thesnac

Bracketology 3/1

3/1 Bracket (automatic bids in bold):

Seed	Team 1	Team 2	Team 3	Team 4	Team 5	Team 6
1	Kansas	Baylor	Gonzaga	San Diego St.
2	Seton Hall	Florida St.	Dayton	Creighton
3	Maryland	Villanova	Duke	Oregon
4	Auburn	Michigan St.	Louisville	Kentucky
5	Butler	Colorado	Wisconsin	Penn St.
6	Ohio St.	West Virginia	Iowa	BYU
7	Marquette	Arizona	Illinois	Michigan
8	LSU	Virginia	Houston	Xavier
9	Arizona	St. Mary’s	Wichita St.	Oklahoma
10	Indiana	Florida	Texas Tech	Rutgers
11	USC	Stanford	Providence	Arkansas	Cincinnati	Utah State
12	N. Iowa	E. Tenn. St.	North Texas	Yale
13	Akron	Vermont	Stephen F. Austin	Belmont
14	Hofstra	New Mexico St.	UC Irvine	E. Washington
15	Wright St.	Liberty	Little Rock	Colgate
16	N. Dakota St.	Winthrop	Siena	St. Francis (PA)	Prairie View A&M	NC A&T

Checking In: North Dakota St., Winthrop

Dropping Out: South Dakota St., Radford

Last 4 Byes: Texas Tech, Rutgers, USC, Stanford

Last 4 In: Providence, Arkansas, Cincinnati, Utah St.

First 4 Out: NC State, Rhode Island, UCLA, Purdue

Next 4 Out: Texas, Richmond, Georgetown, Mississippi St.

I’m not going to post an updated bracket today; nothing happened last night that would materially change it, so I’m sticking with yesterday’s bracket. Instead, I’ll offer some commentary on the #1 seeds and some of the bubble teams.

#1 Seeds

Kansas and Baylor are locks. All 99 brackets on bracketmatrix.com have them on the top line. The other two #1 seeds are much less clear, at least to me. The consensus choices are Gonzaga (90 out of 99) and San Diego St. (73 out of 99). I don’t get it.

First of all, I think Dayton has a stronger resume than either of those teams, and I would express that in a very simple way:

Dayton has 2 losses against the 28th toughest schedule
Gonzaga has 2 losses against the 152nd toughest schedule
San Diego St. has 1 loss against the 108th toughest schedule

Gonzaga does have flashier wins (at Arizona, Oregon on a neutral court), but overall, Dayton has played a much tougher schedule.

This isn’t 2019 Gonzaga, which had a non-conference SOS of 34, or 2017 Gonzaga, which had a non-conference SOS of 22. This Gonzaga has a non-conference SOS of 274. I have to think the committee is going to take notice.

I actually think San Diego St. has a better case than Gonzaga. They played a tougher non-conference schedule, and they were perfect in their three toughest games (at BYU, Iowa neutral, Creighton neutral).

Speaking of Creighton… why do I have them on the top line? The short answer is, that’s what my model says, and I’m sticking to it… the longer answer is,

they have 9 Quadrant 1 wins
they have no Quadrant 2/3/4 losses
they are on fire
the Big East is the toughest conference in the country

I feel like the Big East this year is like the SEC in football. They beat up on each other all year, but whoever emerges from the group deserves to be a #1. Villanova and Seton Hall have almost equally good cases, but Creighton is best positioned, I think. If any of the 3 Big East heavies can win out, including the tournament, it will be difficult to deny them a #1 seed. Both Creighton and Villanova have games left against Seton Hall, so stay tuned.

Someone will, I’m sure, point out that San Diego St. blew out Creighton on a neutral court earlier in the season. Which is perfectly true, and all credit to them, but I don’t think we can fixate on one game as the litmus test that decides everything.

One other thought about Gonzaga and San Diego St. Their profiles are so similar, it also seems to me that the committee either has to give both of them #1 seeds or neither. Two west coast, mid-major teams who have basically won everything against a relatively weak schedule, but do have a handful of impressive non-conference wins. It will be fascinating to see what happens if Gonzaga, San Diego St., Dayton, and one of the Big East teams (and Florida State, for that matter) all win out.

Bubble Teams

Utah State and Rhode Island are the two teams that my model says are out, but most brackets say are in.

In the case of Utah State, I overruled my model and put them in anyway, but I’m not convinced. The problem is their 4-6 record against Quadrant 1& 2 teams. In the past 4 years, which is as far back as I have the energy to go, I don’t see an at-large team with less than 5.

The one thing they do have going for them, and the reason I put them in the field, is that they played 2 games against solid SEC teams (LSU and Florida) on neutral courts – and won them both. It’s the “they made the most of their opportunities” argument. Ultimately I think that will be enough to get them in – but they should be nervous. They’ll probably get one more shot at San Diego St. in the Mountain West tournament.

Rhode Island is more problematic. I struggle to understand why they are in the field in 90 of 99 brackets:

They have one Quadrant 1 win, and that was at VCU.
Their best non-conference wins are at home against Alabama and at home against Providence, both Quadrant 2.
They played LSU on a neutral court (in the same tournament as Utah State) – and lost by 13.
Their ratings are not eye-popping (NET – 40, BPI – 55, KenPom – 48, Sagarin – 55).

The only team in the past 2 years who received an at large bid with one Quad 1 win is last year’s Nevada team, who was overseeded at #7 and promptly lost to Florida. But their ratings were all much higher.

Rhode Island has a home game left against Dayton, and then the A10 tournament. Obviously a win over Dayton would solidify their position. In the A10 tournament, they could wind up playing Richmond in the semis, which today would be a Quadrant 2 but could wind up being a Quadrant 1. In any case, they need to do more. If they can’t beat Dayton, I think they’re in trouble.

NC State. It’s the annual “Kevin Keatts NC State Bubble Analysis”. My first observation is that their resume is quite different from last season. Last year, the mostly beat the teams they should have beaten, but they lacked quality wins and played a horrible non-conference schedule. This year, they played a better non-conference schedule and have more quality wins – but they’ve lost a bunch of games (7 to be exact) to sub-Quadrant 1 teams.

Overall, I think this year’s team is in a better position, because quality wins help more than bad losses hurt. But 7 Quadrant 2/3 losses is really a lot.

One thing that might encourage Wolfpack fans is their similarity to a team that made the field last year, St. John’s. St. John’s also had 5 Quadrant 1 wins; they had 6 Quadrant 2/3 losses; and a very low NET ranking (73). Ultimately their 5 Quadrant 1 wins pulled them into the field.

In 2018, there were 3 teams with 7 Quadrant 2/3 losses that received at-large bids: Alabama, Florida, and Arizona State. None of them is a perfect analogue. Alabama and Florida played very difficult schedules and had 8 and 9 Quadrant 1 wins, respectively. If you get that many Quadrant 1 wins, you’re in the tournament, period. Arizona State is more interesting – they were only 3-5 in Quadrant 1 games that year, and they were a very controversial selection. If NC State makes it this year, it will be a similar story.

Bracketology 2/28

I tweaked my model a bit yesterday, so expect some teams to move around a bit for no apparent reason. I plan to work on some commentary tomorrow. Here’s the 2/28 Bracket (automatic bids in bold):

Seed	Team 1	Team 2	Team 3	Team 4	Team 5	Team 6
1	Kansas	Baylor	Dayton	Creighton
2	Villanova	Maryland	Gonzaga	San Diego St.
3	Seton Hall	Florida St.	Duke	Oregon
4	Auburn	West Virginia	Louisville	Penn St.
5	Butler	Colorado	Kentucky	Michigan St.
6	Ohio St.	Wisconsin	Marquette	Arizona
7	LSU	BYU	Iowa	Michigan
8	Illinois	Arizona St.	Houston	Xavier
9	Florida	St. Mary’s	Wichita St.	Texas Tech
10	Indiana	Oklahoma	Virginia	Rutgers
11	USC	Stanford	Providence	Arkansas	Cincinnati	Utah State
12	N. Iowa	E. Tenn. St.	North Texas	Yale
13	Akron	Vermont	Stephen F. Austin	Hofstra
14	Belmont	Little Rock	UC Irvine	E. Washington
15	S. Dakota St.	Liberty	New Mexico St.	Colgate
16	Wright St.	Radford	Siena	St. Francis (PA)	Prairie View A&M	NC A&T

Checking In: Arkansas, Stanford, E. Washington

Dropping Out: NC State, Rhode Island, Montana

Last 4 Byes: Virginia, Rutgers, USC, Stanford

Last 4 In: Providence, Arkansas, Cincinnati, Utah St.

First 4 Out: NC State, Rhode Island, Georgetown, Mississippi State

Next 4 Out: Purdue, Richmond, UCLA, Syracuse

Bracketology 2/27

2/27 Bracket (automatic bids in bold, moves up in green, moves down in red):

Seed	Team 1	Team 2	Team 3	Team 4	Team 5	Team 6
1	Kansas	Baylor	Dayton	Creighton
2	Villanova	Seton Hall	Gonzaga	San Diego St.
3	Auburn	Florida St.	Maryland	Oregon
4	Colorado	Duke	Kentucky	Butler
5	West Virginia	Louisville	Penn St.	Iowa
6	Michigan	Wisconsin	Marquette	Michigan St.
7	LSU	Arizona	Ohio St.	Arizona St.
8	Illinois	BYU	Florida	Xavier
9	Providence	St. Mary’s	Oklahoma	Indiana
10	Houston	Wichita St.	Virginia	Texas Tech
11	Rutgers	NC State	Utah State	Rhode Island	USC	Cincinnati
12	N. Iowa	E. Tenn. St.	Vermont	Yale
13	Akron	N. Texas	Stephen F. Austin	Liberty
14	Hofstra	Little Rock	UC Irvine	Colgate
15	Belmont	Montana	New Mexico St.	Wright St.
16	S. Dakota St.	Radford	Siena	St. Francis (PA)	Prairie View A&M	NC A&T

Dropping Out: Georgetown, St. Peter’s

Last 4 Byes: Wichita St., Virginia, Rutgers, NC State

Last 4 In: Utah State, Rhode Island, USC, Cincinnati

First 4 Out: Georgetown, Arkansas, Stanford, UCLA

Next 4 Out: Richmond, South Carolina, Texas, Mississippi St.

Bracketology 2/26

2/26 Bracket (automatic bids in bold):

Seed	Team 1	Team 2	Team 3	Team 4	Team 5	Team 6
1	Kansas	Baylor	Dayton	Creighton
2	Villanova	Seton Hall	Gonzaga	San Diego St.
3	Auburn	Florida St.	Maryland	Oregon
4	Colorado	Duke	Kentucky	Louisville
5	West Virginia	Butler	Penn St.	Iowa
6	Michigan	Wisconsin	Marquette	LSU
7	Michigan St.	Arizona	Ohio St.	Arizona St.
8	Illinois	BYU	Indiana	Xavier
9	Providence	St. Mary’s	Oklahoma	Florida
10	Houston	Wichita St.	Virginia	Texas Tech
11	Rutgers	Georgetown	NC State	Rhode Island	USC	Cincinnati
12	N. Iowa	E. Tenn. St.	Vermont	Yale
13	Akron	N. Texas	Stephen F. Austin	Liberty
14	Hofstra	Little Rock	UC Irvine	Colgate
15	Belmont	Montana	New Mexico St.	Wright St.
16	S. Dakota St.	Radford	St. Peter’s	Merrimack	Prairie View A&M	NC A&T

Last 4 Byes: Wichita St., Virginia, Rutgers, Georgetown

Last 4 In: NC State, Rhode Island, USC, Cincinnati

First 4 Out: Arkansas, Stanford, UCLA, South Carolina

Next 4 Out: Mississippi St., Richmond, Texas, Alabama

The Greatness of Mariano, Part 1

I am an unabashed Mariano Rivera fan. He’s probably my favorite player of all time who isn’t named Mattingly. And I have reflected a lot over the years about his surpassing greatness. Calling him the greatest reliever of all time doesn’t do it justice. With all due respect to Goose Gossage or Trevor Hoffman or Hoyt Wilhelm or whoever else might be second, he is so much better than any other reliever that somehow we need a different lens to view him through.

One way that I have thought about it is to try to conceive of how a reliever could be better than Mariano Rivera. Is that even possible? What would the characteristics of such a player have to be? You could take Mariano’s career stats and then create an imaginary player who improves on all of them by 10%, but somehow that doesn’t really help to answer the question of whether it’s realistic to think there could be such a player. I think a better way to think about it is to try to answer this question: has any reliever ever established a sustained level of performance, over multiple years, that is better than Mariano’s standard level of performance? If so, then at least there is a foundation for how a reliever could be better than Mo, if he could sustain that performance over a longer period of time.

To try to answer that question, I looked for the greatest sustained peak stretches of relief pitching in history, where a sustained peak is defined as of at least 3 consecutive years of pitching that is at least in the neighborhood of Mariano’s average level. I was able to find 19 such stretches:

Goose Gossage 1975, 1977-1985
Trevor Hoffman 1996-2001
Billy Wagner 1999, 2001-2006
Joe Nathan 2004-2009
Francisco Rodriguez 2004-2008
Keith Foulke 1999-2004
Jonathan Papelbon 2006-2009
Dennis Eckersley 1987-1992
Bruce Sutter 1976-1980
John Wetteland 1993-1998
Troy Percival 1995-1997
Craig Kimbrel 2012-2017
Kenley Jansen 2013-2017
Dan Quisenberry 1980-1985
Hoyt Wilhelm 1961-1965
Aroldis Chapman 2012-2016
Eric Gagne 2002-2004
Zach Britton 2014-2016
Joakim Soria 2007-2010

Then I compared those stretches to Mariano’s entire career, excepting 1995, when he was a starter, and 2012, when he was injured.

In a couple of cases, I allowed a skip year. Wagner 2000 and Mariano 2012 were injury years, so I left them out. Gossage 1976 was the year where Paul Richards tried to make him a starter, so I threw that out.

To measure the quality of each reliever, I used the following stats (all data from fangraphs):

Average WAR
Average WPA
Average RE24
Average WPA/LI
ERA-

I then stack ranked each statistic individually 1-20 and added the stack ranks together to create a cumulative score for each reliever. The best possible score would be 5; the worst would be 100.

There is nothing magical about this particular selection of statistics for measuring reliever quality. WPA seems to be a favored statistic for reliever, and I understand why, but I think it’s important to balance that with some non-contextual stats, for one simple reason: a reliever largely does not control his context. For that reason, it doesn’t seem fair to evaluate a reliever completely on context-dependent stats. So I created a blended statistic combining content-dependent and context-independent stats.

Anyway, here are the results:

Player	Year	# Seasons	WAR Avg	WPA Avg	RE24 Avg	WPA/LI Avg	ERA- Avg	WAR Rank	WPA Rank	RE24 Rank	WPA/LI Rank	ERA- Rank	Total Score
Eric Gagne	2002-2004	3	3.90	5.78	24.93	2.73	45	1	1	2	1	4	9
Joe Nathan	2004-2009	6	2.37	4.00	23.19	1.97	42	8	4	4	7	3	26
Jonathan Papelbon	2006-2009	4	2.45	3.98	22.96	1.86	38	7	5	5	10	2	29
Zack Britton	2014-2016	3	1.87	4.34	23.24	2.12	34	18	2	3	5	1	29
Keith Foulke	1999-2004	6	2.12	3.33	25.71	2.20	52	14	12	1	2	12	41
Mariano Rivera	1996-2011, 2013	17	2.25	3.29	20.56	1.91	45	9	13	8	8	4	42
Goose Gossage	1975, 1977-1985	10	2.73	3.66	20.30	1.78	54	3	9	9	12	15	48
Dennis Eckersley	1987-1992	6	2.55	3.24	20.26	2.14	53	6	15	10	3	14	48
Dan Quisenberry	1980-1985	6	1.92	3.88	21.75	2.13	61	16	6	7	4	19	52
Billy Wagner	1999, 2001-2006	7	2.16	3.54	19.27	1.88	47	13	11	13	9	8	54
Troy Percival	1995-1997	3	1.93	3.87	22.85	1.67	52	15	7	6	14	12	54
Bruce Sutter	1976-1980	5	3.22	3.25	19.45	1.84	60	2	14	12	11	17	56
Joakim Soria	2007-2010	4	1.75	4.07	18.88	1.52	45	20	3	14	16	4	57
Craig Kimbrel	2012-2017	6	2.23	3.04	16.03	1.52	45	10	16	16	17	4	63
Francisco Rodriguez	2004-2008	5	2.22	3.59	16.61	1.51	50	12	10	15	18	10	65
Trevor Hoffman	1996-2001	6	2.23	3.69	15.51	1.76	60	10	8	18	13	17	66
Aroldis Chapman	2012-2016	5	2.58	2.44	15.76	1.51	47	4	19	17	19	8	67
Kenley Jansen	2013-2017	5	2.56	2.98	14.75	1.57	54	5	17	20	15	15	72
Hoyt Wilhelm	1961-1965	5	1.86	2.32	20.18	2.04	61	19	20	11	6	19	75
John Wetteland	1993-1998	6	1.90	2.63	15.46	1.48	50	17	18	19	20	10	84

I would group these into 3 categories. Keep in mind, we are comparing these relievers’ peaks with Rivera’s average.

1) Definitely better than Mariano – Gagne, Nathan, Papelbon, Britton

2) Similar to Mariano’s level, and would at least have an argument – Foulke, Gossage, Eckersley, Quisenberry, Wagner, Percival, Sutter, Soria

3) Really good, but not at Mariano’s level – Kimbrel, K-Rod, Hoffman, Chapman, Jansen, Wilhelm, Wetteland

From this, I conclude that four relievers have succeeded at establishing a level that was, for a sustained period of time, better than Mariano’s average.

1) Gagne 2002-2004. I don’t think there can be any argument that Gagne’s 2002-2004 level of performance represents the greatest three-year stretch of relief pitching in the history of baseball.

2) Britton 2014-2016. Almost as good as Gagne. Only his WAR is dragging him down, which is probably an anomaly of some kind. WAR for relief pitchers is a bit sketchy anyway.

3) Papelbon 2006-2009. Incredible. He had other good years, but there was clearly a drop-off in performance after 2009 where he went from elite to just good.

4) Nathan 2004-2009. I have to admit that I found this surprising. I knew Nathan was good, but I didn’t know he was this good. It’s worth noting that he got hurt in 2010 and had TJ surgery. After the injury, he worked his way back to one more great season in 2012 at age 38 before finally dropping off the cliff.

So where does that leave us? The longest period where any reliever has been better than Mariano is Joe Nathan from 2004-2009. IF he hadn’t gotten hurt and had maintained the same level of performance through 2012, and IF he had been moved to the bullpen prior to age 28, then maybe, just maybe, you have a reliever who could challenge Mariano.

Of course I am leaving aside the whole subject of postseason performance, which is another massive element of Mariano’s greatness. Even 14 years of Joe Nathan’s best probably isn’t enough to make up for Mariano’s postseason heroics, but it would be a good debate.

Author: thesnac

Bracketology 3/1

Bracket Commentary 2/29

Bracketology 2/28

Bracketology 2/27

Bracketology 2/26

The Greatness of Mariano, Part 1