PDA

View Full Version : Dork Brackets



hurleyfor3
03-17-2014, 01:46 PM
Pomeroy's (http://kenpom.com/blog/index.php/weblog/entry/2014_ncaa_tournament_log5) and 538's (http://fivethirtyeight.com/interactives/march-madness-predictions/) analyses are up. 538 really, really likes Loovul.

Any other quantitative predictions out there (as opposed to what Seth Greenberg thinks), post 'em here.

Olympic Fan
03-17-2014, 01:50 PM
Pomeroy's (http://kenpom.com/blog/index.php/weblog/entry/2014_ncaa_tournament_log5) and 538's (http://fivethirtyeight.com/interactives/march-madness-predictions/) analyses are up. 538 really, really likes Loovul.

Any other quantitative predictions out there (as opposed to what Seth Greenberg thinks), post 'em here.

Funny that Pomerou gives Michigan State less than a six percept chance to win the title, yet EVERY SINGLE ESPN "expert" picked Michigan State as the favorite Sunday nigh. That's Bilas, Jason Williams, Digger, Seth, Vitale ... without a dissent.

FerryFor50
03-17-2014, 01:51 PM
Pomeroy's (http://kenpom.com/blog/index.php/weblog/entry/2014_ncaa_tournament_log5) and 538's (http://fivethirtyeight.com/interactives/march-madness-predictions/) analyses are up. 538 really, really likes Loovul.

Any other quantitative predictions out there (as opposed to what Seth Greenberg thinks), post 'em here.

KenPom has Duke with a better shot to make it than Michigan St.

But he also has Creighton with a better shot.

Creighton reminds me a lot of Miami of Ohio when Wally Sczerbberel;jrl;jrl;ejrl;iak was there. Not a lot other than Dougie McBuckets.

Kedsy
03-17-2014, 02:17 PM
Funny that Pomerou gives Michigan State less than a six percept chance to win the title, yet EVERY SINGLE ESPN "expert" picked Michigan State as the favorite Sunday nigh. That's Bilas, Jason Williams, Digger, Seth, Vitale ... without a dissent.

One factor is that Michigan State lost two starters for a significant amount of time, and Pomeroy doesn't take that into account. Of course the other factor is the "Tom Izzo takes lower seeded teams to the Final Four" argument which, while it has some truth (he's done it three times), is an argument much more likely to sway Digger Phelps than it is Ken Pomeroy.

Wander
03-17-2014, 02:24 PM
One factor is that Michigan State lost two starters for a significant amount of time, and Pomeroy doesn't take that into account.

Good point, but for all the MSU health talk, ESPN's BPI, which supposedly takes injuries into account, has Michigan State ranked (tied for 9th/10th) basically exactly where kenpom has Michigan State ranked (10th). I don't know if this means that ESPN's metric doesn't really do what it says it does or that Michigan State is overrated (by talking heads, not by seeding).

CDu
03-17-2014, 02:29 PM
One factor is that Michigan State lost two starters for a significant amount of time, and Pomeroy doesn't take that into account. Of course the other factor is the "Tom Izzo takes lower seeded teams to the Final Four" argument which, while it has some truth (he's done it three times), is an argument much more likely to sway Digger Phelps than it is Ken Pomeroy.

Yeah, those two injuries cost them multiple games this year, and that definitely cost them a #1 or #2 seed in the tournament. The interesting thing is that they got a #4 seed while Michigan State (with a better overall record, better Pomeroy rating, and better BPI) while Michigan got a #2 seed.

Michigan beat MSU twice during the regular season: once with MSU missing both Payne and Dawson, and the other time at home with MSU still missing Dawson. They lost to Georgetown without Payne and Dawson. And they lost to Nebraska without Dawson. And they lost by 2 at Wisconsin without Dawson.

Had they been healthy all season, I bet MSU is the fourth #1 seed rather than UVa. Instead, they got pounded by the committee for their midseason struggles (perhaps overly so) and wound up a #4 seed.

