Originally posted by TonyTheTiger20
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Fun With Numbers: 2016 Pairwise Predictor, What-Ifs, and Other Goodies
Collapse
X
-
Re: Fun With Numbers: 2016 Pairwise Predictor, What-Ifs, and Other Goodies
BU is 11th in RPI but 15th!! in PWR. That's nuts.
That's what happens when you're 0-6 against TUCs.Grant Salzano, Boston College '10
Writer Emeritus, BC Interruption
Twitter: @Salzano14
Click here for the BC Interruption Pairwise, KRACH, and GRaNT Calculators
Comment
-
Re: Fun With Numbers: 2016 Pairwise Predictor, What-Ifs, and Other Goodies
Originally posted by TonyTheTiger20 View PostBU is 11th in RPI but 15th!! in PWR. That's nuts.
That's what happens when you're 0-6 against TUCs."... And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;" -- Rudyard Kipling
Comment
-
Re: Fun With Numbers: 2016 Pairwise Predictor, What-Ifs, and Other Goodies
Originally posted by Bhikukhu View PostDoesn't it sell out every year? I'd like to be able to pay like 35 per ticket for the whole weekend or whatever it usually is instead of the 50 per ticket I had to pay at Quinnipiac 2 years ago just to watch the championship game... Though it was well worth it to see my school beat the monster that was Minnesota
Comment
-
Re: Fun With Numbers: 2016 Pairwise Predictor, What-Ifs, and Other Goodies
Originally posted by ARM View PostThat's good for BC, though, as playing an opponent with a strong RPI helps, while an opponent's TUC, COp, and H2H are meaningless.
Right now that team is Cornell for those of you who care, followed closely by Duluth, based mostly on those teams' exceptional OppOppWin%.
RPI is weird.Grant Salzano, Boston College '10
Writer Emeritus, BC Interruption
Twitter: @Salzano14
Click here for the BC Interruption Pairwise, KRACH, and GRaNT Calculators
Comment
-
Re: Fun With Numbers: 2016 Pairwise Predictor, What-Ifs, and Other Goodies
Originally posted by TonyTheTiger20 View PostTrue, although until we lose or tie a game our RPI is going to be entirely made up of whoever the one best team we played is -- with "best" being a bizarre weighting of the best OppOppWin% and best OppWin%
RPI isn't so much weird as just plain unfit for anything meaningful. Just about any other measurement system would work better, so of course, RPI is what the NCAA uses."... And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;" -- Rudyard Kipling
Comment
-
Re: Fun With Numbers: 2016 Pairwise Predictor, What-Ifs, and Other Goodies
Originally posted by KTDC View PostPercentage of opponent's SOG that are goals scored:
Wisconsin 11.03% 2.45% 8.58%
Minnesota 16.50% 7.95% 8.55%
Boston College 13.43% 5.21% 8.22%
Harvard 9.91% 4.15% 5.76%
Quinnipiac 10.15% 6.27% 3.88%
Northeastern 13.42% 10.00% 3.42%
Robert Morris 10.70% 7.77% 2.93%
Princeton 9.48% 6.65% 2.83%
Connecticut 8.22% 5.69% 2.53%
Clarkson 8.47% 6.58% 1.89%
Bemidji State 8.17% 6.69% 1.48%
Colgate 9.16% 7.87% 1.29%
St. Cloud State 11.52% 10.77% 0.75%
Lindenwood 8.10% 7.86% 0.24%
Maine 8.03% 8.11% -0.08%
Penn State 7.18% 7.38% -0.20%
Cornell 10.17% 10.51% -0.34%
Dartmouth 7.67% 8.01% -0.34%
Rensselaer 7.18% 7.73% -0.55%
Boston University 9.73% 10.48% -0.75%
St. Lawrence 9.35% 11.30% -1.95%
Union 5.08% 7.17% -2.09%
North Dakota 8.17% 10.66% -2.49%
Merrimack 9.06% 11.61% -2.55%
Providence 9.75% 12.33% -2.58%
Minnesota Duluth 7.26% 9.87% -2.61%
Syracuse 9.27% 12.15% -2.88%
Mercyhurst 8.73% 11.92% -3.19%
Yale 10.45% 13.70% -3.25%
Ohio State 9.07% 13.03% -3.96%
Minnesota State 6.78% 11.46% -4.68%
RIT 6.73% 11.93% -5.20%
Brown 5.85% 11.18% -5.33%
Vermont 6.65% 12.15% -5.50%
New Hampshire 6.81% 13.38% -6.57%
Comment
-
Re: Fun With Numbers: 2016 Pairwise Predictor, What-Ifs, and Other Goodies
Originally posted by ARM View PostFYP.Grant Salzano, Boston College '10
Writer Emeritus, BC Interruption
Twitter: @Salzano14
Click here for the BC Interruption Pairwise, KRACH, and GRaNT Calculators
Comment
-
Re: Fun With Numbers: 2016 Pairwise Predictor, What-Ifs, and Other Goodies
Side note!
According to the transitive property, BC would beat Minnesota by 6 goalsGrant Salzano, Boston College '10
Writer Emeritus, BC Interruption
Twitter: @Salzano14
Click here for the BC Interruption Pairwise, KRACH, and GRaNT Calculators
Comment
-
Re: Fun With Numbers: 2016 Pairwise Predictor, What-Ifs, and Other Goodies
Originally posted by TonyTheTiger20 View PostSide note!
According to the transitive property, BC would beat Minnesota by 6 goals
Comment
-
Re: Fun With Numbers: 2016 Pairwise Predictor, What-Ifs, and Other Goodies
I saw the comparison between Desbien and Burt in the "Wednesday" column and began to wonder how much stronger the schedule was for goalies at the top of the womens hockey statistically.
What I used to come up with my comparison was the following: Minutes Played x OPP RPI = Game Rating I then took the sum of all Game Ratings/TMP to come up with each goalie's avg OPP RPI.
I did it this way to take into account games where the goalie did not play a full game, in order to get a more accurate picture of their real difficulty of play.
I did one last step in the far right column (I sure this will stir some complaints about my process), I took each goalie's (SV% x AVG OPP RPI)/AVG RPI OF ALL TEAMS FOR ALL GAMES. I don't think that reflects exactly what I was trying to accomplish - see how goalies would fare if they all played the same schedule - but I think it points out how some goalies may be over/under rated based on their SOS.
I am fully aware there are many flaws in this: Home/Away, Injuries, Strength of the team in front of each goalie, ect. This was just for FUN!
With all that said I did found some of the results surprising
I have the goalies (Top 14 in GAA + a few others) ranked by SOS
Let me know your thoughts - go easy on the criticism, my skin isn't as thick as TTT
Goalie OPP RPI/GP GAA SV % Rel SV %
Shelby*Amsley-Benzie 0.5352 1.6 0.929 0.992
Emerance*Maschmeyer 0.5251 1.71 0.944 0.989
Amanda*Leveille 0.5232 1.33 0.934 0.975
Elaine*Chuli 0.5219 2.32 0.940 0.979
Brittni*Mowat 0.5174 1.62 0.941 0.972
Kimberly*Newell 0.5137 1.52 0.946 0.970
Shea*Tiley 0.5098 1.37 0.931 0.947
Katie*Burt 0.5023 1.14 0.946 0.948
Brittany*Bugalski 0.5003 2.04 0.923 0.922
Sydney*Rossman 0.4975 0.95 0.947 0.940
Ann-Renée*Desbiens 0.4958 0.61 0.966 0.956
Lovisa*Selander 0.4930 2.04 0.936 0.921
Melissa*Black 0.4826 2.61 0.934 0.900
Meghann*Treacy 0.4816 2.50 0.921 0.885
Ashlynne*Rando 0.4810 2.11 0.923 0.886
Celine*Whitlinger 0.4777 1.55 0.945 0.901
Sarah*McDonnell 0.4775 1.55 0.926 0.883
Jessica*Dodds 0.4722 2.24 0.925 0.872
Nicole*Hensley 0.4714 2.36 0.927 0.872
Jetta*Rackleff 0.4635 2.26 0.935 0.865
*Sorry about the chart - I need to learn how to carry the formatting over to this forum
**AVG RPI FOR ALL 35 DI Teams = .50098 (Through 2/15/2016)Last edited by bc6696; 02-18-2016, 06:43 AM.
Comment
-
Re: Fun With Numbers: 2016 Pairwise Predictor, What-Ifs, and Other Goodies
Interesting attempt. My quick thoughts:
a) If you want to rank strength of teams, don't start with RPI to do so. It is one of the poorer tools available. For this exercise, something like Robin Lock's WCHODR, especially the offensive component, might makes sense:
http://it.stlawu.edu/~chodr/wchodr/current.html
b) For judging goaltenders, is the opponents' overall strength that important? IMO, the strength of the opponents' offense is a big factor. Rather than starting with RPI, would it be better to factor in the opponents' scoring average. If a goalie plays against a team that normally averages 1.5 goals and shuts them out, that may not be as big a deal as holding a team that averages 5.0 goals to 1 goal. For example, BU is a slightly above average team overall, but its offense ranks fifth in the country, and that says more about the Terriers' ability to produce goals against a random goaltender.
