Anybody got the most recent LPH ranking to post.
Also I try to base where I am going to drive to watch hockey based on a poll ranking. Which one is best.
Best rankings(closed voting- vote at amended list)
Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)
-
grandmeadowhockeyfan
- Posts: 726
- Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:23 pm
Best rankings(closed voting- vote at amended list)
Last edited by grandmeadowhockeyfan on Thu Jan 09, 2014 8:09 am, edited 3 times in total.
-
almostashappy
- Posts: 930
- Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2012 1:07 pm
Re: Best rankings
Google is your friend: http://www.letsplayhockey.com/latest-ra ... school.htmlgrandmeadowhockeyfan wrote:Anybody got the most recent LPH ranking to post.
Also I try to base where I am going to drive to watch hockey based on a poll ranking. Which one is best.
AA Rankings, January 8
1 EDINA
2 Wayzata
3 Hill-Murray
4 Blaine
5 Burnsville
6 Lakeville North
7 Benilde-St. Margaret's
8 Elk River/Zimmerman
9 Duluth East
10 Eden Prairie
11 St. Thomas Academy
12 Grand Rapids
13 Maple Grove
14 Eastview
15 White Bear Lake
16 Cretin-Derham Hall
17 Holy Family Catholic
18 Prior Lake
19 Eagan
20 Centennial
-
badgermom78
- Posts: 34
- Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2013 8:40 am
-
TTpuckster
- Posts: 2784
- Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 8:26 am
- Location: State of Hockey
-
east hockey
- Site Admin
- Posts: 7428
- Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2002 8:33 pm
- Location: Proctor, MN
-
grandmeadowhockeyfan
- Posts: 726
- Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:23 pm
-
east hockey
- Site Admin
- Posts: 7428
- Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2002 8:33 pm
- Location: Proctor, MN
Also missing from the choices are Mitch Hawker's computerized rating system.
http://www.ushsho.com/mnrank.htm
You may or may not know Mitch. He owns this Forum.
Lee
http://www.ushsho.com/mnrank.htm
You may or may not know Mitch. He owns this Forum.
Lee
PageStat Guy on Bluesky
-
PuckRanger
- Posts: 1829
- Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 8:15 am
- Location: Iron Range
- Contact:
-
east hockey
- Site Admin
- Posts: 7428
- Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2002 8:33 pm
- Location: Proctor, MN
Mitch's ratings have been, historically, slightly more accurate than PageStat when used to predict section games. It's been fun to compare the two systems over the past 10+ years.PuckRanger wrote:My vote is for Pagestat... which is actually on minnhock.com.
Karl and HSHW's rankings are on this forum, which is on ushsho.com, not minnhock, grandmeadow.
Lee
PageStat Guy on Bluesky
-
karl(east)
- Posts: 6480
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 9:03 pm
- Contact:
Personally, I consult PS2 and Mitch's rankings regularly.
myhockeyrankings.com operates on the same principles as those two, though I find it less useful since comes out midweek and is always missing a few scores.
Some of the other computerized rankings (ie. QRF) don't put enough emphasis on strength of schedule.
LPH, I think, has gotten better. When I first started doing rankings, theirs usually looked nothing like mine. They are now often near-identical. Because they have a lot of voters they tend to be pretty conservative rankings, in that teams rarely climb or fall many places from week to week. That can be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on the situation.
I think the downfall of some human rankings is an over-reliance on certain head-to-head scores, which lead them to neglect everything else. ("Team A beat Team B, so Team A MUST be ahead of Team B," even though if you look at it for longer, that logic can fall apart.) When there's just a single person doing the ranking, there can be a tendency to overreact to certain results, especially ones that happened very recently. I'm sure I'm guilty of that at times. But single people have the freedom to be decisive and clear in the logic behind what they're doing, even if there might be holes in the logic.
My operation has always had the rough intent to start with the same logic the computer models use, then add the human element to give a little more emphasis on head-to-head meetings, records against other top teams, and deal with factors that computers are unaware of (injuries, instances in which scores don't tell the whole story, etc.). I've also grown more confident in my ability to watch a team a couple of times and come to certain conclusions about them. To give a single, cherry-picked example, I'd point to the STA-BSM game this week...the computer models had STA ahead of BSM, but I had BSM higher. As I'd pointed out in recent weeks in my comments on each of them, BSM's defense is getting better, while STA, despite playing well, was having some trouble getting Ws against other top teams. Sure enough, Benilde's D held up just well enough to give them a chance, and STA folded once things started going downhill.
Like I said, it's one cherry-picked example, and I'm sure there are good counterexamples out there. There are pluses and minuses to all of the good rankings, and ideally they should all help add to a dialogue that will get us closer to the truth.
myhockeyrankings.com operates on the same principles as those two, though I find it less useful since comes out midweek and is always missing a few scores.
Some of the other computerized rankings (ie. QRF) don't put enough emphasis on strength of schedule.
LPH, I think, has gotten better. When I first started doing rankings, theirs usually looked nothing like mine. They are now often near-identical. Because they have a lot of voters they tend to be pretty conservative rankings, in that teams rarely climb or fall many places from week to week. That can be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on the situation.
I think the downfall of some human rankings is an over-reliance on certain head-to-head scores, which lead them to neglect everything else. ("Team A beat Team B, so Team A MUST be ahead of Team B," even though if you look at it for longer, that logic can fall apart.) When there's just a single person doing the ranking, there can be a tendency to overreact to certain results, especially ones that happened very recently. I'm sure I'm guilty of that at times. But single people have the freedom to be decisive and clear in the logic behind what they're doing, even if there might be holes in the logic.
My operation has always had the rough intent to start with the same logic the computer models use, then add the human element to give a little more emphasis on head-to-head meetings, records against other top teams, and deal with factors that computers are unaware of (injuries, instances in which scores don't tell the whole story, etc.). I've also grown more confident in my ability to watch a team a couple of times and come to certain conclusions about them. To give a single, cherry-picked example, I'd point to the STA-BSM game this week...the computer models had STA ahead of BSM, but I had BSM higher. As I'd pointed out in recent weeks in my comments on each of them, BSM's defense is getting better, while STA, despite playing well, was having some trouble getting Ws against other top teams. Sure enough, Benilde's D held up just well enough to give them a chance, and STA folded once things started going downhill.
Like I said, it's one cherry-picked example, and I'm sure there are good counterexamples out there. There are pluses and minuses to all of the good rankings, and ideally they should all help add to a dialogue that will get us closer to the truth.