The Pi-Rate Ratings

March 20, 2019

PiRate Ratings NCAA Tournament For Wednesday, March 20, 2019

Home

Rating

HCA

Visitor

Rating

Spread

North Carolina Central

97.2

0.0

North Dakota St.

97.9

-0.7

St. John’s

106.2

0.0

Arizona St.

107.9

-1.7

Schedule

Both Games on Tru TV

6:40 PM EDT

16- North Carolina Central vs. 16- North Dakota St.

30 Minutes After the Conclusion of the First Game

(approximately 9:15 PM EDT)

11-Arizona State vs. 11-St. John’s

 

Thursday’s Schedule

Time

Game

TV

Location

12:15 p.m.

(10) Minnesota vs. (7) Louisville

CBS

Des Moines

12:40 p.m.

(14) Yale vs. (3) LSU

truTV

Jacksonville 

1:30 p.m.

(12) New Mexico St. vs. (5) Auburn

TNT

Salt Lake City 

2 p.m.

(13) Vermont vs. (4) Florida St.

TBS

Hartford 

Approx. 2:30 PM

(15) Bradley vs. (2) Michigan St.

CBS

Des Moines 

Approx. 2:55 PM

(11) Belmont vs. (6) Maryland

truTV

Jacksonville 

Approx. 3:45 PM

(13) Northeastern vs. (4) Kansas

TNT

Salt Lake City 

Approx. 4:15 PM

(12) Murray St. vs. (5) Marquette

TBS

Hartford 

6:50 p.m.

(10) Florida vs. (7) Nevada

TNT

Des Moines 

7:10 p.m.

(15) Abilene Christian vs. (2) Kentucky

CBS

Jacksonville 

7:20 p.m.

(11) Saint Mary’s vs. (6) Villanova

TBS

Hartford 

7:27 p.m.

(16) Fairleigh-Dickinson vs. (1) Gonzaga

truTV

Salt Lake City

Approx. 9:20 PM

(15) Montana vs. (2) Michigan

TNT

Des Moines 

Approx. 9:40 PM

(10) Seton Hall vs. (7) Wofford

CBS

Jacksonville 

Approx. 9:50 PM

(14) Old Dominion vs. (3) Purdue

TBS

Hartford 

Approx. 9:57 PM

(9) Baylor vs. (8) Syracuse

truTV

Salt Lake City 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

March 19, 2019

Bracketnomics 2019: Picking The Bracket

Here it is!

I’ve always wanted to post those words.  As a fanatic of the old Mother Road, Route 66, those three words have a special meaning.  In the “good ole days,”  The Jack Rabbit Trading Post near Joseph City, Arizona, used those three words to advertise that after miles of driving and seeing numerous signs for this tourist stop, they had finally arrived.

Like those Mother Road drivers, it is my hope that I have finally arrived at a successful system, one that will pick a large percentage of winners in the Big Dance.

The PiRate Ratings Bracketnomics System has been successful in the past–very successful.  Then, again, there have been major bust years, where throwing a dart at a dartboard with team names would have been just as reliable.

Numerous revisions to the system have brought me to settle on what you might have read yesterday, the Bracketnomics Tutorial, which you can read here:

https://piratings.wordpress.com/2019/03/18/bracketnomics-2019-picking-your-brackets/

Today, I will attempt to interpret that data from the tutorial and select a bracket based on the statistics.  This is a 100% mechanical process with no objectivity.  If you believe in 100% mechanical stock investing, then this publication is totally for you.  If you are more of a hunch player, then you will need to alter this information to better fit your beliefs, but at least let our data be a dissenting view when you consider your choices.

This post will pick all 67 games, including the games in Dayton that 99% of the bracket pools do not include.  I will pick each round today.

After the conclusion of each round, I will then post an updated bracket to assist all of you that play in a pool that allows you to pick new winners after each round.

Remember, this is still a system in its infancy with growing pains.  What I have tried to do is isolate through back-tested methods similar statistical data that past Final Four and National Championship teams possessed.

For instance, almost every national champion has possessed a scoring margin of 8 points  or better, and a large majority had double-digit scoring margins.  Almost all national champions have come from one of the “Power Conferences” or in the past were one of the top 10 Independents when there were more than 30 teams not in a conference.

Very few teams have ever made the Final Four with a negative rebounding margin, but considerably more had negative turnover margins.  At the same time, a lot of these teams had high steals per game averages, even if their turnover margin was negative.

One final factor I like to look at is style of play.  Most National Champions have been up-tempo teams that run the fast break, play some form of pressure defense (not necessarily full-court), and moves the ball quicker than average in the scoring zone.  This is not 100% exclusive.  Some patient teams that play a non-gambling style of defense have made the Final Four and a couple even won the tournament, but the trend is to go with the team that has the better chance of going on a scoring run with a 10-point or better spurt.  History shows that teams that play like North Carolina and Duke tend to get these spurts more frequently than teams like Virginia and Kansas St.

Let’s take a look at the data, starting with the First Four games in Dayton.

Team

SOS

TS Marg

OReb%

DReb%

TOV%

DTOV%

R+T

Prairie View A&M

43.07

-2.7

30.0

66.1

15.2

21.7

-3.8

Fairleigh-Dickinson

43.31

5.2

28.9

68.1

17.1

18.1

-2.4

This is an excellent example for the first game of the tournament.  SOS (Strength of Schedule) is dead even, so the rest of the stats are 100% comparable.  FDU will more than likely have the better shooting night.  Rebounding should be about even, and Prairie View will more than likely force FDU into a few more mistakes than they normally commit.  Because both teams possess R+T ratings below zero, these are two 16-seeds that are going nowhere for sure.  The winner will be a blowout victim Thursday.  This is about as tossup as you can get.  I’ll go with the team with the better, but terrible R+T Rating and select

Fairleigh-Dickinson

 

Team

SOS

TS Marg

OReb%

DReb%

TOV%

DTOV%

R+T

Temple

54.13

0.5

26.0

71.1

13.8

18.1

-3.1

Belmont

48.60

9.7

25.6

76.4

13.8

14.8

6.0

Temple has the stronger schedule by about 5.7 points per game.  Thus, the system calls for Temple’s stats to carry stronger weight than Belmont’s stats.  Temple faced better defensive teams on average than Belmont, but not enough to counter a difference of 9.2%.  Temple will have marginal rebounding advantages on both sides of the floor, but the Owls have a negative R+T.  Belmont’s R+T rating is good enough to win early, and even though the Bruins are 0-7 in past NCAA Tournaments, their mechanical data show that they are the better team.  It could be one little spurt in the second half that wins this game.

Belmont

 

Team

SOS

TS Marg

OReb%

DReb%

TOV%

DTOV%

R+T

North Carolina Central

39.47

3.5

35.1

73.7

19.0

17.3

8.2

North Dakota St.

47.57

3.4

20.9

75.7

14.3

13.2

-6.1

UNC Central has the weakest SOS in the entire field, and there isn’t another one even close.  North Dakota State has an R+T rating that is near the bottom of the field, one that in the past has never won more than one game in a Dance.  Once again, these are two 16-seeds that have no chance against a 1-seed.  I’m not sure they could beat any of the 15-seeds.  This one is a difficult choice–the weakest schedule or the worst R+T score.  Because I expect very low shooting percentages in this game, I will take the team likely to get the most second chance points.

North Carolina Central

 

Team

SOS

TS Marg

OReb%

DReb%

TOV%

DTOV%

R+T

St. John’s

55.79

-0.2

21.3

70.3

12.8

18.3

-8.0

Arizona St.

55.20

2.3

32.4

73.6

15.9

16.7

6.8

Once again, we have teams with identical SOS, which makes the selection a lot easier.  St. John’s has the second worst R+T rating in the entire field.  Case closed right away.  Arizona State will enjoy at least one big run in this game, and the Sun Devils will put this game away at that point.  This has the looks of a potential blowout win.

Arizona State

 

Team

SOS

TS Marg

OReb%

DReb%

TOV%

DTOV%

R+T

Louisville

61.61

6.1

29.2

74.2

15.5

14.3

2.9

Minnesota

59.44

1.8

31.7

72.2

15.0

14.5

1.1

Louisville’s schedule is marginally tougher, so they will get a slight upward adjustment  in their data.  The Cardinals have a clear advantage in true shooting margin and an ever so slight R+T advantage.  This makes it 3 for 3 in Louisville’s favor, but it’s three slim advantages.  The Cards are the slim favorite according to the data.

Louisville

 

Team

SOS

TS Marg

OReb%

DReb%

TOV%

DTOV%

R+T

LSU

58.56

3.2

37.3

69.6

15.3

18.0

10.1

Yale

49.95

8.8

26.0

75.9

16.1

13.5

3.6

Note:   Unless something changes, LSU Coach Will Wade is still suspended and will not coach this game.  My system has no contingency to adjust LSU’s stats.

LSU’s SOS is almost nine points stronger, so their numbers must be improved.  Thus, the Tigers have a slightly better TS%, a much better rebounding advantage, and a considerably better R+T rating.  Yale might keep it close for some time, but LSU will enjoy a killer scoring spurt to put this game away.

LSU

 

Team

SOS

TS Marg

OReb%

DReb%

TOV%

DTOV%

R+T

Auburn

59.71

1.8

33.0

68.0

14.7

22.0

3.9

New Mexico St.

48.05

4.8

36.8

79.0

14.5

17.6

18.7

This is going to be a game you will want to watch, even if you have no dog in this fight.  I expect the teams to top 75 possessions in this game.  Two of the top 20 coaches in college basketball will face off, and Aggie head coach Chris Jans should be on the radar of some power conference teams looking for a new coach.

Auburn has a large SOS advantage of 11.66 points per game, which is prohibitive.  The TS margin, offensive rebounding advantage, and R+T numbers heavily favor NMSU, and the Aggies have the top R+T rating in the tournament.  However, with a SOS advantage of almost a dozen points, Auburn will win the turnover battle, and NMSU’s rebounding advantage will be heavily tempered.  Score one for the SEC, but it would not be a shock if New Mexico State makes this a close game and even has a chance to win.  The Aggies should be considered as one of your potential upset teams, but I think there are better upset chances in this round.

Auburn

 

Team

SOS

TS Marg

OReb%

DReb%

TOV%

DTOV%

R+T

Vermont

46.62

6.5

27.8

78.8

14.4

17.8

8.8

Florida St.

59.87

3.5

33.1

73.1

16.5

18

8.3

It is rare to see a Round of 64 game where the SOS difference is 13+ points and it isn’t a 1 vs. 16 or 2 vs. 15 game.  Florida State’s superior schedule makes the relatively equal numbers in the other data inconsequential.  If you are into horse racing, you know doubt know how often a non-winner of two lifetime races enters a graded handicap and beats a classic champion horse.  Vermont is the three year old that won a race against other non-winners and then entered a Graded stakes race against four and five year old horses, some of which were contenders in the Derby when they were three.  Class wins horse races, and it wins NCAA Tournament games when the upstart isn’t the next Justify.  Vermont isn’t a Justify.

Florida State

 

Team

SOS

TS Marg

OReb%

DReb%

TOV%

DTOV%

R+T

Michigan St.

61.44

13.8

33.9

73.4

16.2

12.8

11.7

Bradley

48.52

1.7

27.4

73.8

16.8

16.5

-0.5

This game has the same issue that the previous game has, but the data is even more biased in favor of the better team.  Michigan State could start its second five in this game and probably win.  Bradley will have to settle for being glad they got to Dance.  If Tom Izzo wanted to do so, he could run up the score to a 40-point victory.  Sparty has a chance to go deep into this Tournament with their superior numbers.  Only an inability to force turnovers might eventually end their run.

Michigan State

 

Team

SOS

TS Marg

OReb%

DReb%

TOV%

DTOV%

R+T

Maryland

59.76

7.4

33.9

75.3

17.0

12.5

8.6

Temple

54.13

0.5

26.0

71.1

13.8

18.1

-3.1

Belmont

48.60

9.7

25.6

76.4

13.8

14.8

6.0

In most of your pools, you get a free pass on the play-in games, but some of you might actually have to select these games.  Thus, I am showing you both of the teams Maryland could face.

Against Temple, the Terps have a slight SOS advantage and a humongous R+T advantage.  This system’s rule of thumb is to play against teams with a negative R+T rating.

Against Belmont, the Terps have a large SOS advantage, while the remaining stats are rather close.  This system’s other rule of thumb is to play the team with the superior SOS in this case.  So, the outcome should be the same no matter which team Maryland plays.

Maryland

 

Team

SOS

TS Marg

OReb%

DReb%

TOV%

DTOV%

R+T

Kansas

62.55

5.5

29.7

71.6

16.1

15.7

1.9

Northeastern

51.11

6.7

22.7

75.7

15.1

14.9

-1.9

Kansas is not destined for a long stay at this cotillion.  The Jayhawks do not have the spurtability needed to win in the later rounds, but for this round, KU will feast on second chance points and take advantage of a Northeastern defense incapable of stopping a Big 12 offense.  This has the makings of a 20-point win.

Kansas

 

Team

SOS

TS Marg

OReb%

DReb%

TOV%

DTOV%

R+T

Marquette

57.57

8.9

29.1

73.7

17.0

14.5

2.4

Murray St.

47.53

10.6

32.0

70.7

14.7

17.2

7.8

The old system had an assumption that a team with one star and average teammates rarely advanced far in the tournaments.  Remember, Michael Jordan and Stephan Curry played for teams with very good talent.  Jordan had Sam Perkins and James Worthy for teammates.

Ja Morant qualifies as one fantastic star, while the rest of his team is slightly above average but not in the Davidson mold when Curry and crew went to the Elite 8.

Marquette’s stats are not great.  The Big East was a bit weaker than normal this season, so MU is not a team to advance very far in your bracket, and in Markus Howard, you have one big star.  The difference is that the Golden Eagles have four well-above average players rounding out their starting lineup and a very good sub.

Murray State has an upset chance in this game, but when you break it down closely, Marquette should have a little more in the tank in the final minutes.  If you are looking for upset possibilities, this could definitely be put in that category, but it looks like Marquette is just good enough to avoid an upset.

Marquette

 

Team

SOS

TS Marg

OReb%

DReb%

TOV%

DTOV%

R+T

Nevada

52.55

9.0

26.5

75.4

12.7

17.1

7.0

Florida

59.80

1.2

31.1

68.3

15.5

19.4

-0.5

This is your first big upset possibility in the games previewed so far.  Florida has a seven-point SOS advantage, but is is not enough to overcome their deficiencies in the other statistics.  Nevada coach Eric Musselman is, in my opinion, the best college basketball coach in the nation today, better than Mike Krzyzewski, Roy Williams, and Jay Wright.  If UCLA is not seriously looking at him for their vacancy, they are making a monumental mistake.

Let’s look at the data.  Nevada will take more intelligent shots than Florida, other than when the Gators get a couple of cheap baskets on offensive rebounds.  The Gators’s pressure defense will not be all that effective, and Florida has shown a propensity to make crucial mistakes in the final minutes of games.  This isn’t part of the criteria per se, but it shows in their turnover percentage, and their negative R+T rating,  and the criteria does say to play against a negative R+T.

