November 27, 2019 Rankings

18 thoughts on “November 27, 2019 Rankings”

1. Having had Cistercian “A” beat both St. Mark’s “A” and Greenhill “A” on both IS 188 and and IS 186, I found it totally nutty that St. Mark’s “A” and Greenhill “A” would ranked, respectively 19th and 34th — while Cisterican “A” ranks 49th! I’m sure some ‘clever fellow’ will leap to the defense of this ranking process, but, as the head coach for Cistercian Prep, this methodology is looking for a truth it cannot find.

   LikeLike

   Reply

   1. Hi there, just wanted to clarify a few points here.

      Avinash is not a member of Groger Ranks, so points attacking him specifically for the methodology are unfair given that he had no part in its creation. We generally do agree with him however that these rankings may not take into account individual matches due to being based on tournament statistics rather than head to head results.

      Additionally, you are right that Cistercian has beat these teams multiple times. Those are certainly very impressive performances and there is no doubt Cistercian is a top team nationally! However, our rankings do not take game by game results into account as those are tough to compare nationwide and also are much more susceptible to variability than aggregated powers per game and ppb stats over a tournament which can be compared nationwide. If you have any specific questions over Cistercian putting up better stats than the listed teams above, we can go more into depth into how their score was calculated.

      We do appreciate the feedback as the viewpoints of our readers is what makes the rankings better. If you have any specific methodology changes that you feel will lead to rankings more reflective of the true strength of teams, email us at grogerranks@gmail.com. We always love learning about new methods of statistical analysis from esteemed members of this community!

      LikeLike

      Reply

   2. Dousan-chan !! 😉 Ore wo dare da to omotte yagaru ?? :OO HI papa :))

      LikeLike

      Reply

2. With all due respect Father Gregory, the rankings are not a predictive tool. While Cistercian has beaten St. Mark’s and Greenhill (perhaps even multiple times, I am not particularly familiar with the circuit there), these rankings are based first off stats. The ranking formula for Groger Ranks is described at this link: https://grogerranks.files.wordpress.com/2019/11/gr_2019_methodology.pdf, which you can read to your heart’s content. Cistercian’s stats were not as good as Greenhill’s or St. Mark’s’s, so their ranking is not as high. The rankings are based entirely off stats, and not game wins. The stats correlate towards game wins, but are not definitive. In response to your final statement, the truth which the rankings are trying to find is the best team in the nation, stats wise. Individual games themselves are too variable to determine who is the best team, so the rankings look at long term trends (multiple tournaments) to find out which teams are the best and more likely to win in a matchup, but not which ones will definitively win.

   LikeLiked by 1 person

   Reply

   1. Dear Mr. Iyer,
      You state that the rankings are not “predictive” (they do not ‘predict’ the future) but, then, you go on to affirm exactly that notion: “[T]he rankings look at long term trends . . . to find out which teams are the best and more likely to win in a match-up”. If your statement is not an example of ‘predictive’ commentary, then I guess 37 years of teaching AP English has been done in ignorance (my own).
      If, as you first state, the rankings are not ‘predictive’ then the entire rationale for what you are doing is vitiated. If nothing else, sir, the very fact that Cistercian “A” has repeatedly beaten certain teams is ironically predictive (we’ve done it repeatedly over time) and “prophetic”; we’ll probably continue to do so. Yet your “lashed to the mast” methodology may well continue to ranking Cistercian lower while we continue to win!
      Perhaps the value, then, of this formula is to endlessly perform what one might call the ‘Cassandra function’ wherein your formula proclaims possible future winners, but, in fact, will continue to merely point out higher ranked [repeated] losers.
      On second thought, however, I think we’ll take our lower rankings — and keep winning trophies. Sometimes it’s just more fun being actually a winner than predictive[ly] a lower.

      LikeLike

      Reply

      1. With respect, Father Gregory, the rankings state who is more likely to win, not who will win every time. Just cause Cistercian has beaten St. Mark’s and Greenhill, it doesn’t mean that they are going to beat them forever. These rankings aren’t prophetic in any way, they’re just using what is publicly available (stats) to figure out which team is more likely to win in a matchup. This doesn’t mean that that team which is more likely to win the match will win the match every time. Also, the sample size of teams which Cistercian has beaten is only two. There are 48 teams ranked higher than them, so just cause they’re able to beat Greenhill and St. Mark’s in a couple of what can be seen as fluke games (according to each of those teams’ stats), it doesn’t mean they’re going to beat every team which is ranked higher than them. The rankings are not just for one region either. The reasoning for these rankings is not so we can predict whether Cistercian will beat St. Mark’s, it’s to see whether x team would be likely to beat y team across circuits. This way, one can predict that, for example, MSJ would be more likely to beat, say, St. Mark’s than the other way around. It doesn’t mean that it will happen definitively, but just means that it’ll be more likely. Rankings don’t care about one or two games as much as they care about tens or hundreds of them.

         LikeLiked by 1 person

      2. Wot

         LikeLike

      3. your team’s stats over the tournament just weren’t as good as greenhill’s or st. mark’s’s. it’s not that deep

         LikeLike

      4. Bruh.

         LikeLike

      5. bruh

         LikeLike

      6. ok boomer

         LikeLike

      7. bruh

         LikeLike

      8. Transitive property for victories:
         – Greenhill A beat Cistercian A (Parish)
         – TAG A beat Greenhill A (Parish)
         – Coppell A beat TAG A (LOGIC)
         – Plano West B beat Coppell A (Hornet)
         – Greenhill B beat Plano West B (Hornet)
         – TAG B beat Greenhill B (Parish)
         – Cistercian E beat TAG B (Parish)

         Thus, by the transitive property, Cistercian E is truly better than Cistercian A.

         LikeLike

      9. Transitive property for victories:
         – Greenhill A beat Cistercian A (Parish)
         – TAG A beat Greenhill A (Parish)
         – Coppell A beat TAG A (LOGIC)
         – Plano West B beat Coppell A (Hornet)
         – Greenhill B beat Plano West B (Hornet)
         – TAG B beat Greenhill B (Parish)
         – Cistercian E beat TAG B (Parish)

         Thus, by the transitive property, Cistercian E could beat Cistercian A when push comes to shove.

         LikeLike

   2. owo hi father
      https://www.naqt.com/stats/tournament/game.jsp?game_id=953526

      LikeLike

      Reply

      1. The transitive property of ‘victory’ would argue otherwise: Cistercian “A” beat St. Mark’s “A” which beat Greenhill “A” – ergo, Cistercian A could beat Greenhill A when push comes to shove.

         LikeLike

3. Pingback: Updated Groger Rankings – Northern California Quiz Bowl Alliance

4. crooked blair needs to play as an a team and not be ranked with hsnct!

   LikeLike

   Reply