Updated My Website: Shows how Syracuse has fared in the modern day NCAA tournament

[jetsqb101]

Hey everyone, I just finished updating my website: http://marchstatistics.com/wp/?page_id=169

The page I linked is the one I made to help understand the stats and options available to you, but i'll explain it here as well.

• If you want to find a specific school's data, you can click on the 'Conferences' tab, then click on the conference they are in and search for the school (they are listed alphabetically).
• Expected Wins Per Seed: This is a cool visual to see differences in what's expected of a team based upon what seeding they receive. 6 seeds have actually been more successful than 5 seeds and a 10 or an 11 seed are both better off than a 9 seed according to my data.
• Diff. Per Tournament Rankings: Maybe my favorite part of the site because of the integration of major and non-major conference teams. It's a measure of over and under performance in the NCAA tournament, and ranks all teams based upon how well they've performed against their expectation. The only caveat to this is that five tournament appearances (since 1985) are required to qualify for this list.
• Expected Wins Rankings: Rankings for teams based upon who's been expected to win the most games. I like this as a measure of team prestige, any team with a tournament appearance in the modern era (since 1985) is included.

Hope you guys like it, I'll post the Syracuse info here

Since 1985, Syracuse has been expected to win 41.2661 games in the NCAA tournament based upon the seedings they've received. This is the 6th best out of all NCAA teams, trailing only Duke, Kansas, UNC, Kentucky, and Arizona. In that time period Syracuse has actually won 44 games, meaning that they've won +2.7339 more games than they were expected to. That number divided by their 25 tournament appearances gives them a [+.1094 wins per tournament] number which is 40th best out of 137 qualifying teams.

 

[rstone7727]

Amazing.. A LOT of work! nicely done.

 

[shandeezy7]

So you mean to tell me that the popular narrative from our esteemed "journalist" friends of Syracuse being a perennial flameout in the NCAA tournament is completely erroneous? Color me shocked.

 

[Alsacs]

We really only have bad blips in 1988, 1991, and 2005. Our runs in 1987, 1996, and 2013 cancel them out and of course we won the title in 2003. If AO doesn't get hurt we likely play for the NC in 2010 but we can't play that game.
SU hoops is elite its not top 5 but its in that 6-12 range.

 

[jetsqb101]

Amazing.. A LOT of work! nicely done.

Thank you! I'm glad it's done at this point, I tried to spread out the work to make it tolerable but it was still quite a task haha.

 

[jetsqb101]

A large inspiration for this project was that I was getting tired of reading about a plethora of teams being labeled as under-achievers in the tournament based upon the seldom occasions that they were upset. It's just not realistic to expect a team to win every game that they're supposed to, and I think that this does a good job of capturing a bigger picture while highlighting the teams that have consistently over or under performed their seeding.

 

[Alsacs]

A large inspiration for this project was that I was getting tired of reading about a plethora of teams being labeled as under-achievers in the tournament based upon the seldom occasions that they were upset. It's just not realistic to expect a team to win every game that they're supposed to, and I think that this does a good job of capturing a bigger picture while highlighting the teams that have consistently over or under performed their seeding.

Before I clicked on your site I figured Michigan State would be #1 at overachieving and UConn would be #2. They ended up 5th and 6th. I see Kentucky was ahead of both that was shocking and gives them props. Those you have above those 3 obviously haven't been NCAA T regulars but this is good info if they ever make the tournament to think of them as Cinderellas.

 

[PoppyHart]

With this analysis, it appears as though everything is done in a vacuum and is unweighted. An 8 losing to a 9 is essentially as crushing an upset as 2 to a 15. Also, what if, say, a 12 and 13 win their 1st games? The 12 should win that second game, but here it's treated as gravy and neither is punished.

 

[jetsqb101]

With this analysis, it appears as though everything is done in a vacuum and is unweighted. An 8 losing to a 9 is essentially as crushing an upset as 2 to a 15. Also, what if, say, a 12 and 13 win their 1st games? The 12 should win that second game, but here it's treated as gravy and neither is punished.

You're second point is very true, it doesn't take into account the exact seeded team you'd verse past the initial game but only looks at the path that a team has to take. If you're a 7 seed and the 2 seed lost in the first round then your second round matchup just got easier (unless you're 2013 San Diego State) but I don't think there's enough data to work for scenarios like that and would instead suggest looking up a team's tournament results alongside this data to see if the numbers are justified.

For the first point, the 2 seed would suffer from a first round upset by considerably more than an eight seed, as that scenario would count as a [-2.2581 win] performance for the 2 seed and a [-0.7097 win] performance by the 8 seed. The Expected wins per seed and how they changed from the last tournament can be found here

 

[Shark58]

I support websites!

 

[OttoMets]

...That number divided by their 25 tournament appearances gives them a [+.1094 wins per tournament] number which is 40th best out of 137 qualifying teams.

Lot of back-patting going on despite this number.

As always, Syracuse doesn't underachieve as much as the nay-sayers say, but it's also not as successful as the orange-glasses crowd believes.

 

[Brooky03]

Lot of back-patting going on despite this number.

As always, Syracuse doesn't underachieve as much as the nay-sayers say, but it's also not as successful as the orange-glasses crowd believes.

I would say it's pretty much in-line with what the 'orange-glasses crowd' believes. I assume there isn't anybody on this board who thought we were a great NCAAT program in terms of performance relative to seed.

Duke's 36th, so that's not bad company to be in. If we take out the mid-majors, that puts Duke and SU in the top 20-25 range.

 

[OttoMets]

I would say it's pretty much in-line with what the 'orange-glasses crowd' believes. I assume there isn't anybody on this board who thought we were a great NCAAT program in terms of performance relative to seed.

Duke's 36th, so that's not bad company to be in. If we take out the mid-majors, that puts Duke and SU in the top 20-25 range.

This is fair, I think. Haven't had a chance to actually look at the list, but I'm sure this particular metric favors once-in-a-generation Cinderellas; Northern Iowa and St. Mary's were a couple teams that immediately came to mind as probably having won 2 games per appearance. It'd be crazy to call those mid-majors better than Syracuse, despite their relative superiority in that one particular ranking.

 

[Knicks411]

I think big flameouts, like 91 as a 2, and even 05 as a 4, are going to carry a lot of weight in the general consciousness. Also, my guess would be losing as a 2 "seems" worse than winning it all as a 3, which I'm sure added probably 2 or 3 games to our total.

I mean really, if you look at our seeding, we had that 15 year stretch or so between 92ish and 07 where I think we were only seeded third or better once? So we didn't have huge expectations there are all.

And also, any measure that has Duke only as 20 or 25 over the last 30 years; well, yeah. I get what the measure is tryign to do, just saying.

 

[HOFCeluck]

I think big flameouts, like 91 as a 2, and even 05 as a 4, are going to carry a lot of weight in the general consciousness. Also, my guess would be losing as a 2 "seems" worse than winning it all as a 3, which I'm sure added probably 2 or 3 games to our total.

I mean really, if you look at our seeding, we had that 15 year stretch or so between 92ish and 07 where I think we were only seeded third or better once? So we didn't have huge expectations there are all.

And also, any measure that has Duke only as 20 or 25 over the last 30 years; well, yeah. I get what the measure is tryign to do, just saying.

From 1992 to 2008, we were seeed a three or higher precisely once. We've also had all of three one seeds (1980, 2010, 2012) and have not been a two seed since 1991. So yeah.

 

[shandeezy7]

I think big flameouts, like 91 as a 2, and even 05 as a 4, are going to carry a lot of weight in the general consciousness. Also, my guess would be losing as a 2 "seems" worse than winning it all as a 3, which I'm sure added probably 2 or 3 games to our total.

I mean really, if you look at our seeding, we had that 15 year stretch or so between 92ish and 07 where I think we were only seeded third or better once? So we didn't have huge expectations there are all.

And also, any measure that has Duke only as 20 or 25 over the last 30 years; well, yeah. I get what the measure is tryign to do, just saying.

Duke has had a good amount of pretty bad flameouts in the past, including two losses in the first round as a 2 seed and as a 3 seed within the past 4 years. I would venture to guess that those two flameouts put a pretty big hit on the two titles they won in 2010 and 2015 in this methodology.

 

[Knicks411]

Duke has had a good amount of pretty bad flameouts in the past, including two losses in the first round as a 2 seed and as a 3 seed within the past 4 years. I would venture to guess that those two flameouts put a pretty big hit on the two titles they won in 2010 and 2015 in this methodology.

I know they did, including as a 2 seed, but man, since 1985 they have what, 5 titles and 12 final fours. That's a final four every 2 and a half years!

