Fun With Numbers: 2016 Pairwise Predictor, What-Ifs, and Other Goodies

[zoofer]

Re: Fun With Numbers: 2016 Pairwise Predictor, What-Ifs, and Other Goodies

Just to satisfy my own jingoistic impulses for UNH, If we take into account the history of women's hockey, not just the last 5 years, (oh you youngsters and what you do with history), for how many years did we own such stats? Do any of you remember when DC put on the uniform? UNH didn't lose a game for 4 or 5 years! And many times thruout the 40 years hence, have we dominated.....yes, you can say in this day of"what have you done for me lately", we fall horribly short but that's why we're called fans.....because we ride the roller coaster with all it's excitement! So enjoy the present day successes, as we did in Durham, for over the horizon comes the dip.....IMHO

[Ted Knight]

Re: Fun With Numbers: 2016 Pairwise Predictor, What-Ifs, and Other Goodies

Just to satisfy my own jingoistic impulses for UNH, If we take into account the history of women's hockey, not just the last 5 years, (oh you youngsters and what you do with history), for how many years did we own such stats? Do any of you remember when DC put on the uniform? UNH didn't lose a game for 4 or 5 years! And many times thruout the 40 years hence, have we dominated.....yes, you can say in this day of"what have you done for me lately", we fall horribly short but that's why we're called fans.....because we ride the roller coaster with all it's excitement! So enjoy the present day successes, as we did in Durham, for over the horizon comes the dip.....IMHO

so sad

[5mn_Major]

Re: Fun With Numbers: 2016 Pairwise Predictor, What-Ifs, and Other Goodies

Yes but I think BC is probably not going to run the table. Assuming UW and UM come close to a split, a BC with a loss or two would probably be behind the two of them.

It's a theory I could actually test out with the predictor! I might just do that tonight when I get home from work.

I have to believe the UW MN series will end up 3 games to 1 Gophers or better. Just have to believe that...although the Gophers have been surprised periodically, its really been over 5 years since they were beat by a team that proved to be consistently better. That's quite a run.

[zoofer]

Re: Fun With Numbers: 2016 Pairwise Predictor, What-Ifs, and Other Goodies

Ted, in a thread discussing who has the most games with so and so goal differential, I hardly think perspective is sad, but you're entitled.....at TTT does it tongue and cheek!

[CrazyDave]

Re: Fun With Numbers: 2016 Pairwise Predictor, What-Ifs, and Other Goodies

Ted, in a thread discussing who has the most games with so and so goal differential, I hardly think perspective is sad, but you're entitled.....at TTT does it tongue and cheek!

Be careful. Ted may decide that his insult-to-meaningful contribution ratio is too low.

[Ted Knight]

Re: Fun With Numbers: 2016 Pairwise Predictor, What-Ifs, and Other Goodies

Ted, in a thread discussing who has the most games with so and so goal differential, I hardly think perspective is sad, but you're entitled.....at TTT does it tongue and cheek!

my God you people are nuts. the guy is posting telling everyone that a team was on top of the world at one time and that over the horizon comes a dip.

does that not sound sad to you?

[Ted Knight]

Re: Fun With Numbers: 2016 Pairwise Predictor, What-Ifs, and Other Goodies

CD, I've seen the light on insulting. St Ignatius is always watching. no more wasting good ones on Midwest settlers. unless in person

[Ted Knight]

Re: Fun With Numbers: 2016 Pairwise Predictor, What-Ifs, and Other Goodies

it lasted exactly 2 minutes. sorry

[TonyTheTiger20]

Re: Fun With Numbers: 2016 Pairwise Predictor, What-Ifs, and Other Goodies

When was the last time St. Cloud was a TUC??

[ARM]

Re: Fun With Numbers: 2016 Pairwise Predictor, What-Ifs, and Other Goodies

When was the last time St. Cloud was a TUC??

SCSU finished third in the WCHA in 2010, and then all of its offense graduated, and it has been seventh or eighth thereafter.

[5mn_Major]

Re: Fun With Numbers: 2016 Pairwise Predictor, What-Ifs, and Other Goodies

Somethings messed up with the women's PWR and/or RPI. BC's SOS is shown to be about the same as UMD. UMD should have a bone crushing SOS where BC should not be in contention. Based on that weird math, BC's hyped SOS catapults it to top RPI and UW drops to third. Then switch over to PWR...and mysteriously UW's RPI makes a comeback to #1.

Bad numbers almost guaranteed.

[TonyTheTiger20]

Somethings messed up with the women's PWR and/or RPI. BC's SOS is shown to be about the same as UMD. UMD should have a bone crushing SOS where BC should not be in contention. Based on that weird math, BC's hyped SOS catapults it to top RPI and UW drops to third. Then switch over to PWR...and mysteriously UW's RPI makes a comeback to #1.

Bad numbers almost guaranteed.

Yeah the USCHO RPI link is wrong while the USCHO PWR link is right. I'm not sure what it's doing. I think maybe the RPI link isn't removing "bad wins"...

I'll have to compare to my spreadsheet to see what it's doing. I'm the meantime my link has accurate RPI down past the TUCs if you're looking to see everyone's RPI past the TUC line.

I can also add correct RPI SOS to see if something is wrong with USCHO's SOS numbers.

EDIT 1: The RPI page is indeed not removing "bad wins." That's the difference there. I'm not sure why it's not going it, it always used to.

EDIT 2: The RPI SOS is being calculated corrected on USCHO. It's calculated at a ratio of (.24/.70) times opponents' winning percentage plus (.46/.70) times opponents' opponents' winning percentage.

Or less confusingly, SOS = [(OppW%)*(.24/.7)]+[(OppOppW%)*(.46/.7)]

I'll add this to my spreadsheet this afternoon. I actually already did it (that's how I can tell you USCHO is right) but can't upload to the host site until I get home.

[TonyTheTiger20]

Re: Fun With Numbers: 2016 Pairwise Predictor, What-Ifs, and Other Goodies

Also, KRACH is still ignoring all games against Merrimack so it's inaccurate.

[TonyTheTiger20]

Re: Fun With Numbers: 2016 Pairwise Predictor, What-Ifs, and Other Goodies

TRIPLE POST!

Oh and if you're interested in this sort of mental exercise -- you may be wondering "why is Wisconsin's SOS so much lower than BC's and yet they are ranked higher in the PWR despite both having undefeated records?"

The reason is "bad wins." When you have an undefeated record, the only games that count in your RPI are your "best" opponent. Every other game is thrown out.

In this case, Wisconsin's best opponent is Bemidji State and BC's is (interestingly) St. Lawrence*.

*this is due to SLU's extremely high opponents' winning percentage.

So, while overall Wisconsin's schedule has been dogcrap, (), its best opponent has been better than BC's best opponent. And when you think about it, when two teams are undefeated, that's probably a pretty fair way of ranking them.

[ARM]

Re: Fun With Numbers: 2016 Pairwise Predictor, What-Ifs, and Other Goodies

So, while overall Wisconsin's schedule has been dogcrap, (), its best opponent has been better than BC's best opponent. And when you think about it, when two teams are undefeated, that's probably a pretty fair way of ranking them.

It might be fair in certain cases, but there would definitely be cases where it would be unfair, and as with most things, RPI has to rely on dumb luck because it is incapable of making a meaningful calculation. Team A and Team B could be undefeated at this point. Team A could play most of its games against teams near the bottom, and one game against a team just a bit better than Team B's best opponent. Meanwhile, Team B could be playing all of its games against teams of relatively even strength, meaning most of its "bad" games are much better results than those of Team A. Due to its limitations, RPI is forced to discard the bulk of the information available to it, because it lacks an ability to do anything useful with it. Thus, RPI would judge them on the basis of one game apiece, while ignoring the fact that Team A is playing a weaker schedule overall.