- Close
ESPN Senior Writer- Peter Keating is a senior writer at ESPN The Magazine, where he covers investigative and statistical subjects. His column, The Numbers, appears in every issue.
- Close
ESPN The Magazine contributing writer- Brenner writes for ESPN The Magazine and ESPN Insider. He covers the NBA and college basketball.
As we promised in the Giant Killers blog, on Monday we begin detailed breakdowns of all the first-round games with GK implications.
Now that we all have brackets in hand, it's time for a detailed look at how our Giant Killers statistical model sees NCAA tournament matchups. We'll go region by region, and, as we did in 2011, we will sort potential upsets into four categories: Best Bets, Worth a Long Look, Not Completely Crazy and Stay Away. These names should be pretty self-explanatory: Best Bets have a decent chance to win outright, and Stay Aways are likely to lose no matter what. But we can't tell you exactly how to fill out your brackets, because that depends on how heavily your particular pool rewards upsets. The more points you score when underdogs win, the more you should be willing to pick high-risk teams.
In case you've forgotten, a Giant Killer is a team that beats an opponent seeded at least five spots better and doesn't come from a BCS conference. Other teams -- Gonzaga, Butler, BYU, Temple and Xavier -- are excluded because of their historical success. (Check out our methodology for a full explanation.) Our model generates statistical ratings that compare potential Giant Killers to past Davids, as well as all Giants to the Goliaths that were slain. Those ratings enable us to predict the chances of an upset in each matchup.
We continue with the East Region, where a traditional Giant Killers victim may have lucked out with its draw.
Upset picks in the South | East | West | Midwest
EAST REGION
WORTH A LONG LOOK
No. 14 St. Bonaventure (17.3 Giant Killer score, on a 100-point scale) vs. No. 3 Florida State (43.4 Vulnerability score)
Upset chance: 22.1 percent
Because the Seminoles look good and are coming off a string of impressive victories, they are creeping far along an awful lot of brackets. But Florida State's run through the ACC tournament didn't repair its signature weakness: The Seminoles throw the ball away on 23.7 percent of possessions, ranking 324th in the country. Style of play can explain why some teams look good or bad in particular categories, but 324th? That's between UC Davis (5-26) and Loyola-Chicago (7-23). Any system that recognizes the importance of turnovers is going to have doubts about the Seminoles: BPI ranks them at 26, making Florida State the single most overseeded team in the tournament. And our model finds that avoiding turnovers is especially critical for Giants looking to ward off Killers. Which makes Florida State a ticking time bomb.
As to whether the Bonnies can set it off, well half a dozen teams in the Atlantic 10 were better at forcing turnovers, and five would have made better Killers overall. If you saw St. Bonaventure turn back every Xavier rally in the A-10 tournament final, you already know how much it relies on Andrew Nicholson; otherwise, prepare to get acquainted with this absolute beast, a 250-pound forward responsible for much of the Bonnies' impressive rebounding and 2-point shooting stats. If Florida State goes into mistake mode and Nicholson gets a lot of second chances, this game could get interesting. Both need to happen, but both are quite possible.
No. 12 Harvard (11.0) vs. No. 5 Vanderbilt (47.7)
Upset chance: 19.7 percent
It's a shame Harvard's Giant Killer status isn't as strong as the team's overall ability, because once again, Vanderbilt is extremely vulnerable according to our model. This does not mean Vanderbilt isn't a good team. This does not mean Vanderbilt can't make a deep tournament run. It's just that the Commodores' statistical profile -- and we've seen this for several years now -- is the type that typically signals problems against Giant Killers.
There are three main areas of concern for Vandy. First, the team turns it over on 20 percent of possessions, 10.7 of which result in steals -- a horrible stat for a power team, and a great opportunity for an underdog to get out and run. Compounding that problem, the Dores don't force enough turnovers at the other end. Secondly, they have similar issues on the boards, particularly the defensive glass, where they are slightly below average. And last, they don't generate nearly enough of their offense from 2-point range (a hallmark of a safe Giant), scoring just 44 percent of their points from that distance (329th in the country, per KenPom.com).
But can Harvard take advantage? The Crimson don't generate turnovers either and aren't built to run even if they force those mistakes. Nor do they grab offensive boards, although they are great on the defensive glass. However, they do an outstanding job of defending the arc, allowing just 24.8 percent of opposing points to come from 3-pointers, which means they could take away one of Vandy's greatest strengths. Harvard will probably have to increase its own frequency in terms of 3-point shooting and hope its defensive rebounding from the likes of Keith Wright and Kyle Casey can carry over on the offensive side for a game, but stranger things have happened, especially against teams with such a high vulnerability rating.
STAY AWAY
No. 15 Loyola-Maryland (15.6) vs. No. 2 Ohio State (15.7)
Upset chance: 9.5 percent
The Greyhounds just played the game of their lives, strangling Fairfield 48-44 in the MAAC final, and thereby depriving the NCAA field of a team named the Stags. Thing is, Loyola is usually careless with the ball (turnovers on 20.8 percent of possessions, ranking 208th in the NCAA) and ineffective at defending the perimeter (allowing opponents to shoot 36 percent on 3s, ranking 252nd), relying instead on a strong inside game to compensate for their mediocre shooting. That leaves them hugely reliant on free throws (24.5 percent of points, ninth-most in the country), which is generally bad news for Killers, and offensive rebounding, which is worse news in this specific case, because Ohio State limits opponents to ORebs on just 24.8 percent of missed shots, the second-lowest rate in the country. The Buckeyes' few weaknesses have really cost them only in games against other Giants, as when they went a combined 6-for-32 (18.8 percent) on 3-point attempts in their two losses to Michigan State.
No. 16 UNC Asheville (12.2) vs. No. 1 Syracuse (6.8)
Upset chance: 5.2 percent
This game is worth watching just to see UNC Asheville field the smallest team. Not in the tournament, mind you, in the country: The Bulldogs rank dead last in the NCAA with an Effective Height of minus-5.1 inches. They shoot well, but they're even more reliant than Loyola on free throws (26.2 percent of points). And they're allowing opponents to shoot 50.4 percent inside (ranking 271st) and 35.4 percent from behind the arc (ranking 216th).
The Orange, meanwhile, demonstrate why some stats matter more than others when it comes to Giant Killing. For all the talk you'll hear about the importance of free throws at this time of year, Syracuse scores 116.1 points per 100 possessions without relying on foul shots because they hardly ever turn the ball over and they hit the glass. In other words, they don't need other teams to make mistakes to put points on the board. And on defense, they rank 341st in the country in one category our model finds surprisingly unimportant -- defensive rebounding -- as the 2-3 zone makes it hard to find a man to box out. But here's how the zone pays off: The Orange rank third in the country in steals, sixth in generating turnovers and second in blocking shots. Along with North Carolina and Kentucky, they're one of the least vulnerable Giants in the field.
No. 13 Montana (2.0) vs. No. 4 Wisconsin (21.8)
Upset chance: 4.3 percent
There's just enough here not to completely dismiss a slaying, and Wisconsin may be slightly overrated by tempo-free stats. But don't stake your bracket on this upset. The Badgers give the ball up just 15.1 percent of the time, which is second in the country, so you can forget about rattling them with pressure. They also own the offensive glass and absolutely smother opponents beyond the arc (giving up only 19.9 percent of their points from that distance, one of the best marks in the nation). If there's a weakness, Wisconsin doesn't score enough from 2-point range, which makes its offense less consistent than you'd like from a top-tier Giant. And the Badgers' weak nonconference performance isn't the greatest harbinger of success in these types of games.
But Montana isn't an ideal GK. Although the Grizzlies have won 14 straight games, their methods don't match those of effective Giant Killers. They're lousy on the offensive glass, below average in generating points from 3-point range (which is strange, because they hit 38.3 percent of their treys, so let it fly!) and haven't proved themselves against difficult competition. To their credit, they do a nice job of both preventing and forcing turnovers, although good luck trying to get Wisconsin to cough it up. And the Grizzlies defend the arc exceptionally well, allowing just 24.3 percent of opponents' points from downtown. But even though Will Cherry is a master thief (4.6 steal percentage, 15th in the nation) and Kareem Jamar could go off from 3 (44.5 percent), it's hard to find enough weapons to justify picking Montana.