BB: Pool C

[Westside]

Maybe just no one can hit up there?

You beat me to it, Spence.

Good one! You know, I actually thought about that.  Linfield and G. Fox for instance are "only" batting .297 and .315, respectively, which is not great compared to the bloated averages in the SCIAC, for instance.  But, having seen a fair number of teams, I'll stick to my guns!

NWC Top 3:
Linfield vs. SCIAC = 71 runs in 6 games (12 runs a game).
George Fox vs. SCIAC = 60 runs in 7 games (9 runs a game).
Willamette vs. SCIAC = 34 runs in 4 games (8.5 runs a game).

I think their offense is fine

[wildcat11]

Maybe just no one can hit up there?

You beat me to it, Spence.

Good one! You know, I actually thought about that.  Linfield and G. Fox for instance are "only" batting .297 and .315, respectively, which is not great compared to the bloated averages in the SCIAC, for instance.  But, having seen a fair number of teams, I'll stick to my guns!

NWC Top 3:
Linfield vs. SCIAC = 71 runs in 6 games (12 runs a game).
George Fox vs. SCIAC = 60 runs in 7 games (9 runs a game).
Willamette vs. SCIAC = 34 runs in 4 games (8.5 runs a game).

I think their offense is fine

+100

[Whatagame]

Maybe just no one can hit up there?

You beat me to it, Spence.

Good one! You know, I actually thought about that.  Linfield and G. Fox for instance are "only" batting .297 and .315, respectively, which is not great compared to the bloated averages in the SCIAC, for instance.  But, having seen a fair number of teams, I'll stick to my guns!

NWC Top 3:
Linfield vs. SCIAC = 71 runs in 6 games (12 runs a game).
George Fox vs. SCIAC = 60 runs in 7 games (9 runs a game).
Willamette vs. SCIAC = 34 runs in 4 games (8.5 runs a game).

I think their offense is fine

OK, while we're at it, how about Whitman (currently in 7th place in NWC) vs. SCIAC, hanging 43 runs in 3 games (14 1/3 runs a game)

[Ralph Turner]

Spence,

It looks pretty detailed. My one concern would be that these numbers don't necessarily take into consideration wins against regional ranked teams which I really think the committee values highly. But then again it is strength of schedule and assuming the better the schedule the more likely you played someone that will be regionally ranked. It'll be interesting to see once the 1st regional rankings come out on Thursday to see how the regional committees value your system.

It's not that detailed. It's really just 2 numbers made into one number. I'm interested to see how it works too. I don't expect it to be perfect at all.

Big Louie, I like how quick and easy this one is. I am almost certain that we can overlay Spence's Index with the Regional Rankings and know who is on the bubble by Region.  I always consider the bubble to be the last 10-11 teams over the 8 regions, seven of whom will stay home. 

For the newbies,

1) if your team is not on Spence's list or on the Regional Ranking, win your tourney.

2) If your team is not the first team from your conference in the Regional Rankings, win your tourney.

[Whatagame]

Interesting article in Baseball America today regarding the RPI, which of course uses SOS via OWP/OOWP as a major input, as used by the NCAA selection committee in D1 Baseball. 

http://www.baseballamerica.com/college/rpi-analysis-requires-a-closer-look/

It got me thinking about the SOS figures for D3.  I remember Spence stating in an earlier post on this thread that PLU had a solid SOS that might have put them on the Pool C bubble. 

PLU is ranked 40th right now in SOS, seemingly pretty solid.  So I took a look at Willamette (both from the same conference), which is ranked a seemingly dismal 199th.

Calculating the OWP and OOWP for the two schools shows how subtle the difference between #40 and #199 really is.

Pac Lu's OWP calculates to an avg. opponent record (over 40 games) of 22.8 - 17.2, with opp/opp record of 20.8 - 19.2

Willamette's OWP calculates to an avg. opponent record of 20.15 - 19.85, and an opp/opp record of 20.5 - 19.5

Is there a difference between #40 and #199, sure, but not as stark as I would have thought 159 spots would be.

I like some of the concepts, such as weighting road wins (not neutral sites) higher, also that a team's three games against opponents with the worst winning percentages don't get factored into its strength of schedule. (the SCIAC/Caltech factor)   

[Spence]

I like the 3-4 amnesty game thing. Not sure exactly how it should work since teams play differing numbers of D-III games, but conceptually I like it.

I think that small difference between teams you notice is a strength of the pct + SOS approach. The difference between 1 and 8 in SOS is the same as the difference between 17 and 99; the difference between 1 and 37 is equivalent to the difference between 37 and 264! In other words, it's a fairly normal distribution.

This is one mistake I used to make, looking at a schedule rating in the 200s or something and thinking that was much worse than one rated 100 spots higher. And no doubt, there's a difference, but it may not be all that large.

And indeed, the difficulty in differentiating below the elite level is a large part of the challenge of being on the selection committee, and why this framework is probably not going to have great predictive value at that point. I'd be thrilled if it did, but I doubt it does.

I would not doubt the committee, explicitly or otherwise, showing respect for success away from home.

[CrashDavisD3]

Maybe just no one can hit up there?

You beat me to it, Spence.

Good one! You know, I actually thought about that.  Linfield and G. Fox for instance are "only" batting .297 and .315, respectively, which is not great compared to the bloated averages in the SCIAC, for instance.  But, having seen a fair number of teams, I'll stick to my guns!

SCIAC teams has bloated batting averages since they play Cal Tech and plus 6 of the teams have ERA's over 5.40

[Spence]

Updated pre regional rankings. I didn't go crazy with the math here, so I would be willing to bet the rounding is off in some places, which means the ordinal for the by region part is going to be really squirrly where teams are bunched. One weakness I think I see is at the low end of the SOS, I think the formula (if you can even call it that) overstates the case for a team. I don't really think Castleton State is very close to an at-large bid.

By region
Mideast -- Heidelberg, Case Western Reserve, Marietta, Baldwin-Wallace, Allegheny, Adrian, John Carroll, La Roche
Midwest -- Whitewater, CU-Chicago, Stevens Point, St. Thomas, Bethel, St. John's
West -- Linfield, Trinity, Cal Lutheran, Chapman, George Fox, CU-Austin
Central -- Webster, Buena Vista, Augustana
New England -- Tufts, Amherst; Southern Maine, ECSU, Wesleyan (all 1.33), Endicott, Wheaton, Salem State
New York -- Cortland, St. John Fisher, Ithaca, Oswego
South -- Shenandoah, Salisbury, Birmingham Southern, Emory, York (M-A?), Rhodes, Frostburg, Berry, Bridgewater
Mid-Atlantic -- Rowan, Moravian, Gettysburg (could be any order, all 1.34), Kean, Susquehanna, Rutgers-Camden, Alvernia, Ramapo, Widener

Raw (sort of) totals.
1.4+
Heidelberg 1.41, UW-Whitewater 1.42, (Linfield 1.48), CU-Chicago 1.44, Webster 1.43, Tufts 1.44

1.35-1.4
UWSP 1.37, Case Western 1.37, St. Thomas 1.37, Cortland 1.35, Shenandoah 1.36, Amherst 1.36

1.30-1.35
USM 1.33, Moravian 1.34, Rowan 1.34, Birm. South. 1.31, ECSU 1.33 (Salisbury 1.32), Kean 1.30, St. John Fisher 1.32, Buena Vista 1.34, Gettysburg 1.34, Wesleyan 1.33

1.25-1.30
Marietta 1.29, Baldwin-Wallace 1.29, Allegheny 1.29, Emory 1.28, York 1.27, Susquehanna 1.250, Bethel 1.27, St. John's 1.250, Trinity 1.296, Cal Lutheran 1.29

1.20-1.25
RU-Camden 1.24, John Carroll 1.22, Endicott 1.22, Ramapo 1.203, Rhodes 1.22, Alvernia 1.24, Oswego 1.24, Ithaca 1.24, Salem State 1.21, Wheaton 1.21, Frostburg St 1.21, Berry 1.21, Augustana 1.22, George Fox 1.21, Bridgewater 1.21, La Roche 1.21, Adrian 1.22, Widener 1.200, CU-Austin 1.200, Chapman 1.23

Close enough that I noticed (probably within like .003) -- St. Scholastica, Mount Union, Union, Castleton St.

If I did my math right (and it's completely possible I didn't), there's 1 bid left for the 1.20-1.25 crowd if this all was perfect and the season ended today and there were no upsets.

[Ralph Turner]

Spence, on my quick run thru your list, I agree that there may be one Pool C bid in that list for the 1.20-1.25 crowd (minus the Pool A's that we project from that group.)


And I count 2 "B's" getting a "C".

[Spence]

Yep. Would be 2 of 3 of Emory, Fisher and Birmingham.

[Spence]

Shenandoah will be in Pool C, as Bridgewater won the ODAC.

[JohnnyU]

My predictions as of today:

Pool A:
La Roche
LeTourneau
Salisbury
Gettysburg
Endicott
Augustana
Keystone
Staten Island
St. Josephs (Maine)
Manchester
Buena Vista
Moravian
Southern Maine
Rochester
Alvernia
Misericordia
Salem State
Adrian
St. Thomas
St. Norbert
Castleton State
Concordia (Ill.)
Wooster
Gallaudet
Mitchell
Amherst
Wheaton (Mass.)
Rowan
Linfield
Heidelberg
Bridgewater (Va.)
Washington and Jefferson
Trinity (Texas)
Cal Lutheran
Farmingdale State
Webster
Cortland State
St. Scholastica
Covenant
UW-Whitewater


Pool B/C Looking Good (12):
Shenandoah
Marietta
Emory
Eastern Connecticut
UW-Stevens Point
Case Western Reserve
Ithaca
Tufts
Birmingham-Southern
Kean
Rutgers-Camden
St. John Fisher


Bubble (4 of these):
John Carroll
Chapman
Oswego State
Bethel
North Park
Baldwin-Wallace
Wartburg
George Fox
York (Pa.)
Susquehanna
Brockport State
North Central (Ill.)
Allegheny
Randolph-Macon
Suffolk
Washington U.

Could all change very soon!

[Colorado]

Not a bad starting point. Were you using Spence's Index for Pool B/C? And did you mostly use conference leaders for your Pool A picks or hunches?

[JohnnyU]

Not a bad starting point. Were you using Spence's Index for Pool B/C? And did you mostly use conference leaders for your Pool A picks or hunches?

The regional rankings drive most of my order. Also, I weight SOS more because (up until last season) that has been what the selection committee has done. Pool A teams are those that have already qualified or those that would be most likely to be selected if they did not win their conference tournament.

[Spence]

A few interesting developments the last few days: Wheaton, Kean, RU-Camden, and Alvernia are in Pool C, having fallen out of conference tournament play.

Also, Marietta has won the OAC regular season by two games clear over Heidelberg, so that may impact the potential Pool C candidacy of teams in that league.

ECSU and USM finished tied in the LEC (ECSU winning by tiebreak I believe), increasing the chances that both get bids there.

Shenandoah was already in Pool C.

Bottom line: the pool is getting crowded, already.

EDIT TO ADD: Gettysburg fell twice to Haverford in the Centennial championship.