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
more corroborating my own experiences as a handicapper than enlightening me on
new angles. Rest assured that a large component of my success in the industry
since the 1980s 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 value 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 baseball 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 defensively 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 quality 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
baseman 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,” and continuing,
“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.