Stats to Pick Apart the Bracket

User avatar
RealGM Articles
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,025
And1: 48
Joined: Mar 20, 2013

Stats to Pick Apart the Bracket 

Post#1 » by RealGM Articles » Mon Mar 17, 2014 4:46 am

Quick note: Every year the committee picks out a team and leaves them out because of a weak NCSOS. This year the victim was SMU. And if you look at their team sheet, you can understand why. There simply are not very many games in the two left columns.


I do not have a lot of unique hints to help you pick your bracket. But reading the research other people have done on the topic, here are the most important factors:


1) Margin of Victory (MOV)


See Jeff Sagarin’s Predictor, Ken Pomeroy’s Ratings, ESPN’s BPI, or a similar MOV-based system.


2) MOV


3) MOV


OK, fine. There might be a couple of other things that matter a little:


4) The ability to create turnovers


This tends to matter because almost every team you face in the tournament is going to be good on offense and defense, and if you force turnovers, you can even score on a good defensive team. But relative to MOV, this is a very small factor.


5) Having a coach who knows how to win in March.


By now, you’ve probably seen lots of studies about Performance Against Seed Expectations (or PASE). The idea is to pick out coaches who exceed their typical NCAA seed. But I’m not a huge fan of that analysis because all it takes is one loss for a coach to completely blow his numbers. And the NCAA tournament is filled with small sample sizes.


Today, I’m going to present some numbers that offer an alternative measure. What I do is take each coach’s efficiency margin from November to February, and compare that to their efficiency margin in March. I include all March games, not just NCAA tournament games, so that I can do something with seasons when a coach does not make the NCAA tournament. For example, the table below gives Scott Drew credit for his team's NIT run last season.


Efficiency Margin = Opponent and Venue Adjusted Offense minus Defense


AEMFY = Average Efficiency Margin November to February


AEMM = Average Efficiency Margin March


Here are the coaches with efficiency margin improvements of more than 1.5 points late in the year:














































































Seed



Team



Coach



AEMNF



AEMM



DIFF



5



VCU



Shaka Smart



14.3



22.0



7.8



2



Michigan



John Beilein



12.7



16.9



4.2



6



Baylor



Scott Drew



8.5



12.4



4.0



8



Memphis



Josh Pastner



15.1



17.5



2.4



4



Louisville



Rick Pitino



22.2



24.6



2.3



1



Wichita St.



Gregg Marshall



12.3



14.6



2.3



6



Ohio St.



Thad Matta



23.0



24.8



1.8



4



Michigan St.



Tom Izzo



20.3



22.0



1.6



By focusing on efficiency margin instead of just the outcome, we get a slightly different picture than the PASE stats. Thad Matta’s team has not always exceeded the expected seed in the NCAA tournament, but his teams rarely play poorly. Thad Matta’s team has lost its final game in the last five tournaments by a total of 13 points.


Josh Pastner’s inclusion on this list is the most dubious. This is mostly about his team rolling teams in the CUSA tournament. But it is worth noting that his team lost a close game to a brutally under-seeded St. Louis team in 2012 and lost by two to Arizona in 2011. Pastner’s less than stellar NCAA record may not be completely representative of his team’s March performance.


Conversely, the following coaches have all seen their teams efficiency margin plummet by more than 1.5 points in March:














































































































Seed



Team



Coach



AEMNF



AEMM



DIFF



9



Pittsburgh



Jamie Dixon



22.5



20.9



-1.7



2



Villanova



Jay Wright



17.5



15.3



-2.2



5



Oklahoma



Lon Kruger



12.3



9.9



-2.3



1



Arizona



Sean Miller



16.9



14.6



-2.4



9



Oklahoma St.



Travis Ford



12.6



9.9



-2.7



1



Virginia



Tony Bennett



15.9



12.0



-3.9



9



Kansas St.



Bruce Weber



19.2



15.2



-4.0



7



Texas



Rick Barnes



22.0



16.2



-5.8



10



BYU



Dave Rose



18.1



12.0



-6.1



2



Wisconsin



Bo Ryan



24.6



18.3



-6.3



5



Cincinnati



Mick Cronin



12.0



5.1



-6.9



3



Duke



Mike Krzyzewski



29.2



21.0



-8.2



Mike Krzyzewski’s inclusion on this list is a bit misleading. His teams have not always under-performed in the tournament. The issue here is that Duke has historically been dominant in November and December, and has not quite kept that up later in the year.


Mick Cronin’s numbers are also a little misleading. Cronin didn’t win a game in March until his fourth season. He has been better in recent years and in the tournament.


But all of the other coaches on this list have had dominant stretches in the regular season that they have not been able to duplicate in March.


(I’m always puzzled by some of the above distinctions. Michigan and Wisconsin both have similar philosophies. Both avoid fouling and rarely turn the ball over. And yet John Beilein has had the magic touch in the NCAA tournament while Bo Ryan might be the best coach never to reach the Final Four.)


