Mesenbrink Ranking: enough is enough

[1032004]

12 minutes ago, nhs67 said:

He had no difficulty with Amine, who is well touted by his opponents for being the strongest they have wrestled.

I’ve not heard that about Amine, but I guess it’s possible.  Caliendo looks like a Greek God though, although I know that doesn’t always translate to “wrestling strength”

[Winners Circle]

11 hours ago, flyingcement said:

Tier 1: O'Toole

Tier 2: Mesenbrink and Carr

Tier 3: Hamiti, Olejnik, Ramirez, Caliendo

Tier 4: Amine, Fish, Hall

Amine has never lost to Hamiti. I know he hasn't looked good as of late. But that has to be taken into account. And if we're going off how guys look right now, Hall just beat Olejnik and had KOT on the rope. He's at least Tier 3. 

[Winners Circle]

4 hours ago, nhs67 said:

I think the formula may spit Mesenbrink out, however the committee can move people up/down if required.

I could see where if Carr wins the dual and O'Toole wins the B12 a one-loss O'Toole being moved above Mesenbrink... 2x defending champ, etc.  That route could put Carr at the 4 seed as well, due to Ramirez having the same amount of losses and having lost the H2H... BUT Carr does have more matches, so even with the same losses he will get the nod on that criteria due to winning percentage.  Due to it putting them on the same side, I could see the committee NOT elevating O'Toole past Mesenbrink for the 1 seed, in that scenario.

The same the other way, too.  If Carr wins B12 but loses the dual, I think they end up as the 2/3.

A lot is going to be dependent on the final coaches ranking, I think?

Ramirez now has two losses. KOT and Olejnik.

[JimmyCinnabon]

11 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

I’ve not heard that about Amine, but I guess it’s possible.  Caliendo looks like a Greek God though, although I know that doesn’t always translate to “wrestling strength”

MM doesn't wrestle like a guy who is undersized. The one thing I learned early in m wrestling career is that it doesn't matter what a guy looks like. I wrestled a lot of guys who looked the part a lot more than I ever did but couldn't wrestle their way out of a paper bag. Just look at old noodle arms from Penn State. He never had any issues with guys who looked like the Incredible Hulk!

[JimmyCinnabon]

14 minutes ago, nhs67 said:

If you cared to pay attention, you would know that I am well aware that the ASC plays in to the coaches ranking.

Seeds and predictions are all quite different animals.  Seeds are based off results, which rankings try to take in to account as well.  Predictions are typically well off because then you have more of an opinion factored in and you are able to take in to account who you THINK the best at the weight is.  Aaron Brooks as the 3 seed made sense.  He popped out as the 3 seed in the seeding formula.  He had a worse RPI, worse winning percentage, less quality wins and worse results against common opponents (Coleman for Keckeisen).  The seeding formula is a formula.  The only opinion based thing on opinion there is Coaches Ranking, which I am pretty sure he was #1 on still.

You keep saying there is precedence and using a piss-poor example.  Brooks had actually lost and that dropped him down on a lot of criteria, especially since his match count was less than the other guys with one loss (Hidlay/Keckeisen).  The same will be said for Mesenbrink if he takes a loss.  There are quite a few other guys that will have a better winning percentage because of his match count.

For example, if O'Toole and Carr both go 1-1 on the way out, with one of them winning the title, the one who loses will lose the conference title criteria of the seeding formula to an undefeated Mesenbrink.  He also loses winning percentage.  Those are two that he is already behind on.

Here is a thread that Nomad had started last year regarding this...

 

Well now I am hoping Carr/O'Toole split the dual and the Big12 final and MM goes undefeated so we can see what the formula spits out as far as seeding goes. 

[billyhoyle]

3 hours ago, Interviewed_at_Weehawken said:

A bit off topic, but your post kinda brings it up... Mark Hall was supposed to be in  that top tier of dominance coming out of high school if I remember.

 

3 hours ago, Pish said:

Mark Hall finished 1, 2, 2 in his career. Pretty damned good!

As far as dominance..I don’t think that’s something you can predict until they get into college.  Some guys just have that extra something once they get in the room and sometimes it just takes time

 

I listed Hall next to other NCAA champions, so I do think he lived up to expectations-he had many doubters because of his age/being seemingly undersized.  I just think there is a tier above that you can't predict or expect a recruit to be (outside of Lee or Snyder)-MM seems to be in that tier.  

26 minutes ago, Hammerlock3 said:

you're wrong. Rankings reflect previous results, we don't want every ranker to take on the Flo model and sprint with whoever is trendy or has a mullet. He'll be up there before too long, and he'll be very durable in the rankings after that.

I said that in wrestling there is a tradition to require people to beat somebody ranked ahead to move ahead-so I get that is how people currently do it.  But rankings are inherently subjective. This requirement doesn't exist in any other sport. Without subjectivity, rankings should just be done by an algorithm. 

 

It's very easy to see how dominant MM has been and also his results internationally and recognize that he should be in the top 4. 

[Hammerlock3]

13 minutes ago, billyhoyle said:

This requirement doesn't exist in any other sport. Without subjectivity, rankings should just be done by an algorithm. 

They should. 

[Pish]

47 minutes ago, nhs67 said:

If you cared to pay attention, you would know that I am well aware that the ASC plays in to the coaches ranking.

Seeds and predictions are all quite different animals.  Seeds are based off results, which rankings try to take in to account as well.  Predictions are typically well off because then you have more of an opinion factored in and you are able to take in to account who you THINK the best at the weight is.  Aaron Brooks as the 3 seed made sense.  He popped out as the 3 seed in the seeding formula.  He had a worse RPI, worse winning percentage, less quality wins and worse results against common opponents (Coleman for Keckeisen).  The seeding formula is a formula.  The only opinion based thing on opinion there is Coaches Ranking, which I am pretty sure he was #1 on still.

You keep saying there is precedence and using a piss-poor example.  Brooks had actually lost and that dropped him down on a lot of criteria, especially since his match count was less than the other guys with one loss (Hidlay/Keckeisen).  The same will be said for Mesenbrink if he takes a loss.  There are quite a few other guys that will have a better winning percentage because of his match count.

For example, if O'Toole and Carr both go 1-1 on the way out, with one of them winning the title, the one who loses will lose the conference title criteria of the seeding formula to an undefeated Mesenbrink.  He also loses winning percentage.  Those are two that he is already behind on.

Here is a thread that Nomad had started last year regarding this...

 

I agree with you..

 

The one thing I didn't see you bring up and this is also in response to the other poster who you are replying to..the ONLY reason Brooks wasn't #1 last year is because he didn't have enough matches for RPI.  Once those points were taken out of equation he had NO chance at #1 seed.  Brooks was #1 in coaches rank, had great winning%, but he didn't have an RPI since he didn't have the 15 matches

[Wrestleknownothing]

34 minutes ago, JimmyCinnabon said:

MM doesn't wrestle like a guy who is undersized. The one thing I learned early in m wrestling career is that it doesn't matter what a guy looks like. I wrestled a lot of guys who looked the part a lot more than I ever did but couldn't wrestle their way out of a paper bag. Just look at old noodle arms from Penn State. He never had any issues with guys who looked like the Incredible Hulk!

I was thinking about Bo Nickal when reading that too. They do not come much more jacked than Patrick Brucki, yet this happened.

[Hammerlock3]

2 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

I was thinking about Bo Nickal when reading that too. They do not come much more jacked than Patrick Brucki, yet this happened.

this is a straw man argument. Everyone is on this forum already knew that being swole doesn't win wrestling matches. 

[Quaker118]

37 minutes ago, billyhoyle said:

 

I listed Hall next to other NCAA champions, so I do think he lived up to expectations-he had many doubters because of his age/being seemingly undersized.  I just think there is a tier above that you can't predict or expect a recruit to be (outside of Lee or Snyder)-MM seems to be in that tier.  

I said that in wrestling there is a tradition to require people to beat somebody ranked ahead to move ahead-so I get that is how people currently do it.  But rankings are inherently subjective. This requirement doesn't exist in any other sport. Without subjectivity, rankings should just be done by an algorithm. 

 

It's very easy to see how dominant MM has been and also his results internationally and recognize that he should be in the top 4. 

People forget Hall got screwed out of his chance to win his senior year. He was the favorite and would have been the top seed. He easily could have been a 4 time finalist and 2 time champ elevating his career standing. 

[VakAttack]

We've seen this a million times, it's ok for a freshman to have to earn a ranking.  His best win is over an injured Cam Amine.  He'll have the opportunity against Caliendo and Hamiti.  Personally, I believe he's third behind Carr and O'Toole at NCAAs, but it's ok that we have him prove it on the mat.

14 hours ago, billyhoyle said:

  Maybe Carr was rusty early and beats him, but I doubt it. 

And to whomever said putting Carr Tier 2 is the wildest thing said, they're wrong.  THIS is the wildest thing said.  I'm not guaranteeing Carr will beat Mesenbrink (though I would predict it).  But to say you doubt that David freaking Carr can beat a still relatively unproven Mesenbrink is WILD.

[jchapman]

6 minutes ago, Quaker118 said:

People forget Hall got screwed out of his chance to win his senior year. He was the favorite and would have been the top seed. He easily could have been a 4 time finalist and 2 time champ elevating his career standing. 

Just think if he didn't redshirt in middle school, he would have had the opportunity to compete in four NCAA tournaments.

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

48 minutes ago, billyhoyle said:

 

I listed Hall next to other NCAA champions, so I do think he lived up to expectations-he had many doubters because of his age/being seemingly undersized.  I just think there is a tier above that you can't predict or expect a recruit to be (outside of Lee or Snyder)-MM seems to be in that tier.  

Hall's international results (where he had no age advantage) coming into college were equal to Lee's and better than Snyder's.

[billyhoyle]

17 minutes ago, Quaker118 said:

People forget Hall got screwed out of his chance to win his senior year. He was the favorite and would have been the top seed. He easily could have been a 4 time finalist and 2 time champ elevating his career standing. 

I compared him to another great wrestler and multiple-time NCAA champ in RBY.  I just think guys like Taylor, Nolf, Ruth, and Starocci were more dominant.  

11 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

We've seen this a million times, it's ok for a freshman to have to earn a ranking.  His best win is over an injured Cam Amine.  He'll have the opportunity against Caliendo and Hamiti.  Personally, I believe he's third behind Carr and O'Toole at NCAAs, but it's ok that we have him prove it on the mat.

And to whomever said putting Carr Tier 2 is the wildest thing said, they're wrong.  THIS is the wildest thing said.  I'm not guaranteeing Carr will beat Mesenbrink (though I would predict it).  But to say you doubt that David freaking Carr can beat a still relatively unproven Mesenbrink is WILD.

I get that "earning" the ranking is how it's done-but I think he has earned it by being utterly dominant on the mat against very strong competition.  And yeah, I think he beats Carr.  Have you watched Mesenbrink's matches? They are absolutely unreal.

 

Edited January 29 by billyhoyle

[nhs67]

37 minutes ago, Hammerlock3 said:

this is a straw man argument. Everyone is on this forum already knew that being swole doesn't win wrestling matches. 

That isn't what this is, mate.

[nhs67]

1 hour ago, Winners Circle said:

Ramirez now has two losses. KOT and Olejnik.

I know that.  IF David Carr loses to O'Toole, he will also have two losses.  Add in Hall and Izzy are both in the B12 and Ramirez has... Mulvaney?  Cerniglia?  Kim?  They're world's different as far as depth goes, BUT EIWA could have 5 or 6 AQ, which will help Ramirez in the QW department.

[nhs67]

1 hour ago, JimmyCinnabon said:

Well now I am hoping Carr/O'Toole split the dual and the Big12 final and MM goes undefeated so we can see what the formula spits out as far as seeding goes. 

I am here for it, brohem.

[VakAttack]

Just now, billyhoyle said:

I get that "earning" the ranking is how it's done-but I think he has earned it by being utterly dominant on the mat against very strong competition.  And yeah, I think he beats Carr.  Have you watched Mesenbrink's matches? They are absolutely unreal.

 

...but he hasn't beaten anybody close to the level of what you're talking about.  Even under wrestlestat's algorithmic approach, Mesenbrink is ranked 8th.  Again, it's ok to have him prove his greatness on the mat.  He's going to have the opportunity.

[Pish]

9 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

...but he hasn't beaten anybody close to the level of what you're talking about.  Even under wrestlestat's algorithmic approach, Mesenbrink is ranked 8th.  Again, it's ok to have him prove his greatness on the mat.  He's going to have the opportunity.

I agree 100%, Messenbrink will have to earn it and will have his chances.  

You bring up wrestlestats (which I LOVE) but I would love to have them explain Meyer Shapiro at #1 with 2 losses.  No knock on wrestlestats because IMO this was the greatest technological advanacement in wrestling ever.  I don't use them for rankings.  But I do wonder how Shapiro vaulted to #1 with 2 losses.

[VakAttack]

7 minutes ago, Pish said:

I agree 100%, Messenbrink will have to earn it and will have his chances.  

You bring up wrestlestats (which I LOVE) but I would love to have them explain Meyer Shapiro at #1 with 2 losses.  No knock on wrestlestats because IMO this was the greatest technological advanacement in wrestling ever.  I don't use them for rankings.  But I do wonder how Shapiro vaulted to #1 with 2 losses.

I was only using it as an alternative to the person-based rankings.  I agree, certainly not foolproof.

[Pish]

4 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

I was only using it as an alternative to the person-based rankings.  I agree, certainly not foolproof.

Yes..I know you were..

 

I'm just saying..I wish wrestlestat could nail down that algorythym so that would get rid of any subjective rankings..I know they tweak it every year and honestly it's pretty good, but like you said, then there are some headscratchers

[Truzzcat]

18 minutes ago, Pish said:

I agree 100%, Messenbrink will have to earn it and will have his chances.  

You bring up wrestlestats (which I LOVE) but I would love to have them explain Meyer Shapiro at #1 with 2 losses.  No knock on wrestlestats because IMO this was the greatest technological advanacement in wrestling ever.  I don't use them for rankings.  But I do wonder how Shapiro vaulted to #1 with 2 losses.

I feel like they have to account for margin of victory which imo is not a great metric for ranking criteria but thats the only thing i can think of that would rationalize him being 1 given his bonus victories over guys they have highly ranked at the time. this is just me head cannoning it though they have pat mckee at 8 which I think is almost equally as shocking given hes 9-4 with one ranked win.

[VakAttack]

8 minutes ago, Truzzcat said:

I feel like they have to account for margin of victory which imo is not a great metric for ranking criteria but thats the only thing i can think of that would rationalize him being 1 given his bonus victories over guys they have highly ranked at the time. this is just me head cannoning it though they have pat mckee at 8 which I think is almost equally as shocking given hes 9-4 with one ranked win.

Wrestlestat, I believe, uses an ELO based algorithm which takes into account the prior seasons as well, though the weight goes down the further away we get.

[billyhoyle]

52 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

...but he hasn't beaten anybody close to the level of what you're talking about.  Even under wrestlestat's algorithmic approach, Mesenbrink is ranked 8th.  Again, it's ok to have him prove his greatness on the mat.  He's going to have the opportunity.

Are we going to ignore that he won junior world’s? This guy isn’t coming out of nowhere and has demonstrated success at a level only matched by KO and Carr.
 

Sure you can’t count that in the criteria, but the margin of victory in his ranked wins along with his undefeated record put him to #4 ranking-wise in my opinion.