Username:	Password:

Remember me

Forgot your username/password?

Print Email

Home>Articles

Tournament 2

By Bill James

March 26, 2009

In the second round of games we predicted:

Gonzaga over Western Kentucky by 15

Memphis over Maryland by 12

Tarheels over LSU by 12

Kansas over Dayton by 11

Connecticut over Texas A & M by 11

Louisville over Sienna by 10

Pittsburgh over Oklahoma State by 8

Oklahoma by Michigan by 7

Duke over Texas by 6

Arizona over Cleveland State by 4

Missouri over Marquette by 4

Michigan State over USC by 4

UCLA over Villanova by 3

(despite the seedings)

Xavier over Wisconsin by 2

Arizona State over Syracuse by 2

(despite the seedings)

Washington over Purdue by 1

And the results were:

PREDICTION     OUTCOME

Gonzaga over Western Kentucky by 15   Gonzaga by 2

Memphis over Maryland by 12   Memphis by 19

Tarheels over LSU by 12   Carolina by 14

Kansas over Dayton by 11     Kansas by 17

By the way, my spell checker doesn’t recognize the word “Gonzaga”, which is not too weird, but it suggests that perhaps what I meant was “Bondage.” Really? Bondage? How do you get that out of “Gonzaga”?

So we were 4-0 in those games. The teams that we thought were 50 points better won by a total of 52 points.

Connecticut over Texas A & M by 11 U Conn by 26

Louisville over Sienna by 10 ; Louisville by 7

Pittsburgh over Oklahoma State by 8 Pittsburgh by 8

Oklahoma by Michigan by 7   Oklahoma by 10

Also 4-0 in those games. The teams that we thought were 36 points better won by a total of 51, making us 8-0 but with +113 points rather than the expected +86.

Duke over Texas by 6 Duke by 5

Arizona over Cleveland State by 4   Arizona by 14

Missouri over Marquette by 4 ; ; Missouri by 4

Michigan State over USC by 4 Michigan State by 5

Still 4-0 in those games; that’s 12-0. The teams that we thought were 18 points better won by a total of 28 points (although 3 of the four games were within one point of the expected spread.) The teams we thought were 104 points better have won by a total of 141. Now the games that were almost too close to call:

UCLA over Villanova by 3 WRONG Villanova by 20

Xavier over Wisconsin by 2 Xavier by 11

Arizona State over Syracuse by 2 WRONG ‘Cuse by 11

Washington over Purdue by 1 WRONG Purdue by 1

So we’re wrong on three of those four, making us 13-3 in the second round, 36-12 in the tournament. The teams that we thought were 8 points better in this group of four lost by a total of 21, so altogether, the teams that we thought were stronger outscored their opponents by 120 points, whereas we would have predicted they would win by 112 points. I think so far in the tournament we’ve done about as well as we would have done just predicting that the higher-seeded team would win every game. However, we have done well on the point margins. The teams that we would have predicted to win by 425 points have actually outscored their opponents by 402.

In the third round of games we have:

Louisville over Arizona by 7

Pittsburgh over Xavier by 7

Connecticut over Purdue by 6

North Carolina over Gonzaga by 5

Duke over Villanova by 4

Oklahoma over Syracuse by 2

Kansas over Michigan State by 2

Memphis over Missouri by 2

Here’s a question for you: Who was the last college player as good as Blake Griffin? I don’t think there has been anybody that good in college ball for several years. … just wondering who the last guy was. The Big 12 writers like to say the Big 12 has had the best player in the country the last three years, with Kevin Durant, Michael Beasley and Griffin. Let’s not argue about the truth of that, but my point was that Durant and Beasley were phenomenal players, but not close to the athleticism of Griffin. I remember one year KU in the Final Four had to deal with Dwayne Wade and Carmelo Anthony, and those guys were great but again, not close to matching Griffin. He’s like LeBron and Kobe, but those guys didn’t go to college.

COMMENTS (12 Comments, most recent shown first)

110phil
It might be simpler than that ... "bondage" is the same length as "gonzaga" and has four letters in common. Also, it substitutes vowels for vowels and consonants for consonants, and, as jollydodger notes, the different keys aren't too far from each other (and use the same hand). I bet Microsoft's algorithm includes all four of those factors, and they happen to coincide in this case.

2:22 PM Mar 29th

jollydodger
Well the B on a keyboard is just under the G, so that would be an easy mistake. The D and Z keys are hit with the middle and ring fingers, respectively. And you may use the wrong vowel at the end. That's how Gonzagae becomes bondage in 3 easy steps. (Thinking of opening a leather and chains shop in Spokane)
12:10 PM Mar 29th

rangerforlife
John Gasaway made a case that DeJuan Blair, not Griffin, is the most deserving candidate for national player of the year honors. I'm not sure I agree, but as long as we're having this discussion:

http://www.basketballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=580
3:18 AM Mar 29th

SeanKates
I actually spent so much time thinking about this that I was forced to write an article about it.
3:51 PM Mar 27th

ventboys
Trying to rank Griffin leads to asking some other, more interesting questions than the "who's better" question. Just a couple that came to mind for me were...

Who have been the best seniors since (1) the hardship exemption, (2) it became common for players to come out directly from high school, (3) since the one and done rule, and also the best juniors, and who have been the best sophs (since the one and done rule in particular, as this was a dramatic change in the talent pool).

Also, which teams have taken the most advantage of the one and done, which teams have been hurt by it, how have the various rules affected mid majors as well as power conference teams, and what effect European immigrants have had, asking a lot of the same questions. Also, as I work about 300 feet from McCarthy Center (home of Gonzaga, called the Kennel locally), so anything that relates to mid majors is personally interesting to me. Quickly, one thing (not my own thought, I stole it from an ESPN analyst, can't remember who):

While the Zags don't produce a lot of NBA players, they do produce a ton of pros that play in Europe and South America. These players are just a tick or two below the elite, which is important, but they also stay for their full eligibility period. That's important, too, I think, and one of the possible factors pushing the talent level of mid majors up closer to the power teams.

I think that, for the most part, it's extremely hard for a mid major to beat an elite team in a game that matters as much as these sweet 16 games. When the chips are all on the table and everyone is at peak adrenaline, the elite athletes are able to dominate the lesser athletes. The Zags have one elite 8 to their credit, but that one was against another low seed in the sweet 16. They almost beat UCLA a couple of years ago, but the last 3 minutes were either a screw job by the officials, a meltdown caused by the superior athletes of UCLA, or just one of those things. I kind of lean towards the logical answer, which is that all 3 factors applied. The main factor that made it all possible, though, was the talent level of UCLA. Run fast, jump high. They could do both better than the Zags, who got the lead by being better shooters and taking advantage of a team that wasn't focused early.

I like that bondage thing, I can use that at my bar. Thanks, Bill....
11:09 PM Mar 26th

SeanKates
I just didn't realize there were people who thought that way. I understand that Griffin is stronger than both Durant and Beasley. He's bigger at least girth wise, and should be. He MAY be quicker, depending on what we mean by that. Does he get the ball up faster from a rebound? Maybe. He is, however, slower than both in putting the ball on the floor, as well as taking a set shot. He is also less accurate than both on shots that come outside 5 feet.

I don't know what it means to be a great college basketball player in the way that you mean it. He is a wonderful college basketball player, and he will make a very good professional basketball player. He is EXTREMELY good at what he is able to do, and plays within himself. However, he lacks a large amount of the skill set that the other two have, including any outside presence. Durant and Beasley can both stretch defenses, while Griffin has to rely on (admittedly superior) rebounding skills and inside moves that work on college players three inches shorter than he is.

The draft comment is exactly what it is. He did injure himself multiple times last year, but he played a fair deal (missing something in the area of 5 games maximum I believe). Neither the Bulls nor the Heat would have considered him in the top 2 of the draft, and I believe that most GMs (even the idiots who ended up drafting 3-5) would have stayed the course. Maybe he gets drafted over Love, but once again, given the trade that occurred, I doubt it. He was injured, yes (and let's not talk about that being an actual part of his skill set), but his injury wasn't the reason he wouldn't have gone in the top 5.

I still think he's a slightly older guy beating up on a smaller, weaker conference than the other two players. And he's beating them up extremely well. To me, he's not the best college basketball player of the last 2-3 years, let alone the last 7+. I have seen most of the statistics that they have on college efficiency, and while I generally wouldn't rely on them, I think that they back me up.

If you wanted to foot tickets to the OU-Cuse game tomorrow to observe and discuss in person, I am perfectly amenable to that. :)

9:40 PM Mar 26th

bjames
If you're asking who says Griffin is better than Beasley and Durant, I do. I don't know what the numbers are, but I've seen all of them play quite a bit, and I'm telling you Griffin is easily the best of the three--and easily better than Dwayne Wade as a college player. Beasley is a terrific athlete who does everything conventionally, but does everything right. He's just basketball 101. . .a kind of human training film. You've seen everything he does before, but he just does it exactly right and he's hard to deal with. Griffin is something else. . .he is much, much, much more athletic than Beasley or Durant. Stronger, quicker, jumps better. And I don't want to hear that stupid crap about the draft. . .he didn't come out last year because he was hurt last year and hardly played.
7:45 PM Mar 26th

SeanKates
I'm not sure when we got to the point where Blake Griffin was even in the class of Durant or Beasley. Are we measuring dominance in college, because both dominated a stronger league more than he has? Are we measuring pro-upside, because most pro scouts would argue that Durant and Beasley have a much better chance at succeeding in the pros? Bill uses the term "athleticism, but this has to be another one of those "baseball players are more ATHLETIC than basketball players" uses of the term "athletic," as both Durant and Beasley are faster AND quicker than Griffin.

The "Small 12" problem mentioned above were actually true of the league in each of the last two years to some lesser extent, but it is an important factor in Griffin's dominance. Also keep in mind that 6 months separate Durant from Griffin, with Beasley right in the middle. Both Durant and Beaslesy dominated a better league by a greater margin at a younger age.

I believe that Blake Griffin will be the number one pick in the NBA draft, and correctly so, but there's a reason he didn't come out last year, as he would have had a big problem (and once again, correctly so) breaking the top 5 of that draft.
4:15 PM Mar 26th

shaneyfelt
Forgive the errors, I hit enter before I could reread and did not know it would send - darn none edit feature.
2:04 PM Mar 26th

shaneyfelt
I live in Omaha and love watching Big 12 basketball, and OU and Blake Griffin are the hoot. But let us not get to far ahead of ourselves. First, the Big 12 should be known this year as the Small 12 (meaning height is a premium in this league, unlike the Big East. This by default allowing a guy like Blake Griffin to completely dominate (please note he is only a 65% ft clip). When you run through their non-conference schedule does that leave you wondering just a bit about their level?

Their next two games will prove this out - Syracuse and most likely NC. If Blake still dominates those two teams, and they have the inside players, I am a beliver and then might try to answer the question.

Until then I believe I beleive he is one of the "good" players in College this year.

2:01 PM Mar 26th

PHjort
Dwayne Wade has to be the answer to the "who the last player as good as Blake Griffin", right?
12:54 PM Mar 26th

schoolshrink
I picked Oklahoma to go to the championship game because of Blake Griffin. He is the best college player since Greg Oden, and if his body holds up he certainly will be the better player. To me, a better comparison would be to consider who he would emulate at the next level. Griffin reminds me more of Karl Malone than any player in twenty years. That is pretty good company.
12:42 PM Mar 26th

Tournament 2

COMMENTS (12 Comments, most recent shown first)

Leave a comment

Report inappropriate comment


Type of Abuse:
Comments: