Monday, May 10, 2004

Not Fast Enough

Perhaps the most talked about aspect of the 2004 National Chamionship game was Georgia Tech's insistence on forcing a fast pace. It was widely regarded as a mistake for the Jackets to avoid creating a halfcourt game. I'm not exactly sure why, because the Jackets could match the Huskies in both athleticism and depth. But did the Jackets play too fast - and if so, was this a mistake?

Here are the pre-tourney Georgia Tech games that involved the fastest pace, based on calculated possessions, and how the Jackets fared:

@ North Carolina (91 possessions) L 103-88
vs. Connecticut @ MSG (84) W 77-61
vs. Duke (81) L 82-74
@ Cornell (81) W 90-69
vs. Maryland (80) W 81-71
vs. UNC (77) W 88-77

Now the slowest paced games...

vs. Duke @ Greensboro (64) L 85-71
@ Clemson (66)  W 79-60
vs. NC St. (67) L 79-69
@ NC St. (67) L 76-72
@ Georgia (67) L 83-80
@ Wake Forest (68) W 73-66

It appears that the Jackets were more comfortable with the faster pace, even against elite competition. Their first meeting against UConn was the 2nd fastest paced game they played. Against Duke, their worst effort came in the slowest paced game of the 3 meetings, in the ACC tournament. Their win at Durham was the 7th fastest game they played.

Now let's check out how UConn fared in similar games.

The slowest...

@ Syracuse (60) L 67-56
@ Villanova (60) W 75-74
vs. Pittsburgh (61) W 61-58
vs. Yale (62) W 70-60
vs. West Virginia (63) W 88-58
vs. Notre Dame (63) W 61-50

The fastest...

vs. Iona (89) W 104-54
vs. Sacred Heart (85) W 111-64
vs. Ball State (84) W 101-62
vs. Georgia Tech @ MSG (84) L 77-61
@ North Carolina (83) L 86-83
@ Rice (82) W 92-83
vs. Oklahoma (78) W 86-59
vs. Nevada (77) W 93-79

Certainly UConn was uncomfortable with a deliberate pace. The Yale game raised red flags with all sorts of observers that the Huskies were undeserving of their preseason #1 ranking. The late-season loss to Syracuse and the close call against 'Nova were surprising. Yet the Huskies also were human at the frenetic pace, losing to both Georgia Tech and UNC, the 2 fastest games they played against decent competition.

All in all, I think the case that Georgia Tech should have been more patient is a weak one. I doubt Paul Hewitt even considered doing anything other that letting his team play its usual game. They proved they could beat UConn with their running style earlier in the season, and the trio of games against Duke demonstrated that a faster pace gave them a better chance of success. There was the sweep by NC State and the shocking loss against Georgia to demonstrate that a slower pace could lead to disaster.

The game turned into a disaster anyway from the Tech perspective. UConn was a far superior team that would have beaten Tech regardless of what style the Jackets wanted to play.

For the record, the championship game had 76 possessions, 8 fewer than the regular season matchup. So maybe Georgia Tech was too patient.

Monday, May 03, 2004

Accountability

Check it out, Todd Beck has calculated the effectiveness of various college hoops computer rankings. Actually he did this in real-time during the season. Some observations...

Looking at the second half results, most systems fall on the correct side of the spread 50-52% of the time. This isn't very good in the grand scheme of things, but most systems were not designed with beating the spread in mind. Still, any system advertising itself as predictive might aspire to do a little better (myself included).

Jeff Sagarin's predictive ratings was the worst of his three systems at predicting. I think his intent was that it would be his best system at predicting, hence the name "Sagarin predictive." Actually though, the system was the worst of any system against the betting public, and darn near last in predicting actual winners. So while my system has produced pretty lame results, I don't feel so bad considering Sagarin's ratings are usually considered the most respected.

I think this means it's time for a new system. Maybe I can't do much better than I already have (which isn't very good). Basketball is so unpredictable that any system is going to look foolish a certain amount of the time. A start will be to ditch using raw scores, and use something along the lines of the offensive and defensive efficiency ratings I have discussed previously. We'll see what happens.