Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How to improve the Pairwise

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

  • How to improve the Pairwise

    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.
    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

  • #2
    Re: How to improve the Pairwise

    [Insert 'use KRACH instead of RPI' argument here]
    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


    • #3
      Re: How to improve the Pairwise

      Originally posted by ExileOnDaytonStreet View Post
      [Insert 'use KRACH instead of RPI' argument here]
      get conferences to reduce number of conference games to have more interconference matchups to allow for better cross conference data...
      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


      • #4
        Re: How to improve the Pairwise

        What are people's thoughts on using H2H instead of RPI as the first tiebreaker for comparison. This year as an example, Lowell held a 3-1 H2H comparison, but only a 0.003 RPI advantage. They tied with an identical number of comparisons won, but Lowell owned the compare over BU. I understand why RPI is used, and should be in most cases, but when a team holds the actual comparison (holds com-op and H2H) wouldn't it make sense to break the tie with the comparison win itself in stead of RPI?
        BS UMass Lowell 2015
        PhD Georgia Institute of Technology 20(19ish?)



        Originally posted by BUtogether
        And I'd be giving BJ's to any kid
        RIP KRoy4Hobey, Gr8Sk8M8(?), BUtogether(?)

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: How to improve the Pairwise

          Originally posted by UML Puck Hawk View Post
          What are people's thoughts on using H2H instead of RPI as the first tiebreaker for comparison. This year as an example, Lowell held a 3-1 H2H comparison, but only a 0.003 RPI advantage. They tied with an identical number of comparisons won, but Lowell owned the compare over BU. I understand why RPI is used, and should be in most cases, but when a team holds the actual comparison (holds com-op and H2H) wouldn't it make sense to break the tie with the comparison win itself in stead of RPI?
          I would say that there's no issue at all, since comparing two teams directly is sort of the point of the PWR system. But H2H already has a fairly large weight in the system as it is, given how many comparison points you get for each victory. Making it the first tie-breaker almost seems redundant.
          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


          • #6
            Re: How to improve the Pairwise

            Originally posted by UML Puck Hawk View Post
            What are people's thoughts on using H2H instead of RPI as the first tiebreaker for comparison. This year as an example, Lowell held a 3-1 H2H comparison, but only a 0.003 RPI advantage. They tied with an identical number of comparisons won, but Lowell owned the compare over BU. I understand why RPI is used, and should be in most cases, but when a team holds the actual comparison (holds com-op and H2H) wouldn't it make sense to break the tie with the comparison win itself in stead of RPI?
            If a team has both ComOp and H2H while losing RPI, they will flip the comparison. The biggest problem I have is flipping it can only occur if teams play head to head. Lowell gets 3 pts for H2H wins, BU gets 1, UML gets 1 more for RPI advantage...ComOp was actually a draw so UML wins that comparison 4-1.
            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


            • #7
              Re: How to improve the Pairwise

              Originally posted by Biddco View Post
              I truly don't believe there is a better way.
              Moving this over from the other pairwise thread...

              The pairwise system is the best way in general, but that doesn't mean how we arrive at the numbers used can't be done better and that a 4th comparison can't be determined that is equally valuable to the 3 we already use...I think it is a relatively fair system, but after investing a ton of time into creating my own calculator, I certainly see flaws.

              For example...the result of every game directly impacts the weight of Opp's W% and OppOpp W%. Should UMD's Opp W% be determined on whether or not they win a game? Or does it make sense that the 2nd and 3rd components of RPI should not be weighted based on the outcome of the game?

              Also, with so much emphasis on the OppOpp W%, should that calculated valued exclude games against the team we're using, as in UMD's OppOpp W% should exclude all games played with UMD. Doesn't that make sense? 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?
              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


              • #8
                Re: How to improve the Pairwise

                Originally posted by Shirtless Guy View Post
                If a team has both ComOp and H2H while losing RPI, they will flip the comparison. The biggest problem I have is flipping it can only occur if teams play head to head. Lowell gets 3 pts for H2H wins, BU gets 1, UML gets 1 more for RPI advantage...ComOp was actually a draw so UML wins that comparison 4-1.
                Maybe I didn't explain what I was getting at well, they tied with 52 comparisons. The current tiebreak upon a tie in the pairwise is RPI. I was saying who holds the comparison should get the advantage as opposed to settling that tie with RPI again.

                I understand how the PWR works, I am commenting on the tiebreak that occurs when teams have the same number of compares won. I am saying the team that owns the comparison between the two tied teams should receive the higher seeding.

                RPI currently (1. decides one portion of who wins a compare, 2. breaks the tie in the event the comparison is tied, 3. breaks the tie in the event two teams have the same number of comparisons won). I am commenting on 3, saying perhaps a better tiebreak here would be who owns the comparison between the two tied teams.
                BS UMass Lowell 2015
                PhD Georgia Institute of Technology 20(19ish?)



                Originally posted by BUtogether
                And I'd be giving BJ's to any kid
                RIP KRoy4Hobey, Gr8Sk8M8(?), BUtogether(?)

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: How to improve the Pairwise

                  I take it that we don't want to (re) introduce another comparison factor, like record in last 20 games?
                  reward teams coming in hot?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: How to improve the Pairwise

                    Originally posted by Shirtless Guy View Post
                    get conferences to reduce number of conference games to have more interconference matchups to allow for better cross conference data...
                    Oh, so now the Big Ten has the right idea on something!

                    Fairly certain baseball has a penalty for losing to teams in the bottom 50 or so. Of course, there are around 300 teams, so maybe make it the bottom 10 for hockey?
                    Go Green! Go White! Go State!

                    1966, 1986, 2007

                    Go Tigers, Go Packers, Go Red Wings, Go Pistons

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: How to improve the Pairwise

                      Originally posted by UML Puck Hawk View Post
                      Maybe I didn't explain what I was getting at well, they tied with 52 comparisons. The current tiebreak upon a tie in the pairwise is RPI. I was saying who holds the comparison should get the advantage as opposed to settling that tie with RPI again.

                      I understand how the PWR works, I am commenting on the tiebreak that occurs when teams have the same number of compares won. I am saying the team that owns the comparison between the two tied teams should receive the higher seeding.

                      RPI currently (1. decides one portion of who wins a compare, 2. breaks the tie in the event the comparison is tied, 3. breaks the tie in the event two teams have the same number of comparisons won). I am commenting on 3, saying perhaps a better tiebreak here would be who owns the comparison between the two tied teams.
                      fair enough, I agree with that...not positive you're right that 3 isn't who owns the head-to-head comparison win, but if it isn't I agree with that change.
                      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


                      • #12
                        Re: How to improve the Pairwise

                        Originally posted by Shirtless Guy View Post
                        The biggest problem I have is flipping it can only occur if teams play head to head.
                        This is my biggest concern as well. When a team's schedule contains at most about 1/3 of Division I, H2H just doesn't come up that often, and with RPI the tiebreaker, it means ComOp doesn't even matter unless there's also H2H.

                        Imagine a scenario where teams are extremely close in the RPI - Lowell and BU this year are a great example since Lowell is only up on BU by .0003. In reality, they played head-to-head, but suppose they didn't, and suppose that rather than being tied in ComOp, BU obliterated Lowell in that category - say BU was 8-1 against common opponents while somehow Lowell went 1-8 (I know it's done by adding the win% against each team but you get the point). It almost seems unfair that two teams in a virtual tie in RPI but with such a huge discrepancy in ComOp would be decided by the RPI in such a scenario.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: How to improve the Pairwise

                          Originally posted by tape View Post
                          This is my biggest concern as well. When a team's schedule contains at most about 1/3 of Division I, H2H just doesn't come up that often, and with RPI the tiebreaker, it means ComOp doesn't even matter unless there's also H2H.

                          Imagine a scenario where teams are extremely close in the RPI - Lowell and BU this year are a great example since Lowell is only up on BU by .0003. In reality, they played head-to-head, but suppose they didn't, and suppose that rather than being tied in ComOp, BU obliterated Lowell in that category - say BU was 8-1 against common opponents while somehow Lowell went 1-8 (I know it's done by adding the win% against each team but you get the point). It almost seems unfair that two teams in a virtual tie in RPI but with such a huge discrepancy in ComOp would be decided by the RPI in such a scenario.
                          True all around.

                          Still better than the "oh whatever, let's just take straw polls until we like it" method used by the basketball committee.
                          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


                          • #14
                            Re: How to improve the Pairwise

                            A few considerations...

                            Anything done must be able to be done by a fastidious layperson. As awful as things are, the RPI can be computed in a long afternoon with a simple calculator.

                            The goal of the ranking is unclear. The TUC factor was meant to consider performance against a more select set of opponents. Of course you have to preselect before you select and all that fun.

                            The means of evaluation are currently limited. Even if you blank out the scores and simulate what is to judge good and bad? Will we accept an aggregate testing bed? What is the value of mis-selection.

                            What is it we value in these teams? The capacity to be the best amongst all? What does that mean? Is it just the best group amongst the entire selection? The last and the first are not the same.

                            ----

                            I can always set up a synthetic data testbed. That's actually quite easy. Modeling may take the better part of the afternoon but nothing I can't do.
                            BS UML '04, PhD UConn '09

                            Jerseys I would like to have:
                            Skating Friar Jersey
                            AIC Yellowjacket Jersey w/ Yellowjacket logo on front
                            UAF Jersey w/ Polar Bear on Front
                            Army Black Knight logo jersey


                            NCAA Men's Division 1 Simulation Primer

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: How to improve the Pairwise

                              Originally posted by Shirtless Guy View Post
                              fair enough, I agree with that...not positive you're right that 3 isn't who owns the head-to-head comparison win, but if it isn't I agree with that change.
                              USCHO and College Hockey News break it with RPI. That said we don't really know what the committee would use, except if we look at history.
                              BS UMass Lowell 2015
                              PhD Georgia Institute of Technology 20(19ish?)



                              Originally posted by BUtogether
                              And I'd be giving BJ's to any kid
                              RIP KRoy4Hobey, Gr8Sk8M8(?), BUtogether(?)

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X