Idea for Formulating Tournament Success

This is more me spitballing to try and come up with a good concept. I'm having trouble thinking in my head, so I thought it would be a good idea to get some of these things down. As I said before, some of the stats I look at most are free throw percentage, rebounding margin, and assist-turnover ratio. It's been hard for me to combine all of the concepts that I'm working with, so it might be better to keep them separate for the time being. What I have been working on mostly is playing with the rebounding margin statistic.

The rebounding margin statistic, to me, is all about the ability to gain extra possessions (from previous post that is linked above): 

If you are outrebounding your opponent, you are either preventing second chance opportunities or you are getting second chances opportunities.

I thought about other statistics which are suggestive of a team's ability to gain more or lose possessions. I added steals and blocks to the rebounding margin and subtracted turnovers. Basically, you have a statistic which measures your ability to take away a possession from the other team or to give away a possession in addition to your rebounding margin. The results of this statistic were pretty interesting (Top 10 teams):

1. Kentucky
2. North Carolina
3. Ohio State
4. St. Mary's
5. Michigan State
6. BYU
7. Kansas
8. New Mexico State
9. Wichita State
10. Connecticut

Kentucky obviously went on to win the tournament and Kansas was the runner up. North Carolina, Ohio State and Michigan State also made deep runs. Most of the other schools like St Mary's, New Mexico State, and Wichita State are mid-major who may not have played a high level of competition and therefore their statistics might have been a bit inflated.

The bottom 10 teams of the statistic is pretty telling as well as most of these teams did not win many games:

68. Mississippi Valley State
67. Colorado State
66. Western Kentucky
65. Long Island University - Brooklyn
64. Michigan
63. Norfolk State
62. Notre Dame
61. UNC-Asheville
60. Iona
59. Ohio

Ohio had two wins in the tournament, one of which came against Michigan. Norfolk State shocked Missouri in one of the 15-2 upsets. Most of the rest of these teams are some of the worst teams in the tournament. Michigan and Notre Dame are big conference teams, and it's clear that this is part of the reason that they lost in the first round.

I guess just looking at these numbers, you can get a pretty decent idea of which teams will be successful, but I'd also look at them head to head. I think the Ohio-Michigan example is a good one because while Ohio is not good in this statistic, they are better than Michigan. This is not the only aspect of the game that I think is important, but I do think that this can be a significant indicator of tournament success.

I'm having trouble gauging how to make the free throw percentage statistic effective. It doesn't matter how well you shoot free throws if you're not getting to the line. As I said before, I've mostly played around with the rebounding statistic, and this is a statistic that I will probably play with next. I think it would have to be more of a power index as far as the teams that are going to be physical. I'd probably look at free throw attempts, but I'd also want to see how it goes along with rebounding margin or at least look at offensive rebounds. This is going to be more tricky as it'll be tougher to find correlation with winning.

I've sort of ignored the assist-turnover statistic because that one to me has more to do with looking at rosters. I haven't really gone through the rosters because I'm not sure how I am going categorize and index depth. May be after I look at a few rosters, I can get an idea of how the average roster looks and work off of that.

There's still a lot of work to be done.

The Dark Underbelly of College Sports

It's always weird to see people's reaction to winning a National Championship. It should be a moment of joy. It should be a celebration. People should be happy. Only good should come out of it. This is just a very utopian view on how a championship should be handled.

In reality, it is much different.

Kentucky won the Men's National Championship last night, and afterwards, there was no question about how their fans would celebrate their championship:

A clue to the bedlam that would occur in Lexington, KY

The end product wasn't just the burning of couches; it was rioting, fires, and even some gun shots. Cars were flipped over. Does that sound like jubilation to you? The police say that this behavior is intolerable:

"We want to send a clear and strong message that individuals who engage in this behavior will be investigated and prosecuted," Lexington Police Chief Ronnie Bastin said. "If you choose to commit criminal acts, don't be surprised when we knock on your door even days after the event and arrest you."

But it doesn't change the fact that this happened. It's hard to say the police weren't complacent when images such as this are on the internet:

In fact, the number one trend on Twitter last night was "#LexingtonPoliceScanner" as many people, myself included, listened to the mayhem that was being reported on the radio. It was disappointing the way these people were acting.

I don't have a problem with people celebrating a championship in the streets. As long as it is controlled and people respect others' property, it's fine. The scene out of Lexington was anything but these things:

This is a city where students live and go to school. While there is reason to be excited, that excitement should not be directed towards the destruction of property. You don't show how much you love your team in that manner. In addition to all the physical damage, you're doing damage to your own personal reputation and the reputation of your school and even your state.

I can't say that police didn't care because they were largely outnumbered, but there could have been more done. There could have been a better plan. When Michigan State was knocked out of the tournament, the students first instinct was to riot and start couch fires. The police had a plan: they watered down the couches. While there was some damage, that was limited by the rallying cry for destruction that the couch fires seem to be. When the police is ordering each other "maintain integrity," it's hard to believe in the commitment of the Lexington Police Department to stop this wave of destruction.

Unfortunately, this has become the status quo in college towns if something goes right or wrong. In an environment of young misguided adults, where alcohol is plentiful, this has become the standard reaction. After Penn State fired Joe Paterno, students rioted. After Alabama won the Football National Championship, a Bama fan teabagged a LSU fan. Also, after Auburn won the 2011 Football Championship, a Bama fan poisoned the famed trees on the Auburn campus. These are just a few acts of destruction in recent years.

It's unacceptable, but it has become the dirty underbelly of college sports culture.

***

On one of the forums that I post on, a Cuse fan made the case that they could have beat Kentucky:

There were only two teams, IMO, that had a real shot at knocking off Kentucky this year: UNC and Syracuse. Syracuse because of their athleticism, depth, ability to run (they could have run with UK), and if it's played to its potential, their 2-3 zone could cause anyone fits. And UNC because of all their NBA talent. 

But losing perhaps each teams' most indispensable players (for SU Fab Melo, BE defensive player of the year, anchors the middle, shot-blocker supreme; and for UNC Kendall Marshall, one of the best point guards in the country...makes that team go) ended all hopes at that. 

UK proved all year long that they were the best team in the country. I am ok with that (I'd rather it have been my alma mater, but oh well).

I guess you can play hypotheticals if you want, but my big problem with all of this is that I believe Syracuse's record and seeding was inflated by the fact that Melo had played as long as he did. Furthermore, Syracuse didn't announce that Melo was ineligible until after the bracket was announced. They probably knew he was ineligible well before then, but decided to wait until the bracket was set in stone to make that announcement. Again, one of the keys here is that Syracuse is the one who ruled him ineligible and not the NCAA. They also hid behind the FERPA so that they didn't have to disclose more.

While I think Boeheim was right to rule him ineligible for the tournament, I'd have also liked to know if he should have been deemed ineligible sooner. I think Syracuse benefited from choosing when to announce that Melo would miss the tournament. If Melo's absence had been announced before the bracket is finalized, I could see Syracuse dropping a seed. They could have easily lost in an earlier round facing a strong 3 or 6 seed in the Sweet Sixteen. It could be said that Syracuse did as well as they did in the tournament because they had an easier route as a 1 seed. Syracuse was hurt in the tournament by Melo's absence, but they could have been hurt sooner had they announced his ineligibility sooner.

On the other hand, UNC may have lost because of an injury and not due to any wrongdoing by a player or coach. That is something that you really can't control, but it is the reality of playing games. I have less of a problem with Carolina fans playing the "what if" game because of this. The bottom line is that you don't crown a champion on paper. As sports followers, we love to play the hypotheticals, but in the end, they really don't matter after the fact. Kentucky is the deserving National Champion as they've shown all season long that they are the best team in the country. They were the number one seed in the tournament going in and they proved that they were the top team in the tournament by winning the whole thing.

***

The Melo story makes me question if the NCAA handles students' academic situations right. From what I've heard, Melo was in poor academic standard through out the season. While he was suspended for three games, it's hard for me to believe that he was actually eligible to play. If Boeheim had his way, I believe Melo would have played in the tournament, but with the Bernie Fine scandal, he could not afford to take another hit to his reputation. I'm surprised that Melo played in the Big East tournament.

It was also reported today that Mo Claiborne, the LSU cornerback entering the NFL draft, scored a 4 on his Wonderlic. The score doesn't stand out as much to me as the question how he managed to stay eligible at LSU. How can you be at a major academic institution and score a 4 on the Wonderlic? It's preposterous and the NCAA should do better to make sure these kids are actually being educated. 

These two stories make it worrisome as to whether the academic aspect of college sports is taken seriously. While the NCAA might talk up its student-athletes' performances in the classroom and beyond, that's just PR. How do you explain things like this? It's hard for me to believe that they actually care about educating these kids.

At the time that I wrote this, I was unaware that Mo Claiborne had a learning disability, which in the case of this test, can make a huge difference. I still have to stay on the NCAA for not putting enough of an effort towards pushing schools to educating student-athletes and keeping them out of trouble and prepared for life. 

***

My bracket finished 34,511 out of just under 7 million entries. That puts me into the top 0.5%, which is very impressive. In the meantime, I've started to play with numbers to try to formulate the thinking that went into those picks. Hopefully, I'll have something to post about in the next few weeks.

Weekend Review Brags About My Bracket

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.