6) Teams that have under-achieved in the regular season are good upset picks.


Various folks have shown that the preseason AP poll still has predictive power at the end of the season. Thus your instincts are correct. Louisville is under-seeded due to few quality wins, but has the talent to win it all. Michigan St. when healthy, has the talent to win it all. And if Kentucky still has plenty of talent and upside, even if they haven’t always shown it.


Now, if you need some help on coin flip games, here are some totally useless facts:


Vs Tournament Field


Here is how teams seeded 1-13 in the NCAA field have fared against teams seed 1-13 in the NCAA field. (Note, given the small sample sizes, I am not capping margin-of-victory here. I didn’t want to throw away any possessions, but given that these are all quality teams, it didn’t seem like this was critical.)





















































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































Seed



Team



Off



Def



EM



W



L



1



Wichita St.



119.4



85.9



33.5



4



0



1



Florida



116.1



86.3



29.8



8



2



1



Arizona



116.2



87.6



28.6



12



3



3



Duke



128.2



99.9



28.2



8



5



4



UCLA



121.0



94.8



26.2



8



4



3



Creighton



130.4



104.4



26.0



9



5



2



Kansas



118.7



94.2



24.5



12



8



1



Virginia



109.1



87.2



21.9



6



4



2



Michigan



122.2



100.6



21.5



9



6



2



Wisconsin



114.2



92.6



21.5



7



4



4



Louisville



114.4



93.2



21.2



4



5



2



Villanova



117.7



96.8



21.0



8



3



3



Syracuse



115.4



95.1



20.3



7



3



5



Oklahoma



121.6



101.5



20.1



9



6



4



Michigan St.



116.3



96.2



20.1



8



6



6



Ohio St.



111.6



91.7



19.9



7



5



5



VCU



109.7



89.8



19.9



5



5



8



Kentucky



118.3



98.9



19.4



3



6



5



Cincinnati



108.9



90.1



18.8



7



5



6



North Carolina



114.0



95.2



18.7



7



5



11



Iowa



115.2



96.7



18.6



4



8



3



Iowa St.



115.1



97.0



18.1



12



6



11



Tennessee



108.7



92.2



16.5



2



7



9



Pittsburgh



112.7



96.6



16.2



3



8



7



Connecticut



108.0



92.1



16.0



7



5



6



UMass



110.2



94.3



15.9



7



4



5



St. Louis



102.3



86.7



15.6



5



4



6



Baylor



116.2



100.6



15.6



10



9



7



Oregon



117.1



101.6



15.5



4



6



9



Kansas St.



114.1



99.1



15.1



7



8



9



Oklahoma St.



112.2



97.2



15.0



5



11



7



New Mexico



108.1



93.3



14.8



4



4



12



Xavier



110.8



96.6



14.2



4



7



10



St. Joseph's



112.5



98.7



13.8



6



5



8



Gonzaga



112.7



99.1



13.6



3



4



4



San Diego St.



104.0



90.4



13.6



3



3



8



Memphis



115.3



102.7



12.6



4



7



7



Texas



112.6



100.1



12.5



8



9



11



Providence



112.9



100.5



12.4



3



6



10



BYU



113.6



101.3



12.4



3



6



12



North Dakota St.



118.6



106.5



12.1



1



1



10



Stanford



112.8



101.9



10.9



5



9



9



George Washington



106.9



97.6



9.3



5



6



11



Dayton



113.3



104.0



9.3



4



6



10



Arizona St.



105.4



97.1



8.3



4



7



12



NC State



109.2



101.7



7.5



3



8



11



Nebraska



107.4



100.6



6.8



3



8



8



Colorado



105.1



98.7



6.3



5



8



12



Harvard



101.9



96.5



5.3



0



2



13



New Mexico St.



108.7



103.8



4.8



1



3



13



Delaware



111.2



106.9



4.3



0



3



13



Manhattan



110.3



108.6



1.7



0



1



13



Tulsa



106.5



104.9



1.7



0



3



12



Stephen F Austin



102.7



101.9



0.7



0



1



Wichita St. hasn’t played many tournament teams, but they played well against Tennessee, St. Louis, BYU, and Tulsa, particularly given that only one of those games was at home.


It is a totally meaningless stat, but I am still amazed that Kansas has played 20 games against teams seeded 13 or higher in the NCAA tournament. The Jayhawks are the most battled tested team I have ever seen. In another totally meaningless stat, 16 seed Coastal Carolina has not played a team seeded better than 13th in the NCAA tournament all year.


The above table makes Iowa vs Tennessee seem like a compelling match-up. But the reason I am not buying it is the following:


Last 10 Games – Who’s Hot?


Looking at uncapped opponent adjusted offense and defense in the last 10 games, Louisville has absolutely been crushing teams:



















































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































Seed



Team



Off



Def



EM



W



L



4



Louisville



122.5



81.5



41.0



9



1



1



Arizona



117.1



85.7



31.5



7



3



1



Virginia



121.5



91.2



30.4



9



1



1



Wichita St.



122.7



93.7



29.0



10



0



1



Florida



117.1



88.1



29.0



10



0



11



Tennessee



113.2



86.7



26.6



6



4



2



Villanova



115.2



91.1



24.1



8



2



7



New Mexico



113.2



89.1



24.1



9



1



5



VCU



110.2



86.7



23.5



7



3



2



Kansas



122.7



99.3



23.4



6



4



2



Wisconsin



121.8



98.6



23.2



8



2



6



Baylor



127.0



103.9



23.1



8



2



4



UCLA



120.9



98.3



22.6



7



3



2



Michigan



126.3



103.7



22.6



8



2



3



Creighton



129.7



107.6



22.2



7



3



4



Michigan St.



124.4



102.9



21.4



6



4



5



Oklahoma



119.8



98.9



20.9



6



4



13



Tulsa



108.5



87.8



20.7



10



0



9



Oklahoma St.



114.7



94.1



20.7



5



5



11



Nebraska



111.7



91.4



20.3



8



2



10



St. Joseph's



114.9



94.6



20.2



8



2



3



Iowa St.



117.9



98.0



19.9



8



2



14



NC Central



113.9



94.2



19.7



10



0



6



North Carolina



115.8



96.2



19.6



8



2



4



San Diego St.



107.3



87.7



19.6



8



2



12



Harvard



113.2



94.0



19.2



9



1



7



Oregon



119.5



100.3



19.2



8



2



3



Duke



121.5



102.3



19.1



7



3



8



Gonzaga



109.9



90.9



19.0



7



3



12



North Dakota St.



113.2



95.9



17.4



9



1



11



Providence



120.8



103.5



17.3



7



3



9



Pittsburgh



116.9



99.7



17.2



5



5



13



New Mexico St.



113.7



97.5



16.3



9



1



6



Ohio St.



106.7



90.8



15.9



6



4



5



Cincinnati



109.9



94.5



15.4



6



4



8



Kentucky



112.7



97.4



15.2



5



5



10



Stanford



115.6



100.6



14.9



6



4



12



Stephen F Austin



117.4



103.0



14.4



10



0



3



Syracuse



108.1



94.8



13.3



5



5



9



Kansas St.



111.1



97.9



13.3



5



5



12



Xavier



114.7



101.8



12.9



5



5



10



BYU



112.7



99.8



12.9



8



2



11



Dayton



111.9



99.5



12.5



8



2



12



NC State



119.1



106.7



12.4



5



5



11



Iowa



121.7



109.3



12.4



3



7



7



Connecticut



103.4



91.1



12.3



7



3



7



Texas



110.8



98.9



11.9



5



5



13



Manhattan



105.8



94.6



11.2



9



1



5



St. Louis



104.7



93.8



10.8



6



4



9



George Washington



110.3



100.0



10.3



6



4



14



Western Michigan



109.9



100.2



9.7



9



1



8



Memphis



109.0



99.4



9.5



6



4



10



Arizona St.



105.9



96.7



9.3



5



5



14



Louisiana-Lafayette



116.0



106.9



9.1



8



2



6



UMass



107.1



98.4



8.7



6



4



14



Mercer



106.6



100.1



6.5



8



2



8



Colorado



102.7



97.1



5.7



5



5



15



American



96.8



91.9



4.9



6



4



16



Albany



105.8



102.1



3.7



7



3



15



Eastern Kentucky



113.4



110.3



3.1



8



2



13



Delaware



108.5



105.9



2.7



8



2



16



Mount St. Mary's



109.9



107.4



2.5



6



4



16



Texas Southern



107.3



104.9



2.4



9



1



15



Wofford



104.7



102.9



1.8



7



2



15



Milwaukee



107.6



106.3



1.3



6



4



16



Weber St.



109.0



109.3



-0.3



6



4



16



Cal Poly



103.4



104.6



-1.2



5



5



16



Coastal Carolina



96.8



98.2



-1.4



8



2



Before you get too excited about that last table, let me remind you that last year, late season performance was NOT a good predictor of NCAA tournament performance. Syracuse and Michigan both struggled in their last 10 games last season and then turned things around and made the Final Four. Still, when it comes to picking the coin flips, this is basically why I can’t pick Iowa and Connecticut with good conscience.


Finally, Tennessee is one of the biggest mysteries in this year’s field. At times they’ve looked great. They’ve blown out Virginia early in the year. And late in the year they blew out Missouri, Auburn, and Vanderbilt by such a large margin, that it seems like Tennessee has broken the computers. And yet this same team has a number of dubious losses. The real problem is the lack of a PG. Jordan McCrae has been the token ball-handler for most of the year. Darius Thompson is probably the most natural PG, but he is a freshman. And transfer Antonio Barton, expected to be the PG at the beginning of the year has struggled in that role. With the right match-up, Tennessee rolls teams. But in close games, the lack of a solid distributor makes it very difficult to win.

Return to Articles Discussion