001.) Louisville
003.) Miami (FL)
007.) North Carolina State
010.) Clemson
013.) Virginia
015.) North Carolina
016.) Florida State
019.) Georgia Tech
023.) Duke
026.) Wake Forest
035.) Boston College
082.) Pittsburgh
091.) Notre Dame
198.) Virginia Tech
01.) ACC - 0.5736
02.) SEC - 0.5699
03.) Big 12 - 0.5364
04.) Pac 12 - 0.5345
05.) Conference USA - 0.5300
06.) American Athletic - 0.5243
07.) Big Ten - 0.5231
08.) Big West - 0.5196
09.) Sun Belt - 0.5146
10.) Missouri Valley - 0.5145
01.) ACC - 0.5736
02.) SEC - 0.5699
03.) Big 12 - 0.5364
04.) Pac 12 - 0.5345
05.) Conference USA - 0.5300
06.) American Athletic - 0.5243
07.) Big Ten - 0.5231
08.) Big West - 0.5196
09.) Sun Belt - 0.5146
10.) Missouri Valley - 0.5145
Man, wouldn't we all be happy if those RPI's were for Conference Football !!
01.) ACC - 0.5736
02.) SEC - 0.5699
03.) Big 12 - 0.5364
04.) Pac 12 - 0.5345
05.) Conference USA - 0.5300
06.) American Athletic - 0.5243
07.) Big Ten - 0.5231
08.) Big West - 0.5196
09.) Sun Belt - 0.5146
10.) Missouri Valley - 0.5145
Man, wouldn't we all be happy if those RPI's were for Conference Football !!
Give us a few years....... Once all these "new" coaches get settled.
FlossY out....
As nice as it is to see those gaudy numbers, I can't bring myself to accept the validity of an RPI for college baseball. In a sport where highly ranked teams lose a third or more of their games, the RPI surely has an air of subjectivity to it even beyond the subjectivity of a football or basketball RPI.
North Carolina #15 in the nation, but not able to qualify for its conference's ten team tournament field? Why must every sport boil down to an arbitrary formula that spits out numbers like this? If we are going to be subjective (and we must, IMO, because we have no other choice) then let's just own that.
(05-24-2016 09:58 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote: Why do you think RPI is less valuable in baseball - is it the rotation of pitchers? Most sports have the same players for every game but not baseball.
It seems to me that the only purpose of an RPI is to provide (the semblance of) objectivity in predicting the likely outcome of future games. I think there is a greater element of chance in the outcome of a baseball game than there is in most other sports. I believe that is evidenced by the fact that even the best teams lose games to teams with inferior talent on a regular basis.
A pitcher can make a great pitch, only to have the batter get lucky and park one in the bleachers. Or a hitter can absolutely hammer a pitch, only to have it go right at a fielder. A 3-2 pitch can be either a half inch inside or a half inch outside the strike zone (in the eye of an umpire). And those things can often determine the outcome of a game. When you are a team in MLB, where you are playing pretty much the same schedule as every other team, and where you are playing three times as many games as a college team, those breaks tend to even out. But not in college, where you might only face 10-15% of the teams in your division (of the NCAA) during the course of a season.
So, in my view, having RPI as a tool in the selection of playoff teams is no more useful than just looking at their W-L records and their conference standings.
(This post was last modified: 05-24-2016 12:27 PM by ken d.)
(05-24-2016 09:58 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote: Why do you think RPI is less valuable in baseball - is it the rotation of pitchers? Most sports have the same players for every game but not baseball.
It seems to me that the only purpose of an RPI is to provide (the semblance of) objectivity in predicting the likely outcome of future games. I think there is a greater element of chance in the outcome of a baseball game than there is in most other sports. I believe that is evidenced by the fact that even the best teams lose games to teams with inferior talent on a regular basis.
A pitcher can make a great pitch, only to have the batter get lucky and park one in the bleachers. Or a hitter can absolutely hammer a pitch, only to have it go right at a fielder. A 3-2 pitch can be either a half inch inside or a half inch outside the strike zone (in the eye of an umpire). And those things can often determine the outcome of a game. When you are a team in MLB, where you are playing pretty much the same schedule as every other team, and where you are playing three times as many games as a college team, those breaks tend to even out. But not in college, where you might only face 10-15% of the teams in your division (of the NCAA) during the course of a season.
So, in my view, having RPI as a tool in the selection of playoff teams is no more useful than just looking at their W-L records and their conference standings.
I get what you are saying and somewhat agree. However just using W-L and conference standings doesn't do much good across multiple conferences. If you are the only good team in your conference your record could be great but you may still not come close to teams in better conferences that have played tough games all along. I think OOC is almost more important in baseball than other sports due to those things. As mentioned about UNC -- compared to other teams around the country they are still one of the best -- however they fell in their own conferece. Also home versus road plays a big part in baseball -- much bigger than other sports where it's only 1 game. Winning or losing 3 games at a time can really help or kill you (as shown again by UNC).
Plus one of the things I hate when it comes to keeping stats like HRs etc is that the fields are different sizes. Some places are much easier or harder to get a HR just due to the distances. I can't think of any other sport where you do NOT have standard sizes. It's like letting some schools have larger or smaller football fields, or basketball courts. It's BS.
(05-24-2016 09:58 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote: Why do you think RPI is less valuable in baseball - is it the rotation of pitchers? Most sports have the same players for every game but not baseball.
It seems to me that the only purpose of an RPI is to provide (the semblance of) objectivity in predicting the likely outcome of future games. I think there is a greater element of chance in the outcome of a baseball game than there is in most other sports. I believe that is evidenced by the fact that even the best teams lose games to teams with inferior talent on a regular basis.
A pitcher can make a great pitch, only to have the batter get lucky and park one in the bleachers. Or a hitter can absolutely hammer a pitch, only to have it go right at a fielder. A 3-2 pitch can be either a half inch inside or a half inch outside the strike zone (in the eye of an umpire). And those things can often determine the outcome of a game. When you are a team in MLB, where you are playing pretty much the same schedule as every other team, and where you are playing three times as many games as a college team, those breaks tend to even out. But not in college, where you might only face 10-15% of the teams in your division (of the NCAA) during the course of a season.
So, in my view, having RPI as a tool in the selection of playoff teams is no more useful than just looking at their W-L records and their conference standings.
Actually, the more "random" variables there are, the more accurate the RPI becomes. It's precisely the ability of one player - such as the pitcher - to affect the outcome of the game which makes it unpredictable. If it's just "a bunch of guys" then the combined effect tends to follow probabilities, the random events tend to even out, and the best team tends to win. At least that's what I was always taught...
(05-24-2016 09:58 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote: Why do you think RPI is less valuable in baseball - is it the rotation of pitchers? Most sports have the same players for every game but not baseball.
It seems to me that the only purpose of an RPI is to provide (the semblance of) objectivity in predicting the likely outcome of future games. I think there is a greater element of chance in the outcome of a baseball game than there is in most other sports. I believe that is evidenced by the fact that even the best teams lose games to teams with inferior talent on a regular basis.
A pitcher can make a great pitch, only to have the batter get lucky and park one in the bleachers. Or a hitter can absolutely hammer a pitch, only to have it go right at a fielder. A 3-2 pitch can be either a half inch inside or a half inch outside the strike zone (in the eye of an umpire). And those things can often determine the outcome of a game. When you are a team in MLB, where you are playing pretty much the same schedule as every other team, and where you are playing three times as many games as a college team, those breaks tend to even out. But not in college, where you might only face 10-15% of the teams in your division (of the NCAA) during the course of a season.
So, in my view, having RPI as a tool in the selection of playoff teams is no more useful than just looking at their W-L records and their conference standings.
Actually, the more "random" variables there are, the more accurate the RPI becomes. It's precisely the ability of one player - such as the pitcher - to affect the outcome of the game which makes it unpredictable. If it's just "a bunch of guys" then the combined effect tends to follow probabilities, the random events tend to even out, and the best team tends to win. At least that's what I was always taught...
The nature of conference tournaments compared with the regular season is IMO even more pronounced in baseball. In the regular season, where you tend often to just play games on the weekend, you can sometimes get by with just a couple of good pitchers. But come tournament time, pitching depth often makes all the difference - especially for a team that must come out of a loser's bracket. That's hard to factor into an RPI calculation.
(05-24-2016 09:58 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote: Why do you think RPI is less valuable in baseball - is it the rotation of pitchers? Most sports have the same players for every game but not baseball.
