Page 21 of 33 FirstFirst ... 111213141516171819202122232425262728293031 ... LastLast
Results 401 to 420 of 641

Thread: Minnesota Golden Gopher Season 2018-2019: Fire Motzko

  1. #401
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    2,677

    Re: Minnesota Golden Gopher Season 2018-2019: Fire Motzko

    Well there goes my bracket....

  2. #402
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    1,843
    Quote Originally Posted by Koho View Post
    Well there goes my bracket....
    Shame...

  3. #403
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,276

    Re: Minnesota Golden Gopher Season 2018-2019: Fire Motzko

    Quote Originally Posted by Koho View Post
    Well there goes my bracket....
    Quote Originally Posted by Bonin21 View Post
    Shame...
    I would be shocked if anyone honestly gets them all right this year.
    Minnesota Golden Gopher Hockey

  4. #404
    Anti-Semantic The Rube's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Chez Rube
    Posts
    119,514

    Re: Minnesota Golden Gopher Season 2018-2019: Fire Motzko

    Quote Originally Posted by D2D View Post
    It's not nearly as simple as that. Gophers lost to Holy Cross in the NCAA 1st Round way back in 2006, well before their supposed decline due to their moving to the "Big 7". Upsets across all conferences are happening with increasing regularity (just ask SCSU fans).

    And three of the four teams that made it to last year's Frozen Four were B1G teams. After a rough start, it's become a very good conference.
    I don't recall when the NHL Rookie Max Salary came along, but that had significant impact, IMO. Why play another year in college if some team offered you the max? Sure, it might be because you don't wanna switch between the minors and NHL, but then again, do you want to risk an injury or rescinded offer? Took some teams (like MN) to adjust to that.
    Never really developed a taste for tequila. Kind of hard to understand how you make a drink out of something that sharp, inhospitable. Now, bourbon is easy to understand.
    Tastes like a warm summer day. -Raylan Givens

  5. #405
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    2,677

    Re: Minnesota Golden Gopher Season 2018-2019: Fire Motzko

    Quote Originally Posted by The Rube View Post
    I don't recall when the NHL Rookie Max Salary came along, but that had significant impact, IMO. Why play another year in college if some team offered you the max? Sure, it might be because you don't wanna switch between the minors and NHL, but then again, do you want to risk an injury or rescinded offer? Took some teams (like MN) to adjust to that.
    I think an equal contributor, maybe bigger, has been the trend of the BlueBloods from the 90's and earlier recruiting 18 yr olds to now committing to 16 yr olds and younger. Way more misses for those teams on recruiting and when there is a kid who develops late, these teams have committed all their scholies and so the late bloomer is available to programs that didn't get such talented players regularly in the past. And when the Blueblood team do hit the jackpot with a player who takes off in skill, because of the NHL CBA, they don't stick around more than a year or two. Hence, the streak of one seeds losing in the first round since 2006 (think that is correct) and number of 4 seeds who've won it all.

  6. #406
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    1,164

    Re: Minnesota Golden Gopher Season 2018-2019: Fire Motzko

    Quote Originally Posted by Koho View Post
    I think an equal contributor, maybe bigger, has been the trend of the BlueBloods from the 90's and earlier recruiting 18 yr olds to now committing to 16 yr olds and younger. Way more misses for those teams on recruiting and when there is a kid who develops late, these teams have committed all their scholies and so the late bloomer is available to programs that didn't get such talented players regularly in the past. And when the Blueblood team do hit the jackpot with a player who takes off in skill, because of the NHL CBA, they don't stick around more than a year or two. Hence, the streak of one seeds losing in the first round since 2006 (think that is correct) and number of 4 seeds who've won it all.
    IMO you're right on Koho! The 2006 CBA that resulted from the 2004-05 NHL lockout brought sweeping changes to hockeyís entire landscape. In addition to new on-ice rules, there were many changes to how playersí contracts could be structured, when players could sign and how much they could be paid on entry-level deals within the new collective bargaining agreement.

    As a result, the NHL got younger in a hurry, which has had a lasting impact on college hockey. IMO I think we are now seeing the long term effects of top college recruiting strategies in regards to early departures that have not changed much since then. The flight to the NHL escalated after the 2006 CBA. The funny thing was Bettman tried to sell it to college hockey coaches as a good thing that would benefit recruiting, but it did just the opposite.

    As of the 2017-18 season, 311 players (32%) who have seen at least one regular season NHL game were college players.



    19% of the 311 are from Minnesota.


  7. #407
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    4,769

    Re: Minnesota Golden Gopher Season 2018-2019: Fire Motzko

    Quote Originally Posted by Koho View Post
    Hence, the streak of one seeds losing in the first round since 2006 (think that is correct) and number of 4 seeds who've won it all.
    Sorry but the one and done flukey tournament results don't really prove anything other than the fact that a single game of hockey can have a ton of variance in outcomes. If you want to argue that the blue bloods are missing the tournament more often or backing your assertion with something that has a significant sample size then that'd be reasonable (and I haven't looked into it but that argument might actually have some legs to it).

    If your larger point is that there's more parity in college hockey, then I agree. But that's probably the worst way to measure/test that hypothesis.
    Last edited by trixR4kids; 04-04-2019 at 11:46 AM.

  8. #408
    wubba lubba dub dub
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    North Haverbrook
    Posts
    32,159

    Re: Minnesota Golden Gopher Season 2018-2019: Fire Motzko

    Quote Originally Posted by D2D View Post
    I would be shocked if anyone honestly gets them all right this year.
    After Saturday, I read somewhere that only 0.3% of brackets submitted online were still 100% correct.
    "The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." George Orwell, 1984

    "One does not simply walk into Mordor. Its Black Gates are guarded by more than just Orcs. There is evil there that does not sleep, and the Great Eye is ever watchful. It is a barren wasteland, riddled with fire and ash and dust, the very air you breathe is a poisonous fume." Boromir

    "Good news! We have a delivery." Professor Farnsworth

  9. #409
    Lucia Apologist
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    29,958

    Re: Minnesota Golden Gopher Season 2018-2019: Fire Motzko

    Quote Originally Posted by trixR4kids View Post
    Sorry but the one and done flukey tournament results don't really prove anything other than the fact that a single game of hockey can have a ton of variance in outcomes. If you want to argue that the blue bloods are missing the tournament more often or backing your assertion with something that has a significant sample size then that'd be reasonable (and I haven't looked into it but that argument might actually have some legs to it).

    If your larger point is that there's more parity in college hockey, then I agree. But that's probably the worst way to measure/test that hypothesis.
    This is an excellent post. You and I have always agreed on this and the numbers.

  10. #410
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    1,164

    Re: Minnesota Golden Gopher Season 2018-2019: Fire Motzko

    Quote Originally Posted by trixR4kids View Post
    Sorry but the one and done flukey tournament results don't really prove anything other than the fact that a single game of hockey can have a ton of variance in outcomes. If you want to argue that the blue bloods are missing the tournament more often or backing your assertion with something that has a significant sample size then that'd be reasonable (and I haven't looked into it but that argument might actually have some legs to it).

    If your larger point is that there's more parity in college hockey, then I agree. But that's probably the worst way to measure/test that hypothesis.
    A small sample size and error variance can be corrected by measuring the variance of the prediction error while supplementing it with scatterplot graphics. In this case, expanding hypothesis testing should include the regular season, as well as regional game and FF correlations in the data analysis Koho mentioned.

    "worst way to measure/test that hypothesis"

  11. #411
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    4,769

    Re: Minnesota Golden Gopher Season 2018-2019: Fire Motzko

    So we agree, you'd probably want to expand your analysis to include the regular season (thus increasing the sample size) to test the hypothesis?

  12. #412
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    1,164

    Re: Minnesota Golden Gopher Season 2018-2019: Fire Motzko

    Quote Originally Posted by trixR4kids View Post
    So we agree, you'd probably want to expand your analysis to include the regular season (thus increasing the sample size) to test the hypothesis?
    For higher internal validity, and optimal predictors in the sense of reduced prediction error variance using linear regression yeah it's a better choice. If I understand Koho's statement correctly, he's including regional games as well. So that would increase statistical power a bit too.

  13. #413
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    4,769

    Re: Minnesota Golden Gopher Season 2018-2019: Fire Motzko

    Even if you include regional games youíre still talking about a one and done scenario where even in the most lopsided matchups the underdog probably has a 30% chance of winning. The results of a one and done wonít tell you nearly as much as a sample thatís 40x greater.

    I donít think AIC winning a single game tells us as much about the parity of the sport as it does about the randomness of a single game.
    Last edited by trixR4kids; 04-04-2019 at 05:14 PM.

  14. #414
    Lucia Apologist
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    29,958

    Re: Minnesota Golden Gopher Season 2018-2019: Fire Motzko

    Quote Originally Posted by trixR4kids View Post
    Even if you include regional games youíre still talking about a one and done scenario where even in the most lopsided matchups the underdog probably has a 30% chance of winning. The results of a one and done wonít tell you nearly as much as a sample thatís 40x greater.

    I donít think AIC winning a single game tells us as much about the parity of the sport as it does about the randomness of a single game.
    The only thing thatís telling is the number of first time winners and variance of teams in the last ten years.

  15. #415
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    2,677

    Re: Minnesota Golden Gopher Season 2018-2019: Fire Motzko

    Quote Originally Posted by trixR4kids View Post
    Sorry but the one and done flukey tournament results don't really prove anything other than the fact that a single game of hockey can have a ton of variance in outcomes. If you want to argue that the blue bloods are missing the tournament more often or backing your assertion with something that has a significant sample size then that'd be reasonable (and I haven't looked into it but that argument might actually have some legs to it).

    If your larger point is that there's more parity in college hockey, then I agree. But that's probably the worst way to measure/test that hypothesis.
    I was explaining that the parity has resulted from these changes would explain the trend in 1's losing to 4's, an often discussed statistic this time of year. I didn't claim to use it as a statistical analysis to support my hypothesis.

    I would be interested in seeing if my memory matches the statistics. It seems like prior to around 2006, it was much less likely for a number 1 seed to lose to a 4. Or to look at 4 and 1 seeds overall winning percentage for the tournament before and after that period. Last year someone showed that number 4 seeds since 2006 really weren't far below .500. It used to seem like the first round was mostly a foregone conclusion in a number of matchups before that, and that you wouldn't see a 4 winning it all.

    As for discarding stats based on a one and done tourney, lets keep in mind there are 15 games in the NCAA per year, so that is 180 games since 2006, not a bad sample size. (Every game played in the season is one and done too. Until the next game. They don't become more unpredictable at tourney time. Impact of one and done only matters if your sole analysis is who is the Champion.)

    So the point is there seems to be a lot more parity following the CBA and resulting ramping up of the recruiting wars for younger kids, and I believe most people would agree that it is represented not only during the season, but also in the NCAA results for a number of years.

  16. #416
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    2,677

    Re: Minnesota Golden Gopher Season 2018-2019: Fire Motzko

    Quote Originally Posted by Koho View Post
    I was explaining that the parity has resulted from these changes would explain the trend in 1's losing to 4's, an often discussed statistic this time of year. I didn't claim to use it as a statistical analysis to support my hypothesis.

    I would be interested in seeing if my memory matches the statistics. It seems like prior to around 2006, it was much less likely for a number 1 seed to lose to a 4. Or to look at 4 and 1 seeds overall winning percentage for the tournament before and after that period. Last year someone showed that number 4 seeds since 2006 really weren't far below .500. It used to seem like the first round was mostly a foregone conclusion in a number of matchups before that, and that you wouldn't see a 4 winning it all.

    As for discarding stats based on a one and done tourney, lets keep in mind there are 15 games in the NCAA per year, so that is 180 games since 2006, not a bad sample size. (Every game played in the season is one and done too. Until the next game. They don't become more unpredictable at tourney time. Impact of one and done only matters if your sole analysis is who is the Champion.)

    So the point is there seems to be a lot more parity following the CBA and resulting ramping up of the recruiting wars for younger kids, and I believe most people would agree that it is represented not only during the season, but also in the NCAA results for a number of years.
    Well I didn't read all the crap that came after the post I was responding to. Expected a statistics lesson from SteveO. And I am not going to get into that. Besides, it is the interweb, so I can draw a conclusion from 3 games if I want. But plenty of us who have watched the game for decades have seen the change occur just by looking at results of the way the NCAA brackets have been playing out. (I have run the company brackets where I work (thus my current focus is on NCAA games) and it sure seems like the trend is there. (Yes, you can always get better correlation with better sample sizes, but that doesn't mean trends seen with smaller sample sizes don't exist.) In contrast, not that I have done an ounce of stats on it, but the HS bracket seems to be more predictable in the first round than NCAA has become. But since some of you want to question the basis of my statements, I am open to seeing a statistical analysis that proves me incorrect. In the absence of your own data, why do you need to question one statement I made that, however small, does seem to support it?

  17. #417
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    4,769

    Re: Minnesota Golden Gopher Season 2018-2019: Fire Motzko

    180 games for hockey is significantly smaller than 35-40+ game seasons (Ivy schools tend to have less games) over 14 seasons for 58-60 teams, if youíre trying to figure out whoís truly the best teams and measure the parity of the sport. Thatís all Iím saying. A team like AIC beating SCSU shows how random a single game of hockey can be but not a whole besides that. It happening a few times over 14 seasons isnt that shocking either.

    And Iím not really arguing against the idea of parity in the sport, Iím sure itís a lot better than it was in the 80ís if I had to guess. I just think some coaches adjusted to the 2005 draft rule changes better than others.

  18. #418
    Anti-Semantic The Rube's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Chez Rube
    Posts
    119,514

    Re: Minnesota Golden Gopher Season 2018-2019: Fire Motzko

    There is a lot more parity, CBA/etc contributing to it. In the past, the Blue Bloods got the star players, who would play 2-4 years, and then move on. The others would get the workhorses that had to try a little harder to make it. They gelled as a team.

    Now? Those workhorses are beating the big dogs, because the big dogs have 4-5 star players, and then everyone else. These smaller teams have a full team full of "just good enoughs."

    A common refrain about ASU in the last part of the season was that they were missing their best player. Well, teams like AIC, RIT, etc, don't really have a best player (as in super-standout). They ALL have to be pretty good, or at least good enough. Put them in a one-and-done? Yep, anything can happen.
    Never really developed a taste for tequila. Kind of hard to understand how you make a drink out of something that sharp, inhospitable. Now, bourbon is easy to understand.
    Tastes like a warm summer day. -Raylan Givens

  19. #419
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    1,164

    Re: Minnesota Golden Gopher Season 2018-2019: Fire Motzko

    Quote Originally Posted by Koho View Post
    Well I didn't read all the crap that came after the post I was responding to. Expected a statistics lesson from SteveO. And I am not going to get into that. Besides, it is the interweb, so I can draw a conclusion from 3 games if I want. But plenty of us who have watched the game for decades have seen the change occur just by looking at results of the way the NCAA brackets have been playing out. (I have run the company brackets where I work (thus my current focus is on NCAA games) and it sure seems like the trend is there. (Yes, you can always get better correlation with better sample sizes, but that doesn't mean trends seen with smaller sample sizes don't exist.) In contrast, not that I have done an ounce of stats on it, but the HS bracket seems to be more predictable in the first round than NCAA has become. But since some of you want to question the basis of my statements, I am open to seeing a statistical analysis that proves me incorrect. In the absence of your own data, why do you need to question one statement I made that, however small, does seem to support it?
    crap??? Hey now. BTW sorry about the stats lesson. I teach this stuff and my mentor in my PhD program earned a PhD in advanced stats from tOSU (back in the day of handheld calculators only ), so I'm hopelessly infected.