Nevada

 

Team

SOS

TS Marg

OReb%

DReb%

TOV%

DTOV%

R+T

Kentucky

60.54

9.5

36.5

74.2

15.9

16.1

15.4

Abilene Christian

42.42

4.3

29.4

73.3

15.5

21.7

5.9

Under John Calipari, Kentucky has shown a tendency to emulate their 1958 National Champions.  Adolph Rupp’s “Fiddlin’ Five” frequently allowed an opponent to enjoy a small lead, and then like a lightning flash make a big run to decide the outcome.  The Wildcats of 2019 have displayed this characteristic more times than not.

Abilene Christian isn’t a terrible team.  They earned their invitation by sweeping the regular season and conference tournament in the Southland Conference.  However, their data is not comparable when past Southland power Stephen F. Austin won in the Dance.  This game is a mismatch, and once the Wildcats stop fiddlin’, they will run away from the other Wildcats.

Kentucky

 

Team

SOS

TS Marg

OReb%

DReb%

TOV%

DTOV%

R+T

Villanova

58.16

5.0

31.1

72.6

14.2

15.4

3.5

Saint Mary’s

55.33

5.1

31.2

76.8

14.1

14.7

9.6

In my opinion, this should be a great game to watch.  The teams are fairly evenly matched.  Villanova’s SOS is marginally better, while SMC has the better R+T Rating.  Both teams rely on offensive rebounding to score a good bit of their baskets, and Saint Mary’s has the ability to limit Villanova’s offensive rebounding.  It comes down to R+T rating.  The Gaels have a slight advantage over the defending national champions.  I consider this a 50-50 game, but the data says to take the Gaels.

Saint Mary’s

 

Team

SOS

TS Marg

OReb%

DReb%

TOV%

DTOV%

R+T

Gonzaga

56.14

17.7

30.6

72.9

12.8

16.5

14.3

Prairie View A&M

43.07

-2.7

30.0

66.1

15.2

21.7

-3.8

Fairleigh-Dickinson

43.31

5.2

28.9

68.1

17.1

18.1

-2.4

There is no need to preview this.  Maybe, if the game was just five minutes long, Gonzaga would have a 2% chance of being upset.  However, over 40 minutes, the only upset will be if the Bulldogs fail to win this game by more than 30 points, no matter which of the two 16-seeds wins in Dayton.

Gonzaga

 

Team

SOS

TS Marg

OReb%

DReb%

TOV%

DTOV%

R+T

Michigan

60.07

8.4

24.0

75.0

12.0

16.1

3.2

Montana

46.25

5.4

27.0

75.3

15.5

17.5

4.7

A lot of fans and so-called pundits believe Montana has a serious upset chance in this game.  The data here disagrees.  Michigan’s SOS is so much stronger, almost 14 points per game.  The Wolverines’ TS Margin is much better thanks to a superior defense, and the Maize and Blue limit mistakes.  I believe this game has more chance to be a blowout than to approach tossup status and look for the Wolverines to win by double digits.

Michigan

 

Team

SOS

TS Marg

OReb%

DReb%

TOV%

DTOV%

R+T

Wofford

52.24

7.9

33.1

76.6

13.6

18.2

14.3

Seton Hall

58.56

0.5

29.5

70.6

15.2

17.4

-0.6

It’s always a bit scary to look at a Mid-major favorite and go with the chalk.  Is Wofford as good as advertised?  I have seen them play about five times this year, and they have an incredible inside-outside offensive game combined with an above-average defense.

Seton Hall’s advantage rests in their SOS superiority, but the Big East was not a beast this year.  The Hall only has a minor advantage here.  In every other data point, the Terriers look like pit bulls in this game, and Seton Hall has a negative R+T rating.

Wofford

 

Team

SOS

TS Marg

OReb%

DReb%

TOV%

DTOV%

R+T

Purdue

60.84

2.3

34.9

73.5

13.5

17.2

11.4

Old Dominion

48.87

1.3

32.3

75.2

15.1

16.3

8.4

Purdue has been one of the biggest disappointments in NCAA Tournament history ever since Joe Barry Carroll led the Boilermakers to the 1980 Final Four.  Purdue has been upset numerous times in nearly 40 years.  This system doesn’t consider that to be a factor.  However, many of those Purdue teams lacked the R+T Rating advantage.  This one does.  Purdue has a strong SOS and a double-digit R+T.  Ironically, where the Boilermakers have been historically strong, TS% margin, they are rather mediocre there this year.

Old Dominion is a solid team from an average conference.  Their only liability is an equally mediocre TS% margin, and their SOS is a tad below average.  Look for the Big Ten to pick up a win, but at some point PU will stink in a game and fail once again to reach the Elysian Fields otherwise known as Minneapolis.

Purdue

 

Team

SOS

TS Marg

OReb%

DReb%

TOV%

DTOV%

R+T

Syracuse

59.55

1.6

30.1

66.6

15.8

19.7

-3.7

Baylor

58.27

1.3

38.0

71.3

16.5

16.1

9.1

This should be another interesting game to watch, and it should be close.  Syracuse’s 2-3 matchup zone can be hard to attack without a lot of experience facing it, so the Orangemen frequently outperform their statistics in the Big Dance.  Baylor frequently plays better in the tournament than they do in the regular season with athletes that have free reign to shine.

The numbers show one glaring liability.  The ‘Cuse have a negative R+T rating, something rarely seen in a Jim Boeheim team.  Syracuse usually rebounds quite well out of their zone, but not so this year.  Baylor has one of the best offensive rebounding numbers in the field, so the Bears have the best chance to exploit a weakness in this game.

Baylor

 

Team

SOS

TS Marg

OReb%

DReb%

TOV%

DTOV%

R+T

Cincinnati

55.48

2.9

37.2

70.9

13.4

18.2

12.9

Iowa

58.09

4.5

30.0

70.9

15.0

16.1

-0.4

In recent years, Cincinnati has owned criteria that yell Elite 8, even Final Four worthy, but the Bearcats never come through.  This isn’t their best team in recent years, so it figures that Cinti is prone for an early exit, even though the Bearcats are playing close to home.

Iowa peaked in the middle of the season and hasn’t been the same since January.  The Hawkeyes have a slight edge in SOS and TS% margin.  Cincinnati has such an incredible edge in R+T, and Iowa’s R+T is negative.  This is enough to advance the Bearcats to the Round of 32.  I expect Cinti to get double-digit offensive rebounds and force about 15 turnovers on the Hawkeyes.  That should lead to at least one big scoring spurt.

Cincinnati

 

Team

SOS

TS Marg

OReb%

DReb%

TOV%

DTOV%

R+T

Ole Miss

58.28

3.2

30.4

70.5

16.0

18.2

2.8

Oklahoma

60.26

4.6

26.1

72.3

15.4

15.1

-2.5

What we have here are two swooning schools.  Both teams looked like sure Sweet 16 teams into mid-January.  Since then, both teams have struggled.  The winner is almost assuredly going home after the next round.  As far as this game goes, Oklahoma has that nasty negative R+T rating, and I just cannot pick a team with a negative R+T to win unless their SOS is far superior.  Two points is not that far.

Ole Miss

 

Team

SOS

TS Marg

OReb%

DReb%

TOV%

DTOV%

R+T

Texas Tech

58.01

9.8

28.5

71.4

16.1

20.0

4.6

Northern Kentucky

46.39

6.6

31.0

74.1

15.4

16.8

7.1

This is Northern Kentucky’s second ever NCAA appearance.  Their original appearance resulted in a single-digit loss to big brother Kentucky.  This team is about as good as that team, while this Texas Tech teams is not as good as that Kentucky team.  Of course, the Norse were super fired up to face the Wildcats, and they got their moral victory.

This time, I expect the data to mean much more.  Texas Tech has a whopping SOS advantage of almost 12 points per game.  They have a much better TS% margin when the SOS is handicapped, and even though NKU has a higher R+T number, when you handicap it to SOS, the Red Raiders actually have the advantage here, and I expect TTU to force NKU into up to five more turnovers than they average.

Texas Tech

 

Team

SOS

TS Marg

OReb%

DReb%

TOV%

DTOV%

R+T

Kansas St.

58.91

1.4

27.9

74.5

15.1

20.3

3.5

UC-Irvine

47.26

6.6

34.3

73.6

14.9

14.7

12.2

Kansas State is one of those teams on my radar to be a potential upset victim.  Having watched UC-Irvine’s Big West Conference Tournament games, I think they have a shot in this game.

The issue is the SOS numbers.  The Wildcats’ schedule was more than 11 1/2 points stronger per game.  UCI’s toughest opposition the entire season was at home against Utah State, and the Aggies slaughtered the Anteaters by 24 points.  UCI did win at Saint Mary’s.

Kansas State has one big asset–their ability to force turnovers.  The Wildcats are not particularly strong on offense.  There Wildcats play a very patient offense and try to limit possessions, but there are nights where this strategy plays into the oppositions’ hands.  Irvine plays patient, smart basketball and will feel right at home in a 60-65 possession game with less than 120 total points.  Kansas State might have the overall better athletes, but UC-Irvine has a hot coach in Russ Turner, a man tutored by Mike Montgomery with a little Don Nelson in his background.  Here’s a 13-seed that I believe can win an opening game.  It’s a tossup.  Go with the team you believe in your mind and heart should win, because I debated this one for 30 minutes before deciding and to be quite honest, I am not sure I can really determine the superior team according to my system.

UC-Irvine

 

Team

SOS

TS Marg

OReb%

DReb%

TOV%

DTOV%

R+T

Tennessee

59.65

9.7

31.3

70.0

13.9

15.8

5.3

Colgate

47.05

5.7

29.6

73.9

16.7

15.6

3.2

There isn’t much need to discuss much in this game–it’s a mismatch.  Tennessee has slightly better criteria stats than Colgate, and when you add a better than 12 1/2 point superiority per game in SOS, you are looking at a potential 20-30 point win.

Tennessee

 

Team

SOS

TS Marg

OReb%

DReb%

TOV%

DTOV%

R+T

Gardner-Webb

45.44

8.8

24.8

70.2

14.7

16.4

-1.8

Virginia

60.36

13.2

29.9

74.1

12.8

15.6

9.6

Gardner-Webb is not in Baltimore County.  Additionally, the Bulldogs do not have the criteria that UMBC had at this time last year.  GWU has a negative R+T rating, and against the Pack Line defense, they will not get the crucial second chance points on offensive rebounds.  Virginia will control the boards and commit few turnovers.  How do you beat the Cavaliers without winning the rebounding and/or the turnover margin?  UVA will wash that bad taste of 2018 out of their mouths with an ugly final score in the neighborhood of 75 to 50.

Virginia

 

Team

SOS

TS Marg

OReb%

DReb%

TOV%

DTOV%

R+T

Buffalo

53.41

6.0

31.8

73.8

13.5

18.2

10.3

St. John’s

55.79

-0.2

21.3

70.3

12.8

18.3

-8.0

Arizona St.

55.20

2.3

32.4

73.6

15.9

16.7

6.8

Bully for Coach Nate Oats.  He signed a lengthy contract extension to stay in Buffalo, when a lot of other schools were ready to pound on his door.  It makes me wonder if Buffalo has designs on maybe campaigning for a spot in a future expanded American Athletic Conference, with excellent football and basketball programs more than ready to move up.

I expect the Bulls to be facing Arizona State in this game, but let’s for a moment look at the possibility that St. John’s wins in Dayton.  With an R+T rating of -8.0, the rules of this system is to continue to play against this team unless the opponent has an incredibly low SOS, well below 45.00.  Buffalo’s SOS is about where previous Mid-Major Final Four teams George Mason, Wichita State, and Virginia Commonwealth were.  So, if St. John’s advances out of Dayton, go with Buffalo to beat their in-state rival by double digits.

Against Arizona State, this is a much more even game.  Buffalo enjoys only a very slight advantage, making this basically a 50-50 game.  The Bulls have been a little more consistent all season, while ASU has been up and down.  The data says that Buffalo is maybe a 51% chance to be the winner.

There is one other factor in this potential game, and it is not part of the criteria, but the fabulous Buffalo senior class that put this team in the top 20 were recruited by current Sun Devil Coach Bobby Hurley.

Buffalo

 

Team

SOS

TS Marg

OReb%

DReb%

TOV%

DTOV%

R+T

Wisconsin

60.91

6.5

24.0

73.5

12.8

15.0

-1.2

Oregon

55.13

3.8

29.6

71.9

15.5

18.3

4.6

When McDonald’s All-American Bol Bol went out for the season after nine games, it looked like it was Duck Season, and the Pac-12 was full of Elmer J. Fudd hunters on the hardwoods.  Give Coach Dana Altman the utmost respect for making the necessary adjustments when he lost his 5-star stud.  His number two 5-star player, Louis King, was not ready to star when the season began.  As the season progressed, King got better and better.

Wisconsin has a slightly better SOS and TS% Margin.  Rebounding is about equal.  However, The Badgers have a negative R+T rating.  Thus, we go against UW more than in favor of Oregon.

Oregon

 

Team

SOS

TS Marg

OReb%

DReb%

TOV%

DTOV%

R+T

Utah St.

52.13

8.7

32.0

77.8

15.5

15.5

14.8

Washington

55.60

4.4

29.5

65.7

17.4

20.5

-3.6

Utah State might be a dangerous dark horse this year!  They have the criteria resume of a Gonzaga in previous years before Mark Few took the Bulldogs to the Championship Game.  I am not predicting USU to make the Final Four this year, but they might make the second weekend.

In this game, Washington is another one of those teams with a negative R+T rating.  While, I am a bit worried that so many teams made the field this year with sub-zero R+T ratings, until one of these non-spurtable teams get to the Elite 8, they will not have my support.

Utah State

 

Team

SOS

TS Marg

OReb%

DReb%

TOV%

DTOV%

R+T

Duke

63.09

10.3

36.1

70.4

15.0

17.1

12.1

North Carolina Central

39.47

3.5

35.1

73.7

19.0

17.3

8.2

North Dakota St.

47.57

3.4

20.9

75.7

14.3

13.2

-6.1

Don’t even think for a second that Duke coach Mike Krzyzewski will lose a minute’s sleep thinking about this game, no matter which 16-seed wins in Dayton.  Duke could play this game without Zion Williamson, R.J. Barrett, or Cam Reddish suiting up.  Heck, Coach K could take his Gary Winton-led team from Army in the 1970’s and win this game.

Duke

 

Team

SOS

TS Marg

OReb%

DReb%

TOV%

DTOV%

R+T

Houston

55.02

8.0

34.4

74.1

14.2

15.8

13.6

Georgia St.

51.14

5.1

23.5

66.2

14.7

18

-9.6

Here is another mismatch game.  Georgia State’s -9.6 R+T rating is dead last in this field, and Houston’s 13.6 R+T rating is seventh best in the field.  Add a better SOS and better TS% margin, and this leads to a major slaughter.  Houston has won some NCAA Tournament games by very large margins in the past.  There was a 35-point pasting of TCU in the Midwest Regional Final in 1968.  The Cougars have an outside chance to top that in this game.  Kelvin Sampson will unload the bench quicker than the way Guy Lewis did, so expect the margin to be in the 20’s.

Houston

 

Team

SOS

TS Marg

OReb%

DReb%

TOV%

DTOV%

R+T

Mississippi St.

59.59

4.3

34.8

70.2

16.5

17.1

6.2

Liberty

46.27

9.2

25.9

74.9

15.0

18.5

5.2

I expect this game to stay somewhat close, at least for most of the game.  Mississippi State has good but not great criteria data.  Liberty’s data is slightly more impressive, but the Bulldogs’ SOS is much stronger, which will probably lead to the Maroon and White prevailing by wearing down and eventually extinguishing the Flames.

Mississippi State

 

Team

SOS

TS Marg

OReb%

DReb%

TOV%

DTOV%

R+T

North Carolina

62.61

5.5

34.4

76.9

14.6

16.5

17.4

Iona

45.43

3.1

25

70.6

15.4

16.1

-5.4

Roy Williams knows how to get his teams ready to play in the Big Dance, and the Tar Heels are heavy favorites to advance deep into this tournament.  Their R+T rating is second best in the field.  Their SOS is also number two.

Iona is fun to watch, as they like to run and gun.  However, this plays right into UNC’s hands.  The Gaels cannot possibly win this game, and it will be hard to keep it within 20 points.  Their -5.4 R+T rating would exclude them from being picked against 50 other teams in this tournament.

North Carolina

 

Team

SOS

TS Marg

OReb%

DReb%

TOV%

DTOV%

R+T

Virginia Commonwealth

53.22

6.8

31.3

69.3

17.4

20.0

2.9

Central Florida

54.86

9.5

29.3

70.7

15.4

15.5

2.2

This will be another potentially close and exciting game, one worth watching.  The two teams are fairly evenly matched, but only if star Rams’ star guard Marcus Evans is playing at 100% after injuring his knee in an Atlantic 10 Tournament loss to Rhode Island.  When Evans went out, VCU was dominating the Rams.  Without him, they looked like a team that might not have beaten UMass that day.

Central Florida has the unique 7 foot 6 giant, Tacko Fall.  If you haven’t seen him play, do not mistake him for past titans that could barely walk and chew gum at the same time.  Fall is not a gentle giant.  He plays with an attitude, and he is coordinated.  He can play a one-man zone under the basket and change the opponents’ field goal percentage by 10%.  On offense, he is nearly unstoppable when the Knights can get him the ball within arms’ reach of the basket, where he can dunk flat-footed.

With a healthy Evans, VCU can still press full-court and take a lot of Fall’s ability to dominate out of the game.  Make no mistake though; this is not the same Havoc defense run by former coach Shaka Smart.  VCU won’t gamble and go full out for the steal or to force a turnover.  If I had to pick which game might have the best shot at going to overtime, this one might be the one.

Central Florida

 

Team

SOS

TS Marg

OReb%

DReb%

TOV%

DTOV%

R+T

Iowa St.

59.42

7.6

28.7

70.0

13.9

15.9

1.7

Ohio St.

59.18

2.5

27.8

73.9

16.3

16.3

-0.4

Because the SOS’s are close to equal, the remaining stats are easy to compare.  Iowa State has a clear TS% margin, and even though the Cyclones’ R+T is weak, at least it is not negative, like the Buckeyes.

Iowa State

 

Team

SOS

TS Marg

OReb%

DReb%

TOV%

DTOV%

R+T

Virginia Tech

58.33

8.6

29.7

72.6

15.4

19.0

6.4

Saint Louis

51.40

-0.8

35.8

75.2

15.8

17.2

11.2

Only three teams enter this tournament with negative TS% margins, and it makes sense.  The object of the game is to put the ball into the hoop, while preventing the other team from doing so.  Add a healthy SOS advantage, and the Billiken’s R+T rating is neutralized.  SLU’s biggest asset is the ability to force their opponents into committing turnovers, but in this game, Virginia Tech is even better at that game.  While I have heard some people  on sports talk radio express the belief that Travis Ford’s team has a legitimate upset chance in this game, I tend to believe that chances are much stronger that the Hokies win by double-digits.

Virginia Tech

 

Here is how I fill out the remainder of the bracket

For the first time ever, the number one seeds have the top four criteria.  Could it be that the Selection Committee Members all have Bachelor of Madness Degrees in Bracketnomics?

Round of 32

Duke over Central Florida

Virginia Tech over Mississippi St.

Maryland over LSU

Michigan St. over Louisville

Gonzaga over Baylor

Florida St. over Marquette

Texas Tech over Buffalo

Michigan over Nevada

Virginia over Ole Miss

UC-Irvine over Oregon

Purdue over Saint Mary’s

Tennessee over Cincinnati

North Carolina over Utah St.

Auburn over Kansas

Houston over Iowa St.

Kentucky over Wofford

 

Sweet 16

Duke over Virginia Tech

Michigan St. over Maryland

Gonzaga over Florida St.

Texas Tech over Michigan

Virginia over UC-Irvine

Tennessee over Purdue

North Carolina over Auburn

Kentucky over Houston

 

Elite 8

Duke over Michigan St.

Gonzaga over Texas Tech

Virginia over Tennessee

North Carolina over Kentucky

 

Final Four

Gonzaga over Duke

North Carolina over Virginia

 

 

Championship Game

Gonzaga over North Carolina

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

March 18, 2019

Bracketnomics 2019: Picking Your Brackets

Welcome to Bracketnomics 2019, the class that will earn you the coveted BM Degree, the Bachelor of Madness.

Because, we have a ton of stats to reveal tonight, we will limit the prose. If you need a tutorial about what Bracketnomics is, then refer to the following link:

https://piratings.wordpress.com/2019/03/16/bracketnomics-2019/

We received a handful of well-thought comments to our sister page suggesting a few things that we agree with, so you will get the kitchen sink of stats this year. Because of Robert M in New Orleans, Joel S, in Orlando, and our good friend and numbers’ savant Brandon W in San Berdoo, California, we are bringing back the old Bracketnomics data combined with the new. For what it’s worth, this year, the old data and new data come to basically the same conclusions.

A Brief Primer on the Old Criteria have us look for teams meeting these criteria

1. A double-digit scoring margin, and a secondary reward to teams with a scoring margin of 8.0 to 9.99.

2. A field goal percentage margin (FG%-Def FG%) in excess of 8%

3. A combination of rebounding margin and turnover margin combined that exceed:
A. A rebound margin of 5.0 or better no matter what the turnover margin
B. A rebound margin of 3.0 to 4.9 with positive turnover margin
C. A rebound margin of 0.1 to 2.9 with with a turnover margin of 3.0 or better
D. A turnover margin of 5.0 or better no matter what the rebound margin

4. A team that averages 7.5 or more steals per game

5. An Old R+T Rating of 10.0 or better, 5.0 or better to get from 68 to 16.
The old R+T rating was (R + (0.2 * S) + (1.2 * T)
R is rebound margin
S is steals/game
T is turnover margin

6. A Strength of Schedule in excess of 0.5500 (back then using the CBS SOS)

The old method was quite accurate for many years, but the game changed when the 3-point shot became a lot more important. The Golden State Warrior effect, actually advanced basketball metrics, showed how important total shooting percentage was and not just field goal percentage. It is a no-brainer that a team that shoots 100% of its shots inside the arc and hits 53% is worse off than a team that shoots 100% of its shots from behind the arc and hits 36%. The 53% team will score .53 points per shot attempt, while the 36% team will score .54 points per shot attempt.

The Current Method uses this data
1. Strength of Schedule
2. True Shooting % Margin
3. R+T Rating

The Strength of Schedule is now calculated by our own metric, and the current R+T Rating is:
(R + (0.5 * S) + (6 – Opp S) + T

Both the old and the new method warned about any team with a negative R+T number as they were most prone to being upset very early in the tournament, and nobody with a negative R+T number ever made the Final Four, and only one ever made the Elite 8. R+T estimates extra scoring opportunities, and they lead to game-winning scoring spurts.

Now, let’s show you some stats. Here are the raw stats for all 68 teams.

Team

SOS

TSMarg

R+T

PPG Marg

FG% Marg

Abilene Christian

42.42

4.29%

5.9

11.4

4.4

Arizona St.

55.20

2.27%

6.8

4.7

3.4

Auburn

59.71

1.85%

3.9

11.5

1.5

Baylor

58.27

1.28%

9.1

4.5

1.8

Belmont

48.60

9.68%

6.0

13.5

7.4

Bradley

48.52

1.73%

-0.5

1.6

2.3

Buffalo

53.41

6.00%

10.3

14.4

4.5

Central Florida

54.86

9.52%

2.2

7.8

6.8

Cincinnati

55.48

2.94%

12.9

9.5

2.6

Colgate

47.05

5.65%

3.2

5.8

4.6

Duke

63.09

10.32%

12.1

15.9

8.2

Fairleigh-Dickinson

43.31

5.19%

-2.4

4.1

3.6

Florida

59.80

1.17%

-0.5

4.7

0.4

Florida St.

59.87

3.52%

8.3

7.8

3.4

Gardner-Webb

45.44

8.83%

-1.8

7.8

7.6

Georgia St.

51.14

5.06%

-9.6

4.2

4.2

Gonzaga

56.14

17.68%

14.3

23.7

14.3

Houston

55.02

8.04%

13.6

14.4

7.7

Iona

45.43

3.14%

-5.4

1.2

0.8

Iowa

58.09

4.52%

-0.4

4.7

0.7

Iowa St.

59.42

7.64%

1.7

9.1

5.8

Kansas

62.55

5.52%

1.9

5.3

5.4

Kansas St.

58.91

1.35%

3.5

6.6

1.7

Kentucky

60.54

9.48%

15.4

11.3

7.5

Liberty

46.27

9.22%

5.2

13.2

7.6

Louisville

61.61

6.10%

2.9

6.7

2.9

LSU

58.56

3.18%

10.1

8.4

2.6

Marquette

57.57

8.85%

2.4

8.6

5.7

Maryland

59.76

7.39%

8.6

6.2

5.7

Michigan

60.07

8.41%

3.2

11.8

5.1

Michigan St.

61.44

13.83%

11.7

13.3

10.8

Minnesota

59.44

1.81%

1.1

1.6

0.3

Mississippi St.

59.59

4.34%

6.2

7.2

3.5

Montana

46.25

5.41%

4.7

8.5

6.6

Murray St.

47.53

10.65%

7.8

15.5

8.6

Nevada

52.55

9.02%

7.0

14.0

5.7

New Mexico St.

48.05

4.78%

18.7

14.0

4.1

North Carolina

62.61

5.49%

17.4

13.2

5.1

North Carolina Central

39.47

3.50%

8.2

5.1

2.2

North Dakota St.

47.57

3.42%

-6.1

1.0

-0.5

Northeastern

51.11

6.69%

-1.9

5.8

2.5

Northern Kentucky

46.39

6.56%

7.1

10.3

6.4

Ohio St.

59.18

2.47%

-0.4

3.4

1.7

Oklahoma

60.26

4.64%

-2.5

3.0

4.3

Old Dominion

48.87

1.33%

8.4

5.4

2

Ole Miss

58.28

3.18%

2.8

5.0

1.8

Oregon

55.13

3.77%

4.6

7.6

4.8

Prairie View

43.07

-2.66%

-3.8

2.5

-1.7

Purdue

60.84

2.31%

11.4

9.4

2.5

Saint Louis

51.40

-0.81%

11.2

3.4

0.9

Saint Mary’s

55.33

5.13%

9.6

8.5

3.8

Seton Hall

58.56

0.50%

-0.6

2.4

1.4

St. John’s

55.79

-0.20%

-8.0

2.7

1.9

Syracuse

59.55

1.59%

-3.7

4.0

2.6

Temple

54.13

0.46%

-3.1

3.6

-0.2

Tennessee

59.65

9.73%

5.3

13.2

9.8

Texas Tech

58.01

9.81%

4.6

13.8

10.4

UC-Irvine

47.26

6.58%

12.2

9.6

7.9

Utah St.

52.13

8.73%

14.8

12.4

8.3

Vermont

46.62

6.53%

8.8

11.3

3.9

Villanova

58.16

4.98%

3.5

7.4

0.5

Virginia

60.36

13.19%

9.6

16.7

9.8

Virginia Commonwealth

53.22

6.84%

2.9

9.8

5.8

Virginia Tech

58.33

8.65%

6.4

11.9

7

Washington

55.60

4.43%

-3.6

5.4

3.9

Wisconsin

60.91

6.47%

-1.2

7.7

6

Wofford

52.24

7.87%

14.3

17.4

6.6

Yale

49.95

8.75%

3.6

7.9

8.7

Team

Reb Marg

TO Marg

Stl/G

Def Stl/G

Old R+T

Abilene Christian

1.2

4.6

8.7

5.6

8.4

Arizona St.

4.8

0.3

6.2

6.3

6.4

Auburn

-0.3

5.5

9.4

5.8

8.1

Baylor

6.3

-0.8

6.1

6.0

6.6

Belmont

3.8

0.9

6.8

6.1

6.3

Bradley

1.2

-0.2

5.4

5.7

2.1

Buffalo

3.9

3.7

7.3

5.1

9.9

Central Florida

2.2

0.4

5.7

5.6

3.8

Cincinnati

5.2

3.1

6.2

3.9

10.1

Colgate

4.0

-0.9

6.2

7.1

4.2

Duke

6.1

1.5

9.5

6.5

9.8

Fairleigh-Dickinson

-0.8

1.3

7.7

6.1

2.2

Florida

-0.6

3.0

7.2

6.1

4.5

Florida St.

4.7

0.8

7.0

5.5

7.0

Gardner-Webb

-0.7

1.8

6.9

5.8

2.8

Georgia St.

-6.1

3.5

8.0

5.0

-0.3

Gonzaga

6.2

3.2

7.5

5.2

11.5

Houston

7.3

0.9

6.4

5.3

9.7

Iona

-2.2

1.0

6.8

5.5

0.3

Iowa

1.0

1.0

6.2

6.7

3.4

Iowa St.

0.7

1.8

7.0

5.2

4.3

Kansas

2.5

-0.2

6.9

6.5

3.6

Kansas St.

1.1

3.6

7.6

6.2

6.9

Kentucky

9.0

-0.1

6.0

5.7

10.1

Liberty

2.2

2.6

6.4

5.2

6.7

Louisville

3.7

-1.0

4.5

5.8

3.4

LSU

5.1

1.8

9.1

6.5

9.1

Marquette

4.4

-2.0

4.8

7.0

3.0

Maryland

8.5

-3.7

4.3

7.1

5.0

Michigan

0.2

3.2

6.1

3.7

5.3

Michigan St.

8.9

-2.6

5.2

6.4

6.9

Minnesota

2.6

-0.6

4.8

6.0

2.8

Mississippi St.

3.8

0.3

8.1

5.9

5.7

Montana

2.6

1.6

6.5

5.6

5.8

Murray St.

3.7

2.1

7.6

5.8

7.7

Nevada

2.4

3.4

6.2

4.5

7.7

New Mexico St.

9.6

1.4

5.6

4.8

12.3

North Carolina

9.7

1.0

7.2

6.7

12.3

North Carolina Central

6.4

-1.9

6.3

6.0

5.4

North Dakota St.

-1.4

-0.6

4.8

5.3

-1.2

Northeastern

0.1

0.0

6.2

5.4

1.4

Northern Kentucky

4.4

0.9

6.2

5.9

6.7

Ohio St.

1.3

-0.2

5.9

5.9

2.3

Oklahoma

0.6

0.0

5.9

6.8

1.8

Old Dominion

4.9

0.4

5.6

4.9

6.6

Ole Miss

1.5

1.9

7.3

6.0

5.3

Oregon

1.8

2.1

7.8

5.2

6.0

Prairie View

-4.4

5.5

8.8

5.1

4.0

Purdue

5.2

2.4

6.5

4.8

9.4

Saint Louis

6.6

0.3

7.1

5.9

8.3

Saint Mary’s

5.6

0.1

6.0

5.0

7.0

Seton Hall

-0.1

1.8

7.0

5.8

3.4

St. John’s

-6.2

5.1

8.8

5.2

1.6

Syracuse

-2.3

3.2

8.3

6.6

3.2

Temple

-2.9

3.7

8.7

5.5

3.2

Tennessee

3.4

1.7

6.0

6.4

6.7

Texas Tech

1.9

3.3

7.3

6.4

7.3

UC-Irvine

7.4

-0.4

5.7

5.2

8.1

Utah St.

8.9

-0.3

6.2

6.1

9.8

Vermont

4.5

2.2

5.6

5.4

8.3

Villanova

2.6

0.7

5.4

5.4

4.5

Virginia

4.9

1.9

5.6

5.2

8.4

Virginia Commonwealth

1.4

2.3

8.0

6.4

5.8

Virginia Tech

2.6

2.7

6.7

5.1

7.2

Washington

-2.5

2.9

9.0

6.1

2.8

Wisconsin

-0.3

1.8

5.1

5.2

2.9

Wofford

6.5

3.1

6.9

5.5

11.6

Yale

4.7

-1.9

5.9

7.0

3.6

What you see above is the entire 68 teams field in alphabetical order.  Let’s break it down by ranking the teams according to the data.

Let’s start with the all-important class ranking.  Here is how the teams rank according to strength of schedule.  Remember that no national champion has had an SOS below 55, and only a small handful in all the years have made the Final Four.  In the years where a team with a sub-55 SOS made the Final Four, they played an opponent in the Sweet 16 or Elite 8 that also had a sub-55 SOS.

Team

SOS

Duke

63.09

North Carolina

62.61

Kansas

62.55

Louisville

61.61

Michigan St.

61.44

Wisconsin

60.91

Purdue

60.84

Kentucky

60.54

Virginia

60.36

Oklahoma

60.26

Michigan

60.07

Florida St.

59.87

Florida

59.80

Maryland

59.76

Auburn

59.71

Tennessee

59.65

Mississippi St.

59.59

Syracuse

59.55

Minnesota

59.44

Iowa St.

59.42

Ohio St.

59.18

Kansas St.

58.91

Seton Hall

58.56

LSU

58.56

Virginia Tech

58.33

Ole Miss

58.28

Baylor

58.27

Villanova

58.16

Iowa

58.09

Texas Tech

58.01

Marquette

57.57

Gonzaga

56.14

St. John’s

55.79

Washington

55.60

Cincinnati

55.48

Saint Mary’s

55.33

Arizona St.

55.20

Oregon

55.13

Houston

55.02

Central Florida

54.86

Temple

54.13

Buffalo

53.41

Virginia Commonwealth

53.22

Nevada

52.55

Wofford

52.24

Utah St.

52.13

Saint Louis

51.40

Georgia St.

51.14

Northeastern

51.11

Yale

49.95

Old Dominion

48.87

Belmont

48.60

Bradley

48.52

New Mexico St.

48.05

North Dakota St.

47.57

Murray St.

47.53

UC-Irvine

47.26

Colgate

47.05

Vermont

46.62

Northern Kentucky

46.39

Liberty

46.27

Montana

46.25

Gardner-Webb

45.44

Iona

45.43

Fairleigh-Dickinson

43.31

Prairie View

43.07

Abilene Christian

42.42

North Carolina Central

39.47

39 of the 68 teams meet the minimum requirement, including Gonzaga and Houston.  Of note, Buffalo, Nevada, Wofford, and Utah State have an SOS in the range where past Cinderella teams have snuck into the Final Four.

Now, let’s look at True Shooting percentage margins.  TS% is calculated thusly:

Points / (2 * FGA + (0.475 * FTA))

True Shooting Percentage Margin is the offensive TS% minus the defensive TS%.

Team

TSMarg

Gonzaga

17.68%

Michigan St.

13.83%

Virginia

13.19%

Murray St.

10.65%

Duke

10.32%

Texas Tech

9.81%

Tennessee

9.73%

Belmont

9.68%

Central Florida

9.52%

Kentucky

9.48%

Liberty

9.22%

Nevada

9.02%

Marquette

8.85%

Gardner-Webb

8.83%

Yale

8.75%

Utah St.

8.73%

Virginia Tech

8.65%

Michigan

8.41%

Houston

8.04%

Wofford

7.87%

Iowa St.

7.64%

Maryland

7.39%

Virginia Commonwealth

6.84%

Northeastern

6.69%

UC-Irvine

6.58%

Northern Kentucky

6.56%

Vermont

6.53%

Wisconsin

6.47%

Louisville

6.10%

Buffalo

6.00%

Colgate

5.65%

Kansas

5.52%

North Carolina

5.49%

Montana

5.41%

Fairleigh-Dickinson

5.19%

Saint Mary’s

5.13%

Georgia St.

5.06%

Villanova

4.98%

New Mexico St.

4.78%

Oklahoma

4.64%

Iowa

4.52%

Washington

4.43%

Mississippi St.

4.34%

Abilene Christian

4.29%

Oregon

3.77%

Florida St.

3.52%

North Carolina Central

3.50%

North Dakota St.

3.42%

Ole Miss

3.18%

LSU

3.18%

Iona

3.14%

Cincinnati

2.94%

Ohio St.

2.47%

Purdue

2.31%

Arizona St.

2.27%

Auburn

1.85%

Minnesota

1.81%

Bradley

1.73%

Syracuse

1.59%

Kansas St.

1.35%

Old Dominion

1.33%

Baylor

1.28%

Florida

1.17%

Seton Hall

0.50%

Temple

0.46%

St. John’s

-0.20%

Saint Louis

-0.81%

Prairie View

-2.66%

Did you notice that some of the teams with the best strength of schedule are high up in the TS% margin too, and vice versa?  Think about this.  If a team played tough competition and consistently shot better overall in these games, they have to be great teams.  The object of the game is to put the ball through the goal and stop the other team from doing this.  If a team consistently did this against other teams on par with what they must face in the Big Dance in order to cut the nets on April 8, they must be the ones to consider.

Now, let’s look at the R+T rating.  This is our secret sauce at the PiRate Ratings, even though it has been revealed in other national media.  However, unless somebody at CBS or ESPN links to this site, no more than 18,000 people will read this post today, so you stand a good chance of being the only person in your pool that has this information.

Team

R+T

New Mexico St.

18.7

North Carolina

17.4

Kentucky

15.4

Utah St.

14.8

Gonzaga

14.3

Wofford

14.3

Houston

13.6

Cincinnati

12.9

UC-Irvine

12.2

Duke

12.1

Michigan St.

11.7

Purdue

11.4

Saint Louis

11.2

Buffalo

10.3

LSU

10.1

Virginia

9.6

Saint Mary’s

9.6

Baylor

9.1

Vermont

8.8

Maryland

8.6

Old Dominion

8.4

Florida St.

8.3

North Carolina Central

8.2

Murray St.

7.8

Northern Kentucky

7.1

Nevada

7.0

Arizona St.

6.8

Virginia Tech

6.4

Mississippi St.

6.2

Belmont

6.0

Abilene Christian

5.9

Tennessee

5.3

Liberty

5.2

Montana

4.7

Oregon

4.6

Texas Tech

4.6

Auburn

3.9

Yale

3.6

Kansas St.

3.5

Villanova

3.5

Michigan

3.2

Colgate

3.2

Louisville

2.9

Virginia Commonwealth

2.9

Ole Miss

2.8

Marquette

2.4

Central Florida

2.2

Kansas

1.9

Iowa St.

1.7

Minnesota

1.1

Iowa

-0.4

Ohio St.

-0.4

Florida

-0.5

Bradley

-0.5

Seton Hall

-0.6

Wisconsin

-1.2

Gardner-Webb

-1.8

Northeastern

-1.9

Fairleigh-Dickinson

-2.4

Oklahoma

-2.5

Temple

-3.1

Washington

-3.6

Syracuse

-3.7

Prairie View

-3.8

Iona

-5.4

North Dakota St.

-6.1

St. John’s

-8.0

Georgia St.

-9.6

Wow!  Look at how many mid-major teams have great R+T Ratings this year.  New Mexico State leads the pack, but their SOS is too low to make them a humongous upset team to make the Final Four.  They are dangerous still.

North Carolina is the top power conference team in this rating, just like the Tar Heels have been twice before when they won the tournament.  Kentucky, Gonzaga, and Houston are up near the top.

At the other end of the spectrum, we have a record number of teams with negative R+T numbers in the 2019 field.  That concerns us a bit.  Normally, 5 or 6 teams will enter the Dance with a negative R+T, and we will pick against all of them.  18 of the 68 teams have negative R+T ratings this year.  What that means is that it is likely that somebody with a negative R+T rating will sneak into the Sweet 16 and then get blown off the floor against a quality team that can go on scoring spurts.  Still, the bottom eight in this rating figure to have a difficult time winning just once in this Dance.

 

Here are how the teams rank in the old criteria data.

Scoring Margin

Team

PPG Marg

Gonzaga

23.7

Wofford

17.4

Virginia

16.7

Duke

15.9

Murray St.

15.5

Buffalo

14.4

Houston

14.4

Nevada

14.0

New Mexico St.

14.0

Texas Tech

13.8

Belmont

13.5

Michigan St.

13.3

Liberty

13.2

Tennessee

13.2

North Carolina

13.2

Utah St.

12.4

Virginia Tech

11.9

Michigan

11.8

Auburn

11.5

Abilene Christian

11.4

Vermont

11.3

Kentucky

11.3

Northern Kentucky

10.3

Virginia Commonwealth

9.8

UC-Irvine

9.6

Cincinnati

9.5

Purdue

9.4

Iowa St.

9.1

Marquette

8.6

Montana

8.5

Saint Mary’s

8.5

LSU

8.4

Yale

7.9

Florida St.

7.8

Central Florida

7.8

Gardner-Webb

7.8

Wisconsin

7.7

Oregon

7.6

Villanova

7.4

Mississippi St.

7.2

Louisville

6.7

Kansas St.

6.6

Maryland

6.2

Colgate

5.8

Northeastern

5.8

Old Dominion

5.4

Washington

5.4

Kansas

5.3

North Carolina Central

5.1

Ole Miss

5.0

Arizona St.

4.7

Iowa

4.7

Florida

4.7

Baylor

4.5

Georgia St.

4.2

Fairleigh-Dickinson

4.1

Syracuse

4.0

Temple

3.6

Ohio St.

3.4

Saint Louis

3.4

Oklahoma

3.0

St. John’s

2.7

Prairie View

2.5

Seton Hall

2.4

Bradley

1.6

Minnesota

1.6

Iona

1.2

North Dakota St.

1.0

FG% Margin

Team

FG% Marg

Gonzaga

14.3

Michigan St.

10.8

Texas Tech

10.4

Tennessee

9.8

Virginia

9.8

Yale

8.7

Murray St.

8.6

Utah St.

8.3

Duke

8.2

UC-Irvine

7.9

Houston

7.7

Gardner-Webb

7.6

Liberty

7.6

Kentucky

7.5

Belmont

7.4

Virginia Tech

7.0

Central Florida

6.8

Montana

6.6

Wofford

6.6

Northern Kentucky

6.4

Wisconsin

6.0

Iowa St.

5.8

Virginia Commonwealth

5.8

Nevada

5.7

Marquette

5.7

Maryland

5.7

Kansas

5.4

North Carolina

5.1

Michigan

5.1

Oregon

4.8

Colgate

4.6

Buffalo

4.5

Abilene Christian

4.4

Oklahoma

4.3

Georgia St.

4.2

New Mexico St.

4.1

Vermont

3.9

Washington

3.9

Saint Mary’s

3.8

Fairleigh-Dickinson

3.6

Mississippi St.

3.5

Arizona St.

3.4

Florida St.

3.4

Louisville

2.9

LSU

2.6

Cincinnati

2.6

Syracuse

2.6

Purdue

2.5

Northeastern

2.5

Bradley

2.3

North Carolina Central

2.2

Old Dominion

2.0

St. John’s

1.9

Baylor

1.8

Ole Miss

1.8

Kansas St.

1.7

Ohio St.

1.7

Auburn

1.5

Seton Hall

1.4

Saint Louis

0.9

Iona

0.8

Iowa

0.7

Villanova

0.5

Florida

0.4

Minnesota

0.3

Temple

-0.2

North Dakota St.

-0.5

Prairie View

-1.7

 

Rebounds/Steals/Old R+T

Team

Reb Marg

North Carolina

9.7

New Mexico St.

9.6

Kentucky

9.0

Michigan St.

8.9

Utah St.

8.9

Maryland

8.5

UC-Irvine

7.4

Houston

7.3

Saint Louis

6.6

Wofford

6.5

North Carolina Central

6.4

Baylor

6.3

Gonzaga

6.2

Duke

6.1

Saint Mary’s

5.6

Purdue

5.2

Cincinnati

5.2

LSU

5.1

Old Dominion

4.9

Virginia

4.9

Arizona St.

4.8

Yale

4.7

Florida St.

4.7

Vermont

4.5

Northern Kentucky

4.4

Marquette

4.4

Colgate

4.0

Buffalo

3.9

Belmont

3.8

Mississippi St.

3.8

Murray St.

3.7

Louisville

3.7

Tennessee

3.4

Villanova

2.6

Virginia Tech

2.6

Montana

2.6

Minnesota

2.6

Kansas

2.5

Nevada

2.4

Liberty

2.2

Central Florida

2.2

Texas Tech

1.9

Oregon

1.8

Ole Miss

1.5

Virginia Commonwealth

1.4

Ohio St.

1.3

Bradley

1.2

Abilene Christian

1.2

Kansas St.

1.1

Iowa

1.0

Iowa St.

0.7

Oklahoma

0.6

Michigan

0.2

Northeastern

0.1

Seton Hall

-0.1

Wisconsin

-0.3

Auburn

-0.3

Florida

-0.6

Gardner-Webb

-0.7

Fairleigh-Dickinson

-0.8

North Dakota St.

-1.4

Iona

-2.2

Syracuse

-2.3

Washington

-2.5

Temple

-2.9

Prairie View

-4.4

Georgia St.

-6.1

St. John’s

-6.2

Team

TO Marg

Prairie View

5.5

Auburn

5.5

St. John’s

5.1

Abilene Christian

4.6

Buffalo

3.7

Temple

3.7

Kansas St.

3.6

Georgia St.

3.5

Nevada

3.4

Texas Tech

3.3

Syracuse

3.2

Michigan

3.2

Gonzaga

3.2

Wofford

3.1

Cincinnati

3.1

Florida

3.0

Washington

2.9

Virginia Tech

2.7

Liberty

2.6

Purdue

2.4

Virginia Commonwealth

2.3

Vermont

2.2

Oregon

2.1

Murray St.

2.1

Ole Miss

1.9

Virginia

1.9

Wisconsin

1.8

Gardner-Webb

1.8

Iowa St.

1.8

LSU

1.8

Seton Hall

1.8

Tennessee

1.7

Montana

1.6

Duke

1.5

New Mexico St.

1.4

Fairleigh-Dickinson

1.3

North Carolina

1.0

Iowa

1.0

Iona

1.0

Houston

0.9

Northern Kentucky

0.9

Belmont

0.9

Florida St.

0.8

Villanova

0.7

Central Florida

0.4

Old Dominion

0.4

Arizona St.

0.3

Mississippi St.

0.3

Saint Louis

0.3

Saint Mary’s

0.1

Oklahoma

0.0

Northeastern

0.0

Kentucky

-0.1

Bradley

-0.2

Kansas

-0.2

Ohio St.

-0.2

Utah St.

-0.3

UC-Irvine

-0.4

North Dakota St.

-0.6

Minnesota

-0.6

Baylor

-0.8

Colgate

-0.9

Louisville

-1.0

North Carolina Central

-1.9

Yale

-1.9

Marquette

-2.0

Michigan St.

-2.6

Maryland

-3.7

Team

Stl/G

Duke

9.5

Auburn

9.4

LSU

9.1

Washington

9.0

Prairie View

8.8

St. John’s

8.8

Abilene Christian

8.7

Temple

8.7

Syracuse

8.3

Mississippi St.

8.1

Georgia St.

8.0

Virginia Commonwealth

8.0

Oregon

7.8

Fairleigh-Dickinson

7.7

Kansas St.

7.6

Murray St.

7.6

Gonzaga

7.5

Buffalo

7.3

Ole Miss

7.3

Texas Tech

7.3

North Carolina

7.2

Florida

7.2

Saint Louis

7.1

Iowa St.

7.0

Seton Hall

7.0

Florida St.

7.0

Wofford

6.9

Gardner-Webb

6.9

Kansas

6.9

Belmont

6.8

Iona

6.8

Virginia Tech

6.7

Montana

6.5

Purdue

6.5

Houston

6.4

Liberty

6.4

North Carolina Central

6.3

Northern Kentucky

6.2

Arizona St.

6.2

Utah St.

6.2

Iowa

6.2

Nevada

6.2

Cincinnati

6.2

Colgate

6.2

Northeastern

6.2

Michigan

6.1

Baylor

6.1

Kentucky

6.0

Saint Mary’s

6.0

Tennessee

6.0

Oklahoma

5.9

Yale

5.9

Ohio St.

5.9

Central Florida

5.7

UC-Irvine

5.7

Vermont

5.6

Virginia

5.6

New Mexico St.

5.6

Old Dominion

5.6

Villanova

5.4

Bradley

5.4

Michigan St.

5.2

Wisconsin

5.1

Marquette

4.8

North Dakota St.

4.8

Minnesota

4.8

Louisville

4.5

Maryland

4.3

Team

Def Stl/G

Michigan

3.7

Cincinnati

3.9

Nevada

4.5

Purdue

4.8

New Mexico St.

4.8

Old Dominion

4.9

Saint Mary’s

5.0

Georgia St.

5.0

Virginia Tech

5.1

Prairie View

5.1

Buffalo

5.1

Gonzaga

5.2

Wisconsin

5.2

Iowa St.

5.2

St. John’s

5.2

Virginia

5.2

UC-Irvine

5.2

Liberty

5.2

Oregon

5.2

North Dakota St.

5.3

Houston

5.3

Villanova

5.4

Vermont

5.4

Northeastern

5.4

Wofford

5.5

Iona

5.5

Florida St.

5.5

Temple

5.5

Montana

5.6

Central Florida

5.6

Abilene Christian

5.6

Kentucky

5.7

Bradley

5.7

Gardner-Webb

5.8

Murray St.

5.8

Auburn

5.8

Seton Hall

5.8

Louisville

5.8

Northern Kentucky

5.9

Mississippi St.

5.9

Saint Louis

5.9

Ohio St.

5.9

Baylor

6.0

Minnesota

6.0

North Carolina Central

6.0

Ole Miss

6.0

Fairleigh-Dickinson

6.1

Utah St.

6.1

Belmont

6.1

Florida

6.1

Washington

6.1

Kansas St.

6.2

Arizona St.

6.3

Texas Tech

6.4

Tennessee

6.4

Michigan St.

6.4

Virginia Commonwealth

6.4

Kansas

6.5

Duke

6.5

LSU

6.5

Syracuse

6.6

Iowa

6.7

North Carolina

6.7

Oklahoma

6.8

Marquette

7.0

Yale

7.0

Maryland

7.1

Colgate

7.1

Team

Old R+T

New Mexico St.

12.34

North Carolina

12.34

Wofford

11.56

Gonzaga

11.48

Cincinnati

10.11

Kentucky

10.07

Buffalo

9.85

Duke

9.85

Utah St.

9.79

Houston

9.71

Purdue

9.37

LSU

9.06

Abilene Christian

8.45

Virginia

8.39

Saint Louis

8.30

Vermont

8.25

Auburn

8.09

UC-Irvine

8.06

Murray St.

7.74

Nevada

7.73

Texas Tech

7.33

Virginia Tech

7.22

Florida St.

7.02

Saint Mary’s

6.98

Michigan St.

6.88

Kansas St.

6.87

Northern Kentucky

6.72

Tennessee

6.66

Liberty

6.66

Baylor

6.56

Old Dominion

6.55

Arizona St.

6.41

Belmont

6.25

Oregon

5.95

Montana

5.83

Virginia Commonwealth

5.78

Mississippi St.

5.73

North Carolina Central

5.39

Ole Miss

5.32

Michigan

5.31

Maryland

5.01

Villanova

4.54

Florida

4.51

Iowa St.

4.29

Colgate

4.18

Prairie View

3.98

Central Florida

3.81

Kansas

3.63

Yale

3.56

Iowa

3.43

Louisville

3.39

Seton Hall

3.39

Temple

3.24

Syracuse

3.21

Marquette

2.96

Wisconsin

2.91

Gardner-Webb

2.82

Minnesota

2.77

Washington

2.76

Ohio St.

2.27

Fairleigh-Dickinson

2.24

Bradley

2.10

Oklahoma

1.79

St. John’s

1.62

Northeastern

1.35

Iona

0.30

Georgia St.

-0.27

North Dakota St.

-1.19

 

Criteria Darlings

Which teams have criteria that most look like a Final Four participant?

These 10 teams have that look this year (in alphabetical order):

  1. Cincinnati Bearcats

  2. Duke Blue Devils

  3. Gonzaga Bulldogs

  4. Houston Cougars

  5. Kentucky Wildcats

  6. Michigan State Spartans

  7. North Carolina Tar Heels

  8. Utah St. Aggies

  9. Virginia Cavaliers

  10. Wofford Terriers 

You will notice that Utah State and Wofford make this list with SOS beneath the level to win the national title.  These two teams possess criteria similar to past Cinderella Final Four teams like George Mason, Wichita State, and Virginia Commonwealth.

 

You now have the information to earn your BM in Bracketnomics.  However, there will be a special Bracketnomicist here Tuesday afternoon who will show you how to use this data to pick winners of each round.  The Captain will reveal his bracket selection on Tuesday prior to 5 PM Eastern Daylight Time.  He told us to tell you that if any buccaneer or lass dare criticize his selections, they will walk the plank.  Actually, they will probably have a better bracket than him.

 

Note: Many thanks to all the PiRate members who stayed up late Sunday night/Monday morning visiting 68 different schools’ athletics’ sites to get the raw data we need to put this statistical bonanza together.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

March 17, 2019

Bracket Gurus Accuracy

Filed under: College Basketball — Tags: , , , — piratings @ 6:17 pm

Our Bracket Gurus had a rather nice day today.   It wasn’t the best year ever, but it beat last year by a few seedings.

We picked 67 of the 68 teams in the field.  This is the second year in a row, we were right on 67 of the 68 teams after picking a perfect 68 for 68 in 2017.

We had 39 of the 68 teams picked exactly where they were seeded.

We had 22 teams off by one seed line.

We had 6 teams off by two seed lines.

The one team we missed just so happened to be the team from the hometown of our Captain, Belmont.  We selected TCU and missed on that one.

Coming tomorrow evening, be sure to check back for our annual Bracketnomics Report.

Bracket Gurus 68 Team Field

The Gurus Have Reached A Verdict

In New York, the NCAA Men’s Basketball Selection Committee by now has agreed on 68 teams and only a little moving in the seed lines is yet to come.  After last night’s games, especially after the Oregon win over Washington in the Pac-12 Championship Game, it basically came down to about 70 teams competing for 68 spots.

The Gurus met via conference this morning and quickly eliminated all but four of the teams on the Bubble for three spots in the field.  By the end of the coffee talk, we had agreed to eliminate one team, leaving three teams for the final two spots.  There’s the rub; at this point, we had a hung jury.

In the Committee room, they break for ice cream at this point.  The Bracket Gurus share something in common with each other but totally opposite of the Committee.  All 12 Gurus are into the Keto-Paleo-Bulletproof way of life.  We not only didn’t break for ice cream, none of us consumed more than our upgraded coffee.

Unfortunately, it was an early Sunday morning funeral that broke up the meeting and allowed the Gurus to step away from the numbers, which was ironic to the max.  The dearly departed friend of the Captain had been a certified public accountant as well as a sports fanatic.

The Gurus reconvened via cyberspace while consuming mass quantities of healthy fat and good quality animal protein (sorry Vegan friends).  Once satiated, the 12 Gurus realized that in all but one city where we reside, it is too beautiful to be indoors.  So, we quickly agreed on that 68th team as well as which team is sadly number 69.

To borrow from the great Jim Nantz, “Friends,” here are the 68 teams we have selected to represent the NCAA Tournament Field.  They are presented in alphabetical order.  The seeding will come in our final installment to be published as we have a Big Ten Tournament Champion.  If the game is a blowout, the seeding will appear before the conclusion of the game.  If the game is close, then expect the seeding to be on this site within 5 minutes of the conclusion of the game.  It will be marked as our “Final Selection.”

The following 68 teams as voted 12-0 by our gurus are:

(3 One-Bid Tournaments to be decided today)

Abilene Christian

Arizona St.

Atlantic 10:  Winner of St. Bonaventure vs. Saint Louis

Auburn

Baylor

Bradley

Buffalo

Cincinnati

Colgate

Duke

Fairleigh-Dickinson

Florida

Florida St.

Gardner-Webb

Gonzaga

Houston

Iona

Iowa

Iowa St.

Ivy: Winner of Harvard vs. Yale

Kansas

Kansas St.

Kentucky

Liberty

Louisville

LSU

Marquette

Maryland

Michigan

Michigan St.

Minnesota

Mississippi St.

Montana

Murray St.

North Carolina Central

Nevada

New Mexico St.

North Carolina

North Dakota St.

Northeastern

Northern Kentucky

Ohio St.

Oklahoma

Old Dominion

Ole Miss

Oregon

Prairie View A&M

Purdue

Saint Mary’s 

Seton Hall

St. John’s

Sun Belt: Winner of Georgia State vs. Texas-Arlington

Syracuse

TCU

Temple

Tennessee

Texas Tech

UC-Irvine

UCF

Utah St.

VCU

Vermont

Villanova

Virginia

Virginia Tech

Washington

Wisconsin

Wofford

 

It came down to Arizona State versus North Carolina State.  The Sun Devils won out due to a better strength of schedule and better results in the 1st and 2nd Quadrant.

March 16, 2019

Bracketnomics 2019

How We Select Our Bracket

Welcome to PiRate Ratings Bracketnomics 2019.

This tutorial will help you earn your Bachelor of Madness Degree. Just remember that  it is not be a BS degree; it is a BM degree, so you may want to think twice before telling others you received it from PiRate U.

Most universities have some type of history that potential enrollees can examine before deciding to matriculate. That’s to make the school look worthy of consideration (and receive financial patronage). Our PiRate School of Bracketnomics has been a bit up and down throughout our history. When we first debuted as an online course, our selections and predictions put us into Ivy League/Cal Tech/MIT league. We isolated some key points from back-tested data that worked. Some of the early pointers that helped us pick brackets were things that would appear obvious to most people–scoring margin, rebounding margin, field goal percentage margin, turnover margin, schedule strength, and the ability to win away from one’s home court.

Our big breakthrough that helped us devise our first advanced metric came about when CBS’s Clark Kellogg mentioned that teams with “spurtability” tended to do best in the NCAA Tournament. What is spurtability? It is exactly what it sounds like, the ability for a team to go on a scoring spurt.

In the 1964 Final Four, tiny UCLA with no starter over 6 foot 5, went on an 11-0 scoring spurt to put away Kansas State in the semifinals, and then the following evening, put a much taller and favored Duke team away with an incredible 16-0 spurt in 2 1/2 minutes just before halftime.

How did a much smaller UCLA team put a taller, favored Duke team away with that 16-0 run? It didn’t happen because the Bruins scored baskets on eight half-court possessions, while Duke missed shots on eight half-court possessions. No, it happened because UCLA pressed Duke out of the gym that night, forcing 29 turnovers, many by steals, and then scoring easy fast-break points.

Similarly, the 1968 UCLA team put away North Carolina in the Championship Game with a couple of smaller spurts. It wasn’t the press that did the trick this time. This North Carolina team could handle the ball and break the press, and this UCLA team did not rely as much on forcing turnovers to beat opponents. With the great Kareem Abdul-Jabbar in the middle, Coach Wooden relied on muscle and speed to destroy the enemy. On this night, North Carolina tried to slow the game down by using the four-corners offense, but the plan was no more successful than 28 other opponents’ plans against the Bruins.

It was a different dominating statistic that gave the Bruins the edge that night. North Carolina rarely received a second chance to score when they missed a shot, and UCLA had numerous put back baskets on offensive rebounds. The Bruins dominated on the glass with an almost 2 to 1 rebounding advantage, and their transition game was still the best in the business with Lucius Allen running the point on the fast break.

Our captain perused all the boxscores of past NCAA Tournament games. He read microfilms of archived newspaper reports of games over the course of 30 years of NCAA Tournaments, and he combined the eyewitness reports with the statistics of the teams to locate the factors that predicted which teams were more likely to enjoy a big scoring spurt. He discovered that half-court offenses and half-court defenses that led to one team connecting on a very high percentage of shots while the other team missed a high percentage of shots seldom led to these spurts by themselves and very rarely allowed a team to win six, or even just four NCAA Tournament games.

It was rare for Team A to hit eight out of 10 shots, while Team B hit only one out of ten shot, leading to a 16-2 run. So, what caused the great spurtabilities of the teams? The Captain discovered that in a large majority of the cases where a team went on a big scoring run in the NCAA Tournament, it was due to these factors:
1. Dominating rebounding at both ends of the court
2. Forcing turnovers (especially steals)
3. Getting easy fast break baskets or forcing the opponent to foul to stop the fast break

From this point, the Captain devised what has come to be the most important factor in picking NCAA Tournament winners. He called it “The R+T Rating.” After trial and error using different data points, the Captain created a formula that doubled rebounding margin, added turnover margin, and then gave additional weight to steals and the prevention of steals. The result was an approximation for how many extra scoring chances (and predicted points) a team might be expected to receive versus the average college team. If Team A had an R+T rating of 20, and Team B had an R+T rating of 10, then Team A would be expected to have the ability to score an average of 10 extra points against Team B just from these extra scoring opportunities. Team B could still win if they were a lot more accurate on their shots, thus neutralizing Team A’s spurtability advantage.

Immediately, in the first year publishing this data online, the PiRates successfully picked Florida to win its first national championship, and the Gators came through with a surprise title. In all six of their tournament wins in 2006, they enjoyed spurts that broke close games open. In their big upset win over top-seeded Villanova, the Gators’ pressure man-to-man defense made it difficult for the Villanova perimeter to get an open look, and when the Wildcats drove by into the lane, Joakim Noah and Al Horford were there waiting to stop the offense. The two Gator big men totally controlled the boards that afternoon, and Florida advanced with a couple of spurts that put the game safely in the win column.

Early on in the history of our Bracketnomics, our success continued and brought us a tiny bit of national notoriety. A little success swelled the heads of all the PiRates. We became too big for our tiny ship. We began to try to perfect our system by adding additional information. We thought for a few years that teams that relied on the three-point shot were at a disadvantage against teams that pounded the ball inside, because so many of the tournament games were held in giant stadiums, even domes, and it affected depth perception and made it hard to aim on outside shots. There was a time when we discounted teams that won games by shooting a lot of foul shots, because the officials did not call as many fouls in the tournament.

The success of the PiRate Ratings Bracketnomics led to some mainstream media sources linking to us, and we saw our readership increase by large multiples, especially between the second week of March and the first week of April. And, then what happened? After correctly picking the national champion during Bracket Picking day for three consecutive years; and after picking tiny George Mason to contend for a Final Four spot when Jim Larranaga guided the Patriots to the Final Four; and after picking Duke, Connecticut, and Kentucky to win and hit on another three in a row, the bottom fell out.

Just like the Dosage Index for the Kentucky Derby, the criteria began to lose its effectiveness. Too many basketball equivalents of Strike The Gold and Real Quiet began winning when the profile predicted they had little or no chance. While R+T ratings still remained effective, other criteria not used by us began to be more predictive of reality.

The better three-point shooting teams started to win more and more. Watching the Golden State Warriors dominate the NBA and then seeing how almost every NBA team tried to copy them in some way, it became apparent that advanced metrics were changing the game, just like Sabermetrics changed the way general managers built their baseball teams. The name of the game became three-point shooting and very high percentage two-point shooting. Defenses that forced opponents to take lower percentage two-point shots became the new basis for determining effectiveness.

There was one other change that greatly affected the college game. When the shot clock moved from 35 to 30 seconds, it appeared on the surface that it would minimally affect the game by maybe two or three possessions per game. This was not the case. Defenses discovered that they could pressure the offense more and more in hopes that they would force a turnover or force the offense to escape the pressure to find a good shot. Many times, the pressure defense led to a hurried shot by the offense. Thus, teams that were patient all of a sudden saw their shooting percentages fall when good pressure defenses forced too many hurried shots. There was also the case where a defense that could keep the ball out of the close two-point range and force three-point shots to be taken a few feet farther back, could stop the patient offenses. What was the solution to these defenses? It was the return of Up-tempo basketball. Offenses began to try to hurry up their tempo to beat these gambling defenses or to get the preferred close in two-pointer or open looks an inch behind the line three-point line before defenses could organize. The newer up-tempo style of play brought back basketball from 40 years ago.

Once again, the teams that can get up and down the court in a hurry and do so without becoming sloppy in execution have begun to dominate the game. The patient offenses and non-pressuring defenses have found out that it is really hard to win consistently when the opponent is now finding a way to score 10 more points per game due to their new style of play.

On the other end of the spectrum, teams began to play more like the high schools in the Midwest. Players not equipped for the running and pressure defense games began to concentrate on playing incredible help defense, cramming the paint with defenders to stop dribble penetration. While some teams did this with man-to-man defense, otherwise known as the Pack-Line defense, some teams also accomplished this with zone defenses. Either way, the goal was to prevent easy inside shots while not gambling for steals or pressuring opponents into mistakes. Usually these teams paired this style of defense with a patient offense that valued each possession like gold and when they took a shot, two or more players retreated to stop any opponent transition. A lot of teams have done quite well during the regular season, but they have not been the best at winning four tournament games and getting to the Final Four. Loyola of Chicago beat the odds last year playing this way. Butler made it to the Championship Game twice with a semi-patient offense and non-gambling defense.

What did we do at the PiRate Ratings to combat our decline in effectiveness? The PiRates stripped our criteria down back to the basics. We felt like we were missing the obvious. In 2019, here are the Big Three stats that matter most when the NCAA Tournament begins play.

1. True Shooting Percentage Margin

2. R+T Rating

3. Schedule Strength

These three basic principles make up an overwhelming majority of how we will select our brackets when we release them Monday evening.

1. True Shooting Percentage Margin: this is the difference between a team’s offensive true shooting percentage and defensive true shooting percentage. For college basketball, true shooting percentage is:   (100*Pts)/[2*(fga+{.475*fta})].

2. R+T Rating: We hope most of you reading this today have some familiarity with our R+T Rating.

The formula for R+T is: (R * 2) + (S * .5) + (6 – Opp. S) + T
where, R = rebounding margin; S = Steals per game; and T= Turnover margin

3. Schedule Strength: It is obvious that a team could compile some very lofty True Shooting Percentages and R+T ratings playing the weakest 30 teams in the nation, while another team could compile some really awful stats playing the top 30 teams in the nation.

Don’t let these stats look intimidating. We would never force you, our patron, that we love so much to have to figure the offensive and defensive percentages for 68 teams. Do you know how long it takes to go to 68 different official athletic sites to get this information? We sure do! We will calculate this information for you and show you the stats for all 68 teams.

The first two data points must be weighted with the strength of schedule, and there is the rub. How much do we adjust the data from True Shooting Percentage Margin and R+T Rating to factor in schedule strength? We think we have the answer. Based on the fact that a certain schedule strength number has held consistent as the floor among past Final Four teams, we believe we know the cut-off points that will allow us to interpolate the winners of each round.

Obviously, it is not an exact science, but hey, nobody has ever picked a perfect bracket, and we hear that the chances of doing so are less than one person winning both the Power Ball and Mega Millions jackpots in the same week, while being struck two times by lightning on the way to collect from both the lottery offices.

The PiRates will reveal our entire bracket selections Monday evening.   And, after each round, we will then post an updated bracket selection for those people that play in contests where you can pick the winners round-by-round. Our goal is to try to pick the four Final Four participants and National Champion, so those of you in contests where you receive points for your accuracy, with more points awarded for each succeeding round, might have a somewhat unfair advantage over others in your pool.

We hope you return to this site after 7PM EDT on Monday night, March 18, to see what we believe will be an exciting and informative Bracketnomics 2019 exam. Yes, you too can earn your BM degree!

And, don’t forget to check our site out Sunday as our Bracket Gurus attempt to continue a history of incredible accuracy predicting the 68 teams to be selected for the NCAA Tournament.

We will publish one or two updates Sunday.  The first will be on this site before 10:00 AM EDT.  The final one will be published after all Sunday games but the Big Ten Tournament go final, or later if there is a chance this game will affect the bracket.

There will be an additional late Saturday night bracket update to include new automatic bid winners.

January 28, 2019

PiRate Ratings Bracketology For Monday, January 28, 2019

January 28, 2019

This Week’s PiRate Ratings Seed Line

Seed

SCHOOL

Conf.

1

Virginia

ACC

1

Gonzaga

WCC

1

Duke

ACC

1

Michigan

Big Ten

2

Tennessee

SEC

2

Michigan St.

Big Ten

2

Houston

AAC

2

Kentucky

SEC

3

North Carolina

ACC

3

Virginia Tech

ACC

3

Purdue

Big Ten

3

Louisville

ACC

4

Wisconsin

Big Ten

4

Iowa St.

Big 12

4

LSU

SEC

4

Kansas

Big 12

5

Nevada

MWC

5

Texas Tech

Big 12

5

Marquette

Big East

5

Buffalo

MAC

6

Villanova

Big East

6

Maryland

Big Ten

6

Cincinnati

AAC

6

Oklahoma

Big 12

7

Nebraska

Big Ten

7

Auburn

SEC

7

Mississippi St.

SEC

7

TCU

Big 12

8

NC State

ACC

8

Iowa

Big Ten

8

Washington

Pac-12

8

Florida St.

ACC

9

Kansas St.

Big 12

9

Ole Miss

SEC

9

Florida

SEC

9

Ohio St.

Big Ten

10

Utah St.

MWC

10

UCF

AAC

10

Indiana

Big Ten

10

Baylor

Big 12

11

Texas

Big 12

11

Alabama

SEC

11

San Francisco

WCC

11

Syracuse

ACC

11

St. John’s 

Big East

11

Butler

Big East

12

Wofford

SoCon

12

Lipscomb

ASUN

12

Hofstra

CAA

12

Murray St.

OVC

13

VCU

Atlantic 10

13

Yale

Ivy League

13

New Mexico St.

WAC

13

Vermont

America East

14

Northern Ky.

Horizon

14

Texas St.

Sun Belt

14

North Texas

C-USA

14

South Dakota St.

Summit League

15

Radford

Big South

15

Montana

Big Sky

15

Drake

MVC

15

UC Irvine

Big West

16

Lehigh

Patriot

16

Rider

MAAC

16

Abilene Christian

Southland

16

St. Francis (NY)

NEC

16

Texas Southern

SWAC

16

Norfolk St.

MEAC

 

Last Four IN

San Francisco

Syracuse

St. John’s

Butler

USF vs. Butler and Syracuse vs. St. John’s in Dayton First Four

 

Last Four BYES

Indiana

Baylor

Texas

Alabama

 

First Four OUT

Minnesota

UNC-Greensboro

Memphis

Saint Mary’s

 

Next Four OUT

Northwestern

Creighton

Clemson

Temple

 

#16 Seeds Headed to Dayton

Abilene Christian vs. Norfolk St.

St. Francis (NY) vs. Texas Southern

 

Bids By Conference

Conference Bids
Big Ten 9
ACC 8
SEC 8
Big 12 8
Big East 4
AAC 3
MWC 2
West Coast 2
One Bid Leagues 24

 

The Top Mid-Majors

We include the West Coast and Mountain West Conferences to be Major Conferences.

Top Mid-Majors
5 Buffalo MAC
12 Wofford SoCon
12 Lipscomb ASUN
12 Hofstra CAA

 

Changes to This Week’s Bracketology Report 

Beginning this week, we move the last four at-large seeds to the 11-seed line, because in almost every year in the past, the last four in the tournament were seeded #11.  Personally, we feel like this is a disservice to some of the #12 mid-major seeds.  Hofstra, Lipscomb, and Wofford are more deserving of higher seeds that where we have placed them on the 12-line, but moving any of the three upward would force us to move one of the last four at-large teams below the 11-seed line.

At this point in the season, we are still almost entirely basing our seedings on the NCAA Net Ratings.  Once the season progresses into Mid-February and then March, we will begin to add “politics” into our selections as we believe the Selection Committee will do.  It is our opinion that eventually, a second Pac-12 team will be added to the field even if it is not deserving.  The Committee will find a way to explain why they artificially added one of the Arizona’s or Oregon, using the exact opposite logic they will use to explain why a more deserving team from a Mid-Major conference did not get in.

At this point in the season, there are teams with nice NET ratings that are buried deep in their own conference standings.

In the ACC, Florida State is currently tied for 8th place in the league with a 3-4 record, while Pittsburgh is in 11th place at 2-5.  Could the Committee chose an ACC team that goes 7-11 in league play?  Syracuse made the field last year at 8-10.

Oklahoma and Texas are currently tied for 7th in the Big 12 with 3-4 conference records.  They both got in the field last year at 8-10, and this year’s league race is tight.  12-6 could earn a piece of the league title, and we could see the top 8 teams finishing within 4 games of each other, maybe even just 3 games.

The Big East is in a bit of trouble, even with the reigning NCAA Champion residing in this league.  Villanova (7-0) and Marquette (7-1) have lapped the field.  No other team has a break-even conference record.  Georgetown, Providence, and Creighton are each 3-4.  St. John’s, Seton Hall, and Butler are all 3-5.  This league has sent teams with .500 conference records in recent years, but not an 8-10 team.

The Big Ten ranks at the top of the food chain this year, so it should be a given that a 9-9 conference record will get in the Dance.  This is quite a change from last year, where Nebraska did not get in after going 13-5 in the league.  Take note that the last Big Ten team to get into the NCAA Tournament with an 8-10 conference record was Minnesota in 2013.

The Mountain West has been a multiple-bid league for all but one year in recent history, and the league has sent as many as five teams in a season in this past decade.  With Nevada contending for a top 10 finish, and with Utah State staying in good graces with the NET Ratings, this looks like a two-bid league with an outside chance for a third team to get in if somebody other than Nevada or Utah State wins the automatic bid.  Fresno State, UNLV, and Boise State have the talent to win the conference tournament, and you can never rule out San Diego State with their defense from winning three games in three days.

About the Pac-12: Washington has taken command of the conference race by starting 7-0 in the league.  Mike Hopkins is doing his best Jim Boeheim impersonation in Seattle.  However, it is not like the rest of the league is chopped liver.  Down years from Oregon and UCLA have hurt the league, but USC and Arizona State are good enough to make the tournament, and Arizona has talent that needs to gel.  We cannot see any scenario where only one team makes the Big Dance from the “League of Champions.”  Expect at least two and maybe three Pac-12 teams to get into the field.

Auburn was ranked #7 in the nation earlier this year, but the Tigers are fading into the bottom half of the SEC standings.  At 2-4 in the league, Auburn is tied for 9th in the league. We see no more than 8 SEC teams making the field, and it could be just 7, so the Tigers have a lot of work to do to secure a spot in the field.  Their next three games are at home, so they could be 5-4 in the league when they go to LSU on February 9.

A stranger team in the SEC is South Carolina.  The Gamecocks are 5-1 in the league, but 5-8 outside of league play.  At 10-9, they do not show up favorably in the NET ratings, but this team could easily go 12-6 or better in the SEC.  USC already has wins over Auburn, Mississippi State, and Florida, the last coming in Gainesville.  A win tomorrow night over #1 Tennessee would make it awfully tough on the Selection Committee to ignore a team that would be 6-1 in the SEC with four wins over ranked opponents.  If USC wins tomorrow night, they have a path to 14-4 in the SEC, and 19-12 overall before the conference tournament begins.  Frank Martin can squeeze wins out of lesser talent, and with a roster stacked with 3-star players, he must be given credit for beating teams on the road that had 4-star and 5-star players on their roster.

We treat the West Coast Conference as a major conference because Gonzaga has been a 1-seed multiple times, and Saint Mary’s has been in the Elite 8.  We won’t include San Francisco’s past national championships and additional Final Four seasons, because that was another era.  However, the Dons may be on the precipice of earning an at-large bid this year.  Saint Mary’s is a bit down this year, but don’t count the Gaels out yet.  And, with BYU and San Diego looking tough this year, five strong teams, with the cream of the crop being a top 5 squad, means the WCC should be a multiple bid league again in 2019.

 

Coming tomorrow: We take an in-depth look at the top Mid-Major teams and conference races.  We hope if you are a basketball fanatic that you have taken time to watch some outstanding and exciting games.  There are multiple Mid-Major conferences with must-see competition.

 

 

 

January 22, 2019

Fun Stuff For Stats Buffs-Part 3: Efficiency

Before getting into the meat of this final installment, I must apologize in advance for the brevity in this last segment.  Time constraints have made it impossible to thoroughly peruse individual offensive and defensive efficiency.

That may be a good thing for you the reader, because you can read the dictionary about as quickly as you can go through all the steps involved in calculating individual efficiency.  Suffice it to say that there are several parts to this calculation.  One must have a lengthy formula on a spreadsheet where a player’s and his team’s statistics can be inputted, and the spreadsheet spits out the numbers.

If you really want to know the entire process, then you absolutely must purchase the book by the number one authoritative source on the matter.

The book is: Basketball on Paper: Rules and Tools for Performance Analysis by Dean Oliver.  You might be able to find it in a library, as it is included in the catalog of more than 750 libraries throughout the nation, more than likely at a local college or university library near you.

Just to show you how involved the formulas are, it takes 18 separate calculations from start to finish for each player’s offensive number and almost as many for his defensive number.

The NCAA Selection Committee will use Team Offensive Efficiency and Team Defensive Efficiency in their process of picking the at-large teams and seeding all 68 teams.  This is rather simple and can be explained briefly.

Offensive Efficiency = Points scored per 100 possessions

Defensive Efficiency = Points allowed per 100 possessions.

In the 21st Century, possessions are kept as a statistic, but if you cannot find this number, you can estimate it very accurately by this formula.

Team Possessions = FG Attempts + (.475* FT Attempts) – Offensive Rebounds + Turnovers

In the NBA, substitute .44 for .475 in FT Attempts.

Obviously, round the product from the Free Throw Attempts formula to the nearest whole number.

Let’s look at some examples for a game, a season to date, and some past seasons.

Example #1. Nevada vs. Air Force, January 19, 2019

Nevada defeated Air Force 67-52 last Saturday in Reno.  The Wolfpack totally shut down the Falcons’ offense, while Air Force played capable defense on the perimeter, forcing Nevada players to hurry their three-point shots.

For the game, Nevada had 57 total field goal attempts, 23 free throw attempts, 9 offensive rebounds, and 14 turnovers.

To calculate possessions, plug the numbers into the equation:

57 + (.475 * 23) -9 + 14 = 73

For Air Force, their stat line included 51 total field goal attempts, just 9 free throw attempts, 3 offensive rebounds, and 21 turnovers.

51 + (.475 * 9) -3 + 21 = 73

Possessions must be equal or off by one or two between the teams, because after one team completes a possession, the other team gets the ball.  Two is the most advantageous one team can have over the other in possessions.  This comes about when the team that gets the opening tap also gets the last possession of the first half, as well as the first and last possession of the game.  It happens very rarely, because in order to have the first and last possession of both halves, there must be an odd number of jump ball calls in the first half so that the team that got the opening tap also gets the first possession of the second half..

Let’s get back to the calculation.

Nevada scored 67 points on 73 possessions

67/73 = 0.918 or 91.8 points per 100 possessions

Air Force scored 52 points on 73 possessions

52/73 = .712 or 71.2 points per 100 possessions

 

Example #2: Gonzaga vs. San Francisco, January 12, 2019

In this key West Coast Conference game with first place in the league on the line, Gonzaga went to the Bay and beat the Dons 96-83.

Gonzaga: 69 FGA, 21 FTA, 12 Off Reb, 4 TOV

69 + (.475 * 21) – 12 + 4 = 71 possessions

USF: 69 FGA, 25 FTA, 14 Off Reb, 5 TOV

69 + (.475 * 25) – 14 + 5 = 72 possessions

Gonzaga 96 points on 71 possessions = 1.352 points per possession or 135.2 points per 100 possessions.

San Francisco 83 points on 72 possessions = 1.153 points per possession or 115.3 points per 100 possessions.

 

Example 3: Michigan Wolverines to date

Michigan used to win games by three-point barrages and fast break points and limited defense.  Then, after assistant coach Luke Yaklich came to Ann Arbor to install his multiple defenses, the Maize and Blue became just as tough on the defensive side if not better defensively.

So far this year, the Wolverines have these offensive and defensive stats through 18 games.

Offense: 1,021 FGA, 318 FTA, 165 Off. Rebounds, 175 Turnovers in 18 games

1021 + (.475 * 318) – 165 + 175 = 1,182 total possessions and 65.7 possessions per game.

Michigan has scored 1,306 points in 18 games.

1,306 / 1,182 * 100 = 110.5 points per 100 possessions.

Michigan’s Defense has given up: 1,003 FGA, 210 FTA, 142 off. Rebounds, and  237 turnovers.

1,003 + (.475 * 210) – 142 + 237 = 1,198 total possessions and 66.6 possessions per game.

Michigan has surrendered 1,027 points in 18 games.

1,027 / 1,198 * 100 = 85.7 points per 100 possessions.

A raw point spread between two teams can be estimated by combining their offensive and defensive points 100 possessions and factoring in strengths of schedule and home court advantage.

Let’s look at State vs. Tech in an imaginary matchup.

State has an offensive efficiency of 110 points per 100 possessions and a defensive efficiency of 90 points per 100 possessions against a schedule 3 points weaker than average.  They average 76 possessions per game, and their home court advantage is worth 3 points.

Tech has an offensive efficiency of 102 points per 100 possessions and a defensive efficiency of 99 points per 100 possessions against a schedule 8 points better than average.  They average 66 possessions per game.

For the year in question, the national average for possessions is 70 per game, so State plays at a tempo of about 8.6% above average, while Tech plays at a tempo of about 5.7% below average.  Because it is easier for one team to slow pace down more than it is for another team to speed pace up (unless they press full court for most of the game), it can be estimated that this game will have about 69 possessions.

If State outscores its opponents by 20 points per 100 possessions, in 69 possessions, this equates to 13.8 points.

If Tech outscores its opponents by 3 points per 100 possessions, in 69 possessions, this equates to 2.07 points.

To this point, State looks like an 11.73 point favorite over Tech, but this is not the case.  Schedule strength and home court advantage must be included.

If Tech’s schedule on average has been about 11 points tougher per game than State, you then add those 11 points in Tech’s favor.  Now, the State’s advantage has been reduced to 0.73 points.  Tech’s home court advantage is 3 points, so the expected outcome would be State by 3.73, or 4 points.

This is a crude method once used by the PiRate Ratings, as the Blue Rating.  We no longer use this method, as there are more accurate ways to determine pointspreads, namely using algorithms of the Four Factors with schedule strengths, home court advantage, and road team disadvantage.

Example 4: Villanova 2018 season

The Wildcats won their second national championship in three years last season, finishing with a 36-4 record.  They scored 3,463 points and allowed 2,807 points in 40 games.

Here are their pertinent stats to calculate efficiency.

Field Goal Attempts: 2,440

Opponents: 2,401

Free Throw Attempts: 718

Opponents: 641

Offensive Rebounds: 380

Opponents: 378

Turnovers: 426

Opponents: 512

Possessions: 2,440 + (.475 * 718) – 380 + 426 = 2,827 (70.7 possessions per game)

Opponents: 2,401 + (.475 * 641) – 378 + 512 = 2,839 (71.0 possessions per game)

Offensive Efficiency

3,463/2,827 * 100 = 122.5 points per 100 possessions

Defensive Efficiency

2,807/2839 * 100 = 98.9 points per 100 possessions

 

How does this compare to past national champions?  Because offensive rebounding stats were not officially kept until this century, it can only be estimated for the 20th Century.  No doubt the UCLA teams of 1967 thru 1969 and 1972 and 1973 would be off the charts great, as the Bruins dominated in every aspect of the game during their dynasty years.

There are some very fine teams that won championships in recent years, so let’s look at the national champions during this time.  The number shown is the total scoring margin per 100 possessions.  Of course, schedule strength is not equal for these teams, but on the whole, there is not a lot of difference, as these champions all played schedules between 5 and 10 points above the national average.

When adjusted to schedule strength, here are the 10 best teams in the 21st Century using the PiRate Ratings formula.

2008: Kansas 124.0

2001: Duke 123.6

2018: Villanova 122.9

2010: Duke 122.1

2013: Louisville 121.8

2005: North Carolina 121.7

2012: Kentucky 121.5

2015: Duke 121.3 

2016: Villanova 120.9

2009: North Carolina 120.3

2007: Florida 120.1

2002: Maryland 119.6

2004: Connecticut 117.9

2006: Florida 117.1

2017: North Carolina 117.0

2011: Connecticut 115.8

2003: Syracuse 115.1

2014: Connecticut 111.6

Note that the national champions through these seasons were not necessarily the highest rated team by efficiency.  For instance, Connecticut was not considered a factor at the end of the 2011 regular season.  They finished tied for 9th in the Big East, and thus they had to play in the opening round of the conference tournament.  To win the conference tournament, they would have to do something never done before or since–win five games in five days.  The Huskies became the big story of Championship Week win Coach Jim Calhoun rode his star guard Kemba Walker to the title, winning five games in five days at Madison Square Garden, as Walker performed for his friends and family from the Bronx, averaging 26 points per game by taking it to the hoop and drawing enough fouls to shoot 54 free throws in just five games.

The Huskies were on a roll, and they won six more games in the Big Dance.  They finished 11-0 and still only rose to 15.8 points better than average against an average schedule.  Before this 11-game streak, UConn was just 9-9 in the conference.  However, the Huskies had played a very difficult schedule that included 18 ranked opponents, in which they went 12-6 in those games.  All nine of their losses came to NCAA Tournament teams, so strength of schedule was terribly important in factoring their adjusted efficiency.

 

2019 Top Efficiency

By now, you must want to know which teams are at the top in total efficiency?  It should come as no surprise that the NET Ratings and the Efficiency Ratings are about the same.

Virginia, Duke, Michigan State, Gonzaga, and Tennessee are at the tops in adjusted efficiency, or to put it bluntly, what the NCAA Selection Committee will look at.  Likewise, these are also the top five teams in NET Ratings, so if the Selection Committed picked the bracket today, four of these five would be your number one seeds, and the fifth would be the top number two seed.

This doesn’t mean that one of these five teams will win the national championship, but the odds are that from this group of five, there is about a 50-50 chance that one will win the title.  Of course, this is only a mid-season ranking.  The ranking on March 17.

 

Individual Efficiency

I won’t begin to explain individual offensive and defensive efficiency, as my only recommendation it to read Basketball on Paper, as Oliver is the Bill James (or Tom Tango) of basketball analysis.

Let me just list which players from the power conferences rate at the top.

Can you guess who is the current number one player in efficiency?  I bet if you had one free guess to win a car on a game show, you’d win the car.

The best player in college ball today is the best player in total efficiency.  It comes as no surprise that Duke’s Zion Williamson is number one, and he is far ahead of the field.  Gonzaga’s Brandon Clarke is a distant number two, and Wisconin’s Ethan Happ is almost as far being Clarke in third place as Clarke is behind Williamson.

Before you think that this rating is due to just these three players being great, let me add that their coaches and teammates are also important in this rating.  Coach Mike Krzyzewski has produced a lot of highly efficient players.  Sure, most of them were McDonald’s All-Americans, but there are some of these 5-star players in recent history that are not all that efficient.

Vanderbilt’s Simi Shittu was the Number 7 overall player in this current freshman class, a 5-star McDonald’s All-American.  The Commodores are one of the least efficient teams from a Power Conference, and Shittu’s numbers have headed south once SEC play began, and the opposition quickly learned his liabilities.  Shittu actually owns a negative offensive efficiency rating through 17 games, and an even worse rating in five conference games, as he has negative efficiency in both offense and defense.  It doesn’t help his efficiency when he has a 7.8% three-point accuracy, low free throw percentage, and a high turnover percentage.  I have heard comparisons made to former St. John’s 5-star player Wayne McKoy from the 1970’s, when McKoy went from top player in the freshman class to never playing in the NBA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

January 15, 2019

Advanced Basketball Statistics–Fun Stuff for Stats Buffs, Part 2

Last week, we introduced you to the basics of advanced basketball statistics, the Four Factors.

If you missed that feature, you can find it here:

https://piratings.wordpress.com/2019/01/09/advanced-basketball-statistics-fun-stuff-for-stats-buffs/

This week, we hope to explain how to apply advanced stats to individual players. It is a bit more involved, but if you break it down, it is not difficult to understand.

Then, in our final installment next week, we will attempt to explain offensive and defensive efficiency, which is a multiple step process and quite involved, but once you have the formulas placed in a spreadsheet, you can have the same data that the Selection Committee will have in the room when they meet to select the field and seed the teams.

Let’s start with individual statistics.

True Shooting %
The basic shooting stat for an individual is True Shooting Percentage. It incorporates field goal shooting from behind the three-point line, inside the line, and foul shooting into one percentage that provides a decent look at how efficient a player is when he shoots the ball to his basket.

 
The formula for TS% is: College: Pts/(2*(FGA+(.465*FTA))) &

NBA Pts/(2*(FGA+(.44*FTA)))

Example: Let’s take a look at the incredible Markus Howard of Marquette. As of this afternoon (January 15, 2019), Howard has scored 439 points for the season. He has taken 301 field goal attempts and 116 free throw attempts.

439/(2*(301+(.465*116))) = .618 or 61.8%

Let’s now take a look at a big man and how Howard stacks up as a perimeter player. Let’s look at Gonzaga’s Rui Hachimura. As of this afternoon, the Bulldogs’ power forward has scored 374 points on 233 field goal attempts and 117 free throw attempts.

374/(2*(233+(.465*117)))= .651 or 65.1%
Hachimura is a little more efficient in scoring points when he shoots the ball for any reason than Howard, but they are both quite excellent at scoring for their teams.
How do they compare with a couple of all-time greats from the past?

Let’s look at Steph Curry’s and Bill Walton’s final years at Davidson and UCLA respectively.

Curry: 974/(2*(687+(.465*251)))= .606 or 60.6%, not as good as Howard so far this year.

Walton: 522/(2*(349+(.465*100)))=.660 or 66.%, which is a little better than Hachimura.

Hachimura has benefitted from some three-pointers that did not exist when Walton played at UCLA, but Walton would have never attempted a three-point shot playing in the low post for the Bruins. Walton also missed some games his senior year due to knee troubles, and he was a lousy foul shooter his last two years in Westwood, or else his TS% would have been even higher.

Offensive, Defensive, and Total Rebounding Percentage
For an individual player, the formula for offensive rebounding percentage is:

100 * [(Individual Player’s Offensive Rebounds * (Team Minutes Played/5)) / (Individual Player’s Minutes Played * (Team Offensive Rebounds + Opposing Team Defensive Rebounds))]

The formula looks bulky but it is quite easy to calculate and once you plug them into a spreadsheet, it is a quick process.

Defensive Rebounding percentage is just the opposite formula
100 * [(Individual Player’s Defensive Rebounds * (Team Minutes Played/5)) / (Individual Player’s Minutes Played * (Team Defensive Rebounds + Opposing Team Offensive Rebounds))]

And Total Rebounding Rebounding Percentage brings the whole into the parts.
100 * [(Individual Player’s Total Rebounds * Team Minutes Played/5) / (Individual Player’s Minutes Played * (Team Total Rebounds + Opposing Team Total Rebounds))]

Examples: Let’s compare the key board men from the hot rivals in the Big Ten: Kenny Goins of Michigan State and Jon Teske of Michigan

Goins offensive rebounding: 100 * [(41*3425/5)) / (450 * (201 + 356))] = 11.2%
Goins defensive rebounding: 100* [(119*3425/5)) / 450 * (543 + 185))] = 24.9%
Goins total rebounding: 100 * [(160 * 3425/5) / (450 * (744 + 541))] = 19.0%

Teske offensive rebounding: 100 * [(31 * 3400/5)) / (458 * (156 + 415))] = 8.1%
Teske defensive rebounding: 100 * [(82 * 3400/5)) / (458 * (463+135))] = 20.4%
Teske total rebounding: 100 * [(113 * 3400/5)) / (450 * (619+550))] = 14.6%

Because Michigan and Michigan State have played comparable schedules this year, Goins is a little better on both the offensive and defensive glass than the seven-foot Teske.

For what it is worth, Blake Griffin’s total rebounding percentage in 2009 at Oklahoma was 24.0, so Goins and Teske are not quite up to his lofty standards.

Turnover Percentage

The formula for individual TOV% is: 100 * TOV / (FGA + (.465 * FTA) + TOV)

It is rather simple to calculate, but it has its limitations, because point guards handle the ball much more per possession than other players, and this formula does not include assists which might show that it is worth a couple extra points of TOV% for a point guard to have higher numbers of assists. Additionally, some point guards do not attempt many shots, so the denominator of this equation is skewed too low.

We’ll combine this stat with the next stat to come up with an improvement over assist to turnover rate.

Let’s look at a couple of outstanding playmakers–Cassius Winston of Michigan State and Jared Harper of Auburn.

Winston: 100 * 42 / (205 + (.465 * 69) + 42) = 15.0%
Harper: 100 * 32 / (183 + (.465 * 53) + 32) = 13.4%

Assist Percentage
Now we give the playmakers a chance to shine and balance out the bad turnover percentages they receive for having possession of the ball more than others (like a running back in football will fumble the ball more than the tight end per team possession).
The formula for individial AST% is: 100 * AST / (((MP / (Team MP/5)) * Team FG) – FG)

Winston: 100 * 125 / (((528/(3425/5)) * 517) – 100) = 41.9%
Harper: 100 * 101 / (((506/(3050/5)) * 452) -69) = 33.0%

Assist Percentage to Turnover Percentage

Simply divide AST%/TOV% to get a better ratio than the standard AST/TOV.

Winston: 41.9/15.0 = 2.8
Harper: 33.0/13.4 = 2.5

Both of these rates are outstanding. For Michigan State, the Spartans have an outstanding playmaker in Winston, an outstanding dominator on the glass in Goins, and an outstanding group of shooters and defenders. Coach Tom Izzo has a Final Four caliber team for sure.

Block Percentage
Blocks are very important defensive tools. Obviously every time a player blocks a shot, it is also a missed field goal attempt for the other team. Obviously, a blocked shot is not as valuable as the non-blocked missed field goal attempt, because not every blocked shot would have been a made shot, and more blocked shots become offensive rebounds or offensive team rebounds than regular missed shots. However, an intimidator underneath the basket can influence a lot of shots that he does not block, thus lowering non-blocked field goal percentages. There are multiple algorithms used to calculate how valuable a blocked shot is worth in points with and without the inclusion of intimidation.

We like to compare this variable to baseball’s stolen base variable, where traditional sabermetrics lovers hate the stolen base attempt due to the effects on WAR not being great and needing a base stealer that can consistently steal better than 75% of the bases he attempts. They don’t factor in the extracurricular events such as middle infielders having to cheat a step closer to second base, pitchers worried about throwing off-speed (non fastball) pitches, pitchers having to throw to first a lot to reduce leads, and even the first baseman having to delay by a fraction of a second before moving out to cover his area.

For instance, when Maury Wills was stealing bases left and right for the Los Angeles Dodgers in the early 1960’s, Jim Gilliam benefited from being the next batter in the batting order. Gilliam liked to take a lot of pitches, so taking a couple to give Wills a chance to steal didn’t harm him. Actually, because pitchers worried so much, Gilliam was frequently ahead in the count. A veteran with a 2-0 count can hit about 100 points higher than when he has an 0-2 count. Also, Gilliam was an excellent placement hitter. He could hit the ball in the open space created by the first baseman holding Wills on base. When the switch-hitting Gilliam faced a left-handed batter, and the second baseman was covering the bag, while the first baseman was holding Wills on, Gilliam saw a monstrous hole to slap grounders towards right field that allowed Wills to take third base.

Editorial over

Here is the formula for Block Percentage
100 * (Blk * (Team MP/5)) / (MP * (Opponents FGA – Opponents 3-Point Attempts))

Example: Brandon Clarke of Gonzaga is a true intimidator in the paint. His ability to swat balls away has helped the Zags hold teams to just 38.8% field goal shooting. Here is his BLK%.

100 * (58 * (3600/5)) / 497 * (1148-418) = 11.5%

When a player has a double digit BLK%, it is almost a fact that he is also an intimidator in the paint, which means other teams will miss three or four shots that they normally would make against other teams. This is in addition to the blocks that would have been made baskets had they not been blocked.
If an opposing team normally averages 27 field goals on 58 attempts for 46.6%, but with Clarke’s blocks and intimidation this opponent hits only 21 of their 58 attempts for 36.2%. That is a 10% difference created mostly by one intimidating player. Block percentage is one of the most underrated defensive tools in basketball.

Steal Percentage
The steal is a dying art but for a reason. Ninety-five to ninety-nine percent of the time, the steal comes from an intercepted pass and not from a player actually stealing the ball off a player’s dribble. So, steals should be renamed as interceptions like in football. Because so many teams cannot pass the ball worth a darn these days, steals have been dropping in number for several years. This does not mean that the monotonous dribbling of the ball is the way for offenses to score. It is easier to guard the movement of a dribbled ball opposed to the movement of a passed ball, because a dribbler can rarely exceed 15 MPH, while a weak pass is double that speed and a crisp pass is triple that speed or more. When you see a player dribble the ball all the way up the floor on a fast break attempt, he is actually hurting his team’s chances of scoring points on that break. Two quick passes up the floor can result in a wide open basket and/or defensive foul. Many times, the dribbling player is the last of the 10 players to enter the scoring zone, and then the fast break is dead.

Once again editorial over.

The formula for steal percentage is: (100 * Steals * (Team MP/5)) / (Player MP * Opponents Possessions)

You can find team possessions in many locations today, but if you need to calculate this from scratch, team possessions can be very accurately estimated by this calculation:

FGA + (.465 * FTA) – Off. Rebounds + Turnovers {for college}

FGA + (.44 * FTA) – Off. Rebounds + Turnovers {for NBA}

If you are trying to calculate this for your high school, middle school, or youth league team, you will have to adjust the constant that you multiple with FTA. Unfortunately, we do not know what to use for the constants.

Example: Tremont Waters of LSU has come close this year to recording a triple double the hard way with points, assists, and steals. He needed two more steals against UL-Monroe to pull off a feat that is extremely rare in the 21st Century.
Here is Waters’ Steal %.
(100 * 45 * 3050/5) (478 * 1088) = 5.28%

This is an excellent percentage, but it does not approach the percentages of past years, especially when more teams used full-court pressure defense for 40 minutes per game. Some of the Kentucky players under Coach Rick Pitino exceeded 6%.

Usage Percentage
Usage percentage attempts tp gauge the percentage of team plays in which a specific player was key to the possession. It actually measures percentage of team plays USED by an individual while he was on the floor.

The formula for USG % is: 100 * ((FGA + (.465*FTA) + TOV) * (Team MP/5)) / (MP * (Team FGA + (.465* Team FTA)+Team TOV))

Example: Carsen Edwards of Purdue is heavily involved in all of the Boilermakers’ possessions.

100 * ((313 + (.465 * 90) + 52) * (3225/5)) / (537 * (985 + (.465*194)+174)) = 39.1%

At the same time, teammate Ryan Cline plays about the same number of minutes per game but has a USG% that is less than half of Edwards. Thus, Edwards is vital to Purdue’s offensive success. If Edwards gets in foul trouble, Purdue is in much worse shape than if Cline gets in foul trouble. Of course, Matt Painter doesn’t want either star getting into foul trouble, as they both play better than 33 minutes per game.

In our final installment of Fun Stuff for Stats Buffs, we will attempt to explain offensive and defensive efficiency ratings, the big advance metric that the Selection Committee will use as part of their selection and seeding criteria. It is quite bulky and involves multiple steps to figure. If you ever tried to calculate Base Runs in baseball, you know how involved that calculation was. oRAT and dRAT make base runs calculations look like simple addition.

January 7, 2019

PiRate Ratings Bracketology For Monday, January 7, 2019

1/7/2019

Seed Team Conf. Avg.
1 Duke ACC 1.00
1 Michigan BTEN 1.11
1 Virginia ACC 1.22
1 Michigan St. BTEN 1.33
2 Tennessee SEC 1.56
2 Kansas B12 1.89
2 Gonzaga WCC 2.00
2 Texas Tech B12 2.56
3 North Carolina ACC 3.22
3 Oklahoma B12 3.44
3 Virginia Tech ACC 3.44
3 Auburn SEC 3.78
4 Mississippi St. SEC 3.89
4 Nevada MWC 4.11
4 Florida St. ACC 4.11
4 Houston AAC 4.67
5 North Carolina St. ACC 4.89
5 Ohio St. BTEN 5.22
5 Kentucky SEC 5.22
5 Wisconsin BTEN 5.67
6 Marquette BE 6.11
6 Indiana BTEN 6.22
6 Buffalo MAC 6.33
6 Iowa St. B12 6.56
7 St. John’s BE 6.78
7 Nebraska BTEN 6.89
7 TCU B12 7.00
7 Villanova BE 7.44
8 Minnesota BTEN 8.00
8 Cincinnati AAC 8.11
8 Iowa BTEN 8.33
8 Purdue BTEN 8.56
9 Louisville ACC 8.67
9 LSU SEC 8.89
9 Maryland BTEN 9.00
9 Seton Hall BE 9.56
10 UCF AAC 10.33
10 Alabama SEC 10.56
10 Arizona St. P12 11.11
10 Syracuse ACC 11.22
11 VCU A10 11.33
11 UNC-Greensboro SOU 11.56
11 Ole Miss SEC 11.78
11 Texas B12 12.22
12 Murray St. OVC 12.22
12 Temple AAC 12.56
12 North Texas CUSA 12.56
12 Creighton BE 12.89
12 Clemson ACC 13.22
12 San Francisco WCC 16.22
13 Lipscomb ASUN 12.22
13 Georgia St. SBC 13.22
13 Yale IVY 13.22
13 Hofstra CAA 13.33
14 CSU Bakersfield WAC 13.56
14 UC Irvine BW 13.89
14 Loyola-Chi MVC 13.89
14 Vermont AE 14.00
15 Radford BSTH 14.56
15 Northern Colorado BSKY 14.67
15 Lehigh PAT 15.44
15 Purdue Fort Wayne SUM 15.44
16 Northern Kentucky HOR 15.56
16 Stephen F. Austin SLND 15.67
16 Texas Southern SWAC 15.89
16 Rider MAAC 15.89
16 Robert Morris NEC 16.00
16 North Carolina A&T MEAC 16.00

 

Top 4 Out
69 Butler BE 15.33
70 Florida SEC 17.78
71 Northwestern BTEN 18.22
72 Fresno St. MWC 18.22
Next 4 Out
73 St. Louis A10 18.44
74 Kansas St. B12 18.89
75 Arizona P12 19.11
76 Washington P12 19.22

 

Last 4 Byes
10 Alabama SEC 10.56
10 Syracuse ACC 11.22
11 Ole Miss SEC 11.78
11 Texas B12 12.22
Last 4 In — Headed To Dayton
12 Temple AAC 12.56
12 Creighton BE 12.89
12 Clemson ACC 13.22
12 San Francisco WCC 16.22
16 Seeds Headed To Dayton
16 Texas Southern SWAC 15.89
16 Rider MAAC 15.89
16 Robert Morris NEC 16.00
16 North Carolina A&T MEAC 16.00

 

Explanation of Average Scores

The PiRate Ratings Bracketology Ratings consist of 14 contributors to this website.  Each week, the contributors send us their bracketology ratings, which we then compile into a composite average.  At least, that is how it is supposed to work.  In actuality, this week only 8 of the 14 sent us their ratings, and then we included our own as number 9.  So, this week the average comes from 9 bracketologists.

You will note that the lower the average the better the ranking, as a #1 seed is definitely better than a #2 seed and so on.

You will also note that after #12 seed San Francisco, the average number decreases with #13 Lipscomb.  The reason for this is starting with Lipscomb, the remainder of the list are automatic qualifiers.  We first calculate the number of one-bid leagues, and then we fill in the number of at-large teams needed to fill the 68-team field.  Even the last team in the Big Dance will be seeded higher than most of the one-bid league automatic qualifiers, thus San Francisco is seeded at the lowest possible spot for an at-large team.  Lipscomb is the highest-seeded team of the remaining one-bid automatic qualifying leagues, but not the highest-seeded of all the one-bid automatic qualifying leagues, because Nevada, Buffalo, Arizona State, Virginia Commonwealth, and North Texas are seeded higher than some of the at-large qualifiers.

Bids By Conference

Conference #
Big Ten 10
ACC 9
SEC 7
Big 12 6
Big East 5
American 4
West Coast 2
Pac-12 1
Atlantic 10 1
America East 1
Atlantic Sun 1
Big Sky 1
Big South 1
Big West 1
Colonial 1
Conference USA 1
Horizon 1
Ivy 1
MAAC 1
MAC 1
MEAC 1
Missouri Valley 1
Mountain West 1
Northeast 1
Ohio Valley 1
Patriot 1
Sun Belt 1
Southland 1
Southern 1
Summit 1
SWAC 1
WAC 1

The Pac-12 and The Atlantic 10 should eventually get a second team into consideration, as these are aberrations.  Arizona, Washington, and Oregon could work their way into the field from the Pac-12, and St. Louis is on the Bubble from the A-10.

 

 

 

 

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.