Wins, championships and winning percentage.
Caulton Tudor follows up Mike Krzyzewski’s summer press conference with a foray into when the Duke coach might surpass his mentor atop the all time wins list. Tudor points out that it is pretty much a foregone conclusion assuming Krzyzewski stays healthy enough to coach and has more than two scholarship guards after next season(okay I added that last part.)
In 29 seasons with the Blue Devils, Krzyzewski’s teams have averaged an amazing 26.2 wins per season — and that’s after his first three averaged only 12.6. If he coaches to age 67 and averages 25 wins per season during the stretch, he would have 953 wins, which should keep him ahead of 67-year-old Jim Calhoun of Connecticut (805 wins) and Syracuse’s Jim Boeheim, 64, who has 799.
North Carolina’s Roy Williams, No. 8 on the active list with 594 wins, will turn 59 in August. If he coaches nine more seasons to age 67 and averages 25 wins, that would be 819 wins.
Among current coaches, Krzyzewski’s closest long-range challengers could be West Virginia’s Bob Huggins and Kentucky’s John Calipari.
Tudor uses 67 as the cutoff age. Why 67? I am assuming because that is basically the same point Dean Smith retired. Dean was 66 and would have turned 67 had he coached the 1997-98 Heels. In short Krzyzewski has been piling up the wins and will pass Bobby Knight for the top of the all time wins list. Roy Williams, if he hangs it up at 67 will likely only make it to 819 though Tudor is assuming 25 wins per season. Since returning to Chapel Hill, Roy has averaged 29.5 wins per season. Borrowing a page from the “not his players” book the ABCers like to use, if we only look at UNC teams Roy has recruited and coached the Heels have posted 31 wins per season. The question is whether Roy can keep that pace going but if he did over the next nine seasons that would put him close to Dean Smith.
The more fascinating discussion in comparing these coaches may not be the win totals but the number of championships as well as winning percentage.
Wins and wins alone are not the be-all, end-all definition of coaching greatness, of course. The 700-win club seems to be adding a new member or two almost every other season, but the list of national championship winners is as difficult to crack as ever.
Krzyzewski and Williams have covered the gamut — winning a lot while also winning championship. While Williams may not catch Krzyzewski’s victory total, the late Adolph Rupp’s winning percent of 82.2 percent is within Williams’ reach.
At 594-138, he winning games at an 81.1 percent rate. That’s better than Krzyzewski’s 75.2 and even ahead of UCLA legend John Wooden’s 80.4.
Assuming Roy maintains his present pace of wins then keeping the winning percentage above 80% should be doable. Catching Adolph Rupp might be a little tougher but I will wager Roy’s 81% in this era of parity against Rupps 82% in a largely segregated era any day of the week.
For my money, I think the place Roy could really distinguish himself is by getting two more national titles. I think there is a very good chance Roy gets a 3rd title and if he could sneak a fourth in before he retires he would be in some very elite company, especially if he does it and Kryzewski remains stuck at three. At present only Rupp and Wooden have more than three titles. Knight and Krzyzewski both have three followed by a group of coaches with two national titles including Roy, Billy Donavan, Jim Calhoun, Dean Smith and Denny Crum. Based on what we have seen in his first six seasons at UNC in which he has already won two titles, I think the possibility of a third is extremely good and a fourth if some things break the right way.
Given the difficulty of winning a national titles in this era of parity and annual turnover in the rosters due to the NBA, getting to four titles would trump the win total. Getting to four title with an 80% or better winning percentage would end all debate as to Roy’s place in relation to Krzyzewski.
![[Bloglines]](http://www.tarheelfanblog.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/bloglines.png)
![[del.icio.us]](http://www.tarheelfanblog.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/delicious.png)
![[Digg]](http://www.tarheelfanblog.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/digg.png)
![[Facebook]](http://www.tarheelfanblog.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/facebook.png)
![[MySpace]](http://www.tarheelfanblog.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/myspace.png)
![[Technorati]](http://www.tarheelfanblog.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/technorati.png)
![[Windows Live]](http://www.tarheelfanblog.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/windowslive.png)
![[Yahoo!]](http://www.tarheelfanblog.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/yahoo.png)
![[Email]](http://www.tarheelfanblog.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/email.png)
There are some interesting points here. I agree that ultimate win totals are probably more interesting as a gauge of service than necessarily as a measure of coaching superiority. You have guys like the coaches at Mount St. Mary’s and Winston Salem State who also garnered large win totals and were probably excellent coaches.