I think that, in this case, Pomeroy is severely underestimating MSU (due to the injuries) and the talking heads are somewhat overrating the Spartans (for the "Izzo does wonders in March"). I think they are among the 6 or 7 teams most likely to reach the Final Four, but I certainly wouldn't have said they are the consensus pick to win the title.

bbosbbos
03-17-2014, 02:30 PM
I do not understand why everyone loves MSU so much. Izzo is a good coach. But his team's talent level is not that good. Harris and Payne are two good players. But the rest of the team is average. That is the reason they lost to uncheater. I just do not get it why ESPN "experts" all love MSU. This year there are only two teams that are a little bit above others, they are Zona and Gator. The rest, I think all at the similar level.

TNDukeFan
03-17-2014, 02:34 PM
This made me chuckle:
"So how were the Cardinals a No. 4 seed?

"The answer, almost certainly, is the selection committee’s attachment to Ratings Percentage Index (RPI), which somehow evaluates Louisville as only the 18th-best team in the country. RPI, as I’ve written previously, was 'developed in 1981 in the era of the DOS prompt and the Commodore 64.'"

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/nate-silvers-ncaa-basketball-predictions/

hurleyfor3
03-17-2014, 02:39 PM
"The answer, almost certainly, is the selection committee’s attachment to Ratings Percentage Index (RPI), which somehow evaluates Louisville as only the 18th-best team in the country. RPI, as I’ve written previously, was 'developed in 1981 in the era of the DOS prompt and the Commodore 64.'"

Except the C-64 didn't come along until 1982. We had the Pet, the VIC-20, the TRS-80 Color Computer, the Apple ][+ and /// and even the IBM PC in 1981, but no C-64.

CDu
03-17-2014, 02:45 PM
That's a fairly accurate statement by Silver. Louisville was essentially penalized for playing a bad schedule, which accounts for 75% of your RPI.

That being said, Louisville also didn't do themselves any favors by beating just two tourney-quality teams before March, and only going 4-5 against major-conference tourney teams overall (swept by Memphis, split with Cincy, lost @UK, lost to UNC).

Basically, they just feasted on the garbage of the AAC, split with Cincy, and beat up on UConn (3 times). Against anyone else that was any good, they lost.

uh_no
03-17-2014, 02:46 PM
that's part of it....and people seem to ignore the fact that louisville's best wins came against uconn...x3....they haven't beaten a top 15 team all year....

FerryFor50
03-17-2014, 02:46 PM
that's part of it....and people seem to ignore the fact that louisville's best wins came against uconn...x3....they haven't beaten a top 15 team all year....

We all know that losses don't matter. :D

CDu
03-17-2014, 02:47 PM
that's part of it....and people seem to ignore the fact that louisville's best wins came against uconn...x3....they haven't beaten a top 15 team all year....

Yeah, they have 4 total wins over tournament teams: 3 against UConn. Against all tourney teams not named UConn, they went 1-5.

rtnorthrup
03-17-2014, 02:48 PM
I kinda-sorta get the love for Mich. St. Their record isn't really reflective of their strength given the number of injuries they suffered during the year. A Mich. St-UVa matchup would be a great game to watch, not very pretty, but two well coached, hard nosed, defense first teams that will get after each other. I actually like UVa in that matchup.

I cannot get the love for Louisville. The AAC is not good. I have Memphis, UConn, and Cincy all losing in the first round. What is Louisville's best win? UConn or Cincy? I'm not sure why the computers like that team so much. Sure, they beat Rutgers by 197 points a few days ago, but they haven't played anybody remotely good. I'll take Wichita State over Pitino's bunch.

My biggest fear is Tenn. They remind me a lot of Clemson. Physical, strong, defense oriented with a post player just talented enough to get us in real foul trouble.

