Jim Whitesell and UB Part Ways

[UBlearns]

Just now, Jeseph said:

But who cares about these ratings? Sure maybe some of the dedicated fans here monitor them (and I appreciate the detailed insights at times) but if they don't translate to wins the general public doesn't care, potential donors don't care, media outlets don't care. The "state of the program", IMO, is simply judged on Ws and Ls. Sure, if we play a bunch of power teams and hang with them that can help but I don't think anybody cares about an "almost comeback" against another middling MAC team...

I was merely answering his question.  

[Jeseph]

1 minute ago, UBlearns said:

I was merely answering his question.  

Yea, this post wasn't aimed at you. More the grouping of posts that defend the program based on metrics 🙂

[ukbro00]

12 minutes ago, Jeseph said:

But who cares about these ratings? Sure maybe some of the dedicated fans here monitor them (and I appreciate the detailed insights at times) but if they don't translate to wins the general public doesn't care, potential donors don't care, media outlets don't care. The "state of the program", IMO, is simply judged on Ws and Ls. Sure, if we play a bunch of power teams and hang with them that can help but I don't think anybody cares about an "almost comeback" against another middling MAC team...

So, should we play a non-conference schedule of cupcakes just to increase win totals? Seems counter-intuitive. 

Sure, wins create excitement on the surface...but quality games prepare the program better for a tough conference schedule and the NCAA tournament. 

[dutchcountry7]

2 hours ago, promotherobot said:

UB doesn't have the student body population of other flagship state universities. I blame the SUNY system that puts schools at every lighted intersection in New York. Compared to say the Illinois system with a dozen schools, SUNY has 65 campuses. So Buffalo will never become a 50-60K student school like others in the B1G. Why could it when there are other SUNY schools closer to you?

The legislature fights over the schools.  The schools are an economic driver for many of the communities they are located in and so everyone fights to invest more in their school which results in no schools being able to grow more than the others and there being no willingness to make any flagship.   SUNY-Albany, for instance, took a hit with the creation of SUNY-Poly in 2004 which pulled the School of Nanotechnology out of SUNY-Albany and placed it within the school based in Utica.  It strengthen the Utica based school while leaving the research in the Albany area but not affiliated with SUNY-Albany.  

This was done to help Utica become more of an established school with a stronger brand to help them grow but was at the expense of UAlbany which lost a great college from their University.  Which hurt UAlbany from being viewed as more of a flagship and they don't get credit for the research performed anymore.

This is just an example of the things that go on within SUNY and the politics behind it. 

[DocCas86]

1 hour ago, UBlearns said:

Looking at Torvik's overall "game score" metric, which kinda ties all of the analytics together, we can see that UB has played 6 games with a score of 78 or above, average rating of 84.83.  This rating, if UB played at this level every game, would put them on par with Seton Hall at #41 in the country.  But UB has had some clunkers as well, notably a 14 game score in the 2nd BG game.  

This all paints a picture of the team being inconsistent.  When they're playing well, shooting the ball well, they're capable of playing like a very top mid-major.  But when they're having an off-night....it's a major off-night.

Your post got me thinking another way to look at comparison of Whitesell and Oats.  I created the following two charts of Game Score from first 25 MAC games.

First chart observations:  Gamescore has been trending up for Whitesell and proportion of Game Scores below 40 is lower this year than last - possible reason for some optimism?  From second chart - you can clearly see the inconsistency that folks have been citing.  The second chart is consistent with the criticism some have offered - that this team has a bit more talent than Oats teams (year 1 & 2 - as indicated by larger number of >80+ Game Scores - but at times is not fully prepared.  For the rest of the season I remain optimistic that the team has the talent to win tournament - let's hope they have the right preparation.

[dutchcountry7]

3 hours ago, UB92 said:

By the way, no one will ever, ever tell me that UB isn't a B1G school.  Yes...right NOW it isn't,

Which is why it is a vision.  UB is not a B1G school "right NOW" as you say... but the vision is to get to that point some day.  

I don't get the people who say "no one will ever, ever tell me that UB isn't a B1G school" and then turn around and say that UB isn't a Big Ten school in the next sentence...

Are we not talking about the realities of today?  

Tell a recruit that UB is a B1G school and they will laugh at you.  Because being a B1G school simply means you're a member that competes in conference competition within the Big Ten Conference.  It isn't about being a public flagship (Northwestern), or being in the AAU (Nebraska), or being in the Great Lakes Region (Maryland).  It is about being in the conference.

This is a problem where people drink the cool-aid and then lose other people and are unable to sell them on it.  

You can talk about the greatness of UB and why it is well positioned for the future without making absurd claims about it being a B1G school.  If you're going to try to draw parallels at least qualify it by saying that UB is very similar to many of the B1G schools. 

You people you're trying to convince aren't UB fans.  You're trying to make the sale to people who are not already sold on UB.  So don't talk in delusional terms that will turn them off.

[DocCas86]

11 minutes ago, DocCas86 said:

Your post got me thinking another way to look at comparison of Whitesell and Oats.  I created the following two charts of Game Score from first 25 MAC games.

 

First chart observations:  Gamescore has been trending up for Whitesell and proportion of Game Scores below 40 is lower this year than last - possible reason for some optimism?  From second chart - you can clearly see the inconsistency that folks have been citing.  The second chart is consistent with the criticism some have offered - that this team has a bit more talent than Oats teams (year 1 & 2 - as indicated by larger number of >80+ Game Scores - but at times is not fully prepared.  For the rest of the season I remain optimistic that the team has the talent to win tournament - let's hope they have the right preparation.

Sorry couldn't edit original post - but was error in original chart - updated chart - overall observation do not change significantly.  Apologies for original error.

[dutchcountry7]

16 minutes ago, DocCas86 said:

Your post got me thinking another way to look at comparison of Whitesell and Oats.  I created the following two charts of Game Score from first 25 MAC games.

First chart observations:  Gamescore has been trending up for Whitesell and proportion of Game Scores below 40 is lower this year than last - possible reason for some optimism?  From second chart - you can clearly see the inconsistency that folks have been citing.  The second chart is consistent with the criticism some have offered - that this team has a bit more talent than Oats teams (year 1 & 2 - as indicated by larger number of >80+ Game Scores - but at times is not fully prepared.  For the rest of the season I remain optimistic that the team has the talent to win tournament - let's hope they have the right preparation.

I appreciate an objective look and this is interesting.

Isn't the MAC much stronger now today than it was in Oats' early years?  Or is it about the same?  I was thinking the conference is stronger nationally today than when he took over so the opponents are better today.

[DocCas86]

1 minute ago, dutchcountry7 said:

I appreciate an objective look and this is interesting.

Isn't the MAC much stronger now today than it was in Oats' early years?  Or is it about the same?  I was thinking the conference is stronger nationally today than when he took over so the opponents are better today.

I would need to look into this to confirm for certain.  There are fewer OOC conference games this year - but there are some good results OOC this year which has reflected favorably on this year and would suggest MAC a bit stronger than Oats first two seasons.  So yes the relative strength would need to be considered when comparing the Game Scores.  However, the extremes (on a very limited sample - 7 games) this year suggest inconsistency in teams performance which some are attributing to coach.  The trend is upward an inconsistency is smaller this year, so I choose to look at that optimistically regarding teams prospects.

[dutchcountry7]

8 minutes ago, DocCas86 said:

I would need to look into this to confirm for certain.  There are fewer OOC conference games this year - but there are some good results OOC this year which has reflected favorably on this year and would suggest MAC a bit stronger than Oats first two seasons.  So yes the relative strength would need to be considered when comparing the Game Scores.  However, the extremes (on a very limited sample - 7 games) this year suggest inconsistency in teams performance which some are attributing to coach.  The trend is upward an inconsistency is smaller this year, so I choose to look at that optimistically regarding teams prospects.

I would expect a decline this year either way because we aren't happy with the results which is why we are having this conversation.  But I suspect the margin of error is smaller now with a better MAC.  And our expectations are higher today than they were in the past.

As you know, a small sample size so we can't put too much stock into trend lines but it is interesting to see nonetheless. 

[RoughToughBulls15]

1 minute ago, Erie County said:

Also, BG who swept UB, and has a much better overall record, is 21 slots behind UB in KenPom because of an arbitrary "luck" category it wants to implement. 

Luck isn't measure, that's subjective. So we want to use that as an unbiased look. This means we are using someone else's subjective way to try to look at luck. 

Luck isn't shooting 60% from the FT line. That's not bad luck. Luck isn't running tempo up 6 with 2 minutes left. Neither of those are bad luck. The team will continue to lose under 4 minutes as they have 5 times this year. They are 0-5 in games decided in the last 4 minutes. 

Agreed and I think the "luck" formula is roughly based on that. When the team is suppose to win late and doesn't there is luck attributed to losing. But all of us watching the game clearly see it is coaching. Could we have won a couple of the close games? Sure. But should we have? Probably not, we don't execute down the stretch and that is a direct correlation to coaching.

 

Additionally - something I havent seen people mention about Whitesell is how bad his recruiting has been. We have missed on basically everyone besides Mballa. Next year we lose a good chunk of our team, does anyone here have any confidence he is going to be able to fill the gaps? Once we lose Oates' last guys (Segu & Williams) we could be right back to the Reggie days.

Recruiting Misses: Savion, Malik, Nickleberry, Brewton, Hardnett, Chance, Skogman

Recruiting Wins: Mballa.

[DocCas86]

1 hour ago, dutchcountry7 said:

I appreciate an objective look and this is interesting.

Isn't the MAC much stronger now today than it was in Oats' early years?  Or is it about the same?  I was thinking the conference is stronger nationally today than when he took over so the opponents are better today.

An attempt to differentiate Game Score by game difficulty (all data including rankings from barttovik.com).  

A couple of items that jump out - last year the team did not perform better against lesser opponents as game score is roughly the same regardless of level of competition.  This year, the team does seem to be performing better against lesser opponents.  The task is to improve against the tougher opponents and not spot them 15-20 points.

 

[961819]

16 hours ago, dutchcountry7 said:

Why do we care about the performance of our college basketball team?  Why do we care how the program has performed in a thread where people are calling for a drastic change and a coach to be fired?

Seriously, it is pretty clear you have an agenda here and like to push disinformation.  

Yes, I love impartial third parties taking an objected look at things so that I can minimize my own biases.  You clearly not only prefer your biases but believe that you have all the answers.

It's behavior like yours that makes fan bases unbearable. 

No, my behavior is perfectly acceptable. However there are ulterior motives on your end as well. Rankings mean absolutely nothing. The only numbers that matter are the numbers in the win column and the numbers in the loss column. After these two numbers the only other number that matters is how many wins we get in Cleveland followed by wherever we play in the Dance. Go ahead and take comfort in your projected numbers and don’t at all be upset with the lack of momentum that could’ve been capitalized on after Oat’s departure.

[SGBull]

5 minutes ago, 961819 said:

No, my behavior is perfectly acceptable. However there are ulterior motives on your end as well. Rankings mean absolutely nothing. The only numbers that matter are the numbers in the win column and the numbers in the loss column. After these two numbers the only other number that matters is how many wins we get in Cleveland followed by wherever we play in the Dance. Go ahead and take comfort in your projected numbers and don’t at all be upset with the lack of momentum that could’ve been capitalized on after Oat’s departure.

I think there is a middle ground. Rankings do matter, wins and losses matter as well.

Weren't half the posters here making fun of Danny White for calling UCF national champions when they went undefeated?

If the only thing that mattered was wins and losses then the March Madness bracket would look a lot different every year because there are a lot of lower ranked teams that don't get in despite having very good W/L numbers.

[dutchcountry7]

2 hours ago, Erie County said:

Also, BG who swept UB, and has a much better overall record, is 21 slots behind UB in KenPom because of an arbitrary "luck" category it wants to implement. 

Luck isn't measure, that's subjective. So we want to use that as an unbiased look. This means we are using someone else's subjective way to try to look at luck. 

Luck isn't shooting 60% from the FT line. That's not bad luck. Luck isn't running tempo up 6 with 2 minutes left. Neither of those are bad luck. The team will continue to lose under 4 minutes as they have 5 times this year. They are 0-5 in games decided in the last 4 minutes. 

You don't understand the Luck metric.

The luck metric is not added to the equation.  It is the deviation from the record of the team and their play on the court.  

If you understood the metric you'd actually be able to make the claim that the team's record underperforms their play because the coach needs to go.  Because that's your basic premise.  At least then you'd have some data to back up your premise.  Even though unlucky teams often see a leap forward since their play on the court eventually will start matching results. 

But instead, since you don't understand the metric and rather than just ignoring it or trying to learn about it you make up something that you think it must mean.

This is the problem.  You're a bull in a china shop just running around with your agenda and now willing to have a real discussion.  You've made up your mind based on emotions as a fan while watching the game.  

If you don't understand the "Luck" metric just stop talking about it.  You're embarrassing yourself.

[Tee4three]

1 hour ago, DocCas86 said:

An attempt to differentiate Game Score by game difficulty (all data including rankings from barttovik.com).  

A couple of items that jump out - last year the team did not perform better against lesser opponents as game score is roughly the same regardless of level of competition.  This year, the team does seem to be performing better against lesser opponents.  The task is to improve against the tougher opponents and not spot them 15-20 points.

 

Is this game score the cumulative score they give both teams?

I have never dug too much into barttovik

But if it is you have to consider that overall quality of mac games has improved since Hurley came to buffalo. Which when he first start the league was more big man/physical/basic fundamentals I'd say similar in style to the big ten (not trying to lump both debates into one lol) but as UB started to dominate the league teams have shifted to a similar style as UB. Its a much more free flowing quick pace league which generates a much better game to watch and has upped the level of play league wide in my opinion

Basically saying if overall the league improved, is it whitesell playing and gaining better game scores from barttovik or is it the league as a whole?

[dutchcountry7]

1 hour ago, DocCas86 said:

An attempt to differentiate Game Score by game difficulty (all data including rankings from barttovik.com).  

A couple of items that jump out - last year the team did not perform better against lesser opponents as game score is roughly the same regardless of level of competition.  This year, the team does seem to be performing better against lesser opponents.  The task is to improve against the tougher opponents and not spot them 15-20 points.

 

That makes sense.  One of the criticisms was that JW team was playing more to opponents levels compared to those of NO.  Your data seems to support that.  It could be partly due to the difference in styles.  A faster paced offense will lead to larger margins than a slowed down offense.

The data this year is too limited for me to put stock into it.  But I do appreciate your data.  Though, wouldn't everyone here expect a drop off in performance between NO and JW?  Or do people believe that UB was going to hire another coach that will be poached for $4MM a year in a few years at Buffalo?

[BrooklynBull]

All of these statistics going into all the computers are meaningless.  Computers do not play games.  People do.  The only real statistics is the won-loss record.   Keep this in mind over the next two plus weeks as you see stat after stat about the Super Bowl.

 

Here is the only stat that matters.  The team with the most points in the game is 54-0.  I will predict that when everyone goes to sleep after the game on February 7th that the team with the most points will be 55-0.

[dutchcountry7]

1 hour ago, 961819 said:

No, my behavior is perfectly acceptable. However there are ulterior motives on your end as well. Rankings mean absolutely nothing. The only numbers that matter are the numbers in the win column and the numbers in the loss column. After these two numbers the only other number that matters is how many wins we get in Cleveland followed by wherever we play in the Dance. Go ahead and take comfort in your projected numbers and don’t at all be upset with the lack of momentum that could’ve been capitalized on after Oat’s departure.

My ulterior motive is not calling for a coach to be fired in the middle of the season unless there is a serious issue (not athletic performance related).  I am also not a fan of calling for firing at the end of a coach's second year (especially with a buyout) unless the program is in free-fall.

Your behavior is not acceptable.  It is sophomoric.  And it is indicative of someone who hasn't been in a position to make such decisions.  It is the worst of the Monday Morning Quarterbacking.  

If the only number that mattered was in the win column then Creighton wouldn't have accepted an invitation to the Big East and we wouldn't be wanting an invitation to the American.  Of course, wins aren't all that matter.  You can get wins by playing teams no one cares about.  But I am sure you'd be changing your tune if JW started scheduling more non-D1 games or low level D1 games.  You'd talk about how those wins don't matter and how he needs to go.  Broken record.

[dutchcountry7]

6 minutes ago, BrooklynBull said:

All of these statistics going into all the computers are meaningless.  Computers do not play games.  People do.  The only real statistics is the won-loss record.   Keep this in mind over the next two plus weeks as you see stat after stat about the Super Bowl.

 

Here is the only stat that matters.  The team with the most points in the game is 54-0.  I will predict that when everyone goes to sleep after the game on February 7th that the team with the most points will be 55-0.

Based on some of your comment history on here, I believe you should know better than that.

For starters our invitations to tournaments like Charleston Classic were the result of the computer metrics not the wins and losses.  Davidson is regularly higher in the computer rankings than their results and that is why they get invited to events like Maui.  

Yes, if UB is getting killed in the MAC it matters.  But games are fickle and there is a small sample size for games.  So you can't make a knee jerk reaction based on a small sample size.  You need indicators to tell you something more. And that comes from impartial metrics.

If you care about getting UB to the next tier, then you should be caring about the metrics.  If you care about seeing the team make progress through this season, then you should not be calling for firings mid-season.  There is a time and a place for it and that would be after the season.  Of course, I would disagree with it based on the body of evidence. But I wouldn't find it out of line to have voices heard since it is inbetweener seasons and doesn't impact the team directly the way it does now.)

[BrooklynBull]

17 minutes ago, dutchcountry7 said:

Based on some of your comment history on here, I believe you should know better than that.

For starters our invitations to tournaments like Charleston Classic were the result of the computer metrics not the wins and losses.  Davidson is regularly higher in the computer rankings than their results and that is why they get invited to events like Maui.  

Yes, if UB is getting killed in the MAC it matters.  But games are fickle and there is a small sample size for games.  So you can't make a knee jerk reaction based on a small sample size.  You need indicators to tell you something more. And that comes from impartial metrics.

If you care about getting UB to the next tier, then you should be caring about the metrics.  If you care about seeing the team make progress through this season, then you should not be calling for firings mid-season.  There is a time and a place for it and that would be after the season.  Of course, I would disagree with it based on the body of evidence. But I wouldn't find it out of line to have voices heard since it is inbetweener seasons and doesn't impact the team directly the way it does now.)

I have never made such a comment ever on this board or any other board.

[dutchcountry7]

28 minutes ago, Erie County said:

Luck is subjective. That was the main point you avoided again there. 

The fact you are using it any way to disprove biases is really funny. Really really funny. 

You're embarrassing yourself thinking someone else's luck metric based on how bad they are playing is worth anything.

"Luck" is the name given to a quantifiable metric.

You don't understand what the "Luck" rating means.  

I get you don't like any authority that conflicts with your convictions you developed while sipping a beer and shouting at the TV in an emotional loss but the only way you can fight biases is to try to use models that you're not able to manipulate.  In case you didn't know this.  I am not Ken Pomeroy and he does not care one way or the other if Buffalo looks good or bad in the data he produces.  

[dutchcountry7]

6 minutes ago, BrooklynBull said:

I have never made such a comment ever on this board or any other board.

You didn't say computer metrics are meaningless?  I guess you value the production of the metrics but not their inputs.

Forgive me, I thought that's what you said. when you said "All of these statistics going into all the computers are meaningless."

When you said "computers don't play games", I thought you were saying computer metrics are insignificant in college basketball.  And while it is true the computers don't push the ball around, the computers to in-fact assign teams to be played (NCAA, NIT, MTEs, OOC) so they determine if you are considered a successful team or not.  They determine if you're able to get exposure for your program. 

Computers have a big impact on the game.  And they do tell the level a program is judged by the basketball community.  Though it should be noted that the basketball community is different than fans. 

[BrooklynBull]

13 minutes ago, dutchcountry7 said:

You didn't say computer metrics are meaningless?  I guess you value the production of the metrics but not their inputs.

Forgive me, I thought that's what you said. when you said "All of these statistics going into all the computers are meaningless."

When you said "computers don't play games", I thought you were saying computer metrics are insignificant in college basketball.  And while it is true the computers don't push the ball around, the computers to in-fact assign teams to be played (NCAA, NIT, MTEs, OOC) so they determine if you are considered a successful team or not.  They determine if you're able to get exposure for your program. 

Computers have a big impact on the game.  And they do tell the level a program is judged by the basketball community.  Though it should be noted that the basketball community is different than fans. 

If you saw what I highlighted from your post it was about making call for a mid-season firing.

[dutchcountry7]

 

9 minutes ago, BrooklynBull said:

If you saw what I highlighted from your post it was about making call for a mid-season firing.

I did not expand the preview or see any highlighting.  

You're right, I never saw you take that position and there are others that I have not seen take that position that I have likely engaged with.

My whole purpose of engaging was due to the absurdity of the claims calling for a change in leadership at this time.  That has spawned other conversations that  people may take differing positions on and may have prompted responses.  While I figured anyone wading through this dredge of a discussion must have an opinion on the main topic of the thread which is the status of the head coach and that their opposition to my posts was based on their opposition to the position I took on the topic.  Though, as you pointed out, that isn't necessarily true.