Did Wrestlestat Faithfully Execute the B1G's Wishes?

[Wrestleknownothing]

Starts post with "There are no numbers to check." --> Proceeds to check numbers lololo

inaccurately, btw. Haines doesn't get 5 to 0 for rank.

and it's RECORD vs THE FIELD. you're having a really hard time with this. Haines wrestled a bunch of guys NOT IN THE FREAKIN FIELD

say the formula sucks. that's fine. saying it was inaccurately crunched is an entirely different story you have no evidence to support.

for god's sake you don't even know how the points are split.

65 to 35 lol.

the highest score possible is 1000

I mostly have a hard time with it because that is not what it says. It says H2H (vs. field) as I have repeatedly stated, this is a contradiction in terms. You are having a really hard time with this.

If the highest score possible is 1000 why did they show a graphic saying it was on a 100 point scale?

But then I am asking the guy who thought Olivieri was seeded too low but did not know he had wrestled zero Big Ten matches.

P.S. good luck with the ankle. That sounds awful.

 

[WillieTheBrain]

sick burn. i'll never forgive myself for not realizing joey olivieri didn't wrestle a single big match without looking it up.

you're getting desperate. it's kind of embarrassing.

i really don't care about your insane theories and faulty logic. think what you want. you're not in the neighborhood of accuracy.

i only replied initially because it think it's total busch league to start a thread and title that alleges incompetence or crookedness when you have no evidence.

the result was that, throughout this thread you not only demonstrated that you don't have evidence, you also have no clue how this works.

makes me wonder if you started this thread 'faithfully' or if there's an ulterior motive.

 

[District 4]

wtf am i missing?

why are you (both) acting like the numbers are wrong.

what is the evidence that they are wrong?

what is the evidence that they put the wrong metric in?

is the evidence simply that you don't like the result?

fwiw i'm not even saying you're wrong. i'm asking why you think that and any evidence to support it.

They are saying head to head was clearly missed as part of the equation. Numbers are numbers but do any of you agree that a head to head match up result shouldn't matter. Hence levi behind minto and blaze behind caliendo.

 

[TNTwrestle]

They are saying head to head was clearly missed as part of the equation. Numbers are numbers but do any of you agree that a head to head match up result shouldn't matter. Hence levi behind minto and blaze behind caliendo.

No. Hardly anyone would agree that H2H shouldn't matter. It has been a top criterion for a long time, and it should be. If you beat a guy H2H, you should be seeded ahead of him unless you have considerably more losses than him. In this particular case, Haines has H2H win and less losses, therefore he should, traditionally, have the higher seed. It is not his fault that he has less matches against "the field" because he has no control over who ducks him. He has to wrestle the guy the other team puts out there. In this case, by traditional seeding criteria, Minto would/should be the 3 or maybe even 4 seed. There are several weight classes that have similar issues, and fixing them would not benefit any one team. I would feel this way even if it wasn't hurting Kennedy.

 

[Wrestleknownothing]

sick burn. i'll never forgive myself for not realizing joey olivieri didn't wrestle a single big match without looking it up.

you're getting desperate. it's kind of embarrassing.

i really don't care about your insane theories and faulty logic. think what you want. you're not in the neighborhood of accuracy.

i only replied initially because it think it's total busch league to start a thread and title that alleges incompetence or crookedness when you have no evidence.

the result was that, throughout this thread you not only demonstrated that you don't have evidence, you also have no clue how this works.

makes me wonder if you started this thread 'faithfully' or if there's an ulterior motive.

Your podcast sponsor raised the same issues. But the problem is the title? Got it.

You have had multiple chances to educate me, and everyone else, how it works. But you don't. I am guessing you don't know it well enough to explain it which makes me doubt you know if I am wrong in a material way.

 

[WillieTheBrain]

he absolutely did NOT suggest WS put in the wrong data.

you're the only one to suggest it and all because you're getting hung up on semantics.

what i think or know is immaterial. i'm not the one alleging foul play without the first clue how it works.

it's your thesis. you prove it.

 

[Fatwoodchuck]

i think you're getting hung up by semantics and are wrong.

if it is the case, i'm sure we'll find out about it.

until then, you could always run the data on two guys.

Im very confused, why you are defensive? He didn't blame anything other than people not giving the computer the right data to compute...spot on. I dont you think it's right, right. Why so alum chum?

 

[BrianLafevre]

Does anyone want to buy rare Iowa wrestling trading cards on eBay?

 

[Fatwoodchuck]

They didn’t create this algorithm. The Big Ten did. They just ran the algorithm and provided the results.

I guess I’m with Willie and don’t understand why anyone would insinuate wrestlestat failed in their duty.



The QA would involve them ensuring their algorithms ran correctly right? I don’t think it involves inserting their own opinions on the matter which is what you are saying. So I just don’t get how can you say it was poorly executed.

The numbers guy on the wrestling platform just said what wrestlestat should of told the whoever that this, another of redundancies in the formula and it needs to be changed? I dont know what is so hard about it. Its flat out wrong and you know it.

 

[Fatwoodchuck]

And both are within 15 points and those will be changed. Not sure why they released these without changing the obvious ones that were within 15 points

Where the numbers why can't we see them....obviously they are going to be changed but where are the numbers.

 

[Fatwoodchuck]

Minto 829 Haines 818 have fun

Nailed the facts on that... did you get tje $20 i sent you on the mail last week? Lmfao.

 

[Wrestleknownothing]

he absolutely did NOT suggest WS put in the wrong data.

you're the only one to suggest it and all because you're getting hung up on semantics.

what i think or know is immaterial. i'm not the one alleging foul play without the first clue how it works.

it's your thesis. you prove it.

What a relief because I never suggested Wrestlestat put in the wrong data either. I would encourage you to re-read what I wrote, but it would be a waste of encouragement.

 

[Fatwoodchuck]

What a relief because I never suggested Wrestlestat put in the wrong data either. I would encourage you to re-read what I wrote, but it would be a waste of encouragement.

@WillieTheBrain your 1+1 ain't equaling 2 right now, somethings wrong this particular system is all he ain't blaming rather asking what went wrong where and hiw to fix it. your defense of it is laughable considering you hate bad seeding.

 

[WillieTheBrain]

there's 100% something wrong with it. but it's the formula.

there's no evidence, as WKN contends, that the data that went in was in error.

if there was, i'm at the top of the list that would love to see it.

i quite like WKN and his contributions to the boards. but he's spinning on this one.

 

[GLC1969]

I always thought Iowa didn’t care where they were seeded. The mentality was to beat everyone. Seems like the cesspool is looking for excuses before any matches are wrestled. If anyone on here thinks Levi cares about where he is seeded you have a mental problem. Angelo seems to have that mentality also. Both could be national champs so complaining about where someone is put in a bracket is pointless. Did the computer mess up NO. The criteria put in may have been faulty, but the stats are correct. The coaches wanted it and now that they have seen the result they dont like it. This forum can complain and whine all day but the wrestlers have to prove the computer wrong. It sucks at 184 but does 2 or 3 seed make much difference? He was never going to get 1. Enjoy this weekend and start complaining or celebrating Saturday around 11:30

 

[pish69]

he absolutely did NOT suggest WS put in the wrong data.

you're the only one to suggest it and all because you're getting hung up on semantics.

what i think or know is immaterial. i'm not the one alleging foul play without the first clue how it works.

it's your thesis. you prove it.

Not sure what the hell you’re so defensive about? The formula is obviously ****.

WKN is the most analytical person on the boards and runs numbers/formula for a living and trying to understand what the different categories are and the splits and formulas are for each so he can maybe figure it out. There are no numbers to the public, so he asks questions.

Never seen you this defensive about something you had nothing to do with.

 

[Wrestleknownothing]

there's 100% something wrong with it. but it's the formula.

there's no evidence, as WKN contends, that the data that went in was in error.

Huh? WKN does not contend that. At all. You have gotten yourself turned around. We both contend the problem is with the algorithm.

 

[HikeNatParks]

i quite like WKN and his contributions to the boards. but he's spinning on this one.

What’s he spinning? If anything, perhaps the thread’s title should be “Why did B1G exclude the critical H2H metric in the formula it asked Wrestlestat to execute?”
@wrestleknownothing’s first sentence in the OP draws a clear battle line. It’s oxymoronic to name a category H2H (vs. the field) when H2H contradicts ‘record against the field.’ H2H must be standalone criteria but it’s not. What formula-building committee misses that?
Hate the animosity between you two, one a skilled seeder and judge of talent (maybe the best layman at both), the other an unparallelled stats wizard. Both provide too much insight to us small folk to be at odds. Perhaps a shared pint of ale at a mutually attended event sews this up? Maybe an alpine hike in some fabulous mountain national park? If the latter, for godsakes, don’t push each other off a ledge.

 

[TNTwrestle]

I always thought Iowa didn’t care where they were seeded. The mentality was to beat everyone. Seems like the cesspool is looking for excuses before any matches are wrestled. If anyone on here thinks Levi cares about where he is seeded you have a mental problem. Angelo seems to have that mentality also. Both could be national champs so complaining about where someone is put in a bracket is pointless. Did the computer mess up NO. The criteria put in may have been faulty, but the stats are correct. The coaches wanted it and now that they have seen the result they dont like it. This forum can complain and whine all day but the wrestlers have to prove the computer wrong. It sucks at 184 but does 2 or 3 seed make much difference? He was never going to get 1. Enjoy this weekend and start complaining or celebrating Saturday around 11:30

There are instances where you can't beat everyone, but you could get 2-5 or something similar. Where you place in your conference tournament could make a huge difference in where you get seeded at NCAAs. If you are the 2-3 seed, that doesn't matter much in most situations, but when the 1 seed ends up in the 2 spot, and you are the 3, that can be huge. 4-5, 8-9, 2-7 3-6 seeds don't matter much, but 3-4 is huge because it puts you in the other half of the bracket, so if 1 becomes 2, then 3 is getting screwed. Some brackets 1-2 are nearly interchangeable, but when 1 is dominant, if you want to get 2nd, you need to be in the other half of the bracket. At some weights, 2nd vs. 3rd at the B1G Tournament can have a huge effect on your NCAA seed, depending on how many top guys in your weight are in other conferences. This would have been easier to understand if I used names, but it's not about one weight class; there are lots of situations where conference seeding can greatly affect outcomes. I think the not caring where you're seeded ship at Iowa sailed a long time ago. Unless you are dominant, seeds matter a lot sometimes.

 

[Trakker]

What a relief because I never suggested Wrestlestat put in the wrong data either. I would encourage you to re-read what I wrote, but it would be a waste of encouragement.

You are assuming Willie can read. Probably had to have his mom come down to the basement and read it to him

 

[Wrestleknownothing]

@WillieTheBrain pointed out above (and @Corby2 has pointed out) the scores are in the 800's rather than the 100 the Big Ten advertised on their show.

The only way I can think of to get to 800+ points on a 100 point scale is if they are taking each wrestler's thirteen individual comparisons and summing them up to create a rank order list. This is different than doing 13 individual comparisons for every wrestler that creates a matrix of A>B, A>C, A<D, ..... B<A, B>C, B=D, etc. It changes how the math works. It simplifies the calculation, but precision can be lost in the simplification. (more on that in the next post)

Now instead of the binary system they described in their graphic you have a non-binary system that is built off binary inputs. Fine. But I still wonder if that is what they wanted.

This also calls into question at what level do they apply the 15 point threshold? Is it at the individual wrestler comparison on the 100 point scale? Is it at the average score of the thirteen individual scores? Is it at the sum of the thirteen individual scores?

This is a big deal. On a 100 points scale it is a 15% spread and on a 1,300 point scale it is a 1.1% spread.

Using this assumption Minto has an average score against the other 13 wrestlers of 63.77 (829/13) and Haines has an average score against the other 13 wrestlers of 62.92 (818/13).

All that said, I still think the big issue is the first category. H2H (vs. the field) is not head-to-head, the single most important variable for seeding, and it is redundant.

 

[Wrestleknownothing]

So I thought about the idea of using a binary measure in a non-binary way some more and here is another thing that bugs me.

It is possible to have someone win all 13 individual comparisons (binary) and not have the highest total number (non-binary).

Say someone, wrestler A, wins all individual comparisons 55-45. Wrestler A's total would be 715. Now say wrestler B, who lost 45-55 to wrestler A, beats the other 12 wrestlers 57.5-42.5. Wrestler B's total would be 735.

In this scenario wrestler B would be the #1 seed in spite of losing the pair-wise comparison to wrestler A.

Wrestler A would be 13-0 against the field in pair-wise comparisons, to wrestler B's 12-1 record in pair-wise comparisons, but still be the #2 seed.

And since the total difference between the two is 20 points, it would not be reviewable.

It would be like award the championship to the wrestler who scored the most points, rather than the one who won the most matches.

On the plus side, it that would lead to more scoring than the 3 point TD did.

 

[pish69]

So I thought about the idea of using a binary measure in a non-binary way some more and here is another thing that bugs me.

It is possible to have someone win all 13 individual comparisons (binary) and not have the highest total number (non-binary).

Say someone, wrestler A, wins all individual comparisons 55-45. Wrestler A's total would be 715. Now say wrestler B, who lost 45-55 to wrestler A, beats the other 12 wrestlers 57.5-42.5. Wrestler B's total would be 735.

In this scenario wrestler B would be the #1 seed in spite of losing the pair-wise comparison to wrestler A.

Wrestler A would be 13-0 against the field in pair-wise comparisons, to wrestler B's 12-1 record in pair-wise comparisons, but still be the #2 seed.

And since the total difference between the two is 20 points, it would not be reviewable.

It would be like award the championship to the wrestler who scored the most points, rather than the one who won the most matches.

On the plus side, it that would lead to more scoring than the 3 point TD did.

What I can't believe is that someone didn't test this. They had all the data from last year..they could have punched in all the data from last year, and see what those seeds come out with and compare it to what the coaches did and see the obvious flaws. Absolute amateur hour on their part.

The whole point of wrestling during the season is to improve your seed. And then even at that there needs to be a human component in the case of outliers. For example Kyle Snyder when he came into tourney with 3 matches and was seeded 1st and deservedly so. He just won the Olympics but in today's system he would have been the 12 seed. By screwing up the seeding this bad it screws up not only guys like Angelo/Peterson and Cannon who are much better than 8 seeds by any common sense metrix. It also screws the guys that earned the 1 and 2 seeds as now they get a potential finals match in the quarters

 

[deerwrestler]

I always thought Iowa didn’t care where they were seeded. The mentality was to beat everyone. Seems like the cesspool is looking for excuses before any matches are wrestled. If anyone on here thinks Levi cares about where he is seeded you have a mental problem. Angelo seems to have that mentality also. Both could be national champs so complaining about where someone is put in a bracket is pointless. Did the computer mess up NO. The criteria put in may have been faulty, but the stats are correct. The coaches wanted it and now that they have seen the result they dont like it. This forum can complain and whine all day but the wrestlers have to prove the computer wrong. It sucks at 184 but does 2 or 3 seed make much difference? He was never going to get 1. Enjoy this weekend and start complaining or celebrating Saturday around 11:30

I'm not sure they matter all that much, but we do have seeds for a reason and wouldn't it be nice if they were a reflection of what they are intended to represent? Not sure why you are poking the bear on the Iowa site, because there is a YouTube video of Cael saying the same thing, that they aren't right and they ought to do better. It will sort itself out at the top, but it still matters to others as they advance to the big show.

 

[GLC1969]

I’m not Poking the bear. I dont know how this seeding criteria was presented to the coaches, but it looks like they didn’t understand it either. When only 1 team votes against it there is some obvious misunderstanding. I dont want to go “back in the day” on here BUT when i coached I loved seeding meetings. It was always great when you were seeding against someone who was not prepared. I believe this is a 1 year trial they will change the data next year. IMO i dont see this hurting the BIG10 at nationals.

 

[deerwrestler]

I’m not Poking the bear. I dont know how this seeding criteria was presented to the coaches, but it looks like they didn’t understand it either. When only 1 team votes against it there is some obvious misunderstanding. I dont want to go “back in the day” on here BUT when i coached I loved seeding meetings. It was always great when you were seeding against someone who was not prepared. I believe this is a 1 year trial they will change the data next year. IMO i dont see this hurting the BIG10 at nationals.

So we agree. The seeding did suck, it does matter, and they should change it. .....And we have the right to complain about it in a non-partisan way that isn't just Hawkeyes complaining about seeds, its everyone. Quite honestly, I think the poor seeding helps the Hawks in a lot of ways, but isn't fair and reasonable. I mean Caliendo clearly deserves the 3 seed, but got 2. Kennedy, it wouldn't matter much as long Haines does get the 1 seed on Friday as they have stated. He deserves the 2 in my opinion.

But how does Peterson, Ferrari, and Kueter affect their brackets really is going to hurt the teams they wrestle in my black and gold colored glasses. Peterson beats the 2 seed which should change as Bouzakis should go there. I know he didn't beat Lilledahl this year, but he can and has. For some reason he has struggled with Bouzakis but did have moments in his last match if he stays off his back. I can't think that Ferrari or Welsh should be seeing each other in the quarters, but to me, it was bound to happen somewhere. And you have Kueter who has beaten some guys ahead of him, and is a returning AA, besides getting Ferrari 2nd round, I believe he will be fine and at worst get an at large bid for his body of work. Not really worried about the seeds even though they blatantly suck.