MAKING SENSE OF RPI is like trying to unravel the mysteries of WAR.
In my baseball discussion group, I’ve come to detest WAR (Wins Above Replacement). Why? Because I like stats that actually make sense 100 percent of the time. Not sometimes. WAR has this exasperating tendency to create “anomalies.” It tends to put too much value on bases on balls and can reward players who play at weak positions (or punish players who play at strong positions). The stat contains a lot of subjectivity.
When people ask me what I don’t like about WAR, I say, “Four words … Buddy Bell, Bobby Grich.”
Going by WAR and WAR alone (and a lot of baseball statheads do, trust me), both Buddy Bell and Bobby Grich should have been first-ballot, no-brainer Hall of Famers, because they both have some of the highest career WAR numbers of all time. Never heard of Buddy Bell? Don’t feel bad, hardly anyone remembers him. Bobby Grich? Hit .266 for his career with a bit of power, but ended up with fewer than 2,000 hits, 225 HRs and 1,000 RBIs. But, hey, WAR says put that man in the Hall of Fame, because he played second base, which at the time was a very weak position in baseball.
Which brings me to the WIAA’s new RPI (which stands for Rating Percentage Index) system to help determine basketball teams qualifying for their state tournaments. The NCAA and several states use it. Like WAR, RPI is not making sense 100 percent of the time. And call me weird, but I like numbers to always make sense.
There was a big outcry when the WIAA announced it was going to RPI. I wasn’t sure what the fuss was about the time, but I paid attention to it. Now, I see what some coaches were talking about.
Washington tried the RPI on a trial basis for the 3A level. It looks to me that Washington perhaps should have given this another year or at the trial level at different classifications, especially smaller schools, because it definitely appears they need to tweak their formula. I’m thinking the WIAA’s formula is giving too much weight to strength of schedule and not enough to results.
The problems I’ve seen so far is among the A and B class schools. It’s possible RPI may not work well for these small schools, where schools are limited by budget and geography to whom they can really schedule. Also, not all games are necessarily reported to the WIAA and MaxPreps from these tiny schools. For instance, it appears that at least five Chief Kitsap scores have not been reported to the WIAA.
Is it possible that not reporting games played against weak teams could actually help a team’s RPI because of the weight given to strength of schedule?
In the B division, for some reason, the Neah Bay boys are not getting the love from RPI, even though they are 12-3 and have played a bunch of games against 1A schools. A couple of weeks ago, Neah Bay, the defending state 1B champion, was ranked as low as No. 13 among 1B schools.
The Red Devils, winners of 11 straight, have managed to claw their way up to No 7, right behind Chief Kitsap at No. 6. Neah Bay has beaten Chief Kitsap twice — and pretty soundly both times. But, in the RPI, Chief Kitsap remains ranked higher than Neah Bay. Somehow, head-to-head results don’t seem to be getting a lot of weight in the rankings.
About a week ago, the Quilcene girls were ranked as high as No. 4, but they struggled in the Sea-Tac 1B League league over the past couple of weeks and that wasn’t being represented. Tacoma Baptist, undefeated at 17-0, was down around No. 11 a week ago. This in spite of Tacoma Baptist soundly beating Quilcene a week earlier.
Even for the Neah Bay girls, the RPI rankings doesn’t seem right. The girls at 12-3 are ranked at No. 11.
Now, the rankings are shifting and making a little more sense, but, boy the shift has been glacial. Quilcene has dropped down to No. 13 and Tacoma Baptist has moved up to No. 8, which still seems a bit low for an 18-0 team.
Among the 1A boys is where this gets really weird.
The Port Townsend boys at 12-3 have won seven straight, but they continue to sit waaaaay down at No. 30 in the RPI. There isn’t another 12-win team anywhere near Port Townsend in the rankings.
Here’s where it gets weird — there’s six teams with losing records ahead of Port Townsend, including a team that’s 5-10 (Nooksack Valley, ranked No. 25). In fact, there’s 10 teams with non-winning seasons ahead of Port Townsend.
I get that strength of schedule deserves some weight, and that Port Townsend is playing in a small four-school league and the rest of the Olympic League 1A Division is not that strong, but a team going 12-3 should be rewarded with better than 30th out of 63 schools.
And I don’t know what 5-10 team is doing at 25th out of 63 schools (or a 6-8 team at 21st or an 8-8 team at 17th, for that matter). The Redhawks appear to be getting hosed by this new system. I hope this doesn’t somehow keep Port Townsend from qualifying for State.
Anyway, I hope the WIAA promises to refine this system and I hope they keep their promise. Because it needs to at least make sense for all involved.
(Editor’s Note: The day this column was published, the Neah Bay boys jumped from No. 7 to No. 3 in the RPI rankings.)
