...
首页> 外文期刊>The American statistician >March Madness 'Anomalies': Are They Real,and If So,Can They Be Explained?
【24h】

March Madness 'Anomalies': Are They Real,and If So,Can They Be Explained?

机译:3月疯狂'异常':他们是真实的,如果是这样,他们可以解释吗?

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Previously published statistical analyses of NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Tournament ("March Madness") game outcomes since the 64-team format for its main draw began in 1985 have uncovered some apparent anomalies, such as 12-seeds upsetting 5-seeds more often than might be expected, and seeds 10 through 12 advancing to the Sweet Sixteen much more often than 8-seeds and 9-seeds-the so-called middle-seed anomaly. In this article, we address the questions of whether these perceived anomalies truly are anomalous and if so, what is responsible for them. We find that, in contrast to conclusions drawn from previous analyses, the statistical evidence for a 12-5 upset anomaly actually is very weak, while that for the middle-seed anomaly is quite strong. We dispel some (but not all) theories for the former and offer an explanation for the latter that is based primarily on the combined effects of a nonlinear relationship between team strength and seed, the lack of reseeding between rounds, and a strong quasi-home advantage accorded to 1-seeds. We also investigate the effects that hypothetical modifications to the tournament would have on the anomalies and explore whether similar anomalies exist in the NCAA Women's Basketball Tournament.
机译:以前发表了NCAA司的统计分析I男子篮球比赛(“3月疯狂”)游戏结果以来,自1985年的64队格式开始于1985年开始一些明显的异常,例如12种种子令人沮丧的5种子比可能会有预期的,种子10到12前进到甜蜜的十六次,比8种子和9种种子 - 所谓的中种异常。在本文中,我们解决了这些感知异常真正是异常的问题,如果是的话,对他们负责。我们发现,与从之前的分析中得出的结论相反,12-5个镦染异常的统计证据实际上非常弱,而中间种子异常是非常强烈的。我们消除了前者的一些(但不是全部)理论,并为后者提供了一个主要基于团队实力和种子之间非线性关系的综合影响的解释,缺乏回合之间的重定见,以及一个强大的准房屋优势符合1种子。我们还调查了对锦标赛的假设修改的影响将对异常进行异常,并探索NCAA女性篮球比赛中是否存在类似的异常。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号