Jump to content
CrewWrestling

Mizzou...overrated yet again?

Recommended Posts

Last years NCAA results:

Erneste #5 seed - loses first rd, & blood rd

Eierman #2 seed - finishes 4th

Leeth #3 seed - finishes 6th

Lavallee #2 seed - loses first rd, & blood rd

Lewis #3 seed - finishes 4th

Marriott #15 seed - loses first rd, & consi 2nd rd

Miklus #6 seed - finishes 8th

2018 Schedule: Illinois, Truman St, Missouri Valley, Centeal Missouri, Lindenwood Open, Vtech (solid team), UVA (solid team), ODU, Ohio U, Reno TOC, Kent St, UNC, Rider, Cornell (solid team), UB, EMU, CMU, OK State (great team), NIU, SIUE, UNI (solid team), MAC (joke conference)

This isn’t to say they’re not a very very good team with a number of incredible wrestlers. It is to say that I think Coach Smith has figured out how to game the system. Last year there was no Cliff Keen Invite, Southern Scuffle/Midlands, & forget about being tested in the MAC. Not a single wrestler placed at our above their seed in Cleveland & I can’t help but think that schedule helped his athletes gets seeds possibly higher than merited. I would really love to see them in a conference that poses a challenge throughout the regular season & in the conference championship. 

Edited by CrewWrestling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what you're saying is they had 4 all-americans.  4/6 top 8 seeds finished top 8?  

I would say they didn't gave the best first round.  I will agree they seem to have someone go down 1st round that shouldn't.  I remember Pell going down years ago then coming back through and getting the most falls award.  

 

I would also say a lot if top teams lose a top seed early.  Happens almost every weight every year.  As for #15.  Can't really count that I don't think.  Lots of seeds outside of top 12  go down early.  

Mizzou has been one of the more consistent NCAA finishing teams in the last decade.  That, with them being the only team in their true conference to even have wrestling (SEC).  The are limited on their conference tournament options ... Which also limits them on their out of conference competitions.    On a final note... Mist teams only hot one of the major tournaments. (Scuffle, Midlands, cliff keen). Last, excluding the big 10, where the conference matches lend itself to a tougher schedule, that team has a tougher schedule...  Maybe Cornell....  Maybe.  That's it.  So all non-big 10 teams are in about the same boat.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like they had a good showing against OK State today.  OK. State was supposed to win and they won at the last match in overtime.  Lewis did a great job against Smith, Eirman did a great job with the fall over Brock, the true freshman hwt did a great job, etc.  The other guy with the upset (can't think of the weight).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Glane18 said:

I feel like they had a good showing against OK State today.  OK. State was supposed to win and they won at the last match in overtime.  Lewis did a great job against Smith, Eirman did a great job with the fall over Brock, the true freshman hwt did a great job, etc.  The other guy with the upset (can't think of the weight).  

Mauller beating G'Feller. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

**** I watched the dual and think Missouri is definitely a Top 5 team.  Both Okst and Mz mostly won where they were favored., with Mz winning one toss up (Mauller over Gfeller), with Okst barely winning a closely ranked match (Rogers over Flynn 6-5).  Additionally Okst won the last two matches (Weigel over Koelling and White over Elam) where they were heavily favored, (both Okst wrestlers Redshirt SR AAs, while both Mz wrestlers are FR).  

Overall it was an excellent dual.  I do agree with Crew Wrestling that Mz should get out of the MAC and be in the B1G or another more challenging conference.  Both Okst and Mz are Top 5 teams and both will do very well at the NCAAs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree it would be nice if they were in a tougher conference.  I would suspect Brian Smith feels the same way.  If they were it would possibly add a touch to their recruitment power as well.  

One possible issue could be the conferences themselves.  The better conferences they could be a part of would be the big 10, big 12, and maybe ACC.  In the scheme of sports in general those three conferences and the SEC are major conference players.  As pure speculation there may be some form of conference rule in general that does not allow mizzou to compete in those conference tournaments.  I seem to remember them wanting to stay in the big 12 but we're not able too.  I would speculate that the big 10 would be the same way.  Mizzou being in the SEC may prevent them from those tougher conference tournaments.  Again, this is pure speculation on my part. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Griff the BullRam said:

Very true. This year, their non-conference schedule consists of Illinois, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Cornell, Purdue, Lehigh, Arizona State, UNI, Oklahoma State, and Iowa State next weekend.

I mean, they got the boot from the B-12; the conference affiliation that made the most sense with that in mind was the MAC.  Some things you can knock; the stuff out of Smith's hands, well, that's trashing to trash.  Let's also not forget the condition of the program when he took over; if we're going to trash him for having All-Americans who place below their seeds, that's actually a kind of complimentary criticism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My day job includes a lot of statistics and data science, and I've been toying with predictive analytics in wrestling. Specifically, how well do different ranking systems predict performance?

So I just happen to have the 2018 tournament data on hand. I've written code to convert seed to expected placement, and then calculate expected team scores from placement. Then, we calculate a difference between expected score and placement score. 

I don't have the entire set of match results in a useful format, so the expected and actual scores are estimates - they do *not* include bonus points, and average over different routes to placement. That said, the top and bottom 5 teams, by difference between expected score based on seed and expected score based on actual place:
 

HOF        +4.17
LH         +2.83
NEB        +2.63
KENT       +1.69
PRIN       +1.60   

OKST       -1.30 
PENN       -1.44
LEH        -2.55   
RID        -2.75
MIZZ       -3.33

This should be read as the average points scored per wrestler. It is a crude measure - I knocked in out over the course of an hour - but it does tend to support the original post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dakota,

I do find that statistical analysis interesting.  The only question I have is if one person was projected to finish really high, say top 5, but had a bad tournament wouldn't that impact the average negatively, and vice versa.  For example, if every person wrestled exactly to their seed, wouldn't it be 0?  If that is the case wouldn't it be hard to gain a positive than a negative? In other words, an outlier could have a big impact on the average.  Also, a team like Princeton, that might only qualify 3 guys and have one seeded.  If one of the non-seeds won 2 matches, wouldn't that inflate the average since there are only 3 wrestlers, as to where a team who has 5 wrestlers, where 4 wrestle to or close to the seed, but 1 way underperforms, would throw it off?  I am genuinely asking.

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, dakotajudo said:

My day job includes a lot of statistics and data science, and I've been toying with predictive analytics in wrestling. Specifically, how well do different ranking systems predict performance?

So I just happen to have the 2018 tournament data on hand. I've written code to convert seed to expected placement, and then calculate expected team scores from placement. Then, we calculate a difference between expected score and placement score. 

I don't have the entire set of match results in a useful format, so the expected and actual scores are estimates - they do *not* include bonus points, and average over different routes to placement. That said, the top and bottom 5 teams, by difference between expected score based on seed and expected score based on actual place:
 


HOF        +4.17
LH         +2.83
NEB        +2.63
KENT       +1.69
PRIN       +1.60   

OKST       -1.30 
PENN       -1.44
LEH        -2.55   
RID        -2.75
MIZZ       -3.33

This should be read as the average points scored per wrestler. It is a crude measure - I knocked in out over the course of an hour - but it does tend to support the original post.

Very interesting.  Kent State had one guy, Connell, have the tournament of his life and he carries the whole Kent team into the top 5 in the plus column.  Probably the same applies to Princeton with Kolodzik and Lock with their finalist--one man show carrying the program.  The only team in the top five "plusses" with numerous point scorers (more than 2, to my knowledge--could be wrong) is Nebraska.

Two of the very best teams in college wrestling, PSU and OSU, make the "worst" five in the negative column.  Toss in Mizzou, a top 5-8 team year to year of recent.  Were the members of these teams overrated or undeserving of their seeds?  Did the favorable seeding give them some kind of advantage in the actual points they did accumulate?  Were the seeds deserved and the team had subpar performances?  Penn State winning it all and making the bottom five deserves some interpretive analysis.

Edited by Coach_J
clarity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tough to value statistical analysis in an individual sport when you have 5-8 guys involved. Mizzou has had their individual disappointments over the years but they’ve also punched through their share of guys you’ve never heard of.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, dakotajudo said:

My day job includes a lot of statistics and data science, and I've been toying with predictive analytics in wrestling. Specifically, how well do different ranking systems predict performance?

So I just happen to have the 2018 tournament data on hand. I've written code to convert seed to expected placement, and then calculate expected team scores from placement. Then, we calculate a difference between expected score and placement score. 

I don't have the entire set of match results in a useful format, so the expected and actual scores are estimates - they do *not* include bonus points, and average over different routes to placement. That said, the top and bottom 5 teams, by difference between expected score based on seed and expected score based on actual place:
 


HOF        +4.17
LH         +2.83
NEB        +2.63
KENT       +1.69
PRIN       +1.60   

OKST       -1.30 
PENN       -1.44
LEH        -2.55   
RID        -2.75
MIZZ       -3.33

This should be read as the average points scored per wrestler. It is a crude measure - I knocked in out over the course of an hour - but it does tend to support the original post.

I've been doing something similar using the placement of every seed since the weights changed to generate an expected value (both for likelihood of becoming an All-American and avg placement when they do) over time, then comparing each team each year to that standard. As you know, the larger sample size helps smooth over the impact of one particular wrestler. Doing that, Missouri is consistently (starting long before the current seeding methodology) one of the worst performing top teams at the NCAA tournament with the notable exception of 2017 when they dramatically over-performed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, scramble said:

Dakota,

I do find that statistical analysis interesting.  The only question I have is if one person was projected to finish really high, say top 5, but had a bad tournament wouldn't that impact the average negatively, and vice versa.  For example, if every person wrestled exactly to their seed, wouldn't it be 0?  If that is the case wouldn't it be hard to gain a positive than a negative? In other words, an outlier could have a big impact on the average.  Also, a team like Princeton, that might only qualify 3 guys and have one seeded.  If one of the non-seeds won 2 matches, wouldn't that inflate the average since there are only 3 wrestlers, as to where a team who has 5 wrestlers, where 4 wrestle to or close to the seed, but 1 way underperforms, would throw it off?  I am genuinely asking.

Thanks

This is a zero-sum measure - for every match where one wrestling performs better than his seed, the other wrestling performs worse than his seed. So, yes, if every person wrestles exactly to their seed, then all measures would be 0. Whether it's harder to gain a positive or a negative - that is more a matter of context.

Over all of the wrestlers in a tournament, it balances out - for every wrestler that has a bad tournament, there will be a different wrestler that has a good tournament. That will always happen, and that adds a certain amount of background noise to the analysis. The trickier part is separating, from the noise, whether a coming from a particular school changes the probability of having a good or bad tournament.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Coach_J said:

Very interesting.  Kent State had one guy, Connell, have the tournament of his life and he carries the whole Kent team into the top 5 in the plus column.  Probably the same applies to Princeton with Kolodzik and Lock with their finalist--one man show carrying the program.  The only team in the top five "plusses" with numerous point scorers (more than 2, to my knowledge--could be wrong) is Nebraska.

Two of the very best teams in college wrestling, PSU and OSU, make the "worst" five in the negative column.  Toss in Mizzou, a top 5-8 team year to year of recent.  Were the members of these teams overrated or undeserving of their seeds?  Did the favorable seeding give them some kind of advantage in the actual points they did accumulate?  Were the seeds deserved and the team had subpar performances?  Penn State winning it all and making the bottom five deserves some interpretive analysis.

Oh, yes, there are a lot of refinements to be made. I just knocked out a crude approximation based on rough placing. There's probably more information hiding in the brackets. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, AlexSteenTOM said:

... Doing that, Missouri is consistently (starting long before the current seeding methodology) one of the worst performing top teams at the NCAA tournament with the notable exception of 2017 when they dramatically over-performed. 

The question that springs to mind - is this a function of

(a) the university (i.e. the culture of the AD, how is the wrestling program funded and supported relative to other sports?),

(b) the coaches specific to the university over that period (does the coach focus more on dual-meet wins or tournament wins?)

(c) the conference (does the conference dual meet schedule provide enough information for seeding; is the conference allocation biased?)

(d) the athlete base (is the university drawing from a regional pool that underperforms on a national stage?)

(e) just dumb luck?

Consistent under- or over-performance, relative to seed or other ranking systems, suggests a knowledge gap, and a knowledge gap may be exploited, if the answer is not (e). So, is your data base sufficiently detailed to test (a)-(d) against (e)? That's the part I'm still working on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea that Smith is “gaming the system” is laughable.  The MAC schedule is weak, but Mizzou’s non con is typically one of the toughest.  His wrestlers are usually well deserving of their seeds.  

With that said, I’ve often felt Mizzou has underperformed at NCAAs.  They likely would have won in 2007 if they performed to seed.  Had a shot in 2015 too.  Maybe it has to do with mental pre-tourney preparation?  They seem to hold their own in duals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/17/2019 at 11:52 AM, dakotajudo said:

My day job includes a lot of statistics and data science, and I've been toying with predictive analytics in wrestling. Specifically, how well do different ranking systems predict performance?

So I just happen to have the 2018 tournament data on hand. I've written code to convert seed to expected placement, and then calculate expected team scores from placement. Then, we calculate a difference between expected score and placement score. 

I don't have the entire set of match results in a useful format, so the expected and actual scores are estimates - they do *not* include bonus points, and average over different routes to placement. That said, the top and bottom 5 teams, by difference between expected score based on seed and expected score based on actual place:
 


HOF        +4.17
LH         +2.83
NEB        +2.63
KENT       +1.69
PRIN       +1.60   

OKST       -1.30 
PENN       -1.44
LEH        -2.55   
RID        -2.75
MIZZ       -3.33

This should be read as the average points scored per wrestler. It is a crude measure - I knocked in out over the course of an hour - but it does tend to support the original post.

Hadoop into a Tableau heat map and Sankey chart or it didn’t happen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×