Softball

[sybarite]

SEC


18-2 Florida-----------1
14-3 Texas A&M-------5
13-4 Tennessee-------10
12-6 Auburn-----------4
10-7 Alabama---------14
9-9 LSU--------------13
9-9 Kentucky---------17
7-10 Mississippi State--32
6-12 Ole Miss---------27
6-14 Arkansas--------26
5-12 Missouri----------31
4-13 South Carolina-----24
3-15 Georgia------------28

Pac Twelve

15-3 Arizona-----------2
12-4 Utah-------------15
11-6 Oregon-----------7
8-7 Washington--------3
8-7 UCLA--------------6
6-9 Arizona State------22
6-9 Oregon State
3-10 California---------23
1-14 Stanford

Big Twelve

11-1 Oklahoma---------12
11-1 Oklahoma State
9-3 Baylor---------------9
4-8 Texas
4-11 Texas Tech
3-9 Kansas
3-12 Iowa State

I want to see anyone who believes that Cal is #23, and Georgia is #28. They may be more like #70-75. Teams that are winning in their conference are ranked below those who aren't.


Florida State--------------8
MInnesota----------------11
James Madison------------16
BYU-----------------------18
Louisiana-Lafayette--------19
Michigan------------------20
Illinois---------------------21
Marshall-------------------25
Texas State---------------29
Tulsa---------------------30

 

[SoonerSpock]

Pardon my English, but WTF??? Going into our weekend series, Baylor's RPI was #10, ours was #13. We win the series two games to one, outscoring BU by a combined score of 12-6. So Baylor's RPI improves to #9 and ours creeps up to #12?

This is exactly why I believe there's no credibility in whatever formula is used to determine the RPI.

I'm awaiting an explanation, Spock (Not trying to start an argument; I really need to have that explained to me).

I will try, in the rpi wins and losses comprise 25% of the calculation and SOS comprises 75% of the calculation. Also when calculating a win home wins are worth 0.6 of a victory, while road wins are worth 1.4. Conversely, a home loss is weighted -1.4 and a road loss only -0.6. Neutral-site games count 1.0 and -1.0.

Hence Baylor got -0.6L+1.4W-0.6L= +0.2 for one win and two losses. OU on the other hand got +0.6W-1.4L+0.6W= -0.2 for 2 wins and 1 loss. Net, net 1 road win is worth 0.4 rpi wins more than 2 home wins. Next OU would get an SOS addition that I cannot calculate that is larger than what Baylor would get because OU played the #10 team in the rpi and Baylor played the #13 team.

Baylor with 6-7 of it losses on the road and 1 at home gets +2.2 ([6 X 0.6]-1.4) rpi win points. For OU's with 7-8 neutral game losses and 1 home loss gets a -8.4 ([7 X-1]-1.4) rpi wins. Where you win and lose matters big time.

I should note that the credits for wins and losses comes from the basketball formula as I could not locate a softball formula with a simple explanation easily. But I would assume they are very similar if not identical.

The above emphasizes the necessity to sweep home series against an opponent to advance over that opponent while winning only one of a series on the road is positive for the visiting team when it comes to rpi.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rating_Percentage_Index

http://www.denverpost.com/2013/03/09/simple-yet-confusing-rpi-stands-ncaas-test-of-time/

 

[SoonerSpock]

Selman and Lowary were #1 and #2 in the Big Twelve in ERA going into this weekend. This weekend, they were:

Selman---Lowary

IP: 17.1 -- 6.0
H: 15----10
R: 8-----6
ER: 7-----5
BB: 5-----1
K: 11----5
WP: 1----2
HBP: 1----0
NP: 241--102

Lowary shot up from 0.68 to 2.10 in conference play. Selman went up from 0.90 to 1.49. Meanwhile, Parker went from 1.73 to 1.12.

Parker has never had a great era relative to the top pitchers nationally but she has definitely always been a money pitcher in big games.

 

[sybarite]

I will try, in the rpi wins and losses comprise 25% of the calculation and SOS comprises 75% of the calculation. Also when calculating a win home wins are worth 0.6 of a victory, while road wins are worth 1.4. Conversely, a home loss is weighted -1.4 and a road loss only -0.6. Neutral-site games count 1.0 and -1.0.

Hence Baylor got -0.6L+1.4W-0.6L= +0.2 for one win and two losses. OU on the other hand got +0.6W-1.4L+0.6W= -0.2 for 2 wins and 1 loss. Net, net 1 road win is worth 0.4 rpi wins more than 2 home wins. Next OU would get an SOS addition that I cannot calculate that is larger than what Baylor would get because OU played the #10 team in the rpi and Baylor played the #13 team.

Baylor with 6-7 of it losses on the road and 1 at home gets +2.2 ([6 X 0.6]-1.4) rpi win points. For OU's with 7-8 neutral game losses and 1 home loss gets a -8.4 ([7 X-1]-1.4) rpi wins. Where you win and lose matters big time.
]

You do realize that it is nuts to design a plan in which you lose by winning two of three?

So, if OU plays UCLA at a Los Angles site other than the UCLA campus, it is a neutral site, and OU gets only one point. If OU goes west and plays western teams in their home area, it is still a neutral site?

So, Florida gets one point for each win over a nobody at their homegrown "neutral site" preseason tournaments, and they don't lose that much by losing to Maryland because it wasn't really a home loss?

 

[SoonerSpock]

You do realize that it is nuts to design a plan in which you lose by winning two of three?

So, if OU plays UCLA at a Los Angles site other than the UCLA campus, it is a neutral site, and OU gets only one point. If OU goes west and plays western teams in their home area, it is still a neutral site?

So, Florida gets one point for each win over a nobody at their homegrown "neutral site" preseason tournaments, and they don't lose that much by losing to Maryland because it wasn't really a home loss?

Their is definitely problems with the rpi formula from my perspective. Even more so for softball than basketball because of regional and super-regional site determination.

But first you have to ask the question of the purpose of the national championship. I personally think it is to determine the very best team. I don't want some get on a roll team declared national champion like Kansas in men's basketball did in 1988 or Villanova in 1985.

I do not know how the NCAA derived its methodology for calculating the rpi impact of wins and losses at home, away and at neutral sites but I feel certain it is not arbitrary and they have some statistical justification for the methodology.

Never convince me the schools would accept how they award rpi victories unless the NCAA had evidence to document the logic of the methodology. Otherwise I have got to think Patty would be jumping on Joe C. desk and Joe C on Boren's desk and Boren to Bowlsby complaining about Baylor getting more rpi points for their one win than OU got for its two wins unless they understands where the NCAA is coming from.

Personally I would rather see basketball have 16 teams qualify for the tournament and after the first round go to a double elimination tournament like the CWS and WCWS. I think that approach would better determine who really is the best team in a given season.

While I think the rpi needs tweaking I can not dispute its accuracy projecting the stronger teams. If you look at the results of the tournaments compared to the rpi ranking/seeding they do a hell of a job. The link below is for the men's March Madness and it shows just how accurate the seedings are at every round of the tournament.

http://www.betfirm.com/seeds-national-championship-odds/#

 

[sybarite]

While I think the rpi needs tweaking I can not dispute its accuracy projecting the stronger teams. If you look at the results of the tournaments compared to the rpi ranking/seeding they do a hell of a job. The link below is for the men's March Madness and it shows just how accurate the seedings are at every round of the tournament.

http://www.betfirm.com/seeds-national-championship-odds/#

I think it says a lot more about the advantages of home court than accuracy of rpi.

 

[SoonerSpock]

I think it says a lot more about the advantages of home court than accuracy of rpi.

To each his own. Your position is just an opinion with no evidence how it would do a better job of identifying the season's best team. It would make the first two round more even with a couple more upsets but alter the tournament's outcome virtually nil. Better than altering the first two round site locations eliminate the first two rounds all together and make a better tournament.

Take the top 20 conference champions plus best 12 at-large teams with a double elimination after the first round. It would do a better job of crowning the best team. That is the purpose of the tournament. And the double elimination would provide ample opportunity for upsets among better opponents.

Oh, rounds 3-6 are not about site location and rpi is still applicable at a high accuracy projection rate. Moreover since 1985 a #1 seed has won the tournament 62% of the time and have won 70% of their Final Four contest. Good job rpi.

https://www.sportingcharts.com/arti...s-in-the-ncaa-mens-basketball-tournament.aspx

 

[sybarite]

Home court advantage is just an opinion? Then, there is no reason to worry about being among the first sixteen seeds in basketball or the first eight in softball.

 

[SoonerSpock]

Home court advantage is just an opinion? Then, there is no reason to worry about being among the first sixteen seeds in basketball or the first eight in softball.

The seeding process theoretically has the #1 playing the #16 in the first round, #8 in the second round, #4 team in the third round and the #2 seed in the semifinals and that is the primary determinant of the tournament winners not site location.

Change the site locations, double the number of upsets in the first two rounds and the tournament outcome would remain virtually unchanged. You are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

That is confirmed by the fact is that since 1985 47% of the Final Four participants have been #1 seeds, 83% have been top 3 seeds and 17% have been the field. Finally the a #1 seed has won 62% of the Final Fours since 1985, the top 3 seeds 90% and the field only 10%. Amazing the rpi continues to be an accurate predictor all the way through the Final Four. Obviously it is a damned good system.

Give me one iota of evidence that altering site locations would have any significant impact on changing the tournament results or zip you lip. Your opinion is just that an opinion that you cannot document as having any validity.

 

[sybarite]

The seeding process theoretically has the #1 playing the #16 in the first round, #8 in the second round, #4 team in the third round and the #2 seed in the semifinals and that is the primary determinant of the tournament winners not site location.

Change the site locations, double the number of upsets in the first two rounds and the tournament outcome would remain virtually unchanged. You are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

That is confirmed by the fact is that since 1985 47% of the Final Four participants have been #1 seeds, 83% have been top 3 seeds and 17% have been the field. Finally the a #1 seed has won 62% of the Final Fours since 1985, the top 3 seeds 90% and the field only 10%. Amazing the rpi continues to be an accurate predictor all the way through the Final Four. Obviously it is a damned good system.

Give me one iota of evidence that altering site locations would have any significant impact on changing the tournament results or zip you lip. Your opinion is just that an opinion that you cannot document as having any validity.

You are citing information that is absurd as documented. In basketball, it usually doesn't affect the tournament championship. But, there is a lot more to basketball than winning the title.

Being one of the top sixteen seeds gives you a better chance at winning your way into the Sweet Sixteen, which is a recruiting tool. No, I'm not going to provide documentation for that. It should be obvious. If you get to Sweet Sixteen, you have usually avoided having to play on someone's home court. Thus, there is a better shot at getting into the Elite Eight, again, a recruiting tool.

In softball, it is a huge difference to be able to make the top eight. You won't be playing a top eight team on their home field. That is a huge advantage, sufficient that they give points for it in your rpi.

How you select these top eight or sixteen becomes of significance. If the way that rpi is assigned provides an advantage to a conference, it matters.

When a home loss by #1 to #150 doesn't seem to affect the rpi of a team in one conference, it matters. When a home loss by a #5 team to a # 97 teams seems to have no effect, it matters. When a home loss by a #13 team to a #1138 team doesn't seem to have an effect, it matters. These all affected the SEC. Then, a home loss by the #15 team to the #100 and #176 teams didn't seem to matter if you were a member of the Pac Twelve.

You are #1. You lose to #150 at home, and you are still number one?

 

[SoonerSpock]

You are citing information that is absurd as documented. In basketball, it usually doesn't affect the tournament championship. But, there is a lot more to basketball than winning the title.

Being one of the top sixteen seeds gives you a better chance at winning your way into the Sweet Sixteen, which is a recruiting tool. No, I'm not going to provide documentation for that. It should be obvious. If you get to Sweet Sixteen, you have usually avoided having to play on someone's home court. Thus, there is a better shot at getting into the Elite Eight, again, a recruiting tool.

