Jump to content

Which regional is better?


Recommended Posts

I was a little confused about the ratings for a couple respective regionals, so I looked back over the last 5 years to see what the reason may have been. Looking at the 2 regionals in comparison, which would you believe is better?

 

Regional A

Yr SQs SPs

2013 13 5

2014 14 5

2015 16 5

2016 11 6

2017 15 1

13.8 SQs/Yr

4.4 SPs/Yr

 

Regional B

Yr SQs SPs

2013 18 11

2014 14 7

2015 20 9

2016 19 7

2017 17 10

17.6 SQs/Yr

8.8 SPs/Yr

 

Both in the same semi-state. Regional A has not once in 5 years had more SQs or SPs than Regional B. Regional B has averaged double the state placers for the last 5 years

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was a little confused about the ratings for a couple respective regionals, so I looked back over the last 5 years to see what the reason may have been. Looking at the 2 regionals in comparison, which would you believe is better?

 

Regional A

Yr SQs SPs

2013 13 5

2014 14 5

2015 16 5

2016 11 6

2017 15 1

13.8 SQs/Yr

4.4 SPs/Yr

 

Regional B

Yr SQs SPs

2013 18 11

2014 14 7

2015 20 9

2016 19 7

2017 17 10

17.6 SQs/Yr

8.8 SPs/Yr

 

Both in the same semi-state. Regional A has not once in 5 years had more SQs or SPs than Regional B. Regional B has averaged double the state placers for the last 5 years

Is regional B Logansport?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was a little confused about the ratings for a couple respective regionals, so I looked back over the last 5 years to see what the reason may have been. Looking at the 2 regionals in comparison, which would you believe is better?

 

Regional A

Yr SQs SPs

2013 13 5

2014 14 5

2015 16 5

2016 11 6

2017 15 1

13.8 SQs/Yr

4.4 SPs/Yr

 

Regional B

Yr SQs SPs

2013 18 11

2014 14 7

2015 20 9

2016 19 7

2017 17 10

17.6 SQs/Yr

8.8 SPs/Yr

 

Both in the same semi-state. Regional A has not once in 5 years had more SQs or SPs than Regional B. Regional B has averaged double the state placers for the last 5 years

If you read the 3A team state qualification thread, there are multiple detailed descriptions as to what the regional categories mean. They have nothing to do with top-end talent, which is what you are quoting here. The categories we use are strictly a measure of tournament site "crowdedness" in terms of how difficult it is to be at least in the top 4 and get to the next week. This is true for both the sectional and regional categories. By traditional measures such as number of state qualifiers or placers, the categories would need to be drastically redone. Instead, their only purpose is to aide us in making the predictive scoring system as effective as possible. In short, the categories are misunderstood if you're taking them as "ratings", as you call them.

Edited by maligned
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you read the 3A team state qualification thread, there are multiple detailed descriptions as to what the regional categories mean. They have nothing to do with top-end talent, which is what you are quoting here. The categories we use are strictly a measure of tournament site "crowdedness" in terms of how difficult it is to be at least in the top 4 and get to the next week. This is true for both the sectional and regional categories. By traditional measures such as number of state qualifiers or placers, the categories would need to be drastically redone. Instead, their only purpose is to aide us in making the predictive scoring system as effective as possible. In short, the categories are misunderstood if you're taking them as "ratings", as you call them.

Thanks, and I did see a bit of the description in the 3A post and prior discussions of comparisons of A & B specifically. The points raised were that A had more depth and B was more top heavy, but you start comparing 1 vs 1 and 2 vs 2 and so on and you get to team 6 or 7 before the regional A team is better. A is better at 8-12 but its a wash after that. I think your context of it not being a "rating is important and I didn't state my premise correctly, but I'd think a regional that was truly harder to get thru would produce more SQs and SPs at least once in a 5 year span. Particularly when comparing it to a regional that is "scored" as 2 points easier to get thru.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was a little confused about the ratings for a couple respective regionals, so I looked back over the last 5 years to see what the reason may have been. Looking at the 2 regionals in comparison, which would you believe is better?

 

Both in the same semi-state. Regional A has not once in 5 years had more SQs or SPs than Regional B. Regional B has averaged double the state placers for the last 5 years

This sounds like an issue of how you define "better" and for what purpose.  So, from the "Team State" perspective, your data do not address the "crowdedness" factor as Maligned describes.

 

If you are just asking which is "better" in that it produces more SSQ and SP's then that seems like an obvious answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you read the 3A team state qualification thread, there are multiple detailed descriptions as to what the regional categories mean. They have nothing to do with top-end talent, which is what you are quoting here. The categories we use are strictly a measure of tournament site "crowdedness" in terms of how difficult it is to be at least in the top 4 and get to the next week. This is true for both the sectional and regional categories. By traditional measures such as number of state qualifiers or placers, the categories would need to be drastically redone. Instead, their only purpose is to aide us in making the predictive scoring system as effective as possible. In short, the categories are misunderstood if you're taking them as "ratings", as you call them.

Also,  maligned didn't mention that the categories are redone each year are and are based on the dual results of each team as reflected by the Genius ratings.   If people understand RPI indexes its like that.     So if people think they're regional or sectional should have a higher score, then the teams need to do better in the dual meets.    Regional A and B may have been in different categories each year, so comparing a 4 year average is not relevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also,  maligned didn't mention that the categories are redone each year are and are based on the dual results of each team as reflected by the Genius ratings.   If people understand RPI indexes its like that.     So if people think they're regional or sectional should have a higher score, then the teams need to do better in the dual meets.    Regional A and B may have been in different categories each year, so comparing a 4 year average is not relevant.

They have been in essentially the same categories for that timeframe. I understand that SPs and SQs aren't part of the predictive model they are using, but when you are scoring a regional higher you are saying in essence that the 3rd and 4th place finishers will be better on average than those of a lower scored regional. So if this was true, wouldn't we see more SQs at least once during a 5 year period in which A has always had a higher score? Especially when they are competing in the same SS. It seems statistically improbable that this wouldn't happen at least once.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They have been in essentially the same categories for that timeframe. I understand that SPs and SQs aren't part of the predictive model they are using, but when you are scoring a regional higher you are saying in essence that the 3rd and 4th place finishers will be better on average than those of a lower scored regional. So if this was true, wouldn't we see more SQs at least once during a 5 year period in which A has always had a higher score? Especially when they are competing in the same SS. It seems statistically improbable that this wouldn't happen at least once.

First, Maligned has only had the quota system for two years.  Also,  the regional category score doesn't measure the state placers,   he's measuring the competitiveness of the overall wrestlers in the regional including the guys that got 5th and 6th.    The ticket round or 1st round in regional A was probably much more competitive because they have more depth, but regional B probably in general has more champions.   

 

I can profile the regionals.  Regional A probably has 10-11 large or competitive teams  but doesn't have a top 10 team.  Probably each year there's parity with the title up for contention.   Regional B has one or two of the top 10 teams in the state, but is surrounded by a lot weak teams (maybe in urban city), with the top 1 or 2 teams always win that regional.    

Edited by Wrestling Scholar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, Maligned has only had the quota system for two years.  Also,  the regional category score doesn't measure the state placers,   he's measuring the competitiveness of the overall wrestlers in the regional including the guys that got 5th and 6th.    The ticket round or 1st round in regional A was probably much more competitive because they have more depth, but regional B probably in general has more champions.   

 

I can profile the regionals.  Regional A probably has 10-11 large or competitive teams  but doesn't have a top 10 team.  Probably each year there's parity with the title up for contention.   Regional B has one or two of the top 10 teams in the state, but is surrounded by a lot weak teams (maybe in urban city), with the top 1 or 2 teams always win that regional.

That is pretty accurate. (except A is the urban regional with a 1/3 of the participating schools not having MS wrestling) I would venture to say that the top 6 teams in B are better from a dual standpoint than the top 6 from B. Regional A is better 8-12, maybe even 7-15, but not by a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is pretty accurate. (except A is the urban regional with a 1/3 of the participating schools not having MS wrestling) I would venture to say that the top 6 teams in B are better from a dual standpoint than the top 6 from B. Regional A is better 8-12, maybe even 7-15, but not by a lot.

Don't tell us the regionals yet, but look at the genius ratings of the top 10 in A and the Top 10 in B.   I bet A has much more Depth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another comparison from 2 real sectionals this year:

 

State qualifiers:

Sectional A 12 (it must be a little harder to advance from this sectional, right?)

Sectional B 10

 

Sectional B's average record for the SEVENTH best kid: 16-16 (from mostly big schools with strong schedules)

 

Sectional A's average number of WRESTLERS per weight class (non-forfeits): 5

 

Oh, wait, I guess placing top 4 and getting to regional is probably much, much stickier in Sectional B than in A, even though A had more state qualifiers.

 

This is an extreme example, but you get the point we're trying to make: top-end talent alone (number of state qualifiers and placers) doesn't necessarily mean crowdedness the first week or two of the tournament. Winning the first round of regional only puts you in the final 64 in the state. The regional categories tell us how hard it is to prove you're one of the best 64 and nothing else. Quoting how many top 16 or top 8 guys one place had is sometimes an indicator of how hard it is to prove top 64 ability--but sometimes it's not at all when there's a steep drop-off from the first 2 teams who had almost all of those state qualifiers.

Edited by maligned
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another comparison from 2 real sectionals this year:

 

State qualifiers:

Sectional A 12 (it must be a little harder to advance from this sectional, right?)

Sectional B 10

 

Sectional B's average record for the SEVENTH best kid: 16-16 (from mostly big schools with strong schedules)

 

Sectional A's average number of WRESTLERS per weight class (non-forfeits): 5

 

Oh, wait, I guess placing top 4 and getting to regional is probably much, much stickier in Sectional B than in A, even though A had more state qualifiers.

 

This is an extreme example, but you get the point we're trying to make: top-end talent alone (number of state qualifiers and placers) doesn't necessarily mean crowdedness the first week or two of the tournament. Winning the first round of regional only puts you in the final 64 in the state. The regional categories tell us how hard it is to prove you're one of the best 64 and nothing else. Quoting how many top 16 or top 8 guys one place had is sometimes an indicator of how hard it is to prove top 64 ability--but sometimes it's not at all when there's a steep drop-off from the first 2 teams who had almost all of those state qualifiers.

I absolutely get your point. The comparison I provided only looked at top end and your evaluation is looking at top (1/2), middle (3/4), and even bottom (5/6), to evaluate the difficulty of navigating your way thru a given regional. So if the B is better at the top than A it would stand to reason that the 3/4 and 5/6 finishers for A would be significantly better if you are assessing a 2 point value advantage for A, correct?

 

One good metric to test this (as many suggested in the 3A topic) is to evaluate the SS ticket rounders. If the predictive model holds out A should have a sizeable advantage in the performance of it's 3/4 finishers in the 1st round of the same SS that B competes in. I have totaled the 1st round victories by 3/4 place finishers at each respective regional.

 

Regional A

Year 3rd 4th

2013 7 1

2014 4

2015 4

2016 6

2017 4

Totals

25 wins by 3rd 1 win by 4th

 

Regional B

Year 3rd 4th

2013 5 2

2014 4

2015 5 1

2016 6

2017 4

Totals

24 wins by 3rd 3 wins by 4th

 

So when you evaluate the on the best metric we have available they are near equal in regards to 3rd place finisher performance, and B hold a slight count edge (large % edge) on 4th place finisher performance.

 

Which leaves us with the 5/6 place finishers. Regional A has a 2 point higher "escapability" value than Regional B, despite B having a better top end and equal middle. Which gives the impression that the 5/6 placer performance (which you can't measure) has been severely over valued.

Edited by Westforkwhite
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Westfork,

You are still incorrectly using semistate data to evaluate the depth/difficulty to advance at the regional level.  You are also incorrectly using historical data when only the current season's genius ratings are used to determine the regional category.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Westfork,

You are still incorrectly using semistate data to evaluate the depth/difficulty to advance at the regional level.  You are also incorrectly using historical data when only the current season's genius ratings are used to determine the regional category.

I disagree, as how do you evaluate the accuracy of the predictive model? Your second point is off base as well, as the 2 yr or 1 yr results show the similar success rates. (actually more favorable to B )

I probably should have prefaced the whole thing by stating that I'm very appreciative to hard work Maligned and others have put into creating this. It's critical that we have an unbiased system to pick the best teams for team state, and I think this system is a very good one. Like all the best systems it is not without flaws, I'm simply pointing out what appears to me to be a flaw within the system.

Edited by Westforkwhite
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree, as how do you evaluate the accuracy of the predictive model? Your second point is off base as well, as the 2 yr or 1 yr results show the similar success rates. (actually more favorable to B )

I probably should have prefaced the whole thing by stating that I'm very appreciative to hard work Maligned and others have put into creating this. It's critical that we have an unbiased system to pick the best teams for team state, and I think this system is a very good one. Like all the best systems it is not without flaws, I'm simply pointing out what appears to me to be a flaw within the system.

You can't use semistate to accurately evaluate regional depth because the 5th-8th at regional don't compete there.

 

You are over analyzing one small piece of a bigger process.  The big picture goal of that process is to predict the top teams for the next year.  While not perfect, it is based on data instead of opinions of teams and regions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree, as how do you evaluate the accuracy of the predictive model? Your second point is off base as well, as the 2 yr or 1 yr results show the similar success rates. (actually more favorable to B )

I probably should have prefaced the whole thing by stating that I'm very appreciative to hard work Maligned and others have put into creating this. It's critical that we have an unbiased system to pick the best teams for team state, and I think this system is a very good one. Like all the best systems it is not without flaws, I'm simply pointing out what appears to me to be a flaw within the system.

There might be flaws, but I don't think you're proving this one.   I think the perception mistake people are making in the regional and sectional scores is they don't understand what's being measured.   The sectional /regional scores only measures the difficulty of placing  in that sectional/regional and adjusts points accordingly.  It doesn't penalize or reward them for what they do a the next level.    The state level wrestlers at the next level will score their bonus points in semi-state and state, but they shouldn't get rewarded more in sectional and regional because they had an easier path of resistance.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't use semistate to accurately evaluate regional depth because the 5th-8th at regional don't compete there.

 

You are over analyzing one small piece of a bigger process.  The big picture goal of that process is to predict the top teams for the next year.  While not perfect, it is based on data instead of opinions of teams and regions.

That's a good point.   The data is much more objective.     You get some crazy people on here that get some crazy biased perceptions that their  weak regional is a lot better than they think it is.   But with that argument, why do we vote in the last two spots?  Why don't we just go where the numbers end up?     That's what we do in the bubble teams.  They get their destiny decided by the "opinions of teams and regions"?   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mooresville

I know thats irrelevent to the post I just want to be apart of the convo 2000 posts doesnt come easy

Congrats.  2K Fabio representing the board.  Did that get you the "BCW World Heavyweight" or did you have that already?   Is there another level or is like Donkey Kong where you hit the final level and the game shuts down?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't use semistate to accurately evaluate regional depth because the 5th-8th at regional don't compete there.

 

You are over analyzing one small piece of a bigger process.  The big picture goal of that process is to predict the top teams for the next year.  While not perfect, it is based on data instead of opinions of teams and regions.

 

If B has better 1/2 and equal 3/4 to A (which is fact not opinion) then the system is valuing 5-8 at a much greater level. Which I would argue is less indicative of the difficulty to advance than the quality of 1-4. Whether intended or not the system is placing a much higher value on the 5-8 than it is 1-4, as it relates to the regional values.

 

Ultimately you have to have a means to test the accuracy of the predictive model, SS 1st round gives us the best to gauge finishers 1-4. So if the SS 1st round #'s indicate B is superior at 1-4, then model is skewing heavily in favor of 5-8 quality. (which is the metric most difficult to verify)

Edited by Westforkwhite
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If B has better 1/2 and equal 3/4 to A (which is fact not opinion) then the system is valuing 5-8 at a much greater level. Which I would argue is less indicative of the difficulty to advance than the quality of 1-4. Obviously you can't evaluate 5-8 at SS, but I don't believe it don't believe this should be the most important factor anyway. Whether intended or not the system is placing a much higher value on the 5-8 than it is 1-4, as it relates to the regional values.

1,2,3 and 4 have to  wrestle 5-8 to get to SS.   Regional points are given only for qualifying to SS.      So If A has a measured tougher 5-8 than Regional B,  then its more difficult to get to semi-state.   That's what they're measuring,  they're not measuring how tough 1234 are.      The top 4 kids demonstrate higher skill level by making the ticket round or by qualifying for state, and accordingly score their points then.   Is it that complicated? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Congrats.  2K Fabio representing the board.  Did that get you the "BCW World Heavyweight" or did you have that already?   Is there another level or is like Donkey Kong where you hit the final level and the game shuts down?

 

First off thats pacman level 256 when the game breaks because it can no longer store the data past that.....and 2 I earned that Title in the room defending it against the likes of Cowboy Troy Owen in a Fall count anywhere match!

 

Haha surprisingly im still single....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If B has better 1/2 and equal 3/4 to A (which is fact not opinion) then the system is valuing 5-8 at a much greater level. Which I would argue is less indicative of the difficulty to advance than the quality of 1-4. Whether intended or not the system is placing a much higher value on the 5-8 than it is 1-4, as it relates to the regional values.

 

Ultimately you have to have a means to test the accuracy of the predictive model, SS 1st round gives us the best to gauge finishers 1-4. So if the SS 1st round #'s indicate B is superior at 1-4, then model is skewing heavily in favor of 5-8 quality. (which is the metric most difficult to verify)

 

Imagine a regional weight that has the kids ranked 1st-4th in the state and NOBODY else (just forfeits).  How difficult was it to advance through that regional?  5-8 are extremely important in determining how difficult it is to advance.

 

All semistate tells you is how well your 4's do against 1's, etc.  That is reflected in the semistate scoring and should not impact the regional.

 

There is a means to test the accuracy of the model - look at the results of the following year, which is what it is meant to predict.  The creators of this model even went back and tested it on years before team state started and found it's accuracy was very good compared to the following year's results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.