By my estimation ...

[Dad04]

We dug a hole early. Extraordinary teams can do extraordinary things. We need to do something extraordinary to play in June.

[CajunProud]

_ I do think our pitching is good enough to win the SBC Tourny if the RPI isn't where it needs to be. _

I hope you are right, but our history in the SBC tournament is not good at all.

[LifeTimeCajun]

I do think our pitching is good enough to win the SBC Tourny if the RPI isn't where it needs to be.

Pitching is good enough for 3games for sure. After that in a tournament type situation everyone normally is in the same boat. It takes an unlikely person to step up and have an outstanding game. But at that point in a tourney, usually hitters have to swing it the rest of the way.

igeaux.mobi

[GoneGolfin]

_ Losing to conference teams will do more to strengthen your SOS and your opponents SOS than losing to non-conference. This is how the SEC gets 8 teams into regionals every year, they win most of their non conference games.

No. The SEC earns a healthy number of bids each year because they have teams with high RPIs ... due to the schedule that they play. Due to the nature of baseball and the imperfections in the RPI formula, it is easier to build a strong RPI when you have a stronger schedule. But the RPI does not distinguish conference from non-conference, except in the case of certain RPI bonuses and penalties for non-conference games.

At the end of the year every conference goes .500 within its own conference. So alot has to do with what you do in non-conference.

You misunderstand how the RPI works. Let me try another angle of explanation.

The Base RPI formula is broken into three weighted components ...

1) 25% (Winning %)
2) 50% (Opponents' winning %)
3) 25% (Opponents' opponents' winning %)

Thus, when I say that it is irrelevant whether the four losses (used in this example) come from conference teams or non-conference teams, this is so because of two things ...

1) #1 above (winning %) does not change. That is, the winning % will be the same.

2) The SOS (strength of schedule) measured in #2 and #3 above also does not change. All you did was swap a win/loss with two of your opponents. Your opponents' overall winning % did not change.

Thus, the Base RPI will be the same in all permutations of the 14-4 record.

As a simple example, let's say that we changed the one FAU win to a loss ... but offset that loss with a win against Miami-Ohio (now a sweep of the series). The Cajun RPI would not change.

#1 Cajun winning % is unaffected
#2 Aggregate opponents' winning percentage is unaffected

Brian

[GoneGolfin]

_ Pitching is good enough for 3games for sure. After that in a tournament type situation everyone normally is in the same boat. It takes an unlikely person to step up and have an outstanding game. But at that point in a tourney, usually hitters have to swing it the rest of the way.
igeaux.mobi _

I think that if the Cajuns' were to get through the first three games, Osborne would be brought back for the Championship game.

Brian

[J-Town Cajun]

_ No. The SEC earns a healthy number of bids each year because they have teams with high RPIs ... due to the schedule that they play. Due to the nature of baseball and the imperfections in the RPI formula, it is easier to build a strong RPI when you have a stronger schedule. But the RPI does not distinguish conference from non-conference, except in the case of certain RPI bonuses and penalties for non-conference games.


You misunderstand how the RPI works. Let me try another angle of explanation.

The Base RPI formula is broken into three weighted components ...

1) 25% (Winning %)
2) 50% (Opponents' winning %)
3) 25% (Opponents' opponents' winning %)

Thus, when I say that it is irrelevant whether the four losses (used in this example) come from conference teams or non-conference teams, this is so because of two things ...

1) #1 above (winning %) does not change. That is, the winning % will be the same.

2) The SOS (strength of schedule) measured in #2 and #3 above also does not change. All you did was swap a win/loss with two of your opponents. Your opponents' overall winning % did not change.

Thus, the Base RPI will be the same in all permutations of the 14-4 record.

As a simple example, let's say that we changed the one FAU win to a loss ... but offset that loss with a win against Miami-Ohio (now a sweep of the series). The Cajun RPI would not change.

#1 Cajun winning % is unaffected
#2 Aggregate opponents' winning percentage is unaffected

Brian _

Brian I believe your #3 does change. "3) 25% (Opponents' opponents' winning %)"

[GoneGolfin]

_ Brian I believe your #3 does change. "3) 25% (Opponents' opponents' winning %)" _

No it does not.

Let's say that before the swapping of losses on the Cajuns' schedule, FAU was 23-14 and Miami-Ohio was 17-20 (their current records). So, 50% of the RPI for the Cajuns consists of these W/L records (%) ... along with the other opponents on the Cajun schedule, which remains constant.

FAU 23-14
Miami-Ohio 17-20

We then swap a Cajun win over FAU with a Cajun loss to Miami-Ohio. The winning % for the Cajuns is unaffected. We now have ...

FAU 24-13
Miami-Ohio 16-21

Thus, the Cajuns' opponents' winning % is obviously still the same.

The opponents' winning % of FAU and Miami-Ohio also has not changed. We can break this down into two classifications ...

1) FAU did not play Miami-Ohio. In this case, the opponents' winning % (and w/l record) is obviously unchanged.

2) FAU did play Miami-Ohio. Here, FAU's opponents' w/l record (winning %) drop (Miami-Ohio now has one less win and one more loss) is offset by Miami-Ohio's opponents' w/l record (winning %) increase (FAU now has one more win and one less loss).

Brian

[wcd35]

_ Brian I believe your #3 does change. "3) 25% (Opponents' opponents' winning %)" _

What the guru said. Plus, your opponents opponent's record doesnt change since you dont play your opponents' opponents. So you have no control over your opponents' opponents (#3).

[GoneGolfin]

_ What the guru said. Plus, your opponents opponent's record doesnt change since you dont play your opponents' opponents. So you have no control over your opponents' opponents (#3). _

Well, you certainly can play your opponents' opponents. They would also be your opponents. My #2 above was an example of this. But that does not change things as I showed.

Brian

[J-Town Cajun]

_ What the guru said. Plus, your opponents opponent's record doesnt change since you dont play your opponents' opponents. So you have no control over your opponents' opponents (#3). _

Yes you do play your opponents opponents. The reason I say that our (25% x opponents opponents record) would be stronger with a lose to FAU compared to a lose Miami-Ohio is because FAU is an opponent to more opponents of ours because they are in our conference.