Teams that Over-performed, Under-performed, or Hit the Margin

[MSU158 1,983]

oldsuper,

 

Evans was the only one of the 3 you listed who didn't "wrestle up to seed".  A lot of that had to do with him hitting Kokesh in the consolation semis.  Brooks was seeded 9th and lost in R12.  That is EXACTLY to seed.  Moore was unseeded.  0-2 is EXACTLY what an unseeded wrestler is expected to do.

[oldsuper 46]

MSU158,

 

At first and second glance it looks like Dziewa under-performed. He was the 5th seed and didn't place 5th or higher. Gilman losing to the freshman was bad, Iowa really needed that match. Evans, Brooks, and Burak lost key matches. Telford placed below seed. I saw a lot of bad wrestling from Iowa for the second consecutive year. They lost this tournament and Ohio State won. Ohio State's performance doesn't exculpate Iowa's poor performance.

[IRTYTKY 67]

MSU158,

 

At first and second glance it looks like Dziewa under-performed. He was the 5th seed and didn't place 5th or higher. Gilman losing to the freshman was bad, Iowa really needed that match. Evans, Brooks, and Burak lost key matches. Telford placed below seed. I saw a lot of bad wrestling from Iowa for the second consecutive year. They lost this tournament and Ohio State won. Ohio State's performance doesn't exculpate Iowa's poor performance.

 

You cant really blame oldsuper for not being able to see the forest with all those trees in the way, guys.

[LordNelson 552]

Judging performance by initial seed in this year's tournament really isn't a good barometer.

[oldsuper 46]

You may be right. But they were dealing with injuries just like the classy Minnesota guys were. 

 

Nick Moore was obviously a shell of the guy that beat Caldwell and Hager with ease last year.

 

Brooks was falling all over the place in the consolations and yes still had the ability and almost beat the #3 seed on the back side.

 

As far as Evans I'm just going off what his parents said on the Iowa forum that he was dealing with injuries all year that was seriously hampering him. Which just makes his ability to beat guys on pure grit all year more impressive.   

 

Nick Moore looked like the same guy he was last year that collapsed at the national tournament. He wasn't "obviously a shell of the guy that beat Caldwell and Harger with ease last year". I think he was the same wrestler. Poor, inconsistent wrestling has been the way he's wrestled for most of his career. At least from what I saw.

 

Evans was wrestling with far more than "pure grit". He was capable of wrestling technically and tactically better, and he failed to do so. He simply under-performed. Imo, chalking up Evans' collapse to injury is silly. So is saying that he was winning on "pure grit" the entire season.

[OtisCampbell 94]

While I think you are right that Iowa could have won a lot of those matches and won this tournament, I think they did about what they were expected to do. They didn't under perform or over perform. As an Iowa fan I am disappointed but it was hardly their worst performance at nationals and not even close to say a classy Minnesotas worst performance. 

[MSU158 1,983]

oldsuper,

 

You always talk in circles and never clearly specify the bad losses.

 

The brackets are NOT wrestled in a vacuum.  Dziewa lost to Jack and Mayes.  Jack also beat Devin Carter and Mecate.  Being obtuse doesn't exculpate you from being wrong.

 

Gilman didn't lose to a freshman chump.  You can't IGNORE upset wins like Gilman over Dance but emphasize an unexpected loss to Moisey.  That is disingenuous at best.

 

Of the matches Evans, Brooks and Burak lost, which were key?  Which were they supposed to win?

 

Calling their overall performance poor is solely opinionated and NOT based on ALL the facts!

[oldsuper 46]

You cant really blame oldsuper for not being able to see the forest with all those trees in the way, guys.

 

I'm not making excuses for Iowa's poor wrestling. I'm seeing things rather clearly if you ask me.

[LordNelson 552]

So they didn't underperform.  They just weren't capable of winning it.

[MSU158 1,983]

LordNelson,

 

That is the single most consistent way to judge performance.  Seeds never go as planned.  Still they lay out the most likely path to reaching the correlated placement.  They also then give you the actual look of the "draw" after upsets happen.

 

 

The only fair and un-biased way to judge overall performance, is to look at seeds and then look at the draws of each wrestler.  To just say Iowa underperformed because they took 2nd is an "opinion" because you aren't looking at all the facts.  Of the 51 matches Iowa wrestled, how many did they lose that they were realistically favored?  Is it fair to expect Iowa to win EVERY match they were favored in and ignore the upset wins they had? 

[hawktalk3 59]

Nick Moore looked like the same guy he was last year that collapsed at the national tournament. He wasn't "obviously a shell of the guy that beat Caldwell and Harger with ease last year". I think he was the same wrestler. Poor, inconsistent wrestling has been the way he's wrestled for most of his career. At least from what I saw.

 

Evans was wrestling with far more than "pure grit". He was capable of wrestling technically and tactically better, and he failed to do so. He simply under-performed. Imo, chalking up Evans' collapse to injury is silly. So is saying that he was winning on "pure grit" the entire season.

So you watched Nick Moore at the NCAA tournament and could just see that he looked like the same guy who beat Tyler Caldwell a year ago? Anyone that thinks Nick Moore was 100% healthy and just had a meltdown at the 2015 NCAAs is lying to themselves. Did you watch Big Ten'? He finished 9th, he has never had an issue wrestling well at the Big Ten's, but I suppose he just started his collaspe early this year rigtht?

 

I'll say it again, if you thought Moore was healthy you are obviously way too biased against Iowa. Pretty easy to see he was a different wrestler this year.

[MSU158 1,983]

I honestly don't believe Iowa, as a whole, underperformed.  I believe tOSU was the better tournament team.  The way tOSU wrestled, Iowa needed a near perfect(relative to each guys actual abilities) tournament to win.  Is it fair to say that roughly 10% less than perfect is poor?

[oldsuper 46]

oldsuper,

 

You always talk in circles and never clearly specify the bad losses.

 

The brackets are NOT wrestled in a vacuum.  Dziewa lost to Jack and Mayes.  Jack also beat Devin Carter and Mecate.  Being obtuse doesn't exculpate you from being wrong.

 

Gilman didn't lose to a freshman chump.  You can't IGNORE upset wins like Gilman over Dance but emphasize an unexpected loss to Moisey.  That is disingenuous at best.

 

Of the matches Evans, Brooks and Burak lost, which were key?  Which were they supposed to win?

 

Calling their overall performance poor is solely opinionated and NOT based on ALL the facts!

 

Dziewa lost to a freshman. Who cares if he the freshman went on to beat other wrestlers? Do you realize that multiple wrestlers can underperform in the same bracket, in the same year? 

 

Gilman lost to a kid that he was 'supposed' to beat. You seem to be acting like losing to a freshman isn't a bad loss. Gilman beat Dance, a wrestler who didn't even make the podium! I told you my thoughts on guys who don't make the podium several times. 

 

Evans lost to Brown, I consider that a bad loss. I don't hold to the belief that if you lose to someone seeded higher than you, that means the loss wasn't bad. Also Evans has beaten Brown before too. 

 

Iowa was the #1 tournament team this year going into nationals. They lost, it was a poor performance as a team. I see no reason to abandon that stance.

[oldsuper 46]

LordNelson,

 

That is the single most consistent way to judge performance.  Seeds never go as planned.  Still they lay out the most likely path to reaching the correlated placement.  They also then give you the actual look of the "draw" after upsets happen.

 

 

The only fair and un-biased way to judge overall performance, is to look at seeds and then look at the draws of each wrestler.  To just say Iowa underperformed because they took 2nd is an "opinion" because you aren't looking at all the facts.  Of the 51 matches Iowa wrestled, how many did they lose that they were realistically favored?  Is it fair to expect Iowa to win EVERY match they were favored in and ignore the upset wins they had? 

 

MSU158, saying that Iowa did "very well" is also an opinion. You often make the mistake of thinking that you are simply stating facts when you are merely giving your own opinion.

[oldsuper 46]

I honestly don't believe Iowa, as a whole, underperformed.  I believe tOSU was the better tournament team.  The way tOSU wrestled, Iowa needed a near perfect(relative to each guys actual abilities) tournament to win.  Is it fair to say that roughly 10% less than perfect is poor?

 

What are each guys "actual abilities" MSU158? Are you trying to say that each wrestler's "actual abilities" are obvious, and even more importantly, objective?

[MSU158 1,983]

I am not going to go down this endless rabbit hole with you.  I have said my piece.  I have cited actual numbers to support my argument.  You are entitled to your opinion.  I will stick with mine.

 

 

Good day, sir!

[oldsuper 46]

So you watched Nick Moore at the NCAA tournament and could just see that he looked like the same guy who beat Tyler Caldwell a year ago?

 

 

Yes. Nick Moore has a history of under-performing at the national tournament. Nick Moore looked like the same wrestler he did last year imo. Nick Moore is simply inconsistent.

 

Anyone that thinks Nick Moore was 100% healthy and just had a meltdown at the 2015 NCAAs is lying to themselves.

 

 

 

Not a useful comment. I could say: "Anyone who claims to be surprised that Nick Moore's poor, inconsistent wrestling led to yet another non AA finish is lying to themselves"

 

Did you watch Big Ten'? He finished 9th, he has never had an issue wrestling well at the Big Ten's, but I suppose he just started his collaspe early this year rigtht?

 

 

 

 

 

Poor, inconsistent wrestling often earns you a non first place finish. Nick Moore didn't place at last year's national tournament, are you forgetting that? Btw, Greg Jones "never had an issue wrestling well" at the ncaas before he did. If Greg Jones can underperform, why can't Nick Moore? Is Moore better than Jones? 

 

 

 

I'll say it again, if you thought Moore was healthy you are obviously way too biased against Iowa. Pretty easy to see he was a different wrestler this year.

 

 

 

When did you say this the first time? He looked like the same wrestler to me. 

[oldsuper 46]

I am not going to go down this endless rabbit hole with you.  I have said my piece.  I have cited actual numbers to support my argument.  You are entitled to your opinion.  I will stick with mine.

 

 

Good day, sir!

 

I have cited numbers to support my argument as well. If you are implying that your opinion is fact based while mine isn't, you are clearly wrong.

 

Iowa under-performed. This was their year to win the ncaas, and they came up short. Maybe they'll turn things around next year. They have a pretty solid lineup returning. I expect a national title from them in 2016.

[oldsuper 46]

I am not going to go down this endless rabbit hole with you.  I have said my piece.  I have cited actual numbers to support my argument.  You are entitled to your opinion.  I will stick with mine.

 

 

Good day, sir!

 

Btw, if you can't defend the "actual abilities" comment then just say so. You always seem to leave the thread when someone calls you out on one of your many assertions.

[hawktalk3 59]

Yes. Nick Moore has a history of under-performing at the national tournament. Nick Moore looked like the same wrestler he did last year imo. Nick Moore is simply inconsistent.

 

 

Not a useful comment. I could say: "Anyone who claims to be surprised that Nick Moore's poor, inconsistent wrestling led to yet another non AA finish is lying to themselves"

Poor, inconsistent wrestling often earns you a non first place finish. Nick Moore didn't place at last year's national tournament, are you forgetting that? Btw, Greg Jones "never had an issue wrestling well" at the ncaas before he did. If Greg Jones can underperform, why can't Nick Moore? Is Moore better than Jones? 

 

When did you say this the first time? He looked like the same wrestler to me. 

I am glad you are privy to all things Iowa related, and you can let me know for certain that he was in fact healthy. Thank god we have you. Clearly you like bagging on this kid. More power too ya. He was hurt plain and simple. If you feel like your "facts" go against what I am saying, I am not going to be able to sway you so there is no point in wasting my time. If you can't be even a little bit open to the idea a wrestler was injured, you are again too biased against this team and anyone on it.

 

There is a difference between wrestling inconsistent and wrestling injured, and usually you can tell by actually watching a match if a guy is hurt or if he is simply "giving up." Have a good day, and good luck on your quest to continually bash a man that wrestled hurt.

[MSU158 1,983]

I leave the thread when you bog it down with endless detritus.........Deflect and talk in circles.

 

 

I will part by saying "actual abilities" are quantified, by myself anyways, based on each wrestler's work to date.

 

 

Gilman was seeded 6th for a reason.  4th place was a good to very good finish based on what he had done to date.

 

Clark did Very Well.

 

Dziewa had his best performance at an NCAA tournament.  Twist what you will.  Attack where you will.  He may have been a 5 seed but he lost to 2 very good wrestlers and went 2-2.  Still, I don't have an issue with calling it an underperformance but it wasn't close to a monumental one.

 

Sorenson was awesome for a freshman.

 

Kelly was exactly who Kelly was.

 

Moore was a disappointment but hadn't shown anything to 100% expect better.

 

Evans had a pretty bad record against Brown. Not sure why you think you can call that a bad loss.

 

Brooks was the 9 seed and lost to the champ and 4th place finisher. 

 

Burak-basically the same as Brooks.

 

Telford screwed up early but scored enough on the backside to equal what a 3rd seed should actually score wrestling the bracket to seed.

 

Other than Moore each guy wrestled equal to or better than their "actual abilities".

 

 

 

I am done feel free to bog this thread down if anyone else will engage you.

[oldsuper 46]

Even with all of that, you didn't really define your terms. 

 

I hope that you aren't expecting everyone to agree with your "actual abilities" measure as though it's objective. It's funny that you always accuse me of holding to ridiculous opinions or talking in circles. I believe that is what you do MSU158. 

 

It was not within Gilman's "actual abilities" to beat Moisey? It wasn't within Teflord's "actual abilities" to beat the Maryland kid? If those two would have won those matches, they would have been wrestling above their "actual abilities"? Are you serious MSU158??? 

 

I know many Iowa fans that would disagree with that. I actually believe that the majority of Iowa fans would take Gilman and Telford in rematches. 

[oldsuper 46]

I am glad you are privy to all things Iowa related, and you can let me know for certain that he was in fact healthy. Thank god we have you. Clearly you like bagging on this kid. More power too ya. He was hurt plain and simple. If you feel like your "facts" go against what I am saying, I am not going to be able to sway you so there is no point in wasting my time. If you can't be even a little bit open to the idea a wrestler was injured, you are again too biased against this team and anyone on it.

 

There is a difference between wrestling inconsistent and wrestling injured, and usually you can tell by actually watching a match if a guy is hurt or if he is simply "giving up." Have a good day, and good luck on your quest to continually bash a man that wrestled hurt.

 

I'm not "bagging" on anyone. I just mentioned that Moore's wrestling is often poor and inconsistent. I think history bears witness to that fact. Btw, repeatedly throwing out accusations of bias does nothing to help your point. I'm not biased against any wrestler on the Iowa team.

 

Nick Moore was well enough to wrestle better than he did imo. He didn't wrestle well. Far better wrestlers than Nick Moore have under-performed at the ncaa tournament, please remember that fact.  

[MSU158 1,983]

oldsuper,

 

 

I know I said I was done, but I will respond this one last time.

 

I conceded the matches you named a long time ago.  The point of this thread is the WHOLE OVERALL Iowa performance.  You can't accurately define an overall performance cherry picking a very small percentage of 51 matches.

 

This thread is about how the team finished as a whole.  To do so you look at the actual finish of each guy(including ALL the matches they wrestled), reasonable expectations of each guy and put that together.

 

If you want to pick 4 bad matches out of 51 and call their performance poor, that is your prerogative.  I will, however, vehemently disagree with that assessment. 

[oldsuper 46]

So you're sticking to your comment that Gilman successfully wrestled to his "actual abilities" even though he lost to Moisey. The same with Telford even with the loss to Myers? You're firmly set on the opinion that if Gilman and Telford won those matches, that they would have been wrestling above their "actual abilities"? 

 

I think I may have to start a thread on this one MSU158.