Hurling Rankings

Hanalei wrote: »

I'll respond to your narrow approached example with a narrow approached example which will nonetheless explain it perfectly- lets say by some miracle Sligo defeat Kilkenny in the championship; by your logic a Kilkenny win over Sligo should be worth as much to Kilkenny as a Sligo win over Kilkenny would be worth to Sligo. And that would be truly nonsensical.

Put simply, a lower ranked team beating a higher ranked team is worth more than a higher ranked team beating a lower ranked team.

First off, it's not my "narrow approached example". It's yours, from your earlier post. I just took the details from it and pointed out the flaws.

Secondly, Galway are not Sligo. They hammered Kilkenny in the Leinster Final in 2012 and almost won the All Ireland. They also defeated Kilkenny in the 2013 league and have won at Nowlan Park several times over the years. Are they really such a lower ranked team that they need to receive 9 times the reward for a win on Sunday than Kilkenny would get? If Galway win by 8 pts on Sunday, they will overtake Kilkenny in these rankings. Surely this is enough to highlight how farcical it is that a possibly temporary lower ranking is enough to give them such a massively inflated bonus for victory?

As for Sligo, if they ever meet Kilkenny it will be because they have made massive strides in the game. If that ever happens, it will be 15 v 15 and it makes no sense to give them a greater number of ranking points for victory in the same match.

As I've already explained in detail, all this system does is compress the ranking points of all the teams into a much narrower range. Given how volatile this system is and how it can all change on the result of one match, it makes no sense whatever to be compensating teams to a factor of 9 simply because they are supposedly lower ranked!

Martin567 wrote: »

There was no anomaly in Luke Donald being ranked No 1. He was the most consistent player in the world in 2011 and the rankings reflected that.

Although he was ranked number 1 I don't ever remember him going off in a major as favourite - which seems unusual if he was the best player in the world at the time. But I agree that I also like the golf rankings for the most part.

With regard to the hurling the lower ranked teams should definitely get more points for beating a higher ranked team. Maybe a 9x difference seems excessive but thats just a function of their current ranking points - plus the fact that kk are playing at home. If it was in galway the points difference would only be 2.07 instead of 8.07. Maybe this is an area that needs adjustment but have you anything helpful to contribute with regard to this adjustment? Calling the whole thing nonsensical because if galway win by >8 points in nowlan park they leapfrog kk seems a bit harsh to me

BobSloane wrote: »

Although he was ranked number 1 I don't ever remember him going off in a major as favourite - which seems unusual if he was the best player in the world at the time. But I agree that I also like the golf rankings for the most part.

With regard to the hurling the lower ranked teams should definitely get more points for beating a higher ranked team. Maybe a 9x difference seems excessive but thats just a function of their current ranking points - plus the fact that kk are playing at home. If it was in galway the points difference would only be 2.07 instead of 8.07. Maybe this is an area that needs adjustment but have you anything helpful to contribute with regard to this adjustment? Calling the whole thing nonsensical because if galway win by >8 points in nowlan park they leapfrog kk seems a bit harsh to me

I don't mean to sound harsh but I fundamentally disagree with any compensation being given to a supposedly lower ranked team. This goes against everything that sport is supposed to represent. Every team has only 15 players. The NHL D1 for the last two years has been incredibly open with every team capable of beating every other team. This being the case, any ranking system should award exactly the same points to every team for a victory.

If one or more teams are higher ranked than others, they will have gained their higher rankings through performances on the field. It is up to the others to raise their performances to match that and they shouldn't be patronised by making up some compensation. In the example given,at best the likely outcome would be about 60:40 in favour of a Kilkenny win and probably closer than that. Galway are no minnow facing into a lions den. It makes no sense whatever that they would receive 9 times the ranking points reward for even a one point win that Kilkenny would for the same victory.

Martin567 wrote: »

I don't mean to sound harsh but I fundamentally disagree with any compensation being given to a supposedly lower ranked team. This goes against everything that sport is supposed to represent. Every team has only 15 players. The NHL D1 for the last two years has been incredibly open with every team capable of beating every other team. This being the case, any ranking system should award exactly the same points to every team for a victory.

If one or more teams are higher ranked than others, they will have gained their higher rankings through performances on the field. It is up to the others to raise their performances to match that and they shouldn't be patronised by making up some compensation. In the example given,at best the likely outcome would be about 60:40 in favour of a Kilkenny win and probably closer than that. Galway are no minnow facing into a lions den. It makes no sense whatever that they would receive 9 times the ranking points reward for even a one point win that Kilkenny would for the same victory.

There are no prizes or trophys for being top of the ranking table. What you are suggesting sounds more like a longterm league. The ranking system hanalei has drawn up is more akin to how chess rankings work. Take the example of Clare. They are currently AI champions and are one of the best teams in the country. I think they went 4 or 5 years without winning a match in munster and spent a lot of their time in division 2. Yet according to hanalei's ranking system they are no 2 in the country. If a system like you are suggesting was used I feel they would rank a lot lower - maybe i'm wrong. This might seem fairer to you put would not accurately reflect their real current standing. This would be a much worse anomaly imo than the what if galway win by more than 8 points in nowlan park on sunday anomaly. Kilkenny could remain no 1 for years based on what the 4 in a row team did because of the points they would have accumulated in that time - even if they were obviously not the actual best team in the country any more.

btw KK are 1/7 and galway 5/1 with PP on sunday. If you really think galway are about 40% to win I suggest you lump on them at this outrageous price

Hanalei,

I don't in any way think what you have done is nonsense and I apologise if it seemed like that in any way. That was never my intention. It's obvious that you put an awful lot of work into it and your enthusiasm is obvious.

However, my criticism was entirely constructive. One read of your detailed example from the beginning of the thread and the problem with the system as it currently operates was very obvious. As I said earlier, the overall is only an amalgamation of the individual. If there is a problem with the individual, there will be a problem with the overall.

I've already elaborated further where other people misunderstood the point I was making in earlier posts. My point has been consistent all the way through. To take the golf analogy;If Tiger Woods is battling with the 100th ranked player in the world down the final few holes of a Major, most people will agree that Tiger is the more likely winner. Bookies odds will confirm this, pretty emphatically I would guess. But the winner will get 100 ranking points irrespective of which of them it is. That is logical and fair. Anything else would simply be wrong.

Constructive criticism is just that, constructive. It's not personal! I shouldn't have said it was a nonsensical system. I was probably a bit frustrated with other people misunderstanding the fundamental point I was making.

I never said it was easy to create a perfect system. I'm sure it's not. But telling me to go off and make a better one is not the point. That's like saying somebody should not be entitled to have an opinion on how good a new film is unless they're capable of producing a better one themselves.

Martin567 wrote: »

Bob, I agree with you on several points. Clare won the 2013 All Ireland and so should be ranked close to, if not the very, top. Anything Kilkenny did three, four or 5 years ago has very little relevance to how teams should be ranked in 2014.

There are only a very small number of hurling teams who even play in the senior championship every year. Surely ranking these in a logical and fair manner does not have to be so complicated....

..... Have a constantly running two year ranking. I think two years is ideal, not too long and not too short. As we are now two weeks into the 2014 league, the first two weeks of the 2012 league would be eliminated. To reflect reality, championship would have a much higher weighting than the league. Also, 2013 results would have at least a 50% higher weighting than those for 2012.

The above would ensure that Clare are appropriately ranked and that Kilkenny would not remain on top indefinitely based on past victories. It is not perfect as some things are still arbitrary (2 years, weightings, etc). But it is simple and logical. Most importantly of all, it is fair as every team would pick up the same number of points for a win or a draw. That is the fundamental flaw with the other system. Giving teams inflated bonuses for being the lower ranked team which can then enable them to become the higher ranked team is unfortunately a flaw which invalidates the entire thing.
.

The NHL results over the last two years have shown that every team is capable of beating every other team with only very small margins separating them. Each team plays every other team so they've played the same matches at the end.

Hey, this will probably be my last post on this as I've little to add that I haven't said already. I think you have made a good contribution to this thread fwiw. I probably won't be able to convince you that a lower ranked team should get more points for beating a higher ranked team even though I think for this to work effectively that would have to be the case, so I'll try:). This seems to be the biggest stumbling block for you. I'm sure hanelei would agree that going back to 2005 for ranking purposes is a bit pointless in 2014 but he did say he just started there because thats where his concrete data started.

Now you want the teams to get the exact same reward for beating each other - and cite the league as good reason for this. In div 1 all the teams seem capable of beating each other and play an equal number of games. This is almost true but not quite as some will play knockout stages and some will play a relegation play off. But I wouldn't get too bogged down about this extra game or two. The real problem is the championship.

Most posters in this thread, yourself included feel that the championship games should have a stronger weighting. But unlike the league the teams can have very different roads to travel. I'll take two teams from last year. Limerick and Clare. Limerick could have won the all ireland by playing four matches, two of them were played at home. And if they made the final they would have played the same team they played earlier. Thats 4 games, 2 at home, against a total of 3 teams.

Now lets look at Clare who they met in the semi final. They beat Waterford, lost to Cork, then beat Laois, Wexford and Galway before beating Limerick in the semi and then cork in the final. That 7 games(really 8 as the final was replayed), none at home(some counties just wont get to play home championship games) against 6 different teams.

This is nowhere near the easily comparable league games where everyone plays each other with an equal number of home and away games. And don't forget everyone wants the championship games to be given a stronger weighting.

Think again of Limerick last year. Going into the Tipp game Lim were probably ranked 6-8 Tipp probably 2-3. Limerick need extra acknowlegment because if there is just a flat score even after winning munster + ai semi and final they will probably still only be ranked around 4th or 5th - and yet be unbeaten all ireland champions. Tipp could win 2 qualifers and go out in the quarter final and end the year almost as far ahead of Limerick as they started - despite losing to them(and someone else) and Limerick getting to the final or even winning it! Now that would be an anomaly!

One more thing is the number of years to be used in the ranking system. You suggest two but I think three would be better- for no particular reason tbh. Well probably down to data points. Maybe with a weighting of 50% for last year, 30% for two years ago, 20% for three years ago or something like that.


tldr; give the lower ranked teams more ranking points when they beat a higher ranked team imo

BobSloane wrote: »

Hey, this will probably be my last post on this as I've little to add that I haven't said already. I think you have made a good contribution to this thread fwiw. I probably won't be able to convince you that a lower ranked team should get more points for beating a higher ranked team even though I think for this to work effectively that would have to be the case, so I'll try:). This seems to be the biggest stumbling block for you. I'm sure hanelei would agree that going back to 2005 for ranking purposes is a bit pointless in 2014 but he did say he just started there because thats where his concrete data started.

Now you want the teams to get the exact same reward for beating each other - and cite the league as good reason for this. In div 1 all the teams seem capable of beating each other and play an equal number of games. This is almost true but not quite as some will play knockout stages and some will play a relegation play off. But I wouldn't get too bogged down about this extra game or two. The real problem is the championship.

Most posters in this thread, yourself included feel that the championship games should have a stronger weighting. But unlike the league the teams can have very different roads to travel. I'll take two teams from last year. Limerick and Clare. Limerick could have won the all ireland by playing four matches, two of them were played at home. And if they made the final they would have played the same team they played earlier. Thats 4 games, 2 at home, against a total of 3 teams.

Now lets look at Clare who they met in the semi final. They beat Waterford, lost to Cork, then beat Laois, Wexford and Galway before beating Limerick in the semi and then cork in the final. That 7 games(really 8 as the final was replayed), none at home(some counties just wont get to play home championship games) against 6 different teams.

This is nowhere near the easily comparable league games where everyone plays each other with an equal number of home and away games. And don't forget everyone wants the championship games to be given a stronger weighting.

Think again of Limerick last year. Going into the Tipp game Lim were probably ranked 6-8 Tipp probably 2-3. Limerick need extra acknowlegment because if there is just a flat score even after winning munster + ai semi and final they will probably still only be ranked around 4th or 5th - and yet be unbeaten all ireland champions. Tipp could win 2 qualifers and go out in the quarter final and end the year almost as far ahead of Limerick as they started - despite losing to them(and someone else) and Limerick getting to the final or even winning it! Now that would be an anomaly!

One more thing is the number of years to be used in the ranking system. You suggest two but I think three would be better- for no particular reason tbh. Well probably down to data points. Maybe with a weighting of 50% for last year, 30% for two years ago, 20% for three years ago or something like that.

tldr; give the lower ranked teams more ranking points when they beat a higher ranked team imo

Lots of excellent points there and I would agree with almost all of them. In particular, the differing routes that teams can take through the championship certainly does complicate things. My own preference would be to have a greater weight attached to the All Ireland Final than the semi finals, for the semis than the quarters, etc, all the way down. Nevertheless, it would take a lot of tweaking and it would be hard to arrive at a system that would satisfy everyone.

My particular difficulty with the one proposed here originally is that a truly robust system, designed to give an accurate picture at any one point, should not have the potential to be affected so drastically by a relatively insignificant league game in March.

Expanding it out, I believe that the stronger teams will not get the appropriate credit for their performances under this system. If a team wins 7 or 8 matches in succession against the teams immediately below them by 10 points or more, the ranking points they gain will be almost entirely wiped out by a single 1 point defeat. This will bring them back far closer in the rankings to every team and not just the team they have lost against. The reduced points available to the top team(s) for winning (and increased penalty for losing) would indicate to me that they are being measured against their own previous excellence rather than against the standard of the other teams. This is similar to the golf handicap system whereby the winner of the weekend competition is not the person with the best score but rather the person with the best score relative to their own previously established standard. While this may be appropriate in the context of a fun competition, nobody should think that the competition result says anything about the actual standards of the players involved.

So while I can see that the shorter/easier routes some teams might get in the championship should be factored in somehow, care would still be needed.

I think this has been a very interesting discussion. Most people will probably be glad that I can't think of anything else to add!;)

Martin567 wrote: »

Lots of excellent points there and I would agree with almost all of them. In particular, the differing routes that teams can take through the championship certainly does complicate things. My own preference would be to have a greater weight attached to the All Ireland Final than the semi finals, for the semis than the quarters, etc, all the way down. Nevertheless, it would take a lot of tweaking and it would be hard to arrive at a system that would satisfy everyone.

My particular difficulty with the one proposed here originally is that a truly robust system, designed to give an accurate picture at any one point, should not have the potential to be affected so drastically by a relatively insignificant league game in March.

Expanding it out, I believe that the stronger teams will not get the appropriate credit for their performances under this system. If a team wins 7 or 8 matches in succession against the teams immediately below them by 10 points or more, the ranking points they gain will be almost entirely wiped out by a single 1 point defeat. This will bring them back far closer in the rankings to every team and not just the team they have lost against. The reduced points available to the top team(s) for winning would indicate to me that they are being measured against their own previous excellence rather than against the standard of the other teams. This is similar to the golf handicap system whereby the winner of the weekend competition is not the person with the best score but rather the person with the best score relative to their own previously established standard. While this may be appropriate in the context of a fun competition, nobody should think that the competition result says anything about the actual standards of the players involved.

So while I can see that the shorter/easier routes some teams might get in the championship should be factored in somehow, care would still be needed.

I think this has been a very interesting discussion. Most people will probably be glad that I can't think of anything else to add!;)

It has been an interesting discussion, with points well-argued from all quarters.


I do see where you are coming from, and I don't think anyone is claiming that this system is perfect. A bit of tweaking could make it an even more accurate reflection of where teams are at.

But, at the same time, it's not like the rankings have any real bearing- people always have opinions at where different teams stand at different times, this is just an opibion formed from statistics. But I do think that this system gives a more accurate reflection than most.


I just can't help but thinking that a system that doesn't weight weaker teams performance would give an inaccurate ranking for a team that shows a serious sign of improvement in a short space of time... perhaps like Galway in 2012 or Dublin last year. They would have been hindered by previous poor form, and would sit below where they truly lie.

Martin567 wrote: »

My preference would be for a running two year ranking system with the greatest weight being given to the most recent championship. Under such a system, Galway in 2012 and both Dublin & Clare would get due credit in the rankings for their performances fairly quickly.

If you ever get time, I would be interested in seeing how your ranking system would work out, in comparison to Hanalei's.

Fireball07 wrote: »

If you ever get time, I would be interested in seeing how your ranking system would work out, in comparison to Hanalei's.

Thanks but it's unlikely I ever will. I do genuinely want to apologise again to Hanelei for derailing this thread somewhat. I understand that a lot of detailed work went into it and I would probably have been equally offended if someone came in and questioned the whole basis of that work.

With all the detail presumably on a spreadsheet, a bit of tweaking in a few places might not take too long. In particular, I would look at the double whammy of deducting points from the loser of a game. The better a team has been, the more they have to lose in any one game, which seems unfair.

Martin567 wrote: »

In particular, I would look at the double whammy of deducting points from the loser of a game. The better a team has been, the more they have to lose in any one game, which seems unfair.

Yeah for sure that looks a bit dodgy

Expanding it out, I believe that the stronger teams will not get the appropriate credit for their performances under this system. If a team wins 7 or 8 matches in succession against the teams immediately below them by 10 points or more, the ranking points they gain will be almost entirely wiped out by a single 1 point defeat. This will bring them back far closer in the rankings to every team and not just the team they have lost against. The reduced points available to the top team(s) for winning (and increased penalty for losing) would indicate to me that they are being measured against their own previous excellence rather than against the standard of the other teams

I agree with you here in principle - but the thing is 7 or 8 games in the hurling season is maybe the whole season for a lot of teams. There are teams every year that play 5 league games and 2 or 3 championship games. I expect a ranking system that has a chance of keeping with the times to be quite volatile! One game, especially a championship game should make a pretty big difference. Weighing the championship games(ie munster final worth more than first round qualifier) as you suggested is probably neccessary as well. Another tricky proposition though. Looking forward to following the ranking and seeing what adjustments are made and what affect they have. Well done on being a good devils advocate type for the thread. You've changed my mind a bit on a few things