Yeah I hear you those are some good points
But it is possible that starliper and Dudek and vanderkooi really peaked at this race and we're capable of a little more then they show during the year
Or because it was their final race that they were able to really give some extra effort
From what I've seen it does kind of make sense that Dudek and starliper and vanderkooi we're capable of high 160s while those other girls were at low 1 60s
Yet by that standard, why was Tuohy given a lower speed rating in 2018 at nxn when her time was faster than 2017?
In the Milesplit course preview they said it had been very dry leading up to the race. And the course to be honest looked like a running track. Extensive paths of crushed stone and hard dirt. A gradual hill followed by a long downhill. Three girls did sub-17 in the same race and times were faster across the board.
Bottom line is that athletes whose previous highest speed ratings were 162 and 159 suddenly got 169 and 168 in conditions that likely skewed the result. When Cuffe ran 16:53 she annihilated that field, winning by over 30 seconds. Here three girls did sub-17 on the same day and 1 and 2 were 1 second apart.
Yes a pretty good job. Useful tool. Good discussion point. Much appreciated. But I just think this one is flawed for reason that seem evident.
The 2019 Foot Locker races were speed rated quite easily by anybody who understands the concept speed rating … Very reproducible … Nothing is skewed.
For starters, Foot Locker and NXN Nationals are different from other races because the ability of the individuals is higher … and these individuals have not seen this much competition at the top-end all season in a single race all season.
Foot Locker is a great example … Some people seem to have trouble understanding that real competition at this level can result in exceptional performances by a few runners … Why can’t some people believe that elite runners can have “break-out” or extra exceptional performances? … The dividing of talent between NXN and Foot Locker has hurt this competitive potential in recent years … But Thank Goodness, this year’s girl’s race made me stand and cheer for all involved.
Since some people can only understand Track times …. The occasional exceptional performance(s) occurs at Track Meets like the Arcadia Invitational, Brooks PR and National meets … some of the best finally race each other head-to-head, and occasionally the exceptional competitive juices start to flow! … In 2015, two-time Foot Locker champion Anna Rohrer ran all-out at the Indiana Outdoor Track State Meet in an effort to break the State 3200 meter record, and she did it running 10:11 … Anna was invited to the Brooks PR 2-Mile where she got in a competitive duel with Great Oak’s Destiny Collins and won in 9:59 (effectively lowering her PR by nearly 15 seconds because it was a full two miles rather than 3200 meters) … Just one example of an elite runner dropping a huge PR in this type of meet.
Foot Locker XC races in the past have seen this … some runners just plain go a lot faster in these types of elite competitive circumstances that they have never experienced before … and speed ratings can measure the effect (whether some people like it or not).
Thank you Katelynne Hart for setting a very fast pace and battling all the way to the finish … Thank you Zofia Dudek, Marlee Starliper and Abby Vanderkooi for letting us witness that marvelous competitive front-end duel and making me remember again why I like Foot Locker …. And Thank you for separating yourselves from other top runners of known ability which helped determined your high speed ratings! … Dudek beat runners like Hutchins, Ewert, Masciarelli, McNatt, Wiser, and Baloga by over half a minute to 55 seconds … and Starliper was right there as well with Vanderkooi also close … all three beating top competition by significant margins!
Real speed raters understand that in these types of races (just like the Kentucky Derby for thoroughbred horses) each runner (before the race) is assigned a projected speed rating range based on what is expected to occur based on current data … After the race, time differences between runners is evaluated on a relative basis to first exclude the slower-than-normal runners (a fair number typically get excluded at Foot Locker).
In the girl’s race, it becomes evident that finishers #5 through #16 (Hutchins, Ewert, Masciarelli, McNatt, Wiser, David, Baloga, Crain Whittaker, Weaver, Hendrix and Goldberg) fall very nicely as a group and individually within their expected ranges … And that the top three were better than expected … so the top three speed ratings are determined, in part, by how fast the group performed ….. And as a separate determination, the race profile was evaluated through comparison to recent Foot Locker races AND recent NXN races (top 40 with outlier exclusions).
