Never Apologize, Never Explain 2016-17

The predictions use these metrics, described below:

* metric modified from last year, as described below

The Metrics

RS

RS is each team's points in the prior ECAC regular season:

	RS
Brown	12
Clarkson	23
Colgate	14
Cornell	22
Dartmouth	22
Harvard	28
Princeton	9
Quinnipiac	37
RPI	23
SLU	25
Union	18
Yale	31

PS

PS is the number of upset (lower seed) advances (+1) or eliminations (-1) in the previous season's ECAC tournament.  The consolation game is ignored.

The upsets in the last season's ECAC tournament were:

• #7 Dartmouth upsets #2 Yale

	PS
Brown	0
Clarkson	0
Colgate	0
Cornell	0
Dartmouth	+1
Harvard	0
Princeton	0
Quinnipiac	0
RPI	0
SLU	0
Union	0
Yale	-1

Imp

Imp is the difference in points gained in the second half (games 12-22) minus the first half (games 1-11) of the prior ECAC regular season, divided by 2 (and rounded down).  A positive Imp indicates the team had a better second half:

	Pts	2nd ½	1st ½	Diff	Imp
Brown	12	6	6	0	0
Clarkson	23	16	7	9	+4
Colgate	14	6	8	-2	-1
Cornell	22	8	14	-6	-3
Dartmouth	22	10	12	-2	-1
Harvard	28	15	13	+2	+1
Princeton	9	2	7	-5	-2
Quinnipiac	37	17	20	-3	-1
RPI	23	8	15	-7	-3
SLU	25	14	11	+3	+1
Union	18	12	6	+6	+3
Yale	31	18	13	+5	+2

%Ret (Percentage Returning)

The old figure, WRet, captured how much of last year's players' contribution returns (or has been lost to graduation or early departure).

This year we are using a radical departure from prior predictions.  We are replacing the complex formula that was a function of forward, defense and goaltending with a very simple stasistic: the percentage of returning point scoring.  For one thing, the old metric didn't seem to be doing a great job of calculating the fall-off due to graudating (or early departing) talent.  The goaltending figure tended to overwhelm the other components.  Also, the differentiations both into forward vs defense and top N of each introduced arbitrary cutoffs with relatively weeak theoretical justification.

The following players with eligibility remaining are not returning:

• + Jason Kasdorf, RPI, G, Jr
  + Christian Horn, SLU, F, Jr
  + Alex Lyon, Yal, G, Jr
  + Devon Toews, Qpc, D, Jr
  + Sam Anas, Qpc, F, Jr

%Ret = Points Returning / Total Points

	Total Pts	Lost	Return	%Ret
Brown	140	68	208	.67
Clarkson	268	73	195	.73
Colgate	253	122	131	.52
Cornell	213	38	175	.82
Dartmouth	257	106	151	.59
Harvard	313	115	198	.63
Princeton	151	20	131	.87
Quinnipiac	430	177	253	.59
RPI	264	74	190	.72
SLU	293	90	203	.69
Union	242	32	210	.87
Yale	224	83	141	.63

Avg10

Avg10 measures traditional program strength, by taking the team's mean number of Points over the prior 10 seasons.  This will be used to compute the expected Incoming factor.

	Brn	Clk	Cgt	Cor	Drt	Hvd	Prn	Qpc	RPI	SLU	Uni	Yal
2007	16	30	17	24	27	22	22	24	17	33	15	17
2008	15	33	21	25	15	27	28	22	15	16	25	22
2009	10	20	17	29	24	24	28	21	13	26	20	32
2010	16	11	26	31	17	17	18	22	23	23	28	32
2011	18	19	11	24	26	15	24	19	24	13	36	35
2012	14	22	23	30	19	25	16	23	17	21	32	22
2013	20	19	15	19	22	14	20	37	27	22	24	25
2014	17	24	29	24	16	16	8	28	21	18	37	24
2015	13	19	26	22	26	25	6	35	18	29	17	28
2016	12	23	14	22	22	28	9	37	23	25	18	31
Pts	151	220	199	250	214	213	179	268	198	226	252	268
Avg10	15.1	22.0	19.9	25.0	21.4	21.3	17.9	26.8	19.8	22.6	25.2	26.8

Summary:

	Avg10
Brown	15.10
Clarkson	22.00
Colgate	19.90
Cornell	25.00
Dartmouth	21.40
Harvard	21.30
Princeton	17.90
Quinnipiac	26.80
RPI	19.80
SLU	22.60
Union	25.20
Yale	26.80

Putting it All Together

From these independent metrics, we now generate several calculated metrics:

All but the last of these calculated metrics are just convenient conceptual groupings -- the final metric, Nieu, could be calculated directly from the independent metrics.  But we'll sacrifice brevity for clarity of expression (and check our work) by spelling them out in the table below: