Hurling Rankings

Hanalei

Yep, a hurling ranking thread again

However, the difference between this and other hurling ranking threads is that this is not in any way subjective, what I did last year was apply the IRB points exchange world ranking system to the results of each hurling league and championship game dating back to 2005.

I think it is a fairly interesting and accurate guide myself, as we know, a ranking system is not a guide to future performance, but a guide of where a team stands based on how they have performed up to now.

A few points of note, Clare have yet to overhaul Kilkenny who have been top since the 2011 All-Ireland final after they defeated Tipperary, who had been top since defeating KK in the 2010 decider. Up to then, Kilkenny were unsurprisingly number 1 for 4 years

Clare started the Davy Fitz reign in 10th place, Limerick despite winning last season's Munster Championship are in 8th, as the system rewards long term consistency over short term achievement, however in terms of points score they are very close to the teams immediately above them.

One change I had to make from the IRB system was that the IRB multiply the points exchange by 1.5 for a margin of victory greater than 14 points, I have elected to do that for a margin of victory of at least 8 points in hurling.

I'll probably pop in and update this most weeks after games.

EDIT: March 2016.

A lot of posts in this thread now so with the help of the GAA mods links to some of the more interesting posts on this thread will be linked here in the OP.

The unusual year that was 1998;

A snapshot of the 1970's

1975-1977 ; Kildare in the top 10

Where are Cavan?

10 year trend (2005-14)

Hanalei

Position|(last week)|Team|Rating Point
1st |(1)|KILKENNY|90.09
2nd |(2)|CLARE|87.99
3rd |(3)|TIPPERARY|87.37
4th |(4)|CORK|86.51
5th |(5)|DUBLIN|86.33
6th |(6)|WATERFORD|85.19
7th |(7)|GALWAY|85.02
8th |(8)|LIMERICK|84.53
9th |(9)|WEXFORD|77.76
10th |(10)|OFFALY|75.08
11th |(11)|LAOIS|73.7
12th |(12)|ANTRIM|70.67
13th |(13)|CARLOW|66.32
14th |(14)|KERRY|64.75
15th |(15)|WESTMEATH|62.66
16th |(16)|DOWN|62.12
17th |(17)|DERRY|61.06
18th |(18)|LONDON|59.16
19th |(19)|KILDARE|57.53
20th |(20)|MEATH|57.29
21st |(21)|WICKLOW|56.92
22nd |(22)|MAYO|50.97
23rd |(23)|ARMAGH|48.41
24th |(24)|FINGAL|48.26
25th |(25)|DONEGAL|46.05
26th |(26)|ROSCOMMON|43.8
27th |(28)+|TYRONE|40.26
28th |(27)-|LOUTH|40.09
29th |(29)|MONAGHAN|37.78
30th |(30)|FERMANAGH|36.9
31st |(32)+|LONGFORD|33.89
32nd |(31)-|WARWICKSHIRE|33.54
33rd |(33)|SLIGO|32.87
34th |(34)|LEITRIM|26.04

redlead

Interesting. Could you post up how you are calculating the points. i.e. I'd be interested to see how Clare are ranked ahead of say Tipp if all games taken since 2005 are used in the calculation. I would have thought that Tipp would have been much more successful than Clare over this period. Similarly Waterford over Cork and Dublin etc. Do more recent results get a heavier weighting?

Hanalei

redlead wrote: »

Interesting. Could you post up how you are calculating the points. i.e. I'd be interested to see how Clare are ranked ahead of say Tipp if all games taken since 2005 are used in the calculation. I would have thought that Tipp would have been much more successful than Clare over this period. Similarly Waterford over Cork and Dublin etc. Do more recent results get a heavier weighting?

I was hoping to avoid being asked this question as the IRB ranking system is a bit tricky to explain! I'll try my best but be warned; what follows is very boring





Lets take this weekends clash between Kilkenny and Galway to illustrate.

Currently; Kilkenny = 90.09, Galway = 85.02.

Kilkenny have home advantage, so 3 points are added to their total to handicap their home advantage, bringing them to a total of 93.09.

Next, calculate the difference between the teams; 93.09 - 85.02 = 8.07

Now for the tricky part...

Kilkenny are treated as the leading team and Galway are the trailing team in terms of points.

• IF the leading team wins, they gain and trailing team loses; (1 - (difference/10))

• IF the trailing team wins, they gain and the leading team loses;(1 + (difference/10))
• IF margin of victory 8 points or more, points exchange multiplied by 1.5.
• Points exchange capped at 2 points (or 3 points for a victory of 8+ points)

Still with me?! So back to the KK v GY game, we have 5 cases, either side winning by 8+ points, either side winning by 1-7 points, and a draw (which I will come to)

1. Kilkenny win by 8+ points. KK gain and GY lose; (1.5*(1 - 8.07/10)) = 0.2895 points (round up to 0.29) leaving new totals of; (Kilkenny=90.38, Galway=84.73)
2. Kilkenny win by 1-7 points. KK gain and GY lose; (1 - 8.07/10)) = 2.7105 points (round to 2.71) leaving new totals of; (Kilkenny=90.28, Galway=84.83)
3. Galway win by 8+ points. GY gain and KK lose; (1.5*(1 + 8.07/10)) = 0.2895 points (round up to 0.29) leaving new totals of; (Kilkenny=87.38, Galway=87.73)
4. Galway win by 1-7 points. GY gain and KK lose; (1 + 8.07/10)) = 1.807 points (round to 1.81) leaving new totals of; (Kilkenny=88.28, Galway=86.83)
5. DRAW. GY gain and KK lose the difference divided by 10. (0.807, rounds to 0.81) leaving new totals of; (Kilkenny=89.28, Galway=85.83)

So the only scenario whereby Galway finish next weekend ahead of Kilkenny in the rankings is if they go to Nolan Park and win by 8+ points.

bren2001

What competitions does this include, just league and championship? Are championship games weighted? I think we would all agree that beating Kilkenny in the league is far easier than the Championship.

I would agree with the rankings with the exception of Clare. Don't see how they could be so high, they did not do much before last year.

KevIRL

Fair play. You put some work into this

Hanalei

bren2001 wrote: »

What competitions does this include, just league and championship? Are championship games weighted? I think we would all agree that beating Kilkenny in the league is far easier than the Championship.

I would agree with the rankings with the exception of Clare. Don't see how they could be so high, they did not do much before last year.

Just league and championship, I considered pre-season competitions when I did this last year but it's a bit messy with all the colleges and so on. I considered weighting the championship games (just like the IRB do with world cup games) but it had a fairly volatile effect on the rankings. Had last year for example had weighted championship games, it would have seen Kilkenny in 4th after the championship and Tipperary in 6th, and while those positions may have been representative of their performance in last years championship, I would feel it would not have been a fair assessment of their overall standing.

And on Clare, look at their points rather than their position, a defeat this weekend in Thurles puts them down to third, possibly 4th depending on the outcome of the Waterford Dublin game.

No such thing as a perfect ranking system, but I do believe this reflects fairly on the perception things are about as wide open as they have been since the mid 90's at present, 1st to 8th separated by a mere 6.5 ranking points.

Fireball07

This kind of stuff interests me a lot, and I do think that the IRB system is one of the better systems in sport to actually rank teams- rarely do I have too much disagreement with it.


It is supposed to show how teams are ranked at the moment, it mightn't reward short-term achievement as much as other systems, but the rankings are (and generally do) supposed to show how good a team is at a certain time.

Few questions:
Why 2005 as the starting point? I know you have to start somewhere... but why 2005 in particular.

I do think weighting the Championship would be better, simply because certain teams treat it asa lot more important... particularly as you go back through the years.

And one reason why this system might not work is the amount of games... Limerick were Munster champions but only won 2 games... Clare played Waterford, Cork, Laois, Wexford and Galway before they reached the same stage as Limerick.

And why 8 points? Again, I know you have to pick some number... just wondering why you settled for 8?





But, on the face of it, I agree with how most of the list panned out so I think it's a good system. I'd personally have Limerick a little higher- I think we're better than Galway and Waterford atm, but I suppose while we're stuck in the 2nd tier of league hurling, we can't have too many complaints.

Godge

Hanalei wrote: »

Just league and championship, I considered pre-season competitions when I did this last year but it's a bit messy with all the colleges and so on. I considered weighting the championship games (just like the IRB do with world cup games) but it had a fairly volatile effect on the rankings. Had last year for example had weighted championship games, it would have seen Kilkenny in 4th after the championship and Tipperary in 6th, and while those positions may have been representative of their performance in last years championship, I would feel it would not have been a fair assessment of their overall standing.

And on Clare, look at their points rather than their position, a defeat this weekend in Thurles puts them down to third, possibly 4th depending on the outcome of the Waterford Dublin game.

No such thing as a perfect ranking system, but I do believe this reflects fairly on the perception things are about as wide open as they have been since the mid 90's at present, 1st to 8th separated by a mere 6.5 ranking points.

Well done for all the hard work.
Excellent idea.

When I read the OP, the only question I had was whether you were weighting it for the Championship or not.

you are right too about the points gap being crucial. Ireland can change very quickly between fourth and seventh on the IRB table but is rarely worse than seventh and rarely better than fourth which reflects the actual standing of the team.

Hanalei

Fireball07 wrote: »

Few questions:
Why 2005 as the starting point? I know you have to start somewhere... but why 2005 in particular.

I do think weighting the Championship would be better, simply because certain teams treat it asa lot more important... particularly as you go back through the years.

And one reason why this system might not work is the amount of games... Limerick were Munster champions but only won 2 games... Clare played Waterford, Cork, Laois, Wexford and Galway before they reached the same stage as Limerick.

And why 8 points? Again, I know you have to pick some number... just wondering why you settled for 8?

Why 2005? Long story short that was as far back as I had access to complete results for all counties in both league and championship. And there was the added benefit of the formation of the Ring and Rackard cups. I don't have access to say the results of the All-Ireland senior 'B championship which ran up to 2004.

I tried weighting championship results last season and it just seemed to have way too volatile an effect on the standings, maybe I should have given less weight to league games but increasing the weight on championship games can produce strange results.

Last years top 8 (off the top of my head) with a weighted system was CLA-COR-DUB-KIL-LIM-TIP-WAT-GAL.

Without a weighted system last years final standings were KIL-CLA-TIP-COR-DUB-WAT-GAL-LIM.

Now as a proud Limerick man, I reluctantly accept that 8th was probably a fairer assessment of where we were overall than 5th, we have been marooned in division 2 for 4 years and apart from two scalps in the Munster championship at home last year, we haven't consistently beaten the teams above us in the rankings to merit anything higher than 8th yet, albeit it 8th with a comfortable margin down to 9th.

8 points? I'm not really sure to be honest, I pretty much asked myself where is the line between a good win and a comfortable win. I'll admit that it was an arbitrary decision of mine to go with 8, I'd accept criticisms of that aspect but it's just what I felt fair at the time!

Fireball07 wrote:

But, on the face of it, I agree with how most of the list panned out so I think it's a good system. I'd personally have Limerick a little higher- I think we're better than Galway and Waterford atm, but I suppose while we're stuck in the 2nd tier of league hurling, we can't have too many complaints.

I know, I'd like to think we'd be above them but they're up in division 1 playing against teams nearer them in terms of points, so they have the potential to gain points in every game whereas Limerick don't- our hammering of Antrim earned nothing as they're more than ten points behind in the rankings!

Godge

Hanalei wrote: »

I know, I'd like to think we'd be above them but they're up in division 1 playing against teams nearer them in terms of points, so they have the potential to gain points in every game whereas Limerick don't- our hammering of Antrim earned nothing as they're more than ten points behind in the rankings!

This is the problem faced by Fiji, Samoa, Tonga, Romania and Spain in the rugby equivalent. They don't get to play higher-ranked teams so don't get the opportunity to gain points.

Similarly, in cricket, Zimbabwe, Ireland and Afghanistan have limits to their upward potential.

Martin567

There is a decidedly odd element to how that system works and I find it strange that the IRB would adopt it.

Take the example provided by the OP in the detailed post. If Kilkenny were to defeat Galway by 1 pt then their points average would increase by 0.2 while Galway's would decrease by 0.2. However, if Galway were to win by 1 pt, their points average would increase by 1.8 and Kilkenny's decrease by the same. Therefore, under this system, Galway would benefit 9 times more than Kilkenny by narrowly winning a closely fought game!

Is there any logical reason why that should be the case? It would just seem to lead to needless fluctuation in the rankings based on a single narrow win. If two teams are relatively evenly matched, why should the potential rankings reward be so much greater for one team compared with the other?

The only reason I can see is to artificially prevent one team from being too far ahead of everyone else in the rankings. A dominant team will receive increasingly fewer ranking points for every win while a single defeat will undo anything up to 10 or even more earlier wins.

Godge

Martin567 wrote: »

There is a decidedly odd element to how that system works and I find it strange that the IRB would adopt it.

Take the example provided by the OP in the detailed post. If Kilkenny were to defeat Galway by 1 pt then their points average would increase by 0.2 while Galway's would decrease by 0.2. However, if Galway were to win by 1 pt, their points average would increase by 1.8 and Kilkenny's decrease by the same. Therefore, under this system, Galway would benefit 9 times more than Kilkenny by narrowly winning a closely fought game!

Is there any logical reason why that should be the case? It would just seem to lead to needless fluctuation in the rankings based on a single narrow win. If two teams are relatively evenly matched, why should the potential rankings reward be so much greater for one team compared with the other?

The only reason I can see is to artificially prevent one team from being too far ahead of everyone else in the rankings. A dominant team will receive increasingly fewer ranking points for every win while a single defeat will undo anything up to 10 or even more earlier wins.

I see what you mean, but the rankings aren't about what happens after one match. They are about calculating which team is currently the best team around. In rugby the rankings have generally worked out ok and most have accepted them as more or less accurately reflecting relative positions.

What will be interesting is whether the hurling rankings based on a similar system are equally acceptable or will anomalies appear. The methodology may need to be adjusted in time, whether it is through the weighting for championships or through the method of calculation or through the 8 points being the divisor between large and small wins. However, the aim isn't to make sure that the result of any one match is fair, it is to ensure that the overall picture is fair.

dastardly00

Well done Hanalei for doing this, it must have been a fair amount of work. I had wanted to do something like this myself, but I never had the time to sit down and do it.

dastardly00

Hanalei wrote: »

1. Galway win by 8+ points. GY gain and KK lose; (1.5*(1 + 8.07/10)) = 0.2895 points (round up to 0.29) leaving new totals of; (Kilkenny=87.38, Galway=87.73)

just a small typo...
0.2895 points should be 2.7105 (I think!)

Martin567

Godge wrote: »

I see what you mean, but the rankings aren't about what happens after one match. They are about calculating which team is currently the best team around. In rugby the rankings have generally worked out ok and most have accepted them as more or less accurately reflecting relative positions.

What will be interesting is whether the hurling rankings based on a similar system are equally acceptable or will anomalies appear. The methodology may need to be adjusted in time, whether it is through the weighting for championships or through the method of calculation or through the 8 points being the divisor between large and small wins. However, the aim isn't to make sure that the result of any one match is fair, it is to ensure that the overall picture is fair.

In fairness, the team that wins the most matches will always be top of the rankings, no matter what the system. Any system that gave any other result would not be fit for purpose.

I really don't get the point you're making in your last sentence. The overall picture will be derived from all of the individual fixtures. If the ranking points provided from individual fixtures is unfair, how can the overall picture be fair?

Imagine if Team A wins their first 9 matches by 1 point while Team B loses their first 9 matches by 1 point. In the 10th match, the two teams meet and Team B wins by 8 points. Under the above system, this one result would bring the two teams very close together on ranking points. Is this really fair? Should one odd result be allowed to skew the rankings to such a degree?

It seems to me that the above system is more akin to a boxing world title fight situation rather than a proper ranking system. In other words, the team that beats the top team gets an enormous lift and this one result has a disproportionate effect compared with all other results.

Godge

Martin567 wrote: »

In fairness, the team that wins the most matches will always be top of the rankings, no matter what the system. Any system that gave any other result would not be fit for purpose.

I really don't get the point you're making in your last sentence. The overall picture will be derived from all of the individual fixtures. If the ranking points provided from individual fixtures is unfair, how can the overall picture be fair?

Imagine if Team A wins their first 9 matches by 1 point while Team B loses their first 9 matches by 1 point. In the 10th match, the two teams meet and Team B wins by 8 points. Under the above system, this one result would bring the two teams very close together on ranking points. Is this really fair? Should one odd result be allowed to skew the rankings to such a degree?

It seems to me that the above system is more akin to a boxing world title fight situation rather than a proper ranking system. In other words, the team that beats the top team gets an enormous lift and this one result has a disproportionate effect compared with all other results.

If Team A is in Division 2 and Team B in Division 1, then yes, it could be fair. But you are ignoring the strengths or not of the teams other than Team A and B. It is the inter-relationship of all of the teams that counts.

Martin567

Godge wrote: »

If Team A is in Division 2 and Team B in Division 1, then yes, it could be fair. But you are ignoring the strengths or not of the teams other than Team A and B. It is the inter-relationship of all of the teams that counts.

In my example above, I assumed that Team A and Team B had both been playing against the very same teams. I don't think one random very strange result should be allowed to affect rankings in the way that this system would allow.

As I said in my first post, I can see no good reason for such a system other than to keep the teams all bunched artificially closely together in terms of ranking points and to make it impossible for any team to build up a very big lead. In any match, a victory for the lower ranked team will have a much greater impact on the ranking points than a win for the higher ranked team. Therefore one win for the lower team will undo several wins for the higher team. Teams will swap position more often than is in any way meaningful.

Imagine in soccer if the Premier League table was done like this instead of simply points for winning, losing and drawing. The 20 teams would all be bunched far closer together than genuine merit would tell you they should be.

Fireball07

I'd have to sit down and work it all those possibilities, and see how the maths work out, because I can't do it in my head.


But as has been said before, the IRB rankings do generally give a fairly accurate measurement... much more than, say, the FIFA rankings. There are always going to be 1 or 2 anomalies but I do think it works much better overall.



Also @Hanalei, what weighting were you giving to the Championship? And if you had went back and done it for every year since 2005, would that have made a difference rather than just doing it for one year? Personally, I don't think it's that unfair to have Tipp slip down the rankings based on last year... they were poor in the league final, and they didn't seem to have the fight necessary against Limerick when put under pressure.

Martin567

The FIFA rankings are awful and utterly meaningless. Teams are frequently ranked 10 places or more behind other teams they are clearly better than.

In fairness, there are only a very small number of strong rugby teams so it is far simpler than soccer. In fact, the number of strong international rugby teams is fairly similar to the number of strong hurling teams. It is not the most difficult task to put these into some order. Any of us could come up with a ranking off the top of our heads that wouldn't be too different to the one early in this thread.

I wouldn't give this system much credit for giving a fairly accurate picture of the international rugby rankings. Any system that didn't have New Zealand & South Africa at the top with England, Wales, Ireland, France & Australia lining up behind would have to be questioned. If the IRB system works as set out earlier in this thread, the end result is reasonably accurate in spite of rather than because of the system.

To take the earlier example, Kilkenny would make minuscule gains for every win and would need to keep winning to stay at the top. A 5 point lead over Galway represents a lot of wins. Yet Galway, despite currently being 7th, would actually overtake Kilkenny if they win by 8 pts on Sunday! That is ridiculous and places far too much weight on one result. It's just far too volatile. Why should a victory for Galway be 9 times more significant in terms of ranking points than a similar win for Kilkenny?

Fireball07

The main argument in favour of that system would be, that if Galway beat Kilkenny by more than 8 points, then they would have a pretty good case for being a better team than Kilkenny.


It is supposed to reflect the order of teams at the moment..... but that is the main reason why I'd weight the Championship. Some teams put out weakened teams in the league, and it wouldn't be a true reflection of where a team is at if they lost 3 games while playing their subs. But if a team isn't up to speed by the Championship, that's their own fault, and they're obviously not good enough.

Martin567

Fireball07 wrote: »

The main argument in favour of that system would be, that if Galway beat Kilkenny by more than 8 points, then they would have a pretty good case for being a better team than Kilkenny.

I get that but it's a pretty terrible argument. They would be a better team on that day but surely a ranking system (especially one as complicated as this!) is there to look further than one day. The problem is that it is simply wrong that a vastly different number of ranking points are available to both teams for victory in a two horse race. As I said earlier, this serves no function other than to keep the teams closely bunched whether this is appropriate or not.

Henwin

As a Kerry hurling supporter I would love if they were entered into the Leinster qualifiers if they wing the Christy Ring Cup.They are better matched against teams like carlow and Westmeath than entering Munster where they wud get hammered.
in 2006 I attended the division 2 league final in Semple stadium between dublin and kerry. they were on the same level then, now they are miles apart, one reason for this i think is tat they have a better chance in improving in Leinster than Munster.

Fireball07

Martin567 wrote: »

I get that but it's a pretty terrible argument. They would be a better team on that day but surely a ranking system (especially one as complicated as this!) is there to look further than one day. The problem is that it is simply wrong that a vastly different number of ranking points are available to both teams for victory in a two horse race. As I said earlier, this serves no function other than to keep the teams closely bunched whether this is appropriate or not.

I don't know about that. I think the volatility of the rankings actually fits in pretty well with reality.

If a team beats another by 8 points in the Championship, I will almost certainly call them a better team than the other. It increases the importance of individual fixtuers, and such is the nature of knockout competition... it's a bit different for the league, but with the newly added competitiveness to the league, I think it does show who is the best at a certain time.

seligehgit

Fantastic work Hanalei,just curious did you ever do a similar rankings for the football??

Fireball07

Henwin wrote: »

As a Kerry hurling supporter I would love if they were entered into the Leinster qualifiers if they wing the Christy Ring Cup.They are better matched against teams like carlow and Westmeath than entering Munster where they wud get hammered.
in 2006 I attended the division 2 league final in Semple stadium between dublin and kerry. they were on the same level then, now they are miles apart, one reason for this i think is tat they have a better chance in improving in Leinster than Munster.

Possibility, I suppose, although Dublin have got a few hammerings themselves, even in recent years.


I would say that the investment and work put in at underage level, plus bigger playing numbers, probably has more to do it. Although, it's true that getting hammered every year in Munster wouldn't help Kerry.

Martin567

Looking into it further, a Galway win by 8 pts would mean they would overtake Kilkenny. If the same two teams met again at Nowlan Park the very next Sunday and Kilkenny won by 8 pts or more, they would go back ahead. But the gap would have closed considerably compared with before the first match. That's just another quirk of a fundamentally flawed system.

Fireball07

Martin567 wrote: »

Looking into it further, a Galway win by 8 pts would mean they would overtake Kilkenny. If the same two teams met again at Nowlan Park the very next Sunday and Kilkenny won by 8 pts or more, they would go back ahead. But the gap would have closed considerably compared with before the first match. That's just another quirk of a fundamentally flawed system.

I agree that that quirk is most certainly a flaw. But I would still go along with it being the best ranking system that I know of.

KevIRL

Henwin wrote: »

As a Kerry hurling supporter I would love if they were entered into the Leinster qualifiers if they wing the Christy Ring Cup.They are better matched against teams like carlow and Westmeath than entering Munster where they wud get hammered.
in 2006 I attended the division 2 league final in Semple stadium between dublin and kerry. they were on the same level then, now they are miles apart, one reason for this i think is tat they have a better chance in improving in Leinster than Munster.

I present in Walsh Park in 1993 when Kerry beat us (Waterford) in the first round of the Munster Senior hurling championship

Martin567

Fireball07 wrote: »

I don't know about that. I think the volatility of the rankings actually fits in pretty well with reality.

If a team beats another by 8 points in the Championship, I will almost certainly call them a better team than the other. It increases the importance of individual fixtuers, and such is the nature of knockout competition... it's a bit different for the league, but with the newly added competitiveness to the league, I think it does show who is the best at a certain time.

That being the case, the whole discussion is redundant. We can just look at the most recent championship results and rank the teams accordingly. That may very well be the right approach but it would take all of about two minutes and there would be no need for any complicated calculations!

Fireball07

Martin567 wrote: »

That being the case, the whole discussion is redundant. We can just look at the most recent championship results and rank the teams accordingly. That may very well be the right approach but it would take all of about two minutes and there would be no need for any complicated calculations!

Possibly, but this ranking system still allows some leeway for narrow losses... and for form of teams over long periods of time. Kilkenny are still top despite falling at the quarter-final stage last year.

But if you win by a large amount, the weighting increases, as it should imo. If I was tweaking it for GAA, I would definitely give some sort of weighting, even a small one for Championship. I'd probably try and bring in some allowance for the different amount of big games played.

Martin567

To me it's a nonsensical system. The result of one league game in March could possibly turn the rankings upside down and this is supposed to say something meaningful about the current strength of individual teams!

I have yet to hear an even slightly convincing argument as to why Galway should get 9 times as many ranking points as Kilkenny for a win on Sunday.

Hanalei

Martin567 wrote: »

To me it's a nonsensical system. The result of one league game in March could possibly turn the rankings upside down and this is supposed to say something meaningful about the current strength of individual teams!

I have yet to hear an even slightly convincing argument as to why Galway should get 9 times as many ranking points as Kilkenny for a win on Sunday.

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.

BobSloane

Martin you're getting too bent out of shape and negative about this. I'm sure the ranking system needs tweaking but he has to be careful not to tweak it and cause a worse anomaly. Wonder what price Galway(-8) is on sunday. Pretty big I'd say as its fairly unlikely to happen. Probably greater than a 10-1 shot. And if they did manage it they'd move marginally above KK and either continue with good results to stay there and justify it or slip back behind them quickly as this freak victory was found out for what it was. Ranking systems can be weird at times. Golf ranking can throw up some crazy stuff. Luke donald being #1 for a good while springs to mind. It's good that you're pointing out potential flaws but there's no need to be so dismissive of the thing

Martin567

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

BobSloane wrote: »

Martin you're getting too bent out of shape and negative about this. I'm sure the ranking system needs tweaking but he has to be careful not to tweak it and cause a worse anomaly. Wonder what price Galway(-8) is on sunday. Pretty big I'd say as its fairly unlikely to happen. Probably greater than a 10-1 shot. And if they did manage it they'd move marginally above KK and either continue with good results to stay there and justify it or slip back behind them quickly as this freak victory was found out for what it was. Ranking systems can be weird at times. Golf ranking can throw up some crazy stuff. Luke donald being #1 for a good while springs to mind. It's good that you're pointing out potential flaws but there's no need to be so dismissive of the thing

Golf rankings are excellent in my opinion. They are completely performance related and nobody gets compensated for being lower ranked. Whether Tiger Woods or Shane Lowry wins the Open, they get the same number of ranking points. More recent results are weighted higher than older ones.

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.

BobSloane

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

KevIRL

Hanalei, you seem to have PMs turned off here. Some friends of mine run the site livegaelic.com (Fireball07 writes on there), they'd love for you to write an article or 2 about your ranking system. Would you be interested? Drop me a line at kevkehoe at gmail dot com and I can put you in touch

Martin567

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.

Fireball07

KevIRL wrote: »

Hanalei, you seem to have PMs turned off here. Some friends of mine run the site livegaelic.com (Fireball07 writes on there), they'd love for you to write an article or 2 about your ranking system. Would you be interested? Drop me a line at kevkehoe at gmail dot com and I can put you in touch

I was also going to strongly encourage you to do this.... I think it would be really interesting to see something like this updated over a few weeks, just to see how it progresses.


After putting all the work into getting it to this stage, it would almost be a shame not to make full use of it!

BobSloane

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

Martin567

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. The world golf rankings were mentioned above. It too has its critics but it still manages to rank hundreds of players in a manner that is scrupulously fair and logical and doesn't have to resort to artificially handing out different numbers of ranking points to different players depending on where they happened to be ranked at the time.

Applying this system to hurling would be very simple. 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.

As for the match on Sunday, 5/1 for Galway is an outrageous price. I've seen enough Kilkenny/Galway games over the years to know that Kilkenny seldom win easily. Off the top of my head, I would say that Galway have won at least one out of every three games between the sides at Nowlan Park over the last 15-20 years and they certainly have that good a chance if not more so on Sunday. They are a very strange team whose form fluctuates wildly from game to game but I would never write them off.

Godge

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. The world golf rankings were mentioned above. It too has its critics but it still manages to rank hundreds of players in a manner that is scrupulously fair and logical and doesn't have to resort to artificially handing out different numbers of ranking points to different players depending on where they happened to be ranked at the time.

Applying this system to hurling would be very simple. 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.

As for the match on Sunday, 5/1 for Galway is an outrageous price. I've seen enough Kilkenny/Galway games over the years to know that Kilkenny seldom win easily. Off the top of my head, I would say that Galway have won at least one out of every three games between the sides at Nowlan Park over the last 15-20 years and they certainly have that good a chance if not more so on Sunday. They are a very strange team whose form fluctuates wildly from game to game but I would never write them off.

This does not make sense.

The points available for a win to bring you up the golf rankings depend on the quality of the field that you beat - that is the same principle used in rugby but applied to an individual sport.

You don't get the same points for winning the Mayo Open as for winning the U.S Open.

One out of three in Nowlan Park?

Martin567

Godge wrote: »

This does not make sense.

The points available for a win to bring you up the golf rankings depend on the quality of the field that you beat - that is the same principle used in rugby but applied to an individual sport.

You don't get the same points for winning the Mayo Open as for winning the U.S Open.

One out of three in Nowlan Park?

My post doesn't make sense!!!!

Pot, kettle, black. I'm scratching my head here!

Godge

Martin567 wrote: »

My post doesn't make sense!!!!

Pot, kettle, black. I'm scratching my head here!

Well I will explain it again.

The points available for a win in rugby depend on the quality of the opposing team.
The point available for a win in golf depend on the quality of the opposing players. Have a look at this to see how the event rating is calculated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_World_Golf_Ranking


In essence, the principle is the same as that used in the hurling rankings which is why I am so confused by your post.

The other point that intrigues me is Galway's success over the last 20 years in Nowlan Park, I hadn't realised it was so good. How many matches have been played there between the two teams?

Martin567

Godge wrote: »

Well I will explain it again.

The points available for a win in rugby depend on the quality of the opposing team.
The point available for a win in golf depend on the quality of the opposing players. Have a look at this to see how the event rating is calculated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_World_Golf_Ranking


In essence, the principle is the same as that used in the hurling rankings which is why I am so confused by your post.

The other point that intrigues me is Galway's success over the last 20 years in Nowlan Park, I hadn't realised it was so good. How many matches have been played there between the two teams?

Thanks for the link but I'm very familiar with how the golf ranking system works. Unfortunately you're confusing it and misrepresenting what I'm saying.

You said above that a player will not receive the same points for winning the "Mayo Open" as he will for winning the US Open. In the same way, a hurling team would not get the same points for winning a Div 4 game as a Div 1 game. I didn't explicitly state that earlier but I didn't think I needed to.

In golf, the ranking points available for a particular event will be dependent on the strength of the field. Once the field is set, x points will go to the winner. It doesn't matter where the winner was ranked before the start, he will get the same total of x points. If golf applied the system you are suggesting, the 10th ranked player would get a greater number of points for winning than the 1st ranked player as a victory for him would represent a greater achievement. This does not happen.

If hurling were to adopt an exactly similar system to golf, each individual match would have a set number of ranking points applied to it based on the average rankings of the two competing teams. Whichever team won would then get that set number of points. The main problem I see with that scenario is that the top teams would, on average, always be playing for greater points in every match simply because they are the top teams. A sort of self-fulfilling situation. But it is still a valid option. If Tiger Woods plays in a golf tournament, the ranking points applied will be greater. Those increased points will then be available to Tiger just like any other player.

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. It is utterly wrong to try to pretend that there is some big gap there and a Kilkenny/Galway analogy with the US Open/"Mayo Open" is very misleading. The proposed system here is giving an 800% bonus to Galway for winning what is likely to be a very close match! If Galway are really so inferior that they deserve such a bonus, how can it possibly make sense that they then use that huge bonus to become the higher ranked team?

20 years was just an arbitrary time frame. I presume there have been 10 games between the sides in Nowlan Park in that time. Galway won there in 2010 and also in either 2004 or 2006. It wouldn't surprise me if their success rate was better than 33%. They have also won the last two home league game between the sides. In the last five games between the sides in league and championship over the last two years, there have been two wins each and one draw.

Hanalei

In response to anyone who believes what I have done is "nonsense", all I'll say to you is go away and create your own system and I'll tell you what I feel about your system. Very easy to criticise, but believe you me it's not so easy to create and impliment a system of your own.

Even this isn't my own, all I have done is implemented a system the IRB have used for years.

As for being extremely pedantic on the Kilkenny v Galway example, and this talk of Galway receiving 800% extra points; it's so easy to produce statistics to suit one's own agenda, bare statistics mean nothing.

Focusing on that example is ridiculous. Why? Because to focus on the impact of just one game on the rankings is entirely missing the point. The rankings are designed to reflect a teams overall consistency, focusing on individual games misses the point.

I've run it on 9 years of results, and overall it has been fairly close at all stages, I've seen how the rankings have evolved after each championship and league season and it has always given a reasonably accurate reflection on where teams stand.

Final words I'll say on the Kilkenny v Galway game this weekend.

First of all, I think we'd all agree that Kilkenny are around the 1st/2nd best team, and that Galway are somewhere between 4th/7th.

Secondly, we'd all agree that Kilkenny are favourites ahead of this game, particularly given that they have home advantage.

Now lets look at the 5 possible outcomes based on my ranking system.

• Kilkenny win 8+
• Kilkenny win 1-7
• draw
• Galway win 1-7
• Galway win 8+

Now lets look at the points exchange in those 5 cases, ranked in order of points exchange;

1. KK 1-7 (0.19 points exchanged from GY to KK)
2. KK 8+ (0.29 points exchanged from GY to KK)
3. draw (0.81 points exchanged from KK to GY)
4. GY 1-7 (1.81 points exchanged from KK to GY)
5. GY 8+ (2.71 points exchanged from KK to GY)

Now think of the points as almost a rating of how likely an event is to happen, the more likely an outcome the smaller the points exchange.


Galway are not expected to win this game. And the points on offer reflect this. The points on offer should not be the same for the same reason bookies give different odds on different outcomes. Whether one likes it or not, the likelyhood of an event occurring IS significant.


This system is what it is, I never claimed it was perfect but calling it nonsense is a bit of a slap in the face and if you feel that strongly about it then by own means, create your own and come back here with the results.






Anyway, I've enjoyed a lot of the more constructive criticisms and debate in this thread. Lets see how it develops over the league campaign before making any final judgements!

Hanalei

KevIRL wrote: »

Hanalei, you seem to have PMs turned off here. Some friends of mine run the site livegaelic.com (Fireball07 writes on there), they'd love for you to write an article or 2 about your ranking system. Would you be interested? Drop me a line at kevkehoe at gmail dot com and I can put you in touch

Hi KevIRL, I'd be glad to but I'm going to be quite busy for the next 5/6 weeks with work and college, I'd be happy to contribute then if they don't mind waiting and are still interested at that stage!

Martin567

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.

dastardly00

@Martin567
I think you've made your feelings pretty clear at this stage....

BobSloane

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