In terms of winning percentage, one can also argue that K was at Army which was pretty lackluster while he was there, which pushes down his win totals and winning percentage.
Aside from recruiting, which is key, obviously, most elite coaches have found some area of the game or rules that they are taking advantage of to an extent that others are not. K seemed to step right into the looser officiating trends of the late 80’s with his swarming defense and then, along with Pitino, was one of the early proponents of the three pointer.
Williams has assiduously applied the concept of points per possession, together with the psychological truth that more points per game, means more happy players on the team, which means more excellent sixth, seventh and eighth men, who can look at Marvin Williams and Danny Green as examples.
We also can’t forget sheer luck. I often get the perception that many Tar Heel fans believe that Dean Smith was unlucky and that he should have won more titles had the fates not been against him. It is hard, for me, however, to find many, if any years where Smith seemed to have the clear-cut best team without winning it all. In fact, I think you can argue that in 1993, UNC was one of three relatively equal top teams, and the same goes for 1982.
K, on the other hand, lost real heartbreakers in 1986, 1999 and 2004 in the Final Four, after appearing to have the best team in each of those seasons. Had he won those three years, we truly would be sick of hearing about him.
At the same time, though, Duke pretty clearly was not the best team in 1991 and won the title, and needed a miracle to beat Kentucky in 1992, when Duke was clearly the best team in the country, so you could subtract those.
Then, let’s not forget perhaps K’s best coaching job, back in 1994, where he didn’t have close to the best team in the country and almost won it all, losing another close one, that he easily could have won, against Arkansas.
K could have conceivably seven titles, or four, or one, but probably not zero.
Williams has appeared to have the best team in the country perhaps three times, in 1997, 2005 and 2009, and won in two of those years. His 2003 Kansas team lost a lot of games but almost won it all and perhaps, should have. His 2002 Kansas team got handled by Maryland in the Final Four and seemed clearly inferior to Maryland. Thus, the knock against Williams for not winning it all, prior to 2005, seems unfounded. During his two title runs, Williams’ teams led in the second half most of the way in all of their games. When Roy clearly has the best team, he seems to know how to maximize his results.
Nevertheless, at this point, I would have to give the edge to K. He has been in a tougher conference for most of his career than has Williams, and he has probably been unlucky in terms of numbers of titles. He also has had the best single season between the two, that of 1992, where he only lost two games and won the title. The best that Williams has done was this year. Both Williams and K arguably did not win the title with their best teams ever, Kansas in 1997 and Duke in 1999. K did beat Williams in a national final, however, between two fairly equal teams (neither of which was as good as UNLV or Arkansas), where Williams’ team looked really flat. I think the overall head to head record is fairly even now after Williams’ successes against K since March of 2005, which appears to really be where the worm turned.
I do not like the conclusion I am reaching here and it is not the one I expected when I started writing this.
However, Williams is coming on like gangbusters and his last five years are comparable to K’s period in the late 80’s and early 90’s. K, a bit like the late 80’s Dean, seems a bit perplexed by his younger rival, and it is a fascinating rivalry overall. I do think, that by the time he is done, Williams may very well have the edge.
Wins need quality points to weight them. Averaging 25+ wins per season in the ACC has to count for more than (most) other conferences, even if you have cupcakes scheduled in the preseason. How can you compare Coach Williams going up against the ACC to some coach in a lesser conference? It’s like he gets a penalty for being good in a good conference. He wouldn’t have three conference losses in the Big South.
(I normally would say on any given night an ACC team would blow out teams from most conferences, but last year’s NCAA tournament sort of took the wind out of that sail.)
So much of what happens in the NCAA tournament is based upon one game where player match-ups and unfamiliarity with the opposition often leads to upsets.
UNC lost four games against ACC competition this year and yet, essentially was never challenged by any team from outside the conference. Really, the closest any non-conference team came to beating UNC was LSU and they ended up losing by 14 points. UNC never trailed in the second half this year until the BC game and I believe the LSU game was the only non-conference opponent all season which had a lead against UNC in the second half.
The last two times Carolina has won the title they had to deal with the guffaws of the Big Ten and Big East who had multiple teams in the Final Four, until UNC wiped out the opposition.
With respect to coaching in the power conferences, that edge must unfortunately go to K. The Big Eight/Big Twelve is not a bad conference and is coming on, thanks to Larry Brown, Roy Williams and Bill Self, but still, last year’s title by Kansas makes 2 titles in 50 years for the conference. The ACC has four this decade.
“We also can’t forget sheer luck. I often get the perception that many Tar Heel fans believe that Dean Smith was unlucky and that he should have won more titles had the fates not been against him. It is hard, for me, however, to find many, if any years where Smith seemed to have the clear-cut best team without winning it all. In fact, I think you can argue that in 1993, UNC was one of three relatively equal top teams, and the same goes for 1982″
“So much of what happens in the NCAA tournament is based upon one game where player match-ups and unfamiliarity with the opposition often leads to upsets”
Two excellent points by William. ABC fans like to say Dean underachieved and SHOULD have won more titles. My thinking is that Dean had teams that COULD have won it and that Dean put teams that SHOULDN’T have been in Final Fours into Final Fours. While many of Dean’s teams had incredible talent, the vast majority of his teams were composed of role players. Certainly many players with marginal talent developed at UNC and to the ABC fan were already developed before coming to UNC.
One more point, the ABC fan likes to point out that Roy won the 2005 title with Doherty’s players. The truth is that Roy did his BEST coaching job by pulling those guys together from the abyss.
Good point…Roy’s winning percentage is undoubtedly buoyed by having coached at a basketball school in a football conference. K had the Army days and had to coach against Dean Smith so that is a factor. Still, the first six seasons under Roy Williams have been freaking impressive. Anyone ever wonder what we would be looking at had UNC brought in Roy right after Dean retired in 1997?
Wonder…heck a few nice dream sequences can be arranged from that proposed scenario:
- K does not get 3rd title, 2001, since Dunleavy is playing for Roy (always heard it came down to UNC or Duke for him)
- A few more ACC titles for UNC, a few less for Duke
- No discernible break in the consecutive winning seasons or consecutive NCAA berths
- UNC, not Kentucky, stands atop the all-time wins
Just for starters…woulda been soo nice
THF-
I’m gonna pick up right where you left off, which is the hypothetical sollution to Roy taking over in the fall of 1997. Guthridge did an apt job in keeping things afloat, but that team (with proper guidance and tactile coaching) were capable of truly great things. In fact, had Roy come over in ‘97, that team may have mirrored what the 2005 team accomplished. Both teams won 34 games, but how do you explain the lackluster performance against Utah in the Final Four? Guthridge stuck to his premise of inserting players on an alphabetical rotation, basically because Makhtar was so popular with his teammates and the coach did not want chemistry to be fractured. Roy would not have put up with any of Makhtar’s bs, especially all that racial slur nonsense post-Utah. Some on that team managed to embarrass UNC basketball to the equal effect that others (namely Jamison) did to uphold the honor of the program.
In the big game of what-ifs, I think Roy (at that stage of his career) could have pushed that team to perform at their best when they needed to. In regards to the criticism of Dean and not having won more, I have to go back to my trusty cupboard of comebacks. Dean’s system was so copied, so emulated, that, as innovative as he was, any coaching staff had much of the UNC playbook memorized. Any variations of concepts could be adapted to within the 40 minutes of a game.
Anyways, my son just spilled his food all over the floor…more later!
Roy with his players has owned K and Dean had a winning record against K in Durham. I don’t allow any Dook fans around me forget it.
That was an excellent point by H.P. about Coach Smith.
