I am glad you like it, I don't have a problem and ELO is simple to understand. I won't commend against WS any longer.
WrestleStat Rankings | Week 12 2022
- Thread starter andegre
- Start date
So, tell us that you haven't donated to WS, without telling us that you haven't donated to WS. Come on, pony up. Here, I'll make it easy for you...
WrestleStat | WrestleStat
www.wrestlestat.com
Again, it works perfectly fine for what it is designed for, which is as a lifetime achievement ranking, not a weekly ranking service.
And, no, I have no financial interest in WS. @andegre is welcome to verify that. I would much rather that someone that provides as valuable a service as they do gets all of whatever little (or none, in your case) money comes in from whining cheapskates, as possible.
Last edited:
Ok. If it is a “lifetime” achievement ranking system, explain the placement of the 3 Penn State defending champions rankings who are currently ranked 2, 3, and 4.So, tell us that you haven't donated to WS, without telling us that you haven't donated to WS. Come on, pony up. Here, I'll make it easy for you...
WrestleStat | WrestleStat
Again, it works perfectly fine for what it is designed for, which is as a lifetime achievement ranking, not a weekly ranking service.
And, no, I have no financial interest in WS. @andegre is welcome to verify that. I would much rather that someone that provides as valuable a service as they do gets all of whatever little (or none, in your case) money comes in from whining cheapskates, as possible.
Quite honestly, I don't look at any rankings, not even WS, until these threads come along. So, I don't particularly "like" WS, but I do understand its limitations, how the math works, some of the tweaks that WS has made, and how wrestlers end up where they do in the rankings.
I also think it's hilarious that people get mad at WS, and have no concept of any of these things.
I understand we like rankings, but I don’t get the hand-wringing over Wrestlestat. I actually have contributed because it is such a great resource that I use regularly, but having said that, I rarely look at its rankings, and when I do it is for lesser known guys or for our newer guys. Helps to see them without the blue/white glasses on once in a while (since it is an algorithm), and mostly so you can see their progression in rankings over time (if they are making progress).
I don’t rely on any ranking to tell me how good RBY, Nick, Carter, AB etc is. I can’t explain it any better than PaW, but just use the tool for all the info it contains and go to Intermat if you feel like you need a ranking. However, I guess if everyone does that, it will take away some of the entertainment for PaW and the rest of us....
I don’t rely on any ranking to tell me how good RBY, Nick, Carter, AB etc is. I can’t explain it any better than PaW, but just use the tool for all the info it contains and go to Intermat if you feel like you need a ranking. However, I guess if everyone does that, it will take away some of the entertainment for PaW and the rest of us....
"Lifetime achievement" probably isn't the best description, because WS doesn't put emphasis on NCAA wins. It is strictly math based on wins and losses, no matter when they occur.
Strictly looking at Starocci, he has about 1/2 the number of matches that Starocci has, giving him more opportunities to improve his ELO rank with wins. When Starocci has as many matches as Mekhi has, I fully expect his ELO will be higher.
Me, too. And, there's a hilarious thread started by a guy trying to convince people not to use a site that uses ELO, because he claims the algorithm doesn't work, because he has played lots of games, and his score doesn't go up. So, he's essentially pointing out that he stinks at chess.
LOL... that sounds like a desperate deflection, do you contribute to every site you might visit a few times a year?
Sorry, using results from three. four, or five years ago should not be used in a team or individual comparisons that are done today, it's as simple and as flawed as that.
Tell us, again and louder, that you're too cheap to make a donation to WS, without telling us. Was the link too hard to click on? LMAO.
I recognize that WS rankings are flawed, but I also recognize the inordinate amount of work that it would take to make them what you want them to be, if it's even possible.
Where in TN are you, perhaps we can have a beer and talk ELO wrestling if you are nearby?
I'm smart enough not to contribute to a site that uses flawed methodologies, what's your excuse?
No longer there. Back home in PA for seven years. Lived in Memphis for 13 years. Collierville, to be exact. You?
I understand the US Chess Federation ranking quite well and am also pretty familiar with the ELO system. BUT: So.....If you have a longer career and more total wins.....you will be higher rated despite losing to someone lower rated. (Brooks/Amine) Your words...Got it. But Ayala...with 4 losses is higher than Mckee because we put in a freshman multiplier to allow freshman to climb faster after all the whining, bitching and complaining about Zain. Your words... Got it. But Brooks came out as a true freshman and won Big 10's with a single avenged loss and followed it up with an undefeated National Championship season but his freshman multiplier button forgot to be pushed? There are some serious Incongruities going on here.
Because the other stuff on their website is tremendously valuable. And, to my knowledge, WS isn't how those guys make their living.
And, you mean you're smart enough to use a small piece of their website as an excuse for not letting a couple of moths out of your wallet.
Not really. Have you looked at his ELO progression during his freshman season last year? In 16 matches, he went from 1200 to 1527 ELO points, which took him from 151st to 3rd. Amine has 63 more wins than Aaron, and despite Aaron's success, he needs more wins to surpass Amine. Amine had the freshman multiplier in his first year, too.
And, you are putting emphasis on B1G and NCAA wins. I don't believe ELO gives chess players a multiplier for winning the World Chess Championship, does it?
Last edited:
An all-time great post.
(And I’m still laughing at the reply in another thread about starting my own statistics rankings.)
But not smart enough to simply ignore something you think is flawed.
I understand the ELO progression perfectly well....better than most. ELO is not the problem. Consider the following list from Wrestlestats:
Rank Name.........................Record..........ELO Rating..........Highest Finish at NCAAs
1. Sasso..................................75-7................1612...........................2nd
2. Suriano..............................75-7................1603..........................NC
3. Desanto.............................94-19.............1602.........................3rd
4. Amine................................91-19..............1600.........................3rd
5. RBY.....................................69-9...............1600..........................NC
6. Wick..................................120-21.............1596...........................3rd
7. O'Connor...........................101-11..............1595............................NC
8. Micic.................................. 93-15.............1594............................2nd
9. Brooks................................39-1...............1592.............................NC
10. Marinelli...........................100-13............1589.............................6th
11. H. Hidlay............................120-11.............1588............................2nd
12. Glory................................... 60-7..............1582.............................6th
13. Starocci...............................46-2..............1575..............................NC
14. Parris...................................81-13..............1572.............................2nd
15. Ferrari..................................30-1...............1572.............................NC
16. T. Wilson.............................110-29............1570.............................3rd
TRUTH: Nobody in their right mind would put Desanto ahead of RBY let alone Brooks, Starocci, Ferrari or Parris. Is there anyone out there who would put Tariq Wilson in a virtual tie with Starocci, Parris and Ferrari? NO. Clearly there is a problem. The problem is obvious.........The more matches you wrestle.....the higher your ELO ranking is likely to be.....even with many more losses. "Brooks just has to wrestle more matches to get his rating up to where everyone knows it should be relative to the competition" Ahhh.......how about they adjust the program to more quickly reflect the true ranking of the wrestlers? After about 90 minutes of research......the real problem/solution is really quite obvious. The ELO calculation formula is not the problem. Wrestlestat assigns all new wrestlers an ELO rating of 1200. That is WAAAY too low. A 1200 ELO rating for most weight classes puts that wrestler's ranking at about #200...or even worse. There are less than 80 Division 1 wrestling schools in the US. To say that a new starter at a certain weight class must start out with a ranking of #200 is absurd. No wonder it takes an entire career to get close to where they should be. If you are the worst starting 125 pounder in the US........you should still be somewhere around 80 and if you are starting for a top 20 program.....you sure as heck should not be starting out ranked #200. With Covid years......you may not wrestle enough matches to mathematically overcome your lowly starting point. The solution is quite simple. Start new wrestlers at a higher ELO rating. My quick research shows that if you start with an ELO rating of 1400 that would put your starting ranking at #40 among all wrestlers at any weight and at#32 among starting wrestlers at their weight. I will bet huge sums that if you simply go back and start each wrestler at about 1400 and recalculate you will get a ranking system that is far more accurate to what we all know to be true. O'Connor, Marinelli etc. should not be ahead of Ferrari, Brooks or Starocci. Just because chess does it.....doesn't mean it works best for wrestling.....which is far more finite in career length ( Micic & Kemmerer excluded
). Maybe 1350 or something close would be a better tweak......but 1200 is not producing an accurate reflection of reality. I really enjoy Wrestlestat....but that doesn't mean it can't be better......quickly. Make it so.
Last edited:
You may understand ELO, but your understanding of paragraphs is lacking. 😂Seriously, hard to read.I understand the ELO progression perfectly well....better than most. ELO is not the problem. Consider the following list from Wrestlestats:
Rank Name.........................Record..........ELO Rating..........Highest Finish at NCAAs
1. Sasso..................................75-7................1612...........................2nd
2. Suriano..............................75-7................1603..........................NC
3. Desanto.............................94-19.............1602.........................3rd
4. Amine................................91-19..............1600.........................3rd
5. RBY.....................................69-9...............1600..........................NC
6. Wick..................................120-21.............1596...........................3rd
7. O'Connor...........................101-11..............1595............................NC
8. Micic.................................. 93-15.............1594............................2nd
9. Brooks................................39-1...............1592.............................NC
10. Marinelli...........................100-13............1589.............................6th
11. H. Hidlay............................120-11.............1588............................2nd
12. Glory................................... 60-7..............1582.............................6th
13. Starocci...............................46-2..............1575..............................NC
14. Parris...................................81-13..............1572.............................2nd
15. Ferrari..................................30-1...............1572.............................NC
16. T. Wilson.............................110-29............1570.............................3rd
TRUTH: Nobody in their right mind would put Desanto ahead of RBY let alone Brooks, Starocci, Ferrari or Parris. Is there anyone out there who would put Tariq Wilson in a virtual tie with Starocci, Parris and Ferrari? NO. Clearly there is a problem. The problem is obvious.........The more matches you wrestle.....the higher your ELO ranking is likely to be.....even with many more losses. "Brooks just has to wrestle more matches to get his rating up to where everyone knows it should be relative to the competition" Ahhh.......how about they adjust the program to more quickly reflect the true ranking of the wrestlers? After about 90 minutes of research......the real problem/solution is really quite obvious. The ELO calculation formula is not the problem. Wrestlestat assigns all new wrestlers an ELO rating of 1200. That is WAAAY too low. A 1200 ELO rating for most weight classes puts that wrestler's ranking at about #200...or even worse. There are less than 80 Division 1 wrestling schools in the US. To say that a new starter at a certain weight class must start out with a ranking of #200 is absurd. No wonder it takes an entire career to get close to where they should be. If you are the worst starting 125 pounder in the US........you should still be somewhere around 80 and if you are starting for a top 20 program.....you sure as heck should not be starting out ranked #200. With Covid years......you may not wrestle enough matches to mathematically overcome your lowly starting point. The solution is quite simple. Start new wrestlers at a higher ELO rating. My quick research shows that if you start with an ELO rating of 1400 that would put your starting ranking at #40 among all wrestlers at any weight and at#32 among starting wrestlers at their weight. I will bet huge sums that if you simply go back and start each wrestler at about 1400 and recalculate you will get a ranking system that is far more accurate to what we all know to be true. O'Connor, Marinelli etc. should not be ahead of Ferrari, Brooks or Starocci. Just because chess does it.....doesn't mean it works best for wrestling.....which is far more finite in career length ( Micic & Kemmerer excluded
"The more matches you wrestle.....the higher your ELO ranking is likely to be.....even with many more losses." That's how ELO math works, no matter whether it's chess or wrestling. For top tier guys, their losses are usually to other top tier guys, which doesn't effect either wrestlers score all that much.
"No wonder it takes an entire career to get close to where they should be." But, it doesn't. Ayala is already close to where he is likely to end up, due to the freshman multiplier. And, Brooks just has a couple of wins to overtake a guy who has twice as many wins as he does. You are right, though, that covid seasons are hurting ELO math, as Brooks will never get to as many total matches as Amine.
"Start new wrestlers at a higher ELO rating." So, you want to start ALL new wrestlers 200 points higher? Or, only starters? You seem to indicate all, but then point out starters. By starting everyone 200 points higher, doesn't that simply make everyone's ELO ~200 points higher? I'm not sure what the value is in that. If Amine started 200 points higher, then Brooks comes along and starts 200 points higher, they still end up at about the same spot today.
I agree that ELO doesn't translate well to wrestling, but I also don't believe there is one easy fix to make it translate better.
Last edited:
LOL. It seems like it should be so easy. But, poor Slu can't look away...
Obese woman with sweet ice lolly.
Overweight woman eating sweet ice lolly. Person isolated on white background. Unhealthy lifestyle concept.
depositphotos.com
Last edited:
There is a simple way to find out if there is an easy fix. Try applying my suggestion and start wrestlers at 1300 or 1350 or 1400 and examine the results. The logic is sound. What harm could testing it do? My hat's off to andegre as well. I really like the site and appreciate the volume of work he puts into the site. I trust that he sincerely wants to make the best site possible. I'm just trying to make constructive suggestions.
Last edited:
That's not trying to understand the model. That's looking at the ranking and not agreeing with it. That's ok, but saying it's garbage with so little effort to understand it is disrespectful to the folks that put in the time to do it AND listen to fans to tweak it. My hat's off to andegre.
While the current ranking sysyem is using ELO there seems to be a different ranking/rating used to determine a score in a particular match. There are many instances of a lower ranked wrestler being projected to win over a higher ranked wrestler. What model is in use for these predictions? Does it use more a more recency bias model? Or are some aspects that go into a ranking weighted differently when determining a winner?
Yeah. It strange magic that most of us don't understand.
You don't have to understand the math to like this all time classic
That is a good question, and I do not know all of the ins and outs of the answer. However, I believe that it takes into account win types against like competition, and perhaps some recency. If you look at the actual ELO rating, you'll see that two wrestlers have very similar scores, but in a matchup comparison, one will be predicted to bonus the other. That has got to have something to do with win types.
None of us have any idea how simple it is to test your theory. And, that's part of my problem with everyone saying, "Well, just fix it." No one but the originators have any idea what "just" entails. Lots of people find it easy to spend other people's time and money. I'm not one of those people.
Give it a rest. Don't LOOK at the rankings on WS..done, enough said.
I do contribute to WS and donate yearly. You know why? Because before WS, there was NO way to get results of matches this easy. NO way to click a link and compare teams and see who our guys are wrestling, who they have common opponents with, who they beat, what was the score..I can go on and on.
These guys at WS are giving a FREE service..truthfully if I was them, I'd make it a paid service, because everyone uses the thing and they'd make a killing.
Ditto all of that, although I have not made a donation yet. I do use the site frequently but not for the rankings, which I don't even look at.
It is possible. There's a new startup working on this algorithm (among other things).
ffs... shut up, I'm voicing an opinion that most people agree with, their ranking methodology doesn't work very well.
It works perfectly well, when you understand what is it's currently designed to do. Just because you have a different idea of what it should do doesn't make it not work.
Oh, and you still haven't donated for all of the other great work they do.
Sounds like you're spinning yourself dizzy.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Football Does Penn State now have the best coordinator combination in football?- Latest: Dylan Callaghan-Croley
