So you're saying there's a chance we get 9 AAs? 🙂I calculate the probability a specific seed will achieve AA based on trailing ten years of data. Using the individual probabilities I calculate the groups.
The expect total AAs for Iowa based on seeds is 4.7 and the breakdown from 0 to 9 looks like this:
Yes, according to this analysis, our current lineup will generate 9 AAs once every 10,000 years.
I calculate the probability a specific seed will achieve AA based on trailing ten years of data. Using the individual probabilities I calculate the groups.
The expect total AAs for Iowa based on seeds is 4.7 and the breakdown from 0 to 9 looks like this:
For non-AA finishes I am using the top of the range. For example, if someone loses in the blood round they get credit for 9th. If someone loses the round before that they get credit for 13th. etc. I also do these using mid-points, but it doesn't really change the comparison, just the absolute numbers.
And with current NCAA eligibility rules, I do not want to take that off the table.
Any chance it's been 9,999 years since the last time we had 9?
So, essentially, Iowa is really good if they are seeded 3-10, with the exception of the 7 seed. But, they aren't good at the 1,2, 7 or 9 seeds...Also, interesting that they average R12 from the 15,22 and 28 seeds(I would assume the pool is pretty small for those seeds)....For non-AA finishes I am using the top of the range. For example, if someone loses in the blood round they get credit for 9th. If someone loses the round before that they get credit for 13th. etc. I also do these using mid-points, but it doesn't really change the comparison, just the absolute numbers.
For the field I did it as everyone other than PSU as they skew some of the data.
Iowa wrestling is an old and historic program.
Pretty safe bet those stats don't show what some were expecting it to show.
Make no mistake, the aforementioned "some" would/will focus solely on 1 and 2 and completely ignore the rest....
And while I'm a numbers/data guy and love this stuff, all data is about the past, all forecasts are about the future. Time for the boys to go kick some ass and create some new data points.
I do not have pre-tournament record data.
That stat is pretty telling. Basically, Iowa is dead flush with the field...I do not have pre-tournament record data.
While conditioning the calcs by seed controls for the fact a #1 seed has no upside and only downside, you can also look at by in more binary categories like "at seed", "better than seed", and "worse than seed". This can be useful for small data sets where not every granular bucket (like 33 seeds) has data.
Interesting logic. Feel free to point to specific parts of the data to accentuate your point...
I am sure that is skewed a bit due to Lee defaulting to 6th. Also, you then completely ignore 3-10 and do EXACTLY what I predicted above. Now, the real question is, can I give you enough credit to be doing that on purpose?Iowa’s top seeded wrestlers perform twice as bad as the field
They’re stats and therefore meant to be used to tell a story. I can discount your arguments as well using this data. Most importantly, does Iowa want to be the same as the field, especially when underperforming at B1G 10s and lowering their seeds for nationals? If they just had a bad tournament then they should over perform at NCAAs.I am sure that is skewed a bit due to Lee defaulting to 6th. Also, you then completely ignore 3-10 and do EXACTLY what I predicted above. Now, the real question is, can I give you enough credit to be doing that on purpose?
When debating, I would much prefer my opponent trying to use only 15% of the data to prove his point!
This is especially true when a significant portion of my 85% perform WELL above their seed!
I’m confident in my deductive abilities. Iowa underperformed in 3 of the 8 AA positions. If you’re not a AA then you’re not contributing many points for your team. Most importantly, they underperformed in the top 2, and significantly for #1. Finalists win team championships with the current points rubric.When debating, I would much prefer my opponent trying to use only 15% of the data to prove his point!
Still, Iowa performs 1.15% above the field in regards to performance relative to seeds. I don't want to make wkn work harder, but it would be interesting to see how many teams perform above the field.
Also, I think Iowa, regardless of how well or poorly you think they performed at B1G's, is probably seeded the most accurately, across the board, as they have been in quite some time. If they can perform to seed across the board, I think it would be a very good performance overall.
Although you add 7 seed to help your argument, the 10 seed then completely negates that....Again, Lee dropping to 6th skews that stat a bit and that is the year they actually won the team title.
Not exactly the data we were discussing here, but, if you are answer is 1st or last, there isn't much room for an argument. Although, you pretty much either have to make the PSU staff retire or set them up to get sanctioned, because NO TEAM had a chance to beat them most of those years and NOW they are so far ahead of everyone that NO TEAM is catching them ANY time soon!
2024- PSU 1st........Iowa 5th
2023- PSU 1st........Iowa 2nd
2022- PSU 1st........Iowa 3rd
*2021- Iowa 1st.......PSU 2nd
2019- PSU 1st.........Iowa 4th
2018- PSU 1st.........Iowa 3rd
2017- PSU 1st..........Iowa 4th
2016- PSU 1st.........Iowa 5th
*2015 OSU 1st........Iowa 2nd
2014- PSU 1st.........Iowa 4th
2013- PSU 1st.........Iowa 4th
2012- PSU 1st.........Iowa 3rd
2011- PSU 1st..........Iowa 2nd
Point accentuated......they're trash......they need to stop being trash. You're welcome.
"You mean you want them to win ALL the championships?"
I limited this to teams that average 4 wrestlers per tournament or more. Sorted by Worse.When debating, I would much prefer my opponent trying to use only 15% of the data to prove his point!
Still, Iowa performs 1.15% above the field in regards to performance relative to seeds. I don't want to make wkn work harder, but it would be interesting to see how many teams perform above the field.
I limited this to teams that average 4 wrestlers per tournament or more. Sorted by Worse.
It is actually GREAT info and I owe him some positive feedback after giving him a hard time on his projections based on rankings thread from a while.
So Iowa receives lower seeds (than PSU) and meets or exceeds ~50% of the time. Meanwhile PSU receives higher seeds and manages to meet or exceed ~70% of the time (a more challenging task). No surprise to anyone who pays attention but it’s always interesting to see the data.I limited this to teams that average 4 wrestlers per tournament or more. Sorted by Worse.
What PSU is doing is otherworldly. Any comparison to them is basically the equivalent of comparing yourself to Tiger Woods or Jack Nicklaus. With PSU basically being Tiger and Iowa(under Gable) being Jack. No matter how good you were/are you are going to come up woefully short in either comparison...
There is definitely an anchoring effect.
The numbers are interesting; Iowa is the second best team but has only finished 2nd four times in the past 14 years with one 1st and the rest 3rd - 5th...a perennial top 5 team!There is definitely an anchoring effect.
Iowa is very clearly the second best team in the last 10-15 years. In addition to having the second best average finish Iowa has the lowest variability. Even lower than PSU. But as long as the point of comparison is the Dan Gable era those statements will be cold comfort. But the glass half full approach is that the current team is strong, there is plenty of booster support in the form of NIL money to bolster the team, and the recent recruiting results are excellent.
