Tuesday, March 15, 2011
That time of the year again
Below I present you with my annual contribution to your ability to be competitive in your NCAA pools. This year, I have three metrics for you to evaluate the field and make your decisions.
A couple reminders. I’m not saying any of these metrics are perfect. Far from it. But they take the emotion out of picking winners (i.e., I won’t pick Illinois to do anything this year – not that I would. I’m sick of that team) so that you have the best chance of staying alive to win the pool. How will you win the pool? By picking the winner. That’s the only way. And overall the three metrics should paint a pretty clear picture of who the best teams are. Last year, Duke was at the top of all three of my metrics. That worked out pretty well.
Overview of the Metrics
Adjusted Scoring Margin (ASM) – Ah, the granddaddy of them all. I’ve been using this 2004 to help me in NCAA pools. It’s a tool that helps you evaluate who has played the best all year taking into account the level of competition.
Efficiency Margin-Conference Only (Major Conferences Only – ACC, Big East, Big 12, Big Ten, Pac-10, SEC) – I first came across this after the 2005 Tournament when the top four teams in this metric all made the Final Four. It hasn’t worked out that way since, but it’s been fairly predictive of at least the Elite Eight. Basically it measures the difference between how efficient you are on offense (points/possessions) and on defense (points against/possessions) just within your conference regular-season games. The higher the better. Why just major conferences? Because there are too many horrendous teams in non-major conferences that completely inflate the Efficiency Margin for the best teams in those lower conferences.
Efficiency Margin vs. Top 100 RPI – This is my own metric. So, it’s probably only so valid. But here’s my rationale. The teams you play in the tournament are almost definitely in the Top 100 RPI. So, why not find out how well the teams in the tournament do against that level of competition. I’m also able to include the best teams from the non-power conferences and level out the comparison by dropping their worst opponents. When I fooled around with this last year, the top two teams were Duke and Butler. Yeah, I know. I thought it was crap. I was wrong. But it’s worth a look anyway. It will probably never work out that way again.
Good luck.
A couple reminders. I’m not saying any of these metrics are perfect. Far from it. But they take the emotion out of picking winners (i.e., I won’t pick Illinois to do anything this year – not that I would. I’m sick of that team) so that you have the best chance of staying alive to win the pool. How will you win the pool? By picking the winner. That’s the only way. And overall the three metrics should paint a pretty clear picture of who the best teams are. Last year, Duke was at the top of all three of my metrics. That worked out pretty well.
Overview of the Metrics
Adjusted Scoring Margin (ASM) – Ah, the granddaddy of them all. I’ve been using this 2004 to help me in NCAA pools. It’s a tool that helps you evaluate who has played the best all year taking into account the level of competition.
Efficiency Margin-Conference Only (Major Conferences Only – ACC, Big East, Big 12, Big Ten, Pac-10, SEC) – I first came across this after the 2005 Tournament when the top four teams in this metric all made the Final Four. It hasn’t worked out that way since, but it’s been fairly predictive of at least the Elite Eight. Basically it measures the difference between how efficient you are on offense (points/possessions) and on defense (points against/possessions) just within your conference regular-season games. The higher the better. Why just major conferences? Because there are too many horrendous teams in non-major conferences that completely inflate the Efficiency Margin for the best teams in those lower conferences.
Efficiency Margin vs. Top 100 RPI – This is my own metric. So, it’s probably only so valid. But here’s my rationale. The teams you play in the tournament are almost definitely in the Top 100 RPI. So, why not find out how well the teams in the tournament do against that level of competition. I’m also able to include the best teams from the non-power conferences and level out the comparison by dropping their worst opponents. When I fooled around with this last year, the top two teams were Duke and Butler. Yeah, I know. I thought it was crap. I was wrong. But it’s worth a look anyway. It will probably never work out that way again.
Good luck.
