[SoccerMath]

I took a detailed look at the Johnson Central boys case study as suggested by OffTheHook, as I often find these types of examples informative for improving the statistical model. This is a very interesting example.

This team started the year ranked 111, and appeared probably to not quite play to their potential the first couple weeks, starting the year 3-3 on August 31, with the aforementioned (by OffTheHook) losses to Rowan County and Ashland Blazer. Their ranking at this point dropped to 115. Rowan County and Ashland Blazer were ranked 82 and 84 at the time, respectively. The other two opponents in question, Russell and Pikeville were ranked 77 and 89 at the time – all higher than Johnson.

Johnson Central then went on a tear, a ten game winning streak over teams currently ranked 84, 87, 89, 91, 105, 110, 110, 136, 144 and an unrankable team from West Virginia. This included a 5-1 win on the road over Pikeville – one of the key opponents in question. This run ended on October 2 with as OffTheHook notes, the following ranks: 57 Johnson Central, 68 Russell, 71 Ashland Blazer, 93 Pikeville, and 98 Rowan County. The big win over Pikeville was a large help to Johnson’s jump in the rankings, but other big wins over teams in the 80s and 90s would be very similar to wins over the 4 opponents mentioned. (Yes Strikeout King, this does include a win over #89 Estill County ,whom I believe to be more properly rated now.)

OffTheHook noted the rankings at this snapshot in time (10/6) in the post above. Only later, on 10/8 and 10/9, did the Johnson boys promptly lose 2-1 to Pikeville and 3-1 to Russell, dropping their ranking to 69. It was at this point that OffTheHook sited the 4 key losses. Had he cited the 10/13 rankings to go along with the games played through 10/13, then he would have noted the following: 47 Russell, 69 Johnson Central, 73 Ashland Blazer, 84 Rowan County, and 87 Pikeville. Then, Johnson Central would have been a team ranked above only 3 three teams that is lost too, one of which they had also beaten badly on the road. At this point, we are talking about 18 games played with 2 unexplained events. 16 of 18 is better than I claim the system to be, so I will take it. However, as noted above, Johnson Central clearly had a rocky start, and were not favored to win the early games against Rowan and Ashland at the time, so I am not sure I should count them against. At this point most would say, slightly overrated perhaps, but crazy?

Pikeville provides an interesting comparison since the teams played 3 games. We all know that the better team doesn’t always win. Johnson won in Pikeville 5-1 and 3-2, Pikeville won in Johnson 2-1. Given no other data, one would have to rank Johnson over Pikeville, and we do.

Please note, a proper analysis here would involve a similar look at Russell, Ashland, Pikeville and Rowan. Then you would have to look at what their opponents did throughout the season, and their opponents’ opponents. Ain’t nobody got time fa dat’. That is exactly what the math does, however. It keeps track of all that stuff. It is not perfect! Groups of sequestered teams that do nothing but play each other – if they produce one dominant team – can produce a team a team ranking that is out of whack. I am not seeing that here. I see a team played poorly early on, and improved. Perhaps they are slightly overrated, next to Russell and Ashland, but without looking into their full schedule and results, I hesitate to even say that.

Again, thanks for pointing out this case to me, I enjoy looking into these kinds of examples from time to time with which to measure the quality of the system against.