Mal
03-17-2014, 02:48 PM
Creighton reminds me a lot of Miami of Ohio when Wally Sczerbberel;jrl;jrl;ejrl;iak was there. Not a lot other than Dougie McBuckets.

Maybe, but that Miami team was a 10 seed, so clearly they had little beyond Szczerbiak (easy spelling for Duke fans, c'mon! ;)). Creighton's a 3 (probably a little overseeded, but nonetheless), and has won a game in each of the last 2 NCAAT's. I think McDermott, as the 5th highest scoring college player ever, is probably a better college player than Wally was, as well, and on a better overall team (perhaps just because he's a better player). I don't remember even knowing who Szczerbiak was until they upset Utah or Kentucky or whoever. McDermott didn't match up particularly well against us last year, and had an uncharacteristically poor shooting night, so we may not have the most clear impression of him.

All that said, I think at some point they run into the same issue as last year and a team with a lot of talent or good coaching (AZ, WI) schemes a way to slow him down or outscores them. Their chances of winning it all being deemed higher than ours says more about our chances than anything, I think.

-jk
03-17-2014, 02:51 PM
Louisville's NCSOS in KenPom is 299. Ask Seth Greenberg what the NCAA thinks of that...

-jk

CDu
03-17-2014, 02:54 PM
Maybe, but that Miami team was a 10 seed, so clearly they had little beyond Szczerbiak (easy spelling for Duke fans, c'mon! ;)). Creighton's a 3 (probably a little overseeded, but nonetheless), and has won a game in each of the last 2 NCAAT's. I think McDermott, as the 5th highest scoring college player ever, is probably a better college player than Wally was, as well, and on a better overall team (perhaps just because he's a better player). I don't remember even knowing who Szczerbiak was until they upset Utah or Kentucky or whoever. McDermott didn't match up particularly well against us last year, and had an uncharacteristically poor shooting night, so we may not have the most clear impression of him.

All that said, I think at some point they run into the same issue as last year and a team with a lot of talent or good coaching (AZ, WI) schemes a way to slow him down or outscores them. Their chances of winning it all being deemed higher than ours says more about our chances than anything, I think.

Junior-year and senior-year Sczerbiak were probably comparable junior- and senior-year McDermott. But Creighton's other players are all very solid mid-major caliber players, whereas Miami (OH)'s supporting cast was not very good. I'm not sure if they're really #3 seed quality, but they're better than that Miami team from yore for sure.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
03-17-2014, 02:54 PM
Here's Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight brackets. Rather fascinating. (http://fivethirtyeight.com/interactives/march-madness-predictions/) Seems Louisville has the best chance of victory according to his method.

vick
03-17-2014, 03:10 PM
I kinda-sorta get the love for Mich. St. Their record isn't really reflective of their strength given the number of injuries they suffered during the year. A Mich. St-UVa matchup would be a great game to watch, not very pretty, but two well coached, hard nosed, defense first teams that will get after each other. I actually like UVa in that matchup.

I cannot get the love for Louisville. The AAC is not good. I have Memphis, UConn, and Cincy all losing in the first round. What is Louisville's best win? UConn or Cincy? I'm not sure why the computers like that team so much. Sure, they beat Rutgers by 197 points a few days ago, but they haven't played anybody remotely good. I'll take Wichita State over Pitino's bunch.

My biggest fear is Tenn. They remind me a lot of Clemson. Physical, strong, defense oriented with a post player just talented enough to get us in real foul trouble.

The computers like them because beating teams by large margins tends to be a fairly good predictor of future performance. That said, even though I am a huge "dork stat" guy, I think the committee should rightfully ignore a team's Pomeroy/Sagarin/etc. ratings (although I would prefer they use them to assess the difficulty of a team's schedule vs. the RPI). Why? Because sports are more interesting when winning and losing actually matters. Sure, deep down Ennis hitting a half-court shot against Pitt really means very little in terms of a team's actual basketball skill, but do we really want to live in a world where that barely matters (as it doesn't in Pomeroy)? Awfully boring.

The real problem, IMO, is the committee's refusal to accept that there is a difference between the "best teams" and the "best resumes."

Atlanta Duke
03-17-2014, 03:13 PM
Another Silver burn of RPI

RPI is the Dick Morris of algorithms. Maybe I should challenge it to a bet.:)

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/nate-silvers-ncaa-basketball-predictions/

Wander
03-17-2014, 03:16 PM
The computers like them because beating teams by large margins tends to be a fairly good predictor of future performance. That said, even though I am a huge "dork stat" guy, I think the committee should rightfully ignore a team's Pomeroy/Sagarin/etc. ratings (although I would prefer they use them to assess the difficulty of a team's schedule vs. the RPI). Why? Because sports are more interesting when winning and losing actually matters. Sure, deep down Ennis hitting a half-court shot against Pitt really means very little in terms of a team's actual basketball skill, but do we really want to live in a world where that barely matters (as it doesn't in Pomeroy)? Awfully boring.


Absolutely. Tennessee and Louisville provide pretty good evidence that the committee doesn't strongly consider metrics that take into account margin of victory, and as much as I love kenpom, that's the way it should be. I don't get the complaints about the inconsistency of the committee - most everyone who did mock brackets knew Louisville didn't have a realistic chance to be a 1 seed.

Kedsy
03-17-2014, 03:18 PM
Every year, one or two (or three) top ten Pomeroy teams are in the situation where their seed is disproportionately worse than their Pomeroy ranking would suggest. This year it's Louisville -- #2 in Pomeroy with a 4-seed. Here are some others from the past five years:

2013:
Florida, #1 Pomeroy; 3-seed; made Elite Eight;
Pitt, #7 Pomeroy; 8-seed; lost in round of 64;

2012:
Wisconsin, #6 Pomeroy; 4-seed; lost in Sweet 16;
Memphis, #9 Pomeroy; 8-seed; lost in round of 64;

2011:
Texas, #4 Pomeroy; 4-seed; lost in round of 32;

2010:
Wisconsin, #3 Pomeroy; 4-seed; lost in round of 32;
BYU, #7 Pomeroy; 7-seed; lost in round of 32;

2009:
Memphis, #1 Pomeroy; 2-seed; lost in Sweet 16;
Gonzaga, #5 Pomeroy; 4-seed; lost in Sweet 16;
West Virginia, #8 Pomeroy, 6-seed; lost in round of 64;

I don't know if it's because the teams were overrated in Pomeroy, or because seeding matters a lot more than Ken Pomeroy and others seem to believe, or just dumb luck in a small sample, but other than last year's Florida team (that beat a #14 seed, a #11 seed, and a #15, before losing to a #4 seed in the Elite Eight), these "underseeded" teams haven't done so well.

Obviously we'll have to wait and see about Louisville.

rtnorthrup
03-17-2014, 03:48 PM
Every year, one or two (or three) top ten Pomeroy teams are in the situation where their seed is disproportionately worse than their Pomeroy ranking would suggest. This year it's Louisville -- #2 in Pomeroy with a 4-seed. Here are some others from the past five years:

2013:
Florida, #1 Pomeroy; 3-seed; made Elite Eight;
Pitt, #7 Pomeroy; 8-seed; lost in round of 64;

2012:
Wisconsin, #6 Pomeroy; 4-seed; lost in Sweet 16;
Memphis, #9 Pomeroy; 8-seed; lost in round of 64;

2011:
Texas, #4 Pomeroy; 4-seed; lost in round of 32;

2010:
Wisconsin, #3 Pomeroy; 4-seed; lost in round of 32;
BYU, #7 Pomeroy; 7-seed; lost in round of 32;

2009:
Memphis, #1 Pomeroy; 2-seed; lost in Sweet 16;
Gonzaga, #5 Pomeroy; 4-seed; lost in Sweet 16;
West Virginia, #8 Pomeroy, 6-seed; lost in round of 64;

I don't know if it's because the teams were overrated in Pomeroy, or because seeding matters a lot more than Ken Pomeroy and others seem to believe, or just dumb luck in a small sample, but other than last year's Florida team (that beat a #14 seed, a #11 seed, and a #15, before losing to a #4 seed in the Elite Eight), these "underseeded" teams haven't done so well.

