Ranking rankings: an empirical comparison of the predictive power of sports ranking methods

Barrow Daniel, Drayer Ian, Elliott Peter, Gaut Garren and Osting Braxton ()
Additional contact information
Barrow Daniel: Pitzer College, Department of Mathematics, 1050 North Mills Avenue, Claremont, CA 91711, USA
Drayer Ian: UCLA, Department of Mathematics, 405 Hilgard Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA
Elliott Peter: UCLA, Department of Mathematics, 405 Hilgard Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA
Gaut Garren: UCLA, Department of Mathematics, 405 Hilgard Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA
Osting Braxton: UCLA, Department of Mathematics, 405 Hilgard Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA

Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports, 2013, vol. 9, issue 2, 187-202

Abstract: In this paper, we empirically evaluate the predictive power of eight sports ranking methods. For each ranking method, we implement two versions, one using only win-loss data and one utilizing score-differential data. The methods are compared on 4 datasets: 32 National Basketball Association (NBA) seasons, 112 Major League Baseball (MLB) seasons, 22 NCAA Division 1-A Basketball (NCAAB) seasons, and 56 NCAA Division 1-A Football (NCAAF) seasons. For each season of each dataset, we apply 20-fold cross validation to determine the predictive accuracy of the ranking methods. The non-parametric Friedman hypothesis test is used to assess whether the predictive errors for the considered rankings over the seasons are statistically dissimilar. The post-hoc Nemenyi test is then employed to determine which ranking methods have significant differences in predictive power. For all datasets, the null hypothesis – that all ranking methods are equivalent – is rejected at the 99% confidence level. For NCAAF and NCAAB datasets, the Nemenyi test concludes that the implementations utilizing score-differential data are usually more predictive than those using only win-loss data. For the NCAAF dataset, the least squares and random walker methods have significantly better predictive accuracy at the 95% confidence level than the other methods considered.

Keywords: cross validation; Friedman test; Nemenyi test; hypothesis testing; sports rankings (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2013
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

Downloads: (external link)
https://doi.org/10.1515/jqas-2013-0013 (text/html)
For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:bpj:jqsprt:v:9:y:2013:i:2:p:187-202:n:7

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
https://www.degruyter.com/journal/key/jqas/html

DOI: 10.1515/jqas-2013-0013

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports is currently edited by Mark Glickman

More articles in Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports from De Gruyter
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Peter Golla ().