Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)
Shocked...not really. If you consider whose done what to whom and by how much....it's pretty darn close. What your not seeing is the sentimental favorites at the top like all the people picked polls. You can tell it has no heart which is the best part about it. I'd give it an A maybe packerboy will give it a AA. 
The good news is Johnson has Holy Family Catholic firmly in the rear view mirror. Which is where they belong. Talk about a storied program fighting for electronic recognition. Now if Johnson could just concentrate on passing St. Cloud Tech...Govs93 wrote:Eh - the machine needs a good swift kick if you ask me. Johnson & Como Park both got shafted.
HAL knows that AHA lost to Rosemount not Burnsville.Neutron 14 wrote:How many bonus points do privates and Moorhead get?
We need a few more iterations I think. #4 AHA 0-1, gives up 8 goals in their loss to #9 Burnsville.
And apparently HAL got wind of Roseaus scrimmage loss to Blaine.
Well, it's not necessarily what I'm saying, but the numbers crunched by two computerized rating systems are certainly saying it as of today.O-townClown wrote:So what you are saying is, no matter how you run it, Duluth East isn't in the Top 15.
Sparlimb, thanks for the link. I found that site to be quite interesting. One thing which jumped out at me was where he stated that ELO CHESS (similiar to PS3) was more accurate in predicting future winners. I don't have data to support PS2 versus PS3 in terms of predicting future winners, but using the two systems retroactively, teams with the higher PS3 rating won 87.4% of the time, compared to 85.1% using PS2. This doesn't necessarily translate to PS3 being a better system in future games, however.Sparlimb wrote:I like systems that penalize a team for wining by more than 5 goals...
You're headed right down the lines of Mr. Sagarin. His system has both rankings and then averages the two to get the final ranking. You could do something similar. He explains it on his personal pages. Although if you did, I think it would make sense to open PS2 back up to full scores (not limit margin of victory like you do now) since the PS3 rating effectively does that...
I quote:
In ELO CHESS, only winning and losing matters; the score margin is of no consequence,
which makes it very "politically correct". However it is less accurate in its predictions for
upcoming games than is the PURE POINTS, in which the score margin is the only thing that matters.
PURE POINTS is also known as PREDICTOR, BALLANTINE, RHEINGOLD, WHITE OWL and is the best single PREDICTOR
of future games.
The overall RATING is a synthesis of the two diametrical opposites, ELO CHESS and PURE POINTS (PREDICTOR)
http://www.kiva.net/~jsagarin/sports/sports.html
Jeff Sagarin, the godfather of published computer rankings? Cripes, he's been in USA Today for at least 20 years.east hockey wrote: I'm not sure exactly how the writer of that site does it with his,
Gotta admit, I knew virtually nothing about Jeff until Sparlimb posted the link. His site looked familiar but I can't remember how or when I checked it out in the past. Since he doesn't cover high school or NCAA hockey, I didn't pay much attention to it. The first rating system which caught my eye was Tom Hawley's system devoted to Minnesota high school hockey back in the early 90's.O-townClown wrote:Jeff Sagarin, the godfather of published computer rankings? Cripes, he's been in USA Today for at least 20 years.east hockey wrote: I'm not sure exactly how the writer of that site does it with his,
I know things have been around for almost 100 years, but your characterization of Sagarin is pretty funny. He may not have invented computer sports rankings, but he did raise it to another level.
Originally, Mitch and Tom Hawley provided some ideas. What it's morphed to (using a cross-system of goal differential and just plain wins/losses) is mainly the result of trying to find a "sweet spot", where a win beyond a certain margin had no further effect. So I've been playing around with that, trying to see what might work out best. The problem is with the definition of "best". The idea of me looking at rankings and saying "well, this looks right, this looks off" is the result of what I think, so it's hardly objective. The only objective measurement I've come up with is using those systems to predict future games. Specifically, section tournament games.O-townClown wrote:Lee, gotcha. USA Today runs Jeff's rankings weekly for college football and basketall and has since at least the late 80s.
Golfweek has used him to rank professional, college, and junior golfers for at least five years.
His computer ranking is one of those used by the BCS for college football.
If you spend time on his site you'll see he handles Indiana HS basketball, NASCAR, and just about anything else where people compete.
What is interesting to me is that he seems to prefer using not only who wins but also the margin of victory. College teams got in the habit of scoring as much as they could, not to impress voters, but to impress computers. (Okay, actually to score more points with the formula.) The mumbo jumbo of this is ELO-Chess, etc...
When I read about your PS2 and PS3 it seems like you are attempting to do the same.
I guess the obvious question is, "if you didn't pattern your computer ranking after Jeff Sagarin, who did you look to?"
