A look Forward and A look Back

[urmite]

I noticed something on pages 68-69 of our record book
https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearm.si...uments/2017/10/13/2017_18_MBB_Record_Book.pdf

And began to wonder if it may have had an impact on the school's view of Mooney's performance

Against AP Top 25 teams

Coach/Wins/Losses/ %/Seasons
Les Hooker 4-18 0.182 11
Lew Mills 1-13 0.071 11
Carl Sloane 0-5 0.000 4
Dick Tarrant 5-14 0.263 12
Bill Dooley 0-6 0.000 4
John Beilein 2-6 0.250 5
Jerry Wainwright 4-9 0.308 3
Chris Mooney 13-18 0.419 12

Mooney had the highest winning percentage even after an 0-4 start his first season.
But it wasn't effective for the team, it would just randomly show up often enough to make it look good.

Tarrant definitely made is 5 count.3 vs Georgia Tech, his first game against Wake, and Syracuse in the NCAA...

Yes, we as fans have our negatives before this year. 55% overall winning percentage, Lack of NCAAs...

The school may have looked at the above, plus 2 below .500 seasons followed by 10 straight .500 or better seasons and thought "stay the course".

While both of the negatives (particularly the NCAA record) are truly frustrating, my own definition of success is different from either of those.

What is your record and percentage of seasons that you had twice (or more) as many wins as losses by Selection Sunday?
2011, you seem to have an elaborate database, how do our last 5 coaches stand using that criteria.

As I said that would be my evaluation of a coach's performance.

 

[fan2011]

I noticed something on pages 68-69 of our record book
https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearm.si...uments/2017/10/13/2017_18_MBB_Record_Book.pdf

And began to wonder if it may have had an impact on the school's view of Mooney's performance

Against AP Top 25 teams

Coach/Wins/Losses/ %/Seasons
Les Hooker 4-18 0.182 11
Lew Mills 1-13 0.071 11
Carl Sloane 0-5 0.000 4
Dick Tarrant 5-14 0.263 12
Bill Dooley 0-6 0.000 4
John Beilein 2-6 0.250 5
Jerry Wainwright 4-9 0.308 3
Chris Mooney 13-18 0.419 12

Mooney had the highest winning percentage even after an 0-4 start his first season.
But it wasn't effective for the team, it would just randomly show up often enough to make it look good.

Tarrant definitely made is 5 count.3 vs Georgia Tech, his first game against Wake, and Syracuse in the NCAA...

Yes, we as fans have our negatives before this year. 55% overall winning percentage, Lack of NCAAs...

The school may have looked at the above, plus 2 below .500 seasons followed by 10 straight .500 or better seasons and thought "stay the course".

While both of the negatives (particularly the NCAA record) are truly frustrating, my own definition of success is different from either of those.

What is your record and percentage of seasons that you had twice (or more) as many wins as losses by Selection Sunday?
2011, you seem to have an elaborate database, how do our last 5 coaches stand using that criteria.

As I said that would be my evaluation of a coach's performance.

I always find that 55% win percentage being used as a negative funny. It is better than the vast majority of coaches over a 10+ year span, even better than most teams in the A10. For example, over the past decade Richmond has the 3rd highest A10 winning percentage out of the 14 current teams.

urmite, I don't have data going that far back, but I may be able to find some. The problem of just looking at record is that the quality of opponents is not taken into account. We were playing much worse opponents in a 1 bid league before the move to the A10, so conference wins are somewhat inflated back then. Additionally, OOC scheduling philosophy can differ drastically between coaches, giving some coaches inflated win numbers.

 

[urmite]

I always find that 55% win percentage being used as a negative funny. It is better than the vast majority of coaches over a 10+ year span, even better than most teams in the A10.

That is because many would rather win .725 half the time and .375 half the time than .550 all the time. And many see our last 12 years as .550 every year.

Rightly or wrongly, they look at it as losing by 1 point 6 straight games instead of losing 3 by 5 each and winning 3 by 3 each.

 

[KWeaver]

20+ wins only 2x in the past 7 years. That’s a better indicator for me than a percentage.

 

[fan2011]

That is because many would rather win .725 half the time and .375 half the time than .550 all the time. And many see our last 12 years as .550 every year.

Rightly or wrongly, they look at it as losing by 1 point 6 straight games instead of losing 3 by 5 each and winning 3 by 3 each.

The rate of "good" seasons is a much different metric than overall win %. I don't understand why someone would try to use win % to get that point across, just use NIT/NCAA appearance rate.

 

[Spiders10]

1. 0 ncaa bids in 7 years of a 10 yr contract
2. 2 ncaa bids in 13 years
3. 4-17 career record vs rival VCU (11/17 losses by 10+ pts)

Every other stat is trivial

 

[I-M-UR]

I always find that 55% win percentage being used as a negative funny. It is better than the vast majority of coaches over a 10+ year span, even better than most teams in the A10. For example, over the past decade Richmond has the 3rd highest A10 winning percentage out of the 14 current teams.

urmite, I don't have data going that far back, but I may be able to find some. The problem of just looking at record is that the quality of opponents is not taken into account. We were playing much worse opponents in a 1 bid league before the move to the A10, so conference wins are somewhat inflated back then. Additionally, OOC scheduling philosophy can differ drastically between coaches, giving some coaches inflated win numbers.

I agree, if you pick 12 easy wins OOC you can win 25% of your conference games and have a winning season. (the OOC schedule many thought was weak, Mooney's now complaining is too tough) If our goal is an NIT bid every three or 4 years why do we pay Mooney a million bucks? That obviously wasn't our goal.

 

[Eight Legger]

Good points made in here. Yes, 55% overall may be better than some other coaches, but it's the fact that we are 55% almost every year, roughly, that makes it tough to stomach. I would rather kill it for two or three years and then suck for a year, as someone said above. At least that way we have a chance to reach higher highs. We really have no chance at this rate.

 

[urmite]

I always find that 55% win percentage being used as a negative funny. It is better than the vast majority of coaches over a 10+ year span, even better than most teams in the A10. For example, over the past decade Richmond has the 3rd highest A10 winning percentage out of the 14 current teams.

urmite, I don't have data going that far back, but I may be able to find some. The problem of just looking at record is that the quality of opponents is not taken into account. We were playing much worse opponents in a 1 bid league before the move to the A10, so conference wins are somewhat inflated back then. Additionally, OOC scheduling philosophy can differ drastically between coaches, giving some coaches inflated win numbers.

I agree to all of the above, however a .667 winning percentage for a season to seem to have a correlation to NIT/NCAA bids at both the CAA & A-10 level.
I think this is right...

Coach/>.667/<but bid/<no bid
DT 8 1 3 0.643
BD 0 0 4
JB 2 1 2 0.606
JW 0 2 1 0.571 0.625
CM 2 2 8 0.594 0.625

Bolded are % for low years with bid. I see no years above .667 without a bid.

DT over .667 .66.7% of seasons
JB 40%
CM 16.7% (before this year)

 

[urmite]

If this was the goal

Total Games/wins/losses
27 18 9
28 19 9
29 20 9
30 20 10
31 21 10
32 22 10
33 22 11
34 23 11
35 24 11
36 24 12

I think our fans would blame the committee and not the coach for no bid in that season.

 

[SpiderRick]

I noticed something on pages 68-69 of our record book
https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearm.si...uments/2017/10/13/2017_18_MBB_Record_Book.pdf

And began to wonder if it may have had an impact on the school's view of Mooney's performance

Against AP Top 25 teams

Coach/Wins/Losses/ %/Seasons
Les Hooker 4-18 0.182 11
Lew Mills 1-13 0.071 11
Carl Sloane 0-5 0.000 4
Dick Tarrant 5-14 0.263 12
Bill Dooley 0-6 0.000 4
John Beilein 2-6 0.250 5
Jerry Wainwright 4-9 0.308 3
Chris Mooney 13-18 0.419 12

Mooney had the highest winning percentage even after an 0-4 start his first season.
But it wasn't effective for the team, it would just randomly show up often enough to make it look good.

Tarrant definitely made is 5 count.3 vs Georgia Tech, his first game against Wake, and Syracuse in the NCAA...

Yes, we as fans have our negatives before this year. 55% overall winning percentage, Lack of NCAAs...

The school may have looked at the above, plus 2 below .500 seasons followed by 10 straight .500 or better seasons and thought "stay the course".

While both of the negatives (particularly the NCAA record) are truly frustrating, my own definition of success is different from either of those.

What is your record and percentage of seasons that you had twice (or more) as many wins as losses by Selection Sunday?
2011, you seem to have an elaborate database, how do our last 5 coaches stand using that criteria.

As I said that would be my evaluation of a coach's performance.

Apples to oranges. Mooney's teams have played exclusively in the A10, a league that has historically had maybe 2 or 3 teams in the top 25, some we have played twice or even three times each season. The others on the list only had occasion every now and then to play a top 25 team. And I think his percentage is better for the same reason; playing against a top 25 team in your league, you chances are much better than playing a top 25 team that you don't know much about. I'm with the crowd that has grown tired of 18-14 and 16-16 seasons.

I could almost live with Mooney taking 2 to 3 years to develop players, if that meant that every 3 or 4 years we go to the NCAAs.

 

[97spiderfan]

Good points made in here. Yes, 55% overall may be better than some other coaches, but it's the fact that we are 55% almost every year, roughly, that makes it tough to stomach. I would rather kill it for two or three years and then suck for a year, as someone said above. At least that way we have a chance to reach higher highs. We really have no chance at this rate.

Gonna be much closer to 50% after this year is over with. And then we are paying a coach 1.25 million annually to play .500 ball over 13 years. Definition of mediocre.

 

[MrTbone]

I would rather kill it for two or three years and then suck for a year, as someone said above.

Well we are getting our "suck for a year" out of the way first...

 

[ur2K]

1. 0 ncaa bids in 7 years of a 10 yr contract
2. 2 ncaa bids in 13 years
3. 4-17 career record vs rival VCU (11/17 losses by 10+ pts)

Every other stat is trivial

You win the Internet. I can't like this post enough.