Friday, March 17, 2006


UPDATE: 7:55 pm Sunday
We have reached the Sweet Sixteen and in a crazy year we have 10 of the 16 sweet sixteen teams. I am not pleased with this, but maybe I should run the numbers on Bradley and George Mason.
I am on vacation and when I return I will update any trends that may have developed.
What is surprising is while the overall results are not as good as I would like many of the indicators are holding very true

Did last year's trends continue .....

Update is in green.

· 9 of the top 13 offensive teams made the Sweet Sixteen and all Final Four Teams were in the Top 8. This makes Memphis a questionable pick since they are 32nd offensively. Memphis makes the Sweet 16. The UNC loss is one of the better offensive teams falling out. Without all my data I am not sure, but I believe this trend is going to hold with the Zags, the Huskies and West Virginia all making the 16.

· 0 of the bottom 10 offensive teams made the Sweet Sixteen. This eliminates Iowa, Arizona, Syracuse, Oklahoma, Southern Illinois, Seton Hall, UNC-Wilmington, UW-Milwaukee, Wisconsin and LSU. Check this out. The only teams to survive to the second round other then LSU beat another team on this list. This is a great indicator to upsets. LSU maintains and makes the Sweet 16 despite the offensive ineffectiveness.

· Nine of the Top 11 and 10 of the top 14 efficiency differential teams were Sweet Sixteen and the top 4 were Final Four. The top 4 are Texas, UConn, Florida and Kansas. The next are Memphis, Duke, Illinois, Bucknell, Washington, Villanova, George Washington, Ohio State, UNC and UCLA. Kansas was knocked out in the first round. Illinois lost to Washington who is aslo in the top 14 and GW lost to Duke who is in the top 14. Kansas loss is the only one to break the trend. Ohio State loss on Sunday is a surprise by this indiciator. Not as good an indicator this year but still strong as 7 of the top 10 made the Sweet 16, while only 8 of the top 14 (three lost to teams in the top 8).

· Only 2 of the bottom 15 effective field goal % teams made the Sweet Sixteen. Of teams seeded to go to the Sweet Sixteen this includes, Iowa, Villanova and 5 seeds Pittsburg, Nevada and Syracuse . This holds very true. Only Villanova got through to the Sweet 16. Last year was 2 of the bottom 15 to the Sweet 16 and I believe this year it is only 1 of 15.

· 12 of the top 16 defensive turnover % teams made the Sweet Sixteen. These are UAB, Texas A&M, Southern Illinois, Arizona, Bucknell, Tennessee, G Washington, Washington, West Virginia, UNC-Wilmington, Memphis, Arkansas, Kansas, Villanova, Florida and UCLA. Surprisingly 10 of this group are out of the tourny. This indicator is a failure in 2006.

· Only 1 of the bottom 13 defensive turnover % teams and 2 of the bottom 22 made the sweet Sixteen – Of the teams seeded to go to the Sweet Sixteen this includes, UConn, Gonzaga, Boston College, Ohio State, and UNC. The reverse of last year shows again on the turnovers.


Myk said...

Looks like Bradley kicked the "NUMBERS" ass

Sonic EJ said...


Anonymous said...

yeah, what the hell happened to Kansas? Ugh, my final four, ugh.

Anonymous said...

So why go with Kansas instead of Memphis if Memphis had one less flaw??????? I think this was a David Locke mistake and not a "numbers" mistake. Should have picked Memphis (16 seed, followed by 8/9) because they had an easier road than Kansas (Pitt looming in second round).

Next year, put up all the raw data and let the listeners interpret and see if they can do better with the "numbers"/

chxiao said...

The internet in general had existed ten years ago. Yo have nice site, admin!

Ableman2 said...

The numbers make sense, with two apparent limitations.

What is a statistically significant difference? How far above another team in any given category does one have to be in any given category for that difference to indicate superiority? Does significant superiority in one or two stats compensate for deficits in others?

We're talking about kids in a highly emotional state- things you can't quantify numerically. Yes, this is true in all sports- but more so in March Madness than any other arena. I'd trust this depth of analysis much more in the NBA finals than a college arena.

Please do not take any of the above to, in any way, indicate support of Mitch over Locke, or that Mitch is any less of a full blown idiot that he is.

Still pulling for Locke!

Anonymous said...

Numbers gone bad this year....I still believe in you, though, Locke!

Myk said...

--- The "kids emotion factor" can't be used as a counter in this argument because that has already been facotred into the overall numbers. Since these numbers are based on past performance they are also based on past kids playing with emotion, etc.

--- I think in most cases you are going to see the numbers hold true. However, I feel like this year with very few dominant teams that the numbers are less likely to work. As Ableman did correctly point out there might be problem with the numbers in the sense that in years past the teams that are in the top "X" of a particular category were ahead by a much more significant factor than they are this year.

Ableman2 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Ableman2 said...

I disagree that taking past performance into account counteracts the youth/emotion factor. Playing a game in the regular season is no where near the emotion factor involved in the tourney.

My point is that with kids the emotion factor is much more prevalent, and that this vairable a) gets amplified by the highly emotional context of the tourney and b) Is completely unmeasureable

Anonymous said...

Hey! Very Nice! Check out this website I found where you can make extra cash.
It's not available everywhere, so go to the site and put
in your zipcode to see if you can find something. I found something and make
and extra $900 a month!