In softball, it is a huge difference to be able to make the top eight. You won't be playing a top eight team on their home field. That is a huge advantage, sufficient that they give points for it in your rpi.

How you select these top eight or sixteen becomes of significance. If the way that rpi is assigned provides an advantage to a conference, it matters.

When a home loss by #1 to #150 doesn't seem to affect the rpi of a team in one conference, it matters. When a home loss by a #5 team to a # 97 teams seems to have no effect, it matters. When a home loss by a #13 team to a #1138 team doesn't seem to have an effect, it matters. These all affected the SEC. Then, a home loss by the #15 team to the #100 and #176 teams didn't seem to matter if you were a member of the Pac Twelve.

You are #1. You lose to #150 at home, and you are still number one?

Absurd, not really, an unsubstantiated Syb opinion, yep. But then we all know all facts are absurd when the dispute the all knowing Syb. The purpose of the tournament is to determine the best team. The rpi confirms that is happening with a high degree of success.

#150, #97, #1138, #100, and #176 have never won it all nor are they likely to in the future. In fact they should have already been eliminated before he tournament. Number 8 Villanova is the lowest ranked winner of any men's BB, women's BB or softball national championship since 1985.

The only reason the lower seeds are invited to the tournaments is to attract more of their fans to watch the tournament. No one expects them to win it all. It is a detriment to the goal of the tournament to crown the best team as champion that is done to accommodate the TV big wigs.

Again Give me one iota of evidence that altering site locations would have any significant impact on changing the tournament results or zip you lip. Your opinion has no credibility. But your refusal to provide evidence obviously is because none exist.

 

[SoonerSpock]

You are citing information that is absurd as documented. In basketball, it usually doesn't affect the tournament championship. But, there is a lot more to basketball than winning the title.

Being one of the top sixteen seeds gives you a better chance at winning your way into the Sweet Sixteen, which is a recruiting tool. No, I'm not going to provide documentation for that. It should be obvious. If you get to Sweet Sixteen, you have usually avoided having to play on someone's home court. Thus, there is a better shot at getting into the Elite Eight, again, a recruiting tool.

In softball, it is a huge difference to be able to make the top eight. You won't be playing a top eight team on their home field. That is a huge advantage, sufficient that they give points for it in your rpi.

How you select these top eight or sixteen becomes of significance. If the way that rpi is assigned provides an advantage to a conference, it matters.

When a home loss by #1 to #150 doesn't seem to affect the rpi of a team in one conference, it matters. When a home loss by a #5 team to a # 97 teams seems to have no effect, it matters. When a home loss by a #13 team to a #1138 team doesn't seem to have an effect, it matters. These all affected the SEC. Then, a home loss by the #15 team to the #100 and #176 teams didn't seem to matter if you were a member of the Pac Twelve.

You are #1. You lose to #150 at home, and you are still number one?

Absurd it is not andunsubstantiated Syb opinion most definitely without credence. The purpose of the tournament is to determine the best team. The rpi confirms that is happening with a high degree of success.

#150, #97, #1138, #100, and #176 don't win championships. In fact they should have already been eliminated before he tournament. Number 8 Villanova is the lowest ranked winner of any men's BB, women's BB or softball national championship since 1985.

The only reason they are invited to the tournaments is patronize them and to attract more of their fans to watch the tournament. No one expects them to win it all. It is a detriment to the goal of the tournament to crown the best team as champion.

Again Give me one iota of evidence that altering site locations would have any significant impact on changing the tournament results or zip you lip. Your opinion has no credibility. But your refusal to provide evidence obviously is because none exist.

 

[sybarite]

Absurd it is not andunsubstantiated Syb opinion most definitely without credence. The purpose of the tournament is to determine the best team. The rpi confirms that is happening with a high degree of success.

#150, #97, #1138, #100, and #176 don't win championships. In fact they should have already been eliminated before he tournament. Number 8 Villanova is the lowest ranked winner of any men's BB, women's BB or softball national championship since 1985.

