+- Simulation Hockey League (https://simulationhockey.com)
+-- Forum: International Hockey (https://simulationhockey.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=13)
+--- Forum: International Ice Hockey Federation (https://simulationhockey.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=456)
+---- Forum: IIHF Central (https://simulationhockey.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=611)
+---- Thread: IIHF All-Time World Rankings (/showthread.php?tid=47420)
- EuroCap - 06-18-2015
Not sure I like going off the total. Should be based on the last IIHF tourey, IMHO.
- fgh - 06-18-2015
Quote:Originally posted by EuroCap@Jun 18 2015, 05:12 PM
Not sure I like going off the total. Should be based on the last IIHF tourey, IMHO.
Eh...
I like having history included. Maybe not all of the team's record, but at least the past 5 seasons should determine a team's ranking. You can't go too little and say 1 season because that's too little of a sample size to make an accurate statement, but you can't include every waking moment of the team's history, including the first 3 years where they were building a roster instead of looking to win. 5 seasons seems like a recent sample size of data, and with the way the wins are weighted rn, it's fair to keep the current system in place. I'd just limit the .2 section to a 5 year maximum so teams that are young can lose the anchor of starting a team from the ground up.
- EuroCap - 06-18-2015
Quote:Originally posted by mpc@Jun 18 2015, 07:05 PMThen it is not the current World Rankings, but instead historical rankings.
Eh...
I like having history included. Maybe not all of the team's record, but at least the past 5 seasons should determine a team's ranking. You can't go too little and say 1 season because that's too little of a sample size to make an accurate statement, but you can't include every waking moment of the team's history, including the first 3 years where they were building a roster instead of looking to win. 5 seasons seems like a recent sample size of data, and with the way the wins are weighted rn, it's fair to keep the current system in place. I'd just limit the .2 section to a 5 year maximum so teams that are young can lose the anchor of starting a team from the ground up.
My point is the fact that Canada is not the #1 team in the IIHF right now. Ireland is currently #1, Canada #2, Sweden #3, and so on per the past tournament. It has nothing to do with history those are the current IIHF rankings because we just had a tournament to define the best team(s) in the IIHF.
- grimmsterj - 06-19-2015
I don't think rankings should be based off just the past tournament either though. There is a reason they don't do it that way IRL
- Lunaro - 06-19-2015
Ireland went 6-3-1 in the group stages they aren't even close to 1st right now rofl
- Lunaro - 06-19-2015
Just because someone had a good run in the playoffs where it's Bo1 and won the gold medal after not reaching the podium in the 2 tournaments before doesn't propel them to the top of the standings
- gorlab - 06-19-2015
Ireland thinking 1 measly gold is gonna put them above Canada
)
- fgh - 06-19-2015
Quote:Originally posted by EuroCap@Jun 18 2015, 09:54 PM
Then it is not the current World Rankings, but instead historical rankings.
My point is the fact that Canada is not the #1 team in the IIHF right now. Ireland is currently #1, Canada #2, Sweden #3, and so on per the past tournament. It has nothing to do with history those are the current IIHF rankings because we just had a tournament to define the best team(s) in the IIHF.
I think you're mixing up the words "rankings" and "results".
You're talking about results, like whoever wins the National Title game in NCAA football is the champion that year. Rankings, like the top 25, however, take into account previous record, how close to common the past results are, and then makes a ranking. There's a reason Kentucky is always preseason No. 1: they win consistently. Butler only gets in the top 25 when they have a Cinderella run or keeps the program strong after a low point.
- .bojo - 06-19-2015
Results >
- artermis - 06-19-2015
Quote:Originally posted by grimmsterj@Jun 19 2015, 12:17 AMBut they do . . . .
I don't think rankings should be based off just the past tournament either though. There is a reason they don't do it that way IRL
Don't they :unsure:
- fgh - 06-19-2015
Quote:Originally posted by artermis@Jun 19 2015, 08:09 AM
But they do . . . .
Don't they :unsure:
IIHF World Ranking system
- artermis - 06-19-2015
Quote:Originally posted by mpc@Jun 19 2015, 10:50 AMMisread his comment, I thought he was saying they don't count previous years irl :lol:
IIHF World Ranking system
- fgh - 06-19-2015
Quote:Originally posted by artermis@Jun 19 2015, 08:52 AM
Misread his comment, I thought he was saying they don't count previous years irl :lol:
No, he did say that. But it's wrong to a certain extent.
I like the IRL system: you can't have it just based in the last results, but you can't include every single game. 4-5 years of tournaments sounds like the right amount of data to judge how good a team is. I also like weighting the recent games more than the past.
- EuroCap - 06-19-2015
Quote:Originally posted by mpc@Jun 19 2015, 09:55 AMActually I did not comment on the real IIHF's rankings as I do not know them. I just think it is silly that Ireland is sitting at 5 despite winning Gold in the past tourney, but whatever.
No, he did say that. But it's wrong to a certain extent.
I like the IRL system: you can't have it just based in the last results, but you can't include every single game. 4-5 years of tournaments sounds like the right amount of data to judge how good a team is. I also like weighting the recent games more than the past.
- fgh - 06-19-2015
Quote:Originally posted by EuroCap@Jun 19 2015, 05:29 PM
Actually I did not comment on the real IIHF's rankings as I do not know them. I just think it is silly that Ireland is sitting at 5 despite winning Gold in the past tourney, but whatever.
Not you, I was talking about Koski.
Medal 4 years in a row and then you're up there. You can't expect to automatically have a dynasty with 1 gold... Give it time.