Houston Frog
New Member
Records May Be Better Than They Appear
by David Peterson
Wednesday, April 07, 2010
As we approach the actual midway point of the season, one of the things on the minds of many fans is the post- season. Last year we moved the benchmark higher by hosting a Regional and coming into this year the Frogs hoped to host again and possibly host a Super Regional. But to accomplish that the Frogs must do things like win their conference (which we are not leading), be in or around the top 16 in the polls (which we are) and be in or around the top 20 in the RPI rankings (which we are not close).
The thing that I have been confused by is why our RPI was so much higher last year than it is this year. After a 4-2 Paul Gerrish win against New Mexico last season, the Frogs were (18-9) overall and (5-3) in conference. After another 4-2 outing from Paul Gerrish where he found himself on the losing side, the Frogs find themselves (20-7) overall and (5-3) in conference. 27 games, same conference record and we are 2 games better. Last season we were ranked as high as #22 and this year we are ranked #12. But for some reason, our RPI is nearly 30 spots lower. Last year we were considered a top 10 RPI team and this year we are at #37. So why do humans think we are better and computers think we are worse?
Leonard sent me this back and forth that was posted on the Baseball America website and I think it is a fascinating discussion and provides insight into why TCU is where it is. The discussion was between the computer guru and Boyds World and the lead college writer at Baseball America, Aaron Fitt. They argued why the humans felt Arizona State and UCLA did not deserve the #1 ranking despite being undefeated with over 20 wins. They go on to bring up TCU near the middle, but I encourage you to read this.
My takeaway was that humans are impressed by wins against good teams while computers are more impressed by teams that do not lose to bad teams. It is a fascinating argument in which you could argue the merits on both sides, but I think it explains why TCU is viewed the way it was and the way it is.
To further my explanation, I will use data provided by Warren Nolan who produces the following Nitty Gritty Reports.
2009: Nitty Gritty Report - Click Here
2010: Nitty Gritty Report - Click Here
What you see in 2009 is that the Frogs were a very predictable team. When they played an inferior team which I will define as a team with an RPI below 100, the Frogs were a perfect (12-0). Against above average teams, defined as 51-100 in the RPI, they were (14-4). And against good teams, defined as top 50 teams, the Frogs were an even (14-14).
Now aside from playing almost half of their games against top 50 teams, which certainly helped their strength, the Frogs were extremely consistent. They beat all of the bad teams, they won most of their games against good teams, and they were very competitive against the best teams. The computers loved that because they never screwed up against bad teams, but the humans were less enamored. You may remember, aside from taking 2 of 3 at Cal State Fullerton and winning the only game at Ole Miss, they lost to most of the name brand teams. The Frogs were swept by Baylor and Oklahoma and lost games to Texas and Texas A&M. Adding that 1 win against Texas Tech, they were a combined (1-6) against the Big XII. As a result, they received little human poll support...but they still hosted a regional.
What you see in 2010 is the Frogs are a very unpredictable team. When they play teams with an RPI below 100, the Frogs were (10-3) and technically (1-1) against teams below 200 (which is Air Force). Against teams 51-100 in the RPI, they are (2-1) which is San Diego State. And against good teams, defined as top 50 teams, the Frogs were a strong (7-3).
The human pollsters love the Frogs because of the (7-3) record against top 50 teams, which is far better than the .500 record produced last year. But the inexplicable thing is how does a team that good lose 3 games to teams like Air Force, BYU and Dallas Baptist. Statistically speaking, the Frogs have exhibited a high variance in their performance.
Now you ask, what does it all mean? Well, it is too early to tell. RPI rankings are a dynamic number meaning Texas Tech is a top 50 team right now, but they may turn out to be more like 80 or 90th which would hurt the Frogs. Then again, a team like Rice who is 45th could move up and become more like 25th which would help the Frogs. So halfway through the season, a lot of things can change.
However, a lot of people think a loss to Oklahoma may be a nail in the coffin for the Frogs if they want to host. But I would remind fans that the Frogs did very little against the Big XII teams and they still hosted. What it comes down to is the NCAA tournament committee and how they evaluate teams. If they view it like the human pollsters and are more impressed with wins against good teams, the Frogs are in good shape and would be the 2nd best team in the region. But if the Frogs are evaluated on their bad losses like the computers do, the Frogs may not measure up.
After that New Mexico game last year, the Frogs finished the season (18-7) overall, (10-3) in conference, won the regular season conference title, but not the tournament. None of those accomplishments are all that impressive and each is very achievable this season. Point being, the Frogs are still in great shape and could finish very high and possibly host yet again.
by David Peterson
Wednesday, April 07, 2010
As we approach the actual midway point of the season, one of the things on the minds of many fans is the post- season. Last year we moved the benchmark higher by hosting a Regional and coming into this year the Frogs hoped to host again and possibly host a Super Regional. But to accomplish that the Frogs must do things like win their conference (which we are not leading), be in or around the top 16 in the polls (which we are) and be in or around the top 20 in the RPI rankings (which we are not close).
The thing that I have been confused by is why our RPI was so much higher last year than it is this year. After a 4-2 Paul Gerrish win against New Mexico last season, the Frogs were (18-9) overall and (5-3) in conference. After another 4-2 outing from Paul Gerrish where he found himself on the losing side, the Frogs find themselves (20-7) overall and (5-3) in conference. 27 games, same conference record and we are 2 games better. Last season we were ranked as high as #22 and this year we are ranked #12. But for some reason, our RPI is nearly 30 spots lower. Last year we were considered a top 10 RPI team and this year we are at #37. So why do humans think we are better and computers think we are worse?
Leonard sent me this back and forth that was posted on the Baseball America website and I think it is a fascinating discussion and provides insight into why TCU is where it is. The discussion was between the computer guru and Boyds World and the lead college writer at Baseball America, Aaron Fitt. They argued why the humans felt Arizona State and UCLA did not deserve the #1 ranking despite being undefeated with over 20 wins. They go on to bring up TCU near the middle, but I encourage you to read this.
My takeaway was that humans are impressed by wins against good teams while computers are more impressed by teams that do not lose to bad teams. It is a fascinating argument in which you could argue the merits on both sides, but I think it explains why TCU is viewed the way it was and the way it is.
To further my explanation, I will use data provided by Warren Nolan who produces the following Nitty Gritty Reports.
2009: Nitty Gritty Report - Click Here
2010: Nitty Gritty Report - Click Here
What you see in 2009 is that the Frogs were a very predictable team. When they played an inferior team which I will define as a team with an RPI below 100, the Frogs were a perfect (12-0). Against above average teams, defined as 51-100 in the RPI, they were (14-4). And against good teams, defined as top 50 teams, the Frogs were an even (14-14).
Now aside from playing almost half of their games against top 50 teams, which certainly helped their strength, the Frogs were extremely consistent. They beat all of the bad teams, they won most of their games against good teams, and they were very competitive against the best teams. The computers loved that because they never screwed up against bad teams, but the humans were less enamored. You may remember, aside from taking 2 of 3 at Cal State Fullerton and winning the only game at Ole Miss, they lost to most of the name brand teams. The Frogs were swept by Baylor and Oklahoma and lost games to Texas and Texas A&M. Adding that 1 win against Texas Tech, they were a combined (1-6) against the Big XII. As a result, they received little human poll support...but they still hosted a regional.
What you see in 2010 is the Frogs are a very unpredictable team. When they play teams with an RPI below 100, the Frogs were (10-3) and technically (1-1) against teams below 200 (which is Air Force). Against teams 51-100 in the RPI, they are (2-1) which is San Diego State. And against good teams, defined as top 50 teams, the Frogs were a strong (7-3).
The human pollsters love the Frogs because of the (7-3) record against top 50 teams, which is far better than the .500 record produced last year. But the inexplicable thing is how does a team that good lose 3 games to teams like Air Force, BYU and Dallas Baptist. Statistically speaking, the Frogs have exhibited a high variance in their performance.
Now you ask, what does it all mean? Well, it is too early to tell. RPI rankings are a dynamic number meaning Texas Tech is a top 50 team right now, but they may turn out to be more like 80 or 90th which would hurt the Frogs. Then again, a team like Rice who is 45th could move up and become more like 25th which would help the Frogs. So halfway through the season, a lot of things can change.
However, a lot of people think a loss to Oklahoma may be a nail in the coffin for the Frogs if they want to host. But I would remind fans that the Frogs did very little against the Big XII teams and they still hosted. What it comes down to is the NCAA tournament committee and how they evaluate teams. If they view it like the human pollsters and are more impressed with wins against good teams, the Frogs are in good shape and would be the 2nd best team in the region. But if the Frogs are evaluated on their bad losses like the computers do, the Frogs may not measure up.
After that New Mexico game last year, the Frogs finished the season (18-7) overall, (10-3) in conference, won the regular season conference title, but not the tournament. None of those accomplishments are all that impressive and each is very achievable this season. Point being, the Frogs are still in great shape and could finish very high and possibly host yet again.
