Efficiency Stats Role in Recent Bracket History

Disclaimer : I'm posting solely as a point of reference for people as they contemplate their brackets.  Past performance is not an indication of future success.  Please don't bet above your means or use this as the sole determinant for your bracket filling and wagering....  

I posted this last year, so, in keeping with tradition, which our society seems to be losing by the minute, I'm bringing it back again.  

Over the last 11 Final Fours (2007-2017), which consists of 44 teams (11 years X 4 Final Four participants per year), there has been a significant correlation between success in offensive/defensive efficiency numbers and success in the bracket.  Since 2007, most of the teams that made the Final Four have either been in the top 40 for BOTH offensive and defensive efficiency % or in the top 10 of either category, i.e. 'dominant' in one or the other.  Here is the breakdown of Final Four constituents that fall into this screening criteria

2007 : 4 out of 4

2008 : 4 out of 4

2009 : 4 out of 4

2010 : 4 out of 4 

2011 : 2 out of 4

2012 : 4 out of 4

2013 : 4 out of 4

2014 : 4 out of 4

2015 : 4 out of 4

2016 : 3 out of 4

2017 : 3 out of 4 (one team was ranked 41st, so just missed)

All told, 40 of the last 44 Final Four teams have been ranked in the top 40 for BOTH offensive and defensive efficiency % or was a specialist (top 10) of one of the efficiency stats.  This year, there are 20 teams that qualify within the screening, which may seem like a lot, but you'll notice some of the 'specialists' are ones from the smaller conferences.  That's not to say they can't make a deep run and get there, but, likely, many of you won't be picking that course, so the number of teams is really not that high.  One perspective, which I will consider, is those teams within the top 40 for both or a specialist in one or the other have a statistically supported basis for success in the bracket, whether that be win a game or two games or get to the Final Four.  Efficiency stats could be an indicator of teams that are high level sleeper candidates.  

Enough of my garble, the 20 teams (offensive efficiency % rank/Defensive efficiency % rank) that qualify in this year's bracket are as follows: 

Top 10 Defensive Efficiency
Cincinnati (Not in top 40, 1st)
Virginia (Not in top 40, 2nd)
New Mexico State (Not in top 40, 4th)
Texas Tech (Not in top 40, 6th)
UNC Greensboro (Not in top 40, 7th)
Steven F. Austin (Not in top 40, 8th)
Wright State (Not in top 40, 10th)

Thanks for posting  this Bud.

Good Stuff as always

Interesting that Murray plays WVU in the 1st round. Murray is getting a lot of attention as a live dog, but WVU has a stellar resume other than losing thrice to Kansas despite outplaying them all 3 games.

Thanks, Spaz. 

Tis the season Spaz!

Like WV to go pretty far, debating whether or not to have them taking out Nova actually.

Curious to see your thoughts on the bracket itself and your Final 4.

One of the more interesting brackets I've seen as far as match-ups go.

So it looks like you use the non-Adjusted RankOE and RankDE from kenpom instead  the RankAdjOE and RankAdjDE?

Curious as to why that would be since the Adjusted numbers are supposed to be reflective of opposition/schedule played.  Not questioning the method because obviously it's working with the raw numbers.

More wondering if there's an explanation why it works better with the raw numbers versus the adjusted ones.