Wrestleknownothing

Tease

Check out the username of who you responded to.

My consulting contract is in the mail. My logo is "I may be slow, but at least I'm expensive."

Amen. Other areas do use Power BI. So much the worse for them.

Oh, and you should read Born A Crime

The funny thing is I often do that for a different reason. I would call them spurious digits. Since they are not measurements, but integer counts used to calculate percentages I think I am OK on significance, but not so much on spuriousness. I occasionally dig up old stuff I did, like this, where, for some reason, I did not over-ride the default formatting in Tableau (BI software I often use instead of a spreadsheet). As the woman who edits the stuff I write for work can attest, I sometimes (often?) miss inconsistencies in formatting and phrasing in my own work. Feel no conflict. We can all use good editors. And since I cannot be responsible for disturbing Mr. Valentine's eternity, I have reformatted. RIP, good man.

You have also been told how stupid many of your takes are, but you do not seem to quote that. Rationalizing apartheid by implying if it wasn't for us white folks your lives would be worse than under apartheid, is the height of stupid.

Nebraska has been very volatile. From the best performing relative to seed in 2022 to the worst in 2023 among top schools Ok State a little less volatile but also coming off a rough year.

Wrestling, basketball, volleyball, judo, boxing, and weightlifting, especially weightlifting, on ice. Problem solved. You are all welcome. Where do I pick up my consulting fee?

Great tune. Love this version of ZZ Top. Tres Hombres is one ass kickin song after another.

If you are asking me if I ever tortured the numbers until they speak.....my answer is no comment.

The problem comes in much higher than the 16 seed. If all you do is look at the seeds where there is at least a 1 in 3 chance of AAing (top 10) you have major problems with fragmentation at the 3 or 4 seed for all teams, and beginning at the 1 seed for any team outside of the top 6 most entrants seeded in the top 10 between 2010 and 2023. Michigan is outside of the top 6 in spite of finishing 2nd last year. Building a Michigan specific curve would be problematic. But even for PSU, how do you build a curve with only three 4 seeds in a 13 year span?

Check out this post: http://johnnythompsonnum1.blogspot.com/2020/03/gone-lost-forgotten-their-best-notre.html

Another way to look at the over/under performance is to recognize that from a team finish perspective the only thing that matters is finishing top 8. To that end if I reduce the set to just those who have a 1 in 3, or better, chance to AA (top 10 seeds), then seed relative performance looks like this: PSU performs right on seed whereas everyone else falls short by 1 to 4 spots on average.

That translates as blah, blah, blah. Feel free to read through my prior opuses on the topic.

Ideally, yes, but where that gets problematic is you wind up over-Balkanizing the data. If a team has a 10 seed and they have never had a 10 seed before, what do you do with that? I am thinking of playing with ranges instead, but stay tuned.

Correct. I have thought about doing something with that, but have been a bit conflicted on it. I will give it some more thought.

This one is a little tougher to read, but here goes. Based on 2010-2023: The first three columns show the percentage of times a team beats it seed, matches its seed, and does worse than its seed The second set of three columns shows what their average seed is when they beat it, match it, or do worse than it. The third set of three columns shows by how much a team beats their seed, matches their seed (always zero), or does worse than their seed. An example of the way to read this would be: Ohio State beat their seed 35% of the time from 2010-2023 and when they beat their seed they were seeded at 12.5 and beat that by 5.8. Said that way, Iowa is pretty impressive in that they beat their seed more often than anyone else (36% of the time) and did it while having a very high starting point (9.3 seed on average - second highest). And they do it by 4.1 spots. And when they underperform it is usually because they have a very high seed (5.6 - highest) and they only underperform by an average amount (5.9 spots).

Here is how each of the expected top 15 teams has performed relative to their seeds since 2010: One thing to keep in mind is that these teams are likely to have higher seeds. This means they have more room to miss by than room to outperform by. So if 50% perform worse than seed, it is likely that they will underperform their expected score rather than match their expected score.

As a Penn State fan, this sounds like a terrible idea. On second thought, that is exactly what Iowa has been doing for the past decade. (Rimshot). I'll be here all week. Don't forget to tip your waitresses.

If Iowa has their wrestlers reinstated with reasonable* penalties, what does that look like for the team race? Assumptions: There is no real difference between Voinovich and Siebrecht, so I left Voinovich in the lineup Caliendo did better at his one NCAA tournament than Kennedy did at his one, so I left Caliendo in the lineup. Brands did much better than Kennedy at his last NCAA tournament, so I gave him the nod at 174. And Brands would presumably have a higher ranking in a pre-season poll than if Kennedy bumped up a weight. A theoretical Cassioppi gets the nod over an even more theoretical Ferrari at 285. And I think Ferrari would have a lower pre-season ranking than Cassioppi at 285 given the two year layoff and new weight. And I am assuming Ferrari cannot make 197 anymore, so Franklin stays in the lineup. Iowa's New Total Iowa's new total look like this: In addition to jumping from 43.1 to 64.2 points (ex bonus). Iowa also gains 1.6 expected AA's from the three returning wrestlers. Title Race Implications Where does that put them for the title race? A solid second. For this I also added Austin Gomez into the Michigan total as a 4 seed behind Lovett, Van Ness, and Parco. Michigan then creeps past Cornell for third (who are we kidding? it is a virtual tie). And Nebraska falls off the podium (what say you Nebraska super fans?) ------------------------------------------- * blah, blah, blah. Yeah, I know. I disagree. ** Title race, haha. I crack myself up sometimes. *** Even though there is no *** above, lets add it down here anyway. Say Ferrari does make 197 and has enough credits to enroll and can get accepted into Iowa. Say. What does that look like? Well, I cannot see Ferrari any higher than the 2 seed behind Brooks. As a 2 seed that is an incremental 12.7 points, moving Iowa to 76.9. Still solidly in second place. But let's say he is the 1 seed and Brooks is the 2, that closes the gap from 44.1 to 36.8 (+3.7 for Iowa, -3.7 for PSU).

Then why did you post about politics with the thinnest veil of wrestling?

Not all pins, but close

Why would I hate more wrestling? I love the idea. It is a shame that the early season tourneys have faded in prestige.