Tuesday, March 2, 2010

Similarity Scores: Title Contenders

This is part 3 (or 5, depending on if you count the posts at UFR) of the Similarity Scores series. The post on how the scores are calculated is here, in case you missed it.  Tonight I'll be taking a look at which teams from the past are most similar to the current AP Top 10, and how those teams fared in the NCAA tournament.

[Data is from games through March 1, 2008.]

The Big 12 post ended up checking in at a Posnanskian length, which is usually a bad thing for anyone other than Joe, so I'm going to keep the commentary to a minimum this time.  Also, there will be a couple changes to the lists themselves.  First, I'm only including teams that made the NCAA tournament.  If they weren't good enough to make it, they can't be THAT good of a comp.  And second, I'm adding two new columns to these graphs: NCAA seed, and PASE (Performance Against Seed Expectation).  This tells to what extent each team exceeded or fell short of expectations, relative to their seed in the big dance.

2010 Syracuse - Historical Comps
SCORE
YR
TEAM
SEED
W's
PASE
90
2009
Syracuse
3
2
0.1
88
2005
Syracuse
4
0
-1.5
88
2008
Kansas
1
6
2.6
88
2006
Kansas
4
0
-1.5
87
2005
North Carolina
1
6
2.6
87
2007
Kansas
1
3
-0.4
87
2006
Florida
3
6
4.1
86
2007
Georgetown
2
4
1.6
86
2004
Providence
5
0
-1.1
86
2008
Georgetown
2
1
-1.4


Average
2.6
2.8
0.5

Pretty all-or-nothing here - 3 champs, and 3 first round upsets.  But notice that the upsets are all 4/5 seeds, meaning they may have had good numbers, but they apparently didn't take care of business as well as this year's Orangemen.  Limit it to seeds 1 through 3, and you're looking at an average of 4 wins, and a +1.3 PASE.  Or, looking at just 1 seeds, where 'Cuse expects to end up this year, we see 5 wins and a +1.6 PASE.




2010 Kansas - Historical Comps
SCORE
YR
TEAM
SEED
W's
PASE
94
2007
Kansas
1
3
-0.4
94
2005
Louisville
4
4
2.5
93
2008
Kansas
1
6
2.6
93
2004
Cincinnati
4
1
-0.5
93
2004
Connecticut
2
6
3.6
92
2008
Memphis
1
5
1.6
92
2004
Gonzaga
2
1
-1.4
92
2007
Texas A&M
3
2
0.1
92
2009
Gonzaga
4
2
0.5
92
2006
Florida
3
6
4.1


Average
2.5
3.6
1.3

This has changed very little from when I first posted it on UFR, so I'll refer you back there for extended commentary.  The Gonzaga teams put up similar numbers against much weaker WCC foes, so I feel comfortable excluding them, which leaves us with an average of 4.1 wins and +1.7 PASE.

2010 Kentucky - Historical Comps
SCORE
YR
TEAM
SEED
W's
PASE
94
2006
Connecticut
1
3
-0.4
93
2004
Mississippi St.
2
1
-1.4
93
2005
Connecticut
2
1
-1.4
93
2004
Connecticut
2
6
3.6
92
2009
Connecticut
1
4
0.6
92
2006
Louisiana St.
4
4
2.5
92
2006
Memphis
1
3
-0.4
92
2007
Memphis
2
3
0.6
91
2006
North Carolina
3
1
-0.9
91
2007
Kansas
1
3
-0.4


Average
1.9
2.9
0.2

Despite the average wins and PASE being pretty similar to Syracuse's table, this one still feels a little less promising to me.  I'd say it's because there are only 2 teams who had a PASE of at least 1, whereas Syracuse had 4, and Kansas had 5.  And to win the tournament, they're going to have to post a PASE of 2.56 (#1 seeds are expected to win 3.44 games).  Plus there are no comps that we can throw out to make it look nicer.

2010 Duke - Historical Comps
SCORE
YR
TEAM
SEED
W's
PASE
91
2008
Memphis
1
5
1.6
91
2004
Duke
1
4
0.6
90
2004
Texas
3
2
0.1
89
2005
Oklahoma
3
1
-0.9
89
2008
UCLA
1
4
0.6
89
2009
West Virginia
6
0
-1.2
89
2007
Memphis
2
3
0.6
89
2009
North Carolina
1
6
2.6
89
2009
Memphis
2
2
-0.4
89
2008
Marquette
6
1
-0.2


Average
2.6
2.8
0.3

Right off the bat, we some some good news, in that none of the choking Dukies from the past few years are on here.  This year's team doesn't get pushed around as much - this is the best offense rebounding Duke team since 2004, as well as the least likely to get their shot blocked.  Plus they have 4 players in the top 250 in Offensive Rating (according to Pomeroy) compared to 2 in 2009 and 1 in 2008. The top option (Scheyer this year) doesn't have to carry the team every night, which should keep him fresher for the postseason, as well as making them more able to survive when he has an off night.  As far as the numbers here, they look very similar to Syracuse and Kentucky, though closer to the latter.  If we remove the 6 seeds, W's rises to 3.4, but PASE stays relatively low at +0.6.

2010 Kansas State - Historical Comps
SCORE
YR
TEAM
SEED
W's
PASE
94
2006
Memphis
1
3
-0.4
92
2007
Memphis
2
3
0.6
91
2004
Mississippi St.
2
1
-1.4
91
2008
Kansas St.
11
1
0.5
91
2008
Marquette
6
1
-0.2
91
2006
North Carolina
3
1
-0.9
91
2007
Marquette
8
0
-0.7
90
2008
Clemson
5
0
-1.1
90
2009
West Virginia
6
0
-1.2
90
2006
Washington
5
2
0.9


Average
4.9
1.2
-0.4

Despite having an outside shot at a #1 seed, this list is filled with lower seeds.  Perhaps they should not be winning this much, playing the style they're playing.  But they are, and many of these other teams were not, which makes comparisons shaky, at best.  Still, the largest overachiever here is 2006 Washington, with a PASE of only +0.9.  Not very promising.  Remove the lower seeds (5+), and it doesn't get much better: 2 wins and -0.5 PASE.

2010 Ohio State - Historical Comps
SCORE
YR
TEAM
SEED
W's
PASE
93
2009
Gonzaga
4
2
0.5
93
2008
Washington St.
4
2
0.5
92
2008
Davidson
10
3
2.4
92
2007
Ohio St.
1
5
1.6
92
2009
Arizona St.
6
1
-0.2
91
2007
UCLA
2
4
1.6
91
2008
Gonzaga
7
0
-0.9
91
2007
Wisconsin
2
1
-1.4
91
2008
Indiana
8
0
-0.7
91
2008
Xavier
3
3
1.1


Average
4.7
2.1
0.5

Another one filled with lower seeds, but at least these low ones punched above their weight.  It's not fair to include 2007 Wisconsin on here, as the Brian Butch injury ruined any chance they had.  Remove the Badgers, and the numbers improve ever so slightly, to 2.2 wins and +0.7 PASE.  Then remove the low seeds (6+) and the mid majors (yes, even Davidson), and we're looking at 3.5 wins and +1.2 PASE.  Keep in mind that these are based on full season numbers, so having a healthy Evan Turner might have resulted in a different list.

2010 Purdue - Historical Comps
SCORE
YR
TEAM
SEED
W's
PASE
94
2004
Wisconsin
6
1
-0.2
93
2009
Purdue
5
2
0.9
93
2007
Wisconsin
2
1
-1.4
93
2008
West Virginia
7
2
1.2
93
2007
Washington St.
4
1
-0.5
92
2009
Memphis
2
2
-0.4
92
2008
Washington St.
4
2
0.5
92
2009
West Virginia
6
0
-1.2
92
2004
Cincinnati
4
1
-0.5
92
2004
Nevada
10
2
1.4


Average
5.0
1.4
0.0

This list is basically moot due to the fact that they broke their valuable Hummel, but as long as I'm looking at the AP Top 10, I'll include them for the sake of completeness.  I find it funny that 2007 Wisconsin is on here, considering  their similar plight.  Instead of removing them, as I did above, we might want to just assume a similar fate will befall Purdue.  Tough luck, fellas.

