2015 Way Too Early Predictions

Ridiculously early first pass TBRW prediction for 2015, based on the currently announced early departures:

1. Union (33 pts)
2. Colgate (29)
3. Cornell (26)
4. Quinnipiac (25)

5. Yale (24)
6. Dartmouth (21)
7. St. Lawrence (21)
8. Clarkson (21)

9. RPI (20)
10. Harvard (17)
11. Brown (15)
12. Princeton (12)

		RS	PS	Imp	Prior	WRet	Ret	Avg10	WInc	Inc	Nieu	Pred
Brown		17	0	-2	15	0.639	9.585	15.700	0.361	5.668	15.253	11
Clarkson	24	0	-4	20	0.637	12.740	21.400	0.363	7.768	20.508	8
Colgate		29	0	0	29	0.960	27.840	22.000	0.040	0.880	28.720	2
Cornell		26	0	0	26	0.621	16.146	27.300	0.379	10.347	26.493	3
Dartmouth	16	1	4	21	0.979	20.559	22.400	0.021	0.470	21.029	6
Harvard		16	0	1	17	0.922	15.674	21.900	0.078	1.708	17.382	10
Princeton	8	0	-2	6	0.549	3.294	19.500	0.451	8.795	12.089	12
Quinnipiac	28	0	-3	25	0.637	15.925	23.667	0.363	8.591	24.516	4
RPI		21	-1	1	21	0.522	10.962	19.200	0.478	9.178	20.140	9
SLU		18	0	2	20	0.361	7.220	21.600	0.639	13.802	21.022	7
Union		37	0	0	37	0.667	24.679	25.600	0.333	8.525	33.204	1
Yale		24	0	1	25	0.646	16.150	23.000	0.354	8.142	24.292	5

If Ghost leaves, Union would drop to 32 pts.

Trotsky
Ridiculously early first pass TBRW prediction for 2015, based on the currently announced early departures:

1. Union (33 pts)
2. Colgate (29)
3. Cornell (26)
4. Quinnipiac (25)

5. Yale (24)
6. Dartmouth (21)
7. St. Lawrence (21)
8. Clarkson (21)

9. RPI (20)
10. Harvard (17)
11. Brown (15)
12. Princeton (12)

		RS	PS	Imp	Prior	WRet	Ret	Avg10	WInc	Inc	Nieu	Pred
Brown		17	0	-2	15	0.639	9.585	15.700	0.361	5.668	15.253	11
Clarkson	24	0	-4	20	0.637	12.740	21.400	0.363	7.768	20.508	8
Colgate		29	0	0	29	0.960	27.840	22.000	0.040	0.880	28.720	2
Cornell		26	0	0	26	0.621	16.146	27.300	0.379	10.347	26.493	3
Dartmouth	16	1	4	21	0.979	20.559	22.400	0.021	0.470	21.029	6
Harvard		16	0	1	17	0.922	15.674	21.900	0.078	1.708	17.382	10
Princeton	8	0	-2	6	0.549	3.294	19.500	0.451	8.795	12.089	12
Quinnipiac	28	0	-3	25	0.637	15.925	23.667	0.363	8.591	24.516	4
RPI		21	-1	1	21	0.522	10.962	19.200	0.478	9.178	20.140	9
SLU		18	0	2	20	0.361	7.220	21.600	0.639	13.802	21.022	7
Union		37	0	0	37	0.667	24.679	25.600	0.333	8.525	33.204	1
Yale		24	0	1	25	0.646	16.150	23.000	0.354	8.142	24.292	5

If Ghost leaves, Union would drop to 32 pts.

Counterpoint?

marty
Counterpoint?

One of me is going to look brilliant.

Trotsky

marty
Counterpoint?

One of me is going to look brilliant.

So, is it the digital you, or the analog you? That is the question.

Jim Hyla

Trotsky

marty
Counterpoint?

One of me is going to look brilliant.

So, is it the digital you, or the analog you? That is the question.

I was thinking we had a right/left dilemma but since I don't understand where those damn numbers came from I'm at a loss...

marty

Jim Hyla

Trotsky

marty
Counterpoint?

One of me is going to look brilliant.

So, is it the digital you, or the analog you? That is the question.

I was thinking we had a right/left dilemma but since I don't understand where those damn numbers came from I'm at a loss...

Lets see if I remember this from past years. Not that Trotsky hasn't changed it many times in the past. RS is how many points the team had last year. PS is an adjustment due to upsets in the playoffs (and a reminder to me that RPI plays like crap when it counts). Imp is another adjustment for improvement in the second half of the season compared to the first. Both of these are zero sum adjustments. Prior is the sum of the three columns to the left.

WRet is a complicated calculation of how much of the teams strength is returning. It combines separate factors for forwards, d-men, and goalies. Ret = Prior*WRet, a measure of how many of the teams points are returning next season.

Up to this point things basically make sense to me. Now Trotsky wants to add in a factor for incoming players (but not including anything about them per se). Simultaneously this incorporates a measure of improvement in returning players. Avg10 is the average of how many points the team has had for the last 10 years, i.e., a measure of how good the team has been historically. WInc is the fraction of the team's points due to players who left, i.e. WInc=1-WRet. Inc=Avg10*WInc. So Trotsky is assuming that incoming players will play at a rate typical of how the team has done historically. That is as good as one could do without actually knowing anything about incoming players.

Nieu=Ret+Inc, a measure of how many points the team will have next season. Inc isn't zero sum. (I have forgotten if this is due to Vermont leaving and QU taking their place.) The sum of all the Nieu values is not 22*12=264. It's close but not exact. Pred is an ordering based on Nieu.

ursusminor
Lets see if I remember this from past years. Not that Trotsky hasn't changed it many times in the past.

Touchy subject. Given infinite time and resources I would go back, retro-apply all of my criteria to all of the data sets, figure out which have been most accurate, and stick with those. If you're curious, here is an index page for all the past calculations.

RS -- Pts in RS (normalize to 22 GP if different, the Elephant Walk Epicycle)

PS -- +1 / -1 for each upset win / loss in an ECAC PS series (no consy)

Imp -- Second half improvement in pts over first half; difference / 2 and rounded down.

Prior: RS + PS + Imp, representing the comparative strength of the team's returning components

WRet -- Weighted returning percentage. It's not complicated, just labor intensive. The percentage of scoring among the top six Fs that is returning weighted by 3 + the percentage of scoring among the top 4 D that is returning weighted by 2 + the percentage of all G minutes that is returning, all divided by 6. This represents the percentage of team performance to be attributed to current components.

Ret -- WRet * Prior. The total number of points contributed by the returning components.

WInc -- Weighted incoming percentage. 1 minus WRet. The idea is that a team's strength is a sum of its current configuration (returning components) and its baseline program strength, with the current component weighted by how much of the team strength is returning. If a team returned everybody their traditional strength wouldn't matter at all. Incoming strength is estimated as the average performance over the prior ten years. Note that this still takes into consideration atypical recent success (or failure) since the prior ten years includes the prior two or three.

Avg10 -- Average pts last 10 seasons. (In Qpc's case, that's an avg of 9 seasons)

Inc -- WInc * Avg 10. The total number of points contributed by the incoming components.

Nieu -- Ret + Inc. Total expected points.

Pred -- Rank order of Nieu.

As Ralph points out, Nieu is not exactly normalized to a 22 game season, but it's really close (this year's error is .0024).

I think this is the best balance between methodological defensibility and practicality of collection that I've had, but I'm open to suggestions.

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

The only squads to exchange "pods" are predicted to be Dartmouth and RPI.

Trotsky
If Ghost leaves, Union would drop to 32 pts.

He signed today.

ursusminor

Trotsky
If Ghost leaves, Union would drop to 32 pts.

He signed today.

Updated calculations:

		RS	PS	Imp	Prior	WRet	Ret	Avg10	WInc	Inc	Nieu	Pred
Brown		17	0	-2	15	0.639	9.585	15.700	0.361	5.668	15.253	11
Clarkson	24	0	-4	20	0.637	12.740	21.400	0.363	7.768	20.508	8
Colgate		29	0	0	29	0.960	27.840	22.000	0.040	0.880	28.720	2
Cornell		26	0	0	26	0.621	16.146	27.300	0.379	10.347	26.493	3
Dartmouth	16	1	4	21	0.979	20.559	22.400	0.021	0.470	21.029	6
Harvard		16	0	1	17	0.922	15.674	21.900	0.078	1.708	17.382	10
Princeton	8	0	-2	6	0.549	3.294	19.500	0.451	8.795	12.089	12
Quinnipiac	28	0	-3	25	0.637	15.925	23.667	0.363	8.591	24.516	4
RPI		21	-1	1	21	0.522	10.962	19.200	0.478	9.178	20.140	9
SLU		18	0	2	20	0.361	7.220	21.600	0.639	13.802	21.022	7
Union		37	0	0	37	0.554	20.498	25.600	0.446	11.418	31.916	1
Yale		24	0	1	25	0.646	16.150	23.000	0.354	8.142	24.292	5

And here's a comparison of Nieu 2015 predicted points with 2014 actuals:

		2014	2015	Diff
Brown		17	15	 -2
Clarkson	24	21	 -3
Colgate		29	29        0
Cornell		26	26        0
Dartmouth	16	21       +5
Harvard		16	17       +1
Princeton	 8	12       +4
Quinnipiac	28	25	 -3
RPI		21	20	 -1
SLU		18	21       +3
Union		37	32	 -5
Yale		24	24        0

Rounding results in 263 rather than 264 (12*22) points. The closest team under .5 is Cornell, so if we award Cornell the make up point to make the percentages all work out, we get:

		2014	2015	Diff
Brown		17	15	 -2
Clarkson	24	21	 -3
Colgate		29	29	  0
Cornell		26	27	 +1
Dartmouth	16	21	 +5
Harvard		16	17	 +1
Princeton	8	12	 +4
Quinnipiac	28	25	 -3
RPI		21	20	 -1
SLU		18	21	 +3
Union		37	32	 -5
Yale		24	24	  0

The seniors on the Union team, Carr, Bodie, Sullivan, Hatch, Ikkala, and the Ghost (jr), refused to accept defeat as an outcome. Their combined leadership cannot be replaced. There is no way we can reload fast enought. We are going to be tough, but doubtful we end up on top of the ECAC. Someone elses turn.

Dutchman
The seniors on the Union team, Carr, Bodie, Sullivan, Hatch, Ikkala, and the Ghost (jr), refused to accept defeat as an outcome. Their combined leadership cannot be replaced. There is no way we can reload fast enought. We are going to be tough, but doubtful we end up on top of the ECAC. Someone elses turn.

I'd have hoped so, but the pure numbers say otherwise. The "problem" is that Union's average over ten isn't bad enough to drop them too far. Even though they lose a ton, their typical replacement player projects to the second-best in the conference (25.6, second only to Cornell's 27.3). Union's going to regress, but the mean towards which they are regressing is itself competitive.

It could all fall apart, of course (Cornell '13 comes painfully to mind), but if the methodology has any merit Union's natural state just isn't bad enough anymore. This is unnerving.

The theoretical "0% Returning" rankings:

 1 Cornell	27.3
 2 Union	25.6
 3 Quinnipiac	23.7
 4 Yale		23.0

 5 Dartmouth	22.4
 6 Colgate	22.0
 7 Harvard	21.9
 8 SLU		21.6

 9 Clarkson	21.4
10 Princeton	19.5
11 RPI		19.2
12 Brown	15.7

Dutchman
The seniors on the Union team, Carr, Bodie, Sullivan, Hatch, Ikkala, and the Ghost (jr), refused to accept defeat as an outcome. Their combined leadership cannot be replaced. There is no way we can reload fast enought. We are going to be tough, but doubtful we end up on top of the ECAC. Someone elses turn.

An admirable if not obvious attempt at reverse woofing. May the wrath of those gods have their way.

marty

Dutchman
The seniors on the Union team, Carr, Bodie, Sullivan, Hatch, Ikkala, and the Ghost (jr), refused to accept defeat as an outcome. Their combined leadership cannot be replaced. There is no way we can reload fast enought. We are going to be tough, but doubtful we end up on top of the ECAC. Someone elses turn.

An admirable if not obvious attempt at reverse woofing. May the wrath of those gods have their way.

Sandbagging is not a crime.

It is, however, an impiety.

As this is (sort of) the Summer Thread: there's a post on USCHO Fan Forum that Ben Syer interviewed for the vacant Princeton head coach job.

Re the Princeton job, College Hockey News had a story yesterday that Union and Quinnipiac assistants were among those who interviewed on campus for the job. There was no mention of Ben Syer in the story.

CAS
Re the Princeton job, College Hockey News had a story yesterday that Union and Quinnipiac assistants were among those who interviewed on campus for the job. There was no mention of Ben Syer in the story.

Source.

Sources have indicated that at least seven Division I assistant coaches are also being carefully considered, including Keith Fisher (Penn State, former Princeton assistant), Joe Bonnett (Colorado College), Ben Barr (Providence), Kyle Wallack (Vermont), Joe Dumais (Union), Bill Riga (Quinnipiac) and Ben Syer (Cornell).

To be fair, that says he was "carefully considered." The USCHO post either mischaracterized this or relied on some additional uncited information:

Cornell associate head Ben Syer has applied for the head coach opening at Princeton. He's one of a handful of applicants getting interviewed......per Mike McMahon.

I have asked the USCHO poster for clarification.