The Power/Value of Reputation

quote:

Originally posted by southpaw_dad:

... I would suggest that there is quantifiable evidence of the power of reputation for you.

Maybe. Or maybe just a fair dose of skepticism that anything that happens in a three-game series provides enough of a sample size to significantly alter pre-existing judgments. Or both - probably both.

A sweep has to be viewed differently then taking 1 or 2 of 3! It's convincing evidence in my opinion. Additionally, they are unbeaten so a ranking really isn't based upon 3 games but an undefeated season thus far highlighted by a sweep of a top team.

Rankings are nice to look at but really doesnt mean much.Kentucky is doing what they need to do to win,and the rankings will come with wins.

I agree that reputation of teams and players can be based on previous performances.

Although when it comes to S.Carolina,they are two time world champions.

What that series shows me is on any day,any team can beat you so you better come to compete.
,NEVER take any team lightly as they come to play,and to beat you.

You cant sit back one day,one pitch,one inning,it is a battlefield every play.

quote:

Originally posted by calisportsfan:

A sweep has to be viewed differently then taking 1 or 2 of 3!

I understand what you are saying, and in general beating a team (especially convincingly) three straight times says a little more than 2 of 3.

But to use a cliche' phrase that is often used around this time, "it's early." Rankings at this point of the season are based as much on what the team did last year, who they have returning and what kind of recruiting class they were judged to have brought in, than wins or losses on the field. I wouldn't vault a previously unranked team over the two-time defending champion based solely on an early season sweep, though depending on what I saw the champ might need to be dropped a few more notches than it seems they were and have to work their way back.

Of course, this begs the age-old question in baseball: when does "early" become "late"?

quote:

It's convincing evidence in my opinion."

Not IMHO. I need a larger body of work. It definitely justifies entering the rankings (and a pretty high entry at that, at #16), but I can see some skepticism about more than that, FOR NOW. The further into the season they go playing at a high level, and the more quality showings (in both wins and losses) against quality opponents, the higher they'll go. It's a marathon, not a sprint. If they are as good as they appear so far, they'll be there at the end, when it matters.

quote:

Originally posted by southpaw_dad:
Ever wonder about the power/value of a reputation?

Last weekend the University of Kentucky baseball team (no significant baseball reputation of which I am aware) swept the University of South Carolina (2 time defending champs & long reputation) in a 3-game series ... to remain the sole unbeaten team in Division 1 baseball.

Today, Baseball America has once-beaten Florida still ranked #1 (no argument here), USC ranked #8, and Kentucky is ranked for the first time this season at #16. I would suggest that there is quantifiable evidence of the power of reputation for you.

Just something I found interesting, and thought others might also.

It's not about reputation. Rankings can be based upon how difficult the schedule is. UF is ranked 47, USC is 122 and UK is 184, regardless of who has more or less wins at this time in the season.

UK fell in because they beat USC, whose RPI from last year fell in the top 5.

I do believe that you can understand better by picking this up from Boyd Nation. He has formulas that more or less heip understand how ISR is a measure of team quality for NCAA D1 baseball.

Florida is number one because of their schedule difficulty.

PG has its own top 50 rankings. Kendall Rogers is in charge with a little input from others around the country.

This weeks PG rankings have the top 10 like this...
1. Florida
2. Stanford
3. North Carolina
4. Arkansas
5. Florida State
6. UCLA
7. Arizona
8. South Carolina
9. Cal State Fullerton
10. Kentucky

Personally I don't get involved in the college rankings, but if I did, Kentucky would be ranked one spot above South Carolina this week. They just beat them 3 in a row. Then again I think South Carolina will be the better team at the end of the year. If so, they would then move back ahead of Kentucky.

Really I have no problem either way, the rankings mean very little at this point in the year. It's just a way to create a little more interest in the college game and that is always a good thing.

Good stuff y'all. I have to say, I have never been much on Rankings of any kind. Invariably, Ranking systems reflect the bias(es) of what the originator's consider to be important ... and all I'm saying is that past performance/reputation typically plays a part.

Similarly, as much as I respect the athletes who compete in Figure Skating, Diving, etc., for their athletic abilities, their drive, and their mastery of their sport, I have a hard time accepting those events as competitive sports. Anytime winner's and losers are picked through what is ultimately subjective judging, it takes a lot away from the game for my taste. Personal preference for sure.

Personally, I much prefer "Standings" to "Rankings". Looking at the SEC Standings today, Florida & Kentucky are tied for 1st at 3-0 in the conference. Today, South Carolina is 0-3. I also find it impressive that Kentucky is riding a 21 game winning streak, and Florida is at 17. Strength of schedule be darned, those are impressive numbers for anybody playing D1 ball.

Today, Kentucky is better than South Carolina -- they proved it on the field. Next week, or at the end of the year, it might be a different story. But I will contend that there is no way you get So Carolina ranked ahead of Kentucky TODAY without giving USC a big boost for their past performance and reputation.

Opinions make for Rankings, and that is my opinion. Feel free to Rank my opinion wherever you wish

Good stuff. Thanks for the good dialogue.

I think they said SC had what, 4 freshmen starting and is quite young. I think as the season progresses that that youthfulness will show it's head and they will have a hard season against the already tough SEC. Maybe Tanner will prove me wrong, but it showed this weekend.

Did anyone watch that SC catcher on Sunday? He had a VERY hard time throwing the ball back to the Pitcher on every pitch. I was about to pull my hair out watching.

for what it's worth, ESPN has Kentucky at 6. I think USC was 8 or 9

Once again, whether the rankings are right or wrong, they create interest in college baseball.

Kentucky is the big story so far and should be highly ranked. However, it was the three game sweep over USC that creates all the buzz. It will be interesting to see where they go from here.

21-0 is very impressive. Up until the SEC starting, here was their schedule.

Wofford
Eastern Michigan
USC Upstate
Buffalo
Buffalo
Buffalo
Morehead State
Xavier
Illinois-Chicago
Illinois-Chicago
Illinois-Chicago
Illinois-Chicago
Tennessee Tech
Marshall
Canisius
Canisius
Canisius
Wright State
Murray State
* All but the first three games were played in Lexington. 18-0 is still great no matter the competition, but that has to be considered a very weak schedule.

Compare Florida's schedule before entering SEC play...
Cal State Fullerton
Cal State Fullerton
Cal State Fullerton
Bethune Cookman
Central Florida
William & Mary
William & Mary
William & Mary
Miami
Miami
Miami
Florida Atlantic
Florida A&M
Florida Gulf Coast
Florida Gulf Coast
Florida Gulf Coast
Florida State