The only reason they are invited to the tournaments is patronize them and to attract more of their fans to watch the tournament. No one expects them to win it all. It is a detriment to the goal of the tournament to crown the best team as champion.

Again Give me one iota of evidence that altering site locations would have any significant impact on changing the tournament results or zip you lip. Your opinion has no credibility. But your refusal to provide evidence obviously is because none exist.

Once again, the tournament exists as more than just to see who the #1 team is. If we were to use your extremist version of the tournament, we would probably save a lot of time and money by going back to eight or sixteen teams rather than 64.

It makes a difference who makes the Sweet Sixteen, Elite Eight, etc. It is an opportunity to demonstrate a level of success for recruiting purposes, etc.

Life is not about being only #1.

 

[SoonerSpock]

Once again, the tournament exists as more than just to see who the #1 team is. If we were to use your extremist version of the tournament, we would probably save a lot of time and money by going back to eight or sixteen teams rather than 64.

It makes a difference who makes the Sweet Sixteen, Elite Eight, etc. It is an opportunity to demonstrate a level of success for recruiting purposes, etc.

Life is not about being only #1.

Life may not alway about being only #1 but that is the objective of the NCAA tournaments.

Recruiting impact as a result of tournament success was not part of the design of the NCAA tournament. The tournament was established to crown a champion. It was expanded to create more fan interest to justify increased TV revenue which was the primary funding source for the NCAA.

The WBB and softball has basically followed the MBB model. Any recruiting opportunity was an ancillary outgrowth of smart marketing personnel at the schools. Any real recruiting uptick from tournament success is still limited to the Power 5 conferences and maybe 2-3 other conferences.

A Richmond or James Madison might make the Sweet 16 on a rare occasion and get a very temporary recruiting bump for a year or two. But that is not a driving force for the NCAA's management of the tournaments.

Restructure the site location and perhaps their winning percentage would increase 5-10%. I am not concerned nor apparently is the NCAA concerned about accommodating the 5-7 teams that might be positively impacted by winning an additional second round game. Games after the second round are determined years in advance of the games. Obviously the school have made no concerted effort to change the protocol regarding site locations. Guess they haven't been listen to you for their on reasons.

If one wants the lower division school to have the more opportunity for over achievement separate them into another division and let them play for their own championship. It is ridiculous to have 351 division-1 men's BB teams, 349 division-1 WBB teams and 286 softball programs with vastly different recruiting resources competing in the same division. It is impossible to structure the tournament without disadvantaging a segment of the division and the more schools the more complex meting total equity becomes.

If you do not want to play on the road in the super-regional it is simple don't lose 5-6 neutral site games and win 4-6 instead or play a stronger SOS so you can host the S-R.

 

[sybarite]

I think the rest of the teams are very concerned, realizing that it is unlikely you can ever be a contender for #1 unless you can be a regular contender for the Sweet Sixteen. Your assumption is that they have figured out how to design the rpi to accomplish their objectives, as a whole.

 

[sybarite]

National Pro Fastpitch Draft

1. Jessica Burroughs RHP Florida State USSSA Pride
2. Sara Groenewegen RHP Minnesota Akron Racers--beat us twice last year
3. Sahvanna Joquish C/INF LSU Chicago Bandits
4. Sierra Hyland RHP/1B Cal Poly Chicago Bandits---beat us twice
5. Bailey Landry OF LSU Texas Charge

6. Katiyana Mauga 3B Arizona Texas Charge---has 88 home runs
7. Megan Betsu RHP Michigan Akron Racers
8. Danielle O'Toole LHP/1B Arizona Chicago Bandits---beat us
9. Alexis "Ma" Mercado INF Arizona USSSA Pride
10. Alex Powers 1B Florida State USSSA Pride

11. Chloe Miller UT Wisconsin Akron Racers
12. Delanie Gourney LHP Florida SY Dogs, traded to Texas Charge
13. Ali Aguilar INF Washington Texas Charge
14. Haley Chambers-Book LHP SIU-Edwardsville Texas Charge
15. Megon Geer OF Tennessee Akron Racers

16. Sydni Emmanuel OF Georgia Akron Racers
17. Hannah Flippen IF Utah SY Dogs
18. Nikki Udria IF Oregon SY Dogs
19. Mandie Perez OF Arizona USSSA Pride
20. Kelly Christner OF Michigan USSSA Pride

21. Nicole Schroeder OF Arkansas Akron Racers
22. Lindsay Cargill UT Baylor Texas Charge
23. Maddy Grimm SS/3B Kent State Akron Racers
24. Alexis Silwood LHP Mississippi State Akron Racers--we beat her (?)
25. MJ Knighten INF Nebraska SY Dogs ---Shay's sister
26. Morgan Zerkle UT Marshall SY Dogs

You can see why Arizona is good---four good seniors.

The SEC has 7. The Pacific Twelve has 7. The Big Ten has 5. The Big Twelve has 1 (Baylor's Cargill).

 

[SoonerSpock]

National Pro Fastpitch Draft

1. Jessica Burroughs RHP Florida State USSSA Pride
2. Sara Groenewegen RHP Minnesota Akron Racers--beat us twice last year
3. Sahvanna Joquish C/INF LSU Chicago Bandits
4. Sierra Hyland RHP/1B Cal Poly Chicago Bandits---beat us twice
5. Bailey Landry OF LSU Texas Charge

6. Katiyana Mauga 3B Arizona Texas Charge---has 88 home runs
7. Megan Betsu RHP Michigan Akron Racers
8. Danielle O'Toole LHP/1B Arizona Chicago Bandits---beat us
9. Alexis "Ma" Mercado INF Arizona USSSA Pride
10. Alex Powers 1B Florida State USSSA Pride

11. Chloe Miller UT Wisconsin Akron Racers
12. Delanie Gourney LHP Florida SY Dogs, traded to Texas Charge
13. Ali Aguilar INF Washington Texas Charge
14. Haley Chambers-Book LHP SIU-Edwardsville Texas Charge
15. Megon Geer OF Tennessee Akron Racers

16. Sydni Emmanuel OF Georgia Akron Racers
17. Hannah Flippen IF Utah SY Dogs
18. Nikki Udria IF Oregon SY Dogs
19. Mandie Perez OF Arizona USSSA Pride
20. Kelly Christner OF Michigan USSSA Pride

21. Nicole Schroeder OF Arkansas Akron Racers
22. Lindsay Cargill UT Baylor Texas Charge
23. Maddy Grimm SS/3B Kent State Akron Racers
24. Alexis Silwood LHP Mississippi State Akron Racers--we beat her (?)
25. M

J Knighten INF Nebraska SY Dogs ---Shay's sister
26. Morgan Zerkle UT Marshall SY Dogs

You can see why Arizona is good---four good seniors.

The SEC has 7. The Pacific Twelve has 7. The Big Ten has 5. The Big Twelve has 1 (Baylor's Cargill).

They also have 3 freshmen that are finalist for the freshman of the year along with Lopez. They are hitting .319, .343 and .377 with 41 HR's and 135 rbi's between them.

 

[SoonerSpock]

I think the rest of the teams are very concerned, realizing that it is unlikely you can ever be a contender for #1 unless you can be a regular contender for the Sweet Sixteen. Your assumption is that they have figured out how to design the rpi to accomplish their objectives, as a whole.

My only assumption is that once the results are in they correspond with the rpi ranking going into the tournament. My conclusion is the the rpi does an outstanding job of seeding the teams correctly. Nothing more nothing less.

Like all systems the rpi could be tweaked to make it better but presently there are no major flaws that alter the outcome of the tournament significantly. Overall job well done.

 

[SoonerTraveler]

Parker Notches 15th Big 12 Pitcher of the Week
http://www.soonersports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=31000&ATCLID=211573110

 

[NMSooner'80]

Just saw on Soonersports.com that OU won in Lubbock tonight, 4-2. No other details just yet.