HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Fightinghawklover wrote: ↑Sat Feb 18, 2023 3:38 pm

East Side Pioneer Guy wrote: ↑Sat Feb 18, 2023 12:38 pm

mnmouth wrote: ↑Fri Feb 17, 2023 8:54 am

Loved it when 7 and 8 met in the Quarters. Guaranteed a Northern team in the Semis.

I see your point, an Andover - STMA quarterfinal would be fun.

It would be great to see Andover vs STMA. Hockey as we know it would end and the 218er’s would be demanding their own state tournament.

The51 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2023 9:19 am Whatever the system is now, there's gotta be a better one.

After watching the 2AA semis last weekend, I have no idea how Shakopee was the 3 seed. Eden Prairie was way better and was the 5 seed.

Also, Centennial was definitely better than Champlin from what I saw yesterday. Both of these would have been caught by Pagestat.

Something like Pagestat (maybe Lee can help the MSHSL build their own version should be used)

BlueLineSpecial wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2023 9:54 am

The51 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2023 9:19 am Whatever the system is now, there's gotta be a better one.

After watching the 2AA semis last weekend, I have no idea how Shakopee was the 3 seed. Eden Prairie was way better and was the 5 seed.

Also, Centennial was definitely better than Champlin from what I saw yesterday. Both of these would have been caught by Pagestat.

Something like Pagestat (maybe Lee can help the MSHSL build their own version should be used)

Does Pagestat weigh section games differently than non-section games? I ask because the point of sections seedings is to rank the teams in the section. And an important factor is ranking a subset of teams is to look at head-to-head, and record against others in the section, common opponent W/L, etc. If the idea is simply that EP should have been ranked higher than Shakopee in 2AA because of a computer model of compiled stats, then why do we need sections at all? Just make 'sections' an NCAA basketball-style tourney where teams are ranked 1-64 and the last remaining 8 teams go to state. But if the idea of sections (beyond attempting to have statewide geographic representation) is to compare and rank teams of that subset into some sort of order, then there will be occasions where a 'better' team is ranked lower than another based on things like head-to-head, common opponents, W/L record in the section.

I think they mostly get it right, understanding that certain factors will weigh more heavily than others when you're trying to rank, say, an 8 team subset of the broader 64-ish teams.

I'm all for a Pagestat-type ranking. But again, at that point we might as well not have geographic/regional sections at all. Just put them 1-64 and have at it.

The51 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2023 9:19 am Whatever the system is now, there's gotta be a better one.

After watching the 2AA semis last weekend, I have no idea how Shakopee was the 3 seed. Eden Prairie was way better and was the 5 seed.

Also, Centennial was definitely better than Champlin from what I saw yesterday. Both of these would have been caught by Pagestat.

Something like Pagestat (maybe Lee can help the MSHSL build their own version should be used)

east hockey wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2023 10:10 am

BlueLineSpecial wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2023 9:54 am

The51 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2023 9:19 am Whatever the system is now, there's gotta be a better one.

After watching the 2AA semis last weekend, I have no idea how Shakopee was the 3 seed. Eden Prairie was way better and was the 5 seed.

Also, Centennial was definitely better than Champlin from what I saw yesterday. Both of these would have been caught by Pagestat.

Something like Pagestat (maybe Lee can help the MSHSL build their own version should be used)

Does Pagestat weigh section games differently than non-section games? I ask because the point of sections seedings is to rank the teams in the section. And an important factor is ranking a subset of teams is to look at head-to-head, and record against others in the section, common opponent W/L, etc. If the idea is simply that EP should have been ranked higher than Shakopee in 2AA because of a computer model of compiled stats, then why do we need sections at all? Just make 'sections' an NCAA basketball-style tourney where teams are ranked 1-64 and the last remaining 8 teams go to state. But if the idea of sections (beyond attempting to have statewide geographic representation) is to compare and rank teams of that subset into some sort of order, then there will be occasions where a 'better' team is ranked lower than another based on things like head-to-head, common opponents, W/L record in the section.

I think they mostly get it right, understanding that certain factors will weigh more heavily than others when you're trying to rank, say, an 8 team subset of the broader 64-ish teams.

I'm all for a Pagestat-type ranking. But again, at that point we might as well not have geographic/regional sections at all. Just put them 1-64 and have at it.

It weighs those the same as any other games. I don't know if changing the method would result in greater accuracy in accomplishing the stated goal of the system, which is to predict Section Tournament games. The only possibility I've come up with is to maybe do something along the lines of QRF (and I just threw up in my mouth even mentioning QRF) where if two teams rating are within a certain percentage then a head-to-head tiebreaker would be used. Would that make for a better predictive model? I wouldn't have any idea until I re-crunched the numbers going back to PageStat inception (1998). The idea intrigues me and sometimes intrigue is all it takes for me to set up another huge database, ignore my wife and our dogs, put on the headphones and spend a ton of time on a new project.

Lee

BlueLineSpecial wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2023 9:54 am

The51 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2023 9:19 am Whatever the system is now, there's gotta be a better one.

After watching the 2AA semis last weekend, I have no idea how Shakopee was the 3 seed. Eden Prairie was way better and was the 5 seed.

Also, Centennial was definitely better than Champlin from what I saw yesterday. Both of these would have been caught by Pagestat.

Something like Pagestat (maybe Lee can help the MSHSL build their own version should be used)

Does Pagestat weigh section games differently than non-section games? I ask because the point of sections seedings is to rank the teams in the section. And an important factor is ranking a subset of teams is to look at head-to-head, and record against others in the section, common opponent W/L, etc. If the idea is simply that EP should have been ranked higher than Shakopee in 2AA because of a computer model of compiled stats, then why do we need sections at all? Just make 'sections' an NCAA basketball-style tourney where teams are ranked 1-64 and the last remaining 8 teams go to state. But if the idea of sections (beyond attempting to have statewide geographic representation) is to compare and rank teams of that subset into some sort of order, then there will be occasions where a 'better' team is ranked lower than another based on things like head-to-head, common opponents, W/L record in the section.

I think they mostly get it right, understanding that certain factors will weigh more heavily than others when you're trying to rank, say, an 8 team subset of the broader 64-ish teams.

I'm all for a Pagestat-type ranking. But again, at that point we might as well not have geographic/regional sections at all. Just put them 1-64 and have at it.

east hockey wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2023 10:10 am

BlueLineSpecial wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2023 9:54 am

The51 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2023 9:19 am Whatever the system is now, there's gotta be a better one.

After watching the 2AA semis last weekend, I have no idea how Shakopee was the 3 seed. Eden Prairie was way better and was the 5 seed.

Also, Centennial was definitely better than Champlin from what I saw yesterday. Both of these would have been caught by Pagestat.

Something like Pagestat (maybe Lee can help the MSHSL build their own version should be used)

Does Pagestat weigh section games differently than non-section games? I ask because the point of sections seedings is to rank the teams in the section. And an important factor is ranking a subset of teams is to look at head-to-head, and record against others in the section, common opponent W/L, etc. If the idea is simply that EP should have been ranked higher than Shakopee in 2AA because of a computer model of compiled stats, then why do we need sections at all? Just make 'sections' an NCAA basketball-style tourney where teams are ranked 1-64 and the last remaining 8 teams go to state. But if the idea of sections (beyond attempting to have statewide geographic representation) is to compare and rank teams of that subset into some sort of order, then there will be occasions where a 'better' team is ranked lower than another based on things like head-to-head, common opponents, W/L record in the section.

I think they mostly get it right, understanding that certain factors will weigh more heavily than others when you're trying to rank, say, an 8 team subset of the broader 64-ish teams.

I'm all for a Pagestat-type ranking. But again, at that point we might as well not have geographic/regional sections at all. Just put them 1-64 and have at it.

It weighs those the same as any other games. I don't know if changing the method would result in greater accuracy in accomplishing the stated goal of the system, which is to predict Section Tournament games. The only possibility I've come up with is to maybe do something along the lines of QRF (and I just threw up in my mouth even mentioning QRF) where if two teams rating are within a certain percentage then a head-to-head tiebreaker would be used. Would that make for a better predictive model? I wouldn't have any idea until I re-crunched the numbers going back to PageStat inception (1998). The idea intrigues me and sometimes intrigue is all it takes for me to set up another huge database, ignore my wife and our dogs, put on the headphones and spend a ton of time on a new project.

Lee

elliott70 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2023 11:55 am

east hockey wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2023 10:10 am

BlueLineSpecial wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2023 9:54 am

Does Pagestat weigh section games differently than non-section games? I ask because the point of sections seedings is to rank the teams in the section. And an important factor is ranking a subset of teams is to look at head-to-head, and record against others in the section, common opponent W/L, etc. If the idea is simply that EP should have been ranked higher than Shakopee in 2AA because of a computer model of compiled stats, then why do we need sections at all? Just make 'sections' an NCAA basketball-style tourney where teams are ranked 1-64 and the last remaining 8 teams go to state. But if the idea of sections (beyond attempting to have statewide geographic representation) is to compare and rank teams of that subset into some sort of order, then there will be occasions where a 'better' team is ranked lower than another based on things like head-to-head, common opponents, W/L record in the section.

I think they mostly get it right, understanding that certain factors will weigh more heavily than others when you're trying to rank, say, an 8 team subset of the broader 64-ish teams.

I'm all for a Pagestat-type ranking. But again, at that point we might as well not have geographic/regional sections at all. Just put them 1-64 and have at it.

It weighs those the same as any other games. I don't know if changing the method would result in greater accuracy in accomplishing the stated goal of the system, which is to predict Section Tournament games. The only possibility I've come up with is to maybe do something along the lines of QRF (and I just threw up in my mouth even mentioning QRF) where if two teams rating are within a certain percentage then a head-to-head tiebreaker would be used. Would that make for a better predictive model? I wouldn't have any idea until I re-crunched the numbers going back to PageStat inception (1998). The idea intrigues me and sometimes intrigue is all it takes for me to set up another huge database, ignore my wife and our dogs, put on the headphones and spend a ton of time on a new project.

Lee

We will throw in a free trip to Hawaii.

east hockey wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2023 12:06 pm

elliott70 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2023 11:55 am

east hockey wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2023 10:10 am


It weighs those the same as any other games. I don't know if changing the method would result in greater accuracy in accomplishing the stated goal of the system, which is to predict Section Tournament games. The only possibility I've come up with is to maybe do something along the lines of QRF (and I just threw up in my mouth even mentioning QRF) where if two teams rating are within a certain percentage then a head-to-head tiebreaker would be used. Would that make for a better predictive model? I wouldn't have any idea until I re-crunched the numbers going back to PageStat inception (1998). The idea intrigues me and sometimes intrigue is all it takes for me to set up another huge database, ignore my wife and our dogs, put on the headphones and spend a ton of time on a new project.

Lee

We will throw in a free trip to Hawaii.

Sounds like a Timeshare scam to me!

Lee