Tuesday, October 17th, 2017
Who is this season's most improved player?
Matt Buckles
Jeff Kubiak
Alex Rauter
Trevor Yates
 
 
 
Updates automatically
Twitter Link
CHN iOS App
 
NCAA
1967 1970

ECAC
1967 1968 1969 1970 1973 1980 1986 1996 1997 2003 2005 2010

IVY
1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1977 1978 1983 1984 1985 1996 1997 2002 2003 2004 2005 2012 2014

Cleary Jell-O Mold
2002 2003 2005

Ned Harkness Cup
2003 2005 2008 2013
 
Brendon
Iles
Pokulok
Schafer
Syphilis

Bracketology 2016-17 Style

Posted by Jim Hyla 
Page: Previous1 2 345Next
Current Page: 2 of 5
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: BearLover (---.hfc.comcastbusiness.net)
Date: February 22, 2017 05:45PM

Trotsky
Finally, according to this, our probabilities for tourney advance are currently:

.85 Tourney
.42 QF
.19 SF
.09 F
.04 That Which Shall Be Nameless
Is there a way to check what a loss to RPI would do to us in the PWR? Because unless such a loss would knock us down just a few spots, that 85% number feels way too high.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: LGR14 (---.hsd1.va.comcast.net)
Date: February 22, 2017 06:52PM

BearLover
Trotsky
Finally, according to this, our probabilities for tourney advance are currently:

.85 Tourney
.42 QF
.19 SF
.09 F
.04 That Which Shall Be Nameless
Is there a way to check what a loss to RPI would do to us in the PWR? Because unless such a loss would knock us down just a few spots, that 85% number feels way too high.

Without taking into account anything else that might happen on Friday night, a loss drops Cornell to 15th.

But keep in mind that the 85% number is going to inherently account for (a) what are the odds that Cornell beats RPI; (b) what are the odds that Cornell makes up for any potential loss to RPI by winning in the quarterfinals; (c) what are the odds Cornell can beat Union
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/22/2017 06:56PM by LGR14.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Beeeej (Moderator)
Date: February 22, 2017 06:58PM

LGR14
BearLover
Trotsky
Finally, according to this, our probabilities for tourney advance are currently:

.85 Tourney
.42 QF
.19 SF
.09 F
.04 That Which Shall Be Nameless
Is there a way to check what a loss to RPI would do to us in the PWR? Because unless such a loss would knock us down just a few spots, that 85% number feels way too high.

Without taking into account anything else that might happen on Friday night, a loss drops Cornell to 15th.

But keep in mind that the 85% number is going to inherently account for (a) what are the odds that Cornell beats RPI; (b) what are the odds that Cornell makes up for any potential loss to RPI by winning in the quarterfinals; (c) what are the odds Cornell can beat Union

Exactly. 85% isn't too high because the fact that RPI is 57th in the Pairwise, and therefore "likely" to lose to us, is already "baked in." The fact that we'd drop precipitously if we lost is also baked in, since it's supposed to be "unlikely."

 
___________________________
Beeeej, Esq.
Tundra British Columbia Headhunters Circus
Tucson or Bust!

"Cornell isn't an organization. It's a loose affiliation of independent fiefdoms united by a common hockey team."
- Steve Worona
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: BearLover (---.hfc.comcastbusiness.net)
Date: February 22, 2017 07:26PM

Beeeej
LGR14
BearLover
Trotsky
Finally, according to this, our probabilities for tourney advance are currently:

.85 Tourney
.42 QF
.19 SF
.09 F
.04 That Which Shall Be Nameless
Is there a way to check what a loss to RPI would do to us in the PWR? Because unless such a loss would knock us down just a few spots, that 85% number feels way too high.

Without taking into account anything else that might happen on Friday night, a loss drops Cornell to 15th.

But keep in mind that the 85% number is going to inherently account for (a) what are the odds that Cornell beats RPI; (b) what are the odds that Cornell makes up for any potential loss to RPI by winning in the quarterfinals; (c) what are the odds Cornell can beat Union

Exactly. 85% isn't too high because the fact that RPI is 57th in the Pairwise, and therefore "likely" to lose to us, is already "baked in." The fact that we'd drop precipitously if we lost is also baked in, since it's supposed to be "unlikely."
I understand that, but I do not think the predictor accounts for how much randomness exists in a single game of hockey. If we lose to RPI, we are probably less than 50% to make the NCAAs. We've lost/nearly lost to many bad teams this year. Any prediction predicated on what seems to an extremely high likelihood of beating a team we had to score twice in the final seven minutes to beat a few weeks ago seems faulty to me.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/22/2017 08:00PM by BearLover.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: ugarte (---.80-243-255-121.cable.only.fr)
Date: February 22, 2017 07:32PM

Hooking
I love it when Cornell wins. I don't give a rat's ass whether possible future opponents win or lose, until they play Cornell. Except for Harvard.
ok

 
___________________________
Jokes and stuff
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Beeeej (Moderator)
Date: February 22, 2017 08:44PM

BearLover
Beeeej
LGR14
BearLover
Trotsky
Finally, according to this, our probabilities for tourney advance are currently:

.85 Tourney
.42 QF
.19 SF
.09 F
.04 That Which Shall Be Nameless
Is there a way to check what a loss to RPI would do to us in the PWR? Because unless such a loss would knock us down just a few spots, that 85% number feels way too high.

Without taking into account anything else that might happen on Friday night, a loss drops Cornell to 15th.

But keep in mind that the 85% number is going to inherently account for (a) what are the odds that Cornell beats RPI; (b) what are the odds that Cornell makes up for any potential loss to RPI by winning in the quarterfinals; (c) what are the odds Cornell can beat Union

Exactly. 85% isn't too high because the fact that RPI is 57th in the Pairwise, and therefore "likely" to lose to us, is already "baked in." The fact that we'd drop precipitously if we lost is also baked in, since it's supposed to be "unlikely."
I understand that, but I do not think the predictor accounts for how much randomness exists in a single game of hockey. If we lose to RPI, we are probably less than 50% to make the NCAAs. We've lost/nearly lost to many bad teams this year. Any prediction predicated on what seems to an extremely high likelihood of beating a team we had to score twice in the final seven minutes to beat a few weeks ago seems faulty to me.

I don't think you understand how this works, then. If the predictor didn't take into account that there's randomness in a single game of hockey, and weaker teams can beat stronger ones, our chance of making the tournament would be much higher than 85%.

It really is baked in.

 
___________________________
Beeeej, Esq.
Tundra British Columbia Headhunters Circus
Tucson or Bust!

"Cornell isn't an organization. It's a loose affiliation of independent fiefdoms united by a common hockey team."
- Steve Worona
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Tom Lento (199.201.64.---)
Date: February 22, 2017 08:47PM

BearLover
Beeeej
LGR14
BearLover
Trotsky
Finally, according to this, our probabilities for tourney advance are currently:

.85 Tourney
.42 QF
.19 SF
.09 F
.04 That Which Shall Be Nameless
Is there a way to check what a loss to RPI would do to us in the PWR? Because unless such a loss would knock us down just a few spots, that 85% number feels way too high.

Without taking into account anything else that might happen on Friday night, a loss drops Cornell to 15th.

But keep in mind that the 85% number is going to inherently account for (a) what are the odds that Cornell beats RPI; (b) what are the odds that Cornell makes up for any potential loss to RPI by winning in the quarterfinals; (c) what are the odds Cornell can beat Union

Exactly. 85% isn't too high because the fact that RPI is 57th in the Pairwise, and therefore "likely" to lose to us, is already "baked in." The fact that we'd drop precipitously if we lost is also baked in, since it's supposed to be "unlikely."
I understand that, but I do not think the predictor accounts for how much randomness exists in a single game of hockey. If we lose to RPI, we are probably less than 50% to make the NCAAs. We've lost/nearly lost to many bad teams this year. Any prediction predicated on what seems to an extremely high likelihood of beating a team we had to score twice in the final seven minutes to beat a few weeks ago seems faulty to me.

tl,dr; I'm inclined to agree that 85% is too high given what I've been reading about the team and seeing in box scores/metrics (sadly I don't get to watch games anymore), but based on record to date it is about what I'd expect out of KRACH or Elo or whatever reasonable predictive ranking model one might use.

I couldn't find their methodology but most likely it's either a Monte Carlo simulation based on win probabilities or a simpler probabilistic combination based on those same probabilities. I would not be surprised if their win probability for Cornell vs RPI substantially over-weighted Cornell's chances, but without a pointer to how they figured that I have no way of knowing. A common approach for College Hockey geeks is to use KRACH ratings, which (if I'm doing it right) currently put Cornell at roughly 90% to beat RPI, and a slight favorite to beat Union. I found a site with Elo ratings, which is also common for such sports predictions, and it put Cornell at an 80% favorite over RPI and a slight underdog to Union.

Worth noting, from a PWR perspective losing to RPI and beating Union might very well be better for Cornell than beating RPI and losing to Union. It all depends on whether or not RPI would count as a "bad win" at the end of the season. I don't think they would given the importance of opponents opponents' record for RPI (the ranking), but their record is pretty bad so I guess we'll see. Union would almost certainly provide a quality win bonus. The real problem with a loss against RPI is it makes a 2-3-0 stretch run reasonably likely even with a QF sweep, which I suspect means no NCAA, while a win makes anything below .500 down the stretch pretty unlikely even with a 3-game QF round.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Trotsky (---.hsd1.md.comcast.net)
Date: February 22, 2017 08:56PM

Hooking
I love it when Cornell wins. I don't give a rat's ass whether possible future opponents win or lose, until they play Cornell. Except for Harvard.
Uh huh.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: BearLover (---.hfc.comcastbusiness.net)
Date: February 22, 2017 08:58PM

Beeeej
BearLover
Beeeej
LGR14
BearLover
Trotsky
Finally, according to this, our probabilities for tourney advance are currently:

.85 Tourney
.42 QF
.19 SF
.09 F
.04 That Which Shall Be Nameless
Is there a way to check what a loss to RPI would do to us in the PWR? Because unless such a loss would knock us down just a few spots, that 85% number feels way too high.

Without taking into account anything else that might happen on Friday night, a loss drops Cornell to 15th.

But keep in mind that the 85% number is going to inherently account for (a) what are the odds that Cornell beats RPI; (b) what are the odds that Cornell makes up for any potential loss to RPI by winning in the quarterfinals; (c) what are the odds Cornell can beat Union

Exactly. 85% isn't too high because the fact that RPI is 57th in the Pairwise, and therefore "likely" to lose to us, is already "baked in." The fact that we'd drop precipitously if we lost is also baked in, since it's supposed to be "unlikely."
I understand that, but I do not think the predictor accounts for how much randomness exists in a single game of hockey. If we lose to RPI, we are probably less than 50% to make the NCAAs. We've lost/nearly lost to many bad teams this year. Any prediction predicated on what seems to an extremely high likelihood of beating a team we had to score twice in the final seven minutes to beat a few weeks ago seems faulty to me.

I don't think you understand how this works, then. If the predictor didn't take into account that there's randomness in a single game of hockey, and weaker teams can beat stronger ones, our chance of making the tournament would be much higher than 85%.

It really is baked in.
I know it is taking innate hockey randomness into account. I'm saying it isn't adequately taking innate hockey randomness into account, especially w/r/t this particular Cornell team. More specifically, I'm saying the predictor is giving Cornell too high a chance of beating RPI, not that it's giving Cornell a 100% chance of beating RPI. Which is why I used language like "how much randomness" and "extremely high likelihood" rather the absolute wording you read into my post.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/22/2017 09:00PM by BearLover.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Dafatone (---.midco.net)
Date: February 22, 2017 09:09PM

BearLover
Beeeej
BearLover
Beeeej
LGR14
BearLover
Trotsky
Finally, according to this, our probabilities for tourney advance are currently:

.85 Tourney
.42 QF
.19 SF
.09 F
.04 That Which Shall Be Nameless
Is there a way to check what a loss to RPI would do to us in the PWR? Because unless such a loss would knock us down just a few spots, that 85% number feels way too high.

Without taking into account anything else that might happen on Friday night, a loss drops Cornell to 15th.

But keep in mind that the 85% number is going to inherently account for (a) what are the odds that Cornell beats RPI; (b) what are the odds that Cornell makes up for any potential loss to RPI by winning in the quarterfinals; (c) what are the odds Cornell can beat Union

Exactly. 85% isn't too high because the fact that RPI is 57th in the Pairwise, and therefore "likely" to lose to us, is already "baked in." The fact that we'd drop precipitously if we lost is also baked in, since it's supposed to be "unlikely."
I understand that, but I do not think the predictor accounts for how much randomness exists in a single game of hockey. If we lose to RPI, we are probably less than 50% to make the NCAAs. We've lost/nearly lost to many bad teams this year. Any prediction predicated on what seems to an extremely high likelihood of beating a team we had to score twice in the final seven minutes to beat a few weeks ago seems faulty to me.

I don't think you understand how this works, then. If the predictor didn't take into account that there's randomness in a single game of hockey, and weaker teams can beat stronger ones, our chance of making the tournament would be much higher than 85%.

It really is baked in.
I know it is taking innate hockey randomness into account. I'm saying it isn't adequately taking innate hockey randomness into account, especially w/r/t this particular Cornell team. More specifically, I'm saying the predictor is giving Cornell too high a chance of beating RPI, not that it's giving Cornell a 100% chance of beating RPI. Which is why I used language like "how much randomness" and "extremely high likelihood" rather the absolute wording you read into my post.

One thing to consider (and I say this as one of the more optimistic optimists here) is that we've overperformed a little in terms of our goal differential vs our record. So we might not "feel" as good as our record, and therefore based on that feeling the odds of an RPI loss are greater than simply a function of our record and theirs. Plus, RPI played us kinda-close-ish last we played them, if I remember, and we might be thinking of them as better than their record based on what we saw.

All in all, I don't think a loss sinks us as much as one might think. RPI is the sum of three components: win%, opp win%, and opp opp win%. The first component doesn't care about RPI's record, and the second and third components don't care about whether or not we win. So, as mentioned above, a loss to RPI and a win against Union could be better than the reverse (since there's a quality win boost I didn't describe above). Not saying a loss to RPI wouldn't be bad, but I don't think, uh, RPI-the-metric cares that much about who you lose to, just who you play and your win%.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Beeeej (Moderator)
Date: February 22, 2017 10:23PM

BearLover
Beeeej
BearLover
Beeeej
LGR14
BearLover
Trotsky
Finally, according to this, our probabilities for tourney advance are currently:

.85 Tourney
.42 QF
.19 SF
.09 F
.04 That Which Shall Be Nameless
Is there a way to check what a loss to RPI would do to us in the PWR? Because unless such a loss would knock us down just a few spots, that 85% number feels way too high.

Without taking into account anything else that might happen on Friday night, a loss drops Cornell to 15th.

But keep in mind that the 85% number is going to inherently account for (a) what are the odds that Cornell beats RPI; (b) what are the odds that Cornell makes up for any potential loss to RPI by winning in the quarterfinals; (c) what are the odds Cornell can beat Union

Exactly. 85% isn't too high because the fact that RPI is 57th in the Pairwise, and therefore "likely" to lose to us, is already "baked in." The fact that we'd drop precipitously if we lost is also baked in, since it's supposed to be "unlikely."
I understand that, but I do not think the predictor accounts for how much randomness exists in a single game of hockey. If we lose to RPI, we are probably less than 50% to make the NCAAs. We've lost/nearly lost to many bad teams this year. Any prediction predicated on what seems to an extremely high likelihood of beating a team we had to score twice in the final seven minutes to beat a few weeks ago seems faulty to me.

I don't think you understand how this works, then. If the predictor didn't take into account that there's randomness in a single game of hockey, and weaker teams can beat stronger ones, our chance of making the tournament would be much higher than 85%.

It really is baked in.
I know it is taking innate hockey randomness into account. I'm saying it isn't adequately taking innate hockey randomness into account, especially w/r/t this particular Cornell team. More specifically, I'm saying the predictor is giving Cornell too high a chance of beating RPI, not that it's giving Cornell a 100% chance of beating RPI. Which is why I used language like "how much randomness" and "extremely high likelihood" rather the absolute wording you read into my post.

I seriously don't know where you're getting that.

Basically, you're saying "85% is too high because it doesn't take randomness into account," and I'm saying, "85% isn't too high because it does take randomness into account, this just happens to be where the numbers come out when you take randomness into account." I said nothing about you thinking it was giving Cornell a 100% chance of beating RPI or anything remotely "absolute" like that.

Anyway, as all bad poker players do, after the Cornell-RPI game is over, some people will take the results as "proof" their predictive analysis was correct, and none of them will be right.

 
___________________________
Beeeej, Esq.
Tundra British Columbia Headhunters Circus
Tucson or Bust!

"Cornell isn't an organization. It's a loose affiliation of independent fiefdoms united by a common hockey team."
- Steve Worona
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Trotsky (---.hsd1.md.comcast.net)
Date: February 22, 2017 10:32PM

Beeeej
I'm saying, "85% isn't too high because it does take randomness into account, this just happens to be where the numbers come out when you take randomness into account."

Exactly. This is the age-old Ron Darling argument that when statistical calculation and "the eye test" conflict it must mean the math is wrong.

Guess Yale had a "need" for a RHP...

Next week in this space: no, a fastball does not rise. Physics > your perception.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/22/2017 10:34PM by Trotsky.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: KGR11 (---.nwrknj.fios.verizon.net)
Date: February 22, 2017 11:22PM

BearLover, from the sounds of it, you're on board with the process used (ie, Monte Carlo), you're just not on board with them using KRACH, right?

It "feels" tough to say we have a 90% chance of beating RPI, given that we were only leading for 35 seconds in that game, while they lead for over half the game. That said, I think that people often think that 90% is a sure thing. It really isn't. It's about the odds of rolling a 5 with two dice: Not likely, but not out of the ordinary. Rolling a 12 on the other hand, now THAT feels special (only happens 3% of the time)
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: BearLover (---.hfc.comcastbusiness.net)
Date: February 23, 2017 01:01AM

Beeeej
BearLover
Beeeej
BearLover
Beeeej
LGR14
BearLover
Trotsky
Finally, according to this, our probabilities for tourney advance are currently:

.85 Tourney
.42 QF
.19 SF
.09 F
.04 That Which Shall Be Nameless
Is there a way to check what a loss to RPI would do to us in the PWR? Because unless such a loss would knock us down just a few spots, that 85% number feels way too high.

Without taking into account anything else that might happen on Friday night, a loss drops Cornell to 15th.

But keep in mind that the 85% number is going to inherently account for (a) what are the odds that Cornell beats RPI; (b) what are the odds that Cornell makes up for any potential loss to RPI by winning in the quarterfinals; (c) what are the odds Cornell can beat Union

Exactly. 85% isn't too high because the fact that RPI is 57th in the Pairwise, and therefore "likely" to lose to us, is already "baked in." The fact that we'd drop precipitously if we lost is also baked in, since it's supposed to be "unlikely."
I understand that, but I do not think the predictor accounts for how much randomness exists in a single game of hockey. If we lose to RPI, we are probably less than 50% to make the NCAAs. We've lost/nearly lost to many bad teams this year. Any prediction predicated on what seems to an extremely high likelihood of beating a team we had to score twice in the final seven minutes to beat a few weeks ago seems faulty to me.

I don't think you understand how this works, then. If the predictor didn't take into account that there's randomness in a single game of hockey, and weaker teams can beat stronger ones, our chance of making the tournament would be much higher than 85%.

It really is baked in.
I know it is taking innate hockey randomness into account. I'm saying it isn't adequately taking innate hockey randomness into account, especially w/r/t this particular Cornell team. More specifically, I'm saying the predictor is giving Cornell too high a chance of beating RPI, not that it's giving Cornell a 100% chance of beating RPI. Which is why I used language like "how much randomness" and "extremely high likelihood" rather the absolute wording you read into my post.

I seriously don't know where you're getting that.

Basically, you're saying "85% is too high because it doesn't take randomness into account," and I'm saying, "85% isn't too high because it does take randomness into account, this just happens to be where the numbers come out when you take randomness into account." I said nothing about you thinking it was giving Cornell a 100% chance of beating RPI or anything remotely "absolute" like that.

Anyway, as all bad poker players do, after the Cornell-RPI game is over, some people will take the results as "proof" their predictive analysis was correct, and none of them will be right.
Dude, literally all I'm saying is that an 85% chance of making the tournament presupposes an incredibly high chance of beating RPI. I don't know how it came to that probability, because I do not know precisely how sophisticated the model is. But I bet that if it looked at stats like, say, goal differential, shot differential, etc., rather than just at how often the 9th-best team beats the 57th-best team, the model would not be giving Cornell a 90% chance of winning. Maybe it does look at that stuff and I'm wrong. But I doubt it.

KGR11, a 90% chance of beating RPI is extremely high--is that indeed the chance the model us?

I read fivethirtyeight and similar blogs religiously. I don't need to be lectured on probability/results-oriented thinking. At the same time, I'm genuinely in the dark about this predictor and could definitely be wrong in this particular case.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/23/2017 01:51AM by BearLover.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Dafatone (---.sub-70-198-0.myvzw.com)
Date: February 23, 2017 01:44AM

BearLover
Beeeej
BearLover
Beeeej
BearLover
Beeeej
LGR14
BearLover
Trotsky
Finally, according to this, our probabilities for tourney advance are currently:

.85 Tourney
.42 QF
.19 SF
.09 F
.04 That Which Shall Be Nameless
Is there a way to check what a loss to RPI would do to us in the PWR? Because unless such a loss would knock us down just a few spots, that 85% number feels way too high.

Without taking into account anything else that might happen on Friday night, a loss drops Cornell to 15th.

But keep in mind that the 85% number is going to inherently account for (a) what are the odds that Cornell beats RPI; (b) what are the odds that Cornell makes up for any potential loss to RPI by winning in the quarterfinals; (c) what are the odds Cornell can beat Union

Exactly. 85% isn't too high because the fact that RPI is 57th in the Pairwise, and therefore "likely" to lose to us, is already "baked in." The fact that we'd drop precipitously if we lost is also baked in, since it's supposed to be "unlikely."
I understand that, but I do not think the predictor accounts for how much randomness exists in a single game of hockey. If we lose to RPI, we are probably less than 50% to make the NCAAs. We've lost/nearly lost to many bad teams this year. Any prediction predicated on what seems to an extremely high likelihood of beating a team we had to score twice in the final seven minutes to beat a few weeks ago seems faulty to me.

I don't think you understand how this works, then. If the predictor didn't take into account that there's randomness in a single game of hockey, and weaker teams can beat stronger ones, our chance of making the tournament would be much higher than 85%.

It really is baked in.
I know it is taking innate hockey randomness into account. I'm saying it isn't adequately taking innate hockey randomness into account, especially w/r/t this particular Cornell team. More specifically, I'm saying the predictor is giving Cornell too high a chance of beating RPI, not that it's giving Cornell a 100% chance of beating RPI. Which is why I used language like "how much randomness" and "extremely high likelihood" rather the absolute wording you read into my post.

I seriously don't know where you're getting that.

Basically, you're saying "85% is too high because it doesn't take randomness into account," and I'm saying, "85% isn't too high because it does take randomness into account, this just happens to be where the numbers come out when you take randomness into account." I said nothing about you thinking it was giving Cornell a 100% chance of beating RPI or anything remotely "absolute" like that.

Anyway, as all bad poker players do, after the Cornell-RPI game is over, some people will take the results as "proof" their predictive analysis was correct, and none of them will be right.
Dude, literally all I'm saying is that an 85% chance of making the tournament presupposes an incredibly high chance of beating RPI. I don't know how it came to that probability, because I do not know precisely how sophisticated the model is. But I bet that if it looked at stats like, say, goal differential, shot differential, etc., rather than just at how often the 9th-best team beats the 57th-best team, the model would not be giving Cornell a 90% chance of winning. Maybe it does look at that stuff and I'm wrong. But I doubt it.

KGR11, a 90% chance of beating RPI is extremely high--is that indeed the chance the model us?

I read fivethirtyeight and similar blogs religiously. I don't need to be lectured on probabilities/results-oriented thinking. At the same time, I'm genuinely in the dark about this predictor and could definitely be wrong in this particular case.

There's also a pretty good chance we still get in despite a loss in that game, so that adds to the math.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Beeeej (Moderator)
Date: February 23, 2017 07:09AM

BearLover
Beeeej
BearLover
Beeeej
BearLover
Beeeej
LGR14
BearLover
Trotsky
Finally, according to this, our probabilities for tourney advance are currently:

.85 Tourney
.42 QF
.19 SF
.09 F
.04 That Which Shall Be Nameless
Is there a way to check what a loss to RPI would do to us in the PWR? Because unless such a loss would knock us down just a few spots, that 85% number feels way too high.

Without taking into account anything else that might happen on Friday night, a loss drops Cornell to 15th.

But keep in mind that the 85% number is going to inherently account for (a) what are the odds that Cornell beats RPI; (b) what are the odds that Cornell makes up for any potential loss to RPI by winning in the quarterfinals; (c) what are the odds Cornell can beat Union

Exactly. 85% isn't too high because the fact that RPI is 57th in the Pairwise, and therefore "likely" to lose to us, is already "baked in." The fact that we'd drop precipitously if we lost is also baked in, since it's supposed to be "unlikely."
I understand that, but I do not think the predictor accounts for how much randomness exists in a single game of hockey. If we lose to RPI, we are probably less than 50% to make the NCAAs. We've lost/nearly lost to many bad teams this year. Any prediction predicated on what seems to an extremely high likelihood of beating a team we had to score twice in the final seven minutes to beat a few weeks ago seems faulty to me.

I don't think you understand how this works, then. If the predictor didn't take into account that there's randomness in a single game of hockey, and weaker teams can beat stronger ones, our chance of making the tournament would be much higher than 85%.

It really is baked in.
I know it is taking innate hockey randomness into account. I'm saying it isn't adequately taking innate hockey randomness into account, especially w/r/t this particular Cornell team. More specifically, I'm saying the predictor is giving Cornell too high a chance of beating RPI, not that it's giving Cornell a 100% chance of beating RPI. Which is why I used language like "how much randomness" and "extremely high likelihood" rather the absolute wording you read into my post.

I seriously don't know where you're getting that.

Basically, you're saying "85% is too high because it doesn't take randomness into account," and I'm saying, "85% isn't too high because it does take randomness into account, this just happens to be where the numbers come out when you take randomness into account." I said nothing about you thinking it was giving Cornell a 100% chance of beating RPI or anything remotely "absolute" like that.

Anyway, as all bad poker players do, after the Cornell-RPI game is over, some people will take the results as "proof" their predictive analysis was correct, and none of them will be right.
Dude, literally all I'm saying is that an 85% chance of making the tournament presupposes an incredibly high chance of beating RPI. I don't know how it came to that probability, because I do not know precisely how sophisticated the model is. But I bet that if it looked at stats like, say, goal differential, shot differential, etc., rather than just at how often the 9th-best team beats the 57th-best team, the model would not be giving Cornell a 90% chance of winning. Maybe it does look at that stuff and I'm wrong. But I doubt it.

KGR11, a 90% chance of beating RPI is extremely high--is that indeed the chance the model us?

I read fivethirtyeight and similar blogs religiously. I don't need to be lectured on probability/results-oriented thinking. At the same time, I'm genuinely in the dark about this predictor and could definitely be wrong in this particular case.

You interpreted what I said as suggesting that you think the model gives Cornell a 100% chance of beating RPI, then you addressed your arguments to that position instead of my actual one. So I clarified my actual position with smaller words. I'm not lecturing you on your understanding of probability, I'm lecturing you on your reading comprehension.

 
___________________________
Beeeej, Esq.
Tundra British Columbia Headhunters Circus
Tucson or Bust!

"Cornell isn't an organization. It's a loose affiliation of independent fiefdoms united by a common hockey team."
- Steve Worona

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/23/2017 07:14AM by Beeeej.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Jeff Hopkins '82 (---.cws.sco.cisco.com)
Date: February 23, 2017 07:46AM

Beeeej
BearLover
Beeeej
BearLover
Beeeej
BearLover
Beeeej
LGR14
BearLover
Trotsky
Finally, according to this, our probabilities for tourney advance are currently:

.85 Tourney
.42 QF
.19 SF
.09 F
.04 That Which Shall Be Nameless
Is there a way to check what a loss to RPI would do to us in the PWR? Because unless such a loss would knock us down just a few spots, that 85% number feels way too high.

Without taking into account anything else that might happen on Friday night, a loss drops Cornell to 15th.

But keep in mind that the 85% number is going to inherently account for (a) what are the odds that Cornell beats RPI; (b) what are the odds that Cornell makes up for any potential loss to RPI by winning in the quarterfinals; (c) what are the odds Cornell can beat Union

Exactly. 85% isn't too high because the fact that RPI is 57th in the Pairwise, and therefore "likely" to lose to us, is already "baked in." The fact that we'd drop precipitously if we lost is also baked in, since it's supposed to be "unlikely."
I understand that, but I do not think the predictor accounts for how much randomness exists in a single game of hockey. If we lose to RPI, we are probably less than 50% to make the NCAAs. We've lost/nearly lost to many bad teams this year. Any prediction predicated on what seems to an extremely high likelihood of beating a team we had to score twice in the final seven minutes to beat a few weeks ago seems faulty to me.

I don't think you understand how this works, then. If the predictor didn't take into account that there's randomness in a single game of hockey, and weaker teams can beat stronger ones, our chance of making the tournament would be much higher than 85%.

It really is baked in.
I know it is taking innate hockey randomness into account. I'm saying it isn't adequately taking innate hockey randomness into account, especially w/r/t this particular Cornell team. More specifically, I'm saying the predictor is giving Cornell too high a chance of beating RPI, not that it's giving Cornell a 100% chance of beating RPI. Which is why I used language like "how much randomness" and "extremely high likelihood" rather the absolute wording you read into my post.

I seriously don't know where you're getting that.

Basically, you're saying "85% is too high because it doesn't take randomness into account," and I'm saying, "85% isn't too high because it does take randomness into account, this just happens to be where the numbers come out when you take randomness into account." I said nothing about you thinking it was giving Cornell a 100% chance of beating RPI or anything remotely "absolute" like that.

Anyway, as all bad poker players do, after the Cornell-RPI game is over, some people will take the results as "proof" their predictive analysis was correct, and none of them will be right.
Dude, literally all I'm saying is that an 85% chance of making the tournament presupposes an incredibly high chance of beating RPI. I don't know how it came to that probability, because I do not know precisely how sophisticated the model is. But I bet that if it looked at stats like, say, goal differential, shot differential, etc., rather than just at how often the 9th-best team beats the 57th-best team, the model would not be giving Cornell a 90% chance of winning. Maybe it does look at that stuff and I'm wrong. But I doubt it.

KGR11, a 90% chance of beating RPI is extremely high--is that indeed the chance the model us?

I read fivethirtyeight and similar blogs religiously. I don't need to be lectured on probability/results-oriented thinking. At the same time, I'm genuinely in the dark about this predictor and could definitely be wrong in this particular case.

You interpreted what I said as suggesting that you think the model gives Cornell a 100% chance of beating RPI, then you addressed your arguments to that position instead of my actual one. So I clarified my actual position with smaller words. I'm not lecturing you on your understanding of probability, I'm lecturing you on your reading comprehension.

Guys, there's math and there's emotion. Based on the methodology, the math is what it is. But our emotion says the method is weak. This team doesn't blow people out and has it's moments of let down that allow teams that we should beat to stay in games or even win. So while the methodology does take into account some degree of probability, it just "feels" optimistic.

OTOH...DROP THE PUCK!
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: KenP (---.ssmcnet.noaa.gov)
Date: February 23, 2017 08:55AM

I understand both points. KRACH handles inter-game mathematics perfectly, but treats all wins equally, whether it is eeked out or a 10-0 blowout.

What about team / intra-game statistics? A review of both standard and advanced stats at [www.collegehockeynews.com] indicates we are not leaders in any major categories. (Except for ShA: Shots On Goal Against... but that stat favors teams that play fewer games.) So to BearLover's point, how to manage expectations? Is this team a true NCAA top-10 team?

Like all of us I'm really enjoying this season and it's exciting to still be in the thick of things. Regardless of final outcomes, thank you Team and Coach!
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: upprdeck (---.fs.cornell.edu)
Date: February 23, 2017 09:46AM

you can use all the math you want, but dont the stats show that over time almost all these super cool tools predict the winners just about the same as a pet rooster?
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Jeff Hopkins '82 (---.cws.sco.cisco.com)
Date: February 23, 2017 10:50AM

upprdeck
you can use all the math you want, but dont the stats show that over time almost all these super cool tools predict the winners just about the same as a pet rooster?

There's the problem. We need the Octopus that picks the World Cup winners! dribble
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: KGR11 (---.nycmny.fios.verizon.net)
Date: February 23, 2017 01:50PM

BearLover

KGR11, a 90% chance of beating RPI is extremely high--is that indeed the chance the model us?

I read fivethirtyeight and similar blogs religiously. I don't need to be lectured on probability/results-oriented thinking. At the same time, I'm genuinely in the dark about this predictor and could definitely be wrong in this particular case.

Yeah, as of Feb. 23 our KRACH rating is 246.9 and RPI's is 28.6. The result is that our H2H "KRACH-modeled" record against RPI is 246.9-28.6, or an 89.6% winning percentage (this is my understanding of KRACH as defined by USCHO. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong). KRACH is based entirely on game results so it doesn't care HOW a team is winning (squeaking out like we often do, or blowing out like Harvard often does).

As a fun exercise I found the average goal differential of all Cornell and RPI games. Out of 60 games played, the average goal differential is 1.2 goals with a stand deviation of 2.15 goals. If you assume that ties happen when the goal differential is between -0.5 and 0.5 goals, we'd have a 21.5% chance of losing, 15.8% chance of tying, and a 62.7% chance of winning. Winning percentage then becomes 70.6%. Our Strength of schedules are pretty similar so I don't think you'd have to make any adjustments for that.

This feels a little drastic to me: that theoretical winning percentage against one of the worst teams is below our overall winning percentage against all teams. But it does take into account the goal differential of games by both teams.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: upprdeck (---.fs.cornell.edu)
Date: February 23, 2017 04:08PM

how do the systems deal with goal differential as related to how the game was played?

team 1 is losing 3-2 and pulls the goalie with 4 min to go and loses 5-2 with 2 Empty net goals
team 2 is losing 3-2 and plays it out losing 2-1
team 3 is tied and loses 3-2 in 5 ot
team 4 is losing 3-0 all game and scores twice in the last 30 secs on a 5x3 major with the goalie pulled

can it tell who played better
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: andyw2100 (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: February 23, 2017 05:58PM

upprdeck
how do the systems deal with goal differential as related to how the game was played?

team 1 is losing 3-2 and pulls the goalie with 4 min to go and loses 5-2 with 2 Empty net goals
team 2 is losing 3-2 and plays it out losing 2-1
team 3 is tied and loses 3-2 in 5 ot
team 4 is losing 3-0 all game and scores twice in the last 30 secs on a 5x3 major with the goalie pulled

can it tell who played better

Team 2 played better, obviously, as they were apparently able to have scored goals removed. (They just removed one too many.) :)
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/23/2017 05:59PM by andyw2100.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: upprdeck (---.syrcny.east.verizon.net)
Date: February 23, 2017 06:31PM

yeah those dang replay reviews can really change a score
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: BearLover (---.hfc.comcastbusiness.net)
Date: February 23, 2017 08:13PM

Beeeej
You interpreted what I said as suggesting that you think the model gives Cornell a 100% chance of beating RPI, then you addressed your arguments to that position instead of my actual one. So I clarified my actual position with smaller words.

Then why did you make this point?:
Beeeej
I don't think you understand how this works, then. If the predictor didn't take into account that there's randomness in a single game of hockey, and weaker teams can beat stronger ones, our chance of making the tournament would be much higher than 85%.

Beeeej
I'm not lecturing you on your understanding of probability, I'm lecturing you on your reading comprehension.
Except you did then make a snide remark about results-oriented thinking:
Beeeej
Anyway, as all bad poker players do, after the Cornell-RPI game is over, some people will take the results as "proof" their predictive analysis was correct, and none of them will be right.

And the "probability" part was in response to KGR11.

Anyway, as KGR11 just posted, the 90% likelihood of beating RPI seems way too high. I stand by what I've posted in this thread.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Beeeej (Moderator)
Date: February 23, 2017 09:55PM

BearLover
Beeeej
You interpreted what I said as suggesting that you think the model gives Cornell a 100% chance of beating RPI, then you addressed your arguments to that position instead of my actual one. So I clarified my actual position with smaller words.

Then why did you make this point?:
Beeeej
I don't think you understand how this works, then. If the predictor didn't take into account that there's randomness in a single game of hockey, and weaker teams can beat stronger ones, our chance of making the tournament would be much higher than 85%.

Are there no percentages much higher than 85 other than 100?

I'm really tired of this conversation. I have no interest in continuing to defend things I didn't say. Let's just win the fucking games.

 
___________________________
Beeeej, Esq.
Tundra British Columbia Headhunters Circus
Tucson or Bust!

"Cornell isn't an organization. It's a loose affiliation of independent fiefdoms united by a common hockey team."
- Steve Worona

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/23/2017 09:57PM by Beeeej.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: ugarte (---.80-243-255-121.cable.only.fr)
Date: February 23, 2017 10:02PM

BearLover

Anyway, as KGR11 just posted, the 90% likelihood of beating RPI seems way too high. I stand by what I've posted in this thread.
I agree with this.

The output of a formula doesn't need to be bowed down to if you think the inputs stink. KRACH is a useful number, of course, but there's a reason scouts still have jobs in the post-Moneyball era. I don't give a shit if recursive analysis of win/loss data says we're 90% likely to win. This team has enough fallow stretches that I wouldn't lay close to those odds and we play bad teams close a lot.

This, Cornell players, is your cue to make me look stupid.

 
___________________________
Jokes and stuff
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Jim Hyla (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: February 24, 2017 02:08AM

So after reading through all this, I've come to the conclusion that we don't yet have a system that can correctly predict the results of all games, or at least not one that everyone agrees with.

Is that right?

Well glory be, how about that.

 
___________________________
"Cornell Fans Made the Timbers Tremble", Boston Globe, March/1970
Cornell lawyers stopped the candy throwing. Jan/2005
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Trotsky (---.dc.dc.cox.net)
Date: February 24, 2017 08:41AM

Jim Hyla
So after reading through all this, I've come to the conclusion that we don't yet have a system that can correctly predict the results of all games
Score with 1 second left is pretty good, though.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Beeeej (Moderator)
Date: February 24, 2017 09:23AM

Jim Hyla
So after reading through all this, I've come to the conclusion that we don't yet have a system that can correctly predict the results of all games.

Good Lord, I certainly hope we never have that system.

 
___________________________
Beeeej, Esq.
Tundra British Columbia Headhunters Circus
Tucson or Bust!

"Cornell isn't an organization. It's a loose affiliation of independent fiefdoms united by a common hockey team."
- Steve Worona
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Hooking (---.res.bhn.net)
Date: February 24, 2017 12:07PM

I like the part of the playoffs when a win gives Cornell a 100% chance of advancement. I best like the part of the playoffs where a Cornell win means the season's over.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Beeeej (Moderator)
Date: February 24, 2017 12:22PM

Hooking
I'm a vegan. And I don't own a television.

FYP.

 
___________________________
Beeeej, Esq.
Tundra British Columbia Headhunters Circus
Tucson or Bust!

"Cornell isn't an organization. It's a loose affiliation of independent fiefdoms united by a common hockey team."
- Steve Worona
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Trotsky (---.dc.dc.cox.net)
Date: February 24, 2017 12:50PM

Hooking
I like the part of the playoffs when a win gives Cornell a 100% chance of advancement. I best like the part of the playoffs where a Cornell win means the season's over.

2008 wasn't that great.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: KenP (---.ssmcnet.noaa.gov)
Date: February 24, 2017 02:31PM

Trotsky
Hooking
I like the part of the playoffs when a win gives Cornell a 100% chance of advancement. I best like the part of the playoffs where a Cornell win means the season's over.

2008 wasn't that great.
touche.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Hooking (---.res.bhn.net)
Date: February 24, 2017 03:13PM

Mea culpa. I assume "when Cornell wins and the season's over" it's over for EVERY D1 college hockey team. I keep forgetting the prevailing mood of number crunchers.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: nshapiro (---.phlapa.fios.verizon.net)
Date: February 24, 2017 08:18PM

Hooking
Mea culpa. I assume "when Cornell wins and the season's over" it's over for EVERY D1 college hockey team. I keep forgetting the prevailing mood of number crunchers.

you would do better here if you just acknowledge a clever comment, rather than try to worm your way out with a snide remark
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Hooking (---.res.bhn.net)
Date: February 25, 2017 09:28AM

"Snide?" To paraphrase Jack Nicholson "You can't handle snide." A great gap remains between the expectations of two different groups of Cornell fans, or perhaps "followers" is a more accurate descriptor for one group.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Jim Hyla (---.syrcny.fios.verizon.net)
Date: February 25, 2017 10:05AM

Hooking
"Snide?" To paraphrase Jack Nicholson "You can't handle snide." A great gap remains between the expectations of two different groups of Cornell fans, or perhaps "followers" is a more accurate descriptor for one group.

??????????????

 
___________________________
"Cornell Fans Made the Timbers Tremble", Boston Globe, March/1970
Cornell lawyers stopped the candy throwing. Jan/2005
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: nshapiro (---.phlapa.fios.verizon.net)
Date: February 25, 2017 12:17PM

Jim Hyla
Hooking
"Snide?" To paraphrase Jack Nicholson "You can't handle snide." A great gap remains between the expectations of two different groups of Cornell fans, or perhaps "followers" is a more accurate descriptor for one group.

??????????????


+1
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: marty (---.nycap.res.rr.com)
Date: February 25, 2017 12:32PM

Hooking
"Snide?" To paraphrase Jack Nicholson "You can't handle snide." A great gap remains between the expectations of two different groups of Cornell fans, or perhaps "followers" is a more accurate descriptor for one group.


 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Trotsky (---.hsd1.md.comcast.net)
Date: February 25, 2017 01:12PM

OK, calm down, all. We're 13 days from playoff hockey and have an important game tonight. Let's all be friends and concentrate on esprit de corps. :-)
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Hooking (---.res.bhn.net)
Date: February 25, 2017 03:22PM

Damn the statistics! Go Big Red!
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: BearLover (---.hfc.comcastbusiness.net)
Date: February 25, 2017 03:36PM

There are some on this forum who are downright rude to those who speak out against the ELynah hivemind.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: ugarte (---.sub-70-214-85.myvzw.com)
Date: February 25, 2017 05:07PM

Trotsky
OK, calm down, all. We're 13 days from playoff hockey and have an important game tonight. Let's all be friends and concentrate on esprit de corps. :-)
Jerk.

 
___________________________
Jokes and stuff
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Jeff Hopkins '82 (---.nys.biz.rr.com)
Date: February 25, 2017 05:10PM

ugarte
Trotsky
OK, calm down, all. We're 13 days from playoff hockey and have an important game tonight. Let's all be friends and concentrate on esprit de corps. :-)
Jerk.

Typical.

(Oooh. I've missed this silliness.)
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Trotsky (---.hsd1.md.comcast.net)
Date: February 25, 2017 06:34PM

Jeff Hopkins '82
ugarte
Trotsky
OK, calm down, all. We're 13 days from playoff hockey and have an important game tonight. Let's all be friends and concentrate on esprit de corps. :-)
Jerk.

Typical.

(Oooh. I've missed this silliness.)

wank

(me too)
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Swampy (---.ri.ri.cox.net)
Date: February 25, 2017 10:53PM

Trotsky
Jeff Hopkins '82
ugarte
Trotsky
OK, calm down, all. We're 13 days from playoff hockey and have an important game tonight. Let's all be friends and concentrate on esprit de corps. :-)
Jerk.

Typical.

(Oooh. I've missed this silliness.)

wank

(me too)

+1
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Jim Hyla (---.syrcny.fios.verizon.net)
Date: March 01, 2017 12:49PM

Cornell is ranked No. 9 in the Feb. 27 USCHO.com Division I Men’s Poll, but where would the Big Red start the NCAA tournament?

This week’s brackets

East Regional (Providence):

13 Wisconsin vs. 3 Harvard
12 Providence vs. 8 Union

Northeast Regional (Manchester):

15 Bemidji State vs. 4 Minnesota
10 Cornell vs. 7 Boston University

Midwest Regional (Cincinnati):

14 Ohio State vs. 2 Minnesota-Duluth
11 Notre Dame vs. 5 Western Michigan

West Regional (Fargo):

16 Canisius vs. 1 Denver
9 Penn State vs. 6 Massachusetts-Lowell

Conference breakdowns

Big Ten — 4
Hockey East — 4
ECAC Hockey — 3
NCHC — 3
WCHA — 1
Atlantic Hockey – 1
Movement

In: Canisius, Wisconsin, Notre Dame
Out: Air Force, St. Cloud State, Boston College

Read more: [www.uscho.com]

 
___________________________
"Cornell Fans Made the Timbers Tremble", Boston Globe, March/1970
Cornell lawyers stopped the candy throwing. Jan/2005
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: marty (104.129.196.---)
Date: March 02, 2017 12:35PM

Jim Hyla
Cornell is ranked No. 9 in the Feb. 27 USCHO.com Division I Men’s Poll, but where would the Big Red start the NCAA tournament?

This week’s brackets

East Regional (Providence):

13 Wisconsin vs. 3 Harvard
12 Providence vs. 8 Union

Northeast Regional (Manchester):

15 Bemidji State vs. 4 Minnesota
10 Cornell vs. 7 Boston University

Midwest Regional (Cincinnati):

14 Ohio State vs. 2 Minnesota-Duluth
11 Notre Dame vs. 5 Western Michigan

West Regional (Fargo):

16 Canisius vs. 1 Denver
9 Penn State vs. 6 Massachusetts-Lowell

Conference breakdowns

Big Ten — 4
Hockey East — 4
ECAC Hockey — 3
NCHC — 3
WCHA — 1
Atlantic Hockey – 1
Movement

In: Canisius, Wisconsin, Notre Dame
Out: Air Force, St. Cloud State, Boston College

Read more: [www.uscho.com]


Fargo is Sold Out.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Beeeej (Moderator)
Date: March 02, 2017 12:39PM


They always reserve blocks for the participating schools. Nobody who wants to go is likely to get shut out of it.

 
___________________________
Beeeej, Esq.
Tundra British Columbia Headhunters Circus
Tucson or Bust!

"Cornell isn't an organization. It's a loose affiliation of independent fiefdoms united by a common hockey team."
- Steve Worona
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Trotsky (---.dc.dc.cox.net)
Date: March 02, 2017 01:06PM

Beeeej

They always reserve blocks for the participating schools. Nobody who wants to go is likely to get shut out of it.
Not to mention that if NoDak gets bumped that place will be 70% empty.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Jim Hyla (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: March 02, 2017 04:00PM

Trotsky
Beeeej

They always reserve blocks for the participating schools. Nobody who wants to go is likely to get shut out of it.
Not to mention that if NoDak gets bumped that place will be 70% empty.

Let's go Miami. They could even get UND close to a losing record.

 
___________________________
"Cornell Fans Made the Timbers Tremble", Boston Globe, March/1970
Cornell lawyers stopped the candy throwing. Jan/2005
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: jkahn (---.73.146.216.biz.sta.networkgci.net)
Date: March 03, 2017 05:39PM

Tonight's Schedule for Teams Right Below Us in PWR
UMass @ Providence
Wisconsin @ Penn St.
Col. Coll. @ St. Cloud
Mich. St. @ Ohio St.
No. Dakota @ Miami
Denver @ UNO
Maine @ Vermont

 
___________________________
Jeff Kahn '70 '72
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: JasonN95 (---.sub-70-214-116.myvzw.com)
Date: March 03, 2017 06:59PM

jkahn
Tonight's Schedule for Teams Right Below Us in PWR
UMass @ Providence
Wisconsin @ Penn St.
Col. Coll. @ St. Cloud
Mich. St. @ Ohio St.
No. Dakota @ Miami
Denver @ UNO
Maine @ Vermont

I assume Cornell would generally benefit from the bolded teams losing, except maybe the Wisc & Penn St matchup?
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: upprdeck (---.syrcny.east.verizon.net)
Date: March 03, 2017 07:54PM

I was wondering too whether PSU losing is better than Wisc.. Im thinking long term its better for getting in if Wisc loses, if you told me we were getting in than maybe its better if psu loses so we have a shot to pass them.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Beeeej (Moderator)
Date: March 03, 2017 09:37PM

However brief it may be, tonight's results have pushed us up to #9 as of 9:37pm.

EDIT: It seems to have stuck, with all of tonight's results in. w00t!

 
___________________________
Beeeej, Esq.
Tundra British Columbia Headhunters Circus
Tucson or Bust!

"Cornell isn't an organization. It's a loose affiliation of independent fiefdoms united by a common hockey team."
- Steve Worona

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/03/2017 11:33PM by Beeeej.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Jim Hyla (---.syrcny.fios.verizon.net)
Date: March 04, 2017 08:09AM

Beeeej
However brief it may be, tonight's results have pushed us up to #9 as of 9:37pm.

EDIT: It seems to have stuck, with all of tonight's results in. w00t!

And although their PWR leaves us at 10, Playoff Status gives us a 93% of getting in NCAA and 61% if we lose next weekend.

 
___________________________
"Cornell Fans Made the Timbers Tremble", Boston Globe, March/1970
Cornell lawyers stopped the candy throwing. Jan/2005
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: upprdeck (---.syrcny.east.verizon.net)
Date: March 04, 2017 09:24AM

I see us at 9 this morning..

hockey east will provide some help next week if things play out again tonight,

nd/prov means someone loses twice

vermont/bc means one loses twice but a split might help even more.

nchc root for more chalk

st cloud would play ndak
omaha plays west mich

b10. someone between psu/osu/wisc has to lose at least twice more before they get to the finals. it could easily be 2 of them or even all 3 since they still have reg season game left.
just root for mich/msu to not win their tourney.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Hooking (---.res.bhn.net)
Date: March 04, 2017 02:16PM

#16 Badger coach Tony Granato after last night's upset of #11 Penn State: ". . . we haven't focused on what everyone else is doing. Our whole focus has been trying to get better each weekend and face each challenge and not worry about what else is going on." That and, of course, continuing to believe "We are going to wind the championship." I hope Cornell Coach and players subscribe to a similar mindset. I wish more Cornell fans did. It couldn't hurt.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: andyw2100 (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: March 04, 2017 02:23PM

Hooking
#16 Badger coach Tony Granato after last night's upset of #11 Penn State: ". . . we haven't focused on what everyone else is doing. Our whole focus has been trying to get better each weekend and face each challenge and not worry about what else is going on." That and, of course, continuing to believe "We are going to wind the championship." I hope Cornell Coach and players subscribe to a similar mindset. I wish more Cornell fans did. It couldn't hurt.

I'm reasonably confident our players aren't sitting around analyzing the Vermont vs BC series. I'm sure their mindset is "Just win."

I don't see any harm in the fans paying attention to other games, and how the results of those games could impact Cornell. In fact I appreciate those posters here who often take the time to spell this stuff out for those of us not as well-versed in Pairwise and RPI numbers.

If, for whatever reason, that is not something you yourself enjoy, then perhaps consider not reading this thread.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Beeeej (Moderator)
Date: March 04, 2017 02:28PM

Hooking
#16 Badger coach Tony Granato after last night's upset of #11 Penn State: ". . . we haven't focused on what everyone else is doing. Our whole focus has been trying to get better each weekend and face each challenge and not worry about what else is going on." That and, of course, continuing to believe "We are going to wind the championship." I hope Cornell Coach and players subscribe to a similar mindset. I wish more Cornell fans did. It couldn't hurt.

So if we somehow don't win the ECAC tournament, which is unfortunately an actual, finite possibility, and yet we get an at-large bid to the NCAA tournament, you'll stop following the team until next season, right?

 
___________________________
Beeeej, Esq.
Tundra British Columbia Headhunters Circus
Tucson or Bust!

"Cornell isn't an organization. It's a loose affiliation of independent fiefdoms united by a common hockey team."
- Steve Worona
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Beeeej (Moderator)
Date: March 04, 2017 02:28PM

andyw2100
If, for whatever reason, that is not something you yourself enjoy, then perhaps consider not reading this thread.

But that would mean passing up so many great opportunities to pass judgment!

 
___________________________
Beeeej, Esq.
Tundra British Columbia Headhunters Circus
Tucson or Bust!

"Cornell isn't an organization. It's a loose affiliation of independent fiefdoms united by a common hockey team."
- Steve Worona
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Hooking (---.res.bhn.net)
Date: March 04, 2017 04:19PM

Hockey is played on the ice, not on computers, which is a stretch for a growing number of fans. So far neither the ECAC nor the NCAA has prevented a winning team from winning a championship. It is imperative for a championship team to believe in its own abilities not just to win but to beat everyone, regardless of statistics, until a loss prevents it. It would help if fans shared such a conviction.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Beeeej (Moderator)
Date: March 04, 2017 04:36PM

Hooking
Hockey is played on the ice, not on computers, which is a stretch for a growing number of fans. So far neither the ECAC nor the NCAA has prevented a winning team from winning a championship. It is imperative for a championship team to believe in its own abilities not just to win but to beat everyone, regardless of statistics, until a loss prevents it. It would help if fans shared such a conviction.

Your problem (well, one of your problems) is that you think one-dimensionally. It is possible to 1) believe in one's team's abilities to win and to beat everyone, yet also 2) hope that if one is wrong, and they don't win every single game, external circumstances will benefit the team as well, and therefore have some interest in those external circumstances as they develop. What you're actually suggesting is that if we don't all think the same way you do - believe the team can win, and not consider any other possibilities - the team will not win. Or more to the point, that believing in them hard enough will carry them to the championship.

Cornell men's hockey is not Tinkerbell.

 
___________________________
Beeeej, Esq.
Tundra British Columbia Headhunters Circus
Tucson or Bust!

"Cornell isn't an organization. It's a loose affiliation of independent fiefdoms united by a common hockey team."
- Steve Worona
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Jeff Hopkins '82 (---.102.129.41.res-cmts.sm.ptd.net)
Date: March 04, 2017 05:10PM

Beeeej
Hooking
Hockey is played on the ice, not on computers, which is a stretch for a growing number of fans. So far neither the ECAC nor the NCAA has prevented a winning team from winning a championship. It is imperative for a championship team to believe in its own abilities not just to win but to beat everyone, regardless of statistics, until a loss prevents it. It would help if fans shared such a conviction.

Your problem (well, one of your problems) is that you think one-dimensionally. It is possible to 1) believe in one's team's abilities to win and to beat everyone, yet also 2) hope that if one is wrong, and they don't win every single game, external circumstances will benefit the team as well, and therefore have some interest in those external circumstances as they develop. What you're actually suggesting is that if we don't all think the same way you do - believe the team can win, and not consider any other possibilities - the team will not win. Or more to the point, that believing in them hard enough will carry them to the championship.

Cornell men's hockey is not Tinkerbell.

But Rand Pecknold might very well be Captain Hook. moon
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Jim Hyla (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: March 04, 2017 05:42PM

Beeeej
Hooking
Hockey is played on the ice, not on computers, which is a stretch for a growing number of fans. So far neither the ECAC nor the NCAA has prevented a winning team from winning a championship. It is imperative for a championship team to believe in its own abilities not just to win but to beat everyone, regardless of statistics, until a loss prevents it. It would help if fans shared such a conviction.

Your problem (well, one of your problems) is that you think one-dimensionally. It is possible to 1) believe in one's team's abilities to win and to beat everyone, yet also 2) hope that if one is wrong, and they don't win every single game, external circumstances will benefit the team as well, and therefore have some interest in those external circumstances as they develop. What you're actually suggesting is that if we don't all think the same way you do - believe the team can win, and not consider any other possibilities - the team will not win. Or more to the point, that believing in them hard enough will carry them to the championship.

Cornell men's hockey is not Tinkerbell.

+1

 
___________________________
"Cornell Fans Made the Timbers Tremble", Boston Globe, March/1970
Cornell lawyers stopped the candy throwing. Jan/2005
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Scersk '97 (---.hsd1.ct.comcast.net)
Date: March 04, 2017 07:08PM

Beeeej
Or more to the point, that believing in them hard enough will carry them to the championship.

Well, I think we can all agree that every time the team loses it's because I didn't believe hard enough.

At least, that's the way I see it, in my world where all the rest of you are just figments of my imagination. I wonder often why I created someone like Hooking in the first place.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: marty (---.nycap.res.rr.com)
Date: March 04, 2017 07:57PM

Scersk '97
Beeeej
Or more to the point, that believing in them hard enough will carry them to the championship.

Well, I think we can all agree that every time the team loses it's because I didn't believe hard enough.

At least, that's the way I see it, in my world where all the rest of you are just figments of my imagination. I wonder often why I created someone like Hooking in the first place.

I think I'm catching on here, but can someone please tell me whether it's futile to wear my lucky shirt.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: GBR1234 (---.hsd1.ct.comcast.net)
Date: March 04, 2017 08:24PM

If we had beat Colorado College at the Florida Hockey Classic, the pairwise predictor would have CU at #6. A win against Merrimack on 10/28 along with a win against Colorado college would make Big Red #5. Those losses really hurt... in particular, but it also tells us we have a darn good team this year as we approach the tournaments.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Trotsky (---.hsd1.md.comcast.net)
Date: March 04, 2017 09:06PM

Scersk '97
Beeeej
Or more to the point, that believing in them hard enough will carry them to the championship.

Well, I think we can all agree that every time the team loses it's because I didn't believe hard enough.

At least, that's the way I see it, in my world where all the rest of you are just figments of my imagination. I wonder often why I created someone like Hooking in the first place.
Nice try, but my Bishop Berkeley has assured me that you're all in my head.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Trotsky (---.hsd1.md.comcast.net)
Date: March 04, 2017 10:44PM

Down to 11 after tonight's games. Hrmpf.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Jeff Hopkins '82 (---.102.129.41.res-cmts.sm.ptd.net)
Date: March 05, 2017 07:25AM

Trotsky
Down to 11 after tonight's games. Hrmpf.

FWIW, I don't think it matters whether we're 9th or 11th, as long as NoDak stays in the 3-band with us. That means we can't go to Fargo, and have a much better chance of staying east.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Give My Regards (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: March 05, 2017 08:38AM

Scersk '97
Well, I think we can all agree that every time the team loses it's because I didn't believe hard enough.

At least, that's the way I see it, in my world where all the rest of you are just figments of my imagination. I wonder often why I created someone like Hooking in the first place.

"You may be an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of an underdone potato. There’s more of gravy than of grave about you, whatever you are!”

 
___________________________
If you lead a good life, go to Sunday school and church, and say your prayers every night, when you die, you'll go to LYNAH!
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Trotsky (---.hsd1.md.comcast.net)
Date: March 05, 2017 09:55AM

Jeff Hopkins '82
Trotsky
Down to 11 after tonight's games. Hrmpf.

FWIW, I don't think it matters whether we're 9th or 11th, as long as NoDak stays in the 3-band with us. That means we can't go to Fargo, and have a much better chance of staying east.
I worry This Man Has NoDak and some 4 band team will be flipped, leaving us in the Sioux bracket with games against a 2 and then a 1 or a home team, in true Minny/Wisco "see figure one" style.

But that's paranoia; I don't know whether that has ever happened to anybody before.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Beeeej (Moderator)
Date: March 05, 2017 10:05AM

Trotsky
Jeff Hopkins '82
Trotsky
Down to 11 after tonight's games. Hrmpf.

FWIW, I don't think it matters whether we're 9th or 11th, as long as NoDak stays in the 3-band with us. That means we can't go to Fargo, and have a much better chance of staying east.
I worry This Man Has NoDak and some 4 band team will be flipped, leaving us in the Sioux bracket with games against a 2 and then a 1 or a home team, in true Minny/Wisco "see figure one" style.

But that's paranoia; I don't know whether that has ever happened to anybody before.

Given how quickly the PWR changed - especially when most of the top 12 teams in it weren't even playing this weekend - I'm pretty sure it won't look remotely the same by the time the tournaments are over in two weeks. I actually also do have faith that this is a Cornell team that can win its next four games, and we have the potential to claw our way into the 2-band that way. But it will almost certainly mean sweeping Clarkson and having a few other quarterfinal series around the country go 2-1.

 
___________________________
Beeeej, Esq.
Tundra British Columbia Headhunters Circus
Tucson or Bust!

"Cornell isn't an organization. It's a loose affiliation of independent fiefdoms united by a common hockey team."
- Steve Worona
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Scersk '97 (---.hsd1.ct.comcast.net)
Date: March 05, 2017 12:08PM

Give My Regards
"You may be an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of an underdone potato. There’s more of gravy than of grave about you, whatever you are!”

Well then, Hooking—by my own decree—will be "doomed to wander through the world" so that he might view the full panoply of college hockey games, an interconnected web of delight affecting the tournament prospects of every team far and near, and "witness" the happiness of fans in which he "cannot share."
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Trotsky (---.hsd1.md.comcast.net)
Date: March 05, 2017 12:32PM

Scersk '97
Give My Regards
"You may be an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of an underdone potato. There’s more of gravy than of grave about you, whatever you are!”

Well then, Hooking—by my own decree—will be "doomed to wander through the world" so that he might view the full panoply of college hockey games, an interconnected web of delight affecting the tournament prospects of every team far and near, and "witness" the happiness of fans in which he "cannot share."
These are the pains he forged in life.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: BearLover (---.hfc.comcastbusiness.net)
Date: March 05, 2017 01:48PM

Jeff Hopkins '82
Trotsky
Down to 11 after tonight's games. Hrmpf.

FWIW, I don't think it matters whether we're 9th or 11th, as long as NoDak stays in the 3-band with us. That means we can't go to Fargo, and have a much better chance of staying east.
I'm more concerned with making the tournament.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: toddlose (73.112.76.---)
Date: March 05, 2017 02:03PM

BearLover
Jeff Hopkins '82
Trotsky
Down to 11 after tonight's games. Hrmpf.

FWIW, I don't think it matters whether we're 9th or 11th, as long as NoDak stays in the 3-band with us. That means we can't go to Fargo, and have a much better chance of staying east.
I'm more concerned with making the tournament.

+1 my thoughts exactly
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: upprdeck (---.syrcny.east.verizon.net)
Date: March 05, 2017 02:35PM

sweep next weekend and it takes care of itself.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Beeeej (Moderator)
Date: March 05, 2017 02:49PM

upprdeck
sweep next weekend and it takes care of itself.

I don't believe even sweeping next weekend is a guarantee. There are still some conference tournament upset possibilities, more so because we're at #11 and can't afford to lose a game to Clarkson.

 
___________________________
Beeeej, Esq.
Tundra British Columbia Headhunters Circus
Tucson or Bust!

"Cornell isn't an organization. It's a loose affiliation of independent fiefdoms united by a common hockey team."
- Steve Worona
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Dafatone (---.midco.net)
Date: March 05, 2017 02:52PM

I still wish Lake Placid had a consolation game. Rationally, I know such a thing is just as likely to doom a team as help them, but irrationally, I can't shake "win one in LP and we're in" from my head.

Also, I know we aren't there yet.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: upprdeck (---.syrcny.east.verizon.net)
Date: March 05, 2017 03:18PM

I know that, its also a known that several teams right around us have to loss 2 games before its all done

nd/prov and vt/bc st and cloud/ndak 3 of them will lose twice next week

osu/wisc someone is losing 1-2 times next week and several of b10 teams have to lose again as well the following week

with a sweep there is only so far we can fall with 1 loss in placid.

vt/bc hurts us if they run the table but one will be out by next week and the same for nd/prov us 2-1 and them 0-2 or 1-2 they wont catch us.

st cloud would win 2-1 over NDak and then loss the following week and not be .500 and hurt ndak chances too.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Trotsky (---.hsd1.md.comcast.net)
Date: March 05, 2017 05:07PM

Dafatone
I still wish Lake Placid had a consolation game.
Me too, but IIRC the coaches were unanimously in favor of killing it.

As for the league's ostensible reason of improving our bids, the best way to do that would be to cut the ECAC tourney back to 8 teams and bar the PWR-killer Cinderellas from taking a run at our bubble teams.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Trotsky (---.hsd1.md.comcast.net)
Date: March 05, 2017 11:03PM

Back to 10 in PWR, with the cut at 14.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: adamw (---.phlapa.fios.verizon.net)
Date: March 05, 2017 11:23PM

Gosh, I'm sorry I missed the earlier conversation ... but just to point some things that maybe already were, I don't know ...

This is our Pairwise Probability Matrix ... The methodology is explained right on the page. 20,000 Monte Carlo style simulations based on KRACH. Whether KRACH overweights the possibility of winning one game, I don't know. It's the basis of a very good discussion that I'd love to be a part of. It's a good question. But using scores differentials also has its flaws. So, you are free to take it for what it's worth.

[www.collegehockeynews.com]

This is my article today based off of the latest Matrix, about projecting a final bracket...

[www.collegehockeynews.com]

I've needled Jim, and others, before about bothering to discuss a "Bracketology" article that lays out a bracket "if the season ends today" - because it doesn't end today, which makes it rather pointless - to me. But to each their own I suppose. I usually stick to just laying out possible caveats and interesting potential matchups. But with the Matrix, and us being close to selection day, I used the Matrix projection to project a bracket.

Whether the Pairwise will fluctuate a lot between now and March 19th depends upon your definition of a lot. I have found that things really haven't changed much since December, relatively speaking. I think there is less fluctuation than there was in years past because nowadays the Pairwise is almost exclusively based upon the RPI. The other criteria come into play very little, and if you look at the Grid, you see very few cases where teams below others in the overall list, beat them in individual comparisons. The Grid used to look like an eyechart. Now it's fairly clean.

As for the tools to see what would happen "if only we won this game" or "lost that game" - etc... Our Customizer allows you to do that. Click the Tab from the Pairwise page. This was inspired by John Whalen's old scripts.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Jim Hyla (---.syrcny.fios.verizon.net)
Date: March 06, 2017 07:11AM

adamw
Gosh, I'm sorry I missed the earlier conversation ... but just to point some things that maybe already were, I don't know ...

This is our Pairwise Probability Matrix ... The methodology is explained right on the page. 20,000 Monte Carlo style simulations based on KRACH. Whether KRACH overweights the possibility of winning one game, I don't know. It's the basis of a very good discussion that I'd love to be a part of. It's a good question. But using scores differentials also has its flaws. So, you are free to take it for what it's worth.

[www.collegehockeynews.com]

This is my article today based off of the latest Matrix, about projecting a final bracket...

[www.collegehockeynews.com]

I've needled Jim, and others, before about bothering to discuss a "Bracketology" article that lays out a bracket "if the season ends today" - because it doesn't end today, which makes it rather pointless - to me. But to each their own I suppose. I usually stick to just laying out possible caveats and interesting potential matchups. But with the Matrix, and us being close to selection day, I used the Matrix projection to project a bracket.

Whether the Pairwise will fluctuate a lot between now and March 19th depends upon your definition of a lot. I have found that things really haven't changed much since December, relatively speaking. I think there is less fluctuation than there was in years past because nowadays the Pairwise is almost exclusively based upon the RPI. The other criteria come into play very little, and if you look at the Grid, you see very few cases where teams below others in the overall list, beat them in individual comparisons. The Grid used to look like an eyechart. Now it's fairly clean.

As for the tools to see what would happen "if only we won this game" or "lost that game" - etc... Our Customizer allows you to do that. Click the Tab from the Pairwise page. This was inspired by John Whalen's old scripts.

Adam, it's okay to look at what it would have been like "if only we won this game", but not "if the season ends today"?

After all you do say "I have found that things really haven't changed much since December". So it's kind of fun to follow the change in tournament possibilities over time. No one here, I hope, thinks it's reality.

Come on, all of this is discussion, which is the purpose of this, and all other forums. It's generally harmless, so why do you care?

 
___________________________
"Cornell Fans Made the Timbers Tremble", Boston Globe, March/1970
Cornell lawyers stopped the candy throwing. Jan/2005
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: adamw (---.phlapa.fios.verizon.net)
Date: March 06, 2017 09:20AM

Jim Hyla
Adam, it's okay to look at what it would have been like "if only we won this game", but not "if the season ends today"?

After all you do say "I have found that things really haven't changed much since December". So it's kind of fun to follow the change in tournament possibilities over time. No one here, I hope, thinks it's reality.

Come on, all of this is discussion, which is the purpose of this, and all other forums. It's generally harmless, so why do you care?

I did say I was just needling you. And to each their own. I'm not exactly losing sleep over it. For a fun discussion, sure. Some people take the Bracketology articles way too seriously though, as if they have any meaning, which they don't really. So I like to remind people of that. Not you, necessarily. I just personally find the exercise pointless, and void of any educational value.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Trotsky (---.dc.dc.cox.net)
Date: March 06, 2017 09:42AM

adamw
I just personally find the exercise pointless, and void of any educational value.
I used to torture Anne with "what ifs." She hated thinking about them, I loved speculating. This is one of those "there are two types of people" things.

We all know that the only thing that matters is the performance on the ice. I see no harm in speculating, and in fact I think the trial run picking of brackets does teach more casual fans how the field is chosen and seeded.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Trotsky (---.dc.dc.cox.net)
Date: March 06, 2017 09:47AM

Latest odds from PlayoffStatus.com:

ECAC Frozen Four: 75%
ECAC Title Game: 38%
ECAC Champions: 18% (1 in 6)

Make the NCAA tourney: 91%
Round 2: 43%
Frozen Four: 19% (1 in 5)
Title Game: 9% (1 in 11)
NCAA Champions: 4% (1 in 25)

I'll take those odds. After 36 seasons as a fan they don't seem daunting. :)
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/06/2017 09:49AM by Trotsky.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Beeeej (Moderator)
Date: March 06, 2017 10:08AM

Trotsky
Latest odds from PlayoffStatus.com:

ECAC Frozen Four: 75%
ECAC Title Game: 38%
ECAC Champions: 18% (1 in 6)

Make the NCAA tourney: 91%
Round 2: 43%
Frozen Four: 19% (1 in 5)
Title Game: 9% (1 in 11)
NCAA Champions: 4% (1 in 25)

I'll take those odds. After 36 seasons as a fan they don't seem daunting. :)

But Greg, those odds don't take into account the bad bounces that frequently occur in hockey games, or the possibility that a giant space squid will crash down through the roof of Lynah Rink and land on Mitch Gillam. Why do you hate America?

 
___________________________
Beeeej, Esq.
Tundra British Columbia Headhunters Circus
Tucson or Bust!

"Cornell isn't an organization. It's a loose affiliation of independent fiefdoms united by a common hockey team."
- Steve Worona
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: BearLover (---.hfc.comcastbusiness.net)
Date: March 06, 2017 10:26AM

Beeeej
Trotsky
Latest odds from PlayoffStatus.com:

ECAC Frozen Four: 75%
ECAC Title Game: 38%
ECAC Champions: 18% (1 in 6)

Make the NCAA tourney: 91%
Round 2: 43%
Frozen Four: 19% (1 in 5)
Title Game: 9% (1 in 11)
NCAA Champions: 4% (1 in 25)

I'll take those odds. After 36 seasons as a fan they don't seem daunting. :)

But Greg, those odds don't take into account the bad bounces that frequently occur in hockey games, or the possibility that a giant space squid will crash down through the roof of Lynah Rink and land on Mitch Gillam. Why do you hate America?
You joke, but those odds look far more realistic than the probability matrix ones. 75% chance of making Lake Placed is considerably more reasonable than 95% or whatever the other model gave us.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Beeeej (Moderator)
Date: March 06, 2017 10:29AM

BearLover
Beeeej
Trotsky
Latest odds from PlayoffStatus.com:

ECAC Frozen Four: 75%
ECAC Title Game: 38%
ECAC Champions: 18% (1 in 6)

Make the NCAA tourney: 91%
Round 2: 43%
Frozen Four: 19% (1 in 5)
Title Game: 9% (1 in 11)
NCAA Champions: 4% (1 in 25)

I'll take those odds. After 36 seasons as a fan they don't seem daunting. :)

But Greg, those odds don't take into account the bad bounces that frequently occur in hockey games, or the possibility that a giant space squid will crash down through the roof of Lynah Rink and land on Mitch Gillam. Why do you hate America?
You joke, but those odds look far more realistic than the probability matrix ones. 75% chance of making Lake Placed is considerably more reasonable than 95% or whatever the other model gave us.

I don't recall a probability matrix that gave us such great odds of making the ECAC semis. I recall the CHN probability matrix that gave us - and still gives us - a 98% chance of making the NCAA field. Is that what you're thinking of?

 
___________________________
Beeeej, Esq.
Tundra British Columbia Headhunters Circus
Tucson or Bust!

"Cornell isn't an organization. It's a loose affiliation of independent fiefdoms united by a common hockey team."
- Steve Worona
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: adamw (---.phlapa.fios.verizon.net)
Date: March 06, 2017 10:39AM

BearLover
You joke, but those odds look far more realistic than the probability matrix ones. 75% chance of making Lake Placed is considerably more reasonable than 95% or whatever the other model gave us.

What Beeeej said. In fact, if you look at CHN's Probability Matrix, our odds of Cornell winning the ECAC Tournament are pretty much exactly the same as the other site that's mentioned:

[www.collegehockeynews.com]

(I actually did not re-run this after last night's games, FWIW)

We don't do all of the other breakdowns, but I assume we use the same methodology. Nowhere did anyone say, or suggest, that Cornell has a 95% chance of making the next round.
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Al DeFlorio (---.hsd1.ma.comcast.net)
Date: March 06, 2017 11:40AM

BearLover
Trotsky
Finally, according to this, our probabilities for tourney advance are currently:

.85 Tourney
.42 QF
.19 SF
.09 F
.04 That Which Shall Be Nameless
Is there a way to check what a loss to RPI would do to us in the PWR? Because unless such a loss would knock us down just a few spots, that 85% number feels way too high.
As I recall, I think it was this 85% number that caused the controversy in the first place. BearLover's last sentence is key. The 85% number didn't assume we had to beat RPI in order to make the NCAAs, as a loss to RPI still left a certain, not at all insignificant, % possibility of making the tournament even with a loss.

 
___________________________
Al DeFlorio '65
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: upprdeck (---.fs.cornell.edu)
Date: March 06, 2017 12:31PM

the only number that interesting is what chance we have of getting to the ncaa if we dont win this this weekend, anything else that happens means we survive to live another day
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: upprdeck (---.fs.cornell.edu)
Date: March 06, 2017 12:40PM

Beeeej


But Greg, those odds don't take into account the bad bounces that frequently occur in hockey games, or the possibility that a giant space squid will crash down through the roof of Lynah Rink and land on Mitch Gillam. Why do you hate America?

dont tell me kid about bad puck bounces..

rit lost this weekend 2-1 to niagara while out shooting them 120-60 and holding them to 1-17 on the PP but in the two 3rd periods they lost somehow allowing 5 goals on 12 shots and 2 shorthanded breakaways
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Jim Hyla (---.syrcny.fios.verizon.net)
Date: March 06, 2017 12:42PM

adamw
Jim Hyla
Adam, it's okay to look at what it would have been like "if only we won this game", but not "if the season ends today"?

After all you do say "I have found that things really haven't changed much since December". So it's kind of fun to follow the change in tournament possibilities over time. No one here, I hope, thinks it's reality.

Come on, all of this is discussion, which is the purpose of this, and all other forums. It's generally harmless, so why do you care?

I did say I was just needling you. And to each their own. I'm not exactly losing sleep over it. For a fun discussion, sure. Some people take the Bracketology articles way too seriously though, as if they have any meaning, which they don't really. So I like to remind people of that. Not you, necessarily. I just personally find the exercise pointless, and void of any educational value.

I know you're just needling me. After all, you say it to me every time you see me.:-D

I just wanted to point out a little inconsistency with it being okay to speculate what would happen if we didn't lose game x, but it's not okay to speculate on if the season ends today.

So there, I've finished needling you back.

 
___________________________
"Cornell Fans Made the Timbers Tremble", Boston Globe, March/1970
Cornell lawyers stopped the candy throwing. Jan/2005
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: Beeeej (Moderator)
Date: March 06, 2017 12:55PM

upprdeck
Beeeej


But Greg, those odds don't take into account the bad bounces that frequently occur in hockey games, or the possibility that a giant space squid will crash down through the roof of Lynah Rink and land on Mitch Gillam. Why do you hate America?

dont tell me kid about bad puck bounces..

rit lost this weekend 2-1 to niagara while out shooting them 120-60 and holding them to 1-17 on the PP but in the two 3rd periods they lost somehow allowing 5 goals on 12 shots and 2 shorthanded breakaways

That doesn't tell me anything about bad bounces. You don't really think two short-handed breakaways leading to two goals in the third periods of two playoff games were the result of bad bounces, do you? A couple of mistakes can open the door for a supposedly inferior team to beat their opponents on any given night. That has nothing to do with either odds or bad bounces.

I'm also not a huge believer in more shots as a measure of superior scoring potential. Anytime you put the puck on net and the goalie has to save it from going in counts as a shot, no matter how weak or easy to stop. It might be a decent measure of offensive zone possession and control, but that's not the same thing.

 
___________________________
Beeeej, Esq.
Tundra British Columbia Headhunters Circus
Tucson or Bust!

"Cornell isn't an organization. It's a loose affiliation of independent fiefdoms united by a common hockey team."
- Steve Worona
 
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style
Posted by: jkahn (---.73.146.216.biz.sta.networkgci.net)
Date: March 06, 2017 01:03PM

BearLover
Beeeej
Trotsky
Latest odds from PlayoffStatus.com:

ECAC Frozen Four: 75%
ECAC Title Game: 38%
ECAC Champions: 18% (1 in 6)

Make the NCAA tourney: 91%
Round 2: 43%
Frozen Four: 19% (1 in 5)
Title Game: 9% (1 in 11)
NCAA Champions: 4% (1 in 25)

I'll take those odds. After 36 seasons as a fan they don't seem daunting. :)

But Greg, those odds don't take into account the bad bounces that frequently occur in hockey games, or the possibility that a giant space squid will crash down through the roof of Lynah Rink and land on Mitch Gillam. Why do you hate America?
You joke, but those odds look far more realistic than the probability matrix ones. 75% chance of making Lake Placed is considerably more reasonable than 95% or whatever the other model gave us.

This 91% for us making the tournament or the 98% shown on CHN
[www.collegehockeynews.com]
seem way high to me (and by "to me" I mean my quick analysis using KRACH probabilities).
Per Krach, there's a 27.5% chance we don't get by Clarkson this weekend. If we lose that series 2-1, our winning percentage drops to .6719. To try to see that effect, using CHN's pairwise calculator, I simply flipped one of our wins (I used the UNH game) to a loss, which drops are current percentage to .6724. If that were the case, we'd be at #14 in pairwise, with a fair amount of risk. And there's an 11.9% chance of getting swept, which is obviously worse. I realize that this is overly simplistic and ignores all other results happening around us.
I hope these models are accurate, but more importantly, let's take care of business this weekend.

 
___________________________
Jeff Kahn '70 '72
 
Page: Previous1 2 345Next
Current Page: 2 of 5

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login