What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

2009-2010 DI Rutter Computer Rankings Thread

Re: 2009-2010 DI Rutter Computer Rankings Thread

I don't know that I do agree. Knight, for example, has a tremendous impact on the game. We've seen the difference that Martin's presence can make. I think Schaus alone gives BC a chance on any given day. Mercyhurst already has the top-ranked team with the #1 offense. Yes, she'll make them better, but I think there is more of a difference to be made on other rosters.

Agree that Knight is a high impact player for Wisco, just like Agosta is for Mercyhurst. Not too many others in the college game that are as dynamic. The next one with that kind of impact will probably be Poulin.

IMHO next season I could see another Wisco - Hurst final.
 
Re: 2009-2010 DI Rutter Computer Rankings Thread

North Dakota will also be getting a couple of pretty good players off the Olympic team.
The question I've pondered since the transfer...will the Sioux have the supporting cast for the twins to get where they want to go (the FF) within their career at UND? Not out of the question...but I'm a bit skeptical. We'll see.
 
Re: 2009-2010 DI Rutter Computer Rankings Thread

Agree that Knight is a high impact player for Wisco, just like Agosta is for Mercyhurst. Not too many others in the college game that are as dynamic. The next one with that kind of impact will probably be Poulin.

IMHO next season I could see another Wisco - Hurst final.

Dynamic: Haley Irwin and Elin Holmlov for UMD. And, Santa should be back in net. I honestly expect that UMD will be right there again next season.
 
Last edited:
Re: 2009-2010 DI Rutter Computer Rankings Thread

Agree that Knight is a high impact player for Wisco, just like Agosta is for Mercyhurst. Not too many others in the college game that are as dynamic. The next one with that kind of impact will probably be Poulin.

IMHO next season I could see another Wisco - Hurst final.
I've only seen her in NCAA tournament games, but frankly, Miss Agosta has not really come up that big in those games and taken her team to the top. Something that several dynamic players have done for their teams in the past. All due respect. Of course, she isn't finished yet.
 
Re: 2009-2010 DI Rutter Computer Rankings Thread

I've only seen her in NCAA tournament games, but frankly, Miss Agosta has not really come up that big in those games and taken her team to the top. Something that several dynamic players have done for their teams in the past. All due respect. Of course, she isn't finished yet.

I seem to recall her team struggled somewhat last year when she was hurt earlier in the season...AND... They did go to the Final for the first time in history last year did they not ?. While the final was a bit of a dud, 29 other teams did not get there, and she carried them to it. ! Just my opinion.

Great discussion though and many good points brought up.
 
Re: 2009-2010 DI Rutter Computer Rankings Thread

IMHO next season I could see another Wisco - Hurst final.
We could see a lot of things. I think it is a little premature to try to figure out who is going to play in a game that is over 15 months away. The rosters of the teams that will finish 5-8 next year are going to be quite a bit more imposing than that of those that wind up there this season, so it's possible that we see something like 2007 where the road teams are more successful in the quarters.

The WCHA as a whole is going to be a gauntlet next year. A team like Minnesota could conceivably finish in the top 4, as a road team for the quarters, or out of the postseason picture. Given they are going to be a very talented team, but playing a lot of youth in a loaded conference, I'd guess that they will wind up in the 6-8 range. Projecting who they will have on their roster, I think they'll be a very dangerous team for somebody to host.

While the final was a bit of a dud, 29 other teams did not get there, and she carried them to it.
This is where I think people do Mercyhurst a disservice. It isn't like last year's team was Agosta carrying the rest of the team anywhere. I was VERY, VERY impressed with their roster as a whole. Meanwhile, she had been hyped so much that it is tough for anyone to live up to that billing.
 
Re: 2009-2010 DI Rutter Computer Rankings Thread

I seem to recall her team struggled somewhat last year when she was hurt earlier in the season...AND... They did go to the Final for the first time in history last year did they not ?. While the final was a bit of a dud, 29 other teams did not get there, and she carried them to it. ! Just my opinion.

But she did her team no favors in that final. She practically carved a 2 inch deep figure 8 above the circles when in the defensive zone, and while the game was still close, chose to keep the puck on an odd rush instead of dishing off for a virtual layup goal.
 
Re: 2009-2010 DI Rutter Computer Rankings Thread

But Minnesota's two losses are against the number 7 team, while Mercyhurst's only loss is to the number 4 team. But Minnesota beat the number 4 team twice. Arrgh! This is why computer rankings are useful because it is able to keep all these levels of comparisons straight and be impartial using the theory developed by a human, who would be going in circles trying to keep it all straight.

What I think would make an interesting visual for each ranking is to create a 33x33 grid, and for each team plot the wins and losses for each opponent. Let's say you color Wins Blue, Ties Purple, and Losses Red. Then for Mercyhurst you plot one blue, one red in Row 1, Column 4 for the Split with UMD, and so on. This will give you a sense of the kind of variance you have in your estimates.

As a preview of what this might look like, this table lists the top 15 teams in the Rutter rankings, and the best win, best win or tie, worst loss or tie, and worst loss for each opponent (forgive my formatting cluelessness)

Team / Best Win / Best W or T / Worst L or T / Worst L
1 Minnesota 4 UMD 4 UMD 14 MSU 7 Wisco
2 Mercyhurst 4 UMD 4 UMD 10 Niagara 4 UMD
3 UNH 9 Northeastern 6 Harvard 13 SLU 5 Clarkson
4 UMD 2 Mercy 2 Mercy 27 RMU 27 RMU
5 Clarkson 3 UNH 3 UNH 28 Vermont 28 Vermont
6 Harvard 13 SLU 3 UNH 15 Princeton 15 Princeton
7 Wisconsin 1 Minnesota 1 Minnesota 27 RMU 27 RMU
8 Cornell 5 Clarkson 5 Clarkson 25 Quinnipiac 13 SLU
9 Northeastern 20 BC 18 Uconn 30 Maine 30 Maine
10 Niagara 8 Cornell 2 Mercy 27 RMU 24 RPI
11 OSU 7 Wisconsin 7 Wisconsin 23 UND 23 UND
12 BU 15 Princeton 3 UNH 30 Maine 26 Providence
13 SLU 8 Cornell 3 UNH 29 Colgate 18 Uconn
14 MSU 4 UMD 4 UMD 23 UND 22 Bemidji
15 Princeton 6 Harvard 6 Harvard 28 Vermont 28 Vermont

You would expect to see a downward trend in all columns. This gives you a sense of how good or bad each team can be. One thing that does stand out is Northeastern is the worst of the top 15 teams by all four measures, so there has to be a ton of variance surrounding that No. 9 ranking.
 
Re: 2009-2010 DI Rutter Computer Rankings Thread

The web server that hosts my ranking web site is having some issues. You can visit the site, but I can't post my new rankings. Here is the top 10 through Saturday's games

Code:
   	Team  		Rating 	RPI.Rank RPI
1	Mercyhurst	1.4692	1	0.6362
2	Minnesota	1.2826	2	0.6132
3	Clarkson	0.8711	3	0.5888
4	New Hampshire	0.8519	4	0.5869
5	Harvard		0.8221	5	0.5709
6	UMD		0.7680	6	0.5586
7	Wisconsin	0.6256	7	0.5504
8	Cornell		0.4342	8	0.5489
9	St. Lawrence	0.2250	11	0.5194
10	Northeastern	0.2142	9	0.5350
 
Re: 2009-2010 DI Rutter Computer Rankings Thread

For games played through December 6, 2009.

Code:
   	Team  		Rating  	
1	Mercyhurst	1.4725	
2	Minnesota	1.2909	
3	Clarkson	0.8776
4	New Hampshire	0.8562
5	Harvard		0.8260	
6	UMD		0.7566	
7	Wisconsin	0.6380	
8	Cornell		0.4386	
9	St. Lawrence	0.2299	
10	Northeastern	0.2275
 
Re: 2009-2010 DI Rutter Computer Rankings Thread

For games played through December 13, 2009.

Code:
   	Team  		Rating  	
1	Mercyhurst	1.5541	
2	Minnesota	1.3245	
3	New Hampshire	0.9282	
4	Harvard		0.8827	
5	Clarkson	0.8582	
6	UMD		0.7239	
7	Wisconsin	0.7060	
8	Cornell		0.4361	
9	Ohio State	0.2133	
10	Northeastern	0.1934
 
Re: 2009-2010 DI Rutter Computer Rankings Thread

OK, the web server at Penn State Erie is having issues, so the web site is not updating. Here are the rankings for games played through Jan 2.

Code:
   	Team  	Rating  	RPI.Rank  	RPI
1	Mercyhurst	1.5716	1	0.6428
2	Minnesota	1.2918	2	0.6119
3	New Hampshire	0.9353	3	0.5954
4	Harvard		0.8925	5	0.5797
5	Clarkson	0.8566	4	0.5884
6	UMD		0.6840	7	0.5561
7	Wisconsin	0.6668	6	0.5583
8	Cornell		0.4474	8	0.5509
9	Connecticut	0.2309	10	0.5209
10	Northeastern	0.2232	9	0.5354
11	Ohio State	0.2186	12	0.5185
12	St. Lawrence	0.1989	14	0.5144
13	Niagara		0.1674	11	0.5195
14	BU		0.1385	15	0.5120
15	Syracuse	0.0588	13	0.5174
16	St. Cloud State	0.0315	17	0.4921
17	Dartmouth	0.0102	16	0.4978
18	Wayne State	-0.0404	19	0.4854
19	Boston College	-0.0558	18	0.4858
20	Bemidji State	-0.0559	23	0.4805
21	Princeton	-0.1135	21	0.4830
22	Providence	-0.1185	24	0.4759
23	Minnesota State	-0.1528	25	0.4616
24	Rensselaer	-0.1820	20	0.4833
25	Quinnipiac	-0.2527	22	0.4809
26	Robert Morris	-0.4056	27	0.4474
27	Colgate		-0.4087	26	0.4505
28	North Dakota	-0.5875	28	0.4274
29	Yale		-0.6468	29	0.4268
30	Maine		-0.7733	30	0.4171
31	Vermont		-0.7910	31	0.4128
32	Brown		-1.0863	32	0.3939
33	Union		-1.7164	33	0.3461
 
Re: 2009-2010 DI Rutter Computer Rankings Thread

For games played through Jan 3, 2010

Code:
   	Team  	Rating  	RPI.Rank  	RPI
1	Mercyhurst	1.3948	1	0.6340
2	Minnesota	1.2970	2	0.6127
3	New Hampshire	0.9399	3	0.5961
4	Harvard		0.8984	5	0.5812
5	Clarkson	0.8537	4	0.5886
6	UMD		0.6840	7	0.5564
7	Wisconsin	0.6816	6	0.5585
8	Cornell		0.4397	8	0.5507
9	Ohio State	0.2690	10	0.5247
10	Connecticut	0.2277	11	0.5215
11	Northeastern	0.2222	9	0.5336
12	St. Lawrence	0.2042	14	0.5145
13	Niagara		0.1557	12	0.5193
14	Boston Univ.	0.1485	15	0.5122
15	St. Cloud State	0.1303	17	0.4974
16	Syracuse	0.0564	13	0.5169
17	Dartmouth	0.0325	16	0.4989
18	Wayne State	-0.0458	20	0.4844
19	Providence	-0.0510	19	0.4847
20	Bemidji State	-0.0521	24	0.4802
21	Boston College	-0.0644	18	0.4847
22	Princeton	-0.1128	21	0.4833
23	Rensselaer	-0.1824	22	0.4822
24	Minnesota State	-0.2056	25	0.4560
25	Quinnipiac	-0.2418	23	0.4818
26	Colgate		-0.4029	26	0.4507
27	Robert Morris	-0.4525	27	0.4412
28	North Dakota	-0.5772	28	0.4283
29	Yale		-0.6429	29	0.4272
30	Maine		-0.7777	30	0.4161
31	Vermont		-0.8786	32	0.4051
32	Brown		-0.9480	31	0.4091
33	Union		-1.7087	33	0.3459
 
Re: 2009-2010 DI Rutter Computer Rankings Thread

For games played through Jan 3, 2010
Code:
   	Team  	Rating  	RPI.Rank  	RPI
1	Mercyhurst	1.3948	1	0.6340
Well, Mercyhurst maintained the #1 ranking here, but that's quite a drop in their Rutter for the tie vs. St. Cloud State.
 
Re: 2009-2010 DI Rutter Computer Rankings Thread

For games played through Jan 3, 2010

Code:
   	Team  	Rating  	RPI.Rank  	RPI
1	Mercyhurst	1.3948	1	0.6340
2	Minnesota	1.2970	2	0.6127
3	New Hampshire	0.9399	3	0.5961
4	Harvard		0.8984	5	0.5812
5	Clarkson	0.8537	4	0.5886
6	UMD		0.6840	7	0.5564
7	Wisconsin	0.6816	6	0.5585
8	Cornell		0.4397	8	0.5507
9	Ohio State	0.2690	10	0.5247
10	Connecticut	0.2277	11	0.5215
11	Northeastern	0.2222	9	0.5336
12	St. Lawrence	0.2042	14	0.5145
13	Niagara		0.1557	12	0.5193
14	Boston Univ.	0.1485	15	0.5122
15	St. Cloud State	0.1303	17	0.4974
16	Syracuse	0.0564	13	0.5169
17	Dartmouth	0.0325	16	0.4989
18	Wayne State	-0.0458	20	0.4844
19	Providence	-0.0510	19	0.4847

I was going to question PC's ranking but we did move up into the teens with the last run. Not sure if SOS is what is bringing us down (although 19 looks good compared to the ones above us), but we have played 10 games against ranked teams, so I would think SOS would be higher than what I saw earlier in the season. But like I said, #19 doesn't feel too entirely wrong at this point.

That being said, we are #1 - in ties!! We lead the country with 8 :cool:
 
Re: 2009-2010 DI Rutter Computer Rankings Thread

Well, Mercyhurst maintained the #1 ranking here, but that's quite a drop in their Rutter for the tie vs. St. Cloud State.

When there is a large enough gap between teams in terms of rating, a tie is as good as a win since both outcomes are equally unlikely. Here, the difference was close to 1.5, so a tie is a little bit "better" for Mercyhurst. Once the difference hits about 2.5, a tie and a loss are equally bad.
 
Re: 2009-2010 DI Rutter Computer Rankings Thread

Agree that Knight is a high impact player for Wisco, just like Agosta is for Mercyhurst. Not too many others in the college game that are as dynamic. The next one with that kind of impact will probably be Poulin.

IMHO next season I could see another Wisco - Hurst final.

I agree about the impact of Poulain.
 
Re: 2009-2010 DI Rutter Computer Rankings Thread

OK, the website is back up and running (http://math.bd.psu.edu/faculty/rutter/WomensRankings.html). The top 10 for games played through Jan 10, 2010.

Code:
   	Team  	Rating  	RPI.Rank  	RPI
1	Mercyhurst	1.3548	1	0.6262
2	Minnesota	1.3051	2	0.6178
3	New Hampshire	0.9811	3	0.6008
4	Clarkson	0.7725	4	0.5803
5	UMD		0.6706	6	0.5555
6	Harvard		0.6477	5	0.5585
7	Wisconsin	0.5929	7	0.5481
8	Connecticut	0.3040	9	0.5323
9	Northeastern	0.2981	8	0.5385
10	St. Lawrence	0.2509	11	0.5190

Syracuse has the 10th best Rutter RPI, which is slightly different from the NCAA's. I don't drop games that lower RPI and I don't count games against Sacred Heart or Holly Cross.
 
Re: 2009-2010 DI Rutter Computer Rankings Thread

OK, the website is back up and running (http://math.bd.psu.edu/faculty/rutter/WomensRankings.html). The top 10 for games played through Jan 10, 2010.

Code:
   	Team  	Rating  	RPI.Rank  	RPI
1	Mercyhurst	1.3548	1	0.6262
2	Minnesota	1.3051	2	0.6178
3	New Hampshire	0.9811	3	0.6008
4	Clarkson	0.7725	4	0.5803
5	UMD		0.6706	6	0.5555
6	Harvard		0.6477	5	0.5585
7	Wisconsin	0.5929	7	0.5481
8	Connecticut	0.3040	9	0.5323
9	Northeastern	0.2981	8	0.5385
10	St. Lawrence	0.2509	11	0.5190

Syracuse has the 10th best Rutter RPI, which is slightly different from the NCAA's. I don't drop games that lower RPI and I don't count games against Sacred Heart or Holly Cross.

Thanks for that info. I was glad to see PC move up 2 :D

You have an extra ")" in the URL which it doesn't recognize. It was easy enough to fix, just letting you know
 
Re: 2009-2010 DI Rutter Computer Rankings Thread

For games played through January 17, 2010.

Code:
   	Team  	Rating  RPI.Rank  	RPI
1	Mercyhurst	1.3787	1	0.6301
2	Minnesota	1.1359	2	0.6087
3	New Hampshire	0.7698	3	0.5785
4	UMD		0.7654	5	0.5646
5	Clarkson	0.7460	4	0.5748
6	Harvard		0.6182	6	0.5596
7	Wisconsin	0.5161	8	0.5350
8	Northeastern	0.3893	7	0.5477
9	Connecticut	0.3194	9	0.5337
10	Ohio State	0.2887	13	0.5225
 
Back
Top