Zofia Dudek was only 1:32.6 slower than Josh Methner (the Foot Locker winner and NXN runner-up) … Dudek was less than a minute slower than half of the boy’s field … Dudek and Methner both raced at NXR Midwest where Josh beat her by 1:51.6 and Josh had to run some to beat Caleb Brown and Dudek ran all-out to beat Hart … In this one comparison, Dudek closed 19 seconds on the boy’s Foot Locker champion at Foot Locker compared to NXR, and this is just one of several hundred comparisons using girls-to-girls and girls-to-boys ….. Zofia Dudek’s speed rating of 169 is spot-on, as are all of the girl’s and boy’s ratings … It makes me sad that some people can’t understand how competition effects performance.
I get many complaining emails from coaches , parents and runners … When you do any type of ranking, you must expect criticism and complaints … I expect and accept criticism because it’s part of what I do.
BUT what annoys me is this … When somebody criticizes a performance stat indicating that a runner had a major increase in speed rating performance (e.g. 8 to 10 points), they are effectively saying that runner is not capable of doing that … Three girls at Foot Locker did something special, and I will celebrate it!
astro wrote:
Yet by that standard, why was Tuohy given a lower speed rating in 2018 at nxn when her time was faster than 2017?
In the Milesplit course preview they said it had been very dry leading up to the race. And the course to be honest looked like a running track. Extensive paths of crushed stone and hard dirt. A gradual hill followed by a long downhill. Three girls did sub-17 in the same race and times were faster across the board.
Bottom line is that athletes whose previous highest speed ratings were 162 and 159 suddenly got 169 and 168 in conditions that likely skewed the result. When Cuffe ran 16:53 she annihilated that field, winning by over 30 seconds. Here three girls did sub-17 on the same day and 1 and 2 were 1 second apart.
Yes a pretty good job. Useful tool. Good discussion point. Much appreciated. But I just think this one is flawed for reason that seem evident.
Dude honestly I think you missing the basic point of speed ratings
The whole point is to give a fair number that eliminates all other factors such as course conditions and weather
It is a pretty obvious and clear reason why Tuohy was given a lower speed rating at nxn 2018 versus 2017
2017 was run after the boys race in much muddier conditions in Rainier weather
The nxn course is a course with a lot of variability depending on weather and which race is run first
So that's a good example of a course where you can just look at the time you have to look at the conditions
Is a reason why I Tuohy won by 40 seconds in 2017 cuz the conditions sucked
Anyway trust me I've looked at speed ratings the guy knows what he's doing he's a professional
He uses tons of data analysis and graphs
Trust me human intuition about probability and numbers is way off
You can't just go with your gut feeling on things as complicated as this
It's basically accurate to plus or minus one in these big races with tons of data
In races without a lot of data are you looking at plus or minus 3
His numbers for the season on all the athletes with running in big major Meats is very accurate
Hey Bill you do a great job with a speed ratings
I've looked at it and it's really spot-on
Basic point that people Miss is our natural conceptions about math and probability are not accurate
I'm a psychology guy and I've studied this a lot
Peoples Natural intuitions about complex probability that is going on with your speed ratings is not going to be nearly as accurate as your detailed analysis
Anyway don't kill yourself trying to defend it anyone who looks into it and doesn't just spout off hyperbole knows you're doing a great job
Hey I actually emailed you any chance of getting some top all-time girls speed rating numbers including duplicates
I don't know I just find a really interesting and all the lists I see only list Katelyn to ease top time and don't give all her performances
Anyway could you provide some sort of data on your website of the top historic girls speed times and maybe some context about how many of their races you've actually looked at
What would you say Tuohy has about 10 times over 170 that looks like no one else has more than one
Hey Bill your speed ratings are awesome
I'm also interested in that list of all time high school girls top speed ratings including multiple performances by the same athlete
Bill props for great job on your speed ratings
I also would be interested in seeing that historical list of all time girls performances curious to see how many times Katelyn Tuohy gave top 10 performances
Maybe also some sort of year-round summary of what the top athletes average for the season
Jesus Bill don't waste your time and efforts defending what is a great resource
Your sight rocks! And your numbers are hella accurate!
