.1%
10-11 75.3%
Which basically confirms that teams who run the most offense through their bigs shoot lower percentages, unless you have a guy like Towns that shoots them well. It's a difference in style of play and recruiting. Just like we block way more shots, or just like some teams make a certain percentage of threes.
There's virtually no correlation to be drawn between FT percentage and team success. Why fans obsess over it is beyond me.
Fans obsess over it because they over-estimate its relative importance. There are several reason for this over estimation:
1) They don't take the time to do the arithmetic. For example the difference in a typical game between a team that shoots 75% (GREAT team shooting that is well above the NCAA average) and one that shoot 65% (TERRIBLE team shooting that is well below the NCAA average) is less than two points. It's about the same as eliminating two turnovers or blocking one more lay-up attempt. The difference between exceptional and terrible is pretty small.
2) They look at the box scores of losses and pay attention to how many FTs are missed, but they don't look at box scores of wins and pay attention to how many FTs are missed. This imbalance builds the impression that missed FTs play a more significant role in losses than they actually do.
3) They like to imagine that you can get a player who is great at other aspects of the game and have him magically be a great FT shooter, but they never imagine the opposite. Nerlens Noel was a great shot blocker (nearly 4.5 per game), but not a great FT shooter (only 53%). People complain that he could easily become a much better FT shooter. Kyle Macy was a great FT shooter (89% for his career) but only blocked 3 shots in 98 total games. No one laments that Macy wasn't a better shot blocker. Different players have different skills. If a player is a below-average FT shooter, he needs to do enough other things above-average to justify his minutes. That's the trade-off. It's not fair to look at a guy and focus on his one below-average quality and ignore what he does well to offset the liability. But fans don't see this.
4) What happens at the end of close games is amplified in our memory. MANY more free throws are shot at the end of close games, so many more free throws are missed at the end of close game. And for a team like UK that is almost always on the winning side if the game is a blowout, the winning percentage in close games is obviously far worse than in blowouts. So fans build a mental correlation between missed free throws and losses. They then attach causation to that correlation that isn't particularly fair.
Which is no different than any other coach including Coach K.
