Originally posted by goblue78
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
John t whelan ranking simulator
Collapse
X
-
-
Re: John t whelan ranking simulator
Has anyone figured out yet why FlagDUDE's numbers don't match JimDahl or RHamilton?
Leave a comment:
-
Re: John t whelan ranking simulator
It clearly doesn't make sense to lose a game in order to play on the road. I was proposing that the team with the home ice advantage have the option to play on the road. That could clearly be in their advantage. Take a case of 5-12 matchup. That could easily be 65 percent at home and 60 percent on the road. Now the numbers work out.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by goblue78 View PostMy point is that a team on the bubble may need to take a risk. It could be that 2-0 in your rink just isn't worth very much and 2-0 in the other guy's rink is worth enough to make the risk worth it. Take the obvious example where a win over someone in your rink would be dropped from RPI while a win in their rink would augment RPI. In that case, playing at home is all downside. (And in the ECAC for example, the first round is 5 vs. 12. A really bad #12 team would be exactly the team you want to play in their rink, and the #5 ECAC team is probably real close to the bubble.)
Tell you what, take a home win prob of .55 under the two scenarios...
This is a short sim but I'm headed to a birthday party in dupont. Seeing as the denominator scales with the numerator I'd find it hard to believe there would be an advantage.
If you disagree w .55, sure, modify. But I'm almost sure of myself that your life is better playing for the first win and the home series than plopping in a loss
Just surface, N-H-H 3 wins
+2.6/+2.6
Vs n a a 2-1
+2.4/+3.4...
Don't even get back the same count of adjusted wins. There can be a lot of odd interplay when you add the bonuses... But first principles... Smaller numerator, larger denominator implies a smaller value... And this your base should you add tweaks... And you are likely to lose away... Christ that was a quick trip.Last edited by Patman; 11-30-2013, 07:56 PM.
Leave a comment:
-
Re: John t whelan ranking simulator
My point is that a team on the bubble may need to take a risk. It could be that 2-0 in your rink just isn't worth very much and 2-0 in the other guy's rink is worth enough to make the risk worth it. Take the obvious example where a win over someone in your rink would be dropped from RPI while a win in their rink would augment RPI. In that case, playing at home is all downside. (And in the ECAC for example, the first round is 5 vs. 12. A really bad #12 team would be exactly the team you want to play in their rink, and the #5 ECAC team is probably real close to the bubble.)
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by FlagDUDE08 View PostThe denominator is dependent upon who wins the game. If the home team, it's 0.8 for both. If the away team, it's 1.2 for both. Of course for the non-school-rink situations, because it is always the league that hosts and not a specific school, those are worth 1.0.
Leave a comment:
-
Re: John t whelan ranking simulator
Originally posted by Patman View Postis the denominator always the same?
If so, in short, yes, but that perverse incentive will be there for any team. What isn't sure is it worth losing to get into such a situation. That'd be a risky move. I don't think I'd take that risk... could just go 2-2 or worse than 2-1.
Leave a comment:
-
Re: John t whelan ranking simulator
November 29th's games are over, and here's how things look:
Quality Wins rate:
5.00 Minnesota
4.75 Ferris State
4.50 Michigan
4.25 St. Cloud State
4.00 Providence
3.75 Quinnipiac
3.50 Cornell
3.25 LSSU
3.00 Clarkson
2.75 Notre Dame
2.50 Minnesota Duluth
2.25 Boston College
2.00 Yale
1.75 Minnesota State Mankato
1.50 UMASS Lowell
1.25 New Hampshire
1.00 Miami
0.75 Bowling Green
0.50 Wisconsin
0.25 Union
And the tournament field:
Minnesota
Michigan
Ferris State
Providence
St. Cloud State
Quinnipiac
Cornell
LSSU
Notre Dame
Minnesota Duluth
UMASS Lowell
Clarkson
Yale
Boston College
Minnesota State Mankato
AHA Champ (39 - Mercyhurst)
A new version of the games list is uploaded today to reflect the tournament, as that deletes a couple of redundant games.
Leave a comment:
-
Re: John t whelan ranking simulator
Originally posted by goblue78 View PostJust thought of another issue with the new RPI calculation. In the conference playoffs, couldn't there be a clear advantage for a higher ranked team to play on the road? The difference between a .8 multiplier and a 1.2 multiplier could easily be the difference for a team on the bubble. Shouldn't a higher ranked team have the option to opt to play a two-out-of-three playoff series on the road? If not, why not? Note that the home advantage (as traditionally estimated) is nowhere near the RPI differential, so, other than the fact that you lose the gate receipts, shouldn't it be the normal call if you're on the bubble?
If so, in short, yes, but that perverse incentive will be there for any team. What isn't sure is it worth losing to get into such a situation. That'd be a risky move. I don't think I'd take that risk... could just go 2-2 or worse than 2-1.
Leave a comment:
-
Re: John t whelan ranking simulator
Just thought of another issue with the new RPI calculation. In the conference playoffs, couldn't there be a clear advantage for a higher ranked team to play on the road? The difference between a .8 multiplier and a 1.2 multiplier could easily be the difference for a team on the bubble. Shouldn't a higher ranked team have the option to opt to play a two-out-of-three playoff series on the road? If not, why not? Note that the home advantage (as traditionally estimated) is nowhere near the RPI differential, so, other than the fact that you lose the gate receipts, shouldn't it be the normal call if you're on the bubble?
Leave a comment:
-
Re: John t whelan ranking simulator
Originally posted by LTsatchsee above
Leave a comment:
-
Re: John t whelan ranking simulator
As of games ended 27 November 2013:
5.00 Minnesota
4.75 Ferris State
4.50 Michigan
4.25 St. Cloud State
4.00 Providence
3.75 Quinnipiac
3.50 Cornell
3.25 Boston College
3.00 LSSU
2.75 Clarkson
2.50 Minnesota Duluth
2.25 Minnesota State Mankato
2.00 Yale
1.75 Notre Dame
1.50 UMASS Lowell
1.25 Wisconsin
1.00 Bowling Green
0.75 Miami
0.50 Union
0.25 New Hampshire
And the tournament field:
Minnesota
Michigan
Ferris State
Providence
St. Cloud State
Quinnipiac
Cornell
Boston College
LSSU
Minnesota Duluth
Clarkson
Yale
UMASS Lowell
Notre Dame
Wisconsin
AHA Champ (38 - Air Force)
Leave a comment:
-
Re: John t whelan ranking simulator
As of games ended 26 November 2013:
5.00 Minnesota
4.75 Ferris State
4.50 Michigan
4.25 St. Cloud State
4.00 Providence
3.75 Quinnipiac
3.50 Cornell
3.25 Boston College
3.00 LSSU
2.75 Clarkson
2.50 Minnesota Duluth
2.25 Notre Dame
2.00 Yale
1.75 Minnesota State Mankato
1.50 Wisconsin
1.25 Bowling Green
1.00 UMASS Lowell
0.75 Miami
0.50 Union
0.25 Northern Michigan
And the tournament field:
Minnesota
Michigan
Ferris State
St. Cloud State
Providence
Quinnipiac
Cornell
Boston College
LSSU
Minnesota Duluth
Clarkson
Notre Dame
Yale
UMASS Lowell
Wisconsin
AHA Champ (38 - Air Force)
Leave a comment:
-
Re: John t whelan ranking simulator
Really good discussion for the numbers geeks among us. Keep up the good work, guys.
Leave a comment:
-
Re: John t whelan ranking simulator
I can guarantee the variance of the ratings will increase, since counting games at either .8 or 1.2 (with roughly equal probabilities) is guaranteed to increase variance. On the other hand, I can also guarantee that, jsut as in every other year, variance will decrease as the year winds down, because it will still be the case that the 20th game has, on average, only about 1/20th the weight of the previous games. Add to that the removal of the TUC cliff and variance at the end of the season will almost surely be lower. That doesn't mean, of course, that it might not still be the case that in a particular circumstance a team might not drop six places with a loss if they are particularly narrowly perched above the five teams below them, even at the end of the season. But there is nothing in the new system that won't stabilize the results overall at the end of the season.
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: