johngateswhiteley
02-19-2007, 02:21 PM
Margin of victory a key tourney indicator
Insider
By Peter Tiernan
Special to ESPN Insider
The instant the field of 65 is announced on Selection Sunday, tourney pool players will gain access to an arsenal of statistics powerful enough to break down every team to its atomic elements. What fans won't gain, however, is any insight into which statistics matter most in determining tourney success. That's why it's easy for even the most knowledgeable bracket researchers to shoot themselves in the foot. It's one thing to know a team's PPG, RPI or SOS; it's another to know which of these stats make a difference.
One thing is clear -- even to those bracket-challenged know-nothings that keep winning your pool: seeding is the single best determinant of a team's tourney fate. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the four highest seeds have accounted for 76 of the 88 Final Four teams and have won 20 of 22 tourneys in the modern era. The real challenge is to figure out which of these high-seeded teams will advance, which will drop out early … and which dark horses will deal the upset blows.
That's where the attribute PASE, or "performance against seed expectations," analysis comes in. We quantified whether teams possessing a variety of key attributes exceeded or fell short of the win totals that their seeding warrants. We'll list the top 10 overall contributors to tourney overachievement and the bottom five factors for underachievement. Then we'll examine the key characteristics of over- and underperformance for each seed class -- favorites (Nos. 1 and 2 seeds), contenders (Nos. 3 through 6 seeds), toss-ups (Nos. 7 through 10 seeds), long shots (Nos. 11 through 14 seeds) and pushovers (Nos. 15 and 16 seeds)
The top 10 indicators of overchievement
Besides seeding, the single most powerful determinant of tourney overachievement isn't coaching, team experience, guard play, star power or any of the usual factors that experts point to as being so important to March Madness success. Nope. The key tourney performance indicator is a simple, overlooked and readily accessible number: margin of victory. Here are the top 10 PASE attributes:
Top 10 attributes, 1985-2006 (Performance Against Seed Expectations)
Characteristic Team # Exp'd Wins Act'l Wins +/- Wins PASE
1 Margin of victory more than 15 points 102 244.7 288.0 43.3 +.424
2 Coach with at least 15 tourney appearances 120 196.4 222.0 25.6 +.213
3 At least one preseason All-American on team 197 436.1 470.0 33.9 +.172
4 Team with more than five straight tourney bids 207 383.4 418.0 34.6 +.167
5 Playing within 100 miles of campus 84 88.3 100.0 11.8 +.137
6 Points scored per game 3 above tourney field average 401 587.2 634.0 46.8 +.117
7 Winning percentage greater than 0.850 163 344.5 361.0 16.5 +.102
8 Between 55 and 65 percent scoring from frontcourt 347 364.4 389.0 24.6 +.071
9 Coach with more than 1 Elite Eight appearance 326 520.3 540.0 19.7 +.060
10 One-game losing streak entering tourney 596 680.7 710.0 29.3 +.049
The 102 teams that beat their opponents by more than 15 points a game have won about 43 games more than the 245 their seed positions dictated. That's good for a gaudy +.424 PASE, meaning that these teams win about a half a game more on average than they should per tourney. To put it another way, 42 percent of the 15-plus margin teams win one game more than they should.
These numbers only begin to tell the story of how important margin of victory is for tourney overachievement. Consider this: If you included victory margin attributes for winning by more than 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 or 15 … all of these would be in the top 15 PASE list. Take a look at the chart below.
With each point of victory margin that a team achieves from 10-15, its PASE increases almost linearly from plus-0.090 to plus-0.424. Higher victory margins have a less reliable impact on tourney overperformance, but they're still significant. In fact, the 30 teams that win by more than 18 points a game have won 14 games more than the 81 that they should've, yielding a whopping plus0.477 PASE. One possible reason the trend gets less reliable as victory margins move into the stratosphere is that the margins may be more reflective of teams beating up on weaker schedules.
Whatever the case, victory margin is a key overachievement indicator, so much so that the attribute with the next-best PASE -- coaching experience -- yields only about half the overperformance value. Coaches who've been to The Dance at least 15 times have won 26 more games than the 196 that they should've. That works out to a solid plus-0.213 PASE, meaning about one in five veteran coaches overachieves an extra game in the tourney.
Rounding out the top five PASE attributes, teams with at least one preseason All-American have nearly the same PASE plus-0.172) as teams with more than five straight tourney bids (plus-0.167). The fifth-best overachievement attribute is game proximity to campus. Teams that play within 100 miles of their campus have won about 12 games more than the 88 their seed position dictates, for a respectable plus-0.137 PASE.
If you're looking for three strong PASE attributes that apply to the most teams, consider offensive scoring, frontcourt play and pretourney momentum. On average, about 18 teams per tourney score three more points a game than the PPG average of the tourney field. These offensive-minded squads have compiled a plus-0.117 PASE, which translates into about one in nine teams overachieving by one game. Nearly 16 teams per tourney get 55-65 percent of their points from forwards and centers. These squads yield a decent plus-0.071 PASE. More than 27 teams per tourney enter The Dance on the heels of a single-game losing skid … most likely in their conference tournament. Surprisingly, these teams overachieve, winning 29 games more than the seed-projected 681, for a plus-0.049 PASE.
The five biggest indicators of underachievement
As important as it is to know which attributes lead to overperformance in the tourney, it's equally valuable to know what causes teams to fall short of seed expectations. After all, when you fill out your bracket, you're not only looking for reasons to advance teams; you're also seeking out squads that might be prone to early exits. In this respect, PASE is really an "absolute value" statistic: a plus-0.500 PASE is equally informative as a minus-0.500 PASE.
Ironically, the statistic that is the greatest indicator of tourney underachievement is the stat invented to evaluate admission to and seeding in the tourney. The RPI may or may not be a good way to structure the tourney, but there's no debating that it's a lousy way to fill out your bracket. Check it out:
Bottom 5 attributes, 1985-2006 (Performance Against Seed Expectations)
Characteristic Team # Exp'd Wins Act'l Wins +/- Wins PASE
1 RPI higher than seed position (4 X seed -- 3) 233 200.9 179.0 -21.9 -.094
2 Winning percentage greater than 0.833 235 449.0 437.0 -12.0 -.051
3 Winning streak of more than nine games entering tourney 100 115.1 110.0 -5.1 -.051
4 Team hadn't been to the tourney the prior year 667 393.5 363.0 -30.5 -.046
5 Points allowed per game below tourney field average 726 727.6 694.0 -33.6 -.046
If RPI was a reliable indicator of the relative strengths of tourney teams, you would expect squads that were seeded lower than their RPI dictated to overperform. For instance, in 2005 Kansas had an RPI of two. By RPI rights, it should've been a top seed in the tourney. Instead it was a third seed. If RPI was a valid indicator of a team's strength, Kansas should've overachieved at its less deserving seed. In fact, it was upset in the first round by Bucknell.
It would be one thing if this circumstance were an isolated incident. However, underseeded RPI teams regularly suffer premature tourney exits. The 233 teams whose RPI is higher than where they should be seeded have won 22 games fewer than their seed-projected 201-win total. That works out to a minus-0.094 PASE. (A quick lesson in how to identify underseeded RPI teams: multiply a team's seed by four and subtract three. If the RPI is higher than the resulting number, you have an underseeded RPI team.)
The rest of the "top five" underachievement attributes aren't quite as surprising as the RPI stat. It may seem a little counterintuitive that teams with more than a .833 winning percentage underperform (minus-0.051 PASE), but inflated records are often an indication of weak regular-season schedules. So are extended pretourney winning streaks -- as indicated by the fact that squads with more than nine-game winning streaks also have a minus-0.051 PASE.
It's no surprise that "rookie" teams which didn't appear in the previous tourney are underachievers with a minus-0.046 PASE. And, given that scoring offense is an indicator of overachievement, it's also somewhat expected that a stingy defense would be a sign of underachievement. But the 2006 tourney may have signaled a change for defensive-minded teams. Last year, led by the likes of UCLA and George Mason, teams allowing fewer points per game than the field average actually posted a plus-0.033 PASE.
Top performance indicators for favorites (Nos. 1 and 2 seeds)
While it's important to know the overall tourney performance indicators, it may be more critical for your bracket analysis to know the key attributes that lead to over- and underachievement among specific seed classes. Everyone knows that Nos. 1 and 2 seeds are the most likely squads to make deep tourney runs. The key is to recognize which are legitimate advancers and which are likely to stumble. The top three indicators of overachievement among these "favorite" seeds are:
1. More than 60 percent of scoring from frontcourt (plus-0.417 PASE)
2. Margin of victory more than 14 points (plus-0.379 PASE)
3. Coach with at least 15 tourney appearances (plus-0.364 PASE)
On average, about 40 percent of the favorite seeds that rely on their frontcourt for more than 60 percent of their points win one game more than seed expectations. This runs counter to expert claims that strong guard play is the key to tourney success. In fact, Nos. 1 and 2 seeds that get more than 60 percent of their points from the backcourt are actually underachievers (minus-0.083 PASE).
The other two big indicators of overachievement among the top two seeds are margin of victory and coaching experience. This maps with the overall PASE attribute rankings. The 82 favorite seeds that win by more than 14 points a game have notched 31 more tourney victories than they should've -- good for a solid plus-0.379 PASE. That's just a shade over the plus-0.364 PASE that teams with veteran coaches achieved.
The favorite seeds in greatest jeopardy of premature tourney exits are squads with balanced scoring. Amazingly, one out of four favorite-seeded teams that get between 40 and 60 percent of their scoring from the backcourt will fall a game short of seed expectations (minus-0.252 PASE). You're better off advancing Nos. 1 and 2 seeds in your bracket with some type of scoring imbalance -- either frontcourt or backcourt -- than favored squads that spread the scoring around.
Favorite seeds with senior-laden starting units are nearly as prone to early exits as balanced scoring squads. The top two seeds with at least three senior starters have a minus-0.248 PASE. Why would upperclass experience lead to tourney underachievement? Here's a theory: With the NBA scarfing up all the good underclassmen, having a lot of starters that reach their senior year is the sign of a team without star power.
Top performance indicators for contenders (Nos. 3 through 6 seeds)
The three, four, five and six seeds are the "contender teams" in the tourney. These teams regularly advance one or two rounds -- and occasionally sneak up on the favored seeds to make a championship run, as witnessed by No. 3 seed Florida's success last year. The top three indicators of an overachieving contender team are:
1. Margin of victory more than 15 points (plus-0.655 PASE)
2. Coach with at least 15 tourney appearances (plus-0.359 PASE)
3. Winning percentage greater than .850 (plus-0.352 PASE)
Far and away, the key characteristic for overachievement among three through six seeds is scoring margin. Nearly two-thirds of the contender teams with a margin of victory above 15 points win one game more than seeding expectations. That's a huge performance indicator, but there's one small snag: only 18 contender teams in the 22-year history of the 64-team era possess this attribute. You have to go back to the 2005 tourney to find the last team to meet the qualifications. No. 4 seed Louisville had an 18.0 victory margin -- and made it all the way to the Final Four. If you shave victory margin among contender teams to more than 14 points a game, you double the qualifying teams to 36 (almost two per tourney), but the PASE drops to plus-0.287 -- still strong, but certainly more risky.
You're more likely to find teams that satisfy the second-best contender PASE attribute -- coaching experience -- than the victory margin qualification. There are 47 contender teams whose coaches came into the tourney with more than 15 appearances. They won 17 games more than their seed projections for a plus-0.359 PASE. That's a slightly higher PASE than the third-best contender PASE attribute of a winning percentage above .850 -- and it describes 23 more teams.
What factors lead to early exits among contender teams? The two highest are underseeded RPI values and long pretourney winning streaks. Contender teams with RPI values suggesting they should've been seeded higher actually underachieve by one game about one-third of the time (minus-0.340 PASE). Nearly one in three contender teams entering the tourney with at least a 10-game winning streak also underachieve (minus-0.312 PASE).
Top performance indicators for toss-ups (Nos. 7 through 10 seeds)
Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10 seeds are the "toss-up teams." Since they face each other in Round 1, (7 vs. 10 and 8 vs. 9), they have a 50-50 chance of advancing to Round 2 -- and about two of these teams per tourney will make deeper runs. Often times, the person who can identify the overachieving toss-up teams is the one who wins the tourney pool. So what are the signs that one of these teams will play over its head? Here are the top three PASE attributes:
1. Margin of victory more than 14 points (plus-0.387 PASE)
2. Team with more than five straight tourney bids (plus-0.285 PASE)
3. Between 55 percent and 65 percent of scoring from frontcourt (plus-0.172 PASE)
Just as with favorite and contender teams, victory margin is a key indicator of tourney overachievement among toss-up teams. If you run across a No. 7-10 seed with a victory margin above 14 points per game, you might want to peg them as your tourney Cinderella. These squads boast a hefty plus-0.387 PASE. The problem is, there have only been 12 toss-up teams that satisfy this condition (and the overperformance has come mainly from the No. 7 and No. 10 seeds). That said, margin of victory is a sign of overperformance even for the 65 toss-up teams that win by more than 10 points (plus-0.029).
If you can't find any toss-up squads with high victory margins, however, look for tourney-tested teams. Toss-up seeds with more than five straight bids to The Dance are relatively plentiful (38 teams) and have a solid plus-0.285 PASE. The next most valuable attribute to consider is frontcourt scoring. Teams that get between 55 and 65 percent of their points from forwards and centers have a plus-0.172 PASE. That's not quite as good as the PASE of tourney-tested teams, but twice as many squads (77 teams) possess the attribute.
Which toss-up teams are least likely to make surprise tourney runs? Members of small conferences struggle the most from the No. 7-10 seeds. More than one in four underachieve by one game (minus-0.254 PASE). Of course, only 15 small conference squads have been toss-up teams. Far more toss-up teams have gotten over 65 percent of their points from the frontcourt -- and they have nearly as bad a record of underachievement (minus-0.169 PASE) as their small conference counterparts.
Top performance indicators for long shots (11-14 seeds)
The Cinderellas of the tourney -- Nos. 11 through 14 seeds -- have less than a one in four chance of springing an opening-round upset, and only 31 of these 352 "long shot teams" have won their first two games. Still, the bigger the pool you play in, the more important it is to identify the George Masons of the tourney. Which long shot teams are most likely to overachieve? Look for these three telltale signs:
1. Team with more than five straight tourney bids (plus-0.431 PASE)
2. Margin of victory more than 14 points (plus-0.329 PASE)
3. Playing within 100 miles of home campus (plus-0.250 PASE)
Team experience is easily the top indicator of a Cinderella squad. The 10 No. 11-14 seeds with more than five straight trips to The Dance won 4.3 games more than they should have, for a nearly half-game overachievement PASE (plus-0.431). Of course, a sample size of 10 means that one of these tourney-tested Cinderellas comes around every other tournament. Even if you relax your team experience standards, though, consecutive tourney bids is still a key Cinderella performance indicator. Teams with four straight bids are more plentiful (13), without a huge PASE drop off (plus-0.408). Meanwhile, you're liable to find more than two long shot teams per tourney with at least three consecutive bids (51) -- and their PASE is still a solid plus-0.239.
Before you get too carried away with team experience, though, you should look at victory margin and playing proximity. There are 17 long shot teams with a victory margin of more than 14 points -- and they've won nearly six games more than seed projections for a plus-0.329 PASE. Nearly one long shot per tourney (20) plays within 100 miles of its home campus -- and it has a one in four chance of exceeding seed expectations (plus-0.250 PASE).
Considering their weak tourney records, there aren't any glaring signs of long shot seed underachievement. The two attributes with the lowest PASE are winning percentage above .833 (minus-0.057) and 10-plus game winning streak (minus-0.046).
Top performance indicators for pushovers (15 and 16 seeds)
Only the truly mad March Madness maven would pick a No. 15 or 16 seed "pushover" to spring a tourney upset. But if you want to risk the health of your bracket for the glory of picking the ultimate Cinderella, do two things: First off, forget about No. 16 seeds. They're 0-88 in the tourney. Secondly, look for a No. 15 seed that's won at least nine of its last 10 games. Thirty-eight No. 15 seeds satisfy this condition -- and all four Cinderellas that sprung upsets are among them. The rest of the No. 15 seeds have a perfectly dismal 0-50 record. The only other attribute worth considering is playing proximity. Of the 21 No. 15 seeds playing within 300 miles of their home campus, two have sprung upsets. The remaining 67 teams are 2-65.
Freelance writer Pete Tiernan has been analyzing the NCAA Tournament for 17 years. E-mail him at [email protected]. For a complete list of attribute performance against seed expectations or to use the BracketMaster on-line tourney research tool, go to www.bracketscience.com.
Insider
By Peter Tiernan
Special to ESPN Insider
The instant the field of 65 is announced on Selection Sunday, tourney pool players will gain access to an arsenal of statistics powerful enough to break down every team to its atomic elements. What fans won't gain, however, is any insight into which statistics matter most in determining tourney success. That's why it's easy for even the most knowledgeable bracket researchers to shoot themselves in the foot. It's one thing to know a team's PPG, RPI or SOS; it's another to know which of these stats make a difference.
One thing is clear -- even to those bracket-challenged know-nothings that keep winning your pool: seeding is the single best determinant of a team's tourney fate. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the four highest seeds have accounted for 76 of the 88 Final Four teams and have won 20 of 22 tourneys in the modern era. The real challenge is to figure out which of these high-seeded teams will advance, which will drop out early … and which dark horses will deal the upset blows.
That's where the attribute PASE, or "performance against seed expectations," analysis comes in. We quantified whether teams possessing a variety of key attributes exceeded or fell short of the win totals that their seeding warrants. We'll list the top 10 overall contributors to tourney overachievement and the bottom five factors for underachievement. Then we'll examine the key characteristics of over- and underperformance for each seed class -- favorites (Nos. 1 and 2 seeds), contenders (Nos. 3 through 6 seeds), toss-ups (Nos. 7 through 10 seeds), long shots (Nos. 11 through 14 seeds) and pushovers (Nos. 15 and 16 seeds)
The top 10 indicators of overchievement
Besides seeding, the single most powerful determinant of tourney overachievement isn't coaching, team experience, guard play, star power or any of the usual factors that experts point to as being so important to March Madness success. Nope. The key tourney performance indicator is a simple, overlooked and readily accessible number: margin of victory. Here are the top 10 PASE attributes:
Top 10 attributes, 1985-2006 (Performance Against Seed Expectations)
Characteristic Team # Exp'd Wins Act'l Wins +/- Wins PASE
1 Margin of victory more than 15 points 102 244.7 288.0 43.3 +.424
2 Coach with at least 15 tourney appearances 120 196.4 222.0 25.6 +.213
3 At least one preseason All-American on team 197 436.1 470.0 33.9 +.172
4 Team with more than five straight tourney bids 207 383.4 418.0 34.6 +.167
5 Playing within 100 miles of campus 84 88.3 100.0 11.8 +.137
6 Points scored per game 3 above tourney field average 401 587.2 634.0 46.8 +.117
7 Winning percentage greater than 0.850 163 344.5 361.0 16.5 +.102
8 Between 55 and 65 percent scoring from frontcourt 347 364.4 389.0 24.6 +.071
9 Coach with more than 1 Elite Eight appearance 326 520.3 540.0 19.7 +.060
10 One-game losing streak entering tourney 596 680.7 710.0 29.3 +.049
The 102 teams that beat their opponents by more than 15 points a game have won about 43 games more than the 245 their seed positions dictated. That's good for a gaudy +.424 PASE, meaning that these teams win about a half a game more on average than they should per tourney. To put it another way, 42 percent of the 15-plus margin teams win one game more than they should.
These numbers only begin to tell the story of how important margin of victory is for tourney overachievement. Consider this: If you included victory margin attributes for winning by more than 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 or 15 … all of these would be in the top 15 PASE list. Take a look at the chart below.
With each point of victory margin that a team achieves from 10-15, its PASE increases almost linearly from plus-0.090 to plus-0.424. Higher victory margins have a less reliable impact on tourney overperformance, but they're still significant. In fact, the 30 teams that win by more than 18 points a game have won 14 games more than the 81 that they should've, yielding a whopping plus0.477 PASE. One possible reason the trend gets less reliable as victory margins move into the stratosphere is that the margins may be more reflective of teams beating up on weaker schedules.
Whatever the case, victory margin is a key overachievement indicator, so much so that the attribute with the next-best PASE -- coaching experience -- yields only about half the overperformance value. Coaches who've been to The Dance at least 15 times have won 26 more games than the 196 that they should've. That works out to a solid plus-0.213 PASE, meaning about one in five veteran coaches overachieves an extra game in the tourney.
Rounding out the top five PASE attributes, teams with at least one preseason All-American have nearly the same PASE plus-0.172) as teams with more than five straight tourney bids (plus-0.167). The fifth-best overachievement attribute is game proximity to campus. Teams that play within 100 miles of their campus have won about 12 games more than the 88 their seed position dictates, for a respectable plus-0.137 PASE.
If you're looking for three strong PASE attributes that apply to the most teams, consider offensive scoring, frontcourt play and pretourney momentum. On average, about 18 teams per tourney score three more points a game than the PPG average of the tourney field. These offensive-minded squads have compiled a plus-0.117 PASE, which translates into about one in nine teams overachieving by one game. Nearly 16 teams per tourney get 55-65 percent of their points from forwards and centers. These squads yield a decent plus-0.071 PASE. More than 27 teams per tourney enter The Dance on the heels of a single-game losing skid … most likely in their conference tournament. Surprisingly, these teams overachieve, winning 29 games more than the seed-projected 681, for a plus-0.049 PASE.
The five biggest indicators of underachievement
As important as it is to know which attributes lead to overperformance in the tourney, it's equally valuable to know what causes teams to fall short of seed expectations. After all, when you fill out your bracket, you're not only looking for reasons to advance teams; you're also seeking out squads that might be prone to early exits. In this respect, PASE is really an "absolute value" statistic: a plus-0.500 PASE is equally informative as a minus-0.500 PASE.
Ironically, the statistic that is the greatest indicator of tourney underachievement is the stat invented to evaluate admission to and seeding in the tourney. The RPI may or may not be a good way to structure the tourney, but there's no debating that it's a lousy way to fill out your bracket. Check it out:
Bottom 5 attributes, 1985-2006 (Performance Against Seed Expectations)
Characteristic Team # Exp'd Wins Act'l Wins +/- Wins PASE
1 RPI higher than seed position (4 X seed -- 3) 233 200.9 179.0 -21.9 -.094
2 Winning percentage greater than 0.833 235 449.0 437.0 -12.0 -.051
3 Winning streak of more than nine games entering tourney 100 115.1 110.0 -5.1 -.051
4 Team hadn't been to the tourney the prior year 667 393.5 363.0 -30.5 -.046
5 Points allowed per game below tourney field average 726 727.6 694.0 -33.6 -.046
If RPI was a reliable indicator of the relative strengths of tourney teams, you would expect squads that were seeded lower than their RPI dictated to overperform. For instance, in 2005 Kansas had an RPI of two. By RPI rights, it should've been a top seed in the tourney. Instead it was a third seed. If RPI was a valid indicator of a team's strength, Kansas should've overachieved at its less deserving seed. In fact, it was upset in the first round by Bucknell.
It would be one thing if this circumstance were an isolated incident. However, underseeded RPI teams regularly suffer premature tourney exits. The 233 teams whose RPI is higher than where they should be seeded have won 22 games fewer than their seed-projected 201-win total. That works out to a minus-0.094 PASE. (A quick lesson in how to identify underseeded RPI teams: multiply a team's seed by four and subtract three. If the RPI is higher than the resulting number, you have an underseeded RPI team.)
The rest of the "top five" underachievement attributes aren't quite as surprising as the RPI stat. It may seem a little counterintuitive that teams with more than a .833 winning percentage underperform (minus-0.051 PASE), but inflated records are often an indication of weak regular-season schedules. So are extended pretourney winning streaks -- as indicated by the fact that squads with more than nine-game winning streaks also have a minus-0.051 PASE.
It's no surprise that "rookie" teams which didn't appear in the previous tourney are underachievers with a minus-0.046 PASE. And, given that scoring offense is an indicator of overachievement, it's also somewhat expected that a stingy defense would be a sign of underachievement. But the 2006 tourney may have signaled a change for defensive-minded teams. Last year, led by the likes of UCLA and George Mason, teams allowing fewer points per game than the field average actually posted a plus-0.033 PASE.
Top performance indicators for favorites (Nos. 1 and 2 seeds)
While it's important to know the overall tourney performance indicators, it may be more critical for your bracket analysis to know the key attributes that lead to over- and underachievement among specific seed classes. Everyone knows that Nos. 1 and 2 seeds are the most likely squads to make deep tourney runs. The key is to recognize which are legitimate advancers and which are likely to stumble. The top three indicators of overachievement among these "favorite" seeds are:
1. More than 60 percent of scoring from frontcourt (plus-0.417 PASE)
2. Margin of victory more than 14 points (plus-0.379 PASE)
3. Coach with at least 15 tourney appearances (plus-0.364 PASE)
On average, about 40 percent of the favorite seeds that rely on their frontcourt for more than 60 percent of their points win one game more than seed expectations. This runs counter to expert claims that strong guard play is the key to tourney success. In fact, Nos. 1 and 2 seeds that get more than 60 percent of their points from the backcourt are actually underachievers (minus-0.083 PASE).
The other two big indicators of overachievement among the top two seeds are margin of victory and coaching experience. This maps with the overall PASE attribute rankings. The 82 favorite seeds that win by more than 14 points a game have notched 31 more tourney victories than they should've -- good for a solid plus-0.379 PASE. That's just a shade over the plus-0.364 PASE that teams with veteran coaches achieved.
The favorite seeds in greatest jeopardy of premature tourney exits are squads with balanced scoring. Amazingly, one out of four favorite-seeded teams that get between 40 and 60 percent of their scoring from the backcourt will fall a game short of seed expectations (minus-0.252 PASE). You're better off advancing Nos. 1 and 2 seeds in your bracket with some type of scoring imbalance -- either frontcourt or backcourt -- than favored squads that spread the scoring around.
Favorite seeds with senior-laden starting units are nearly as prone to early exits as balanced scoring squads. The top two seeds with at least three senior starters have a minus-0.248 PASE. Why would upperclass experience lead to tourney underachievement? Here's a theory: With the NBA scarfing up all the good underclassmen, having a lot of starters that reach their senior year is the sign of a team without star power.
Top performance indicators for contenders (Nos. 3 through 6 seeds)
The three, four, five and six seeds are the "contender teams" in the tourney. These teams regularly advance one or two rounds -- and occasionally sneak up on the favored seeds to make a championship run, as witnessed by No. 3 seed Florida's success last year. The top three indicators of an overachieving contender team are:
1. Margin of victory more than 15 points (plus-0.655 PASE)
2. Coach with at least 15 tourney appearances (plus-0.359 PASE)
3. Winning percentage greater than .850 (plus-0.352 PASE)
Far and away, the key characteristic for overachievement among three through six seeds is scoring margin. Nearly two-thirds of the contender teams with a margin of victory above 15 points win one game more than seeding expectations. That's a huge performance indicator, but there's one small snag: only 18 contender teams in the 22-year history of the 64-team era possess this attribute. You have to go back to the 2005 tourney to find the last team to meet the qualifications. No. 4 seed Louisville had an 18.0 victory margin -- and made it all the way to the Final Four. If you shave victory margin among contender teams to more than 14 points a game, you double the qualifying teams to 36 (almost two per tourney), but the PASE drops to plus-0.287 -- still strong, but certainly more risky.
You're more likely to find teams that satisfy the second-best contender PASE attribute -- coaching experience -- than the victory margin qualification. There are 47 contender teams whose coaches came into the tourney with more than 15 appearances. They won 17 games more than their seed projections for a plus-0.359 PASE. That's a slightly higher PASE than the third-best contender PASE attribute of a winning percentage above .850 -- and it describes 23 more teams.
What factors lead to early exits among contender teams? The two highest are underseeded RPI values and long pretourney winning streaks. Contender teams with RPI values suggesting they should've been seeded higher actually underachieve by one game about one-third of the time (minus-0.340 PASE). Nearly one in three contender teams entering the tourney with at least a 10-game winning streak also underachieve (minus-0.312 PASE).
Top performance indicators for toss-ups (Nos. 7 through 10 seeds)
Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10 seeds are the "toss-up teams." Since they face each other in Round 1, (7 vs. 10 and 8 vs. 9), they have a 50-50 chance of advancing to Round 2 -- and about two of these teams per tourney will make deeper runs. Often times, the person who can identify the overachieving toss-up teams is the one who wins the tourney pool. So what are the signs that one of these teams will play over its head? Here are the top three PASE attributes:
1. Margin of victory more than 14 points (plus-0.387 PASE)
2. Team with more than five straight tourney bids (plus-0.285 PASE)
3. Between 55 percent and 65 percent of scoring from frontcourt (plus-0.172 PASE)
Just as with favorite and contender teams, victory margin is a key indicator of tourney overachievement among toss-up teams. If you run across a No. 7-10 seed with a victory margin above 14 points per game, you might want to peg them as your tourney Cinderella. These squads boast a hefty plus-0.387 PASE. The problem is, there have only been 12 toss-up teams that satisfy this condition (and the overperformance has come mainly from the No. 7 and No. 10 seeds). That said, margin of victory is a sign of overperformance even for the 65 toss-up teams that win by more than 10 points (plus-0.029).
If you can't find any toss-up squads with high victory margins, however, look for tourney-tested teams. Toss-up seeds with more than five straight bids to The Dance are relatively plentiful (38 teams) and have a solid plus-0.285 PASE. The next most valuable attribute to consider is frontcourt scoring. Teams that get between 55 and 65 percent of their points from forwards and centers have a plus-0.172 PASE. That's not quite as good as the PASE of tourney-tested teams, but twice as many squads (77 teams) possess the attribute.
Which toss-up teams are least likely to make surprise tourney runs? Members of small conferences struggle the most from the No. 7-10 seeds. More than one in four underachieve by one game (minus-0.254 PASE). Of course, only 15 small conference squads have been toss-up teams. Far more toss-up teams have gotten over 65 percent of their points from the frontcourt -- and they have nearly as bad a record of underachievement (minus-0.169 PASE) as their small conference counterparts.
Top performance indicators for long shots (11-14 seeds)
The Cinderellas of the tourney -- Nos. 11 through 14 seeds -- have less than a one in four chance of springing an opening-round upset, and only 31 of these 352 "long shot teams" have won their first two games. Still, the bigger the pool you play in, the more important it is to identify the George Masons of the tourney. Which long shot teams are most likely to overachieve? Look for these three telltale signs:
1. Team with more than five straight tourney bids (plus-0.431 PASE)
2. Margin of victory more than 14 points (plus-0.329 PASE)
3. Playing within 100 miles of home campus (plus-0.250 PASE)
Team experience is easily the top indicator of a Cinderella squad. The 10 No. 11-14 seeds with more than five straight trips to The Dance won 4.3 games more than they should have, for a nearly half-game overachievement PASE (plus-0.431). Of course, a sample size of 10 means that one of these tourney-tested Cinderellas comes around every other tournament. Even if you relax your team experience standards, though, consecutive tourney bids is still a key Cinderella performance indicator. Teams with four straight bids are more plentiful (13), without a huge PASE drop off (plus-0.408). Meanwhile, you're liable to find more than two long shot teams per tourney with at least three consecutive bids (51) -- and their PASE is still a solid plus-0.239.
Before you get too carried away with team experience, though, you should look at victory margin and playing proximity. There are 17 long shot teams with a victory margin of more than 14 points -- and they've won nearly six games more than seed projections for a plus-0.329 PASE. Nearly one long shot per tourney (20) plays within 100 miles of its home campus -- and it has a one in four chance of exceeding seed expectations (plus-0.250 PASE).
Considering their weak tourney records, there aren't any glaring signs of long shot seed underachievement. The two attributes with the lowest PASE are winning percentage above .833 (minus-0.057) and 10-plus game winning streak (minus-0.046).
Top performance indicators for pushovers (15 and 16 seeds)
Only the truly mad March Madness maven would pick a No. 15 or 16 seed "pushover" to spring a tourney upset. But if you want to risk the health of your bracket for the glory of picking the ultimate Cinderella, do two things: First off, forget about No. 16 seeds. They're 0-88 in the tourney. Secondly, look for a No. 15 seed that's won at least nine of its last 10 games. Thirty-eight No. 15 seeds satisfy this condition -- and all four Cinderellas that sprung upsets are among them. The rest of the No. 15 seeds have a perfectly dismal 0-50 record. The only other attribute worth considering is playing proximity. Of the 21 No. 15 seeds playing within 300 miles of their home campus, two have sprung upsets. The remaining 67 teams are 2-65.
Freelance writer Pete Tiernan has been analyzing the NCAA Tournament for 17 years. E-mail him at [email protected]. For a complete list of attribute performance against seed expectations or to use the BracketMaster on-line tourney research tool, go to www.bracketscience.com.