Obviously we'll have to wait and see about Louisville.

That is interesting. Nate Silver's bracket uses 5 computer modeling simulations, of which Pomeroy is one, and still has Louisville as his highest percentage for the title. It would be interesting to look more into those numbers and see if there is a consistent pattern as to the major difference between KenPom's and RPI. As others have suggested, it may be margin of victory. Louisville and Wichita State have very similar resumes. According to KenPom they both sport very good offensive and defensive efficiency numbers, but both teams played a particularly weak schedule.

superdave
03-17-2014, 04:59 PM
Lowest combined odds (1 in X to Win) for top 4 seeds, each of the four regions via KenPom's chart:

MIDWEST = 99: WSU 13, Lou 8, Duke 31, Michigan 47
EAST = 166: Virginia 9, Nova 20, Sparty 41, Iowa St 96
SOUTH = 170: Florida 8, Kansas 29, Cuse 55, UCLA 79
WEST = 173: Zona 6, Creighton 27, Wisco 43, SDSU 97

Deslok
03-17-2014, 06:07 PM
If you go off the 538 projections, taking the top 4 probabilities in each region of teams winning the national championship you get:
23% chance of the top teams in the South winning the title
17% chance of the top teams in the East winning the title
20% chance of the top teams in the West winning the title
28% chance of the top teams in the MidWest winning the title

Just further confirmation that the MidWest is stacked compared to the other brackets - and btw, Kentucky was perhaps the only >1% team not factoring into those calculations(since Wichita St, Louisville, Duke,and Michigan were all ahead of them on probabilities) which makes the odds even more skewed(adding another 2% to the MidWest).

DavidBenAkiva
03-17-2014, 09:26 PM
At the least, I am encouraged that computer models seem to consistently rate Duke with a better chance of getting to the Elite 8 than Michigan.

KenPom has Duke with a 33.2% chance of getting to the Elite 8 versus Michigan's 31.2%.

Silver's FiveThirtyEight is even more in favor of Duke's shot at getting to the Elite 8, 42.8% to Michigan's 37.0% chance. FiveThirtyEight, which likes Louisville quite a bit, has Duke with a better shot at the later rounds than does Wichita State.

This is pretty encouraging to me. As we saw in the Virginia game, we have a player that can really step up in a tight game. If Parker can keep 'it' on for long stretch, Duke has a pretty good shot at going far in the tourney this year.

ice-9
03-17-2014, 10:59 PM
Silver also takes into account preseason rankings in his model -- this would favor Louisville by a lot.

I have Michigan St and Creighton advancing far in my bracket, primarily because they have essentially the same team as last year back. As we Duke fans know, Michigan St went to the Sweet 16 and Creighton lost in the round of 32. Those teams will be hungry to do better this year and will have the experience to know what it takes to win. Each player knows their role.

Similarly, I think Louisville is a little overrated at this point (given all the love shown by the press), and that's because this year's team is fundamentally different from last year's. The Cardinals are a tough team, sure, but they get too much credit for being the defending champions. Without Siva, this Louisville team isn't as potent, and their good-but-not-great performance against their weak schedule hasn't shown otherwise. The high KenPom ranking is a reflection of their dominant performance against weak teams, but a better indicator is performance against tournament-caliber teams and they're good but not elite there.

I wouldn't be surprised if Wichita St beats them. We fear Louisville because of the press but Wichita St doesn't share that fear. Louisville is worse than last year while Wichita St is better this year.