2010 New Mexico - Historical Comps
SCORE
YR
TEAM
SEED
W's
PASE
92
2009
Marquette
6
1
-0.2
92
2009
Villanova
3
4
2.1
91
2009
Tennessee
9
0
-0.6
91
2007
Gonzaga
10
0
-0.6
91
2009
Brigham Young
8
0
-0.7
91
2008
Davidson
10
3
2.4
91
2007
Davidson
13
0
-0.3
91
2008
Indiana
8
0
-0.7
90
2005
Vermont
13
1
0.8
90
2007
Old Dominion
12
0
-0.6


Average
9.2
0.9
0.2

You could say this one is also for the sake of completeness, as I don't believe New Mexico belongs anywhere in the top 10.  And I think this list for the most part bears that out.  For the other teams, I removed the teams from second tier leagues, since their similar stats were earned against disparate competition.  I guess it's only fair to remove the major teams from this comparison, which leaves the Lobos' comps with an average of 0.7 wins and a PASE of +0.2.

2010 Villanova - Historical Comps
SCORE
YR
TEAM
SEED
W's
PASE
92
2006
Washington
5
2
0.9
92
2009
Villanova
3
4
2.1
91
2007
Virginia
4
1
-0.5
91
2004
Wake Forest
4
2
0.5
91
2008
Western Kentucky
12
2
1.4
91
2007
Notre Dame
6
0
-1.2
90
2008
Indiana
8
0
-0.7
90
2004
North Carolina
6
1
-0.2
90
2007
Tennessee
5
2
0.9
90
2009
North Carolina
1
6
2.6


Average
5.4
2.0
0.6

This list is full of teams with good offenses and mediocre defenses, which I assumed meant they'd be underperformers.  I'm a bit surprised that this group has the second-highest PASE.  However, the average win total is not as impressive, since many of these teams were seeded much lower than 'Nova expects to be. Remove the #5's and above, and we're left with 3.3 wins and a PASE of +1.2.  Quite good.

2010 West Virginia - Historical Comps
SCORE
YR
TEAM
SEED
W's
PASE
95
2009
West Virginia
6
0
-1.2
94
2009
Pittsburgh
1
3
-0.4
93
2008
Kansas St.
11
1
0.5
93
2004
Illinois
5
2
0.9
93
2008
Pittsburgh
4
1
-0.5
92
2004
Texas
3
2
0.1
92
2005
Michigan St.
5
4
2.9
92
2006
Illinois
4
1
-0.5
92
2009
Michigan St.
2
5
2.6
92
2004
Cincinnati
4
1
-0.5


Average
4.5
2.0
0.4

West Virginia may be inconsistent, but they are quite good when they're on, which I think squares with this chart.  They have the potential to make a deep run, if Good WVU shows up for every game.  However, their most similar team is last year's version, which channeled Bad WVU against Dayton.  I think they learn from last year, and we see Good WVU for several games.

Now that we've gone through all ten, here's a summary table that compiles the averages from each one:

TEAM
SEED
W
PASE
ADJ_W
ADJ_PASE
OVER_1
Kansas
2.5
3.6
1.3
4.1
1.7
5
Kentucky
1.9
2.9
0.2
2.9
0.2
2
Syracuse
2.6
2.8
0.5
4
1.3
4
Duke
2.6
2.8
0.3
3.4
0.6
2
Ohio St.
4.7
2.1
0.5
3.5
1.2
4
Villanova
5.4
2
0.6
3.3
1.2
3
West Virginia
4.5
2
0.4
2.6
0.7
2
Purdue
5
1.4
0
1
-1.4
2
Kansas St.
4.9
1.2
-0.4
2
-0.5
0
New Mexico
9.2
0.9
0.2
0.7
0.2
2

From the looks of this, Kansas and Syracuse have to be your favorites at this point, which is exactly what the polls say.  Duke, Kentucky, Ohio State, and Villanova are in the next tier.  West Virginia is another step down, and then Kansas State and New Mexico appear to be pretenders.

No comments:

Post a Comment