Thursday, March 24, 2011
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
2011 NCAA Tournament: Elite 8, Final 4, & National Championship Predictions & Possible Upsets
Last year, I did a series of posts analyzing the NCAA tournament based on Ken Pomeroy's Efficiency Ratings. I updated those posts with the 2009 info and this is the last part of my analysis for the 2010 NCAA Tournament.Here's the schedule for the analysis I will be doing and links as I post each Part:
Part I: Historical Analysis of Final 4 Teams (Offensive & Defensive Efficiency Ratings)
Part II: Historical Analysis of Top Seeds (1 through 4)
Part III: Historical Analysis of Upsets (5 vs 12 & 6 vs 11)
Part IV: Elite 8, Final 4, & National Championship Predictions & Possible Upsets
In this post, I will give my predictions for the Elite 8, Final 4, and National Championship Game, plus possible upsets.
Possible Upsets:
High Probability: Utah State (12) over Kansas State (5), Richmond (12) over Vanderbilt (5), Marquette (11) over Xavier (6), Missouri (11) over Cincinnati (6), Gonzaga (11) over St. John's (6)
Medium Probability: Belmont (13) over Wisconsin (4), Clemson (12) over West Virginia (5),
Low Probability: Oakland (13) over Texas (4), Memphis (12) over Arizona (5), St. Peter's (14) over Purdue (3)
Elite 8 Predictions:
Efficiency Predictions:
Ohio State (1) vs Syracuse (11)
Duke (2) vs San Diego State (7)
Kansas (3) vs Purdue (8)
Pitt (5) vs BYU (14)
My Predictions:
Ohio State (1) vs Washington (15)
Texas (4) vs UConn (16)
Kansas (3) vs Purdue (8)
Pitt (5) vs BYU (14)
Final 4 Predictions:
Efficiency Predictions:
Ohio State (1) vs Duke (2)
Kansas (3) vs Pitt (5)
National Championship Game: Ohio State (1) vs Kansas (3)
Winner: Ohio State (1)
My Predictions:
Ohio State (1) vs Texas (4)
Kansas (3) vs Pitt (5)
National Championship Game: Kansas (3) vs Ohio State (1)
Winner: Kansas (3)
Comments: I initially thought I was going to pick Ohio State as my winner, but I feel like their defense is just a little bit suspect and that they can be scored on. I also don't like that they aren't very deep and I think if Sullinger gets in foul trouble at all against a good opponent then it could hurt them big time. I do think the winner will be either Kansas or Ohio State though, with Duke being the only other team that could possibly sneak in and win it, especially if Kyrie Irving comes back at full-speed.
More: March Madness
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
2011 NCAA Tournament: Historical Analysis of Upsets (5 vs 12 & 6 vs 11)
The most common first round upsets are the 5 vs 12 and 6 vs 11. The past few years, I broke down these matchups going back to 2003 using Overall Efficiency and other factors, mainly Offensive/Defensive Effective FG%. I updated the post with the 2010 final results and will be adding my analysis of the 2010 matchups once they are announced.
Here's the schedule for the analysis I will be doing and links as I post each Part:
Part I: Historical Analysis of Final 4 Teams (Offensive & Defensive Efficiency Ratings)
Part II: Historical Analysis of Top Seeds (1 through 4)
Part III: Historical Analysis of Upsets (5 vs 12 & 6 vs 11)
Part IV: 2011 NCAA Tournament Game by Game Analysis & Possible Upsets
Part II: Historical Analysis of Top Seeds (1 through 4)
Part III: Historical Analysis of Upsets (5 vs 12 & 6 vs 11)
Part IV: 2011 NCAA Tournament Game by Game Analysis & Possible Upsets
5 vs 12 Matchups: Team(Overall Efficiency Rank)
2010: Michigan State(24) beat New Mexico State(115), Butler (26) beat UTEP (34), Temple (18) lost to Cornell (66), and Texas A&M (23) beat Utah State (20):
Analysis: Only one upset in 2010, with Temple losing to the offensive machine of Cornell. Cornell had won 26 of their last 28 games before beating Wisconsin and ranked 16th in offensive efficiency, including 3rd in effective FG% & 1st in three point shooting. This was a pretty obvious upset candidate.
Butler & Texas A&M were able to survive upset bids by UTEP & Utah State despite the overall efficiency rankings of the teams being pretty close. Normally that's a good sign that an upset could occur, but the 5 seeds came out victorious.
I'm still not sure how New Mexico State got a 12 seed over Murray State.
2009: Utah(25) lost to Arizona(39), Purdue(15) beat Northern Iowa(82), Florida State(35) lost to Wisconsin(30), and Western Kentucky(99) beat Illinois(23)
Analysis: 3 of the 4 #5 seeds lost in 2009 with only a highly ranked Purdue team coming out victorious. Utah was done in by an Arizona squad that was from a major conference and only 14 spots lower than them in Overall Efficiency. Utah was also overseeded at #5 and probably should have been a #7 seed. Wisconsin beating Florida State was almost a given considering they had a better overall efficiency and had the luxury of being from a major conference, which is always a key indicator of upsets in the 5 vs 12 matchups. Western Kentucky was semi-hot coming into this one with a 7 game win streak and they also had NCAA Tournament experience from the previous year, which helped them knock off a decent Illinois team.
2008: Clemson(13) lost to Villanova(43), Michigan State(15) beat Temple(65), Drake(27) lost to Western Kentucky(59), and Notre Dame(28) beat George Mason(94)
Analysis: Two upsets in 2008 with Clemson and Drake both getting knocked off. Clemson is an interesting case considering they were ranked in the top 13 in efficiency overall. They were done in by Villanova who had some of the worst effective FG% in the tournament, but their overall efficiency ratings in both offense(61) and defense(34) were not THAT far off from Clemson's ratings(29, 12). It also helped that Villanova was a veteran squad that played in a big conference, which means they certainly weren't worried if they could match up with Clemson, so they were not your typical 12 seed. Western Kentucky beating Drake was not a surprise, since their effective FG%'s on both offense and defense were better than Drake's.
2007: Butler(25) beat Old Dominion(73), USC(27) beat Arkansas(36), Tennessee(31) beat LB State(136), and Va Tech(39) beat Illinois(33)
Analysis: No upsets in 2007, but a couple of 12 seeds(Arkansas & Illinois) probably shouldn't have been 12 seeds but they both were flawed teams. Illinois was bad on offense and Arkansas had an average offense.
2006: Pitt(12) beat Kent St(75), Washington(13) beat Utah St(72), Nevada(35) lost to Montana(88), Syracuse(51) lost to Texas A&M(25)
Analysis: Only one upset here as Montana knocked off Nevada. Nevada was actually a better team but Montana had a better offense, especially since they were 9 in the country in Effective FG %. That was probably the driving factor in the upset. Also, it is worth nothing that a 5 seed that has an overall efficiency ranking in the Top 15(Pitt & Washington), probably isn't going to lose to a 12 seed.
2005: Villanova(5) beat New Mexico(36), Michigan St(7) beat Old Dominion(72), Alabama(17) lost to Wisc-Milw.(42), and Georgia Tech(21) beat George Washington(46)
Analysis: Two of the 5 seeds(Villanova and Mich St) were Top 10 teams in the country so they were badly underseeded. Both of them ended up losing to eventual champion North Carolina so that is nothing to be ashamed of. The one upset was Wisc.-Milw. beating Alabama. Alabama was a solid team overall that year and the numbers don't really explain why they lost, except that Wisc-Milw. was pretty good at holding opponents to a low effective FG%. So I figured there must be something else going on here and I saw that they had a 9 game winning streak coming into the matchup so they were a hot team.
2004: Illinois(11) beat Murray St(71), Providence(23) lost to Pacific(77), Syracuse(25) beat BYU(39), Florida(26) lost to Manhattan(57)
Analysis: Illinois was ranked too high to lose to a 12 seed, but there were 2 upsets this year. Providence fell victim to Pacific who was riding a 15 game win streak coming into this game. Pacific was also better in both offensive and defensive FG %. Manhattan knocked off Florida mainly because Florida had just an average defensive FG % and Manhattan was pretty good in that area. They also had won 19 of their last 21 games.
2003: Wisconsin(11) beat Weber State(85), Mississippi State(12) lost to Butler(45), UConn(21) beat BYU(24), Notre Dame(32) beat Wisconsin Milwaukee(58)
Analysis: Only one upset in 2003 with Miss. State getting knocked off by a Butler team with a great offense. They were 16th overall in offensive efficiency; fueled by top ten rankings in offensive effective FG%, ball protection, & three-point shooting. Meanwhile, Mississippi State was more of a defensive minded team, who turned the ball over a lot and didn't shoot the three well. Definitely ripe for an upset.
This Years 5 vs 12 Matchups:
West Virginia (21) vs Clemson (24)/UAB (56):
West Virginia(21) is extremely strong on the offensive boards (6th) and defending the three (4th). They don't shoot well from anywhere on the floor really, which is what scares me the most about them. In the past, they had DeSean Butler to hit big shots for them, but this year they don't really have a shot maker. The offensive rebounding is certainly the key for them because it keeps them in every game even when they aren't making shots.
Clemson(24) is a similar team to WVU in the sense that they do not shoot the ball exceptionally well, but have a solid defense. They do force more turnovers than WVU and guard against 2-Point shots better. They also are worse on the offensive boards, which is why WVU has a better offensive efficiency rating (31 vs 77 for Clemson.)
UAB(56) at least on paper looks like they would be a much easier game for WVU. Unlike UAB teams of the past, this version doesn't force turnovers at all and also can't shoot the three. I think WVU would just be too big and physical for them. UAB also doesn't really have any wins over opponents the quality of WVU. The best team they beat was UTEP(65) and the best team they played was Georgia(57), who they lost to. I'm not even sure how they are in the tournament. Clearly Virgina Tech should have been in over them. Of course this means they will probably beat both Clemson and WVU now.
If WVU draws Clemson, then my guess is that they would be victorious. While both teams struggle offensively, I think WVU would be able to score points off offensive rebounds, which is pretty much their normal offense anyway. I would compare Clemson to Louisville, except with a less efficient offense, and WVU fared well against Louisville this year.
I expect UAB to lose to Clemson and if they do make it past Clemson, then I would roll with WVU in that match-up. I think Clemson has a better shot at the upset, but I favor WVU in both. Clemson profiles historically as a team who has a better chance to pull the upset, since they are from a major conference and have an efficiency rank close to WVU.
Arizona (25) vs Memphis (85):
Arizona(25) has a top flight offense ranking highly in offensive efficiency(14), effective FG%(8), & 3-Point shooting(10). I do love their versatility on offense. Their defense(67) is not great overall, but they are outstanding at defending the three, where they rank 2nd overall. Their biggest weaknesses are forcing turnovers(256) and defending two-pointers(280). Memphis(85) happens to turn the ball over a ton(2670 and they probably will continue to do so whether forcing turnovers is Arizona's strength or not. However, Memphis is one of the better teams at shooting from 2-Point range(49) and pounding the ball inside is probably their only chance for the upset here. I think Arizona has too much firepower though and will be victorious.
Vanderbilt (32) vs Richmond (46):
Vanderbilt(32) has a solid offense(15) and defends the three well(19). They are, however, one of the worst teams at forcing turnovers(302). Meanwhile, Richmond is excellent at protecting the basketball(16) and shoots a high percentage from three(11), so they should be able to get the maximum amount of possessions against Vandy. Richmond also defends both the three(12) and two-point shot(41) extremely well and has the height to matchup with Vanderbilt. They've also won 11 of their last 12 games. I see a potential upset here and at the very least this should be a close game.
Kansas State (29) vs Utah State (16):
Utah State(16) always ranks highly in efficiency, but can't seem to get out of the first round when they are matched-up with teams from the power conferences. I think they may be able to breakthrough this year though. The first indicator is that they have won 25 of their last 26 games. The second is that they play at a slow pace, 302nd overall, while K-State like to play at a much faster pace(97th overall.) These are both key indicators in predicting upsets. Utah State is also exceptional in the following areas: Defensive Efficiency(6), Defensive Effective FG%(6), Defensive Rebounding(2), & Offensive Effective FG%(44).
Kansas State(29) is an exceptional offensive rebounding team(4) and they might struggle to score against Utah State in a slow paced game, since Utah State is so good on the defensive boards. They also turn the ball over a ton ranking 265th in that area. Utah State doesn't force turnovers, but they might get a few more than usual against K-State. I think Utah State can pull off the upset, but their history against power conference teams gives me at least some hesitation.
6 vs 11 Matchups: Team(Overall Efficiency Rank)
2010: Tennessee (35) beat San Diego State (40), Xavier (22) beat Minnesota (25), Marquette (28) lost Washington (29), and Notre Dame (38) lost to Old Dominion (33)
Analysis: Poor seeding here as San Diego State should have been a 10 seed, Minnesota should have been an 7 seed, Washington should have been an 8 seed, and Old Dominion should have been a 9 seed. It's no surprise that we saw two 6 seeds lose to 11 seeds and Tennessee barely beat San Diego State. ND should have been a 10 seed themselves and ODU actually had a better efficiency rating. ND was also pretty poor on defense rating only 132nd in defensive efficiency. Marquette lost on a buzzer-beater to a Washington team that was pretty much their equal. If we see seeding like this again this year you can pretty much bet on at least two of the 11 seeds coming out victorious.
2009: West Virginia(8) lost to Dayton(83), Marquette(20) beat Utah State(56), UCLA(9) beat VCU(55), and Arizona State(12) beat Temple(47)
Analysis: West Virginia(8) was the rare case of a team that was underseeded(they graded out as #2 seed) that was upset in the 1st round. Usually these types of teams are the types to pull off the upsets in the later rounds. A closer look at West Virginia and Dayton shows that even though these two teams were so far part in overall efficiency, they were also pretty similar in most categories. They both were poor shooting teams, who rebounded well, and had solid defense. In the end, that proved to be enough for Dayton to pull off the upset. The other three #6 seeds were underseeded as well, but still struggled against their tough opponents, especially UCLA and Marquette, who squeaked out one-point victories. I suspect these 6 vs 11 games will be toss ups again this year.
2008: Marquette(11) beat Kentucky(55), USC(26) lost to Kansas State(17), Purdue(23) beat Baylor(42), and Oklahoma(46) beat St. Joe's(54)
Analysis: USC lost to Kansas State, but considering that K-State ranked better than USC in efficiency, this is just a case of poor seeding. Anytime the lower seeded team is ranked higher than the top seed in a matchup like this, it would be a good bet to pick the upset. On the flip side, Marquette was also badly underseeded as a 6 seed, so no surprise they were able to get past Kentucky.
2007: Duke(11) lost to VCU(66), Louisville(12) beat Stanford(53), Notre Dame(20) lost to Winthrop(69), and Vanderbilt(35) beat George Washington(92)
Analysis: Two big upsets here with Duke and ND going down. The Duke upset was surprising, because they graded out well overall at 11, but they had lost three straight games coming into the tournament and they were a very slow paced team that year, so they may not have been as athletic as a normal Duke team. The Winthrop upset was not as surprising, they were 24 in offensive FG% and had won 18 straight games before upsetting ND and making it 19 straight.
2006: West Virginia(16) beat Southern Illinois(47), Michigan State(33) lost to George Mason(23), Indiana(46) beat San Diego St(56), and Oklahoma(50) lost to Wisc-Milw.(63)
Analysis: George Mason at 23 was actually a better team then Michigan St so it's no surprise they won the game. Oklahoma was probably seeded to high with an overall rank of 50, they probably should have been a 10 or 11 seed themselves. They were basically equal with Wisc-Milw. but Wisc Milw. was a fast paced team while Oklahoma was one of the slowest paced teams, so WM was able to quicken up the pace of the game to beat Oklahoma.
2005: Wisconsin(16) beat Northern Iowa(54), Utah(22) beat UTEP(66), Texas Tech(30) beat UCLA(69), and LSU(38) lost to UAB(51)
Analysis: Only one upset here as LSU lost to UAB. LSU was a slow paced team that was bad on defense and it showed as they gave up 82 points to UAB, who was one of the fastest paced teams that season. So it's no surprise they ran all over LSU.
2004: Wisconsin(5) beat Richmond(40), North Carolina(10) beat Air Force(47), Vanderbilt(24) beat Western Michigan(48) and Boston College(31) beat Utah(41)
Analysis: No upsets here since all four of the 6 seeds were solid teams who were in the top 30 in defensive efficiency.
2003: Maryland(6) beat UNC Wilmington(34), Missouri(26) beat Southern Illinois(67), Oklahoma State(29) beat Penn(NR) and Creighton(30) lost to Central Michigan(72)
Analysis: Central Michigan was the only 11 seed able to pull off an upset in 2003. They had won 11 of 12 coming into the tournament and were 2nd overall in the nation in offensive effective FG%. They were also 27nd in three-point shooting. Creighton was also from a mid-major conference and those types of teams seem to fair worse when they are the higher seeded team.
This years 6 vs 11 Matchups:
Xavier (37) vs Marquette (33):
Xavier(37) always seems to perform well in the tournament as of late, but they have a difficult draw in Marquette(33). Marquette is a solid offensive team(20), who does everything well offensively, but struggles on defense. Marquette is underseeded and rates as more of an 8/9 seed, however, they always seem to find a way to lose close games and Xavier has been hot winning 16 of their last 18. I could go either way on this one, but my gut tells me Xavier will be able to take advantage of Marquette's soft D and outscore them.
Cincinnati (23) vs Missouri (34):
Cincinnati(23) is a team I kind of like and I kind of don't. They don't shoot the three that well(193), but they are an awesome offensive rebounding team(10) and rank 15th overall in defensive efficiency. Missouri is a little more balanced on offense than Cincinnati is, but I think Cincinnati has the advantage defensively. Almost all of Missouri's value on defense comes their ability to force turnovers(9), but Cincinnati is actually pretty strong in ball protection(69). I think Cincinnati's size and strength inside will be the difference in this one.
Georgetown (31) vs USC (44)/VCU (84):
Georgetown(31) was one of the better teams in the Big East having won 9 of 10 games before Chris Wright got injured. They hit the two-point shot exceptionally well checking in at 5th in the nation, which fuels their 11th overall rating in offensive effective FG%. Their weaknesses are turning the ball over and forcing turnovers and they also aren't the strongest rebounding team.
USC(44) is just an average team pretty much across the board. Their strength is defensive rebounding(19), but they are a horrible offensive rebounding team(234) and they don't force turnovers(293). They are also in the middle of the pack when it comes to defending the paint. I like Georgetown to beat them if USC advances.
VCU(84) is one of the best teams in the country at forcing turnovers(48), but they are also a horrible rebounding team both offensively and defensively. They do shoot the 3 at a decent clip though. I think they can beat USC, but I don't think they do enough things well to exploit all of Georgetown's weaknesses.
St. John's (35) vs Gonzaga (27):
St. John's(35) is really going to miss D.J. Kennedy. He was their leader in steals and rebounds and was one of their better shooters and their second most efficient offensive player. St. John's is excellent at forcing turnovers(13), but their defense is a little shaky if they aren't able to turn other teams over. They are one of the worst teams defending the three and they don't defensive rebound well.
Gonzaga(27) struggled earlier in the year, but they have won 11 of their last 12 games. Their weaknesses are ball protection and defending the three. St. John's may give them fits pressuring the ball, but I think Gonzaga is going to hurt them on the boards since that is one of Gonzaga's strengths. If Gonzaga can limit their turnovers I think they could actually have a chance to blow out St. John's. I like the upset possibilities in this one.
More: March Madness
2010: Michigan State(24) beat New Mexico State(115), Butler (26) beat UTEP (34), Temple (18) lost to Cornell (66), and Texas A&M (23) beat Utah State (20):
Analysis: Only one upset in 2010, with Temple losing to the offensive machine of Cornell. Cornell had won 26 of their last 28 games before beating Wisconsin and ranked 16th in offensive efficiency, including 3rd in effective FG% & 1st in three point shooting. This was a pretty obvious upset candidate.
Butler & Texas A&M were able to survive upset bids by UTEP & Utah State despite the overall efficiency rankings of the teams being pretty close. Normally that's a good sign that an upset could occur, but the 5 seeds came out victorious.
I'm still not sure how New Mexico State got a 12 seed over Murray State.
2009: Utah(25) lost to Arizona(39), Purdue(15) beat Northern Iowa(82), Florida State(35) lost to Wisconsin(30), and Western Kentucky(99) beat Illinois(23)
Analysis: 3 of the 4 #5 seeds lost in 2009 with only a highly ranked Purdue team coming out victorious. Utah was done in by an Arizona squad that was from a major conference and only 14 spots lower than them in Overall Efficiency. Utah was also overseeded at #5 and probably should have been a #7 seed. Wisconsin beating Florida State was almost a given considering they had a better overall efficiency and had the luxury of being from a major conference, which is always a key indicator of upsets in the 5 vs 12 matchups. Western Kentucky was semi-hot coming into this one with a 7 game win streak and they also had NCAA Tournament experience from the previous year, which helped them knock off a decent Illinois team.
2008: Clemson(13) lost to Villanova(43), Michigan State(15) beat Temple(65), Drake(27) lost to Western Kentucky(59), and Notre Dame(28) beat George Mason(94)
Analysis: Two upsets in 2008 with Clemson and Drake both getting knocked off. Clemson is an interesting case considering they were ranked in the top 13 in efficiency overall. They were done in by Villanova who had some of the worst effective FG% in the tournament, but their overall efficiency ratings in both offense(61) and defense(34) were not THAT far off from Clemson's ratings(29, 12). It also helped that Villanova was a veteran squad that played in a big conference, which means they certainly weren't worried if they could match up with Clemson, so they were not your typical 12 seed. Western Kentucky beating Drake was not a surprise, since their effective FG%'s on both offense and defense were better than Drake's.
2007: Butler(25) beat Old Dominion(73), USC(27) beat Arkansas(36), Tennessee(31) beat LB State(136), and Va Tech(39) beat Illinois(33)
Analysis: No upsets in 2007, but a couple of 12 seeds(Arkansas & Illinois) probably shouldn't have been 12 seeds but they both were flawed teams. Illinois was bad on offense and Arkansas had an average offense.
2006: Pitt(12) beat Kent St(75), Washington(13) beat Utah St(72), Nevada(35) lost to Montana(88), Syracuse(51) lost to Texas A&M(25)
Analysis: Only one upset here as Montana knocked off Nevada. Nevada was actually a better team but Montana had a better offense, especially since they were 9 in the country in Effective FG %. That was probably the driving factor in the upset. Also, it is worth nothing that a 5 seed that has an overall efficiency ranking in the Top 15(Pitt & Washington), probably isn't going to lose to a 12 seed.
2005: Villanova(5) beat New Mexico(36), Michigan St(7) beat Old Dominion(72), Alabama(17) lost to Wisc-Milw.(42), and Georgia Tech(21) beat George Washington(46)
Analysis: Two of the 5 seeds(Villanova and Mich St) were Top 10 teams in the country so they were badly underseeded. Both of them ended up losing to eventual champion North Carolina so that is nothing to be ashamed of. The one upset was Wisc.-Milw. beating Alabama. Alabama was a solid team overall that year and the numbers don't really explain why they lost, except that Wisc-Milw. was pretty good at holding opponents to a low effective FG%. So I figured there must be something else going on here and I saw that they had a 9 game winning streak coming into the matchup so they were a hot team.
2004: Illinois(11) beat Murray St(71), Providence(23) lost to Pacific(77), Syracuse(25) beat BYU(39), Florida(26) lost to Manhattan(57)
Analysis: Illinois was ranked too high to lose to a 12 seed, but there were 2 upsets this year. Providence fell victim to Pacific who was riding a 15 game win streak coming into this game. Pacific was also better in both offensive and defensive FG %. Manhattan knocked off Florida mainly because Florida had just an average defensive FG % and Manhattan was pretty good in that area. They also had won 19 of their last 21 games.
2003: Wisconsin(11) beat Weber State(85), Mississippi State(12) lost to Butler(45), UConn(21) beat BYU(24), Notre Dame(32) beat Wisconsin Milwaukee(58)
Analysis: Only one upset in 2003 with Miss. State getting knocked off by a Butler team with a great offense. They were 16th overall in offensive efficiency; fueled by top ten rankings in offensive effective FG%, ball protection, & three-point shooting. Meanwhile, Mississippi State was more of a defensive minded team, who turned the ball over a lot and didn't shoot the three well. Definitely ripe for an upset.
This Years 5 vs 12 Matchups:
West Virginia (21) vs Clemson (24)/UAB (56):
West Virginia(21) is extremely strong on the offensive boards (6th) and defending the three (4th). They don't shoot well from anywhere on the floor really, which is what scares me the most about them. In the past, they had DeSean Butler to hit big shots for them, but this year they don't really have a shot maker. The offensive rebounding is certainly the key for them because it keeps them in every game even when they aren't making shots.
Clemson(24) is a similar team to WVU in the sense that they do not shoot the ball exceptionally well, but have a solid defense. They do force more turnovers than WVU and guard against 2-Point shots better. They also are worse on the offensive boards, which is why WVU has a better offensive efficiency rating (31 vs 77 for Clemson.)
UAB(56) at least on paper looks like they would be a much easier game for WVU. Unlike UAB teams of the past, this version doesn't force turnovers at all and also can't shoot the three. I think WVU would just be too big and physical for them. UAB also doesn't really have any wins over opponents the quality of WVU. The best team they beat was UTEP(65) and the best team they played was Georgia(57), who they lost to. I'm not even sure how they are in the tournament. Clearly Virgina Tech should have been in over them. Of course this means they will probably beat both Clemson and WVU now.
If WVU draws Clemson, then my guess is that they would be victorious. While both teams struggle offensively, I think WVU would be able to score points off offensive rebounds, which is pretty much their normal offense anyway. I would compare Clemson to Louisville, except with a less efficient offense, and WVU fared well against Louisville this year.
I expect UAB to lose to Clemson and if they do make it past Clemson, then I would roll with WVU in that match-up. I think Clemson has a better shot at the upset, but I favor WVU in both. Clemson profiles historically as a team who has a better chance to pull the upset, since they are from a major conference and have an efficiency rank close to WVU.
Arizona (25) vs Memphis (85):
Arizona(25) has a top flight offense ranking highly in offensive efficiency(14), effective FG%(8), & 3-Point shooting(10). I do love their versatility on offense. Their defense(67) is not great overall, but they are outstanding at defending the three, where they rank 2nd overall. Their biggest weaknesses are forcing turnovers(256) and defending two-pointers(280). Memphis(85) happens to turn the ball over a ton(2670 and they probably will continue to do so whether forcing turnovers is Arizona's strength or not. However, Memphis is one of the better teams at shooting from 2-Point range(49) and pounding the ball inside is probably their only chance for the upset here. I think Arizona has too much firepower though and will be victorious.
Vanderbilt (32) vs Richmond (46):
Vanderbilt(32) has a solid offense(15) and defends the three well(19). They are, however, one of the worst teams at forcing turnovers(302). Meanwhile, Richmond is excellent at protecting the basketball(16) and shoots a high percentage from three(11), so they should be able to get the maximum amount of possessions against Vandy. Richmond also defends both the three(12) and two-point shot(41) extremely well and has the height to matchup with Vanderbilt. They've also won 11 of their last 12 games. I see a potential upset here and at the very least this should be a close game.
Kansas State (29) vs Utah State (16):
Utah State(16) always ranks highly in efficiency, but can't seem to get out of the first round when they are matched-up with teams from the power conferences. I think they may be able to breakthrough this year though. The first indicator is that they have won 25 of their last 26 games. The second is that they play at a slow pace, 302nd overall, while K-State like to play at a much faster pace(97th overall.) These are both key indicators in predicting upsets. Utah State is also exceptional in the following areas: Defensive Efficiency(6), Defensive Effective FG%(6), Defensive Rebounding(2), & Offensive Effective FG%(44).
Kansas State(29) is an exceptional offensive rebounding team(4) and they might struggle to score against Utah State in a slow paced game, since Utah State is so good on the defensive boards. They also turn the ball over a ton ranking 265th in that area. Utah State doesn't force turnovers, but they might get a few more than usual against K-State. I think Utah State can pull off the upset, but their history against power conference teams gives me at least some hesitation.
6 vs 11 Matchups: Team(Overall Efficiency Rank)
2010: Tennessee (35) beat San Diego State (40), Xavier (22) beat Minnesota (25), Marquette (28) lost Washington (29), and Notre Dame (38) lost to Old Dominion (33)
Analysis: Poor seeding here as San Diego State should have been a 10 seed, Minnesota should have been an 7 seed, Washington should have been an 8 seed, and Old Dominion should have been a 9 seed. It's no surprise that we saw two 6 seeds lose to 11 seeds and Tennessee barely beat San Diego State. ND should have been a 10 seed themselves and ODU actually had a better efficiency rating. ND was also pretty poor on defense rating only 132nd in defensive efficiency. Marquette lost on a buzzer-beater to a Washington team that was pretty much their equal. If we see seeding like this again this year you can pretty much bet on at least two of the 11 seeds coming out victorious.
2009: West Virginia(8) lost to Dayton(83), Marquette(20) beat Utah State(56), UCLA(9) beat VCU(55), and Arizona State(12) beat Temple(47)
Analysis: West Virginia(8) was the rare case of a team that was underseeded(they graded out as #2 seed) that was upset in the 1st round. Usually these types of teams are the types to pull off the upsets in the later rounds. A closer look at West Virginia and Dayton shows that even though these two teams were so far part in overall efficiency, they were also pretty similar in most categories. They both were poor shooting teams, who rebounded well, and had solid defense. In the end, that proved to be enough for Dayton to pull off the upset. The other three #6 seeds were underseeded as well, but still struggled against their tough opponents, especially UCLA and Marquette, who squeaked out one-point victories. I suspect these 6 vs 11 games will be toss ups again this year.
2008: Marquette(11) beat Kentucky(55), USC(26) lost to Kansas State(17), Purdue(23) beat Baylor(42), and Oklahoma(46) beat St. Joe's(54)
Analysis: USC lost to Kansas State, but considering that K-State ranked better than USC in efficiency, this is just a case of poor seeding. Anytime the lower seeded team is ranked higher than the top seed in a matchup like this, it would be a good bet to pick the upset. On the flip side, Marquette was also badly underseeded as a 6 seed, so no surprise they were able to get past Kentucky.
2007: Duke(11) lost to VCU(66), Louisville(12) beat Stanford(53), Notre Dame(20) lost to Winthrop(69), and Vanderbilt(35) beat George Washington(92)
Analysis: Two big upsets here with Duke and ND going down. The Duke upset was surprising, because they graded out well overall at 11, but they had lost three straight games coming into the tournament and they were a very slow paced team that year, so they may not have been as athletic as a normal Duke team. The Winthrop upset was not as surprising, they were 24 in offensive FG% and had won 18 straight games before upsetting ND and making it 19 straight.
2006: West Virginia(16) beat Southern Illinois(47), Michigan State(33) lost to George Mason(23), Indiana(46) beat San Diego St(56), and Oklahoma(50) lost to Wisc-Milw.(63)
Analysis: George Mason at 23 was actually a better team then Michigan St so it's no surprise they won the game. Oklahoma was probably seeded to high with an overall rank of 50, they probably should have been a 10 or 11 seed themselves. They were basically equal with Wisc-Milw. but Wisc Milw. was a fast paced team while Oklahoma was one of the slowest paced teams, so WM was able to quicken up the pace of the game to beat Oklahoma.
2005: Wisconsin(16) beat Northern Iowa(54), Utah(22) beat UTEP(66), Texas Tech(30) beat UCLA(69), and LSU(38) lost to UAB(51)
Analysis: Only one upset here as LSU lost to UAB. LSU was a slow paced team that was bad on defense and it showed as they gave up 82 points to UAB, who was one of the fastest paced teams that season. So it's no surprise they ran all over LSU.
2004: Wisconsin(5) beat Richmond(40), North Carolina(10) beat Air Force(47), Vanderbilt(24) beat Western Michigan(48) and Boston College(31) beat Utah(41)
Analysis: No upsets here since all four of the 6 seeds were solid teams who were in the top 30 in defensive efficiency.
2003: Maryland(6) beat UNC Wilmington(34), Missouri(26) beat Southern Illinois(67), Oklahoma State(29) beat Penn(NR) and Creighton(30) lost to Central Michigan(72)
Analysis: Central Michigan was the only 11 seed able to pull off an upset in 2003. They had won 11 of 12 coming into the tournament and were 2nd overall in the nation in offensive effective FG%. They were also 27nd in three-point shooting. Creighton was also from a mid-major conference and those types of teams seem to fair worse when they are the higher seeded team.
This years 6 vs 11 Matchups:
Xavier (37) vs Marquette (33):
Xavier(37) always seems to perform well in the tournament as of late, but they have a difficult draw in Marquette(33). Marquette is a solid offensive team(20), who does everything well offensively, but struggles on defense. Marquette is underseeded and rates as more of an 8/9 seed, however, they always seem to find a way to lose close games and Xavier has been hot winning 16 of their last 18. I could go either way on this one, but my gut tells me Xavier will be able to take advantage of Marquette's soft D and outscore them.
Cincinnati (23) vs Missouri (34):
Cincinnati(23) is a team I kind of like and I kind of don't. They don't shoot the three that well(193), but they are an awesome offensive rebounding team(10) and rank 15th overall in defensive efficiency. Missouri is a little more balanced on offense than Cincinnati is, but I think Cincinnati has the advantage defensively. Almost all of Missouri's value on defense comes their ability to force turnovers(9), but Cincinnati is actually pretty strong in ball protection(69). I think Cincinnati's size and strength inside will be the difference in this one.
Georgetown (31) vs USC (44)/VCU (84):
Georgetown(31) was one of the better teams in the Big East having won 9 of 10 games before Chris Wright got injured. They hit the two-point shot exceptionally well checking in at 5th in the nation, which fuels their 11th overall rating in offensive effective FG%. Their weaknesses are turning the ball over and forcing turnovers and they also aren't the strongest rebounding team.
USC(44) is just an average team pretty much across the board. Their strength is defensive rebounding(19), but they are a horrible offensive rebounding team(234) and they don't force turnovers(293). They are also in the middle of the pack when it comes to defending the paint. I like Georgetown to beat them if USC advances.
VCU(84) is one of the best teams in the country at forcing turnovers(48), but they are also a horrible rebounding team both offensively and defensively. They do shoot the 3 at a decent clip though. I think they can beat USC, but I don't think they do enough things well to exploit all of Georgetown's weaknesses.
St. John's (35) vs Gonzaga (27):
St. John's(35) is really going to miss D.J. Kennedy. He was their leader in steals and rebounds and was one of their better shooters and their second most efficient offensive player. St. John's is excellent at forcing turnovers(13), but their defense is a little shaky if they aren't able to turn other teams over. They are one of the worst teams defending the three and they don't defensive rebound well.
Gonzaga(27) struggled earlier in the year, but they have won 11 of their last 12 games. Their weaknesses are ball protection and defending the three. St. John's may give them fits pressuring the ball, but I think Gonzaga is going to hurt them on the boards since that is one of Gonzaga's strengths. If Gonzaga can limit their turnovers I think they could actually have a chance to blow out St. John's. I like the upset possibilities in this one.
More: March Madness
2011 NCAA Tournament: Historical Analysis of Top Seeds (1 through 4)
Once again, I will be writing a series of posts analyzing the NCAA tournament based on Ken Pomeroy's Efficiency Ratings. I am going to be updating the historical posts with the 2010 NCAA Tournament data and also analyzing the 2011 NCAA Tournament.Here's the schedule for the analysis I will be doing and links as I post each Part:
Part I: Historical Analysis of Final 4 Teams (Offensive & Defensive Efficiency Ratings)
Part II: Historical Analysis of Top Seeds (1 through 4)
Part III: Historical Analysis of Upsets (5 vs 12 & 6 vs 11)
Part IV: 2010 NCAA Tournament Game by Game Analysis & Possible Upsets
In this post, I am going to do a Historical Analysis of the tops seeds by year and what the Overall Efficiency Ranking is of the teams they lose to. Overall Efficiency rankings are in parenthesis after the team name. I will be adding my analysis once the top seeds are announced for this year's tournament.
Part II: Historical Analysis of Top Seeds (1 through 4)
2010:
1 Seeds: Duke(1) won championship, Kansas(2) lost to Northern Iowa(32), Kentucky(6) lost to West Virginia(8), and Syracuse(5) lost to Butler(26)
Analysis: 2010 was a bad year for the # 1 seeds. Duke did win it all, but they were the only # 1 seed to make the Final 4 and Kentucky was the only other # 1 to make the Elite 8.
Syracuse bowed out to national runner-up Butler in the Sweet 16 and you can cut them some slack since they were without Arinze Onuaku and may not have been a true # 1 seed without him. There is no excuse really though for Kansas losing to Northern Iowa. Not that Northern Iowa was a bad team, but Kansas was pretty clearly one of the top 2 teams in the country last season and should have found a way to win the game. I personally blame their coach.
It also should be noted that Northern Iowa (343), Butler (292), and West Virginia (314) were three of the slowest paced teams in the country last year. They were able to slow down the pace against three teams that all were in the top 100 in tempo. Less possessions means less chances for the better team to pull away and prove they really are better. A slow tempo opponent is definitely something to consider when looking for potential upsets of higher seeds.
2 Seeds: Ohio State(4) lost to Tennessee(35), West Virginia(8) lost to Duke(1), Kansas State(9) lost to Butler(26) and Villanova(15) lost to St. Mary's(43)
Analysis: The success of # 2 seeds in 2010 was 50/50. WVU obviously was successful gaining a Final 4 berth.
Ohio State had a golden opportunity to make the Final 4 with Kansas being upset, but were upset themselves by Tennessee in the Sweet 16. Tennessee was a solid team, but Ohio State was a better all around team and should have beaten them.
Kansas State was a fast paced team (42nd overall), who fell victim to slow-paced Butler, but still managed to make the Elite 8, which is a solid showing.
Finally, Villanova lost to St. Mary's in the second round and became the latest 2-seed to be victimized by the winner of the 7-10 game. I had mentioned last year that Villanova could be in trouble in their second round match-up because they were slightly overseeded and probably should have been a #4 seed.
3 Seeds: Georgetown(11) lost to Ohio(100), Baylor(12) lost to Duke(1), Pitt(30) lost to Xavier(22), and New Mexico(47) lost to Washington(29)
Analysis: In 2010, the # 3 seeds were pretty horrible, except for Baylor, who made it all the way to the Elite 8 before losing to eventual National Champ Duke.
Georgetown was probably the most disappointing #3 seed; as they gave up 97 points in their loss to Ohio. Georgetown's D was actually in the lower half of the Big East, so maybe it's something we should have seen coming.
Pitt and New Mexico were badly over-seeded. They profiled as an 8 and a 12 seed respectfully and both got knocked out in the second round by teams that had higher efficiency ratings than them. It's really no surprise that they lost, since over-seeded teams are always prone to be upset at some point. Last year I said I would be shocked if either Pitt or New Mexico made it to the Sweet 16. Looks like I was correct on that one.
4 Seeds: Wisconsin(3) lost to Cornell(66), Maryland(10) lost to Michigan State(24), Purdue(13) lost to Duke(1), and Vanderbilt(36) lost to Murray State(57)
Analysis: Again we don't see the best results from the top seeds in the 2010 NCAA Tournament. Purdue was the only #4 seed to make it to the Sweet 16 where they lost to Duke. They were able to advance that far despite not having Robbie Hummel, so this was definitely a solid showing from them.
Maryland was a sleeper for me going into the tournament, but was knocked out in the 2nd Round by eventual Final 4 representative Michigan State. Really no shame in that for Maryland as they only lost by 2 points.
Wisconsin always seem to have a favorable overall efficiency rating, but never seems to advance as far as you think they would. They were under-seeded based on their overall efficiency, which may have hurt them because they ran into a great offensive team in Cornell. Cornell had won 26 of their last 28 games before beating Wisconsin and ranked 16th in offensive efficiency, including 3rd in effective FG% & 1st in three point shooting. Definitely a team you don't want to run into in the tournament.
Vanderbilt, on the other hand, was over-seeded and profiled as more of a 9 seed. They lost to another team that had be on a roll before the tournament in Murray State, who entered with a 30-4 record and had 21 of their last 22 games. They also were one of the best teams in the nation in offensive effective FG% (9th), offensive rebounding (11th), defensive effective FG% (10th), & forcing turnovers (16th). I actually predicted they would upset Vanderbilt.
2009:
1 Seeds: North Carolina(2) won championship, UConn(3) lost to Michigan State(13), Louisville(4) lost to Michigan State(13), and Pitt(6) lost to Villanova(19)
Analysis: In 2009, only 2 of the 4 number 1 seeds made the Final 4. However, all of them made the Elite 8 and didn't lose to bad teams once they got there. Losing to Villanova and Michigan State is nothing to be ashamed of. This is the second year in a row that the # 1 seeds performed admirably in the tournament.
2 Seeds: Memphis(1) lost to Missouri(10), Duke(7) lost to Villanova(19), Michigan State(13) lost to UNC(2) and Oklahoma(17) lost to UNC(2)
Analysis: Again nothing to be ashamed of here for the 2 seeds. Michigan State and Oklahoma lost to the eventual National Champs and Duke & Memphis lost to a pair of #3 seeds who were both ranked in the Top 20. Plus, all of them avoided getting knocked off in the second round vs. the 7/10 winner.
3 Seeds: Missouri(10) lost to UConn(3), Kansas(11) lost to Michigan State(13), Syracuse(15) lost to Oklahoma(19), and Villanova(19) lost to UNC(2)
Analysis: All 4 of the 3 seeds made the Sweet 16 with 2 of them making the Elite 8 and one even advancing to the Final 4. That's a solid showing for them, since usually at least one #3 seed gets knocked off by a #6 seed in the second round. It's also pretty rare to see a #3 seed in the Final 4.
4 Seeds: Gonzaga(5) lost to UNC(2), Washington(16) lost to Purdue(14), Wake Forest(21) lost to Cleveland State(68), and Xavier(24) lost to Pitt(6)
Analysis: Finally an upset from the top 4 seeds in the 2009 NCAA Tournament. Wake Forest(21) lost to a Cleveland State(68) team that probably should have been an #11 or #12 seed instead of a #13. They were coming off a Horizon League Tourney Championship and had won 12 of their last 14 games. Wake Forest on the other-hand had serious turnover(214th overall) and 3-Point shooting(264th overall) issues. The other 4 seeds did well with 2 of them making the Sweet 16(Gonzaga & Xavier) and Washington losing to a higher rated Purdue team.
2008:
1 Seeds: Kansas(1) won championship, Memphis(2) lost to Kansas(1), UCLA(3) lost to Memphis(2), and UNC(4) lost to Kansas(1)
Analysis: In 2008, the best four teams in efficiency were also the 4 number 1 seeds, which meant the committee did a good job in seeding them. Not only did these 4 teams all make the Final 4, but once they got there, the higher rated team in efficiency won each time. You won't see the top 4 teams in efficiency all making it this year, because over the past 5 seasons, these 4 teams had some of the best efficiency ratings and in other years they probably all could have won the title. Chances are the top 4 teams this year will not be as strong as these teams were.
2 Seeds: Georgetown(7) lost to Davidson(20), Duke(8) lost to West Virginia(19), Texas(9) lost to Memphis(2) and Tennessee(14) lost to Louisville(6)
Analysis:For 2 seeds, Texas losing to Memphis and Tennessee losing to Louisville were not upsets. In the case of Georgetown and Duke, they had the unfortunate luck of playing two teams that were underseeded. Davidson and West Virginia were both in the Top 20 teams overall in efficiency, but were a 10 and 7 seed respectfully. Teams that are underseeded are the most likely to pull off "upsets" in the tournament. In the case of Davidson, they entered the tourney with a 21 game winning streak, which is also another key indicator of teams pulling off upsets and having that Stephen Curry guy didn't hurt either. Also, the Hoyas weakness was turnovers on both side of the ball and Davidson was able to exploit that since they were rated highly in both areas. Meanwhile, West Virginia was able to destroy Duke on the offensive boards, which exploited Duke's 131st ranking in defensive rebounding.
3 Seeds: Wisconsin(5) lost to Davidson(20), Louisville(6) lost to UNC(4), Stanford(12) lost to Texas(9), and Xavier(18) lost to UCLA(3)
Analysis: Only one "upset" here with Davidson knocking out Wisconsin. The Badgers were an extremely slow placed team ranking 318th in the country and they also had problems forcing turnovers, which leads me to believe they weren't the most athletic group. That made the playing field more level for Davidson who was the far better offensive time ranking 27th in Eff. FG% vs. Wisconsin's ranking of 140th.
4 Seeds: Washington State(10) lost to UNC(4), Pitt(21) lost to Michigan State(15), UConn(22) lost to San Diego(113), and Vanderbilt(53) lost to Siena(99)
Analysis: Vanderbilt was a fraud as a 4 seed and was lucky to even be in the tournament with an overall efficiency ranking of 53, which would project as a 13 seed. The only decent team they beat all season was Tennessee, which is how they racked up 25 wins. Their main weakness was defense(in any category you could name) and it showed against a highpowered Siena team. It wasn't that Siena was all that great, since they later lost to 12th seeded Villanova, but Vanderbilt was just really awful on defense, so when you combine that with an overseed, they were just ripe for the picking. There's no reason to go into the UConn upset loss to San Diego, since they probably would have won if A.J. Price didn't get hurt after playing just 9 minutes. Price was their PG and best 3-Point shooter, so that was obviously a big loss.
2007:
1 Seeds: Florida(2) won championship, UNC(1)lost to Georgetown(7), Ohio St(4) lost to Florida(2), and Kansas(3) lost to UCLA(6)
2 Seeds: Georgetown(7) lost to Ohio St(4), Memphis(9) lost to Ohio St(4), Wisconsin(8) lost to UNLV(42) and UCLA(6) lost to Florida(2)
3 Seeds: Oregon(18) lost to Florida(2), Pitt(13) lost to UCLA(6), Wash St(29) lost to Vanderbilt(35), and Texas A&M(7) lost to Memphis(9)
4 Seeds: Maryland(10) lost to Butler(25), S. Illinois(28) lost to Kansas(3), Texas(21) lost to USC(27), and Virginia(45) lost to Tennessee(31)
Analysis: In 2007, there were really no major upsets among the top seeds, except for UNLV over Wisconsin. UNLV was ranked 35 in Offensive Efficiency and 42 in Defensive Efficiency so I'm not sure how they were only 42 overall. Also, Wisconsin is a slow paced team just like UNLV, so Wisconsin's main edge was probably nullified there.
2006:
1 Seeds: Duke(5) lost to LSU(10), Memphis(9) lost to UCLA(3), UConn(4) lost to George Mason(23), Villanova(7) lost to Florida(1)
2 Seeds: Texas(2) lost to LSU(10), UCLA(3) lost Florida(1), Tennessee(22) lost to Wichita St(32), Ohio St(18) lost to Georgetown(14)
3 Seeds: Iowa(19) lost to Northwestern St.(105), Gonzaga(41) lost to UCLA(3), UNC(8) lost to George Mason(23), Florida(1) won championship
4 Seeds: LSU(10) lost to UCLA(3), Kansas(6) lost to Bradley(26), Illinois(11) lost to Washington(13), Boston College(24) lost to Villanova(7)
Analysis: The main thing that jumps out here is how poorly seeded the # 1 seeds were. Texas, Florida, and UCLA all probably should have been # 1's along with UConn. This is probably why there were some many "upsets" in this tournament. Tennessee as a # 2 was way overseeded since they were ranked 22 overall, so it's no surprise they got bumped early by # 32 Wichita St.
The biggest upset here is Iowa losing to Northwestern St who was a #14 seed. Iowa probably should have been a # 5 seed, and while they were 1st in Defensive Efficiency they also were ranked 129 in Offensive Efficiency, so they probably were even worse than 19 overall.
George Mason's string of upsets doesn't look as flukey when you look at their Overall Efficiency ranking of 23, they probably should have been a 5 seed. The other big upset here is Kansas losing to Bradley. Bradley was ranked 11 in Defensive Efficiency that year and actually was a faster paced team than Kansas.
2005:
1 Seeds: UNC(1) won championship, Illinois(2) lost to UNC(1), Duke(3) lost to Michigan St(7), and Washington(15) lost to Louisville(4)
2 Seeds: Oklahoma St(8) lost to Arizona(12), Wake Forest(9) lost to West Virginia(28), UConn(14) lost to North Carolina St(20), and Kentucky(10) lost to Michigan St(7)
3 Seeds: Gonzaga(32) lost to Texas Tech(30), Kansas(13) lost to Bucknell(91), Oklahoma(11) lost to Utah(22), and Arizona(12) lost to Illinois(2)
4 Seeds: Boston College(25) lost to Wisc.Milw.(42), Louisville(4) lost to Illinois(2), Florida(6) lost to Villanova(5), and Syracuse(18) lost to Vermont(62)
Analysis: Two big upsets here, Kansas losing to Bucknell and Syracuse losing to Vermont. Kansas lost to a Bucknell team ranked 33 in Defensive Efficiency. I also noticed that Kansas was in the middle of the pack as far as the pace they played at, so maybe they weren't as athletic of a team in 2005 as normal. Vermont had a decent rank of 55 in Offensive Efficiency, but this upset is hard to explain.
2004:
1 Seeds: St Joe's(6) lost to Oklahoma St(3), Kentucky(9) lost to UAB(42), Duke(1) lost to UConn(2), and Stanford(14) lost Alabama(29)
2 Seeds: UConn(2) won championship, Oklahoma St(3) lost to Georgia Tech(7), Gonzaga(17) lost to Nevada (22), and Mississippi St(18) lost to Xavier(16)
3 Seeds: Pitt(4) lost to Oklahoma St(3), Georgia Tech(7) lost to UConn(2), Texas(15) lost to Xavier(16), and NC State(8) lost to Vanderbilt(24)
4 Seeds: Wake Forest(20) lost to St Joe's(6), Kansas(13) lost to Georgia Tech(7), Cincinnati(12) lost to Illinois(11), and Maryland(19) lost to Syracuse(25)
Analysis: Only one big upset here, Kentucky losing to UAB. UAB was ranked 27th in Defensive Efficiency and was one of the fastest paced teams out there. Their pressing fast paced style was a good matchup for them against a slower paced Kentucky team and this is what led to the upset here.
2003:
1 Seeds: Kentucky(2) lost to Marquette(16), Arizona(4) lost to Kansas(1), Oklahoma(8) lost to Syracuse(7), and Texas(10) lost Syracuse(7)
2 Seeds: Kansas(1) lost to Syracuse(7), Pitt(3) lost to Marquette(16), Florida(14) lost to Michigan State(15), and Wake Forest(22) lost to Auburn(44)
3 Seeds: Syracuse(3) won championship, Duke(9) lost to Kansas(1), Marquette(16) lost to Kansas(1), and Xavier(19) lost to Maryland(6)
4 Seeds: Illinois(5) lost to Notre Dame(32), Louisville(13) lost to Butler(45), Stanford(35) lost to UConn(21), and Dayton(48) lost to Tulsa(43)
Analysis: The thing that really sticks out to me in 2003 is how horrible some of the seeding was and that created a ton of upsets that really shouldn't have been. Overseeded Oklahoma(8), Texas(10), Florida(14), Wake Forest(22), Xavier(19), Stanford(35), & Dayton(48) all were beaten by teams who were seeded lower than them. Underseeded Syracuse(7), Michigan State(15), & Maryland(6) all knocked off top seeds who were overseeded.
Overall Analysis:
Through 2008, you rarely saw a # 1 seed ranked in the top 10 overall efficiency lose to another team who isn't in the top 10 overall. However in 2009, both Louisville(4) & Pitt(6) lost to teams outside the top in overall efficiency: Michigan State(13) & Villanova(19). These weren't terrible losses, but they did go against the trend. Kansas & Syracuse did them one better in 2010 losing to Northern Iowa(32) & Butler(26). Again these losses aren't terrible, but they # 1 seeds seem to be more and more vulnerable as the years go by. I don't think we'll see any # 1 seeds lose to teams ranked worse than #40 overall, but we definitely know it's possible for them to get knocked off by teams in #20-#35 range. Also, if there is a # 1 team who is outside the Top 10 in overall efficiency this season, you can be pretty sure they will lose within the first 3 rounds.
In general, when a high seed loses a game, it is due to either them being seeded too high for their efficiency rating or if a change of pace is forced upon them from another good defensive minded team. This seems to be the case more so for the # 1 and # 2 seeds, then the # 3 and # 4 seeds, who seem like they could lose to any style of team at this point.
If looking for upsets, it might be best to see which teams are seeded too high and which are seeded too low based on overall efficiency. For instance, in 2006 #7 seed Georgetown had an overall efficiency rank of 14 and the knocked off # 2 seed Ohio St, which had an overall efficiency rank of 18.
2011 NCAA Tournament Analysis of Top Seeds:
1 seeds:
Overall Efficiency: Ohio State(1), Duke (2), Kansas(3), Pitt(5)
Offensive Efficiency: Ohio State(1), Duke (5), Kansas(4), Pitt(6)
Defensive Efficiency: Ohio State(10), Duke (3), Kansas(12), Pitt(21)
Off. Effective FG%: Ohio State(4), Duke (22), Kansas(1), Pitt(32)
Def. Effective FG%: Ohio State(132), Duke (7), Kansas(16), Pitt(20)
Off. Turnover Rate: Ohio State(7), Duke (31), Kansas(111), Pitt(78)
Def. Turnover Rate: Ohio State(27), Duke (106), Kansas(145), Pitt(296)
Off. Rebounding Rate: Ohio State(71), Duke (79), Kansas(32), Pitt(2)
Def. Rebounding Rate: Ohio State(22), Duke (202), Kansas(17), Pitt(50)
Off. Free Throw Rate: Ohio State(170), Duke (185), Kansas(101), Pitt(49)
Def. Free Throw Rate: Ohio State(1), Duke (38), Kansas(69), Pitt(65)
Analysis: Based on efficiency rankings, I have no beef with these teams being the # 1 seeds. Texas (4) was rated higher than Pitt (5), but I still think Pitt is a more deserving # 1 seed.
Ohio State(1) is the # 1 seed overall, but certainly did not get the easiest bracket as one might think they would. There bracket includes some tough competition with Kentucky(7), Syracuse(11), North Carolina(14), Washington(15), West Virginia (21), George Mason(26), & Villanova(28) all looking to possibly take down the Buckeyes at some point. I like Ohio State and think they are the best overall team, but I'm not sure they are good enough to get through this bracket unscathed. There is a great mix in this bracket of teams that are solid in both offense and defense. I would love to see an Ohio State-Kentucky match-up in the Sweet 16, which would be the battle of no benches. If Ohio State manages to get through this region then their should be no doubts they are worthy of cutting down the nets.
Duke(2) doesn't have nearly as many obstacles in my opinion as Ohio State does. They do, however, have a potential nightmare match-up in my eyes, which would be with Texas(4). Texas rates out as a possible 1 seed and they somehow only got a 4. I think they should have been a 2 seed personally. Duke's 4 losses have all been against strong defensive teams and Texas is 1st in defensive efficiency. It's probably the worst possible match-up for Duke in the Sweet 16. However, there's no guarantee Texas will even be there to face off with Duke. If Texas doesn't take down the Blue Devils, San Diego State(6), UConn(17), Cincinnati(23), & Arizona(25) are the only threats. I'd give UConn the best shot of defeating Duke, but I don't see a bad matchup here for them other than Texas.
Kansas(3) is faced with some tough competition in their region. Purdue(8), Notre Dame(10), Louisville(12), Illinois(20), & UNLV(22) could all possibly knock off the Jayhawks. Kansas is a well balanced team and their only weakness is they turn the ball over a little too much. Most of this is due to the careless ball-handling of Tyshawn Taylor & Josh Selby. Brady Morningstar & Tyrel Reed both turn the ball over less and force more turnovers on the defensive end, so coach Bill Self might want to look to them in crunch time a little more in my opinion. Kansas is talented enough and deep enough that if they don't turn the ball over they should have no problem getting through this bracket. However, Louisville will definitely take advantage of their turnover issues if they meet in the Sweet 16. I also think Purdue would be a tougher matchup for Kansas than Notre Dame would.
Pitt(5) is this year's winner of easiest bracket aka The Duke Bracket. Wisconsin(9) is the only team ranked in the top 10 in overall efficiency in their region (thanks to Florida being a 2 seed over Texas & Kentucky.) However, Pitt is not as good as Duke was last year, so they still might have problems surviving this bracket. Wisconsin(9), BYU(13), Utah State(16), Belmont(18), Florida(19), Gonzaga(27), & Kansas State(29) stand in Pitt's way. Honestly this region has Cinderella Final 4 run written all over it. Lot's of mid-major teams, a one seed who never lives up to it's potential in the tournament, and a 2 seed that probably should have been a 4 seed. Plus, the winner of the Old Dominion/Butler game profiles as the slow-tempo mid-major team that always gives high-seeds problems in the 2nd Round.
2 seeds:
Overall Efficiency: San Diego State(6), Notre Dame(10), North Carolina(14), Florida(19)
Offensive Efficiency: San Diego State(24), Notre Dame(3), North Carolina(37), Florida(16)
Defensive Efficiency: San Diego State(4), Notre Dame(62), North Carolina(7), Florida(40)
Off. Effective FG%: San Diego State(89), Notre Dame(15), North Carolina(169), Florida(59)
Def. Effective FG%: San Diego State(9), Notre Dame(66), North Carolina(48), Florida(102)
Off. Turnover Rate: San Diego State(32), Notre Dame(13), North Carolina(81), Florida(116)
Def. Turnover Rate: San Diego State(194), Notre Dame(337), North Carolina(196), Florida(221)
Off. Rebounding Rate: San Diego State(18), Notre Dame(132), North Carolina(30), Florida(9)
Def. Rebounding Rate: San Diego State(69), Notre Dame(51), North Carolina(63), Florida(70)
Off. Free Throw Rate: San Diego State(296), Notre Dame(28), North Carolina(167), Florida(225)
Def. Free Throw Rate: San Diego State(24), Notre Dame(4), North Carolina(2), Florida(8)
Analysis: San Diego State(6) & Notre Dame(10) are solid choices as 2 seeds, but Florida(19) should have been a 4 seed and UNC(15) probably should be a 3 seed. In their place, I would have had Texas(4) & Kentucky(7). Texas was the second best team in a tougher conference than UNC and also made their conference final and Kentucky beat Florida 2 out of 3 times including for the SEC championship. I could see a scenario where all four of the 2 seeds fail to make the Elite 8.
San Diego State(6) is a solid team, but I do not like their potential match-up with UConn(17) in the Sweet 16. I feel like San Diego State is a big, athletic team who plays great defense, but has also been feasting on smaller non-athletic teams all season. The best team they played from a power conference all season was Cal, who quite frankly isn't very good. I think UConn would be a very tough test for San Diego State just based on the fact that they can match and probably in some cases exceed the athleticism that San Diego State possesses. I wouldn't be completely shocked if they got knocked off by either Temple(38) or Penn State(39) in 2nd round either. I think Duke(2) or Texas(4) would definitely be too much for San Diego State to handle.
Notre Dame(10) and their prolific offense should cruise into the Sweet 16, where they most likely will find either Purdue(8) or a healthy Georgetown(31) team waiting for them. Purdue(8) certainly has the defense to slow down Notre Dame and should be able to score on them with no problem as well. Purdue is the highest rated 3 seed in Overall Efficiency and would give any 2 seed problems in the Sweet 16. If Notre Dame does get past Purdue, they probably match-up better with Louisville(12) than Kansas(3).
North Carolina(14) along with Florida(19) is one of the 2 seeds that could potentially get bumped in the 2nd Round. Washington(15) is basically their equal and a horrible draw for a 2 seed in the 2nd Round. If they do make it past the 2nd Round, they may have to deal with Syracuse(11) also a worthy opponent. I think UNC might be one outside shooter short of being able to advance far through the tournament.
Florida(19) is the other 2 seed that profiles as an early upset victim. BYU(13) could certainly take them down in the Sweet 16. I would guess that Michigan State(41) has the potential to knock them out in the 2nd Round as well. They might have lucked out in the draw that they got. If they can get past the Sweet 16 then they would have a great shot at the Final 4. The fact that they are in a weak bracket may help them avoid an early knockout.
3 seeds:
Overall Efficiency: Purdue(8), Syracuse(11), BYU(13), UConn(17)
Offensive Efficiency: Purdue(18), Syracuse(17), BYU(8), UConn(21)
Defensive Efficiency: Purdue(8), Syracuse(16), BYU(37), UConn(31)
Off. Effective FG%: Purdue(90), Syracuse(38), BYU(56), UConn(211)
Def. Effective FG%: Purdue(37), Syracuse(27), BYU(61), UConn(24)
Off. Turnover Rate: Purdue(6), Syracuse(63), BYU(3), UConn(36)
Def. Turnover Rate: Purdue(72), Syracuse(101), BYU(155), UConn(291)
Off. Rebounding Rate: Purdue(179), Syracuse(26), BYU(202), UConn(7)
Def. Rebounding Rate: Purdue(76), Syracuse(209), BYU(47), UConn(253)
Off. Free Throw Rate: Purdue(249), Syracuse(239), BYU(135), UConn(263)
Def. Free Throw Rate: Purdue(50), Syracuse(32), BYU(79), UConn(15)
Analysis: Purdue(8) & Syracuse(11) are solid 3 seeds, who could both make deep runs into the tournament. I would favor both of them in the Sweet 16. BYU(13) is a tough team to peg without Brandon Davies. I still think they have enough talent to get to the Final 4 and they seem to be in a favorable bracket to reach the Elite 8, since Florida(19) the 2 seed and their potential Sweet 16 opponent is overseeded. They probably have the best path to the Final 4 of any 3 seed. UConn(17) is slighty overseeded and strikes me as a team that could beat or lose to any opponent. I really like how Jeremy Lamb stepped up in the Big East tournament though, so his play could be the X-factor for them.
4 seeds:
Overall Efficiency: Texas(4), Kentucky(7), Wisconsin(9), Louisville(12)
Offensive Efficiency: Texas(19), Kentucky(7), Wisconsin(2), Louisville(36)
Defensive Efficiency: Texas(1), Kentucky(22), Wisconsin(63), Louisville(5)
Off. Effective FG%: Texas(108), Kentucky(39), Wisconsin(47), Louisville(35)
Def. Effective FG%: Texas(1), Kentucky(10), Wisconsin(129), Louisville(13)
Off. Turnover Rate: Texas(26), Kentucky(9), Wisconsin(1), Louisville(84)
Def. Turnover Rate: Texas(248), Kentucky(287), Wisconsin(322), Louisville(32)
Off. Rebounding Rate: Texas(23), Kentucky(97), Wisconsin(95), Louisville(93)
Def. Rebounding Rate: Texas(64), Kentucky(65), Wisconsin(12), Louisville(240)
Off. Free Throw Rate: Texas(50), Kentucky(195), Wisconsin(336), Louisville(325)
Def. Free Throw Rate: Texas(46), Kentucky(40), Wisconsin(49), Louisville(229)
Analysis: 4 seeds generally have a tough time making it to the Elite 8 since they have to beat # 1 seeds to get there. However, this year's 4 seeds are stronger than usual. All 4 of them are underseeded based on the overall efficiency ratings and the one seeds all will be in for tough Sweet 16 match-ups if it shakes out that way. If a 4 seed is going to make then Final 4 then this will definitely be the year it will happen. I'm still not sure why Texas & Kentucky weren't seeded higher.
More: March Madness
Monday, March 14, 2011
2011 NCAA Tournament: Historical Analysis of Final 4 Teams (Offensive & Defensive Efficiency Ratings)
Here is Part I of my analysis the NCAA tournament based on Ken Pomeroy's Efficiency Ratings. I am going to be updating the historical posts with the 2010 NCAA Tournament data and also analyzing the 2011 NCAA Tournament.
Here's the schedule for the analysis I will be doing and links as I post each Part:
Part I: Historical Analysis of Final 4 Teams (Offensive & Defensive Efficiency Ratings)
Part II: Historical Analysis of Top Seeds (1 through 4)
Part III: Historical Analysis of Upsets (5 vs 12 & 6 vs 11)
Part IV: 2011 NCAA Tournament Game by Game Analysis & Possible Upsets
In this post, I am going to do a Historical Analysis of the Final 4 teams since 2003, using Overall Efficiency, Offensive Efficiency, and Defensive Efficiency ratings. I will also give a list of the top teams this year in each of these categories.
Part I: Historical Analysis of Final 4 Teams (Offensive & Defensive Efficiency Ratings)
Here are the overall efficiency ranks of the Final 4 teams from the last 8 seasons, with the champion in italics:
2010: Duke(1), West Virginia(8), Michigan State(24), Butler(26)
2009: North Carolina(2), UConn(3), Michigan State(13), Villanova(19)
2008: Kansas(1), Memphis(2), UCLA(3), North Carolina(4)
2007: Florida(2), Ohio St(4), Georgetown(5), and UCLA(6)
2006: Florida(1), UCLA(3), LSU(10), George Mason(23)
2005: North Carolina(1), Illinois(2), Louisville(4), Michigan St(7)
2004: UConn(2), Duke(1), Oklahoma St(3), Georgia Tech(7)
2003: Syracuse(7), Kansas(1), Texas(10), Marquette(16)
Analysis: The trend from 2003-2008 was for teams ranked in the overall Top 10 in efficiency to make the Final Four. There were two exceptions. The first exception was George Mason, which was a once in a lifetime run for a mid-major and their final ranking of 23 wasn't all that bad anyway. The second was a Dwyane Wade led Marquette team that had an overall efficiency ranking of 16, but was first in offensive efficiency. They also got blown out by 33 points once they reached the Final 4. Most likely due to their porous defensive rating, which checked in at 101 overall.
However, in both 2009 & 2010 we have seen a pair of teams ranked outside the top 10 in overall efficiency make the Final Four. In 2009, both Michigan State(13) & Villanova(19) started the NCAA Tournament ranked outside the Top 10 and both made the Final 4. The Top 10 teams in 2009 were the weakest group since 2006 aka the "George Mason Year." In 2010, the Top 10 teams were slightly stronger than 2009, but still weak overall, and I suspected that at least one team ranked outside the Top 10 going into the NCAA Tournament would make the Final 4. In fact, we saw two teams (Michigan State(24) & Butler(26) make the Final 4 who sat outside the Top 20 in overall efficiency at the start of the NCAA Tournament.
It would appear that we have a trend of at least 2 teams sitting outside then Top 10 in Overall Efficiency making the Final 4. This year is comparable to 2010 & 2009, so I would suspect once again we will see a minimum of one team outside the Top 10 make the Final 4 with the trend pointing to two teams.
Also, the # 1 or # 2 ranked team has won the championship in each of the last 7 years. That's good news for Ohio State and Duke fans, with Kansas lurking with the potential to takeover Duke as the # 2 team. Ohio State is the only team right now that historically profiles as a champion. They would probably be my favorite at this point.
Here are the offensive efficiency ranks of the Final 4 teams from the last 8 seasons, with the champion in italics:
2010: Duke(1), West Virginia(11), Michigan State(38), Butler(55)
2009: North Carolina(1), UConn(20), Michigan State(33), Villanova(25)
2008: Kansas(2), Memphis(4), UCLA(7), North Carolina(1)
2007: Florida(1), Ohio St(4), Georgetown(2), and UCLA(23)
2006: Florida(2), UCLA(28), LSU(50), George Mason(49)
2005: North Carolina(1), Illinois(3), Louisville(7), Michigan St(6)
2004: UConn(4), Duke(2), Oklahoma St(5), Georgia Tech(25)
2003: Syracuse(11), Kansas(6), Texas(3), Marquette(1)
Analysis: Out of the past 32 Final 4 teams we can see the following trends:
- 20 out of the 32 teams ranked in the Top 10 in Offensive Efficiency
- 7 out of 8 Champions were ranked in the Top 5 in Offensive Efficiency, with Syracuse(11) being the one outlier.
- 26 out of the 32 teams were ranked in the Top 25 in Offensive Efficiency, with the only outliers all coming in the weaker 2010, 2009 & 2006 seasons
- 31 out of 32 teams were ranked in the Top 50 in Offensive Efficiency, with Butler(55) being the one outlier.
From these trends, you can see that any team ranked in Top 10 in offensive efficiency has a great chance to make the Final 4. However, in both 2009 & 2010, three of the teams in the Final 4 were Top 10 or worse, so this trend may not be as reliable in a weaker season like this year.
To win the National Championship, it looks like a Top 5 offense is necessary regardless of how strong the Overall Efficiency rankings are. In fact, the # 1 or # 2 most efficient offensive team has won the championship the past 6 seasons. Again this is good news for Ohio State who has the # 1 ranked offense and also Wisconsin who checks in at # 2 with Notre Dame following close by at # 3. However, I don't see Wisconsin winning it all though or Notre Dame either for defensive reasons (see below.) So this trend again points me towards Ohio State as the best choice for National Champ.
If a team is outside the Top 25 in offensive efficiency than they are far less likely to make the Final 4. However, the trend points heavily to some of the more talented teams that are ranked between # 25-50 in offensive efficiency as possible Final 4 teams.
Here are the defensive efficiency ranks of the Final 4 teams from the last 8 seasons, with the champion in italics:
2010: Duke(4), West Virginia(24), Michigan State(27), Butler(15)
2009: North Carolina(35), UConn(3), Michigan State(10), Villanova(25)
2008: Kansas(1), Memphis(4), UCLA(3), North Carolina(19)
2007: Florida(12), Ohio St(15), Georgetown(20), and UCLA(2)
2006: Florida(5), UCLA(3), LSU(4), George Mason(18)
2005: North Carolina(5), Illinois(11), Louisville(14), Michigan St(25)
2004: UConn(5), Duke(4), Oklahoma St(12), Georgia Tech(3)
2003: Syracuse(19), Kansas(1), Texas(44), Marquette(101)
Analysis: Out of the past 32 Final 4 teams we can see the following trends:
- 14 out of the 32 teams ranked in the Top 10 in defensive efficiency
- 25 out of the 32 teams ranked in the Top 20 in defensive efficiency
- 28 out of the 32 teams ranked in the Top 25 in defensive efficiency
- 29 out of the 32 teams ranked in the Top 30 in defensive efficiency
Defense wins championships? Apparently it does, but only to an extent. It helps to be ranked in the Top 25 in Defensive Efficiency if you want to make the Final 4, but once you get there, since most teams are pretty equal on defense, the offense is what separates who wins and who goes home. This was never more true than in the 2009 season, where North Carolina's elite offense made up for what has been the worst defensive team of any champion in the past 8 seasons. In fact, UNC was the worst defensive team of any of the past 24 Final 4 teams. Still a Top 30 defense is a strong indicator of a Final 4 quality team.
This is extremely bad news for Notre Dame & Wisconsin, who despite high powered offenses, check in 62nd & 63rd overall in defensive efficiency. The only team that mirrors them is the 2003 Marquette squad and I don't see any Dwyane Wade's on either of those teams.
Here are the Offensive Effective FG% ranks of the Final 4 teams from the last 8 seasons, with the champion in italics:
2010: Duke(92), West Virginia(164), Michigan State(58), Butler(80)
2009: North Carolina(45), UConn(81), Michigan State(139), Villanova(100)
2008: Kansas(5), Memphis(53), UCLA(75), North Carolina(49)
2007: Florida(1), Ohio St(38), Georgetown(4), and UCLA(41)
2006: Florida(2), UCLA(36), LSU(131), George Mason(24)
2005: North Carolina(4), Illinois(5), Louisville(12), Michigan St(18)
2004: UConn(25), Duke(24), Oklahoma St(8), Georgia Tech(40)
2003: Syracuse(69), Kansas(36), Texas(160), Marquette(18)
Analysis: This stat is all over the place as far as predicting the Final 4. In fact, 2009 & 2010 saw 8 teams with some of the worst effective FG% rankings to make the Final 4 in the past 8 years.
I would not use this stat too much when picking my Final 4, although you probably could limit it to teams within the Top 100. However, be careful with eliminating teams do to a low effective FG%. Last year, we saw three teams (Duke, West Virginia, & Michigan State) with average to below average effective FG%'s compared to previous Final 4 teams. However, they all ranked within the Top 10 in offensive rebounding, which helped make up for the fact they were hitting less shots than other teams. The same applies to UConn(11) & Michigan State(6) in 2009, while UNC(21) & Villanova(52) were decent on the offensive boards as well.
Here the Top 20 tournament teams in Offensive Rebounding % this season (overall rank in parentheses):
Old Dominion (1)
Pitt (2)
Morehead State (3)
Kansas State (4)
West Virginia (6)
UConn (7)
Long Island (8)
Florida (9)
Cincinnati (10)
Tennessee (12)
Texas A&M (13)
Belmont (14)
Washington (16)
San Diego State (18)
Texas (23)
Syracuse (26)
Alabama State (29)
North Carolina (30)
Kansas (32)
Georgia (35)
Also, here are some higher seeded teams that are some of the worst offensive rebounding teams in the tournament: BYU (202), Purdue (179), Temple (156), Vanderbilt (151), Xavier (147), Arizona (144), Georgetown (138), & Notre Dame (132)
Here are the Defensive Effective FG% ranks of the Final 4 teams from the last 8 seasons, with the champion in italics:
2010: Duke(12), West Virginia(118), Michigan State(73), Butler(68)
2009: North Carolina(62), UConn(2), Michigan State(85), Villanova(89)
2008: Kansas(9), Memphis(6), UCLA(37), North Carolina(90)
2007: Florida(18), Ohio St(42), Georgetown(10), and UCLA(76)
2006: Florida(16), UCLA(37), LSU(32), George Mason(10)
2005: North Carolina(36), Illinois(63), Louisville(12), Michigan St(136)
2004: UConn(1), Duke(13), Oklahoma St(37), Georgia Tech(5)
2003: Syracuse(10), Kansas(38), Texas(47), Marquette(55)
Analysis: Much like Offensive Effective FG%, this stat is all over the place. However, 30 of the past 32 Final 4 teams were in the Top 100 in this stat. So I would say you could eliminate most teams outside the Top 100. Only West Virginia & Michigan State have the made the Final 4 with a Defensive Effective FG% ranking above 100.
Ohio State actually ranks 132nd in Defenseive Effective FG%, which is bad news according to the historical data. No champion has ranked worse than 62nd in this stat over the past 8 years. Will be interesting to see if they can break that trend this year.
2011 NCAA Tournament Analysis (Efficiency Ratings)
Top 10 tournament teams in Offensive Efficiency:
1 Ohio St. 124.6
2 Wisconsin 123.6
3 Notre Dame 123.0
4 Kansas 121.2
5 Duke 119.8
6 Pitt 119.6
7 Kentucky 118.8
8 BYU 118.2
9 Washington 117.5
10 Oakland 115.9
Other Notables(Overall Rank, Offensive Efficiency): Arizona (14, 115.8), Florida (15, 115.5), Syracuse (17, 115.3), Purdue (18, 115.3), Texas (19, 115.1), UConn (21, 115.1), San Diego State (24, 114.2), Louisville (36, 112.0), North Carolina (37, 111.8)
Top 10 tournament teams in Defensive Efficiency
1 Texas 86.5
2 Florida St. 86.9
3 Duke 87.1
4 San Diego St. 87.2
5 Louisville 87.6
6 Utah State 88.1
7 North Carolina 88.3
8 Purdue 88.4
9 Clemson 88.7
10 Ohio St. 88.8
Other Notables(Overall Rank, Defensive Efficiency): Kansas (12, 89.3) Syracuse (16, 90.0), Pitt (21, 90.9), Kentucky (22, 91.0), UConn (31, 92.2), BYU (37, 93.0), Florida (40, 93.2), Notre Dame (62, 95.6), Wisconsin (63, 95.6), Arizona (67, 95.9)
Finally, the Top 20 teams Overall Efficiency:
1 Ohio St. 0.980
2 Duke 0.975
3 Kansas 0.971
4 Texas 0.964
5 Pittsburgh 0.959
6 San Diego State 0.957
7 Kentucky 0.955
8 Purdue 0.955
9 Wisconsin 0.950
10 Notre Dame 0.948
11 Syracuse 0.946
12 Louisville 0.944
13 BYU 0.940
14 North Carolina .938
15 Washington 0.932
16 Utah State 0.928
17 UConn 0.927
18 Belmont 0.924
19 Florida 0.922
20 Illinois 0.917
Other Notables(Overall Rank, Overall Efficiency): West Virginia (21, 0.913), Arizona (25, 0.897)
Final Analysis:
By the trends, Final 4 teams in 2011 will most likely look like this: Overall Efficiency in Top 30, Offensive Efficiency in Top 50, Defensive Efficiency in Top 30.
Teams that fit all 3 trends: Ohio State, Duke, Kansas, Texas, Pitt, San Diego State, Kentucky, Purdue, Syracuse, Louisville, North Carolina, UConn, Belmont, Illinois, West Virginia, Gonzaga
These are your best bets for Final 4 teams.
By the trends, the National Champion will most likely look like this: Offensive Efficiency in Top 5, Defensive Efficiency in Top 35, Off. Effective FG% in Top 50, Def. Effective FG% in Top 100
Teams that fit all 4 trends: Kansas & Duke
Teams that fit 3 of the 4 trends: Ohio State, Notre Dame, Pitt, Kentucky, Louisville, Utah State, Syracuse, Belmont, Illinois, Gonzaga
Teams that fit 2 of the 4 trends: Wisconsin, Texas, Florida State, San Diego State, North Carolina, Purdue, Clemson, UNLV, Cincinnati, Kansas State, West Virginia, USC, UConn, UCLA
Note: Kansas & Duke hit all 4 trends of a National Champion. Ohio State only hits 3 because of their defensive effective FG% rating being rather low. I would throw out Utah State, Belmont, Illinois, & Gonzaga as possible champs, but the rest of the teams that hit on 3 trends all have a possibility to cut down the nets. The teams who hit on 2 trends, I would ignore for National Championship purposes. Final 4 is probably as far as they will go.
From this whole analysis, I would say the safest bets to win it all would be Ohio State, Kansas, & Duke. I feel pretty confident one of those three will win.
More: March Madness
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)