    I agree (in bold) and that was my point about including regionals, even if it is one and done. I do accept student quantitative research projects with a minimum of 30+ participants. But I always stress at least 50-100 to reasonably decrease risk of a T-II error. At the end of the day, the two bottom lines in regression analysis are reducing the variance in prediction error and finding a reasonable trend line with salient limitations.

    I'd be willing to crunch the data but with other projects I'm working on, I don't have the time to invest in it. Trix's argument of citing the inherent confound in the one and done format is also valid. IIRC last season's FF champ UMD had the worst W/L record of any Natty champ in history.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Rube View Post
    There is a lot more parity, CBA/etc contributing to it. In the past, the Blue Bloods got the star players, who would play 2-4 years, and then move on. The others would get the workhorses that had to try a little harder to make it. They gelled as a team.

    Now? Those workhorses are beating the big dogs, because the big dogs have 4-5 star players, and then everyone else. These smaller teams have a full team full of "just good enoughs."

    A common refrain about ASU in the last part of the season was that they were missing their best player. Well, teams like AIC, RIT, etc, don't really have a best player (as in super-standout). They ALL have to be pretty good, or at least good enough. Put them in a one-and-done? Yep, anything can happen.
    And a lot times the undrafted "workhorses" try harder...all the time and build solid line chemistry. When I played minors there were always these guys that played a very intense physical game and/or sometimes cheap shot to get the scouts attention. We see a reflection of that effort from some of the smaller schools who are loaded with 4 year players now. Good thoughts Rube.

    This recent NY Times article says some of the same things --> ARTICLE

  20. #420
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    2,677

    Re: Minnesota Golden Gopher Season 2018-2019: Fire Motzko

    Another contributor is mentioned in the article that I don't think many people talk about is the apparent increase in talent pool. There seems to be more talented kids to go around. Not just due to the rise in other states. I was talking to a friend about some HS players who are destined for D1 teams didn't seem to stand out that much. And we both seemed to recollect that kids who went on to play D1 20 and 30 years ago seemed to stand out from the rest of the players on the ice pretty quickly, whereas now it seems like it is more like a shift here or there you notice them. Maybe it is poor memory, but it seems kids today are better trained and there is more depth, at that level, which would translate into colleges who get the first choice of kids would have less of a talent gap than the rest. And I would argue that the fact that about a third of NHL players come from NCAA now would support that. (Although this could also be due to more talented kids just choosing the NCAA route too, but there seems to be more Minnesotans in the NHL as well.) Add in the fact that the kids who ARE clearly more talented than the average will leave early, and one can see why this would contribute to parity.


    As for the one and done influencing stats, if all you are doing is looking at win percentages in all games, how does that influence the stats? And even if you want to look at number of championships by seeding, or mean seed of Champion from a period pre CBA to post, while the sample would be small, even with the confounding effect I would expect one would see a trend towards an increase in low seeds winning. (Keep in mind, it was one and done pre and post CBA.)

    I have moved into a different position, but in my previous position did some stats on biological data. While you can talk about ideal sample sizes and having perfect design, you can never create a perfect statistical sampling method, as you are sampling highly variable ever changing systems. If you held to rigid rules of statistical agreement, you would never conclude anything. The bar for statistical significance was lower than in other fields. What you typically were looking at were trends, not conclusive answers. And even though some people might argue the statistical significance of a conclusion, it was the best you could do in many situations. That did not mean the conclusions were wrong and the decisions we made were incorrect. SO if there are trends in number of 4 seeds winning games against #1 and trends in increasing low seeds winning it all, I will believe there is a good chance they represent reality. So go ahead and do stats on a better data set if you like. I don't need to. I think most people sense the shift that has occurred. Some of that is based on the observations I have mentioned. So why do some people feel the need to criticize such an approach without offering a better analysis? (And most people don't care about the details of stats and just want to discuss what they are seeing.) Argue if you think that there is not more parity in the league and offer your supporting observation. Buy why agree with my point but argue about the way I chose to show it? Does anyone think there isn't more parity now?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •