Ranking the regionals
- Thread starter Msuirondawgs
- Start date
The Diamond Sports Ranking: A Modern Complement for College Baseball and Softball – 6–4–3 Charts
Written By: Forrest Allen Why a New System? In 1981, IBM introduced the first personal computer, MTV showed its first […]
643charts.com
For DSR explanations if you arent familiar with that methodology
No offense, but if they're doing what it appears they're doing, this is completely useless.
It appears they are taking the 4 teams ranking, adding them together and dividing by 4. This obviously makes the 4 seed's higher ranking (larger number) significantly more important than the three teams that have realistic chances of winning the regional.
Beyond dumb.
It appears they are taking the 4 teams ranking, adding them together and dividing by 4. This obviously makes the 4 seed's higher ranking (larger number) significantly more important than the three teams that have realistic chances of winning the regional.
Beyond dumb.
I winsorized the bottom... kept the top four 4 seeds as is then made everything lower than that 102 (Saint John's ranking). Top spots stay the same because the 4 seeds for them were around 90, but it shakes up the rest.
Ultimately it’s useless unless it’s being independently computed for each seed. For hosts, nobody cares what the average rank of all 4 teams are. It only matters what the average of teams 2, 3, and 4 are.
Sometimes 4 seeds do make some noise, you can’t discount them completely.
I would suggest take the average rank of seeds 2~4 to see which host sites got easy or more difficult draws. Take average of 1, 3, and 4 in each to see which 2-seeds got the best and worst draws. Then 1,2, and 4 for the 3-seeds. Could also do 1, 2, and 3 for the 4-seeds, but I doubt anyone cares about that.
None of this means anything until we know which regional had the most killshot innings**
There are lots of ways to do it reasonably well. Like what the zombie said above. My only point was that this way was stupid. It's statistically flawed.
Say you have a regional with the #1, 2 and 3 RPI teams (impossible I know) and the #300 RPI team (hypothetical SWAC champs) as the 4 seed. This method would come up with a ranking of 76.5 (306/4), making it one of the easiest (highest number ranking) regionals on the list. It would obviously be the toughest regional to win, but the RPI of the 4 seed is dominating the calculation.
Not arguing with anything you said, but like I said, this calculation is dumb. And useless.
That’s not relevant either.
What truly matters is which regionals are rectangular and which are trapezoidal***
You guys are full of it.
Proximity of ancient native burial grounds/mounds is all that matters.