Joe Lunardi’s math last night

[Aike]

Gotcha I was reading and though you were saying it’s a bad loss, you usually don’t do that with games like that. But I agree it could cost UK a seed line, that’s why the Miami game is huge, they need to get that own for sure

Yeah by itself it won’t hurt. But if we don’t close some of those other opportunities then it definitely could hurt when push comes to shove.

 

[North Carolina Blue Wildcat]

Not to pile on, but the latest thing Cal does to get on my nerves is to claim that we could have won it all in 2020.

Not saying we couldn’t have, but would we have? 95% chance we wouldn’t have. We were looking at a 2 seed at best with a strong SEC tourney showing. Our PG situation was in flux. And Kansas was the clear number 1.

Trying to deflect from your failures by talking about the one that got away is loser stuff. Definitely far beneath a HOF coach.

Cal should know to not pat himself on the back for the things he didn’t accomplish. We don’t care about woulda, coulda, shoulda.

 

[jrpross]

Talking about making stats lie.

Cherry picking to an agenda.

If that’s what he did then so are you.

Except he used facts and you use imagination.

Nah, I get where he’s coming from.

Take the 13-14 season for example. They were ranked #1 coming into the season. Then they went into the tournament as an unranked 8 seed with a 24-10 record. Then thanks to Aaron Harrison’s heroics, they made a miraculous run to the title game (my goodness, what a fun tournament) Now by Lunardi’s metrics, they far outperformed their seed. But that season was a major UNDERperformance when you look at it from start to finish. Any thinking person can see that.

Lunardi’s point is a perfect example of how numbers are a good starting point for discussion but shouldn’t typically be used as the incontrovertible truth in a matter. Especially with a stat with as much need for context as this one.

 

[yoshukai]

I was just saying that in the scheme of things, a neutral court loss to a team of that caliber may or may not cost us a seed line.

As to why we lost? Execution at the end of both halves, and inability to adjust defensively (stop going under the screen, especially up 6 late) would get my votes.

Well , evidently Cal told the commentators that we weren’t going to work on end of game situations until “camp Cal” . So I guess it was to be expected, lol .

 

[yoshukai]

Wichita St. and UCLA wins in 2017 were both pretty good too. But we haven’t had much to hang our hats on for a while. At least in the tournament.

The UCLA was a good win as they were a 3 seed . Witchita St was a 10 seed so I’m not really impressed with that one . So since 2015 we have 2 wins over 3 seeds . Those are our shining moments.

 

[Aike]

The UCLA was a good win as they were a 3 seed . Witchita St was a 10 seed so I’m not really impressed with that one . So since 2015 we have 2 wins over 3 seeds . Those are our shining moments.

I think Wichita St. was vastly under-seeded, but I get your point.

 

[JimmyBlue1972]

Cal should know to not pat himself on the back for the things he didn’t accomplish. We don’t care about woulda, coulda, shoulda.

Now they’re mad about stuff Cal said years ago. The Karen’s don’t stop.

 

[Monk2Fox]

I didn’t see this mentioned, but Lunardi did a segment last night during the game on why Cal was successful as a tournament coach.

I thought it was a great example of how you can make data lie or at least tell half truths.

He used a metric of expected tournament wins based on seed line, and pointed out that Cal has done better in that area than Tubby or Rick did. Cal had a ratio of 1.1 win for every expected win.

Lunardi was definitely using the opportunity to take shots at our fan base.

Ok, so here’s the lie. The problem, for the most part, hasn’t been Cal underperforming his seed line. The problem has been UK being seeded too low because Cal underperformed during the season.

A 4 seed who makes the Elite Eight has exceeded expectations. A 1 seed who makes the Final Four has only met expectations.

My contention is that Cal has had too many teams who should have been in position to get that 1 seed. But a dropped game (or 2 or 3) season after season has us up against it come March.

We haven’t gotten a 1 seed since 2015. Not entirely coincidentally, that was our last Final Four.

We caught a little fool’s gold with those deep runs in ‘11 and ‘14 as a 4 and 8 seed, respectively. Those were a lot of fun, but they were the exception that proves the rule.

Glad to see us gut it out last night. The Kansas loss is an issue. A home loss to St. Joe’s could have been a problem 4 months from now.

It is all how you want to look at something. What Lunardi said is completely accurate. Is BIll Self a better coach with his OVER AGED team consistently being seeded 1 yet flaming out in spectacular fashion A LOT? is it totally conceivable Cal coaches for the most part a very young team that needs time? Coach K was a legend correct? Who is the better coach when dealing with 5 star freshmen? Izzo? Self? or Cal.
You can spin what ever Lunardi said last night, but facts are facts. What he stated was 100 percent factual. You stating Cal "messed" up a few games to get them a worse seeding. So... Cal never won a game saying the opposite? Does Self and previously Coach K get ridiculous big 12 and ACC friendly refs that gave them a few more wins then they deserved? Youre obviously a bright guy, but please stop trying to "HARD" to appease the cal haters on this thread. When Cal messes up he deserves criticism. He also deserves praise when its due.

I saw one thread where the basketball gods on this forum posted that Cal obviously isnt very smart cause He never runs plays for his shooter to get open. Did it ever occur that it depends on the team. I can remember when Cal ran plays for Murray and Grady etc. Depends on the offense. Not directed towards you, but the Cal hate is actually pretty pathetic and you are a capable guy.... go coach. there is analytics and then there is actually coaching and game management. Cal is guy who took every program he was at and made them title contenders. If thats so easy, please try and show us.

 

[thack_kat]

You shouldn’t take something as arbitrary as rankings and try to make conclusions from that as if they were facts. Fun to talk about but not real proof of anything.

 

[Cals_Prairie_Dog]

Let’s see the number of missed tournaments by coach. Let’s see the average wins per tournament appearance. Let’s see average number of 5 stars on team per appearance. Let’s see average number of NBA draft picks per appearance.

 

[The_Answer1313]

I could see how this is bias.

If you are a 1 seed, the odds of getting more actual wins over expected is low. Heck even if you win the title as a 1 seed that's what 2 wins over expected?

Whereas if you are an 8 seed and you take a team to a final four (despite the fact that team probably had the talent to be better than an 8 seed) than you are credit for a ton more actual over expected

The other thing (and Lunardi didn't really explain it) but if he's just looking at seeding, he IMO is doing it wrong.
What happens if you are an 8 seed. You're expected wins is 1 win (the first round game vs the 9 seed). BTW even that I'm not sure is entirely correct. I don't think that's how most sites do this but anyways. Let's say the 16 seed upsets the 1 seed. The 8 seed will be the favorite in the second round. At that point they should be EXPECTED to win that game.

If you aren't accounting for the actual seeds that you end up facing, you're doing this wrong IMO.

 

[Blueaz]

I didn’t see this mentioned, but Lunardi did a segment last night during the game on why Cal was successful as a tournament coach.

I thought it was a great example of how you can make data lie or at least tell half truths.

He used a metric of expected tournament wins based on seed line, and pointed out that Cal has done better in that area than Tubby or Rick did. Cal had a ratio of 1.1 win for every expected win.

Lunardi was definitely using the opportunity to take shots at our fan base.

Ok, so here’s the lie. The problem, for the most part, hasn’t been Cal underperforming his seed line. The problem has been UK being seeded too low because Cal underperformed during the season.

A 4 seed who makes the Elite Eight has exceeded expectations. A 1 seed who makes the Final Four has only met expectations.

My contention is that Cal has had too many teams who should have been in position to get that 1 seed. But a dropped game (or 2 or 3) season after season has us up against it come March.

We haven’t gotten a 1 seed since 2015. Not entirely coincidentally, that was our last Final Four.

We caught a little fool’s gold with those deep runs in ‘11 and ‘14 as a 4 and 8 seed, respectively. Those were a lot of fun, but they were the exception that proves the rule.

Glad to see us gut it out last night. The Kansas loss is an issue. A home loss to St. Joe’s could have been a problem 4 months from now.

Yep. Numbers dont lie but you can manipulate the answer by the question

Iirc many of the “above seed” wins were with the run with Terrence Jones’ team.

What are those numbers the last few years… that is question to be answered

 

[fatguy87]

The seed performance analysis also neglects the two years when we weren't even in position to enter the tournament.

Underperformance in the NIT didn't count lol

 

[The_Answer1313]

The seed performance analysis also neglects the two years when we weren't even in position to enter the tournament.

Underperformance in the NIT didn't count lol

Yep that's certainly another point lol

 

[yoshukai]

I could see how this is bias.

If you are a 1 seed, the odds of getting more actual wins over expected is low. Heck even if you win the title as a 1 seed that's what 2 wins over expected?

Whereas if you are an 8 seed and you take a team to a final four (despite the fact that team probably had the talent to be better than an 8 seed) than you are credit for a ton more actual over expected

The other thing (and Lunardi didn't really explain it) but if he's just looking at seeding, he IMO is doing it wrong.
What happens if you are an 8 seed. You're expected wins is 1 win (the first round game vs the 9 seed). BTW even that I'm not sure is entirely correct. I don't think that's how most sites do this but anyways. Let's say the 16 seed upsets the 1 seed. The 8 seed will be the favorite in the second round. At that point they should be EXPECTED to win that game.

If you aren't accounting for the actual seeds that you end up facing, you're doing this wrong IMO.

Pretty sure Bill Self has never gotten below a 2 seed , so he would probably score low using Lunardi‘s grading system.I would imagine coach K’s numbers would be bad also . It really means nothing.

 

[The_Answer1313]

The other thing is also while seeding "should" in theory be an indication of team strength, it is most of the time but not always.

There's been several years where we've been dinged quite a bit for being in a weaker power conference. There's been years in which we've won SEC tournaments only for it to not count when factoring in our actual seeding. These things contributed to a worse seed than we deserved. And thus making the tournament wins look more impressive in relation to seeding and wins above that.

 

[The_Answer1313]

All of this being said, FWIW I do like that Lunardi came on and 1) downplayed the significance of the St Joes game. Cause he's right. One game doesn't make or break a seeding and far too often people place so much emphasis on one game. And 2) The fact that he did mention expected wins over actual however flawed this thread shows it out to be. It's a lot better IMO to hear him rant about this stuff than to hear about who the 65th best team in America is on 11/20/23 lol.

 

[yoshukai]

All of this being said, FWIW I do like that Lunardi came on and 1) downplayed the significance of the St Joes game. Cause he's right. One game doesn't make or break a seeding and far too often people place so much emphasis on one game. And 2) The fact that he did mention expected wins over actual however flawed this thread shows it out to be. It's a lot better IMO to hear him rant about this stuff than to hear about who the 65th best team in America is on 11/20/23 lol.

I don’t really want to hear him say anything, lol . He’s not even that good at it . He is pretty far down the ratings list of NCAA tournament prognosticaters. He’s mainly a product of espn hype .

 

[The_Answer1313]

I don’t really want to hear him say anything, lol . He’s not even that good at it . He is pretty far down the ratings list of NCAA tournament prognosticaters. He’s mainly a product of espn hype .

Haha yeah but it's evident that any ESPN game he'll be shoved down our faces until eternity lol

 

[Wonky]

Can we all agree that Cal’s tenure has been analyzed to death, and that the dude just needs to win another title? Enough stats, just win. Yeah there’s a lot of luck involved in the tourney, but the great ones all get that second title at some point. Otherwise you’re just a Boeheim or an Izzo.

 

[jrpross]

All of this being said, FWIW I do like that Lunardi came on and 1) downplayed the significance of the St Joes game. Cause he's right. One game doesn't make or break a seeding and far too often people place so much emphasis on one game. And 2) The fact that he did mention expected wins over actual however flawed this thread shows it out to be. It's a lot better IMO to hear him rant about this stuff than to hear about who the 65th best team in America is on 11/20/23 lol.

As much as I agree with Aike, I do also agree that you can’t put that much stock in a close win over a bad team. Games like that happen for really good teams. It should never have that close, but they played really smart in overtime and pulled it out. When all is said and done, all it will be at the end of the season is a win.

 

[JimmyBlue1972]

Yep. Numbers dont lie but you can manipulate the answer by the question

Iirc many of the “above seed” wins were with the run with Terrence Jones’ team.

What are those numbers the last few years… that is question to be answered

We were an 8 seed the 2014 year and beat a 1 seed, 4 seed, two 2 seeds. The real question is how big of a Karen do you have to be to be triggered by this comment and start crying about he’s taking shots at the fanbase.

 

[Fox2monk]

I didn’t see this mentioned, but Lunardi did a segment last night during the game on why Cal was successful as a tournament coach.

I thought it was a great example of how you can make data lie or at least tell half truths.

He used a metric of expected tournament wins based on seed line, and pointed out that Cal has done better in that area than Tubby or Rick did. Cal had a ratio of 1.1 win for every expected win.

Lunardi was definitely using the opportunity to take shots at our fan base.

Ok, so here’s the lie. The problem, for the most part, hasn’t been Cal underperforming his seed line. The problem has been UK being seeded too low because Cal underperformed during the season.

A 4 seed who makes the Elite Eight has exceeded expectations. A 1 seed who makes the Final Four has only met expectations.

My contention is that Cal has had too many teams who should have been in position to get that 1 seed. But a dropped game (or 2 or 3) season after season has us up against it come March.

We haven’t gotten a 1 seed since 2015. Not entirely coincidentally, that was our last Final Four.

We caught a little fool’s gold with those deep runs in ‘11 and ‘14 as a 4 and 8 seed, respectively. Those were a lot of fun, but they were the exception that proves the rule.

Glad to see us gut it out last night. The Kansas loss is an issue. A home loss to St. Joe’s could have been a problem 4 months from now.

I still think overall Cal is a good coach in the tournament. He has gotten thru some brutal brackets, he just didn’t take advantage of the good ones these past couple years. We also lost 2 straight 1 possession Elite 8 games, and got robbed in one other and a final 4. So it could have been even better. The problem with Cal is he ends up losing to a team he shouldn’t. Auburn, IU, St. Joes, Kansas State x 2, WVU. If almost prefer to play the best teams, we always preform better but the Refs end up playing too big a role.

 

[UKWildcats1987]

I think Wichita St. was vastly under-seeded, but I get your point.

They rigged it so they would potentially play UK lol and it worked out.

I agree with the thread that Lunardis stats are goofy. 2011 and 2014 underachieving n regular season resulted in lower seeds than talent levels.

 

[Fox2monk]

After seeing Self’s overall resume it’s hard to say Cal underachieved compared to their results except 1 tournament. If we win 2015, don’t choke in 2014, get robbed in 2011/2017/2018(no Auburn fouls last 10 minutes of the game?!) it’s not even close.

 

[the nail at the foul line]

Pitino seeds

2, 1, 3, 1, 1, 1

Cal

1, 4, 1, no tournament, 8, 1, 4, 2, 5, 2, no tournament, 2, 6.

2011, 2014, 2018 exceeded seed.

2010, 2016, 2022 performed below.

 

[yoshukai]

Can we all agree that Cal’s tenure has been analyzed to death, and that the dude just needs to win another title? Enough stats, just win. Yeah there’s a lot of luck involved in the tourney, but the great ones all get that second title at some point. Otherwise you’re just a Boeheim or an Izzo.

I can .

 

[The_Answer1313]

Pitino seeds

2, 1, 3, 1, 1, 1

Cal

1, 4, 1, no tournament, 8, 1, 4, 2, 5, 2, no tournament, 2, 6.

2011, 2014, 2018 exceeded seed.

2010, 2016, 2022, 2023 did not.

Yeah I think this basically sums it up. Pitino was way more consistent. Which had he stayed longer prob leads to more titles.

That being said if Cal does get another one I feel like it’s been job done here.

 

[The_Answer1313]

I still think overall Cal is a good coach in the tournament. He has gotten thru some brutal brackets, he just didn’t take advantage of the good ones these past couple years. We also lost 2 straight 1 possession Elite 8 games, and got robbed in one other and a final 4. So it could have been even better. The problem with Cal is he ends up losing to a team he shouldn’t. Auburn, IU, St. Joes, Kansas State x 2, WVU. If almost prefer to play the best teams, we always preform better but the Refs end up playing too big a role.

Yeah I think so as well.

Plus we can’t ignore what he was able to accomplish at Memphis and Umass as well.

 

[G-PIP]

I think UK overperforming their seed in the Tournament has a lot to do with Calipari’s teams often being freshmen dominant teams. Most of those teams started out being not even close to as good as their (no valid basis and unearned) preseason incorrect ranking; and this was directly due to being heavily over-reliant on freshmen OADs – which is also why they (understandably) frequently lost big games early in the season. Since, however, those teams were about upside – to higher degree than any other major team in CBB - those teams got better as those players got more experience and they often ended up better than their seeding.

But this yearly gambling approach to roster building got progressively more difficult due to the increasing accuracy and reliance on 3 pt. shooting – which is not a strength of freshmen in general. Add the open-market transfer portal & NIL into the equation and I think trying to build a championship roster relying on multiple OADs is one of the worst ideas I can think of.

 

[kybassfan]

Cal should know to not pat himself on the back for the things he didn’t accomplish. We don’t care about woulda, coulda, shoulda.

Just exactly what did Cal say to make you think he gives a damn anymore about what fans think. There is this parable called Chicken Little…..

 

[ukdesi]

The last time UK had a win in the NCAA's where we actually "exceeded expectations" was a decade ago in 2013-2014 season (as an 8 seed).

2014-2015 1 seed UK lost to 1 seed Wisconsin -
2015-2016 4 seed UK lost to 5 seed Indiana in the round of 32
2016-2017 2 seed UK lost 1 seed UNC in the elite eight
2017-2018 5 seed UK lost to 9 seed K State in the sweet 16
2018-2019 2 seed UK lost to 5 seed Auburn in the elite eight
2021-2022 2 seed UK lost to 15 seed St Peters in the first round
2022-2023 6 seed UK lost to 3 seed K State in the second round

Not one win against a higher seeded team, which mirrors the relatively poor record vs ranked teams in this timeframe, and even extending the theme to this season, not finding a way to beat KU the other night is really par for the course in the last decade.

This stat is the biggest issue for me. Implication is that certainly UK hasn't been underseeded, and speaks to Cal's inability to coach up his team to win even one such game in this time period. This is 9 seasons and counting....... minus one for Covid....so 8 seasons I suppose.

 

[The_Answer1313]

To me, it's not so much the poor record vs better seeded teams but the mere fact we have a 4,5 and 6 seed years in there.

You have to be consist 1 or 2 or 3 IMO. That's the standard at UK.

 

[Blueaz]

We were an 8 seed the 2014 year and beat a 1 seed, 4 seed, two 2 seeds. The real question is how big of a Karen do you have to be to be triggered by this comment and start crying about he’s taking shots at the fanbase.

Who is triggered here, beside you…?lol

 

[Docpath1972]

It could be called lots of things.

I know lots of stats. For example, Harvey Kuehn won the AL batting title in 1959 with a .353 average. I also know his signature model glove was more like a dog bed than a baseball glove.

His bat‘s handle was much too thick. Now Al Kaline’s model with the thin handle was much better. Two great Tigers!

 

[JimmyBlue1972]

Who is triggered here, beside you…?lol

Your message board boyfriends, that’s who. On here crying about being slighted over Lunardi giving facts. Complete jokes.

 

[UKWildcats1987]

To me, it's not so much the poor record vs better seeded teams but the mere fact we have a 4,5 and 6 seed years in there.

You have to be consist 1 or 2 or 3 IMO. That's the standard at UK.

Other than Pitino UK hasn't been consistent at being a 1, 2 or 3 since seeding started.

I think UK fans are treating a 6 season tiny bit of our history with Pitino and expecting that to be the norm.

I want cal gone yesterday due to a variety if reasons but idk if the 1, 2 or 3 every season or close to it will happen.

 

[DreadLox]

His bat‘s handle was much too thick. Now Al Kaline’s model with the thin handle was much better. Two great Tigers!

Glove. Never saw the bat. I played with that damn glove until I could afford the magical Roberto Clemente model.

 

[Wildcat-in-STL]

Expectations are based on talent, not what Lunardi is going off of. Expectations start before a season, not on Selection sunday.

 

[AGEE11]

Fair enough. More than a little truth to the idea that we’ve had too many of the wrong players in the fold recently.

I blame that on a couple of things. One was Cal not adjusting fast enough when we were no longer dominating the one and done market. The other is that Cal has made some poor coaching hires, contributing to poorer player evaluation.

For my money, bringing in Welch and allowing him to operate was one of Cal’s best moves in years. Much less dead weight on this staff (but still a couple hundred pounds at least).

Very true takes through the whole thread. I especially agree with the Welch hire. You can see the changes already in how we are playing / being coached

Also your original idea on the stats is spot on. Really good friend of mine has a Major in Stats and he sent our group text a message about how off Lunardi's was from a "professional" statistics standpoint. It was kind of like asking 3 people who the will vote for and then saying "100% of people polled in KY will vote for Trump/Biden" not a lie, but not the whole truth