|
|
Post by sullivanfieldfan on Jun 7, 2011 21:50:19 GMT -5
Wheeler, Gillingham, and Koch drafted by major league baseball, all on second day!
|
|
|
|
Post by bozar on Jun 14, 2011 14:04:17 GMT -5
I posted the following on a San Jose State fan site. I tried to convince myself that the WAC deserved more than one bid two years ago and my work comparing showed me otherwise. I did it again this year and got pretty much the same result. See for yourself and I apologize in advance about the poor quality of the tables I include as I don't know how to do this on sites like this. In addition, I've been posting on WAC baseball in general and SJS specifically for about 4 years and have decided to expand to the WCC. Any help or advice is accepted.
Comparing the Western Conferences for 2011
Some of you diehards may remember me doing this just about two years ago and I felt it was one of my better posts in that it gave me pause about how I rated the WAC. I thought the WAC was the second coming and my own analysis told me it was anything but. I thought I would do it again this year and things have changed but little. The Pac 10 seems to have left all of the others in the dust, the Big West has fallen a bit, and the others are in the middle with little change.
Let me review how I did this. I basically made a simple table to make an index putting a numerical value on the criteria I decided to use. I think I have said all of this correctly. I used talent, RPI, and postseason play as marks of superiority. If a team has talent, the pros will notice (draftees) as will others (All-American status). I used the Louisville Slugger team as my standard for All Americans and none of the others. With that being said, let’s start with the All-Americans.
WAC had 4 All-Americans
The Pac 10 had 4 All-Americans (of which one was the national player of the year – Bauer)
The MWC had 3 All-Americans
The WCC had 0 All-Americans
The Big West had 3 All-Americans
As you can see the number of All-Americans was pretty close with the Pac 10 getting the nod and the WCC getting skunked. The WAC fared pretty well here.
The second item is the number of players from each conference drafted. I believe the the pros are a pretty good judge of talent but some very good players never get a chance to play at the next level as they may have peaked in college and are not viewed as having the potential for growth. I didn’t use this last time and I don’t know why. It may have been that the draft hadn’t occurred when I wrote the article. Here’s how that plays out:
MWC 14
WAC 25
Big West 37
Pac 10 69
WCC 18
The Pac 10 is head and shoulders above the others in pure numbers by a factor of two over the second place conference (Big West). I know the Pac 10 is a larger conference so the numbers are skewed but I don’t want to take the time to adjust. Again, the WAC fares well.
I also used RPI in one form or another twice. I listed the conference members that had an RPI of 64 or lower and then the average conference RPI. Again, the Pac 10 is the leader and the WAC holds its own.
Finally, I used the number of teams that were participating in regionals and then how they have fared once they were there. The Pac 10 wins again and the WAC fared poorly in this one. The following is the table constructed just like two years ago. This is simple data and no values have been given.
RPI AA RPIa CWS CWS Record
MWC 1 3 125 2 1-4
WAC 1 4 131 1 0-2
Big West 2 3 122 2 5-4
Pac 10 8 4 51 6 21-11
WCC 0 0 150 1 1-2
(RPI column means how many teams in conference had an RPI 64 or lower. AA means number of All-Americans. RPIa means conference average RPI. CWS means how many teams selected to NCAA Tournament. CWS Record means the cumulative record as of 6/14.)
How can this be interpreted? I look at things differently day to day but let’s try this. Give each category a value of 1 to 5. If the conference is tops in the category, it receives a 1 and the worst value receives a 5. Will that work for you?
RPI AA RPIa CWS Record drafted Total
Pac 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
Big West 2 2 2 2 2 2 12
WAC 3 1 4 3 4 3 18
MWC 3 2 3 2 3 5 18
WCC 4 3 5 3 3 4 22
What does this all say? To no one’s surprise the Pac 10 comes out on top in all categories. The Big West, WAC, and the MWC are bunched pretty closely and the WCC is at the bottom which is sad to see. The order of finish is essentially the same as last time but the WAC has improved a bit and the WCC has fallen a bit. The Pac 10 surprised me not so much by leading but by leading by such an amount in each category.
This is telling me something that I find very disturbing. The Pac 10 gets stronger and sends 6 teams to regionals and one (Cal) makes it to the CWS. The ACC and the SEC do pretty much the same. The SEC has 3 teams in the CWS followed by the ACC and the Big 12 with 2 each. I know it’s a playoff system that most of us can live with and it seems to be mostly fair but I, for one, am getting tired of seeing the same ol’ same ol’ in the CWS. I went back over the article I wrote two years ago and the teams in the CWS were essentially the same. I don’t know how the WAC and the other smaller conferences throughout the US can change this except by winning when it matters most. To do that means more pitching which was improved in the WAC this year with most of the teams having decent staffs and Fresno having an All-American in Greg Gonzalez who failed to show up in his only start in the regionals. For San Jose State that means re-tooling the starting pitching and getting one or two new position hitters with pop or it will be a long year for the WAC and the Spartans.
|
|
|
|
Post by fanblade on Jun 14, 2011 22:11:31 GMT -5
Interesting to see such Pac 10 dominance. Also I didn't realize WCC was so weak in baseball. I guess that revenue and attention are just not priorities for that sport for most WCC teams in this environment. Pac-10 is Pac-10 or 12 or whatever. Big West is traditional very strong in baseball. The WAC I suppose has the enrollment advantages to help.
I believe that the USC Trojan's new head coach was LMU's fired (forceable retired?) head coach. Will be interesting to see what happens down there.
|
|
|
|
Post by bozar on Jun 14, 2011 23:13:02 GMT -5
In the past Santa Clara has been fairly strong and Pepperdine has been a west coast power to be reckoned with. But, not so much in the past few years. I'm a great fan of the WAC and I'd like to see the WCC get strong again just to see the west come back. Not so strong this year; the west that is. Oh, Gonzaga has been strong recently but fell off a bit this year. More info to come.
|
|
|
|
Post by sullivanfieldfan on Jun 19, 2011 19:09:35 GMT -5
Cal was going to drop baseball due to finances, now they are in the CWS and their program saved by a huge fund raising campaign. What's the status of baseball at other schools? Are other programs on the bubble? How about LMU?
Judging from the crowds I've seen in the southland, I don't think baseball revenue while important, is the controlling factor anywhere in SOCAL for colleges fielding teams.
Football and Mens basketball pay for the other sports and the womens programs and at Pac 12 schools there probably is a lot left over for the school to use outside the athletic department.
I'm skeptical of Cal's claim that they didn't have money for baseball, they probably wanted to use their dollars elsewhere. And just used it as a scare tactic to raise funds from team supporters.
|
|
|
|
Post by bozar on Jun 22, 2011 10:51:58 GMT -5
Cal was going to drop baseball due to finances, now they are in the CWS and their program saved by a huge fund raising campaign. What's the status of baseball at other schools? Are other programs on the bubble? How about LMU? Judging from the crowds I've seen in the southland, I don't think baseball revenue while important, is the controlling factor anywhere in SOCAL for colleges fielding teams. Football and Mens basketball pay for the other sports and the womens programs and at Pac 12 schools there probably is a lot left over for the school to use outside the athletic department. I'm skeptical of Cal's claim that they didn't have money for baseball, they probably wanted to use their dollars elsewhere. And just used it as a scare tactic to raise funds from team supporters. Interesting you should say this about your skepticism. I've had that (I'm from San Jose) since day one. I have always thought it a sham and still do. Cal's Coach Esquer is named the national coach of the year AND his contract is up. Will administration have another hand-wringing about trying to keep him, give him a raise, so let's have another round of donations type of deal? I doubt it. There was a story I read somewhere about one of the players who transferred when he learned of the possible shutting down. Some of his teammates disowned him but most still remained friends. What did admin do for him? Nuttin' honey. |
|
|
|
Post by sullivanfieldfan on Jun 22, 2011 21:13:00 GMT -5
Without knowing for sure, I would bet there are plenty of academic types in charge at a place like Berkeley that are at best unfriendly to athletics. At worst they probably are opposed to funding an athletic department at all. Lots of political maneuvering and watching your back if you're intent on protecting a fiefdom in the athletic department.
|
|
