Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How to improve the Pairwise

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

  • #16
    Re: How to improve the Pairwise

    theres really nothing wrong with it. conference winners get AQs which i know is controversial to begin in. But win ur games. Thats all that matters. Bad losses are gonna hurt u

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: How to improve the Pairwise

      Originally posted by brassbonanza View Post
      If you introduce a fourth criteria, you open the system up to that many more 2-2 pair ties which would result in more ties broken by RPI.
      I disagree with this...for the final PWR this year there were 244 comparisons that were a 1-1 tie broken by the RPI tiebreaker. I need more time to analyze how often this happen with teams with similar RPI values (within 0.0100 pts or so). The H2H comparison is also not calculated as a 1-0 victory, it is a whole comparison point per win so unless the head to head match up is 1-0 or 1-0-1, it is impossible for a comparison to be tied 2-2 without a specific comparison like ComOp being a draw.

      Originally posted by hockeykrazy View Post
      I don't know how you improve on the pwr/pairwise but I do think additional criteria should be added for when you play someone and where they end up at the end (Beating UNO early was a big help but later when they took the fall we found out where they actually should have been). Maybe that is already factored in, I don't know. Maybe a weighting factor for games later in the year, better idea where the teams actually are.

      Another is prime players in and out of the lineup- or injuries. I have no idea how you would factor this in mathematically but it is a big factor.
      SCSU played QU at the beginning of the season on their home turf with a young D core. 3 freshmen D (Schuldt, Borgen and Lizotte) and without our best player Ethan Prow. A very small sophomore Ilvonen in for Prow and Nevalainen just back from a concussion. So maybe something to consider for injuries/healthy? Doesn't QU have a player out (Anas) I think so they are not the same team as they are with him, but they have depth. Other teams don't.

      A big one was last year. I thought Miami was the best team in the field. They get beat by Providence but they are missing their top two players, Blake Coleman (suspended for a hit in the NCHC championship game) and Riley Barber ( injury).

      Same with North Dakota, they lost Mark MacMillan due to an injury late in the season (Brodzinski blew his kneecap/leg(J/K) off blocking a shot). He also hurt another ND player on the same PP.
      Brodzinski himself hurt his ankle in the Mich Tech game and it really affected his play against North Dakota in the Regional final.

      Last year the Blackhawks almost didn't make the playoffs when Kane was out and when he came back they went on a tear. Being healthy at the end of the year obviously helps your rating and how your team is peaking or not.
      included as carry over from the other thread.
      Last edited by Shirtless Guy; 03-21-2016, 01:42 PM.
      Michigan Tech Legend, Founder of Mitch's Misfits, Co-Founder of Tech Hockey Guide, and Creator/Host of the Chasing MacNaughton Podcast covering MTU Hockey and the WCHA.

      Sports Allegiance: NFL: GB MLB: MIL NHL: MIN CB: UW CF: UW CH: MTU FIFA: USA MLS: MIN EPL: Everton

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: How to improve the Pairwise

        My issues with it are as follows:
        I think the OppOpp is weighted too high and I'd find some way to lower it slightly.
        Second, Since there is so much parity in the game, the QWB doesn't accurately reflect the quality of teams you beat. I mean really, number 20 is not so much different than number 30. I'd lower the QWB cutoff to top 10 teams vs top 20 or 15.
        three, it seems to me that once a team clinches a spot, they don't play quite as hard as they did previously. it's not egregious, but enough to make a difference. so i'd find a way to reduce the effect of beating a team that has already clinched.
        MTU: Three time NCAA champions.

        It never get's easier, you just go faster. -Greg Lemond

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: How to improve the Pairwise

          (copied from the other thread)

          Originally posted by brassbonanza View Post
          If you introduce a fourth criteria, you open the system up to that many more 2-2 pair ties which would result in more ties broken by RPI.
          If the fourth criteria is one in which all or most teams will have data, it will result in fewer ties overall, because H2H comes up in maybe 1/3 of team comparisons and often less (depending on a team's conference they're playing maybe as few as 12 or as many as 20 opponents over the course of the season). That means that currently, most comparisons are decided only by RPI and common opponents, and since the RPI is the tiebreaker, that means most comparisons are really decided only by RPI because common opponents alone isn't enough to overcome RPI.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: How to improve the Pairwise

            Originally posted by fightingsiouxfan16 View Post
            theres really nothing wrong with it. conference winners get AQs which i know is controversial to begin in. But win ur games. Thats all that matters. Bad losses are gonna hurt u
            I brought up injuries or missing key players (World juniors, suspensions) and when(young inexperienced in the fall(freshmen) vs spring) you play strong/weak teams are big factors.
            Not sure how you would do this mathematically. Maybe weighting factors?

            The biggest thing would be to get the NCAA to let them play more games (non-conference) later in the year. It is weighted way too heavily on results early in the year.

            SCSU swept Minnesota in Nov but I don't know if we get the same result if we play them in Feb.
            Last edited by hockeykrazy; 03-21-2016, 01:35 PM.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: How to improve the Pairwise

              Originally posted by tape View Post
              If the fourth criteria is one in which all or most teams will have data, it will result in fewer ties overall, because H2H comes up in maybe 1/3 of team comparisons and often less (depending on a team's conference they're playing maybe as few as 12 or as many as 20 opponents over the course of the season). That means that currently, most comparisons are decided only by RPI and common opponents, and since the RPI is the tiebreaker, that means most comparisons are really decided only by RPI because common opponents alone isn't enough to overcome RPI.
              To elaborate on this there are a total of 1770 total comparisons, 1332 (>75%)were based solely on RPI because there was no H2H comparison. Of those 1332, 244 (18.3%) resulted in comparison being awarded on the RPI tiebreaker because the other team won the ComOpp comparison. 576 had the potential to end up a tie if an additional criteria was added but I highly doubt it would, especially if you did added a 2nd RPI value, like QWB+aRPI and aRPI each as their own criteria.
              Michigan Tech Legend, Founder of Mitch's Misfits, Co-Founder of Tech Hockey Guide, and Creator/Host of the Chasing MacNaughton Podcast covering MTU Hockey and the WCHA.

              Sports Allegiance: NFL: GB MLB: MIL NHL: MIN CB: UW CF: UW CH: MTU FIFA: USA MLS: MIN EPL: Everton

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: How to improve the Pairwise

                Originally posted by hockeykrazy View Post
                I brought up injuries or missing key players (World juniors, suspensions) and when(young inexperienced in the fall(freshmen) vs spring) you play strong/weak teams are big factors.
                Not sure how you would do this mathematically. Maybe weighting factors?

                The biggest thing would be to get the NCAA to let them play more games (non-conference) later in the year. It is weighted way too heavily on results early in the year.

                SCSU swept Minnesota in Nov but I don't know if we get the same result if we play them in Feb.
                I think SCSCU would still beat them. Minn too me doesnt look like minnesota of the past. Michigan is very impressive. I would love to see more non conference games for the weaker leagues. when it comes to the NCHC and HE they play very tough conference games so to add tougher non conference games might be brutal. Like you said world juniors hurt but what if the schools dont let them go. Only let the kids go that are in juniors and it wont impact college hockey. Now im sure thatll hurt college hockey too. Providence lost a 3OT game to Lowell and dropped 2 spots which i thought was a little much. It was a great game and a deflection off a players skate to end the game.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: How to improve the Pairwise

                  copied from the other thread since Tipsy wants this answer as well as J.D.
                  Originally posted by J.D. View Post
                  I'll play along. If there is a problem with it, can you identify a team you think should be in over some other team? If so, why? Just curious.
                  Obviously this year, my preference would be that MTU deserved to make the cut, having the 8th best W%, top ten in scoring offense, scoring defense and PP. I know they didn't have a very difficult schedule on paper and if they won one more game (either won the GLI champ over MI or gotten one win in their horrible weekend against UAA) they'd be in right now.

                  I will say that I have had these concerns with the current system since it was instituted 2 years ago. There needs to be a way for any team to flip a comparison without playing head to head, without it, we put too much faith in RPI getting things right. The RPI calculator as-is was basically set at those values solely to minimize the number of negative impact games, not because .25/.21/.59 does a better job than .25/.50/.25 at determining the best teams. RPI obviously is flawed at it's core since a victory over certain teams can lower a team's RPI.

                  As I broke down early, nearly 20% of all comparisons that didn't have a head to head component finished tied 1-1 with the tiebreaker going to the flawed RPI value.
                  Michigan Tech Legend, Founder of Mitch's Misfits, Co-Founder of Tech Hockey Guide, and Creator/Host of the Chasing MacNaughton Podcast covering MTU Hockey and the WCHA.

                  Sports Allegiance: NFL: GB MLB: MIL NHL: MIN CB: UW CF: UW CH: MTU FIFA: USA MLS: MIN EPL: Everton

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: How to improve the Pairwise

                    If any likes the ideas that get presented, I can run through the last 3 year's values and see how much things change. Granted, in the end the point isn't to make things change necessarily, just to do a better job.
                    Michigan Tech Legend, Founder of Mitch's Misfits, Co-Founder of Tech Hockey Guide, and Creator/Host of the Chasing MacNaughton Podcast covering MTU Hockey and the WCHA.

                    Sports Allegiance: NFL: GB MLB: MIL NHL: MIN CB: UW CF: UW CH: MTU FIFA: USA MLS: MIN EPL: Everton

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: How to improve the Pairwise

                      Originally posted by manurespreader View Post
                      I think the OppOpp is weighted too high and I'd find some way to lower it slightly.
                      I think this reveals part of the problem with RPI in general.

                      The goal of a "simple math" system is, IMO, that it's as objective and removed from influence as possible. That means removing subjective criteria or "fudge factors" used to try to better fit historical trends.

                      The coefficients used to calculate RPI, as it turns out, have a HUGE impact on the results and therefore deciding what those coefficients should be introduces a lot of subjectivity into their rankings.

                      Therefore, RPI isn't really a very ideal metric. Even if it's still better than a dozen guys sealed off in a dark, smoky room trying to do what "feels right".

                      Edit: And this is before you get the "certain victories can lower your RPI" problem that our esteemed topless friend has pointed out.
                      If you want to be a BADGER, just come along with me

                      BRING BACK PAT RICHTER!!!


                      At his graduation ceremony from the U of Minnesota, my cousin got a keychain. When asked what UW gave her for graduation, my sister said, "A degree from a University that matters."

                      Canned music is a pathetic waste of your time.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: How to improve the Pairwise

                        Originally posted by Shirtless Guy View Post
                        Wouldn't that favor teams who are closer to .500 in conference but play in a tough conference because everyone else gets a better OppOpp W% value, the largest component of RPI now, while a top team in a weaker conference gets penalized for winning most of their games within their conference, driving down the OppOpp W% component?
                        Yes, and in fact I was thinking of starting a thread on this very topic. The top teams in Atlantic Hockey (and, I would guess, nWCHA and B1G) are routinely underrated in the PWR due to the necessities of their conference schedules. They play weak teams multiple times each, and that's extremely likely to result in "bad" losses just due to the vagaries of chance (a bounce here, a hot goalie there).


                        Powers &8^]

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: How to improve the Pairwise

                          Originally posted by Shirtless Guy View Post
                          Since the last change, I have always found it strange that only head to head games can flip a comparison from the team with the higher RPI, because a superior common opponent record isn't enough by itself because tiebreaker goes to RPI. With the RPI calculation so flawed and skewed specifically for hockey to avoid negative impact games, it doesn't make sense to put so much emphasis on something so arbitrary. Does anyone have a suggestion on how to change the current formulation to find a 4th criteria to allow flipping a comparison without head to head games? My first thought was to incorporate RPI w/QWB and RPI w/o QWB since not every team gets equal shots at QWB and only so much of that can be the responsibility of the team itself. If we are so confident in the RPI we choose to use, it would make sense to use both numbers in some fashion.

                          Other thoughts? I'd like to gather a few ideas and incorporate them into the last 3 years of the current system and see how it would have changed the field.
                          Of course we should win all the tiebreakers!

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: How to improve the Pairwise

                            Originally posted by FlagDUDE08 View Post
                            Of course we should win all the tiebreakers!
                            The problem is that we have to tie first.
                            sigpic

                            Let's Go 'Tute!

                            Maxed out at 2,147,483,647 at 10:00 AM EDT 9/17/07.

                            2012 Poser Of The Year

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: How to improve the Pairwise

                              Originally posted by Shirtless Guy View Post
                              copied from the other thread since Tipsy wants this answer as well as J.D.

                              Obviously this year, my preference would be that MTU deserved to make the cut, having the 8th best W%, top ten in scoring offense, scoring defense and PP. I know they didn't have a very difficult schedule on paper and if they won one more game (either won the GLI champ over MI or gotten one win in their horrible weekend against UAA) they'd be in right now.

                              I will say that I have had these concerns with the current system since it was instituted 2 years ago. There needs to be a way for any team to flip a comparison without playing head to head, without it, we put too much faith in RPI getting things right. The RPI calculator as-is was basically set at those values solely to minimize the number of negative impact games, not because .25/.21/.59 does a better job than .25/.50/.25 at determining the best teams. RPI obviously is flawed at it's core since a victory over certain teams can lower a team's RPI.

                              As I broke down early, nearly 20% of all comparisons that didn't have a head to head component finished tied 1-1 with the tiebreaker going to the flawed RPI value.
                              Part of this is the WCHA's own fault for having a 28 game conference schedule and only leaving 6 non-conference games. You aren't leaving yourself much margin for error.

                              As for Michigan Tech being left out, sure their numbers look impressive, but when you look at who they played against it isn't that impressive. They played the 47th ranked team in RPI 3 times and went to OT each time. Swept at home against Anchorage. In games against teams that made the tournament, they went 2-3 against Ferris, and lost to both Michigan and Yale.
                              Originally posted by SJHovey
                              Pretty sure this post, made on January 3, 2016, when UNO was 14-3-1 and #2 in the pairwise, will go down in USCHO lore as The Curse of Tipsy McStagger.
                              Originally posted by Brenthoven
                              We mourn for days after a loss, puff out our chests for a week or more after we win. We brave the cold for tailgates, our friends know not to ask about the game after a tough loss, we laugh, we cry, we BLEED hockey, specifically the maroon'n'gold. Many of us have a tattoo waiting in the wings, WHEN (not IF) the Gophers are champions again.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: How to improve the Pairwise

                                Originally posted by Tipsy McStagger View Post
                                Part of this is the WCHA's own fault for having a 28 game conference schedule and only leaving 6 non-conference games. You aren't leaving yourself much margin for error.

                                As for Michigan Tech being left out, sure their numbers look impressive, but when you look at who they played against it isn't that impressive. They played the 47th ranked team in RPI 3 times and went to OT each time. Swept at home against Anchorage. In games against teams that made the tournament, they went 2-3 against Ferris, and lost to both Michigan and Yale.
                                Did not lose to Yale and I hardly would use FSU as their barameter. MTU had a winning record against everyone in conference except their horrible weekend with UAA, FSU and 1-1 @ BSU, but your point stands...The WCHA does not leave themselves ONLY 6 NC games, they all have at least 8 and quite a few 10 expect for the Alaska schools because of the exemption. To be fair, they shouldn't have to give up home dates to make their situations better...They need to get home games if they give up conference games. The fact that the WCHA did really bad in their games with the NCHC was a death blow to MTU and the fact that BGSU and MSU didn't do better to be quality opponents. How many one goal games did the good teams have against bad teams? MTU still won 2 of those 3 with Michigan State.

                                I'm honestly not having this discussion solely because MTU was left out but I guess I can admit that I probably wouldn't have started this thread if they were in. I think the system is flawed even if it has done a decent job of selecting the field over the last 3 years. I've had this discussion with friends the last couple years and this is mainly sparked by digging deep enough to create my own calculator in February.
                                Last edited by Shirtless Guy; 03-21-2016, 02:37 PM.
                                Michigan Tech Legend, Founder of Mitch's Misfits, Co-Founder of Tech Hockey Guide, and Creator/Host of the Chasing MacNaughton Podcast covering MTU Hockey and the WCHA.

                                Sports Allegiance: NFL: GB MLB: MIL NHL: MIN CB: UW CF: UW CH: MTU FIFA: USA MLS: MIN EPL: Everton

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X