2018 ECAC Permutations

[BearLover]

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).

It's also a testament to how bad this prediction model is. STOP CITING THIS PREDICTION MODEL

[ugarte]

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).

It's also a testament to how bad this prediction model is. STOP CITING THIS PREDICTION MODEL

please take a xanax. i also think the prediction model wildly overstates our chances but it literally doesn't matter.

[BearLover]

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).

It's also a testament to how bad this prediction model is. STOP CITING THIS PREDICTION MODEL

please take a xanax. i also think the prediction model wildly overstates our chances but it literally doesn't matter.

Every sports discussion literally doesn't matter, but if we're going to discuss sports we could at least stop basing those discussions off the same faulty model that people keep citing every five minutes.

[Dafatone]

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).

It's also a testament to how bad this prediction model is. STOP CITING THIS PREDICTION MODEL

please take a xanax. i also think the prediction model wildly overstates our chances but it literally doesn't matter.

Every sports discussion literally doesn't matter, but if we're going to discuss sports we could at least stop basing those discussions off the same faulty model that people keep citing every five minutes.

It's perfectly fine for a model that doesn't bother with recent trends.

Which is a big weakness, sure, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily worth tossing out.

[Jim Hyla]

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).

It's also a testament to how bad this prediction model is. STOP CITING THIS PREDICTION MODEL

please take a xanax. i also think the prediction model wildly overstates our chances but it literally doesn't matter.

Every sports discussion literally doesn't matter, but if we're going to discuss sports we could at least stop basing those discussions off the same faulty model that people keep citing every five minutes.

Why? If someone wants to discuss something that you think is faulty, why do you think you have the right to tell them to stop.

You have the right to point out that you think it's faulty, YOU DO NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO MAKE THEM STOP.

THEY ARE NOT HURTING YOU. PLEASE LEAVE THEM ALONE AND LET THEM HAVE THEIR OWN FUN.

[BearLover]

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).

It's also a testament to how bad this prediction model is. STOP CITING THIS PREDICTION MODEL

please take a xanax. i also think the prediction model wildly overstates our chances but it literally doesn't matter.

Every sports discussion literally doesn't matter, but if we're going to discuss sports we could at least stop basing those discussions off the same faulty model that people keep citing every five minutes.

It's perfectly fine for a model that doesn't bother with recent trends.

Which is a big weakness, sure, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily worth tossing out.

The main critique of the model has nothing to do with it not accounting for recent trends--scroll up for a longer explanation, but the most glaring problem with the model is that it assumes the #3 team in the KRACH/PWR/RPI is the *actual* third-best team in the country, despite the incredibly high amount of randomness in a 30-game season. I believe the model is assigning Cornell (and everyone else) win probabilities based off them being ranked X after an infinite number or games rather than after 29 games. There was a study some number of years ago that found that several thousands of baseball games (way more than just a 162-game season) are necessary to determine who the best team is. The study answered a bit of a different question in a different sport, but the idea is the same: there is way too much randomness in a small season to say with a high degree of certainty how good a team really is.

[BearLover]

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).

It's also a testament to how bad this prediction model is. STOP CITING THIS PREDICTION MODEL

please take a xanax. i also think the prediction model wildly overstates our chances but it literally doesn't matter.

Every sports discussion literally doesn't matter, but if we're going to discuss sports we could at least stop basing those discussions off the same faulty model that people keep citing every five minutes.

Why? If someone wants to discuss something that you think is faulty, why do you think you have the right to tell them to stop.

You have the right to point out that you think it's faulty, YOU DO NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO MAKE THEM STOP.

THEY ARE NOT HURTING YOU. PLEASE LEAVE THEM ALONE AND LET THEM HAVE THEIR OWN FUN.

The capital letters in my post were supposed to be funny...

[Trotsky]

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).

It's also a testament to how bad this prediction model is. STOP CITING THIS PREDICTION MODEL

please take a xanax. i also think the prediction model wildly overstates our chances but it literally doesn't matter.

Every sports discussion literally doesn't matter, but if we're going to discuss sports we could at least stop basing those discussions off the same faulty model that people keep citing every five minutes.

It's perfectly fine for a model that doesn't bother with recent trends.

Which is a big weakness, sure, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily worth tossing out.

The main critique of the model has nothing to do with it not accounting for recent trends--scroll up for a longer explanation, but the most glaring problem with the model is that it assumes the #3 team in the KRACH/PWR/RPI is the *actual* third-best team in the country, despite the incredibly high amount of randomness in a 30-game season. I believe the model is assigning Cornell (and everyone else) win probabilities based off them being ranked X after an infinite number or games rather than after 29 games. There was a study some number of years ago that found that several thousands of baseball games (way more than just a 162-game season) are necessary to determine who the best team is. The study answered a bit of a different question in a different sport, but the idea is the same: there is way too much randomness in a small season to say with a high degree of certainty who the best teams are.

An entire branch of mathematics has been beavering away at this ever since Laplace and Gauss.  There are tools to determine the actual quality of models.  I've seen nobody post any objective evaluation of the model in question.

Until somebody does the math this is just somebody saying "well that doesn't feel right."  Math doesn't give a shit about your feelings.  Do the work, cite somebody who does, or go to the water wings side of the pool.

[BearLover]

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).

It's also a testament to how bad this prediction model is. STOP CITING THIS PREDICTION MODEL

please take a xanax. i also think the prediction model wildly overstates our chances but it literally doesn't matter.

Every sports discussion literally doesn't matter, but if we're going to discuss sports we could at least stop basing those discussions off the same faulty model that people keep citing every five minutes.

It's perfectly fine for a model that doesn't bother with recent trends.

Which is a big weakness, sure, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily worth tossing out.

The main critique of the model has nothing to do with it not accounting for recent trends--scroll up for a longer explanation, but the most glaring problem with the model is that it assumes the #3 team in the KRACH/PWR/RPI is the *actual* third-best team in the country, despite the incredibly high amount of randomness in a 30-game season. I believe the model is assigning Cornell (and everyone else) win probabilities based off them being ranked X after an infinite number or games rather than after 29 games. There was a study some number of years ago that found that several thousands of baseball games (way more than just a 162-game season) are necessary to determine who the best team is. The study answered a bit of a different question in a different sport, but the idea is the same: there is way too much randomness in a small season to say with a high degree of certainty who the best teams are.

An entire branch of mathematics has been beavering away at this ever since Laplace and Gauss.  There are tools to determine the actual quality of models.  I've seen nobody post any objective evaluation of the model in question.

Until somebody does the math this is just somebody saying "well that doesn't feel right."  Math doesn't give a shit about your feelings.  Do the work, cite somebody who does, or go to the water wings side of the pool.

jfeath17 did some math earlier in this thread, you should check it out

[Swampy]

Math doesn't give a shit about your feelings. ...

How do you know this? Do you have some sort of mathematical model that you've tested with empirical data? ::demented::

[imafrshmn]

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).

It's also a testament to how bad this prediction model is. STOP CITING THIS PREDICTION MODEL

please take a xanax. i also think the prediction model wildly overstates our chances but it literally doesn't matter.

Every sports discussion literally doesn't matter, but if we're going to discuss sports we could at least stop basing those discussions off the same faulty model that people keep citing every five minutes.

It's perfectly fine for a model that doesn't bother with recent trends.

Which is a big weakness, sure, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily worth tossing out.

The main critique of the model has nothing to do with it not accounting for recent trends--scroll up for a longer explanation, but the most glaring problem with the model is that it assumes the #3 team in the KRACH/PWR/RPI is the *actual* third-best team in the country, despite the incredibly high amount of randomness in a 30-game season. I believe the model is assigning Cornell (and everyone else) win probabilities based off them being ranked X after an infinite number or games rather than after 29 games. There was a study some number of years ago that found that several thousands of baseball games (way more than just a 162-game season) are necessary to determine who the best team is. The study answered a bit of a different question in a different sport, but the idea is the same: there is way too much randomness in a small season to say with a high degree of certainty who the best teams are.

An entire branch of mathematics has been beavering away at this ever since Laplace and Gauss.  There are tools to determine the actual quality of models.  I've seen nobody post any objective evaluation of the model in question.

Until somebody does the math this is just somebody saying "well that doesn't feel right."  Math doesn't give a shit about your feelings.  Do the work, cite somebody who does, or go to the water wings side of the pool.

jfeath17 did some math earlier in this thread, you should check it out

jfeath17's curve is interesting, but what we really need to do is figure out a way to estimate, for each team, the variance of KRACH as a function of results and number of games played. If we're going to assume gaussian distributions, we may need to work with a log-transformed KRACH value. This would allow us to make a meaningful improvement of the CHN prediction model without throwing out the basic structure of it. If i had a lot of free time, i would be willing to work on this, but i'm pretty busy.

[Jim Hyla]

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).

It's also a testament to how bad this prediction model is. STOP CITING THIS PREDICTION MODEL

please take a xanax. i also think the prediction model wildly overstates our chances but it literally doesn't matter.

Every sports discussion literally doesn't matter, but if we're going to discuss sports we could at least stop basing those discussions off the same faulty model that people keep citing every five minutes.

Why? If someone wants to discuss something that you think is faulty, why do you think you have the right to tell them to stop.

You have the right to point out that you think it's faulty, YOU DO NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO MAKE THEM STOP.

THEY ARE NOT HURTING YOU. PLEASE LEAVE THEM ALONE AND LET THEM HAVE THEIR OWN FUN.

The capital letters in my post were supposed to be funny...

Really, you're not kidding me now, are you. Based upon your past posts, I would never expect you to be funny about this. It's hard for me to believe, but if you say so, I'll go with it. You should learn to use proper emojis, that's what they're for. You see, we can't see your facial expression when you're posting.

[BearLover]

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).

It's also a testament to how bad this prediction model is. STOP CITING THIS PREDICTION MODEL

please take a xanax. i also think the prediction model wildly overstates our chances but it literally doesn't matter.

Every sports discussion literally doesn't matter, but if we're going to discuss sports we could at least stop basing those discussions off the same faulty model that people keep citing every five minutes.

Why? If someone wants to discuss something that you think is faulty, why do you think you have the right to tell them to stop.

You have the right to point out that you think it's faulty, YOU DO NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO MAKE THEM STOP.

THEY ARE NOT HURTING YOU. PLEASE LEAVE THEM ALONE AND LET THEM HAVE THEIR OWN FUN.

The capital letters in my post were supposed to be funny...

Really, you're not kidding me now, are you. Based upon your past posts, I would never expect you to be funny about this. It's hard for me to believe, but if you say so, I'll go with it. You should learn to use proper emojis, that's what they're for. You see, we can't see your facial expression when you're posting.

The caps were supposed to indicate playful yelling. I've noticed a lot of hostility being read into my posts here but I guess that comes with the territory of disagreeing with everybody.

[Jim Hyla]

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).

It's also a testament to how bad this prediction model is. STOP CITING THIS PREDICTION MODEL

please take a xanax. i also think the prediction model wildly overstates our chances but it literally doesn't matter.

Every sports discussion literally doesn't matter, but if we're going to discuss sports we could at least stop basing those discussions off the same faulty model that people keep citing every five minutes.

Why? If someone wants to discuss something that you think is faulty, why do you think you have the right to tell them to stop.

You have the right to point out that you think it's faulty, YOU DO NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO MAKE THEM STOP.

THEY ARE NOT HURTING YOU. PLEASE LEAVE THEM ALONE AND LET THEM HAVE THEIR OWN FUN.

The capital letters in my post were supposed to be funny...

Really, you're not kidding me now, are you. Based upon your past posts, I would never expect you to be funny about this. It's hard for me to believe, but if you say so, I'll go with it. You should learn to use proper emojis, that's what they're for. You see, we can't see your facial expression when you're posting.

The caps were supposed to indicate playful yelling. I've noticed a lot of hostility being read into my posts here but I guess that comes with the territory of disagreeing with everybody.

I'll say it again, if after being so negative on a point, you mean to be funny, then you need to make it clear.

Second, a large part of the "hostility" is your insistence that people who want to use a particular model stop doing it.

You've made your point that you don't feel it's valid. So if it makes someone else feel good to use it, LET IT GO (and I'm not trying to be funny). Let them have their fun. What harm does it do?

[KGR11]

My purpose in posting the percentages was to add new context to the discussion of KRACH's AQ results. BearLover doesn't buy the probability attributed to Cornell to win the AQ and I wanted to outline how it compares to other bye teams' AQ probabilities. I don't think this changes anyone's opinion, but it's an interesting metric to show how KRACH judges the top 4 ECAC teams.
Of course, part of the reason Cornell's probability is so high is that they face the easiest path as far as ECAC standings go. They'd be less likely to win if the tournament didn't reseed (I believe KRACH and intuition agree on this).