window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; function gtag(){dataLayer.push(arguments);} gtag('js', new Date()); gtag('config', 'UA-41145778-1');
List

Wisconsin pulled the upset of Kentucky, which makes the final of the 2015 NCAA Tournament an interesting match-up between two very evenly matched teams. Throughout the tournament, all predictions indicated that Wisconsin was (a very distant) second behind Kentucky with respect to probabilities of winning the tournament.

Based on the latest (and final) model predictions, Wisconsin is a slight favorite over Duke in a game that is essentially a toss-up:

TeamSeedRegionProb of ChampionshipB-T Effect
Wisconsin1West0.53265.461
Duke1South0.46745.294

Overall Model Results

Although the Bradley-Terry model was accurate at picking the winner for only 71.2% of the games, a deeper analysis shows that the model predictions were well calibrated but that the model itself lacked the prediction power to be more informative. In the figure below, the X-axis represents the model-predicted probability a team would win and the Y-axis represents the expected true proportion of wins for any given probability. The solid red line is the model the dashed black line is where a perfectly calibrated model would fall.

modelpred

The graph shows that the model was, for the most part, well calibrated in its assessment of probability in that the red line is nearly on top of the black line. Where the model missed was with predicted probabilities close to .5 and close to 1. In these cases, the model was slightly over-confident in its assessment of probability.

What does that mean for the final game (with a model-predicted probability of winning of .53)? Based on the curve in the graph, the result is likely closer to a 50-50 game.

What this says to me is that a better model is needed…and one will be forthcoming in time for the next round of predictions…to be continued…

  Posts

1 2 3 4
March 11th, 2018

2018 NCAA Men’s College Basketball Division 1 Team Ratings

Team Rating Estimates Team ratings are based on a model factoring in team performance and team consistency. Ratings are produced by […]

March 11th, 2018

2018 NCAA Tournament Predictions

Just in time for the 2018 NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament, I used a statistical model to assess team strength and […]

March 21st, 2017

Latest NCAA Tournament Predictions: Still No Overwhelming Favorite

The latest NCAA Tournament predictions are up and the chaos of the tournament is likely to continue. Although Gonzaga has […]

March 13th, 2017

2017 NCAA Tournament Prediction: Get Ready for Bracket Chaos

Just in time for the 2017 NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament, I have put together a new statistical model to assess […]

March 6th, 2017

2017 NCAA Tournament Predictions

Just in time for the 2017 NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament, I have put together a new statistical model to assess […]

November 8th, 2016

2017 Statistics Workshops: Diagnostic Modeling and Multilevel Longitudinal

Learn from instructors who wrote the book(s) on the topics! All workshops are given in a relaxed atmosphere with ample […]

November 1st, 2016

R Functions for Estimation of the LCDM in Mplus

The R functions are used to build, run, and parse Mplus syntax for estimation of the LCDM. The functions to […]

April 29th, 2016

An Introduction to Clustering and Classification Methods (EPSY 905; Spring 2016)

Multivariate Analysis (EPSY 905; Spring 2016): Week 14 Materials In-Class Lecture Materials: Lecture Slides R Files (zipped folder of all […]

April 24th, 2016

Principal Components Analysis and Exploratory Factor Analysis (EPSY 905; Spring, 2016)

Multivariate Analysis (EPSY 905; Spring 2016): Week 13 Materials In-Class Lecture Materials: Lecture Slides R Files (zipped folder of all […]

April 19th, 2016

Mixed Models Incorporate Repeated Measures and Multivariate ANOVA (EPSY 905; Spring 2016)

Multivariate Analysis (EPSY 905; Spring 2016): Week 12 Materials In-Class Lecture Materials: Lecture Slides R Files (zipped folder of all […]