Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

John t whelan ranking simulator

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

  • Numbers
    replied
    Re: John t whelan ranking simulator

    Originally posted by goblue78 View Post
    This is all interesting, and thanks, Flagdude, for your service here, but I'm spiritually with patman. Sometime around New Years' I'll reprogram my previous lightning fast Stata/Mata code and do this for real. (It also does KRACH and home/road/tie adjusted KRACH.) But I like the Java App because at least it will tell me if I'm matching your results. As I've done before, I'm happy to make that code available to everyone similarly obsessed. And making the results available on a dynamic basis is a real service, FD. Thanks.
    If you are working on an app that does KRACH I am not going to bother.

    Thanks everyone for being at least as obsessed as I am.

    By the way - I emailed the Minnesota rep on the committee this morning about the detail in the QWB calculation we are wondering about, and have not heard any reply yet.

    Leave a comment:


  • goblue78
    replied
    Re: John t whelan ranking simulator

    This is all interesting, and thanks, Flagdude, for your service here, but I'm spiritually with patman. Sometime around New Years' I'll reprogram my previous lightning fast Stata/Mata code and do this for real. (It also does KRACH and home/road/tie adjusted KRACH.) But I like the Java App because at least it will tell me if I'm matching your results. As I've done before, I'm happy to make that code available to everyone similarly obsessed. And making the results available on a dynamic basis is a real service, FD. Thanks.

    Leave a comment:


  • FlagDUDE08
    replied
    Re: John t whelan ranking simulator

    Originally posted by Patman View Post
    It's not that it's slow, it's that it's painful
    Especially once you start getting into macros.

    Leave a comment:


  • Patman
    replied
    Originally posted by Numbers View Post
    Patman, I am very aware that a spreadsheet is slow. I have no access to anything faster, and no skill. I offered because Flag seemed unsure how to calculate, and a spreadsheet for KRACH would be instructive in some ways. As you know, KRACH calculates differently. I think it is an easier calculation than all the minutiae involved in the current pairwise.

    If you want to work up a KRACH calculator, too great!!!
    It's not that it's slow, it's that it's painful

    Leave a comment:


  • Numbers
    replied
    Patman, I am very aware that a spreadsheet is slow. I have no access to anything faster, and no skill. I offered because Flag seemed unsure how to calculate, and a spreadsheet for KRACH would be instructive in some ways. As you know, KRACH calculates differently. I think it is an easier calculation than all the minutiae involved in the current pairwise.

    If you want to work up a KRACH calculator, too great!!!
    Last edited by Numbers; 11-18-2013, 06:39 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Patman
    replied
    Originally posted by FlagDUDE08 View Post
    I'm well aware of this. However the winning percentage calculation, which we were discussing, is not complex enough for this to be the case. If we were talking about something such as OWP or OOWP, also the quality wins bonus, I am quite sure that this could be a programming or calculation error.
    I wasn't reading closely . to me round at 3 places is round at 3 places

    Leave a comment:


  • FlagDUDE08
    replied
    Re: John t whelan ranking simulator

    Originally posted by Patman View Post
    Spreadsheet? I may as well start drinking now.

    Edit: I will get around to this during my Christmas break. Home should be boring enough to make appropriate changes. If FD is the new easy way for a game record I'll lean on him.

    Edit #2: Dahl, I assume the game value is still relevant towards deletion... This stuff makes it needlessly complicated and as usual I like running Monte Carlo runs.

    FD, how are you computing?
    I wrote a Java application with various methods to do each portion of the calculation.

    Leave a comment:


  • FlagDUDE08
    replied
    Re: John t whelan ranking simulator

    Originally posted by Patman View Post
    I'd be careful about blaming rounding... If an error is buried enough it can look like precision error vs human error
    I'm well aware of this. However the winning percentage calculation, which we were discussing, is not complex enough for this to be the case. If we were talking about something such as OWP or OOWP, also the quality wins bonus, I am quite sure that this could be a programming or calculation error.
    Last edited by FlagDUDE08; 11-18-2013, 06:32 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Patman
    replied
    Originally posted by Numbers View Post
    The cool thing would be to ask Knowlton and see. If he says "Sorry, I can't divulge that." then fine. Otherwise, if he says, then we know for sure that the removed games either are or are not counted in the divisor for the QWB bonus.

    I will work up this KRACH Spreadsheet for you. It will take me a little time, though. I just checked, and I still have the spreadsheet I made earlier. If you have looked at any explanations, you know that KRACH requires iteration, and in my Excel sheet, you have to do that manually. Btw, I only have Excel2003. Like I say, this is a hobby, because I like Numbers.

    In general, I like both the home/away weighting idea and the QWB that grades down through the RPI listing - with no TUC component. It should make it impossible for a team to theoretically gain by losing.
    Spreadsheet? I may as well start drinking now.

    Edit: I will get around to this during my Christmas break. Home should be boring enough to make appropriate changes. If FD is the new easy way for a game record I'll lean on him.

    Edit #2: Dahl, I assume the game value is still relevant towards deletion... This stuff makes it needlessly complicated and as usual I like running Monte Carlo runs.

    FD, how are you computing?
    Last edited by Patman; 11-18-2013, 06:17 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Patman
    replied
    Originally posted by FlagDUDE08 View Post
    The .850 vs. .851 sounds like rounding vs. truncation in terms of display. The application stores the full decimal, but only outputs the first three places; I assume Java truncates instead of rounds. Also, when you are calculating the Quality Wins Bonus, are you taking into account the games that were removed in negative effect on the RatingsPI? One new feature with the 0.4 version is it left in a debug statement that when you select a team, it will tell you what games have been removed in the command line. Obviously you'll need to run from the command line instead of the .exe in order to get this.
    I'd be careful about blaming rounding... If an error is buried enough it can look like precision error vs human error

    Leave a comment:


  • FlagDUDE08
    replied
    Re: John t whelan ranking simulator

    Originally posted by goblue78 View Post
    Just to point out that it will always be possible (if not necessarily likely) to gain by losing. To take a simple example, suppose in the last game of the regular season a win gives you a bye in the first round of the playoffs while a loss makes you play a first round series. And assume you don't win the conference championship and get an autobid. By losing, you have the chance to go 5-1 in the playoffs (I'm thinking of the ECAC here, but other conferences work similarly) but by winning you can at best go 3-1 because of the first round bye. Those extra two wins might more than compensate for the last game loss. (It was even worse when the league had a third-place game, but no league does that now). The basic point is that the number of games you can win may be favorably affected by losing a game.

    It would also be possible to lose a late game to boost your opponent into QWB bonus territory. You might then get points from earlier games against them in their rink. Even if it doesn't compensate for the loss, you might also knock someone else out of the QWB pool whom your opponent for a spot beat a couple of times on the road. So theoretically, at least, this system doesn't force you to always do better by winning. And it certainly doesn't do so if you're worried about seeding in the NCAAs, not just whether or not you get in.
    And sometimes, it is best to go down to a weaker opponent than to move on and face an opponent that will severely weaken your chances, such as when RPI lost to Colgate in 2011; they would have had to face Cornell had they won.

    Leave a comment:


  • goblue78
    replied
    Re: John t whelan ranking simulator

    Originally posted by Numbers View Post
    It should make it impossible for a team to theoretically gain by losing.
    Just to point out that it will always be possible (if not necessarily likely) to gain by losing. To take a simple example, suppose in the last game of the regular season a win gives you a bye in the first round of the playoffs while a loss makes you play a first round series. And assume you don't win the conference championship and get an autobid. By losing, you have the chance to go 5-1 in the playoffs (I'm thinking of the ECAC here, but other conferences work similarly) but by winning you can at best go 3-1 because of the first round bye. Those extra two wins might more than compensate for the last game loss. (It was even worse when the league had a third-place game, but no league does that now). The basic point is that the number of games you can win may be favorably affected by losing a game.

    It would also be possible to lose a late game to boost your opponent into QWB bonus territory. You might then get points from earlier games against them in their rink. Even if it doesn't compensate for the loss, you might also knock someone else out of the QWB pool whom your opponent for a spot beat a couple of times on the road. So theoretically, at least, this system doesn't force you to always do better by winning. And it certainly doesn't do so if you're worried about seeding in the NCAAs, not just whether or not you get in.

    Leave a comment:


  • Numbers
    replied
    Re: John t whelan ranking simulator

    Originally posted by FlagDUDE08 View Post
    Speaking as a programmer who has difficulty with calculations in OpenOffice (heck, the macro I had to set up to even get the schedule from the summer to the state it is in for the application was difficult enough), I can understand where you're coming from.

    I have never seen interpretation when it comes to mathematics, and is why I enjoy it so much. The only place where I see interpretation is in translation, specifically when trying to explain it to the "I was told there'd be no math..." folk. The NCAA did a fairly decent job in the explanation, although there seems to be some holes. I don't know if the selection committee members would be able to shed some light (RPI's Col. Knowlton is on the committee, but I don't know how much they're allowed to say).
    The cool thing would be to ask Knowlton and see. If he says "Sorry, I can't divulge that." then fine. Otherwise, if he says, then we know for sure that the removed games either are or are not counted in the divisor for the QWB bonus.

    I will work up this KRACH Spreadsheet for you. It will take me a little time, though. I just checked, and I still have the spreadsheet I made earlier. If you have looked at any explanations, you know that KRACH requires iteration, and in my Excel sheet, you have to do that manually. Btw, I only have Excel2003. Like I say, this is a hobby, because I like Numbers.

    In general, I like both the home/away weighting idea and the QWB that grades down through the RPI listing - with no TUC component. It should make it impossible for a team to theoretically gain by losing.

    Leave a comment:


  • JimDahl
    replied
    Re: John t whelan ranking simulator

    Agreed. You're quite right, of course, that the impact of that decision would be in the divisor. "the total weighting of all games played per the RPI calculation" just isn't clear. Like I said, my guess when I implemented this was to use the complete weighted games played (including the adverse wins) only because they structure of the memo really made the QWB seem like a completely separate step from the RPI. But, the "per the RPI calculation" language could very well mean dropping the adverse wins.

    Leave a comment:


  • FlagDUDE08
    replied
    Re: John t whelan ranking simulator

    Originally posted by Numbers View Post
    Sorry, not clear in my post. I was thinking about the committee and their definition. I obviously spent awhile looking at the press release, trying to figure out how to calculate, and it wasn't perfectly clear.

    My remark about SoS was from the committee's perspective. They know they need a SoS factor somewhere, because the schedules aren't balanced. Thus the birth of RatingsPI. And, the idea of coupling win%, oppwin%, and oppoppwin% seems 'right' and it's fairly easy to calc. Then, with removing negative impact games, and the QWB, and the home/road factor (and I see the justification for all of them - it's good), the calc just gets more and more complex. Witness a guy like Patman who is a programmer, and he claims the minutiae gives him indigestion.

    It was just a comment on my part.

    By the way, I can send you a spreadsheet for KRACH this week if you want. I made one a couple years ago for NHL, and for NCAA it would just need expanding. Since I am not a programmer (46 years old, wanted to do what Whelan does, but ended up in the ministry, so I didn't keep up with all the new languages), I just do every thing the tedious way - Excel will calculate KRACH - you just have to do the iterations manually.
    Speaking as a programmer who has difficulty with calculations in OpenOffice (heck, the macro I had to set up to even get the schedule from the summer to the state it is in for the application was difficult enough), I can understand where you're coming from.

    I have never seen interpretation when it comes to mathematics, and is why I enjoy it so much. The only place where I see interpretation is in translation, specifically when trying to explain it to the "I was told there'd be no math..." folk. The NCAA did a fairly decent job in the explanation, although there seems to be some holes. I don't know if the selection committee members would be able to shed some light (RPI's Col. Knowlton is on the committee, but I don't know how much they're allowed to say).

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X