ZYanksRule
GO BOBCATS!!
Re: ECAC Pick the Playoffs 2010
SLU 2-1
RPI 2-0
Quinnipiac 2-0
Harvard 2-1
Quinnipiac
SLU 2-1
RPI 2-0
Quinnipiac 2-0
Harvard 2-1
Quinnipiac
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.
ECAC Pick the Playoffs 2010
- Thread starter vicb
- Start date
Re: ECAC Pick the Playoffs 2010
SLU 2-0
RPI 2-0
Quinnipiac 2-1 (I don't think Dartmouth has ever won a play-off series away from Thompson)
Princeton 2-1
I am a Dartmouth fan. This makes for an equal number of Harvard and Dartmouth contestants here.
Oh, and nice math-off, RPI folks!
SLU 2-0
RPI 2-0
Quinnipiac 2-1 (I don't think Dartmouth has ever won a play-off series away from Thompson)
Princeton 2-1
I am a Dartmouth fan. This makes for an equal number of Harvard and Dartmouth contestants here.
Oh, and nice math-off, RPI folks!
Re: ECAC Pick the Playoffs 2010
I'd like to thank you guys for the refresher in probabilities and statistics ... for some of us it was fun, for others ... well .. they could choose to bypass it. To FlagDude, thanks you make the same point I tried to bring up last year (or was it 2 yrs ago?). But with Lynah's research we see that the historical data sufficiently overcomes the apparent point advantage of "hedging your bet." Simplistically it makes sense : if a higher seed is favored (by home ice and/or better record) to win the first game; then it makes sense they would be favored to win the second. But what does a hick form the Maine woods know. Lynah I would be interested if your stats break down showed how the sweeps and splits were divided between the Home (higher seed) and Away teams. One could further try to break down the various seeding pairings, but I am sure we don't have enough occurances to make that statistically significant.
But what really makes me laugh, is all this discussion is flawed !
Vic's declaration of the scoring is on a 3 point system, not a 4 point system as given in the various examples and scenarios being bantered about.
You see: 1 point for getting the series winner right. 1 point if you get team A's win total right. And 1 point if you get team B's win total right. Since the winning team will obviously have 2 wins; you can only have three possible outcomes: 3 points if you pick the sweep correctly, 2 points if you pick the winning team but don't get total games right (e.g. you say sweep and it goes three), and 0 points which you should get if you don't pick the right winner.
Perhaps our esteemed colleagues would like to revisit the statistics in light of this new information.
If it is really a 3 point system, does that change anyone's picks? Inquiring minds want to know.
I'd like to thank you guys for the refresher in probabilities and statistics ... for some of us it was fun, for others ... well .. they could choose to bypass it. To FlagDude, thanks you make the same point I tried to bring up last year (or was it 2 yrs ago?). But with Lynah's research we see that the historical data sufficiently overcomes the apparent point advantage of "hedging your bet." Simplistically it makes sense : if a higher seed is favored (by home ice and/or better record) to win the first game; then it makes sense they would be favored to win the second. But what does a hick form the Maine woods know. Lynah I would be interested if your stats break down showed how the sweeps and splits were divided between the Home (higher seed) and Away teams. One could further try to break down the various seeding pairings, but I am sure we don't have enough occurances to make that statistically significant.
But what really makes me laugh, is all this discussion is flawed !
Vic's declaration of the scoring is on a 3 point system, not a 4 point system as given in the various examples and scenarios being bantered about.
OK for all you losers in the ECAC Pick the Standings Contest here is your chance to redeem yourselves .
"Here is how the contest is played.
Pick who you think will win each of the first round playoff series and what the game count will be.
"You get a point for picking the correct winner of the series and a point for each correct total wins for each team.
You see: 1 point for getting the series winner right. 1 point if you get team A's win total right. And 1 point if you get team B's win total right. Since the winning team will obviously have 2 wins; you can only have three possible outcomes: 3 points if you pick the sweep correctly, 2 points if you pick the winning team but don't get total games right (e.g. you say sweep and it goes three), and 0 points which you should get if you don't pick the right winner.
Perhaps our esteemed colleagues would like to revisit the statistics in light of this new information.
If it is really a 3 point system, does that change anyone's picks? Inquiring minds want to know. FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: ECAC Pick the Playoffs 2010
My head hurts enough from the previous discussion with LF.....
I'd like to thank you guys for the refresher in probabilities and statistics ... for some of us it was fun, for others ... well .. they could choose to bypass it. To FlagDude, thanks you make the same point I tried to bring up last year (or was it 2 yrs ago?). But with Lynah's research we see that the historical data sufficiently overcomes the apparent point advantage of "hedging your bet." Simplistically it makes sense : if a higher seed is favored (by home ice and/or better record) to win the first game; then it makes sense they would be favored to win the second. But what does a hick form the Maine woods know. Lynah I would be interested if your stats break down showed how the sweeps and splits were divided between the Home (higher seed) and Away teams. One could further try to break down the various seeding pairings, but I am sure we don't have enough occurances to make that statistically significant.
But what really makes me laugh, is all this discussion is flawed !
Vic's declaration of the scoring is on a 3 point system, not a 4 point system as given in the various examples and scenarios being bantered about.
You see: 1 point for getting the series winner right. 1 point if you get team A's win total right. And 1 point if you get team B's win total right. Since the winning team will obviously have 2 wins; you can only have three possible outcomes: 3 points if you pick the sweep correctly, 2 points if you pick the winning team but don't get total games right (e.g. you say sweep and it goes three), and 0 points which you should get if you don't pick the right winner.
Perhaps our esteemed colleagues would like to revisit the statistics in light of this new information.
My head hurts enough from the previous discussion with LF.....
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: ECAC Pick the Playoffs 2010
Only when you get two somewhat nerdy schools involved do you get conversations of this caliber.
Only when you get two somewhat nerdy schools involved do you get conversations of this caliber.
Re: ECAC Pick the Playoffs 2010
No, matter how Vic decides to total up the points
my picks are .....
SLU 2-1 (it's a 5vs12 match-up, w/o any home ice advantage: S-C-S)
RPI 2-0 (would love to root for the nearest team, but series goes: R-R)
Dartmouth 2-1 (4 years in Hanover and I still don't know better: D-Q-D)
Harvard 2-1 (Princeton can't seem to win on Friday lately: H-P-H)
As the tagline always says: Go 'Gate
[/QUOTE]
No, matter how Vic decides to total up the points
my picks are .....SLU 2-1 (it's a 5vs12 match-up, w/o any home ice advantage: S-C-S)
RPI 2-0 (would love to root for the nearest team, but series goes: R-R)
Dartmouth 2-1 (4 years in Hanover and I still don't know better: D-Q-D)
Harvard 2-1 (Princeton can't seem to win on Friday lately: H-P-H)
As the tagline always says: Go 'Gate
[/QUOTE]
hockeyplayer1015
Capt
Re: ECAC Pick the Playoffs 2010
SLU 2-1
RPI 2-0
Quinni 2-1
Princeton 2-0
St. Lawrence
SLU 2-1
RPI 2-0
Quinni 2-1
Princeton 2-0
St. Lawrence
Re: ECAC Pick the Playoffs 2010
Maine-iac, FD08, Lynah Fan, and anyone else interested in stats...
This was a topic of question in one of the other RPI threads from this season. I compiled the winner-loser for all teams (individual) / seeds / home for each round of the playoffs (including each of the individual games from those series) since the playoff system changed to the one currently in use. I uploaded the spreadsheet to Google today. It should be accessible to everyone. If it's not, let me know.
Awesome spreadsheet on Google
Notes of interest:
#4 seeds have not won a single Game 1 against a #5 seed.
There have been 28 representatives in the semis in the past 7 years (duh). 22 have been from seeds 1-4. 5 have been from seeds 5-8. 1 (03-04 #9 Clarkson) has been from seeds 9-12.
Maine-iac, FD08, Lynah Fan, and anyone else interested in stats...
This was a topic of question in one of the other RPI threads from this season. I compiled the winner-loser for all teams (individual) / seeds / home for each round of the playoffs (including each of the individual games from those series) since the playoff system changed to the one currently in use. I uploaded the spreadsheet to Google today. It should be accessible to everyone. If it's not, let me know.
Awesome spreadsheet on Google
Notes of interest:
#4 seeds have not won a single Game 1 against a #5 seed.
There have been 28 representatives in the semis in the past 7 years (duh). 22 have been from seeds 1-4. 5 have been from seeds 5-8. 1 (03-04 #9 Clarkson) has been from seeds 9-12.
Re: ECAC Pick the Playoffs 2010
It's a 4-point system because if you were to correctly pick "Team A" to sweep "Team B" you are picking Team A to win twice and Team B to win zero times. 1 point for correctly picking Team A to win the series, 2 points for correctly picking Team A to win 2 games, and 1 point for correctly picking Team B to win "zero" games.
So when you pick a series winner, that's 1 point up for grabs. When you pick a series to go 2 games (2-0) or 3 games (2-1) then there are points up for grabs in the "2" column AND in the "1" or "0" column of your entry.
Did you compile this spreadsheet? If so, nice work!
You see: 1 point for getting the series winner right. 1 point if you get team A's win total right. And 1 point if you get team B's win total right. Since the winning team will obviously have 2 wins; you can only have three possible outcomes: 3 points if you pick the sweep correctly, 2 points if you pick the winning team but don't get total games right (e.g. you say sweep and it goes three), and 0 points which you should get if you don't pick the right winner.
Perhaps our esteemed colleagues would like to revisit the statistics in light of this new information.
It's a 4-point system because if you were to correctly pick "Team A" to sweep "Team B" you are picking Team A to win twice and Team B to win zero times. 1 point for correctly picking Team A to win the series, 2 points for correctly picking Team A to win 2 games, and 1 point for correctly picking Team B to win "zero" games.
So when you pick a series winner, that's 1 point up for grabs. When you pick a series to go 2 games (2-0) or 3 games (2-1) then there are points up for grabs in the "2" column AND in the "1" or "0" column of your entry.
Did you compile this spreadsheet? If so, nice work!
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: ECAC Pick the Playoffs 2010
Alright. You're a lousy Yale fan.
<-- Not that I hope this is necessary.
Alright. You're a lousy Yale fan.
<-- Not that I hope this is necessary.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: ECAC Pick the Playoffs 2010
Half the people here think the seeds are 0th through 11th.
Only when you get two somewhat nerdy schools involved do you get conversations of this caliber.
Half the people here think the seeds are 0th through 11th.
Re: ECAC Pick the Playoffs 2010
Just so everyone knows it is a 4 point system:
1) 1 point for picking the EXACT OUTCOME 2-0 or 2-1 with the correct winner
2) Up to 3 points for picking the correct number of wins
a) Series winner wins 2 (duh) and you pick them as the series winner (one point for each win)
b) Series loser gets 0 wins and you pick them to get 0 wins (1 point) or series loser gets 1 win and you pick them to get 1 win (1 Point)
Just so everyone knows it is a 4 point system:
1) 1 point for picking the EXACT OUTCOME 2-0 or 2-1 with the correct winner
2) Up to 3 points for picking the correct number of wins
a) Series winner wins 2 (duh) and you pick them as the series winner (one point for each win)
b) Series loser gets 0 wins and you pick them to get 0 wins (1 point) or series loser gets 1 win and you pick them to get 1 win (1 Point)
Ucdutchmen
New member
Re: ECAC Pick the Playoffs 2010
SLU 2-0
RPI 2-1
QPac 2-1
Harvard 2-1
Union
SLU 2-0
RPI 2-1
QPac 2-1
Harvard 2-1
Union
Re: ECAC Pick the Playoffs 2010
Yale it is.
Anyone know which team Waterboy66 is a fan of???
Less than one hour to get your picks in. Since I am going out in a few minutes posts time stamped after 7:00PM are ineligible.
Yale it is.
Anyone know which team Waterboy66 is a fan of???
Less than one hour to get your picks in. Since I am going out in a few minutes posts time stamped after 7:00PM are ineligible.
Last edited:
Re: ECAC Pick the Playoffs 2010
Based on my search results for Waterboy66's previous posts, he/she is a Brown fan, based on the fact that he/she has posted in the Brown 2009-10 thread.
Also, in your initial list of contestants, you forgot to list kdiff77. That poster's picks are in post 7 (back on page 1) of this thread. He/she is also a Brown fan. Thought I'd let you know because that should (hopefully) give you 5 Brown contestants, qualifying them for the team competition.
Based on my search results for Waterboy66's previous posts, he/she is a Brown fan, based on the fact that he/she has posted in the Brown 2009-10 thread.
Also, in your initial list of contestants, you forgot to list kdiff77. That poster's picks are in post 7 (back on page 1) of this thread. He/she is also a Brown fan. Thought I'd let you know because that should (hopefully) give you 5 Brown contestants, qualifying them for the team competition.
Re: ECAC Pick the Playoffs 2010
Rainman and Vic,
I get that it is a 4 point system by application; but it is a 3 point system by declaration of the rules.
By the statement, you get one point if you guess that a certain team will have two wins. Not two points because they won two games. The key in the statement is "total wins", not just "win". Read it each way.
That being said, I like the four points available. It gives more ways to get points. So it's all good. It just made me laugh that there was so much discussion (and calculations) when by definition the points wouldn't be done that way. Oh, because of the four-point practice, I still have a chance at three points in the RPI-Brown series. Thanks. And thank you, Vic, for providing this fun again. And also to Rainman for the season-long game.
Rainman and Vic,
I get that it is a 4 point system by application; but it is a 3 point system by declaration of the rules.
By the statement, you get one point if you guess that a certain team will have two wins. Not two points because they won two games. The key in the statement is "total wins", not just "win". Read it each way.
That being said, I like the four points available. It gives more ways to get points. So it's all good. It just made me laugh that there was so much discussion (and calculations) when by definition the points wouldn't be done that way. Oh, because of the four-point practice, I still have a chance at three points in the RPI-Brown series. Thanks. And thank you, Vic, for providing this fun again. And also to Rainman for the season-long game.