Wrestling Scholar Posted February 24, 2017 Share Posted February 24, 2017 (edited) Whatbim saying is that tougher teams in the regional have a better chance to eliminate tougher teams. It not sure hobart belongs there either. This is just a flaw in the system I'm familiar with. I would say if hobart were put in to the "3" regional they would bring a lot more wrestlers. I think a better idea of who has a tougher sectional should be semi state first round wins. There were also 5th placer at calumet who had multiple wins over other ssq. If Harrison gets in good for them. I think there is q handful of wrestlers who it will benefit. Hobart might have got a couple guys through at Logansport. But looking from the team state scoring, they would have had to place in the top 3 to score the semi-state points. That's the handicap. Wouldn't say there's any bias toward the Calumuet Regional from Mike, but lets put in on paper. Hobart got 7 of there wrestlers through. So which of the remaining 7 Hobart wrestlers would of hypotheticaly improved their position by placing in the top 3 at Logansport? 113 lbs was 10-9 Highly unlikely that he beats Burge from Mccutcheon and really don't see him beating Patrick from Jeff- So no points here. 126 lbs was 21-8 Gomez might have had a shot at 3rd but long shot. He would of had to beat Dominguez from Logansport, but I doubt it. I don't think he beats Casillas who didn't place. - No points here 132 lbs 4-7 I don't see him beating Bernhardt from Cass or even placing fourth by beating Salas. 182 lbs- Vode 13-10 I could see him getting 4th, but I don't see him beating Powell. No improvement 195 lbs Recio- 8-5 No way he beats Day from Winamac. Maybe a long shot at 4th 220 lbs wrestling at 6-8. Lets be real. He wouldn't get Foster for 3rd or Provancal for 4th. Hwy - Forfeit Also based on Semi-State, Cardwell at 106 got beat out by the top 3 at Logansport. Lets give him 4th so he wouldn't have scored any semi-state points. Hobart would probably have gotten 6 placers scoring at Logansport and scored less points than Calumet. Maybe the system is not flawed. Your're the rankings guy, so where is my logic wrong. Let me know. Like Adrian said, Calumet is strong on the top but its not that deep. Edited February 24, 2017 by Wrestling Scholar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maligned Posted February 24, 2017 Author Share Posted February 24, 2017 Maligned, Here's at least something to consider... if we are looking at how difficult it is for the 5th best kid to get out of sectional or regional, why are we averaging the genius scores from EVERY team in the sectional or regional? Play along for a minute... let's say the Calumet Regional had Brownsburg, Portage, EMD, and Merrillville. It also had 12 Hammond Bishop Noll and Whiting lookalikes. The average would be dragged way down, but the overall quality of this regional's advancing wrestlers would be off the charts and it would be extremely difficult to crack the top 4 for any of the lower level team's wrestlers. Therefore, wouldn't it be better to average the top 4 teams genius scores to determine how difficult a regional is, since those are the teams getting the lions share of the semi state qualifiers? Would like to hear your thoughts on this from a mathematical perspective. I may rock a mullet, but I'm smarter than I look. That's not how Categories are calculated. Look at the example I gave back about 30 comments on this thread to see how we're only using genius to predict how many qualifiers each team would get in an average difficulty tournament. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IndianaMudflap Posted February 24, 2017 Share Posted February 24, 2017 (edited) That's not how Categories are calculated. Look at the example I gave back about 30 comments on this thread to see how we're only using genius to predict how many qualifiers each team would get in an average difficulty tournament. That's fine but the same logic holds.. why average ALL of the regional teams "predicted qualifiers in an average tournament"? Why not only take into account the top 4 or top 6 teams since they get the majority of the SSQ? Edited February 24, 2017 by IndianaMudflap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrestling Scholar Posted February 24, 2017 Share Posted February 24, 2017 That's fine but the same logic holds.. why average ALL of the regional teams "predicted qualifiers in an average tournament"? Why not only take into account the top 4 or top 6 teams since they get the majority of the SSQ? Every team has the possibility of scoring so you cant discount them. Some of the sectionals have 8 or 9 teams with relatively high Genius ratings. They should get credit for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maligned Posted February 24, 2017 Author Share Posted February 24, 2017 That's fine but the same logic holds.. why average ALL of the regional teams "predicted qualifiers in an average tournament"? Why not only take into account the top 4 or top 6 teams since they get the majority of the SSQ?If we look at all teams we know, for example, that a given regional has 50 or 55 regional-level kids. If we only look at a certain number of teams or only the best couple from each weight class, we're making our guess far more erratic since there are 15 other teams competing that all have at least a minimal impact on that site's crowdedness. As Coach Pendoski said, they've got a whole run down of good teams--not just 2or 4. We can't knowingly leave some information out just because it might make us use the calculator a few less clicks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ontherise219 Posted February 24, 2017 Share Posted February 24, 2017 Hobart might have got a couple guys through at Logansport. But looking from the team state scoring, they would have had to place in the top 3 to score the semi-state points. That's the handicap. Wouldn't say there's any bias toward the Calumuet Regional from Mike, but lets put in on paper. Hobart got 7 of there wrestlers through. So which of the remaining 7 Hobart wrestlers would of hypotheticaly improved their position by placing in the top 3 at Logansport? 113 lbs was 10-9 Highly unlikely that he beats Burge from Mccutcheon and really don't see him beating Patrick from Jeff- So no points here. 126 lbs was 21-8 Gomez might have had a shot at 3rd but long shot. He would of had to beat Dominguez from Logansport, but I doubt it. I don't think he beats Casillas who didn't place. - No points here 132 lbs 4-7 I don't see him beating Bernhardt from Cass or even placing fourth by beating Salas. 182 lbs- Vode 13-10 I could see him getting 4th, but I don't see him beating Powell. No improvement 195 lbs Recio- 8-5 No way he beats Day from Winamac. Maybe a long shot at 4th 220 lbs 6-8 lets be real. He wouldn't get Foster for 3rd or Provancal for 4th. Hwy - Forfeit Also based on Semi-State, Cardwell at 106 got beat out by the top 3 at Logansport. Lets give him 4th so he wouldn't have scored any semi-state points. Hobart would probably have gotten 6 placers scoring at Logansport and scored less points than Calumet. Maybe the system is not flawed. Your're the rankings guy, so where is my logic wrong. Let me know. Like Adrian said, Calumet is strong on the top but its not that deep. I think your under selling hobart at these weights and over selling logansport at those same weights. Burge wrestled 120 at the harvest and was 1-2 losing by tech fall to fair and pinned by a Griffith kid who didn't make it to sectionals. 106 doesn't win logansport 113 either but decent 120 champ medalist 126 finalist 132 lost their varsity kid who was ssq but back I think gets out 138 champ 145 champ 152 runner up return SQ really a toss up. Plus their back up beat the calumet regional champ 160 champ 170 champ 182 would quillfy lost to a solid habit kid who has been at ss twice now. 195-285 probably doesn't get out. IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IndianaMudflap Posted February 24, 2017 Share Posted February 24, 2017 Every team has the possibility of scoring so you cant discount them. Some of the sectionals have 8 or 9 teams with relatively high Genius ratings. They should get credit for that. I disagree. Whether a kid is 5th best or 9th best, doesn't really matter. He doesn't qualify for the next level in either example. I'd argue it's harder for an individual to advance in a regional with 4 top 5 teams in it than one with 9 above average teams in it but no top 25 teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maligned Posted February 24, 2017 Author Share Posted February 24, 2017 (edited) I disagree. Whether a kid is 5th best or 9th best, doesn't really matter. He doesn't qualify for the next level in either example. I'd argue it's harder for an individual to advance in a regional with 4 top 5 teams in it than one with 9 above average teams in it but no top 25 teams.That last sentence is potentially true, but we don't know and we can't implement effective Categories until we research all the historical scenarios and calculate them out instead of making assumptions. And that's what we've done. Edited February 24, 2017 by maligned Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IndianaMudflap Posted February 24, 2017 Share Posted February 24, 2017 If we look at all teams we know, for example, that a given regional has 50 or 55 regional-level kids. If we only look at a certain number of teams or only the best couple from each weight class, we're making our guess far more erratic since there are 15 other teams competing that all have at least a minimal impact on that site's crowdedness. As Coach Pendoski said, they've got a whole run down of good teams--not just 2or 4. We can't knowingly leave some information out just because it might make us use the calculator a few less clicks. I don't think we are leaving any valuable data out is my point. It's possible that we could have "addition by subtraction" in terms of less data being more predictive in this case.. I'm arguing that the data you are valuing, namely the bottom 10 teams in a regional is irrelevant. The difficulty of the path to semi state is a function of how good the top 4 or 6 teams are, since they are getting almost all of the SSQ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ontherise219 Posted February 24, 2017 Share Posted February 24, 2017 I think your under selling hobart at these weights and over selling logansport at those same weights. Burge wrestled 120 at the harvest and was 1-2 losing by tech fall to fair and pinned by a Griffith kid who didn't make it to sectionals. 106 doesn't win logansport 113 either but decent 120 champ medalist 126 finalist 132 lost their varsity kid who was ssq but back I think gets out 138 champ 145 champ 152 runner up return SQ really a toss up. Plus their back up beat the calumet regional champ 160 champ 170 champ 182 would quillfy lost to a solid habit kid who has been at ss twice now. 195-285 probably doesn't get out. IMO Do we not see the comedy of us comparing a dual with a entire regional? Level 3 and level 4 the 3rd best team from calumet might beat the logansport regional in a dual. How do we decide levels based on the lowest level teams from the regionals who have little to no impact on who advanced to semi state. Your're the rankings guy, so where is my logic wrong. Let me know. Like Adrian said, Calumet is strong on the top but its not that deep. And logansport is a deep regional. Interesting Old School H 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maligned Posted February 24, 2017 Author Share Posted February 24, 2017 I don't think we are leaving any valuable data out is my point. It's possible that we could have "addition by subtraction" in terms of less data being more predictive in this case.. I'm arguing that the data you are valuing, namely the bottom 10 teams in a regional is irrelevant. The difficulty of the path to semi state is a function of how good the top 4 or 6 teams are, since they are getting almost all of the SSQ.Almost all. Exactly. But every site is different so there's no fair way to just not consider some teams. Again, we have all the historical info...why are we wrong in using it and remaining as accurate as we've been? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ontherise219 Posted February 24, 2017 Share Posted February 24, 2017 (edited) Westfield finished 6th in our Regional and they are ranked #24 on the genius rating. I don't even pretend to know the math on the qualifying point system. I also think that the multiplier was too rewarding to our sectional/regional path. ....but I also know that it is probably impossible to have a scoring system implied across the state that could be 'the best way'. We have to have a system, this system is researched and thought through. There will always be 'outlier' situation that a scoring system will miss. Genius ratings of teams in our sectional.: 8 Carmel 16 Zionsville 24 Westfield 30 Hamilton Southeastern 54 Lebanon There was a wrestler that placed at Al Smith and he didn't get our of the sectional (and in my opinion, he wrestled well to get 5th!) And that sectional feeds into the regional with: 17 North Montgomery There's still only 56 semi state qualifiers that come from this regional. The points get split between these teams. I also wonder what would happen if you took the average genius rating of the top 6 teams in a regional to help Yea very tough and yet none of these teams will be represented in the 3a and new castle has the highest medalist count. Making it tougher for you guys to push wrestlers through.Almost all. Exactly. But every site is different so there's no fair way to just not consider some teams. Again, we have all the historical info...why are we wrong in using it and remaining as accurate as we've been?Define accurate. What were the placements at state for the 12 teams who were at ihswca and how many 3a teams placed ahead of them? Edited February 24, 2017 by ontherise219 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IndianaMudflap Posted February 24, 2017 Share Posted February 24, 2017 Almost all. Exactly. But every site is different so there's no fair way to just not consider some teams. Again, we have all the historical info...why are we wrong in using it and remaining as accurate as we've been? The problem is that by doing a simple average, you're weighting the bottom 10 teams equally with the top 6. Find out what % of SSQ the top 6 teams get and weight their scores to that percentages. The bottom teams make no difference whether they're the worst team in the state or an average team, the quality of the top 6 absolutely matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrestling Scholar Posted February 24, 2017 Share Posted February 24, 2017 (edited) Do we not see the comedy of us comparing a dual with a entire regional? Level 3 and level 4 the 3rd best team from calumet might beat the logansport regional in a dual. How do we decide levels based on the lowest level teams from the regionals who have little to no impact on who advanced to semi state. And logansport is a deep regional. Interesting `Interesting. According to Maigned's Genius ratings, Harrison beats Hobart by 10 points. But you think Hobart beats the whole Regional in a dual. In not saying that you have any bias towards the Calumet Regional, but you're analysis is interesting. 4-7 backup dominate. You're the rankings guy and you know. Edited February 24, 2017 by Wrestling Scholar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maligned Posted February 24, 2017 Author Share Posted February 24, 2017 Yea very tough and yet none of these teams will be represented in the 3a and new castle has the highest medalist count. Making it tougher for you guys to push wrestlers through. Define accurate. Every year-end top 5 team and at least 8 of the year end top 10 from all classes have been in the event with the category method of controlling for path difficulty. Overall, including the multiplier years, at least 7 of the top 10 every time and 72 of 75 year-end top 5's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ontherise219 Posted February 24, 2017 Share Posted February 24, 2017 That is interesting i think thats why I am asking the question. For the record I don't think Hobart should be at ihswca either Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ontherise219 Posted February 24, 2017 Share Posted February 24, 2017 (edited) Common opponents Kankakee valley 47-28 win for hobart. Harrison 42-27 with KV giving forfeits in winnable matches at 170,113 giving a swing. So in my rankings opinion yes hobart wins that dual. When KV was at full strength it 32-21 as go back over the results. Edited February 24, 2017 by ontherise219 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maligned Posted February 24, 2017 Author Share Posted February 24, 2017 The problem is that by doing a simple average, you're weighting the bottom 10 teams equally with the top 6. Find out what % of SSQ the top 6 teams get and weight their scores to that percentages. The bottom teams make no difference whether they're the worst team in the state or an average team, the quality of the top 6 absolutely matter. There's no average used in any way. Please look again at my earlier post. Each team's expected qualifiers are added together to give a depth total. For example, the 12 expected from Portage and 9.5 from Merrillville and 0.1 from the lowest teams are simply totaled, thus giving full powerful weight to the big teams. We then divide that total expected qualifiers number by 14 weight classes to give a per-weight-class total and you've got your category. bog190 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ontherise219 Posted February 24, 2017 Share Posted February 24, 2017 But lower level teams in these regionals have little to no impact on the totals correct? But have a major impact on your regional grade Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maligned Posted February 24, 2017 Author Share Posted February 24, 2017 But lower level teams in these regionals have little to no impact on the totals correct? But have a major impact on your regional grade Every team's expected qualifiers are added in. So if a team has virtually no expected qualifiers, they have virtually no impact. Not sure if that's what you're suggesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brickfor6 Posted February 24, 2017 Share Posted February 24, 2017 (edited) Hobart might have got a couple guys through at Logansport. But looking from the team state scoring, they would have had to place in the top 3 to score the semi-state points. That's the handicap. Wouldn't say there's any bias toward the Calumuet Regional from Mike, but lets put in on paper. Hobart got 7 of there wrestlers through. So which of the remaining 7 Hobart wrestlers would of hypotheticaly improved their position by placing in the top 3 at Logansport? 