Leaderboard

If you are outraged only because they are getting deported and not that they came into the country illegally, then you are the problem.

Being a four-timer is super impressive. It takes an insane amount of work and talent and at least some luck (to be healthy enough to compete) to win a single title. But when you consider that each year brings with it new challenges — new competitors, old competitors focusing on you, perhaps new rules or tactics, new injury possibilities, momentary mental lapses that cost you a match at NCAAs, etc — winning four times in a row is incredible. In general, I think fans put too much of a premium on all time discussions and not enough of a premium on appreciating the performances in front of us. Let’s give these athletes their props.

Love in my heart - may the best men win and everyone stay healthy! Good men on all the teams and a lot of dedicated coaches.

Why do you want the terrorists to stay here, roaming our streets, your neighborhood?

due process of what? what rights were violated? they were here illegally. they can be deported.

He made a deal with the devil to beat Imar. He came out ahead and I hope he's glad with his selfish decision to beat Imar 2x and in return he gave us all covid when the monkey's paw curled

I've been working hard on getting Pablo rankings into shape. I have a lot more data now than I had 2 weeks ago, and so things are looking a lot better now. I'll drop the rankings below, but before doing that, a few things to note 1) I am now including the ratings for each wrestler, so I should talk a little bit about that. Recall the premise of the system, that an outcome of a match is a probability. The bigger the difference between the wrestlers, the higher the probability that the better wrestler will win. The closer they are, the closer the probability is to being 50% (remember, if a wrestler goes up against his duplicate, the it's a coin flip whether green or red is going to win). So this is how to interpret Pablo ratings. The bigger the ratings difference between two wrestlers, the higher the probability that the better wrestler wins. We can see this in action if we look at the outcomes from the conference tournaments. I calculated Pablo rankings before the conference tournaments and then looked at the outcomes of the matches that took place, taking into account the difference in Pablo ratings of the two wrestlers. After binning things up, I got the plot below, which shows the likelihood of winning as a function of the ratings difference (note it is symmetric around 0). So if the ratings difference is something like 150, the favored wrestler won about 55% of the time. When the difference was in the 2000 range, the favored wrestler won about 85% of the time. Notice that there are diminishing returns. When the difference gets very large, you don't improve the winning percentage as much as the difference gets bigger. In fact, in the conference tournaments, every wrestler who was at least 3000 Pablo points higher than their opponent won (something like 77-0), and it didn't matter if the difference was 3000 or 5000. This is exactly what you'd expect, that as the difference gets larger, the winning percentage will asymptote to 0 or 100%. The challenge here is that the winning percentage clearly has a relationship with ratings difference, but it's not simple. But, in fact, it is, if you know how to do it. You may remember from your introduction to stats class that this is a standard functional curve that is integrated normal distribution. As such, we can evaluated it that way. In particular, what I do is convert that winning percentage into a z-score, which is basically the number of standard deviations from the mean. This is done very easily in any math program (and I use Excel, where it is the NormSInv function). I just call it the "Pablo Transform" but in the end, it's just the z-score. To turn them into Pablo ratings, I basically use z-score*2000, where that 2000 value is just a matter to give convenient ratings. Here's why this is useful. If I take the data above and do the transform on the winning percentages, I get the graph below The thing that should jump out at you is the fact this is linear. And very linear. Now, that doesn't have to be the case (I've seen examples where it isn't), but that fact it is is a very good sign - it suggests that the underlying Pablo model is holding up. I will note that being linear is not merely enough, what also matters is the slope. In this type of plot, the higher the slope, the better. I mean, if it's a line but the slope is 0, that's worthless. Remember that a 0 difference indicates a 50/50 win probability, so if has a slope of 0, then that means it's always a 50/50 outcome. That isn't useful. On the other hand, if the slope is infinitely large, it means that the favorite always wins. By design, Pablo rankings are built on that concept of the rating difference = z-score*2000, and so that is what is plotted here. If Pablo is working as expected, the slope of this line should be 1. In fact, if you have a good eye, you will see that the slope is actually closer to 1.4, so higher than expected. That means, in fact, Pablo is even working a little better than designed. The TL; DR summary: Pablo has demonstrated predictive ability, and the difference in Pablo ratings can be used to predict a win probability. More on that in a separate post. 2) I've done a lot of analysis to get the best values I can for evaluating outcomes. This is an always evolving process that improves as I get more data. However, the results show that I'm getting close, and I think the underlying model is firm. In the current model, a pin is, on average, slightly better than an average outcome, but the data indicate a quick pin means more than a late pin, so this is programmed in. I've built in some subtleties in terms of the fitting. 3) One issue that I did include that is not as firm is the time dependence. The data I have is not great, but suggests that matches that took place 140 days ago are about half as informative as something recent. It's not a strong correlation, but that value is consistent with what I've found for other college sports. Therefore, I have put in a time dependence (it's an exponential decrease with a half-life of 140 days). 4) The rating scale is based on the median wrestler at each weight rated 5000. In order to be included in the ratings, a wrestler has to have at least 6 matches at a given weight in my database, but everyone with more than 5 matches is included. Doesn't matter if they are unattached or on non-D1. Non-D1 wrestlers must have at least 6 matches against D1 to be included, but D1 wrestlers just need to have 6 matches against anybody. There can be more than 1 ranked wrestler from a team at a given weight, as long as they have at least 6 matches. (FWIW, I include the outcomes for wrestlers who don't have 6 matches in the rankings calculation, I just don't include them in the rankings I show you all) Whew, that is long enough! Let's just get to the rankings! I think you will find them better than the last ones.

If all goes well, they will splash down around 5:16PM tomorrow. I believe it was originally an 8-day trip. Hoping for their safe return tomorrow.

Dean Hall (Edinboro) beat Mike Hatch (Liberty), 7-3 for the 1986 D2 title. Hall placed 6th in the 1986 D1 tournament as the #7 seed. An interesting note: Edinboro made the jump to D1 in 1987 and Hall, Hatch, and Haselrig each qualified for the 1987 D1 tourney. Haselrig beat Hall for the title, 4-2. Hatch did not place. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Well Mesenbrink did shoot that Canadian girl’s dog (For those unfamiliar with the story, she made it up)

Supporting terrorists gets your visa revoked.

Brock Hardy for being bald.

PSU

These are calculated analytically and not simulated. That's why I stick with just the championship bracket and don't get into the consolations. That would be a friggin mess and I would have to simulate it. I have done a lot of work with optimizing tournament bracket construction, and in those cases, as soon as it gets to double elimination, I have always gone to simulation; btw, if anyone is interested, I've done an analysis of the NCAA national wrestling tournament setup Creating the Best Tournament. 5b. Application: The NCAA national wrestling tournament The way I ended up doing (which was not perfectly efficient but I didn't know that going in) the calculation of the final probability in this case is something like a 25 term analytical expression.

One thing to be careful about when it comes to these probabilities is to wonder, how improbable does something need to be to be surprising if it occurs? Over the years of doing this, my line is usually about 15%. If something has a 15% probability of occurring, I generally say, I won't be surprised if it happens. Kind of like, if I roll a 6 sided die and get a 1, then that's not a big surprise. However, if a roll a d20 I'm not expecting a 1. So that's kind of my line. Let's see how I would apply that to these rankings above. Let's go with 285, since that is where the discussion was. From the probabilities, I would say, "I would be surprised" if Stevenson isn't in the finals. 93%, yeah, that's a pretty solid favorite. But for the other guy in the finals, "I wouldn't be surprised" if it is either Hendrickson or Kerkvliet, and even Trumble wouldn't be a big shocker, but he's a taller order. For winning it all, yeah, Stevenson is a huge favorite, but "I wouldn't be surprised" if it was Hendrickson. From a Pablo standpoint, it's hard to point to anyone other than those two, BUT if you take the field, hey, that's a 1/8 chance (and if it is the field, then Kerk would be the best pick), so close to being not unexpected. Hey, if you have 10 weight classes, there is something like a 75% chance that some "12% chance of happening" event ends up happening. The question, though, is at what weight class will that happen? Hard to predict (actually, not possible to predict). In the end, although these types of probability calculations are fun to do and think about (for me, at least), it's really hard, in the end, to assess it or to say it was "wrong," even after the fact. But it does give you fun things to think about and to put some hard values on. For example, what is the most wide open weight class according to Pablo? Well, if we draw a line and say that anyone with a 5% chance of winning is "in the mix" (see above - while there is a 75% chance that a 12% event happening for 10 weights, there is only a 40% chance of a 5% even happening), that means that for each weight we have 125 7 guys in the mix 133 5 guys in the mix 141 8 guys in the mix 149 4 guys in the mix 157 3 guys in the mix 165 2 guys in the mix 174 3 guys in the mix 184 2 guys in the mix 197 3 guys in the mix 285 3 guys in the mix YMMV on where you draw the line of "in the mix" but basically, we see that 141 and 125 are the most wide open, while 165 and 184 the most dominated. One thing I like about this exercise is that it is a way to evaluate those questions that people like to ask when the brackets come out. The most fun one to do is the "who has the easiest path to the finals," which is what you always hear about the basketball brackets. I've got a really good metric that I can use to do assessment, but it's a lot of work to program, and doing it for 10 weight classes is not something I feel like doing this year. But I don't think that is as much a question for wrestling brackets. More common questions are things like "Which is the low seed to look out for?" I can do that, but need to think about it.

10's-16's I like to make a run: 125: #11 Nicolar Rivera, #14 Spencer Moore 133: #11 Evan Frost 141: #11 Dylan Cedeno, #12 Sam Latona 149: #11 Sammy Alvarez 157: #12 Caleb Fish, #16 Cody Chittum 165: #10 Andrew Sparks, #12 Christopher Minto 174: #13 Cade DeVos 184: #11 Gabe Arnold, #12 Silas Allred 197: #12 Stephen Little 285: #10 Dayton Pitzer, #11 Jimmy Mullen, #12 Nick Feldman, #15 Trevor Tinker

If Carter Starocci ends up with credit for 5 titles without an asterisk, then Haselrig should get credit for 6 without an asterisk. In reality, they both should have asterisks, as there were special circumstances to both of these achievements

If they meet the criteria...why is this so hard to understand?? Did Bin Laden have to go to criminal court to be labeled a terrorist??

Going to Michigan

I didn't start following the sport until last year. I would have LOVED to witness that live when it happened. What a moment in the sport. (RIP eyeglasses)

they were in the country illegally, confucius. deuces.

they don't HAVE to step in. they do because they are activists instead of judges. oh the irony. all the judge-activist did was make this more expensive. the order will go thru.

I think the thing that sets Dake apart is that he moved up his senior year not because he grew out of 157 but specifically because Taylor was at 165 and he wanted the challenge. I know one of the Banachs were involved in something like that but really, who does that? Move up to take on arguably the absolute best wrestler in the country at that time? Then he beats him 3 times to nil. I think Cael is the GOAT but Dake is right up there. 4 years straight, no redshirt, no covid. He was never interested in style points…he was just a winner flat out all through that run.

Ragusin after wrestling fix was a good one.

Most underwhelming 4 tome champ easily. Changing that number to a 5 doesn’t do much to move the needle for me

Dake won his first title 9 months after graduating high school. He beat a very good Marion in the final. The next year he ground a future undefeated national champion into Molinaro dust. The next year he beat a future national champion in the final. And then he went up a weight class to take on the defending and future Hodge winner and future Olympic gold medalist and beat him three times in three different kinds of matches. To me only Cael could potentially challenge that career, and I'd put Dake over him because of the redshirt.

Burroughs Smith Bruce Snyder Taylor or Dake It’s hard to take seriously anyone who doesn’t have Snyder on their list. The guy has made 10 world/Olympic teams while winning 9 medals including four golds and three silvers. Kemp and Shultz aren’t in the same category of success.

What Burroughs and to a large extent Snyder have done in Stars and Stripes, in the modern ‘competitive climate’..Post-Soviet, International Free Agency) carries a lot of weight for me. In the John Smith days you had a group of three or four Russians training together for the purpose of that one guy beating Smith. In the Burroughs days you have the same group of Russians training together, but they all got a shot at him in the bracket. Not to downplay anything or anyone, but these are fun talks of picking straws, and that’s a pretty big straw.

Was definitely Shane...not sure who he was paired with though.

The inside trip heard ‘round the world. Cenzo was the textbook definition of a gamer. He had jake rosholt blood in him.

nice feedback!!!! Im starting to see some light in your thinking........ Starr is definitely right there... oh my I could not imagine 5 years of a B10 schedule, staying healthy and motivated that long takes a different type of engine (plus that wrestling room he's in and you know Cael had to get in there and throw his weight aroung, kind of like keeping the young bull in check), im very close "scourage165" to leaning with ya, lol

Just wanted to give a shout out as this is my first time participating in a fantasy draft that isn't a mainstream sport where there is a website that does all of the work for you. @lu_alum and @VakAttack, thank you for your time and effort. I'm excited to be apart of this.

I do it for the love of the game, appreciate the shout out!

Ashton Sharp... Fargo champ....

Definitely in the top interviews of all-time

“Genetics”

I would honestly rank a few 3xers ahead of him, and probably every current 4xer.

125-Spencer Lee wins it and he's now on the list of all-time greats instead of a source of revenue for Lens Crafters and a triggering topic for...Calveria or whatever. 133-This is a 3 way between RBY getting his first, Sebastian Rivera winning a title and Seth Gross getting his 2nd. SeeBass is the sentimental pick for me. 141-Pletcher, Lee or Real Woods...My pick is Pletcher 149-Lugo or Kolodzik IMO. `157-If Deakin wins this year I think he's a 3X Champ. He was just SO tight at the Nationals and looked so...afraid to lose(and still won a one). Maybe if he wins early. David Carr...he ended up being solid. Hidlay, Monday... I think it'd have been Hidlay though. 165-Joseph 174-Hall(though...there was a Valencia in there). 184-Aaron Brooks 197-Moore HWT-Gable

Shane liegal may be a good example. 24 seed went 2-2 at NCAAs (d1) last year. Was a 4x AA 2x finalist 1x d3 champ at Loras college. https://duhawks.com/sports/wrestling/roster/shane-liegel/11154

The Wasteland Invitational became an instant classic

I found this interview with Jason Nolf to be really humorous because of the interviewer's questions and demeanor, along with the guy eating ice cream and watching:

For me the most shocking final was the one that didn't happen. Spencer Lee against Pat Glory.

A ref's decision away from being a four-timer. But also a ref's decision away from being a two-timer.

125 Tanner Jordan (23) 133 Kai Orine (26) 141 Josh Saunders (20) 149 Ethan Fernandez (18) 157 Jacori Teemer (18) 165 Noah Mulvaney (17) 174 Josh Ogunsanya (21) 184 Ryder Rogotzke (26) 197 Andy Smith (19) 285 Cory Day (19)

Maxwell not so Smart...

I'm pretty sure the rule is to apply it randomly to scare the athletes, unless the guy who backs out is winnng in which case you always hit him.

“I just want some ice cream man”