The Five Pillars

I don't know about you, but I'm a huge fan of the NCAA Tournament.

My earliest memories date back to '96 -- the year in which the Pitino-led Kentucky Wildcats breezed through the bracket, crushing each team they faced.

The following year, Dad and I were glued to the TV for the entirety of the Big Dance. That was the year that Lute Olsen 's Arizona Wildcats, a four seed, won it all by barely pulling out each of their games.

Flash forward three years, and I'm persuading my seventh grade classmates to get in on the opportunity of a lifetime -- my first NCAA Tournament pool. The buy-in? Three dollars.

Since then, I've filled out at least one bracket every year. And although I've only won one March Madness pool -- thanks in large part to Michael Kelly, who barely edged me out in both 7th and 8th grade -- I typically finish near the top of the leaderboard.

In middle school I relied on two things when filling out my brackets: 1) the little knowledge I had, and 2) my gut feeling. Sure, I still rely on them today -- but I also look at a lot of statistics.

While numbers don't always spell out who's going to beat who, they certainly help in understanding how teams match up against one another. The key, however, is knowing which aspects of the game are most important.

So a couple years ago, feeling that half of the first round matchups were too close to call, I decided I was going to first determine which stats make the most difference, and in certain games, let those statistics pick winners for me.




I came to the conclusion that five statistical categories -- which I'll call "The Five Pillars" for the sake of this post -- are the most tell-tale figures:

1. scoring margin
2. offensive field goal percentage
3. defensive field goal percentage
4. rebound margin
5. assist-to-turnover ratio
   

In the spring of 2008, the first year this statistical inquiry came into play, the numbers said that Kansas -- which ranked in the top eight in each of The Five Pillars at season's end -- was the best team in the country. So I picked the Jayhawks to win the National Championship.

Memphis ranked especially high in each category as well. Their average ranking in The Five Pillars was 18.0 -- the second best average of the entire field. So I made the Tigers my runners-up.

Naturally, these two teams met in the Title Game, and Kansas won. And I won (well, tied) the pool I entered.

You may say that Kansas and Memphis, both top seeds in their respective regions, were no-brainers -- common picks -- to meet in National Championship Game. And you'd be right. In fact, the guy I tied with had the same two teams on his final lines.

But if you look at the key statistics I'm making a case for today, you'd notice that the other Final Four teams -- North Carolina and UCLA, both of which were also top-seeded in their regions -- were a step behind Kansas and Memphis.

My sleeper pick that season was tenth-seeded Davidson. Led by the hot hand of Stephen Curry, I picked them to knock off Gonzaga, Georgetown, and Wisconsin before losing to Kansas -- my favorite to win it all -- in the Elite Eight.

Davidson's average rank was 40.0 in The Five Pillars. Regardless of seed, that was one of the better averages in the entire nation -- which gave me good reason to believe that Davidson could make some moves in the tournament. And luckily, I was dead-on in my prediction.

Not convinced of my theory yet? It's cool -- I was skeptical at first, too.

So I looked back to the 2006 NCAA Tournament -- the year that little George Mason of the Colonial Athletic Association, an eleven-seed, knocked off Michigan State, North Carolina, Wichita State, and Connecticut on their way to the Final Four.

That year George Mason's average ranking in four of The Five Pillars (excluding assist-to-turnover ratio, as it wasn't an official statistic until '08) was actually a tad higher than Florida and UCLA, the two teams that eventually met in the Title Game.

No one -- except maybe a few George Mason students -- picked the Patriots to reach the Final Four. But if I'd thought of The Five Pillars a couple years earlier, I may have.




So based on these indicators of basketball vitality, which double-digit seeds have the potential to pull off a George Mason-like run this year? Here are a few that may have a little Cinderella in them...

• Murray State: One of the sexy names in college basketball this year, Murray State has a better average ranking in The Five Pillars than three of the #1 seeds -- Duke, Kentucky, and Syracuse. The Racers are incredibly deep, with ten players who average at least 10 minutes per game and six who average at least 9.5 points per game. But despite the impressive statistics, and how winnable their first two games appear, the Racers haven't been tested all that much this season. Their toughest opponent, Cal, which beat them by five, is an eight-seed in this year's tournament. Here's the bottom line: Murray State certainly has a chance to advance to the Sweet Sixteen. But without big game experience, I wouldn't recommend getting too high on them.
  

• St. Mary's: Led by 6'11" center Omar Samhan, St. Mary's College is fully capable of making a run in the first weekend of the tournament. In a season in which the Gaels ranked near the top of virtually every statistical category, they capped it all off by beating rival Gonzaga in the West Coast Conference Championship Game. They shoot the ball well from everywhere -- short range, long range, and the foul line -- and shut down the three-point shot, forcing opponents to make a tough decision: pull up for a mid-range jump shot, or take the ball inside to the aforementioned Samhan. At 20.9 ppg and 11.0 rpg, Omar Sahman is one of the rare "twenty and ten" guys in college basketball. And if St. Mary's is going to pull off a couple upsets in the first weekend, his play is going to be a big reason why.

• San Diego State: The Aztecs are battle-tested, having played ten games against five teams in this year's field. They shoot the ball well, play good defense, and dominate in the rebounding department -- three characteristics of very good teams. But what also bodes well for San Diego State is the fact that their opening round opponent, Tennessee, despite loads of athleticism, isn't a very good rebounding team. This is a big reason why many people -- including me -- expect the Aztecs to win at least one game. And when one considers the parity among the lower portion of the Midwest region, a run to the Elite Eight wouldn't be so surprising. At the same time, a first round exit, in my opinion, is just as likely. Buyer beware.
  

• Utah State: One of the most statistically impressive teams in the land, Utah State has the second-best national average in The Five Pillars. Their first round opponent, Texas A&M, is not so impressive on paper. If the Aggies of Utah State can get by the Aggies of Texas A&M in the first round, neither Purdue nor Siena pose insurmountable challenges in the second round. But for how good this deep Utah State team looks on paper, they were inconsistent this season, going just 2-3 versus Tournament-bound teams, including a 1-2 record versus New Mexico State -- a team that probably wouldn't even be among the field of sixty-five had they not upset Utah State in the WAC Championship Game last week. Utah State has a chance to make a nice run this weekend -- but like San Diego State, proceed with caution.

Now that I've shed some light on a few teams that may be sleeping giants, here are few teams that may be sent home sooner than expected...

• Kansas State: With an average ranking of 79.6 in The Five Pillars, the highest number among teams seeded third or higher, Kansas State is the first team I'm putting on upset alert. If recent history tells us anything, I may not be so crazy, either, as no Final Four team in the last two years has had this high an average ranking-- and it's not even close. While the Wildcats surely have a potent offense, with an athletic lineup that can rebound and block shots, they struggle mightily with free throws, turnovers, and defense -- so much, in fact, that they rank 200th or worse (out of 334) in each of these areas.
  

• Marquette: Undersized and undermanned, the Marquette Golden Eagles have relied heavily on three-point shooting this season. While they've been quite successful in this aspect of their game, we all know the rule: If you live by the three, you die by the three. And often times, Marquette has died by the three. Their three-point field goal percentage was 40.6% this season, which ranks 6th in the nation. But in nine losses versus teams in this year's Dance, the Golden Eagles shot just 34.4% -- which, if they'd shot at this percentage all season, would rank 154th in the nation. Marquette's first round opponent this weekend, eleventh-seeded Washington, defends the three very well and is a much better rebounding team. If you're looking for an upset among the 6/11 matchups, this may be your best bet.

• Oklahoma State: Despite being seeded seventh in the Midwest region, the Cowboys' average ranking in The Five Pillars (106.2) is far lower -- by nearly thirty -- than their first round counterpart, tenth-seeded Georgia Tech. What's worse is, none of The Five Pillars are Oklahoma State's greatest weaknesses. They especially struggle to block shots and defend the three. And as far as size, the Yellow Jackets tower above the Cowboys in both the frontcourt and the backcourt. OK State may match up closely depth-wise, but their first round draw isn't a very good one, as Tech features a bigger, defensive-minded lineup with multiple NBA-ready players. Each of the 7/10 matchups in this year's Tournament are close calls -- but I believe Oklahoma State is the most likely to lose their first game.

• Purdue: The fourth-seeded Boilermakers have their hands full in the first round when they take on Siena. But even if Purdue can get by the Saints, one of the most successful "mid-majors" of the last few years, their second round game won't be any easier. After a season-ending knee injury to do-it-all forward Robbie Hummel, Purdue finished the year by losing two out of five games. But here's the kicker: Both losses came at home against the only Tournament-bound teams of the bunch -- fifth-seeded Michigan State and eleventh-seeded Minnesota -- by an average margin of 18 points. Sans-Hummel, this guard-heavy squad is vulnerable in the frontcourt. Their lone big man, JaJuan Johnson, will have his hands full against either of Purdue's potential foes in round two, assuming they make it that far, as both Texas A&M and Utah State feature bigger forwards that can out-rebound the Boilers.

It ought to be noted that The Five Pillar Theory does not always indicate which teams are poised to make a run in the NCAA Tournament.

For instance, just two years ago, twelfth-seeded Villanova -- with an average ranking of 146.6 in The Five Pillars -- upset fifth-seeded Clemson -- with an average of 89.4 -- in the first round of the Tournament.

In other words: While The Five Pillars can absolutely help in picking certain games, these five statistics -- scoring margin, offensive field goal percentage, defensive field goal percentage, rebound margin, and assist-to-turnover ratio -- are not the only factors that affect the outcome of a basketball game.

But if you're having a difficult time filling out your bracket this year, consider looking at The Five Pillars -- among other statistics -- when making a decision.

Consistency Is Key

Consistency is important in sports -- from one play, game, or season to the next.

In recent years, consistently great athletes (such as Martin Broduer, Tim Duncan, Derek Jeter or Peyton Manning) have kept their teams in championship contention season after season.

Teams that are good year-in and year-out obviously have a better chance to reach their ultimate goal -- winning a championship.

And unless they have a run like that of the Chicago Blackhawks, in which the NHL franchise made the playoffs for twenty-eight consecutive seasons without winning a single Stanley Cup title, this goal is usually realized.



As of this morning, the seventh of March, there were four teams in the National Hockey League with a goal differential between seventeen and twenty-two.

Three of these four teams -- the Colorado Avalanche, Los Angeles Kings, and New Jersey Devils -- have either 79 or 80 points in the standings, and are almost certainly playoff-bound.

However, the last of this bunch -- the Philadelphia Flyers -- have just 70 points. They are not only far (7 points) behind the Ottawa Senators, the team just ahead of them in the Eastern Conference standings, but they're currently fighting for position with five other teams (separated by 5 points) for seeds six through eight in the East.

The Flyers, Devils, Kings and Avalanche are equal by nearly every statistical measure. Sure, each of them has their weakness -- but overall these four teams are parallel to one another.

So what separates the Flyers from the pack? Why do they stand nine or ten points behind the others, playoff lives on the line?

Your answer, ladies and gentlemen, is consistent scoring.

The NHL average for scoring this season is 2.86 goals per game. As of today, the Flyers average of 3.05 is good for seventh in the league and first among the other three teams with a scoring margin in the plus-20 range.

But despite having one of the most prolific offenses in the league, the Flyers erratic scoring leaves them on the outside looking in when it comes to the Stanley Cup Finals picture.



Here's how the Flyers scoring breaks down this season:

• 15 games (23.8%) in which they've scored zero or one goal(s)
  
• 24 games (38.1%) with two or three goals
• 14 games (22.2%) with four or five goals
• 10 games (15.9%) with six-plus goals

Considering the Flyers' 3.05 goals per game average I mentioned above, as well as the 2.86 league-wide average, it's no surprise that the Broad Street Bullies have scored either two or three goals in the majority of their games.

But compared to the other twenty-nine teams in the NHL, the Flyers 38.1% in the 2-3 goal range is low. And as you would probably guess, this figure is the lowest when compared to the other three teams in this study -- the Devils, Kings and Avs.

Their scoring, on average, breaks down as follows:

• 17.7% of games with zero or one goal(s)
• 47.9% with two or three goals
• 29.7% with four or five goals
• 4.7% with six or more goals

Eternal optimists will rationalize the Flyers' 38.1% in the 2-3 goal range. They'll say that their numbers are better because of their potential to score a handful of goals on any given night, as evidenced by the ten games in which they've tallied six or more scores.

That's great and all -- but those percentage points have to go somewhere. While the Flyers surely have the ability to rack up lots of goals, they've also been held to less than two goals far more often than the others.

Until they start to get consistent production from their offense, the Flyers will remain on the bubble in the Eastern Conference.