 Read the daily ramblings of Pete Tiernan as he discusses the strategies behind BracketScience.
Seasons:
2009-2010
2008-2009
2007-2008
2006-2007
Tennessee next likely squad to fall off the potential champ list |
|
Mon,
Feb
8,
2010,
10:18 PM
|
By ptiernan
|
0 Comments...
|
Based on today’s AP Top 25, six teams have the six basic credentials that 17 of the last 19 champions have possessed:
|
|
0 Comments...
|
|
Top Five ridiculous comments of the week by Bill Raftery |
|
Mon,
Feb
8,
2010,
9:33 PM
|
By ptiernan
|
0 Comments...
|
At one point or another, every college basketball announcer has annoyed me (I'm easily annoyable). Bilas whines too much about the refs. Knight belabors his point ad nauseum. Musberger lays the homespun schtick on too heavily. And, of course, Vitale is just maddeningly Vitale. But of all the national announcers out there, nobody grates on me more than Bill Raftery. I'm tired of "The Kiss," I rarely find a basketball play "gorgeous," and I don't agree that every center "shuffles the big puppies."
|
|
0 Comments...
|
|
Advanced tourney research with the Bracketmaster |
|
Thu,
Feb
4,
2010,
10:27 PM
|
By ptiernan
|
2 Comments...
|
Last week, I gave a quick, basic tutorial on how to use the Bracketmaster. I explained how to answer easy questions like “How has Tom Izzo done in the tourney when his Spartans have been seeded lower than third?” (Answer: 12-8, with an overachieving PASE of +.515.) And I also walked you through more complicated searches like: “How do ACC teams perform that are making more than their third straight trip, score 75 or more points, don’t have an All-American and have a strength of schedule tougher than fiftieth? (Answer: 28-16 with a PASE of +.115—but no championships).
|
|
2 Comments...
|
|
MSU’s scoring woes mean only six teams now have champ credentials |
|
Mon,
Feb
1,
2010,
8:19 PM
|
By ptiernan
|
0 Comments...
|
Based on today’s AP Top 25, only six teams now have the six basic credentials that 17 of the last 19 champions have possessed:
|
|
0 Comments...
|
|
Does road/neutral winning percentage foretell tourney performance? |
|
Sun,
Jan
31,
2010,
2:51 PM
|
By ptiernan
|
0 Comments...
|
Long-time member Skillet300 emailed me a question this morning that gave me a great blog topic--and has occupied most of my day. He wondered whether a team's road/neutral record was a reliable indicator of performance in the tourney. Put another way, Skillet300 wanted to know whether teams with better road records tended to overachieve in the dance, while those with weaker ones underperformed.
|
|
0 Comments...
|
|
The basics of using the Bracketmaster tool |
|
Thu,
Jan
28,
2010,
10:10 PM
|
By ptiernan
|
0 Comments...
|
The Bracketmaster gives users a small window into the database I’ve been building for two decades on tourney stats. It enables you to submit queries to the database using any combination of 18 statistics. Then it returns the round-by-round record of teams fulfilling the conditions you specify, along with their cumulative PASE value—a measure of their degree of over- or underachievement.
|
|
0 Comments...
|
|
Only seven teams have champ stats now—and we revisit Pythag |
|
Mon,
Jan
25,
2010,
9:10 PM
|
By ptiernan
|
0 Comments...
|
Based on yesterday’s AP Top 25, only seven teams have the six basic credentials that 17 of the last 19 champions have possessed:
|
|
0 Comments...
|
|
Agreement reached with CBSSports.com for eight-article series |
|
Fri,
Jan
22,
2010,
6:52 PM
|
By ptiernan
|
0 Comments...
|
|
|
0 Comments...
|
|
AP Top 25 doesn’t match ranking of best possession-based teams |
|
Wed,
Jan
20,
2010,
9:22 PM
|
By ptiernan
|
0 Comments...
|
I have member “gbbound” to thank for this blog entry. He asked whether I was going to be researching the value of possession-based stats in predicting tourney performance. The quick answer is: absolutely. Every year, I do at least one feature article on Ken Pomeroy’s possession-based, or tempo-free, statistics.
|
|
0 Comments...
|
|
Purdue and North Carolina fall off the latest champ list |
|
Mon,
Jan
18,
2010,
11:03 PM
|
By ptiernan
|
2 Comments...
|
Based on yesterday’s AP Top 25, only eight teams have the six basic credentials that 17 of the last 19 champions have possessed:
|
|
2 Comments...
|
|
Can Kentucky become only the third team in 26 years to win the championship without going to the previous dance? |
|
Fri,
Jan
15,
2010,
8:24 PM
|
By ptiernan
|
2 Comments...
|
Since the tourney expanded to 64 teams in 1985, only two teams have cut down the nets one year after failing to make the tournament. The first team to do the trick was Denny Crum’s Louisville Cardinals in 1986, and the second was Jim Boeheim’s 2003 Syracuse Orange. This year, the Kentucky Wildcats find themselves in the same position as these two former champs. Do they have what it takes to buck the odds?
|
|
2 Comments...
|
|
Clemson returns to the list of potential champions, Washington drops out |
|
Tue,
Jan
12,
2010,
7:24 PM
|
By ptiernan
|
0 Comments...
|
Based on yesterday’s AP Top 25, only ten teams have the six basic credentials that 17 of the last 19 champions have possessed:
|
|
0 Comments...
|
|
Ten key signs of underachievers will help you avoid teams likely to exit dance early |
|
Tue,
Jan
12,
2010,
12:24 PM
|
By ptiernan
|
2 Comments...
|
As I went through my research for the contender/pretender feature article, I discovered that there were a common set of attributes across nearly all seeds that underachievers tended to possess. Since the one-through-six seeds are most likely to make deep runs in the dance, I decided to examine which attributes were the biggest indicators that a high-seeded team would fail to meet seed expectations. Here’s what I discovered:
|
|
2 Comments...
|
|
Contenders/pretenders article finally done... |
|
Mon,
Jan
11,
2010,
9:36 PM
|
By ptiernan
|
0 Comments...
|
Nearly a month ago, I analyzed the differences between top seeds that overachieve and those that exited the dance pre-maturely. At that point, I said that I'd do the same analysis for all the other seeds by Christmas. Well, it took a heck of a lot longer than I thought it would, but the piece is finally done and posted under "Feature Articles."
|
|
0 Comments...
|
|
West Virginia, Ohio State and Clemson fall off the list of potential champs |
|
Mon,
Jan
4,
2010,
9:48 PM
|
By ptiernan
|
0 Comments...
|
Based on today’s AP Top 25, only ten teams now have the six basic credentials that 17 of the last 19 champions have possessed:
1) They came from a Power conference (ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC or Pac 10)
2) They went to the previous year's tourney
3) Their coach had at least five tourney appearances
4) They scored at least 77 points a game
5) Their average margin of victory was 10 points or more
6) They were seeded No. 1 through No. 4
Last week, 13 teams met the criteria above. West Virginia, which just got back onto the champ list last week, fell out again as its scoring average dropped to 75.2 per game. Ohio State and Clemson are also no longer potential champs, since they fell from the ranks of the AP Top 25. Check out this week’s results:
All the teams with “Y’s” highlighted in blue under “Old Rules” have the six attributes cited above. That includes: Kansas, Texas, Purdue, Syracuse, Duke, Villanova, North Carolina, Michigan State, Tennessee, and Washington.
This year, we’re tracking a seventh champ criterion. Sixteen of 19 champions have possessed all the qualities listed above—and were led by a coach that had been to the Elite Eight in a previous year. If we re-examine our top 25 teams by adding the requirement that their coach have an Elite Eight appearance on his resume, three more squads drop out: Purdue, Tennessee and Washington.
That leaves us with seven teams that have the numbers to cut down the nets in 2010: Kansas, Texas, Syracuse, Duke, Villanova, North Carolina and Michigan State.
|
|
0 Comments...
|
|
Counting down the decade’s top ten teams |
|
Sat,
Jan
2,
2010,
2:09 PM
|
By ptiernan
|
0 Comments...
|
Have you ever seen more “decade’s top ten” lists? From sports teams and movies to celebrity couples and wardrobe malfunctions, every subject is fair game. With that in mind, I figured I’d rank the ten schools that won NCAA championships in the decade. So here’s the list, counting down from tenth to first. It wasn’t easy:
10. 2002 Maryland
It’s hard to say any one of the champions of the decade is the tenth-ranked team. But someone has to fill the slot. The 2003 Terps squad is my choice. While they were a top seed—and three teams on this list weren’t—they didn’t exactly plough through their competition in the tourney. Their scoring margin in the dance was just the seventh best of the ten teams on this list, and their regular season margin was ninth best. Finally, time has shown that their starting lineup wasn’t comparatively strong. Juan Dixon and Chris Wilcox are still in the NBA, and Lonny Baxter had a cup of coffee. Pretty much every other team on this list had players with better NBA credentials.
9. 2003 Syracuse
By all rights, the 2003 Orange squad should be the tenth-ranked team. They were seeded three in the tourney, the worst of any champion on this list. They owned the lowest regular-season scoring margin and the lowest margin against their tourney opponents. And their lineup only boasted two NBA players. One of them, however, was Carmelo Anthony. That’s worth something. In addition, this Syracuse team had the hardest road to the championship, by average seeding of opponents, of any of the decade’s ten tourney winners. For those two reasons, I ranked them above Maryland.
8. 2006 Florida
I was sorely tempted to rank this year’s Florida squad above the 2007 team, because I think they were hungrier and playing better come tourney time. But I had to take into account the fact that the 2006 Gator team was seeded third, and owned just the eighth-best win/loss record and average scoring margin of the ten champions. Plus, despite being a three seed, the Gators actually had the second easiest road to their tourney victory, lucking out by getting an 11 seed in round two (Wisconsin-Milwaukee), a seven seed (Georgetown) instead of a two seed in the Sweet 16 and eleventh-seeded George Mason in the Final Four. Those are the reasons I put the 2006 Gators eighth.
7. 2000 Michigan State
Tom Izzo’s 2000 Spartan squad sent three players to the NBA—Mo Peterson, Charlie Bell and Mateen Cleaves. Plus, they owned the fifth-best average scoring margin in the regular season among the ten champions and the fourth-best margin in the tourney. But this Spartan team also had the third easiest road to the crown and the worst win/loss record of any champion in the decade. And let’s face it: their three big players haven’t torn up the NBA. It was hard for me to rationalize putting this team any higher.
6. 2004 Connecticut
Jim Calhoun’s 2004 Huskies had a powerful starting lineup, with future-NBAers Ben Gordon, Emeka Okafur, Charlie Villanueva and Josh Boone. I ranked that as the third-best starting players among the decade’s ten champions. However, UConn was a two seed, owned the seventh-best regular-season scoring margin and the ninth-best margin in the tourney, despite having the sixth easiest road to their crown.
5. 2005 North Carolina
Roy Williams’ first championship team boasted four future NBA players in Sean May, Marvin Williams, Rashad McCants and Raymond Felton. They had the fourth-best win/loss record and the fourth-best regular-season scoring margin. However, they also had the fourth easiest road to their championship, but the eighth-highest scoring margin against those fairly easy opponents. Those two factors dropped the 2005 Tar Heels into fifth place on this list.
4. 2007 Florida
Billy Donovan’s repeat championship squad didn’t exactly storm through their regular season. The 2007 Gators owned only the sixth-best win/loss record of the decade’s champions. But they also had a target on their backs all season long—and got the job done despite that pressure. Add to this the fact that they had the third hardest road to the tourney championship and put four players into the NBA, and the ’07 Gators deserve the fourth spot on this list.
3. 2008 Kansas
I was surprised when I did this analysis at how well the 2008 Jayhawks rated out. Not only did this team have the best regular season record of any champion in the decade, but they also ranked highest in terms of possession-based stats and second highest for average scoring margin. That said, the Jayhawks had the easiest road to their championship by cumulative seeding of opponents—and only the fifth-best tourney scoring margin. Plus, it looks like they’ll only have three future NBA players. That’s not good enough to overtake either of these top two teams...
2. 2009 North Carolina
I went back and forth on which of the two final teams should earn the top spot. I don’t think there’s any question that the 2001 Duke team and the 2009 Tar Heel squad are a notch above the other eight champions of the decade. A case could certainly be made for the Tar Heels to be rated first. They had the highest scoring margin against tourney opponents despite having the second toughest road to the championship. And their regular-season win/loss record was third best among the decade’s ten champs. Plus, the 2009 Heels will likely wind up sending six players to the NBA. That said, it’s debatable whether Lawson, Green, Ellington, Hansbrough, Ginyard and Thompson will have the kind of impact in the pros that the 2001 Duke players had. And that brings us to the top team of the decade…
1. 2001 Duke
Duke gets the nod over North Carolina because they had the second-best regular season win/loss record, the top scoring margin and the second-best margin against their tourney opponents. In addition, their future pro players—Sean Battier, Carlos Boozer, Chris Duhon and Mike Dunleavy—have had a significant impact in the NBA. For all these reasons, I rated the 2001 Blue Devil squad as the decade’s best college basketball team.
|
|
0 Comments...
|
|
Big Ten coaches best tourney performers among the Power conferences |
|
Fri,
Jan
1,
2010,
10:08 AM
|
By ptiernan
|
0 Comments...
|
Last year, sportscaster Tim McCormick made the comment during a Michigan State-Penn State game that the Big Ten had the best coaches of any conference in the country.
It was a pretty gutsy thing to say. At first, I ascribed it to McCormick’s affiliation with Michigan and the Big Ten. Then I decided to find out if he was right—at least through the measuring stick of tournament performance.
And guess what I discovered? McCormick had a pretty darned good argument. Last year’s crop of Big Ten coaches (same group as this year) was easily the top group in terms of performance against seed expectations, posting an impressive PASE of +.349, well ahead of the second and third place coaches in the Big East (+.167) and the ACC (+.136). Granted, ACC coaches notched more Final Four trips and championships than either the Big Ten and Big East, but they also owned a higher average seed position.
This analysis was done before the results of the 2009 tourney where North Carolina downed MSU for the championship. So I got to thinking: did last year’s dance change the standings among the coaches in the six Power conferences? Just as important, did such noted coaching moves as John Calipari going to the SEC and Sean Miller going to the Pac-10 have any effect on the analysis?
The short answer is: not really. Tim still has it right. (Not only that, but he’s a heck of a nice guy, too; he called me out of the blue shortly after my blog on conference coaches made the rounds on the internet and we shot the bull for a good 15 minutes. We had a lot to talk about. We both went to Michigan—and my high school (Andover) had the misfortune of being in his Clarkston team’s conference, so we took regular poundings from Tim.)
The long answer is, of course, an in-depth analysis involving a lot of numbers. I grouped all the coaches from each of the six Power conferences and compared their cumulative success in the tourney based on win/loss records, accomplishments and, most importantly, performance against seed expectations. Here’s what I learned:
The current 11 Big Ten coaches should’ve won about 89 games based on their various seed expectations. They actually won nearly 25 games more than that, for a strong PASE of +.372. For perspective, the two individual coaches with similar PASE values are Coach K (+.381) and Gary Williams (+.371). That’s pretty good company.
What amazes me about the Big Ten coaches is that they actually increased their PASE lead over the second-place Big East coaches., adding +.023 to their PASE over the last year, while the Big East lost .009. Perhaps more astounding is the frequency with which Big Ten coaches have beaten seed expectations. In 39 of 67 appearances, they exceeded projected win totals, for a 58.2% SOAR (seed overachievement rate) that’s head and shoulders above the 50.0% SOAR of the second-best SEC coaches.