c) It's possible that any method used may not really tell the full story about Desbiens. Glance at her season overall; she doesn't give up goals. She's allowed more than one goal three times: 3 goals once, 2 goals twice. The 3-goal game versus UND was the only time all season where an opponent exceeded its scoring average against her; everyone else was below its scoring average. For the season as a whole, UND scored 5 goals in four games, so for the season, UND was also well below its usual average. That may be a better measure of goaltenders, their ability to hold an opponent below its norm."... And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;" -- Rudyard Kipling
Comment
-
Re: Fun With Numbers: 2016 Pairwise Predictor, What-Ifs, and Other Goodies
Originally posted by ARM View PostInteresting attempt. My quick thoughts:
a) If you want to rank strength of teams, don't start with RPI to do so. It is one of the poorer tools available. For this exercise, something like Robin Lock's WCHODR, especially the offensive component, might makes sense:
http://it.stlawu.edu/~chodr/wchodr/current.html
b) For judging goaltenders, is the opponents' overall strength that important? IMO, the strength of the opponents' offense is a big factor. Rather than starting with RPI, would it be better to factor in the opponents' scoring average. If a goalie plays against a team that normally averages 1.5 goals and shuts them out, that may not be as big a deal as holding a team that averages 5.0 goals to 1 goal. For example, BU is a slightly above average team overall, but its offense ranks fifth in the country, and that says more about the Terriers' ability to produce goals against a random goaltender.
c) It's possible that any method used may not really tell the full story about Desbiens. Glance at her season overall; she doesn't give up goals. She's allowed more than one goal three times: 3 goals once, 2 goals twice. The 3-goal game versus UND was the only time all season where an opponent exceeded its scoring average against her; everyone else was below its scoring average. For the season as a whole, UND scored 5 goals in four games, so for the season, UND was also well below its usual average. That may be a better measure of goaltenders, their ability to hold an opponent below its norm.
.
Comment
-
Re: Fun With Numbers: 2016 Pairwise Predictor, What-Ifs, and Other Goodies
Originally posted by ARM View Posta) If you want to rank strength of teams, don't start with RPI to do so. It is one of the poorer tools available. For this exercise, something like Robin Lock's WCHODR, especially the offensive component, might makes sense:
http://it.stlawu.edu/~chodr/wchodr/current.html
I like 6696's attempt to remove games where the goalie didn't play in figuring out goalie's SOS. Interested particularly with how that affect's Burt because Switaj's games were all against the bottom of the barrel.Grant Salzano, Boston College '10
Writer Emeritus, BC Interruption
Twitter: @Salzano14
Click here for the BC Interruption Pairwise, KRACH, and GRaNT Calculators
Comment
-
Re: Fun With Numbers: 2016 Pairwise Predictor, What-Ifs, and Other Goodies
Originally posted by ARM View PostInteresting attempt. My quick thoughts:
a) If you want to rank strength of teams, don't start with RPI to do so. It is one of the poorer tools available. For this exercise, something like Robin Lock's WCHODR, especially the offensive component, might makes sense:
http://it.stlawu.edu/~chodr/wchodr/current.html
b) For judging goaltenders, is the opponents' overall strength that important? IMO, the strength of the opponents' offense is a big factor. Rather than starting with RPI, would it be better to factor in the opponents' scoring average. If a goalie plays against a team that normally averages 1.5 goals and shuts them out, that may not be as big a deal as holding a team that averages 5.0 goals to 1 goal. For example, BU is a slightly above average team overall, but its offense ranks fifth in the country, and that says more about the Terriers' ability to produce goals against a random goaltender.
c) It's possible that any method used may not really tell the full story about Desbiens. Glance at her season overall; she doesn't give up goals. She's allowed more than one goal three times: 3 goals once, 2 goals twice. The 3-goal game versus UND was the only time all season where an opponent exceeded its scoring average against her; everyone else was below its scoring average. For the season as a whole, UND scored 5 goals in four games, so for the season, UND was also well below its usual average. That may be a better measure of goaltenders, their ability to hold an opponent below its norm.
Ex: Robert Morris - Ranked ninth nationally in offense, but if you look at their schedule they play one of the weakest. 3 weekends against top ten teams-1.6 GFA, rest of season 3.15 GFA. Are they a good offensive team or do they play an easy schedule?
I think I need a much bigger algorithm to figure this out!!Last edited by bc6696; 02-18-2016, 12:40 PM.
Comment
Comment