HOCKEY-L Archives

- Hockey-L - The College Hockey Discussion List

Hockey-L@LISTS.MAINE.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"roy Roy St. Laurent" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
College Hockey discussion list <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 17 Mar 1992 01:08:37 EST
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (44 lines)
I've been plotting the overall TCHC Rating over time for each team over the
past nine weeks and it is interesting to note the patterns that emerge.
(The observations below presuppose that the TCHC Ratings are on a linear scale
so that if teams A and B have ratings 41 and 39 resp., then A is 2 points
better than B, *and* the interpretation of the *relative* ability of A over B
does not change if the ratings were actually 82 and 80.  This seems pretty
reasonable to me.  In fact it seems a whole lot more reasonable than
reporting different ranks for two teams with ratings that differ by less
than 1/2 point.  The whole point of this is to try and spot trends and groups
in the ratings that you can't pick up from the just the rankings alone.)
 
Observations:
  1.  There are distinct groups of teams, and very little movement between
      groups.  The most obvious groups are:  a) the top tier (Michigan,
      Minnesota, Lake Superior); b) the second tier (Maine, Michigan State);
      c) the third tier (Northern Mich., Wisc.); d) the bottom tier (Army,
      Union, Air Force, Dartmouth); e) Notre Dame; f) everyone else.
  2.  Notre Dame has held spot 41 in the rankings for the past nine weeks
      and hasn't even come close to challenging spot 40, nor to being
      challenged by lower ranked teams.  It's almost as if they've served
      as a benchmark.
  3.  Western Michigan moved out of the amorphous group f) six weeks ago
      and posed a brief challenge to the third tier teams.
  4.  In the beginning of January the second and third tiers were virtually
      indistiguishable.  However there is very clear separation between them
      Maine, Mich.State) and (N.Mich, Wisc.) now.
  5.  In terms of distinct patterns, it is hard to separate out consistently
      different groups of teams within the middle tier (f), with the
      exception that teams ranked 8th-16th this week are beginning to separate
      out from teams ranked 17th-25th (As a group, there is some separation
      between these teams and the next bunch ranked 26th-40th.
 
What does it all mean:
      * There is little difference between Mich., Minn., and Lake Superior.
      * There is little difference between Maine and Mich.State.
      * Western Mich. comes next just barely ahead of a pack of
        teams that includes Miami, Alaska-Anch. and BostonU.
      * Over time, the next bunch (Colorado C., New Hampshire, Ferris State,
        St. Lawrence, and Providence -- conveniently through rank 16)
        didn't separate out from lower ranked teams *until* this week.
 
      -- Roy St. Laurent ([log in to unmask])
         GO UM!  GO BLUE!  GO GOPHERS!  GO BLUE GOPHERS!

ATOM RSS1 RSS2