Quantifying the uncanny connection between scoring margin and PASE overachievement:

I just wrapped up two feature articles tracking the top trends that are changing the dynamics of the tourney. For the second straight year, I’ve cited scoring margin as the top trend influencing March Madness performance. If you want to read about the magic of margin, click here and scroll to the bottom of the piece.

I could go on and on about the predictive power of scoring margin. There’s a strong correlation between a team’s scoring margin and the degree to which it can be expected to overachieve. How strong? Well, as the chart below shows, with each extra point that’s added to margin, the PASE value of the qualifying teams increases. Take a look:



Most of the teams that have played in the tourney since 1985—1450 of 1664, or 87 percent—had scoring margins of four or more. And their collective rate of overachievement is just +.005 PASE. If you add two margin points, the 1202 teams are +.010 PASE overachievers. That figure is +.096 for teams that own at least 10- point scoring margins. And here’s the deal: only 520 teams, 31 percent of the field and just 20 teams per dance, have double- digit scoring margins—yet they account for 83 percent of the Final Four (86 of 104) and 92 percent of champions (24 of 26).

After the 10- point scoring margin threshold, the overachievement rates really start to accelerate. The 331 teams with a 12- plus margin are +.169 PASE overachievers; those with a 13- plus margin have a collective PASE of +.232; and the 14- plus margin squads overperform at nearly a third of a game per dance (+.314 PASE). Finally, the 122 squads with scoring margins of at least 15 points beat seed expectations at an impressive +.404 PASE rate. Not only that, but 36 percent of them (44 of 122) reach the Final Four—and 11 percent (14) cut down the nets.

Here’s another way to look at the power of margin. Here are the median scoring margins of each top four seeds:

One seeds – 15.6 per game
Two seeds – 12.0 per game
Three seeds – 11.3 per game
Four seeds – 10.0 per game

Top seeds that have a higher scoring margin than the 15.6- point median are +.327 PASE overachievers; those below median are - .327 PASE underachievers. Two seeds above their median scoring margin own a +.156 PASE,; those below fall short of expectations at a - .150 PASE rate. Above- median three seeds have a +.240 PASE; below- median threes are - .240 underwater. And, finally, four seeds with margins above median have +.086 PASE values, while their more margin- challenged counterparts are - .089 PASE underperformers.

It’s a long time before the tourney—115 days before Selection Sunday by the counter on the home page. You’ll read a lot of analysis about the dance between now and then. If you only remember one thing, remember of power of scoring margin. It’s one of the easiest ways to identify prospective overachievers.

... more » « less

Quantifying the uncanny connection between scoring margin and PASE overachievement: I just wrapped up two feature articles tracking the top trends that are changing the dynamics of the tourney. For the second straight year, I’ve cited scoring margin as the top trend influencing March Madness performance. If you want to read about the magic of margin, <A HREF=http:/ / www.bracketscience.com/ articles.asp?i=96>click here</ A> and scroll to the bottom of the piece. I could go on and on about the predictive power of scoring margin. There’s a strong correlation between a team’s scoring margin and the degree to which it can be expected to overachieve. How strong? Well, as the chart below shows, with each extra point that’s added to margin, the PASE value of the qualifying teams increases. Take a look: <IMG SRC=/ blog/ 11blog_ margin.gif> Most of the teams that have played in the tourney since 1985—1450 of 1664, or 87 percent—had scoring margins of four or more. And their collective rate of overachievement is just +.005 PASE. If you add two margin points, the 1202 teams are +.010 PASE overachievers. That figure is +.096 for teams that own at least 10- point scoring margins. And here’s the deal: only 520 teams, 31 percent of the field and just 20 teams per dance, have double- digit scoring margins—yet they account for 83 percent of the Final Four (86 of 104) and 92 percent of champions (24 of 26). After the 10- point scoring margin threshold, the overachievement rates really start to accelerate. The 331 teams with a 12- plus margin are +.169 PASE overachievers; those with a 13- plus margin have a collective PASE of +.232; and the 14- plus margin squads overperform at nearly a third of a game per dance (+.314 PASE). Finally, the 122 squads with scoring margins of at least 15 points beat seed expectations at an impressive +.404 PASE rate. Not only that, but 36 percent of them (44 of 122) reach the Final Four—and 11 percent (14) cut down the nets. Here’s another way to look at the power of margin. Here are the median scoring margins of each top four seeds: One seeds – 15.6 per game Two seeds – 12.0 per game Three seeds – 11.3 per game Four seeds – 10.0 per game Top seeds that have a higher scoring margin than the 15.6- point median are +.327 PASE overachievers; those below median are - .327 PASE underachievers. Two seeds above their median scoring margin own a +.156 PASE,; those below fall short of expectations at a - .150 PASE rate. Above- median three seeds have a +.240 PASE; below- median threes are - .240 underwater. And, finally, four seeds with margins above median have +.086 PASE values, while their more margin- challenged counterparts are - .089 PASE underperformers. It’s a long time before the tourney—115 days before Selection Sunday by the counter on the home page. You’ll read a lot of analysis about the dance between now and then. If you only remember one thing, remember of power of scoring margin. It’s one of the easiest ways to identify prospective overachievers.