ADVERTISEMENT

WrestleStat Preseason Rankings!

andegre

andegre

HB Heisman
May 18, 2004
5,436
3,152
113
45
Urbandale, IA
Here are the final WrestleStat season rankings before we actually get some match results entered into the system.

Wrestler Rankings (top 33 at each weight): https://www.wrestlestat.com/rankings/wrestler

125: https://www.wrestlestat.com/rankings/weight/125
133: https://www.wrestlestat.com/rankings/weight/133
141: https://www.wrestlestat.com/rankings/weight/141
149: https://www.wrestlestat.com/rankings/weight/149
157: https://www.wrestlestat.com/rankings/weight/157
165: https://www.wrestlestat.com/rankings/weight/165
174: https://www.wrestlestat.com/rankings/weight/174
184: https://www.wrestlestat.com/rankings/weight/184
197: https://www.wrestlestat.com/rankings/weight/197
285: https://www.wrestlestat.com/rankings/weight/285

Dual Rankings: https://www.wrestlestat.com/rankings/dual

Tournament Rankings: https://www.wrestlestat.com/rankings/tournament
 
  • Like
Reactions: PinsNpints, LBlindHawk, funnyfletcher and 2 others
Sorry, usually really do enjoy your posts, however, outside of maybe one forcast you aren’t even close. Will we be a top 5, probably not, unless everything falls into place. However, rankings of hawkeye wrestlers are for the most part very inaccurate. But then only as good as the information going in.
 
Definitely a few interesting rankings. The top of 133, 174, 197 are obviously a bit off. What is the logic that produces those kinds of results? Moore behind McCutch?
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheRealPD2
I actually think the rankings are pretty accurate for what our guys have accomplished thus far. I’m sure we will move up as the season goes on and get up around 6-8. The Wilcke one is a little strange.

I do see a little too much bias for juniors/seniors as they have a larger body of work. Maybe that’s your next tweak?
 
  • Like
Reactions: andegre
andegre said:
Here are the final WrestleStat season rankings before we actually get some match results entered into the system.

Wrestler Rankings (top 33 at each weight): https://www.wrestlestat.com/rankings/wrestler

125: https://www.wrestlestat.com/rankings/weight/125
133: https://www.wrestlestat.com/rankings/weight/133
141: https://www.wrestlestat.com/rankings/weight/141
149: https://www.wrestlestat.com/rankings/weight/149
157: https://www.wrestlestat.com/rankings/weight/157
165: https://www.wrestlestat.com/rankings/weight/165
174: https://www.wrestlestat.com/rankings/weight/174
184: https://www.wrestlestat.com/rankings/weight/184
197: https://www.wrestlestat.com/rankings/weight/197
285: https://www.wrestlestat.com/rankings/weight/285

Dual Rankings: https://www.wrestlestat.com/rankings/dual

Tournament Rankings: https://www.wrestlestat.com/rankings/tournament
Click to expand...
http://www.flowrestling.org/video/1...tached-vs-peter-renda-wolfpack-wrestling-club

Head-to-head results are certainly not part of the algorithm.
 
  • Like
Reactions: funnyfletcher
Two team race(should be anyways) going by these rankings:

tOSU: 1,12,3,3,2,14,1,4,4,1

PSU: 79,22,6,1,1,3,3,1,2,5

Next best:

OkState:5,1,1,10,13,5,8,19,7,52

Mich:15,3,48,23,5,2,7,2,13,2

ASU:6,13,9,6,20,7,2,40,107,4

Iowa:104,46,20,2,3,22,27,6,88,6
 
  • Like
Reactions: andegre
There is no perfect way. There will always be some strange ones (like Cutch 2nd, Brock first). Head to head is taken into consideration, but history and number of matches as well. While Brock couldn't beat Gross last year, he has only lost 5 matches overall and is over 90% win vs 78% for Gross with a lot of good wins like Brewer and Clark.

We couldn't begin to figure the losses Gross took (20), and compare those and how all those guys he lost to did against everyone else, etc, etc. Andegre's algorithm's attempt to do that.

Any guy that is new or has few matches (ex Downey with 33 total matches) or Suriano last year when he was winning and ranked 50th, then 30, ext. Just not enough for the algorithm to equal out so may be lower than you would think. Guys with lots of matches that improved a lot still have that early stuff on their record. I'm sure it is weighted less, but still there.

Overall you take certain ones with a grain of salt and know that as each season goes on things will tend to equal out.

Wrestlestat for me is the place to go for good information, so don't get too hung up on an occasional "off" ranking. I think it is the best place to gauge where guys really are....regardless of the rank, since you can compare all kinds of things.

At least you know it is not personal bias when a ranking seems off since it is an algorithm. Worse for me when a person ranks someone way off....:)
 
  • Like
Reactions: andegre, TarpHawk and LaxHawk174
Gebmo said:
There is no perfect way. There will always be some strange ones (like Cutch 2nd, Brock first). Head to head is taken into consideration, but history and number of matches as well. While Brock couldn't beat Gross last year, he has only lost 5 matches overall and is over 90% win vs 78% for Gross with a lot of good wins like Brewer and Clark.

We couldn't begin to figure the losses Gross took (20), and compare those and how all those guys he lost to did against everyone else, etc, etc. Andegre's algorithm's attempt to do that.

Any guy that is new or has few matches (ex Downey with 33 total matches) or Suriano last year when he was winning and ranked 50th, then 30, ext. Just not enough for the algorithm to equal out so may be lower than you would think. Guys with lots of matches that improved a lot still have that early stuff on their record. I'm sure it is weighted less, but still there.

Overall you take certain ones with a grain of salt and know that as each season goes on things will tend to equal out.

Wrestlestat for me is the place to go for good information, so don't get too hung up on an occasional "off" ranking. I think it is the best place to gauge where guys really are....regardless of the rank, since you can compare all kinds of things.

At least you know it is not personal bias when a ranking seems off since it is an algorithm. Worse for me when a person ranks someone way off....:)
Click to expand...
I agree with this completely. It is the place to go, and I love the wrestler/team comparison tools. Awesome.

However, I think there is a major flaw in the model for these rankings. The model seems to focus too much on previous years results, and not enough on the most recent NCAA tournament/season.

EX: Any model that ranks McCutcheon above Kollin Moore is flat out wrong and needs changed. Wrestlestat itself predicts a 9-4 win for Moore. Moore has a better career win percentage, head to head win over McCutch, 3rd place NCAA to 0 time AA, better record against common opponents. I just don't understand at all what data the model is looking at that leads to this ranking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gebmo
Yea I consider preseason rankings meaningless and a waste of time and energy... but here I am discussing them so I guess if nothing else they give fans something to talk about while waiting for the season to begin...I suppose some wrestlers who aren’t shown much respect can use for motivation... but I doubt many pay any attention
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gebmo
A bit of nonsense in these. 197, McCutch at #2 ahead of two guys he lost to last year??? Same with Kaid Brock ahead of Gross & Micic? If Marinelli were at Lehigh he would be 5th string !? Micah Jordan would be ranked #3 @ 149 behind Sorenson, but is ranked 2nd (ahead of Kemerer) at 157?? Ke-Shawn Hayes at #3 has lost to #7 Kolodzik. ect. ect. ect. I guess the good news is that Iowa at #8 with likelihood of performing better than these rankings at every weight (except 149) means that Iowa will not repeat the 8th place finishes of 2007 & 2003.
 
Three great things about computer-generated rankings like wrestlestat:

1. They provide a useful addendum to human-generated rankings. You can spot trends humans may overlook, and it's helpful to compare and have that extra data.

2. There's no human bias. Doesn't mean the algorithm accounts for all scenarios accurately, but you can complain about the algorithm, not the results.

3. Algorithms can be continually tweaked and improved...as Google will tell you. Data is king. There's a lot of upside for wrestlestat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: anon_0pi0cv8t1ggvb, DayHawk18, andegre and 9 others
I appreciate all the effort put into stats and its fun to look at but we know these rankings and others are just that rankings. There based on statistics , opinion or computer generated does not matter its part of the sport and they are Important. And Im sure at the end the Hawks will have someone at 125 & 133 ranked higher than #49 WOW
 
Well folks, it is what it is. Computers don't lie, but they aren't aren't good with intangibles. It's up to the Hawkeye coaching staff to demonstrate how significant motivation and development can be. Go Hawks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: andegre
While intangibles are a part of things, the computer doesn't factor that, but puts all the data together that we can't necessarily process. For instance, many here would agree with Cenzo being 3rd and Hall being 3rd as per Wrestlestat. How can that be when they both won a championship and beat the guys in front of them? Most human rankings have them 1. In Imar's case, aren't people going by history to say he is 1? I would have him 1, but Cenzo was going to beat him even without the fall this time. Have things changed? You decide. Sometimes history also makes us go with the guy who won before when someone else has caught up and we just don't see it. Works both ways.

Nato being number 1 same thing. History. We notice those we are most interested in, but while the computer can't count intangibles (I doubt many will actually bet against Mark Hall regardless of what they say or think), it filters our bias.

None of us will ever agree totally with any ranking....unless we do it ourself, but its interesting for me to watch how things change over the course of a season and to see if the human and computer rankings match or get closer. If nothing else, it gives me a chance to look closer at all the guys out there, to learn, and thus makes it more enjoyable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: andegre
I'll try to answer a few of the questions/concerns in the thread....

Wilcke has moved to 197, don't know how I missed that.

Yes, it's only as good as the data that's coming in...which is all of the wrestlers division I matches. Can't get more than that.

Re: head-to-head folkstyle results, yes, those are included in the rankings, if they weren't there wouldn't be anything to go against, since I'd have no data. Now, are head-to-head matches WEIGHTED differently, no. That's reserved for the prediction engine (which unfortunately did not get an updated this offseason because I was too busy with other stuff for the site).

Re: Algorithm, if anyone's familiar with the rating system, or online gaming rating systems, it takes TIME (aka matches) to continually build up a wrestlers rating. The more matches a wrestler has, the more "weight" his rating has. Even if a wrestler (young/new guy) has beaten someone that is higher than them, it doesn't mean they'll get ranked above them, in this system. That win(s) definitely give an additional boost in their rating, but that other wrestler has already had MORE big wins prior to that, which is why their rating is still higher.

Also, these rankings are exactly the same as last year's final rankings, just with seniors removed. Since they don't have any results yet this season, there's no possible way for them to move up or down. This is merely reflecting the weight changes, along with the seniors being removed.

Re: Hodge rankings, since the Hodge is on a yearly basis, and based on the dominance during that season, there are no matches yet this season so the only thing it has to go on (in MY system), is their rating. So right now, it's basically displaying the top X guys, regardless of weight. As soon as matches start coming in, it will start factoring in "dominance" stuff, ie Falls, TFs, etc.

I understand that not everyone agrees with these, hell, I don't agree with some of them. But they keep human bias, and our "eyes" out of the equation and let the math do the work.

For the future, I'm working on a blog post right now to analyze the rankings of every season in WrestleStat, and how that compares to the wrestlers' finish for each season. The current version of the algorithm has only been used for 1 season 2016-2017), but reprocessed all results for EVERY season specifically for this test. I did not change any previous rankings in the database since those were already calculated and released. I want to show the validity/non-validity of the CURRENT algorithm to either raise/lower the comfort level with the rankings. If it ends up being low, or realize the final season rankings are way off from reality, then I'll look into tweaking the algorithm more. Honestly, I should probably be doing that every offseason anyway because more data should help me tailor the algorithm better specifically for wrestling.

Thanks for checking these out everyone. I do appreciate both the positive and negative feedback. I just never anticipated the amount of feedback I've received since yesterday, because it's WAY more than usual.

Keep commenting!
 
  • Like
Reactions: TarpHawk, LBlindHawk, UndercoverHawk and 3 others
Why all the fuss about Cutch at #2??? He has beaten Miklus (#1) head-to-head...
If anything you guys should be complaining that he is UNDERranked;);););););)
 
Yea I don’t understand why everyone is dumping on Andegre. We already knew how the rankings worked after last year. Why are some people just bitching about something that is advancing the sport?

I love all the things Andegre provides for us and oh yea it’s all completely FREE. If you have a question how about politely ask instead of bitch and moan.

Anyways thanks Andegre for all you do
 
  • Like
Reactions: LaxHawk174, whejoe, TarpHawk and 5 others
andegre said:
I'll try to answer a few of the questions/concerns in the thread....

Wilcke has moved to 197, don't know how I missed that.

Yes, it's only as good as the data that's coming in...which is all of the wrestlers division I matches. Can't get more than that.

Re: head-to-head folkstyle results, yes, those are included in the rankings, if they weren't there wouldn't be anything to go against, since I'd have no data. Now, are head-to-head matches WEIGHTED differently, no. That's reserved for the prediction engine (which unfortunately did not get an updated this offseason because I was too busy with other stuff for the site).

Re: Algorithm, if anyone's familiar with the rating system, or online gaming rating systems, it takes TIME (aka matches) to continually build up a wrestlers rating. The more matches a wrestler has, the more "weight" his rating has. Even if a wrestler (young/new guy) has beaten someone that is higher than them, it doesn't mean they'll get ranked above them, in this system. That win(s) definitely give an additional boost in their rating, but that other wrestler has already had MORE big wins prior to that, which is why their rating is still higher.

Also, these rankings are exactly the same as last year's final rankings, just with seniors removed. Since they don't have any results yet this season, there's no possible way for them to move up or down. This is merely reflecting the weight changes, along with the seniors being removed.

Re: Hodge rankings, since the Hodge is on a yearly basis, and based on the dominance during that season, there are no matches yet this season so the only thing it has to go on (in MY system), is their rating. So right now, it's basically displaying the top X guys, regardless of weight. As soon as matches start coming in, it will start factoring in "dominance" stuff, ie Falls, TFs, etc.

I understand that not everyone agrees with these, hell, I don't agree with some of them. But they keep human bias, and our "eyes" out of the equation and let the math do the work.

For the future, I'm working on a blog post right now to analyze the rankings of every season in WrestleStat, and how that compares to the wrestlers' finish for each season. The current version of the algorithm has only been used for 1 season 2016-2017), but reprocessed all results for EVERY season specifically for this test. I did not change any previous rankings in the database since those were already calculated and released. I want to show the validity/non-validity of the CURRENT algorithm to either raise/lower the comfort level with the rankings. If it ends up being low, or realize the final season rankings are way off from reality, then I'll look into tweaking the algorithm more. Honestly, I should probably be doing that every offseason anyway because more data should help me tailor the algorithm better specifically for wrestling.

Thanks for checking these out everyone. I do appreciate both the positive and negative feedback. I just never anticipated the amount of feedback I've received since yesterday, because it's WAY more than usual.

Keep commenting!
Click to expand...
 
TheRealPD2 said:
Good stuff. Keep tweaking.
Click to expand...
Weren't you going to use your masterful engineering skills to work on Andegre's algorithm, while your kid was still over at Iowa State? Have you finished your work on that, yet? Because, I'm sure Andegre would love to see your work. That was last year, so you've had a year to put your mind to it.

Andegre, let us know when he sends you his tweaks that will fix the algorithm. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
pawrestlersintn said:
Weren't you going to use your masterful engineering skills to work on Andegre's algorithm, while your kid was still over at Iowa State? Have you finished your work on that, yet? Because, I'm sure Andegre would love to see your work. That was last year, so you've had a year to put your mind to it.

Andegre, let us know when he sends you his tweaks that will fix the algorithm. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Can't fix stupid, stupid.
 
andegre said:
I'll try to answer a few of the questions/concerns in the thread....

Wilcke has moved to 197, don't know how I missed that.

Yes, it's only as good as the data that's coming in...which is all of the wrestlers division I matches. Can't get more than that.

Re: head-to-head folkstyle results, yes, those are included in the rankings, if they weren't there wouldn't be anything to go against, since I'd have no data. Now, are head-to-head matches WEIGHTED differently, no. That's reserved for the prediction engine (which unfortunately did not get an updated this offseason because I was too busy with other stuff for the site).

Re: Algorithm, if anyone's familiar with the rating system, or online gaming rating systems, it takes TIME (aka matches) to continually build up a wrestlers rating. The more matches a wrestler has, the more "weight" his rating has. Even if a wrestler (young/new guy) has beaten someone that is higher than them, it doesn't mean they'll get ranked above them, in this system. That win(s) definitely give an additional boost in their rating, but that other wrestler has already had MORE big wins prior to that, which is why their rating is still higher.

Also, these rankings are exactly the same as last year's final rankings, just with seniors removed. Since they don't have any results yet this season, there's no possible way for them to move up or down. This is merely reflecting the weight changes, along with the seniors being removed.

Re: Hodge rankings, since the Hodge is on a yearly basis, and based on the dominance during that season, there are no matches yet this season so the only thing it has to go on (in MY system), is their rating. So right now, it's basically displaying the top X guys, regardless of weight. As soon as matches start coming in, it will start factoring in "dominance" stuff, ie Falls, TFs, etc.

I understand that not everyone agrees with these, hell, I don't agree with some of them. But they keep human bias, and our "eyes" out of the equation and let the math do the work.

For the future, I'm working on a blog post right now to analyze the rankings of every season in WrestleStat, and how that compares to the wrestlers' finish for each season. The current version of the algorithm has only been used for 1 season 2016-2017), but reprocessed all results for EVERY season specifically for this test. I did not change any previous rankings in the database since those were already calculated and released. I want to show the validity/non-validity of the CURRENT algorithm to either raise/lower the comfort level with the rankings. If it ends up being low, or realize the final season rankings are way off from reality, then I'll look into tweaking the algorithm more. Honestly, I should probably be doing that every offseason anyway because more data should help me tailor the algorithm better specifically for wrestling.

Thanks for checking these out everyone. I do appreciate both the positive and negative feedback. I just never anticipated the amount of feedback I've received since yesterday, because it's WAY more than usual.

Keep commenting!
Click to expand...
Nice job! Keep up the great work!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R

Iowa vs Ohio State Predictions

Replies
230
Views
32K
Iowa Wrestling
fronk71
F
H

2027 Probably/Hopeful Lineup

Replies
2
Views
1K
Iowa Wrestling
12tdsaw
1
UndercoverHawk

157 Big Ten Seeds

Replies
19
Views
3K
Iowa Wrestling
Rose bowl or bust
Rose bowl or bust
W

Iowa Separating From The Pack (Intermat 1/14/25 rankings)

Replies
40
Views
5K
Iowa Wrestling
wrestleknownothing
W
E

Minny dual predictions

Replies
123
Views
15K
Iowa Wrestling
LIV4GOD
L
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back