Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | Rowe, Thomas |
Date: | Wed, 18 Dec 2002 10:32:24 -0600 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Ken - I'm having problems interpreting that last table. Can you explain it a little fuller?
Thanks. And thanks for the analysis - it is indeed interesting.
Tom Rowe UWSP dept of Psych
=============================
Home of Division III National Champion Pointers
89, 90, 91 & 93 and National Runners-up 92 & 98
===================================
>
> In the final list, "predicted" is really the wrong word, since we're
> looking at the past. I've taken all the games between
> tournament-eligible teams and thrown out the ties, leaving 411 games.
> Then, for each rating system, I've counted up how many times the
> higher-rated team won. The bigger the better here -- after all, you'd
> want a rating system to have some consistency with the game results!
> I've separated things out by conference:
>
>
> Observed results "predicted" by system and conference
>
> n KRACH CHODR RPI HEAL RHEAL
> cc 66 51 53 51 53 53
> ch 13 9 6 7 8 8
> ec 43 35 33 34 32 30
> he 34 28 24 27 28 28
> ma 46 37 30 37 31 33
> nc 166 140 130 134 127 136
> wc 43 36 33 36 36 36
> all 411 336 309 326 315 324
>
>
> Any half-decent rating system should do a good job within a
> conference,
> because there are so many conference games (perhaps not yet,
> but by the
> end of the season). The real test is with the non-conference
> games. RPI
> is actually doing quite well here; also, RHEAL's improvement over HEAL
> is entirely down to the non-conference games.
>
> (It's perhaps unfair to include CHODR here because this is not what it
> does. CHODR's aim is to predict goalscoring, which it does as
> accurately
> as possible.)
>
> Anyhow, a little late-night food for thought.
>
> Cheers,
> Ken.
>
>
> --
> Ken Butler
> At home in Canterbury, England
>
|
|
|