The night of Selection Sunday, as you might know, I'll provide the Excel stats sheet for all 64 tourney teams. Beyond that, I don't know of any website that tracks all the stats I'll provide on an ongoing basis throughout the season.

The night of Selection Sunday, as you might know, I'll provide the Excel stats sheet for all 64 tourney teams. Beyond that, I don't know of any website that tracks all the stats I'll provide on an ongoing basis throughout the season.

Any websites other than this one, where we can find & figure these stats, such as 3 pointers shot, front court scoring, etc.?

Any websites other than this one, where we can find & figure these stats, such as 3 pointers shot, front court scoring, etc.?

Which attributes best foretell deep tourney runs?:

I’ve nearly wrapped up my research into the key performance indicators for tourney success. This is a preview of what I’ve discovered. I’ll be posting an extensive article some time this week.

If you were deciding the fate of a team in your bracket and could only know five things about them besides seeding, what would you focus on? I evaluated every one through six seed since the tourney expanded to 64 teams back in 1985 and looked at more than two hundred statistical conditions to determine the best PASE performers and the factors that led to the highest percentage of Final Four contenders.

I found out that the five factors that correlate with the highest PASE values are:

• Scoring margin (+.402 PASE) – beating your opponents by more than 15 points a game
• Points scored (+.367 PASE) – averaging more than 85 points a game
• Coaching experience (+.285 PASE – having a coach who’s reached the Elite Eight at least five times
• Frontcourt scoring (+.227 PASE) – getting at least 60 percent of your points from forwards and centers
• Three- point shooting (+.175 PASE) – Taking more than 32.5 percent of your shots from beyond the three- point arc

It should be no surprise that scoring margin is the top indicator of a deep tourney run. This hasn’t changed since I’ve been examining tournament stats. The fact is, scoring margin has an eerie correlation to overachievement in the dance. With each succeeding point in scoring margin, teams have increasingly higher PASE values. I’ll be dedicating a later blog to this, but here’s a demonstration. Check out the escalating PASE of teams satisfying these conditions:

• Greater than 10 points per game – +.093 PASE
• Greater than 11 points per game – +.123 PASE
• Greater than 12 points per game – +.175 PASE
• Greater than 13 points per game – +.219 PASE
• Greater than 14 points per game – +.334 PASE
• Greater than 15 points per game – +.402 PASE

Offensive firepower, the second leading factor above, is a more unreliable indicator of tourney success, simply because there aren’t a lot of teams scoring more than 85 points a game anymore (though NC fit the bill last year). Coaching experience, on the other hand, is something I’m vowing to remember come bracket time. If you read the earlier blog about snakebitten coaches, you already know how important it is for deep tourney runs to have a coach who’s been to the Elite Eight before.

The two factors among the top five that most surprised me are frontcourt scoring and three- point shooting. While tourney teams are getting progressively more guard- oriented—last year’s field averaged getting 54 percent of its points from the backcourt—it’s still the teams that rely on their frontcourt that most exceed expectations. And what amazes me about the three- point shooting stat is that it’s not the accuracy that correlates with overachievement; it’s the frequency. The teams that chuck it from the deep seats more often (that 32.5 percent figure is the median of one- through six- seeded teams) beat expectations at an impressive +.175 PASE rate—regardless of their three- point field goal percentage. That should make coaches like John Beilein smile…except you’ve got to get into the dance first—and Michigan doesn’t look like it’s going to get it done this year.

One last thing: I’m bringing back a stat I tracked in 2007 called ARF—or ability to reach the Final Four. It’s a simple stat that reflects the percentage of teams in a given set that have made it to the semi- finals. For instance, of the 600 one through six seeds in the last 25 years, 95 have made the Final Four. The ARF for one through six seeds is therefore 95/600 = 15.8 percent.

I looked at all the same factors I examined for the PASE analysis and crunched the ARF numbers too. Not surprisingly, scoring margin came out as the top performance indicator for ARF (and second and third best too). One- through six- seeded teams that beat opponents by more than 16 points a game have reached the Final Four 44.4 percent of the time. The next best ARF indicator, aside from margin? Winning percentage. Teams with a winning rate of .875 and higher have made the semi- finals 38.5 percent of the time.

