BEST RANKINGS. (with amended list)
Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)
-
grandmeadowhockeyfan
- Posts: 726
- Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:23 pm
BEST RANKINGS. (with amended list)
Got posts that I have misnamed several options. Will take a second run at this and hope those that voted once already will revote.
-
grandmeadowhockeyfan
- Posts: 726
- Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:23 pm
-
grandmeadowhockeyfan
- Posts: 726
- Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:23 pm
Posted by KarlEast originally
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.
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.
-
HShockeywatcher
- Posts: 6848
- Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:21 pm
Re: BEST RANKINGS. (with amended list)
To reiterate what karl said, rankings like PageStat and Mitch's are probably "best overall" in that they are consistent all season. They seem to have parameters that measure what they should and have been perfected over many years of being used.
The only 'downside,' if you can call it that, is teams that are good with a weak SOS.
I have thought the QRF was terrible ever since I was introduced to the site and while it definitely has gotten better, it is still far from acceptable. It is way too dependent on wins and losses and looks at each team by their class, not as an individual entity. If you compare the final season rankings of them last year to PageStat, for example, you can see this issue. There are 4 Class A teams that finished in the top 25 of PageStat, 2, 9, 13 and 25 respectively, last year while those same teams were 8, 23, 17 and 34 respectively in the QRF last year.
While it isn't the worst for individual sections over the course of a season like hockey or basketball, it's not good short term for something like football (which is explained on the site).
The thing that individuals can do is factor in things a computer cannot. You can see teams play and know things you cannot see on paper. Individuals can also use the computer rankings for reference. As karl pointed out, an individual can also show short term improvement that a compilation like LPH usually will not.
Just my two cents.
The only 'downside,' if you can call it that, is teams that are good with a weak SOS.
I have thought the QRF was terrible ever since I was introduced to the site and while it definitely has gotten better, it is still far from acceptable. It is way too dependent on wins and losses and looks at each team by their class, not as an individual entity. If you compare the final season rankings of them last year to PageStat, for example, you can see this issue. There are 4 Class A teams that finished in the top 25 of PageStat, 2, 9, 13 and 25 respectively, last year while those same teams were 8, 23, 17 and 34 respectively in the QRF last year.
While it isn't the worst for individual sections over the course of a season like hockey or basketball, it's not good short term for something like football (which is explained on the site).
The thing that individuals can do is factor in things a computer cannot. You can see teams play and know things you cannot see on paper. Individuals can also use the computer rankings for reference. As karl pointed out, an individual can also show short term improvement that a compilation like LPH usually will not.
Just my two cents.
The two people that voted for me in the other thread have probably shed a tear that they cannot vote for me againgrandmeadowhockeyfan wrote:Got posts that I have misnamed several options. Will take a second run at this and hope those that voted once already will revote.
-
ZachHalverson
- Posts: 222
- Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 3:26 pm
Should also add Pete Waggoner's and Tim Kolehmainen's rankings on http://MinnesotaHockeyMag.com to the list. I love Karl's and I love MHM's as they both have a paragraph for each team on why they are listed there.
-
grandmeadowhockeyfan
- Posts: 726
- Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:23 pm
Names are familiar
Aren't those the boys who took mnhockyhub to great heights. If it is I have found a new site to visit frequently, I loved mnhockeyhub when they had weekly podcasts and articles, they do great work, thank you for the web site info. I am bookmarking it right now,
-
ZachHalverson
- Posts: 222
- Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 3:26 pm
Re: Names are familiar
They are! And the Overtime Radio Show is back as well so the podcasts are back!grandmeadowhockeyfan wrote:Aren't those the boys who took mnhockyhub to great heights. If it is I have found a new site to visit frequently, I loved mnhockeyhub when they had weekly podcasts and articles, they do great work, thank you for the web site info. I am bookmarking it right now,