[UPDATE] Predicting the SEC Tournament with the adolescent Statsy Preview Machine

[UPDATE 3.14.21] We’ve updated this post following Thursday’s action. A coin flip between Kentucky and Mississippi State went the other way by a point, but changes nothing about the remaining projections.

[UPDATE 3.13.21] And now we’ve updated following Friday’s action. No surprises Friday (except for a sucker elbow or two), so we’re still pinning our hopes on a probably-undermanned Vols team pulling an even bigger upset Saturday afternoon against a rolling Alabama squad.

[UPDATE 3.14.21] The Vols lost their opportunity to upset Alabama Saturday, and so won’t get a chance against LSU today. Shame, too, as the machine would have liked them to win that one. As it is, it’s predicting Alabama to beat LSU for the tournament championship in addition to the regular season championship.

For you busy types: The most likely path for the Vols to win the SEC Tournament this week would be to win the games they should be favored to win, win as a slight underdog to Alabama, and have Arkansas lose to a slight underdog in Missouri on the other side of the bracket.

Now for those of you holding warm cups of coffee:

We haven’t been publishing the results of the GRT Hoops Statsy Preview Machine this season because it’s still an angsty teenager. It has real promise, but it’s still in that frightening stage where it will make you beam with parental pride one minute and squirt zit juice onto the mirror the next.

Since I started tracking it back in early January, the machine has projected the correct winner about 69% of the time. That may sound low until you realize that literally hundreds of games are decided by a single possession. Against the spread, the machine currently at 52.8%. When its projection deviates from the Vegas spread by at least 9 points, it’s 55.99%, and when it deviates by at least 20, it’s 73.91%. Unlike in football, there does not appear to be a “sweet spot,” meaning it’s results get better as its projections get further away from the Vegas spreads. I’ve been tracking the results of the machine based on the two best comps, the five best comps, the 10 best comps, and all comps and found that the 10 best comps version almost always gets the best results. In some cases, all comps is slightly better. What I haven’t been able to track yet is what happens if it only uses the 10 most recent comps. I suspect that will improve the results, but it’s yet to be tested.

So, take all of that for what it’s worth, but I’ve run the SEC men’s basketball bracket through the machine to see what it thinks. The results are below and point to a path where Tennessee could hoist the trophy on Sunday. For easy reference, here’s the 2020-21 SEC men’s basketball tournament bracket with all of the tip times and broadcasts.

Wednesday, March 10

VU 79
TAM 68
Lower SeedProjected WinnerWin %Result
12 Vanderbilt13 Texas A&MVanderbilt52.8%VU 79
TAM 68

[UPDATE: 3.11.21] So far, so good.

Thursday, March 11

OM 76
SC 59
Lower SeedProjected WinnerWin %Result
8 Kentucky9 Mississippi StateKentucky51.9%MSU 74
KY 73
5 Florida12 VanderbiltFlorida75.1%FL 69
VU 63
7 Missouri10 GeorgiaMissouri75.1%MO 73
GA 70
6 Ole Miss11 South CarolinaOle Miss86.7%OM 76
SC 59

The odds are pretty good that the chalk holds today, although it looks like that 8 vs. 9 matchup between Kentucky and Mississippi State could really go either way. Sounds funky, right? But the Wildcats needed double overtime to beat the Bulldogs back on January 2, so maybe it’s not so weird. But wait, haven’t they gotten a lot better since New Year’s? I suppose, but they are still 4-5 since February and 1-2 in their last three outings.

[UPDATE: 3.12.21] Yep, the Kentucky-Mississippi State game was basically a toss-up, as the Bulldogs won by a single point. With the exception of being just on the other side of that coin-flip, the machine earns a pat on the back for this day.

Friday, March 12

LSU 76
OM 73
Lower SeedProjected WinnerWin %Result
1 Alabama8 KentuckyAlabama76.9%
1 Alabama9 Mississippi StateAlabama76.9%AL 85
MSU 48
4 Tennessee5 FloridaTennessee61.5%TN 78
FL 66
2 Arkansas7 MissouriArkansas61.5%AR 70
MO 64
3 LSU6 Ole MissLSU71.5%LSU 76
OM 73

It’s chalk all day long on Friday, although Tennessee looks vulnerable to me just because no number is trustworthy when it comes to the Vols this season.

Surprisingly, Arkansas may also be somewhat vulnerable to Missouri Friday afternoon. The Hogs have been rolling (do Hogs roll?) as of late, but most of their February win streak has come against unranked teams (with the notable exception of No. 6 Alabama.) Also, Arkansas needed overtime to beat Missouri on February 13. So watch that one. It could have important implications for Sunday.

[UPDATE 3.12.21] Mississippi State beating Kentucky by one point on Thursday changes nothing but the names going forward.

[UPDATE 3.13.21] Yep, chalk all day long Friday. Missouri was unable to pull off the upset against the Hogs, much to our distress. But we’ll worry about that if we are able to get past Alabama at 1:00 Saturday on ESPN.

Saturday, March 13

AL 73
TN 68
Lower SeedProjected WinnerWin %Result
1 Alabama4 TennesseeAlabama55.6%AL 73
TN 68
2 Arkansas3 LSUArkansas71.5%LSU 78
AR 71

This is where the numbers say Tennessee bows out, but they’re not especially confident about it. Like every game since mid-January, it all depends on which Vols team shows up. They’re only a slight underdog, and if it’s the right team at the right time, this is where they could get over the hump.

[UPDATE 3.13.31] This morning, the machine likes the Vols less than it did when the original predictions were made Thursday morning. It currently has Alabama winning by 6 and giving them a 72% chance of winning. Vegas, however, is slightly more optimistic, putting the line at Alabama -4.5, a 66% chance of winning. We’ll see. Fulkerson is doubtful.

[UPDATE 3.14.21] Tennessee looked like they might get it done against favorite Alabama Saturday, but alas, the Tide caught up and did the good guys in. LSU did pull off the upset against the Hogs, though, so that’s the first real miss for the machine in the tournament.

Sunday, March 14

Higher SeedLower SeedProjected WinnerWin %
1 Alabama2 ArkansasArkansas55.7%
1 Alabama3 LSUAlabama77%

Assuming this is the championship matchup, it should be a good one. Our machine likes the underdog to win a close one.

[UPDATE 3.14.21] Although the machine liked 2 seed Arkansas over 1 seed Alabama, it does not like 3 seed LSU over the Tide at all. We’ll see.

What ifs

[UPDATE 3.14.21] With the lost opportunity against Alabama Saturday, there are no more what ifs for the Vols. I’ve left everything below for the record.

What if Tennessee gets past Alabama on Saturday and meets Arkansas on Sunday? The Hogs would have a 71.5% chance of winning that one, according to our machine. Bad news.

Okay, but what if Tennessee makes it to Sunday and meets a Missouri team that knocked out Arkansas on Friday? That, my friends, would give the Vols their own 71.5% chance of winning. Good news.

And what if it’s LSU representing the other side of the bracket on Sunday? Tennessee would have a 55.6% chance of winning. Maybe kinda good news?

So . . . anything can happen, of course, but the path with the fewest thistles and snakes appears to be the following:

  • Tennessee beats Florida Friday, wins as a slight underdog to Alabama on Saturday, and advances to Sunday.
  • Meanwhile, Missouri knocks Arkansas out Friday, and either Missouri or LSU make it to Sunday.

As long Arkansas does not emerge from the other side of the bracket, the Vols would only need to win one game as a slight underdog.

Go Vols.

Tennessee-Auburn Four Factors Forecast: Partly cloudy, high chance of turnovers

Candidate for picture of the year up there, all the way down to the perfect placement of the Power T on the ball.

Here’s the GRT Four Factors Forecast for Tennessee’s game against Auburn tomorrow.

What to Watch

Oh, good: Auburn averages over 16 turnovers per game and will likely have more than that against a disruptive Tennessee defense.

But, but, but: The Vols have been turnover-happy themselves as of late and could give that advantage right back if they don’t get that corrected.

Score Prediction

The line isn’t out yet, but KemPom projects this one as Tennessee 73, Auburn 69, which equates to a 62% chance of winning.

Our fledgling Hoops Statsy Preview Machine likes the Vols by 8 (Tennessee 77, Auburn 69).

Details below.


Baseline

Current numbers:

Auburn is not especially good at shooting defense, at least inside the arc. Bad at turning the ball over. Good on the offensive boards.

Four Factors: Straight-Up

Effective FG%

Conclusion: Weird. If you look at the baseline up there, it looks like Tennessee and Auburn are basically the same at shooting the ball, except that Auburn is slightly worse from three. But here, when it’s “effective field goal percentage,” Auburn’s quite a bit better, just behind Alabama. Not sure what to think about that, to be honest. Maybe they’re inconsistent, or maybe they do really well against bad defensive teams and struggle against good ones, with some outliers muddying things up.

Turnover %

Conclusion: Auburn appears quite careless with the ball. Tennessee’s numbers in this regard probably look better than they are, as it feels like they’re on a real skid lately.

Offensive Rebound %

Conclusion: The Tigers are elite on the offensive glass.

Free Throw Rate

Conclusion: Auburn gets to the free throw line at a pretty good clip.

Four Factors: Opponent impact

Effective FG%

Conclusions

Okay, so Tennessee’s struggling offense is going up against Auburn’s struggling defense. Got it.

On the other end, Auburn’s offense is pretty good at getting the ball in the bucket, but the Vols’ defense should make things more difficult for them than usual.

Turnover %

Conclusions

These numbers make it look like the Vols should win the turnover battle decisively. However, the numbers showed the same thing for the Vandy forecast, and although Tennessee did force the Commodores into 19 turnovers, they also gave up 17. The Vols need to do a better job there.

Offensive Rebounding %

Conclusions

As good as Auburn is at getting offensive rebounds, they’re decidedly not good at getting defensive rebounds. This looks like it could even out and nullify itself.

Free Throw Rate

Conclusions

There’s been a lot of discussion about Rick Barnes’ adherence to the notion that it’s still important to be able to score from all three levels. Nobody’s arguing about three-pointers and layups; the issue is the mid-range jumper. I’d defer to Barnes on that, of course, but I do wonder how many free throw attempts are sacrificed at the altar of open mid-range jumpers.

In any event, the Vols’ season-long numbers are pretty good here, and Auburn tends to foul a lot, so it could be a good day at the stripe for the Vols tomorrow. On the other end, Auburn knows how to get there as well, and Tennessee’s committing more fouls now than it did early in the season.

Go Vols.

Tennessee-Vanderbilt Four Factors Forecast, II: Return of the Offense?

Here’s the GRT Four Factors Forecast for Tennessee’s game against Vanderbilt tonight.

What to Watch

Oh, good: Vandy’s poor shooting defense should allow the Vols’ inconsistent offense to have a good night, and Tennessee’s defense should result in another poor shooting night for Vandy. All of that, plus the Vols should be able to generate more turnovers than usual and get to the free throw line often.

But, but, but: We’ve used a lot of “shoulds” over the past several weeks that have turned into “didn’ts.” Plus, Vanderbilt appears to have an advantage on the offensive glass, and any good feelings that might come from a good offensive night could merely be a result of playing a less-than-stellar defense. Is it possible that what we’ve been calling inconsistency is really just an inability to score against good defenses? Stay tuned!

Score Prediction

Vegas has the Vols as a 7.5-point favorite, and with an over/under of 141, figures the score to be something like Tennessee 74, Vanderbilt 67.

The last time out, Tennessee beat Vandy, 81-61. KemPom projects this one as Tennessee 73, Vanderbilt 66, which equates to a 73% chance of winning. Unfortunately, that’s about what the projection was for the second game against Kentucky, which the Vols lost by 15. Those guys have a good defense, though.

Our Hoops Statsy Preview Machine likes the Vols by 12 (Tennessee 75, Vanderbilt 63).

Details below.


Baseline

Current numbers:

Vandy is not especially good defensively, which should be good news for the inconsistency problem. On the other hand, it might also hide the issue by suggesting that the Vols’ offense has fixed itself. What if the thing we’ve been calling inconsistency is really just an inability to score against good defenses?

Last time out

Here’s what happened the last time these two teams met:

The Vols shot really well against the Commodores in their last matchup and also kept them well below their shooting averages.

Four Factors: Straight-Up

Effective FG%

Conclusion: Among the Vols’ prior opponents, Vanderbilt is most like Missouri and Arkansas. And also Georgia, as that’s a pretty tight bunch.

Turnover %

Conclusion: These guys will turn the ball over.

Offensive Rebound %

Conclusion: Not bad on the offensive glass and pretty much a push with the Vols.

Free Throw Rate

Conclusion: Vandy is most like Florida and App State among Vols’ prior opponents at getting to the free throw line.

Four Factors: Opponent impact

Effective FG%

Conclusions

So yeah. The ‘Dores don’t defend well, which should give a boost of confidence to a middling Vols’ offense. On the other end, Vandy is a pretty decent shooting team, but will be going up a Tennessee defense that still does well fairly consistently.

Turnover %

Conclusions

The disparity in giving the ball up and taking it away is not especially pronounced when the Vols have the ball, but is striking on the other end. Tennessee should be able to steal several additional opportunities by forcing turnovers against a Vandy squad prone to doing so anyway.

Offensive Rebounding %

Conclusions

This looks like a slight advantage for Vanderbilt on the offensive boards.

Free Throw Rate

Conclusions

These numbers suggest that, if they want to, the Vols should be able to get to the free throw line almost at will.

Go Vols.

Tennessee-Kentucky Four Factors Forecast

Here’s the GRT Four Factors Forecast for Tennessee’s game against Kentucky tomorrow.

What to Watch

Oh, good: Kentucky is the worst-shooting team of all of the Vols’ opponents to date. They’re also extremely careless with the ball and nothing special at getting to the free throw line.

But, but, but: The Wildcats are solid on the offensive glass, and despite their struggles this season, they are still a really good defensive team. What might a good defensive team do to an offense searching for consistency? Let’s see!

Score Prediction

You’ll recall that the last time these two met, Tennessee won 82, 71. KemPom projects this one as Tennessee 68, Kentucky 61, which equates to a 75% chance of winning.

Our Hoops Statsy Preview Machine likes the Vols by 10 (Tennessee 70, Kentucky 60) with 10 comps and by 12 with all comps (Tennessee 80, Kentucky 68).

Details below.


Baseline

Current numbers:

Those defensive numbers look pretty good for them, but most everything else is coming up Vols.

Four Factors: Straight-Up

Effective FG%

Conclusion: Wow. The worst shooting team on our schedule? Yes!

Turnover %

Conclusion: Wow. Bad at turning the ball over? Yes!

Offensive Rebound %

Conclusion: Okay, they’re good at getting second chances.

Free Throw Rate

Conclusion: Not terrible at getting to the stripe, although not nearly as good as the Vols. Let’s see how the teams’ respective defenses might impact those numbers.

Four Factors: Opponent impact

Effective FG%

Conclusions

Despite Kentucky’s well-documented struggles this season, they’re still a pretty solid defensive team, which can mean trouble for a Vols’ offense well-known for its inconsistency.

On the other end, though, hoo-boy that’s a huge advantage for the good guys.

Turnover %

Conclusions

The Wildcats are not likely to steal but are oh-so-likely to give the thing away, especially to a team like Tennessee that is proficient at forcing turnovers.

Offensive Rebounding %

Conclusions

Odd. Kentucky is decidedly not good at defensive rebounding, but nipping at the heels of elite on the offensive glass. The funny thing is that the Vols’ advantage under their own basket is more drastic than the ‘Cats advantage under theirs. (When I say “advantage” here, I don’t mean to suggest that either team is going to get more rebounds than the other team under their own bucket, just that they should get a higher-than-normal percentage of their own missed shots.)

Free Throw Rate

Conclusions

If these numbers hold, the Vols should be able to get to the line more often than the ‘Cats.

Go Vols.

What are the NET rankings in men’s basketball?

In the 2018-19 men’s basketball season, the NCAA started leaning on something called NET rankings when comparing team resumes come tournament time. But what are NET rankings, and how do they work?

The N.E.T., or “NCAA Evaluation Tool” Ranking, is a system used by the NCAA to rank men’s college basketball teams, both during the season and when it comes time to select and seed tournament teams. In 2018, it replaced the RPI, which had been around since 1981 but had become increasingly disfavored over time.

According to the NCAA general description of the system, the NET evaluates a team based on “game results, strength of schedule, game location, scoring margin, net offensive and defensive efficiency, and the quality of wins and losses.”

Okay, fine. We’re going to look at stuff that matters when trying to figure out how good a team is. Good start.

A more detailed explanation identifies five main factors in the NET Ranking: Team Value Index, Net Efficiency, Winning Percentage, Adjusted Win Percentage, and Scoring Margin.

Team Value Index

The Team Value Index component of the NET is a results-oriented algorithm designed to reward teams for beating other good teams. The man remains mysterious behind the curtain, but the NCAA has said that this component includes factors such as who won (duh), the opponent (okay, good), and the location (um, okay.) I’d love to see more detail on what’s happening inside the machine here, but I doubt they’re going to make the process that transparent.

Net Efficiency

The second component is Net Efficiency, which is defined as Offensive Efficiency minus Defensive Efficiency.

Offensive Efficiency is calculated as total points divided by Total Number of Possessions. Total Number of Possessions equals field goal attempts minus offensive rebounds plus turnovers plus .475 of free throw attempts. I’m not sure whether to agree or disagree on the number-of-possessions calculation, but I’ll defer to the nerds here.

Defensive Efficiency is a similar calculation: Opponent’s total points divided by Opponent’s Total Number of Possessions. Opponent’s Total Number of Possessions is opponent’s field goal attempts minus opponent’s offensive rebounds plus opponent’s turnovers plus .475 of opponent’s free throw attempts. Whew, that’s a lot of math with words.

Winning Percentage

Winning Percentage is a simple calculation of wins divided by total games played. Thank you.

Adjusted Win Percentage

Adjusted Win Percentage appears to juice the Winning Percentage based on where wins and losses occurred. Winning on the road is the most valuable (+1.4), while losing at home is the most costly (-1.4).  Home wins and road losses count as +.6 and -.6 respectively, presumably based on the notion that you don’t deserve a reward for doing what you’re expected to do. Neutral-site games are logged at face value. 

Scoring Margin

Scoring Margin is, as you’d expect, simply the difference between a team’s score and its opponent’s score. However, the point differential is capped at 10 points, and all overtime games are capped at 1 point.

I like that scoring margin is considered, and I like a cap, but I’d like to see some more data to determine whether 10 points is the best threshold for that to kick in. A one-point cap for overtime makes sense.

Here’s how all of that looks in infographic form:

https://twitter.com/marchmadness/status/1067063960753573889

The NET is a tool

Pardon the heading; I just wanted to make sure you were still reading. The NET isn’t actually a TOOL, but it is merely a tool, meaning it’s not the final word in NCAA Tournament teams or anything. It’s just one component of the selection process. The at-large teams will still be chosen by the selection committee, and the committee will still use a combination of analytics and human subjectivity to select and seed those teams. They’ll still use the team sheets, and the team sheets will still rely heavily on the quadrant system utilized for the first time last year. The primary difference is that the game results are now sorted into the quadrants based on NET ranking instead of RPI.

Bracketology: How to roll your own

I wonder what percentage of pitiful people in the United States have never heard of “filling out a bracket” for the NCAA Tournament. In a country with a population of over 325 million, some 70 million brackets were completed last year, according to ESPN. That number probably includes multiple brackets by a single person, but whatever your level of expertise at nitpicking, that’s a lot of people filling out a lot of brackets. And there’s some significant number in addition to that of people who know about filling out a bracket but have never actually done it. Poor them.

The NCAA Tournament bracket is a big deal, is what I’m trying to say. It’s such a big deal that people start talking about it long, long before the official bracket — complete with the teams and their seedings — is announced on Selection Sunday. There are numerous sites that engage in what is now known as “bracketology,” the process of guessing beforehand what the official bracket is going to look like heading into the tournament. Currently, the bracketmatrix.com tracks 91 such sites, and there are probably more out there lurking beyond even the time and resources of the good folks behind the bracket matrix.

We fans are interested because it matters. We want to know the chances of our team going to the Big Dance, and fans of teams that are a lock to get in want to know their likely seeding. Because seeding in the NCAA Tournament matters. A lot.

But how do the bracketologists do it? What goes into anticipating what the bracket is going to look like on Selection Sunday? Is there a process involved or is it all just pure guesswork?

Well, it turns out that it’s part process and part educated guess. At the bottom of this post, there’s a step-by-step guide for cooking up your own bracketology, but first, a little explanation is in order.

The general process of bracketology

At its most basic, bracketology consists of first identifying the teams likely to participate and then seeding those teams among four pre-determined regions or venues.

Selecting the participants is done by allowing some teams to earn their way in by getting hot and winning their conference tournaments and allowing other teams to earn invitations by being consistently good throughout the season even if they were upset in a single game late in their conference tournament.

Seeding is presumably a quest for both fairness and drama, giving some teams advantages they’ve earned by being good but also allowing lower-ranked teams every opportunity to upset a higher-seeded team.

Who gets into the NCAA Tournament?

To begin, 32 teams earn automatic bids by winning their conference tournaments. Here’s a list of the 32 conferences that send their end-of-season tournament champions to the Big Dance. It’s who you’d expect, plus a whole bunch of conferences no casual fan will ever remember. So keep that link handy.

That leaves 36 spots for “at-large” teams, those that are invited by the NCAA Selection Committee according to some agreed-upon ranking system. The committee used to rely on the RPI, but the RPI is now RIP, and now the Committee uses the NET rankings.

This selection process ensures that the field consists of a mixture of teams: (1) those earning it over the course of a season, (2) power conference champions getting an opportunity to redeem an otherwise non-qualifying season by getting hot late and winning their conference tournament, and (3) mid-major teams that might not otherwise get in despite winning their conference tournaments just because they’re not in a power conference.

All the favorites get in, and the field leaves enough room for some Cinderella to become the belle of the ball.

Seeding

Once the 68 teams are chosen, the NCAA Selection Committee then determines the seeding of the participants. The bracket is divided into four regions, with each having 16 slots for teams.

First, the committee develops an “S-curve,” which is a ranking of all of the teams participating. Then, the committee seeds according to the S-curve and certain guiding principles.

The general rule of seeding

The top four teams on the S-curve are distributed among the four regions, each getting a No. 1 seed in its respective region. The regions themselves are “seeded” as well, meaning that they are organized so that if all of the No. 1 seeds made the Final Four, the best would play the worst and No. 2 would play No. 3.

After the No. 1 seeds are placed, the next four teams on the S-curve are distributed among the four regions, each getting a No. 2 seed. The process continues until all teams are placed into regions and seeded within them.

Guiding principles that override blind S-curve seeding

The Committee doesn’t assign the teams their seeds blindly according to the S-curve. Several principles can come into play to override that process.

Geography matters. Teams higher on the S-curve will generally get the most favorable region, geographically speaking. They can’t play on their home courts, though, until the Final Four, unless they are the University of Dayton. So, geography can impact your seed.

Unfamiliarity matters. Where and when possible, the Committee will generally attempt to avoid intra-conference matchups and other rematches from the regular season or the prior season’s tournament games, especially early in the Tournament. This generally means that teams from the same conference or that have recently competed against each other shouldn’t meet the first weekend of the tournament if it can be avoided.

The First Four. Four slots are reserved for teams winning the “First Four” games, and the rankings of these play-in teams can also throw a wrench into a purely mechanical seeding generated by the S-curve. The First Four games involve the four lowest-ranked at-large teams and the four lowest-ranked automatic bid teams. The winners of the games between the automatic bid teams are generally slotted in as No. 16 seeds, but the winners of games between the at-large teams are generally slotted in as No. 11 seeds, although they could also be lower.

Don’t get crazy. The Committee will attempt to comply with all of these principles by adjusting a team’s region or seeding, but they generally don’t want to change a team’s S-curve seed by more than one in either direction.

Homebrew bracketology

So, if you ever want to do your own bracketology, here’s how:

  1. Select the teams
    • Choose 32 teams by predicting the 32 conference tournament champions
    • Choose 36 others, according to highest NET ranking
  2. Develop the S-curve for the 68 participants (i.e., rank them according to NET rankings)
  3. Seed the teams according to the S-curve ranking, adjusting one seed up or down as needed to comply with the following principles
    • Give higher-rated teams on the S-curve a geographical advantage if possible
    • Don’t match up conference mates or teams that have played recently in the first round if possible
    • Assign automatic bid play-in winners 16-seeds
    • Don’t put at-large play-in winners above the 11-seed line

Tennessee-South Carolina Four Factors Forecast: Mostly sunny, except under their basket

UPDATE: This game has been moved to Wednesday.

Here’s the GRT Four Factors Forecast for Tennessee’s game against South Carolina tonight.

What to Watch

Oh, good: With the exception of offensive rebounding (see below), South Carolina is struggling in all of the key Four Factors. There are huge disparities between what the Vols generally do and what the Gamecocks generally do, and those disparities should result in a relatively comfortable Vols victory. Those differences are especially pronounced when the Gamecocks are shooting against the Vols’ defense, when the Gamecocks are trying not to turn it over to a thieving Vols squad, and when the Vols’ offense is forcing the issue and getting to the foul line.

But, but, but: Apart from the Vols’ own consistency problems, South Carolina is extremely active on the offensive glass and could earn a frustrating number of second chances and leverage them into a closer contest than it should be.

