First, I'd like to apologize for thinking that the Frozen Four was this weekend. I always forget that they're not on consecutive weekends. I guess I will just quote everything from Friday's post or try to bring something else on Friday.
I was having a conversation with my friend yesterday about the
success of my bracket. He asked if I had an algorithm that I was using and I promptly responded that I used my brain. That's not completely true. I did use some stats that I believe are important in the tournament. I also used some favoritism to teams with coaches that have had a track record of tournament success. There wasn't a given formula though; I just kept these stats in mind when making picks.
Free Throw Percentage:
My thinking with Free Throws is that they're huge in close games. If you're leading and you can't hit your free throws, you're going to have a tough time holding onto the lead because you're going to get fouled. If you're trailing and you can't hit your free throws with the clock stopped, you're screwed as well. Free throw percentage is important. You have to get to the line and make your free throws.
It's not just about team free throw percentage, but you have to look at the guys who will get the ball. Who plays the most? Who handles the ball? Those are the guys who will probably be fouled and relied upon to hit the free throws. As you will notice with most of these stats, I have the philosophy of looking at things from both a macro (team) and micro (star players/ball handlers) perspective.
Rebound Margin:
Rebounding is one of my favorite stats in college basketball. I think it's important for a number of reasons. If you are outrebounding your opponent, you are either preventing second chance opportunities or you are getting second chances opportunities. Furthermore, it is suggestive that you are a physical team and physical teams usually draw fouls and can get the other team in foul trouble. Fouls equal free throws and if you're also a good free throw shooting team (see above), you can get points with the clock stopped. Fouls also challenge the depth of the other team. That's always a good thing.
There isn't one thing I look for and certainly height and weight aren't everything. I do glance at the roster to see if there is more than one player contributing to this, since depth is also an important factor. If one player gets into foul trouble or injured, it's important for others to be capable of doing the job.
Assist-Turnover Ratio:
Taking care of the basketball can make or break a team. I think this statistic is a good gauge of how a team does that. First, assists are a statistic that measures a team's ability to create field goals. Turnovers take away the chance to get points. You're going to be playing some good teams in the tournament. If you can't take care of the basketball, you're not going to win your games.
Individually, you want to make sure there is more than one person who can deliver. This is to see if the team is generally good at taking care of the ball, or whether it's more up to one player. If it is up to one player, then there are depth concerns. If your primary ball handler is in foul trouble or hurt, can you continue to succeed? It's very concerning.
Conference:
This might have to be more associated with RPI. I favor teams that play in tougher conference than I do teams that faced weaker competition. Part of that is looking at teams that got into the tournament, the rest has to do with general perception. Are these teams being tested in the regular season? How are the OOC schedules and results? I think I'll look more at RPI in the future. The problem with using RPI, many times, is that I personally might lean on it too much if I use it.
This year, the Pac-12 was weak and the Big Ten was strong. The results, in many ways, confirm this. You really can't rely on purely conference vs conference though. This is how you see a team like Baylor and Missouri losing, while a team like Kansas makes the Final Four. You have to be selective.
Coaching:
Certain coaches do their best work at tournament time. Have you noticed that your bracket has been busted year after year by teams coached by the same coach? Are these teams outplaying their ranking, their talent, their match ups? Why do you think that is?
I respect the work of certain coaches come tournament time. These are coaches like Tom Izzo and Rick Pitino whose teams have devastated my bracket year after year. I think I'm going to have to add someone like Billy Donovan and, perhaps, Shaka Smart to that list. We're not talking teams that necessarily win it all, but rather, teams that make deeper runs than you would expect.
I'll have to take a bigger look at the other side of the card; coaches who lose early compared to their talent.
Other Things I May Have Kept In Mind:
Some other things I might keep in mind are injuries (or absences), experience, and how hot a team is.
Syracuse lost Fab Melo to eligibility issues which deprived a talented team with one of its best players. I still had them going to the Elite Eight, but when you consider a match up Ohio State, who has a big physical player like Jared Sullinger, you had to think the Buckeyes would fair well in that game. Another injury that I consider was the injury concerns with UNC's John Henson. Again, I had them going deep in the tournament, but I had them losing to a tough and physical Kansas team. Ultimately, what hurt them the most was the absence of Kendall Marshall.
Experience is also important. If you have players who have been there before, they are probably going to better handle adverse situations. Furthermore, upperclassmen are more likely to give it their all, knowing that their time is coming up. There's the leadership aspect. I can't specifically mention teams that I picked that may have benefited from this. I know one team (Michigan) who I overrated because of this.
How hot a team is coming into the tournament is very important. If a team isn't playing well coming into the tournament, there's a chance they can get caught along the way, no matter how talented they are. It seems like teams that do well in their conference tourney generally do well in the one and done format of the NCAA tournament. Look at teams like Cincinnati and Louisville to see this. Teams that struggle in their conference tournament (Michigan) are less likely to do well.
Conclusion:
Obviously, I can't claim to have done perfectly. I had a horrible first round, which might be preventing me from winning the $10,000 for winning the tournament challenge. I may have also benefited from having higher ranked teams in the Final Four, but I've done better as the tournament has gone along and that's something. I do think there is some significance to the stats that I pointed to. I'd like to take a deeper look into them and actually develop an actual algorithm.
***
I don't think there's much to add from other sports because the tournament was the big story of the weekend.