113 lbs was 10-9 Highly unlikely that he beats Burge from Mccutcheon and really don't see him beating Patrick from Jeff- So no points here. 126 lbs was 21-8 Gomez might have had a shot at 3rd but long shot. He would of had to beat Dominguez from Logansport, but I doubt it. I don't think he beats Casillas who didn't place. - No points here 132 lbs 4-7 I don't see him beating Bernhardt from Cass or even placing fourth by beating Salas. 182 lbs- Vode 13-10 I could see him getting 4th, but I don't see him beating Powell. No improvement 195 lbs Recio- 8-5 No way he beats Day from Winamac. Maybe a long shot at 4th 220 lbs wrestling at 6-8. Lets be real. He wouldn't get Foster for 3rd or Provancal for 4th. Hwy - Forfeit Also based on Semi-State, Cardwell at 106 got beat out by the top 3 at Logansport. Lets give him 4th so he wouldn't have scored any semi-state points. Hobart would probably have gotten 6 placers scoring at Logansport and scored less points than Calumet. Maybe the system is not flawed. Your're the rankings guy, so where is my logic wrong. Let me know. Like Adrian said, Calumet is strong on the top but its not that deep. I really think you're underestimating these kids by their record. Gomez had 8 losses but was a SSQ last year. He lost to Rodriguez from morton (stateQ) to go to semi-state. he lost to him 2x in the year, lost to luna 2x, Matt lee EMD, Jeffersonville kid, Lucas finger, and the Castle Kid. He had some competition. Vode all of his losses going to SSQ and StateQ....ANYways.... You are basing your opinion off records, Most of these kids were back ups or pulled off the football field. We wrestle a tougher schedule than you think. Harvest Al smith Castle super dual (Castle, EMD, Jeffersonville, BloomingtonSouth, Jasper) Calumet sectional I would take anyone from the Logansport Regional, Put them in our schedule and I bet they have more than 5 losses. Also, I am not saying that we deserve to be there either, I am saying coming from a tougher route really screws your chances. Some teams have it made... Edited February 24, 2017 by brickfor6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warsawwrestling Posted February 24, 2017 Share Posted February 24, 2017 You guys can argue all you want, but warsaw finished 32nd in the state this year. Would have been higher if they counted Friday night pin! Ha take that computer geeks! ontherise219 and RaiderColfax 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brickfor6 Posted February 24, 2017 Share Posted February 24, 2017 You guys can argue all you want, but warsaw finished 32nd in the state this year. Would have been higher if they counted Friday night pin! Ha take that computer geeks! HATCH wrestled great all year!!! MOWrestler and warsawwrestling 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brickfor6 Posted February 24, 2017 Share Posted February 24, 2017 `Interesting. According to Maigned's Genius ratings, Harrison beats Hobart by 10 points. But you think Hobart beats the whole Regional in a dual. In not saying that you have any bias towards the Calumet Regional, but you're analysis is interesting. 4-7 backup dominate. You're the rankings guy and you know. 106: Cardwell over Sam Hein (HARR) (HOB PINNED KV :32) 113: Josh Wade (HARR) over Schammert 120: Triana over Trey McCartney (HARR) (HOB MAJ KV) 126: Gomez over Cody Betourne (HARR) (HOB PINNED KV) 132: James Strother (HARR) over Lovell 138: Black overBrock Merkel (HARR) (OUR BACK UP GOT THE FALL VS KV) 145: Colza over Caleb White (HARR) (HOB PINNED KV) 152: Burns over Owen Conklin (HARR) (HOB TF KV) 160: Guarnero over Seth Younker (HARR) (HOB PINNED KV) 170: Fattore over Myles Krintz (HARR) (HOB TF KV) 182: Ethan Powell (HARR) over Vode (idk toss up) 195: Will Crider (HARR) over Recio 220: Seth Chrisman (HARR) over Salazar 285: Donald Crider (HARR) over Moore kv line up vs kv line up It would be one to see, Hobart wins 8 out of 14 just based off common opponent results. Not to mention that our 138-170 like to TF AND PIN KIDS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regionrumbler Posted February 24, 2017 Share Posted February 24, 2017 Brick: Good projections, although 26 and 52 may be tossups. Regardless, bonus points would likely determine the outcome either way. Harrison has some pinners too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts