Mythbusting: The Ease of Postseason Advancement in Baseball vs Basketball [Archive]

engie

06-10-2014, 07:56 PM

After the discussion today, I decided to bring the data. This data is exclusive to the Super-Regional Era(1999-current) of 16 years. I did the CWS/Elite 8 since that data is easier to find and requires less spreadsheet work for me.

Baseball:
46 different teams making a total of 128 trips -- incl 12 midmajors making a total of 25 of appearances.

Basketball:
51 different teams making a total of 128 trips -- incl 14 midmajors making a total of 19 appearances.

51/349 = 14.6% of college basketball teams making the elite 8 in the past 16 years.
46/302 = 15.2% of college baseball teams making the CWS in the past 16 years.

14/275 = 5.1% of midmajors making the elite 8 in the past 16 years.
12/252 = 4.8% of midmajors making the CWS in the past 16 years.

16 basketball teams made 3 or more appearances for a total of 80. That's 62.5% of total appearances for the best 16 teams. One midmajor in this group(Memphis).
The top 16 baseball teams made a total of 82 appearances. That's 64% of total appearances for the best 16 teams. Two midmajors in this group(Rice, Cal State Fullerton).

Dang. Near. Identical.

Do I need to break this down any further for anyone? Or can we agree that given national data over an extended period of time, the difficulty in the actual accomplishments are roughly identical -- with MSU being much closer to the elite category in baseball and thus skewing the apparent "ease" of the accomplishment in those looking at it from maroon glasses?

msstate7

06-10-2014, 07:59 PM

That's some good data, engie. Do you work as hard at your job as your researching for message boards? Haha

CadaverDawg

06-10-2014, 08:04 PM

That's some good data, engie. Do you work as hard at your job as your researching for message boards? Haha

Doubtful

Dawg61

06-10-2014, 08:19 PM

The argument is it is more difficult for an SEC program to make the NCAA tournament in basketball than in baseball. How many Big East and Big Ten basketball teams that made the sweet 16 has zero to do with the argument. You're piggybacking the success of the Big East/B1G/ACC in the NCAA tournament to say it's just as difficult in baseball as it is in basketball to make a sweet 16. That's not the argument. If you're ranked #5-14 in the SEC in basketball for the year you have almost no chance of getting into the tournament as of right now. That could change down the line but it won't be anytime soon. Because it is more difficult for MSU basketball to even get into the tournament than it is for MSU baseball it therefore is more difficult for MSU basketball to make a Sweet16 in basketball than in baseball. Until the SEC is equal in strength for both basketball and baseball this will continue to be the case for MSU relative to these two sports. The SEC will pull us down in basketball currently where in baseball we get raised up. Thanks for the data though.

Political Hack

06-10-2014, 08:21 PM

Pioneer Dawg

06-10-2014, 08:26 PM

I think if a middle of the road school decided to make a push in one specific sport they would have success easier and quicker in basketball. It's obviously a deep process to build a baseball program to the level needed to win a regional. Basketball takes one or two players.

Political Hack

06-10-2014, 08:30 PM

engie

06-10-2014, 08:47 PM

it's hard to call the baeball mid majors "mid majors" considering 14 of them made 29 appearances. Sounds like a lot of repeat appearances, which means they're more of a power program than an upset special. Cal St Fullerton a mid major?

There are 2 elite "midmajors" in college baseball that account for 13 of those 29 appearances...
7 - Cal St Fullerton
6 - Rice

So, 10 other teams made 16 total appearances in Omaha.
By the same logic, the 4 formerly elite "midmajors" in college basketball make up 9 of the 19 overall trips.

Political Hack

06-10-2014, 08:53 PM

who are the four mid majors in basketball?

TexasDawg

06-10-2014, 08:57 PM

Who gives a shit about how easy or hard it is to advance in the basketball tournament, seeing as how we won't be in it for a while.

sleepy dawg

06-10-2014, 09:02 PM

nice points...

however, you could also argue that if you already had a somewhat decent base in baseball (as a middle of the road school would certainly have), ... add a couple of really awesome pitchers then some quality coaching should be able to turn around a team pretty quickly. It would automatically make you a threat in a regional if you made it.

In either case, I think if your inherited team is a train wreck when you come in, it's going to take more than 2 years, and I think 4 years is reasonable for either sport, in this case, for a noticeable turnaround.

engie

06-10-2014, 09:03 PM

who are the four mid majors in basketball?

Memphis, Butler, Xavier, Temple... in the theme of "Elite 8's". If you go to Sweet 16s as your data, you add Gonzaga and drop Temple.

Updated Elite 8 spreadsheet(99-current):
8 Michigan St
7 Connecticut
7 Florida
7 Kansas
7 Kentucky
7 North Carolina
5 Arizona
5 Duke
5 Louisville
4 Ohio St
3 Memphis
3 Oklahoma
3 Syracuse
3 Texas
3 UCLA
3 Wisconsin
2 Baylor
2 Butler
2 Illinois
2 Marquette
2 Maryland
2 Michigan
2 Missouri
2 Oklahoma St
2 Oregon
2 Temple
2 Villanova
2 West Virginia
2 Xavier
1 Alabama
1 Davidson
1 Dayton
1 George Mason
1 Georgetown
1 Georgia Tech
1 Gonzaga
1 Indiana
1 Iowa St
1 Kansas St
1 Kent St
1 LSU
1 Pittsburgh
1 Purdue
1 St Joseph's
1 St. John's
1 Stanford
1 Tennessee
1 Tulsa
1 USC
1 VCU
1 Wichita St

NONupdated Sweet 16 list(missing last 2 years -- and possibly going back to 98 since I originally set these up around the Stans tenure):
11 Duke
6 North Carolina
4 Maryland
1 Boston College
1 Florida St
1 Georgia Tech
1 Miami-FL
1 North Carolina St
1 Wake Forest
8 Michigan St
5 Wisconsin
4 Illinois
4 Ohio St
4 Purdue
1 Indiana
1 Iowa
1 Penn St
8 Kansas
5 Texas
4 Oklahoma
3 Oklahoma St
2 Missouri
1 Baylor
1 Iowa St
1 Kansas St
1 Texas A&M
1 Texas Tech
7 Connecticut
5 Pittsburgh
5 Syracuse
4 West Virginia
3 Georgetown
3 Louisville
2 Marquette
1 Cincinnati
1 Notre Dame
1 Seton Hall
1 St. John's
4 Villanova
6 Arizona
6 UCLA
3 Washington
2 Oregon
2 Stanford
2 USC
1 Washington St
7 Kentucky
5 Florida
4 Tennessee
2 Auburn
2 LSU
2 Vanderbilt
1 Alabama
1 Ole Miss
5 Gonzaga
4 Butler
4 Memphis
4 Xavier
2 Southern Illinois
2 Temple
1 Bradley
1 Brigham Young
1 Cornell
1 Davidson
1 George Mason
1 Kent St
1 Miami-OH
1 Nevada
1 Northern Iowa
1 Richmond
1 San Diego St
1 St Joseph's
1 St Mary's
1 SW Missouri St
1 Tulsa
1 UAB
1 UNLV
1 Utah
1 UW-Milwaukee
1 VCU
1 Western Ky
1 Wichita St

Political Hack

06-10-2014, 09:11 PM

that equitable for the most part although I'd argue Rice & CSF are more prestigious than those basketball mid majors. Either way, it's not far off though.

engie

06-10-2014, 09:19 PM

that equitable for the most part although I'd argue Rice & CSF are more prestigious than those basketball mid majors. Either way, it's not far off though.

I would agree...

I think looking back that elite basketball programs have been valuable enough fiscally to earn their way into major conferences along the way, while that is still not true for baseball. So, if you go back to the various expansions, you see alot of elite "midmajors" in basketball getting gobbled up. Heck, you saw an entire conference founded around basketball with the Big East in the 79...

JOHNHEVESYMADE

06-10-2014, 11:22 PM

I think we should be more worried about if Rick Ray is going to win a game in February. Not about how hard it is to make the tournament.

Johnson85

06-11-2014, 08:33 AM

Do I need to break this down any further for anyone? Or can we agree that given national data over an extended period of time, the difficulty in the actual accomplishments are roughly identical -- with MSU being much closer to the elite category in baseball and thus skewing the apparent "ease" of the accomplishment in those looking at it from maroon glasses?

They're not identical when you look at conference specific. Teams with good weather have an advantage in baseball. Schools in areas with strong basketball traditions have an advantage in basketball. That's not a reason to downplay what we're accomplishing in baseball, it's just recognizing that we are taking advantage in the sport where we have some advantages. It's not a coincidence that State and UM are good in baseball consistently, whereas we haven't been in basketball.

drunkernhelldawg

06-11-2014, 08:45 AM

another reason granting someone a 4 year window to turn around a basketball program is stupid.

If that were the only factor, which it is not. We basically burned the whole thing down and told him to make something out of the ashes. Last person I blame for this situation is somebody who wasn't even there when the fire was set.

Dawg61

06-11-2014, 09:17 AM

If that were the only factor, which it is not. We basically burned the whole thing down and told him to make something out of the ashes. Last person I blame for this situation is somebody who wasn't even there when the fire was set.

Yea Brick Ray has nothing to do with our shit basketball program. Let's pay him another million.**

engie

06-11-2014, 10:08 AM

Of course it's "easier" for State and OM to get it done in baseball because we've INVESTED more heavily and care alot more than practically everyone else in the country. We've got inherent disadvantages in baseball too that aren't present in football and basketball -- with unfair scholarship situations, etc as well.

Baseball SEEMS easier because we're closer to elite in that sport, with tradition on our side. That's the point I was making before. The difficulty is ACTUALLY basically the same. We're just closer to elite in baseball, making the task seem easier...

HailState39110

06-11-2014, 10:13 AM

Dawg61

06-11-2014, 10:36 AM

engie

06-11-2014, 10:38 AM

The SEC typically has 8 or 9 teams make the tournament in baseball . The SEC typically has 3 or 4 teams make the tournament in basketball . That's what makes it a
tougher accomplishment is getting an invitation to compete for a natl title

Not this dumb ass argument again.

The SEC has had zero top 16 or top 32 teams left out of the basketball tournament in my lifetime. Teams that deserve to go dancing get to go dancing. The reason we get fewer teams in is because the teams suck. Not because there is some rule restricting SEC teams from getting into the tournament.

CadaverDawg

06-11-2014, 10:45 AM

Not this dumb ass argument again.

The SEC has had zero top 16 or top 32 teams left out of the basketball tournament in my lifetime. Teams that deserve to go dancing get to go dancing. The reason we get fewer teams in is because the teams suck. Not because there is some rule restricting SEC teams from getting into the tournament.

Not necessarily. Our baseball teams(SEC) have a reputation for being good, so we get benefit of the doubt a lot of times. Meanwhile our (SEC) basketball has a negative rep, so it has the reverse effect sometimes if they're choosing between Big 10 vs SEC with similar resumes. So you're right that we're usually getting our good teams in, but to deny reputation and the fact that humans select the teams so it's not an exact science, is just not true. And it definitely cannot be proven.

CadaverDawg

06-11-2014, 10:45 AM

engie

06-11-2014, 10:49 AM

How dare you challenge the all knowing****

Without bringing anything to the table statistically. Just what "you think"...

Yep, I'd say the statistics owned your argument. Just like I told you they would on the front end.

CadaverDawg

06-11-2014, 10:52 AM

Without bringing anything to the table statistically. Just what "you think"...

Yep, I'd say the statistics owned your argument. Just like I told you they would on the front end.

Lighten up Sally. Maybe because we're all discussing it instead of spending hours on end researching this shit like you are. Ever think that some of us aren't "arguing", just "discussing"? Everything ever discussed doesn't have a proven right or wrong answer, despite you thinking it does.

Way to "own me" with stats though, d-bag.

engie

06-11-2014, 10:53 AM

Not necessarily. Our baseball teams have a reputation for being good, so we get benefit of the doubt a lot of times.
Like when? When did we "get the benefit of the doubt" and then go on to make a Super Regional or Omaha trip?

Meanwhile our basketball has a negative rep, so it has the reverse effect sometimes if they're choosing between Big 10 vs SEC with similar resumes.
So, you are modifying your argument to "the field of 64" now that you don't have a leg to stand on with the initial argument of the final 16? That's convenient. Fact is -- if we were on the bubble and got "screwed" by not getting into the NCAAs -- why the hell couldn't we win the NIT? We made what? One NIT final 4 under STansbury? OBVIOUSLY, even in those years, we weren't EVEN the best team that got left out... MUCH LESS one of the top 16 teams in the country(or top 32)...

So you're right that we're usually getting our good teams in, but to deny reputation and the fact that humans select the teams so it's not an exact science, is just not true. And it definitely cannot be proven.
Convenient moving of goalposts.

engie

06-11-2014, 10:56 AM

Lighten up Sally. Maybe because we're all discussing it instead of spending hours on end researching this shit like you are. Ever think that some of us aren't "arguing", just "discussing"? Everything ever discussed doesn't have a proven right or wrong answer, despite you thinking it does.

Way to "own me" with stats though, d-bag.

Sure -- some things don't. This argument does though. And you were the one that started it in the first place arguing against something I said that I had already statistically proven by saying that I couldn't "prove" it -- when I COULD AND DID.

But, like the bunting thing, a bunch of people here will argue in the face of overwhelming statistical evidence that goes against your position...

CadaverDawg

06-11-2014, 11:00 AM

Like when? When did we "get the benefit of the doubt" and then go on to make a Super Regional or Omaha trip?

So, you are modifying your argument to "the field of 64" now that you don't have a leg to stand on with the initial argument of the final 16? That's convenient. Fact is -- if we were on the bubble and got "screwed" by not getting into the NCAAs -- why the hell couldn't we win the NIT? We made what? One NIT final 4 under STansbury? OBVIOUSLY, even in those years, we weren't EVEN the best team that got left out... MUCH LESS one of the top 16 teams in the country(or top 32)...

Convenient moving of goalposts.

Jesus. I was discussing getting in bc you can't make the sweet 16 without getting in. Forget it, you're doing the typical Engie shit that kills threads bc nobody can simply discuss things without you going full blown retard trying to break every single word down. You're a piece of work

CadaverDawg

06-11-2014, 11:02 AM

Sure -- some things don't. This argument does though. And you were the one that started it in the first place arguing against something I said that I had already statistically proven by saying that I couldn't "prove" it -- when I COULD AND DID.

But, like the bunting thing, a bunch of people here will argue in the face of overwhelming statistical evidence that goes against your position...

You're a joke. You didn't prove shit. It's just that nobody argues with you bc you turn into "know it all" "never wrong", Engie. Same shit different thread. Congrats on your internet domination.

Dawg61

06-11-2014, 11:03 AM

engie

06-11-2014, 11:17 AM

Wow so teams have to win the NIT to prove they deserved to get into the tournament? The year we got raped by the lane violation vs Kentucky and lost the SEC Championship in OT and then didn't get into the tournament we needed to then go on and win the NIT to prove we should of gotten in? Nice Engielogic

You mean the year that we lost to Rider, Richmond, Western Kentucky, and went 9-7 in a weak SEC -- with an RPI of #62? That's the one you chose to prop up your position as a "deserving team"?

Yes. The best team to get left out of the tournament should win the NIT in principle.

engie

06-11-2014, 11:21 AM

Jesus. I was discussing getting in bc you can't make the sweet 16 without getting in. Forget it, you're doing the typical Engie shit that kills threads bc nobody can simply discuss things without you going full blown retard trying to break every single word down. You're a piece of work

Those that "barely get in" don't generally make the Sweet 16 anyway. "I'm a piece of work" = you shouldn't have called me out yesterday -- on something I mentioned in my first post on the topic I had taken interest in previously -- with no preconceived notion -- and already proven to be roughly identical in difficulty. You then argued that something that is EASILY provable in fact isn't and went off on tangents about pitchers and matchups.

So, yes, "I'm a piece of work" = "Cadaver has his panties in a wad because he argues on emotion without backing it in logic or researching the topic he wishes to "debate", so when the numbers game gets played, he pokes fun at someone that produces that number that prove him wrong".

engie

06-11-2014, 11:23 AM

You're a joke. You didn't prove shit. It's just that nobody argues with you bc you turn into "know it all" "never wrong", Engie. Same shit different thread. Congrats on your internet domination.

Thanks. Means alot.

Congrats to you too on twisting your way out of admitting you are wrong -- again -- while bringing nothing -- and despite abundant evidence in the OP backing my position. Where is your evidence? "But different pitchers" -- Cadaver PLS.

CadaverDawg

06-11-2014, 11:27 AM

Those that "barely get in" don't generally make the Sweet 16 anyway. "I'm a piece of work" = you shouldn't have called me out yesterday -- on something I mentioned in my first post on the topic I had taken interest in previously -- with no preconceived notion -- already proven to be roughly identical. You then argued that something that is EASILY provable in fact isn't.

So, yes, "I'm a piece of work" = "Cadaver has his panties in a wad because he argues on emotion without backing it in logic, so when the numbers game gets played, he runs and hides -- and pokes fun at someone that produces that number that prove him wrong".

You didn't prove shit. And no, Cadaver doesn't have anything in a wad, bc nobody takes shit as seriously as you. You are such an angry person. You really should relax a little. The way you breakdown everyone's posts and call out guys like the "HailState" guy for simply having a differing opinion, is borderline creepy. You aren't proving anything by just picking stats that meet YOUR argument....there just aren't any other argumentative, "Internet egos", that can't stand being wrong on here that are willing to spend days on end looking up useless stats to try and prove a non-provable point, in hopes that they can pound their chest and claim message board domination, like you. Hope you're proud

engie

06-11-2014, 11:34 AM

You didn't prove shit. And no, Cadaver doesn't have anything in a wad, bc nobody takes shit as seriously as you. You are such an angry person. You really should relax a little. The way you breakdown everyone's posts and call out guys like the "HailState" guy for simply having a differing opinion, is borderline creepy. You aren't proving anything by just picking stats that meet YOUR argument....there just aren't any other argumentative, "Internet egos", that can't stand being wrong on here that are willing to spend days on end looking up useless stats to try and prove a non-provable point, in hopes that they can pound their chest and claim message board domination, like you. Hope you're proud

K.

Another non-provable point proven.

And yes, I am proud. I hope you are as well -- in starting arguments based on nothing, bringing nothing, then talking about others that "can't stand being wrong" -- while not admitting that the numbers say YOU ARE WRONG already in something accepted by 95% of the message board as factual. Oh -- they are "meaningless and say nothing" -- I forgot. That's not hypocritical at all.

CadaverDawg

06-11-2014, 11:39 AM

K.

Another non-provable point proven.

And yes, I am proud. I hope you are as well -- in starting arguments based on nothing, bringing nothing, then talking about others that "can't stand being wrong" -- while not admitting that the numbers say YOU ARE WRONG already. Oh -- they are "meaningless" -- I forgot. Pot meet kettle.

God you're embarrassing. Nothing you said proved me wrong. And again, the only arguing being done is by You. Everyone else is trying to discuss topics without having internet badass come and try to run their opinion in the ground and trying to tell them they're stupid. Ha, but keep thinking you're perfect by all means... You aren't fooling anybody though.

Thread closed. Carry it on in the other thread with someone who still feels like dealing with you.