Class A Rankings 1-22-12

[PuckRanger]

The shots don't matter. Have you ever seen a game where a team won because they outshot the other team? It's like saying that one team is better than the other because number nine's sister on one team is cuter than the other number nine's sister. The ONLY stat that proves one team is better than another is the score, because that's what decides who wins and loses. Shots may indicate zone time, puck control, and scoring chances, but again you can't win a game off of any of that. I wanna know who scored more goals. That's the better team because that's how hockey is decided.

Shots, scoring chances, and zone time all do matter. 95% of hockey games are won by the team that dominates these. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that these lead to scoring goals most of the time. A hot goalie (or a completely off goalie at the other end) is pretty much the only way the other team wins. Yes, the score is the ultimate indicator, but I challenge you to show me a team that controls those 3 aspects throughout the season that has more than a couple losses - and conversely show me a team that consistently gets drubbed in those categories that has more than a handful of wins.

Usually, yes. Usually is the key word. I challenge you to find me a team who's lost when they've scored more goals than their opponent in that game. Mine holds true, there are no exceptions.

That is true, But that doesn't make one team better than another. To me rankings mean if the #10 team would beat #9, #9 would beat #8, #8 would beat #7... all the way down to #1 if they were to all play head to head. The best predictor is not going to be final scores alone. Odd stuff happens in all sports, so you will never get all of it perfect, which is why they play the games.

In response to yours...River Lakes, Apollo, Alexandria and that's just from the first conference that I looked at. Two of those teams are above .500, too.

Ahh, your way off here:

River Lakes: 12-8, 681 shots on goal, 641 shots allowed. Don't see that as much of an example. Looks right around where it should be.

Apollo: 8-10, 526 shots on goal, 588 shots allowed. Again, right where it should be.

Alexandria: 10-8, 448 shots on goal, 635 shots allowed. A little skewed, but again, if you look at it game by game, you'd see that they were outshot quite badly in several of their losses which is why there is such a disparity - and the scores of those losses reflect that (ie 8-1, 8-0, 5-1).

Take a look at a team like Hermantown: 778 shots on goal, 358 shots allowed... and game by game, it looks the same for the most part. Result: Undefeated.

Correlation and causation are two VERY different things. Shots and winning are just that... a correlation.

And that is exactly the point I was making. Thank you!

[rainier]

The shots don't matter. Have you ever seen a game where a team won because they outshot the other team? It's like saying that one team is better than the other because number nine's sister on one team is cuter than the other number nine's sister. The ONLY stat that proves one team is better than another is the score, because that's what decides who wins and loses. Shots may indicate zone time, puck control, and scoring chances, but again you can't win a game off of any of that. I wanna know who scored more goals. That's the better team because that's how hockey is decided.

Shots, scoring chances, and zone time all do matter. 95% of hockey games are won by the team that dominates these. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that these lead to scoring goals most of the time. A hot goalie (or a completely off goalie at the other end) is pretty much the only way the other team wins. Yes, the score is the ultimate indicator, but I challenge you to show me a team that controls those 3 aspects throughout the season that has more than a couple losses - and conversely show me a team that consistently gets drubbed in those categories that has more than a handful of wins.

Usually, yes. Usually is the key word. I challenge you to find me a team who's lost when they've scored more goals than their opponent in that game. Mine holds true, there are no exceptions.

In response to yours...River Lakes, Apollo, Alexandria and that's just from the first conference that I looked at. Two of those teams are above .500, too.

Correlation and causation are two VERY different things. Shots and winning are just that... a correlation.

MHGr8ness,

Reread my post, I agree with you completely; the final score is all that matters in the real world. The real world. But we are debating rankings, which is not the real world. You are correct, shots don't matter in the real world, but when figuring out who should be ranked where, shots are taken into account. PuckRanger is right, those categories can tell you alot about how the game went. And when we are debating rankings, we take into account these things that tell you who the better team was 95% of the time.

We are comparing teams that many times haven't played each other yet. Hermantown and STA haven't played each other; how else can we have a reasoned discussion about who is better? How else do you compare teams that haven't played? If there is no final score then you gotta go with what you do have.

Take the example I gave about I-Falls and Rapids. If I-Falls had won 4-3 yet Rapids had outshot them 36-18, and it wasn't a season deciding playoff game, would you really be able to say I-Falls was a better team? You might, but I would say that I-Falls played a great game that night but when they meet again I would pick Rapids to win for sure. (the caveat being that if I-Falls' goalie was spectacular and had a .980 save % for the season, but that isn't the case.)

Was the 1980 Olympic team better than the Russians? No one in their right mind would say that, but they would say that on that one night, the U.S. did something special to beat a superior team.

We on this rankings thread are operating in the world of reasoned opinion, the world of rankings. When the playoffs are finished, there will be no more who is better than who, because if they didn't prove it on the ice, it doesn't matter, but until then, shots and edge in play will be a part of this rankings discussion.

And quit picking on HSHW! He does a great job with his rankings.

[MHGr8ness]

Shots, scoring chances, and zone time all do matter. 95% of hockey games are won by the team that dominates these. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that these lead to scoring goals most of the time. A hot goalie (or a completely off goalie at the other end) is pretty much the only way the other team wins. Yes, the score is the ultimate indicator, but I challenge you to show me a team that controls those 3 aspects throughout the season that has more than a couple losses - and conversely show me a team that consistently gets drubbed in those categories that has more than a handful of wins.

Usually, yes. Usually is the key word. I challenge you to find me a team who's lost when they've scored more goals than their opponent in that game. Mine holds true, there are no exceptions.

That is true, But that doesn't make one team better than another. To me rankings mean if the #10 team would beat #9, #9 would beat #8, #8 would beat #7... all the way down to #1 if they were to all play head to head. The best predictor is not going to be final scores alone. Odd stuff happens in all sports, so you will never get all of it perfect, which is why they play the games.

In response to yours...River Lakes, Apollo, Alexandria and that's just from the first conference that I looked at. Two of those teams are above .500, too.

Ahh, your way off here:

River Lakes: 12-8, 681 shots on goal, 641 shots allowed. Don't see that as much of an example. Looks right around where it should be.

Apollo: 8-10, 526 shots on goal, 588 shots allowed. Again, right where it should be.

Alexandria: 10-8, 448 shots on goal, 635 shots allowed. A little skewed, but again, if you look at it game by game, you'd see that they were outshot quite badly in several of their losses which is why there is such a disparity - and the scores of those losses reflect that (ie 8-1, 8-0, 5-1).

Take a look at a team like Hermantown: 778 shots on goal, 358 shots allowed... and game by game, it looks the same for the most part. Result: Undefeated.

Correlation and causation are two VERY different things. Shots and winning are just that... a correlation.

And that is exactly the point I was making. Thank you!

http://www.mnhockeyhub.com/stats/team_i ... ason=46241
Can you read? You have the numbers reversed.
http://www.mnhockeyhub.com/stats/team_i ... ason=46241

I nailed your challenge. You can make excuses if you want.

You must be crazy. What makes a team better than another if beating them doesn't? LOL. wow.

Do you know what correlation and causation mean? Correlation means that when there is more shots there is usually a win. True. Causation would mean that more shots cause a win, which is not true. Usually, more shots result in a win, but not always. That's why it's correlation, not causation.

[MHGr8ness]

Shots, scoring chances, and zone time all do matter. 95% of hockey games are won by the team that dominates these. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that these lead to scoring goals most of the time. A hot goalie (or a completely off goalie at the other end) is pretty much the only way the other team wins. Yes, the score is the ultimate indicator, but I challenge you to show me a team that controls those 3 aspects throughout the season that has more than a couple losses - and conversely show me a team that consistently gets drubbed in those categories that has more than a handful of wins.

Usually, yes. Usually is the key word. I challenge you to find me a team who's lost when they've scored more goals than their opponent in that game. Mine holds true, there are no exceptions.

In response to yours...River Lakes, Apollo, Alexandria and that's just from the first conference that I looked at. Two of those teams are above .500, too.

Correlation and causation are two VERY different things. Shots and winning are just that... a correlation.

MHGr8ness,

Reread my post, I agree with you completely; the final score is all that matters in the real world. The real world. But we are debating rankings, which is not the real world. You are correct, shots don't matter in the real world, but when figuring out who should be ranked where, shots are taken into account. PuckRanger is right, those categories can tell you alot about how the game went. And when we are debating rankings, we take into account these things that tell you who the better team was 95% of the time.

We are comparing teams that many times haven't played each other yet. Hermantown and STA haven't played each other; how else can we have a reasoned discussion about who is better? How else do you compare teams that haven't played? If there is no final score then you gotta go with what you do have.

Take the example I gave about I-Falls and Rapids. If I-Falls had won 4-3 yet Rapids had outshot them 36-18, and it wasn't a season deciding playoff game, would you really be able to say I-Falls was a better team? You might, but I would say that I-Falls played a great game that night but when they meet again I would pick Rapids to win for sure. (the caveat being that if I-Falls' goalie was spectacular and had a .980 save % for the season, but that isn't the case.)

Was the 1980 Olympic team better than the Russians? No one in their right mind would say that, but they would say that on that one night, the U.S. did something special to beat a superior team.

We on this rankings thread are operating in the world of reasoned opinion, the world of rankings. When the playoffs are finished, there will be no more who is better than who, because if they didn't prove it on the ice, it doesn't matter, but until then, shots and edge in play will be a part of this rankings discussion.

And quit picking on HSHW! He does a great job with his rankings.

Very good explanation about the I Falls and Rapids game. I agree Rapids>I Falls. I also understand that there can be an exceptional game for one team and off nights for another that factor into overall who is better. But, what I'm saying is that if you look at just one game alone. You can't tell me a team is better because they outshot the other team and still lost.

[PuckRanger]

http://www.mnhockeyhub.com/stats/team_i ... ason=46241
Can you read? You have the numbers reversed.
http://www.mnhockeyhub.com/stats/team_i ... ason=46241

I nailed your challenge. You can make excuses if you want.

Far from it! That was not the challenge. Re-read it and get back to me. None of the three examples you listed come close to fitting the scenario.

You must be crazy. What makes a team better than another if beating them doesn't? LOL. wow.

So, lets say Duluth East runs the table and finishes the regular season 24-1 and draws... lets say Cambridge-Isanti in the first round of the playoffs. if Cambridge were to win, say 2-1, with their goaltender making 75 saves, and Cambridge only managed a dozen shots on goal. Could you say with a straight face that Cambridge is better than Duluth East?

Do you know what correlation and causation mean? Correlation means that when there is more shots there is usually a win. True. Causation would mean that more shots cause a win, which is not true. Usually, more shots result in a win, but not always. That's why it's correlation, not causation.

Quite frankly, I don't care. The point is, that all of these are factors. Correlation is a perfectly valid use in this situation.

[rainier]

MHGr8ness,

I agree, outshooting a team does not automatically mean you are the better team.

Now let's get to some interesting Class A news that just happens to prove MGHr8ness's point.

Looks like we Class A fans finally get some intrigue other than arguing about the Big 3. #5 Thief River Falls beat #4 Duluth Marshall today in Duluth 4-2, shots were 31-30 Marshall. Marshall outshot them, but I think TRF is the better team.

TRF also beat #6 EGF 5-1 (shots 40-16 TRF!) just a few days ago. That is a buttkicking. TRF is making a charge in Class A. It's a good thing Breck beat Blake so soundly (they were up 8-1 at one point), or some of us with a northern bend would be screaming at HSHW to drop Breck to #4.

I am interested to see how this shakes up the rankings. I trust HSHW will have it sorted out, he has been solid all season in his rankings of 4-10. (that's a compliment)

How far do Marshall and EGF fall? And who moves up? Totino? Sure, Totino beat TRF 4-2 (shots 37-33 TG), but Totino lost to both Marshall (5-3, shots 37-25 TG) and EGF (7-2, shots 28-24 EGF). And on top of this, TRF just tied what has been a very mediocre Duluth Denfeld team 1-1 (shots 31-23 TRF). What does it all mean?!

This should be interesting.

[rainier]

Update:

Using FollowThePuck rankings,

#1 Hermantown beats #19 New Prague 5-3, shots were 50-19 Hermantown.

#16 Delano beats # 11 Rochester Lourdes 3-2, shots 27-26 Lourdes.

More instability in Class A, makes for good drama.

[PuckRanger]

MHGr8ness,

I agree, outshooting a team does not automatically mean you are the better team.

Now let's get to some interesting Class A news that just happens to prove MGHr8ness's point.

Looks like we Class A fans finally get some intrigue other than arguing about the Big 3. #5 Thief River Falls beat #4 Duluth Marshall today in Duluth 4-2, shots were 31-30 Marshall. Marshall outshot them, but I think TRF is the better team.

TRF also beat #6 EGF 5-1 (shots 40-16 TRF!) just a few days ago. That is a buttkicking. TRF is making a charge in Class A. It's a good thing Breck beat Blake so soundly (they were up 8-1 at one point), or some of us with a northern bend would be screaming at HSHW to drop Breck to #4.

I am interested to see how this shakes up the rankings. I trust HSHW will have it sorted out, he has been solid all season in his rankings of 4-10. (that's a compliment)

How far do Marshall and EGF fall? And who moves up? Totino? Sure, Totino beat TRF 4-2 (shots 37-33 TG), but Totino lost to both Marshall (5-3, shots 37-25 TG) and EGF (7-2, shots 28-24 EGF). And on top of this, TRF just tied what has been a very mediocre Duluth Denfeld team 1-1 (shots 31-23 TRF). What does it all mean?!

This should be interesting.

I would probably just prop TRF up to #4 and drop everyone else down a notch. Its just one game for now, but if it becomes a trend, then a bigger slide for Marshall and some other juggling.

[MHGr8ness]

http://www.mnhockeyhub.com/stats/team_i ... ason=46241
Can you read? You have the numbers reversed.
http://www.mnhockeyhub.com/stats/team_i ... ason=46241

I nailed your challenge. You can make excuses if you want.

Far from it! That was not the challenge. Re-read it and get back to me. None of the three examples you listed come close to fitting the scenario.

You must be crazy. What makes a team better than another if beating them doesn't? LOL. wow.

So, lets say Duluth East runs the table and finishes the regular season 24-1 and draws... lets say Cambridge-Isanti in the first round of the playoffs. if Cambridge were to win, say 2-1, with their goaltender making 75 saves, and Cambridge only managed a dozen shots on goal. Could you say with a straight face that Cambridge is better than Duluth East?

Do you know what correlation and causation mean? Correlation means that when there is more shots there is usually a win. True. Causation would mean that more shots cause a win, which is not true. Usually, more shots result in a win, but not always. That's why it's correlation, not causation.

Quite frankly, I don't care. The point is, that all of these are factors. Correlation is a perfectly valid use in this situation.

You're right I did misread it. I thought it was to find one who has won more than a few games. My bad on that.

And on that day... yes. Cambridge was better.

To be honest, I'm not quite sure what we're arguing anymore because so many different elements and aspects are slowly being added in by both sides that it gets off topic. My main point... based soley off of one game, it doesn't matter if you outshoot your opponent or "dominate play". You need to outscore them. "Hot" goalies and "off nights" are part of the game. You can't claim to have played better unless you won.

[HShockeywatcher]

Crazy how much arguing there is going on and I'm not even posting. While I know this will rile up rainer, I'm not going to quote everything, just post a few bullets to respond to what's been said.

-To say that the team who wins is the team who dominated or controlled play or anything like that is to say you have little experience with sports. You could dominate the first 11 rounds and get knocked out in the 12th, pass for 500 yards and lose a game, spend 90% of the time in your opponents zone and allow more goals than them, etc, etc. It happens in [just about] every sport.

-I have never said one team is "bad" because of come from behind wins, but simply that the team who doesn't need to come from behind appears [on paper] to be better.
-To that point, yes, "a win is a win" but who you play and when you aren't playing the same teams how you play them is all there is to compare.

-It strikes me as funny that when an East alumnus starts with the team many considered the top team and keeps them there he is "objective" and respected, but when a St Thomas Alumnus does it he is not.

PageStat is the consensus "best" ranking system by most on this board and most respected. It has had East at the top in AA all season until now and St Thomas or Breck at the top of A all season...and still does.

All 7 of the losses on the schedules of both St Thomas and Breck have come to teams all ranked on PageStat better than Hermantown or any team they've played. I know SOS wants to be ignored by many, but with their schedule for the remainder of the season, this gap will likely grow.

-There was a subject many pages long questioning why East doesn't play certain teams. Hermantown could easily play many top teams they don't play. I'm not going to question it; that's their business. But they don't play them; it has always been my point. When a team on the lower end of my top 10 shuts out and allows few goals to inferior opponents, then "the best team in state" allows more, comes from behind to win or plays a close game, it makes you wonder. That's all.

Does it mean they didn't know they were playing an easy schedule and used the season to play their lines evenly so those younger players would get development? That or any other possible scenario? No, it doesn't nor have I ever said it didn't. The Hub has much better stats than were available to us 5 years ago, but until they list lines and ice time/shifts, etc, it will be hard for someone who doesn't personally know teams to know the details of what many teams were doing.

-Anyway, Hermantown has allowed the 2nd fewest goals in the state and scored the second most. Any team who plays them will have a good game coming, especially if they can stay out of the box and run their top lines more.

Anyway, not looking for any response, just thought I'd respond to a bunch of stuff. New rankings will be out in less than 12 hours; enjoy!

[MHGr8ness]

Crazy how much arguing there is going on and I'm not even posting. While I know this will rile up rainer, I'm not going to quote everything, just post a few bullets to respond to what's been said.

-To say that the team who wins is the team who dominated or controlled play or anything like that is to say you have little experience with sports. You could dominate the first 11 rounds and get knocked out in the 12th, pass for 500 yards and lose a game, spend 90% of the time in your opponents zone and allow more goals than them, etc, etc. It happens in [just about] every sport.

-I have never said one team is "bad" because of come from behind wins, but simply that the team who doesn't need to come from behind appears [on paper] to be better.
-To that point, yes, "a win is a win" but who you play and when you aren't playing the same teams how you play them is all there is to compare.

-It strikes me as funny that when an East alumnus starts with the team many considered the top team and keeps them there he is "objective" and respected, but when a St Thomas Alumnus does it he is not.

PageStat is the consensus "best" ranking system by most on this board and most respected. It has had East at the top in AA all season until now and St Thomas or Breck at the top of A all season...and still does.

All 7 of the losses on the schedules of both St Thomas and Breck have come to teams all ranked on PageStat better than Hermantown or any team they've played. I know SOS wants to be ignored by many, but with their schedule for the remainder of the season, this gap will likely grow.

-There was a subject many pages long questioning why East doesn't play certain teams. Hermantown could easily play many top teams they don't play. I'm not going to question it; that's their business. But they don't play them; it has always been my point. When a team on the lower end of my top 10 shuts out and allows few goals to inferior opponents, then "the best team in state" allows more, comes from behind to win or plays a close game, it makes you wonder. That's all.

Does it mean they didn't know they were playing an easy schedule and used the season to play their lines evenly so those younger players would get development? That or any other possible scenario? No, it doesn't nor have I ever said it didn't. The Hub has much better stats than were available to us 5 years ago, but until they list lines and ice time/shifts, etc, it will be hard for someone who doesn't personally know teams to know the details of what many teams were doing.

-Anyway, Hermantown has allowed the 2nd fewest goals in the state and scored the second most. Any team who plays them will have a good game coming, especially if they can stay out of the box and run their top lines more.

Anyway, not looking for any response, just thought I'd respond to a bunch of stuff. New rankings will be out in less than 12 hours; enjoy!

Thank you! Someone else who understands.

I agree that who you play and when you play them matters.

I also know you never said it makes them bad, but I still don't understand why comeback wins are not as good. I think it could be a good thing even. It may show that they can win close games and do well under pressure.

[blacklung]

Crazy how much arguing there is going on and I'm not even posting. While I know this will rile up rainer, I'm not going to quote everything, just post a few bullets to respond to what's been said.

-To say that the team who wins is the team who dominated or controlled play or anything like that is to say you have little experience with sports. You could dominate the first 11 rounds and get knocked out in the 12th, pass for 500 yards and lose a game, spend 90% of the time in your opponents zone and allow more goals than them, etc, etc. It happens in [just about] every sport.

-I have never said one team is "bad" because of come from behind wins, but simply that the team who doesn't need to come from behind appears [on paper] to be better.
-To that point, yes, "a win is a win" but who you play and when you aren't playing the same teams how you play them is all there is to compare.

-It strikes me as funny that when an East alumnus starts with the team many considered the top team and keeps them there he is "objective" and respected, but when a St Thomas Alumnus does it he is not.

PageStat is the consensus "best" ranking system by most on this board and most respected. It has had East at the top in AA all season until now and St Thomas or Breck at the top of A all season...and still does.

All 7 of the losses on the schedules of both St Thomas and Breck have come to teams all ranked on PageStat better than Hermantown or any team they've played. I know SOS wants to be ignored by many, but with their schedule for the remainder of the season, this gap will likely grow.

-There was a subject many pages long questioning why East doesn't play certain teams. Hermantown could easily play many top teams they don't play. I'm not going to question it; that's their business. But they don't play them; it has always been my point. When a team on the lower end of my top 10 shuts out and allows few goals to inferior opponents, then "the best team in state" allows more, comes from behind to win or plays a close game, it makes you wonder. That's all.

Does it mean they didn't know they were playing an easy schedule and used the season to play their lines evenly so those younger players would get development? That or any other possible scenario? No, it doesn't nor have I ever said it didn't. The Hub has much better stats than were available to us 5 years ago, but until they list lines and ice time/shifts, etc, it will be hard for someone who doesn't personally know teams to know the details of what many teams were doing.

-Anyway, Hermantown has allowed the 2nd fewest goals in the state and scored the second most. Any team who plays them will have a good game coming, especially if they can stay out of the box and run their top lines more.

Anyway, not looking for any response, just thought I'd respond to a bunch of stuff. New rankings will be out in less than 12 hours; enjoy!

HSHW thanks for the rankings! Looking forward to your new rankings in less than 9 hrs!
I hope you give us something to argue about! Maybe put Hermantown at #3 to really lite us up...