Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

It is time to review how the 3 point takedown impacted bonus point scoring in this tournament.

At the beginning of the year I predicted that there would be a 32.7% increase in bonus points. I got there by making assumptions about the likelihood of near majors becoming majors and near tech falls becoming tech falls.

So how did I do?

Benchmarks Matter

To answer that question we need to know what we are comparing to.

32.7% of what?

Bonus point scoring is somewhat volatile from year to year. If we just look at last year versus this year we get a very different answer than if we look at last 5, or 10, or 20 years versus last year. Ideally, if the jump was real and meaningful it would not matter which time window was chosen. 

For my estimate, I used 1988 as a starting point because that is the starting point for when I have match data, so let's stick with that.

 

image.png.9574813877ecc7d1ed7a63d7c27be57a.png

The average number of bonus points per match was 0.43 and the one standard deviation band around that was 0.37 to 0.49.

So, how did we do this year?

Turns out we were spot on that +1 SD number of 0.49 bonus points per match. OK, so high-ish, but not exactly knocking my sox off high. Not even record high. As a matter of fact, as recently as 2016 and 2017 we had higher numbers.

So What gives?

PINFALLS

I assumed that there would be a measurable jump in majors (just barely) which have a bigger impact than a jump in tech falls, which I also assumed would increase (correct). But what I failed to account for is that with more matches ending early due to tech fall, there would be fewer pinfalls.

image.png.654ca2afefd0724122ead0f3fc4bb834.png

In hindsight, this seems obvious. A lot of pinfalls occur after the superior wrestler has had a little time to tenderize his meat. But, with tech falls coming hotter and faster, there just isn't enough time to really work over that tough cut and flip it.

Verdict

The verdict is still a little unclear. It is hard to be definitive based on one tournament, but that is the point isn't it? The result from this one tournament is not definitive enough to say the change in scoring led to an increase in bonus points.

Yes, there was a big increase in bonus points over last year, but last year was a historically low total, and probably an unfair point of comparison.

Yes, there was a measurable jump in tech falls, adding a half a point over a major. But there was a near identical drop in pinfalls, losing a half point relative to a tech fall.

Asterisk

So, what does it mean for PSU's record team points total? I think very little to nothing. It all comes out in the wash.

172.5 > 171.5 (170)

  • Bob 2
  • Brain 1

Drowning in data, but thirsting for knowledge

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
  • Latest Rankings

  • College Commitments

    Max Wirnsberger

    Warrior Run, Pennsylvania
    Class of 2026
    Committed to California Baptist
    Projected Weight: 141

    Mason Wagner

    Faith Christian Academy, Pennsylvania
    Class of 2026
    Committed to Little Rock
    Projected Weight: 149

    Shane Wagner

    Faith Christian Academy, Pennsylvania
    Class of 2026
    Committed to Little Rock
    Projected Weight: 157

    Brett Swenson

    Mounds View, Minnesota
    Class of 2025
    Committed to Minnesota
    Projected Weight: 125, 133

    Isaac Lacinski

    Burrell, Pennsylvania
    Class of 2025
    Committed to Gardner-Webb
    Projected Weight: 184
×
×
  • Create New...