Here’s another impressive indication of the quality of Big Ten coaches: eight of 11 of them are historical PASE overachievers. Only Ed DeChellis (-.040), Tom Crean (-.144) and Bill Carmody (-.325) have failed to meet seed expectations. If you’re keeping score, the top three Big Ten coaching overperformers are John Beilein (+.744), Tom Izzo (+.864) and—get this—Todd Lickliter, whose two seed-defying runs with Butler have earned him a gaudy +1.175 PASE.
The nearest competing stable of coaches for collective PASE performance is the Big East. The 14 coaches (Fred Hill and Norm Roberts have yet to dance) have made 105 tourney appearances and won 16.6 games more than the 160.4 that seeding projected they should have. That works out to a +.158 PASE, slightly down from last year, as I already pointed out.
Eight of 14 Big East coaches have beaten seed expectations, making the conference the only one besides the Big Ten to have more than half its coaches be historical overachievers. The top three coaching PASE performers are Rick Pitino (+.662), Jay Wright (+.436) and—surprise, surprise—Stan Heath (+.393). The group is weighed down by the underachievement records of Bob Huggins (-.241), Mick Cronin (-.345) and Keno Davis (-1.130…ouch).
The third best conference of coaches in terms of PASE is the ACC. They’ve won 8.8 games more than they should have in 90 appearances, for a PASE of +.098. Surprisingly, however, that figure is down .038 from last year’s +.136 PASE. How is it possible in a year when North Carolina cut down the nets? Well, considering that Duke, Wake Forest, Florida State and Clemson all fell short of seed expectations in 2009 it more than offset the two-plus game overachievement of the Tar Heels and the fractional improvement of Maryland.
Careful, though, about running down ACC coaches too much. Check out the “F4” and “CH” columns in the chart above. The ACC coaches (read: Mike Krzyzewski and Roy Williams) own more Final Four trips (20) and championships (six) than their competing coaching groups. And the last time I checked, cutting down the nets is still the ultimate in tourney success. That said, no conference is more reliant on the performance of two coaches than the ACC. Without the records of Roy and Coach K, the ACC coaches are -.105 PASE underachievers. No other conference suffers such a PASE decline when their two best coaches are taken away. The ACC’s top three PASE performers are Coach K (+.381), Gary Williams (+.371) and Paul Hewitt (+.292). The bottom three are Leonard Hamilton (-.565), Oliver Purnell (-.770) and Dino Gaudio (-1.480…yowdio!).
Last year, there was a noticeable gap between the coaching ranks of the Big Ten, Big East and ACC and those of the other three Power conferences. But the ACC’s PASE decline coupled with the +.010 PASE improvement of the SEC means that these two conferences could easily be switching positions after this year. In 50 appearances, SEC coaches have won 4.3 games more than the seed-projected total of 69.7 wins, for a PASE of +.085, just .010 away from ACC coaches.
If it’s any consolation to SEC fans, their coaches are more frequent overachievers in the dance than ACC coaches. While ACC coaches have beaten seed expectations in 38 of 90 chances (42.2%), SEC coaches have done the trick in half of their chances (25 of 50). Who are the top and bottom SEC coaches? Darrin Horn (+1.480), Billy Donovan (+.702) and Trent Johnson (+.140) top the list. Bruce Pearl (-.102), Mark Fox (-.187) and Rick Stansbury (-.485) hold the conference back.
The stable of coaches that made the biggest PASE improvement in the 2009 tourney is, surprisingly, the Big 12. Last year, Big 12 coaches were -.023 PASE underperformers. After the dance, they were +.025 PASE overachievers—a +.048 PASE improvement. That’s what happens when all six of your coaches beat seed expectations in a single tourney. The Big 12’s best PASE coaches are Mark Turgeon (+.663), Mike Anderson (+.625) and Frank Martin (+.550). Bill Self is just fourth in the conference, thanks to a couple embarrassing flame-outs in the first round. Greg McDermott (-.430), Scott Drew (-.480) and Doc Sadler (-.480) are the biggest underachievers
And that brings us to the Pac-10, the only Power conference with a group of coaches that has collectively underachieved in the dance—to the tune of a -.075 PASE. Pac-10 coaches have beaten seed expectations in just 20 of 48 appearances (41.7%), the lowest frequency of any group of coaches among the Big Six. There is a ray of hope, though. The current crop of Pac-10 coaches can boast a better PASE than the conference’s overall -.167 PASE throughout the 25 years of the 64-team era.
But that’s small consolation. Besides newcomer Sean Miller (+.478), Ben Howland (+.459) and Herb Sendek (+.099), no other Pac-10 coach is an overachiever. Meanwhile, five have failed to live up to seed expectations. (Craig Robinson and Johnny Dawkins have yet to earn dance cards.) The three biggest culprits? Kevin O’Neill (-.127), Lorenzo Romar (-.458) and Mike Montgomery (-.494).
|
|
0 Comments...
|
|
If the dance were today, I’d take Texas over Duke in the finals |
|
Mon,
Dec
28,
2009,
11:00 PM
|
By ptiernan
|
0 Comments...
|
The new year is just days away and the college season is about to move into conference play. I figured it’s a good time to take stock of where the nation’s top teams might wind up in March. These are the top 15 teams according to the AP poll. As you’re about to read, though, I don’t see the tourney shaking out according to these rankings (seed and round reached in parentheses):
Kansas (1 seed, Elite Eight)
I don’t know why I’m so skeptical of the Jayhawks. But nothing I’ve seen so far changes my mind that this team won’t be cutting down the nets in March. Kansas has yet to play a tough road game. Sure, UCLA was supposed to be hard, but the Bruins are just 5-7—and that game wasn’t exactly a laugher. The Jayhawks also struggled with Memphis on a not-so-neutral St. Louis court. I’ll be very interested to see how Kansas handles two big upcoming road games against Temple and Tennessee. If they get by those opponents in convincing fashion, I may have to readjust my prediction.
Texas (1 seed, Champ)
Okay, so the same argument about “no impressive road wins” could be made about the Longhorns. That’s fair. But unlike Kansas, Texas has played some of the elite teams in the country—North Carolina and Michigan State—and handled them pretty well. With all their offensive weapons, the Longhorns are my early pick to be champs. Of course, Rick Barnes’ less-than-sterling tourney performance worries me…and there’s a long haul through the conference schedule. But right now, at this very moment, this is the best team I’ve watched.
Kentucky (2 seed, Elite Eight)
If Texas is the best team I’ve seen so far, John Wall is the most impressive player. Wow, is he fast. And he’s already earned his reputation as a crunch-time player, saving the Wildcats’ bacon against Miami of Ohio and coming through down the stretch against the Tar Heels. Still, I get this sneaking feeling that Kentucky’s youth and inexperience is going be their undoing. The optimistic view is that the Wildcats are 2003 Syracuse redux; the pessimistic view is that all these near-losses will catch up with them. At this point, I’m still a skeptic.
Purdue (2 seed, Final Four)
We’ll have a better read on Purdue within the next couple weeks, after the results of games against West Virginia, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Ohio State. For now, I like the Boilermakers in the Final Four. Besides having three strong scorers in Moore, Hummel and Johnson, they’ve also got the defensive toughness, the experience and the depth to get the job done. Of course, they haven’t waded through the sluggish, slow-down gauntlet of the Big Ten yet. Let’s see how their offense is looking after that. If Purdue is still enforcing their tempo on teams and scoring more than 75 points a game, I’ll remain optimistic.
Syracuse (2 seed, Elite Eight)
Who would’ve thought before the season started that the Orange would be considered a potential top seed at this point? That’s what wins against Cal, North Carolina and Florida will do for you. I’m sold—to a point. I think Syracuse or West Virginia will bag a top seed, but I don’t see Syracuse overcoming their youth to pull off a Final Four run. The Elite Eight is as far as it goes for the Orange—and that should still be considered a surprising performance for Boeheim’s squad.
West Virginia (1 seed, Final Four)
The Mountaineers are coming off their most impressive week of the season, with wins against two solid squads in Mississippi and Seton Hall. They’ve got a big road game coming up on New Year’s Day against Purdue that could be a preview of the Final Four in March. But even if West Virginia takes a loss in that one, I like this team. The frontline of Da-Sean Butler, Kevin Jones and Devin Ebanks is as good as there is in the country…though they’re not exactly the beefiest bunch. Despite the tourney underachievement of Bob Huggins, I like the Mountaineers to reach the Final Four.
Duke (1 seed, Finals)
Given the Blue Devils’ recent habit of underachieving, this projection is a bit of a risk. They’ve already shown they’re vulnerable, with a close road loss against better-than-expected Wisconsin. Then again, the Dukies have also racked up impressive victories against Arizona State, UConn and Gonzaga, who they absolutely pulverized before the holidays. What makes this year’s Duke squad different from the last six teams that exited early from the dance? Well, they’re certainly stronger in the post than they’ve been in the past. If anything, it’s the guard play that will be their Achilles Heel. But the real reason I’m saying Duke will overachieve this year is the law of averages. They can’t fall short of seed expectations seven years in a row. Can they?
Villanova (3 seed, Sweet 16)
I was a big Villanova believer early in the season. So why can’t I see them even getting to the Elite Eight? I’ve watched the Cats a couple times on TV, and despite the strength of their backcourt (Reynolds, Redding, Fisher and Stokes), I’m struck by how undersized they are. Cunningham was an essential cog in this lineup—and given that frontcourt-dominant teams rule in the later rounds of the dance, I just don’t see the Cats repeating the magic of last year. I do, however, reserve the right to change my mind yet a third time on Villanova. If they get through the Big East in reasonable shape and prove that they can handle squads like Georgetown and West Virginia with tough big men, they’ve got the crunch-time players to go deeper, at least into the Elite Eight.
North Carolina (3 seed, Sweet 16)
The Tar Heels have shown that they can hang with some of the tougher teams in the land, like Michigan State and Ohio State (even when they had Evan Turner). But Roy’s boys have also failed their share of tests, getting spanked by Syracuse at home and losing road games to Kentucky and Texas. (Yes, technically, that was a neutral court, but come on—it was Arlington, Texas.) While North Carolina has a lot of talent, it’s raw and frontcourt-dominant. There aren’t enough proven answers in the backcourt for me to see the Tar Heels getting past the Sweet 16.
Connecticut (4 seed, Sweet 16)
I could be way wrong on this one, but there’s something about this team that makes me leery. On paper, the Huskies look strong, well deserving of their tenth-best AP ranking. Jerome Dyson and Kemba Walker are a solid guard combo. And Robinson, Edwards and Oriakhi form an intimidating frontcourt. But UConn struggles to score—and has an average scoring margin of just 11.4. Those are head-scratching numbers that don’t figure to improve through the meat grinder of Big East play. Maybe the Huskies will gel over the course of the season. Then again, their struggles could deepen. I don’t think they’ll bag a top-three seed. And that makes it difficult to reach the Elite Eight.
Michigan State (2 seed, Elite Eight)
Nobody can accuse Tom Izzo of playing a cupcake schedule. Unlike Kansas and Texas, MSU hasn’t avoided tough road games. Sure, the Spartans lost to North Carolina and Texas on their home courts, but both games were competitive until late. And Izzo learned some things about his team that should help him adjust quicker than squads that shy away from demanding schedules. Unfortunately, I think what Izzo is learning about his team is that they don’t have a solid big man to compete with the elite teams that have tough frontcourts. That’s not to say MSU can’t spring a few surprises; Izzo can practically be counted on for that. But this year, I don’t see the Spartans getting past the Elite Eight.
Kansas State (5 seed, Second Round)
Why is it that I’m not convinced the Wildcats are for real? Heck, they’ve notched a bunch of big wins—against Dayton, against Washington State, against Xavier. And UNLV and Alabama—both on the road. There aren’t many teams in the country that can boast such a resume of wins. Not only that, but you’re not going to find many backcourt tandems that are more productive than Jacob Pullen and Denis Clemente. So why do I have these guys seeded fifth when they’re ranked twelfth in the AP Top 25? I think they’ll struggle against some of the better frontcourt-dominant teams in the country. Plus, Frank Martin has to prove to me he can make a deep tourney run before I pencil the Wildcats in for for Sweet 16. Maybe next year.
Georgetown (4 seed, Sweet 16)
Here’s one I can see myself regretting. But I’m going to go with my instincts. I don’t think the Hoyas have the offensive firepower to go any deeper in the dance than the Sweet 16. Yes, Greg Monroe is one of the best big men in college. Yes, Chris Wright, Austin Freeman and Jason Clark form a strong backcourt trio. But Georgetown is a little thin on the frontline and I see them struggling in the Big East. Hence, the four seed—and the predictable inability to upend a top seed.
Tennessee (3 seed, Sweet 16)
By all rights, I should be projecting a better fate for the Volunteers. They’re big, they’re deep and they showed they can hang with the likes of Purdue, losing by just a single point on a neutral court. But I’m snakebit on Tennessee. The team always finds a way to disappoint. Usually it’s their commitment to defense and lack of poise that get the better of Pearl’s squad. Yes, they’re playing better D this year. But the Vols really haven’t beaten anyone, and they suffered a humbling blow-out loss to USC. Somehow, I feel like I’m being charitable pegging Tennessee for a three seed and a Sweet 16 run. We’ll see.
Ohio State (5 seed, Second Round)
You’ve got to give the Buckeyes their due. They’ve played better than anyone ever expected after the loss of Evan Turner. It’s a credit to the team’s depth and offensive firepower that they’re still ranked this highly. Unfortunately, I don’t think OSU will hold up through the Big Ten season. Bagging a five seed in the dance is nothing to sneeze at, but it’s not the ideal position from which to make a deep run.
Darkhorses
If you’re keeping score, you know that there are still three positions in the top four seeds that weren't covered by today’s top 15 ranked teams. There’s a three seed still available and two four seeds. At this stage of the season, while it might be easy to spot the truly elite teams, it’s difficult to determine those second-echelon squads. We’re going to have to get into the rigors of conference play before we discover some of the better teams in the land.
So if today’s top 15 ranked teams won’t scarf up all the three and four seeds, which teams might? Don’t be surprised if you see the likes of Wisconsin or Clemson or Minnesota in the three- and four-seed slots of the March bracket. Heck, Missouri, Seton Hall or Florida might also sneak in there. And Mississippi and Mississippi State are also viable candidates. And those are just some of the Power conference hopefuls. It wouldn’t shock me to see a Mid-Major sleeper nab a three or four seed. If that happens, I’d put my money on BYU, New Mexico, Dayton or Butler.
The bottom line: this season has already answered a lot of questions about who might make a deep run in the dance, but there’s still plenty of time for teams to rise in the brackets.
|
|
0 Comments...
|
|
Mountaineers kick offense in gear to return to champ list |
|
Mon,
Dec
28,
2009,
8:40 PM
|
By ptiernan
|
0 Comments...
|
Based on today’s AP Top 25, 13 teams now have the six basic credentials that 17 of the last 19 champions have possessed:
1) They came from a Power conference (ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC or Pac 10)
2) They went to the previous year's tourney
3) Their coach had at least five tourney appearances
4) They scored at least 77 points a game
5) Their average margin of victory was 10 points or more
6) They were seeded No. 1 through No. 4
Last week, 12 teams met the criteria above. West Virginia returned to the champ list thanks to a 90-point overtime win that pushed its scoring average above 77 points a game. Check it out:
All the teams with “Y’s” highlighted in blue under “Old Rules” have the six attributes cited above. That includes: Kansas, Texas, Purdue, Syracuse, West Virginia, Duke, Villanova, North Carolina, Michigan State, Tennessee, Ohio State, Washington and Clemson.
This year, we’re tracking a seventh champ criterion. Sixteen of 19 champions have possessed all the qualities listed above—and were led by a coach that had been to the Elite Eight in a previous year. If we re-examine our top 25 teams by adding the requirement that their coach have an Elite Eight appearance on his resume, four squads drop out: Purdue, Tennessee, Washington and Clemson. That leaves us with nine teams that have the numbers to cut down the nets in 2010: Kansas, Texas, Syracuse, West Virginia, Duke, Villanova, North Carolina, Michigan State, and Ohio State.
|
|
0 Comments...
|
|
Round-by-round advancement graph shows dominance of top seeds |
|
Tue,
Dec
22,
2009,
11:16 AM
|
By ptiernan
|
0 Comments...
|
Anyone who's followed the NCAA tourney knows that top seeds are by far the most dominant seeds in terms of advancement in the dance. Their success in the tournament is out of proportion to their seed advantage over the other high seeds.
It's one thing to say that and back it up with numbers. It's another to see the degree of dominance. I put together this simple animated seed-advancement graph to illustrate how much one seeds tower over their second- through sixth-seeded rivals. Check it out:
It's a simple yet striking illustration of the dominance of one seeds in the dance. If a picture doesn't tell the story, how about these numbers?
- Top seeds are more likely to reach the Elite Eight (73%) than five or six seeds are to win their opening-round games (66% and 69%, respectively)
- Top seeds reach the Final Four at nearly the same rate (44%) that two seeds reach the Elite Eight (46%)
- Top seeds are about as likely to reach the finals (24%) as two through six seeds combined (25%)
- Top seeds win the championship at a higher rate (15%) than four seeds reach the Elite Eight (14%) or three seeds reach the Final Four (13%)
|
|
0 Comments...
|
|
Clemson’s addition to list of teams with champ credentials only change this week |
|
Mon,
Dec
21,
2009,
8:09 PM
|
By ptiernan
|
0 Comments...
|
Based on today’s AP Top 25, 12 teams now have the six basic credentials that 17 of the last 19 champions have possessed:
1) They came from a Power conference (ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC or Pac 10)
2) They went to the previous year's tourney
3) Their coach had at least five tourney appearances
4) They scored at least 77 points a game
5) Their average margin of victory was 10 points or more
6) They were seeded No. 1 through No. 4
Last week, 11 teams met the criteria above. Clemson snuck back onto the champ list by returning to the AP Top 25 after two weeks out of it. Check out the list:
All the teams with “Y’s” highlighted in blue under “Old Rules” have the six attributes cited above. That includes: Kansas, Texas, Purdue, Syracuse, Duke, Villanova, Michigan State, North Carolina, Tennessee, Ohio State, Washington and Clemson.
This year, we’re tracking a seventh champ criterion. Sixteen of 19 champions have possessed all the qualities listed above—and were led by a coach that had been to the Elite Eight in a previous year. If we re-examine our top 25 teams by adding the requirement that their coach have an Elite Eight appearance on his resume, four more squads drop out: Purdue, Tennessee, Washington and Clemson. That leaves us with an elite eight group of teams that have the numbers to cut down the nets in 2010: Kansas, Texas, Villanova, Syracuse, Duke, North Carolina, Michigan State, and Ohio State.
Who’s at risk of falling off the champ list in the near future? Purdue is getting close to the 77-point scoring barrier, with a per-game average of 79.3 points. Amazingly, North Carolina is also teetering on the edge of dropping off the champ list. It’s not because of offense. The Tar Heels average 84.9 points a game, fourth best among the Top 25 behind Kansas, Syracuse and Mississippi. It’s an old bugaboo—porous defense—that’s narrowed NC’s average scoring margin to just 11 points, one away from failing to meet the 10-point barrier.
I’m also leery of Ohio State’s, Washington’s and Clemson’s staying power on this list of potential champs. Once these three teams get into conference play, I think they’ll struggle to stay in the AP Top 25. Time will tell.
|
|
0 Comments...
|
|
Separating one seed overachievers from underachievers |
|
Sun,
Dec
20,
2009,
10:54 AM
|
By ptiernan
|
0 Comments...
|
In the course of researching my last feature article about key performance indicators, it occurred to me that it might be a good idea to figure out what factors separated overachievers from underachievers at each seed position. It's one thing to do this for an entire group of seeds, like I did when I focused on one through six seeds in the KPI piece. But the fact is, each seed is unique and must take a different path through the bracket than other seeds. The best way to identify contenders from pretenders, therefore, is to do 16 separate analyses. (Okay, so we really only need to do 15, since there are no 16-seed overachievers.)
Here's a taste of the new feature article I'm writing, called "09-10 Seed Contenders/Pretenders." Let's look at one seeds. As the chart below indicates, top seeds are 344-85 over the last 25 years of the tourney, winning an average of 3.44 games per appearance. Of the 100 top seeds to play since 1985, 44 have beaten seed expectations for a +1.446 PASE; that means they've averaged 4.89 wins per tourney. Meanwhile, 56 top seeds have fallen short of seed expectations, with a PASE of -1.136. That means they've averaged 2.30 wins per dance. Check it out...and look how contenders and pretenders compare in 18 statistical categories:
The five factors that have the biggest percentage difference between contenders and pretenders are highlighted above in orange. The number-one factor is pre-tourney momentum. Top seed overachievers come into the dance with an average winning streak of 6.11 games, while underachievers average just 4.54 games. The second biggest factor separating top seed contenders from pretenders is having an All-American. Over 90% of the top seed overachievers have an All-American on their squad; less than 70% of underachievers have a star on their team.
The third factor that distinguishes top seed overperformers from underperformers relates to coaching experience in the Elite Eight. One seeds that overachieve were led by coaches with an average of 3.8 Elite Eight trips; those that underachieved had coaches that reached the quarterfinals only 3.1 times. As you've probably noticed if you've read any of the 2010 blogs, having a coach that's gone to the Elite Eight in the past seems to be a significant prerequisite for a deep tourney run.
Rounding out the top five factors separating top-seeded contenders from pretenders are Strength of Schedule and scoring margin. One seeds that overachieve play a schedule that's 15% tougher than top seeds that underachieve. And, given its high rankings in the KPI article I posted last week, it shouldn't be any surprise at all that scoring margin is a key indicator of a top-seeded overachiever. The 44 top-seeded contenders had an average scoring margin that was 12% better than the 56 pretenders.
I plan to crunch the numbers for every seed except 16 (since there are no overachievers) and compile them in a single article. It should be a nice companion piece to the "Seed Match-up Guide" I write every year. Look for it before the end of 2009.
|
|
0 Comments...
|
|
Scoring struggles drop UConn and West Virginia from the ranks of potential champs |
|
Mon,
Dec
14,
2009,
9:10 PM
|
By ptiernan
|
0 Comments...
|
After three weeks of Top 25 rankings, only 11 teams now have the six basic credentials that 17 of the last 19 champions have possessed:
1) They came from a Power conference (ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC or Pac 10)
2) They went to the previous year's tourney
3) Their coach had at least five tourney appearances
4) They scored at least 77 points a game
5) Their average margin of victory was 10 points or more
6) They were seeded one through four
Last week, 13 teams in the AP Top 25 met the criteria above. This week two fewer teams have what it takes to be champs. Check out the list:
All the teams with “Y’s” highlighted in blue under “Old Rules” have the six attributes cited above. That would be: Kansas, Texas, Purdue, Syracuse, Duke, Villanova, Tennessee, North Carolina, Michigan State, Ohio State, and Washington. West Virginia and UConn, a new addition last week, fell off of the stats champ list because they both failed to meet the 77-point-per-game scoring condition. The Mountaineers average 75.9 and the Huskies average 75.0 points a game.
This year, we’re tracking a seventh champ criterion. Sixteen of 19 champions have possessed all the qualities listed above—and were led by a coach who had been to the Elite Eight in a previous year. If we re-examine our top 25 teams by adding the requirement that their coach have an Elite Eight appearance on his resume, three more squads drop out: Purdue, Tennessee and Washington. That leaves us with an elite eight group of teams that have the numbers to cut down the nets in 2010: Kansas, Texas, Villanova, Syracuse, Duke, North Carolina, Michigan State, and Ohio State.
The one glaring omission on this list is Kentucky. Why don’t the Wildcats make the grade? They didn’t go to last year’s tournament. Only one team in the 25-year history of the 64-team era won the NCAA tourney without having gone the previous year. That was the 2003 Syracuse squad, which succeeded on the strength of a young team with a dynamic freshman, Carmelo Anthony, who gave veteran coach Jim Boeheim his first NCAA championship. Hmm…young team…dynamic freshman…veteran coach with every accolade but a tourney crown. Could Kentucky buck the odds like Syracuse did seven tourneys ago?
|
|
0 Comments...
|
|
Top five signs of early tourney exits |
|
Sun,
Dec
13,
2009,
11:08 AM
|
By ptiernan
|
0 Comments...
|
Yesterday, I looked at the top indicators of tourney success. Today, I offer this quick overview of the factors that correlate with tourney failure—measured both by performance against seed expectations (PASE) and ability to reach the Final Four (ARF).
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 attributes to determine the worst PASE performers and the factors that led to the lowest percentage of Final Four contenders.
Here are the five factors that correlate to the biggest underachievement against seed expectations:
• RPI (-.253 PASE) – getting underseeded according to your RPI position
• Three-point shooting (-.175 PASE) – Taking no more than 32.5 percent of your shots from beyond the three-point line
• Rebound and turnover margin (-.160 PASE) – having a combined rebound and turnover margin of no more than six
• Rookie tourney teams (-.146 PASE) – not going to the previous year’s tourney
• Field goal percentage (-.144 PASE) – shooting no better than 46.7 percent from the field
The fact that RPI is the biggest indicator of underachievement speaks volumes about its validity as a measure of overall team quality. The class of teams that struggled the most to live up to seed expectations were those that didn’t get seeded as high as their RPI position suggested they should. For example, Iowa owned an RPI of seven going into the 2006 tourney. If RPI were a valid measure of their relative strength in college basketball, the Hawkeyes should’ve gotten a two seed. Instead, they got a three seed. So, for those that believe in the value of RPI, Iowa should’ve been a team that overachieved, since they got underseeded according to their ability and weren't saddled with the higher expectations of actual two seeds. But what happened? Iowa got upset by 14 seed Northwestern State in the first round. The Hawkeyes are just one among many of these “RPI-underseeded” teams that have failed to meet expectations. Beware of them when you fill out your bracket.
The second leading indicator of underachievement in the tourney won’t be a surprise to those that read yesterday’s blog on key overachievement indicators. Teams that take fewer than the median percentage of three-pointers (32.5 percent), irrespective of how proficient they are at making them, are -.175 PASE underachievers. Go figure.
The final three factors rounding out the top five signs of early tourney exits are more intuitively obvious. Teams that struggle to rebound or protect the ball fail to meet seed expectations at a -.160 PASE rate. Teams that didn’t go to the previous year’s dance and those that shoot below the median for one through six seeds are also more likely to disappoint in the dance.
PASE is one way to measure tourney failure. Another is ARF, or the ability to reach the Final Four. As I explained yesterday, ARF measures 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.
Which statistical conditions have led to the lowest ARF values for one through six seeds? Here are the top three unique factors:
• Winning five or fewer of the last ten pre-tourney games (0.0 percent ARF)
• Having an average scoring margin of fewer than seven points a game (1.9 percent ARF)
• Owning a winning percentage less than .750 (4.9 percent ARF)
The 57 high-seeded teams that came into the dance winning five or fewer of their last ten pre-tourney games all failed to reach the Final Four. That works out to a big, fat ARF of nada. The 105 high-seeded teams that don’t beat their opponents by an average of seven or more points a game aren’t much more proficient at getting to the semifinals. Only two have turned the trick—Mississippi State in 1996 and Indiana in 2002. Steer clear of these squads in your bracket.
Same goes for high-seeded squads with a winning rate below .750. There have been 204 such teams since 1985 (about eight per dance) and only ten have reached the Final Four. The two most celebrated of these are the Danny Manning-led 1988 Jayhawks and the 1997 Arizona Wildcats, both of which cut down the nets. They’re definitely the exception, though. I’d think long and hard before I penciled in these “low winning percentage” teams for a deep tourney run.
Some time this week, I’ll be posting a feature article on key performance indicators in the tourney. It will go into more depth on the statistical conditions that lead to tourney success and failure. It should be a valuable resource for helping you separate this year’s tourney contenders from the pretenders.
|
|
0 Comments...
|
|
Which attributes best foretell deep tourney runs? |
|
Sat,
Dec
12,
2009,
9:42 AM
|
By ptiernan
|
2 Comments...
|
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.
|
|
2 Comments...
|
|
UConn in, Louisville and Clemson out in weekly check of teams with champ credentials |
|
Mon,
Dec
7,
2009,
8:04 PM
|
By ptiernan
|
0 Comments...
|
Last Monday, I kicked off what will be weekly check of the teams that satisfy a basic set of six credentials that 17 of the last 19 champions have possessed. These are the six qualities that all but two champions have had since 1991:
1) They came from a Power conference (ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC or Pac 10)
2) They went to the previous year's tourney
3) Their coach had at least five tourney appearances
4) They scored at least 77 points a game
5) Their average margin of victory was 10 points or more
6) They were seeded No. 1 through No. 4
The only two teams that haven't satisfied these conditions since 1991 are Michigan State (Izzo only had three bids and his Spartans scored less than 77 points per game) and Syracuse (the Orange are the only champ that hadn't gone to the previous year's tourney).
Last week, 14 teams in the AP Top 25 met the criteria above. This week the 13 teams have what it takes to be champs—but there are two important differences. Check out the list:
All the teams with “Y’s” highlighted in blue under “Old Rules” have the six attributes cited above. That includes: Kansas, Texas, Villanova, Purdue, West Virginia, Syracuse, Duke, Tennessee, North Carolina, Michigan State, Ohio State, Washington, and the one newcomer—UConn. Louisville and Clemson fell off the stats champ list because they both failed to make the AP Top 25.
This year, we’re tracking a seventh champ criterion. Sixteen of 19 champions (got this wrong last time) have possessed all the qualities listed above—and were led by a coach who had been to the Elite Eight in a previous year. (Only the 1998 Kentucky squad won the championship with a coach—Tubby Smith—who hadn’t reached the quarterfinals.)
So let’s re-examine our top 25 teams by adding the requirement that their coach have an Elite Eight appearance on his resume. Three squads drop out: Purdue, Tennessee and Washington. That leaves us with ten teams who have the numbers to cut down the nets in 2010: Kansas, Texas, Villanova, West Virginia, Syracuse, Duke, North Carolina, Michigan State, Ohio State and Connecticut. I’ll put my money on this group right now--though Kentucky fans might have an argument.
Who’s in danger of dropping off either the six- or seven-rule champ list next week? Look for Texas, West Virginia and Connecticut all to struggle to meet the 77-point-per-game barrier. The Huskies, in particular, are at risk. They’re already right on the dividing line.
|
|
0 Comments...
|
|
It’s good to have an All-American come tourney time |
|
Sun,
Dec
6,
2009,
9:13 PM
|
By ptiernan
|
0 Comments...
|
I’m starting to do my analysis into the key performance indicators of the 64-team tourney era. I’ll be doing extensive analysis into the individual and multiple factors that lead to overachievement in the tourney. The first factor I looked at was having an All-American on the roster. It might seem obvious that having a bona fide star on your team would help in the tourney. But the extent of that benefit might surprise you. Take a look at the numbers below:
For this analysis, I focused only on one through six seeds—the seeds most likely to make deep tourney runs. Face it: 95 of the 100 Final Four contenders since 1985, and 24 of 25 champs, have been among the top six seeds. So I restricted my research to the 600 top six seeds of the last quarter century.
What did I find out? Let’s look at teams without stars first. There were 404 of them with an average seed of 4.03. Only 35 have reached the Final Four—just 8.4% of these “no-star” squads. (That’s what the “F/Ap” column means.) And just five of them, or 1.2%, have cut down the nets. Altogether, these 404 no-star teams have fallen 26.4 games short of the number of wins projected by seeding, for an underachieving PASE of -.065.
Contrast this with the teams that have an All-American or two on their squad. There are 196 of them, with an average seed of 2.40. Sixty of them, or 30.6%, have reached the Final Four and 19 (9.7%) have won the championship. Those numbers are considerably better than what no-star teams have accomplished—nearly four times better for the semifinals and eight times better for the championship. Clearly, seeding is part of the reason why such a higher rate of these teams get Final Four berths and cut down the nets. But the fact is that star squads are significant overachievers, with a solid PASE of +.134.
What could be better? Having two All-Americans on your team! There have only been 22 such squads, but half of them have reached the Final Four and about a quarter (five) have won the tourney. Ironically, their PASE (+.283) is about twice as good as that of one-star squads. Of course, their average seed is 1.36, so we’re talking about teams that are well positioned to make deep tourney runs in the first place. But there’s no denying that the Final Four and championship achievement rates, as well as the PASE value, outstrip even the rates of top seeds.
When you fill out your bracket in about 100 days, take a close look at high-seeded teams with top stars. (I usually wait for U.S. Basketball Writers Association to tell me who they are right around Selection Sunday—that’s what I’ve used to define an All-American.) Sixty percent of the last 100 Final Four combatants—and 76% of the tourney champs—have had at least one All-American.
|
|
0 Comments...
|
|
Who’s at the top and bottom of the upset balance sheet? |
|
Thu,
Dec
3,
2009,
10:23 PM
|
By ptiernan
|
2 Comments...
|
Last year, I went back through all 24 brackets from the 64-team tourney era and discovered that Louisiana State and Villanova were the two schools that had sprung the most upsets—six—since 1985. Conversely, I found that Duke and Oklahoma were the most victimized by Cinderellas. Each had suffered eight upsets.
(I count an upset as any game that a team wins when it’s seeded four or more positions lower than its opponent. A six seed beating a two seed is an upset; a six beating a three isn’t.)
One year later—and after a quarter century of 64-team brackets, LSU and Nova remain as the top upset victors and Duke and Oklahoma are the top upset victims. But I noticed as I did this year’s research that some teams appear high on both the victor and victim lists. Take LSU. Yes, the Tigers have sprung six surprises, but they’ve also suffered four upsets. So their net upset margin is just two games. Alabama and North Carolina are tied for thirteenth best among upset springers—but both have been victimized five times. So their net upset margin—heck, let’s make an acronym out of it and call it NUM—is negative two.
So what if we reckoned the upset victor/victim balance sheet for all the teams over the last 25 years? Here are the lists of teams with the highest plus and lowest minus margins:
Villanova is still tied for the top victor margin—but it’s with Auburn now and not LSU, which doesn’t even appear in the top 16. The top victim margin now belongs exclusively to Duke. That’s because the Blue Devils have never sprung an upset themselves, while getting humbled eight times. Oklahoma, which also owns eight upset losses, at least managed to spring a couple surprises. In fairness to Duke, the school has only played in one game where it had a low enough seed to be considered a Cinderella. In 1987, the Blue Devils lost as a five seed to top-seeded Indiana, which went on to win the tourney.
Nonetheless, Duke owns the dubious distinction of having the worst victim margin of any team in the modern era. Oklahoma and Syracuse come in second, with a margin of negative six. Like Duke, Syracuse finds itself in this disappointing position because they haven’t sprung an upset. Unlike Duke, however, the Orange have had their chances, playing in four upset-potential games (1985, 1992, 1995 and 1998), but failing in each.
|
|
2 Comments...
|
|
14 teams have tourney champ credentials in our first check of the season |
|
Tue,
Dec
1,
2009,
12:03 PM
|
By ptiernan
|
0 Comments...
|
For the last three seasons, I’ve used a simple set of credentials that 17 of the last 19 tourney champs have possessed to project which teams might have the right stuff to cut down the nets in the current year. These are the six qualities that all but two champions have had since 1991:
1) They came from a Power conference (ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC or Pac 10)
2) They went to the previous year's tourney
3) Their coach had at least five tourney appearances
4) They scored at least 77 points a game
5) Their average margin of victory was 10 points or more
6) They were seeded No. 1 through No. 4
The only two teams that haven't satisfied these conditions since 1991 are Michigan State (Izzo only had three bids and his Spartans scored less than 77 points per game) and Syracuse (the Orange are the only champ that hadn't gone to the previous year's tourney).
So now that many schools have faced their first challenges of the young season, which currently have the statistical chops to be champs? Believe it or not, a record 14 teams meet the criteria above. (I base the seeds on the current AP Top 25). Here’s a chart I’ll be using all season for my weekly report on potential tourney champs:
All the teams with “Y’s” highlighted in blue under “Old Rules” have the six attributes cited above. That includes: Kansas, Texas, Villanova, Purdue, Duke, West Virginia, Syracuse, Michigan State, North Carolina, Tennessee, Washington, Georgetown, Clemson and Louisville.
Teams in the Top 25 that don’t meet the six key criteria are:
- Kentucky, Florida and Georgetown (didn’t go to last year’s dance)
- Gonzaga, Butler, UNLV and Portland (they’re Mid-Majors)
- Connecticut, Texas A&M, Florida State and Cincinnati (they don’t average 77 points a game)
Some of these teams fail in other categories as well. Check out the red numbers on the chart. They reflect criteria that teams don’t meet.
Notice the column titled “E8”—and the orange zeros beside certain coaches? This is a seventh champ criterion I’m going to track this year. Seventeen of 20 champions have possessed all the six qualities listed above—and were led by a coach that had been to the Elite Eight in a previous year. Only the 1998 Kentucky squad won the championship with a coach that hadn’t reached the quarterfinals. That would be Tubby Smith.
So let’s re-examine our top 25 teams by adding the requirement that their coach have an Elite Eight appearance on his resume. Which teams drop out? Purdue’s Matt Painter, Tennessee’s Bruce Pearl, Washington’s Lorenzo Romar and Clemson’s Oliver Purnell are yet to reach the quarterfinals during March Madness. It’s unlikely that they’ll cut down the nets this year.
That leaves us with ten teams at this early date who have the numbers under the "New Rules" (see the last column in the chart?) to cut down the nets in 2010: Kansas, Texas, Villanova, Duke, West Virginia, Syracuse, Michigan State, North Carolina, Ohio State and Louisville. Sounds like a pretty reasonable group.
Of course, as the season wears on and we get into conference play, some of these teams will struggle to meet the scoring and margin requirements. West Virginia (78.8 points a game) and North Carolina (12.8 average scoring margin) are already teetering close to the dividing lines. For now, though, hope springs eternal for ten squads…and if the last few years are any indicator, the champion is among this group.
|
|
0 Comments...
|
|
The Law of the Snakebitten Coach might have helped you last year |
|
Sun,
Nov
29,
2009,
2:59 PM
|
By ptiernan
|
2 Comments...
|
Why do I never listen to my own advice? I few weeks before Selection Sunday last year, I stumbled across a pattern with veteran coaches that had seen to the dance more than five times without ever reaching the Final Four. As it turns out, not only are these types of coaches solid underachievers, but they have never won a championship. That’s right: no coach who’s been to the dance more than five times without reaching the Elite Eight has ever won a 64-team tourney. Here are the numbers:
A coach who’s been to the dance before, but hasn’t reached the fourth round is a -.012 PASE underachiever. (See the second line above?) That’s a slightly better performance against expectations than a coach making his first tourney appearance, but not by much. And with each year that a coach gets to the dance without reaching the Elite Eight, his PASE sinks deeper into underperformance. So by the time a coach has earned six tourney bids but failed to make a fourth-round run, he’s a -.136 PASE underachiever with virtually no shot at winning a championship until he reaches the Elite Eight barrier.
In fact, only two coaches have cut down the nets without ever making it to the quarterfinals in a prior year. The first to do it was rookie coach Steve Fisher in 1989, but he doesn’t really count, since he never had a chance to get to the Elite Eight in a previous year. So that leaves Tubby Smith as the only coach to win a championship with first getting to the quarterfinals in one of his previous three appearances.
This is what I’m now calling “The Law of the Snakebitten Coach”—that is, a coach who hasn’t reached the Elite Eight in six or more tourney tries will not win the championship. It would have been good for me to have observed this law last year when, in one of my “from the gut” brackets I chose Jamie Dixon. Big mistake. He was a snakebitten coach last year, making his sixth appearance without a quarterfinal under his belt. The good news for Pitt fans is that Dixon was able to reach the Elite Eight last year…so henceforth he is no longer officially snakebitten. The bad news is that Pitt doesn’t have the sort of team that will come close to a championship in 2010.
I did some further research into those 136 appearances by snakebitten coaches in the final line of the chart above and discovered that they were made by 51 coaches. Of these coaches, 37 never did reach an Elite Eight or are yet to accomplish the feat. Nine made it to the quarterfinals but never cut down the nets. They are Gene Keady, Pete Gillen, Pat Kennedy, Dave Odom, Rick Majerus, Mike Jarvis, Kelvin Sampson, Rick Barnes and Mike Montgomery. Only Barnes and Montgomery are active.
That leaves five coaches that were at one point in their tourney career considered snakebitten, but managed to reach the Elite Eight, then went on in a subsequent year to win a championship. Who are they? Nolan Richardson, Jim Harrick, Gary Williams, Jim Calhoun and Jim Boeheim.
Now…for the really important list—and one you should definitely consult come bracket picking time. Which active coaches are snakebitten, fulfilling the requirement of at least six tourney appearances without reaching the Elite Eight? I would definitely think twice before picking any of these coaches’ teams to make a deep tourney run:
1. Fran Dunphy, Temple – 11 appearances without an Elite Eight run.
2. Mark Few, Gonzaga – 10
3. Al Skinner, Boston College – 9
4. Dana Altman, Creighton – 7
5. Stew Morrill, Utah State – 7
6. Homer Drew, Valparaiso – 7
7. Herb Sendek, Arizona State – 7
8. Mike Brey, Notre Dame – 7
9. Gregg Marshall, Wichita State – 7
10. Ralph Willard, Holy Cross – 6
11. Jeff Jones, American – 6
12. Bruce Pearl, Tennessee – 6
13. Oliver Purnell, Clemson – 6
14. Rick Stansbury, Mississippi State – 6
Some of the these coaches you would never consider for a deep tourney run whether or not they were snakebitten. Dunphy, Altman, Morrill, Drew, Marshall, Willard and Jones coach smaller schools that don’t really have a prayer of cutting down the nets. But it’s certainly good to know the other seven coaches from prominent schools that you should probably not advance too far in your bracket.
|
|
2 Comments...
|
|
Bracketscience.com is up and running for 2009-10 |
|
Sun,
Nov
29,
2009,
2:57 PM
|
By ptiernan
|
0 Comments...
|
|
After fully partaking in college basketball’s Feast Week and madly writing team overviews, I can now declare Bracketscience.com officially open for the 2009-10 season. The Bracketmaster is up to date. Team Talk is filled out with histories, outlooks and key questions for 99 teams. The blog is in full swing. And there are seven in-depth feature articles on everything from coaching, team and conference performance to top trends and potential champs. As we go through the season, I’ll be adding more articles—and once Selection Sunday hits we'll have plenty of bracket models and contests for you to test your powers of prognostication. Enjoy!
|
|
0 Comments...
|
|
New material rolling out in advance of December 1 |
|
Mon,
Nov
9,
2009,
11:48 AM
|
By ptiernan
|
0 Comments...
|
Even though Bracketscience.com doesn't officially open until December 1, I've been quietly updating parts of the site and adding new articles. That's a good thing, because many of you are already signing up and I want to reward your enthusiasm. Here's what's new:
- The Bracketmaster is updated with last year's tourney results.
- The first six articles in "Feature Articles" are new, including analysis on the top coaches, teams and conferences of the 25-year, 64-team era; a more robust look at champ credentials; new Madometer readings and the outlook for unpredictability in 2010; and a countdown of the top 10 tourney outliers.
- All the charts for the 75 schools under "Team Talk" have been updated. I'm in the process of writing up the previews for all the schools--and will likely be adding 25 more teams to the list this year.
By the time December 1 rolls around, all the graphics on the home page will be updated, more articles will get posted, and the blog will begin in earnest. I'll send out an email note letting everyone know when the site is ready to explore.
Thanks to everyone who's signing up early!
|
|
0 Comments...
|
|
Articles on best coaches and teams of the last 25 years posted |
|
Sun,
Oct
18,
2009,
4:47 PM
|
By ptiernan
|
0 Comments...
|
I'm working away to get the site ready for the December 1 opening. For those early birds who've signed up early for the 2009-10 season, I've posted two new articles analyzing the top coaches and teams of the 64-team tourney era. With the completion of the 2009 dance, there have now been 25 tourneys that used the 64-team bracket (including these past few years of play-in games).
It's a perfect time to ask the questions: Who's the best coach and team of the last quarter century? You might think you know the answer to both--but you might be surprised. Here's one clue: the best coach didn't coach the best team. 'Nuf said. Check out the new pieces under "Feature Articles."
|
|
0 Comments...
|
|
2009-2010 season coming soon! |
|
Sat,
Oct
10,
2009,
11:23 AM
|
By ptiernan
|
0 Comments...
|
I've been getting a bunch of email asking when the new material is coming for the upcoming year. Officially, we don't unveil all the new stuff until December 1 (that's because I'm busy writing it all right now), but there's still plenty of content that's fresh now. Most importantly, all the data in the Bracketmaster is up to date. So you can query my database to your heart's content.
As for the feature articles, top performer lists and 2010 resources, they're coming. Over the next few weeks, I'll be quietly posting the coach, team and conference analyses, along with the tourney trends article. Then we'll start digging into the 75 team outlook pieces and more in-depth research pieces.
This year, I'll be writing again for CBSSports.com--and maybe a couple of other prominent sites to be named later. I'm still in negotiations on that front.
In the meantime, thanks to everyone who's been signing up so early. Sit tight: all the good stuff is coming. In fact, just to keep your appetites whetted, I'll be posting blogs on all my findings on the top coaches, teams and conferences of the last quarter century. That's right: the 64-team tourney is 25 years old now--a perfect time to settle all those heated debates that have been raging over the years.
More to come...
|
|
0 Comments...
|
|
|
|
