Next Year's predictions/Expectations 2017-18

[Jim Hyla]

So here's Beeeej's preseason poll.

Make Your Prediction: What performance would meet your expectations of Big Red Men's Hockey in 2016-17?

73 votes were received.

Code Select Expand


ECAC Bottom Third 1 1%
ECAC First Round Home 24 33%
ECAC First Round Bye 15 21%
Lake Placid        18 25%
[b][u]ECAC Champions and/or
NCAA Regionals        12 16%[/u][/b]
Frozen Four        1 1%
National Champions 2 3%


So I guess we met/exceeded most peoples expectations.

Using the same criteria, what are you expecting for next season?

[Trotsky]

Was last years poll taken right after our elimination?

I have a feeling we have more extreme expectations (good or bad) right after the prior season ends than just before the coming season begins.

[Jim Hyla]

Was last years poll taken right after our elimination?

I have a feeling we have more extreme expectations (good or bad) right after the prior season ends than just before the coming season begins.

No it was in the fall, but much to your point, I thought it might be interesting to see how they differ this fall, from now.

[BearLover]

What would meet my expectations for the Cornell Hockey program generally, or how do I expect them to finish next year?  The former: NCAA appearance; the latter: Lake Placid

[Beeeej]

What would meet my expectations for the Cornell Hockey program generally, or how do I expect them to finish next year?  The former: NCAA appearance; the latter: Lake Placid

How you expect them to finish in 2017-18. There wouldn't be much point in doing the poll annually if it were the former.

[Hooking]

How the mighty have fallen. From statistical analysis to predictions/Expectations! Of course there could be a lot of overlap here. There certainly is in reports by stock-market/investment touts.

[French Rage]

How the mighty have fallen. From statistical analysis to predictions/Expectations! Of course there could be a lot of overlap here. There certainly is in reports by stock-market/investment touts.

Fuck off.

[slh10]

+1

[Beeeej]

How the mighty have fallen. From statistical analysis to predictions/Expectations!

Cornell wins, 3-1.

::wank::

[Trotsky]

(deleted)

[nshapiro]

Early TBRW? 2018 Predictions! (subject to change):

Bottom Line:

Code Select Expand


 1 31 Cor  0
 2 30 Qpc +3
 3 29 Hvd -5
 4 28 Uni -6
 5 27 SLU -1
 6 22 Prn +3
 7 21 Clk -2
 8 20 Yal +2
 9 18 Drt +2
10 16 Cgt +1
11 14 RPI +2
12  9 Brn +2




Never Explain:

Code Select Expand


[b]RS    PS IMP?? Prior Ret%  Ret Inc% Avg10 Reg Nieu Norm Pred[/b]
Brown 7 0  0 7 .91 6.38 .09 14.20 .63 7.01 8.60 12
Clarkson 23 0  0 23 .55 12.65 .45 21.30 4.79 17.44 21.41 7
Colgate 15 0  0 15 .60 9.00 .40 19.70 3.94 12.94 15.88 10
Cornell 31 1  0 32 .63 20.06 .37 25.70 4.79 24.86 30.50 1
Dartmouth 16 0  0 16 .73 11.74 .27 20.30 2.70 14.44 17.73 9
Harvard 34 0  1 35 .51 17.89 .49 22.50 5.50 23.39 28.70 3
Princeton 19 0  0 19 .88 16.70 .12 17.60 1.06 17.77 21.80 6
Quinnipiac 27 1  0 28 .76 21.17 .24 27.10 3.31 24.47 30.03 2
RPI 12 0  0 12 .74 8.87 .26 19.30 2.52 11.39 13.97 11
SLU 28 -1  0 27 .69 18.74 .31 22.10 3.38 22.12 27.15 5
Union 34 -1 -3 30 .56 16.71 .44 27.10 6.00 22.71 27.87 4
Yale 18 0  0 18 .69 12.40 .31 26.90 4.18 16.58 20.35 8




I believe that your column headings have an issue - should be RS PS and maybe IMP...although I doubt 10 teams did exactly the same as they did from first half to second half...and IMP would have to sum to zero...so I have no idea what the AW column is.

[Trotsky]

Imp is divided by 2, rounded down, so it doesn't have to sum to zero.

There is an issue, though. I'll get there...

[Trotsky]

OK.  Let's try this again.

Bottom line:

Code Select Expand

1. Harvard
 2. Cornell
 3. Quinnipiac
 4. Union
 5. SLU
 6. Clarkson
 7. Princeton
 8. Yale
 9. Colgate
10. RPI
11. Dartmouth
12. Brown


[scoop85]

I think Union's too high -- they've lost too much top-end talent.  And I think Yale will be a bit higher -- maybe 5th or 6th.

[Trotsky]

I think Union's too high -- they've lost too much top-end talent.  And I think Yale will be a bit higher -- maybe 5th or 6th.

I was thinking about applying a punishment for teams that lose a ton of players.  Right now they just have their percentage of new players multiplied by their average points from the past ten years.  That means if a team has been very good for a long period they hold or even improve their estimate if they lose a lot of production (the theoretical justification being good teams tend to recruit good replacements).

My thought was I could only give them credit for some percentage of that anticipated incoming strength.  For example giving them only half would scale up the "punishment" for losing production.

I will run the numbers to see what happens.  I do not particularly like it when a power team loses everything but still retains a high standing.  That happens sometimes but by no means always.