ADVERTISEMENT

Bonus PSU Stats For Quiet Times

wrestleknownothing

Well-Known Member
Aug 30, 2024
132
464
1
While in a quiet time for PSU wrestling I thought I would share a little something extra to get us through.

As you have seen I like to come up with scoring projections based on past results. But I often guess on the low side for PSU. The reason is in my assumptions. I assume all seeds for all teams wrestle to the same historical average. In general this is a good idea because it recognizes that the top 8 seeds never finish (well almost never) as the AAs.

But, as it turns out, and as you already know, PSU does not wrestle to the average. In fact, during the Cael Sanderson years PSU tends to outperform its seeds (slightly) in spite of having the highest average seed.


image.png.18ae8a4aca0e4b70bfe9a091585828fe.png

When comparing across the top teams (at least 40 AAs from 2010 to 2024) it is interesting to see that PSU has the lowest rate of underperformance - only 28% finish lower than their seed while also having the highest bar to clear. PSU has the highest average starting point (seeded 7.22).

At the other end of the spectrum are Oklahoma State, Iowa, and Missouri. They miss their seed between 43% and 52% of the time resulting in the only below seed average finishes among the top teams.

But, because Iowa starts with a higher average seed, they also finish with a higher average finish than all but PSU.

Another interesting thing to note is that most of these teams have had very stable coaching situations during this time period. To the extent any of this comes down to coaching, rather than individual wrestlers, then it probably persists. But there is a notable exception this year. If it is all about coaching what impact will David Taylor have on the Cowboys this year?
 
Not at all surprised at Cornell’s placement next to us. Great coaching there too.
 
While in a quiet time for PSU wrestling I thought I would share a little something extra to get us through.

As you have seen I like to come up with scoring projections based on past results. But I often guess on the low side for PSU. The reason is in my assumptions. I assume all seeds for all teams wrestle to the same historical average. In general this is a good idea because it recognizes that the top 8 seeds never finish (well almost never) as the AAs.

But, as it turns out, and as you already know, PSU does not wrestle to the average. In fact, during the Cael Sanderson years PSU tends to outperform its seeds (slightly) in spite of having the highest average seed.


image.png.18ae8a4aca0e4b70bfe9a091585828fe.png

When comparing across the top teams (at least 40 AAs from 2010 to 2024) it is interesting to see that PSU has the lowest rate of underperformance - only 28% finish lower than their seed while also having the highest bar to clear. PSU has the highest average starting point (seeded 7.22).

At the other end of the spectrum are Oklahoma State, Iowa, and Missouri. They miss their seed between 43% and 52% of the time resulting in the only below seed average finishes among the top teams.

But, because Iowa starts with a higher average seed, they also finish with a higher average finish than all but PSU.

Another interesting thing to note is that most of these teams have had very stable coaching situations during this time period. To the extent any of this comes down to coaching, rather than individual wrestlers, then it probably persists. But there is a notable exception this year. If it is all about coaching what impact will David Taylor have on the Cowboys this year?
I really like all of your analysis and predictive computations. It is always a lot more fun being on the Penn State side of these results

Question on the Better Than Seed calculations. How do you account for the #1 seed, whom can never be Better? Is that datapoint thrown out of the calculations? I’ve seen Penn States numbers prior and the Better than seems low and I thoughts because we had many more number 1 seeds

Again, thank you as I love reading your posts
 
Last edited:
I really like all of your analysis and predictive computations. It is always a lot more fun being on the Penn State side of these results

Question on the Better Than Seed calculations. How do you account for the #1 seed, whom can never be Better? Is that datapoint thrown out of the calculations? I’ve seen Penn States numbers prior and the Better than seems low and I thoughts because we had many more number 1 seeds

Again, thank you as I love reading your posts
You are correct. The number 1 problem with being the number 1 seed is you cannot improve upon your seed. All of the number 1 seeds then fall into either the "At", or "Worse" category. That makes outperforming your seed that much more difficult.

This is what it looks like for the Sanderson Era:



The deviations are calculated assuming any unseeded wrestler got the average seed (24.5), and a non-all american finished in the mid-point of the round the were knocked out (round of 12 = 10.5, round of 16 = 14.5, etc.), unless the round also matched the seed range, then they have a deviation of zero. For example, if a 9, 10, 11, or 12 seed is knocked out in the round of 12 then their deviation is zero. Otherwise it is the difference between their finish and their seed.
 
You are correct. The number 1 problem with being the number 1 seed is you cannot improve upon your seed. All of the number 1 seeds then fall into either the "At", or "Worse" category. That makes outperforming your seed that much more difficult.

This is what it looks like for the Sanderson Era:



The deviations are calculated assuming any unseeded wrestler got the average seed (24.5), and a non-all american finished in the mid-point of the round the were knocked out (round of 12 = 10.5, round of 16 = 14.5, etc.), unless the round also matched the seed range, then they have a deviation of zero. For example, if a 9, 10, 11, or 12 seed is knocked out in the round of 12 then their deviation is zero. Otherwise it is the difference between their finish and their seed.
Wow - your time is well spent. I mean . . . what is more enjoyable than Penn State performance statistics. Thanks for the early New Years present.
 
We should also take a moment to recognize and appreciate the absurdity of the top line of the last table.

Under Sanderson there have been 26 occasions where a wrestler earned the #1 seed. Of those, 21 (81%) went on to take the title. How does that compare to the field?



The field only gets it done 46% of the time.

The contrast is stark.
 
The difference in coaching between PSU and Cornell versus an Iowa is so very well contrasted here. We all knew that MIZZ faded at Nationals, but I didn't realize Iowa was actually slightly worse. Manning needs to shut his yap too. Smith at OSU could still coach at the end even if the culture got away from him. TanTom not so much.

Without Spencer Lee, Brands would be 0-6.
 
Last edited:
Some teams are built for duals and others for tournaments. Those coached who prioritize dual wins for seeding purposes find their teams fade in a three day tournament because, in order to obtain those dual results, the wrestlers make deep weight cuts. That is not sustainable over a three day tournament. Looking at you, Iowa and and OKST. It will be interesting to see if Taylor has absorbed the lessons of Cael.
 
Some teams are built for duals and others for tournaments. Those coached who prioritize dual wins for seeding purposes find their teams fade in a three day tournament because, in order to obtain those dual results, the wrestlers make deep weight cuts. That is not sustainable over a three day tournament. Looking at you, Iowa and and OKST. It will be interesting to see if Taylor has absorbed the lessons of Cael.
Coupled with the “do anything to win this match” mentality …
 
It will be interesting to see if Taylor has absorbed the lessons of Cael.
No need to wait and see. Their energy levels are higher than in the past and nutrition and proper culture are right out of Cael's playbook. Going forward, I would expect DT to de-emphasize difficult early season tournaments and late season duals in favor of Cael's approach to peak in March.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT