Does Murray State get in the tournament?

Does it matter to baseball?

Bear with me.

Murray State played exactly one top-50 team (Xavier), and lost by 27.  But it tore through its low-mid-major conference (16-0 in the Ohio Valley) and went 21-1 against teams ranked 150 or lower by RPI.

Then it lost in its conference tournament and now its fate is the in the hands of the committee.

Here's the whole ESPN nitty-gritty.

Now we have this debate every year, don't we?  (At least those of us who follow college hoop.)

But consider the underlying assumption:

Games against lesser competition don't matter as much no matter how you slice it.

Beat Southeast Missouri State all day long.  Pound on Tennessee Tech into submission.

But if you only have eight chances against teams in the top 150, best not go 4-4 with the best win over No. 68.

***

Of course, there's grousing against the fact that mid-majors have a hard time scheduling games against the Big Boys.

But that's a different argument.

In fact, that argument also presupposes the notion that the "quality win" is by its very nature better than the "generic win" -- that the need to show you can compete with the best is, in fact, paramount, and it is, in fact, fundamentally unfair to allow a structure that denies mid-major teams the opportunity to demonstrate it.

Beat Michigan State > Beat Tennessee Tech

If that's not true, then why complain that the Big Boys won't schedule you?

***

Notre Dame, by the way, is 26-5.  Murray State is 25-5.  Compare:

vs. top 50: ND 5-3 | MS 0-1

vs. top 100: ND 10-5 | MS 1-2

vs. top 150: ND 14-5 | MS 4-4

vs. below 150: ND 12-0 | MS 21-1

The only way they compare at all is "overall record" (virtually identical) and "record vs. really bad teams."  Against good teams, however, there is no comparison, and no serious person would act is if those two seasons were comparable.

***

OK, so Jeff is waging another uphill slog with the Established Order on the issue of "clutch" performers.

It's not an issue that I have studied or spent much time with the available research and analysis, but I can bring the perspective of a minors analyst.

From that perspective, I can tell you that it matters -- a lot -- whether a player is facing a "Notre Dame" schedule (so to speak) or a "Murray State" schedule.

Players who go on to excel in the majors are almost always the ones who excel in the minors when facing the best of their peers ... or players who are not their peers because they are more experienced.

Players who excel only against players who are less experienced, or against players who are not the best of their peers, are less likely to succeed at the highest level.

An experienced guy who runs a great stat line at a low level (as an ACC hoop team playing an Ohio Valley schedule would do) may in fact be a great prospect, but the impressive results don't tell us much about that.  We have to wait and see what he does at higher levels.

And I don't really think that's controversial.

Obviously, in the majors, players will be facing the very best of their peers, and they better have that ability to hold their own.  Beating up on lesser talent doesn't tell us much.

***

Now, I don't know about game situations and I haven't thought about it a whole lot.  

But I do know that you can separate players based on whether they are capable of beating the best or just feasting on mediocrity -- just as the committee will separate Notre Dame from Murray State.

And it ought to be clear that in the postseason the opportunity to feast on mediocrity will be greatly diminished.  So we ought to expect those who don't have that "extra level" of ability to fade somewhat in that situation.

So whether or not "clutch-ness" is a separate skill, it really shouldn't be controversial that not everyone has the ability to go toe-to-toe with the best of the best.