Davino vs Blaze / Seidel vs Forrest

[BruceyB]

Who is the best among the four? It may very well be Blaze, but I think everyone would agree that all 4 are phenomenal and any one of them has a legitimate chance to win it all at NCAAs. However, look at the difference between the 1-1 rideout match and the 10-9 thriller in the other. 10-9 is what happens when guys open up and take chances. When action happens, a lot of the time one guy is going to score, and then you have someone in the lead and someone behind which then turns into more action. 

It would be a wonderful thing if everyone went out and wrestled tried to score, but unfortunately there seems to be a growing number of wrestlers that are perfectly content to mitigate risk and win by whatever means necessary, and even more unfortunate is that our officiating allows for guys to do so with impunity.

Make the guys wrestle, call 'em early and often if they aren't taking chances, and if that becomes the norm, they will either adapt and overcome or be left behind because they aren't active enough.

More stalling calls in reality will benefit the better wrestler in the long run. 

[peanut]

10 minutes ago, BruceyB said:

Who is the best among the four? It may very well be Blaze, but I think everyone would agree that all 4 are phenomenal and any one of them has a legitimate chance to win it all at NCAAs. However, look at the difference between the 1-1 rideout match and the 10-9 thriller in the other. 10-9 is what happens when guys open up and take chances. When action happens, a lot of the time one guy is going to score, and then you have someone in the lead and someone behind which then turns into more action. 

It would be a wonderful thing if everyone went out and wrestled tried to score, but unfortunately there seems to be a growing number of wrestlers that are perfectly content to mitigate risk and win by whatever means necessary, and even more unfortunate is that our officiating allows for guys to do so with impunity.

Make the guys wrestle, call 'em early and often if they aren't taking chances, and if that becomes the norm, they will either adapt and overcome or be left behind because they aren't active enough.

More stalling calls in reality will benefit the better wrestler in the long run. 

Byrd plus a half or dozen or so former All Americans are also at this weight. Really just an insane weight class. 

[Pablo]

15 minutes ago, BruceyB said:

Who is the best among the four? It may very well be Blaze, but I think everyone would agree that all 4 are phenomenal and any one of them has a legitimate chance to win it all at NCAAs. However, look at the difference between the 1-1 rideout match and the 10-9 thriller in the other. 10-9 is what happens when guys open up and take chances. When action happens, a lot of the time one guy is going to score, and then you have someone in the lead and someone behind which then turns into more action. 

It would be a wonderful thing if everyone went out and wrestled tried to score, but unfortunately there seems to be a growing number of wrestlers that are perfectly content to mitigate risk and win by whatever means necessary, and even more unfortunate is that our officiating allows for guys to do so with impunity.

Make the guys wrestle, call 'em early and often if they aren't taking chances, and if that becomes the norm, they will either adapt and overcome or be left behind because they aren't active enough.

More stalling calls in reality will benefit the better wrestler in the long run. 

I've been thinking about looking into this in Pablo rankings- what's a better outcome in terms of future performance, winning 2-1 or winning 10 - 9?

Right now, I just look at point differential, but I've been curious lately if there is a difference.

In volleyball, where Pablo started, it's very clearly point percentage, but that is something that can basically derived from first principles (it's about point probablity, and the big-time vb analysts work it from that perspective).  In the NFL, on the other hand, the best predictor is, in fact, offensive output, and not point difference (point differential is related to offensive output, so it's easy to think they are the same).  

So I wonder if wrestling is better predicted by point differential, where 2-1 is the same as 10-9, or total points?

Or maybe it is point percentage, where 2 -1 is better than 10-9 (it's possible, because one could argue that 10-9 is moe of a crapshoot and therfore the outcome is more random).

It's that time of year when I should start looking at some analysis anyway, to strengthen the weighting on the model, if nothing else.  There will be a lot more data after conference tournaments, though (and there is even more data after NCAAs), so I've been holding off.

 

[CHROMEBIRD]

15 minutes ago, Pablo said:

I've been thinking about looking into this in Pablo rankings- what's a better outcome in terms of future performance, winning 2-1 or winning 10 - 9?

Right now, I just look at point differential, but I've been curious lately if there is a difference.

In volleyball, where Pablo started, it's very clearly point percentage, but that is something that can basically derived from first principles (it's about point probablity, and the big-time vb analysts work it from that perspective).  In the NFL, on the other hand, the best predictor is, in fact, offensive output, and not point difference (point differential is related to offensive output, so it's easy to think they are the same).  

So I wonder if wrestling is better predicted by point differential, where 2-1 is the same as 10-9, or total points?

Or maybe it is point percentage, where 2 -1 is better than 10-9 (it's possible, because one could argue that 10-9 is moe of a crapshoot and therfore the outcome is more random).

It's that time of year when I should start looking at some analysis anyway, to strengthen the weighting on the model, if nothing else.  There will be a lot more data after conference tournaments, though (and there is even more data after NCAAs), so I've been holding off.

My gut feeling is that wining 10-9 is a better indicator of success than 2-1. Both are 1pt decisions, but if you can putting up 10 points on an opponent (even if they score 9) suggests that you have a better offensive toolset at your disposal and in theory can score in several different ways. Offensive output probably has a higher rate of success than wrestlers who over-rely just on defense, stalling, and riding time (e.g., 2-1 matches). 

One of the data nerds, probably Wkn, posted a stat once about how the wrestlers who scores the first takedown wins 80% or some very high % of the time. A defense-first low scoring wrestler, that one TD can be their entire cushion/deficit and leaves no margin for error if they typically can't score more than once. 

Kyle Dake would probably disagree with me. When he was in college he said something along the lines of: he basically had an automatic 2-0 lead going into matches, so he really didn't need to do much else if he didn't want to. Just get that 1pt escape + 1pt riding time, defend, and cruise to a win. So ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[ionel]

30 minutes ago, Coastal said:

Anyone want to guess who has a higher bonus % Forrest or Blaze?

 

 

For the full 25/26 season?  

[Jimmy Cinnabon]

Byrd wins it all.  He literally has 7 years of experience over all the super frosh.

[SocraTease]

It's also about style matchups.  We may see a barn burner between Jax and Blaze, for example. Or Davino and Seidel.  Sometimes it only takes one guy to open up to release the floodgates.  Sometimes, however, you are simply going to get defensive battles.  Same in baseball.  Strong pitchers often win 2-0 or 2-1 with a dozen strikeouts.

The folkstyle matches between Dake and DT were often pretty tactical when you had a defensive master meet an offensive juggernaut. 

It's a potential argument to follow freestyle and put one guy on the clock for passivity.  It can force action and scores. And we also don't get the increasingly frustrating situation of a ride outs in OT when a guy wins simply because he has 2 seconds more riding time.

Edited February 16 by SocraTease

[creek chub]

At 133, there’s gonna be a few really good wrestlers who don’t AA this March. Some of those may be in the top 6 rankings right now. I know that sounds crazy but the weight is that deep. 

[ionel]

3 minutes ago, Coastal said:

While wrestling in college.  

oh ...

[Pablo]

2 hours ago, CHROMEBIRD said:

My gut feeling is that wining 10-9 is a better indicator of success than 2-1. Both are 1pt decisions, but if you can putting up 10 points on an opponent (even if they score 9) suggests that you have a better offensive toolset at your disposal and in theory can score in several different ways. Offensive output probably has a higher rate of success than wrestlers who over-rely just on defense, stalling, and riding time (e.g., 2-1 matches). 

One of the data nerds, probably Wkn, posted a stat once about how the wrestlers who scores the first takedown wins 80% or some very high % of the time. A defense-first low scoring wrestler, that one TD can be their entire cushion/deficit and leaves no margin for error if they typically can't score more than once. 

Kyle Dake would probably disagree with me. When he was in college he said something along the lines of: he basically had an automatic 2-0 lead going into matches, so he really didn't need to do much else if he didn't want to. Just get that 1pt escape + 1pt riding time, defend, and cruise to a win. So ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Preliminary results.  First some info on methodology:

What I look at are wrestlers who have faced each other twice in a season.  I look at who won the first match, and how, and then see how they do in the second match.  Right now I have about 2600 match pairs (2000 from last season and 600 from so far this season).  For example, I can tell you that, absent any other information, the wrestler who wins the first match goes on to win the rematch about 80% of the time.  I can break things down from there, too.  For example, a wreslter who pins his opponent in the first match goes on to win the rematch ... 80% of the time.  Sometimes pins indicate dominance, but pins are also a way for a weaker wrestler to pull off an upset.  Tech falls are fare more robust - a guy who wins by tech fall in match one wins the rematch 96% of the time.  A guy who wins in SV or other overtime, however, only wins the rematch 60% of the time - that makes sense, a SV win means they are close.

I have 228 match pairs where the first match was won by 1 point.  On average, a guy who wins by 1 point goes on to win the rematch 65% of the time.  Because the data is light, I did some binning, so there is some overlaop.  Here's the winning pct in the rematch given the points scored by the winner in match 1

1 - 2: 67% (48 data points)

2 -4: 61% (105 data points)

4 - 6: 69% (109)

6 - 8: 64% (45)

8 - 10: 59% (22)

I don't need to run a statistical test to determine there is no correlation there (although I did run a statistical test and there is no correlation there)

For now, I am certainly justified in just using point differential.  Any differences are going to be too small to make a difference.

[1032004]

9 hours ago, Coastal said:

Anyone want to guess who has a higher bonus % Forrest or Blaze?

 

 

Forrest does currently among D1 matches.  Looks like Wrestletstat is incorrectly counting the Ortega match.  But Blaze had been no stranger to scoring points prior to the Davino match.

Edited February 16 by 1032004

[BarSeries]

It would be funny at Big 10s and NCAAs that Byrd just old man strengths all these guys.

[Jimmy Cinnabon]

1 hour ago, BarSeries said:

It would be funny at Big 10s and NCAAs that Byrd just old man strengths all these guys.

This is what is actually going to happen though. Dad strength is real. 

[Pinnacle]

8 minutes ago, Jimmy Cinnabon said:

This is what is actually going to happen though. Dad strength is real. 

 

Stated as fact. Jimmy says Byrd will old man strength the field at 133.

[TAC]

I have watched Blaze and Jax beat older guys than Byrd. I like Byrd and think he is really good, but it is hard to win back to back. Not to mention he is in the deepest bracket this year. I will be surprised to see Byrd win it again.  

[ionel]

32 minutes ago, TAC said:

I have watched Blaze and Jax beat older guys than Byrd.   

Well sure but have they beaten any guys with girlfriends taller than Byrd's?  

[jackwebster]

7 hours ago, ionel said:

Well sure but have they beaten any guys with girlfriends taller than Byrd's?  

Ftw

[Dogbone]

On 2/15/2026 at 6:37 PM, Coastal said:

Anyone want to guess who has a higher bonus % Forrest or Blaze?

 

 

Probably the guy with the easier schedule.  

[Dogbone]

37 minutes ago, Coastal said:

You'd be wrong according to RPI.

You are just making stuff up.  Jax doesn't have an RPI because he hasn't wrestled 15 matches and the NCAA doesn't release the RPI strength of schedule to compare the two. 

But if your argument is using a source that has Brock Hardy #1 at 141, then I am fine being "wrong" according to that source.  

[1032004]

31 minutes ago, Coastal said:

Wrestlestat has an RPI that is fairly accurate.  Blaze is #2 in projected RPI, Forrest is #3.   The RPI formula is pretty basic .25 win % .50 opponent win % . 25 opponents' opponents win %.  There's a few variences since what counts as an opponent has never been specified by the NCAA to my knowledge but it's pretty close.   

The NCAA requires 15 matches since RPI is notoriously even worse with small sample sizes.

So then the guy with the “easier” schedule does have the higher bonus %

[1032004]

14 minutes ago, Coastal said:

Blaze has a harder schedule and a higher bonus %

 

On 2/16/2026 at 5:11 AM, 1032004 said:

Forrest does currently among D1 matches.  Looks like Wrestletstat is incorrectly counting the Ortega match.  But Blaze had been no stranger to scoring points prior to the Davino match.

 

[Dogbone]

14 hours ago, Coastal said:

Blaze has a harder schedule and a higher bonus %

Blaze has 3 non bonus point wins

Jax has 2 non bonus point wins (including Ortega)

Blaze has more matches so his percentage is higher despite 1 more non bonus win.    

The guys Blaze bonused are not any caliber higher than guys Jax has bonuses he just has more of them so the formula based analysis works in his favor. 

Wrestlestat's formula is attempting mirror the NCAA's RPI, but is not exact which is why we see the discrepancies like at 141

Edited February 18 by Dogbone

[1032004]

54 minutes ago, Dogbone said:

Blaze has 3 non bonus point wins

Jax has 2 non bonus point wins (including Ortega)

Blaze has more matches so his percentage is higher despite 1 more non bonus win.    

The guys Blaze bonused are not any caliber higher than guys Jax has bonuses he just has more of them so the formula based analysis works in his favor. 

Wrestlestat's formula is attempting mirror the NCAA's RPI, but is not exact which is why we see the discrepancies like at 141

Ortega shouldn’t count though right?

[ionel]

3 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

Ortega shouldn’t count though right?

But nothing Jax has done should count as he still hasn't attended high school Sr prom correct?  

[Dogbone]

55 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

Ortega shouldn’t count though right?

I don't believe the win will count toward his RPI, since Ortega is currently ineligible, which was cited as a source for a tougher schedule for Blaze when the question was asked who has the highest bonus rate. 

If you don't count the Ortega match then Jax has the higher bonus rate.  

There is some mental gymnastics occurring to argue Blaze has the tougher schedule according to his RPI but then not using that same data source when discussing the higher bonus rate.  

Edited February 18 by Dogbone