Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Division I Rutter Rankings for 2013-2014

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Division I Rutter Rankings for 2013-2014

    Here are the first Rutter Rankings of the year for games played through October 6, 2013

    Code:
      	Team 		Rating 
    1 	Minnesota 	3.42
    2 	Wisconsin 	1.66
    3 	Clarkson 	1.58
    4 	North Dakota 	1.48
    5 	Boston College 	1.31
    6 	Cornell 	1.30
    7 	Boston Univ 	1.29
    8 	Ohio State 	1.15
    9 	Harvard 	1.04
    10 	Minn. Duluth 	0.90
    Complete rankings can be found here: http://math.bd.psu.edu/faculty/rutte...sRankings.html

    FAQ

    Q. [Insert team here, like Cornell] hasnt played a game yet. Ho'w can they be ranked?
    A. The power of Bayesian statistics. Each team has a prior rating based on last year, so early season rankings are possible. As more games are played, the effect of the prior is reduced.

    Q. Is home ice advantage included?
    A. No. Although I have estimates of home ice advantage for both the entire division and for each team, they are not included in these rankings. It emulates the NCAA criteria in this respect.

    Q. Is margin of victory (MOV) included?
    A. No, just wins, losses, and ties. Again, the NCAA doesn't use margin of victory and since the games are low scoring, I haven't found a satisfactory way to include MOV.

    Q. How do you include ties?
    A. If you look at the web page, you will see how ties are included. In short, I estimate a region that includes a probability of a tie which is larger when the teams are closely ranked. No "tie is half a win, half a loss" simplification here.

    Q. How does your method compare to RPI?
    A. The two are very different. I think my system (and KRACH) are a much better reflection of the quality of teams as statistical models are used as opposed to arbitrary alegbra. But I am biased. Someday, I will do a really complete comparission of the methods.

  • #2
    Re: Division I Rutter Rankings for 2013-2014

    For games played through October 13, 2013

    Code:
      	Team 	        Rating 	Last Week
    1 	Minnesota 	3.6747	1
    2 	Clarkson 	1.7047 	2
    3 	Boston College	1.6400	5
    4 	Wisconsin 	1.4748 	3
    5 	North Dakota 	1.4511	4 	
    6 	Cornell 	1.3042	6 	
    7 	Harvard 	1.0388 	9
    8 	Ohio State 	0.8789	8 
    9 	UMD 		0.8755	10 	
    10 	Boston Univ.	0.7337	7

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Division I Rutter Rankings for 2013-2014

      so what ultimately is the point of your ratings?
      to seed teams in the NCAA tourney?
      predict outcomes of games?
      conference winners?
      ????

      "that's why we play the games"

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Division I Rutter Rankings for 2013-2014

        Originally posted by pokechecker View Post
        so what ultimately is the point of your ratings?
        to seed teams in the NCAA tourney?
        predict outcomes of games?
        conference winners?
        ????

        "that's why we play the games"
        Wow you are really quite the little troll aren't you
        Grant Salzano, Boston College '10
        Writer Emeritus, BC Interruption
        Twitter: @Salzano14


        Click here for the BC Interruption Pairwise, KRACH, and GRaNT Calculators

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Division I Rutter Rankings for 2013-2014

          Originally posted by pokechecker View Post
          so what ultimately is the point of your ratings?"
          I'll answer the troll. Lakersfan has been posting the Rutter rankings for years. He/She is a mathematician by trade. The Rutter rankings are an unbiased mathematical view of the strength of each team. There are several other such mathematical models, like the SLU one for example, or the RPI.

          Not sure when the Rutter rankings first appeared on this board, but I first noticed them back in the day when MC was one of the powerhouse teams often seeded in the top four. Maybe that was the motive for starting them back then.

          At any rate, many on the board, yours truly included, really appreciate the effort by Lakersfan to post the weekly the Rutter rankings and the associated tools in the links provided.
          Last edited by OnMAA; 10-15-2013, 01:37 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Division I Rutter Rankings for 2013-2014

            Originally posted by pokechecker View Post
            so what ultimately is the point of your ratings?
            You didn't visit my website, did you? I've been doing this a long time.

            1. As a statistician (professor and practicing), it gives me a chance to apply my day to job to something I enjoy.
            2. Given that very few games are on TV, it provides a way to rank teams using a fixed set of criteria and game results.
            3. RPI stinks, and I think my way is better
            4. I also think my way is better than KRACH because of the way I deal with ties, but I would be happy to discuss that.
            5. Estimates of uncertainty in a ranking system are important, and I provide those on my website.
            6. It gives something people who enjoy women's college hockey something to talk about.
            7. It helped me get tenure

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Division I Rutter Rankings for 2013-2014

              Originally posted by LakersFan View Post
              7. It helped me get tenure
              Nice. Womens hockey a vehicle to provide employment opportunities to fans of the game.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Division I Rutter Rankings for 2013-2014

                Originally posted by TonyTheTiger20 View Post
                Wow you are really quite the little troll aren't you
                worried that you may lose the title?
                Originally posted by LakersFan View Post
                You didn't visit my website, did you? I've been doing this a long time.

                1. As a statistician (professor and practicing), it gives me a chance to apply my day to job to something I enjoy.
                I assumed that before looking at your site
                2. Given that very few games are on TV, it provides a way to rank teams using a fixed set of criteria and game results.
                3. RPI stinks, and I think my way is better
                I agree with the former, which is my incentive for even participating in the forum this year
                4. I also think my way is better than KRACH because of the way I deal with ties, but I would be happy to discuss that.
                again, I assumed as much, nobody is that geeky enough to do this for the sake of doing it
                5. Estimates of uncertainty in a ranking system are important, and I provide those on my website.
                6. It gives something people who enjoy women's college hockey something to talk about.
                as if there weren't enough already
                7. It helped me get tenure
                congrats on that!
                although I assumed as much, I don't like to assume anything
                so do you update your statistical model to account for the deviation from the results (actual game results)?
                just wondering how serious you are about this, given the fact you have already received a reward, tenure.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Division I Rutter Rankings for 2013-2014

                  Originally posted by LakersFan View Post
                  6. It gives something people who enjoy women's college hockey something to talk about.
                  I truly appreciate all the hours and dedication that you have put into this project over the years.
                  "... And lose, and start again at your beginnings
                  And never breathe a word about your loss;" -- Rudyard Kipling

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Division I Rutter Rankings for 2013-2014

                    Originally posted by pokechecker View Post
                    although I assumed as much, I don't like to assume anything
                    so do you update your statistical model to account for the deviation from the results (actual game results)?
                    just wondering how serious you are about this, given the fact you have already received a reward, tenure.
                    If you are interested in learning about Rutter, rather than just harassing people, you could go to his website and find some answers there.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Division I Rutter Rankings for 2013-2014

                      Originally posted by pokechecker View Post
                      worried that you may lose the title?


                      I'm Papa Troll. You've got a long way to go to work your way up to me, kiddo.
                      Grant Salzano, Boston College '10
                      Writer Emeritus, BC Interruption
                      Twitter: @Salzano14


                      Click here for the BC Interruption Pairwise, KRACH, and GRaNT Calculators

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Division I Rutter Rankings for 2013-2014

                        Originally posted by TonyTheTiger20 View Post
                        I'm Papa Troll. You've got a long way to go to work your way up to me, kiddo.
                        Sometimes tigers get fleas.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Division I Rutter Rankings for 2013-2014

                          I just looked at website for first time. Very impressive Laker Fan!!!! Clearly much much better than RPI - which if you look at rankings today, is a complete joke. Of course the rankings will change each week with more statistical inputs, but as of right now, I'd say that your rankings looks VERY good. My guess is that once the Ivies start playing, Harvard will jump up a bit, Dartmouth down... but that's just me. I'll be checking your site every week!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Division I Rutter Rankings for 2013-2014

                            It should be obvious that any ranking systems that attaches equal value to victories, whether they occur at the beginning of the season or the end, is inferior to one that puts more importance on victories toward the end of the season. Any fan knows it isn’t how you play at the beginning; it’s how you play at the end. The coaches poll take this into account. But their poll is just a seat of the pants poll, so take a look at the following data:
                            Year WCHA Season WCHA Tournement NCAA Tournement
                            2001 Minnesota UMD UMD
                            2002 Minnesota Minnesota UMD
                            2003 UMD UMD UMD
                            2004 Minnesota Minnesota Minnesota
                            2005 Minnesota Minnesota Minnesota
                            2006 Wisconsin Wisconsin Wisconsin
                            2007 Wisconsin Wisconsin Wisconsin
                            2008 UMD UMD UMD
                            2009 Minnesota Wisconsin Wisconsin
                            2010 UMD UMD UMD
                            2011 Wisconsin Wisconsin Wisconsin
                            2012 Wisconsin Minnesota Minnesota
                            2013 Minnesota Minnesota Minnesota

                            12 out of 13 times the winner of the WCHA tournament predicts the eventual NCAA tournament winner. Only 9 out of 13 times does the WCHA regular season champ predict the NCAA champ. And it adds nothing to increase the ability to predict the eventual winner over what the WCHA tournament champion does. The WCHA tournament is a measure of the teams at the end of the season. The regular season championship is a measure of the entire season. Clearly one that reflects the end of the season is more accurate.
                            What ranking method has better accuracy than this? Better, which ranking system accurately predicted that UMD, not Minnesota, would win the 2002 NCAA tourney while still accurately predicted every other year’s winner?
                            The rankings may be fun, they may provide something to talk about, but in the end, are they accurate? Only six times has the rankings accurately predicted the eventual winner. (less than by flipping a coin or by chance). Only once have the rankings predicted the order of finish for the top four teams (2005).

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Division I Rutter Rankings for 2013-2014

                              Originally posted by pokechecker View Post
                              It should be obvious that any ranking systems that attaches equal value to victories, whether they occur at the beginning of the season or the end, is inferior to one that puts more importance on victories toward the end of the season. Any fan knows it isn’t how you play at the beginning; it’s how you play at the end. The coaches poll take this into account. But their poll is just a seat of the pants poll, so take a look at the following data:
                              Year WCHA Season WCHA Tournement NCAA Tournement
                              2001 Minnesota UMD UMD
                              2002 Minnesota Minnesota UMD
                              2003 UMD UMD UMD
                              2004 Minnesota Minnesota Minnesota
                              2005 Minnesota Minnesota Minnesota
                              2006 Wisconsin Wisconsin Wisconsin
                              2007 Wisconsin Wisconsin Wisconsin
                              2008 UMD UMD UMD
                              2009 Minnesota Wisconsin Wisconsin
                              2010 UMD UMD UMD
                              2011 Wisconsin Wisconsin Wisconsin
                              2012 Wisconsin Minnesota Minnesota
                              2013 Minnesota Minnesota Minnesota

                              12 out of 13 times the winner of the WCHA tournament predicts the eventual NCAA tournament winner. Only 9 out of 13 times does the WCHA regular season champ predict the NCAA champ. And it adds nothing to increase the ability to predict the eventual winner over what the WCHA tournament champion does. The WCHA tournament is a measure of the teams at the end of the season. The regular season championship is a measure of the entire season. Clearly one that reflects the end of the season is more accurate.
                              What ranking method has better accuracy than this? Better, which ranking system accurately predicted that UMD, not Minnesota, would win the 2002 NCAA tourney while still accurately predicted every other year’s winner?
                              The rankings may be fun, they may provide something to talk about, but in the end, are they accurate? Only six times has the rankings accurately predicted the eventual winner. (less than by flipping a coin or by chance). Only once have the rankings predicted the order of finish for the top four teams (2005).
                              http://www.gifsforum.com/images/gif/...d_gif_kgk9.gif
                              Grant Salzano, Boston College '10
                              Writer Emeritus, BC Interruption
                              Twitter: @Salzano14


                              Click here for the BC Interruption Pairwise, KRACH, and GRaNT Calculators

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X