Iowa Outperformance

[wrestleknownothing]

Iowa exceeded expectations on a points basis, number of champions, and All-Americans. A lot to build on.

From a points perspective all of the top 5 teams outperformed their expected points. And as an added bonus, Iowa State had the second worst performance relative to expectations in the field (only Virginia Tech was worse).



Iowa had a 53.1% chance of zero champions based on seeds, but Buchanon has no use for the odds.

On the All-American front, Iowa was expected to get 4.7 and wound up with 5.

 

[TarpHawk]

Chart is missing Iowa State and VT, or I'm missing brain cells. (But not mutually exclusive.)

 

[MilleGinja]

Chart is missing Iowa State and VT, or I'm missing brain cells. (But not mutually exclusive.)

It’s definitely missing some teams, presumably cutoff. I don’t see UNI or Illinois.

 

[MilleGinja]

Expected points entirely based on seed? Or is there any kind of “expected bonus” added in based on bonus rate through regular season?

 

[The-Dude-Abides]

With Parco and Teemer healthy, although transfers, Iowa very likely breaks 100 points. While that's not nearly good enough to get it done, it's a marker many have been pointing to for improvement. So some positives to build on if you want to look at it that way.

 

[wrestleknownothing]

Chart is missing Iowa State and VT, or I'm missing brain cells. (But not mutually exclusive.)

That is the top half of teams. The website was really fighting me today when I tried posting attachments. I will re-attempt the bottom half by copy/pasting from Intermat. But it will not let me do what I have done in the past using forum hotlinks.

 

[wrestleknownothing]

Expected points entirely based on seed? Or is there any kind of “expected bonus” added in based on bonus rate through regular season?

Expected points includes bonus. It is built from modeling historical performance at the seed level.

 

[wrestleknownothing]

The bottom half:

 

[MitchLL]

Chart is missing Iowa State and VT, or I'm missing brain cells. (But not mutually exclusive.)

I think they only posted that for teams in the top 25...or top 26!😄

 

[pointtheway]

That expected points total for Penn State has gotta be wrong, Their seeds were 4-1s, 2-2s, 2-3s, 1-4, and 1-8. If they got no bonus points and wrestled to seed, they would have scored 157 points by my math (20 points for 1st, 16 points for 2nd, 13.5 points for 3rd, 12.5 points for 4th, and 5,5 points fo 8th). With bonus, Penn State's expected points should have been 175-180 points.

 

[Nashville_Hawkeye]

With Parco and Teemer healthy, although transfers, Iowa very likely breaks 100 points. While that's not nearly good enough to get it done, it's a marker many have been pointing to for improvement. So some positives to build on if you want to look at it that way.

And hypothetically speaking the more we score the less PSU scores.

 

[MilleGinja]

That expected points total for Penn State has gotta be wrong, Their seeds were 4-1s, 2-2s, 2-3s, 1-4, and 1-8. If they got no bonus points and wrestled to seed, they would have scored 157 points by my math (20 points for 1st, 16 points for 2nd, 13.5 points for 3rd, 12.5 points for 4th, and 5,5 points fo 8th). With bonus, Penn State's expected points should have been 175-180 points.

OP explained above that it’s based on modeling historical performance at seed level.

 

[wrestleknownothing]

That expected points total for Penn State has gotta be wrong, Their seeds were 4-1s, 2-2s, 2-3s, 1-4, and 1-8. If they got no bonus points and wrestled to seed, they would have scored 157 points by my math (20 points for 1st, 16 points for 2nd, 13.5 points for 3rd, 12.5 points for 4th, and 5,5 points fo 8th). With bonus, Penn State's expected points should have been 175-180 points.

Expected points takes into account what a seed actually does rather than what they hope to do.

For example, a #1 seed only wins about 45% of the time, comes in second about 28% of the time, third 15% of the time, etc. If you figure out the probabilities for every seed and every finish you get an expected number of points.

The net result is that a #1 seed is expected to score 19.7 (including bonus), a two seed is expected to score 16.1, etc.

In the case of PSU if they had wrestled exactly to seed they would have had something like 183 points with expected bonus. So in that sense they missed by roughly 6.

 

[wrestleknownothing]

More importantly, Iowa's 5 All-Americans this year moves Tom Brands to within 10 of Bobby Douglas and Cael Sanderson.

 

[WildTurk]

Did Iowa State and Virginia Tech eat from the same orange tree before nationals?

 

[EvilMonkeyInTheCloset]

Iowa exceeded expectations on a points basis, number of champions, and All-Americans. A lot to build on.

From a points perspective all of the top 5 teams outperformed their expected points. And as an added bonus, Iowa State had the second worst performance relative to expectations in the field (only Virginia Tech was worse).



Iowa had a 53.1% chance of zero champions based on seeds, but Buchanon has no use for the odds.

On the All-American front, Iowa was expected to get 4.7 and wound up with 5.

Looks like my reverse psychology negativity and subsequent 3 day ban paid off...........

 

[MSU158]

Iowa exceeded expectations on a points basis, number of champions, and All-Americans. A lot to build on.

From a points perspective all of the top 5 teams outperformed their expected points. And as an added bonus, Iowa State had the second worst performance relative to expectations in the field (only Virginia Tech was worse).



Iowa had a 53.1% chance of zero champions based on seeds, but Buchanon has no use for the odds.

On the All-American front, Iowa was expected to get 4.7 and wound up with 5.

I appreciate all you do and some of these calculations you have provided are incredibly informative.

However, I do want to point out that Cruz did in fact score ZERO.....

 

[PSU Mike]

More importantly, Iowa's 5 All-Americans this year moves Tom Brands to within 10 of Bobby Douglas and Cael Sanderson.

Not quite the best description of Tom vs Cael. Tom lost ground by 5 this year.

 

[MSU158]

Not quite the best description of Tom vs Cael. Tom lost ground by 5 this year.

If it moves Tom to within 10 behind Cael, the wording is 100% accurate. Now, if you want to come to an Iowa site to tout Cael and PSU and find a way to denigrate Tom in the process, you succeeded...

 

[MSU158]

The one thing it shows, for how great PSU has been under Cael, Tom still puts a ton of guys on the podium. He is as good as anyone there is or has been at that. If his guys don't go into/wrestle NCAA's with major injuries they end up on the podium.

Where the difference is between Cael and Tom, is Cael has been UNBELIEVABLE at getting guys to the very top and Brands absolutely falls way short there. The real question is whether that is really a recruiting thing or a coaching thing. Maybe a bit of both? But, I would still lean heavily towards recruiting being the biggest factor...

 

[HugoBear]

The one thing it shows, for how great PSU has been under Cael, Tom still puts a ton of guys on the podium. He is as good as anyone there is or has been at that. If his guys don't go into/wrestle NCAA's with major injuries they end up on the podium.

Where the difference is between Cael and Tom, is Cael has been UNBELIEVABLE at getting guys to the very top and Brands absolutely falls way short there. The real question is whether that is really a recruiting thing or a coaching thing. Maybe a bit of both? But, I would still lean heavily towards recruiting being the biggest factor...

That AA chart is interesting for sure. It would be even more informative if the numbers of years as a head coach was associated with each. Good stuff.

 

[Libertylover]

The one thing it shows, for how great PSU has been under Cael, Tom still puts a ton of guys on the podium. He is as good as anyone there is or has been at that. If his guys don't go into/wrestle NCAA's with major injuries they end up on the podium.

Where the difference is between Cael and Tom, is Cael has been UNBELIEVABLE at getting guys to the very top and Brands absolutely falls way short there. The real question is whether that is really a recruiting thing or a coaching thing. Maybe a bit of both? But, I would still lean heavily towards recruiting being the biggest factor...

It’s definitely recruiting.

 

[wrestleknownothing]

Not quite the best description of Tom vs Cael. Tom lost ground by 5 this year.

On an Iowa board I take an Iowa perspective. I occasionally stray (especially on Intermat) but I try to make these things positive while making them informative.

 

[wrestleknownothing]

That AA chart is interesting for sure. It would be even more informative if the numbers of years as a head coach was associated with each. Good stuff.

I have done that in the past, I will dig it up.

To me the amazing thing is that the first 20 of Harold Nichols' AA's came at a time when only 4 wrestlers per weight were AA (19-22% of the field), and the next 96 came at a time when only 6 wrestlers per weight were AA's (15-25% of the field, but mostly below 20%), and only the last 40 came at a time when 8 wrestlers per weight were AA's (23% of the field).

 

[wrestleknownothing]

It’s definitely recruiting.

I have my doubts about that

 

[MSU158]

I have my doubts about that

As a PSU fan, you are expected to...

 

[cwobrien11]

It’s definitely recruiting.

I think that’s a huge part of it. Zero question…but I don’t think it tells the whole story necessarily. It’s not like they’re just getting the 4 best wrestlers every year and running that way but their recruiting is basically what feeds the machine.

One of the things that separates them from everyone else is that they consistently pull top 20 kids year over year. 90% of their signees are ranked in the top 100 and 60% of all of the kids they’ve signed have been ranked in the top 20 for their class over the last 5 years. They consistently sign kids that are top 2-3 at their weight class annually. There are schools with better individually classes than them regularly but those schools aren’t stacking back to back talent like Penn State does.

That does 3 things for them:
1) they can rotate bodies throughout the dual season to keep bodies fresh and still get high quality performances out of those subs.

2) they’ve got high quality training partners at, above, and below their weight class in practice every single day. That doesn’t even factor in the quality of the guys in their RTC. They’re constantly practicing with guys that are AA level or near enough to it for it to not matter. They’re always being pushed and challenged. I mean look at Baraclaugh…Penn State had an All American sitting behind another All American.

3) They have no concerns about potentially running someone off or keeping a high end recruit off of the mat. If the guy bolts, there is at least one more waiting in the wings. They can bring in a guy like Ono with no concerns about what it will do to their wrestling room or how it will impact a specific weight. If Braeden Davis doesn’t like it and bolts, they’ve got Ono and Aaron Nagao at that weight. It will have zero impact on their roster depth.

That also sets them up to be in a position to be selective about inbound transfers. Very seldom do they NEED an immediate hole to be filled. Most of the time they’re looking to upgrade what they’ve got or to preemptively plug a hole 1-2 years down the road.

 

[wrestleknownothing]

As a PSU fan, you are expected to...

Amen, but also as a statistician.

Always being better at recruiting is unsustainable. There needs to be a virtuous cycle between many elements to make it work as well is it does.

 

[MSU158]

Amen, but also as a statistician.

Always being better at recruiting is unsustainable. There needs to be a virtuous cycle between many elements to make it work as well is it does.

Make no mistake, PSU is doing so well because of how good they are at so many different facets. However, that doesn't mean that other teams aren't comparable at many of those as well. Where the most visible, great divider almost certainly lies is RECRUITING.

I am not saying that Iowa under Brands does as well as PSU has done if they had the same recruits, but I would be willing to bet huge money that if you traded line-ups over that span, Brands results would be way ahead of Cael's...

 

[wrestleknownothing]

Make no mistake, PSU is doing so well because of how good they are at so many different facets. However, that doesn't mean that other teams aren't comparable at many of those as well. Where the most visible, great divider almost certainly lies is RECRUITING.

I am not saying that Iowa under Brands does as well as PSU has done if they had the same recruits, but I would be willing to bet huge money that if you traded line-ups over that span, Brands results would be way ahead of Cael's...

But that would not be the right comparison. The comparison should be does Sanderson get better results out of Brands' team than Brands gets. And does Brands get better results out of Sanderson's teams than Sanderson gets.

 

[MSU158]

But that would not be the right comparison. The comparison should be does Sanderson get better results out of Brands' team than Brands gets. And does Brands get better results out of Sanderson's teams than Sanderson gets.

And I basically conceded it is likely that Sanderson does better there. I just think the difference is exponentially smaller if recruiting isn’t a factor.

 

[wrestleknownothing]

That AA chart is interesting for sure. It would be even more informative if the numbers of years as a head coach was associated with each. Good stuff.