PDA

View Full Version : RPI 2013/14: Sunny, with a slight chance of drivel



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 [43] 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69

FlagDUDE08
11-11-2013, 10:01 AM
Where are you coming up with these numbers? Depending on where I look (collegehockeynews.com / rpihockey.net) RPI is currently either 12th or 13th in PWR after yesterday's games. Even the RPI table on this site (http://www.uscho.com/rankings/rpi/d-i-men/) has Rensselaer at 12th in RPI.

I am using the RPI and PWR calculator at wa2aea.com . I have found through USCHO's calculations that they are not correctly doing the weighting for win percentage, and neither site is calculating the Quality Wins Bonus that is new for this year, as described by several notes seen in the summer. It is true that RPI is high in RatingsPI prior to the Quality Wins Bonus, but are brought down immensely because they have not beat any quality opponents yet this year, while the several teams that have passed RPI in that calculation have either won or tied games against "quality opponents". For specific examples, I'm willing to discuss it on the several RatingsPI and PWR threads, or we can discuss via private message.

JCrawford
11-11-2013, 10:40 AM
Don't believe me? Do the calculations out yourself. I actually e-mailed Chris Lerch about these phenomena, and he did mention to me that they will not adjust their calculations until January.

I'll continue to remain skeptical until I start seeing others who have been doing this for years come up with the same numbers. Sorry if I'm skeptical of the "it's this because I say it is" line of argument.

RPI_2003
11-11-2013, 10:51 AM
I am using the RPI and PWR calculator at wa2aea.com . I have found through USCHO's calculations that they are not correctly doing the weighting for win percentage, and neither site is calculating the Quality Wins Bonus that is new for this year, as described by several notes seen in the summer. It is true that RPI is high in RatingsPI prior to the Quality Wins Bonus, but are brought down immensely because they have not beat any quality opponents yet this year, while the several teams that have passed RPI in that calculation have either won or tied games against "quality opponents". For specific examples, I'm willing to discuss it on the several RatingsPI and PWR threads, or we can discuss via private message.

FlagDUDE, I'm trying to get my head around PairWise. What's the definition of a "quality opponent?"

sshablak
11-11-2013, 10:52 AM
I just watched the Colgate game on RPI tv, very good coverage and I thought pretty much non biased. Very strange game, thought two of the majors were very questionable.

JCrawford
11-11-2013, 10:54 AM
Don't believe me? Do the calculations out yourself. I actually e-mailed Chris Lerch about these phenomena, and he did mention to me that they will not adjust their calculations until January.

It'd be nice to view the source to see how exactly the calculations are done in the WA2AEA calculator, but the software publisher seems to be violating the GPL (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt):


Convey the object code by offering access from a designated
place (gratis or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to the
Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place at no
further charge.

The terms (http://wa2aea.com/index.php) stating "These applications are produced under the GNU General Public License. Downloads of the applications are free, but any source code requests require a $5 donation per application, per request." seem to violate the "equivalent access" clause of the license terms. If the software is available as a free download, then so must the source code. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowDownloadFee

FlagDUDE08
11-11-2013, 10:57 AM
I'll continue to remain skeptical until I start seeing others who have been doing this for years come up with the same numbers. Sorry if I'm skeptical of the "it's this because I say it is" line of argument.

Not surprising given our past quarrels, but understandable given this is the first year that college hockey has used both home/away weighting and the quality wins bonus in its calculations.

USCHO uses 1.2 if you are away and 0.8 if you are at home, regardless of game outcome. However, many other sources that I have found, most of them being for basketball but still relevant because they, to quote you, "have been doing this for years", show that the higher weight is applied to a road win or home loss, while the lower weight goes to a home win or road loss. This makes sense because given the phenomena of sports, there is a slight bias in possible outcomes that the home team is expected to win. Basketball may use a higher weighting (theirs is 1.4/0.6), but the method of calculation is still the same. The rest of the WP, OWP, and OOWP is correct, and I have used the sources you have previously cited to ensure that I am calculating those correctly.

The Quality Wins Bonus is the factor that is really providing the difference that you are seeing in the weighting. From USCHO's article:


Quality Wins Bonus
The Quality Wins Bonus is implemented to reward performance against the strongest competition, as measured by the top 20 teams in the RPI (calculated per above).

The maximum bonus of 5.00 points in any single game is earned with a win against the #1 team in the RPI. A bonus of 4.75 points is earned for a win against the #2 team, 4.50 is earned for a win against the #3 team, and so on until the smallest bonus of 0.25 points, which is earned for a win against the #20 team.

As a tie is one-half of a win, the bonus for a tie against any top 20 team is one-half of the corresponding win bonus against the same team.

Read more: http://www.uscho.com/2013/09/20/road-wins-quality-wins-get-boosts-in-changes-to-ncaa-tournament-selection-criteria/#ixzz2kMAnDlMT


RPI is 14th prior to this Quality Wins Bonus, but has yet to defeat or tie any teams that are in the top 20, so they don't get any bonus points. I list the top 20 teams in the "NCAA Selection Process" thread.

FlagDUDE08
11-11-2013, 10:58 AM
FlagDUDE, I'm trying to get my head around PairWise. What's the definition of a "quality opponent?"

A "quality opponent", as defined by the selection criteria, is a team that is in the Top 20 of RatingsPI prior to any calculation of quality wins bonus. BU is actually 28th in this calculation, so they are not yet a quality win for us.

Ralph Baer
11-11-2013, 11:31 AM
We remain at #10 in the USCHO poll http://www.uscho.com/rankings/.

turk181
11-11-2013, 11:35 AM
We remain at #10 in the USCHO poll http://www.uscho.com/rankings/.Zoiks Scoob, look who's #11....yeah Shaggy but THEY STILL SUCK......

ibanezist00
11-11-2013, 11:37 AM
Zoiks Scoob, look who's #11....yeah Shaggy but THEY STILL SUCK......

Gotta respect the fact that they were UNANIMOUSLY picked to finish last in the ECAC by everyone whose opinion matters, and yet here they are.

turk181
11-11-2013, 11:50 AM
Well put indictment of Paul Stewart. The bias that I have talked about exists.:eek:......"Stewy, you've made one lousy call after another tonight and I'm sick of you trying to stick it to my players," ....http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/Paul-Stewart/Pat-Burns-Anti-Homerism-and-the-Hall-of-Fame/196/55595#.UoEXtSj_Tao

drshoen
11-11-2013, 12:12 PM
We remain at #10 in the USCHO poll http://www.uscho.com/rankings/. Best news of all - 6 ECAC teams in top 20 (and 3 more getting votes), not bad for a lousy conference.

AspyDad
11-11-2013, 02:01 PM
:eek:......"Stewy, you've made one lousy call after another tonight and I'm sick of you trying to stick it to my players," ....http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/Paul-Stewart/Pat-Burns-Anti-Homerism-and-the-Hall-of-Fame/196/55595#.UoEXtSj_Tao

Stewy's own words shows that he has rabbit ears.

DrDemento
11-11-2013, 02:45 PM
We remain at #10 in the USCHO poll http://www.uscho.com/rankings/.

Not much to argue about with those numbers but I still feel that 2 teams with 4 losses each are ranked too highly(regardless of the toughness of their schedule) and why Harvard and Brown got votes is a bit of a mystery. I would have ranked QU higher(perhaps 4th) after watching the Yale game Saturday. But just still too early to make much out of this. Another couple weekends and we should have a much better idea of whether these polls mean anything.

sk8tronthepond
11-11-2013, 02:50 PM
Stewy's own words shows that he has rabbit ears.

Show me a coach or referee who doesn't and I'll show you an Obamacare web site that doesn't crash!!:)

Ralph Baer
11-11-2013, 08:26 PM
Best news of all - 6 ECAC teams in top 20 (and 3 more getting votes), not bad for a lousy conference.

I agree. The problem is that none of the teams are ranked really high with QU the highest at #6.

hab
11-11-2013, 08:54 PM
I guess we will just have to be in disagreement on this one:) but it appears neither of us felt this call was justified for one reason or another.

I will withhold further response until I have an opportunity to meet you in person some day (over a vodka gimlet perhaps?).;)

DrDemento
11-12-2013, 06:50 AM
I will withhold further response until I have an opportunity to meet you in person some day (over a vodka gimlet perhaps?).;)

Absolutley! If you are planning a trip to the Princeton game let us know. (Just bring some Harry and David Royal Riviera Pears with you:))

rvd5star69
11-12-2013, 06:59 AM
Before sat I was gonna say refs had been better lol

ibanezist00
11-12-2013, 07:43 AM
The goal horns compilation from last season has now been posted:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_edZe5aJBOw

It spans 9 minutes. If Haggerty keeps up this pace, I wonder how long the next one will be :eek: