HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

For all you strength-of-schedule fans, the first QRF (quality results formula) rankings are up at Minnesota-scores.net (ask and you shall receive I guess thanks Ryan) ORF Rankings. QRF explained

Here is the top 20 in each class for Dec 10, 2007:

Class AA
1 Centennial (8-0-0) 53.1
2 Eden Prairie (7-0-1) 52.7
3 Roseville (8-1-0) 46.4
4 Edina (7-2-1) 45.7
5 Stillwater Area (10-0-0) 43.2
6 Duluth Area (5-0-3) 42.8
7 Holy Angels (6-2-0) 42.6
8 Cretin-Derham Hall (4-1-3) 39.8
9 Grand Rapids/Greenway (7-1-1) 39.2
10 Benilde-St. Margaret's (5-3-0) 38.8
T-11 Forest Lake (7-2-1) 36.7
T-11 Hastings (6-3-0) 36.7
13 Elk River (5-1-1) 36.5
14 Cloquet/Esko/Carlton (5-5-0) 36.3
15 Hopkins (9-1-0) 36.0
16 Moorhead (4-1-0) 35.7
17 Eagan (5-2-0) 33.6
18 Eastview (8-2-0) 33.1
19 Wayzata (3-2-4) 32.5
20 White Bear Lake (3-5-2) 31.1


Class A
1 Blake (8-0-2) 48.4
2 Alexandria (6-1-1) 43.2
3 Roseau (6-2-0) 43.0
4 Breck (8-1-1) 41.2
5 New Prague (6-1-0) 40.1
6 Warroad (6-1-1) 36.3
7 Crookston (7-2-0) 35.5
8 South St. Paul (5-3-0) 35.2
9 Richfield (4-3-1) 32.6
10 Luverne (1-4-0) 31.7
T-11 Mound-Westonka (6-2-0) 30.2
T-11 Albert Lea (3-3-0) 30.2
13 East Grand Forks (4-3-0) 30.1
14 Mankato West (5-2-0) 29.5
15 Silver Bay (2-4-1) 29.2
16 Hutchinson (3-2-1) 29.1
17 Hibbing/Chisholm (3-6-0) 27.4
18 Austin (6-3-0) 24.0
T-19 St. Paul United (6-3-0) 23.9
T-19 New Ulm (3-5-1) 23.9

Always interesting to see what the QRF computer churns out. Some really good teams actually see their rankings slip when they face an inferior opponent and don't run up the score. Such is the vagarities of the QRF formula, but it tends to achieve greater accuracy as the season goes on.

AA: Undefeated Stillwater at #5 would be higher but some of their opponents' rankings have slipped. Will be interested to see the outcome when they take on CDH tonight. EP at #2 suprises me given their SOS so far. Duluth is making a name for itself and will provide a challenge in their section. Hopkins off their win over Edina is far too low; their only loss is to #1 (here) Centennial. CEC has had mostly narrow losses to tough teams, but their record has to drop them down a bit more.

A: Alex, Warroad and Breck should be neck and neck. #10 Luverne is a statistical anomoly and should be excluded. Austin and Hibbing are much better than the rankings indicate.

I think the out come of this process to be very accurate. For the teams I’ve seen play this would be very close to where I would have evaluated them. Except for Centennial, with no fault to them, I just don’t think they have been really tested as of yet. I like where EP, Roseville, Edina and Stillwater are. IMO Roseville and not Stillwater is the team to beat in the Suburban East. Get a better look when they play each other on the 17th. Cretin and Forest Lake may be a little high, like Centennial they have not won a big game yet. Also, I like the fact that WBL is given credit for their solid play against a killer schedule.

hockeyheaven wrote:I think the out come of this process to be very accurate. For the teams I’ve seen play this would be very close to where I would have evaluated them. Except for Centennial, with no fault to them, I just don’t think they have been really tested as of yet.

Centennial did beat Hopkins 2-0...didn't they?

Centennial over Hopkins 2-0 wasn't a big game, maybe you should ask

Edina that. You sound like the guy who posts the Pioneer press rankings,

now that is a joke of a ranking. QRF at least uses a method that

resembles some sort of logic, good or bad it is at least unbiased

mathamatical logic.

i think the KRACH rankings are the best, from what i hear and the little i have saw.

When do they come out?

I have to agree, GHS did a great job on the Krach rankings. I hope he

starts them up again. Any Ranking that takes the bias out and formulates

all the win,loss,tie ratios seems more real. It is really hard to see the 2

classes in one ranking as the pioneer press does. If GHS doesn't post the

KRACH rankings at least we have the QRF to off set some of these

rankings with strenghth of schedule or lack there of.

spr air 210 wrote:Centennial over Hopkins 2-0 wasn't a big game, maybe you should ask

Edina that. You sound like the guy who posts the Pioneer press rankings,

now that is a joke of a ranking. QRF at least uses a method that

resembles some sort of logic, good or bad it is at least unbiased

mathamatical logic.

Air dude, take a deep breath…. I like the rating system…. I think I indicated that. I also like Centennial, undefeated, I get it. The Hopkins win was nice, it’s just I personally don’t think first or second games can be viewed as big…. just my opinion. If it makes you happy let’s give em that one. Personally I don’t see them in the top five, and because of their schedule we will never know until Sections and possibly not until State. You have to concede that no matter how close they get to accuracy it’s not ever going to be perfect. Very difficult to judge undefeated teams.

Have not seen Centennial yet, but looking at their 8-0 record and scores, they sure seem to be an excellent defensive team. 4 of their 8 wins have been shutouts, and they've held their opponents to just 1 goal in three other games. In the one other game, they gave up just 2, so altogether they've allowed just 5 goals in 8 games (.625 average).

But except for their first game against Hopkins - and first games don't mean as much IMO because almost anything can happen - they still haven't played any Top 10 teams. And offensively, they haven't done all that much, scoring just 2 goals in 5 of their wins. Overall their scoring average is 2.75, against a good, but not great, set of opponents.

The question is will they be able to shut down higher-powered offenses, and still get at least a couple goals themselves? They clearly deserve to be in the Top 5, but IMO either Stillwater or Eden Prairie should be put at the very top as of right now. However I realize that this is a computer ranking, based on a predetermined and impartial formula, so you really can't argue with the math. All you can do is point out a few things that might be overlooked somewhat in the computer's weightings, which are designed and input by humans.

Agreed,

I can't see how anyone can argue that Stillwater is #1 at 10-0

and the defending state champs. Looking at their schedule, they will be

playing several ranked teams and should move way up.

May I inquire...when / how often these are updated? Weekly?

brookyone wrote:May I inquire...when / how often these are updated? Weekly?

Last year they were updated mostly weekly, but sometimes a little more or less often. I just saw where there is an update as of today:

Class AA Rankings: December 12, 2007
1 Eden Prairie (7-0-1) 56.9
2 Centennial (8-1-0) 52.7
3 Holy Angels (6-2-0) 50.4
4 Roseville (8-1-0) 48.8
5 Edina (8-2-1) 48.4
6 Stillwater Area (11-0-0) 47.2
7 Duluth Area (6-0-3) 46.3
8 Elk River (6-1-1) 43.8
9 Grand Rapids/Greenway (7-1-1) 41.8
10 Cretin-Derham Hall (4-2-3) 41.4
11 Cloquet/Esko/Carlton (6-5-0) 40.3
12 Hopkins (10-1-0) 38.8
13 Forest Lake (7-2-1) 38.1
14 Hastings (7-3-0) 37.9
15 Benilde-St. Margaret's (6-3-0) 37.1
16 Eagan (5-2-0) 34.2
T-17 Moorhead (4-2-0) 34.1
T-17 Eastview (8-2-0) 34.1
19 Irondale (8-0-1) 34.0
20 Minnetonka (4-4-0) 33.9
21 Wayzata (3-3-4) 33.1
22 Blaine (5-5-0) 32.5
23 North St. Paul (3-5-0) 32.4
24 Apple Valley (7-3-0) 32.3
25 White Bear Lake (3-5-2) 32.2
26 Hill-Murray (4-3-1) 31.8
27 Proctor/Herm./Dul. Marshall (7-2-0) 31.6
28 Bemidji (5-5-0) 30.9
29 Burnsville (2-6-1) 30.8
30 Shakopee (4-5-0) 30.4
31 Cambridge-Isanti/Mora (4-2-0) 30.1
32 North Wright County (5-3-2) 29.9
33 St. Cloud Tech (5-2-2) 29.6
34 Minneapolis (3-3-2) 29.3
35 St. Francis (3-5-0) 28.7
36 River Lakes (3-4-1) 28.4
37 Coon Rapids (2-5-1) 28.3
38 Farmington (4-3-1) 28.2
39 Rochester Mayo (7-3-0) 27.8
40 Buffalo (4-5-0) 27.7
41 Chisago Lakes Area (5-3-0) 27.4
42 St. Cloud Icebreakers (5-4-1) 26.9
43 North Metro (4-6-0) 26.5
T-44 Andover (3-4-0) 26.4
T-44 Mounds View (2-5-2) 26.4
46 Lakeville North (4-3-1) 25.5
47 Rosemount (4-4-0) 25.0
48 Maple Grove (4-6-0) 24.2
49 Anoka (4-4-2) 24.1
50 Owatonna (4-2-0) 23.2
51 Woodbury (2-7-0) 22.2
52 Spring Lake Park (4-4-0) 21.6
53 Brainerd (3-7-0) 21.0
54 Park of Cottage Grove (3-5-1) 20.5
55 Sartell/Sauk Rapids (5-4-0) 20.2
56 Lakeville South (2-4-2) 19.5
57 St. Paul Blades (4-5-0) 19.4
58 Chaska (2-5-0) 18.9
59 Bloomington Kennedy (4-5-0) 16.6
60 Champlin Park (3-4-1) 15.1
61 Dodge County (3-6-0) 15.0
62 Robbinsdale Armstrong (1-9-0) 14.6
T-63 Prior Lake (2-6-0) 14.4
T-63 Rochester John Marshall (3-4-0) 14.4
T-63 Bloomington Jefferson (1-7-0) 14.4
66 Robbinsdale Cooper (0-8-0) 9.8
67 Rogers/Zimmerman (1-7-0) 9.4
68 Winona (0-5-0) 8.9
69 Tartan (0-8-0) 8.5
70 Rochester Century (0-11-0)

Class A Rankings: December 12, 2007
1 Blake (9-0-2) 56.2
2 Alexandria (6-1-1) 48.2
3 Breck (9-1-1) 46.9
4 Roseau (7-2-0) 46.1
5 Crookston (8-2-0) 41.6
6 Warroad (7-1-1) 39.8
7 New Prague (7-1-1) 37.0
8 South St. Paul (5-4-0) 36.8
9 Albert Lea (4-3-0) 36.2
10 Richfield (4-4-1) 33.5
11 Hutchinson (5-2-1) 33.1
T-12 East Grand Forks (4-3-0) 31.8
T-12 Mound-Westonka (6-3-0) 31.8
14 Hibbing/Chisholm (4-6-0) 30.7
15 Mankato West (6-2-0) 29.7
16 Silver Bay (2-5-1) 29.6
17 Austin (7-3-0) 29.0
18 New Ulm (3-6-1) 27.3
19 Luverne (1-5-0) 26.1
20 Northfield (5-3-0) 24.5
21 St. Paul United (6-4-0) 24.3
22 Henry Sibley (5-5-0) 23.8
T-23 Marshall (5-2-0) 22.8
T-23 Mahtomedi (3-4-0) 22.8
25 Faribault (3-5-0) 21.7
26 St. Louis Park (2-6-0) 21.3
27 L-H/St. Peter/Le Center (7-3-0) 20.4
28 Morris Area/Benson/Minnewaska Area (5-0-0) 20.1
29 Orono (3-7-0) 19.6
30 International Falls (4-3-1) 19.5
T-31 Willmar (3-5-0) 18.8
T-31 Eveleth-Gilbert (5-2-0) 18.8
33 Simley (2-7-0) 18.3
34 Red Wing (4-5-0) 18.0
35 Totino-Grace (1-8-0) 17.8
36 Princeton (3-6-1) 15.8
37 Thief River Falls (3-7-0) 14.9
38 Minnehaha Academy (1-6-0) 14.4
39 Moose Lake Area (0-4-1) 13.8
40 Fergus Falls (1-6-0) 13.2
41 Fairmont (3-2-0) 13.1
42 Detroit Lakes (2-5-0) 13.0
43 East Range (3-3-0) 12.7
44 LP-GE/W-DC (3-3-0) 11.8
45 Lake of the Woods (0-6-0) 11.4
46 St. Paul Saints (1-7-0) 11.2
T-47 Park Rapids/Menahga/Nevis (1-5-0) 10.8
T-47 Litchfield/D-C (1-8-0) 10.8
49 Worthington (0-3-1) 10.1
50 Mankato East (1-6-0) 8.6
51 Waseca (1-7-0) 8.1
52 Windom Area (1-4-0) 7.7
53 Little Falls (0-6-0) 7.5
54 Redwood Valley (0-3-1) 0.5
55 Holy Family Catholic/Waconia (0-0-0) 0.0

QRF makes absolutely no sense. A team that is 11-0 and has played a pretty tough schedule is ranked 6th?? They then beat the number 8 ranked team 5-2 and drop in the rankings from #5 to #6????? If I were to lend any credibility to rankings, I would have to say that the KRACH system is by far the best. The best thing about rankings like the QRF is that they dont mean a thing in the end.

hockeywild7 wrote:QRF makes absolutely no sense. A team that is 11-0 and has played a pretty tough schedule is ranked 6th?? They then beat the number 8 ranked team 5-2 and drop in the rankings from #5 to #6????? If I were to lend any credibility to rankings, I would have to say that the KRACH system is by far the best. The best thing about rankings like the QRF is that they dont mean a thing in the end.

QRF is an outstanding system and you will see that start to take shape after the first of the year.

I didn't want to say it...what with all the complaints regarding the various rankings, and the fact I don't pay a great deal attention to rankings because they just don't mean a whole lot IMO, but I'm with hockeywild7 on this. Not solely because of Stillwater dropping, but other teams placements as well when looking at their wins / losses / opponents since the prior QRF.

I'm sure it does increase in accuracy (at least as perceived by some fans) as more games are played, I've just long been a bit skeptical any mathematical formulas can create a more accurate depiction (as opposed to the alternatives) where a game such as hockey, with all it's intangibles, is concerned.

Here is the first part of the explanation of how QRF's are calculated:

The Quality Results Formula (QRF) was created to try and rank teams from different parts of the state. I won't go into specific detail about the formula, but can give you an idea of how it works.

Each game is given an individual QRF (iQRF) based four things (listed in order of importance):

*Win or Loss
*Opponent wins
*Class differential between the teams
*Margin of victory (or defeat) with a cap on both ends.

Logically, the more wins an opponent has, the higher your opponents Class is, and the more you win by the higher your iQRF is for that game.

When all of a team's iQRF's are added together and divided by the number of MN games played, you come up with a team's QRF.
Only MN vs. MN games count.

This number is then compared to other teams in the state to come up with an overall ranking.

The full explanation is here: http://www.minnesota-scores.net./qrf.php

I personally like to see any ranking reflect (give more weight to) how strong a team has been playing recently, rather than give equal measure to all games throughout the season. A team that loses its first 10 games but wins its next 10 should be ranked higher at the 20 game mark than one that wins its first ten but then goes on to lose the next 10. Does QRF attempt to gauge this? I believe at least subconsciously most human polling does (or should).

Also on QRF I wonder what the relative weighting is given between "opponents wins" and "class differential between the teams"? Like for example, if Stillwater were to beat Grand Rapids/GRG (No. 9AA, 7-1-1) would it get more, or less QRF points than if it were to beat Alexandria (No. 2A, 6-1-1)? How the polls come out depends in large part on how much weighting you give these things, and who's to say what's correct? It may be perfectly adjusted as it is now, who knows, but it makes you wonder....

Rankings: December 14, 2007

Class AA
1 Eden Prairie (8-0-1) 58.3
2 Holy Angels (6-2-0) 54.5
3 Centennial (8-1-0) 53.8
4 Edina (8-2-1) 50.4
5 Duluth Area (7-0-3) 49.7
6 Roseville (8-1-1) 49.3
7 Stillwater Area (11-0-0) 48.1
8 Elk River (6-1-1) 45.1
9 Grand Rapids/Greenway (7-1-1) 43.9
10 Cretin-Derham Hall (4-2-3) 42.8
11 Cloquet/Esko/Carlton (6-5-0) 41.5
12 Hopkins (10-1-0) 39.7
13 Forest Lake (7-3-1) 39.3
14 Hastings (7-3-0) 37.9
15 Eagan (5-2-1) 37.8
16 Eastview (8-2-0) 37.3
17 Benilde-St. Margaret's (6-3-0) 37.1
18 Irondale (8-0-1) 36.1
19 Moorhead (5-2-0) 34.9
20 Minnetonka (4-4-0)


Class A
1 Blake (10-0-2) 61.1
2 Alexandria (8-1-1) 48.5
3 Breck (9-1-1) 48.0
4 Roseau (7-2-0) 47.9
5 Crookston (8-2-0) 44.3
6 Warroad (8-1-1) 43.0
7 New Prague (7-1-1) 39.7
8 South St. Paul (5-4-0) 39.2
9 Mankato West (7-2-0) 36.1
10 Albert Lea (5-3-0) 35.9
11 East Grand Forks (4-3-0) 34.5
12 Richfield (4-4-1) 34.1
13 Mound-Westonka (6-3-0) 33.4
14 Hutchinson (5-3-1) 32.8
15 Hibbing/Chisholm (4-6-0) 32.0
16 Silver Bay (2-5-1) 30.7
17 Austin (7-4-0) 30.3
18 New Ulm (3-7-1) 27.8
19 Luverne (1-5-0) 27.0
T-20 Marshall (6-2-0) 26.2
T-20 Northfield (5-3-0) 26.2

Interesting, Holy Angels gets smoked by Edina 5-1 and loses to #19 Moorhead and rises up to #2? Meanwhile Moorhead drops a couple of spots. Stillwater, the only team with a perfect record, drops from #6 to #7? Hmmm...

Like I said in an earlier post, the QRF system makes no sense, the KRACH is far superior. No disrespect to Boblee but I don't get the point as to waiting to see how it takes shape after the first of the year. Sure lots of things could and will happen but what about right now? Wouldnt you agree that right now it doesnt make any sense? I agree with Keepitreal....hmmmm?????

hockeywild7 wrote:Like I said in an earlier post, the QRF system makes no sense, the KRACH is far superior. No disrespect to Boblee but I don't get the point as to waiting to see how it takes shape after the first of the year. Sure lots of things could and will happen but what about right now? Wouldnt you agree that right now it doesnt make any sense? I agree with Keepitreal....hmmmm?????

You know, I like the concept and applaud the effort, but with a good share of the season now in the books I'd expect to see some of these anomalies begin to iron out rather than go the other way. Odd results tend to reduce the credibility of the formula.

Not that rankings mean much...

Last year folks complained that QRF was bad early on because EP (the then undefeated state champ) was not number 1 in early QRF polls. The more things change...

Last year people were noting that QRF was more accurate in play-offs than KRACH.

However, the top 20's in each class were almost identical late in last season in both math formulas. Splitting hairs.

I guess the bottom line is polls dont win games. They make for great conversations but in the end its the sectionals and state tournament that decide who is the best. The team with the gold medals around their necks at the end of the year are the only team that can call themselves number 1.

hockeywild7 wrote:I guess the bottom line is polls dont win games. They make for great conversations but in the end its the sectionals and state tournament that decide who is the best. The team with the gold medals around their necks at the end of the year are the only team that can call themselves number 1.

Agreed! The polls really don't mean much except give people a gauge of what type of match-ups will be interesting. It's not like the BCS so it doesn't matter who's ranked what. If you're not #1 and end up a state champ...good job, it doesn't mean you deserved the #1 spot during the year.

hockeywild7 wrote:Like I said in an earlier post, the QRF system makes no sense, the KRACH is far superior. No disrespect to Boblee but I don't get the point as to waiting to see how it takes shape after the first of the year.

The basic idea of any ranking is to assign a value to a team and compare against other teams. The difference between rankings is how that number is assigned.

Nobody will ever do it perfectly, but I'd like to think a winning percentage of 70-85% (which is what it has historically done over the past 4 years) would be considered a success, especially since a majority of these teams have not played each other during the season or (mostly in sports other than hockey) have many common opponents.

By the way, this is the first of heard of KRACH. Can somebody point me to a link or explain what it is and/or who publishes it?

hockeywild7 wrote:QRF makes absolutely no sense. A team that is 11-0 and has played a pretty tough schedule is ranked 6th?? They then beat the number 8 ranked team 5-2 and drop in the rankings from #5 to #6????? If I were to lend any credibility to rankings, I would have to say that the KRACH system is by far the best. The best thing about rankings like the QRF is that they dont mean a thing in the end.

In regards to the QRF, the ranking of the other team is irrelevant, it's the number of wins that team has. Not sure which teams you are referring too. but those numbers are close enough together that the 11-0 team will start to move upwards like New England did in the NFL QRF this year.

Again, I have no idea which team you are talking about (guessing Stillwater), but the fact that they are 11-0 and ranked 6th or 7th is proof that the schedule has not been "pretty tough". Any undefeated team that has played a "pretty tough" schedule would not be ranked that low, as the QRF is very heavily weighted towards strength of schedule (along with what that team does with it). I believe that is the major factor (along with outcome) in determining which team has played better this year.

Along those same lines, somebody mentioned teams getting hurt for not running up the score on inferior teams which I will categorically state as not being the case. Yes, margin of victory is a factor, but it has the least impact of the four categories, and over a 20+ game schedule, 2 or 3 goals here or there is not going to make a major statistical difference.

MNHockeyFan wrote: The full explanation is here: http://www.minnesota-scores.net./qrf.php

I personally like to see any ranking reflect (give more weight to) how strong a team has been playing recently, rather than give equal measure to all games throughout the season.

There's a case to be made for and against this. Unfortunately, I had to choose, and went against. I don't think there is a right or wrong answer with this.

MNHockeyFan wrote:Also on QRF I wonder what the relative weighting is given between "opponents wins" and "class differential between the teams"?

It's about a 6 goal difference, meaning it's worth the same to the QRF to beat a AA team with five wins 1-0, as it is to beat a Class A team with five wins 7-1.

MNHockeyFan wrote:...if Stillwater were to beat Grand Rapids/GRG (No. 9AA, 7-1-1) would it get more, or less QRF points than if it were to beat Alexandria (No. 2A, 6-1-1)?

In your example, it would be worth about 33% more to beat Grand Rapids than Alex. This is the roundabout way I let the QRF take the opponents opponents into consideration, as it is assumed that AA teams play tougher schedules than A teams, and therefore it is more difficult for them to get wins in the first place.

In all seriousness, feel free to email me questions like this. ryan@minnesota-scores.net. I get these questions all the time, so I'm used to "pleading my case".

Appreciate the comments for and against, always looking to make the site and the QRF better. It's not the exact same as when it started 5 years ago (someone that came to the site made a suggestion, so it has been tweaked slightly).

Oh yeah, updating the QRF. I try and do it on a daily basis, archiving the Monday edition. There's a dropdown to look at the previous QRF's and track how teams are progressing through the year. Feel free to take a look and let me know what you think.

www.minnesota-scores.net/classqrf.php?y ... 10&class=3

Thanks!

Ryan

Ryan, thanks for the detailed explanation and also for taking all the time to do the QRF rankings and keep them updated.

On your question on the KRACH rankings, unfortunately they are not being done this year. The person who used to tabulate them, a coach of one of the teams, stopped posting here just before the current season began. Here is a link to the final ratings from last year:

http://www.bgoski.com/rank/Rankings.htm