WrestleStat Rankings | Week 11 2022

Chickenman Testa

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2003
21,772
33,471
1
just the usual - Eierman #1 at 141, Murin up 6 spots bc he won a match without crying, Ayala closer to Hildebrandt than RBY is to Desanto, Kemmerer new #1 at 174 (CStar a respectable 4), Brooks #2, Assad #11 cuz losses to high schoolers don't count, Dean #2, Kirkvliet at 7
2+2=9

lEt’S sEe YoU bUiLd a BeTtEr AlGoRiThM!
 

RoarLions1

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2012
9,505
16,034
1
For your sanity, @pawrestlersintn , I might recommend putting @andegre on Ignore so that you don’t even see these threads. 😉

Seems counterintuitive, but . . .
I think quite the opposite. He seems saner than the folks he's having conversations with 😀. Turn @pawrestler loose and let him defend andegre's work on other sites. Heck, he can stop by HR after his work is done here.
 

Chickenman Testa

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2003
21,772
33,471
1
I think quite the opposite. He seems saner than the folks he's having conversations with 😀. Turn @pawrestler loose and let him defend andegre's work on other sites. Heck, he can stop by HR after his work is done here.
Rating Starocci at 4 given his body of work is the very epitome of insanity. You mother hens can cluck all you want in the face of mild criticism, but it’s not like we’re challenging the immutable Law of Universal Gravitation or anything.
 
Last edited:

johnstownsteel

Well-Known Member
Aug 2, 2013
6,307
13,793
1
Johnstown Pa
2+2=9

lEt’S sEe YoU bUiLd a BeTtEr AlGoRiThM!
Ok, I've put together my own algorithm and this is what it spit out for 174..

Mine Wrestlestat
1. Starocci 1. Kemerer
2. Kemerer 2. Lewis
3. Lewis 3. Hidlay
4. Hidlay 4. Starocci
5. Labriola 5. Massa
6. Massa 6.Labriola
7. Smith 7. Smith
8. Devos 8. Finesilver
9. Plott 9. O'Malley
10. Mocco 10. Devos
 
  • Like
Reactions: danoftw

Chickenman Testa

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2003
21,772
33,471
1
Ok, I've put together my own algorithm and this is what it spit out for 174..

Mine Wrestlestat
1. Starocci 1. Kemerer
2. Kemerer 2. Lewis
3. Lewis 3. Hidlay
4. Hidlay 4. Starocci
5. Labriola 5. Massa
6. Massa 6.Labriola
7. Smith 7. Smith
8. Devos 8. Finesilver
9. Plott 9. O'Malley
10. Mocco 10. Devos
With due credit (and royalties paid) to Scott Goodale and J Jaggers - “Boom!”
 

RoarLions1

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2012
9,505
16,034
1
Rating Starocci at 4 given his body of work is the very epitome of insanity. You mother hens can cluck all you want in the face of mild criticism, but it’s not like we’re challenging the immutable Law of Universal Gravitation or anything.
Since you directed the response at me, this mother hen gets the model and its limitations. Too many taking it waaaay too seriously. Even the human models will never get it perfectly right, yet both give us something to discuss.
 

johnstownsteel

Well-Known Member
Aug 2, 2013
6,307
13,793
1
Johnstown Pa
With due credit (and royalties paid) to Scott Goodale and J Jaggers - “Boom!”
Psst...psst... don't tell anyone but the algorithm I used is a little something called common sense. Lol

Which brings me to the point of my little experiment here. In wrestling, I don't think any algorithm no matter how much you tweak it is going to rank wrestlers better than our guys who know wrestling and can still see with their eyes to evaluate things. I do however think Wrestlestat can and will eventually get closer.
 
Last edited:

slushhead

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2014
3,048
7,195
1
Rating Starocci at 4 given his body of work is the very epitome of insanity. You mother hens can cluck all you want in the face of mild criticism, but it’s not like we’re challenging the immutable Law of Universal Gravitation or anything.
I think the mild criticism is going both ways. Not sure why it’s a problem if both sides particpate.

This discontent with the WS rankings has been going on how many years, now? In the end, what @andegre & co. do with their service is not defined by the one thing people find fault with. It’s ok for some to say the whole outweighs this little part some find so objectionable.
 

johnstownsteel

Well-Known Member
Aug 2, 2013
6,307
13,793
1
Johnstown Pa
I think the mild criticism is going both ways. Not sure why it’s a problem if both sides particpate.

This discontent with the WS rankings has been going on how many years, now? In the end, what @andegre & co. do with their service is not defined by the one thing people find fault with. It’s ok for some to say the whole outweighs this little part some find so objectionable.
I'll be honest, I'm on Wrestlestat every day and never even think to look at their rankings but I don't care about where guys are ranked. Only time I talk about them are here and that's usually just to instigate. Lmao. Wrestlestat is awesome for so many other things. And come March, the wrestlers will determine the only rankings that matter(NCAA tourney placement) and they will do it on the mat.
 

slushhead

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2014
3,048
7,195
1
Psst...psst... don't tell anyone but the algorithm I used is a little something called common sense. Lol

Which brings me to the point of my little experiment here. In wrestling, I don't think any algorithm no matter how much you tweak it is going to rank wrestlers any better than our guys who know wrestling and can still see with their eyes to evaluate things. I do however think Wrestlestat can and will eventually get closer.
I happen to agree the “human eye” model is superior. In the end, though, all that matters is the end of the night that big Saturday in March. And most times, both kinds of models are proven wrong.

So, I just say 🤷‍♂️
 

pawrestlersintn

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2013
15,417
22,598
1
For your sanity, @pawrestlersintn , I might recommend putting @andegre on Ignore so that you don’t even see these threads. 😉

Seems counterintuitive, but . . .
Two things that I do anytime people complain about the rankings, besides explain how the math works. 1. Tell people to do their own. 2. Point out that the complainers have likely never clicked that donate button on WS website, despite "absolutely loving the WS website."

Short of @johnstownsteel's latest fake effort (no offense JS), no one has, nor ever will produce their own. The data entry aspect is too much, let alone the algorithm tweaking. And, no one has ever replied that they've donated to WS, despite loving everything but the rankings.

So, as far as I'm concerned, without those donations, WS is spending enough of their time on the stuff that everyone loves. If all of the BitchersMoanersWhinersComplainers make it worth their while, maybe WS will spend more time on rankings.

So, I feel like I'm on the high road with my take on this, plus in a nerdy kind of way, it's kind of fun looking at the math, and figuring out what is going on to give the result, although I do admit, there's a fair amount of redundancy to it at this point.
 

slushhead

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2014
3,048
7,195
1
I'll be honest, I'm on Wrestlestat every day and never even think to look at their rankings but I don't care about where guys are ranked. Only time I talk about them are here and that's usually just to instigate. Lmao. Wrestlestat is awesome for so many other things. And come March, the wrestlers will determine the only rankings that matter(NCAA tourney placement) and they will do it on the mat.
I guess you beat me to it, lol. Great minds . . .
 
  • Like
Reactions: johnstownsteel

pawrestlersintn

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2013
15,417
22,598
1
I think quite the opposite. He seems saner than the folks he's having conversations with 😀. Turn @pawrestler loose and let him defend andegre's work on other sites. Heck, he can stop by HR after his work is done here.
Thank you for your support. 😀
 

pawrestlersintn

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2013
15,417
22,598
1
I'll be honest, I'm on Wrestlestat every day and never even think to look at their rankings but I don't care about where guys are ranked. Only time I talk about them are here and that's usually just to instigate. Lmao. Wrestlestat is awesome for so many other things. And come March, the wrestlers will determine the only rankings that matter(NCAA tourney placement) and they will do it on the mat.
Give this man a beer, even though sometimes I think he's instigating me.
 

slushhead

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2014
3,048
7,195
1
Two things that I do anytime people complain about the rankings, besides explain how the math works. 1. Tell people to do their own. 2. Point out that the complainers have likely never clicked that donate button on WS website, despite "absolutely loving the WS website."

Short of @johnstownsteel's latest fake effort (no offense JS), no one has, nor ever will produce their own. The data entry aspect is too much, let alone the algorithm tweaking. And, no one has ever replied that they've donated to WS, despite loving everything but the rankings.

So, as far as I'm concerned, without those donations, WS is spending enough of their time on the stuff that everyone loves. If all of the BitchersMoanersWhinersComplainers make it worth their while, maybe WS will spend more time on rankings.

So, I feel like I'm on the high road with my take on this, plus in a nerdy kind of way, it's kind of fun looking at the math, and figuring out what is going on to give the result, although I do admit, there's a fair amount of redundancy to it at this point.
Don’t get me wrong, I agree. Just trying to look out for your mental health!
 

pawrestlersintn

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2013
15,417
22,598
1
Psst...psst... don't tell anyone but the algorithm I used is a little something called common sense. Lol

Which brings me to the point of my little experiment here. In wrestling, I don't think any algorithm no matter how much you tweak it is going to rank wrestlers better than our guys who know wrestling and can still see with their eyes to evaluate things. I do however think Wrestlestat can and will eventually get closer.
And, holy crap, we know from KYPSW, even those that can study all of the rankings, apply their own reasoning, put more emphasis on nationals and recency, and whatever other data they want to include, there are very few people who consistently sit on that podium at the end of the year.
 

pawrestlersintn

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2013
15,417
22,598
1
Rating Starocci at 4 given his body of work is the very epitome of insanity. You mother hens can cluck all you want in the face of mild criticism, but it’s not like we’re challenging the immutable Law of Universal Gravitation or anything.
1. WS rankings are a lifetime body of work rank, not particularly effective for short-term rankings.
2. The three guys in front of him have compelling bodies of work. You gonna hold three losses to Nolf and one to Hall against Kemerer? That's 4 of his 11 losses.
3. The average ranking for the opponents in Kem's 10 losses is 5.
4. Starocci will continue to climb the ranks, and finish his lifetime rank amongst the all-time PSU greats.
5. Make your own. Donate to WS for all the stuff you love.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dbldoofus