March Madness Myths: The Fantasy Of Guard Oriented Teams Winning

For the last several years we’ve touted Pete Tiernan’s Bracket Science as a valuable tool in Big Dance handicapping.

While the science is oriented towards forecasting the March Madness bracket pool, there are sundry sports handicapping applications.

In fact, as our diverse range of regular clients have seen us assert in our analysis—the dichotomous ATS and straight up game as an example—handicapping is in large part the art of isolating overvalued and undervalued teams.

The voluminous articles on Bracket Science are centered on isolating characteristics of underachieving and overachieving teams in the NCAA Tournament.

If there is a downside to this mechanism, the findings are corroborating my own experiences as a handicapper rather than enlightening me on new angles.

Rest assured that a large component of my success in the industry since the 1980's is that I am quite swayable and have made many adjustments, often debunking unfound theories of my fledgling early years.

Conversely, those who subscribe to sports betting’s ultimate oxymoron “conventional logic” will have an epiphany upon reading the findings with an open mind.

Possibly topping the lists of urban legends perpetuated by hacks, talking heads, and bottom-rung handicappers alike is the pure poppycock about betting on guard oriented teams.

As stated numerous times, a team’s strength is a commodity and the less prevalent the commodity, the more valuable the resource is.

In a rare illustration in which “conventional logic” is factually based, most baseball fans understand that possessing a shortstop who can hit 35 runs and knock in 100 is more valuable than a first baseman who can do the same. A power hitting middle infielder is a scarcity—a rare commodity.

But the same gospel truth is abandoned elsewhere in sports. For example in the NBA playoffs, it’s a statistical truism that scoring decreases in the NBA playoffs as defensive intensity increases.  

Yet “conventional logic” has Joeybagofdonuts victimized into believing that somehow when scoring goes down defensive becomes more paramount. False.

A quick study proves that teams most adept at scoring consistently in the half-court are beyond reproach the most victorious in postseason NBA.

The same parallel universe applies to college basketball. There are significantly more quality backcourts than frontcourts. Most teams that fail to make the NCAA, flop in the first-round, or do not even qualify for the NIT are guard oriented.

Drinking the Kool-Aid, those who perpetuate the alternate reality conclude that the preponderance of high caliber guard play and the dearth of dominant big men makes the more prevalent guard oriented teams the more cherished commodity.

Basketball’s equivalent of the power hitting first basemen has become more indispensable than the shortstop who can bat cleanup.   

Poppycock, balderdash; it’s a pure betting urban legend.

The goal here is neither to bootleg Tiernan’s research nor write an advertorial on his behalf, but one would be advised to consult his work for his precise and standardized metrics for defining over and underachieving.

His research concluded that since 1991, NCAA Tournament teams get 52 percent of their points from guards. He also defines the last 24 years as the modern era and divides them into three eight-year periods.

Of zero surprise to us, but a revelation to countless, Tiernan concludes:

“In each eight-year period of the modern era, the most frontcourt-dominant teams have overachieved.”

“The most guard-dominant squads have never been overperformers in any eight-year period of the 64-team era.”

“Never,” he said. No way, no how.

Using statistically overwhelming numbers to document his conclusions he again corroborates what we’ve preached for decades:

“If you look at the average percentage of points that tourney advancers have gotten from guards in each eight-year period of the modern era, you’ll find that deeper advancers tend to be more frontcourt-oriented squads.”

Judge for yourself as the $20 he charges for his research is pocket change for the bettor and we be paid back ten-fold if utilized correctly.

Debunking the guard-play myth is just one of my long-preached theories that have earned me the title of “Mr. March” and “Lord of the Dance” that are validated by his 24-year study.

Because I am seamlessly converting his brainpower into spread betting applications, the devil’s advocate could argue yours truly is making some leaps of faith.

I’d welcome counterpoints, but among the other theorems authenticated not only by my quarter century of unprecedented winnings, but also by Tiernan’s scholarly research are:

·        Straight up winning percentage is greatly overplayed in handicapping. Scoring margin is the leading indictor.

·        Bench play is extremely overvalued in Big Dance handicapping. Note that the study is purely about the NCAA Tournament. We assert that a deep bench is of great importance in the conference tournaments but overrated in the Big Dance

·        Age and experience is also overrated. “With each two-round advancement in the tourney, teams get increasingly younger,” the study says.  

The sportsbooks thrive because “conventional logic” is too often a misnomer for “folklore” in sports betting. Those who let facts guide their conclusions will continue to prosper.

The author, Joe Duffy is part of Dream Team of GodsTips, anchor of OffshoreInsiders.com.

The above research is only a scintilla of the data “Mr. March” exploits en route to being the winningest all-time sports handicapper.