Bracket data: What 5 years of info says about what will happen this weekend

[maligned]

Here is bracket data from the last 5 years of individual state championships:

 

Round 1:

 

#1's over #4's, 254-25 (91%...does not include #4 over #1 default last year)

On average, #1's go 51-5 against #4's each year

 

#2's over #3's, 175-105 (63%)

On average, #2's go 35-21 against #3's each year

 

Quarterfinals:

 

#1: 187-67 (74% quarterfinal win percentage; 67% of all #1's advance to semi-finals)

#2: 55-120 (31% quarterfinal win percentage; 20% of all #2's advance to semi-finals)

#3: 26-99 (25% quarterfinal win percentage; 9% of all #3's advance to semi-finals)

#4: 12-14 (46% quarterfinal win percentage; 4% of all #4's advance to semi-finals; includes QF loss by #4 seed first round default winner last year)

 

#1 vs. #2: 114-44 (72%)

#1 vs. #3: 73-23 (76%)

#2 vs. #4: 11-6 (65%)

#3 vs. #4: 3-6 (33%)

 

Semi-finals:

 

#1: Represent 113 out of 140 of the advancers to the finals (81%)

#2: 18-37 record (32% semi-final win percentage; represent 13% of the advancers to the finals)

#3: 7-19 record (27% semi-final win percentage; represent 5% of the advancers to the finals)

#4: 2-10 record (17% semi-final win percentage; represent 1% of the advancers to the finals)

 

Finals:

 

#1: 65 of the 70 champs--exactly 13 every year (93% of all champions)

#2: 5-13 record (28% finals win percentage; exactly 1 champ every year; 7% of all champions)

#3: 0-7 record (no champions)

#4: 0-2 record (no champions)

 

Runner-up average losses before championship match: 1.66

Champion average losses before championship match: 0.47

 

Comments:

 

1. The #4 over #1 upset happens far less than people think it does.  It's only about once every 3 weight classes, on average.  And when it does happen, it's usually in a match we might expect it, where the #4 was clearly from an especially difficult semi-state in his weight class.  As you can see in the quarterfinal stats, the 4's that win go on to be a coin flip proposition for also winning in the second round--meaning the ones that win in the first round are just as good, on average, as a #2 or #3 that's good enough to win his first match.  We should already know this, since these guys already beat a #1, but I think we sometimes believe it's luck or a fluke that #4's win.  Usually, it's because the #4 was a potential state placer stuck in a meat grinder weight class at semi-state.

In trying to make #4 over #1 picks, try to find those logical match-ups where a highly regarded guy finished 4th behind 3 other highly regarded wrestlers while his #1 seed opponent maybe has a few losses on the season and finished ahead of only a ranked wrestler or two at semi-state.

 

2. Finalists are truly the best of the best.  In addition to only 1 second seed per year winning a title, only 2 to 4 champions per year finish the season with any losses at all.  Even among runners-up, the significant majority had 0 to 2 losses before the championship match.  If you are predicting any 5-loss dark horse champions for this weekend, think again.  In fact, you would be wise to make all of your champion picks be semi-state champions from among the top 2 or 3 rated guys in the state.

 

 

 

 

 

[ontherise219]

That's awesome information

[Dingo Brigade]

That's some next level type info. Well done

[wrestler60160]

Pretty darn good stuff right there!

[edb41]

So you're saying everyone has a chance

[wrestlenewbie]

I love the analysis.

 

Your explanation for the relative success of 4s in the quarterfinals passes the sniff test. But I am wondering if the #4 coin flip in the quarterfinal round is really a small sample size phenomenon and that over a longer time period that percentage will dip. Particularly since it is being driven by 4's over 3's where there are only 9 observations.

 

Were you able to look at the 6 winners over 3's and confirm your scenario played out?

 

I will be disappointed come Monday when I won't be getting my wrestling stat fix anymore. 

[Wrestling Scholar]

Good stuff.   Im going to pull some of these stats this weekend to look smart.

[PatParham]

I really like this statistical breakdown. Awesome work, thanks for posting. With that being said rare events are rare, however rare events do occur.

[maligned]

I love the analysis.

 

Your explanation for the relative success of 4s in the quarterfinals passes the sniff test. But I am wondering if the #4 coin flip in the quarterfinal round is really a small sample size phenomenon and that over a longer time period that percentage will dip. Particularly since it is being driven by 4's over 3's where there are only 9 observations.

 

Were you able to look at the 6 winners over 3's and confirm your scenario played out?

 

I will be disappointed come Monday when I won't be getting my wrestling stat fix anymore. 

It is a small sample size if you only look at wins/losses, you're correct.  But we can start to identify some level of confidence in the "truth" of the results by aggregating the individual scores of the 25 matches (excluding the one match involving the 4-seed that advanced by default and did not fit the profile of a typical #4 advancer). 

 

All told, the 12 victories of the #4's included 5 pins, a major, and 6 decisions.  The losses involved 2 pins and 2 majors.  If we aggregate these, assigning a value of +10 match points to pins and actual score differentials to the rest, the #4's outscored their 25 opponents by 14 points...an average of a little more than half a point per match for the entire 25.  

 

In fact, though, it's a little more future-predictive in the context of individual ratings for wrestlers of this level to cap match point differentials at 7 (+7 for pins/majors/techs).  This still gives us an average difference of +0.3 points for the 25 matches--in favor of the #4's.  If we get these aggregated score results for 25 matches, we can start to feel some level of comfort in the assumption that future matches of this type (quarterfinals involving #4 seeds) will go the way of the #4 about half the time.   To put it another way, the line for these matches would be set at "pick 'em" or -0.5 in favor of the #4s that just beat a #1.

Edited February 19, 2015 by maligned

[wrestlenewbie]

It is a small sample size if you only look at wins/losses, you're correct.  But we can start to identify some level of confidence in the "truth" of the results by aggregating the individual scores of the 25 matches (excluding the one match involving the 4-seed that advanced by default and did not fit the profile of a typical #4 advancer). 

 

All told, the 12 victories of the #4's included 5 pins, a major, and 6 decisions.  The losses involved 2 pins and 2 majors.  If we aggregate these, assigning a value of +10 match points to pins and actual score differentials to the rest, the #4's outscored their 25 opponents by 14 points...an average of a little more than half a point per match for the entire 25.  

 

In fact, though, it's a little more future-predictive in the context of individual ratings for wrestlers of this level to cap match point differentials at 7 (+7 for pins/majors/techs).  This still gives us an average difference of +0.3 points for the 25 matches--in favor of the #4's.  If we get these aggregated score results for 25 matches, we can start to feel some level of comfort in the assumption that future matches of this type (quarterfinals involving #4 seeds) will go the way of the #4 about half the time.   To put it another way, the line for these matches would be set at "pick 'em" or -0.5 in favor of the #4s that just beat a #1.

You are not maligned here. Thank you.

[Wrestling Scholar]

It is a small sample size if you only look at wins/losses, you're correct.  But we can start to identify some level of confidence in the "truth" of the results by aggregating the individual scores of the 25 matches (excluding the one match involving the 4-seed that advanced by default and did not fit the profile of a typical #4 advancer). 

 

All told, the 12 victories of the #4's included 5 pins, a major, and 6 decisions.  The losses involved 2 pins and 2 majors.  If we aggregate these, assigning a value of +10 match points to pins and actual score differentials to the rest, the #4's outscored their 25 opponents by 14 points...an average of a little more than half a point per match for the entire 25.  

 

In fact, though, it's a little more future-predictive in the context of individual ratings for wrestlers of this level to cap match point differentials at 7 (+7 for pins/majors/techs).  This still gives us an average difference of +0.3 points for the 25 matches--in favor of the #4's.  If we get these aggregated score results for 25 matches, we can start to feel some level of comfort in the assumption that future matches of this type (quarterfinals involving #4 seeds) will go the way of the #4 about half the time.   To put it another way, the line for these matches would be set at "pick 'em" or -0.5 in favor of the #4s that just beat a #1.

Is Maligned a statistics teacher? 

[wrestlenewbie]

Is Maligned a statistics teacher? 

Certainly within the context of this forum if not in a broader sense. Teacher, teacher, teach me well.

[AJ]

More data info:

 

There will  be a lot of shaved ice bets...

 

Many people will run and save seats...

 

Tonte's suite will be even bolder and brighter

[Dingo Brigade]

Tonte is indiana wrestling's Craig sager

[MattM]

Tonte is indiana wrestling's Craig sager

Well Sager is America's Don Cherry.

[maligned]

I was gonna say...Cherry was a coach at one time, so maybe Tonte is our Don Cherry.

[XxFIST2FACExX]

Awesome

[BlueKnight]

_{It is a small sample size if you only look at wins/losses, you're correct.  But we can start to identify some level of confidence in the "truth" of the results by aggregating the individual scores of the 25 matches (excluding the one match involving the 4-seed that advanced by default and did not fit the profile of a typical #4 advancer).} 

 

_{All told, the 12 victories of the #4's included 5 pins, a major, and 6 decisions.  The losses involved 2 pins and 2 majors.  If we aggregate these, assigning a value of +10 match points to pins and actual score differentials to the rest, the #4's outscored their 25 opponents by 14 points...an average of a little more than half a point per match for the entire 25.}  

 

_{In fact, though, it's a little more future-predictive in the context of individual ratings for wrestlers of this level to cap match point differentials at 7 (+7 for pins/majors/techs).  This still gives us an average difference of +0.3 points for the 25 matches--in favor of the #4's.  If we get these aggregated score results for 25 matches, we can start to feel some level of comfort in the assumption that future matches of this type (quarterfinals involving #4 seeds) will go the way of the #4 about half the time.   To put it another way, the line for these matches would be set at "pick 'em" or -0.5 in favor of the #4s that just beat a #1.}

 

_{I love the analysis.  And Newbie, not a bad question either for a westsider.}

[wrestlenewbie]

_{I love the analysis.  And Newbie, not a bad question either for a westsider.}

It is worse than that. I am not even a Hoosier

[wrestlenewbie]

Speaking of analysis I took the liberty of updating the much not-maligned maligned's earlier post to compare the work he did on the prior 5 years to 2015:

 

Round 1:

 

 

 

2010-2014 average, #1's go 51-5 against #4's

 

2015 #1’s went 49-7 against #4’s

 

 

 

2010-2015 average, #2's go 35-21 against #3's

 

2015 #2’s went 29-27 against #3’s

 

 

 

Quarterfinals:

 

 

 

#1: 2010-2014 (74% quarterfinal win percentage; 67% of all #1's advance to semi-finals)

 

            2015 (78% quarterfinal win percentage; 68% of all #1’s advance)

 

#2: 2010-2014 (31% quarterfinal win percentage; 20% of all #2's advance to semi-finals)

 

            2015 (31% quarterfinal win percentage; 16% of all #2’s advance)

 

#3: 2010-2014 (25% quarterfinal win percentage; 9% of all #3's advance to semi-finals)

 

            2015 (22% quarterfinal win percentage; 11% of all #3’s advance)

 

#4: 2010-2014 (46% quarterfinal win percentage; 4% of all #4's advance to semi-finals)

 

            2015 (43% quarterfinal win percentage: 5% of all #4’s advance)

 

 

 

2010-2014 #1 vs. #2: 114-44 (72%)

 

            2015 72%

 

2010-2014 #1 vs. #3: 73-23 (76%)

 

            2015 83%

 

2010-2014 #2 vs. #4: 11-6 (65%)

 

            2015 50%

 

2010-2014 #3 vs. #4: 3-6 (33%)

 

            2015 33%

 

 

 

Semi-finals:

 

 

 

2010-2014 #1’s: Represent 81% of the advancers to the finals

 

            2015 82%

 

2010-2014 #2’s: 13% of the advancers to the finals

 

            2015 14%

 

2010-2014 #3’s: 5% of the advancers to the finals

 

            2015 4%

 

2010-2014 #4’s: 1% of the advancers to the finals

 

            2015 0%

 

 

 

Finals:

 

 

 

2010-2014 #1’s: exactly 13 every year (93% of all champions)

 

            2015 12

 

2010-2014 #2’s: exactly 1 champ every year (7% of all champions)

 

            2015 2

 

2010-2014 #3’s: 0-7 record (no champions)

 

            2015 0

 

2010-2014 #4’s: 0-2 record (no champions)

 

2015 0

 

 

Other than a very modest uptick in first round upsets (and that is probably well within the range of the prior five years) this year played out almost exactly true to form.

 

If Vegas ever posts lines on IHSAA Finals the Indianamat readers will clean up.

[maligned]

 

Other than a very modest uptick in first round upsets (and that is probably well within the range of the prior five years) this year played out almost exactly true to form.

 

 

Yeah, and the truth is that 4's have now gone through 6.75 times per year since the new weight classes began.  In theory, if the new weight classes work as they're supposed to, there should be better quality depth across all weight classes--meaning we should have 4's that are closer to 1's, on average.  The last 3 years have had 8, 8, and 7 first round victories by 4 seeds.  Not enough to say it's a trend, but it's worth watching.

Edited February 25, 2015 by maligned