 

[RF2044]

I know they did, including as a 2 seed, but man, since 1985 they have what, 5 titles and 12 final fours. That's a final four every 2 and a half years!

Agreed. The data / interpretation is interesting, and puts a slightly different "numerical" spin on our post-season performance than the general narrative.

But it sure doesn't make me feel any better. The eyeball test tells me that we haven't done as well in the postseason as we should have. Think about this for a second: as much of a consistent winner as JB has built the program into, we've never been to three consecutive sweet 16's in a row. Seems ridiculous, right?

A couple more elite 8s / final 4s would go a LOOOOONNNGGG way towards changing that perception.

 

[Knicks411]

Agreed. The data / interpretation is interesting, and puts a slightly different "numerical" spin on our post-season performance than the general narrative.

But it sure doesn't make me feel any better. The eyeball test tells me that we haven't done as well in the postseason as we should have. Think about this for a second: as much of a consistent winner as JB has built the program into, we've never been to three consecutive sweet 16's in a row. Seems ridiculous, right?

A couple more elite 8s / final 4s would go a LOOOOONNNGGG way towards changing that perception.

Right. Like Duke is in the 20's; is there any team's history you'd rather have since 85? Maybe without the fanbase, but the success speaks for itself.

I think this kinda says it all

From 1992 to 2008, we were seeed a three or higher precisely once.

Now we did win a title and make a final in that run, so I'm not trying to knock it, but 15 years and only a 3 seed once.

 

[HOFCeluck]

Right. Like Duke is in the 20's; is there any team's history you'd rather have since 85? Maybe without the fanbase, but the success speaks for itself.

I think this kinda says it all



Now we did win a title and make a final in that run, so I'm not trying to knock it, but 15 years and only a 3 seed once.

I think it took us until around the turn of the century to really fully recover from the probation.

 

[FrancoPizza]

I think it took us until around the turn of the century to really fully recover from the probation.

Probation set the program back, but you can't blame that all the way through the 90s. There were several sweet 16 appearances plus the unexpected run to 1995-6 title game. There was a lot of dead weight on the staff. When the right assistant hires were made, that's when we made the jump towards elite.

 

[OttoMets]

Probation set the program back, but you can't blame that all the way through the 90s. There were several sweet 16 appearances plus the unexpected run to 1995-6 title game. There was a lot of dead weight on the staff. When the right assistant hires were made, that's when we made the jump towards elite.

I think Winfred Walton's SAT situation was catastrophic; the 1996 Final Four bridged the gap after probation, but our great 1996 recruiting class never quite realized its potential. Until Weaver came on board, we had a lot of middling seasons and mediocre recruiting classes as a result.

 

[HOFCeluck]

Probation set the program back, but you can't blame that all the way through the 90s. There were several sweet 16 appearances plus the unexpected run to 1995-6 title game. There was a lot of dead weight on the staff. When the right assistant hires were made, that's when we made the jump towards elite.

From 81-90 we were a three seed or better six times (1984, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90). From 91-2000 we were a three seed or better one time (1991). Look at the guys we brought in before probation. We had seven McDonalds All Americans in the 80's. Adrian Autry came in in 1990. Then Wallace in 1992 (who was from Rochester) then... no one until Carmelo in 2002. Since Carmelo we've had eight. You culd say nine because I'd say that Battle is all but a lock.. The run to the title game in 1996 was just that...unexpected by a four seed after a good but not great regular season.

What assistants were dead weight?

 

[HOFCeluck]

I think Winfred Walton's SAT situation was catastrophic; the 1996 Final Four bridged the gap after probation, but our great 1996 recruiting class never quite realized its potential. Until Weaver came on board, we had a lot of middling seasons and mediocre recruiting classes as a result.

I forgot about WW...he would have been huge.

 

[jetsqb101]

This is fair, I think. Haven't had a chance to actually look at the list, but I'm sure this particular metric favors once-in-a-generation Cinderellas; Northern Iowa and St. Mary's were a couple teams that immediately came to mind as probably having won 2 games per appearance. It'd be crazy to call those mid-majors better than Syracuse, despite their relative superiority in that one particular ranking.

Per-Tournament is a ranking designed to highlight over/under-achievers, so Cinderellas are well-represented on that list. My best way of controlling their impact on the Per-Tournament list is by requiring a team to have 5 NCAA tournament appearances (Since 1985) to qualify, meaning they need some semblance of continuity or one hell of a good run to be near the top.