Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Tue, 22 Feb 2000 22:42:19 -0600 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Date sent: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 21:05:02 -0400
From: Kenneth Butler <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: ECAC HEAL from Info-H-L
> For those that are interested, here's how seven of the rating systems
> agree (or disagree) with each other. The figures in the table are Spearman
> rank correlations: 1.00 means that the rankings are identical, 0 would
> mean no relationship between the rankings, and -1 would mean complete
> disagreement (the top team on one is the bottom on the other). "Med" is a
> consensus ranking using all seven rating systems.
>
> Spearman rank correlations:
>
> cchp chodr heal krachmassey rheal rpi med
> cchp 1.00 0.99 0.78 0.96 0.96 0.92 0.82 0.97
> chodr 0.99 1.00 0.78 0.94 0.95 0.91 0.81 0.96
> heal 0.78 0.78 1.00 0.84 0.85 0.84 0.97 0.87
> krach 0.96 0.94 0.84 1.00 0.99 0.96 0.86 0.99
> massey 0.96 0.95 0.85 0.99 1.00 0.96 0.86 0.99
> rheal 0.92 0.91 0.84 0.96 0.96 1.00 0.82 0.97
> rpi 0.82 0.81 0.97 0.86 0.86 0.82 1.00 0.87
> med 0.97 0.96 0.87 0.99 0.99 0.97 0.87 1.00
I'm not sure that a meaningful comparison can be drawn between
CCHP/CHODR and the rest of the rating systems given that they use
different data sets as a basis (CCHP and CHODR are based on game scores
rather than game results [W-L-T], related data but not identical).
Even so, it's interesting that they are so close to KRACH, Massey, and
RHEAL.
--
Craig Powers NU ChE class of '98
[log in to unmask] http://lynx.neu.edu/home/httpd/c/cpowers
[log in to unmask] http://www.hal-pc.org/~enigma
"Good..bad....I'm the guy with the gun." -- "Ash" in *Army of Darkness*
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey; send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.
|
|
|