In 1977 Smith guided his team to the finals but it certainly was not from a position of strength. Carolina needed miracles to pull out every game, including the final and almost got it. Don’t let the final score of that game trick you. UNC had a chance to tie in the last two minutes against Marquette, but honestly, Marquette was really, really good and UNC was really, really beaten up. That was Smith’s masterpiece, the 1977 season (almost matched by the 1997 season).
Even the win against bottom-rung UVa in the 1977 ACC tourney final took a herculean, almost unbelievable effort by Kuester and whoever else Smith could find that was healthy.
In 1981, the entire NCAA was down somewhat but no one expected Carolina to make it to the finals. They did lose to a team, Indiana, that they had beaten before, but honestly, no one really felt like we had blown it. It took extreme good fortunate to get by Wake and Maryland in the tourney, and UVa was probably better than we were that year, although we played them tough and got them in the Final Four.
The Final just had a lousy vibe all around. I recently heard that the NCAA almost declared UNC and Indiana co-champs, which would have been strange. Of course, we then would have heard still that Dean Smith had never “won” a title.
Smith then won in 1982 but UVa outscored us in our three games with them, and was ranked number one or number two most of the year. Georgetown was young and really, really came on at the end. No one expected that much after Worthy left but UNC had another great year in 1983 and almost returned to the Final Four.
Some of those other years people mention is due to looking at rosters, but not the season necessarily. Georgetown was just as good as UNC all season in 1984. I do not think UNC would have beaten them in the NCAA tourney had they played.
In 1987, UNC was sort of the opposite of this year. Carolina dominated the ACC but had a lot of trouble with out of conference opponents. That obviously does not portend tournament success. Even playing the look back at the roster game, Syracuse had just as many big time players or more on their team than UNC did. The same pretty much goes for the 1995 season.
UNC could have won it all in 1983, 1984, and 1987. It would have been a bit more of a stretch in 1995. But there has never been a Carolina team with the kind of talent and pressure on it that the current squad had. This year truly was a season with only one successful outcome–anything short of a title would have been failure, similar to Duke in 1992 and Indiana in 1976. It made rooting much less enjoyable and I think probably made coaching less enjoyable for Coach Williams.
To be fair to Coach Guthridge, about changing the past, it is doubtful that Williams would have gone to more than two Final Fours in three years, especially since Roy Williams was unable to sniff a Final Four from 1993 until 2002–9 frickin’ years!
Recruiting would have presumably been much better but the effects probably would have been different only for a year or two, given Doherty’s recruiting prowess in the beginning.
To also be fair to Coach Guthridge with respect to the Utah game, Roy Williams has had more than his share of lackluster performances by teams in big games–not to mention, Utah was good, it is not as though UK wiped them out in the final.
I mentioned before the 1991 title game where Kansas just seemed out of it and that game was there for the taking. Others might remember big losses by Williams’ teams against Virginia, Rhode Island, Maryland and Syracuse. Against Maryland and Syracuse, Kansas fell behind by large amounts early, and had to rally to get close at the end. Syracuse rang the Jayhawks up for a really big number in the first half.
UNC did not look good at all in the NCAA tourney in 2004. The games against Air Force and Texas were painful to watch. UNC also looked lousy in its ACC semi-final and two NCAA tourney games in 2006, inexplicably, after a stellar season overall.
I do think it is important to distinguish teams like Duke in 1992 and 1999, or Indiana in 1976, and possibly UNC this year without the injuries, where you are talking about a team that has been ranked number one essentially the entire season. Yes, Kansas in 1997 was sort of like that, but the conference was suspect, and was Kansas really better than Arizona?
If the 1997 Kansas and Arizona teams played ten games, Kansas would really have to struggle to win 6 of them. Arizona beat UNC handily twice that year and beat Kentucky in the final, preventing a three year win streak by UK.
On the other hand, getting back to K, I am not sure that many famous coaches have had teams blow as many big leads in the NCAA tourney. I can’t remember Dean Smith or Roy Williams blowing big leads the way K did against Indiana and Kentucky in the tourney, and a fairly substantial lead against UConn in the final four with a couple of minutes to go in 2004. Williams almost did, against Illinois, but held on. K had the great comeback in 2001 against Maryland, but that cuts both ways.
