Which Coach Peaks Best For NCAAs?

[Psalm 1 guy]

A few days ago Andrew Spey at Flo published a very detailed statistical analysis of which coach peaks their team best for NCAAs. Unfortunately the article is only available to Pro members, but the numbers and his conclusions are worth mentioning here. To summarize, since Cael has been at Penn State, his wrestlers have succeeded, or "peaked", at a rate nearly double other schools such as Iowa, Ohio State, Minnesota and Cornell.

There is one statistical measurement that Spey used for his analysis this time that he has not used on previous occasions when he researched the topic of peaking at NCAAs. He looked at the average of points scored for seeds 1-12 for the last 21 years of NCAA tournament results. This allowed him to better gauge how well top-seeded wrestlers actually performed historically compared to their seed. Without that analysis, teams with many top-seeded wrestlers, especially #1 seeds, have their results skewed since their wrestlers have nowhere to generally go but down in where they place.

After all of his statistical analysis Spey summarized his thoughts with, "But I think this is pretty strong evidence that Cael has figured out how to get more out of his wrestlers than other coaches would if they had the same team."

On a side note, it was interesting to see how poorly Oklahoma State has performed in relation to peaking compared to other schools during the Cael Penn State years. For the 12 schools that qualified the most wrestlers to the NCAA Tournament during the Cael Penn State years, Oklahoma State was ranked #10, with Penn State statistically nearly eight times more successful in getting their wrestlers to peak for the NCAA tournament. Maybe the Oklahoma State wrestlers do cut too much weight throughout the season? Another thought is that the strength of schedule being in the B1G better prepares those schools for the rigors of the NCAA tournament. I would love to hear your thoughts on all of this.

 

[AgSurfer]

Great post! I don't get Flo Pro so I would have no idea what was in the article without your summary. I've been of the opinion for at least several years that Cael has a leg up on everyone else regarding how to get his wrestlers to peak at the right time, but my opinion was based mostly on gut feel and anecdotal evidence. It's good when someone comes up with a methodology to use actual data to support such a claim.

It will be interesting to see if any Hawk fans or Jammenz come back with a rebuttal on this subject.

 

[The Japanese Whizzer]

So head-hands defense with an escape/riding time scoring strategy didn’t fare the best? Surprising.

 

[osu2082]

OSU has been hurt by the decline of the conference. ISU and OU have both fallen and the conference has taken a major step back. It causes the conferences top wrestlers to be propped up seed wise at times and is harder for them to get the weekly tough matches you see the guys in the Big 10 getting which really helps prepare for the grind of nationals.

I think both have played a role in OSU’s stats in that article.

 

[dmm53]

Here is a link to the fairly lengthy analysis (if you can access it):

https://www.flowrestling.org/articles/6747444-which-coach-peaks-best-for-ncaas-yet-another-analysis

 

[IaGodsCountry]

Cael's ability to get his wrestlers to peak would have been the only thing preventing us from winning ncaas this year in my opinion.

 

[Dogwelder]

Which Coach Peaks Best For NCAAs?
... On a side note, it was interesting to see how poorly Oklahoma State has performed in relation to peaking ...

That explains the Okie State T-shirt I saw the other day that said: “We Valley Best For NCAAs!”

 

[STAND with PRIDE]

That explains the Okie State T-shirt I saw the other day that said: “We Valley Best For NCAAs!”

That was low

 

[El-Jefe]

What about personal record deadlifts in March?

 

[District four]

What about personal record deadlifts in March?

Lol

 

[AgSurfer]

Cael's ability to get his wrestlers to peak would have prevented us from winning ncaas this year in my opinion.

S

FIFY

 

[Ian]

Would love to see that statistical comparison of scoring for seeds 1-12. Without bonus points, what’s a champ gets at least 20pts? Runner up gets 16pts.... 3rd 12pts... 4th 10pts, 5th 8pts, 6th -12th 7-2pts...

 

[El-Jefe]

Would love to see that statistical comparison of scoring for seeds 1-12. Without bonus points, what’s a champ gets at least 20pts? Runner up gets 16pts.... 3rd 12pts... 4th 10pts, 5th 8pts, 6th -12th 7-2pts...

I'd like to see the full data too ... but am pretty sure from the description that they used actual points scored, which would account for bonus.

 

[Psalm 1 guy]

I'd like to see the full data too ... but am pretty sure from the description that they used actual points scored, which would account for bonus.

Spey actually counted just placement and advancement points per what he wrote in the article . . . "I calculated the expected (emphasis mine) value of each seed averaging the actual (emphasis mine) placement and advancement points earned by each seed by using the data from the last 21 years of NCAA tournament results."

 

[El-Jefe]

Spey actually counted just placement and advancement points per what he wrote in the article . . . "I calculated the expected (emphasis mine) value of each seed averaging the actual (emphasis mine) placement and advancement points earned by each seed by using the data from the last 21 years of NCAA tournament results."

Thanks for the clarification.

In other words, he did an incomplete study.

 

[jammenz]

It will be interesting to see if any Hawk fans or Jammenz come back with a rebuttal on this subject.

Easy. See: http://board.themat.com/index.php?/topic/13216-could-i-coach-the-nittany-lions-to-a-title/

 

[Dogwelder]

Thanks for the clarification.

In other words, he did an incomplete study.

In what way is the study’s method incomplete? And would a “complete” study be better, or would it be worse, for this study and this data set?

 

[El-Jefe]

In what way is the study’s method incomplete? And would a “complete” study be better, or would it be worse, for this study and this data set?

They ignored bonus points. So their data does not reflect actual scoring. It reflects a subset of actual scoring.

 

[Dogwelder]

They ignored bonus points. So their data does not reflect actual scoring. It reflects a subset of actual scoring.

Thanks. I should not say too much because I did not read the article. But I do believe that in statistical estimation generally, sometimes there is good reason to use just a subset of available data.

 

[El-Jefe]

Thanks. I should not say too much because I did not read the article. But I do believe that in statistical estimation generally, sometimes there is good reason to use just a subset of available data.

Yeah, in this case, doing the full analysis takes some time and transcribing. The Excel part isn't too hard.

I just did it for 2019 only. Scores from the PSU Wrestling Club tournament page.

Expected Results per seed -- based on actual scores from the 2019 tourney:
Seed - Avg Pts
1 - 18.6
2 - 17.3
3 - 16.6
4 - 10.5
5 - 12.8
6 - 10.4
7 - 6.4
8 - 9.1
9 - 6.0
10 - 4.6
11 - 3.0
12 - 1.7
13 - 2.5
14 - 1.9
15 - 2.7
16 - 3.4
17-33 - 0.9 (I lumped these because the tourney didn't seed past 16 in earlier years)

IMO this provides better Expected Results per seed since it's based upon actuals. Note a few lower seeds outscored higher seeds (5 > 4, etc.); these should even out over 10 years.

Calculating team-level Expected Results is then a matrix multiplication -- for example, Penn State:
[(3 #1s) x (18.6)] + [(3 #2s) x (17.3)] + [(1 #3) x (16.6)] + [(1 #10) x (4.6)] + [(1 #12) x (1.7)] = 130.4 pts

PSU scored 138.5 pts, so we overperformed by 8.1 pts.

Taking only the top 10 teams from last year:
Team - Expected - Actual - Delta
Penn State - 130.4 - 138.5 - +8.1
Ohio State - 92.1 - 96.5 - +4.4
Oklahoma State - 88.2 - 84.0 - (-4.2)
Iowa - 72.7 - 77.0 - +4.3
Missouri - 58.3 - 63.0 - +4.7
Michigan - 66.5 - 62.5 - (-4.0)
Cornell - 56.6 - 59.5 - +2.9
Minnesota - 56.0 - 53.5 - (-2.5)
Nebraska - 41.1 - 52.0 - +10.9
Rutgers - 41.2 - 51.5 - +10.3

PSU was the 3rd best performing team out of the Top 10, and nearly twice the relative performance of any other Top 5 team. OKST and Michigan crapped the bed; the Goofers only wet the bed. Rutgers ... small sample size (3 seeds, 2 champs).

If time allows, I'll do this for the entire 2010-2019 decade.

 

[bowandarrow]

Yeah, in this case, doing the full analysis takes some time and transcribing. The Excel part isn't too hard.

I just did it for 2019 only. Scores from the PSU Wrestling Club tournament page.

Expected Results per seed -- based on actual scores from the 2019 tourney:
Seed - Avg Pts
1 - 18.6
2 - 17.3
3 - 16.6
4 - 10.5
5 - 12.8
6 - 10.4
7 - 6.4
8 - 9.1
9 - 6.0
10 - 4.6
11 - 3.0
12 - 1.7
13 - 2.5
14 - 1.9
15 - 2.7
16 - 3.4
17-33 - 0.9 (I lumped these because the tourney didn't seed past 16 in earlier years)

IMO this provides better Expected Results per seed since it's based upon actuals. Note a few lower seeds outscored higher seeds (5 > 4, etc.); these should even out over 10 years.

Calculating team-level Expected Results is then a matrix multiplication -- for example, Penn State:
[(3 #1s) x (18.6)] + [(3 #2s) x (17.3)] + [(1 #3) x (16.6)] + [(1 #10) x (4.6)] + [(1 #12) x (1.7)] = 130.4 pts

PSU scored 138.5 pts, so we overperformed by 8.1 pts.

Taking only the top 10 teams from last year:
Team - Expected - Actual - Delta
Penn State - 130.4 - 138.5 - +8.1
Ohio State - 92.1 - 96.5 - +4.4
Oklahoma State - 88.2 - 84.0 - (-4.2)
Iowa - 72.7 - 77.0 - +4.3
Missouri - 58.3 - 63.0 - +4.7
Michigan - 66.5 - 62.5 - (-4.0)
Cornell - 56.6 - 59.5 - +2.9
Minnesota - 56.0 - 53.5 - (-2.5)
Nebraska - 41.1 - 52.0 - +10.9
Rutgers - 41.2 - 51.5 - +10.3

PSU was the 3rd best performing team out of the Top 10, and nearly twice the relative performance of any other Top 5 team. OKST and Michigan crapped the bed; the Goofers only wet the bed. Rutgers ... small sample size (3 seeds, 2 champs).

If time allows, I'll do this for the entire 2010-2019 decade.

RUTGERS BEAT PENN STATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(still lost to Nebraska)

 

[Ian]

Yeah, in this case, doing the full analysis takes some time and transcribing. The Excel part isn't too hard.

I just did it for 2019 only. Scores from the PSU Wrestling Club tournament page.

Expected Results per seed -- based on actual scores from the 2019 tourney:
Seed - Avg Pts
1 - 18.6
2 - 17.3
3 - 16.6
4 - 10.5
5 - 12.8
6 - 10.4
7 - 6.4
8 - 9.1
9 - 6.0
10 - 4.6
11 - 3.0
12 - 1.7
13 - 2.5
14 - 1.9
15 - 2.7
16 - 3.4
17-33 - 0.9 (I lumped these because the tourney didn't seed past 16 in earlier years)

IMO this provides better Expected Results per seed since it's based upon actuals. Note a few lower seeds outscored higher seeds (5 > 4, etc.); these should even out over 10 years.

Calculating team-level Expected Results is then a matrix multiplication -- for example, Penn State:
[(3 #1s) x (18.6)] + [(3 #2s) x (17.3)] + [(1 #3) x (16.6)] + [(1 #10) x (4.6)] + [(1 #12) x (1.7)] = 130.4 pts

PSU scored 138.5 pts, so we overperformed by 8.1 pts.

Taking only the top 10 teams from last year:
Team - Expected - Actual - Delta
Penn State - 130.4 - 138.5 - +8.1
Ohio State - 92.1 - 96.5 - +4.4
Oklahoma State - 88.2 - 84.0 - (-4.2)
Iowa - 72.7 - 77.0 - +4.3
Missouri - 58.3 - 63.0 - +4.7
Michigan - 66.5 - 62.5 - (-4.0)
Cornell - 56.6 - 59.5 - +2.9
Minnesota - 56.0 - 53.5 - (-2.5)
Nebraska - 41.1 - 52.0 - +10.9
Rutgers - 41.2 - 51.5 - +10.3

PSU was the 3rd best performing team out of the Top 10, and nearly twice the relative performance of any other Top 5 team. OKST and Michigan crapped the bed; the Goofers only wet the bed. Rutgers ... small sample size (3 seeds, 2 champs).

If time allows, I'll do this for the entire 2010-2019 decade.

Outstanding stuff and agree that all points need to be considered. PSU out performing their seeds will be the norm throughout Cael’s reign.

 

[El-Jefe]

Here are the results for the entire 2010-2019 decade.

Note: since the first few years only seeded top 12, I've done the same. This makes 13 seed Cody Brewer an unseeded national champ for our purposes.

Seed - Avg Pts
1 - 20.3
2 - 16.6
3 - 13.9
4 - 12.0
5 - 10.0
6 - 8.7
7 - 7.5
8 - 6.4
9 - 5.5
10 - 5.0
11 - 4.4
12 - 3.3
UN - 1.6

Below are the top 10 teams in terms of performance vs. expected results. "Delta/Yr" = (Actual - Expected) / (10 yrs).
Team Delta/Yr
1 Penn State +21.6
2 Ohio State +9.9
3 Minnesota +9.5
4 Iowa +8.2
5 Cornell +7.5
6 Nebraska +6.5
7 Oklahoma +3.6
8 Iowa State +3.5
9 Edinboro +3.4
10 Virginia Tech +2.9

Penn State's relative performance jumps to +23.0/yr by removing Suriano's 0-2 as the 3 seed, when he did not compete.

OKST and Lehigh tied for 16th, at +0.9 per year. Lock Haven and Hofstra were both better against expected results.

Missouri came in 78th at -3.9 per year -- lower than any of the schools that discontinued the sport or dropped to D2. (NC State and Pitt were lower yet, at -4.4 per year.) Woof.

Within the B10:
Rank Team Delta/Yr
1 Penn State +21.6
2 Ohio State +9.9
3 Minnesota +9.5
4 Iowa +8.2
6 Nebraska +6.5
12 Michigan +2.5
13 Illinois +2.0
20 Rutgers +0.8
28 Northwestern -0.2
31 Michigan State -0.3
45 Wisconsin -0.7
53 Maryland -1.0
54 Indiana -1.2
66 Purdue -1.9

Conferences overall:
Conf Avg/Team/Yr
B10 +4.0
Pac12 -0.1
B12 -0.2
EIWA -0.4
MAC -1.2
ACC -1.5
SoCon -1.5

 

[Ian]

Great work El Jefe and unbelievable with PSU averaging a 23pt per yr bump. No question who is better prepared and who has deliverEd. Still think it would have been a great finals this year and no way would it have been an Iowa cake walk. PSU always peaks at Nationals with the B1Gs just a tune up. I do believe that RBY, NLee, Joseph, Hall, and Brooks would have made the finals.... and Shakur would have scored some valuable points.

 

[1AA]

Really nice work El Jefe! Those stats were the most inspiring I've read in three months. I'm really missing sports stats I just realized.

 

[El-Jefe]

Looking only at Penn State ...

I hope this comes as no surprise: the undisputed King of NCAA Tournament Overachieving is Quentin Wright. Beat his seed every time (#9 --> 1st; #6 --> 2nd; #2 --> 1st) with significant bonus.

Data below is per NCAA tournament -- so Wright gets only 3 years. Vallimont, Cassar, and Long have 1 NCAA appearance at PSU under Cael.

Top 20, sorted by Delta per Year:
Name Delta Delta Per Yr
1 Quentin Wright 35.2 11.7
2 Dan Vallimont 9.3 9.3
3 David Taylor 29.9 7.5
4 Anthony Cassar 7.4 7.4
5 Jason Nolf 29.6 7.4
6 Nico Megaludis 27.8 6.9
7 Vincenzo Joseph 17.7 5.9
8 Edward Ruth 22.7 5.7
9 James English 4.9 4.9
10 Zain Retherford 18.6 4.7
11 Andrew Long 4.6 4.6
12 Bo Nickal 17.9 4.5
13 Mark Hall 13.1 4.4
14 Nick Lee 7.3 3.6
15 Matthew Brown 9.9 3.3
16 Frank Molinaro 8.1 2.7
17 Dylan Alton 6.6 2.2
18 James Guilbon 7.8 2.0
19 James Lawson 1.6 0.8
20 Roman Bravo-Young 0.5 0.5

 

[El-Jefe]

Another look at it -- Top 25 in Delta/Year, for those with at least 2 NCAA Tournament appearances. (This takes out some one-year anomalies.)

Rank Name School Delta Delta/Yr
1 Spencer Lee Iowa 23.8 11.9
2 Quentin Wright Penn State 35.2 11.7
3 Nick Amuchastegui Stanford 30.6 10.2
4 Cody Brewer Oklahoma 39.0 9.8
5 Evan Wick Wisconsin 17.0 8.5
6 Kyle Conel Kent State 16.9 8.4
7 Alex Dieringer Oklahoma State 30.8 7.7
8 Chad Red Nebraska 15.4 7.7
9 Logan Stieber Ohio State 30.7 7.7
10 Bryce Meredith Wyoming 22.6 7.5
11 Tariq Wilson North Carolina State 15.0 7.5
12 Kyven Gadson Iowa State 22.4 7.5
13 David Taylor Penn State 29.9 7.5
14 Jason Nolf Penn State 29.6 7.4
15 Dylan Ness Minnesota 28.9 7.2
16 Grant Gambrall Iowa 14.2 7.1
17 Nico Megaludis Penn State 27.8 6.9
18 Torsten Gillespie Edinboro 13.9 6.9
19 Chance Marsteller Lock Haven 13.4 6.7
20 Brandon Hatchett Lehigh 19.9 6.6
21 Zeke Moisey West Virginia 19.8 6.6
22 Michael McMullan Northwestern 25.3 6.3
23 Amar Dhesi Oregon State 25.1 6.3
24 Vincenzo Joseph Penn State 17.7 5.9
25 Devin Carter Virginia Tech 23.3 5.8

Lee would have fallen behind Q had this year's tourney happened -- it's mathematically impossible for a #1 seed to outscore the expected result by 11.4 pts.

Also note 5 Penn Staters in the top 25 -- including guys like Taylor, Nolf, and Cenzo who never seeded below 3. Iowa is next with 2 (Lee, Gambrall). No other school has 2.

Extend to top 50:
7: PSU
4: Iowa, Ohio State
3: Cornell, Minny
2: ISU, Lehigh, Nebraska, NC State, UNI, OKST, VT

Extend to top 100:
12: PSU
6: Iowa, Minny
5: Cornell, OKST
4: UNI, Ohio State, VT
3: Edinboro, Iowa State, Nebraska
2: Indiana, Lehigh, Lock Haven, Michigan, Misouri, NC State, NW, Oklahoma, Oregon State, Stanford, WVU, Wisconsin

(Really it should be OKST 4.5, OU 2.5 -- Caldwell made 2 NCAA Tournament appearances for each school; his biggest Delta year was probably as a freshman at OU.)

When you (1) get a lot of high seeds and (2) they outperform their seeds (3) with bonus (4) 2x more than anyone else ... you might win a few national titles.

 

[psumacw]

Here are the results for the entire 2010-2019 decade.

Note: since the first few years only seeded top 12, I've done the same. This makes 13 seed Cody Brewer an unseeded national champ for our purposes.

Seed - Avg Pts
1 - 20.3
2 - 16.6
3 - 13.9
4 - 12.0
5 - 10.0
6 - 8.7
7 - 7.5
8 - 6.4
9 - 5.5
10 - 5.0
11 - 4.4
12 - 3.3
UN - 1.6

Below are the top 10 teams in terms of performance vs. expected results. "Delta/Yr" = (Actual - Expected) / (10 yrs).
Team Delta/Yr
1 Penn State +21.6
2 Ohio State +9.9
3 Minnesota +9.5
4 Iowa +8.2
5 Cornell +7.5
6 Nebraska +6.5
7 Oklahoma +3.6
8 Iowa State +3.5
9 Edinboro +3.4
10 Virginia Tech +2.9

Penn State's relative performance jumps to +23.0/yr by removing Suriano's 0-2 as the 3 seed, when he did not compete.

OKST and Lehigh tied for 16th, at +0.9 per year. Lock Haven and Hofstra were both better against expected results.

Missouri came in 78th at -3.9 per year -- lower than any of the schools that discontinued the sport or dropped to D2. (NC State and Pitt were lower yet, at -4.4 per year.) Woof.

Within the B10:
Rank Team Delta/Yr
1 Penn State +21.6
2 Ohio State +9.9
3 Minnesota +9.5
4 Iowa +8.2
6 Nebraska +6.5
12 Michigan +2.5
13 Illinois +2.0
20 Rutgers +0.8
28 Northwestern -0.2
31 Michigan State -0.3
45 Wisconsin -0.7
53 Maryland -1.0
54 Indiana -1.2
66 Purdue -1.9

Conferences overall:
Conf Avg/Team/Yr
B10 +4.0
Pac12 -0.1
B12 -0.2
EIWA -0.4
MAC -1.2
ACC -1.5
SoCon -1.5

Does Actual divided by Expected look significantly different than the raw differences? tOSU's +9.9 could have been on an expected of 70 where Minny's +9.5 might have been on only 40 expected (just throwing guesses out there)

 

[El-Jefe]

Does Actual divided by Expected look significantly different than the raw differences? tOSU's +9.9 could have been on an expected of 70 where Minny's +9.5 might have been on only 40 expected (just throwing guesses out there)

Dammit, now I have to add more columns.

I'm kidding. You're right, normalized data would be much better.

Also, lowered expectations for the Goofers:

 

[Psalm 1 guy]

Looking only at Penn State ...

I hope this comes as no surprise: the undisputed King of NCAA Tournament Overachieving is Quentin Wright. Beat his seed every time (#9 --> 1st; #6 --> 2nd; #2 --> 1st) with significant bonus.

Data below is per NCAA tournament -- so Wright gets only 3 years. Vallimont, Cassar, and Long have 1 NCAA appearance at PSU under Cael.

Top 20, sorted by Delta per Year:
Name Delta Delta Per Yr
1 Quentin Wright 35.2 11.7
2 Dan Vallimont 9.3 9.3
3 David Taylor 29.9 7.5
4 Anthony Cassar 7.4 7.4
5 Jason Nolf 29.6 7.4
6 Nico Megaludis 27.8 6.9
7 Vincenzo Joseph 17.7 5.9
8 Edward Ruth 22.7 5.7
9 James English 4.9 4.9
10 Zain Retherford 18.6 4.7
11 Andrew Long 4.6 4.6
12 Bo Nickal 17.9 4.5
13 Mark Hall 13.1 4.4
14 Nick Lee 7.3 3.6
15 Matthew Brown 9.9 3.3
16 Frank Molinaro 8.1 2.7
17 Dylan Alton 6.6 2.2
18 James Guilbon 7.8 2.0
19 James Lawson 1.6 0.8
20 Roman Bravo-Young 0.5 0.5

El-Jefe, You are a statistical maestro! I feel kinda' bad in that if I didn't comment on Flo's article then maybe you would have never spent so much time doing this number crunching . Seriously, thank you for all the hard work. Color me impressed!

 

[El-Jefe]

El-Jefe, You are a statistical maestro! I feel kinda' bad in that if I didn't comment on Flo's article then maybe you would have never spent so much time doing this number crunching . Seriously, thank you for all the hard work. Color me impressed!

Thanks, but the Excel setup + calcs were easy, maybe an hour, probably less.

What took some time was having to type in schools for 3-4 years (PSWC individual scoring listed only names for the first few years) and correcting some trailing spaces in the names (this caused many guys to have multiple entries in the pivot tables). A few guys had their names vary on the brackets (Nico vs. Nicholas Megaludis; Ronnie Rios vs. Bresser, J.T. vs JT Felix, etc.), cleaned that up too.

Blame my wife for watching some dreck on TV.

 

[El-Jefe]

Does Actual divided by Expected look significantly different than the raw differences? tOSU's +9.9 could have been on an expected of 70 where Minny's +9.5 might have been on only 40 expected (just throwing guesses out there)

Actually Minny is slightly better than Ohio State on a percentage basis.

Below are the percentages. "Rank" is in order of highest to lowest Delta/Year. Top 10 with B10 and a few other notable schools added.

On a percentage basis, PSU dominated. The only schools with a higher percentage: Lock Haven (45%) and Citadel (41%) -- both had far more unseeded than seeded wrestlers.

The top 10 schools were mostly in the 12-14% range. PSU blew that out of the water.

Rank Team Delta/Yr %
1 Penn State 21.6 23.1%
2 Ohio State 9.9 14.2%
3 Minnesota 9.5 16.1%
4 Iowa 8.2 9.8%
5 Cornell 7.5 11.9%
6 Nebraska 6.5 16.1%
7 Oklahoma 3.6 12.8%
8 Iowa State 3.5 12.8%
9 Edinboro 3.4 12.9%
10 Virginia Tech 2.9 6.6%
11 Lock Haven 2.9 45.1%
12 Michigan 2.5 6.3%
13 Illinois 2.0 5.4%
14 Hofstra 1.5 21.7%
16 Oklahoma State 0.9 1.2%
17 Lehigh 0.9 2.5%
20 Rutgers 0.8 3.6%
29 Northwestern -0.2 -0.9%
32 Michigan State -0.3 -3.7%
45 Wisconsin -0.7 -2.2%
53 Maryland -1.0 -6.2%
54 Indiana -1.2 -9.2%
66 Purdue -1.9 -15.9%
78 Missouri -3.9 -6.4%
80 Pittsburgh -4.4 -18.8%
81 North Carolina State -4.4 -14.5%

 

[El-Jefe]

To put this in context, PSU had the most top seeds AND outperformed those seeds.

#1 seeds:
15: PSU
11: Ohio State, Cornell, OKST
7: Missouri
5: Illinois
4: NC State
3: Minny, Iowa, Nebraska, Iowa State, Arizona State
2: Edinboro, Michigan, Lehigh, NW, Wyoming, Boise State

#2 seeds:
13: PSU, Iowa
8: Ohio State, OKST
7: Cornell
6: Minny
5: Missouri
4: Edinboro, Michigan, Wisconsin
3: Oklahoma, VT, Boise State, NC State
2: Nebraska, Illinois, Lehigh, NW, Central Michigan

#3 seeds:
13: PSU
12: Iowa
9: Missouri
7: VT
5: Cornell
4: Ohio State, Minny, OKST, Lehigh
3: NW, Wisconsin, Arizona State
2: Oklahoma, Iowa State, Edinboro, Oregon State, Stanford, Virginia, Pitt

#4 seeds:
7: OKST
6: Ohio State
5: Iowa, Nebraska, Wisconsin
4: Cornell, VT, Michigan, Illinois, Oregon State, Lehigh
3: Rutgers, Duke, Kent State, Arizona State, Missouri
2: PSU, Minny, Oklahoma, Edinboro, Princeton, Maryland, North Carolina, Old Dominion, Air Force, Pitt, NC State

Total top 4 seeds:
43: PSU
33: Iowa
30: OKST
29: Ohio State
27: Cornell
24: Missouri
15: Minnesota
14: VT
13: Wisconsin
12: Illinois, Lehigh
11: Nebraska
10: Edinboro, Michigan, NC State

PSU: doing more with more. Lock Haven: doing more with less: Missouri: doing less with more. Pitt: doing less with less.

 

[Irv ONian]

To put this in context, PSU had the most top seeds AND outperformed those seeds.

#1 seeds:
15: PSU
11: Ohio State, Cornell, OKST
7: Missouri
5: Illinois
4: NC State
3: Minny, Iowa, Nebraska, Iowa State, Arizona State
2: Edinboro, Michigan, Lehigh, NW, Wyoming, Boise State

#2 seeds:
13: PSU, Iowa
8: Ohio State, OKST
7: Cornell
6: Minny
5: Missouri
4: Edinboro, Michigan, Wisconsin
3: Oklahoma, VT, Boise State, NC State
2: Nebraska, Illinois, Lehigh, NW, Central Michigan

#3 seeds:
13: PSU
12: Iowa
9: Missouri
7: VT
5: Cornell
4: Ohio State, Minny, OKST, Lehigh
3: NW, Wisconsin, Arizona State
2: Oklahoma, Iowa State, Edinboro, Oregon State, Stanford, Virginia, Pitt

#4 seeds:
7: OKST
6: Ohio State
5: Iowa, Nebraska, Wisconsin
4: Cornell, VT, Michigan, Illinois, Oregon State, Lehigh
3: Rutgers, Duke, Kent State, Arizona State, Missouri
2: PSU, Minny, Oklahoma, Edinboro, Princeton, Maryland, North Carolina, Old Dominion, Air Force, Pitt, NC State

Total top 4 seeds:
43: PSU
33: Iowa
30: OKST
29: Ohio State
27: Cornell
24: Missouri
15: Minnesota
14: VT
13: Wisconsin
12: Illinois, Lehigh
11: Nebraska
10: Edinboro, Michigan, NC State

PSU: doing more with more. Lock Haven: doing more with less: Missouri: doing less with more. Pitt: doing less with less.

Nice analysis. I did the same thing a few years ago, see https://www.blackshoediaries.com/20...ing-at-ncaa-wrestling-championships#366686635

In that earlier post, I noted a weakness with what we’ve done—the best comparison would be “Team XYZ #1 seed actual points” versus “expected #1 seed points based on all teams other than XYZ”. Think about the limit here—if all #1 seeds came from the same team, then the ratio of actual/expected points would necessarily be 1.0–but this calculation couldn’t be done in one hour in Excel, like what we have each done.

 

[psumacw]

Nice analysis. I did the same thing a few years ago, see https://www.blackshoediaries.com/20...ing-at-ncaa-wrestling-championships#366686635

In that earlier post, I noted a weakness with what we’ve done—the best comparison would be “Team XYZ #1 seed actual points” versus “expected #1 seed points based on all teams other than XYZ”. Think about the limit here—if all #1 seeds came from the same team, then the ratio of actual/expected points would necessarily be 1.0–but this calculation couldn’t be done in one hour in Excel, like what we have each done.

it could be done with sumifs and countifs

 

[El-Jefe]

it could be done with sumifs and countifs

Sumproduct would likely do it too.

I suspect it wouldn't be all that difficult, but I have only so many unproductive work mtgs this week.

 

[Irv ONian]

it could be done with sumifs and countifs

You're right, it wasn't that difficult using sumifs and countifs (the original issue was that I had each year in a separate tab). So, here are the new top ten ratios for 2014-19:
actual/expected, team
1.426, Lock Haven
1.297, Kent State
1.277, West Virginia
1.257, Nebraska
1.220, Penn State
1.215, Iowa State
1.181, Ohio State
1.172, Michigan
1.171, Rutgers
1.138, Minnesota

 

[Dogwelder]

You're right, it wasn't that difficult using sumifs and countifs (the original issue was that I had each year in a separate tab). So, here are the new top ten ratios for 2014-19:
actual/expected, team
1.426, Lock Haven
1.297, Kent State
1.277, West Virginia
1.257, Nebraska
1.220, Penn State
1.215, Iowa State
1.181, Ohio State
1.172, Michigan
1.171, Rutgers
1.138, Minnesota

I am impressed and even skeptical that Nebraska vaulted ahead of Penn State for 2014-2019, given that they did not even appear in the article for 2014-2016. The power of Chad Red is not insignificant!

 

[Dogwelder]

You're right, it wasn't that difficult using sumifs and countifs (the original issue was that I had each year in a separate tab). So, here are the new top ten ratios for 2014-19:
actual/expected, team
1.426, Lock Haven
1.297, Kent State
1.277, West Virginia
1.257, Nebraska
1.220, Penn State
1.215, Iowa State
1.181, Ohio State
1.172, Michigan
1.171, Rutgers
1.138, Minnesota

How would the numbers be different if you had not used the exclude-own-team computation? Did the exclusion change the team order bigly?

 

[Irv ONian]

How would the numbers be different if you had not used the exclude-own-team computation? Did the exclusion change the team order bigly?

Here are the top ten the "not exclude-own-team" way. Note that PSU changes quite a bit (relative to the others):
team, actual/expected
Lock Haven, 1.409
Kent State, 1.294
West Virginia, 1.271
Nebraska, 1.222
Iowa State, 1.212
Penn State, 1.183
Rutgers, 1.166
Ohio State, 1.163
Michigan, 1.159
Minnesota, 1.127

As for your question about Nebraska, they got significant overperformance from (2019) Red; (2018) Venz, Berger, Red; (2017) Dudley, Studebaker; (2016) Dudley, Montoya; (2015) Green, Dudley; (2014) nobody