Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

John t whelan ranking simulator

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

  • Patman
    replied
    Re: John t whelan ranking simulator

    I would take that regional in a heart beat.

    Leave a comment:


  • FlagDUDE08
    replied
    Re: John t whelan ranking simulator

    As of games completed 23 November 2013, 11:59 Aleutian Time:

    5.00 Minnesota
    4.75 Michigan
    4.50 Ferris State
    4.25 Providence
    4.00 St. Cloud State
    3.75 Quinnipiac
    3.50 Boston College
    3.25 Cornell
    3.00 LSSU
    2.75 Minnesota State Mankato
    2.50 Clarkson
    2.25 UMASS Lowell
    2.00 Yale
    1.75 Bowling Green
    1.50 Wisconsin
    1.25 Notre Dame
    1.00 New Hampshire
    0.75 Miami
    0.50 Union
    0.25 Northeastern

    And the tournament field:

    Minnesota
    Michigan
    Providence
    Ferris State

    Quinnipiac
    St. Cloud State
    Boston College
    Cornell

    LSSU
    UMASS Lowell
    Clarkson
    Bowling Green

    New Hampshire
    Wisconsin
    Yale
    AHA Champ (37 - Air Force)

    NOTE: Minnesota State Mankato was removed from 10th overall due to their sub-500 record.

    Leave a comment:


  • FlagDUDE08
    replied
    Re: John t whelan ranking simulator

    As of games completed 22 November 2013, 11:59 Aleutian Time:

    5.00 Quinnipiac
    4.75 Minnesota
    4.50 Michigan
    4.25 Ferris State
    4.00 St. Cloud State
    3.75 Boston College
    3.50 LSSU
    3.25 Providence
    3.00 Yale
    2.75 Cornell
    2.50 Wisconsin
    2.25 Bowling Green
    2.00 Notre Dame
    1.75 New Hampshire
    1.50 Clarkson
    1.25 UMASS Lowell
    1.00 Miami
    0.75 Northeastern
    0.50 Northern Michigan
    0.25 Union

    And the tournament field:

    Minnesota
    Quinnipiac
    Michigan
    Ferris State

    Boston College
    St. Cloud State
    LSSU
    Providence

    Wisconsin
    Yale
    New Hampshire
    Cornell

    Notre Dame
    Bowling Green
    UMASS Lowell
    AHA Champ (36 - Mercyhurst)

    Leave a comment:


  • Numbers
    replied
    Re: John t whelan ranking simulator

    Originally posted by goblue78 View Post
    exp(ki) is the KRACH rating, ie, ki for team i is a number which needs to exponentiated to be in Whelan's form. You don't need to exponentiate again. h, the home ice advantage, also needs to be exponentiated to make patman's formula pr(home win) = ca/(ca+b) correct. It's generally easier to estimate ki instead of Ki=exp(ki) because the constraint that Ki>0 is a pain. when working with ki, ie ln(Ki) the coefficient is unconstrained.

    Note all of the Ks are still only determined up to a multiplicative constant, so you can define the absolute value of the KRACH ratings any way you want. Some common methods are to make the best team 100, to make the sum 1, or, in an understandable if somewhat idiosyncratic view at siouxsports.com, to make North Dakota = 100.

    (Neither h nor theta can be scaled. They have to be takes as is.)
    Thanks Go,

    That's what I meant. I appreciate all the explaining.

    Leave a comment:


  • goblue78
    replied
    Re: John t whelan ranking simulator

    exp(ki) is the KRACH rating, ie, ki for team i is a number which needs to exponentiated to be in Whelan's form. You don't need to exponentiate again. h, the home ice advantage, also needs to be exponentiated to make patman's formula pr(home win) = ca/(ca+b) correct. It's generally easier to estimate ki instead of Ki=exp(ki) because the constraint that Ki>0 is a pain. when working with ki, ie ln(Ki) the coefficient is unconstrained.

    Note all of the Ks are still only determined up to a multiplicative constant, so you can define the absolute value of the KRACH ratings any way you want. Some common methods are to make the best team 100, to make the sum 1, or, in an understandable if somewhat idiosyncratic view at siouxsports.com, to make North Dakota = 100.

    (Neither h nor theta can be scaled. They have to be takes as is.)
    Last edited by goblue78; 11-22-2013, 12:58 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • FlagDUDE08
    replied
    Re: John t whelan ranking simulator

    Originally posted by The Exiled One View Post
    No, it doesn't affect autobids, just at-large bids. Wisconsin earned an at-large bid in 07-08 with a record of 15-16-7. They did end up beating Denver 6-2 in their first NCAA tournament game, but lost to North Dakota in overtime the next game. The "Wisconsin rule" was implemented the year after.
    If that's still the case, New Hampshire would be the replacement. It does show that it's very early in the season, though.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Exiled One
    replied
    Re: John t whelan ranking simulator

    Originally posted by FlagDUDE08 View Post
    Does autobids have any impact on that? Alabama Huntsville made the tournament a few years ago with a sub-500 record, but they had the CHA autobid. Also, I seem to remember about 6 or 7 years ago UVM had a team that almost didn't make the Hockey East playoffs but ended making some noise in the national tournament.
    No, it doesn't affect autobids, just at-large bids. Wisconsin earned an at-large bid in 07-08 with a record of 15-16-7. They did end up beating Denver 6-2 in their first NCAA tournament game, but lost to North Dakota in overtime the next game. The "Wisconsin rule" was implemented the year after.

    Leave a comment:


  • FlagDUDE08
    replied
    Re: John t whelan ranking simulator

    Originally posted by Numbers View Post
    Wisconsin rule. That's the one prohibiting teams with less that .500 records from an at-large place in the tournament.
    Does autobids have any impact on that? Alabama Huntsville made the tournament a few years ago with a sub-500 record, but they had the CHA autobid. Also, I seem to remember about 6 or 7 years ago UVM had a team that almost didn't make the Hockey East playoffs but ended making some noise in the national tournament.

    Leave a comment:


  • Numbers
    replied
    Re: John t whelan ranking simulator

    Originally posted by FlagDUDE08 View Post
    The what rule?
    Wisconsin rule. That's the one prohibiting teams with less that .500 records from an at-large place in the tournament.
    Last edited by Numbers; 11-22-2013, 10:54 AM. Reason: at-large

    Leave a comment:


  • FlagDUDE08
    replied
    Re: John t whelan ranking simulator

    Originally posted by The Exiled One View Post
    Did they get rid of the Wisconsin rule? If not, North Dakota doesn't currently qualify for an at-large bid.
    The what rule?

    Leave a comment:


  • Numbers
    replied
    Re: John t whelan ranking simulator

    GoBlue,

    I have another question about this KRACH with ties and home/away. The mathematical formulation uses exp(k1+h) for example. I assume that is because it makes the math come out - because you can take the logs and then it's addition rather than multiplication. However, it seems to me that the k(i) that comes out of that calculation is not the k(i) that comes out of Whelan's example of how to calculate KRACH here and on CHN.
    It seems to me that the Ki all need to re-exponentiated to get the numbers that are equivalent to the KRACH ratings in Whelan's formulation.

    Is that correct?

    Thanks again.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Exiled One
    replied
    Re: John t whelan ranking simulator

    Originally posted by FlagDUDE08 View Post
    And the tournament field:

    North Dakota
    Did they get rid of the Wisconsin rule? If not, North Dakota doesn't currently qualify for an at-large bid.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ralph Baer
    replied
    Re: John t whelan ranking simulator

    Originally posted by FlagDUDE08 View Post
    And the tournament field:

    Minnesota
    St. Cloud State
    Providence
    Quinnipiac

    Boston College
    Michigan
    Ferris State
    Wisconsin

    Miami
    LSSU
    Notre Dame
    Bowling Green

    Cornell
    Clarkson
    North Dakota
    AHA Champ (37 - Air Force)
    Interesting that currently each of the five non-AHA leagues has three representatives.

    Leave a comment:


  • FlagDUDE08
    replied
    Re: John t whelan ranking simulator

    Apologies for not previously releasing, as time was spent with FlagDUDETTE. Here's what we have, as of games ending 20 November:

    5.00 Minnesota
    4.75 St. Cloud State
    4.50 Quinnipiac
    4.25 Providence
    4.00 Boston College
    3.75 Michigan
    3.50 Ferris State
    3.25 Wisconsin
    3.00 LSSU
    2.75 Miami
    2.50 Notre Dame
    2.25 Bowling Green
    2.00 Cornell
    1.75 Clarkson
    1.50 Northern Michigan
    1.25 North Dakota
    1.00 New Hampshire
    0.75 Minnesota State Mankato
    0.50 Union
    0.25 UMASS Lowell

    And the tournament field:

    Minnesota
    St. Cloud State
    Providence
    Quinnipiac

    Boston College
    Michigan
    Ferris State
    Wisconsin

    Miami
    LSSU
    Notre Dame
    Bowling Green

    Cornell
    Clarkson
    North Dakota
    AHA Champ (37 - Air Force)

    Leave a comment:


  • FlagDUDE08
    replied
    Re: John t whelan ranking simulator

    Originally posted by RHamilton View Post
    I "finished" updates to my interpretation of the RPI. As a background, my implementation is written in PHP and primarily serves to power my exhaustive PWR predictor, which I won't be firing up until championship weekend, though it could possibly do some monte carlo a couple weekends earlier. I'm hoping to develop it further to aid prognosticators in finding corner-cases and understanding how things can shake out. Again, it's only really useful for the last weekend of league championship games.

    But, might as well get the key parts done early. I've also included fairly in-depth breakdowns of how the RPI is formed for each team -- let me know if you spot any mistakes or would like to see any other components in further detail.

    http://pwr.reillyhamilton.com/pwr.html

    It agrees with JimDahl's RPI for all teams except Mankato (and there's only a .0002 difference there, seems to have been rounding on one of our parts when determining negative wins). Haven't taken a close look at why it differs from FlagDude's, as I'm not sure what "stage" of the calculations are listed in the GUI, ie are OWP and OOWP before or after negative impact wins have been removed?

    It's also doing PWR, but I haven't scrutinized that closely, so I'm not confident it's correct. It was accurate (compared to USCHO, CHN, and JimDahl/SiouxSports) last year, so I imagine it shouldn't be far off this year, as the only changes were removal of the TUC comparison and .5000 RPI qualifier. It's also November...

    Currently not updating automatically (but current through today's games); I may implement a caching layer and/or cron-job in a couple days.





    By the way, I find all the different ways that we all think to be fascinating. I'm completely lost by some of the "actual math" going on here; I think much more iteratively. I do volunteer to help a scraping / data acquisition effort if it would be helpful to the greater simulator cause, as I love the idea and I'm already working on a bunch of collegehockeystats.net scraping for RPI TV's titles and graphics package.
    The stuff that is listed is after the games have been removed. Take a look in the command line (assuming you run it from there and not the exe) to determine which specific games have been removed. Do we still disagree there?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X