Posts Tagged tournament

Comparing Rating Systems For NCAA Tournament

The images represent how each rating system projects the NCAAB Tournament. The higher rated team was selected for each matchup. For the bracket labeled “PINNY”, the future odds from Pinnacle were used to assess team-by-team comparison. Click on the image for full-size view.

Share

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

NCAA Tourney KP vs Pinny

Same thing as conference tournaments. SEC Field hit at 3/1 odds, the other four lost. A brief survey of a hypothetical bankroll outcome demonstrated the prodigious and frightening force of the Kelly Criterion and all the emotional turmoil likely to beget its constituency. Flat bettors would have come away in the negative, but with an air of optimism and satisfaction having lingered for hitting a future.

KenPom’s LOG5 predictions are here. If you don’t know what that means, to wit:

LOG5 = (a – a * b)/(a + b – 2 * a * b)

“a” and “b” here are winning percentages. KenPom uses his pythagorean winning percentages calculated by PPP and tempo rather than just points scored for and against, with an exponent of around 12.

(Numbers in each cell represent percentages sans the non-obligatory “%” symbol).

TOP 5
REGION CHAMP
Ohio St 10.54 Ohio St 3.55
Mich St 7.64 Wisconsin 2.24
Wisconsin 6.97 Mich St 1.98
Kansas 6.8 Kansas 1.74
Indiana 3.38 Indiana 0.67

Mr. Pomeroy “likes” the Big Ten, Pinnacle doesn’t.

 

SOUTH
KP PINNY KP-P
TEAM REGION CHAMP REGION CHAMP REGION CHAMP
Kentucky 47.9 19.7 47.4 27.78 0.5 -8.08
Wichita St 11.8 2.6 8.43 2.32 3.37 0.28
Indiana 9.2 1.7 5.82 1.03 3.38 0.67
Baylor 10.9 1.7 12.08 2.82 -1.18 -1.12
Duke 9.5 1.7 12.08 4.8 -2.58 -3.1
UNLV 3 0.2 3.51 0.73 -0.51 -0.53
Iowa St. 1.7 0.1 1.31 0.42 0.39 -0.32
Notre Dame 1.9 0.1 1.96 0.44 -0.06 -0.34
Uconn 0.9 0.06 2.58 1.07 -1.68 -1.01
Xavier 0.09 0.04 1.32 0.43 -1.23 -0.39
S Dakota St. 0.8 0.03 0.41 0.29 0.39 -0.26
VCU 0.5 0.02 0.79 0.29 -0.29 -0.27
Colorado 0.4 0.01 0.67 0.29 -0.27 -0.28
NMSU 0.3 0.01 0.41 0.35 -0.11 -0.34
Lehigh 0.3 0.007 0.4 0.21 -0.1 -0.203
WKY 0.001 0.82 0.32 -0.819 -0.32
MIDWEST
KP PINNY KP-P
TEAM REGION CHAMP REGION CHAMP REGION CHAMP
UNC 28.5 6.6 32.95 13.64 -4.45 -7.04
Kansas 33.7 9.1 26.9 7.36 6.8 1.74
Gtown 9.7 1.4 7.31 1.45 2.39 -0.05
Michigan 5.7 0.5 4.57 0.88 1.13 -0.38
Temple 2.3 0.1 3.92 0.64 -1.62 -0.54
SDSU 0.9 0.03 2.65 0.52 -1.75 -0.49
St. Mary’s 1.2 0.05 2.65 0.59 -1.45 -0.54
Creighton 2 0.1 1.61 0.43 0.39 -0.33
Alabama 3.1 0.2 2.04 0.57 1.06 -0.37
Purdue 3.9 0.3 3.92 0.73 -0.02 -0.43
NC State 1.5 0.07 4.57 0.73 -3.07 -0.66
USF 0.3 0.008 0.81 0.66 -0.51 -0.652
Ohio 0.5 0.01 0.81 0.29 -0.31 -0.28
Belmont 4 0.03 3.92 0.85 0.08 -0.82
Detroit 0.07 0.54 0.21 -0.47 -0.21
Vermont 0.03 0.84 0.39 -0.81 -0.39
WEST
KP PINNY KP-P
TEAM REGION CHAMP REGION CHAMP REGION CHAMP
Mich St 35.2 12.4 27.56 10.42 7.64 1.98
Missouri 23.1 5.3 22.63 8.31 0.47 -3.01
Memphis 8.2 1.7 5.67 1.61 2.53 0.09
New Mexico 7.1 1 7.84 1.33 -0.74 -0.33
Marquette 7.5 0.9 9 2.34 -1.5 -1.44
Loserville 4.7 0.5 9.08 2.61 -4.38 -2.11
Florida 4.4 0.5 3.97 0.8 0.43 -0.3
St. Louis 3.4 0.5 2.2 0.57 1.2 -0.07
Virginia 2.5 0.2 1.78 0.43 0.72 -0.23
Murray St. 1.4 0.07 3.05 0.73 -1.65 -0.66
LBSU 1 0.06 1.3 0.29 -0.3 -0.23
BYU 0.5 0.02 3.91 0.97 -3.41 -0.95
Davidson 0.3 0.009 0.71 0.29 -0.41 -0.281
Colorado St. 0.4 0.008 0.52 0.29 -0.12 -0.282
LIU 0.003 0.39 0.17 -0.387 -0.17
Norfolk St 0.0001 0.39 0.21 -0.3899 -0.21
EAST
KP PINNY KP-P
TEAM REGION CHAMP REGION CHAMP REGION CHAMP
Syracuse 17.5 4.4 18.22 5.72 -0.72 -1.32
Ohio St 45.9 19.3 35.36 15.75 10.54 3.55
FSU 3.9 0.5 9.29 4.08 -5.39 -3.58
Wisconsin 16.2 4.2 9.23 1.96 6.97 2.24
Vanderbilt 4.9 0.8 7.92 2.81 -3.02 -2.01
Cincinnati 1.8 0.2 4.39 1.03 -2.59 -0.83
Gonzaga 1.7 0.1 2.4 0.59 -0.7 -0.49
Kansas St 3.4 0.4 4.39 0.98 -0.99 -0.58
S. Miss 0.2 0.006 0.98 0.34 -0.78 -0.334
WVU 0.8 0.05 2.4 0.59 -1.6 -0.54
Texas 2.3 0.2 2.2 0.52 0.1 -0.32
Harvard 0.7 0.04 1.11 0.29 -0.41 -0.25
Montana 0.09 0.002 0.79 0.29 -0.7 -0.288
St. Bona 0.6 0.03 0.53 0.29 0.07 -0.26
Loyola 0.02 0.4 0.17 -0.38 -0.17
UNC-Ashe 0.03 0.4 0.17 -0.37 -0.17
Share

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

NCAA Football 16 and 32 Team Playoff Simulator

In Microsoft Excel.

Cells colored in blue are customize-able. Each team is rated in sheet “DATA” with Pythagorean Winning Percentage using average line adjusted to schedule and average total. The resultant rating is this winning percentage * 100. Feel free to insert whatever rating you prefer from 1-100. Sheets “BRACKET32″ and “BRACKET16″ are the Simulators labeled appropriately.

In Round 1, there is a drop down box for each matchup to select the teams/seedings. Additionally, there are seeding presets using the rankings per the button labels. Just click the button to set the seedings

There are three customize-able boxes in each BRACKET sheet labeled STD, ITERATIONS, and HFA
The Bracket shows the result of each single simulation, the table next to the brackets demonstrate the aggregate results of the simulation. I did this for the sake of speed. Calculating the cumulative winners then placing them in the respective fields in the brackets takes way too long in excel. I am assuming speed is preferable to how the brackets are displayed.

Home Field Advantage is used up to the final four in “BRACKET32″, and includes the final four in “BRACKET16″, just set HFA to 0 to remove HFA.

NCAAF2010_Playoff_Simulator

Share

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Player Efficiency, Bench, and Final Four match-ups

Depth in these tournament games is a major non-component when determining how far a team advances.  March Madness breeds longer TV timeouts, more deadball situations, and other elements that would induce stoppage that do not normally occur during the regular season.   By degrees as teams move on to the next round, a coach is inclined to shorten his bench minute distribution to get the best possible five out on the court throughout the course of the game.  Its a myth that depth in the tournament is a significant factor.   To arrive at this resolve, I’ve aggregated a set of data showing appropriation of a team’s bench minutes.  Here are the percentage of regular season bench minutes extracted from kenpom of the remaining final four:

TEAM BENCH MINUTES RANK
MICHIGAN ST 32.1% 143
BUTLER 23.3% 317
DUKE 24.1% 311
WEST VIRGINIA 25.7% 292
AVG 26.30%

A quick survey of the table betrays the insignificance of depth, not only in this tournament, but in the regular season.  Not one remaining team is ranked inside the top 140.  The next table shows how coaches have even further hardened the barrier between playing and sitting the bench.

TEAM BENCH MINUTES
MICHIGAN ST 33.9%
BUTLER 18.3%
DUKE 21.5%
WEST VIRGINIA 29%
AVG 25.53%

The average is only slightly below that of the regular season table, however when taking into account Michigan State being severely encumbered by injuries to key players, and West Virginia having a ratio of bench/starter minutes approaching 50/50 induced by a complete annihilation of Morgan State in round 1, the tournament numbers are in practice lower than what is actually calculated.   And the next graph will show how as the tournament progresses, the allocation of bench minutes tightens considerably:

x = Round #

y = percentage of bench minutes

The reduction of the possible contribution by way of bench is logarithmic in relationship, a much more glaring signifier of the significance of the starting lineup than if it were a linear relationship.  A linear relationship would still show how teams shrink their bench from round to round, but with a lower reliant variance.  The coefficient of determination isn’t used here to actually make an analytical prediction on the percentage of bench minutes each team will exercise in the final four, but merely for a quantitative comparison and proof.

Because Butler is a 5 seed, they have had a relatively tougher path to navigate. Despite close and hard fought games throughout, their bench minutes have slightly declined from round to round.  For Michigan State, due to injuries as mentioned before, Izzo has had to introduce some innovative schematics into his bench allocation philosophy.  Duke and West Virginia would be expected to have the sharpest reduction of playing time from the bench, because of their seed.  WVU has a very high coefficient of determination, meaning the regression line is very close to matching the actual set of data points.  What that does is indicate a consequential decline in bench minutes from round to round.  As pointed out before, though reiterating with varied rhetoric, they completely obliterated Morgan State leading to garbage minutes commandeered by bench warmers.   Regressing WVU’s round one game to a more manageable number, their coefficient of determination (R2) would be very similar to Duke’s or Michigan State’s.

Now having deduced from the table and graph that essentially the starting five has a more measurable impact in the tournament from the bench corollary, what is the best way to figure out which team has the best or most effective set of starters?

Basketball State and Ken Pomeroy both evaluate players through the use of efficiency statistics, and assign the most productive with the highest number.   Directly from BBState:

Efficiency, Eff – The NBA Efficiency Model, which attempts to reward key “good” stats and punish “bad” stats, all in one single statistical measurement. Formula: ((Pts + TReb + A + Stl + Blk) – ((FGA – FGM) + (FTA – FTM) + TO))

I’ve discovered after observing some of the players’ efficiency data, that each of the remaining four teams appear to have three key players, and the rest play supporting roles in some form, often times the four and five starters are juggled with various bench players for starting positions apropos to the dynamics of an MLB team’s starting rotation.

Top three for each team:

West Virgnia Efficiency vs Duke Efficiency
Da’Sean Butler 16.2 Jon Scheyer 17.2
Devin Ebanks 14.4 Kyle Singler 15.9
Kevin Jones 14.8 Nolan Smith 13.5
Michigan St Efficiency vs Butler Efficiency
Draymond Green 15 Gordon Haywood 17
Raymar Morgan 13.1 Shelvin Mack 12.9
Kalin Lucas 12.2 Matt Howard 11.5

West Virginia and Duke are virtually even in terms of top-level basketball acuity measured by efficiency, and the ratings basically show as much.  BBState currently has Duke 2nd compared to WVU’s 4 ranking, and Kenpom has the spread at a modest five points favoring Duke, which says a lot about the Mountaineers considering this year’s Duke team is the greatest in history.  Butler, higher rated in both BBState and Kenpom, also has the top three advantage even with a healthy Kalin Lucas for Michigan State.  After Lucas for the Spartans, two players, Durrell Summers and Devlin Roe, have an efficiency rating of 9.3 and 9.2 respectively.  Durrell Summers has performed admirably up to this point in filling the relative void left by Lucas.  He’s been their proverbial spark, though injuries will likely catch up to Spartans, and apparently Butler is just better.

Share

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Sunday Elite 8 Consensus

Same deal as before, just public numbers via screenshots from different sources (click to enlarge).

Public fades have fared pretty well this week. Both games today would merit public fade status, as well as point advantages from kenpom. The Duke game is interesting because of location and betting trends. Fans love to hate Duke, hence the public dog status held by Baylor warranted by the percentages. The oddsmakers denoted Baylor’s proximity to Houston compared to Duke’s to be worth a 1-1.5 points, which is reasonable enough. Though since the opener 4.5 the line has creeped up to 5. Kenpom has the spread at 6. Formulating all the aforementioned conditions into one sensible sentence, Duke is a #1 seed being heavily bet against by the public despite having the point advantage between the line and kenpom, with sharp money moving the line up a half point. Good luck Baylor bettors.

I would lean Duke, obviously, just based on the public numbers and the raw data, however I really don’t feel compelled to make a wager on this particular game in order to allow my future bets to take form.

Go Spartans!!

Share

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments