Loach

Yeah, it is really good by the end of the season. You still have to play the games, but it's the best indicator and glad they use it for Nationals despite what Gunty is spouting off about. At 18u AAA, 10 of the 12 divisions have held their championships. In 9 of them, the #1 seed in MHR won. In the other one (which was Massachusetts and that was held back in the fall), the #2 seed won. It looks like Avon, Central Mass, either Bishop Kearney or Long Island (whoever loses their district next weekend, assuming one wins) and either Neponset or Mt St Charles will get the 4 at-large bids.

I don't think Pens will get an at large bid this year at Nattys. I predict the bids will go out to non-qualifying teams based on MHR and I don't think the Pens are high enough this year.

Since the original post was about the Black Bear vs MHR ratings, thought I'd revisit to take a look. Last weekend, the THF Central division playoffs took place in Chicago. No Pittsburgh teams there so there's no real vested interests on this Board probably. I'll stick to the 18s as that is the age group I'm most familiar with. 9 teams were there competing. Here's the MHR of the 10 teams: 1. Biggby - 94.04 2. RM Roughriders - 93.74 3. Team Illinois - 91.79 4. Colorado Springs - 91.69 5. Tri-State Spartans - 91.59 6. San Jose Sharks - 91.29 7. Soo Indians - 90.74 8. Wasatch - 88.81 9. Indiana - 88.74 Here's the Black Bear Power Rating: 1. Biggby - 40 2. RM Roughriders - 34 3. Colorado Springs - 18 4. Team Illinois - 13 5. San Jose Sharks - 12 6. Tri-State - 12 7. Soo Indians - 7 8. Wasatch - 4 9. Indiana - 4 The THF league-specific Krach ratings are ridiculously bad, not going to list those out. Small sample size and very uneven schedules as those with easier schedules tend to be way over-ranked. Final game was Biggby vs Roughriders, as predicted as a good probability by both rankings. Roughriders won. Other semi-finalists were Team Illinois and Tri-State (who bear Col Springs in OT). Springs seems a bit over-rated in the Black Bear rankings due to an easier schedule. End result - both rankings did a decent job of identifying the top teams from the bottom, and identifying the likely top 2 (if you were talking about using either rankings to determine regional or national tourney eligibility). MHR, despite its faults, still seems the way to go in my opinion. But as they get more data, both get more accurate and Gunty getting into a pissing match with MHR seems like a pointless waste of energy.

He's not putting down Sid's production this year, I've deciphered it to: "Enter Sid and the participant numbers soar."

OU has D1 and D2 ACHA teams. I haven't been to one yet, is it just the D1 team that sells out?

I think I said this before, but based on personal experience, you do need both internal and outside evaluators. You still need the head coach to make the final call, but good for that person to have data to make the decision that comes from both assistants and independent evaluators. You need to have a fair and competent head coach who has a good group around him to hold him accountable. I've seen tryouts that lean too heavily on independent evaluations miss out on key players who are great contributors during the prior season but don't show well in the individual-oriented tryouts.

I like the Colorado system where there are no AAA teams until bantam minor.

Gunty is being an idiot, but yes, teams can just report their scores to MHR as before.

I don't know Gunty at all but his twitter feed makes him come off as a self-serving idiot. Seems like a pointless crusade over something that could be fine-tuned but works pretty well.

It's top six. (At least that's what it's been the last few years)

MHR is a godsend for managers trying to figure out what tourneys to enter or what independent games to schedule. That was the initial purpose and it is very good at it. Like any algorithm, it needs data to become more accurate so it is much better in the mid to late season compared to the start. It is also the best tool we have for determining the best teams in the country for things like Nationals. I have some knowledge of 18U hockey right now, can't speak much for the younger ages, and I've watched games of many top 40 18U AAA teams this year. The ranking of the top 18U teams by MHR is way more accurate than the Krach rankings of some of these teams in THF. Very easy to game the Krach system by playing an easier schedule and racking up wins. People say you can game the MHR system by playing a tougher schedule, but I haven't found that is the case. MHR does run into issues when there are lots of games where teams are beating each other by more than the 7-goal maximum. The whole point of MHR in the first place was to try to provide data to prevent those match-ups from happening. If tourney and league organizers spent more time focused on that goal, there would be less issues all around. Not always possible but here's what every coach/manager should be striving for: try to build a schedule where you are predominantly playing teams rated within 3 goals of you, and then you just need to worry about winning the game (not covering the spread). I'm talking about higher level, older-age youth hockey here, where coaching to win should be occurring.

If the coaches are honest with the parents/players regarding their level of talent, I'm generally fine with players playing on whatever team they choose. With MHR now, it's pretty clear to everyone what level a team is at, it really doesn't matter whether they have 3 A's or 2. If you are ranked at the bottom of the AAA teams and lower than a bunch of AA teams, it doesn't matter the label, everyone knows you are AA at best. It does bug me when these teams then schedule predominantly above their talent level, thinking they are going to magically compete. It's a waste of time and money for teams traveling distances to have to play some of these dreamers. I won't throw specific teams under the bus, but there were some examples in the THF tourney here this weekend.

Weird league, some good teams and some terrible ones. Esmark 18s in it, but also Icemen 18s.

Yes, the THF tourney is there this weekend. Great to have another sheet, although one would think that the planning for the non-ice amenities would have been better planned to be ready for season opening. Not a great look, hearing grumbling like this tweet from the Barons: https://x.com/U18CleBarons/status/1705276775821963265?s=20

The rankings take awhile to even out for teams that haven't travelled yet to play teams outside their local bubble. Most AAA teams have played at least 2 showcases with teams from various regions at this point already. There will be some movement in the scores with larger sample size if a team had a really bad or really good game so far. But, I expect the overall AAA pecking order at the first ranking release will be a decent representation.