The Strength of Roster Power Ranking--NYS Duals View previous topic | View next topic


Page 1 of 1
The Strength of Roster Power Ranking--NYS Duals


jessefeffer
Joined: Jan 30, 2008
Posts: 184
Ok I made it so I like it. It is based of this year's results (mostly) and it reflects a team's apparent strength at every weight class which is the real world thing we try to quantify when we consider seeding and WC entries. It is based on Rankwrestlers data which is derived from the data provided from TrackWrestling. Coaches of qualifiers and WC contenders would submit a roster to the committee that had their best wrestlers eligible at each weight class 99 thru 285. They must have wrestled there once during the season and they must be fully eligible as of the Saturday evening one week before the tournament. Coaches would adjust their lineup to whatever the weighins on tournament day allow. The Rankwrestlers rating for each is converted to a score -6 to +6. There is nothing more certain than a -6 forfeit or that a 99+ rated wrestler will be near the best in the class. The scores are summed into a number which means how a team ranks vs. a team with a 50 rated wrestler at every weight class.

Here are my rankings of the DI field. The differentials are meaningful in a strength of roster assessment. One upset or one unexpected pin can flip the match score by 9 or more so these are not really predictive so much as assessing the strength of a roster for seeding or WC selection.


1. (59) Massapequa
2. (57) Minisink Valley
3. (57) Hilton
4. (48) Fulton
5. (45) Spencerport
6. (43) Sachem East
7. (32) Niagara Wheatfield
8. (30) Fox Lane
9. (29) Shenendehowa
10.(16) Olean
11.(12) Horseheads
12.( 8) Chenango Forks

Last edited by jessefeffer on Jan 23, 2019; edited 1 time in total


jessefeffer
Joined: Jan 30, 2008
Posts: 184
Here are the small schools.

1. (37) Falconer
2. (36) Mount Sinai
3. (36) CVA
4. (31) Tioga
X. (27) Pioneer (FYI for Section VI fans)
5. (24) Peru
6. (22) Pleasantville
7. (20) Seaford
8. (20) Warrensburg
9. (18) Canisteo Greenwood
10. (12) Saranac
11. (8) Cold Spring Harbor
12. (-24) E-L-SW

The actual pools are not too bad in that the top 4 are all separated which is not the case in DI.


Falcs96
Joined: Jan 21, 2015
Posts: 597
D1 is a complete mess.
The first group consists of 3 teams who could all make the semifinals. But instead, 2 of them will be done by Friday.


jessefeffer
Joined: Jan 30, 2008
Posts: 184
Falcs96 wrote:
D1 is a complete mess.
The first group consists of 3 teams who could all make the semifinals. But instead, 2 of them will be done by Friday.


And, to be blunt, the whole purpose of seeding is to avoid that situation so to mess it up so badly is really committee sanctioned incompetence. Not sure about the Friday thing but I think you mean lunchtime on Saturday. Actually one of those teams will be toast by 10:30. That's a tough way to start the day.


BBush
Joined: Sep 27, 2011
Posts: 13
jessefeffer, I think NYS should hire you to do the seedings for the State Duals next year. Your process makes a lot more sense and the seeds look more accurate then the mess the state made of the seeds this year with their criteria.


132nomore
Joined: Jan 3, 2015
Posts: 61
They donít wrestle Friday
It is a one day event - Saturday only

But I do agree D1 is a mess

While wild cards are not needed
Sec champs only


Falcs96
Joined: Jan 21, 2015
Posts: 597
Right, I messed up. Keep thinking it's a 2 day event.


jessefeffer
Joined: Jan 30, 2008
Posts: 184
132nomore wrote:
They donít wrestle Friday
It is a one day event - Saturday only

But I do agree D1 is a mess

While wild cards are not needed
Sec champs only


WC's are a good idea, imo. But....if they are the wrong wildcard then why bother.


SectionSix2019
Joined: Jan 14, 2019
Posts: 17
jessefeffer wrote:
132nomore wrote:
They donít wrestle Friday
It is a one day event - Saturday only

But I do agree D1 is a mess

While wild cards are not needed
Sec champs only


WC's are a good idea, imo. But....if they are the wrong wildcard then why bother.


I would actually politely disagree about wild cards not being needed. I don't know how the timing would work being a 1-day event but I would actually say do 4 more wild cards and get 16 teams in there.

Do 4 pools of 4.

a) then teams like Rocky Point & Wantagh would be included. Also after looking at the NYSSWA Dual Rankings (I DID NOT ADD UP ANY POINTS AND I KNOW RANKINGS ARE MEANINGLESS)- Add in Monroe Woodbury, or another Section 11 or Section 8 team (EPSM or Long Beach etc)

b) if they got the seeding correct, the "better" teams would actually have weaker teams to start. Instead of "seeding" 1-8 and doing random, seed them somehow 1-16. I feel this is a flaw at the individual NYS Tournament.

POOLS:

Winner of: 1, 8, 9, 16 vs. 4, 5, 12, 13

Winner of: 2, 7, 10, 15 vs. 3, 6, 11, 14

OR EVEN BETTER, GO TRUE FORWARD BRACKET. I Understand some teams would only get 1 match, but so it goes. This would ultimately reward the best regular season-

THEORETIC Example:

PRELIMS:
1v16
8v9

5v12
4v13

_______________________

3v14
6v11

7v10
2v15


Again this is just an opinion but if you could get the seeding right I personally think this would be great. It's 1 extra match for each team in their pool. It would also take out any mistakes of teams like Rocky Point & Wantagh, being left out.

It opens it up to more teams, getting more kids involved, and in-turn grows the sport.

I also then think you find out a true idea of who is #1. The key thing would be getting the seeding correctly.


jessefeffer
Joined: Jan 30, 2008
Posts: 184
This worked ok last year so I'll give it another shot. Here is the DII Strength of Roster Ratings for the 2020 NYS Dual Tournament;

1. Mount Sinai......................39.5
2. Falconer/CV......................38.0
3. CVA.................................30.9
4. Tioga...............................30.1
4. Clarke..............................30.1
6. Gouverneur.......................21.9
7. Saranac............................21.2 <--------> Iroquois 24.8
8. Cold Spring Harbor.............18.8
9. Pal-Mac.............................17.5
10. Port Jervis........................17.2
11. Cobleskill-Richmondville.......4.3
12. Nanuet...........................-16.7

See the OP for the method. It's mine so I like it. Again, it's mostly a strength of roster assessment. I think this would be a great tool to do seeding. That would work this way:

Tournament coaches would have to submit a roster with a name at each weight class of an ellibgible wrestler (medically, academically or otherwise.)
They must have wrestled at that weight class at least once during the year.
Their Rankwrestler score is converted to a Roster Score which is a number from -6 to +6.

This should be viewed much like a football handicap. This method is ignorant of the actual matchups between teams and we know that matters a bunch. Some duals feature many matchups of the tossup variety where their relative strengths or weaknesses are engaged. Tioga and CVA have a match like that in their pool. Falconer and Clarke are much the same.

Last edited by jessefeffer on Jan 31, 2020; edited 3 times in total


jessefeffer
Joined: Jan 30, 2008
Posts: 184
and for DI

1. Minisink Valley ........... 64.0
2. Patchogue Medford ..... 56.5
3. Spencerport............... 55.0
4. Fox Lane ................. 51.2
5. Fulton ..................... 51.1
6. Lancaster ............... 50.0
7. MacArthur ............... 46.9
8. Commack .............. 46.0
9. Shenendehowa ........ 44.4
10. Niagara Wheatfield... 39.1
11. Horseheads............. 30.7
12. Chenango Forks....... 28.3


jessefeffer
Joined: Jan 30, 2008
Posts: 184
Ok. Feeling the need for some method validation. Spencerport 55 - Pal Mac 17.5 = 37.5. Actual score was 57 - 21 = 36. Should have played the under.
Page 1 of 1
 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum