NCAA Log5
by KYvampyre on Mar 15, 2010 1:12 AM EDT
13 comments
As promised last week, here's the log5 predictor for the NCAA tourney. Pythagorean Win Percentages are again taken from Ken Pomeroy's most excellent stats site.
According to the predictor, Kentucky is roughly a 5-to-1 underdog to make the Final Four and about 25-to-1 to cut down the nets on April 5.
More following the jump.
Sadly, the percentages say Duke. Let's hope they're wrong, although the committee certainly didn't do anything to hurt their chances. Until I saw this bracket, I was unaware that there are actually five regions in the NIT. I don't understand how Kansas can be the #1 overall seed and yet Duke gets to play the winner of the game between the two weakest teams in the field in the first round (or why Florida is in the field, for that matter). But ours is not to reason why. If you're looking for a good 5-12 game to pick in your bracket pool, look at Utah State-Texas A&M. Utah State, the 12 seed, is actually favored slightly in the game, though it's a virtual coin flip (52%-48%). In the same bracket in the 6-11 game, Old Dominion is a 52%-48% favorite over Notre Dame.
A few other notes:
• The chances of all four number one seeds making the Final Four is roughly .02%.
• The 16 seed with the best chance of pulling the hugest upset of all time is Vermont, which is only a 94%-6% underdog against Syracuse.
• The lowest seed with at least a 5% predicted chance of making a run is Florida State, the 9th seed in the West.
Anyway, enjoy if you're into this sort of thing. If not, just enjoy the last three weeks of this most excellent of recent seasons.
| Midwest | Second Round | Sweet Sixteen | Regional Finals | Final Four | National Finals | Champion | ||
| 1 | Kansas | 98.28% | 83.17% | 63.63% | 46.60% | 34.38% | 21.97% | |
| 16 | Lehigh | 1.72% | 0.15% | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | |
| 8 | UNLV | 46.58% | 7.33% | 2.71% | 0.89% | 0.30% | 0.08% | |
| 9 | N. Iowa | 53.42% | 9.35% | 3.75% | 1.35% | 0.49% | 0.14% | |
| 4 | Maryland | 86.36% | 57.74% | 20.20% | 10.62% | 5.64% | 2.41% | |
| 13 | Houston | 13.64% | 3.66% | 0.34% | 0.05% | 0.01% | 0.00% | |
| 5 | Michigan St. | 85.79% | 36.76% | 9.25% | 3.71% | 1.50% | 0.47% | |
| 12 | New Mexico St. | 14.21% | 1.84% | 0.11% | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | |
| 3 | Georgetown | 88.50% | 60.50% | 30.62% | 11.55% | 6.02% | 2.51% | |
| 14 | Ohio | 11.50% | 2.52% | 0.32% | 0.03% | 0.00% | 0.00% | |
| 6 | Tennessee | 52.49% | 19.94% | 6.79% | 1.62% | 0.57% | 0.15% | |
| 11 | San Diego St. | 47.51% | 17.05% | 5.45% | 1.21% | 0.40% | 0.10% | |
| 7 | Oklahoma St. | 40.42% | 10.60% | 3.83% | 0.79% | 0.24% | 0.06% | |
| 10 | Georgia Tech | 59.58% | 20.07% | 9.03% | 2.45% | 0.96% | 0.29% | |
| 2 | Ohio State | 95.38% | 68.80% | 43.91% | 19.12% | 11.18% | 5.35% | |
| 15 | UCSB | 4.62% | 0.53% | 0.05% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | |
| West | Second Round | Sweet Sixteen | Regional Finals | Final Four | National Finals | Champion | ||
| 1 | Syracuse | 93.85% | 65.64% | 47.61% | 28.48% | 13.08% | 6.26% | |
| 16 | Vermont | 6.15% | 0.87% | 0.13% | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | |
| 8 | Gonzaga | 32.01% | 7.59% | 3.05% | 0.85% | 0.16% | 0.03% | |
| 9 | Florida St. | 67.99% | 25.91% | 15.18% | 6.78% | 2.18% | 0.74% | |
| 4 | Vanderbilt | 59.10% | 27.12% | 8.95% | 3.18% | 0.79% | 0.21% | |
| 13 | Murray St. | 40.90% | 15.14% | 3.90% | 1.08% | 0.20% | 0.04% | |
| 5 | Butler | 55.37% | 33.26% | 12.87% | 5.34% | 1.58% | 0.49% | |
| 12 | UTEP | 44.63% | 24.48% | 8.31% | 3.03% | 0.77% | 0.21% | |
| 3 | Pittsburgh | 88.46% | 41.17% | 14.48% | 5.91% | 1.64% | 0.48% | |
| 14 | Oakland | 11.54% | 1.18% | 0.08% | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | |
| 6 | Xavier | 52.16% | 30.57% | 12.01% | 5.40% | 1.69% | 0.56% | |
| 11 | Minnesota | 47.84% | 27.08% | 10.10% | 4.34% | 1.28% | 0.40% | |
| 7 | BYU | 76.24% | 40.60% | 26.76% | 15.48% | 6.65% | 2.99% | |
| 10 | Florida | 23.76% | 6.54% | 2.47% | 0.77% | 0.16% | 0.03% | |
| 2 | Kansas St. | 95.34% | 52.55% | 34.07% | 19.33% | 8.10% | 3.55% | |
| 15 | North Texas | 4.66% | 0.30% | 0.03% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | |
| East | Second Round | Sweet Sixteen | Regional Finals | Final Four | National Finals | Champion | ||
| 1 | Kentucky | 94.50% | 64.31% | 34.91% | 21.65% | 9.97% | 4.69% | |
| 16 | E. Tenn. State | 5.50% | 0.64% | 0.05% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | |
| 8 | Texas | 66.95% | 26.58% | 11.05% | 5.42% | 1.87% | 0.65% | |
| 9 | Wake Forest | 33.05% | 8.47% | 2.28% | 0.75% | 0.16% | 0.03% | |
| 4 | Wisconsin | 89.90% | 64.60% | 38.39% | 25.01% | 12.28% | 6.18% | |
| 13 | Wofford | 10.10% | 2.44% | 0.37% | 0.07% | 0.01% | 0.00% | |
| 5 | Temple | 74.50% | 28.13% | 11.93% | 5.76% | 1.95% | 0.66% | |
| 12 | Cornell | 25.50% | 4.83% | 1.01% | 0.25% | 0.04% | 0.01% | |
| 3 | New Mexico | 76.55% | 30.76% | 9.32% | 2.49% | 0.57% | 0.13% | |
| 14 | Montana | 23.45% | 4.00% | 0.48% | 0.05% | 0.00% | 0.00% | |
| 6 | Marquette | 50.99% | 33.48% | 13.26% | 4.68% | 1.42% | 0.43% | |
| 11 | Washington | 49.01% | 31.76% | 12.28% | 4.23% | 1.25% | 0.37% | |
| 7 | Clemson | 52.33% | 22.45% | 13.49% | 5.44% | 1.89% | 0.66% | |
| 10 | Missouri | 47.67% | 19.43% | 11.24% | 4.29% | 1.41% | 0.47% | |
| 2 | West Virginia | 94.43% | 57.65% | 39.87% | 19.92% | 8.63% | 3.82% | |
| 15 | Morgan St. | 5.57% | 0.47% | 0.06% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | |
| South | Second Round | Sweet Sixteen | Regional Finals | Final Four | National Finals | Champion | ||
| 1 | Duke | 99.13% | 80.51% | 64.72% | 51.52% | 37.77% | 24.83% | |
| 16 | Ark-Pine Bluff | 0.44% | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | |
| 16 | Winthrop | 0.44% | 0.02% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | |
| 8 | California | 63.72% | 14.25% | 7.63% | 4.02% | 1.77% | 0.65% | |
| 9 | Louisville | 36.28% | 5.20% | 2.08% | 0.81% | 0.26% | 0.06% | |
| 4 | Purdue | 74.33% | 40.88% | 11.69% | 6.26% | 2.81% | 1.05% | |
| 13 | Siena | 25.67% | 7.62% | 0.99% | 0.29% | 0.07% | 0.01% | |
| 5 | Texas A&M | 48.14% | 24.35% | 5.93% | 2.83% | 1.11% | 0.36% | |
| 12 | Utah State | 51.86% | 27.15% | 6.96% | 3.45% | 1.41% | 0.48% | |
| 3 | Baylor | 88.57% | 59.16% | 36.31% | 13.37% | 6.57% | 2.71% | |
| 14 | Sam Houston St. | 11.43% | 2.36% | 0.42% | 0.03% | 0.00% | 0.00% | |
| 6 | Notre Dame | 47.17% | 17.55% | 7.57% | 1.72% | 0.54% | 0.14% | |
| 11 | Old Dominion | 52.83% | 20.94% | 9.61% | 2.36% | 0.80% | 0.22% | |
| 7 | Richmond | 47.05% | 16.88% | 5.96% | 1.19% | 0.33% | 0.07% | |
| 10 | Saint Mary's | 52.95% | 20.35% | 7.72% | 1.68% | 0.51% | 0.12% | |
| 2 | Villanova | 94.62% | 62.24% | 32.38% | 10.46% | 4.57% | 1.66% | |
| 15 | Robert Morris | 5.38% | 0.53% | 0.03% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | |
| Play-In Game | ||||||||
| 16 | Ark-Pine Bluff | 59.97% | ||||||
| 16 | Winthrop | 40.03% | ||||||
0 recs |
13 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
This is what I have been waiting for all year.
I think the dashboard I have been doing will help to sort some of this out. Pomeroy has Wisconsin over us based on the full years performances. But Wisconsin was able to skew the overall stats by absolutely pasting bad teams….that makes them look really efficient even after the adjustment because Pomeroy doesn’t adjust for margin of victory. Wisconsin lost to almost every half way decent team they played in the second half of the season. If we dial back there stats to only the Conference games I think there is a very different view of how this team is playing. Going to do that later
Kansas and the Play-In Game
I believe the reason that Kansas isn’t playing the play-in champion is because the NCAA kept Kansas close to home in Oklahoma City, OK. That is a Thurs-Sat site. The play-in game winner has to play a Friday-Sunday schedule to give them rest after the play-in game. The Two #1s that play Friday-Sun are Syracuse and Duke. With Duke being the third-best #1, that is why they got this game.
The computers seem to absolutely hate us and Syracuse.
We need to prove the computers wrong again.
Play-In Game
The overall #1 seed no longer automatically gets the W-er of the play-in game.
by FortyYearCatFan on Mar 15, 2010 11:16 AM EDT up reply actions
Flaw in this system?
Given that there have been 100 1 v. 16 games (25 years since expansion, 41 v. 16 games/year), and no 16-seed has ever won, a system that suggests only an 86.4% chance of all the 1-seeds winning the first round has a significant flaw.
Why?
Just because something is improbably doesn’t make it impossible. And this year I was surprised at how “good” it seems the 16 seeds are compared to the 14’s and the 15’s. And when you look at how bad Sycracuse has been lately and how UK plays “down” to the level of competition I could easily see how each team has about a 5% chance of being upset, does it mean it will happen? No, just means there is a chance. Also this system is built around statisitcs from this season alone and shouldn’t take history of 1 seed vs 16 seed into account.
"Come test me every day if you want," says Pujols, "Everything I ever made in this game I would give back to the Cardinals if I got caught."
Exactly.
The log5 predictor is stats based and only from this year. It doesn’t take into account historical performance in the tournament of various seeds and so on. That would be a different sort of analysis. IMO, it’s not as useful because it tends to take into account various things that are unlikely to actually impact the tournament. As long as there’s a non-zero chance that a 16 seed will win (and there always is), then there can’t be a zero chance that any of them will win in a given year. A system that predicted they had zero chance to beat a #1 seed would be the flawed one. The fact that something hasn’t happened before doesn’t mean it won’t ever happen. Before 1991, no two seed had ever won in the tournament, either. Since then, four have, so you could argue that the chance of a 15-seed advancing historically is higher, and you’d be right. But this predictor merely compares the tempo-free stats of each team and calculates their odds of advancing each round based on their opposition, so the fact that four teams have advanced as a 15-seed and no 16-seeds have doesn’t give, say, Robert Morris or any other other 15’s in this year’s tourney a better chance than Lehigh or any other 16.
I'm not suggesting that the percentages should be 100% - 0%
Obviously there is a possibility for a 16-seed to beat a 1-seed, but the fact that it hasn’t happened in 100 attempts suggests that either 1-seeds have been astonishingly lucky or significant improbability.
For example, if, in general, 1-seeds had a 99.13% chance of winning (which is the highest probability assigned to any of them this year), the likelihood of winning 100/100 matches is about 42%, which is certainly reasonable. If you take the probability assigned to Kansas as typical, the likelihood of winning 100/100 is about 18%, which is still conceivable. The AVERAGE of the 1-seed winning probabilities this year is given as 96.44%, and if that is typical, there would only be a 2.5% chance of 1-seeds winning 100/100, which is possible, but involves some significant luck, and more likely that 16-seeds would have won several games by now.
My point is that either there is a significant difference between the 1-16 matchups this year compared to all 25 previous years, or 1-seeds have been astonishingly lucky time and again, or the above percentages do not reflect reality. Personally, I think there’s a little of each, but I find the third possibility the most likely.
Guys,
if you don’t like UK’s or any other teams numbers above, just wait until after each game when it get’s adjusted again. What a bunch of crock.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Community Guidelines
[UPDATED 4/10/2010]
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
