2018 ECAC Permutations

[Trotsky]

H sucks..

I believe you are referring to Team A.

The party of the first part, hereafter referred to as the "Party of the First Part"...

No, I don't like that part.

Which part?

The first part.

You can't fool me. There is no sanity clause.

[scoop85]

All I can say is I'm glad I never took statistics!

[KGR11]

jfeath17, do you have an equation for that logistic regression? If you do, adamw could plug the KRACH-generated winning percentage into it get an empirical winning % for the pairwise probability matrix. adamw, for the Monte Carlo with 20k samples, I estimate this will add a couple million extra computations to the model. I'm pretty sure that's not a big deal.

There may be confidence questions with jfeath17's model (ideally, we'd want more than 2 years of data), but it answers the question that's been raised: it takes the KRACH reported winning percentage and turns into the winning percentage that actually happened.

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

H sucks..

I believe you are referring to Team A.

The party of the first part, hereafter referred to as the "Party of the First Part"...

No, I don't like that part.

Which part?

The first part.

You can't fool me. There is no sanity clause.

+1

[adamw]

Adam takes a lot of crap for no good reason, he's trying a lot harder than many others.

Thank you, sir.

Now if he could only fix the app on my iPhone, so it wouldn't screw up so often, that would be nice.........:-D::bolt::

For the record, the correct person to address this issue to is much closer to you, vis-a-vis this forum, than I am.

[adamw]

....

But now consider Team H, which is more erratic. Let H be the number of goals it scores in any given game. Like Team C let Team H's expected number of goals be 4: E[H] = 4. But unlike Team C, var[H] will not be zero.

Instead, suppose H has the following probability mass distribution: P[H = 2] = 0.10, P[H = 3] = 0.15, P[H = 4] = 0.50, P[H = 5] = 0.15, and P[H = 6] = 0.10. So here we can see different results when Team H plays its 20 games against the 10 "other" teams: the expected number of losses is 2, the expected number of ties is 3, and the expected number of wins is 15. So when Team H plays the other teams, the expected number of points is only 33, unlike Team C's 40!
....

I like where all this headed. I just don't know how to implement. But philosophically, it looks sound to me. Anything added to the model should be based on sound statistical principle like this that is repeatable and set, and not vague "tweaking" based on assumptions.

[adamw]

I have nothing against Adam and I love CHN. But that doesn't mean we should be quiet about predictions that are based on flawed assumptions. I also think it's better to have no prediction model at all than to have one that is based on flawed assumptions. Coverage of the 2016 election would have been vastly improved had flawed models like HuffPost's not existed. America would have known that for almost the entirety of the race Hillary was only a slight favorite, that the electoral college favored Trump, that Comey's letter very likely cost Clinton the election. Instead, the media, in part because of models like HuffPost's and others', covered Hillary's victory as a foregone conclusion. Obviously the stakes aren't as high here, but no one is helped by a model that wrongly portrays Cornell's odds against Union as 80%, or its odds of winning the ECAC as 60%.

Thanks - and feel free to complain all you want.  But I disagree the model is flawed.  It might be incomplete, but I wouldn't call it flawed.  There's nothing flawed about how the KRACH computes itself.  The non-538 presidential race models were flawed, because they made really poor assumptions.

[Jim Hyla]

Now if he could only fix the app on my iPhone, so it wouldn't screw up so often, that would be nice.........:-D::bolt::

For the record, the correct person to address this issue to is much closer to you, vis-a-vis this forum, than I am.

I know that, but I had to say something bad, didn't I?::nut::

[billhoward]

ECAC end of 2017-18 regular season
1. Cornell
2. Union
3, Clarkson
4. Harvard
5. (t) Dartmouth gets 12 seed first round
5. (t) Colgate gets 11 seed
7. Princeton
8. Yale
9. Quinnipiac
10. Brown
11. Rensselaer
12. St. Lawrence

After the first round (where 1-4 have a bye) the tournament is reseeded. We get the lowest survivor. If higher seeds win the first and second weeks, we'd play 8 Yale in Ithaca and then 4 Harvard Friday (early game) in Lake Placid. What is the likeliest first round upset?

[Swampy]

What is the likeliest first round upset?

Brown or RPI (are tied for "likeliest").

[Trotsky]

8. Yale
9. Quinnipiac
10. Brown
11. RPI
12. St. Lawrence

We will face one of these teams in the QF.

[marty]

What is the likeliest first round upset?

Brown or RPI (are tied for "likeliest").

If RPI beats Colton Point,  I'll donate the refund they owe me for first round tickets.  But I'll donate it to our Onion bruised Pep Band.

[KGR11]

Updated probabilities for ECAC teams with byes to win the ECAC championship from the pairwise probability matrix:
Cornell: 55%
Clarkson: 22%
Union: 10%
Harvard: 6%

The average team in the quarterfinal has a 12.5% probability to win the championship; Cornell is 4.4x more likely than the average QF team to win it all. That's a testament how great Cornell's season has been (or how bad the season's been for the rest of the ECAC).

[CU2007]

Updated probabilities for ECAC teams with byes to win the ECAC championship from the pairwise probability matrix:
Cornell: 55%
Clarkson: 22%
Union: 10%
Harvard: 6%

The average team in the quarterfinal has a 12.5% probability to win the championship; Cornell is 4.4x more likely than the average QF team to win it all. That's a testament how great Cornell's season has been (or how bad the season's been for the rest of the ECAC).

Clarkson has won 2 of their last 12 games. I'd give Harvard, Union and maybe even Colgate a better shot at winning the tournament.

[Swampy]

Updated probabilities for ECAC teams with byes to win the ECAC championship from the pairwise probability matrix:
Cornell: 55%
Clarkson: 22%
Union: 10%
Harvard: 6%

The average team in the quarterfinal has a 12.5% probability to win the championship; Cornell is 4.4x more likely than the average QF team to win it all. That's a testament how great Cornell's season has been (or how bad the season's been for the rest of the ECAC).

Clarkson has won 2 of their last 12 games. I'd give Harvard, Union and maybe even Colgate a better shot at winning the tournament.

Let's hope we never can prove you're right.