Pool C

[ziggy]

The horribleness of it all has to do with summing the win and loss totals instead of averaging the percentages.

I'm not sure I see the horribleness, when you figure out a baseball teams batting avg you don't avg the percentages, nor do you average the percentages of a player to find the career average.

If Miguel Cabrera gets 192 hits in 600 AB, he is a .320 hitter.
If Migue Cabrera gets 200 hits in 625 AB, he is a .320 hitter.
In either case, the Detroit Tigers have a .320 hitter in their lineup.

If Adrian goes 15-5, they are a .750 team
If Adrian goes 18-6, they are a .750 team
In either case, Hope has a .750 team on their schedule.

If Hope plays Adrian twice in a 25 game schedule, Adrian should count 2/25ths towards Hope's SOS because that is the portion of the total schedule they represent. That is not what occurs through the calculation explanation revealed today.

[sac]

If Miguel Cabrera gets 90 hits in 300 AB, he is a .300 hitter.
If Migue Cabrera gets 200 hits in 625 AB, he is a .320 hitter.

the Detroit Tigers have a .314 hitter in their lineup not .310.

[KnightSlappy]

If you’re a pitcher and you’re about to face two hitters with lifetime lines of 2000-6000 (.333) then 1000-4000 (.250), you’d expect to give up hits to them at a .292 rate (.333 +.250 / 2), not a .300 (2000 + 1000 / 10000) rate.

Batting average is more akin to WP.

[ziggy]

If Miguel Cabrera gets 90 hits in 300 AB, he is a .300 hitter.
If Migue Cabrera gets 200 hits in 625 AB, he is a .320 hitter.

the Detroit Tigers have a .314 hitter in their lineup not .310.

You are incorrectly applying snapshots in time. If after 300 AB he is a .300 hitter, the Tigers have a .300 hitter in their lineup. If after 625 ABs he is a .320 hitter, the Tigers have a .320 hitter in their lineup.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

If you're a pitcher and you're about to face two hitters with lifetime lines of 2000-6000 (.333) then 1000-4000 (.250), you'd expect to give up hits to them at a .292 rate (.333 +.250 / 2), not a .300 (2000 + 1000 / 10000) rate.

Actually no... the proper way to do that math is the second part... even I know that from my years of being a math nerd before I decided to try something else. Averaging averages is easy and doesn't take into account the entire picture... it just takes into account a broad picture. This is about the raw numbers, not the averages. Raw wins and losses are more important that average winning percentage when you are dealing with such amounts of large data - especially if you want to get it right.

[KnightSlappy]

If you're a pitcher and you're about to face two hitters with lifetime lines of 2000-6000 (.333) then 1000-4000 (.250), you'd expect to give up hits to them at a .292 rate (.333 +.250 / 2), not a .300 (2000 + 1000 / 10000) rate.

Actually no... the proper way to do that math is the second part... even I know that from my years of being a math nerd before I decided to try something else. Averaging averages is easy and doesn't take into account the entire picture... it just takes into account a broad picture. This is about the raw numbers, not the averages. Raw wins and losses are more important that average winning percentage when you are dealing with such amounts of large data - especially if you want to get it right.

You're simply wrong here Dave.

[Pat Coleman]

It's an interesting amount of hand-wringing going on for something that is simply going back to the way it used to be done in very recent history. 

Dave -- not sure you're right about that last post. I think KS is right when it comes to batting average but that doesn't make it applicable to this.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Then maybe I am confused... but... if I hit 115 for 300 one year, I have a .383 average - but I missed two months due to injury.

If the next season I hit 200 for 650, I am a .308 hitter that season.

If I take the average of the averages - that would say I am a .346 hitter for my two year career. But if I take the raw data, then I am .332 hitter - isn't the last number more accurate because of the times I got to bat (950)... I hit the ball successfully 315 times. That means .332... not .346.

[ziggy]

It's an interesting amount of hand-wringing going on for something that is simply going back to the way it used to be done in very recent history. 

Dave -- not sure you're right about that last post. I think KS is right when it comes to batting average but that doesn't make it applicable to this.

It's absolutely applicable. A .300 hitter is scary to a pitcher because he is a .300 hitter, not because he has done so over 3,000 or 5,000 at bats. A .500 team is no different a stumbling block in a schedule if they are 8-8 or 10-10 and therefore should be treated no differently in a strength of schedule.

[Pat Coleman]

Right, but someone facing two batters back to back isn't going to be more likely to give up a hit to the person who had more at-bats.

Thing is, that just isn't what we're measuring here. We're measuring a team's batting average, akin to what sac said:

I'm not sure I see the horribleness, when you figure out a baseball teams batting avg you don't avg the percentages, nor do you average the percentages of a player to find the career average.

We're not predicting how a team would do when playing Adrian (like we would predict this pitcher facing two batters), we're measuring how a group of teams performed (a group of batters). And if one team happened to play more measurable games than the other, so be it. It should count more.

[ziggy]

Then maybe I am confused... but... if I hit 115 for 300 one year, I have a .383 average - but I missed two months due to injury.

If the next season I hit 200 for 650, I am a .308 hitter that season.

If I take the average of the averages - that would say I am a .346 hitter for my two year career. But if I take the raw data, then I am .332 hitter - isn't the last number more accurate because of the times I got to bat (950)... I hit the ball successfully 315 times. That means .332... not .346.

Your scenario is akin to winning percentage, not strength of schedule.

[Just Bill]

Everything would be better if the NCAA would just adopt the D-III Championship Belt^TM.

[Pat Coleman]

Although I am not a statistician, I can see where it makes sense to average the SOS when creating an RPI. The thing is, we are not creating an RPI, and the team's winning percentage and its SOS are evaluated independently, rather than folded into one number.

That's why the wiki page references this, because that's an RPI, and that's why those who calculate RPIs for their site want to do this, but fact of that matter is, that's not what the NCAA is doing in D-II and D-III, and it is probably good to remember that. This is not merely a deconstructed RPI.

[ziggy]

Right, but someone facing two batters back to back isn't going to be more likely to give up a hit to the person who had more at-bats.

Thing is, that just isn't what we're measuring here. We're measuring a team's batting average, akin to what sac said:

I'm not sure I see the horribleness, when you figure out a baseball teams batting avg you don't avg the percentages, nor do you average the percentages of a player to find the career average.

We're not predicting how a team would do when playing Adrian (like we would predict this pitcher facing two batters), we're measuring how a group of teams performed (a group of batters). And if one team happened to play more measurable games than the other, so be it. It should count more.

If I play a 20 game schedule, some games should count for more then 1/20th and some less than 1/20th? That is exactly what happens when the SOS calculation depends on the total number of games each individual opponent has played. And that is my issue.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Sheesh - it only took all day to come up with this thought:

I think the basis to this is that the strength of a team's schedule percentage should be based on the fact that they play more games than another team who may have the same WP, but less games doesn't necessarily mean more strength.

I am not sure if that makes complete sense... but I don't know if you can say a team has an equal strength of schedule by playing a number of games less than another team.

Team A is 15-5 in region - their strength is thus the fact they have played 20 games and won 15 of them.
Team B is 9-3 in region - same percentage, but they don't appear to have as strong a schedule because they have played 8 fewer games and won 6 fewer.

So why should we be allowing the 9-3 team to have an same strength of schedule as a 15-5 team? They have played far less games and haven't proven their .750 WP is as legit as the team that has played those 20 games. However, in the former math... we considered them even.