Why BracketBrains Works: Debunking the Myths
Every March, you turn on ESPN, pick up your local sports page, and adjust the dial to your favorite sports radio station. What you read and hear is as predictable as rain in Seattle -- dozens of "experts" (names withheld to protect the guilty) telling you foolproof ways to pick NCAA tournament winners.
Please, do yourself a favor. DON'T LISTEN TO THEM. Statistics show that the majority of these so-called "experts" and the conventional wisdom they preach are usually dead wrong.
EXAMPLE MYTH #1: Momentum Is Paramount
Here's a fun one. Everyone talks about how a team's momentum coming into the NCAA tournament is such an important factor. Are they on a hot streak or not? After all, if a team hasn't been winning recently (e.g. West Virginia this year), it's going to be next to impossible for that team to suddenly turn it around given the competition and pressure of the NCAA tournament. Right?
Wrong. From 1996-2004, teams that lost at least 5 of their last 10 games going into the tournament in fact slightly outperformed expectations. Based on the historical performance of similarly seeded teams, one would have expected these "cold" teams to have compiled a record of 63-75. But they've gone 66-72.
EXAMPLE MYTH #2: Gotta Win Close Games
Another myth: only the "cardiac" teams -- the squads that have proven their ability to win close games and pull out victories under pressure -- have what it takes to get far in the tournament. In fact, from 1996-2004, teams that won 68% or more of their close games (decided by 5 points or less) during the regular season went 164-158 in the NCAA Tournament. That record sounds good, but it is misleading. Based on the historical performance of similar tournament seeds, these teams should have won eight more games (172) than they did. Believe it. Cardiac teams have significantly underperformed in the tournament!
We hope that these counterintuitive findings help open your eyes to how wrong some of the traditional approaches are at evaluating NCAA tournament teams (and for that matter, teams in most other sports too). So have fun watching CBS Sportsline, reading your favorite columnist's opinions, and arguing with your friends about who choked this season and who is riding high into the big dance. Just don't apply this logic to filling out your NCAA tournament bracket. History proves a lot of it is wrong.
Really, It's Just Like Moneyball for Hoops
Here's another way of looking at it. Imagine you see two guys shooting a basketball. One has good form, a graceful and quick release, nice follow through, and all in all, looks like a natural shooter. The other guy's mechanics are awkward and clumsy. From an appearance perspective, he's got "JV" written all over him.
But then you watch them each shoot a hundred free throws. Mr. Natural hits 5 of his first 5 shots, while Mr. JV only goes 2 for 5. But after 100 shots, the natural-looking shooter has only made 40 shots, while the clunky guy has drained 75. After that many shots, you have no choice but to get rid of your intuition, and trust what's actually happening. No matter how bad he may look, Mr. JV is a better shooter.
That's what we hope BracketBrains and TeamRankings.com can do for you during this March Madness season. Our goal is to help you to quickly and easily leverage the power of scientific, statistical sports analysis.
|
|
Copyright 2000-2008 Team Rankings, LLC. All rights reserved.
All content on this site is produced for entertainment purposes only and is
not intended to be used in direct or indirect violation of any local, state,
federal, or international law(s).
By using this site, you agree and consent to our
Terms
of Service and
Privacy Policy.
|
