5 ms·

A #16 seed has never beaten a #1 seed in the history of the tournament, yet the percentages of moving on for #1 seeds against #16 seeds vary from 96%-99%. I wo

by TheBiv 13y ago

A #16 seed has never beaten a #1 seed in the history of the tournament, yet the percentages of moving on for #1 seeds against #16 seeds vary from 96%-99%. I wonder if there would be any of this variance (4 percentage points from 100%) if computers, without human input, were used to place the likelihood of moving on.

rabble 13y ago
Just because it's never happened doesn't mean that it won't happen, just as the percentage's suggest it's very unlikely.
- AnimalMuppet 13y ago
  I think TheBiv's point is that, even though you know it can happen, historical data suggests that 1-4% is too high a probability. It's never happened in, say, 20 years of a 64-team tournament? That's 80 #1 seeds? Then 1% might be a reasonable probability, but 4% does not seem reasonable.
  - TheBiv 13y ago
    You said it better than myself!
streptomycin 13y ago
There was a big variance in the regular season performances of the #1 seeds this year, which is what the computers are picking up on. If anything, I think humans have the opposite effect of what you suspect, as they do things like overrating Wichita St for emotional reasons (undefeated record) while the most famous computer ranking http://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaab/sagarin/ http://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaab/sagarin/ puts Wichita St as only the 13th best team. Also, historically #1 seeds were stronger than they are now because top players didn't go to the NBA so quickly.
- Touche 13y ago
  > Also, historically #1 seeds were stronger than they are now because top players didn't go to the NBA so quickly. Would love to see some data on that. My perception that it's been the same since the early 2000s.
  - streptomycin 13y ago
    I'd like to see data too, but I don't have it :) My perception agrees with yours, I was thinking of the 80s and 90s when it wasn't uncommon to see superstars hone their skills for 4 years in college.
- selectodude 13y ago
  I would say the exact opposite, really. Players can't jump straight from high school anymore. So you have a larger base of extremely talented freshmen. Also, I would consider the Pomeroy rankings to be better (many more variables, Sagarin uses point differentials which are silly).
  - streptomycin 13y ago
    There were only like 5-6 seasons when it was popular to go straight to the NBA from high school. In the last millennium, it was very uncommon. Instead, it was typical for top players to stay for 3-4 years. Now, they usually stay for just 1. Compare: Mostly freshman/sophomores: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_NBA_Draft#Draft_selections http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_NBA_Draft#Draft_selections Nearly all juiniors/seniors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_NBA_Draft#Draft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_NBA_Draft#Draft (EDIT: Christ, look at UNLV in that '91 draft. Seniors from that team were picked #1, #9, #12, #29. That's completely unfathomable today.)
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - moonka 13y ago
      Along the lines of UNLV, check out the 2005 draft with UNC. #2, #5, #13, & #14. I think that's the most lottery picks from one school in a year, and three were in the same class (#2 was a freshman)!

by TheBiv 13y ago

rabble 13y ago

Just because it's never happened doesn't mean that it won't happen, just as the percentage's suggest it's very unlikely.

AnimalMuppet 13y ago
I think TheBiv's point is that, even though you know it can happen, historical data suggests that 1-4% is too high a probability. It's never happened in, say, 20 years of a 64-team tournament? That's 80 #1 seeds? Then 1% might be a reasonable probability, but 4% does not seem reasonable.
- TheBiv 13y ago
  You said it better than myself!

streptomycin 13y ago

There was a big variance in the regular season performances of the #1 seeds this year, which is what the computers are picking up on. If anything, I think humans have the opposite effect of what you suspect, as they do things like overrating Wichita St for emotional reasons (undefeated record) while the most famous computer ranking http://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaab/sagarin/ http://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaab/sagarin/ puts Wichita St as only the 13th best team. Also, historically #1 seeds were stronger than they are now because top players didn't go to the NBA so quickly.

Touche 13y ago
> Also, historically #1 seeds were stronger than they are now because top players didn't go to the NBA so quickly. Would love to see some data on that. My perception that it's been the same since the early 2000s.
- streptomycin 13y ago
  I'd like to see data too, but I don't have it :) My perception agrees with yours, I was thinking of the 80s and 90s when it wasn't uncommon to see superstars hone their skills for 4 years in college.
selectodude 13y ago
I would say the exact opposite, really. Players can't jump straight from high school anymore. So you have a larger base of extremely talented freshmen. Also, I would consider the Pomeroy rankings to be better (many more variables, Sagarin uses point differentials which are silly).
- streptomycin 13y ago
  There were only like 5-6 seasons when it was popular to go straight to the NBA from high school. In the last millennium, it was very uncommon. Instead, it was typical for top players to stay for 3-4 years. Now, they usually stay for just 1. Compare: Mostly freshman/sophomores: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_NBA_Draft#Draft_selections http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_NBA_Draft#Draft_selections Nearly all juiniors/seniors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_NBA_Draft#Draft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_NBA_Draft#Draft (EDIT: Christ, look at UNLV in that '91 draft. Seniors from that team were picked #1, #9, #12, #29. That's completely unfathomable today.)
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - moonka 13y ago
    Along the lines of UNLV, check out the 2005 draft with UNC. #2, #5, #13, & #14. I think that's the most lottery picks from one school in a year, and three were in the same class (#2 was a freshman)!