The only feedback I would give is some sort of database of all time efforts similar to milesplit where you can just look at the top X
I don't know maybe even coordinating with those guys where they would include your database on their website but your numbers are spot on don't waste your time defending yourself
I gathered all the speed ratings from Bill's site that were over 160 that I could find. I may have missed some, but I found 100.
48 are at FL Balboa Park. Tuohy has 22 even though she did not run there. This sheet should be viewable by all.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16kLSetISoA-Dx_yOn86l_mu5bAjRzqX1YEYcQ5SEFdY/edit#gid=0
It is really not that hard to find a post given the thread and page.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16kLSetISoA-Dx_yOn86l_mu5bAjRzqX1YEYcQ5SEFdY/edit#gid=0
Didn't mean to strike a nerve. But I beg to differ on this one. Sorry. It is not like we have not seen all of these athletes in national level races the last two years and not as if they have not been pushed and gone all out before. Dudek has been in some serious duels this year in the midwest races, yet those ratings never exceeded 159. So either thay had a magical increase in performance in the order of ten SR points or the measure is off. You yourself have adjusted ratings based on how you perceived the course was running. You have even given explanatory notes on this point. Well three girls did sub-17 in the same race, which had been done once before in the past 25 years. Plus none of these runners had past performances that would have predicted it. I mean how many sub-17 did this whole group have? IMHO the course and conditions made for a very fast race. Frankly the course looked more like a track course than a xc course. Unless you now believe a course cannot run fast or slow on a given day?
You said it yourself. Your numbers indicate a "major increase in speed rating performance." Not 2 points. Not four points. But 10 points. That is certainly major. To the point of being suspect. I'm all for the idea that an athlete can perform beyond themselves, but not by that level of deviation and not three on the same day. :)
But nice to see the enthusiasm.
Sorry I didn't know what you were referring to. I thought you were referring to the discussion about the accuracy of speed ratings. Thanks for sharing!
So Dudek joins Farichild and Trotter as appearing once on the list. Interesting.
Did the boys run the same course? It looked like it but yet they ran average times. How about the rest of the girls' field other than the top 3? They went out at 15 flat pace for about the first 1k. The race was just insanely fast at the front. I know people want to try to explain why Tuohy would have won. But she wouldn't have.
Yeah you're right there's no way Katelyn Tuohy can run a 169 speed rating
She only ran a 170 couple of weeks ago with no competition
And has 10 times run over 170
And she also ran to Stew 168 with no competition
Don't you have a flat Earth Club to get to or some other nonsense you're talkin idiotic
astro wrote:
So Dudek joins Farichild and Trotter as appearing once on the list. Interesting.
In response to this and another post I think if you look at Bill's site you will see a whole lot more races outside of NY rated now, than 15 or more years ago. No doubt some runners ran fast and would have got high ratings if the races were rated. But, another thing is that now with more data on more runners available, the ratings seem to have gotten more consistent from year to year (by the measure speed rating vs time for a course). The chart I included shows some of the variation over the years at Balboa Park. No doubt there have been some faster years than others though I do wonder about the size of the differences. Maybe there were course changes or improvements. But most years in SD the conditions are pretty good.
Dude what's wrong with you why you acting so dumb
She just beat starliper by almost 20 seconds
She's run races all year that fast she has 170 speed rating 168 168 three times this year with no competition. She has track times faster at every distance than those girls every distance over a mile she's way faster on the track. What world do you live in
Well I read that No 11 this year came in with the same time as No 4 last year.
Faster than ever wrote:
Did the boys run the same course? It looked like it but yet they ran average times. How about the rest of the girls' field other than the top 3? They went out at 15 flat pace for about the first 1k. The race was just insanely fast at the front. I know people want to try to explain why Tuohy would have won. But she wouldn't have.
I agree you're just being really dumb
If Katelyn Tuohy didn't race this week maybe you could have argued that she would have been worn out like Taylor ewert
But she did race and she looked really strong
She's been consistently and significantly faster than every other girl this year
She has faster track times and then all those girls
There's no logical argument to say that she wouldn't have been the likely winner
Just as a correction the entire 10 ten times were faster this year than last year. But the No. 11 time this year would have been around the No. 7 time, not 4. LOL.
