Wrestling Analytics and Data https://xitter.cf/t.co/ggSL9uow2U
Joined April 2025
- Tweets1.8K
- Following151
- Followers2.6K
- Likes1K
Pinned Tweet
We teach our kids to score points and keep scoring points. The magic number used to be 7 to have a good chance at winning, but with the new scoring system you really need to be getting 8-10 to win the majority of your matches.
Unless you're AJ Ferrari bro. And you probably aren't.
This data is based on every D1 match wrestled so far this season.
Did he say "matsavants?"
Hey, for the record, I agree. My projection gives OK State a 12% chance of winning, and that will likely go up a bit once a Raney is ranked high at 141.
“This season’s about Oklahoma State… they’re going to content (for a national championship).” -@CPyles8
#FRL presented by @AthletePS
The proejection is 12% based on Flo's rankings, and 13% based on Intermat. This is a backtested method based on a 90% confidence scoring window using 15 years of data. (matsavant.com/leaderboards/x…)
The data says PSU should score 151, with 90% confidence they are between 111 and 188. OK State is projected for 113, with a min/max of 78/149 with 90% confidence.
That's a lot of overlap.
If PSU scores 170+ again, I'm afraid OK State can't compete there yet. But if PSU slips up at all, the Cowboys are there and ready to to pounce.
Here's a chart of takedown share (percent of takedowns scored vs given up) and team points scored at NCAA.
@GodsWrestler133 The rarity of your 2018 run can be seen more clearly here.
Seth, to say you are a unique wrestler is a huge understatement.
Fun fact: Since 2015, you are the only NCAA champion with a negative takedown differential during your run to gold. You finished with with -1.
Carter Starroci came in second in 2024 with +2.
You were down 5-0 in takedowns during regulation to Tariq Wilson, but managed to get to overtime and win. In the 14,000 matches, only twice did a wrestler win when down by 5 takedowns in regulation. The other was Angelo Martinoni (CSU Bakersfield) in the PAC 12 championships.
Then against Micic in the finals, you won the match despite losing takedowns 4-1. In the matches I analyzed, which includes all NCAA championships since 2015, this only happened 9 times. And only 3 times at NCAA's. Lizak did it in 2017, you in 2018, and Jaret Lane in 2019.
What if I told you that you could predict the winner of most NCAA wrestling matches without looking at the score?
I analyzed 14,494 matches from the last 11 NCAA tournaments and all the major conference tournaments, and one stat picked the winner 95.6% of the time.
That's better than Spencer Lee's career winning percentage (89%). Better than Jordan Burroughs's (86.5%).
Here's what I found...
Now for the part I think is the most interesting.
There's an old trope our coaches all told us (and many of us have said ourselves) in March:
"Seeds don't matter."
But they do. And it shows in the chart down below.
The green line is win rate by seed differential at NCAAs. Seeded 17+ spots below your opponents, you'll win 12% of the time. Seeded 17+ spots higher, you're up to 88%.
The bigger the gap, the more the higher seed wins, every step of the way.
But one thing nearly flattens that curve...
Takedown Differential.
The purple line is the same wrestlers, only in matches where they won the takedown battle.
A wrestler seeded 7–10 spots lower wins 30% of the time. But when he outscores his higher seed opponent on takedowns? It shoots up to 93.5%.
Even with a -20 differential (e.g. a #30 vs a #10), your win probability rises from 11% to 79% when you have the takedown differential advantage.
So whether you're looking for an upset, or you're trying to avoid the upset, the solution is the same.
Win the takedown battle.
I don’t understand Bo’s gas tank.
I know about the 4am workouts, machine gun mindset, all that stuff.
But I’ve never seen this level of cardiovascular differentiation, where you just know he’s going to eventually break you.
It’s almost not fair, how can you beat a guy when you’re forced to jog a marathon pace but he just comes out and sprints the whole 26.2?
It can’t just be effort, can it? Lots of guys at that level work really hard.
Anytime a business ignores their customers outspoken feedback in such an obvious way, you really have to question the incentive.
Absolutely no one wants to see classic view taken away. So why would Flo do it? For the second time, no less.
This is a board room decision being made by guys that aren’t in a gymnasium for 12 hours every Saturday.
I’d love to hear @SpeyWrestle’s honest opinion on this decision.
100% agree. Classic view is far better.
The problem is it’s built on 20+ year old code and I’m sure maintaining it is costly. The correct answer would be to fix it on the back end but keep the user interface the same. Not force redirects to Flo’s terrible bracketing interface.
Tyler knows his stuff!
Mulvaney gave up 3 takedowns and scored 0. But he had 4 NF, 1 reversal, 3 escapes, and riding time - pulling off the 10-9 victory.
xitter.cf/tynastyy/status/210140…
For bonus points:
In the same 3pt TD same era, only one wrestler has won by decision with a -2 takedown differential in the NCAA tournament.
Who was it?
The obvious reason that the leading wrestler is getting hit for stalling more in the 3pt era is because he's sitting on a marginally bigger lead. Not big enough to open up and go for bonus, but just big enough to afford a stalling penalty.
But it's not just a gut feeling, the data also backs up this theory. 90% of all stalling penalties are in the third period against the leading wrestler, and that is true during both the 2pt era and the 3pt era.
And of all the stalling calls in the 3rd period against the leading wrestler - look at the most common scores.
In the 2pt era, it was a pretty flat distribution, but in the 3-pt era there's a huge spike with 4-1 and 4-2 scores at the time when the stalling point is awarded.
The only other reason I can come up with is that refs are calling stalling more aggressively. But I don't feel like that's the case just from my own observations. If anyone has other theories, I'd be happy to look into them.
The results are in and it's not a great story for the 3-point takedown.
In fact, it's a terrible one. The data supports some of the more cynical predictions when 3-point takedowns were proposed, so I suspect we'll hear some I-told-you-so's in the comments.
I analyzed every point scored in the last 6 NCAA National Tournaments, which totals 3,840 matches, between the best D1 wrestlers in the country. That's 1,920 matches in the 2-point takedown era, and 1,920 matches in the 3-point takedown era.
Here's what I found...