I think that we see in the tourney that it is hard to really know how good a team like Memphis is now, or a Kansas was, back in 1991, because they just weren’t covered as much or playing as tough a schedule. I think that probably the 1991 and 1993 Kansas teams were overachievers. Roy then built on that but I don’t think he really had the Kansas program where it is now (more than aptly maintained by Bill Self) until 2002.
William-
I love it when you hit your stride like that!
On the one hand, I agree that Roy would have had trouble coaching the Heels to two Final Fours in that three year spread (’98-’00), unless he enjoyed a little luck along the way. However, I disagree about the Utah game. Guthridge was far too willing to meet Makhtar half way. It has been well documented by the likes of Blythe, Chansky, and even that troll Feinstein, that Shammond Williams would have been more effective starting (or at least been able to get a handle on the depth perception issue much sooner in that stinkin’ Alamo Dome) against Utah. Would the Heels have beaten Kentucky? I dunno, but I’ve got to think that a hot Shammond Williams would have carried over, or at least forced UK to guard more on the perimeter (perhaps allowing some well-timed,slash-to-the-hoop moments for Vinsanity) in the title game. I don’t want to discredit what Guthridge accomplished, but the way that ‘98 team went out, with all the bad vibes and sour grapes, just wasn’t right.
1981 final was played the evening of the same day of an attempted assasination of Ronald Reagan…obviously there was concern (rightfully so) of postponing the game to the next day / similar scenario. I never heard of the “co-champs” suggestion though…
1998 team was built to win a title…Jamison in the post, Carter coming into his own on both ends, & the backcourt was solid. I just never understood how Makhtar merited the playing time in the first place…just never impressed by anything he did.
For some reason the Final Four freaked Shammond Williams out. He was so bad in two appearances. The first one was somewhat understandable since the Heels went on an incredible winning streak to get there. 1998 was a lot like 2009. The team was built to win and had the experience of the previous season. The only difference was the coaching change. I often wonder if Dean Smith wouldn’t have won a title with that team.
I’ve always wondered who the Heels missed out on in terms of recruiting because it was widely known Coach Gut was a short termer. I’ve heard that the Heels would have had guys like Battier and Jason Williams had Roy been the coach. Instead the Heels ended up with role players like Lang and Capel as the starters.
I think we lost Jason Williams because we already promised (so to speak) Ronald Curry the job as an enticement to get him on our football team. Correct?
And, if that is the case, what a lousy job in handling that situation. Hmm, let me figure this out. Jason Williams, Ronald Curry. I know who I’d want. That’s like debating on whether we will recruit Pete Chilcutt or Larry Bird. No offense Pete.
This is off subject (I am good for that) but I thought interesting to us Old Heels. Attached is two addresses to articles in our local paper about Vince Carter. He is an icon around Daytona. He attended Mainland High School in Daytona and gives back to his school in numerous ways. It seems there is not a week that goes by that he is not mentioned for donating his time and money to some charity. He is VERY well thought of in these parts and now will be back in Florida with the Magic this coming year. Folks around here are excited. He is a great Tar Heel representative.
http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/News/Local/newFLAG01070309.htm
http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/News/Local/newEAST01070309.htm
Hindsight is 20/20.
At the time Ronald Curry looked like he was going to be an incredible player in both sports. There is really no way you could have known Curry was going to be at best mediocre and Jason Williams an All-American.
I can’t defend Mahktar. To this day, does anyone understand why Wake, Michigan and UNC were fighting over the guy? There is very little doubt that Mahktar would win the poll as least popular Tar Heel ever. He would probably take second and third, too, based on misspellings, given that few can spell his name.
Guthridge was more permissive than Smith was, both with players and the press. I am not sure, however, that the result in 1998 was much different from that in 1997, with the exception being that Dean’s team started well and sputtered to the finish against Arizona, while Gut’s team started abysmally and almost pulled out the game against Utah. My recollection is that the 1998 team came closer to winning its game against Utah, than did the 1997 team against Arizona, although neither performance was good.
I honestly think the 1997 team was better than the 1998 team because it had a true center, but if you look at the trends, after recovering from an 0-3 start in the ACC, the 1997 squad was basically the same team as the 1998 team in terms of winning percentage. Haywood didn’t play that much in 1998, so once again merely looking back at the rosters can deceive.
I honestly would compare the 1998 Tar Heels to the 2008 Tar Heels, more than this year’s squad because like the 2008 team, the 1998 team had to be functioning on all cylinders to win. They couldn’t withstand a bad performance by Shammond, who, as good as he could be, was never really a star in the manner of a Felton or Lawson, or even a Donald Williams. Essentially, the 1996-98 Tar Heels lacked a third true star. When only Vince Carter showed up for the Utah game, it was just too much to overcome.
Last year’s team couldn’t withstand a mediocre performance by Hansbrough against Kansas, due to similar outside shooting issues, Ellington being erratic and Lawson needing screens to set up his shot, left only Danny Green hitting from outside against the Jayhawk onslaught. Hansbrough’s lack of inside help left him frustrated and put all the pressure on the outside game.
This year’s team was basically complete, inside and outside, with the addition of Ed Davis and the improvement in outside shooting by Green, Lawson and Ellington. Teams couldn’t key on Hansbrough the same way; Lawson got much better at finding his shot and Ellington finally reached the .400 range on three’s. There simply was no way to deal with those kinds of weapons.
The number of lucky wins by the 2008 squad, and the hard-luck losses by the 2009 squad obscures the fact that this year’s team was decidely better than last year’s team. In 2008, the Heels won three overtime games, and three other games by two points or less, dropping only a close one to Maryland by two points. They also eeked out a close win over Davidson. They lost two games by double digits.
In 2009, the Tar Heels lost four out of six of their close games, losing their only overtime game, as well as three others that they had a chance to tie or go ahead in during the last minute, losing by three to Wake, Maryland and FSU and by seven to BC.
Although traditionally, one would have deemed the 2008 Heels as “clutch” compared to the 2009 Heels, I think it is now fairly clear why the debacle against Kansas should not have been such a surprise.
Very good posts William. I agree with your positions as well, as thats the way I see it too. We could be a part of another string of years where we are no worse than 3rd io the ACC. Give us a down time for Duke this upcoming season, like finishing 4th (I know thats a big stretch), we could have ownership of that stat for a long time to come.
Curry was a stud when he came to UNC. I remember reading article after article about how good he was going to be. I’ve often wondered how much being a two sport athlete hurt him, both literally and figuratively. It is clear he was a pretty good athlete, considering his move to wide receiver in the NFL (and having several good seasons). I hate that he never got things going, because I think he could have been pretty good.
Capel was pretty highly rated coming out of HS too. Speaking of hype, get ready for some non-stop focus on this kid for the next 4 years. Based on the article however, I would welcome his interest in the Heels…
http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/story/1595540.html
What if we looked at the Duke/UNC situation from more of an acute angle? What about the next five years? Duke’s fanbase are already starting to wag their finger our way with their upcoming class. Will this class fall under like some of their high-recruited ones of late, or could this be a rebirth of the 96-98 teams where there was no shortfall of great talent from top to bottom? Only time will tell, and they may not land all of the players they are convinced they will. But on paper, if they sign, Duke will be considered superior to us in terms of recruitment. If not, then we stand a good chance to really distance ourselves from them, even in historical figures. But we have to continue to land top talent. As of right now, I think we have lost the class of 2011’s interest. The 2012 class isn’t even considering Duke or UNC at this moment. How does that happen? Maybe they are thinking that our teams will be too loaded to consider them anyway. At least that is what I am hoping. And as a few of our players leave, they get on board with us. Could it be a different approach. Are they shunning at the fact that UNC/Duke is the place to be?
The next several years I will be watching the pendelum.
Having consulted the ultimate of sooth-saying or fortune telling machinations available, I think the future is bright.
According to the magic-8 ball, all signs point to yes when asked “will Roy continue to own coach K”.
I recall Duke’s class of 2005 (for the 05-06 season), featured prominently on the SI cover issue that season. Highly touted coming in, upon leaving…not as much. All i have to say about that.