wvmat.com

There has been a whole lot of discussion on seeding wrestlers and specifically, how it can affect the Finals. Soooo, I thought I would look at this years WSAZ results… it is only one tournament and therefore only one data point but I found it pretty interesting. I had a minor in statistics to go along with my major in accounting. I love to geek out on data and numbers…

The Finalists in the 14 weight classes comprised of:

11 #1 Seeds
7 #2 Seeds
5 #3 Seeds
1 #4 Seed
1 #5 Seed
1 #6 Seed
1 #11 Seed
1 Unseeded

28 total

The finals consisted of:

#1 vs #2 6 times
#1 vs #3 4 times
#3 vs #4 1 time
#1 vs #6 1 time
#2 vs #U 1 time
#11 vs # 5 1 time

14 Championship Final Matches

This is just data. Use it as you wish

Campion wrote:There has been a whole lot of discussion on seeding wrestlers and specifically, how it can affect the Finals. Soooo, I thought I would look at this years WSAZ results… it is only one tournament and therefore only one data point but I found it pretty interesting. I had a minor in statistics to go along with my major in accounting. I love to geek out on data and numbers…

The Finalists in the 14 weight classes comprised of:

11 #1 Seeds
7 #2 Seeds
5 #3 Seeds
1 #4 Seed
1 #5 Seed
1 #6 Seed
1 #11 Seed
1 Unseeded

28 total

The finals consisted of:

#1 vs #2 6 times
#1 vs #3 4 times
#3 vs #4 1 time
#1 vs #6 1 time
#2 vs #U 1 time
#11 vs # 5 1 time

14 Championship Final Matches

This is just data. Use it as you wish

1. This tells me that the seeding was pretty well spot on. #1 vs #2 @ 6 occurences = 6/14 = 42.86%

#1 vs #3 @ 4 occurences = 4/14 = 28.57%

42.86% + 28.57% = 71.43% 71.43% of the seeding data predicted the finals before the first match happened.

2. Usually the difference between the #2 and #3 seed is minimal. They always get to settle the difference in the semifinals unless there is an upset.

3. The other 4 occurences are outliers. This seed vs seed situation only happened once.

4. The WSAZ seeding crieria is not friendly toward Freshmen. Returning State Champion/Placer and Returning WSAZ Champion/Placer do not work for freshman. The #1 vs #6 was Kehler vs Bentley. Kehler is of course a Freshman.

5. At 106, we had a kid from out of state make the finals. His seed was low, we probably didn't have good enough seeding information on him. He also slammed the #1 seed and hurt him. If we are going to slam and hurt the #1 seed, then the #1 seed might not ever make the finals. Thus, data gets skewed.

6. In another weight class, we had a #1 seed walk off the mat and quit the tournament. Definitely an outlier. I have never seen that before.

7. At 138 the #1 seed got hurt and injury defaulted out.

The WSAZ is by far a bigger and more dynamic tournament than the state tournament. Your analysis supports seeding the state tournament versus not.

Great job!!!

Bearhugger wrote:

Campion wrote:There has been a whole lot of discussion on seeding wrestlers and specifically, how it can affect the Finals. Soooo, I thought I would look at this years WSAZ results… it is only one tournament and therefore only one data point but I found it pretty interesting. I had a minor in statistics to go along with my major in accounting. I love to geek out on data and numbers…

The Finalists in the 14 weight classes comprised of:

11 #1 Seeds
7 #2 Seeds
5 #3 Seeds
1 #4 Seed
1 #5 Seed
1 #6 Seed
1 #11 Seed
1 Unseeded

28 total

The finals consisted of:

#1 vs #2 6 times
#1 vs #3 4 times
#3 vs #4 1 time
#1 vs #6 1 time
#2 vs #U 1 time
#11 vs # 5 1 time

14 Championship Final Matches

This is just data. Use it as you wish

1. This tells me that the seeding was pretty well spot on. #1 vs #2 @ 6 occurences = 6/14 = 42.86%

#1 vs #3 @ 4 occurences = 4/14 = 28.57%

42.86% + 28.57% = 71.43% 71.43% of the seeding data predicted the finals before the first match happened.

2. Usually the difference between the #2 and #3 seed is minimal. They always get to settle the difference in the semifinals unless there is an upset.

3. The other 4 occurences are outliers. This seed vs seed situation only happened once.

4. The WSAZ seeding crieria is not friendly toward Freshmen. Returning State Champion/Placer and Returning WSAZ Champion/Placer do not work for freshman. The #1 vs #6 was Kehler vs Bentley. Kehler is of course a Freshman.

5. At 106, we had a kid from out of state make the finals. His seed was low, we probably didn't have good enough seeding information on him. He also slammed the #1 seed and hurt him. If we are going to slam and hurt the #1 seed, then the #1 seed might not ever make the finals. Thus, data gets skewed.

6. In another weight class, we had a #1 seed walk off the mat and quit the tournament. Definitely an outlier. I have never seen that before.

7. At 138 the #1 seed got hurt and injury defaulted out.

The WSAZ is by far a bigger and more dynamic tournament than the state tournament. Your analysis supports seeding the state tournament versus not.

Great job!!!

I did not perform analysis. I only provided the data. My analysis would not be exactly the same as the one you just provided.

Thanks!

Campion wrote:

Bearhugger wrote:

Campion wrote:There has been a whole lot of discussion on seeding wrestlers and specifically, how it can affect the Finals. Soooo, I thought I would look at this years WSAZ results… it is only one tournament and therefore only one data point but I found it pretty interesting. I had a minor in statistics to go along with my major in accounting. I love to geek out on data and numbers…

The Finalists in the 14 weight classes comprised of:

11 #1 Seeds
7 #2 Seeds
5 #3 Seeds
1 #4 Seed
1 #5 Seed
1 #6 Seed
1 #11 Seed
1 Unseeded

28 total

The finals consisted of:

#1 vs #2 6 times
#1 vs #3 4 times
#3 vs #4 1 time
#1 vs #6 1 time
#2 vs #U 1 time
#11 vs # 5 1 time

14 Championship Final Matches

This is just data. Use it as you wish

1. This tells me that the seeding was pretty well spot on. #1 vs #2 @ 6 occurences = 6/14 = 42.86%

#1 vs #3 @ 4 occurences = 4/14 = 28.57%

42.86% + 28.57% = 71.43% 71.43% of the seeding data predicted the finals before the first match happened.

2. Usually the difference between the #2 and #3 seed is minimal. They always get to settle the difference in the semifinals unless there is an upset.

3. The other 4 occurences are outliers. This seed vs seed situation only happened once.

4. The WSAZ seeding crieria is not friendly toward Freshmen. Returning State Champion/Placer and Returning WSAZ Champion/Placer do not work for freshman. The #1 vs #6 was Kehler vs Bentley. Kehler is of course a Freshman.

5. At 106, we had a kid from out of state make the finals. His seed was low, we probably didn't have good enough seeding information on him. He also slammed the #1 seed and hurt him. If we are going to slam and hurt the #1 seed, then the #1 seed might not ever make the finals. Thus, data gets skewed.

6. In another weight class, we had a #1 seed walk off the mat and quit the tournament. Definitely an outlier. I have never seen that before.

7. At 138 the #1 seed got hurt and injury defaulted out.

The WSAZ is by far a bigger and more dynamic tournament than the state tournament. Your analysis supports seeding the state tournament versus not.

Great job!!!

I did not perform analysis. I only provided the data. My analysis would not be exactly the same as the one you just provided.

Thanks!

What is your analysis then? Same tournament. Same numbers. Same situations.

Ah statistics, math for liars lol. You could look at this many ways, one being a pareto chart where 1/2 are front loaded as you would hope. You could also look at the standard deviation (~2.854) and see that there are 2 outside of three standard deviations. Since 99.7% of your data should be within 3 standard deviations of the mean, 8% being outside is not good. I would say overall having a 1 or 2 in the final wasn't bad based on human error and the amount of wrestlers from all over. That being said from a purely statistical perspective this is not good. A little deeper dive into things shows that only 17 of 28 semifinals wrestlers made it back to the 3rd/4th place match. This includes 9 thirds and 8 fourths with only 6 weights having both a third and fourth. Do you have the right wrestlers in the finals? This shows more often than not, but the same goes for the pill. With the number of teams and lack of common opponents WSAZ's is a monster to seed and I think this becomes evident when you look at the top 8 vs their seeds. I've run numbers in the past and there really isn't a great difference in the overall outcome between seeding and a pill. One thing to note is the pill format is "seeding" to an extent. Would a hybrid system of seeding regional champions workout better than pure blind draw, probably? Would I want to sit in a seeding meeting with every team in the state fighting over 16 spots for all 14 weights with coaches looking for loopholes and intentionally dropping down for better matchups, no. Do I want the pill stacking one side of the bracket, no again. There are inherit flaws with either method, personally I would rather take my chances with the pill than a seeding committee (coming from someone who never drew the preferred pill), but I would like to see some form of separating 1 and 2 when they are clearly 1 and 2 (not just anecdotal evidence).

dontlikethelights wrote:Ah statistics, math for liars lol. You could look at this many ways, one being a pareto chart where 1/2 are front loaded as you would hope. You could also look at the standard deviation (~2.854) and see that there are 2 outside of three standard deviations. Since 99.7% of your data should be within 3 standard deviations of the mean, 8% being outside is not good. I would say overall having a 1 or 2 in the final wasn't bad based on human error and the amount of wrestlers from all over. That being said from a purely statistical perspective this is not good. A little deeper dive into things shows that only 17 of 28 semifinals wrestlers made it back to the 3rd/4th place match. This includes 9 thirds and 8 fourths with only 6 weights having both a third and fourth. Do you have the right wrestlers in the finals? This shows more often than not, but the same goes for the pill. With the number of teams and lack of common opponents WSAZ's is a monster to seed and I think this becomes evident when you look at the top 8 vs their seeds. I've run numbers in the past and there really isn't a great difference in the overall outcome between seeding and a pill. One thing to note is the pill format is "seeding" to an extent. Would a hybrid system of seeding regional champions workout better than pure blind draw, probably? Would I want to sit in a seeding meeting with every team in the state fighting over 16 spots for all 14 weights with coaches looking for loopholes and intentionally dropping down for better matchups, no. Do I want the pill stacking one side of the bracket, no again. There are inherit flaws with either method, personally I would rather take my chances with the pill than a seeding committee (coming from someone who never drew the preferred pill), but I would like to see some form of separating 1 and 2 when they are clearly 1 and 2 (not just anecdotal evidence).

Ahhhh, Inferences are being made based on evidence and schema. Analyze away! Just be careful of Analysis Pararylsis!

Bearhugger wrote:

Campion wrote:There has been a whole lot of discussion on seeding wrestlers and specifically, how it can affect the Finals. Soooo, I thought I would look at this years WSAZ results… it is only one tournament and therefore only one data point but I found it pretty interesting. I had a minor in statistics to go along with my major in accounting. I love to geek out on data and numbers…

The Finalists in the 14 weight classes comprised of:

11 #1 Seeds
7 #2 Seeds
5 #3 Seeds
1 #4 Seed
1 #5 Seed
1 #6 Seed
1 #11 Seed
1 Unseeded

28 total

The finals consisted of:

#1 vs #2 6 times
#1 vs #3 4 times
#3 vs #4 1 time
#1 vs #6 1 time
#2 vs #U 1 time
#11 vs # 5 1 time

14 Championship Final Matches

This is just data. Use it as you wish

1. This tells me that the seeding was pretty well spot on. #1 vs #2 @ 6 occurences = 6/14 = 42.86%

#1 vs #3 @ 4 occurences = 4/14 = 28.57%

42.86% + 28.57% = 71.43% 71.43% of the seeding data predicted the finals before the first match happened.

2. Usually the difference between the #2 and #3 seed is minimal. They always get to settle the difference in the semifinals unless there is an upset.

3. The other 4 occurences are outliers. This seed vs seed situation only happened once.

4. The WSAZ seeding crieria is not friendly toward Freshmen. Returning State Champion/Placer and Returning WSAZ Champion/Placer do not work for freshman. The #1 vs #6 was Kehler vs Bentley. Kehler is of course a Freshman.

5. At 106, we had a kid from out of state make the finals. His seed was low, we probably didn't have good enough seeding information on him. He also slammed the #1 seed and hurt him. If we are going to slam and hurt the #1 seed, then the #1 seed might not ever make the finals. Thus, data gets skewed.

6. In another weight class, we had a #1 seed walk off the mat and quit the tournament. Definitely an outlier. I have never seen that before.

7. At 138 the #1 seed got hurt and injury defaulted out.

The WSAZ is by far a bigger and more dynamic tournament than the state tournament. Your analysis supports seeding the state tournament versus not.

Great job!!!

Those stats are only relevant to see how good the seeds were at predicting the top seed would be the eventual champion. The stats do not provide as clear of insight in whether the second best wrestler was seeded 2nd, because the seeding criteria may have placed the second best wrestler on the same side of the bracket as the eventual champion. Maybe also examine how many wrestlers placed 3rd whose only loss in the tournament was to the eventual champion. Those wrestlers may have an argument for being the second best wrestler in the bracket.

guard0544 wrote:

Bearhugger wrote:

Campion wrote:There has been a whole lot of discussion on seeding wrestlers and specifically, how it can affect the Finals. Soooo, I thought I would look at this years WSAZ results… it is only one tournament and therefore only one data point but I found it pretty interesting. I had a minor in statistics to go along with my major in accounting. I love to geek out on data and numbers…

The Finalists in the 14 weight classes comprised of:

11 #1 Seeds
7 #2 Seeds
5 #3 Seeds
1 #4 Seed
1 #5 Seed
1 #6 Seed
1 #11 Seed
1 Unseeded

28 total

The finals consisted of:

#1 vs #2 6 times
#1 vs #3 4 times
#3 vs #4 1 time
#1 vs #6 1 time
#2 vs #U 1 time
#11 vs # 5 1 time

14 Championship Final Matches

This is just data. Use it as you wish

1. This tells me that the seeding was pretty well spot on. #1 vs #2 @ 6 occurences = 6/14 = 42.86%

#1 vs #3 @ 4 occurences = 4/14 = 28.57%

42.86% + 28.57% = 71.43% 71.43% of the seeding data predicted the finals before the first match happened.

2. Usually the difference between the #2 and #3 seed is minimal. They always get to settle the difference in the semifinals unless there is an upset.

3. The other 4 occurences are outliers. This seed vs seed situation only happened once.

4. The WSAZ seeding crieria is not friendly toward Freshmen. Returning State Champion/Placer and Returning WSAZ Champion/Placer do not work for freshman. The #1 vs #6 was Kehler vs Bentley. Kehler is of course a Freshman.

5. At 106, we had a kid from out of state make the finals. His seed was low, we probably didn't have good enough seeding information on him. He also slammed the #1 seed and hurt him. If we are going to slam and hurt the #1 seed, then the #1 seed might not ever make the finals. Thus, data gets skewed.

6. In another weight class, we had a #1 seed walk off the mat and quit the tournament. Definitely an outlier. I have never seen that before.

7. At 138 the #1 seed got hurt and injury defaulted out.

The WSAZ is by far a bigger and more dynamic tournament than the state tournament. Your analysis supports seeding the state tournament versus not.

Great job!!!

Those stats are only relevant to see how good the seeds were at predicting the top seed would be the eventual champion. The stats do not provide as clear of insight in whether the second best wrestler was seeded 2nd, because the seeding criteria may have placed the second best wrestler on the same side of the bracket as the eventual champion. Maybe also examine how many wrestlers placed 3rd whose only loss in the tournament was to the eventual champion. Those wrestlers may have an argument for being the second best wrestler in the bracket.

Sounds logical. The stats are the stats. Infer what you wish from them.