Jump to content
NHL'94 Forums

Power rankings - nov.17, 2006


halifax
 Share

Recommended Posts

(avg) denotes average of two teams...as well...previous rankings in brackets

GENS

1.(1) kgman - 40.00

2.(3) James - 37.40

3.(2) Tickenest - 33.80

4.(5) Marc - 33.20

5.(7) backhandfloater - 29.60

6.(4) Matt Hurray - 27.70

7.(6) John - 23.30

8.(11) naeem - 21.90

9.(8) tk11 - 21.00

10.(9) Carse - 20.50

11.(13) Juice Maker - 18.00

12.(19) kgboy66 - 17.00

13.(10) thegr8199 - 16.70

14.(13) hokkeefan(avg)- 16.50

15.(-) jamonica - 15.10

16.(15) addison(avg) - 12.85

17.(12) Feez - 12.30

18.(16) evan - 11.90

19.(-) newjerseykillers - 11.05

20.(20) jacob - 10.95

SNES

1.(1) the94kid - 44.60

2.(4)JotaC - 43.80

3.(3) Rudy - 42.00

4.(2) The Deer - 40.30

5.(5) Mike - 32.30

6.(6) Mat Schwartz - 29.60

7.(7)McMarkis - 24.70

8.(10)Pokerchamp - 23.60

9.(13)Fenty - 18.80

10.(11)Blazer - 16.90

11.(8)Slimeball - 16.50

12.(19)shakazuzu - 16.10

13.(9)Patrick Brady - 15.80

14.(15)Auggie - 13.15

15.(16)Robert Aces - 12.70

16.(12) Bloody throats - 12.60

17.(18)Zyzzyvas - 12.25

18.(-)ThePimpImp - 11.65

19.(-) Buccs - 11.20

20.(19) Skipper - 11.10

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you get credit for the 3 games you won; you should slip once the teams that advanced pick up more than 4 wins starting with the next round.

Yeah it must have something to do with who you played and how you did kind of like the college football scoring system. I lost my series but I stayed at #3.

rudy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BSDaemon

Wow... the power rankings USED TO be accurate... not anymore. I was right beside fenty last time, and then after sweeping a playoff series (in 4 games that weren't all that close - no offence to VAN), I'm not even on the list anymore? How does THAT work?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow... the power rankings USED TO be accurate... not anymore. I was right beside fenty last time, and then after sweeping a playoff series (in 4 games that weren't all that close - no offence to VAN), I'm not even on the list anymore? How does THAT work?!

I went by a suggestion that addison made the last time...instead of picking your best team(since you have two)...i took an average of the two teams instead. you're right..it is inaccurate to your skills...just a matter of circumstance...but if you want..i can put your B team back on there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow... the power rankings USED TO be accurate... not anymore. I was right beside fenty last time, and then after sweeping a playoff series (in 4 games that weren't all that close - no offence to VAN), I'm not even on the list anymore? How does THAT work?!

I think it's just that the methodology changed. Before only your best team was being considered; now an average of your teams is being calculated. It's not that you dropped after sweeping a series so much as you dropped when a new methodology was adopted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BSDaemon

Ah.

Perhaps you should take into consideration when the second team was added - if possible. I joined SNES A with less then a week remaining in the season, mainly because guys wanted to get their games finished. It's unfortunate that my SNES A record is included with my career stats, but I guess that's something I will just have to live with.

In this case, perhaps for both the power rankings, and the career stats on this website, it should be handed as with some statistics in the NHL, where a certain # of games played affects the eligibility of a record.

For example, I took over SNES B Chicago a month into the season, however I personally played 40 games. Those statistics should stand. However, in SNES A, I played approximately 10 games, and they should not count towards my career record.

There may be a better way to calculate it, as I haven't put much thought into it as of yet. I'm not sure if this is something that would be possible (well, of course it's POSSIBLE) to be coded into the statistics.

It's similar to the NHL rookie requirements: "The current eligibility criteria is that the player must not have played more than 25 games in any single preceding season nor in six or more games in each of any two preceding seasons in the NHL, as well as being under the age of 26 on September 15 of the season in which he is eligible."

In this case if I don't play 20 games as that team, my statistics don't count towards my career totals, nor against power rankings. The idea being that it will protect a player who was a last minute ill-in coach from being affected by that team's [likely poor] record.

Anyway, I hope I've explained what I meant well enough to be understood.

I'd also like to add that I would like these power rankings to become an offical part of this league, and made into a sticky topic. The calculations used to determine rankings may not be perfect yet, but over time they will evolve into something that works very well, and is both fair an accurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For example, I took over SNES B Chicago a month into the season, however I personally played 40 games. Those statistics should stand. However, in SNES A, I played approximately 10 games, and they should not count towards my career record.

There may be a better way to calculate it, as I haven't put much thought into it as of yet. I'm not sure if this is something that would be possible (well, of course it's POSSIBLE) to be coded into the statistics.

It's similar to the NHL rookie requirements: "The current eligibility criteria is that the player must not have played more than 25 games in any single preceding season nor in six or more games in each of any two preceding seasons in the NHL, as well as being under the age of 26 on September 15 of the season in which he is eligible."

In this case if I don't play 20 games as that team, my statistics don't count towards my career totals, nor against power rankings. The idea being that it will protect a player who was a last minute ill-in coach from being affected by that team's [likely poor] record.

I think BSDaemon has a point. If the ratings are intended to reflect coaches, handling late-season coach replacments gets a little tricky. You don't want to hold the new coach accountable for the old coach's record (likely poor, as BSD points out). But by the same token, assigning a power rating that's based on playing a 40-game schedule if the new coach only played a few games is also likely to artificially deflate the coach's power rating. I'm not sure what the right thing to do would be, but it's an interesting point.

I don't see any reason why games played in a shortened season wouldn't count towards career statistics. NHL players still accumulate career stats even in seasons where they don't play enough to lose their rookie status.

Interesting peripheral observation - I thought BSDaemon took over Buffalo in SNES A in late October, and the Buffalo team page shows 20 games, not 10, logged in November (4-16). So it looks like he'd have hit the suggested cutoff above anyway, although I'm not sure that's the right solution either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BSDaemon
I don't see any reason why games played in a shortened season wouldn't count towards career statistics. NHL players still accumulate career stats even in seasons where they don't play enough to lose their rookie status.

Good point. I agree.

Interesting peripheral observation - I thought BSDaemon took over Buffalo in SNES A in late October, and the Buffalo team page shows 20 games, not 10, logged in November (4-16). So it looks like he'd have hit the suggested cutoff above anyway, although I'm not sure that's the right solution either.

I dont think I played that many games. I'll have to search the forum for the post announcing that I had Buffalo...

*EDIT*

Wow, I did start at the end of October. I REALLY didn't think I had played that many games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think in an ideal situation...I would simply pick a number of games and use that number for your power rankings(say the number of points you got in your last 80 regular season games multplied by the percentage of whatever league(s) you were in...)...and then adjust your score accordingly...

say an 'A' player's last 40 regular season games at 30%of total points....and the previous 40 games before that at 10% of total points....and of course if that coach decides to skip a season(either fall or spring) or simply not come back...it would still count as points per 40 games...and with no points their score would deteriorate as it should.

of course this would take a lot of time to do by myself or anyone for that matter. If someone wanted to provide me with that info of everyone's record from the time they joined..then i'd certainly do the calculations...volunteers? (crickets chirping)

I'll certainly spend some more time thinking about a format that works best for replacement coaches and coaches with multiple teams. I think for the time being I'll leave as is (taking the average score of coaches that have two teams)...

BSDaemon, you can always look at the positives....it means you are more likely to pick higher in the draft for the winter league B)

thanks...keep the suggestions coming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BSDaemon
I think in an ideal situation...I would simply pick a number of games and use that number for your power rankings(say the number of points you got in your last 80 regular season games multplied by the percentage of whatever league(s) you were in...)...and then adjust your score accordingly...

say an 'A' player's last 40 regular season games at 30%of total points....and the previous 40 games before that at 10% of total points....and of course if that coach decides to skip a season(either fall or spring) or simply not come back...it would still count as points per 40 games...and with no points their score would deteriorate as it should.

of course this would take a lot of time to do by myself or anyone for that matter. If someone wanted to provide me with that info of everyone's record from the time they joined..then i'd certainly do the calculations...volunteers? (crickets chirping)

I'll certainly spend some more time thinking about a format that works best for replacement coaches and coaches with multiple teams. I think for the time being I'll leave as is (taking the average score of coaches that have two teams)...

BSDaemon, you can always look at the positives....it means you are more likely to pick higher in the draft for the winter league B)

thanks...keep the suggestions coming.

Agreed. I have no significant beef with your system at all. I just didn't understand why I'd be ranked lower then where I should be. It was explained to me, so okay. No problem.

The only other thing I can see is... if the power rankings system isn't accurate, then why even have it? (not that im trying to demean all the hard work youve put into it)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only other thing I can see is... if the power rankings system isn't accurate, then why even have it? (not that im trying to demean all the hard work youve put into it)

Depends on what you mean by not accurate.

Just because it will likely never be perfect doesn't mean it's worthless. Tthey still tinker with the BCS formula each year and a lot more is at stake with that thing. Even if there are improvements that could be made, I find it pretty informative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BSDaemon
Depends on what you mean by not accurate.

Just because it will likely never be perfect doesn't mean it's worthless. Tthey still tinker with the BCS formula each year and a lot more is at stake with that thing. Even if there are improvements that could be made, I find it pretty informative.

well if it doesnt give an accurate representation of the league... then in my opinion it IS worthless (not that the effort put into making it is worthless, i give huge credit for the work done!). If the position of a player in power rankings isnt even close to where they should actually be... then they just arent rankings that you can trust.

Again, please don't think I'm trying to bash the attempt, I'm really happy to see this kind of thing being worked on!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well if it doesnt give an accurate representation of the league... then in my opinion it IS worthless (not that the effort put into making it is worthless, i give huge credit for the work done!). If the position of a player in power rankings isnt even close to where they should actually be... then they just arent rankings that you can trust.

Again, please don't think I'm trying to bash the attempt, I'm really happy to see this kind of thing being worked on!

If it was just a random number generator I would agree with you, but when I look at the GENS list, it makes sense to me. I'm not a SNES guy, but the top of the SNES list makes a lot of sense to me as well. I know you feel you should be higher in the rankings, but after researching the numbers it's not crazy to me that halifax's methodology leaves you out of the top 20. He counts last season's record, where you were 9-28 and missed the playoffs (and so didn't get credit for any playoff wins). That hurts. You were 4-16 in A League this year and got swept in the 1st round. I would make an argument that to be more accurate/complete you should only be charged for a prorated season since you played precisely half of a 40-game schedule (maybe get coach points as if you had 8 wins?); that artificially depresses your total a little. Your B League play is much better (24-16) and you're advancing in the playoffs, but B League gets 50% of the points of A League so that only helps some.

I guess overall, it's not obvious to me that a team with a 37-60 record should be in the top 20... But don't get me wrong I'm *NOT* trying to talk smack about your team or say that you suck or that you don't deserve to be in the top 20 based on your passion or commitment to the league or anything like that at all. I'm just trying to balance halifax's methodology and results against the raw data and judging for myself if it's more accurate or more worthless.

One question which I don't know the answer to is if FFs are included in the regular season win totals? If that's the case, teams that collected a lot of FF wins will be higher than we would otherwise predict, and teams like yours that don't have any FF wins will therefore have to be lower. I'm a proponent of more or less keeping the FF system in place in regards to standings and playoff qualification, but for coach ratings, since the goal is slightly different, it might make more sense to eliminate "unplayed games" from the equations altogether. halifax, how do you handle unplayed games?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BSDaemon

Meh, its not really a big deal. I just wouldn't go by the list to determine how good a player IS, due to the fact that the rankings are based on how good a player WAS. Maybe the list should be changed from "power rankings" to "overall lifetime rankings"...

A player could be the best in A league, and still be at the bottom of the list if they've ever had one really bad season. That would make it inaccurate, would it not? Top player in the league ranked anything but #1 would be misleading.

I'm just saying the system needs some tweaking. I do appreciate the hard work being put into it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meh, its not really a big deal. I just wouldn't go by the list to determine how good a player IS, due to the fact that the rankings are based on how good a player WAS. Maybe the list should be changed from "power rankings" to "overall lifetime rankings"...

A player could be the best in A league, and still be at the bottom of the list if they've ever had one really bad season. That would make it inaccurate, would it not? Top player in the league ranked anything but #1 would be misleading.

I'm just saying the system needs some tweaking. I do appreciate the hard work being put into it.

Thanks BSdaemon..I'm glad you appreciate the work....and as for a name change...perhaps 'coaches rankings' may best fit...

I'm still unsure though on how a player could be the best player in the league and be at the bottom of the list? could you provide an theoretical example?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One question which I don't know the answer to is if FFs are included in the regular season win totals? If that's the case, teams that collected a lot of FF wins will be higher than we would otherwise predict, and teams like yours that don't have any FF wins will therefore have to be lower. I'm a proponent of more or less keeping the FF system in place in regards to standings and playoff qualification, but for coach ratings, since the goal is slightly different, it might make more sense to eliminate "unplayed games" from the equations altogether. halifax, how do you handle unplayed games?

FF's are incorporated into the power rankings...which to me isn't right but it would've been a lot of work to go through and figure out percentages etc....so for simplicity sake I used their team record to base it on.

I'll provide an example later on of how i would handle FF's in a more complex system.(just dont have time at the moment)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A player could be the best in A league, and still be at the bottom of the list if they've ever had one really bad season. That would make it inaccurate, would it not? Top player in the league ranked anything but #1 would be misleading.

I don't think it's any different than any other points-based ranking system (RPI, BCS, etc.). At *some* point you have to take actual results into account. For example, Rutgers got as high as #6 in the BCS a week ago, but they'd probably have been underdogs to the majority of the teams ranked #7-25. It doesn't make the BCS worthless. Or when Vijay Singh passed Tiger Woods for #1 in the World Golf Rankings in 2004, even though most people strongly disagreed that Vijay was a better golfer than Tiger - it didn't mean the Rankings were worthless. They still mostly get it right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BSDaemon
I don't think it's any different than any other points-based ranking system (RPI, BCS, etc.). At *some* point you have to take actual results into account. For example, Rutgers got as high as #6 in the BCS a week ago, but they'd probably have been underdogs to the majority of the teams ranked #7-25. It doesn't make the BCS worthless. Or when Vijay Singh passed Tiger Woods for #1 in the World Golf Rankings in 2004, even though most people strongly disagreed that Vijay was a better golfer than Tiger - it didn't mean the Rankings were worthless. They still mostly get it right.

I don't disagree with you at all. I'm just saying typically "power rankings" are based on how a team is doing AT THAT POINT, without using historical data as a basis.

Here is an example of power rankings that I would call more "Accurate":

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/feature/?fid=548&hubname=

Certainly, the Ducks wouldn't be sitting on top if historical data had been used...

I guess since I've been paying attention to the power rankings on TSN for so many years, having power rankings that rank teams differently seems weird to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

those power ranking are sketchy at best. When that was done the sabres should have been on top without a doubt. Now with two losses to ottawa they might be higher. Montreal behind tonrot is a joke as well (although i love toronto) montreal is the better team right now

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sketchy? In your opinion maybe. I don't necessarily agree with those TSN rankings either, but hey they have their own method for determining those rankings and some people will always agree while others don't. There is no such thing as a "perfect" ranking system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ya i jsut don't see how Buffalo could be below anaheim based on this year and last year. they are number one for a reason. Now if we were talking about it now, I might change my mind. Buffalos division is probably the best in the league, with anaheims a close second (but they do have 2 incredibly weak team where in the northeast ottawa is weak?????along with boston)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ya i jsut don't see how Buffalo could be below anaheim based on this year and last year. they are number one for a reason. Now if we were talking about it now, I might change my mind. Buffalos division is probably the best in the league, with anaheims a close second (but they do have 2 incredibly weak team where in the northeast ottawa is weak?????along with boston)

I think the northwest division is by far the toughest. minnesota is near the top this year...that division have three of the best goaliesin the league (fernandez, kirpusoff, luongo)...and edmonton and colorado are never easy games......

EDIT*.....I'm wondering if there should there be a sub forum set up somewhere for 'NHL' discussions or hockey in general?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BSDaemon

the TSN rankings look pretty accurate to me

the ducks are the top team in the league now (equal points with buffalo, though buffalo has one game in hand over the ducks... however, buffalo looks to be slowing down. Anaheim doesn't.) As far as toronto being ahead of montreal... maybe thats because they are also ahead of them in the standings, and have beat them twice now (once being an absolute drubbing)?

ANYWAY

I pasted a link to it to show you that they base their rankings on CURRENT trends, not on historical data (which is why the ducks are on top - if it was historical, somebody like detroit would be on top)... not for people to start bickering about whether TSN's rankings are correct, in your opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I pasted a link to it to show you that they base their rankings on CURRENT trends, not on historical data (which is why the ducks are on top - if it was historical, somebody like detroit would be on top)... not for people to start bickering about whether TSN's rankings are correct, in your opinion.

All rankings use historical data to some extent. The TSN rankings come out weekly, but they don't just look at the last week's worth of games. I'd guess that halifax figures using last season's numbers (weighted less than half of the current seasons') makes his coach evaluations a little more accurate.

Link to comment
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.

 Share

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 13 Guests (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
×
×
  • Create New...