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.
Hockey East - Who's in, who's out, who's home: by the numbers - 2009-10 edition
- Thread starter Todd
- Start date
P
Priceless
Guest
Re: Hockey East - Who's in, who's out, who's home: by the numbers - 2009-10 edition
Both teams better be thinking about positioning for the NCAAs
Does anyone think that the BC-UNH game tonight will be boring? Wish that I could be there.
Both teams better be thinking about positioning for the NCAAs
Terrierbyassociation
Fight Cancer, Wherever You Find It
Re: Hockey East - Who's in, who's out, who's home: by the numbers - 2009-10 edition
1.UNH
2. BC
3. BU
4. ME
5. UML
6. Mack
7. UMass
8. VT
9th: NU
1.UNH
2. BC
3. BU
4. ME
5. UML
6. Mack
7. UMass
8. VT
9th: NU
TonyTheTiger20
#SOAR
Re: Hockey East - Who's in, who's out, who's home: by the numbers - 2009-10 edition
That's what I got too.
Mark Laliberte
It's in Revelations, people!
Re: Hockey East - Who's in, who's out, who's home: by the numbers - 2009-10 edition
I think it's safe to say there are no gimmes in that bunch; even though all of the top teams have winning records against the bottom four.
I think it's safe to say there are no gimmes in that bunch; even though all of the top teams have winning records against the bottom four.
Terrierbyassociation
Fight Cancer, Wherever You Find It
Re: Hockey East - Who's in, who's out, who's home: by the numbers - 2009-10 edition
You mean you got facts? What do you mean you got that also?
I posted how it finished up, I'm not going to be wrong.
You mean you got facts? What do you mean you got that also?
I posted how it finished up, I'm not going to be wrong.
TonyTheTiger20
#SOAR
Re: Hockey East - Who's in, who's out, who's home: by the numbers - 2009-10 edition
Haha, I was doing the math myself because Hockey East Online appeared to be crashing from the extra trafficYou mean you got facts? What do you mean you got that also?
I posted how it finished up, I'm not going to be wrong.
P
Priceless
Guest
Re: Hockey East - Who's in, who's out, who's home: by the numbers - 2009-10 edition
All that, and humble too
I'm not going to be wrong.
All that, and humble too
Re: Hockey East - Who's in, who's out, who's home: by the numbers - 2009-10 edition
I know the site basically crashed when the 4 most important games were finishing up in 1 goal and OT finishes. The site was an epic failure when it counted the most. I am not going to forget that!
Haha, I was doing the math myself because Hockey East Online appeared to be crashing from the extra traffic
I know the site basically crashed when the 4 most important games were finishing up in 1 goal and OT finishes. The site was an epic failure when it counted the most. I am not going to forget that!
P
Priceless
Guest
Re: Hockey East - Who's in, who's out, who's home: by the numbers - 2009-10 edition
Good to see the days of the Big Four are done
Good to see the days of the Big Four are done
Re: Hockey East - Who's in, who's out, who's home: by the numbers - 2009-10 edition
All these games could go 3. Should be an exciting weekend!
All these games could go 3. Should be an exciting weekend!
Re: Hockey East - Who's in, who's out, who's home: by the numbers - 2009-10 edition
It ended up not mattering (the only three way tie we had would have been seeded the same no matter how you do it), but the thought definitely crossed my mind. Seemed convenient that with the new rules, BU clinched a playoff spot regardless of what happened today.
I am sure Jack Parker is behind the switch... he is the center of all HE conspiracy theories
It ended up not mattering (the only three way tie we had would have been seeded the same no matter how you do it), but the thought definitely crossed my mind. Seemed convenient that with the new rules, BU clinched a playoff spot regardless of what happened today.
TonyTheTiger20
#SOAR
Re: Hockey East - Who's in, who's out, who's home: by the numbers - 2009-10 edition
Given how rare weekend sweeps have been for *any* team this year, I have to agree with you.
P
Priceless
Guest
Re: Hockey East - Who's in, who's out, who's home: by the numbers - 2009-10 edition
How'd your team do?
Nice choke job by Maine to still end up with home ice
How'd your team do?
Re: Hockey East - Who's in, who's out, who's home: by the numbers - 2009-10 edition
For example:
They could just take the initial results of the first tie-break calculation and seed everyone there, all at once. Why throw anyone out and recalculate at all? Aren't they all tied with each other?
If teams within the group are tied (say, the middle two of a four-way tie), do an internal tiebreaker to split those and decide those seeds (which one is 2nd of 4 and 3rd of 4), but not have it effect the others (first would still be first and fourth would still be fourth).
Or...
Cutting from the bottom up means that in the end you're comparing the two strongest teams head-to-head. Why should it matter how the two best teams did against the worst team in a five-way tie? Isn't it more important how they did against each other? (Of course, you risk skewing who is "best" every time you recalculate with a different set of members.)
Or...
Placing from the top down means that the best of the group is first and then the best of the re-compared remainders is next, and so on. (See above re: skewing.)
To demonstrate:
........ A ........ B ......... C ......... D ..... Total
A ..... x ...... 0-3-0 ... 3-0-0 ... 2-0-1 = 5-3-1
B .. 3-0-0 ...... x ...... 1-2-0 ... 1-2-0 = 5-4-0
C .. 0-3-0 ... 2-1-0 ...... x ...... 2-1-0 = 4-5-0
D .. 0-2-1 ... 2-1-0 ... 1-2-0 ...... x .. = 3-5-1
With the all-at-once method, you're done. The seedings are A, B, C, D. That seems fair to me. They're all tied. Their mutual records are taken into consideration. We have seedings and can move on.
----
Using bottom-up, you'd toss out D. Then you'd re-compare the others with A at 3-3-0, B at 4-2-0, and C at 2-4-0. C gets tossed. Now you'd compare A and B and the sweep makes B the top seed and A second. I can see the viscerally-pleasing logic in that, where A and B were the top two - separated only by a half-game in the standings - and B swept A, so they get the nod. Final seedings: B A C D.
----
But what about the fact that the only series that B won was against A, yet now they're the top seed of the group? Whether you win a game by 3-0 or 2-1, it's still two points - so why does a sweep against one team take more precendence than losing two other series more narrowly? Couldn't the test be that A won two series and C won two series? Couldn't the top H2H be A v C (with A getting the nod) and then one-series winners B and D match up, making the seeds A C D B? In that case, A, C, and D keep their relative seedings, but B moves from best to worst.
(What if C and D split 1-1-1 - making their overall records 3-5-1 and 3-4-2, respectively? If we go by series wins, we'd then have A at 2-1-0, C and D at 1-1-1 and B at 1-2-0, breaking the C/D tie with league wins, I guess.)
----
Working top-down, you'd take A first and also take the three wins for B, and three losses for C, out of the mix. B is now 2-4-0, C is 4-2-0 and D is 3-3-0. So C is 2nd and D takes 3rd by virtue of their H2H win over B. Final seedings: A C D B. (See above re: best to worst.)
Does it make "more sense" that the second overall team, who swept the top overall team, is the bottom seed of the four? To Hockey East, this year - and apparently you - it does.
----
What seems clear in this scenario is that A, C, and D should be seeded in that relative order. What is unclear is how to evaluate B. Are they best because they beat, even swept, the otherwise best team (bottom-up)? Are they worst because they couldn't beat either of the two otherwise worst teams (top-down & series)? Or should some weight be given to all sets of results and they're somewhere in the middle (all-at-once)?
----
One of the things that seems counter-intuitive to me is the throwing out of teams and re-breaking the tie - which can lead to different criteria being used when the current criteria are sufficient. In the potential case of UMA/NU/UVM heading into last night, they would go to league wins to split the round-robin 3-3-0 tie, and then compare the remaining two of the teams H2H once a winner (or loser) was pulled from the three. I understand the mechanics of how that works, but once we've gone to league wins, we've determined that H2H is insufficient - so why go back up to H2H record when the teams are not tied at the criterion you just used?
FWIW, in the case of UMA/NU/UVM, which tie-breaker is chosen decides whether NU would have been 1st (bottom-up), 2nd (all at once) or 3rd (top-down) of that group.
----
Personally, I think all-at-once is the fairest method - and the most transparent to the casual observer. Since all of the teams are contributing to the tie, shouldn't they all be considered simultaneously to determine the outcome for all of the teams? Given the choice between only bottom-up and top-down, I'd pick top down because at least the top choice seems correct to me, but I think that's a false choice.
Ultimately, for the purpose of this thread, the concern of some (myself included) is more a matter of taking one method, whatever it is, and sticking with it or announcing the change.
I think "more sense" in this case, as it so often is, is arbitrary. The case can be made for any approach.
For example:
They could just take the initial results of the first tie-break calculation and seed everyone there, all at once. Why throw anyone out and recalculate at all? Aren't they all tied with each other?
If teams within the group are tied (say, the middle two of a four-way tie), do an internal tiebreaker to split those and decide those seeds (which one is 2nd of 4 and 3rd of 4), but not have it effect the others (first would still be first and fourth would still be fourth).
Or...
Cutting from the bottom up means that in the end you're comparing the two strongest teams head-to-head. Why should it matter how the two best teams did against the worst team in a five-way tie? Isn't it more important how they did against each other? (Of course, you risk skewing who is "best" every time you recalculate with a different set of members.)
Or...
Placing from the top down means that the best of the group is first and then the best of the re-compared remainders is next, and so on. (See above re: skewing.)
To demonstrate:
........ A ........ B ......... C ......... D ..... Total
A ..... x ...... 0-3-0 ... 3-0-0 ... 2-0-1 = 5-3-1
B .. 3-0-0 ...... x ...... 1-2-0 ... 1-2-0 = 5-4-0
C .. 0-3-0 ... 2-1-0 ...... x ...... 2-1-0 = 4-5-0
D .. 0-2-1 ... 2-1-0 ... 1-2-0 ...... x .. = 3-5-1
With the all-at-once method, you're done. The seedings are A, B, C, D. That seems fair to me. They're all tied. Their mutual records are taken into consideration. We have seedings and can move on.
----
Using bottom-up, you'd toss out D. Then you'd re-compare the others with A at 3-3-0, B at 4-2-0, and C at 2-4-0. C gets tossed. Now you'd compare A and B and the sweep makes B the top seed and A second. I can see the viscerally-pleasing logic in that, where A and B were the top two - separated only by a half-game in the standings - and B swept A, so they get the nod. Final seedings: B A C D.
----
But what about the fact that the only series that B won was against A, yet now they're the top seed of the group? Whether you win a game by 3-0 or 2-1, it's still two points - so why does a sweep against one team take more precendence than losing two other series more narrowly? Couldn't the test be that A won two series and C won two series? Couldn't the top H2H be A v C (with A getting the nod) and then one-series winners B and D match up, making the seeds A C D B? In that case, A, C, and D keep their relative seedings, but B moves from best to worst.
(What if C and D split 1-1-1 - making their overall records 3-5-1 and 3-4-2, respectively? If we go by series wins, we'd then have A at 2-1-0, C and D at 1-1-1 and B at 1-2-0, breaking the C/D tie with league wins, I guess.)
----
Working top-down, you'd take A first and also take the three wins for B, and three losses for C, out of the mix. B is now 2-4-0, C is 4-2-0 and D is 3-3-0. So C is 2nd and D takes 3rd by virtue of their H2H win over B. Final seedings: A C D B. (See above re: best to worst.)
Does it make "more sense" that the second overall team, who swept the top overall team, is the bottom seed of the four? To Hockey East, this year - and apparently you - it does.
----
What seems clear in this scenario is that A, C, and D should be seeded in that relative order. What is unclear is how to evaluate B. Are they best because they beat, even swept, the otherwise best team (bottom-up)? Are they worst because they couldn't beat either of the two otherwise worst teams (top-down & series)? Or should some weight be given to all sets of results and they're somewhere in the middle (all-at-once)?
----
One of the things that seems counter-intuitive to me is the throwing out of teams and re-breaking the tie - which can lead to different criteria being used when the current criteria are sufficient. In the potential case of UMA/NU/UVM heading into last night, they would go to league wins to split the round-robin 3-3-0 tie, and then compare the remaining two of the teams H2H once a winner (or loser) was pulled from the three. I understand the mechanics of how that works, but once we've gone to league wins, we've determined that H2H is insufficient - so why go back up to H2H record when the teams are not tied at the criterion you just used?
FWIW, in the case of UMA/NU/UVM, which tie-breaker is chosen decides whether NU would have been 1st (bottom-up), 2nd (all at once) or 3rd (top-down) of that group.
----
Personally, I think all-at-once is the fairest method - and the most transparent to the casual observer. Since all of the teams are contributing to the tie, shouldn't they all be considered simultaneously to determine the outcome for all of the teams? Given the choice between only bottom-up and top-down, I'd pick top down because at least the top choice seems correct to me, but I think that's a false choice.
Ultimately, for the purpose of this thread, the concern of some (myself included) is more a matter of taking one method, whatever it is, and sticking with it or announcing the change.
bottomdweller
Where my dogsies at?
Re: Hockey East - Who's in, who's out, who's home: by the numbers - 2009-10 edition
I stopped reading about halfway through. However adding them all up and seeding that way was not something I thought of and would actually probably be the best metric since, like you said, all the teams are tied.
I stopped reading about halfway through. However adding them all up and seeding that way was not something I thought of and would actually probably be the best metric since, like you said, all the teams are tied.
Hockey East - Who's in, who's out, who's home: by the numbers - 2009-10 edition
For the record:
UNH 36 - 36 [1]
BC 35 - 35 [2]
BU 28 - 28 [3]
ME 28 - 28 [4]
--- Home Ice- 28+ (BU/ME/UML) ---
UML 28 - 28 [5]
MC 26 - 26 [6]
UMA 26 - 26 [7]
UVM 25 - 25 [8]
--- Out - 25+ (UVM) ---
NU 24 - 24 [9]
PC 14 - 14 [10]
I can't remember another year where, going into the final night, ... :
6 teams had a shot at the 5th seed.
5 teams had a shot at the 6th seed.
A single team could end up anywhere from 3rd to 8th (or 9th...).
4 of the 5 games had major playoff implications, with wins, ties, and losses in each game all shaping the field differently.
The head-to-head game between the 1 and 2 seeds was arguably the least interesting of the night...
...but the results of the game between historically-woeful Merrimack and long-buried, last-place Providence had people repeatedly checking for updates.
Three teams tied at 24 (and one at 25) would be fighting for their season to continue at all, instead of for the 5th through 7th seeds.
There was the potential for a three-way tie for the final two home ice seeds, involving teams not playing H2H, also involving one game ending in a tie - and have it come to pass.
There was also the potential for a five-way tie at 26 - one point under .500 - and one of those teams would be done for the year.
There was also the potential for the gap between 3rd and 9th to be TWO POINTS (same results we got except NU beats BU and UVM beats UML instead of tying would have resulted in Maine 28, UML 27, and the five-way tie at 26).
Tie-breaker methodology caused multiple USCHO posters to contact the league office for clarification (and be better informed about history of the subject than the league office).
After all was said and done, a team only three points under .500 - and ten points ahead of the team behind them - is done for the year, but TWO teams a single point over .500 got home ice. A four-point spread between 3 and 9.
Remarkable...
For the record:
UNH 36 - 36 [1]
BC 35 - 35 [2]
BU 28 - 28 [3]
ME 28 - 28 [4]
--- Home Ice- 28+ (BU/ME/UML) ---
UML 28 - 28 [5]
MC 26 - 26 [6]
UMA 26 - 26 [7]
UVM 25 - 25 [8]
--- Out - 25+ (UVM) ---
NU 24 - 24 [9]
PC 14 - 14 [10]
I can't remember another year where, going into the final night, ... :
6 teams had a shot at the 5th seed.
5 teams had a shot at the 6th seed.
A single team could end up anywhere from 3rd to 8th (or 9th...).
4 of the 5 games had major playoff implications, with wins, ties, and losses in each game all shaping the field differently.
The head-to-head game between the 1 and 2 seeds was arguably the least interesting of the night...
...but the results of the game between historically-woeful Merrimack and long-buried, last-place Providence had people repeatedly checking for updates.
Three teams tied at 24 (and one at 25) would be fighting for their season to continue at all, instead of for the 5th through 7th seeds.
There was the potential for a three-way tie for the final two home ice seeds, involving teams not playing H2H, also involving one game ending in a tie - and have it come to pass.
There was also the potential for a five-way tie at 26 - one point under .500 - and one of those teams would be done for the year.
There was also the potential for the gap between 3rd and 9th to be TWO POINTS (same results we got except NU beats BU and UVM beats UML instead of tying would have resulted in Maine 28, UML 27, and the five-way tie at 26).
Tie-breaker methodology caused multiple USCHO posters to contact the league office for clarification (and be better informed about history of the subject than the league office).
After all was said and done, a team only three points under .500 - and ten points ahead of the team behind them - is done for the year, but TWO teams a single point over .500 got home ice. A four-point spread between 3 and 9.
Remarkable...