- I don't get all the mid-major love. Yeah, they've had a good tourney, landing 4-5 teams in the sweet sixteen, depending on your opinion of the A-10 conference (my opinion: Xavier is a "major" team playing in a midmajor conference). But 3 of the teams caught pretty big breaks on their way. Butler topped two weak midmajor teams (barely, I might add). Cornell drew two teams that were practically duplicates of each other, and happened to match up extremely well against that particular team profile. St. Mary's, the absolutely inexplicable sweet 16 entrant, beat a decent Richmond team and then a Villanova team that collapsed on itself about two weeks earlier (which nearly dropped a game to Robert Morris in the first round). Northern Iowa is the only team I would really call a "surprise", beating a decent UNLV team before shocking a lethargic Kansas squad. In the round of 16, St. Mary's and Cornell were absolutely crushed while Northern Iowa was nipped by an injury-laden Michigan State team. Even Butler, the midmajor darling, beat an injured Syracuse team lacking an inside presence that couldn't hit a three to save their lives before beating Kansas State team in the closing minutes, a Wildcat team that was coming off one day's rest after a 50 minute sprint against Xavier.
- So, in summary, a bunch of midmajors caught a bunch of breaks to advance deeper than expected. It's pretty simple reasoning, but that hasn't stopped the sportsmedia from ginning up the old "midmajors deserve more tournament births" meme. This has happened every few years for the past 15 years or so, just think back to 2006 when 3 midmajors (George Mason, Wichita St., and Bradley) made the sweet sixteen and the same story was plastered over newspapers across the country (of course, this time it's plastered on big-media hosted blogs, but I digress...).
- I realize that everyone loves a good underdog and in principle, I'm in favor of including as many deserving midmajors as possible. Thing is, the committee actually did a pretty good job of including midmajors this year. Yes, Florida and Minnesota were extremely weak teams, but can you name any midmajors that were more deserving? I can think of one, maybe: Dayton. That's it. The committee whiffs on one team while including UTEP, St. Mary's, San Diego St., Utah St., and Richmond. Not a bad job if you ask me, and I'm ignoring possibly more deserving teams from major conferences. As much as I slagged them, Virginia Tech had a good argument for getting in, probably better than Florida/Minnesota/St. Mary's/Richmond.
- I've read an article or two about the proposed 96-team tournament. A lot of the waffling from conference officials seems to revolve around whether the extra slots would go to midmajor teams or middle-tier major conference teams. My retort: who cares? Any of those teams might be capable of stringing a couple of wins together every couple of years, but none of them will be very good.
- The best argument I've read in favor of an expanded tournament is that it would allow for both regular season and conference tournament champions to play in the big dance. This is a pretty big deal for lower-rung conferences where a dominant team during the season can be suddenly left out 'cause they played one poor game in the conference tourney. Problem with this argument is Ken Pomeroy crunched the numbers, and it turns out that the conference tournament does a pretty good job of selecting the best team, with the added bonus of providing a good means of selecting a team when several are bunched together at the top of the standings.
- Back to the Final Four. Let's be clear, I like Butler: they play excellent fundamentals, they have a stats-oriented coach, and they have a lot of great individual stories. And I'll probably end up rooting for them when all is said and done. But, lost among all the Butler-love, they aren't really one of the best teams in the country and it's not particularly close. They are riding an incredible string of breaks and close victories. And they catch yet another break by drawing Michigan State in the semi-finals, another good but not top-shelf team (to be clear, an injury-free MSU team is probably a top-shelf team) that is riding their own streak of close victories and relatively easy opponents to the final four (when the best team you've played in four games is Maryland, yeah...Tom Izzo is a genius if you put stock into a superpower that forces higher seeds to lose right before you play them). Now, this is what is great about the tournament; catch a few breaks, seize a few opportunities and you find yourself playing in the Final Four. But let's not get caught up in the hype, this does not herald Butler's rise to the upper echelons of college basketball. They obviously appear to be in better shape long-term than say George Mason was in 2006, but let's not get carried away and expect them to duplicate this feat anytime soon.
- Finally, Butler's run is a painful reminder of Clemson's 2007 tourney draw. Uggh...think about the draw we could have had: #12 seed Villanova, #13 seed Siena, #1 Kansas, and #10 Davidson. Yeah, we probably get past Kansas 1 out of 10 times or something, but 3 out of 4 games against double-digit seeds to get to the final four? Can we travel back in time and pull the press after the first 10 minutes of the Villanova game?
Showing posts with label NCAA Tournament. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NCAA Tournament. Show all posts
Thursday, 1 April 2010
Thoughts on the Tourney: Let the Midmajor Backlash Begin!
I'm hitting a rough patch at work right now, so I've got little to no time. Quick thoughts on the tourney, though:
Saturday, 20 March 2010
Quick Clemson NCAA Post-Mortem
There's an old adage that teams that like to press don't like to be pressed. Yesterday afternoon we observed a more fundamental truism: teams that turn the ball over too much don't like to be pressed. It was pretty obvious to anyone paying attention that Clemson was almost certain to lose to Missouri. Both teams rely primarily on their defensive ability to force turnovers to drive their offensive output, and the Mizzou Tigers simply don't turn the ball over. Yeah, there was a chance our press might cause them problems, but you aren't a top five team at avoiding turnovers for nothing. The advantage was all Missouri going in and they burned us time and time again as we made stupid decisions with the ball. We kept it close with ridiculous, unsustainable 3-point shooting in the first half but when we regressed to the mean in the second half the game was as good as done (felt like the second Maryland game in that respect). Also, if you don't understand the concept of regression to the mean, read this. Its related to baseball but the idea is the same--if the team has a certain "true" level of performance, then given enough time the team will revert to that level regardless of how well they perform over smaller stretches of time. We went 8-11 from 3-point land in the first half, there was no way we were going 16-22 for the game.
I know everyone is down on the players for not playing hard the last ten minutes of the game, but I think there's a reason. Seems to me they new their margin for error was small--they had to keep things even for 40 minutes to try and pull it out at the end because they wouldn't be able to force turnovers or get enough stops in the halfcourt to spark a run (to say nothing of our complete lack of a four-minute offense). Once they were in a hole, they knew they were beaten. Sure, it's not a good reason for not playing hard and it reflects extremely poorly on the coaching staff for their inability to motivate/prepare the team mentally, but there it is.
I've been yelling it as loud as I can from this tiny blog pulpit: turnovers are killing us. This is the worst year for Clemson at turning the ball over since the first season Purnell took over, and it's not even close. There's been a ton of talk around the blogosphere about the lack of an offensive plan for the Tigers and their inability to even execute simple fundamentals. This is undoubtedly true; I won't argue this point. Purnell and his (newly-hired?) assistants need to take a long look at the tapes this offseason to figure out how to improve the halfcourt set. But I would argue that we have an even more fundamental problem: empty possessions from turnover after turnover. Often, we don't even get a chance to setup the halfcourt 'cause Stitt is dribbling the ball off his leg. This is also a more fundamental problem because it isn't going away next season with Stitt as our de facto team leader and ball-handler.
Next season has all of the makings of a bad year for the Tigers, outlined by ClemBen in the post below. We've got a turnover prone "senior leader" point guard blocking and taking playing time from a better player one year his junior (don't even get me started--the last few games of the season should have sealed in everyone's mind that Young is the better player than Stitt now), a lack of an strong inside presence capable of creating a shot, and a guy starting at the two position that would be fighting for playing time at the back end of the bench for a middling SEC team (how many times was Tanner Smith burned off the ball on the perimeter leading to easy points? I give him credit for decent defensive fundamentals, but when he's matched against someone quick and fluid, he's toast). Most of our problems are related to the most fundamental aspects of the game; for example, perimeter players gotta be stronger with the ball and make crisper passes to right part of the player receiving the ball while inside guys need to improve footwork in the post. It's easy to tell Clemson to go out and make up a few nice offensive sets and practice them 1000 times, but we won't get to .500 in the ACC next season without first improving the fundamentals on offense and bringing our turnover count down to a reasonable range.
I know everyone is down on the players for not playing hard the last ten minutes of the game, but I think there's a reason. Seems to me they new their margin for error was small--they had to keep things even for 40 minutes to try and pull it out at the end because they wouldn't be able to force turnovers or get enough stops in the halfcourt to spark a run (to say nothing of our complete lack of a four-minute offense). Once they were in a hole, they knew they were beaten. Sure, it's not a good reason for not playing hard and it reflects extremely poorly on the coaching staff for their inability to motivate/prepare the team mentally, but there it is.
I've been yelling it as loud as I can from this tiny blog pulpit: turnovers are killing us. This is the worst year for Clemson at turning the ball over since the first season Purnell took over, and it's not even close. There's been a ton of talk around the blogosphere about the lack of an offensive plan for the Tigers and their inability to even execute simple fundamentals. This is undoubtedly true; I won't argue this point. Purnell and his (newly-hired?) assistants need to take a long look at the tapes this offseason to figure out how to improve the halfcourt set. But I would argue that we have an even more fundamental problem: empty possessions from turnover after turnover. Often, we don't even get a chance to setup the halfcourt 'cause Stitt is dribbling the ball off his leg. This is also a more fundamental problem because it isn't going away next season with Stitt as our de facto team leader and ball-handler.
Next season has all of the makings of a bad year for the Tigers, outlined by ClemBen in the post below. We've got a turnover prone "senior leader" point guard blocking and taking playing time from a better player one year his junior (don't even get me started--the last few games of the season should have sealed in everyone's mind that Young is the better player than Stitt now), a lack of an strong inside presence capable of creating a shot, and a guy starting at the two position that would be fighting for playing time at the back end of the bench for a middling SEC team (how many times was Tanner Smith burned off the ball on the perimeter leading to easy points? I give him credit for decent defensive fundamentals, but when he's matched against someone quick and fluid, he's toast). Most of our problems are related to the most fundamental aspects of the game; for example, perimeter players gotta be stronger with the ball and make crisper passes to right part of the player receiving the ball while inside guys need to improve footwork in the post. It's easy to tell Clemson to go out and make up a few nice offensive sets and practice them 1000 times, but we won't get to .500 in the ACC next season without first improving the fundamentals on offense and bringing our turnover count down to a reasonable range.
Tuesday, 16 March 2010
Gauging Clemson's NCAA Odds on Paper
Every year, I run a simulation of the NCAA tournament based on Kenpom.com's offensive and defensive effeciency ratings. I went over the methodology in some detail last year, so I won't cover it again. I'm no professional when it comes to these things, it's just something I do every year for fun. Like last year, I'll share what the simulation says regarding Clemson's chances of advancing into each round, alongside the 2008 and 2009 tournaments. Each number represents the percentage of times that Clemson reached a given round out of a million simulations. Keep in mind, this method is based only on the stats--only a part of the story in basketball. It doesn't take into account, for example, how teams match up in terms of strengths and weaknesses. As a result, Clemson ends up with a much better chance of advancing past Missouri based on statistics alone than I think is actually warranted when looking at the actual matchups, which I touched on briefly in the last post.
Clemson's odds of reaching the last two rounds ends up closely mirroring last year, but reaching the Sweet 16 or Elite 8 is a considerably more difficult task as we are up against a much stronger slate of teams. And how about those odds in 2008? Pretty painful to ponder what could of been, given that gift of a second-round potential matchup with Vanderbilt. I haven't seen odds anywhere close to that good for a 5 seed in the last three years...
Clemson's odds of reaching the last two rounds ends up closely mirroring last year, but reaching the Sweet 16 or Elite 8 is a considerably more difficult task as we are up against a much stronger slate of teams. And how about those odds in 2008? Pretty painful to ponder what could of been, given that gift of a second-round potential matchup with Vanderbilt. I haven't seen odds anywhere close to that good for a 5 seed in the last three years...
Monday, 15 March 2010
Initial Thoughts on NCAA Selection/Tourney
In an effort to pack the first round with as many unnecessary subplots as possible, the selection committee is pitting Clemson against Missouri in the "Buffalo Battle of the Full-court Presses (TM)". I think Clemson as a seven seed is a bit of a stretch, they probably fit slightly better as an 8/9 seed while Missouri is probably feeling a bit puzzled they were selected as a 10 seed, I had them pegged as closer to a 7/8 seed. In that light, Clemson vs. Missouri probably makes the most sense when viewed as the fifth 8 vs. 9 game, with West Virginia as the fifth #1 seed.
It's interesting to get a second potential shot at playing WVU. I was pretty excited at the beginning of the season about the possibility of playing them in the second round of the 76 Classic, before Texas A&M handled us pretty easily in the opener. Despite the fact that WVU doesn't turn the ball over much, I don't think that would be a terrible matchup for us. Unfortunately, though, I don't share ClemBen's optimism below about the Missouri game. Without looking too deeply at the stats or tape, my initial impressions give us about a 15% chance at winning. As everyone in TigerTown knows by now, Mike Anderson's Mizzou Tigers play the entire length of the court just like Oliver Purnell. But don't get caught up in the "two teams playing the same style of basketball" talk. While they have a lot of similarities, it ain't hard to find differences, either. The most important difference: Missouri is reasonably good at holding on to the ball whereas Clemson is reasonably bad at holding on to the ball. In a matchup of two defenses that specialize in producing turnovers, which one do you think has the upper hand? This also explains why they ended up #13 on my "Matchups of Doom" list last week. In fact, I'd take it a step further and say this matchup is actually one of the worst possible for Clemson (outside of the Richmond Spiders), because almost all of the teams above Missouri are in the 1-5 range and we weren't going to play them in the first round anyway.
Now I'll bring up a personal anecdote to try and support why I have a lot of doubts about our chances against Missouri. I try to avoid these 'cause personal anecdotes are too often used as blunt instruments to try and bludgeon someone into believing your point-of-view ("but I was there, I saw what it was like...", etc.), but I think the stats back me up strongly in this case. Back in 2004, I happened to be vacationing in Hawaii and got hooked up with some tickets to watch Clemson play UAB in the first round of the Rainbow Classic (speaking of which, you were there ClemBen--I can't believe you've forgotten...hahaha). Clemson was in its second year with Oliver Purnell at the helm, and UAB in its third season under Mike Anderson, fresh off a surprise NCAA sweet sixteen run. It was a fun first half to watch, lots of fast play with both teams really hitting each other with the press, getting turnovers and occasionally run-outs. The second half, however, UAB came out strong and didn't let up--completely burying Clemson. I came away from the game with one impression: UAB won because ultimately they took better care of the basketball. Looking over the stats from the past eight years, I don't see anything that dissuades me from this initial impression. Mike Anderson's teams are traditionally strong in two areas: forcing turnovers and not yielding any turnovers. For whatever reason, to the increasingly maddening perspective of the Clemson fanbase, Oliver Purnell hasn't been as concerned with the latter. Its reached unbelievable heights this season, which is by far the worst season in terms of giving away the ball since the first year Purnell took over.
So unless we suddenly decide to stop giving away our possessions for no good reason, in all likelihood Oliver Purnell and the Tigers are looking at another first round exit. There are a few other wrinkles to the matchup (most of them favoring Missouri) and I'll try to go more into detail later in the week. But right now, some other quick, initial thoughts on the Tourney:
1) The selection committee didn't do a good job selecting the seeds, at least not as good as last year's effort. Not impressed at all.
2) No Elizabeth, you are not getting any hints from the website about which teams to pick (or not pick) this year. Your "victory" from last year is still under review by the rules committee, by the way...
3) While I don't agree some of the selection committee's seeds, I really don't have any problems with the Virginia Tech decision. Let's not forget that in addition to having a crazy weak out-of-conference schedule, they also had an incredibly weak in-conference schedule. The only downside to the decision is we have to listen to Seth Greenberg's annual ESPN whine-fest. I will personally send a $25 dollar check to any reporter who poses this simple question to Seth Greenberg: given VT's recent NCAA snubs and the consistent criticism accompanying these snubs regarding a weak out-of-conference schedule, why was Temple the only non-conference team you scheduled that could reasonably be considered a preseason favorite to get into the NCAA tournament? That's the only question needed to make the whining go away.
