I wouldn`t be too tough on Amherst for its scheduling outside of the NESCAC West. They opened with a win against UMass Boston, which won the New England region in 2010. Also played Keene State, ECSU, two with USM, 2 Endicott, 2 Worcester State, Westfield State, Oneonta, Castleton, four with Bowdoin, Bates, Brandeis, and Babson. Almost any of those teams may have been projected to be ranked in New England or New York going into 2011 - you don`t know who will be regionally ranked at the end of the year. Also, NESCAC schools are restricted in the number of dates they can play up north, I think it is 17, so it isn`t easy.

They could try (perhaps they have tried) to add Wheaton, WNEC, MIT and Tufts but that would probably involve bumping another team that in a given year could be better. Some of those teams may not be all that anxious to play Amherst.

Amherst will need to add pitching in the incoming freshman class ( I understand they have done that) and look for Shepard, who is pitching well for Vermont in the NECBL, to be dominant in 2012. Their every day lineup will be scary. Look for them to go places in 2012.

WNEC did have a great year, lots to be proud of.

Before we put a wrap on the season, and at the considerable risk of sounding like sour grapes, I am still baffled as to how MIT got an at large bid over Amherst. If someone can adequately explain what I am missing, it will make me sleep better this winter. It will also educate me as to how at large bids are in fact awarded.

Records: 25 - 10 (Amherst) versus 25 - 13 (MIT)

Records versus common opponents (they did not play each other): 11 - 4 (Amherst) versus 10 -7 (MIT)

Strength of schedule: 30 (Amherst) versus 35 (MIT)

Some comments in this discussion board around second week of May suggest how objective the process is, and that it is not subject to the whims of the committee. If that is true, what are the objective criteria that were used in this case? The ones identified above were close, but Amherst came out on top in all three.

There may be other teams that were on the outside looking in that also have  compelling arguments, I happen to be most familiar with the Lord Jeffs. Bowdoin comes to mind, especially with its number one strength of schedule, although they did lose to MIT head to head.

I really think the committee has some `splainin to do here.

 His father Craig was a pretty decent ballplayer for Amherst College early to mid seventies, also a really nice guy. Glad to see his son in the bigs!

D3 All-Amenrican teams announced today. Three teams plus honorable mention. By my count, 66 players named.

7 from New England.


Am I the only one that finds this to be unfair? Continued bias against New England ballplayers?

Congrats to WNEC on winning the region and hope they can make some noise this week. Their pitching depth is definitely going to help and the close call in the CCC tourney may have been a blessing in disguise.

Fine, SOS should be important. Bowdoin was number 2 in the country in that regard, Amherst 32. MIT was 35 with a worse record than Amherst and a comparable record to Bowdoin. Buena Vista SOS was 89 and Case Western 83 . They had decent records but with that SOS, one would hope so, and in any event the records were worse than Amherst and not significantly better than Bowdoin. Keene also had a comparable record and a much better SOS than Buena Vista or Case, 43.

Go figure. The committee may want to brush up on their math skills. Under the circumstances, MIT should offer to help for free.

Well, the field is set and surprise surprise, Eastern makes it despite mailing it in at the end of the year and in the LEC tournament.  MIT also comes out of nowhere to secure a bid, someone smarter than me is going to have to explain that one. Based upon strength of schedule and record, either Bowdoin or Amherst has a better case. Keene State can also make a strong case that they had a better year than MIT.

Looks like some eastern teams also got bumped by the likes of Buena Vista and Case Western, whose strength of schedule rankings are considerably below the contending eastern teams and records are at best comparable.

Would like to hear an explanation from someone on the selection committee as to how these lines were drawn. Pretty arbitrary, it seems to me. How about Eastern is Eastern, and we flipped coins on the others?

Quote from: rob on May 13, 2011, 11:35:11 AM

Quote from: KSCfan on May 13, 2011, 07:18:38 AM
I would like to think that the NCAA would reward the teams that have played a tougher schedule, and more games when it comes to the at-large bids.  I just dont see how it would be fair to give Tufts the at large, or Amherst the at large over another team from the LEC that has played way more games than a NESCAC team.  Lets say Eastern and Tufts dont win thier league tournaments.  Why should Tufts be rewarded over Eastern, when Easterns Strength of Schedule is better, they have played more games, and have a similar record?? 

I guess it boils down to just win, and you dont have to play this game!!

If you're going to compare Tufts and Eastern I go with Eastern.  Although Tufts is ranked higher both Regionally and Nationally they just haven't played enough games to be considered.  Better SOS too but on a much smaller sample.  If they had played another 10 or so games and the stats were the same, then we could make a better comparison.  But they haven't.
Tufts over Amherst but Eastern over Tufts.  Of course assuming there are no AQ's involved.

I guess from your perspective the fact that Tufts and Amherst both beat ECSU late in the season is irrelevant. In Amherst`s case, 11-4. Per my earlier comment, I do agree that teams that play more games get the benefit of the doubt but I wish there was a way to check who has gotten at large bids over the last five or so years to see what in fact has happened and test that. Is there any way to access that info?

Wow. That makes a lot of sense but is not what many New Englanders will want to hear. 

RIC wins second in a row, maybe they will be the 2011 version of the Beacons!

Thanks for that info, wildthngvaughn. 

Endicott with 31 wins, if that ends up being 33 incl. ECAC title they will have a story to tell. If not, those twin 5-4 losses to WNEC will not soon be forgotten by the Gulls.

The problem with at large bids for NESCAC teams is that they generally play fewer games than most other leagues, so their win totals are less. But I agree that this year if Amherst or Tufts wins tourney, the other stands a very good shot at an at large bid unless they completely collapse in the NESCAC tourney. ECSU has the big rep though, plus 30+ wins, so if they are in the discussion, who knows even though Tufts and Amherst both beat ECSU head to head.

Good question re Endicott, don`t know. Anyone? Anyone?

Amherst and Tufts have both had remarkable seasons. The NESCAC tournament begins tomorrow and should be very special. It is Amherst/Bowdoin and Tufts/Middlebury in the first round of the double elimination tourney. As good as Amherst and Tufts are, they better not take Bowdoin or Middlebury for granted. Any one of these four teams could capably represent the NESCAC in Harwich.

ECSU upset by RIC, road to the LEC champiohship will be a long one. They have been playing so-so lately, not sure they can do it. Keene has to be the favorite now.

So we have Saint Joe`s, WNEC, Husson, Bridgewater, Wheaton and Mitchell already in. LEC and NESCAC to be decided. What about at large bids - does anyone know how that might work? With 8 automatic bids, I assume that the extra ones would come, if at all, from the (weak) N.Y. region. Would at large teams automatically go to N.Y. or is it possible an auto qualifier could be shipped? How many might be available?

Giving NECC (Mitchell) an automatic bid is unfortunate. Mitchell is 23-9 but hard to find any quality wins there, perhaps Wentworth. Maybe they will make me eat my words with a decent showing, we`ll see.

At large candidates - ECSU, Keene, Tufts, Amherst, Bowdoin, MIT, Babson, possibly Endicott - the first five still could get auto bid - am I missing anyone?

Recent New York Times article cites study done at Division I level - average team scoring 5.63 runs and hitting 0.47 home runs, versus 6.98 runs and 0.85 home runs at a comparable point last season.

Batting averages down to .279 from .301; ERA down to 4.62 from 5.83; 444 shutouts versus 277 last year at this point.

Certainly anyone who has followed Division III this year will recognize comparable trends. My sense, without studying the numbers too closely, is that the better teams are still hitting for high averages but that the extra base hits, esp. homers, are down significantly.

A WAC commissioner was quoted as saying that "those of us on the rules committee prefer to look at it as if the game is being played more like it was prior to the advent of aluminum bats."

Which makes you wonder - why not just go to wood? Are we really that concerned with bat manufacturer profitability?

Great site, thanks for pointing it out!

Interesting things going on in the NESCAC. Tufts is dominating the East, no real surprise there, but big doubleheader Trinity/Bowdoin at Bowdoin today. Trin dropped close one yesterday and can`t afford a bad day today since only two from each division go to league tourney. Trin in danger of not making it. They seem to have a lot of trouble scoring runs. Also, Bates has been surprisingly mediocre.

Wesleyan is at Middlebury for two today and probably needs a sweep to stay in contention, although that is a tall order. Their pitching seems questionable; also, offensive stats pretty impressive but bulk of that work done against mediocre competition in Arizona and against Hamilton, haven`t hit up north at all (other than against Hamilton).

Amherst took two of three from Middlebury last weekend and is at Hamilton for two today, and not sweeping there would be big news. Won yesterday 11-0. Jeffs still have three with Williams (who was swept by Midd) and Wesleyan, could use some help from Wesleyan today to put some distance from Midd. Amherst does have the tiebreaker with Midd, though. West winner gets to host the NESCAC tourney so it is a big deal finishing number one.

Amherst has kind of flown under the radar this year but they are a very solid team, with wins over Mass Boston, USM, Endicott (split DH), Worcester State (split DH), Oneonta, Westfield, Bowdoin (2), Castleton, 2 of 3 from Midd. Good hitting lineup top to bottom, defense generally good and a deep pitching staff.

I saw a lot of games in Florida last week, came away with the impression (shared by a number of players) that the new bats are somewhere between the old metal bats and wood. I haven`t figured out which it is closer to yet. I saw slugfests and pitchers shut down opponents. Bad pitching will still fare poorly. These are some other random thoughts and observations:

Pitchers will still pay for their mistakes, but pitchers that keep it out of the middle of the plate and keep walks to a minimum will benefit greatly, more so than with the old metal bats. This is because there will not be as many extra base hits or "cheap" hits off the handle or the end of the bat. A pitcher who gives up two hits in an inning but no walks is likely to get out of the inning with no runs.  Teams that work long counts, take walks, run aggressively and bunt well will have a greater advantage than before. Big innings will tend to feature walks and singles in a row although there will still be some bases clearing bombs.

Infield play will improve because ground balls are definitely not attacking the infielders with the same speed as before. However, middle infielders will need to learn to charge the ball better, I think they are used to backing up on hard hit balls and getting the second hop rather than charging for the first hop or short hop. Many extra base hits from last year are now line drives or fly balls to the outfield. The game will be "better", but I would still much prefer wood.

Hobbsey, you are the man, love your website. Also nice that the "national" D3.com website is vastly improved and really good this year as well.

We may be getting different info - box score on the Wesleyan website gives that line to Dan Thomsen, not Yarusi. By the way, their hitting stats so far are sick, .472 team average, 8 regulars hitting .455 or better. But of 67 hits, only four home runs, three by Sonnenfeld who could probably hit one out with a shovel. So, strange as it may sound, it may have been worse if this was 2010.