Mr. 63%: Why Context Is Inseparable from the Statistic

[paulcalhoun_rivals397471]

You put a lot of thought, time and effort into this post but for me the context is what I see with my eyes.

We all know about the poor roster construction of last yr. But he had enough talent to not get embarrassed as often as he did.

He has a lot to prove this yr and I hope he does it. But unfortunately he has put himself into a position where we need to be a Final Four caliber team this yr to save his job.

It was certainly known going into the season that we were heavily dependent on Lowe for quality PG play after Lewis left at a point when there were not many if any workable options left to replace him. We ended up not having a healthy true PG the entire season.

Aberdeen was not a PG prior to last season and I thought he was well developed to the job as the season progressed though teams adept at applying heavy ball pressure remained an issue. Being able to have Lowe and Aberdeen out there together would have helped considerably. The reason we looked terrible in some games was largely a matter of lacking ballhandling and turnovers totally wrecking whatever game plan you had.

 

[paulcalhoun_rivals397471]

I do know Coach K took over a 3 win Army team so not all of the coaches in that list had advantageous situations. That actually serves my point. Mr. 63% isn’t an argument — it’s a lazy one-liner that ignored all of the surrounding factors.

This is true about Army but Duke had been on a strong 3 year run under Bill Foster when K took over.

 

[Im The Village Idiot]

This true about Army but Duke had been on a strong 3 year run under Bill Foster when K took over.

It took Coach K time to really become Coach K.

Some coaches had bad records early due to the conditions and circumstances they were coaching in. Others just took longer to progress.

 

[paulcalhoun_rivals397471]

“not a strong argument by itself”. i’m a 63%er but i also agree with this.

I think we have a really good roster this year. But we had one his first season too.
Hes beat some really good teams. Hes gotta figure out how to do it consistently now.
There in lies my hope.

He’s been consistently mediocre throughout his career but he’s never had the pressure to do better until now. Maybe that forces his evolution as a coach.

He had a good roster the first year which was amazing given the circumstances under which he had to assemble it. Major injury issues to four key contributors are what prevented it from being a truly great season and it was still pretty dang solid given that we played the most difficult rated schedule in school history.

 

[paulcalhoun_rivals397471]

63% isn't the whole story.

Its the lack of game preparation. How many games have we gotten down double digits n 2 seasons against legit power conference teams? Pretty sure its an embarrassing number and high.

Also losing 14 games by double digits n 2 seasons. Losing both ncaa tournament games by an *** kicking.

Recruiting inconsistently. Ill grant kudos to getting Mom and the 5 star for next season. Issue is pope may not even be here next season so hard to get too excited. Yet.

Major injury issues with our PG's are a big contributing factor to these issues.

 

[Vek96]

Stats don’t always tell the whole story. Actually, perhaps not even most of the time. I think Mark will be extremely successful here. He’s showing that he’s willing to adapt, tweak, and improve every aspect of the program.

 

[Im The Village Idiot]

Stats don’t always tell the whole story. Actually, perhaps not even most of the time. I think Mark will be extremely successful here. He’s showing that he’s willing to adapt, tweak, and improve every aspect of the program.

 

[Catlogic1552]

Comparing 54 year-old Mark Pope’s 63% career win percentage vs others first 1-3 years, that were later successful, is disingenuous.

 

[Im The Village Idiot]

Comparing 54 year-old Mark Pope’s 63% career win percentage vs others first 1-3 years, that were later successful, is disingenuous.

Counterpoint: I don’t think his age has anything to do with it. I compared the first nine years of their coaching careers — all of them.

I threw in three bonus ones that were five years, merely for the hilarity of it.

What makes you say it is disingenuous? Nothing you said refutes the methodology. You’re welcome to explain the flaw in method.

 

[BBNinSCar]

I don’t disagree with your expectations for Kentucky. Where we disagree is the evidence. If Kentucky’s advantages are as unique as you describe, then they actually make a coach’s pre-Kentucky winning percentage less predictive, not more. That’s why I think “Mr. 63%” is a weak standalone argument. Whether Pope ultimately meets Kentucky’s standard is a separate question.

The Mark Pope hire is an outlier that you can’t factor in an

I don’t disagree with your expectations for Kentucky. Where we disagree is the evidence. If Kentucky’s advantages are as unique as you describe, then they actually make a coach’s pre-Kentucky winning percentage less predictive, not more. That’s why I think “Mr. 63%” is a weak standalone argument. Whether Pope ultimately meets Kentucky’s standard is a separate question.

I do not believe Pope would have even been on Kentucky’s radar if he were not an alum. The 63% would not have gotten him an interview. I’m sure that prior coaching hires, Cal, Smith, Pitino, and Sutton had much better resumes than Pope.
Pope is a smart, dedicated guy, I still have hope he’s going to make it here.

 

[Im The Village Idiot]

@cornbreadnmilk I’ve noticed you seem to disagree with a lot of what I wrote. I’d genuinely be interested in hearing which part of the argument you think is weakest. I’m happy to discuss it.

 

[mjj_2K]

This true about Army but Duke had been on a strong 3 year run under Bill Foster when K took over.

Yes, but that was about to fall off a cliff no matter who the coach was. All the best players except Gene Banks were gone, and other than Banks. Foster had left the cupboard bare.

I don't think people generally appreciate how much different college basketball was from 72-73 (first year Freshmen were eligible)-to the mid 90's (when the "NBA ASAP" stampede started) compared to what it's become. The expectation for players then was that you were going to have them for 4 years. If they were really, truly great, you might lose them after 3 seasons (or even 2, but that was rare). And there wasn't a stampede to the NBA. It paid to maximize draft position because there was no rookie salary cap (Larry Bird was the highest-paid Celtic ever before he even played a game in the NBA), and just making a roster didn't set someone up for life financially (which it does now).

And I think, because "national" recruiting was pretty limited (how much can you recruit guys outside your area if you've never even seen them play?), talent was more evenly dispersed in the major conferences, and there was more volatility in terms of team results. Bob Knight could go 63-1 for 2 seasons then follow it up with a 14-13 season. Joe Hall could go 13-13 and then nail a recruiting class and make a title game. And so on.

It's the version of the game I grew up with in the 80's, and I'll always miss it. It doesn't have much to do with what we have today.

 

[Im The Village Idiot]

The Mark Pope hire is an outlier that you can’t factor in an
I do not believe Pope would have even been on Kentucky’s radar if he were not an alum. The 63% would not have gotten him an interview. I’m sure that prior coaching hires, Cal, Smith, Pitino, and Sutton had much better resumes than Pope.
Pope is a smart, dedicated guy, I still have hope he’s going to make it here.

Whether or not Pope should have been hired at Kentucky was not covered in my article.

My article is about the efficacy of the 63% argument. I’m pushing back on the notion that the argument is useful for defining Pope’s future.

 

[*Fox2Monk*]

I agree with you but he inherited at least 4 players that were the core of the ‘05 championship. Couple of those guys leave for whatever reason (if it were like it is today), Roy doesn’t have that NC.

Yeah I remember that Matt recruited that core, they were just young and he wasn’t a great coach. Roy inherited that core plus him getting Marvin Williams made them the champs they were for sure.

 

[paulcalhoun_rivals397471]

Yes, but that was about to fall off a cliff no matter who the coach was. All the best players except Gene Banks were gone, and other than Banks. Foster had left the cupboard bare.

I don't think people generally appreciate how much different college basketball was from 72-73 (first year Freshmen were eligible)-to the mid 90's (when the "NBA ASAP" stampede started) compared to what it's become. The expectation for players then was that you were going to have them for 4 years. If they were really, truly great, you might lose them after 3 seasons (or even 2, but that was rare). And there wasn't a stampede to the NBA. It paid to maximize draft position because there was no rookie salary cap (Larry Bird was the highest-paid Celtic ever before he even played a game in the NBA), and just making a roster didn't set someone up for life financially (which it does now).

