Part of the Bay Area News Group

East Bay Baseball Poll – 4/25

By Ben Enos
Monday, April 25th, 2011 at 3:57 pm in Uncategorized.

Not a ton of movement this week. Enjoy.

Team Record Points Last week
1. Alameda (7) 14-1 105 1
2. Clayton Valley 12-1-2 98 2
3. San Ramon Valley 12-2 91 t3
4. Granada 12-4 82 5
5. De La Salle 12-3 76 6
6. James Logan 13-2 72 t3
7. Monte Vista 11-4 61 7
8. Campolindo 10-6-1 54 9
9. Albany 14-3 48 8
10. Alhambra 11-5 38 10
11. Heritage 10-5 37 12
12. California 9-6 19 14
13. El Cerrito 11-6 17 NR
14. Amador Valley 7-8 15 11
15. Bishop O’Dowd 11-5-1 13 15

Also receiving votes: Dougherty Valley (12-4, 9  points), Deer Valley (9-6, 5). The East Bay Prep Baseball Poll is voted on by the prep sports staff of Bay Area News Group-East Bay.

[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]

  • Voiceofreason

    Poor research. Amador is 7-8. Not 7-6.

  • Ben Enos

    I fixed it. Two of their tourney games hadn’t been reported when this got put together yesterday.

  • FalconDad

    College Park 11-4 overall. #23 in Freeman Ratings.

    Teams somehow ranked above CP in CC Times yet below in the Freeman Ratings which are accurate and most important:

    Albany ranked #26
    Doughtery Valley ranked #27
    Alhambra ranked #28
    Bishop O’Dowd ranked #30
    El Cerrito ranked #45

  • Gdog

    If the Freeman ratings are the most important and you are ranked higher there what are you complaining about? Not sure how you determined that the Freeman ratings were the most important anyway.

    BTW the Freeman ratings after the Basketball season was over, still ranked Sheldon much higher than DLS even after DLS beat them twice head to head.

    I will grant that it is hard to rank during the year until teams play each other and the playoffs sort things out. But after the season is over and another team beats the other multiple times. You can keep the Freeman ratings as far as I am concerned.

  • well..

    If you have to argue for your school to be in the rankings, then they probably don’t deserve to be…

    Freeman rankings are a math problem, these rankings are from people who have likely actually SEEN the teams play. The CP coach is well known for scheduling lightweights to pad HIS record. Although the 2011 schedule may be one he inherited to some degree, I would bet that next year’s CP non-league will be even easier than this year’s.

    CP’s non-league schedule is against teams that are a collective 41-58-1.

    By comparison, Clayton Valley’s non-league opponents are 65-45-6.

    One team challenges themselves and looks for quality opponents to GET better, the other team looks for easy games to make their record LOOK better.

  • FalconDad

    The NCS seeds have been VERY close to the Freeman ratings in all sports the last 3 seasons.

  • well..

    That doesn’t legitimize them, it just means that the seeding committee might be lazy.

  • Chs101214

    Freeman rankings appear predominantly formula based and decreases head to head value in baseball in early season calcs. With FB, it’s fairly accurate as there are fewer contests to formulaically have a significant margin of error. Plus, with FB, the EBAL regularly, although exceptions are there, have interleague games with high SOS schools, thus building rating even with the occasional L. With baseball, less ability to schedule for and out of league maintaining a high SOS, plus more game volume leads to greater disparity in calcs. For example, numerous of examples in Freeman not reflecting head to head. Thusly, those formulas not as consistent overall versus FB. Eventually though, as the volume of results increases, it tips past the point of head to head influence ( or dimished thereof) on early polls, e.g. AV.

  • Gdog

    I have not seen any of the teams play so FalconDad actually knows more than I do. He obviously wants to lobby for his team, which he should. Possibly he should point to their quality wins and that their losses are all to teams ranked higher than them as the basis for his argument rather than just the Freeman ratings.

    Since we are talking about the Freeman ratings it is a nice tool but has major built in problems due to the math. Anytime you use margin or victory there will be comparison problems. For example if Team A is a high scoring team and beats Team C by 20 Pts they get a value. If Team B is a low scoring team and beats Team C by 6 pts they get a value. Is A then better than B? According to Freeman they are. So if you have 6 common opponents and the results are all the same A will have a much higher rating than B. However, when A & B play once and B wins by 2 points A remains ranked higher based upon the average of the 7 results. The Freeman ratings can’t account for that. I could give you so many examples it is ridiculous. I have personnaly watched out of state teams that are ranked in the top 500 in the country, because they have a 20-2 record that could not win a league title in the East Bay. More information than we all needed to know about Freeman but just take all these ratings with a grain of salt. I don’t know if the human ones are much better. The nice thing is CP will make the NCS and have a chance to prove it’s worth.

  • Prep Fan

    If you want to use the Freeman ratings for the East Bay Poll top 15, CP still would not qualify anyway. #23 in the Freeman ratings (actually #25 as of today) is not going to get a team into the top 15. There are only 5 non-East Bay teams ahead of CP in the Freeman ratings, which would put them at #20 in the East Bay Poll. CP has been playing well this year and just needs to keep posting those W’s rather than worrying about the polls.

    http://calpreps.com/2010-2011-boysbaseball/ratings/North_Coast_all.htm

  • THEanonymous

    I think the freemen ratings are brilliant. I’ve had many periods of scrolling through calpreps trying to analyze the numerical ratings of teams and keep up-to-date on them to make sure they are accurate. I can practically assure you they are. I have no idea how the numbers are calculated, but when I look at the records and strengths of schedules, I see them highly related to the numbers, and in ways they are not, scores may settle those differences. I have a very high aptitude for analyzing data, so that subsidizes my assurance.
    Human ratings only differ in that a team may have gained or lost key players or that a team has a lot or little potential. They usually don’t differ by much, which is no surprise, considering humans developed the rating system. The issues described here (i.e. Ranking a head to head winner below the team they beat) all reflect knowledge of only part of the system. Remember that there could be two teams, one 15-1 and one 1-15 with the 1-15 team beating the 15-1 team, that obviously doesn’t mean the 1-15 team should be ahead in the rankings. Situations like this show why college park seems to high in the rankings, in reality, they have played a dval schedule featuring a lot of depth, which in those teams may in fact also feature underrated records, dubs college park’s record as underrated. For similar reasons, Clayton Valley may be considered to have an overrated record by the rankings, etc.
    By the way, FalconDad is right, and this shows the NCS does a better job with seeding than people think.