Showing posts with label March Madness. Show all posts
Showing posts with label March Madness. Show all posts

Saturday, May 31, 2014

Quant Facts Now 40-23 (63.5%)

Our "quant fact" predictions were correct for all three games of the NCAA Men's Final Four. We correctly predicted that Connecticut would defeat Kentucky for the national title.  In addition, we had Connecticut and Kentucky winning their respective semifinal games.  Our methods have been particularly successful during March Madness.

This improves our record to 40-23 (63.5%) in major championships.  

We will be back shortly with our quant fact predictions -- related to sports psychology -- for the Stanley Cup Finals and NBA Finals.  

Carlton Chin is a quant fact researcher who enjoys applying math to everything from sports analytics to the financial markets. Thoughtful analysis can result in knowledge discovery and help to explain the world around us. Carlton has been a contributor to the New York Times and Rant Sports, and has also been featured in the Wall Street Journal and ESPN. 

Dr. Jay Granat is a psychotherapist and has been named one of America's top mental gurus.  Jay coaches athletes of all levels, and has appeared in a variety of media outlets, including Good Morning America, ESPN and the New York Times.  


Saturday, April 5, 2014

2014 Final Four: Who Will Win

Our quant fact predictions for the 2014 Final Four are summarized in the article below.  Here is an excerpt:

This research goes back to 1985 when the NCAA Tournament went to its current format.   
...

In a close game, free throws can make the difference between winning and losing a championship. The team with a better free throw percentage has won 73 percent of national title games since this data became available.

This factor favors Connecticut and its 77.4 free throw percentage over the Florida Gators at 66.7 percent. In the other semifinal matchup, the Wisconsin Badgers (74.1 percent) best the Wildcats (68.5 percent) in free throw shooting.
...

Research shows that defense does indeed win championships. The team with the better field goal percentage defense has won an overwhelming 92 percent of national championship games since this data became available.

Connecticut edges Florida in this statistic 39.2 percent to 39.9 percent. Interestingly, for all of the talk about Wisconsin’s defense, Kentucky rates better in field goal percentage defense 41.0 percent to 42.7 percent.

The sports psychology quant facts for the two semifinal games favor Connecticut over Florida and Kentucky over Wisconsin. 

Connecticut 4 (ExperienceLeadership, Free Throws, FG Defense) – Florida 1 (Coach)
Kentucky 3 (Experience, Coach, FG Defense) – Wisconsin 1 (Free Throws)


Our quant facts favor Connecticut and Kentucky in the semifinal games.  

***

For the Final: 
http://www.rantsports.com/ncaa-basketball/2014/04/06/2014-ncaa-tournament-who-will-win-the-big-game/

Wednesday, April 24, 2013

Quant Fact Predictions now 33-20 (62.3%)

After a slow start, Louisville won a relatively close game.  Our quant fact prediction for the NCAA Men's Basketball national championship game selected Louisville to win -- albeit in a close game.  This makes our quant fact predictions correct 62.3% of the time (33-20) -- since we started the book's blog several years ago.


Carlton Chin, CFA, is a quantitative researcher and portfolio strategist for Price Asset Management and Adamah Capital, a fund manager specializing in alternative assets & Computer Aided Research & Trading (CARAT).  Jay Granat, PhD is a psychotherapist and founder of StayInTheZone.com.  

Carlton and Jay are particularly interested in factors related to sports psychology -- traits that can be more readily coached and practiced.  Our research has shown that these traits can help sports organizations improve performance -- and win championships.  


Monday, April 8, 2013

NCAA Men's Basketball Championship Game (2013)

Below is an excerpt from our article in the NY Times, based on quant research of factors related to sports psychology, 
...we focused on factors that might help predict the winner of the N.C.A.A. tournament championship game between Louisville and Michigan. Last year’s article correctly selected Kentucky to win the national title.
With an eye toward key concepts of sport psychology, we looked at factors like big-game experience, leadership behind the bench, leadership on the court, error control and consistency. 

Consistency:  The team with the higher 3-point shooting percentage has won 11 of the last 14 title games.  Free-throw shooting percentage is also a measure of consistency, and teams with the higher free0throw percentage have gone 10-4 over the past 14 championship games.
In the table below, we list the performance of the Final Four teams in consistency categories like 3-point shooting and free-throw percentage.  We also included turnovers and a defensive measure because these are also championship traits.
LouisvilleMichigan
3-pt shooting%32.9%38.3%
Free-throw %70.7%70.0%
Turnovers per game12.59.4
FG shooting defense39.2%42.3%

Who Will Win the Big Game?  Louisville has more championship factors in its favor, by a narrow 4-3 margin.  Based on our championship factors and season statistics, we developed a Monte Carlo simulator for college basketball, similar to the methodology we used for our football analyses.  The most frequently-occurring score was  Louisville 70, Michigan 69.

Read more here:

Saturday, April 6, 2013

2013 Final Four (March Madness)




Based on quant research of factors related to sports psychology, we focused on several championship characteristics that might help predict the winner of the NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament.  Last year’s article correctly selected Kentucky to win the national title.  


Consistency: Research has shown that consistency and error measures are also important to winning championships.  The team with the higher 3-point shooting percentage has won 11 of the last 14 title games.  Free throw shooting percentage is also a measure of consistency, and teams with the higher free throw percentage have gone 10-4 over the past 14 championship games. 
In the table below, we list the performance of the Final Four teams in consistency categories such as 3-point shooting and free-throw percentage.  We also include experience and leadership factors we discussed – as well as turnovers and a defensive measure, because these are also championship traits.

Who Will Win the Big Game?  Louisville has more championship factors in its favor than Wichita State, including big game experience and coaching leadership.  Wichita State has three-point shooting in its favor – while two factors (FG Shooting Defense and Turnovers per game) are very close.  In the other semifinal matchup, Michigan has more championship factors in its favor.  

Syracuse has coaching leadership and defense in its favor, but the other factors point to Michigan.
Based on our championship factors and season statistics, we developed a Monte Carlo simulator for college basketball, similar to the methodology we used for our football analyses.  The results for the simulations are centered around:  Louisville 69 – Wichita State 62 in the first semifinal game, and Michigan 69 – Syracuse 66 in the second semifinal game. 

Read more here:


Wednesday, March 20, 2013

March Madness Results by Seed for "Round 2"

Now that the field of 64 is all set, we wanted to take a look at how the seeds performed in Round 2, as it is now called.  We computed the results last year, here.

This year, this work was done for us.  Here are the results for the Seeds in Round 2 through last year's tournament.  


      Seed       Wins     Losses      Win %
1 112 0 100%
2 106 6 95%
3 96 16 86%
4 89 23 79%
5 74 38 66%
6 74 38 66%
7 67 45 60%
8 54 58 48%
9 58 54 52%
10 45 67 40%
11 38 74 34%
12 38 74 34%
13 23 89 21%
14 16 96 14%
15 6 106 5%
16 0 112 0%



Read more here:
http://www.sportsquants.com/2013/03/20/march-madness-1-results-seed/

Monday, April 2, 2012

March Madness 2012: Championship Game (NY Times)

Excerpt from our article in the New York Times.


Consistency: Research has shown that consistency and error measures are also important to winning championships. Historical data was not as readily available for some of the statistics (data goes back 13 seasons), but the team with the higher 3-point shooting percentage has won 10 of the last 13 title games. Teams with the higher free throw percentage have gone 9-4 over the past 13 championship games.
In the table below, we list the performance of Kentucky and Kansas in the categories related to consistency like 3-point shooting and free-throw percentage. We also included turnovers and a defensive measure because these are also championship traits. Kentucky holds the advantage in most of these statistical measures.
Read more here:
Carlton J. Chin, a portfolio strategist, and Jay P. Granat, psychotherapist, are authors of “Who Will Win the Big Game? A Psychological & Mathematical Method.” They have previously written about the World Series, the N.B.A. finals, and the Super Bowl.


Sunday, April 1, 2012

Time-Lapse: Final Four Court Setup

This is a fun time-lapse video of the court set-up for this year's Final Four in New Orleans.  It took five weeks to set things up -- but you can watch it in two minutes!







Saturday, March 31, 2012

March Madness 2012: The NCAA Men's Basketball Final Four

With an eye towards key concepts of sport psychology, we looked at factors such as big game experience, leadership behind the bench, leadership on the court, error control, and consistency.  So important are these concepts to winning championships that they have proven to be common themes across all sports we have studied.

Experience: Over the past 27 tournaments, 15 of 27 champions have had Final Four experience from the previous three years.  Teams with more Final Four appearances in the past three years have gone 11-5 (68.8%) in championship games.  Of this year’s Final Four contestants, only Kentucky has reached the Final Four over the past three years – and with this year’s appearance, Kentucky has reached the Final Four two years in a row.
...
Consistency: Research has shown that consistency and error measures are also important to winning championships.  Historical data was not as readily available for some of the statistics (data goes back 13 seasons), but the team with the higher 3-point shooting percentage has won 10 of the last 13 title games.  Free throw shooting percentage is also a measure of consistency, and teams with the higher free throw percentage have gone 9-4 over the past 13 championship games.
...
So who will win the big game?  The championship factors predict that Kentucky and Ohio State will advance to the championship game.  Once the finalists are determined, this ranking, based on the factors in the table, may be used to predict the champion: (1) Kentucky, (2) Ohio State, (3) Kansas, and (4) Louisville – to win the championship.


Read more at CNN.com here:
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-769182


Carlton Chin, a portfolio strategist and MIT graduate, and Jay Granat, psychotherapist, are authors of “Who Will Win the Big Game? A Psychological & Mathematical Method.”  They have previously written about the Super BowlWorld Series, and last year’s NCAA Tournament.

Thursday, March 15, 2012

Extra Motivation, Recent Performance Overvalued - Or Both?

We sometimes write (and give statistics) to show that recent performance is often overvalued by sports fans.  Here's an article that backs up this hypothesis -- and might also suggest that teams losing their conference championships might be extra-motivated to perform well in the big NCAA Men's Tournament.  From the Wall St. Journal:


For the three No. 1 seeds in the NCAA men’s basketball tournament that didn’t win their conference tournaments, there’s good news: History suggests they have as good a chance as No. 1-seeded conference champs of winning it all. Or, more precisely, a better chance. Especially North Carolina and Kentucky.

Head coach Gary Williams and the Maryland Terrapins celebrate after winning the men's NCAA Basketball National Championship game against the Indiana Hoosiers on April 1, 2002.
Getty Images
Ten years ago, Maryland shook off an ACC tournament semifinal loss to win six straight and the NCAA title.
As Ben Cohen noted in the Wall Street Journal today, NCAA champs generally have won their conference tournament. But a lot of those champs weren’t No. 1 seeds. Among top seeds since the tournament expanded to 64 teams in 1985, a greater proportion of those No. 1 seeds that have lost in their conference tournaments have gone on to win it all than have those that cut the nets after their conferences’ championship games: six of 26 non-champs vs. eight of 64 champs, nearly twice the percentage (excluding No. 1 seeds that played in conferences without tournaments). Since just one team can win it all each year, average tournament wins also are worth watching. And the non-conference champs rule among top seeds there, too, with an average of 3.69 wins to 3.36 for the conference champs...
Read more here:

Tuesday, March 13, 2012

Final Four Probabilities (2012 NCAA Tournament)

We were fiddling around with some statistics and came up with these probabilities of advancing to the Final Four.  The numbers may be useful when filling out your brackets.  



                                           Probability of Winning Region 


SeedTeamRegionFinal Four Prob
1KentuckyS42.4%
2Ohio StateE41.4%
1UNCMW36.2%
2KansasMW26.9%
1Mich. StateW22.1%
2MissouriW17.7%
1SyracuseE15.7%
4WisconsinE14.8%
8MemphisW10.4%
5Wich. StateS9.6%
2DukeS8.2%





Sunday, March 11, 2012

March Madness -- Round 1 Results by Seed

Today is Selection Sunday for the NCAA College Basketball's Men's Tournament.  With the hugely popular office bracket pools, we thought we would summarize the results for the seeds in Round 1 of the tournament (since the NCAA Tournament went to the 64-team bracket in 1985).  With the addition of a few teams over the 64 team field over the years, we tabulated the results by the actual seeds numbering 1 to 16 (or the replacement).


Seed
Wins
Losses
Win %
1
108
0
100.0%
2
104
4
96.3%
3
92
16
85.2%
4
86
22
79.6%
5
72
36
66.7%
6
72
36
66.7%
7
65
43
60.2%
8
51
57
47.2%
9
57
51
52.8%
10
43
65
39.8%
11
36
72
33.3%
12
36
72
33.3%
13
22
86
20.4%
14
16
92
14.8%
15
4
104
3.7%
16
0
108
0%

Enjoy the Madness!

Monday, April 4, 2011

NCAA Men's Basketball Championship 2011

Thank you for the kind notes we have received about our NY Times article on the Final Four, championship characteristics, and "quant fact" predictions. 

Our "quant fact" traits remain the same in terms of which team is predicted to win the 2011 NCAA Men's Championship: UConn has more factors on its side (so our blog's "official prediction" will be UConn) -- although Butler has shown what experience and coaching can do!


Carlton Chin, CFA, is chief investment officer and founder of alternative asset fund manager Adamah / CARAT Capital.  Jay Granat, PhD, is a psychotherapist, sports psychologist, and founder of StayIntheZone.com.   

Saturday, April 2, 2011

Final Four Factors - 2011

Here is an excerpt from our analysis of the Final Four of the 2011 Men's NCAA Basketball Tournament.

In our book, “Who Will Win the Big Game? A Psychological and Mathematical Method,” we analyzed the championship games or series of the N.F.L., N.B.A., Major League Baseball and N.H.L., and the major finals in golf and tennis, to identify championship characteristics. Based on that research, we are again focusing on the factors that might help predict the winner of the N.C.A.A. men’s basketball tournament. Last year’s analysis correctly predicted that Duke would win the championship, and that Butler would be a threat to Michigan State in the semifinals.

The championship factors and quant facts point to Connecticut and Butler advancing to the final.  These predictions will count for our blog's official "quant fact" selections.  We'll also clarify our quant fact prediction for the 2011 March Madness champion before Monday's Championship Game.

Read more here:
http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/02/keeping-score-the-traits-of-a-winning-team/

Saturday, March 26, 2011

March Madness: Elite 8 Probabilities

The Financial Markets Program at the University of Chicago - together with Carlton Chin, a fund manager - devised a March Madness pool -- that models each game as a financial marketplace.  The pool is being run "round-by-round" so it can generate fresh pricing as each round develops. 

The points awarded for correct selections -- are based on market participant entries.  As a result, the final price for each game can be used as a proxy for the probability of a team advancing to the next round.  Below is a table that shows the final pricing for the current round's match-ups.  It is interesting that our financial marketplace model produced probabilities similar to projections from various sources.  The pool is designed to study:  
  • Financial marketplaces and market pricing.
  • Ideas of game theory.
  • Concepts of contrarian methods.

For more information - please visit the March Madness link at CARATcapital.com.  Please also visit this summary of the March Madness Pool.


Financial Markets Program: Elite 8 Final Prices 
(Proxy for Probability of Advancing to Next Round)

Kansas 72%
VCU      28%

Arizona 55%
U-Conn  45%

North Carolina 52%
Kentucky 48%

Florida 57%
Butler 43%

Wednesday, March 16, 2011

March Madness Bracket Probabilities (2011)

The Financial Markets Program at the University of Chicago - together with Carlton Chin, a fund manager - devised a March Madness pool -- that models each game as a financial marketplace.  The pool is being run "round-by-round" so it can generate fresh pricing as each round develops. 

The points awarded for correct selections -- are based on market participant entries.  As a result, the final price for each game can be used as a proxy for the probability of a team advancing to the next round.  Below is a table that shows the final pricing for the first round's match-ups.  It is interesting that our financial marketplace model produced probabilities similar to projections from various sources, including the New York Times 538 forecast -- even with a relatively small sample size of just under 40 data points.  The pool is designed to study:  

  • Financial marketplaces and market pricing.
  • Ideas of game theory.
  • Concepts of contrarian methods.

For more information - please visit the March Madness link at CARATcapital.com.  Please also visit this summary of the March Madness Pool.


Financial Markets Program: First Round Final Prices 
(Proxy for Probability of Advancing to Next Round)


Region
Seed
Team
Official Final Price (1st Rd)
  SW
1
Kansas
94.80
SW
16
Boston U
5.20




SW
8
UNLV
52.20
SW
9
Illinois
47.80




SW
5
Vanderbilt
53.20
SW
12
Richmond
46.80




SW
4
Louisville
83.90
SW
13
Morehead St
16.10




SW
6
Georgetown
65.60
SW
11
TBD
34.40




SW
3
Purdue
89.25
SW
14
St. Peters
10.75




SW
7
Texas A&M
44.40
SW
10
Florida St
55.60




SW
2
Notre Dame
90.10
SW
15
Akron
9.90








W
1
Duke
92.95
W
16
Hampton
7.05




W
8
Michigan
43.05
W
9
Tennessee
56.95




W
5
Arizona
66.95
W
12
Memphis
33.05




W
4
Texas
77.65
W
13
Oakland
22.35




W
6
Cincinnati
40.20
W
11
Missouri
59.80




W
3
Connecticut
85.40
W
14
Bucknell
14.60




W
7
Temple
50.10
W
10
Penn St
49.90




W
2
San Diego St
90.25
W
15
No. Colorado
9.75








E
1
Ohio St
93.95
E
16
Play-in Winner
6.05




E
8
George Mason
47.60
E
9
Villanova
52.40




E
5
West Virginia
75.35
E
12
Play-in Winner
24.65




E
4
Kentucky
86.90
E
13
Princeton
13.10




E
6
Xavier
48.95
E
11
Marquette
51.05




E
3
Syracuse
83.55
E
14
Indiana St
16.45




E
7
Washington
60.20
E
10
Georgia
39.80




E
2
North Carolina
94.30
E
15
Long Island
5.70








SE
1
Pittsburgh
92.45
SE
16
TBD
7.55




SE
8
Butler
42.20
SE
9
Old Dominion
57.80




SE
5
Kansas St
47.75
SE
12
Utah St
52.25




SE
4
Wisconsin
64.60
SE
13
Belmont
35.40




SE
6
St. Johns
50.30
SE
11
Gonzaga
49.70




SE
3
BYU
78.20
SE
14
Wofford
21.80




SE
7
UCLA
45.95
SE
10
Michigan St
54.05




SE
2
Florida
93.15
SE
15
UC Santa Barb
6.85