MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1586551584 · doi:10.1201/9781584888697-19

Optimal drafting in hockey pools

2007· book-chapter· en· W1586551584 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Amy Summers, Tim B. Swartz, Richard Lockhart

Notice bibliographique

Revuenon disponible
Typebook-chapter
Langueen
DomaineEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
ThématiqueSports Analytics and Performance
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésComputer science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

In Canada and in some of the northern states of the USA, there is a general excitement each spring, not only with the change in weather but also with the advent of the Stanley Cup Playoffs. A popular activity among friends and co-workers is the participation in a Stanley Cup Playoff pool. A common Stanley Cup Playoff pool proceeds along the following lines. AmongK drafters (participants in the pool), an order is determined from which drafter 1 selects a hockey player from any of the 16 teams in the National Hockey League (NHL) that have qualified for the Stanley Cup Playoffs. Drafter 2 then selects a player but is not allowed to select the player chosen by drafter 1. The drafting continues until the first round is complete (i.e., drafterK has made a selection). The order of drafting is then reversed for the second round, and the process continues form rounds. At the completion of the draft, each drafter has selected a lineup of m players where each player accumulates points (i.e., goals plus assists) during the playoffs. The drafter whose lineup has the greatest number of total points is declared the winner. Typically, a monetary prize is given to the winner. Now, the question arises as to how one should select hockey players. Clearly,players who are able to generate lots of points in a game have some appeal. However,this must be tempered by the strength of a player’s team. For example, a weak team is likely to be eliminated early in the Stanley Cup Playoffs, and therefore, a good player on a weak team may not be as valuable as a weaker player on a stronger team. One might also consider the effect of the “eggs in one basket” syndrome. By choosing players predominantly from one team, a drafter’s success is greatly influenced by the success of the team. It is fair to say that it is not obvious how to best select hockey players in a draft. Although we have not come across any previous work concerning drafting inhockey pools, there is a considerable literature on the related problems of rating sports teams and predicting the outcome of sporting events. For example, Berry, Reese, and Larkey (1999) compare players of different eras in the sports of professional hockey, golf, and baseball. Carlin (1996) uses point spreads to estimate prediction probabilities for the NCAA basketball tournament. More generally, the volume edited by Bennett (1998) covers a wide range of topics related to statistical issues in sport. This paper considers a statistical approach to the player selection problem in play-off hockey pools. More detail on all aspects of the proposed approach can be found in Summers (2005). In section 15.2, some statistical modelling is proposed for the number of points scored and the number of games played by hockey players. Together with Sportsbook odds, subjective probabilities, connected graphs, Newton-Raphson optimization, and simulation, expectations concerning the total points by lineups are obtained. A key point is that the expectations are calculated in advance of the draft so that drafting may be done in real time. Friends and co-workers may not be entirely understanding if they need to wait long periods of time for a drafter to make a selection. In section 15.3, an optimality criterion is introduced for the selection of hockey players, and the optimality criterion is a simple function of the expectations derived in section 15.2. In section 15.4, we conduct a simulation study to assess the proposed selection strategy against some common ad-hoc strategies. We observe that the proposed selection strategy is arguably the best strategy. The results of an actual Stanley Cup playoff pool using our methodology are reported in section 15.5. We conclude with a short discussion in section 15.6.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: Autre
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,976
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0100,002

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,060
Tête enseignante GPT0,234
Écart entre enseignants0,173 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeThéorique ou conceptuel
Domainenon disponible
GenreAutre

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations5
Publié2007
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même sujetSports Analytics and PerformanceTravaux en français237 207