Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
davenowa

Treating a Pin in Pts Scored = Pts Earned

Recommended Posts

Looking to test a "point scored = point earned" system in a high school dual tourney setting next year, and will be using the scoring method shown below, but am looking for input regarding what seems to be a point of contention regarding a pin.  Do most favor a pin rewarding only the victor and negating any points scored by the loser, or is there more support for "true" points scored = pts earned (ie Schalles blog), even though this could result in winner scoring fewer points than loser (and adds the question of near fall points being awarded prior to pin).  

 

The method I will be using is a "Margin of Victory Bonus", with a base win being worth 10 points and the winner also earning MOV bonus points.  A 1 point win would then be worth 11 points, while a 14 point margin would earn 24 points.  A tech fall would still end at 15, with the base 10 resulting in 25 points, while a pin would earn 20 extra points, for a total of 30, and in my current system, the score at the time of the fall would be irrelevant, as only the winner would score pts here.  A forfeit will be 35 pts (slightly more than a pin).  The only actual 10 point win would be for an overtime victory, with only exception being imminent scoring move to back still being allowed to earn fall.  

 

I may also test this in an individually bracketed tournament, with the simple scoring adjustment of moving the decimal over 1 place for "bonus points", such that "bonus points" would now be worth between 1 pt and 3 pts (ie a 4 point win would earn 1.4 pts), leaving placement and advancement points as they now exist.  This should maintain semi-traditional point totals for teams, essentially just adding 1 pt for a win and encouraging more scoring, as the "bonus" points simply shift from 0 (dec) to 2 (pin) and now become 1 pt (dec) up to 3 pts (pin), with most in the 1.1 to 2.0 range. Only change from dual scoring above would be that a forfeit would be treated the same as a pin (whereas additional points are given in a dual to minimize forfeits).

 

Hoping that this achieves the stated goals of increasing scoring, increasing action for the entire match, and rewarding wrestlers for all scoring...and hopefully increasing fan interest.  While I know this is the college forum, the topic has been discussed here and better input will be given.  Thanks for input on the "pin" scoring question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just at a quick glance -  It seems crazy that a pin would be worth 30 points - under this scenario, a team could win every match but one by a 1-2 point margin of victory, but one kid slips up and gets stuck - and so they lose the dual.

 

Also, I think the concept of "bonus wins" should be irrelevant in in a "points scored" system.  I would allow a base score of 3 points for a win in regulation time, plus points scored (for OT, just points scored).  Eliminate the major decision, cap the tech fall at 8 (essentially becomes a mercy rule) and make the fall worth 12 points (total 15).  This strikes a balance between rewarding aggressive wrestling / scoring, and recognizing the team that actually wins more matches.

Edited by redblades

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no, since a win is worth at least 10 pts (and in most cases, much more), if you win 6 matches by decisions ranging from 2 pts to 7 pts, you have 12+13+14+15+16+17 for a total of 87.  if you lose two matches by pin and 2 by close decision (2 pts and 3 pts), you will have given up 12+13+30+30 for 85, resulting in a close win. although mathematically possible to win 7 by close dec (ie 77) and lose other 3 by pin (ie 90) and still lose the match, not likely (and this component of the debate has been discussed in prior posts). really seeking input on the fall question in terms of maintaining points earned or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no, because if not awarding something (I propose 10) for a win, then the ratio is greatly different, as there is then very little difference between a win and a "close loss".  the "win" should still be rewarded properly, or you will have wrestlers just trying to keep it close, as there is little reward for winning.  without that component, then yes, a team could win 9 matches by 1 point each (earning only 9 points in my MOV system, or in a true "points scored" system, simply 9 pts more than their opponent--such as 60-51), whereas in THAT METHOD, 1 TF or pin WOULD offset those other 9 wins, which is what everyone is trying to prevent from occurring (most can accept a 4 win victory with dominance, maybe the extremely rare 3 pins offsetting 7 narrow wins, but never a situation where 1 or 2 match victories results in a team win).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Armspin: Exactly what I was thinking. A win over a very good wrestler is worth much LESS than beating the hell out of a scrub.  

 

Even if there was no such thing as a pin, you still have the possibility (never say never) of one or two big wins cancelling the balance of the better team effort. A scoring system's first duty, imo, is to prevent minority victories as much as possible, i.e., the principle of majority rule. The only time I ever saw 4 wins beat 6 was UNI vs. Old Dominion two years ago when UNI went undefeated in duals. No one complained since UNI had 2 or 3 pins in the mix, and the importance of the pin overwhelmed all other excuses and reasoning.

 

The system we have now is about (almost) as good as it'll get. It protects balance and rewards bonus simultaneously. Getting wrestlers to open up and become scoring machines as a function of ANY team scoring system doesn't seem to have a noticeable effect. Wrestlers still wrestle to win any way they can to get their hand raised.

 

Also keep in mind that the potential difference in ability and conditioning between any two wrestlers is not going change. There's no reason to think that two equally matched guys will end up 12-1 or 12-11 instead of 2-1 just because of a new system. In addition, you'd be raising the bar on the conditioning requirement more than what it is now and that's asking for a miracle. You'll always have a few big scorers and pinners no matter what, but a general across-the-board shift is going to require a ref with a taser!

 

Nevertheless, experiment away. But remember the old saying, If something can go wrong, it will. People are sensitive about obvious inequities. The first time something goes awry will signal the end is near, especially if it happens with noticeable frequency-- then back to the drawing board. 

Edited by Cooch1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do we really want to put do much emphasis in mismatches? Is beating a weak opponent, say, 10-0 that much more valuable then beating an excellent opponent 10-9?

 

I think mismatches should be emphasized and this model would do the trick.  In other sports, if one team has a premier player, the other team will try and match up their best person to nullify their advantage.

 

If your wrestler beats a stud by one point, your team only gets 11, but you also kept their best wrestler from 20-30 points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's usually one dual a year where a team wins 4 matches and wins the dual. I've seen it more at the NAIA and Division III levels in terms of frequency, but it does happen probably once a year. I'm sure there was one this year that we all missed because it wasn't involving power teams. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's usually one dual a year where a team wins 4 matches and wins the dual. I've seen it more at the NAIA and Division III levels in terms of frequency, but it does happen probably once a year. I'm sure there was one this year that we all missed because it wasn't involving power teams.

In Dec 74 Cal Poly took an extended trip east where they beat Lehigh, in the first meet, 21-20 - 2 pins, a very close decision NCAA2 Hatch over Mark Lieberman and a default victory while losing versus 4 non close decisions and 2 Superiors (4 points at the time). Then Cal Poly lost the last meet of the excursion to Nav 6 Decisions vs 4 victories (a couple forfeits)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would all tech falls be 25 points? Otherwise a guy up by 14, including 2 penalty points, gets a takedown to the back, the guy on his back grabs the uniform (to stop the pin) for 2 points then begins to bleed after the 5 count. So it is 14+2+2+4, a 22 point advantage. I would think that should be (in your scenario) 25, not 32.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can tolerate four matches winning a dual once in a great while if it's with pins, but not injury defaults. The official system doesn't protect against that, but does protect against 3 wins and it's easy to understand. Also, many of today's four win dual victories wouldn't have won long ago when there was just two point values, 5 or 3. In the previous 1974 Cal Poly example, two pins, a default and a decision (5-5-5-3) wouldn't beat four decisions and two superiors, i.e., six decisions (3-3-3-3-3-3). So the better team is whatever point values we put on pins and decisions; it's not written in stone. If anything is written in stone it's the concept of majority rule and team balance.

 

So far all I'm seeing with these experimental systems and complex "what if" bout scenarios is the more than likely possibility of 3 big wins being the winner. That's a step backward and will get laughed off the sports page. Trying to justify it by using parallels to team sports doesn't take into consideration that wrestling is not a team sport. Individuals in team sports interact and win or lose as a whole. No hands are being individually raised for people to count and compare the number of winners and losers and consequently don't question the scoring system. If there were no hands raised, no individual winners/losers, just wrestle, score as much as you can and walk off, then no one would question the results.

 

In reality, I think you have to enforce majority rule and credit team balance and good coaching/recruiting as much as possible. Why not bump the system from 6-5-4-3 to 10-9-8-7. Four max can't beat six. Or combine the major and superior (8-15 margin) = 5 and bump the decision to 4. Now you have 6-5-4 and once again --barring team point deductions-- four max can't win. This protects against injury default/forfeits-- bad luck/ misfortune--while also assuring team wrestling ability a well deserved edge.

Edited by Cooch1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The TF question asked is in essence the same question initially posed about a pin...do most proponents of some variation of the Pts scored = Pts Earned methodology prefer that a pin or TF ends the bout AND clears all points scored by awarding a predefined number of team pts...or do more prefer that the points that were earned in the match still act as a component of the team score in those matches ending by pin or TF?  I admit that I am philosophically opposed to the component of the Schalles proposal where the wrestler who GETS pinned but had a huge lead prior actually scores more points than the winner...excerpt below from that blog at http://wadeschalles.com/a-point-earned-is-a-point-scored/

 

"Regarding the pin, this was the most difficult aspect to get a handle on relative to scoring. As simple as it is to say a point earned is a team point scored, throwing in how to handle the pin was nothing short of maddening. Trust me; I went through dozens of mental contortions to reach the following conclusion.

My problem was; if an athlete is winning 15-4 and gets pinned, the team score under this system is 15 points for the person who got pinned (loser) and 14 points (10+4) for the winner.

“Now wait a minute Wade. That’s not fair; the loser gets more team points than the winner!” That’s exactly right because points scored are points earned. We must reward all wrestlers, in all situations, who put points on the board.

No one knows more than me how difficult this was to think about and then type. But I’ve looked at this 20 ways to Sunday and it’s the best way of handling it because the pin is nothing more than a scoring technique that’s a level above a near fall. Think of a pin as being similar to a takedown or a reversal. All three are scoring techniques but as it has always been, the pin ends the match.

I know that sounds crazy but the whole premise behind this system is to reward effort. We must incentivize wrestlers to score more and score often while forcing coaches out of their “protect the lead” approach to wrestling. Once everyone understands the game has changed, they’ll change with it; they’re too competitive not to!

Continuing the discussion regarding a pin, actually, how many times does the wrestler who’s ahead on points get pinned? So should we get our underwear all knotted up over something that seldom if ever happens? But when it does, the offensive machine that racked up more points than his opponent should be rewarded for his effort."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A meet goes into overtime. Wrestler A has already had two injury stoppages. (which under college rules may have cost him, effectively, 3 points) He is about to get a takedown in SV when he screams in pain. Suffers from a stinger or a cramp that clears itself in 20 seconds. But it is a 3rd stoppage. 6 team points for Wrestler B's team. I don't think that is "just". I don't think it should be worth any more than a regular decision.

 

The same logic applies if it is a DQ because of a 4th TV (say locked hands, figure four, locked hands then grabbing uniform. - all these could be somewhat accidental). A DQ because of misconduct however should be worth the same as a first period fall,DF, or DQ.

 

Question??? When I wrestled in HS in Pa 1964-1967 and for at least a couple years before and after, a first period pin (or DQ or DF or FFT) was worth 6 points, but in the second or third only 5 points. Was that a common HS rule at the time, common in other states, or was it just a Pa Rule?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same in NJ through at least 1969.

A friend/classmate just wrote a book on Pburg wrestling (Welcome to the Pit).

The first duals listed were during Pburg's 58 match unbeaten streak from 1966-1970.

In the only tie in the streak the score was 20-20 with Freedom. Each team had a non-first period pin. By current rules, Pburg would have won with majors.

A few days later, Pburg beat Easton 21-18 in another 6-6 split. Zaro had a 0:36 pin.

Now I suppose it's possible PIAA rules were used both times given the opponents but the Easton match was at the Pit so I doubt it.

 

I checked further, in a NJ only match in 1971, Pburg won 23-21 in a 7-5 split. Pburg had a 2nd period pin, NH had 2 non-1st pins and a dq.

Edited by gimpeltf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Philosophically, what is going on here is the same as trying to unify apples and oranges; or geometrically, the inside (individual) of a circle with the outside (team balance) of a circle. Although apples and oranges, inside and outside, individual strength and team strength, always and only coexist, they are not the same and cannot ever be. They are forever uniquely different. This is why the impasse and consternation even for someone as astute as Schalles

 

Competitors that we are, we love a good fight and will never yield. So I'm sure this little dialogue won't go anywhere. Better to trip and fall until you get tired of tripping and falling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My scoring suggestion for dual meets

 

1 pt for a tie breakers victory because of 1-59 secs riding time (college) or UltimateTieBreaker (HS)

 

3 pt for a victory in SV, including a DF or DQ from 4 penalties or a from decision over 7 points

 

5 pts for a 1 point decision in regulation

 

7 pts for a 2-7 point decision inregulation

 

9 pts for a major decision - including over 14 if no nearfall

 

11 pts for a tech fall over 14 pts including a nearfall

 

XX for a fft, a fall in regulation, a default in regulation, a DQ, either from 4 violations or misconduct in regulations. The question is whether XX is 13 or 15? is a fall worth more or less than two ordinary decisions? I don't know

 

I also don't know whether a fall in overtime should be worth XX(13-15) or 3 or something invbetween (say 5 or 7)

 

Team Penalty points would be 2 points (or 6 points in HS)

 

The advantage of this system is that if we ever go to an odd number of weights is that a tie is impossible (unless there is a double forfeit Double DQ, or Double default)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But we need more than a tie breaker. We need wrestlers who will wrestle like there's no tomorrow (for wrestling). Is this a function of the scoring system and can we prove it once and for all beyond themat.com?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Team scoring incentives are good at making a superior wrestling beat the tar out of an overmatched opponent. This is all well and good; the real trick is to encourage two evenly matches wrestlers to wrestle to 10-9 rather than 3-2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

armspin has provided the breakthrough needed! ok, to encourage more scoring and to encourage action throughout from both wrestlers how about rewarding not only margin of victory but also total points scored?  although this may seem complicated, follow me if you dare, as the end result will be wins that earn team points ranging from 2.2 (for a 1-0 match) up to 4.8 (for a 14-0 win), as well as maintaining 5 for a tech fall and 6 for a pin (and making a forfeit 7).  however, it requires getting over the fear of decimals (we already accept .5 points in tourneys, so no big deal) or multiplying everything by 10 if you prefer a team score of 247-188 instead of 24.7 to 18.8.  Here is the math involved, and I will work with the x 10 for explanatory purposes, but would advocate the decimal method.  First, a win by decision earns 20 points for the victor.  This is needed to eliminate the possibility of a couple of pins overcoming a bunch of close decisions.  Then the 2 following components are added--first, margin of victory, which maxes out at 14 (as 15 creates a TF).  Second, add in the number of match points scored by the winner.  This also maxes out at 14, to avoid unjustly rewarding a 27-15 match score and to prevent any major decision from exceeding a TF, no matter how wildly exciting and high-scoring it may have been.  Here are some sample scores and what would be earned in terms of team points (again, will use the x 10 method for this purpose, so remember that a pin is 60 and a TF is 50).  I will start with the 2 scores given by armspin, as all spectators would prefer the 10-9 over the 1-0...

 

1-0 earns 22 points (20 for win, 1 for pts scored by winner and 1 for MOV)...or 2.2 if prefer

10-9 earns 31 points (20 for win, 10 for pts scored by winner and 1 for MOV)...or 3.1 if prefer

6-2 earns 30 points (20 for win, 6 for pts scored winner and 4 for MOV)...or 3.0

12-4 earns 40 points (20 for win, 12 for pts scored and 8 for MOV)...or 4.0 (essentially same as a current major)

14-0 earns max 48 points (20 for win, 14 for pts scored and 14 for MOV)..or 4.8

26-12 also earns max 48, as winner pts max out at 14

 

for those concerned about 3 pins overcoming 7 decisions, it would not happen in a normal scenario (such as 7 wins all by a 4-2 margin, which would be 26 pts each, for 182...beating 180 for 3 pins).  Yes, it not inconceivable you could win 7 matches by 1-0 scores and lose 180 to 154, but if your team is that boring to watch, you deserve it. 

 

Lastly, for as complicated as it may seem, it is just adding pts scored by winner and margin of victory to a base of 20...and moving the decimal to make it all normal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lastly, for as complicated as it may seem, it is just adding pts scored by winner and margin of victory to a base of 20...and moving the decimal to make it all normal.

actually to make it simpler the winners score would be 20 + 2*(his points scored) - losers points scored

 

Problem this score rewards winners of very close high scoring bouts maybe to much. Example.

 

Team A wins 5 bouts 10-9 for a score of 165 --- Team B wins 4 matches 6-1 and 1 match 5-0. 164 points. I understand why team A wins; they won 5 high scoring bouts as to 5 dominating bouts. I can't but help feel team A very much lucked out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

good point that I struggled to balance, as perhaps too much emphasis was placed on rewarding action from both wrestlers.  maybe the best solution (and simplest, although it does involve decimals) would be to maintain a base win being worth 3 points, but then award 0.1 for every "margin of victory" point difference.  This would result in earning 3.0 (OT win) up to 4.4 (14 point victory).  It would hopefully increase action for the duration, as every point now counts.  It would reduce (and practically eliminate) team score tie-breakers, and would continue to reward a TF with 5 and a pin with 6 (would still love to see forfeit increase to 7).  Also, by making an overtime win only worth the 3 point base, it may reduce the number of bouts that go to OT.  Essentially, every point counts, and closely resembles current scoring totals (what was an 8-point win for a major dec for 4 pts would now be 3.8, while a 10 point margin would achieve the 4.0), while hopefully keeping enough emphasis on a pin...and eliminating the possibility of a team winning a dual with only 3 pins over 7 decisions.  Here is a sample where each team wins 5 "regular decisions" but the dreaded tie-breaker is avoided:  Team A has 5 wins of 1 point each would result in a score of 15.5 (5 x 3 plus 5 x 0.1), while Team B has 5 wins of 4 points each which would be 17 team points (5 x 3 plus 5 x 0.4 for MOV bonus), so Team B wins 17 to 15.5.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The top to bottom ratio of the original idea is 6.0 : 2.2. = 2.7:1, and if forfeits are included 7.0 : 2.2 = 3.2 :1  . Currently its 6 : 3 = 2:1 and so 3 pins can't win. With a ratio of 2.7 or 3.2, the unprecedented likelihood of 7 wins losing is fairly good given the thousands of dual meets that will be wrestled. 

 

Whether it's complicated is no big deal since computers will do the adding, and trying to envision fans with pocket calculators is intense to say the least. 

 

The system will succeed IF it spurs action to score. The higher the scoring the less likely 6-7 wins will lose. The lower the scoring (2-1, 3-2, etc.)the greater the chance of 6-7 wins losing. Low scoring isn't necessarily always boring. Looking on the positive side, such a system, once it's understood, would send a message to every wrestler to rack up as many points as possible or else suffer the outside chance of your team losing even though you won the majority of bouts. Whether wrestlers and coaches "get it" and whether fans don't mind scratching their head is another thing.

Edited by Cooch1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...