It seems to me that the only purpose of an RPI is to provide (the semblance of) objectivity in predicting the likely outcome of future games. I think there is a greater element of chance in the outcome of a baseball game than there is in most other sports. I believe that is evidenced by the fact that even the best teams lose games to teams with inferior talent on a regular basis.
A pitcher can make a great pitch, only to have the batter get lucky and park one in the bleachers. Or a hitter can absolutely hammer a pitch, only to have it go right at a fielder. A 3-2 pitch can be either a half inch inside or a half inch outside the strike zone (in the eye of an umpire). And those things can often determine the outcome of a game. When you are a team in MLB, where you are playing pretty much the same schedule as every other team, and where you are playing three times as many games as a college team, those breaks tend to even out. But not in college, where you might only face 10-15% of the teams in your division (of the NCAA) during the course of a season.
So, in my view, having RPI as a tool in the selection of playoff teams is no more useful than just looking at their W-L records and their conference standings.
Actually, the more "random" variables there are, the more accurate the RPI becomes. It's precisely the ability of one player - such as the pitcher - to affect the outcome of the game which makes it unpredictable. If it's just "a bunch of guys" then the combined effect tends to follow probabilities, the random events tend to even out, and the best team tends to win. At least that's what I was always taught...
The nature of conference tournaments compared with the regular season is IMO even more pronounced in baseball. In the regular season, where you tend often to just play games on the weekend, you can sometimes get by with just a couple of good pitchers. But come tournament time, pitching depth often makes all the difference - especially for a team that must come out of a loser's bracket. That's hard to factor into an RPI calculation.
Unless it's an idiotic format like the ACC where teams can be eliminated from advancing with games still to play.
One of the reasons that the Jack Leggett supporters pushed when pressed about the lack of ACC tournament success was the fact that most years the ACC tournament simply did not matter in the grand scheme and all it did was use up pitching prior to regionals. Out of all their outlandish defenses I actually believe this one because I truly believe the accidentally won his last ACC tournament because of how he utilized the pitching staff. In the championship game he gave the start to a pitcher who was A. a last minute injury replacement on the tournament roster B. had never started a game and C. had only pitched 10 1/3rd innings that entire season.
(05-26-2016 09:14 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote: Why doesn't the ACC use the double elimination format, like in the CWS, for the conference tournament? To guarantee everyone 3 games instead of 2?
Because like just about every other move they make they made the idiotic choice.
(05-26-2016 09:14 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote: Why doesn't the ACC use the double elimination format, like in the CWS, for the conference tournament? To guarantee everyone 3 games instead of 2?
Because like just about every other move they make they made the idiotic choice.
The ACC has made an absolute MESS of it's baseball tournament, both in terms of format and location. One of their biggest fumbles since the Gator Bowl fiasco.
(05-26-2016 09:14 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote: Why doesn't the ACC use the double elimination format, like in the CWS, for the conference tournament? To guarantee everyone 3 games instead of 2?
Because like just about every other move they make they made the idiotic choice.
The ACC has made an absolute MESS of it's baseball tournament, both in terms of format and location. One of their biggest fumbles since the Gator Bowl fiasco.
Question is, when are they going to fix it?
From what I understand they aren't. Just about every baseball coach hates it for the reasons I listed above but the powers-that-be like the format because everybody except the play-in round teams is assured a certain number of games. Having been around the game all my life this is the most asinine tournament format I have ever seen and over the years I have seen a TON of strange formats.
The current format lends itself to oddities. I'm pretty certain NC State was already eliminated from making the title game before their ongoing game with Miami even started this evening, despite being only 0-1.
(05-26-2016 07:08 PM)CollegeCard Wrote: The current format lends itself to oddities. I'm pretty certain NC State was already eliminated from making the title game before their ongoing game with Miami even started this evening, despite being only 0-1.
And now they have to play games with pretty much nothing to gain and everything to lose. They were almost assured of hosting a regional as a top seed going into the tournament and aren't going to move up into a national seed, but they could lose enough to drop out of a top regional seed if they drop both of the remaining games so they can't afford not to pitch their regular starters in these games to save arms.
![[Image: CjbvDdlWgAAzUHY.jpg]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CjbvDdlWgAAzUHY.jpg)