And I think, because "national" recruiting was pretty limited (how much can you recruit guys outside your area if you've never even seen them play?), talent was more evenly dispersed in the major conferences, and there was more volatility in terms of team results. Bob Knight could go 63-1 for 2 seasons then follow it up with a 14-13 season. Joe Hall could go 13-13 and then nail a recruiting class and make a title game. And so on.

It's the version of the game I grew up with in the 80's, and I'll always miss it. It doesn't have much to do with what we have today.

This is false. First off Banks was a big time player who had averaged 17.3 pts, 7.7 rebounds and 3.1 assists in 35.3 minutes per game as a junior.

They also returned Jr. Vince Taylor who had averaged 10.6, 2.1, and 2.5 in 33.9 minutes per game as a Soph.

They also returned Sr. Kenny Dennard who averaged 9.2, 5.3, and 1.8 in 30 minutes per game as a Jr.

Mike Gminski was the only major departing player from Foster's last Duke squad. Bob Bender was the only other Sr. who saw significant playing time at 33 minutes per game while posting averages of 6.4, 1.3, and 4.8.

1979-80 Duke Blue Devils Men's Roster and Stats | College Basketball at Sports-Reference.com

Check out the detailed 1979-80 Duke Blue Devils Roster and Stats for College Basketball at Sports-Reference.com

www.sports-reference.com

1980-81 Duke Blue Devils Men's Roster and Stats | College Basketball at Sports-Reference.com

Check out the detailed 1980-81 Duke Blue Devils Roster and Stats for College Basketball at Sports-Reference.com

www.sports-reference.com

 

[mjj_2K]

This is false. First off Banks was a big time player who had averaged 17.3 pts, 7.7 rebounds and 3.1 assists in 35.3 minutes per game as a junior.

They also returned Jr. Vince Taylor who had averaged 10.6, 2.1, and 2.5 in 33.9 minutes per game as a Soph.

They also returned Kenny Dennard who averaged 9.2, 5.3, and 1.8 in 30 minutes per game as a Jr.

Mike Gminski was the only major departing player from Foster's last Duke squad. Bob Bender was the only other Sr. who saw significant playing time at 33 minutes per game while posting averages of 6.4, 1.3, and 4.8.

1979-80 Duke Blue Devils Men's Roster and Stats | College Basketball at Sports-Reference.com

Check out the detailed 1979-80 Duke Blue Devils Roster and Stats for College Basketball at Sports-Reference.com

www.sports-reference.com

1980-81 Duke Blue Devils Men's Roster and Stats | College Basketball at Sports-Reference.com

Check out the detailed 1980-81 Duke Blue Devils Roster and Stats for College Basketball at Sports-Reference.com

www.sports-reference.com

Oh yay, the contrarian.

Yes, Krzyzewski inherited some players. And he inherited a Freshman and Sophomore class which included 1 guy who ever averaged double figures. Which is why his year 2 and 3 were awful and had him on the verge of being fired.

 

[bleedsblue5]

One thing he does well is beat lower lvl teams, I rarely worry about those wins anymore like with Cal. But the lack of intensity on defense is so worrysome I just dunno if it will every change, I am praying one of these assistants will help fix it, that or we just score so much it doesn't matter.

 

[paulcalhoun_rivals397471]

Oh yay, the contrarian.

Yes, Krzyzewski inherited some players. And he inherited a Freshman and Sophomore class which included 1 guy who ever averaged double figures. Which is why his year 2 and 3 were awful and had him on the verge of being fired.

It is not just being a contrarian when you were so factually off. You can't accurately claim the cupboard was left bare when you lost 3 Seniors one which averaged 6.4 pts per game and another that played 2.4 mpg. Coach K went 17-13 the first season with three future NBA draft picks two of which were seniors.

This is also of course assuming those Fr. and So. couldn't have possibly been more successful had Foster remained coach.

 

[LongliveWildcatDon]

It was certainly known going into the season that we were heavily dependent on Lowe for quality PG play after Lewis left at a point when there were not many if any workable options left to replace him. We ended up not having a healthy true PG the entire season.

Aberdeen was not a PG prior to last season and I thought he was well developed to the job as the season progressed though teams adept at applying heavy ball pressure remained an issue. Being able to have Lowe and Aberdeen out there together would have helped considerably. The reason we looked terrible in some games was largely a matter of lacking ballhandling and turnovers totally wrecking whatever game plan you had.

Maybe. I think DA and Oweh hurt our offensive as much as they helped. Two guys that scored in bunches and needed the ball in their hands. That kinda explains our scoring droughts and slow starts.

I still feel like the team just didn’t look like they were ready to play as well. I really hope we get a healthy season to fully judge Pope by this yr.

 

[paulcalhoun_rivals397471]

Maybe. I think DA and Oweh hurt our offensive as much as they helped. Two guys that scored in bunches and needed the ball in their hands. That kinda explains our scoring droughts and slow starts.

I still feel like the team just didn’t look like they were ready to play as well. I really hope we get a healthy season to fully judge Pope by this yr.

I think the lack of a true floor general definitely contributed largely to some of our issues.

 

[SenseMaker_Cats]

I think the lack of a true floor general definitely contributed largely to some of our issues.

I think that’s fair Paul. I think it’s also fair to think with that dysfunctional team that if he played it’s possible that we would have just traded the things he would have helped with for the problems he would have caused.

Seemed like a shoot first pg to me. I know at one point when he was playing he had more shot attempts per minute than Oweh.

 

[paulcalhoun_rivals397471]

I think that’s fair Paul. I think it’s also fair to think with that dysfunctional team that if he played it’s possible that we would have just traded the things he would have helped with for the problems he would have caused.

Seemed like a shoot first pg to me. I know at one point when he was playing he had more shot attempts per minute than Oweh.

I can't say you aren't making a legitimate point but it would have been nice to find out. Exactly how his game might have developed to help our team is hard to predict. I think just having someone who could have consistently gotten the ball up the floor against pressure would have been a big help. Any addition to guard depth would have been nice as well.

I would point out the fact that Oweh was limited because of the turf toe injury early in the season could have been a factor in that.

 

[BlueSince92]

Was that the Iliad, the odyssey, or a George R Martin book?

Nobody died. Definitely wasn't George.

 

[MdWIldcat55]

I don't know who is right. But I know who is lying: Everyone who claims to have actually read that entire OP.

 

[Im The Village Idiot]

I don't know who is right. But I know who is lying: Everyone who claims to have actually read that entire OP.

It takes less than ten minutes to read. Shorter than most articles. Surely our attention spans haven’t shrank that much? lol.

I even provided a disclaimer at the beginning : THIS IS NOT FOR EVERYONE. Heck, I put a lot of thought into developing the methodology knowing it may not be for anyone lol

 

[BlueSince92]

Fair and balanced.

My personal thoughts are Pope needs to navigate the minefield of players who are wired to love him and players who are wired to love him at first then think he's creepy: because it really seems like there are plenty of both. He can probably compete with pretty much anybody on a given night if he has the horses and if he's been able to download his brain into them. A lot of ifs between there and dominance. Those don't rule anything out; they just remain ifs.

(If he continues landing high-value recruits and sees a proportional uptick in results, I think it's more likely than not that he'll develop pipelines and turnover patterns that will help him with the two issues above, at least to a reasonable extent.)

Apart from his first year here, I don't think he's building rosters that are ideal for his system. Much of that may be due to both time constraints and compromises he's had to make as a result of his position in the market—inasmuch as either of those things is the cause, they should naturally diminish with success just like the two previous issues.

I'm still not a thousand percent sold it's a good idea to have so many kids inside and outside the program exposed to such a passionate Mormon in such a prominent position. Sue me.