Keep your eye out for the upcoming feature article on key performance indicators in the tourney. We’ll not only examine the top factors that lead to tourney success, but we’ll also unveil the factors that foretell failure.
... more » « less

Which attributes best foretell deep tourney runs?: I’ve nearly wrapped up my research into the key performance indicators for tourney success. This is a preview of what I’ve discovered. I’ll be posting an extensive article some time this week. If you were deciding the fate of a team in your bracket and could only know five things about them besides seeding, what would you focus on? I evaluated every one through six seed since the tourney expanded to 64 teams back in 1985 and looked at more than two hundred statistical conditions to determine the best PASE performers and the factors that led to the highest percentage of Final Four contenders. I found out that the five factors that correlate with the highest PASE values are: • Scoring margin (+.402 PASE) – beating your opponents by more than 15 points a game • Points scored (+.367 PASE) – averaging more than 85 points a game • Coaching experience (+.285 PASE – having a coach who’s reached the Elite Eight at least five times • Frontcourt scoring (+.227 PASE) – getting at least 60 percent of your points from forwards and centers • Three- point shooting (+.175 PASE) – Taking more than 32.5 percent of your shots from beyond the three- point arc It should be no surprise that scoring margin is the top indicator of a deep tourney run. This hasn’t changed since I’ve been examining tournament stats. The fact is, scoring margin has an eerie correlation to overachievement in the dance. With each succeeding point in scoring margin, teams have increasingly higher PASE values. I’ll be dedicating a later blog to this, but here’s a demonstration. Check out the escalating PASE of teams satisfying these conditions: • Greater than 10 points per game – +.093 PASE • Greater than 11 points per game – +.123 PASE • Greater than 12 points per game – +.175 PASE • Greater than 13 points per game – +.219 PASE • Greater than 14 points per game – +.334 PASE • Greater than 15 points per game – +.402 PASE Offensive firepower, the second leading factor above, is a more unreliable indicator of tourney success, simply because there aren’t a lot of teams scoring more than 85 points a game anymore (though NC fit the bill last year). Coaching experience, on the other hand, is something I’m vowing to remember come bracket time. If you read the earlier blog about snakebitten coaches, you already know how important it is for deep tourney runs to have a coach who’s been to the Elite Eight before. The two factors among the top five that most surprised me are frontcourt scoring and three- point shooting. While tourney teams are getting progressively more guard- oriented—last year’s field averaged getting 54 percent of its points from the backcourt—it’s still the teams that rely on their frontcourt that most exceed expectations. And what amazes me about the three- point shooting stat is that it’s not the accuracy that correlates with overachievement; it’s the frequency. The teams that chuck it from the deep seats more often (that 32.5 percent figure is the median of one- through six- seeded teams) beat expectations at an impressive +.175 PASE rate—regardless of their three- point field goal percentage. That should make coaches like John Beilein smile…except you’ve got to get into the dance first—and Michigan doesn’t look like it’s going to get it done this year. One last thing: I’m bringing back a stat I tracked in 2007 called ARF—or ability to reach the Final Four. It’s a simple stat that reflects the percentage of teams in a given set that have made it to the semi- finals. For instance, of the 600 one through six seeds in the last 25 years, 95 have made the Final Four. The ARF for one through six seeds is therefore 95/600 = 15.8 percent. I looked at all the same factors I examined for the PASE analysis and crunched the ARF numbers too. Not surprisingly, scoring margin came out as the top performance indicator for ARF (and second and third best too). One- through six- seeded teams that beat opponents by more than 16 points a game have reached the Final Four 44.4 percent of the time. The next best ARF indicator, aside from margin? Winning percentage. Teams with a winning rate of .875 and higher have made the semi- finals 38.5 percent of the time. Keep your eye out for the upcoming feature article on key performance indicators in the tourney. We’ll not only examine the top factors that lead to tourney success, but we’ll also unveil the factors that foretell failure.