FB: Liberty League

[Knightstalker]

KS will laugh if Joe shows up in Boston, Baltimore or with the Mets in the next year or so.  The Yanks now have to go through the charade of the interview process.  I wonder if they are going to give Tony Pena the token minority interview.  I love Gator as a player but think he has to go as pitching coach.

[Knightstalker]

KS just got this link from the MIAC page.

Woody Hayes punching the clemson player.

[Frank Rossi]

I took the liberty of ranking the East Region only based on the SOS figures, to the best that I could figure out, from the NCAA Manual, the way they're treating each component. . . .  I think you'll agree that when you see these results by region here, they produce some odd results:

A = Regional W/L
B = Regional Win %
C = Opponents' Win % (excluding game vs. that team)
D = Opponents' Opponents' Win % (excluding game vs. that opponent)

I took a few liberties with Frank's data.  SoS figures are indeed interesting in the abstract, but their practical value is greatest when using them to compare teams with similar records.  After all, if a team goes 0 - 6 against opponents with a .650 winning percentage, it can't reasonably claim that its SoS merits a higher ranking than a 6 - 0 team whose opponents have a .481 winning percentage.

So, the chart below arranges the East Region teams by winning percentage, teams with identical winning percentages arranged by SoS

While I like the attempt, here is the problem.  This comes directly from Appendix J from the 2007 Playoff Manual:

"Opponents' Average Winning Percentage (OWP) and Opponents' Opponents' Average Winning Percentage (OOWP) Calculation

Explanation

Opponents' Average Winning Percentage (OWP). Take each opponent's regular won-lost percentage against other Division III teams (excluding the results against the team in question) and average the percentages.
To calculate: Team A Schedule is as follows: [Chart Omitted]

Opponents' Opponents' Average Winning Percentage (OOWP). The strength of each opponents' schedule is measured by computing the opponents' winning percentage for each opponent, then averaging the percentages. This recognizes the fact that two opponents with similar won-lost records may have played far different schedules (in terms of strength of opponents).
To calculate: Take Team B, C, D, E and F schedules and perform the same calculation as above (OWP). It is important to note that the OOWP will support the OWP (i.e., if Teams A and B have the same OWP of .5692; Team A has a OOWP of .6125 and Team B has a OOWP of .4567; it would indicate team A has the stronger strength of schedule)."

The Manual seems to suggest the OOWP will only be used if OWP is tied.  Additionally, there is no indication that the Committee will be using variations, like the ones you did RS, that might make the numbers look somewhat more reasonable.  Finally, we shouldn't have to sort the numbers into the winning percentage method just to escape the fact that teams like Endicott and Utica are showing higher SoS numbers than teams that have played legitimate schedules below them.  To have to rearrange the numbers to ignore what some might consider (several) anomalous results does not give me any confidence in this index.

[Pat Coleman]

Guess we'll have to live without your confidence.

No, seriously, there will always be anomalies. But I think there are fewer anomalies in this measure than the one it replaces.

[redswarm81]

I took the liberty of ranking the East Region only based on the SOS figures, to the best that I could figure out, from the NCAA Manual, the way they're treating each component. . . .  I think you'll agree that when you see these results by region here, they produce some odd results:

A = Regional W/L
B = Regional Win %
C = Opponents' Win % (excluding game vs. that team)
D = Opponents' Opponents' Win % (excluding game vs. that opponent)

I took a few liberties with Frank's data.  SoS figures are indeed interesting in the abstract, but their practical value is greatest when using them to compare teams with similar records.  After all, if a team goes 0 - 6 against opponents with a .650 winning percentage, it can't reasonably claim that its SoS merits a higher ranking than a 6 - 0 team whose opponents have a .481 winning percentage.

So, the chart below arranges the East Region teams by winning percentage, teams with identical winning percentages arranged by SoS

While I like the attempt, here is the problem. 

The Manual seems to suggest the OOWP will only be used if OWP is tied.

Additionally, there is no indication that the Committee will be using variations, like the ones you did RS, that might make the numbers look somewhat more reasonable.  Finally, we shouldn't have to sort the numbers into the winning percentage method just to escape the fact that teams like Endicott and Utica are showing higher SoS numbers than teams that have played legitimate schedules below them.  To have to rearrange the numbers to ignore what some might consider (several) anomalous results does not give me any confidence in this index.

I'm not sure I understand everything that you're saying.  I'm sure that's partly because I haven't read any of the Playoff Manual other than what you've quoted.  So I'll start with what I do understand:

I think you're exactly correct with respect to OOWP, it appears that it will only be used when OWP is tied, between two teams who are being compared to each other.

What I don't understand is what you mean by "variations, like the ones you did."  I arranged the teams by winning percentage in order to arrange the list so that any two adjacent teams on the list would have "similar won-lost records," which is what the Playoff Manual seems to suggest is appropriate for comparison using OWP and OOWP.

Assuming that's true, then there's only one place in the East Region where OOWP could possibly matter today, and that's if you were comparing Husson with Maine Maritime.  Husson would get the edge in OOWP (but who knows if that would trump say, Maine Maritime having a better record v. ranked opponents).

As I recall, in the past the Playoff Manual listed criteria that would be used by the Selection Committee (e.g. Winning Percentage, QoW Index, Wins v. Ranked Opponents, . . . ), but it did not indicate which criteria had priority.  Is that the case with the 2007 Playoff Manual?  Is there anything to suggest that OWP would be analyzed in a vacuum? If so, then 0 - 6 King's would get more OWP points than 6 - 0 Alfred, but would it make any sense to credit an 0 - 6 team with anything over a 6 - 0 team?

['gro]

RS81 consults the architect on the subject of OWP & OOWP... and no, this architect doesn't spend 23 out of every 24 hours holed up in the Greene Building.

_{Your life is the sum of a remainder of an unbalanced equation inherent to the programming of the matrix. You are the eventuality of an anomaly, which despite my sincerest efforts I have been unable to eliminate from what is otherwise a harmony of mathematical precision. While it remains a burden assiduously avoided, it is not unexpected, and thus not beyond a measure of control. Which has led you, inexorably, here.}

[Frank Rossi]

I took the liberty of ranking the East Region only based on the SOS figures, to the best that I could figure out, from the NCAA Manual, the way they're treating each component. . . .  I think you'll agree that when you see these results by region here, they produce some odd results:

A = Regional W/L
B = Regional Win %
C = Opponents' Win % (excluding game vs. that team)
D = Opponents' Opponents' Win % (excluding game vs. that opponent)

I took a few liberties with Frank's data.  SoS figures are indeed interesting in the abstract, but their practical value is greatest when using them to compare teams with similar records.  After all, if a team goes 0 - 6 against opponents with a .650 winning percentage, it can't reasonably claim that its SoS merits a higher ranking than a 6 - 0 team whose opponents have a .481 winning percentage.

So, the chart below arranges the East Region teams by winning percentage, teams with identical winning percentages arranged by SoS

While I like the attempt, here is the problem. 

The Manual seems to suggest the OOWP will only be used if OWP is tied.

Additionally, there is no indication that the Committee will be using variations, like the ones you did RS, that might make the numbers look somewhat more reasonable.  Finally, we shouldn't have to sort the numbers into the winning percentage method just to escape the fact that teams like Endicott and Utica are showing higher SoS numbers than teams that have played legitimate schedules below them.  To have to rearrange the numbers to ignore what some might consider (several) anomalous results does not give me any confidence in this index.

I'm not sure I understand everything that you're saying.  I'm sure that's partly because I haven't read any of the Playoff Manual other than what you've quoted.  So I'll start with what I do understand:

I think you're exactly correct with respect to OOWP, it appears that it will only be used when OWP is tied, between two teams who are being compared to each other.

What I don't understand is what you mean by "variations, like the ones you did."  I arranged the teams by winning percentage in order to arrange the list so that any two adjacent teams on the list would have "similar won-lost records," which is what the Playoff Manual seems to suggest is appropriate for comparison using OWP and OOWP.

Assuming that's true, then there's only one place in the East Region where OOWP could possibly matter today, and that's if you were comparing Husson with Maine Maritime.  Husson would get the edge in OOWP (but who knows if that would trump say, Maine Maritime having a better record v. ranked opponents).

As I recall, in the past the Playoff Manual listed criteria that would be used by the Selection Committee (e.g. Winning Percentage, QoW Index, Wins v. Ranked Opponents, . . . ), but it did not indicate which criteria had priority.  Is that the case with the 2007 Playoff Manual?  Is there anything to suggest that OWP would be analyzed in a vacuum? If so, then 0 - 6 King's would get more OWP points than 6 - 0 Alfred, but would it make any sense to credit an 0 - 6 team with anything over a 6 - 0 team?

After watching this for the last 13 years, my view is that the first thing the Committee will do is take all teams with 0, 1 and 2 regional losses and can the rest in order to keep the field reasonable.  Obviously, Pool A teams are removed at this point, too, to eliminate redundancy.  Now, the Committee will begin to fill in the brackets with the auto-bid teams to ensure some regional equivalency.  From there, there will be teams that stand out with no need to go through much of a comparison, such as the 2nd place OAC team, assuming a reasonable number of losses.  There will be some standout Pool B teams, as well.  Obviously, Pool B needs to be selected first in order to allow Pool B runners up a chance at Pool C slots.  Once Pool B is selected, the brackets have 25 out of 32 teams.  The Committee looks at each region to see if certain teams are movable parts, especially those that appear to be at the bottom half of that regional bracket and begins to select Pool C teams based on that.  So, now it's partially a regional consideration, with a list of remaining teams by each region on the board, and partly based on the criteria that are listed "in no specific order" in the Manual.

Remember, this is my guess as to how the Committee does it, but it seems pretty consistent with the last decade's worth of selections.  This means that the Committee might have to look at a, for example, Plymouth State (assuming they lose the NEFC Championship game or somehow don't make it at all) against potentially a Cortland State (assuming they lose the NJAC).  I showed this in E8, but based on this scenario currently, Plymouth State with one loss in region may very well have a much better SoS index than Cortland State with two losses.  OK, fine, so not only has the SoS failed Cortland, because most of us will argue that their SoS is far superior to that of Plymouth State, but there is no fodder on the table to suggest that Cortland should leapfrog Plymouth State since Plymouth is already viewed statistically superior to Cortland based on regional W/L percentage. 

It's fine to have faith in the idea that re-sorting the SoS by regional W/L percentage takes out some bumps, but you need to compare teams that might have one more loss than the teams you're concerned about since the Committee will not automatically throw out a, say, 6-2 team in the region because they have one more loss than a 7-1 team.  The SoS could very well allow a weird "leapfrog" effect when it is not deserved, based on the way the numbers look currently, and ignore where there should be a "leapfrog" effect, like in the case of Plymouth and Cortland.

[union89]

TGP thinks the whole Torre thing is one big PR move by the NYY.

Torre had one of the all time best coaching runs in MLB.  HOFer for sure.  What Torre did to resurrect the Yanks season this year was nothing if not one of the best managing jobs TGP has seen in some time.

Still, there have been grumblings about Torre getting the boot for years and TGP believes this was the one way that the NYY ownership could set it up so it appearred as Joe was going his own way (vs. they looking like d-bags who really wanted to bring in the new blood - aka Mattingly- and fire a guy who has had a great managing career and has been a class act for NYY for 12 seasons).

Besides, at his age, TGP would have to think the Torre has had enough of the NY media, fans, etc.  He's done an amazing job and deserves some well earned RnR.

Congrats to Torre.

Agreed 100%

[PBR...]

did manny not want to get his uni dirty? whats w/ not sliding is he too cool to do that?

[res ipsa loquitur]

That was Manny being Manny.  Ask any Cleveland fan.  They know.



Who else thinks South Florida would get beat by Oklahoma by 50?   

[Rolevio]

TGP thinks the whole Torre thing is one big PR move by the NYY.

Torre had one of the all time best coaching runs in MLB.  HOFer for sure.  What Torre did to resurrect the Yanks season this year was nothing if not one of the best managing jobs TGP has seen in some time.

Still, there have been grumblings about Torre getting the boot for years and TGP believes this was the one way that the NYY ownership could set it up so it appearred as Joe was going his own way (vs. they looking like d-bags who really wanted to bring in the new blood - aka Mattingly- and fire a guy who has had a great managing career and has been a class act for NYY for 12 seasons).

Besides, at his age, TGP would have to think the Torre has had enough of the NY media, fans, etc.  He's done an amazing job and deserves some well earned RnR.

Congrats to Torre.

Rolevio will disagree with one part.  NYY's front office still looks like d-bags with the contract that was offered being a paycut and that ridiculous clause that he only gets a second year if he makes a World Series.  If A-Rod opts out, the Yankees probably won't even be favored in  their own division even if Posada and Rivera resign.  If Arod stays, they'll still at best be co-favorites.

[Frank Rossi]

Observation in the 4th Quarter of the USF/Rutgers game.  Following a USF timeout, Rutgers completes a pass play, only to be penalized for holding.  USF obviously needs the clock to stop, but after the penalty, it appears that the refs would have restarted the clock.  Why is this, especially when it penalizes the team that was infracted against?

[Frank Rossi]

USF really didn't look like the #22 team tonight, let alone the #2 team.  I stand by my statements from earlier in the week about how USF at #2 was more a knee-jerk reaction to Boise State last year than based on anything realistic.

[Frank Rossi]

...and finally before bedtime...

Could someone hand deliver Josh Beckett the Cy Young right now on the field?  I mean, c'mon.  He's single-handedly kept this team above water in this series, doing his part in Games 1 and 5.  And he's still throwing 96 MPH in the 8th Inning?! 

[labart96]

...and finally before bedtime...

Could someone hand deliver Josh Beckett the Cy Young right now on the field?  I mean, c'mon.  He's single-handedly kept this team above water in this series, doing his part in Games 1 and 5.  And he's still throwing 96 MPH in the 8th Inning?! 

How do you find Josh Beckett?

FILTHY!!  FILTHY!!!  FILTHHHHHHHHHAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!
Excellent performance.  Schill needs to bring it in Game 6.