kingraph

Classic IIHF-style rankings (updated)

Recommended Posts

Here's an update to smozoma's Classic IIHF Rankings (thank you smozoma!). I changed some of the rules regarding missing prior/future seasons -- mostly to keep everything automated (easy to update), and partly my own preference. ;)

 

The Rules

At the end of each season, you get points. The values of the top 10 positions:

Rk Value

01 1200

02 1160

03 1120

04 1100

05 1060

06 1040

07 1020

08 1000

09 960

10 940

From 11 onwards the difference is always 20 points.

Each playoff series win, the teams get 'reseeded' in the rankings, so in the end, the champion is 1st, runner up 2nd, and semi-finalists 3rd and 4th based on Pts%.

The remaining spots are filled in based on regular season performance.

The top two B coaches, I rank ahead of the A coaches who didn't make the playoffs in each season. (If 8 make playoffs, B champ and runner-up are #9 & #10). Also B Semifinalists rank ahead of bottom 2 A coaches).

 

The C league is not used for rankings.

 

Missing past seasons points are filled in using the next more recent season's rank minus 3 score

Missing 'future' seasons are filled in with the prior season's rank minus 4 score

Missing interim seasons are filled in with an average rank score of the next nearest seasons.

The TOTAL VALUE is calculated by adding the values from each previous season, but previous seasons depreciate according to this table:

Season 1: 100%

Season 2: 75%

Season 3: 50%

Season 4: 25%

Below are the results through Spring'15.

SNES Results

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any chance of having a Google Docs sheet that has Classic, Blitz and GDL all in tabs so they are all in the same place for viewing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any chance of having a Google Docs sheet that has Classic, Blitz and GDL all in tabs so they are all in the same place for viewing?

I've already done Blitz, so it's not a problem putting Blitz and Classic in one place. I don't have any GDL results though, nor do I know where to get them -- if someone has and can send me the standings for the last 4 seasons, this IIHF file is easy to update.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And for snes ? :D

For you, it'll be done with the Spring classic update. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cool stuff. still think the not playing weight is a little too high.. in flasox case the year he didn't play he gets the same points as the guy who finished 3rd.. at that point ppl might as well sit out years if they do well the previous one and their rank would improve vastly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, the problem is the rankings assume each team, or coach plays in the same tournaments. Missing a season is tricky to fill in, but in Flasox's case, he came 1st and 4th the two seasons surrounding the missing season, so a filler 3rd place was assumed.

I'm open to suggestions on how to deal with missing seasons...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I originally did it I think was there was decay. If you missed a year, your rating was less than your rating at the end of the previous season (not your result that season, your rating from the previous 4)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nevermind, it looks like I just took the average of the 2 adjacent seasons :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

good stuff raph. still wish there was a better way to weigh not playing a season -- doesn't seem fair to everyone that played spring 11 that someone who didn't even join the lg's weighted value is equal to the guy who got 3rd lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And for snes ? :D

Update on OP!

good stuff raph. still wish there was a better way to weigh not playing a season -- doesn't seem fair to everyone that played spring 11 that someone who didn't even join the lg's weighted value is equal to the guy who got 3rd lol

Yeah, the IIHF rankings assume the same teams/players play in each competition. I haven't thought about a different way to weigh missing seasons. Maybe increase the penalty for consecutive missing seasons? Something to consider. I'd also like to think about weighting the teams used, as winning with Chicago (or Pittsburgh in SNES) shouldn't be equally valed as winning with NYR (or Anaheim, as C4 did this season in SNES).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

might not be the thread for this.. but I've been wanting a classic lg where 20 coaches sign up and get placed in groups of 4, with coaches of similar skill. now those 5 groups of 4 coaches then select their teams, using donch's or any randomized picker to determine order in that group of 4. the 4 lowest ranked coaches then get to pick from the 5 best teams (using your other article to deem those 5, or whatever)

This guarentees the worst players get the best teams, and even the 4th coach in a grouping still gets a choice between 2 teams. repeat this process for the next 4 coaches, with the next 5 best teams, etc. This would ensure the worst coaches get chi, van, det, mtl, while the top coaches would choose from the bottom teams.

Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would be fun.

That is how we play at our Live events where I am actually a pretty good player.

I take Ottawa in 93 and give the weak players Chicago.

I would be into trying 94 in a league like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol, because of Coach Mac's italics I can't help but read his post as a poem, or deep thoughts.

I like this idea. Maybe do it in stages, so you reveal the teams for the 1st group of 4 players (the lesser skilled players). Then the next group knows what teams are left, etc. Then the next group goes, and 4 more teams are taken off the board.

The good thing is you don't have to choose the group of teams and you allow anyone to pick from the available teams. The bad thing is players on that bottom tier may still not pick good teams (like PIT). Still cool though....almost like a draft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is great. I had been mentioing this idea to you, raph, and had no idea it already existed in some form lol. What would be great, and more ambitious, is to expand the ratings to every league and even maybe allow people to play ranked games that aren't part of a tournament. This would make the 94 community more like the competitive chess community-- where every tournament counts towards ranking and players are meticulous at times in choosing what smaller tournaments to play in.

It would make every game & tournament intense

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol, because of Coach Mac's italics I can't help but read his post as a poem, or deep thoughts.

I like this idea. Maybe do it in stages, so you reveal the teams for the 1st group of 4 players (the lesser skilled players). Then the next group knows what teams are left, etc. Then the next group goes, and 4 more teams are taken off the board.

The good thing is you don't have to choose the group of teams and you allow anyone to pick from the available teams. The bad thing is players on that bottom tier may still not pick good teams (like PIT). Still cool though....almost like a draft.

My whole thinking of forcing people to choose from a group of 5 is that you protect the bottom coaches from themselves by forcing them to take the top 5 teams, while you avoid a decent team trickling down to a good coach

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny I didn't even know I was using italics....Oh no here I go again.

But I am glad you found my words poetic.

I love this idea and Carse is right you need to protect the bottom coaches from themselves.

It was so funny when I drafted Messier in the first round of GDL '93 and Plabax made some comment and I was like what is the matter with that guy Messier is rated 93. Well now, I know as my first round pick rides the pine.

Oh how I wish we had used the wt bug fix....

Anyway loving the league and would like to try a '94 league and this one sounds ideal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bump! Updated the OP with Spring'13 results. Below is Fall'12 for reference:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for keeping this going

too bad it doesn't handle the fact that the teams people get are not equal, but oh well, it's still very interesting to look at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

love the stats bud...34th in the world! putting that on my resume

friggin chaos is ahead of me, that dirty b.

side note: tylerdeanhill is ranked 24th and 25th bud

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bump! Updated the OP with Fall'13 results. For SNES, it was a little different for Fall because there were two "A" leagues. I seeded the winners by who had the most points in the regular season. For example, Oilers won A1 and had 62 regular season points, Northway won A2 and had 52. Jbalicki and Bok were runners up and each finished with 56 and 48 respectively. And so on. SNES C was not ranked. Below is Spring'13 for reference:



 


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kinda needing a league at this time stinks spring of 14 didn't happen...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

holy crap I haven't played classic in like 4 years lol

the raph is strong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.