Impact of Rule Changes on Scoring

[Pennstate1985]

This is an interesting article posted by Caveira on Intermat. Interestingly, T3 averaged 2,2 takedowns per match, while previously under T2 rules, it was 2.4. So slightly less action in neutral than before. A mild surprise. Of course this led to a significant increase in tech falls because the guys who took advantage of the T3 rule scored a ton.

Impact of NCAA Rule Changes on Scoring | LevelChanger

Wrestlers were rewarded with more points for doing the same things. What else happened?

www.levelchanger.com

 

[tikk10]

This is an interesting article posted by Caveira on Intermat. Interestingly, T3 averaged 2,2 takedowns per match, while previously under T2 rules, it was 2.4 So slightly less action in neutral than before. A mild surprise. Of course this led to a significant increase in tech falls because the guys who took advantage of the T3 rule scored a ton.

Impact of NCAA Rule Changes on Scoring | LevelChanger

Wrestlers were rewarded with more points for doing the same things. What else happened?

www.levelchanger.com

The analysis concludes that there's less "activity" because there are fewer takedowns, but I have to think that "fewer takedowns" is simply the statisical flip side to "more tech falls," because tech falls now require fewer takedowns to accomplish.

 

[Sleepylion]

The analysis concludes that there's less "activity" because there are fewer takedowns, but I have to think that "fewer takedowns" is simply the statisical flip side to "more tech falls," because tech falls now require fewer takedowns to accomplish.

I think the goal was to shorten the events. Being cynical, it was probably suggested by some TV executive.

If that was the goal, it might have worked.

 

[Pennstate1985]

The analysis concludes that there's less "activity" because there are fewer takedowns, but I have to think that "fewer takedowns" is simply the statisical flip side to "more tech falls," because tech falls now require fewer takedowns to accomplish.

If that is true, then there is likely no increase in offense whatsoever if you go by TDs per 7 minute match or some similar leveling statistic.

 

[Pennstate1985]

I think the goal was to shorten the events. Being cynical, it was probably suggested by some TV executive.

If that was the goal, it might have worked.

I think a lot of us are cynical when money is involved.

 

[tikk10]

If that is true, then there is likely no increase in offense whatsoever if you go by TDs per 7 minute match or some similar leveling statistic.

I don't think anyone thought the three-point takedown would lead to an increase in offense, but my point was that the article is wrongly suggesting it somehow resulted in less offense/activity. Strictly inside the bounds of a seven minute-max match there shouldn't be any change.

And there's nothing cynical about wanting to make lopsided matches shorter for fans' sakes. There's relatively little money in wrestling to begin with; if this was a financially-motivated decision, it wasn't motivated by greed.

 

[El-Jefe]

Takedowns per match is garbage analysis. Even junior high kids can figure out that it needs to be normalized per minute or per 7 minutes.

Also note the disclaimer: "Disqualifications, defaults and overtime excluded from analysis." Because takedowns in those matches don't count apparently. Precisely why the stat should be normalized.

It's like those ridiculous facebook memes declaring Hitter A > Hitter B because he got 2 more HR over 500 more games.

 

[Ja1339]

The analysis concludes that there's less "activity" because there are fewer takedowns, but I have to think that "fewer takedowns" is simply the statisical flip side to "more tech falls," because tech falls now require fewer takedowns to accomplish.

That plus the good guys had fewer duals than normal, so that skewed the average number of takedowns lower 😉

 

[CSauertiegPSU]

I don't think anyone thought the three-point takedown would lead to an increase in offense, but my point was that the article is wrongly suggesting it somehow resulted in less offense/activity. Strictly inside the bounds of a seven minute-max match there shouldn't be any change.

And there's nothing cynical about wanting to make lopsided matches shorter for fans' sakes. There's relatively little money in wrestling to begin with; if this was a financially-motivated decision, it wasn't motivated by greed.

TV executives don’t want to shorten duals. They’ve sold ads and booked a 2 hour window to show them. Ending early would just lead to having to find backup programming, be it another dual or a replay of another sport

 

[Sleepylion]

TV executives don’t want to shorten duals. They’ve sold ads and booked a 2 hour window to show them. Ending early would just lead to having to find backup programming, be it another dual or a replay of another sport

Me being cynical again:
Or more/longer scheduled commercial breaks...

 

[Haillions]

What do the statistics show about falls? Are there more or fewer? I would bet fewer.

 

[Pennstate1985]

What do the statistics show about falls? Are there more or fewer? I would bet fewer.

Exactly the same. A few extra majors. Almost the entire dip in decisions was taken up by techs.

 

[El-Jefe]

What do the statistics show about falls? Are there more or fewer? I would bet fewer.

The article said pins were unchanged.

 

[LongJakk]

Just call neutral stalling and there is no need/reason for TD3.

 

[Aardvark86]

The analysis concludes that there's less "activity" because there are fewer takedowns, but I have to think that "fewer takedowns" is simply the statisical flip side to "more tech falls," because tech falls now require fewer takedowns to accomplish.

I think it’s on both ends — the tech fall end, and the defensive wrestling incentives associated with the first takedown.

 

[Ian]

Just call neutral stalling and there is no need/reason for TD3.

Agree. Award a point for push outs and no riding. Make them wrestle from neutral like in FS.

 

[Pennstate1985]

Agree. Award a point for push outs and no riding. Make them wrestle from neutral like in FS.

I really like the push out. Makes wrestlers have more mat awareness.

 

[tikk10]

I think it’s on both ends — the tech fall end, and the defensive wrestling incentives associated with the first takedown.

The idea that the three-point takedown created disincentives to wrestle offensively is both speculative and doesn't make sense. If a wrestler from last year is up 3-1, his lead is equally precarious as when he led 2-1 in prior years. Both wrestlers are wrestling under the same scoring system; a lead can evaporate just as quickly.

Plus, as the statisics bear out, the biggest change is that there were more tech falls because they're easier to get. If there's any incentive at all here, it's that wrestlers who might be satisfied with a major in prior years now have a tech fall within closer reach in a hypothetically 'same' match, and would be motivated to get that extra takedown or two instead of sitting on what would have been a 9 point lead in prior years.

 

[Gpago]

The article said pins were unchanged.

Then the pins per min increased as did the takedown per min

 

[El-Jefe]

Then the pins per min increased as did the takedown per min

Pins per match makes more sense than pins per match. They can happen at any time, only happen once per match **, and some guys deliberately try to run up the score and/or tire their opponents out before going for the fall.

** Excepting obvious ref misses.

 

[Pennstate1985]

Pins per match makes more sense than pins per match.

Profound in some existential way.

 

[El-Jefe]

Profound in some existential way.

Dammit, I meant to say per match better than per minute.

Extra strength idiot pills kicked in at the gym this afternoon.

 

[Delcolion915]

I think the goal was to shorten the events. Being cynical, it was probably suggested by some TV executive.

If that was the goal, it might have worked.

Other than the 133 pound championship match of course.

 

[KCLion]

Agree. Award a point for push outs and no riding. Make them wrestle from neutral like in FS.

Yuck!🤮

 

[El-Jefe]

Other than the 133 pound championship match of course.

LOL, a true cynic would think executives ordered that never-ending Suriano-Fix final.

 

[Gpago]

Pins per match makes more sense than pins per match. They can happen at any time, only happen once per match **, and some guys deliberately try to run up the score and/or tire their opponents out before going for the fall.

** Excepting obvious ref misses.

I agree but from a statistical point pins per min is also helpful. If I was asked to prove the impact of the 3 point takedown one question would consider is did it cause a quicker pins? I made an assumption here that the pin rate per match is independent but there maybe a dependency on how quickly they occur. With the 3 point takedown a wrestler can (and given the stats I have seen) did fall farther behind more quickly on average therefore he probably attempts the risker moves earlier in the match which have a higher rate of backfiring. If the getting caught and stuck rate remains the same there might be a dependency there. I actually have no idea if this is the case but if it was you could then sum up the bonus rate and times to determine a "dominance" score (leaving aside the question is a quick pin more dominant that a pin after having a 14 point lead), but to do so you need the same denominator across the board... hence the per min difference.

 

[El-Jefe]

I agree but from a statistical point pins per min is also helpful. If I was asked to prove the impact of the 3 point takedown one question would consider is did it cause a quicker pins? I made an assumption here that the pin rate per match is independent but there maybe a dependency on how quickly they occur. With the 3 point takedown a wrestler can (and given the stats I have seen) did fall farther behind more quickly on average therefore he probably attempts the risker moves earlier in the match which have a higher rate of backfiring. If the getting caught and stuck rate remains the same there might be a dependency there. I actually have no idea if this is the case but if it was you could then sum up the bonus rate and times to determine a "dominance" score (leaving aside the question is a quick pin more dominant that a pin after having a 14 point lead), but to do so you need the same denominator across the board... hence the per min difference.

That makes sense for guys who get decked on desperation moves, or for guys who run up the score before going for pins.

It makes less sense for guys who try to wear out the opponent first -- they probably don't get tired sooner just because scoring rates are higher. Or for pins that could happen at any time in the match.

Bottom line, I'm not sure it makes much of an impact on the timing of pins overall, but it would be interesting to see data, preferably data over multiple years.

 

[Sleepylion]

Other than the 133 pound championship match of course.

Wasn't that due to about 25 minutes of challenges/reviews?
What a terrible effect that had of the environment/fan experience.

 

[donboy6499]

The idea that the three-point takedown created disincentives to wrestle offensively is both speculative and doesn't make sense. If a wrestler from last year is up 3-1, his lead is equally precarious as when he led 2-1 in prior years. Both wrestlers are wrestling under the same scoring system; a lead can evaporate just as quickly.

Plus, as the statisics bear out, the biggest change is that there were more tech falls because they're easier to get. If there's any incentive at all here, it's that wrestlers who might be satisfied with a major in prior years now have a tech fall within closer reach in a hypothetically 'same' match, and would be motivated to get that extra takedown or two instead of sitting on what would have been a 9 point lead in prior years.

Mostly agree with this, with the caveat that if stalling is called identically, the 3-1 lead is much safer than 2-1. You have an extra stalling call of margin.

 

[apoharrow]

So simple to fix. Just call more stalls. If you don't shoot in the first minute you get nailed. It is done in every sport. Shot clocks, pitch clock, and play clocks.

 

[El-Jefe]

So simple to fix. Just call more stalls. If you don't shoot in the first minute you get nailed. It is done in every sport. Shot clocks, pitch clock, and play clocks.

"Just call more stalls" has been the fan response for decades.

The reason for so many wrestling rules -- the 5-count, the boundary calls, etc. -- is because even the NCAA recognizes that "just call more stalls" is futile.

 

[Sleepylion]

So simple to fix. Just call more stalls. If you don't shoot in the first minute you get nailed. It is done in every sport. Shot clocks, pitch clock, and play clocks.

I also think a choice of neutral should put you on a "shot clock". It is so frustrating for me when someone chooses neutral and then takes zero shots for the next 2 minutes.

 

[Pitchfork Rebel]

This is an interesting article posted by Caveira on Intermat. Interestingly, T3 averaged 2,2 takedowns per match, while previously under T2 rules, it was 2.4. So slightly less action in neutral than before. A mild surprise. Of course this led to a significant increase in tech falls because the guys who took advantage of the T3 rule scored a ton.

Impact of NCAA Rule Changes on Scoring | LevelChanger

Wrestlers were rewarded with more points for doing the same things. What else happened?

www.levelchanger.com

Ending more matches early because you change the point system; is that the "action" we were told the 3PTD was going to create.?

 

[tikk10]

Ending more matches early because you change the point system; is that the "action" we were told the 3PTD was going to create.?

Think bigger picture and addition by subtraction. We're seeing less of already-decided matches.

 

[Delcolion915]

I was rather shocked when only half of GIA blamed losing to us by 100 plus, on the 3 point takedown, but was not surprised at all to see the other 50 percent of them blame it on other various wrestlers throwing matches against PSU guys 😂

 

[AgSurfer]

If the intent is to increase scoring, how about the idea of awarding a point to the opponent if a wrestler does not score a takedown? If both wrestlers don't score a takedown, it wouldn't be a problem because both wrestlers would earn a point, hence keeping the score difference between them the same. However, wrestlers like a well known middleweight from UofM would have to step up the pace or else.

 

[amattaro]

Think bigger picture and addition by subtraction. We're seeing less of already-decided matches.

I wonder if pin rate decreased with the increased ease in reaching a tech fall.

 

[Pitchfork Rebel]

Think bigger picture and addition by subtraction. We're seeing less of already-decided matches.

When I was a crappy high school wrestler who mostly served as room guy for the present and future heavyweight, a freshman who was about 210 (I was around 190 most that year), one day in practice I simply gave up, and it was obvious.

I was told rather bluntly that the one thing you never do is quit, because no matter what the score-you could always catch a guy in a mistake and get the pin.

(This reaming saved my life decades later, so I remember it well).

If I had my way, I'd ditch the TF and bring back the superior decision. You want to end a match early? Pin your opponent, otherwise keep going.

Rob Rohn (who would have been defeated under freestyle rules) says "hi".

 

[Pitchfork Rebel]

If the intent is to increase scoring, how about the idea of awarding a point to the opponent if a wrestler does not score a takedown? If both wrestlers don't score a takedown, it wouldn't be a problem because both wrestlers would earn a point, hence keeping the score difference between them the same. However, wrestlers like a well known middleweight from UofM would have to step up the pace or else.

This is a great idea, although it should be a wrestler who does not score a takedown, reversal or back points should have a point added to the opponent's score.

Of course this doesn't help the match where they trade escapes.

Will Lewan's reaction:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/Edvard_Munch%2C_1893%2C_The_Scream%2C_oil%2C_tempera_and_pastel_on_cardboard%2C_91_x_73_cm%2C_National_Gallery_of_Norway.jpg

 

[Pitchfork Rebel]

Duplicate Redacted
[/QUOTE]