4) From Greenberg's Twitter feed, just before the selections were announced:
It's interesting to get a second potential shot at playing WVU. I was pretty excited at the beginning of the season about the possibility of playing them in the second round of the 76 Classic, before Texas A&M handled us pretty easily in the opener. Despite the fact that WVU doesn't turn the ball over much, I don't think that would be a terrible matchup for us. Unfortunately, though, I don't share ClemBen's optimism below about the Missouri game. Without looking too deeply at the stats or tape, my initial impressions give us about a 15% chance at winning. As everyone in TigerTown knows by now, Mike Anderson's Mizzou Tigers play the entire length of the court just like Oliver Purnell. But don't get caught up in the "two teams playing the same style of basketball" talk. While they have a lot of similarities, it ain't hard to find differences, either. The most important difference: Missouri is reasonably good at holding on to the ball whereas Clemson is reasonably bad at holding on to the ball. In a matchup of two defenses that specialize in producing turnovers, which one do you think has the upper hand? This also explains why they ended up #13 on my "Matchups of Doom" list last week. In fact, I'd take it a step further and say this matchup is actually one of the worst possible for Clemson (outside of the Richmond Spiders), because almost all of the teams above Missouri are in the 1-5 range and we weren't going to play them in the first round anyway.
Now I'll bring up a personal anecdote to try and support why I have a lot of doubts about our chances against Missouri. I try to avoid these 'cause personal anecdotes are too often used as blunt instruments to try and bludgeon someone into believing your point-of-view ("but I was there, I saw what it was like...", etc.), but I think the stats back me up strongly in this case. Back in 2004, I happened to be vacationing in Hawaii and got hooked up with some tickets to watch Clemson play UAB in the first round of the Rainbow Classic (speaking of which, you were there ClemBen--I can't believe you've forgotten...hahaha). Clemson was in its second year with Oliver Purnell at the helm, and UAB in its third season under Mike Anderson, fresh off a surprise NCAA sweet sixteen run. It was a fun first half to watch, lots of fast play with both teams really hitting each other with the press, getting turnovers and occasionally run-outs. The second half, however, UAB came out strong and didn't let up--completely burying Clemson. I came away from the game with one impression: UAB won because ultimately they took better care of the basketball. Looking over the stats from the past eight years, I don't see anything that dissuades me from this initial impression. Mike Anderson's teams are traditionally strong in two areas: forcing turnovers and not yielding any turnovers. For whatever reason, to the increasingly maddening perspective of the Clemson fanbase, Oliver Purnell hasn't been as concerned with the latter. Its reached unbelievable heights this season, which is by far the worst season in terms of giving away the ball since the first year Purnell took over.
So unless we suddenly decide to stop giving away our possessions for no good reason, in all likelihood Oliver Purnell and the Tigers are looking at another first round exit. There are a few other wrinkles to the matchup (most of them favoring Missouri) and I'll try to go more into detail later in the week. But right now, some other quick, initial thoughts on the Tourney:
1) The selection committee didn't do a good job selecting the seeds, at least not as good as last year's effort. Not impressed at all.
2) No Elizabeth, you are not getting any hints from the website about which teams to pick (or not pick) this year. Your "victory" from last year is still under review by the rules committee, by the way...
3) While I don't agree some of the selection committee's seeds, I really don't have any problems with the Virginia Tech decision. Let's not forget that in addition to having a crazy weak out-of-conference schedule, they also had an incredibly weak in-conference schedule. The only downside to the decision is we have to listen to Seth Greenberg's annual ESPN whine-fest. I will personally send a $25 dollar check to any reporter who poses this simple question to Seth Greenberg: given VT's recent NCAA snubs and the consistent criticism accompanying these snubs regarding a weak out-of-conference schedule, why was Temple the only non-conference team you scheduled that could reasonably be considered a preseason favorite to get into the NCAA tournament? That's the only question needed to make the whining go away.
4) From Greenberg's Twitter feed, just before the selections were announced:
"Still holding out hope! Sad day for the ACC if a 10-6 third place team doesn'tFirst of all, it says a lot about your own mindset if you have to "hold out hope" after winning 10 conference games. Second, don't cry for the ACC--we got six teams into the Tournament, including the team that finished 7-9 in conference play. This doesn't look bad for the ACC, it reflects poorly on your program and its utter inability to construct a halfway decent tournament resume.
get a bid".
Sunday, 14 March 2010
Clemson versus Missouri
So the brackets just came out and Clemson scores a 7 seed in the East versus none other than fellow pressing team Missouri. That is a tough match-up for us although Mizzou faded towards the end of the year. Now I don't have too much of a problem with Missouri but getting West Virginia as the 2 seed is really bad news. They are easily the top second seed after winning the Big East Champs. Wish we could have drawn Villanova for some pay back. I am happy we play the 19th, Buffalo is kinda far and cold so I won't be there, which is unfortunate.
I will be happy with this season if we can win the first game. Do that and hopefully we can move on and Booker can find his rhythm. At least with Missouri we can play up tempo and not get stuck in our crummy half court but we have struggled against the press ourselves this year. I don't think we handle the press well and we certainly have turned it over way too much all season, especially in our last two games. It certainly could have been worse--I am glad to not be in an 8/9 match-up. Come on Tigers, give OP at least one NCAA tourney win...
One last thing I have been meaning to post about--How is that 'Seed of Doubt' now Ron Morris?? What a hack reporter, again nothing to back up his opinions but I would say a 7 seed is a pretty ringing endorsement of the season despite an early tourney loss. We weren't even close to being on the bubble even with Houston and Washington winning conference tournaments and UTEP and Utah State losing. Why is that you may ask Ron? Its because of RPI and SOS--statistics you should look into.
Although Virginia Tech did have the worst OOC schedule in recent memory 10-6 in the ACC is a stinging rejection. Another tough rejection for Seth Greenberg.
I will be happy with this season if we can win the first game. Do that and hopefully we can move on and Booker can find his rhythm. At least with Missouri we can play up tempo and not get stuck in our crummy half court but we have struggled against the press ourselves this year. I don't think we handle the press well and we certainly have turned it over way too much all season, especially in our last two games. It certainly could have been worse--I am glad to not be in an 8/9 match-up. Come on Tigers, give OP at least one NCAA tourney win...
One last thing I have been meaning to post about--How is that 'Seed of Doubt' now Ron Morris?? What a hack reporter, again nothing to back up his opinions but I would say a 7 seed is a pretty ringing endorsement of the season despite an early tourney loss. We weren't even close to being on the bubble even with Houston and Washington winning conference tournaments and UTEP and Utah State losing. Why is that you may ask Ron? Its because of RPI and SOS--statistics you should look into.
Although Virginia Tech did have the worst OOC schedule in recent memory 10-6 in the ACC is a stinging rejection. Another tough rejection for Seth Greenberg.
Wednesday, 10 March 2010
NCAA Matchups of Doom: 2010 Edition
Thought I would do this again this year: it's just a slightly-better-than-arbitrary way to try and pick out the teams that would be among the most difficult matchups for Clemson in the first round. I described the "methodology" last year, but basically I pick a couple of statistical areas that I think gave us match-up problems over the course of the season and apply a weighted ranking of teams that are strong in those areas. This year I chose the ability of a team to avoid the turnover and their ability to limit a team's effective FG%. The reasoning: the former takes away our primary strength on defense which has essentially driven our relatively high defensive ranking and the latter renders an already weak offense completely punchless. I weighted the former twice as much as the latter. Here's the list of teams I'm hoping won't align opposite Clemson on Selection Sunday:
Some names of teams that we struggled against are up there: Duke, Maryland, Virginia Tech. Also some interesting names that I've seen bandied about as potential 7-10 seeds (the seed we'll likey be facing): Missouri, UTEP, Utah State, Richmond, St. Mary's, UNLV, Northern Iowa. Based on this, I'd say Richmond would be the worst/most plausible matchup of doom for 2010.
Some names of teams that we struggled against are up there: Duke, Maryland, Virginia Tech. Also some interesting names that I've seen bandied about as potential 7-10 seeds (the seed we'll likey be facing): Missouri, UTEP, Utah State, Richmond, St. Mary's, UNLV, Northern Iowa. Based on this, I'd say Richmond would be the worst/most plausible matchup of doom for 2010.
Monday, 8 March 2010
Wake Forest Recap
Wake Forest 70, Clemson 65
Not much time here, but thought I would chime in quickly. Clemson's season just took its latest frustrating turn at the worst possible time. Wake Forest was definitely a team we were capable of beating, and I came away thinking if only we had performed up to the median ability we have shown this season we would have squeaked out a five point win. The fact we only lost be five underscores Wake's weakness as a team. Instead, we're stuck in the first round of the tournament. Assuming we can avoid the "we shouldn't be forced to play in round one" attitude that sunk us last year and beat NC State, we will be saddled with a bruising round 2 game against FSU with tired legs.
How did we manage to lose? I think it was a combination of underperformance in key areas and poor in-game decision-making.
- We were outworked on the boards. I was particularly frustrated with our seeming inability to grab offensive rebounds in the second half despite numerous chances. We needed to perform well in an area that Wake Forest has struggled in this year and we couldn't come up with a strong enough performance.
- Our halfcourt defense was lax all night and the full court press wasn't much better, although I give Wake some credit for handling the ball well behind the halfcourt line.
- Tanner Smith should not be taking shots down the stretch if the game is even remotely close.
I still think Clemson is in the NCAA tournament. It would be a ridiculous snub if they were left off. Unfortunately, we are likely bound for the 8/9 seed of death. The odds of getting Oliver Purnell's first NCAA win stand at around 50%, and the odds of getting into the sweet sixteen will be somewhere between 0.5 and 2.0%.
Wednesday, 3 June 2009
NCAA Super-Regional: ASU
Well, the Tigers play Arizona State in the Super-Regional best of three series starting Friday. ASU is the overall 5th seed in the tournament, led by likely top 15 first round draft pick RHP Mike Leake. You've probably already seen the eye-popping raw numbers: 20 BB vs. 143 K in 124.2 IP. The scouting reports say the most impressive part of his pitching reportoire is his command, sitting around 70 on the 20-80 scale--he can apparently throw four different pitches for strikes, at any point in the count. The other thing I keep reading about is praise for his poise--so I wouldn't count on Clemson being able to rattle him with any of their patented offensive outbursts. The other two primary starters for ASU hover close to mere mortality, but still sport solid numbers that match up well with any of Clemson's starters. One glaring kink in ASU's pitching is their lack of depth; including the three starters they really only run about 7 deep this season. Of course, when you have a guy like Leake throwing complete games every time he takes the hill that tends to lessen the need for bullpen work, and when they do turn the ball over it usually goes to newly-minted Freshman All-American Mitchell Lambson, he of 84 Ks in 73.2 largely relief innings. Notwithstanding Lambson, Clemson has to be thinking about breaking into ASU's pen on offense this Friday, but with Leake likely dealing strikes from the get-go they probably can't afford to take an unusually patient approach at the plate.
On offense, ASU is led by PAC-10 player of the year CF Jason Kipnis (a likely second rounder in next week's draft), who sports a healthy .387/.500/.731 slash line--the guy manages to gets on base in half of his plate appearances. In raw home run totals, he is bested by the other slugger on the roster, catcher Carlos Ramirez, who has 18 to Kipnis' 15.
I guess what jumps out at me is the top pitchers and hitters at ASU have put up better numbers than anyone on the Tigers' roster. Despite this, I don't think you can name ASU the overwhelming favorite this weekend for two reasons: 1) roster-wise, top to bottom the Tigers get more consistent numbers out of their players, particularly on offense. 2) You have to take into account opponent strength--the PAC-10 is traditionally a power conference in baseball, but this year has been something of a down year (ASU is the last PAC-10 team in the field) and by most accounts a strong year for the ACC.
One area where the Tigers might be overmatched is defense--not exactly a strong suit this season. ASU has PAC-10 defensive player of the year SS Jake Schlander, and looking at the pitching numbers, it seems safe to infer that their staff ERA is bolstered by a strong defense.
All in all, Clemson is certainly the underdog this weekend. But not by wide margin. It will be interesting to see how Clemson's youngish offense fares against a highly-regarded pitcher, one who probably hasn't faced a lineup this year with the same mix of balance and power that Clemson will run out. Like I said before the regional, baseball is a game driven in part by random outcomes, and the Tigers are riding a hot streak. Let's hope it carries them through the weekend--
GO TIGERS!!!
On offense, ASU is led by PAC-10 player of the year CF Jason Kipnis (a likely second rounder in next week's draft), who sports a healthy .387/.500/.731 slash line--the guy manages to gets on base in half of his plate appearances. In raw home run totals, he is bested by the other slugger on the roster, catcher Carlos Ramirez, who has 18 to Kipnis' 15.
I guess what jumps out at me is the top pitchers and hitters at ASU have put up better numbers than anyone on the Tigers' roster. Despite this, I don't think you can name ASU the overwhelming favorite this weekend for two reasons: 1) roster-wise, top to bottom the Tigers get more consistent numbers out of their players, particularly on offense. 2) You have to take into account opponent strength--the PAC-10 is traditionally a power conference in baseball, but this year has been something of a down year (ASU is the last PAC-10 team in the field) and by most accounts a strong year for the ACC.
One area where the Tigers might be overmatched is defense--not exactly a strong suit this season. ASU has PAC-10 defensive player of the year SS Jake Schlander, and looking at the pitching numbers, it seems safe to infer that their staff ERA is bolstered by a strong defense.
All in all, Clemson is certainly the underdog this weekend. But not by wide margin. It will be interesting to see how Clemson's youngish offense fares against a highly-regarded pitcher, one who probably hasn't faced a lineup this year with the same mix of balance and power that Clemson will run out. Like I said before the regional, baseball is a game driven in part by random outcomes, and the Tigers are riding a hot streak. Let's hope it carries them through the weekend--
GO TIGERS!!!
Sunday, 5 April 2009
Quick, deep thought
Since no Big East teams made it to the championship game, is the Big East overrated? That's the only logical conclusion I can draw from the pundit chatter we heard over and over again early in the tournament...
Seriously, as fun as March Madness is, anyone who takes 3-4 basketball games played at the end of the year as indicative of a conference's true talent level over, I don't know, the entire season in question, probably isn't worth listening to.
About the light posting: I've been seriously bogged down at work with the old 12-hour shift. Hopefully I'll be back to normal soon, covering the baseball season.
Seriously, as fun as March Madness is, anyone who takes 3-4 basketball games played at the end of the year as indicative of a conference's true talent level over, I don't know, the entire season in question, probably isn't worth listening to.
About the light posting: I've been seriously bogged down at work with the old 12-hour shift. Hopefully I'll be back to normal soon, covering the baseball season.
Friday, 20 March 2009
CLEMSON 2009 NCAA TOURNAMENT WRAPUP
Well, the official ClemBenTigerMax bracket is busted. I'm never one to let statistics or projection systems get in the way of irrational fanhood. Let's go the the chart:
(Chart from Statsheet. I can't find win probability charts, but this is pretty close. I assume they are using Bill James' formula to calculate safe leads, but I might be wrong.)
I thought we came out with a solid game plan on both sides of the court. On defense, we might have pressed a little longer than I would have liked, but it didn't matter much since Michigan wasn't really looking for the shot in transition. They got a couple of early open looks from behind the arc but for the most part, it looked like they were really trying to slow the game down (which they successfully did) and run their set offense. I thought we generally did a good job in the halfcourt defense, much better than some recent outings. In the first half I we were collapsing too much on drives into the lane, leaving guys open out on the perimeter. But in the second half we adjusted, and I thought the perimeter defense was as good as I've seen it this year. Manny Harris was the only reason Michigan was scoring in the second half; he's a great talent and his driving, shooting, and passing almost exclusively led to Michigan's second half points.
On offense, the plan seemed to boil down to getting it inside to Booker. No one could really guard him, and when they brought the double team, Booker was finding wide open shooters who knocked down some of our only outside shots. We even did a great job of not turning over the ball--first time I can say that since the Boston College game, I think. Unfortunately, there was a span of about 15 minutes between the last five minutes of the first half and the first ten minutes of the second half where we just executed poorly on offense and made bad decisions. A lot of crazy, well-guarded three point shots (even when the pass inside was open) were taken, sprinkled in with some ill-considered drives to the basket. I thought Michigan was doing well defending against anyone slashing to the hoop, and when that's happening you have to wonder who is drawing up the Tanner Smith-driving-to-the basket plays. I know Booker was looking winded during some of that same stretch, but even a winded Booker could have drawn in the defense, opening up the outside a little more.
None of this touches on Terrence Oglesby. All season I have tried to hold my peace on his extreme lack of poise. But after tonight, I have to wonder out loud if he will be back on the team next year. Purnell must be seething right now, not just about the intentional foul and ejection, but the overall sloppy play leading up to it. I think Oglesby is a valuable role player when used in the right way, and he even has some upside suggesting he could be something more, but last night makes you wonder if someone else can't do the same job without bringing the same baggage.
Its a shame the season ended the way it did. All in all, the coaches did something amazing with a set of players who were arguably less talented than a year before. I'm glad they managed to come back and make it close, showing flashes of the team that had everyone's hopes up back in January.
(Chart from Statsheet. I can't find win probability charts, but this is pretty close. I assume they are using Bill James' formula to calculate safe leads, but I might be wrong.)
I thought we came out with a solid game plan on both sides of the court. On defense, we might have pressed a little longer than I would have liked, but it didn't matter much since Michigan wasn't really looking for the shot in transition. They got a couple of early open looks from behind the arc but for the most part, it looked like they were really trying to slow the game down (which they successfully did) and run their set offense. I thought we generally did a good job in the halfcourt defense, much better than some recent outings. In the first half I we were collapsing too much on drives into the lane, leaving guys open out on the perimeter. But in the second half we adjusted, and I thought the perimeter defense was as good as I've seen it this year. Manny Harris was the only reason Michigan was scoring in the second half; he's a great talent and his driving, shooting, and passing almost exclusively led to Michigan's second half points.
On offense, the plan seemed to boil down to getting it inside to Booker. No one could really guard him, and when they brought the double team, Booker was finding wide open shooters who knocked down some of our only outside shots. We even did a great job of not turning over the ball--first time I can say that since the Boston College game, I think. Unfortunately, there was a span of about 15 minutes between the last five minutes of the first half and the first ten minutes of the second half where we just executed poorly on offense and made bad decisions. A lot of crazy, well-guarded three point shots (even when the pass inside was open) were taken, sprinkled in with some ill-considered drives to the basket. I thought Michigan was doing well defending against anyone slashing to the hoop, and when that's happening you have to wonder who is drawing up the Tanner Smith-driving-to-the basket plays. I know Booker was looking winded during some of that same stretch, but even a winded Booker could have drawn in the defense, opening up the outside a little more.
None of this touches on Terrence Oglesby. All season I have tried to hold my peace on his extreme lack of poise. But after tonight, I have to wonder out loud if he will be back on the team next year. Purnell must be seething right now, not just about the intentional foul and ejection, but the overall sloppy play leading up to it. I think Oglesby is a valuable role player when used in the right way, and he even has some upside suggesting he could be something more, but last night makes you wonder if someone else can't do the same job without bringing the same baggage.
Its a shame the season ended the way it did. All in all, the coaches did something amazing with a set of players who were arguably less talented than a year before. I'm glad they managed to come back and make it close, showing flashes of the team that had everyone's hopes up back in January.
Thursday, 19 March 2009
Sneak Peek at the Tigers before the game
I had the opportunity to see the Tigers practice this morning (Through the looking glass) in advance of their game tonight. They looked to have more focus and a higher intensity than yesterday. My goal was to take many pictures, but I did not want to be a source of distraction. I did manage to take a few through the glass into the gym. I apologize that they are not of a higher quality. I also captured them loading up their bus for their return to the hotel.
My highlight came as they were leaving the court. I was standing off to the side in my Clemson Orange, looking to take some pictures. Coach Purnell came up to me and asked if I was a fan – I don’t think they’ve seen a whole lot of orange and tiger paws here in Kansas City. I introduced myself, told him I was an alumnus, and that I lived and worked here where they were practicing. He told me that this was a very nice area and inquired if I was going to be at the game.
So, until the game tonight, here are a few photos to tide everyone over.
Everyone is loading up the bus - I only got the last of the team getting on.
These are from my phone, through the glass.
Team meeting -- Coach Purnell in the middle
Wednesday, 18 March 2009
The Tigers Come to Kansas City
Being a Tigers fan living in Kansas City has its distinct disadvantages. Foremost among them is the fact that you are nowhere near anywhere the Tigers play. Once in a great while the sports gods shine favor in your direction and send the team right to you. This is one of those times. The team has been sent right to my Kansas City to play in the Sprint Center arena in round one of the tournament, and yours truly has scored tickets (even though it is “sold out”) and will be at the game to take it all in. For all of you who are too far away from here to join, I understand your loneliness.
Of more importance to most is information on how the team is doing here. I am sure you are all aware of the official team video diary and reporting on the trip here in Kansas City. What isn’t well known is that Clemson held their private, closed practice today in the Associate Gym on the Cerner Corporation campus. The sports gods must really be pleased with me because I just so happen to work for Cerner. I was able to observe the team from outside the court, through the glass today. My overall impression of them today is that they look to be relaxed. I watched as they worked plays, ran sprints, stretched, and loosened up after their travels here yesterday. They looked to be upbeat and not visibly stressed about tomorrow’s game. Coach Purnell and his staff were observing, but not pushing the team very hard today. This was undoubtedly more of a warm-up practice to get loose and ready for the public practice they had this afternoon in the Sprint Center.
Unfortunately, I did not have my camera with me today (I wasn’t expecting them to be at my work). They will be back tomorrow for another practice, and I hope to get a few shots of the team. I will provide as many pics as I can during tomorrow night’s game as we power through Michigan for a victory
GO TIGERS!!!!!!!
Of more importance to most is information on how the team is doing here. I am sure you are all aware of the official team video diary and reporting on the trip here in Kansas City. What isn’t well known is that Clemson held their private, closed practice today in the Associate Gym on the Cerner Corporation campus. The sports gods must really be pleased with me because I just so happen to work for Cerner. I was able to observe the team from outside the court, through the glass today. My overall impression of them today is that they look to be relaxed. I watched as they worked plays, ran sprints, stretched, and loosened up after their travels here yesterday. They looked to be upbeat and not visibly stressed about tomorrow’s game. Coach Purnell and his staff were observing, but not pushing the team very hard today. This was undoubtedly more of a warm-up practice to get loose and ready for the public practice they had this afternoon in the Sprint Center.
Unfortunately, I did not have my camera with me today (I wasn’t expecting them to be at my work). They will be back tomorrow for another practice, and I hope to get a few shots of the team. I will provide as many pics as I can during tomorrow night’s game as we power through Michigan for a victory
GO TIGERS!!!!!!!
CLEMSON 2009 NCAA TOURNAMENT: First Round Preview
I've uploaded two consecutive posts laden with optimism about Clemson's chances of making a run; now its time to throw a little reality onto any expectations I might have raised. Michigan is going to cause some very difficult matchup problems for Clemson, and honestly, given Purnell's coaching tendencies, I think we're in for a battle.
Clemson on Defense
There are two main areas of concern for Clemson's defense, first, Michigan is 16th best in the country at not turning the ball over, an obvious problem for a team that thrives on creating turnovers. Granted, a low turnover rate does not necessarily guarantee a team will handle a full-court press as good as Clemson's, but we can safely view this as a pretty good indicator that the press isn't going to be exceptionally effective. Second, Michigan shoots the three to the tune of 6th most in country. Clemson can expect roughly one of every two Michigan shots to come from behind the arc.
Now, these two points have been made here and around the Clemson blogosphere over the last couple of days, usually with the qualification that while Michigan likes to shoot the three they aren't particularly good at it; ranking well below average for division I (207th). But what I haven't seen anyone point out in the same breath is the rapid decline of Clemson's three-point shooting defense. We have gone from being pretty good at defending the three to slipping to average to free-falling into downright atrocious. We now rank 263rd in the country at defending the three. That's really just embarrasing for a team playing in a top conference. If you've read the blog at all, we've been pounding the same theme over and over--teams that break Clemson's press have been pulling up for open three-point looks instead of driving to the basket (which often allows a very athletic Clemson team to get back and defend or block layup-attempts). This strategy has really cut into Clemson's defensive efficiency, dropping our ranking from the inside the top ten to 52nd in the country.
If and when Michigan breaks the press, I expect nothing but three point attempts. And therein lies the real problem for Clemson, giving up open 3-point looks will substantially improve every shooter in the Michigan lineup and negate their overall poor 3-point shooting percentage. If, as is customary, Purnell and Clemson insist on running the press full time, the team will almost certainly look to the scoreboard at the five minute mark in the first half and find themselves staring down a 10-15 point deficit. To be clear, I'm not advocating complete abandonment of the press; I think Purnell just needs to be more judicious in its application during this game. Use it as a weapon, attack them for the first few minutes of each period, try to catch them by surprise by using it out of timeouts, and try different variations to slow them down.
Now, admittedly, Clemson's halfcourt defense has been way too porous of late, particularly around the perimeter. This has undoubtably also contributed to their declining defense. From my vantage, I feel this is more a product of a frustrated team losing its discipline. If playing in the NCAA tournament isn't enough to motivate Clemson into tightening up the defense, we can fold up the tents right now.
Clemson on Offense
The good news: Clemson should more or less have its way on offense. They should control the boards (on both ends of the court), hopefully leading to a few highlight Booker/Sykes dunk put-backs. Michigan does defend the three fairly well, 42nd best in the country, but they struggle against the inside shot. This leads to one fairly obvious conclusion--everything will run through Booker. Because Michigan lacks a significant height advantage, we can hope for the love of all that's holy that feeding the post won't be as difficult as in recent games. Eventually this will open up the perimeter for some bombs from Oglesby and Rivers. I don't think Michigan will be quick to double-team Booker, they might instead try to neutralize him with 6'10 Zack Gibson. This will certainly be a matchup to watch, but Booker isn't slowed by just height, tall players also must play excellent defense to keep him in check and I don't think Gibson is quite that caliber of a defender. If he does manage to slow Booker, Clemson can always turn to Stitt and Potter to open up the offense by slashing to the hoop.
Summary
This is fairly straightforward for Clemson. The only way I see Michigan winning is by getting into a situtation where they are trading threes for twos with Clemson's offense. If we relax the full-court press and concentrate on getting some stops in the half-court, we should win fairly handily. The question is, will Purnell turn down the press early and often enough? I don't know too many Clemson fans willing to place a "yes" bet.
Clemson on Defense
There are two main areas of concern for Clemson's defense, first, Michigan is 16th best in the country at not turning the ball over, an obvious problem for a team that thrives on creating turnovers. Granted, a low turnover rate does not necessarily guarantee a team will handle a full-court press as good as Clemson's, but we can safely view this as a pretty good indicator that the press isn't going to be exceptionally effective. Second, Michigan shoots the three to the tune of 6th most in country. Clemson can expect roughly one of every two Michigan shots to come from behind the arc.
Now, these two points have been made here and around the Clemson blogosphere over the last couple of days, usually with the qualification that while Michigan likes to shoot the three they aren't particularly good at it; ranking well below average for division I (207th). But what I haven't seen anyone point out in the same breath is the rapid decline of Clemson's three-point shooting defense. We have gone from being pretty good at defending the three to slipping to average to free-falling into downright atrocious. We now rank 263rd in the country at defending the three. That's really just embarrasing for a team playing in a top conference. If you've read the blog at all, we've been pounding the same theme over and over--teams that break Clemson's press have been pulling up for open three-point looks instead of driving to the basket (which often allows a very athletic Clemson team to get back and defend or block layup-attempts). This strategy has really cut into Clemson's defensive efficiency, dropping our ranking from the inside the top ten to 52nd in the country.
If and when Michigan breaks the press, I expect nothing but three point attempts. And therein lies the real problem for Clemson, giving up open 3-point looks will substantially improve every shooter in the Michigan lineup and negate their overall poor 3-point shooting percentage. If, as is customary, Purnell and Clemson insist on running the press full time, the team will almost certainly look to the scoreboard at the five minute mark in the first half and find themselves staring down a 10-15 point deficit. To be clear, I'm not advocating complete abandonment of the press; I think Purnell just needs to be more judicious in its application during this game. Use it as a weapon, attack them for the first few minutes of each period, try to catch them by surprise by using it out of timeouts, and try different variations to slow them down.
Now, admittedly, Clemson's halfcourt defense has been way too porous of late, particularly around the perimeter. This has undoubtably also contributed to their declining defense. From my vantage, I feel this is more a product of a frustrated team losing its discipline. If playing in the NCAA tournament isn't enough to motivate Clemson into tightening up the defense, we can fold up the tents right now.
Clemson on Offense
The good news: Clemson should more or less have its way on offense. They should control the boards (on both ends of the court), hopefully leading to a few highlight Booker/Sykes dunk put-backs. Michigan does defend the three fairly well, 42nd best in the country, but they struggle against the inside shot. This leads to one fairly obvious conclusion--everything will run through Booker. Because Michigan lacks a significant height advantage, we can hope for the love of all that's holy that feeding the post won't be as difficult as in recent games. Eventually this will open up the perimeter for some bombs from Oglesby and Rivers. I don't think Michigan will be quick to double-team Booker, they might instead try to neutralize him with 6'10 Zack Gibson. This will certainly be a matchup to watch, but Booker isn't slowed by just height, tall players also must play excellent defense to keep him in check and I don't think Gibson is quite that caliber of a defender. If he does manage to slow Booker, Clemson can always turn to Stitt and Potter to open up the offense by slashing to the hoop.
Summary
This is fairly straightforward for Clemson. The only way I see Michigan winning is by getting into a situtation where they are trading threes for twos with Clemson's offense. If we relax the full-court press and concentrate on getting some stops in the half-court, we should win fairly handily. The question is, will Purnell turn down the press early and often enough? I don't know too many Clemson fans willing to place a "yes" bet.
Tuesday, 17 March 2009
CLEMSON 2009 NCAA TOURNAMENT: Projecting Clemson's Chances
I’ve just finished running some simulations for 2009 tourney, and unfortunately my optimism from yesterday has been tempered somewhat. That being said, I still think Clemson’s got a pretty good draw here, and I’ll explain why in a second.
Let me start this post by saying that statistics-based projections like these are never going to substitute for a detailed look at the actual matchups. On the other hand, I don’t know anyone (including most national columnists) who has enough knowledge of all 65 teams to make a detailed matchup-based projection that covers all 63 games in the tournament. I see these projections as a supplement of sorts to aid in more detailed looks ate the weaknesses and strengths of teams that could matchup with one another.
Here’s a quick outline of what I’m doing. Every year I take the field and using a Markov-like process I start with the first round and go through all the games; picking winners based on the probability of a given team winning the game. Calculating the probability is probably the hardest part about this, and there are many ways to do it. The methods for this are a little dry for a blog post, but I’m more than willing to discuss the process with anyone who’s interested, just drop a comment or we can work something out via email. At any rate, after I get the probability of winning for two teams playing each other, I simply generate a random number. This number determines the winning team according to the probabilities (for example, if you think Clemson has a 70% chance of beating Michigan and the number you generate is 56, Clemson wins. If you generate 79, Michigan wins). Then I continue with the winners and move up round by round until finishing the tournament, keeping tally of which teams finished where. Then I rerun the process a million times; this gives the percent likelihood of each team advancing through to a round.
The chart below shows how well Clemson fares in the simulations, I’m showing it alongside Clemson’s numbers from the 2007 tournament for reference (initially I thought of showing the 2006 numbers as well, but yeah…)
The percentages in each column indicate the likelihood of Clemson making it through to that round. First thing to keep in mind is that all teams see substantial drops as they move through the bracket (well, except the 1 and 2 seeds in the first round) because with every round the pool of teams that can reach a particular spot increases. For example, there are eight teams vying for any particular sweet sixteen spot, so the percentages have to be divided up among all eight teams.
By my projections, Clemson is looking at about a 16-17% chance at reaching the elite eight. Oklahoma has the best chance in our group of eight, clocking in at about 32%, with Syracuse and Arizona State around 25% each and the other four teams at fractional percentages. Doesn’t sound like anything to write home about, yeah? But these are really fascinating results—you don’t usually see such an equal distribution for a sweet sixteen spot and that’s a pretty low percentage for a two seed. Moreover, Clemson comes out way in front of other 7/10 seeds, no one else clears 5% in the simulations. Clemson even equals or performs better than exactly half of the 4/5/6 seeds. I think we can take this as pretty strong evidence that Clemson is grossly under-seeded. If I’m an Oklahoma fan, I’m pretty upset about Clemson being in the neighboring game.
