The R-Value

The points you gave me, nothing else can save me, SOS

Several of my posts have referenced the “R-value”. I think most people realize it is some sort of statistical measure of a team’s strength, but they are confused by either its derivation or interpretation. I am long overdue on clarifying this.

Primarily, the R-value is a mechanism to rank teams who all played the same questions, but did not necessarily play each other. The two most useful applications for this are the Ontario regional-to-provincial and the Ontario provincial prelim-to-playoff qualification systems. Both have a large number of teams that need to be condensed to a small fraction of top teams that would proceed to a higher level, and they all played (roughly) the same questions.

A mechanism exists for this purpose in the US. National Academic Quiz Tournaments’ college program has a couple hundred university teams compete in regional tournaments, all vying to qualify for 64 spots in their national championship (across two divisions). The regional tournaments are all played on the same set of questions. Originally, NAQT used an undisclosed “S-value” to statistically determine which teams, beyond regional winners, deserved a spot in the national championship. With the cooperation of regional hosts providing stats promptly, NAQT could quickly analyze the results and issue qualification invitations a few days after the regional tournaments. Prior to the 2010 season, Dwight Wynne proposed a modified formula made transparent so all teams could verify their values were correct. NAQT adopted this, and named the mechanism the “D-value” in honour of Dwight. In 2015, the Academic Competition Federation introduced their “A-value” for national qualifications, which largely followed the D-value formula.

The R-value is a D-value modified for SchoolReach. The “R” stands for “Reach” or “Reach for the Top”. SchoolReach results typically lack the detailed answer conversion information available in quizbowl, so the R-value is dependent on total points and strength of schedule. I also added 2 modifications that I will get to later.

The R-value asks: “How does a team compare to a theoretical average team playing on the question set?” It is answered in the form of a percentage; if a team has an R-value of 100%, they were statistically average for the field. A step-by-step process to get there:

Note: my primitive embedding of LaTeX in WordPress is used below. It is possible it may not appear in your browser.

  • First, calculate all teams’ round-robin points-per-game (RRPPG). All games which occur in a round-robin system are included, even if a team plays another team multiple times. Playoffs, tiebreaking games, and exhibition matches are excluded. If certain games are known to be “extended” (for example, double-length), that is reflected in the “RR games” total.
  • RRPPG=\frac{RRPts}{RRG}
  • With the RRPPGs known, determine each team’s round-robin opponent average PPG (RROppPPG). This is the average of the PPGs of each opponent a team played, double- or triple- counting where appropriate if they faced each other multiple times. Note: this is different from a team’s average points against, which is a different statistic that is not used in this analysis.
  • RROppPPG=\frac{RRPPG_{opp_1} +RRPPG_{opp_2} +...+RRPPG_{opp_n}}{RR games}
  • The question set’s average points is also needed. This covers all pools and all sites where the questions were used for the purpose of the rank. I determine this average through total RR points and total RR games, so larger sites that have more games do end up with a larger influence on the set average.
  • SetPPG=\frac{\sum{RRPts}}{\sum{RRG}}
  • Strength of schedule (SOS) is a factor to determine how strong a team’s opponents were compared to facing an average set of opponents for the field. A value above 1 indicates a tougher than average schedule; below 1 is a lower than average schedule. In reasonably balanced pools, it is typical to have top teams below 1 and bottom teams above 1 – a top team doesn’t play itself, but its high point tally contributes to the total of one of its weaker opponents. Also, by comparing across multiple pools/sites, SOS can give an overview of how strong a pool/site was.
  • SOS=\frac{RROppPPG}{SetPPG}
  • Now for the biggest leap: the points a team earned must be modified to account for how strong its schedule was. Racking up 400 PPG is far more difficult against national contenders than against novices. Adjusted RRPPG multiplies points by the SOS factor – a tougher schedule gives a team a higher adjusted point total. This adjusted value theoretically represents a team’s PPG if they faced a slate of average teams. Note: this value is not shown in result tables.
  • RRPPG_{adj}=RRPPG \times SOS
  • This value is suitable on its own for ranking. However, I add an extra step of normalizing for the set, so I can compare across years. Earning 400 PPG is far more difficult when the set average is 200 compared to a set average of 300. For example, the late ’90s/early ’00s had much higher set point totals than today (through different formats), and a normalization is needed to compare historical teams of that era to today. The calculated result is the raw R-value, which I convert to a percentage for easier comprehension of how much different from average a team is.
  • Rval_{raw}=\frac{RRPPG_{adj}}{SetPPG} \times 100\%

Raw R-value is the number I use for most comparison purposes. In earlier posts, I tried to show some examples of how this statistic is useful for predicting future performance (especially playoffs) and analyzing outlier results. If R-value is to be used for any sort of qualification system, however, it needs to account for the universally-accepted idea that it is most important to win games. Almost all tournaments use final ranks based primarily on winning (either in playoffs or just prelim results). A team with a low (raw) R-value that finishes ahead of a team with a high R-value deserves qualification just as much (if not more than) teams below them in the standings. The actual R-value is then calculated, based on NAQT’s system (quoting from their D-value page):

After the raw values are computed, they are listed in order for each [site] and a correction is applied to ensure that invitations do not break the order-of-finish at [a site]. Starting at the top of each [site], each team is checked to see if it finished above one or more teams with higher D-values. If it did, then that team and every team between it and the lowest team with a higher D-value are given the mean D-value of that group and ranked in order by their finish.

Let’s say a site winner had a raw R-value of 120% and the runner-up had a final upset while finishing with a raw R-value of 140%. Under this adjustment, both teams end up with the mean, 130%, for their true R-value. The winner receives a boost for finishing above one or more stronger teams, while the lower teams receive a penalty for not reaching their “potential”. The true R-values would then be compared across pools/sites for qualification purposes; if tied teams straddle the cutoff for qualification, invites are issued in order of rank at the tournament.

I do deviate slightly from this formula, though. It is possible, but rare, for the top-ranked team in this average to end up with a lower R-value for finishing higher than a stronger team (e.g: 1st 120%, 2nd 80%, 3rd 130%; all teams get 110%). I don’t believe this should ever happen. If it does, I modify the averaging by this algorithm:

  • First, follow the NAQT algorithm
  • If the first team in the averaging has their R-value lower than their raw R-value, ignore the last team (which has a higher raw R-value than the first team)
  • Proceed to the team one rank above the formerly-last team and attempt the R-value average again. Repeat until the first team improves upon their R-value.
  • Continue the NAQT algorithm with the next team after the new set of averaged teams

Look at the 2016 Ontario Provincials results for an example. Woburn had a very high raw R-value (131.8%), but finished very low (22nd). Under the basic D-value algorithm, 4th-placed London Central would have joined the big set of teams all the way down to Woburn, and ended up with a decrease in their R-value, thanks to the many intermediary teams with low raw R-values. Instead, Woburn was ignored, and the next-lowest team with a higher raw R-value (Hillfield at 132.9%) was tested. Again, this would drop Central’s R-value because of the low value for intermediary Marc Garneau. It is only an average with 5th-placed Waterloo that allows Central to improve on their raw result. From this, the algorithm goes to the next “unaveraged” team, Marc Garneau, who starts the group all the way down to Woburn because they earn a slight R-value boost. 6th through 22nd end up with a final R-value of 110.6% each.

And that’s how you get the R-value. The math isn’t that complicated, but it does require detailed number-crunching, especially for the opponent PPG step. Until more thorough result reporting occurs in SchoolReach, it is probably the best analysis that can be done with the information available. Thankfully, it is a fairly reliable metric for team performance, and I hope to show some examples in future posts.

2017 Nationals preview

Horton hears a Who-am-I!

After a quick turnaround from Ontario provincials, the Reach for the Top national championship will be decided next weekend. Sixteen teams have been invited from across Canada to compete in Toronto for a title that has passed between schools for more than fifty years. Those teams (sorted by province):

British Columbia

Collingwood School

  • Most recent national result: none
  • Best national result (on file): none

Sir Winston Churchill SS

  • Most recent national result: 11th (2016)
  • Best national result (on file): 5th (2008)

Templeton SS

  • Most recent national result: none
  • Best national result (on file): none

Two new teams from BC this year. I thought Templeton may have earned one appearance in the mid-2000s, but I have no records for that period. Meanwhile, Sir Winston Churchill is a very regular qualifier, though they have struggled to get out of the bottom half this decade. I have no information about the BC competition, but at least one team from the province has made top 6 with >100% R-value in almost every year of the past decade. New teams are very much an unknown: will a lack of experience hurt them, or are they a surprise that comes out of nowhere?

Alberta

Old Scona Academic School

  • Most recent national result: 4th (2016)
  • Best national result (on file): 4th (2014, 2016)

The Renert School

  • Most recent national result: 15th (2016)
  • Best national result (on file): 15th (2016)

Rundle College

  • Most recent national result: none
  • Best national result (on file): none

Old Scona leads the Alberta cohort again with yet another Nationals qualification; they are probably the best modern era program to not win a title (yet). Despite all the appearances, they are often stuck in the 5th-8th range indicative of quarterfinal losses. Renert School gave a close match in the Alberta final, but they would need a big improvement from last year to make some noise in their second appearance. Rundle College is actually the 4th-place Alberta team after the third finisher dropped; I think they will looking for just a few wins as a goal.

Manitoba

St. Paul’s HS

  • Most recent national result: 8th (2016)
  • Best national result (on file): 3rd (2010)

Kelvin HS

  • Most recent national result: 7th (2016)
  • Best national result (on file): 1st (1970)

Note: Kelvin’s best result in the modern era is likely their 4th place in 2003. Manitoba is a very active province (for its population) in SchoolReach, and that has fostered good competition as far back as the early CBC years. In recent years, the two Manitoba teams usually make the quarterfinals, and I would not be surprised to see a similar result this year.

Ontario

University of Toronto Schools

  • Most recent national result: 3rd (2015)
  • Best national result (on file): 1st (2002-03, 2012-13)

Lisgar CI

  • Most recent national result: 3rd (2016)
  • Best national result (on file): 1st (2008, 2015)

Martingrove CI

  • Most recent national result: 5th (2016)
  • Best national result (on file): 1st (2014)

These three Ontario teams will enter as favourites. Lisgar is fresh off of record R-values at the regional and provincial level, while UTS got through a tough playoff run after an unexpected low seed. Martingrove is a step below, but this is their fifth consecutive Nationals appearance, which is no small feat in the fierce Ontario competition. I think a UTS-Lisgar final is likely, but both teams have had surprise losses in the last 15 months at various levels of competition (the UTS regional loss last year being most noticeable). Watch out for one of these teams to break Kennebecasis Valley’s national R-value record of 145%, set in 2010.

Quebec

Marianopolis College

  • Most recent national result: 9th (2016)
  • Best national result (on file): 5th (2014)

My previous opinions on CEGEPs in Reach still hold. That being said, I respect that the team is legitimately competing. Unfortunately, CEGEP team compositions are entirely new each year, and without current results from the provincial tournament, I have no way to measure how strong the team is.

New Brunswick

Kennebecasis Valley HS

  • Most recent national result: 1st (2016)
  • Best national result (on file): 1st (2010-11, 2016)

Saint John HS

  • Most recent national result: none
  • Best national result (on file): none

Kennebecasis Valley will defend their national title in their record-continuing twelfth consecutive national appearance. They lost some players to graduation, but their incredible consistency in fostering talented players means that the squad is the best challenger to the Ontario juggernauts this year. I think they should still at least make the semis. Despite often finishing highly in New Brunswick, I think this is Saint John HS’s first national appearance; they just always got locked out by Fredericton in the ’90s and KV in the ’00s before Reach started awarding a second invitation.

Nova Scotia

Auburn Drive HS

  • Most recent national result: 10th (2008)
  • Best national result (on file): 10th (2008)

Horton HS

  • Most recent national result: 10th (2007)
  • Best national result (on file): 3rd (1998)

Nova Scotia is a blast from the past this year! Both teams return after a decade’s absence, with different histories. Auburn Drive had one good year in 2008, then got stuck in the provincial midfield with Cobequid and the other HRM teams dominating. Horton, meanwhile, is reviving their club from a dormancy since 2010; before that, they were the team to beat in the province in the ’90s and early ’00s. Cobequid’s run of national appearances (all but one year since 2009) has ended with a third place in the provincial competition.

And those are the 16 teams. Everyone plays each other in the lengthy Saturday round-robin, which will seed teams for the Sunday/Monday playoffs (nearly every game is played individually, so the playoff process takes time). I foresee the quarterfinals containing the three Ontario teams, KV, Old Scona, and a team each from BC and Manitoba. The final quarterfinal spot is a tossup between Marianopolis or a second team from BC/Manitoba. Lisgar will probably get the highest R-value, but they have a history of faltering in critical playoff games: they have won 8 of their 18 semifinal/3rd place/final matches at the provincial and national levels (UTS has won 30 of 46 and Martingrove 10 of 16, in comparison).

I will be at Nationals. Thanks (and a disclosure) for the Lisgar team providing transportation during my sleeping hours. Despite the registration form, I will not act for Lisgar (or Reach) in any capacity; I will be an independent observer. This also means R-values will be delayed, but I will provide what updates and scores I can through the Twitter hashtag #ReachNats17

Good luck to all the competing teams!

2017 Ontario provincial results

Better late than never!

First off, apologies that this is late, but I’m back from travel now.

The 2017 SchoolReach Ontario provincial championships were held last week in Scarborough. 39 teams competed for ten playoff spots, and those teams then played their Monday rounds to determine the provincial champion and the three Nationals qualifiers.

The University of Toronto Schools won the tournament, with Lisgar CI and Martingrove CI claiming second and third. My results with R-values have been uploaded. Congratulations to both the winners and all the participating teams.

I’ll start with the pools, which can be gleaned from the results graphic Reach provided. There was better balance than some years, with the two extremes of pool B averaging 293.9 PPG and pool E averaging 261.5 PPG. Pool B’s high numbers weren’t just from Lisgar’s massive haul of points; the rest of the pool averaged 259.8 PPG and Lisgar had the toughest strength-of-schedule of any of the five pool winners. Pool E lacked any of my pre-tournament “tier 1” teams, though UCC was, in retrospect, worthy of assuming the “tier 1” role for that pool. Pool E also had a weaker midfield than the other pools. That being said, the variations of strength-of-schedule were not outlandish, and getting 2 playoff teams from each pool is usually the ideal scenario.

There were a few impressive “just-misses”. Pool B had the 12th, 13th, and 14th ranked teams (Oakville Trafalgar HS, Banting SS, and Neil McNeil HS), all of whom had R-values in the range of playoff teams. St. Joseph’s (of the Windsor variety) came from completely off my radar to one spot short of the playoffs.

The ten playoff teams were not too surprising. In fact, they all were listed on my top 15 preview, and all but one were in my top 10 (I went with Centennial CVI instead of Assumption CSS, which is how the head-to-head match, but not the final ranking, ended up). From final rank upward:

  • Merivale (10th). Considering the struggles this teams has had just to exist this year, a playoff appearance is a good finish.
  • RSGC (9th). Their “legit” team came this time, but their performance was surprising. Considering how well they did last year at UTS and also in History Bowl, this finish is a headscratcher. The good news for them is that the team returns next year, so they should improve.
  • Westmount (8th). Their prelim upset over UCC gave them a top seed, but R-value predicted a first-round loss to Assumption. Still, a good showing from the school and they have a solid intermediate group that will join the main team in the future.
  • PACE (7th). They survived Pool B with the R-value to show for it. In fact, their first-round match with London Central only had a 0.5% difference between the two – essentially a coin-flip.
  • Assumption (6th). Their prelim win over UTS was a shock, but they racked up the points throughout the day to justify their second-round appearance. They obviously improved since regionals; they lost to OTHS in the Burlington-Oakville title showdown in March.
  • London Central (5th). Amazingly, 5th would be considered an off-year for Central. Their R-value of 134% was 4th overall, but closer to the bubble teams than the top group.
  • UCC (4th). UCC lost four playoff games and finished 4th, thanks to the “highest-scoring loser” rule. This also happened to Massey in 2005 and St. Brother Andre in 2014. Nevertheless, they pulled off the highest losing score against UTS in the first round and Lisgar in the second; that’s what makes their feat more impressive.
  • Martingrove (3rd). Martingrove benefited from the easiest strength of schedule, but they knew they needed to pile on the points to get a strong seed. Unfortunately, UTS was just too strong in the semifinal, but they recovered to pick up third place and a Nationals spot. They will go deep in the Nationals playoffs as well.
  • Lisgar (2nd). Their raw R-value of 181% is the highest on record for a provincial tournament, and unlike other high R-values in history, they didn’t have a strength of schedule greater than 1. Lisgar just raked in points, including a 700 point game. Their 3730 prelim points are the most ever in the 7-game format, and their 533 PPG are behind only the 2001 and 2002 UTS teams, who had higher-scoring sets in their years. They cruised through the playoffs until they met only other team within striking distance of them. Once again, Lisgar has qualified for Nationals without winning a provincial title.
  • UTS (1st). That absence last year was a fluke. UTS is back and ready for a national title run. Their prelim R-value of 162% is also among the top 5 ever at a provincial tournament. UTS does need a clean run in the Nationals prelims, though, lest they take a strange loss (like they did against Assumption) and end up with a tough playoff road (each of last year’s top 4 as their four opponents).

And that’s how Ontario went. Midfield was a bit weak this year, but the top group are dominant. It would not surprise me to see Ontario 1-2-3 at Nationals this year.

But Nationals is another story. I’ll be back with a preview of the teams in time for next week’s final tournament.

2017 Ontario Provincials preview

Boosting the Scarborough economy since 2002!

It’s a Mother’s Day tradition: 40 teams from across Ontario assemble in Scarborough for the largest gathering of Reach players of the year. Some are there for the first time; others attended back in the Kingston or London days. Everyone is there for one purpose: to determine the 3 Ontario representatives at Nationals.

The tournament format has been roughly the same since 2005. Five pools of eight teams play a round-robin on Sunday. The pool winners take the first five seeds in the playoffs, while the next top five teams fill out the remainder for ten playoff teams in total. Teams are sorted first by wins, then by points earned. In the playoffs, there are five first-round games; the winners proceed and the highest-scoring loser is reprieved and faces the highest remaining seed in round 2. Six teams play in round 2, with three winners and another highest-scoring loser (although twice a single team has been the highest-scoring loser both times). The final four then have semifinals and finals to determine the top three teams.

Last year’s provincials (database entry here) was marred by unbalanced pools. It’s no secret that all this tracking of results and development of statistical rankings is a consequence of that bad tournament, and to that end, I have submitted projections for the top teams at this year’s tournament. I have no expectation that they will be followed exactly, but I set it up for flexibility because there are more considerations than just making a snake draft for pools (not having teams from the same region together; minimizing matchups from last year, accounting for drops, etc).

Here are my recommendations for the top three “tiers” of teams (15 teams in total). Within each tier, teams are listed alphabetically, not by my judgment of precise rank. Ideally, each pool would have one team from each tier, then sort the remaining teams for the geographic diversity.

Tier 1 (should win pool)

Lisgar CI

  • 2016 provincials result: 3rd
  • Best provincial result (on file): 2nd (2015)

Lisgar is the strongest team for which we have statistical evidence, thanks to an R-value of 216% at Regionals. They’ve been prepping through quizbowl events in Ontario and New York and writing the Lisgar independent tournament. The entire team that finished third at the 2016 Nationals will return for their senior year. They did have a reality check with only a 4th place finish at the single-subject History Bowl last month, though.

London Central SS

  • 2016 provincials result: 4th
  • Best provincial result (on file): 1st (2007, 2009, 2014)

I have no statistical information on Central this year. Unfortunately, I can only place them here based on their consistent track record of finishing highly at provincials.

Martingrove CI

  • 2016 provincials result: 1st
  • Best provincial result (on file): 1st (2013, 2015-16)

Martingrove has been in the Ontario final for four straight years. What UTS was for this tournament in the 2000s, MCI has assumed for the 2010s. Their regional R-value of 190% is also very high, and they will definitely be a deep playoff threat.

Royal St. George’s College

  • 2016 provincials result: 26th
  • Best provincial result (on file): 14th (2015)

RSGC is the biggest leap of faith for me; I was burned last year when an unexpected team composition showed up to provincials. This year, the group of grade 11 students should be present, the group who last year finished third at UTS’ independent tournament behind UTS and KVHS and ahead of Nationals qualifiers UCC and Central. I saw this team back as grade 9 players at the first History Bowl, and predicted “the next Colonel By” (a single-year cohort that gels together for eventual dominance). I think they will do well in the round-robin, but could stumble from first-year jitters in the playoffs. It’s all a warm-up for 2018, though.

University of Toronto Schools

  • 2016 provincials result: DNQ
  • Best provincial result (on file): 1st (2001-04, 2008, 2012)

UTS is coming hot off of History Bowl success, and their performance at Lisgar’s independent tournament showed they aren’t limited to one subject. This year, there were no surprises for them in the Toronto region, and they’re back at provincials to restart their attendance streak. A few players are still in grade 11, so expect fireworks to continue next year as well.

Tier 2 (should make playoffs)

The Academy for Gifted Children (PACE)

  • 2016 provincials result: DNQ
  • Best provincial result (on file): 2nd (2013)

PACE is a strange case: they don’t always qualify/attend, but when they do, they usually make playoffs. This could be a consequence of competing in the somewhat-strong York/Richmond Hill region. With regional winner Bayview not likely to attend, they will be the standard-bearer for the north Toronto suburbs.

Centennial CVI

  • 2016 provincials result: 9th
  • Best provincial result (on file): 1st (2011)

Centennial usually makes the playoffs, but they do it with relatively weak R-values. This can be a sign that they pull out wins by punching above their weight, so stronger teams should watch out for team. CCVI also has a great attendance streak stretching back to 2005.

Merivale HS

  • 2016 provincials result: 8th
  • Best provincial result (on file): 1st (2000)

Like PACE, Merivale is stuck in a tough region and just getting to provincials is usually a sign that they will make the playoffs. Their regional R-value of 148% should be enough background for a playoff appearance. Once in, they have been known for upsets…

Upper Canada College

  • 2016 provincials result: 2nd
  • Best provincial result (on file): 2nd (2016)

UCC is finally getting through the Toronto region regularly to reach provincials, with a second-round appearance in 2015 and a great run out of the tough pool to second place last year. They probably aren’t quite tier 1, but they should be a credible threat to knock off a top seed in the first round.

Westmount SS

  • 2016 provincials result: DNQ
  • Best provincial result (on file): 7th (2004)

Westmount has been on the wrong side of the playoff bubble a few times, and their regional R-value of 130% may be pushing it to make the top 10 this year. However, they have a good quizbowl season behind them, and the slow shift to that kind of content in Reach questions could benefit them over other teams that still depend on reading old packs for practice material.

Tier 3 (could make playoffs)

Assumption CSS

  • 2016 provincials result: 29th
  • Best provincial result (on file): 2nd (2010)

Assumption’s record at provincials is all over the map. They could go to Nationals one year and finish bottom half at provincials the next. It’s impossible to predict for this team, but good coaching makes them a serious-effort team, and writing a (middle school level) tournament is a good way to practice. I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt.

Michael Power – St. Joseph HS

  • 2016 provincials result: DNQ
  • Best provincial result (on file): 15th (2013)

MPSJ’s regional R-value of 135% is higher than Tier 2 team Westmount, but I have them ranked lower for two reasons. 1: historically, they finish in the teens and haven’t made playoffs; and 2: the R-value benefited from finishing ahead of a stronger team (Bishop Allen). They could get their best-ever result this year, though.

Neil McNeil HS

  • 2016 provincials result: DNQ
  • Best provincial result (on file): no appearance

Woburn’s run at provincials has apparently ended, with Neil McNeil taking the Scarborough region that has usually been dominated by Woburn and Agincourt (who both regularly finish in the top half). I have no record of Neil McNeil at provincials in the modern era – in fact, I only know of their 1969 title!

The Oakville winner (possibly White Oaks SS or Oakville-Trafalgar HS)

  • 2016 provincials result: 15th (WOSS) or 13th (OTHS)
  • Best provincial result (on file): 11th (WOSS; 2015) or 4th (OTHS; 2003-04)

I don’t know who won Oakville, but White Oaks has decent results this year. I figure it will be either them or a team that performed better than them at regionals, maybe OTHS. Both teams have been in the teens in recent provincials.

Edited to add: as seen in the comments, OTHS has qualified for provincials.

Waterloo CI

  • 2016 provincials result: 5th
  • Best provincial result (on file): 5th (2016)

I’m actually only assuming Waterloo CI won their region (if they didn’t, I gave a note to elevate Peel winner Heart Lake SS). Waterloo had a good run the last few years, but graduations are taking their toll and they have lost ground to some other teams, as seen at McMaster’s quizbowl tournament. They should still be a top half team, though, especially with a background of quizbowl practice.

And there are my top 15. I have assumed no attendance for Bayview, CHAT, and appeals by other Scarborough/York/Ottawa/Toronto teams. There are still some potential surprises, though, thanks to my complete lack of knowledge on some teams and regions. Is first-time provincial attendee Monarch Park, runner-up to RSGC, a threat? How about Brampton or Pickering winners? All those Niagara peninsula reps? Can a Northern Ontario team make playoffs for the first time since Manitoulin in 2003? Does Kingston even exist? Will there still be traffic light trivia at the gala dinner? How many slices of pizza will players get at lunch? All these important questions and more will be answered next week at the 2017 Ontario SchoolReach provincial championship!

2017 Hamilton Regionals results

Double the elimination, double the stats, double the fun!

Hamilton wrapped up its SchoolReach league earlier this year. Thanks to the coordinator, I have the tournament results, conveniently placed here on the database. Westmount SS beat Hillfield Strathallan College in a final after a lengthy double-elimination playoff and qualified for provincials.

This tournament gives another data set for the 2017 Regionals set. I updated the set’s average PPG to include both sites so that R-values are comparable. Westmount’s R-value of 134% would roughly place them third at the Ottawa site, which feels appropriate for a cut-off point for provincial qualifications.

Hamilton has had decent results at provincials over the years. Their representatives recently have been Westmount, Westdale, and HSC, and those teams usually finish in the 7-12 range in the rankings for a 10-team playoff. Since 2010 (the point where I have every consecutive year), the Hamilton representative has averaged a rank of 11.0.

Then I remembered that the Hamilton representative usually gets a tough ride at provincials. 2016 had HSC lumped in a pool with the Ottawa, Toronto, and London champions, but they got through a tough SOS to the playoffs. In 2013, Westdale was in the toughest pool ever (UTS & PACE went to nationals, Brother André also made playoffs) and still finished 11th.

This inspired me to do some investigating. I looked at teams that attended each year since 2010 and averaged their final ranks and strengths of schedule. In theory, an average team should rank 20th and have an SOS of 1, with SOS getting lower as ranks get better (a higher-ranked team faced competition weaker than them). How does Hamilton compare?

Team Average rank Average SOS
Martingrove CI 2.6 0.944
London Central SS 5.6 0.956
Lisgar CI 6.1 0.941
Centennial CVI 9.4 0.959
Woburn CI 10.1 0.981
Hamilton rep 11.0 1.007
Assumption CSS 15.7 0.964

Sorry Hamilton. Martingrove, Central, and Lisgar get lower SOS because they finish so highly, but comparable teams like Centennial, Woburn, and Assumption get an easier schedule. Hamilton is the Rodney Dangerfield of Ontario provincials.

Edited to add: I must correct myself. Upon an analysis comparing rank and strength of schedule over all the provincials teams, the difference between Hamilton’s and other teams’ schedules is not statistically significant. Hamilton is higher than expected, but not by a standard deviation from the others. There are teams that had statistically significant uphill battles, but I’ll leave that for an off-season downtime post.

Anyway, once again thanks for the Hamilton regional stats, and hopefully I can get some more tournaments to further determine the strength of the teams playing this set, some of whom are qualified for a provincials pool.

2017 Ottawa Regionals results

Record-breaking!

The 2017 Ottawa SchoolReach league wrapped up today. 15 teams sorted out their year-end placements in the senior division. Lisgar CI ended as champion in a placement final over Merivale HS, with both qualifying for provincials.

I have completed the result table here. The database page also has a link to the original results document from the coordinators. Some results highlights:

  • Lisgar’s win was expected, but it was dominant. Their R-value of 210% is the highest I have on record, even higher than the low 190s Lisgar pulled in regionals during their championship years. Even more incredibly, they didn’t benefit from a high strength of schedule that helps boost most good R-values – they did it with an SOS of less than 1.
  • Merivale stepped it up on the second day. They were statistically behind Glebe after the first day, but clearly earned their second place (and qualification) today. Nepean also made a marked improvement to climb from seventh to third place.
  • St. Pius X pulled off their best-ever result with a 7th place.

I read in the lower bracket. The games were lower-scoring, but they were usually close. The 9th-place match between Mother Teresa and Cairine Wilson in particular had constant back-and-forth in answering and saw tie scores at each break.

I also, obviously, can’t discuss question content, but questions I wrote way back in 2014 started appearing. Unfortunately, I feel that the subject matter is better suited for provincials/nationals level, rather than the regional set. Then again, the regional set also had very obscure material (that I had never heard of in my years of experience), so maybe my stuff didn’t stand out too much. I’d estimate the equivalent of 25 questions across 16 rounds that were read came from my hand, so there’s still plenty more in Reach’s arsenal.

The day went smoothly. I played no part in organization other than providing a reading voice and some buzzers, so all credit goes to the coordinators that make Ottawa one of the best-run, strongest, and most transparent leagues in Canada. Also, kudos to the teams for being good sports and keeping good behaviour, even when a lower bracket match feels like an ideal time to goof off.

Now, some rest.

2017 Ottawa Regionals, Day 2 preview

Comparing results from before players were born.

The 2017 Ottawa SchoolReach league wraps up tomorrow. The top 8 teams will play a round-robin, followed by a one-game match between consecutive-ranked teams (1 vs 2, 3 vs 4, etc). The same holds true for the lower flight of seven teams.

Some teams will have a chance at their best result ever. Here’s a look at the top flight’s previous best local results, at least as far back as 1999 for the most part:

  • #1 Lisgar: 1st outright nine times (2001, 2004, 2006-07, 2010-12, 2015-16)
  • #2 Glebe: 2nd once (2015)
  • #3 Merivale: 1st outright four times (1999, 2002-03, 2013); Lisgar and Merivale had unresolved ties for 1st in 2008 and 2009
  • #4 Osgoode: 5th once (1999), but that was out of six teams; they got 7th in 2012
  • #5 Earl of March: 2nd once (2012)
  • #6 St. Pius X: 15th twice (2015, 2016); this year will be their best result
  • #7 Nepean: 1st once (1996), but I don’t have tournament details; they got 3rd in 2016
  • #8 St. Paul: 4th once (2016)

I will live-tweet results from my room as I finish them. Hopefully, a live results table will continue to be available here.

Good luck to the teams!