Hewitt Era by the Numbers
by BirdGT on Jan 18, 2010 12:01 PM EST
Email
PrintAlright, enough reminiscing. Here's the skinny. I went though all of Hewitt's ACC seasons and broke down his record against other coaches, in certain stadiums, and other details. First off, here's a chart displaying the ACC Coaching Eras that Hewitt has endured:
There have been seven head coaching changes since Hewitt's tenure, which also includes the ACC expansion. Hewitt was 30-32 against guys that are no longer coaching in the ACC. The most abysmal showings were always against Matt Doherty's UNC squad (5-2 against Hewitt) and Herb Sendek's Princeton offense (9-4 against Hewitt). Below is a chart of current and former ACC coaches' records against Hewitt:
I guess what angers Tech fans the most is Hewitt's overall record in ACC play of 67-96. He's only got a winning record against FSU, Clemson, and UVA since the start of the 2000-2001 season. Essentially, he's only competing with the bottom third of the conference year in year out. You could factor in our victory over BC in the 2004 tournament but that's not really ACC play.
When we break down the wins/losses into where the games were played and against who, we can kinda see more detail. First off, Hewitt is actually pretty good at home sporting a 43-31 ACC home record. He's won 6 of 15 ACC Tournament games. Factor in the fact that he's had to play Duke or UNC 6 times in those ACCT games and I'd say Hewitt has fared better in the ACCT than in regular season play. He seems to relish short layover in his game preparation, which plays into his coaching style.
I think the fact that peeves a lot of Tech fans and myself is the losing record against SEC squads. 8 wins, 10 losses. 4-6 against Georgie. NBA draft picks since Hewitt's been at Tech: GT 5, Georgie 2. I don't understand the Stegeman curse. Georgie is a garbage pre-ACC season team that should be a W every season. Doesn't make sense with the teams and talent Hewitt has had lined up against Georgie's Island of Misfit Toys. This is one of my top 3 complaints against Hewitt. Winning instate is IMPORTANT. It matters to recruiting. It matters to the fans. And that all leads to long term sustainability of the program.
The graph above is a testament to how difficult it is to win on the road in the ACC and how huge the UVA loss was. The Cavaliers have really sucked against us in Charlottesville and not winning there could really hurt us later on in the season.
Let me know your thoughts and/or complaints. Any questions or statistics you'd like to see?
36 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Argument for him staying?
I didn’t really see one other than fond memories. Great summary of information though. The UGA record is frustrating but it is actually his record against the expansion teams that galls me the most. When the conference expanded I really felt like it was an opportunity for us in basketball, but we haven’t been able to establish overselves over the new teams.
I would agree that for the most part he has been good at home, but as you pointed out, it is hard to win on the road in the ACC, Therefore, our home record SHOULD be really good. If you factor out the Young/Crittenton team that only lost one game all year at home the home record hasn’t been that impressive.
Also, I would like to believe that we can/should win an ACC tournament title every ten years. While the ACC tournament record is ok there is no great year. Certainly some great wins but no complete tournaments.
I feel ya Bird
And are right there with you on the 04 sentiments. I mean, before then the last time we really made any noise was what, 1990? So, it had been a long while since anything really significant had happened with our basketball team and in that regard Hewitt is doing fine.
The thing that bothers me the most from a numbers standpoint is the constant losing record in ACC play, most of which stems from the bigger issue of consistency. How is it that year in and year out we can take down, or come damn close to taking down, highly ranked opponents yet turnaround and lose to non-ranked conference bottom feeders? That combined with the constant close losses and it’s clear to see that the talent is there, but the coaching isn’t.
He’s Chan Gailey all over again. Look at Saturday’s game as a prime example. Up by 15-20 for roughly three quarters of that game and yet we almost lost it. The only difference would be that we surprisingly held on at the end to win whereas Gailey’s teams would inevitably lose. See the Thursday night ESPN game at home against VPI from I believe 2005 where we were up 21 towards the end of the third and VPI scored four straight TD’s eventually winning by three or so, if I remember correctly.
What scares me more is that if we do happen to have a strong conference tourney showing and/or win a game or two in the NCAA tourney Hewitt will be allowed to stay and try to make do without Lawal and Favors. If he doesn’t do well, they leave and we are left without them anyways, so maybe it’s a lose-lose situation.
Also, is it just me or does it look like Favors could use another year? If Lawal is playing 1st-round ball, then Favors is hovering in the 3rd round. He seems so out of place at times on defense and on offense he sometimes really tries to do more than I think he is capable of from too far out. He needs work imo, but I believe most of it is because Lawal is around.
"Big Ten can have this challenge. Duke loses, we all win..."
-Marcus Ginyard, G - UNC
as a tech fan
I believe Derrick came to the right team. As a realist, Derrick killed his Draft stock the minute he was compared to Gani. Gani is a refined college baller and is kinda why college hoops needs people to stay a few years. He has a refined shot. He hustles. He out-rebounds bigger guys. Derrick’s film will probably get him drafted but it’ll be a while before he’s as good as Gani especially if he doesn’t get the attention in the NBA that Gani got in college.
I guess the atmosphere that I've tried to create here is that I'm a friend first and a boss second, and probably an entertainer third.
96 team made some good noise
It would be one thing if we actually won it all in 04, but we didn’t. We were 9-7 in the conference (tied for third) and didn’t make the acc tourney final (lost in semis). The only thing we won was the preseason NIT.
That said, it was an incredible tournament run. The win against Okie State was easily one of the most exciting games I have ever been to.
Good summary
But you are sugar coating everything more than Coco Puffs.
First of all, I don’t know if its fair to include Skip Prosser in the no longer coaching in the ACC stat. He would be coaching at Wake if he hadn’t died.
Re Hewitt, 43-31 at HOME is terrible. To be a good team, that should be our ROAD record. Not what we do at home. We should only average 1 or 2 in conference losses a year at the Thrillerdome. That’d be a win percentage of ~ 80%. Instead, you are happy with a 58% winning record at home. That’s the equivalent of winning 4 out of 7 home games in football. Where we need to be is 6-7 home wins and 2-3 road wins every year. That’s what we used to have when we were a tourney team every year, and that’s what it will take to rise above our current state of absolute mediocrity. I’d love to see a statistic for home records for all of the other ACC coaches.
We are hardly even mediocre. You can’t argue otherwise.
25% against Maryland, a team we should be on par with. We should be making the tournament almost, if not every year. Just like Maryland. We should be making the sweet sixteen every other year, about like Maryland. Maybe not the NCAA championships or back to back final fours, but we should be at least as good as Maryland, if not better. Winning 1/4 games against a team you should be close to 50% is simply not getting it done.
Then you’ve got sub 500 records against teams we should be pounding consistently. 29% against VT is unacceptable. As is 35% against NC St. State’s only made the tourney five years since Hewitt started coaching. Virginia Tech only once. That means we have a less than 30% clip against a team that can’t even make the tourney. Same reasoning applies to Miami (43%). We should be at least 60%-70% against non-tourney teams. We should never lose to teams that are in the basement, yet our best basketball record is 65%. Can you calculate the record of the top ACC coaches (Gary, K, Williams) against non-tourney ACC teams and ACC bottom dwellers (bottom 3 w/ 12 teams and bottom 2 otherwise) as compared to Hewitt? I bet what you’ll find is that Hewitt does not consistently win games that he should.
When you get to the home/away analysis, we should be at 50% against the bottom half of the ACC on the road. Compare Hewitt to the top ACC coaches and I’d bet you find we compare very poorly to other teams on the road.
In a nutshell, 67-96 in the ACC is horrendous. Chan Gailey was 28-20 in the ACC. Granted, we are obviously in a much better basketball conference, but not even averaging a 7-9 record in-conference is bad. Look, I understand we may never be a Duke or Carolina, but we should at least be one of the top 30 teams in the country year in and year out, with maybe a rebuilding year in between. We haven’t been that in more than half of Hewitt’s seasons with Tech.
against NCAA bound ACC teams
Hewitt has a 27-61 record against NCAA seeded ACC teams.
He has a 41-34 record against ACC teams that did not make the NCAA tournament.
I guess the atmosphere that I've tried to create here is that I'm a friend first and a boss second, and probably an entertainer third.
I do not like those numbers at all
The college football season is so fragile. It's like a glass ball being pushed around from stadium to stadium by a rhinoceros.
by Winfield Featherston on Jan 18, 2010 4:51 PM EST up reply actions
I agree about the home record
It’s horrible. We should be winning almost all of our home games. We should be winning ALL our OOC home games and a large majority of the conference home games. Road conference wins are hard to come by. To finish in the top half of the conference we should lose more than a couple at home any given year.
The 2004 team did so well because, in my opinion, they were a group of very good but not great players who had spent a good bit of time together. With Hewitt teams it seems that the better the talent the poorer they play as a team.
We beat Duke at home and, amazingly, North Carolina on the road (and I don’t care how “down” North Carolina seems to be; a road win against them is great any year. Heck, the highlight of Cremins’ tenure, for me, was the year we beat them three times). But we lost to Georgia. That’s not talent, and that’s not scheme. That’s focus.
And to Jesse28
You should probably read up a little more on Tech history. In 92-93 we won the ACC tourney. In 95-96 we made it to the finals of the ACC tourney, were ACC regular season champions, and made it to the sweet sixteen. From 91-96 (i.e. part of the period you claim we made no noise), we had two sub 500 seasons in the ACC (6-8 and 7-9) and were 50-44 in the ACC over that time. Those are the 6 seasons after we made the Final Four.
In Hewitt’s five seasons after making the finals, he’s 29-51 in the ACC. He hasn’t had a winning season in the ACC, and has only finished at .500 twice (a winning season means you win MORE than you lose, not just the same amount). He lost 14 games in the ACC last year – a number Cremins NEVER reached. Hewitt was supposed to be an upgrade from Cremins, not a downgrade. Cremins was only 16 games under 500 lifetime in the ACC, and he didn’t have the advantage of playing Miami/FSU/VT/BC every year, or only getting to face UNC/Duke once each year.
In short, Hewitt was brought in to make us an annual top 20-30 program. He hasn’t done that. I wouldn’t even consider us one of the top 40 programs in basketball. With the influx of talent that we continuously have – talent that sadly goes to waste on Hewitt – its time to move on.
Don't need a history lesson, but thanks anyways
The last time we made it to the Final Four was in 1990 so that’s why I related it to the 2004 run. My ‘serious noise’ comment is regarding the NCAA tourney because that’s where championships are won, not in the ACC tourney. Also, I only mention crediting Hewitt with that run because that is the most recent success, so it’s the one I remember the clearest.
"Big Ten can have this challenge. Duke loses, we all win..."
-Marcus Ginyard, G - UNC
Hey Jesse
Hate to break it to you but the winner of the ACC tournament is called ACC “champion” for a reason. Particularly when the ACC was the dominant conference in college bball, winning it was something special. Just like winning the ACC this year in football (ACC “champions”) meant we meant some noise.
And your comment wasn’t “serious noise,” it was “any noise.” Regardless, winning the ACC championship IS serious noise.
I think
Winning the ACC tournament is kinda important but more people are watching March Madness and making a run in the NCAA’s much more important than winning the ACCT as far as national exposure.
I’d say winning the ACCT is equivalent to a Sweet 16 birth right now in terms of national prominence. What do y’all think?
I guess the atmosphere that I've tried to create here is that I'm a friend first and a boss second, and probably an entertainer third.
and for me
What’s killed it was Duke winning it so many years in a row. Everyone stopped caring about playing in the ACCT unless they needed it to make the tourney. Thus, Duke used it as a stepping stone to a few undeserving #1 seeds.
I guess the atmosphere that I've tried to create here is that I'm a friend first and a boss second, and probably an entertainer third.
I concur
The ACC is a very deep conference and usually gets the most or second-most number of at-large bids to the NCAA tournament, so winning the ACC tourney isn’t as important as it probably could be or should be because you can be ok and still get in.
"Big Ten can have this challenge. Duke loses, we all win..."
-Marcus Ginyard, G - UNC
Re: No one but Duke cares
If that’s the case then it should be easy for us to start giving a damn and make it to the finals by stepping over all of the teams that don’t care. I think you might be onto something, but even then it’s another argument for Hewitt’s failure, not an excuse for it. A good coach wants to win every single game and championship, etc.
Paul Hewitt made some magic for us, but seriously, WWCPJD?
by Portmanteur on Jan 18, 2010 11:05 PM EST up reply actions
hard to say
I would agree that the ncaa is much more important for national exposure, but national exposure is not the point is it? You play to win championships and acc basketball championships are really hard to come by. Personally, I think winning the regular season is by far the best accomplishment short of a national title. A final four is close but a number of mediocre teams have gotten hot and made a final four, while you must be an elite team to win a national title or acc regular season championship.
I would rank them as (times Hewitt achieved):
ncaa tournament (4 of 9)
sweet sixteen (1 of 9)
elite eight/acc tournament final (both 1 of 9)
acc tournament champ (0 of 9)
final four (1 of 9)
acc regular season champ (0 of 9)
national title (0 of 9)
I ranked the ACC final so high because you usually have to beat a really good team to get there. Just like the UNC 04-05 national title team the one time we did it.
Seriously?
I’m not sure what the deal is with you, but in case you missed it, I’m a GT fan right there with you, so drop the attitude.
Sure, The ACC tourney has a champion, but so does the NIT, the Pre-Season NIT, the Maui Invitational, and every other single tournament in existence. None of them, however, mean anything compared to the NCAA Champion. Last year uga won the SEC tourney but does anyone consider them as making noise on a national level? Hell no. Stop looking at things on such a micro level.
I agree wholeheartedly that winning the ACC, both the regular season and the tourney, are very important, especially with regards to Hewitt’s success/failure, but on a national level it doesn’t compare to the NCAA tourney. In fact, I’m willing to bet most AD’s would evaluate their coach’s success with regards to NCAA tournament appearances and the results of those appearances.
Also, none of this is relevant to the CPH discussion other than how horrible it makes him look as our coach since he has done very little in all regards outside of 2004 run.
"Big Ten can have this challenge. Duke loses, we all win..."
-Marcus Ginyard, G - UNC
the SEC title did save Felton's job for a year
I agree with the post on the whole but I really don’t care what the national exposure is other than how it can help us win. I would rather beat Carolina/Duke and rub it in their face for a year.
Agreed
Don’t get me wrong, I’d much rather beat UNC/Duke/uga in basketball every year, but that 2004 run left a really good feeling in me that I wouldn’t mind experiencing again. For me, it’s not the national prominence that matters, because really that’s a dumb SEC mentality, but moreso the knowledge that we can compete and win over opponents that have been selected as the best in the country. Can anyone deny enjoying 2004? I know I can’t and I sure would like to do it again.
"Big Ten can have this challenge. Duke loses, we all win..."
-Marcus Ginyard, G - UNC
No attitude
But you did say the basketball program made no noise between 1990 and 2004, and you also said that the championships are not won in the ACC tourney. Both statements aren’t true.
GT’s basketball program isn’t stout enough to define it by final four appearances alone, since we only have two.
Also, are you really comparing one of the two biggest conference championships to the NIT? I mean, c’mon dude, the ACC tourney champion by definition is too good for the NIT. You are really gonna put the ACC championship next to the Maui invitational as well?
Of course winning the ACC Championship isn’t on par with winning a National Championship (duh), but winning the ACC is infinitely more important (and rare) than NCAA appearances. For example, Tech’s won the ACC tourney three times, but been to the tourney fourteen times since joining the ACC, with 7 sweet sixteens, 3 elite eights, and two final fours sprinkled about.
So like another poster said (and the stats back it up), winning the ACC is about on par with an elite eight appearance. You are an absolute fool if you think that
i) on a national level winning the ACC finals is comparable to winning a round of 64/32 game, particularly when the ACC final is usually nationally televised and most round of 64/32 games are not;
ii) that most AD’s don’t look to conference championships to evaluate their coach’s success;
iii) that ACC championships (which grant automatic tournament appearances) are somehow not thought of as far superior to tournament appearances.
I appreciate that you are a Tech fan too, but your stance on how important the ACC tourney is makes me wonder if you were a fan when we actually won one.
this is getting awkward...
I guess the atmosphere that I've tried to create here is that I'm a friend first and a boss second, and probably an entertainer third.
wow
Good job covering your argument by cherry picking my comments verbatim. Honestly, if my comparison to the 1990 team wasn’t enough for you to determine that I was referring to national championships, then your reading comprehension is full of fail.
And no, I’m not comparing the different championships and calling them equal, you did that as soon as you tried arguing exacts. Not once did I say that winning the ACC tourney wasn’t important, you’re simply making a mountain out of a mole hill.
But whatever, I’m sure you’ll find something to cherry pick again, so please continue your asinine comments.
"Big Ten can have this challenge. Duke loses, we all win..."
-Marcus Ginyard, G - UNC
I'm with you
Winning the ACC tournament was it’s own special thing. As I mentioned before, my favorite season was the one in which we beat North Carolina twice in season and once in the tournament. We had ARRIVED.
(My game, oddly enough, was a loss. It was three overtimes against #1 Virginia, which we’d have won if Steve Neal hadn’t throw the ball away late, and if Brook Steppe hadn’t fouled out. With our talent we had no business being in the game, but there we we were, seriously competing with a top-notch ACC school for the first time.)
My big complaint with Cremins was that he never played his bench, and the starters were worn out by the time the tournaments came along. Sometimes they did well in the ACC tournament, but, other than the 1990 run, they were one-or-two and one.
The “conventional wisdom” was that he had no bench, but he did. He just couldn’t stand to take his starters out. We had some very good players transfer out due to lack of playing time (Michael Christian is the only one that pops in to my head, but I’m sure there were others).
That first real team, with Price, Dalrymple, Petway, Salley, and Joseph, was special. I still contend that, had Tim Harvey not transferred to Miami, we’d have made a real run the next year. He wasn’t a great center, but neither was Ivan. We just needed someone at low post to allow Salley to play forward.
After that there were some very good teams, but they just didn’t seem to finish.
Back to the subject though
It’s clear to me that no matter which numbers you look at, none of them support Hewitt as being a good coach. Even in the 2004 run it took a large amount of luck to pull off those close wins the way we did with a class that wasn’t all that great according to most scouting reports. His body of work just isn’t that great no matter which way you slice it.
I guess the best thing to do is hope for another good run with the best group of players he’s ever had and see if we can steal us a championship, or two.
"Big Ten can have this challenge. Duke loses, we all win..."
-Marcus Ginyard, G - UNC
Wait a second
I thought that class was perfectly built for the college game. I simply cannot believe that it “wasn’t all that great,” because they were a great team. There were five phenomenal starters, an absolutely amazing sixth man, followed by at least two, if not three more quality backups. And why was that team so good? Because Bobby Cremins knew that he was coaching college teams.
Just like you say, Jesse, no matter what angle you look at the situation, Paul Hewitt is simply not satisfactory.
by Portmanteur on Jan 18, 2010 11:20 PM EST up reply actions
I'm talking about 2004
None of those players were five-star players and going into that year no one had that team pegged as a national title contender. Those guys had a ton of experience together and imo simply came together all at the same time. We were picked to lose in every game after the first round and barely won them just to make it into the championship game against UCONN.
I wasn’t saying that the team wasn’t good, because I thought they were amazing, just that according to most all accounts they weren’t that great coming into that year except maybe Jack.
"Big Ten can have this challenge. Duke loses, we all win..."
-Marcus Ginyard, G - UNC
Contract
I always vote no in the approval poll, but a more complicated questions is whether he should be fired. It’s hard for me to believe we can afford to fire him. The only reason to do it sooner rather than later is the fact that the contract keeps rolling over, so it doesn’t do you much good to keep waiting. We are most likely hoping he turns it around so we can wait till the economy/donations are back up. Is there any way out of this contract? Can anyone see us firing him unless there is a complete collapse?
This just shows that football
has taken back the responsibility of “most important sport at GT”. Mediocrity got rid of Gailey, but it is going to keep Hewitt (well, thanks to a ridiculous contract)
The college football season is so fragile. It's like a glass ball being pushed around from stadium to stadium by a rhinoceros.
by Winfield Featherston on Jan 18, 2010 4:54 PM EST up reply actions
this story needs more of this...
Nerds!
Keeping wildlife, an amphibious rodent, for uh, domestic, you know, within the city - that aint legal either, Dude.
by AcrimoniousAngerererer on Jan 18, 2010 5:20 PM EST reply actions
I can't see a legitimate reason to keep him other than
The current available coaches. I think when you look at the experience of the teams he has had a better go of it with veteran teams – but we all know he does a great job of recruiting one and dones. He needs to change his recruiting philosophy which we are all aware of – i am sure its not easy to turn down these skilled guys who have interest in GT but we need to start getting the BJ Elders, Morrows, Lawals, etc. Easier said than done, but I think these record breakdowns cut the fat and show what the reality is relative to the rest of the ACC
Ahhh... charts. My world is complete now.
by Stay thirsty, my friends. on Jan 19, 2010 11:38 AM EST reply actions
another chart for my special Iowa friends
Congrats on beating Penn State for your first conference win.
I guess the atmosphere that I've tried to create here is that I'm a friend first and a boss second, and probably an entertainer third.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
SHOP THE FROM THE RUMBLE SEAT STORE
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