Score Prediction

Vegas has the Vols as 10-point favorites, and with an over/under of 142, the anticipated score should be something like Tennessee 76, South Carolina 66.

KemPom’s projection is Tennessee 75, South Carolina 65), which equates to an 83% chance of winning.

Our Hoops Statsy Preview Machine likes the Vols by 15 (Tennessee 78, South Carolina 63) with 10 comps and by 14 with all comps (Tennessee 80, South Carolina 66).

Details below.


Baseline

Current numbers:

The Vols are better everywhere except the offensive glass.

Four Factors: Straight-Up

Effective FG%

Conclusion: Among the Vols’ prior opponents, South Carolina is most like Cincinnati and Texas A&M. In other words, not especially good at getting the ball into the basket.

Turnover %

Conclusion: Similar story here; most like Cincinnati and Mississippi State, and not especially good.

Offensive Rebound %

Conclusion: This, however, is a very different story, as the Gamecocks are extremely good on the offensive boards, currently tied with Georgia and not far off Mississippi State. In this category, South Carolina will be one of the three best we’ve played.

Free Throw Rate

Conclusion: And back to the other story. Not good at getting to the free throw line. Most like Colorado and USC Upstate.

Four Factors: Opponent impact

Effective FG%

Conclusions

Tennessee’s inconsistency on the offensive side of the court has produced a very mediocre effective shooting percentage. Fortunately, South Carolina’s defense shouldn’t make things worse tonight. On the other end, that is an absolutely huge disparity with a team that struggles to find the bottom of the net going up against a team that is very good at keeping you from doing it.

Turnover %

Conclusions

Each defense appears to have an advantage over its opponent’s offense when it comes to creating turnovers. Fortunately for the Vols, SC’s advantage is not nearly as pronounced as Tennessee’s, which is massive. Expect the Vols’ offense to turn it over some — especially if the Gamecocks ramp up the pressure and the traps — but also expect the Vols’ defense to go racing the other direction quite often after forcing a ton of turnovers themselves.

Offensive Rebounding %

Conclusions

As good as South Carolina is at grabbing offensive rebounds, their advantage over Tennessee’s defense on that end of the court isn’t as big as it is for the Vols on the other end. Make no mistake, expect to be frustrated at the number of second chance opportunities for Carolina. But Tennessee should have an opportunity to mitigate that problem by doing pretty much the same thing under their own basket.

Free Throw Rate

Conclusions

Okay. If they want to, tonight could be a good time for the Vols to re-establish themselves at the free throw line.

Go Vols.

What is the Four Factors Gameplan?

If you’re a regular here, you know that we often post a Four Factors Gameplan in advance of men’s basketball games. But why?

If you’re not familiar with the “four factors,” it’s essentially an analytical framework that boils the game of basketball down to four key categories:

  1. Shooting
  2. Turnovers
  3. Offensive Rebounding
  4. Getting to the foul line

Of these, shooting matters the most by far and is defined as a formula that results in a number known as effective field goal percentage. The remaining categories are in order of importance, but are only marginally more important than the one below them and are all much less important than shooting. That’s quite a dramatic oversimplification, so if you want the full explanation, check out the Dean Oliver four factors page. Even KenPom uses these four factors.

What’s in a Four Factors Gameplan?

A Four Factors Gameplan starts with a baseline of how each team is currently doing in the regular stats that relate most closely to the four-factors. These are field goal shooting percentage, three-point shooting percentage, turnovers per game, offensive rebounds per game, and free throw attempts per game. We also add in defensive rebounds per game for flavor and defensive shooting percentages when available and when we’ve had enough coffee.

After that, we’ll look at each of the four factors by ranking all of Tennessee’s prior opponents in each category and then adding the next opponent to see which prior opponent they are most like in that category. We add the Vols just to see how they compare to the upcoming opponent.

After that, we’ll compare Tennessee’s offensive four-factors numbers to the opponent’s defensive four-factors numbers in an attempt to determine whether any facet of the game might be more important than usual. From that, we’ll develop a one-paragraph summary of what to watch for and our own gameplan.

Often one or both of the teams will do something completely out of character and none of it will matter, but more often it turns out to be a fairly accurate forecast of how things end up playing out.

Does the difference between a 1-seed and a 2-seed matter?

Is your favorite men’s college basketball team in contention for a 1-seed in the NCAA Tournament? Are you guarding your sanity by telling yourself that it really doesn’t matter if your team gets a 1-seed or a 2-seed? Well, go ahead and fret, friend, because it does matter.

Before we get into why the difference matters, I have to first speak some truth into your life with love: If you’re relying on the AP and Coaches Polls to determine where your team is going to be seeded come Tournament time, you’re doing it wrong. The media and coaches polls matter as much to college basketball as the points in Whose Line is it Anyway. Not only do they have zero impact on the crowning of the national champion, they’re not even considered by the all-important folks sending out the save-the-dates come March.

Nope. The only thing that matters in college basketball is getting into the Big Dance and getting a cushy spot in the bracket. And that’s not determined by the polls, but by the Selection Committee and the NET Rankings.

Do 1-seeds do any better in the Tournament than 2-seeds?

So how important is it for fans to root for a No. 1 seed?

Pretty important, as it turns out. Here’s a look at the seeds of the winners, the runners-up, and other Final Four participants since the Tournament expanded to 64 teams in 1985:

And here’s how all of that data breaks down into categories:

Whoa. A full 63% of the winners were No. 1 seeds, and there’s a huge drop off for 2-seeds, who won the whole enchilada only 14% of the time. The advantage of seeding for the rest of the Final Four field isn’t quite as pronounced, but it’s there, and it’s significant.

Sure, every once in a while some 11-seed will crash the party with a scrappy nun in tow and scare the pants off everybody, but usually, the final weekend features the No Surprises All-Star team. And more often than not, the team cutting down the net in April is one that was sitting pretty on the top line on Selection Sunday.

Tennessee-LSU Four Factors Forecast: Too close to call

Here’s the GRT Four Factors Forecast for Tennessee’s game against LSU tomorrow.

What to Watch

Challenges: LSU shoots as well as anybody the Vols have played, they don’t turn the ball over much, and they look like an even matchup on the offensive glass and at getting to the free throw line.

Happy thoughts: When you factor in the teams’ respective defenses, Tennessee does appear to have an advantage in most of the Four Factors categories, although each of those apparent advantages is pretty slight.

Score Prediction

The line isn’t out yet, but KemPom’s projection is Tennessee 74, LSU 73), which equates to a 54% chance of winning.

Our Hoops Statsy Preview Machine is more optimistic, liking the Vols by 8 (Tennessee 78, LSU 70) with 10 comps and by 6 with all comps (Tennessee 83, LSU 77).

Details below.


Baseline

Current numbers:

So that looks pretty even, except that their shooting offense is slightly better and Tennessee’s defense is quite a bit better.

Four Factors: Straight-Up

Effective FG%

Conclusion: These guys shoot even better than Georgia. Basically, they’re tied with the best-shooting team that Tennessee has played so far this season in Florida, to whom they lost.

Turnover %

Conclusion: Okay, so they don’t turn the ball over, either.

Offensive Rebound %

Conclusion: This basically amounts to decent on the offensive glass. Essentially the same as Florida and Tennessee.

Free Throw Rate

Conclusion: Well, crud. These guys are good across the board, including at getting to the free throw line. Let’s see what adding in the respective defenses does to the analysis.

Four Factors: Opponent impact

Effective FG%

Conclusions

The shooting analysis is essentially the same as it was for the Georgia game except that LSU is even better on both ends. The Vols should be able to have a decent afternoon shooting the ball, and they’re going to need that spectacular defense because LSU is a real threat to shoot well and put up points. The Vols do appear to be the better team in this category, but the difference isn’t nearly as pronounced as it has been for most previews.

Turnover %

Conclusions

Ugh, all of this stuff is way too close. What those numbers don’t know is that the book is out on the Vols, and opponents can crank up those turnovers numbers just by pressuring our ball handlers. The only possible solution to that I can think of is to try to get the ball to Keon and let him dribble around the traps as they’re coming and before they get there.

To make matters worse, LSU’s offense isn’t nearly as generous as Georgia’s. As with shooting, the Vols do appear to be the better team, but not by much.

Offensive Rebounding %

Conclusions

This could be an opportunity for the Vols. They are decent on the offensive glass, but LSU’s defensive rebounding isn’t up to the same standard as the rest of their game. On the other end, LSU has a similar advantage, but it is not as pronounced.

Free Throw Rate

Conclusions

Ugh again, too close to call for Tennessee getting to the line, and LSU could make some hay there.

Go Vols.