LSQRANK updated

OsMetroDad · Post by **OsMetroDad** » Mon Feb 17, 2014 1:47 pm

LSQRANK         Team  SEC CLS    GD  RK    SOS    PPc     PKc   ( W- L-T)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------  
  1              BSM  6 AA BSM  0.0  T1    0.83   42.2    75.5  (25- 2-1) 
  2       HillMurray  4 AA HM   0.0  T1    0.77   25.3    95.8  (23- 3-1) 
  3      EdenPrairie  2 AA EP   0.3   3    0.87   24.6    87.7  (20- 7-0) 
  4          Wayzata  6 AA WYZ  0.6   4    0.85   39.1    84.5  (19- 7-1) 
  5            Edina  2 AA EDN  0.8   5    0.87   27.1    84.9  (17- 8-3) 
  6       Minnetonka  6 AA MTK  1.0   6    0.89   27.5    81.8  (19- 6-2) 
  7          Hopkins  6 AA HOP  1.1   7    0.85   28.4    87.3  (21- 5-0) 
  8       LakevilleN  1 AA LVN  1.6   8    0.83   20.5    91.7  (21- 5-2) 
  9       Burnsville  3 AA BNV  1.7  T9    0.80   26.1    87.4  (19- 8-1) 
 10      DodgeCounty  1 AA DC   1.7  T9    0.73   26.3    88.9  (22- 6-0) 
 11         Achiever  4 A  ACH  1.7  T9    0.74   27.6    88.0  (21- 5-1) 
 12       MapleGrove  6 AA MG   1.7  T9    0.81   23.0    83.9  (17- 6-2) 
 13       Stillwater  4 AA STW  1.9  T13   0.81   20.5    71.0  (18- 9-1) 
 14       LakevilleS  1 AA LVS  1.9  T13   0.83   30.4    85.3  (17- 9-1) 
 15       MoundsView  5 AA MSV  2.0   15   0.81   37.9    82.7  (17- 8-3) 
 16           Blaine  5 AA BLA  2.1  T16   0.78   25.3    88.0  (22- 4-2) 
 17         Irondale  5 AA IRO  2.1  T16   0.77   37.5    70.3  (20- 7-0) 
 18   EastGrandForks  8 A  EGF  2.2   18   0.68   28.0    91.4  (24- 2-1) 
 19  ThiefRiverFalls  8 A  TRF  2.3  T19   0.69   23.3    94.2  (24- 2-0) 
 20  ArmstrongCooper  6 AA ARM  2.3  T19   0.79   27.3    82.9  (14-10-2) 
 21              CDH  4 AA CDH  2.5  T21   0.80   41.7    60.5  (18- 9-0) 
 22            Blake  5 A  BLK  2.5  T21   0.77   24.5    74.1  (20- 7-1) 
 23        EastRidge  3 AA ERG  2.7  T23   0.75   23.8    82.0  (16-10-1) 
 24        Roseville  4 AA ROS  2.7  T23   0.79   15.2    81.3  (18- 9-0) 
 25         Eastview  3 AA EVW  2.8  T25   0.80   19.5    71.4  (17-10-1) 
 26          Warroad  8 A  WAR  2.8  T25   0.73   19.4    83.3  (16-10-1) 
 27        BloomJeff  2 AA BLJ  2.8  T25   0.81   31.7    79.2  (16- 9-1) 
 28            Eagan  3 AA EAG  2.8  T25   0.82   26.5    73.5  (11-14-1) 
 29          Andover  7 AA AND  2.9   29   0.78   32.4    85.4  (16- 9-3) 
 30          Hanover  1 NH HAN  3.0  T30   0.73    0.0     0.0  ( 2- 1-0) 
 31         ElkRiver  7 AA ER   3.0  T30   0.77   24.4    81.3  (14- 9-5) 
 32          RedWing  1 A  RW   3.1   32   0.68   43.4    87.3  (22- 6-0) 
 33           Roseau  8 AA RSU  3.2  T33   0.75    9.1    80.9  (16-12-0) 
 34      RochesterJM  1 AA RJM  3.2  T33   0.61   33.8    93.2  (21- 5-0) 
 35    RochesterCENT  1 AA RCT  3.3  T35   0.61   36.5    71.7  (22- 4-0) 
 36       Centennial  5 AA CEN  3.3  T35   0.81   21.2    71.2  (13-12-2) 
 37            Orono  5 A  ORO  3.3  T35   0.70   16.9    84.2  (16- 8-2) 
 38     ChamplinPark  5 AA CHP  3.3  T35   0.79   24.5    69.6  (10-16-0) 
 39           Chaska  2 AA CHK  3.4   39   0.77   14.3    83.2  (17- 9-1) 
 40      AppleValley  3 AA APV  3.6  T40   0.83   15.1    71.8  ( 7-18-1) 
 41          StCloud  8 AA STC  3.6  T40   0.64   22.9    82.7  (20- 5-1) 
 42          Buffalo  8 AA BUF  3.8   42   0.77   23.5    80.2  (14-13-1) 
 43         Hastings  3 AA HAS  4.0   43   0.78   19.2    77.5  (14-12-1) 
 44            Breck  5 A  BRK  4.1   44   0.77   18.7    88.0  (12-15-1) 
 45            Anoka  5 AA ANK  4.2   45   0.81   26.6    80.0  ( 9-16-1) 
 46      GrandRapids  7 AA GR   4.3   46   0.72   16.9    83.6  (15-10-2) 
 47          Bemidji  8 AA BMJ  4.4   47   0.72    5.9    82.9  ( 8-11-5) 
 48    WhiteBearLake  4 AA WBL  4.5  T48   0.78   19.2    80.5  ( 9-14-3) 
 49              SSR  8 AA SSR  4.5  T48   0.64   22.4    91.9  (19- 5-3) 
 50       ForestLake  7 AA FL   4.6  T50   0.77   18.2    85.9  (10-15-2) 
 51        PriorLake  2 AA PRL  4.6  T50   0.79   12.8    79.2  ( 7-20-0) 
 52      SouthStPaul  4 A  SSP  4.6  T50   0.72   12.2    86.8  (16- 9-2) 
 53           SPAVIS  4 A  SPU  4.6  T50   0.67   14.5    81.9  (15- 9-2) 
 54   SpringLakePark  5 AA SLK  4.6  T50   0.66   34.8    63.3  (16- 8-2) 
 55       HolyFamily  2 AA HF   4.7   55   0.73   12.2    81.5  (13-12-1) 
 56       NorthWRCTY  8 AA NWC  4.9  T56   0.70   15.8    81.2  (13-10-3) 
 57           ParkCG  3 AA PCG  4.9  T56   0.78   16.4    81.3  ( 4-20-2) 
 58       Farmington  1 AA FAM  4.9  T56   0.70   15.1    77.9  (12-13-2) 
 59           Duluth  7 AA DUL  5.0   59   0.69    8.9    79.6  (11-14-1) 
 60    MoundWestonka  5 A  MWT  5.1   60   0.66   12.3    79.3  (15- 9-3) 
 61        NewPrague  1 A  NP   5.2  T61   0.66   14.2    81.5  (16-12-0) 
 62       CoonRapids  5 AA CR   5.2  T61   0.78   14.9    61.9  ( 5-18-3) 
 63         Owatonna  1 AA OWT  5.3  T63   0.60   23.5    93.0  (15-11-0) 
 64      ProctorHerm  7 A  PRH  5.3  T63   0.64   19.0    83.3  (17-10-0) 
 65           Rogers  5 AA ROG  5.3  T63   0.68   20.6    79.8  (13-11-3) 
 66          Cloquet  7 AA CLQ  5.4  T66   0.72   17.1    81.7  ( 7-15-2) 
 67           Tartan  4 AA TAR  5.4  T66   0.71   23.1    74.0  (12-14-0) 
 68         Shakopee  2 AA SHK  5.5  T68   0.72   18.5    79.4  ( 8-14-4) 
 69        Mahtomedi  4 A  MAH  5.5  T68   0.67   20.0    81.7  (12-15-1) 
 70             USMW  1 WI USM  5.6  T70   0.55    4.8    87.5  ( 6- 1-1) 
 71       Alexandria  6 A  ALX  5.6  T70   0.63   15.1    90.4  (14-11-1) 
 72      TotinoGrace  5 A  TG   5.6  T70   0.70   23.5    83.1  (12-11-2) 
 73          Bismark  1 ND BIS  5.6  T70   0.52    0.0   100.0  ( 9- 1-1) 
 74      NorthStPaul  4 AA NSP  5.8  T74   0.74   17.8    79.1  ( 9-16-1) 
 75       RiverLakes  8 AA RL   5.8  T74   0.62   13.1    76.9  (15-11-1) 
 76          Hibbing  7 A  HIB  5.8  T74   0.64   23.3    90.1  (12-13-2) 
 77       CentralWIS  1 WI CWI  5.8  T74   0.62   16.1    90.0  ( 6- 3-1) 
 78           NewUlm  3 A  NU   5.9   78   0.48   24.6    83.1  (18- 7-0) 
 79        FargoWest  1 ND FW   6.0   79   0.58   11.1    77.8  ( 8- 4-1) 
 80         Moorhead  8 AA MOR  6.1   80   0.70   23.0    77.3  ( 7-14-2) 
 81          Hayward  1 WI HAY  6.3  T81   0.59   23.0    85.0  (10- 6-0) 
 82        MooseLake  7 A  MOO  6.3  T81   0.55   18.8    83.3  (16- 9-2) 
 83      FortFrances  1 ON FFR  6.3  T81   0.51    0.0    66.7  ( 8- 2-0) 
 84         Woodbury  3 AA WBY  6.5  T84   0.76   12.8    72.9  ( 7-19-1) 
 85     ChisagoLakes  4 A  CHL  6.5  T84   0.66   22.5    81.2  (10-14-1) 
 86        StFrancis  7 AA STF  6.6   86   0.61   18.3    80.3  (10-12-4) 
 87           IFALLS  7 A  IFS  6.7  T87   0.52   19.2    89.3  (15-10-2) 
 88        MplsNovas  5 A  MPL  6.7  T87   0.59   14.8    74.4  (11-12-1) 
 89      FergusFalls  6 A  FF   6.9   89   0.59   39.6    75.9  (10-16-2) 
 90         Onalaska  1 WI ONA  7.0  T90   0.64   25.6    78.6  ( 5- 6-0) 
 91        Princeton  5 A  PRC  7.0  T90   0.57   13.9    79.4  (15-11-1) 
 92          StCroix  1 WI SCX  7.1   92   0.59   27.9    87.0  ( 9- 7-1) 
 93      NewRichmond  1 WI NEW  7.2  T93   0.59   25.0    80.0  ( 1- 5-0) 
 94           Hudson  1 WI HUD  7.2  T93   0.58   20.0    82.5  ( 7- 5-2) 
 95           Simley  4 A  SIM  7.4   95   0.66   10.5    73.3  ( 7-20-0) 
 96              LDC  2 A  LDC  7.5  T96   0.58   10.7    80.5  (10-17-0) 
 97            WSFLG  1 WI WSF  7.5  T96   0.54   22.6    71.4  ( 5- 7-1) 
 98       NorthMetro  6 AA NM   7.6  T98   0.79    5.9    72.8  ( 3-23-0) 
 99      MankatoEast  2 A  MKE  7.6  T98   0.57   18.9    81.1  (16-11-0) 
100       Northfield  1 A  NF   7.6  T98   0.60    7.8    86.0  (10-17-0) 
101         Rosemont  3 AA RSM  7.7  T101  0.79   10.4    64.9  ( 1-25-0) 
102           Sibley  4 A  SIB  7.7  T101  0.65   10.0    74.5  ( 4-23-0) 
103        Cambridge  7 AA CAM  7.7  T101  0.65    4.1    73.5  ( 5-21-0) 
104     DetroitLakes  6 A  DL   7.9  T104  0.57    9.9    78.5  ( 8-12-4) 
105       HolyAngels  5 A  HA   7.9  T104  0.65   18.7    76.7  ( 7-16-4) 
106        Crookston  8 A  CRK  7.9  T104  0.64   12.7    87.3  ( 7-17-1) 
107     StPaulBlades  4 A  SPB  8.3  T107  0.60   25.0    66.7  ( 5-15-4) 
108       ParkRapids  8 A  PR   8.3  T107  0.52   12.2    83.3  (13-13-1) 
109        SunPraire  1 WI SUN  8.5   109  0.59   11.1    87.5  ( 1- 7-1) 
110    RochesterMayo  1 AA RMY  8.7   110  0.62   13.0    71.8  ( 9-16-0) 
111      StLouisPark  5 A  SLP  8.8   111  0.62   16.2    75.0  ( 3-21-1) 
112           Dryden  1 ON DRY  9.0   112  0.63   16.7    80.0  ( 1- 4-0) 
113      MankatoWest  2 A  MKW  9.1  T113  0.53   19.7    81.0  ( 9-17-0) 
114       Hutchinson  2 A  HUT  9.1  T113  0.56   10.6    74.5  ( 6-18-1) 
115      PequotLakes  6 A  PLK  9.1  T113  0.51   15.2    79.0  (11-14-0) 
116           Winona  1 A  WNN  9.3  T116  0.60   18.1    70.3  ( 8-17-1) 
117         Brainard  8 AA BRN  9.3  T116  0.63    6.3    74.0  ( 2-23-0) 
118          Luverne  3 A  LUV  9.3  T116  0.26   34.7    90.9  (22- 4-0) 
119       FargoNorth  1 ND FN   9.4  T119  0.57    0.0    60.0  ( 2-11-0) 
120        Faribault  1 A  FBL  9.4  T119  0.54   11.5    86.0  ( 7-17-1) 
121       GrandForks  1 ND GFK  9.5  T121  0.58   11.1    60.0  ( 4- 7-0) 
122       FargoSouth  1 ND FS   9.5  T121  0.58   11.1    41.7  ( 2- 9-0) 
123        AlbertLea  1 A  ABL  9.6   123  0.58   13.2    72.7  ( 7-18-0) 
124          Willmar  2 A  WIL  9.8   124  0.57   12.3    74.6  ( 6-19-0) 
125           Austin  1 A  AUS  9.9  T125  0.55    5.3    79.0  ( 6-18-2) 
126          Eveleth  7 A  EVE  9.9  T125  0.57   11.3    86.4  ( 5-19-2) 
127         Superior  1 WI SUP 10.3   127  0.58   15.2    65.6  ( 2-12-0) 
128           Mandan  1 ND MAN 10.5   128  0.54    0.0   100.0  ( 0- 8-0) 
129        SilverBay  7 A  SLB 10.7   129  0.55    9.4    68.1  ( 2-20-1) 
130       MHHAunited  4 A  MHH 10.8  T130  0.58    2.9    75.5  ( 2-19-1) 
131             LPGE  6 A  LPG 10.8  T130  0.40    9.5    92.3  ( 8-16-1) 
132         Marshall  3 A  MAR 12.0   132  0.30   11.5    80.0  ( 9-13-1) 
133           Waseca  1 A  WAS 12.1   133  0.34   14.1    82.1  ( 7-10-2) 
134         Fairmont  3 A  FMT 12.2  T134  0.27   27.7    85.2  (10-11-1) 
135        Brookings  1 SD BRO 12.2  T134  0.29   50.0    87.5  ( 1- 2-0) 
136          StPeter  2 A  STP 13.3   136  0.38   10.9    67.1  ( 6-18-1) 
137           Morris  6 A  MOR 14.3   137  0.32   20.0    86.7  ( 3-12-0) 
138        Watertown  1 SD WAT 14.8   138  0.32    0.0    71.4  ( 0- 3-0) 
139              LOW  8 A  LOW 15.1   139  0.46    0.0    75.8  ( 0-17-0) 
140           Windom  3 A  WIN 17.3   140  0.23    2.3    73.2  ( 4-15-1) 
141      Worthington  3 A  WOR 20.0   141  0.26    3.7    61.1  ( 1-18-0)

Bulldog3489 · Post by **Bulldog3489** » Mon Feb 17, 2014 2:04 pm

Can you rerun with AA out of the calculations?

Nevertoomuchhockey · Post by **Nevertoomuchhockey** » Mon Feb 17, 2014 2:29 pm

Thanks but... Did you need to post 3 times on 3 consecutive threads?

OsMetroDad · Post by **OsMetroDad** » Mon Feb 17, 2014 2:41 pm

No because they were all real games with actual stats and score sheets just like all the other cross-over games played against other WI,ND,SD, etc teams. LSQRANK is a computer ranking system that takes out the human (political)biases. Besides if I took out the AA data arbitarily, then I would be obligated to take out the Eden Prairie data based on the allegation that the EP soph goalie transfer from Maple Grove was illegally billeting, or maybe the also take out Warroad for the Canadian girls billeting on their team. Point is that if you open Pandora's box, arbitrarily exclude real data, where does it stop?

Nevertoomuchhockey · Post by **Nevertoomuchhockey** » Mon Feb 17, 2014 3:09 pm

Didn't stop the Hub or any team that played them from adjusting THEIR stats. Don't care if you do it or not but don't say AA scandal is comparable to pissy forum members trying to get something to stick. If EP or any team FORFEITS ALL OF ITS GAMES or WITHDRAWS FROM THE SECTIONAL FINAL then they can get put in your "Pandora's Box" with AA. Geez.

nu2hockey · Post by **nu2hockey** » Mon Feb 17, 2014 3:28 pm

I don't know if mining the data out of the formula is simple or not,but, it might have interesting results.

I don't believe gaining a win against what becomes (statistically) a 0 win team has any value. Might I add a team who also did not score a goal.

3 teams had multiple games against aa...Holy Family might gain the most because of three losses

teams who beat aa might lose some because of aa being winless

nu2hockey · Post by **nu2hockey** » Mon Feb 17, 2014 3:33 pm

whoops just checked Hub site again

Dodge County still shows as a 5-2 win instead of 1-0

Also section games are still up with real scores

I still think teams SOS would have only minimal change, but.....

Bulldog3489 · Post by **Bulldog3489** » Mon Feb 17, 2014 3:45 pm

OsMetroDad wrote:No because they were all real games with actual stats and score sheets just like all the other cross-over games played against other WI,ND,SD, etc teams. LSQRANK is a computer ranking system that takes out the human (political)biases. Besides if I took out the AA data arbitarily, then I would be obligated to take out the Eden Prairie data based on the allegation that the EP soph goalie transfer from Maple Grove was illegally billeting, or maybe the also take out Warroad for the Canadian girls billeting on their team. Point is that if you open Pandora's box, arbitrarily exclude real data, where does it stop?

Every kid that had stats against Achiever this year has now had all of their goals, assists, saves, etc. erased off the girls hockey hub.

OS, when did you find out about the billeting?

MN_Bowhunter · Post by **MN_Bowhunter** » Mon Feb 17, 2014 5:35 pm

OsMetroDad wrote:No because they were all real games with actual stats and score sheets just like all the other cross-over games played against other WI,ND,SD, etc teams. LSQRANK is a computer ranking system that takes out the human (political)biases. Besides if I took out the AA data arbitarily, then I would be obligated to take out the Eden Prairie data based on the allegation that the EP soph goalie transfer from Maple Grove was illegally billeting, or maybe the also take out Warroad for the Canadian girls billeting on their team. Point is that if you open Pandora's box, arbitrarily exclude real data, where does it stop?

Up until now I thought you were the one AA parent with his/her head on straight. Last year you made several valid and articulate points about why AA was a good fit for your family. Now you come in here with this drivel? Be a big boy, stop whining and take your medicine. If you have proof, bring it to the league and the forum, like AMERICAN did. Don't just make baseless accusations, it makes you look petty.

Unless you do have proof, in which case they can watch the tourney from the stands with AA. I have no sympathy for anyone, rich or poor, who cheats to gain an unfair advantage.

OsMetroDad · Post by **OsMetroDad** » Mon Feb 17, 2014 9:12 pm

Hey guys, No dribble here and not whining. It's just plain mathematics that by having more observations, i.e. the Total Redunancy = Number Total Game Observations - Number of Unknowns. By increasing the total redunacy in the system of equations, one gets a better solution to the entire data set and provide a better resolution between all the teams that played an actual game. Just because there is a arbitrary political reason to exclude data, does not make it mathematically correct or a sound practice when it comes right down to numerical analysis. Sounds like you wish to treat the Achiever games played like the cross-over games played by the Wisconsin, North Dakota and New Hamphire teams. Fair enough, just insert a mental asterist in the list as you read it. Now if you are truely ambitious, why try to develop your own mathematically based computer ranking software. The you can justify the data, or lack there of anyway you wish to. I recommend that you try using a development package such as Microsoft Basic or Embarcardio Pascal to do so, its a lot easier to develope the GUI's for your software rather than using something like C++. If you need help setting up the data structures in the program design, just PM me I can lead you in the right direction to minimize your work.

OsMetroDad · Post by **OsMetroDad** » Mon Feb 17, 2014 11:27 pm

Bulldog & Bowhunter, Sorry about the terse responce above, so I just want to clarify my meaning. Its just not a numerically sound practice to exclude "meaningful" data that contributes to computing a solution. Like it or not, these teams are linked numerically, thus excluding data for any reason other than for numerical reasons is defined as 'arbitrary'. Now with regard to my example referring to these Warroad & EP kids, I think you mis-undrstood me. I really don't care where they came from and don't begrudge them playing for their current teams. I strongly believe that letting kids go play where they want, for what ever reason is just fine. In the grand scheme of things, why on earth would anybody care where these kids play? When I swam for the WI Badgers back in the late 70's we had a couple of recruits come in on scholarship from the Norwegian Olympic team, Fritz Warnke & Gunnar Gunderson. These guys were studs, all-big Ten swimmers, so do you think the rest of the team made up of regional recruits from WIS, MN & ILL complained that they took up spots on the relay teams? Of course not. Fritz & Gunnar enriched our teammates lives and made us better swimmers and competitors by making us raise the bar if we were to compete. I see the exact same situation for my own kids with regard to kids moving around to find a different competitive situation. If it makes my kid have to raise the bar, that's a valuable life lesson worth learning, because life is not fair. MnHSL is not doing any favors for the kids in MN because for them its all about the $$$. The "so-called" rules that the MNHSL are arbitrarily enforced and the folks with the $$ who can afford to pick-up and move or have multiple residencies have the advantage. The state HS league in Indiana had a very similar system to the MNHSL model, but disolved it because (I have not read all the details) it was deemed unconstituional because it discriminated against the less wealthy. Net result is that kids in Indiana go to school and play sports where ever thay want from year to year and it all works out just fine. Back to HS hockey here in MN, the HS league definitely needs to do something to make the product better, and adopting "protectionist" policies is not helping the product to become better. On the boys side, the MNHSL is complaining about 41 or so elite players leaving MN early to go play Junior hockey, but yet unwilling to make the product better by letting outside kids come in from Canada, Europe or where ever. After watching 3 years of boys MN hockey, and then also visiting some local Junior league programs and games, I can honestly say that the competition is definitely better even at the tier 3 level. These kids are really truely better off leaving MN HS hockey, and I personally know a handful of them because they play for our '96 MGold summer team. I hope you re-think some of your existing idealogy and apply your new thoughts in a constructive manner. The Minnesota hockey model is changing, but lets change it for the betterment of all, not just the hockey elite that the current rules were written for the elite and by the elite.

Bulldog3489 · Post by **Bulldog3489** » Tue Feb 18, 2014 9:22 am

OsMetroDad wrote:Now if you are truely ambitious, why try to develop your own mathematically based computer ranking software. The you can justify the data, or lack there of anyway you wish to. I recommend that you try using a development package such as Microsoft Basic or Embarcardio Pascal to do so, its a lot easier to develope the GUI's for your software rather than using something like C++. If you need help setting up the data structures in the program design, just PM me I can lead you in the right direction to minimize your work.

Because I don't want to be the second person who spends hours trying to come up with a computer formula that puts my kid's team higher than other computer and human ranking systems based upon weird variables like jersey colors?

OsMetroDad · Post by **OsMetroDad** » Tue Feb 18, 2014 12:48 pm

Bulldog, I very sorry for you that you are not capable or willing to contribute to a discussion in a positive, constructive manner. Your comments refering to computer ranking systems is just plain and simple unknowledgable. If I were you, I would refrain from making off-handed remarks about a copyrighted and commericial software product which you have not taken the time to learn about.