Those are the things that concern me with Pope long term. "63%" questions never bothered me too much because, even if they had been true in ways that you've done a good job proving they were not, it's never been the 100% of a coach's results I care too much about anyway; it's the 15% of their games they played against the heavies, and how those games went win or lose.

Good subject and handling of it though.

 

[paulcalhoun_rivals397471]

It takes less than ten minutes to read. Shorter than most articles. Surely our attention spans haven’t shrank that much? lol.

I even provided a disclaimer at the beginning : THIS IS NOT FOR EVERYONE. Heck, I put a lot of thought into developing the methodology knowing it may not be for anyone lol

I just went back and reread it and it actually took about 4 and a half minutes.

 

[theKybluedude]

I just went back and reread and it actually took about 4 and a half minutes.

 

[paulcalhoun_rivals397471]

View attachment 1343382

How long did it take you? Are you just jumping at a chance to doubt someone without actually knowing that answer? I'm sure a true speed reader could get through it much faster.

 

[theKybluedude]

How long did it take you? Are you just jumping at a chance to doubt someone without actually knowing that answer? I'm sure a true speed reader could get through it much faster.

Just teasing.

 

[Goingfor9]

What’s Mark boats? Winning percentage while at UK. Not that other crap matters because he had no résumé. He wasn’t proven. He coached it. Some ridiculous schools that have a niche and he fit the niche perfectly. When you have 100% of a group to recruit from you’re gonna get whatever your specialty is whatever sets you apart. This is the x factor and why he won’t make it at UK. He has no group that he appeals to. The groups out West that he appeals to just so happened not to make the best basketball players in the world, but there are a lot of good college basketball guys from Utah Nevada.. so just add in conclusion. Mark Popes philosophy, Life precludes him from coaching an institution committed to winning at the highest level levels.. It limits him a lot of ways the types of guys we need seem to not relate to pope at all. The bottom line says the guy had no résumé to coach at our all-time winningness program. He has no real connection to the Bluegrass. It’s not like Pope had a bunch of buddies back in Kentucky. And his recruiting ties east of the Mississippi are almost nil. That’s the problem is the guy isn’t the right match. It’s not like poked weirdness that’s persisted The first two years is gonna change..

Barney didn’t do his job the last several years I mean, he didn’t really conduct a search for either football or basketball coach. He just rolled his dice on some young guy that has connection at UK.

 

[mjj_2K]

It is not just being a contrarian when you were so factually off. You can't accurately claim the cupboard was left bare when you lost 3 Seniors one which averaged 6.4 pts per game and another that played 2.4 mpg. Coach K went 17-13 the first season with three future NBA draft picks two of which were seniors.

This is also of course assuming those Fr. and So. couldn't have possibly been more successful had Foster remained coach.

Bill Foster didn't retire, he left Duke to go to South Carolina, where he went 92-79 and never made the Tournament in 6 seasons. Followed by him ending his career with a 54-141 stint at Northwestern (because Northwestern spent the 80's and early 90's not even really trying in basketball or football).

And those 3 "future draft picks", went 28, 34, and 78. The 84-85 UK team that went 18-13 had 6 "future draft picks".

 

[paulcalhoun_rivals397471]

Bill Foster didn't retire, he left Duke to go to South Carolina, where he went 92-79 and never made the Tournament in 6 seasons. Followed by him ending his career with a 54-141 stint at Northwestern (because Northwestern spent the 80's and early 90's not even really trying in basketball or football).

And those 3 "future draft picks", went 28, 34, and 78. The 84-85 UK team that went 18-13 had 6 "future draft picks".

You are correct and I already knew that. I never implied that he retired not that it makes any difference. I would never have claimed the cupboard was bare for the '84-'85 UK team either. The sports reference site only has the NBA logo next to three players (same as K's first Duke team) from that team (one was Rob Lock who was a freshman and he only played 7.3 mpg and averaged 1.1 ppg that year) so if 3 more were drafted they apparently never actually saw any action in the NBA. UK did play the nations 4th toughest schedule that season compared to 24th K's first Duke season. Eddie Sutton went 32-4 the following season with the only addition being Irving Thomas who played 4.3 mpg that year.

1984-85 Kentucky Wildcats Men's Roster and Stats | College Basketball at Sports-Reference.com

Check out the detailed 1984-85 Kentucky Wildcats Roster and Stats for College Basketball at Sports-Reference.com

www.sports-reference.com

For further context the '85 UK team returned 44% of minutes played and 38.9% of scoring from the '84 team. Duke's '81 team returned 65.9% of minutes played and 62.1% of scoring from the '80 team.

 

[loublue22_rivals308424]

go outside

 

[Ash Williams]

I actually think we’re closer to agreement than disagreement.

My article isn’t trying to prove Mark Pope is a great coach or that he’ll succeed at Kentucky. It’s trying to show that “63%” isn’t a strong argument by itself.

You even acknowledge that when you say it’s “maybe not even a significant measure.” That’s really the point I’m making.

If your argument is now that you don’t think Pope’s teams are well coached, that’s a different discussion entirely. Reasonable people can disagree about offensive execution, defensive principles, player development, late-game coaching, or SEC performance.

But notice what happened: we moved away from “63%” and started talking about actual basketball. That’s exactly where I think the conversation should be.

If someone wants to criticize Pope for his SEC record, his tournament results, his X’s and O’s, or the way his teams look on the floor, those are all fair topics. Whether I agree with those criticisms or not, at least they’re discussing his coaching directly instead of treating one career winning percentage as if it settles the entire debate.

Plenty of discussion has been made about his coaching. You’re actually implying that people are avoiding that discussion. I would argue that the 63% argument is rare and weak. You spent a lot of time trying to debunk one of the weakest arguments against Pope.

You certainly have a lot of time on your hands. You’re either not married or you don’t have a job.

 

[CB3UK]

Football can't get here soon enough. Sweet Lord.

 

[Im The Village Idiot]

I would argue that the 63% argument is weak.

I’ll ignore all the unnecessary insults and simply note this part is refreshing to hear. After all, this was the point of the post. Sounds like we agree that the 63% argument is weak.

 

[Im The Village Idiot]

go outside

I do. Then I come back inside and write long posts.

In all seriousness, this type of thing was not for everyone.

 

[The Nightman2]

What’s Mark boats? Winning percentage while at UK. Not that other crap matters because he had no résumé. He wasn’t proven. He coached it. Some ridiculous schools that have a niche and he fit the niche perfectly. When you have 100% of a group to recruit from you’re gonna get whatever your specialty is whatever sets you apart. This is the x factor and why he won’t make it at UK. He has no group that he appeals to. The groups out West that he appeals to just so happened not to make the best basketball players in the world, but there are a lot of good college basketball guys from Utah Nevada.. so just add in conclusion. Mark Popes philosophy, Life precludes him from coaching an institution committed to winning at the highest level levels.. It limits him a lot of ways the types of guys we need seem to not relate to pope at all. The bottom line says the guy had no résumé to coach at our all-time winningness program. He has no real connection to the Bluegrass. It’s not like Pope had a bunch of buddies back in Kentucky. And his recruiting ties east of the Mississippi are almost nil. That’s the problem is the guy isn’t the right match. It’s not like poked weirdness that’s persisted The first two years is gonna change..

Barney didn’t do his job the last several years I mean, he didn’t really conduct a search for either football or basketball coach. He just rolled his dice on some young guy that has connection at UK.

Why does Pope's boats matter lol

 

[SenseMaker_Cats]

I’ll ignore all the unnecessary insults and simply note this part is refreshing to hear. After all, this was the point of the post. Sounds like we agree.

I thought the “the 63% argument is rare” comment was asinine. If you agreed with it, why did you make the post to begin with? lol