Simulated stats for the sweet sixteen

Over the past few posts, I’ve been focusing on the NCAA tournament, simulating games based on predicted efficiency statistics. For the Sweet Sixteen predictions below, I ran 8,000 simulations for each game. I list my predicted winner (including 7 Florida over 3 Marquette), and the predicted efficiency statistics. The stats are based on Dean Oliver’s four factors:

  • Factor 1: 3 pt shooting %, 2 pt shooting %, foul shooting %
  • Factor 2: % of potential offensive rebs secured (including balls out of bounds)
  • Factor 3: % of offensive plays ending in a turnover
  • Factor 4:  3 pt attempts as a % of non-turnover plays, 2 pt attempts as a % of non-TO plays, free throw trips as a % of non-TO plays

Factor 4 is the most confusing. It’s similar to Oliver’s FTA/FGA factor, but has more value for simulations, since it tells me how often teams get a three point attempt, a two point attempt, or a trip to the line (on plays without a turnover).

1 Kentucky, 4 Indiana Favorite: Kentucky (wins 55.3% of simulations):

  • 2 pt %: 50, 46
  • 3 pt %: 35, 39
  • FT %: 72, 76
  • OReb %: 34, 30
  • TO %: 14, 14
  • 2 att %: 62, 64
  • 3 att %: 23, 22
  • FT att %: 15, 14

3 Baylor, 10 Xavier Favorite: Baylor (76.9%):

  • 2 pt %: 49, 43
  • 3 pt %: 38, 33
  • FT %: 75, 69
  • OReb %: 34, 28
  • TO %: 15, 14
  • 2 att %: 56, 64
  • 3 att %: 29, 22
  • FT att %: 15, 14

1 Michigan State, 4 Louisville Favorite: Michigan State (62.5%):

  • 2 pt %: 48, 45
  • 3 pt %: 35, 31
  • FT %: 70, 69
  • OReb %: 34, 29
  • TO %: 17, 16
  • 2 att %: 61, 54
  • 3 att %: 24, 31
  • FT att %: 15, 15

7 Florida, 3 Marquette Favorite: Florida (56.3%)

  • 2 pt %: 49, 49
  • 3 pt %: 36, 33
  • FT %: 71, 72
  • OReb %: 32, 30
  • TO %: 15, 15
  • 2 att %: 48, 61
  • 3 att %: 39, 25
  • FT att %: 13, 15

1 Syracuse, 4 Wisconsin Favorite: Syracuse (56.6%, no Melo adjustment)

  • 2 pt %: 48, 44
  • 3 pt %: 33, 34
  • FT %: 69, 74
  • OReb %: 31, 30
  • TO %: 12, 15
  • 2 att %: 65, 49
  • 3 att %: 24, 38
  • FT att %: 11, 13

2 Ohio State, 6 Cincinnati Favorite: Ohio State (65.7%)

  • 2 pt %: 52, 44
  • 3 pt %: 32, 33
  • FT %: 70, 64
  • OReb %: 33, 28
  • TO %: 15, 14
  • 2 att %: 66, 55
  • 3 att %: 23, 33
  • FT att %: 12, 12

1 North Carolina, 13 Ohio Favorite: North Carolina (87.1%)

  • 2 pt %: 53, 41
  • 3 pt %: 34, 29
  • FT %: 68, 68
  • OReb %: 39, 27
  • TO %: 17, 14
  • 2 att %: 62, 54
  • 3 att %: 21, 37
  • FT att %: 17, 9

2 Kansas, 11 North Carolina State Favorite: Kansas (62.1%)

  • 2 pt %: 52, 46
  • 3 pt %: 34, 34
  • FT %: 70, 71
  • OReb %: 30, 30
  • TO %: 14, 15
  • 2 att %: 59, 63
  • 3 att %: 26, 23
  • FT att %: 15, 14
About these ads

One response to “Simulated stats for the sweet sixteen

  1. Pingback: John Calipari on 2012 NCAA bracket | TrendSurfer

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s