WrestleStat Rankings - Week 8

[andegre]

Rankings are a day late this week as I was traveling for the holidays yesterday. Now we are back in action!!!

Events missing from this weeks rankings:
- Wilkes Open

Wrestler Rankings: https://www.wrestlestat.com/rankings/wrestler

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

Tournament Rankings: https://www.wrestlestat.com/rankings/tournament

Statistical Rankings: https://www.wrestlestat.com/rankings/statistical

Hodge Watch: https://www.wrestlestat.com/rankings/hodge

(Create your own rankings) Tournament Projection Tool: https://www.wrestlestat.com/tourney/projection

 

[YoungGun07]

These rankings confuse the hell out of me. How is Marinelli #28 a week after beating #12 Lewis. After losing to Marinelli, Lewis jumped from #13 to #12. Warner has beat #2 and somehow isn't ranked at all, and neither is Cash Wilcke?

 

[MitchL]

These rankings confuse the hell out of me. How is Marinelli #28 a week after beating #12 Lewis. After losing to Marinelli, Lewis jumped from #13 to #12. Warner has beat #2 and somehow isn't ranked at all, and neither is Cash Wilcke?

I agree. Not a lot of credibility with the individual rankings. Somebody was drunk when this was put together. $$$$???

 

[LBlindHawk]

I enjoy these rankings. The only chance for bias is how andegre made the point formula. And I doubt he made it in mind for the benefit of one team or another or one wrestler or another. I don't think he's changing up the formula week to week to get the results he (or anyone else) thinks should be. Any changes should address a pattern of failures and not week-to-week gripes.
Hell, Marinelli only has 2 matches this year. Not a lot to go on. Just keep watching him win and climb the rankings - isn't that part of the fun?

 

[YoungGun07]

I enjoy these rankings. The only chance for bias is how andegre made the point formula. And I doubt he made it in mind for the benefit of one team or another or one wrestler or another. I don't think he's changing up the formula week to week to get the results he (or anyone else) thinks should be. Any changes should address a pattern of failures and not week-to-week gripes.
Hell, Marinelli only has 2 matches this year. Not a lot to go on. Just keep watching him win and climb the rankings - isn't that part of the fun?

Yes and no. Rankings should be about who is the best on paper. If Marinelli were a spot or two below Lewis, I'd have no complaint since Lewis is more established. However, having him 16 spots below Lewis, and actually climb in the rankings after the loss makes zero sense.

 

[LBlindHawk]

Then I guess consider this just one source of your wrestling entertainment/news.

Maybe there is a pattern of failures that he needs to address - do you see anyone else who beat another higher-ranked wrestler and dropped while they gained?

I'm still pretty confident that you'll see andegre's rankings align more with what you're execting 2-3 weeks from now.

 

[YoungGun07]

Then I guess consider this just one source of your wrestling entertainment/news.

Maybe there is a pattern of failures that he needs to address - do you see anyone else who beat another higher-ranked wrestler and dropped while they gained?

I'm still pretty confident that you'll see andegre's rankings align more with what you're execting 2-3 weeks from now.

Wilcke made the R12 last year, hasn't lost this year and is #38 at 197. I'm sure there are other examples, but Iowa's results are all I have looked at closely so far this year.

 

[MitchL]

Wilcke made the R12 last year, hasn't lost this year and is #38 at 197. I'm sure there are other examples, but Iowa's results are all I have looked at closely so far this year.

Yep, by any measure... the Wilcke placing is hard to justify and puts the whole thing into question. More clickbait.

 

[pawrestlersintn]

Yes and no. Rankings should be about who is the best on paper. If Marinelli were a spot or two below Lewis, I'd have no complaint since Lewis is more established. However, having him 16 spots below Lewis, and actually climb in the rankings after the loss makes zero sense.

"...having him..." No one "has" anything with these rankings. It is a mathematical model with zero emotion, zero thought process, just math. The 1, 2, 3, etc. "rankings" are based on the number that you see on the far right of each guy, his ELO points. A 1, 2, 3, number ranking can change, even if an individual wrestler's ELO points doesn't change, because other guys have wrestled a match, which would change their ELO points.

 

[YoungGun07]

"...having him..." No one "has" anything with these rankings. It is a mathematical model with zero emotion, zero thought process, just math. The 1, 2, 3, etc. "rankings" are based on the number that you see on the far right of each guy, his ELO points. A 1, 2, 3, number ranking can change, even if an individual wrestler's ELO points doesn't change, because other guys have wrestled a match, which would change their ELO points.

I understand it is a mathematical model. I am saying that the model is badly flawed based on my points above.

 

[pawrestlersintn]

Yep, by any measure... the Wilcke placing is hard to justify and puts the whole thing into question. More clickbait.

Not hard to justify, at all, if you understand what ELO is all about. It is a lifetime achievement, not a current year ranking. Cash is 39-16, with ELO points of 1337. In general, during his career he has beaten guys he "should" beat and lost to guys he "should" lose to. Those results won't change your ELO that much. And, I'm certain that Andegre is not about clickbait.

 

[pawrestlersintn]

I understand it is a mathematical model. I am saying that the model is badly flawed based on my points above.

Then you don't understand the model.

 

[YoungGun07]

Then you don't understand the model.

If it doesn't rank the wrestlers based on who is the best at wrestling, taking into account their past results, what is the point?

 

[2td3nf6fall]

If it doesn't rank the wrestlers based on who is the best at wrestling, taking into account their past results, what is the point?

Also, how can you have Valencia below Jordan. Valencia has one career loss, 2 head-to-head wins over Jordan this season, and one of the toughest schedules so far. He also bonuses at a higher rate than Jordan.

 

[pawrestlersintn]

If it doesn't rank the wrestlers based on who is the best at wrestling, taking into account their past results, what is the point?

It takes all of their past results. Again, ELO is based on lifetime results, not a this year ranking.

 

[pawrestlersintn]

Also, how can you have Valencia below Jordan. Valencia has one career loss, 2 head-to-head wins over Jordan this season, and one of the toughest schedules so far. He also bonuses at a higher rate than Jordan.

Because Jordan has 107 lifetime matches in the equation, and Valencia has 59. Jordan's ELO points are 1581 and Valencia's are 1574, not that much of a difference, which, presumably will be made up shortly.

 

[SDHN2013]

Because Jordan has 107 lifetime matches in the equation, and Valencia has 59. Jordan's ELO points are 1581 and Valencia's are 1574, not that much of a difference, which, presumably will be made up shortly.

Im a big fan of the site but yeah the rankings boggle my mind. I keep hearing about career matches being big but at the crazy 197 it has Weiler at 8th. Weiler the 3-2 redshirt freshman.

 

[artradley]

Then you don't understand the model.

If it doesn't rank the wrestlers based on who is the best at wrestling, taking into account their past results, what is the point?

Jesus you guys are harsh. He's just a fellow fan who takes the time to enter every friggin NCAA match into his computer, providing the only place you can go to easily see any wrestler's career matches and the only place you can easily compare two teams side-by-side for a dual meet. He's created a formula to try to quantify wrestlers' strength, which is interesting information, and no doubt generally does rank them fairly accurately.

When you complain about Wilcke, you complain about the ranking of a guy because it considers his entire career instead of, what, his achievement at one tournament? When you complain about the Bull you're talking about a guy with two matches. How could any formula put him high based on two results? There isn't enough data.

If you really question the formula, ask the guy how it works. No reason to be pissed at him just because you feel it's not accurate.

 

[pawrestlersintn]

Im a big fan of the site but yeah the rankings boggle my mind. I keep hearing about career matches being big but at the crazy 197 it has Weiler at 8th. Weiler the 3-2 redshirt freshman.

Weiler is actually 28-10 on his career. This year, his ELO points haven't changed all that much, because he has beaten and lost to guys that were essentially ranked near him. Wins over 6, 19 and 20. Losses to 3 and 29. Matches against guys near your ELO don't affect the number as much as a win over a guy much higher or a loss to a guy much lower.

 

[SDHN2013]

Jesus you guys are harsh. He's just a fellow fan who takes the time to enter every friggin NCAA match into his computer, providing the only place you can go to easily see any wrestler's career matches and the only place you can easily compare two teams side-by-side for a dual meet. He's created a formula to try to quantify wrestlers' strength, which is interesting information, and no doubt generally does rank them fairly accurately.

When you complain about Wilcke, you complain about the ranking of a guy because it considers his entire career instead of, what, his achievement at one tournament? When you complain about the Bull you're talking about a guy with two matches. How could any formula put him high based on two results? There isn't enough data.

If you really question the formula, ask the guy how it works. No reason to be pissed at him just because you feel it's not accurate.

I agree. Im always on that site checking wrestler histories. It's great. That ELO system can be a bit goofy is all I'm saying. Still beats the RPI though.