Well, I don’t want to dwell too long on this, because like I said, it’s a poor substitute for looking directly at the matchups. Tomorrow I’ll try to add to what ClemBen said about Michigan in his last post. If anybody has any specific questions about the simulations, drop a question in the comments. I’m probably going to tweak a few things in the next day and see how they come out. I don’t think it’s wise to post the entire projection before Thursday because I don’t want anyone taking this too seriously (just look at Clemson’s chances last year—we all know how that turned out). Plus, I can’t have ClemBen stealing any of my picks…
Let me start this post by saying that statistics-based projections like these are never going to substitute for a detailed look at the actual matchups. On the other hand, I don’t know anyone (including most national columnists) who has enough knowledge of all 65 teams to make a detailed matchup-based projection that covers all 63 games in the tournament. I see these projections as a supplement of sorts to aid in more detailed looks ate the weaknesses and strengths of teams that could matchup with one another.
Here’s a quick outline of what I’m doing. Every year I take the field and using a Markov-like process I start with the first round and go through all the games; picking winners based on the probability of a given team winning the game. Calculating the probability is probably the hardest part about this, and there are many ways to do it. The methods for this are a little dry for a blog post, but I’m more than willing to discuss the process with anyone who’s interested, just drop a comment or we can work something out via email. At any rate, after I get the probability of winning for two teams playing each other, I simply generate a random number. This number determines the winning team according to the probabilities (for example, if you think Clemson has a 70% chance of beating Michigan and the number you generate is 56, Clemson wins. If you generate 79, Michigan wins). Then I continue with the winners and move up round by round until finishing the tournament, keeping tally of which teams finished where. Then I rerun the process a million times; this gives the percent likelihood of each team advancing through to a round.
The chart below shows how well Clemson fares in the simulations, I’m showing it alongside Clemson’s numbers from the 2007 tournament for reference (initially I thought of showing the 2006 numbers as well, but yeah…)
The percentages in each column indicate the likelihood of Clemson making it through to that round. First thing to keep in mind is that all teams see substantial drops as they move through the bracket (well, except the 1 and 2 seeds in the first round) because with every round the pool of teams that can reach a particular spot increases. For example, there are eight teams vying for any particular sweet sixteen spot, so the percentages have to be divided up among all eight teams.
By my projections, Clemson is looking at about a 16-17% chance at reaching the elite eight. Oklahoma has the best chance in our group of eight, clocking in at about 32%, with Syracuse and Arizona State around 25% each and the other four teams at fractional percentages. Doesn’t sound like anything to write home about, yeah? But these are really fascinating results—you don’t usually see such an equal distribution for a sweet sixteen spot and that’s a pretty low percentage for a two seed. Moreover, Clemson comes out way in front of other 7/10 seeds, no one else clears 5% in the simulations. Clemson even equals or performs better than exactly half of the 4/5/6 seeds. I think we can take this as pretty strong evidence that Clemson is grossly under-seeded. If I’m an Oklahoma fan, I’m pretty upset about Clemson being in the neighboring game.
Well, I don’t want to dwell too long on this, because like I said, it’s a poor substitute for looking directly at the matchups. Tomorrow I’ll try to add to what ClemBen said about Michigan in his last post. If anybody has any specific questions about the simulations, drop a question in the comments. I’m probably going to tweak a few things in the next day and see how they come out. I don’t think it’s wise to post the entire projection before Thursday because I don’t want anyone taking this too seriously (just look at Clemson’s chances last year—we all know how that turned out). Plus, I can’t have ClemBen stealing any of my picks…
Monday, 16 March 2009
Purnell versus Beilein
So this isnt really all that fair to Purnell but I think its important to note that Beilein has been an absolute genius in the NCAA tourney. I got to say that Peter Tiernan has an interesting thing going with his Bracketscience.com but too much gives me a headache. He is doing four articles for cbssports.com now that espn has gotten rid of almost all their outside contributors, I really enjoyed this one but I digress...
Beilein is perhaps most known for taking a West Virginia team with a white kid named 'the Great Gansey', taking them to the brink of a final four birth as a seven seed in 2005, they were up against Louisville by 2o at one point, effectively turning them into repeat "Cinderella" disruptors. I really think that Michigan beating Duke early on had to do with a Duke team still finding itself...and a coach who can impressively gameplan given adequate time to prep. Beilein may be the best thing about this Michigan team.
Some of the strengths of this Michigan team and points Clemson needs to plan for are:
Beilein is perhaps most known for taking a West Virginia team with a white kid named 'the Great Gansey', taking them to the brink of a final four birth as a seven seed in 2005, they were up against Louisville by 2o at one point, effectively turning them into repeat "Cinderella" disruptors. I really think that Michigan beating Duke early on had to do with a Duke team still finding itself...and a coach who can impressively gameplan given adequate time to prep. Beilein may be the best thing about this Michigan team.
Some of the strengths of this Michigan team and points Clemson needs to plan for are:
- Main guard Manny Harris--17 pts a game, 7 reb, 4 asts. That is impressive and we know how Clemson has trouble with scoring guards-Douglas, Downey, Clinch etc. Ft shooting is a crazy 85%-the entire team shoots a good percentage at 74%--could be pivotal down the stretch.
- This team loves to take three pointers. They arent the best or the worst three point shooters but everyone on the team can shoot. Thats classic Beilein style--think about that Pittsnogle guy, so we might be giving up a lot of easy threes in transition off of the press. If the press is porous and they are hot from three land we are one and done.
- What we have going for us is that as stated before is that we have a height advantage against this team especially when Michigan goes to its bench, everyone on the bench is short. Beilein likes to go nine deep, sometimes even 11 deep--so we arent going to wear them down. OP if the press aint working lets go full court man to man...
- Lastly Michigan cant rebound ranking 275th in the nation. That has to do with the 1-3-1 zone but also because they launch threes and dont get a lot of offensive boards. It would be absolutely criminal if Clemson allowed itself to get outrebounded.
CLEMSON 2009 NCAA TOURNAMENT: First Thoughts
By now everyone has had a chance to pore over the brackets and formulate a few first impressions. My initial reaction: I think its a fantastic draw for Clemson. I'm sure the selection committee looked at our four losses in the last five games and used that to justify the seven seed (but hey, we avoided the 8/9 seed of death). One thing to keep in mind, though, is Clemson just played 5 of their last six games against two of the top five tallest teams (in terms of effective height) in division I, and another team ranked 28. These same teams were all ranked in the top 30 in effective defense. Clemson players must be looking at Michigan's below average height for division I and 67th ranked defense and breathing a sigh of relief.
Looking quickly at the broader picture, of the immediate 8 teams in Clemson's draw none fall in the list of the potential matchups of doom from the last post. In fact, this is probably the most wide open group of 8 teams in the tournament this year--I don't think you can choose an overwhelming favorite. Just look at the Kenpom rankings for the top four teams:
12. Arizona St.
15. Syracuse
17. Oklahoma
22. Clemson
Now I know Kenpom has underrated Oklahoma all season relative to other ranking systems (most of which peg OU at a 10-13 rank), and also Oklahoma has the advantage of playing close(r) to home in Kansas City. But I think the takeaway here is Clemson's got more than a fighting chance to come out of this group. I had been harboring hope for the last several weeks that they might draw Oklahoma, as they seemed to be the best matchup for Clemson of all the teams likely to land a one or two seed. Now, if they do manage the miracle run to the elite eight, they likely run into one of two brick walls: Gonzaga or North Carolina (if by some unlikely chance they get through, Illinois does not present a very appealing matchup either). I plan to run some simulations of the tournament in the next day or so, and I'll let you know how Clemson fares, but I'm holding out hope that they have better odds than other 7/10 seeds.
The bad news, though, is that none of these 8 teams are a perfect matchup for Clemson; each team seems to play well to a Clemson weakness of some kind. For example, Michigan is superb at handling the ball. This is clearly not good for Clemson as Fight Tigers astutely pointed out in a recent post--to be most effective, Clemson's defense really has to force turnovers. I'll try to take a closer look at the Clemson-Michigan matchup before Wednesday.
A couple of random, half-formed thoughts from quickly looking over the bracket:
Looking quickly at the broader picture, of the immediate 8 teams in Clemson's draw none fall in the list of the potential matchups of doom from the last post. In fact, this is probably the most wide open group of 8 teams in the tournament this year--I don't think you can choose an overwhelming favorite. Just look at the Kenpom rankings for the top four teams:
12. Arizona St.
15. Syracuse
17. Oklahoma
22. Clemson
Now I know Kenpom has underrated Oklahoma all season relative to other ranking systems (most of which peg OU at a 10-13 rank), and also Oklahoma has the advantage of playing close(r) to home in Kansas City. But I think the takeaway here is Clemson's got more than a fighting chance to come out of this group. I had been harboring hope for the last several weeks that they might draw Oklahoma, as they seemed to be the best matchup for Clemson of all the teams likely to land a one or two seed. Now, if they do manage the miracle run to the elite eight, they likely run into one of two brick walls: Gonzaga or North Carolina (if by some unlikely chance they get through, Illinois does not present a very appealing matchup either). I plan to run some simulations of the tournament in the next day or so, and I'll let you know how Clemson fares, but I'm holding out hope that they have better odds than other 7/10 seeds.
The bad news, though, is that none of these 8 teams are a perfect matchup for Clemson; each team seems to play well to a Clemson weakness of some kind. For example, Michigan is superb at handling the ball. This is clearly not good for Clemson as Fight Tigers astutely pointed out in a recent post--to be most effective, Clemson's defense really has to force turnovers. I'll try to take a closer look at the Clemson-Michigan matchup before Wednesday.
A couple of random, half-formed thoughts from quickly looking over the bracket:
- I cracked a malicious smile when I saw BYU's eight seed. It seems no matter how well they fare, they just can't break out of the 8/9 seed. But as much as I hate to admit it, they have a halfway decent team this year and I think this turns out to be a really bad draw for UConn in the second round.
- Most under-seeded team: WVU. I know they don't have the record, but they could do some damage from the sixth seed. Runner-up for me is probably Gonzaga.
- Most overrated: Michigan State? In other words, what Dave Cameron said.
- Biggest surprise inclusion: probably Maryland. I have a hard time getting worked up about the last two or three teams in, most of the time these teams lose in the first round anyways. I just mention Maryland because I happen to have seen them a few times this year, and I each time I thought: NIT material. Maybe the committee owes Gary Williams a favor?
Friday, 13 March 2009
Clemson's NCAA matchups of doom
I'm going to try and pretend like the GT loss never happened by working on and uploading a post I've been kicking around for a week or so, and its got to come out before selection time on Sunday.
The concept is simple: knowing the kind of teams Clemson struggles with and the general reasons why, we should be able to infer which teams across the NCAA are most likely to pose serious matchup difficulties for Clemson--"matchups of doom". Last week I simply collected the top-ranked teams in defensive efficiency, average effective height, and average height from Kenpom.com and then did a re-ranked them by weighting these three factors equally. Then I took the top twenty and removed any teams that have no shot at making the NCAA tourney (sorry UTEP--it doesn't matter how tall you are if you don't have an offense or a defense). That leaves us with about 12 teams:
Its good to see Wake Forest and FSU at the top of the list, and Illinois (another team that gave us all we could handle)--it confirms that the list contains teams with similarities to WF/FSU. For what it's worth, GT was somewhere around 15 on the list. Now, we won't end up playing WF or FSU early on (thank goodness) due to rules the selection committee follows, but there but there are a few intriguing teams that we could see in the earlier rounds: Utah, Missouri, Gonzaga, USC (the real USC, of course--although I admit its a bit of a stretch to expect them to make the tournament at this point). There's also some completely unsurprising teams on the list like Memphis and UConn, teams that would be hard to beat anyway.
This is the list that I'll have handy come Sunday, hoping the names are as far away from our part of the bracket as possible--thought I would share it with anyone interested.
GO TIGERS!!!!!!!!!!
The concept is simple: knowing the kind of teams Clemson struggles with and the general reasons why, we should be able to infer which teams across the NCAA are most likely to pose serious matchup difficulties for Clemson--"matchups of doom". Last week I simply collected the top-ranked teams in defensive efficiency, average effective height, and average height from Kenpom.com and then did a re-ranked them by weighting these three factors equally. Then I took the top twenty and removed any teams that have no shot at making the NCAA tourney (sorry UTEP--it doesn't matter how tall you are if you don't have an offense or a defense). That leaves us with about 12 teams:
Its good to see Wake Forest and FSU at the top of the list, and Illinois (another team that gave us all we could handle)--it confirms that the list contains teams with similarities to WF/FSU. For what it's worth, GT was somewhere around 15 on the list. Now, we won't end up playing WF or FSU early on (thank goodness) due to rules the selection committee follows, but there but there are a few intriguing teams that we could see in the earlier rounds: Utah, Missouri, Gonzaga, USC (the real USC, of course--although I admit its a bit of a stretch to expect them to make the tournament at this point). There's also some completely unsurprising teams on the list like Memphis and UConn, teams that would be hard to beat anyway.
This is the list that I'll have handy come Sunday, hoping the names are as far away from our part of the bracket as possible--thought I would share it with anyone interested.
GO TIGERS!!!!!!!!!!
Saturday, 28 February 2009
Raycom Sucks
Well we lost again...that was another pathetic display. I love that Rivers has a chance to cut it to 2-yes, with 12 seconds left--2, but he throws it away. This is indicative of the type of game it was. We hung in there in the second half but just played like a team that didnt belong with the big boys. We had a chance when we cut it to two and had some bad calls that all went Florida St. team.
How is it that this team is committing so many turnovers?? I saw Rivers, the senior leader, make some truly ugly passes--to Oliver Purnell...Is it late season fatigue, is it the weight of expectation crashing down? I really think we play our best when the pressure isnt on us to have to win. Against Wake we played tentative, scared and committed turnovers partly bc the pressure was on to "arrive" and that carried over to the NC game. The first FSU and the VI games were just lack of execution down the stretch but when we played our best games againt Duke and Maryland we had no pressure and played like it. I think we came in scared to play this game.
Our team has to learn how to feed the post. Booker was getting manhandled and doesnt do a good job of setting himself on the block enough, but you cant really fault him going up against the most athletic 7' 1" giant I have seen in awhile. That block he had on Stitt when Douglas fell down was amazing, my jaw dropped. Speaking of Stitt, down by five with a minute to go and you foul Douglas, one of the best FT shooters in the league?? Pure genius...
Can the ACC not get anyone better to broadcast these games?? I find it amusing, sometimes even hilarious, to hear some drunk FSU fan yelling "Terrance, Terrance" and "I knew it" when OP and Booker fell into each others arms. Tell Raycom to buy better equipment or sell the contract. We are at least the second best league in the country and we are stuck with Raycom?? So we had to win, and we lost--goodbye first round bye, hello fifth seed in the NCAA tourney...
How is it that this team is committing so many turnovers?? I saw Rivers, the senior leader, make some truly ugly passes--to Oliver Purnell...Is it late season fatigue, is it the weight of expectation crashing down? I really think we play our best when the pressure isnt on us to have to win. Against Wake we played tentative, scared and committed turnovers partly bc the pressure was on to "arrive" and that carried over to the NC game. The first FSU and the VI games were just lack of execution down the stretch but when we played our best games againt Duke and Maryland we had no pressure and played like it. I think we came in scared to play this game.
Our team has to learn how to feed the post. Booker was getting manhandled and doesnt do a good job of setting himself on the block enough, but you cant really fault him going up against the most athletic 7' 1" giant I have seen in awhile. That block he had on Stitt when Douglas fell down was amazing, my jaw dropped. Speaking of Stitt, down by five with a minute to go and you foul Douglas, one of the best FT shooters in the league?? Pure genius...
Can the ACC not get anyone better to broadcast these games?? I find it amusing, sometimes even hilarious, to hear some drunk FSU fan yelling "Terrance, Terrance" and "I knew it" when OP and Booker fell into each others arms. Tell Raycom to buy better equipment or sell the contract. We are at least the second best league in the country and we are stuck with Raycom?? So we had to win, and we lost--goodbye first round bye, hello fifth seed in the NCAA tourney...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)