Arkansas is in South Central Region while Alabama is in South Region!
-
10
-
rbtrackfan wrote:
Arkansas is in South Central Region while Alabama is in South Region!
I described a workaround to the problem (which I had previously come across) of LACCTIC leaving out Alabama from full-field simulations.
The workaround is to:
(1) progressively build the simulation by manually adding one Region at a time;
(2) check both the boxes for “Include inactive runners” and “Include runners not on roster”
(3) go back and manually delete, one-by-one, the runners that are actually not on the rosters.
10 -
DI XCountry wrote:
rbtrackfan wrote:
Arkansas is in South Central Region while Alabama is in South Region!
I described a workaround to the problem (which I had previously come across) of LACCTIC leaving out Alabama from full-field simulations.
The workaround is to:
(1) progressively build the simulation by manually adding one Region at a time;
(2) check both the boxes for “Include inactive runners” and “Include runners not on roster”
(3) go back and manually delete, one-by-one, the runners that are actually not on the rosters.
The reason you have to “include inactive runners not on roster” (and then go back and delete the ones not on the roster), is because of another apparent bug in LACCTiC that is otherwise leaving out Jane Hedengren from the simulation.
10 -
DI XCountry wrote:
DI XCountry wrote:
I described a workaround to the problem (which I had previously come across) of LACCTIC leaving out Alabama from full-field simulations.
The workaround is to:
(1) progressively build the simulation by manually adding one Region at a time;
(2) check both the boxes for “Include inactive runners” and “Include runners not on roster”
(3) go back and manually delete, one-by-one, the runners that are actually not on the rosters.
The reason you have to “include inactive runners not on roster” (and then go back and delete the ones not on the roster), is because of another apparent bug in LACCTiC that is otherwise leaving out Jane Hedengren from the simulation.
But rather than checking the box “Include runners not on roster” and then going back and deleting runners not on the roster,it is simpler to just manually add Hedengren.
20 -
Right now, the simulator loads the top 35 teams based on the average time of their top 5 active runners. This is just an estimate of the field. Since Alabama has barely run anyone, they don't make the cut.
If you click "include inactive runners" and just add Alabama in as a team, I think it you end up with a decent simulation.
I'll update the simulator to automatically load 40 teams in to fix this. In my defense...October 27th is VERY late into the season to not have run so much of your top 7.
I'll also see if I can re-load inactive individuals once the boxes are checked.50 -
Bijan Mazaheri wrote:
Right now, the simulator loads the top 35 teams based on the average time of their top 5 active runners. This is just an estimate of the field. Since Alabama has barely run anyone, they don't make the cut.
If you click "include inactive runners" and just add Alabama in as a team, I think it you end up with a decent simulation.
I'll update the simulator to automatically load 40 teams in to fix this. In my defense...October 27th is VERY late into the season to not have run so much of your top 7.
I'll also see if I can re-load inactive individuals once the boxes are checked.
Thanks for the update. I did exactly that. I deleted Minnesota from the bottom, and added Alabama (W) from the select a team field. That should maintain a 35 team field while providing all the fun.
20 -
Bijan Mazaheri wrote:
Right now, the simulator loads the top 35 teams based on the average time of their top 5 active runners. This is just an estimate of the field. Since Alabama has barely run anyone, they don't make the cut.
If you click "include inactive runners" and just add Alabama in as a team, I think it you end up with a decent simulation.
I'll update the simulator to automatically load 40 teams in to fix this. In my defense...October 27th is VERY late into the season to not have run so much of your top 7.
I'll also see if I can re-load inactive individuals once the boxes are checked.
Cool! Any idea on why Hedengren is getting left out, even though she has run once this season?
10 -
DI XCountry wrote:
Cool! Any idea on why Hedengren is getting left out, even though she has run once this season?
I don’t see any issue with Hedengren. Click the simulation button, it shows Hedengren has 28% chance of winning the tournament. Pretty certain a lot of things will change after this weekend with conference championship races completed.
www.lacctic.com/simulate/teamIDs=953,1329,264,2444,956,263,713,290,260,1079,1780,795,671,305,2447,291,272,268,955,957,2448,2445,983,1330,58,3253,193,2443,1545,958,57,269,954,2442,265&individualRunnerIDs=44320,119966,108928,125508,96580,122605,84704,118334,108900,65036,114889,120839,80437,69088,108865,74465,81538&league=&deleted=57642,9237500 -
LetsRunSpecial wrote:
DI XCountry wrote:
Cool! Any idea on why Hedengren is getting left out, even though she has run once this season?
I don’t see any issue with Hedengren. Click the simulation button, it shows Hedengren has 28% chance of winning the tournament. Pretty certain a lot of things will change after this weekend with conference championship races completed.When I click your link, then hit the BYU dropdown menu, Hedengren does not show up in their roster.
10 -
DI XCountry wrote:
LetsRunSpecial wrote:
I don’t see any issue with Hedengren. Click the simulation button, it shows Hedengren has 28% chance of winning the tournament. Pretty certain a lot of things will change after this weekend with conference championship races completed.When I click your link, then hit the BYU dropdown menu, Hedengren does not show up in their roster.
I checked both boxes of inactive runners and runners not on the roster to get the anticipated results. Including Jane Hedengren is not an issue although there is maybe a bug; including Alabama needs some workaround due to the algorithm limitations.
00 -
LetsRunSpecial wrote:
DI XCountry wrote:
When I click your link, then hit the BYU dropdown menu, Hedengren does not show up in their roster.
I checked both boxes of inactive runners and runners not on the roster to get the anticipated results. Including Jane Hedengren is not an issue although there is maybe a bug; including Alabama needs some workaround due to the algorithm limitations.
Yes, like I said previously, if you do check the “Include runners not on roster” box, that will put Hedengren into the simulation. But for accuracy, you then consequently have to go back and manually delete runners not on rosters; for example, you have to delete Pheline Cheruto from the Alabama roster (making a significant difference in simulation results.)
00 -
DI XCountry wrote:
LetsRunSpecial wrote:
I checked both boxes of inactive runners and runners not on the roster to get the anticipated results. Including Jane Hedengren is not an issue although there is maybe a bug; including Alabama needs some workaround due to the algorithm limitations.
Yes, like I said previously, if you do check the “Include runners not on roster” box, that will put Hedengren into the simulation. But for accuracy, you then consequently have to go back and manually delete runners not on rosters; for example, you have to delete Pheline Cheruto from the Alabama roster (making a significant difference in simulation results.)
Phoebe Anderson on the NC State roster is another one you’ll need to go back and delete in the follow-up
00 -
Hedegren wasn't on the roster for BYU during my last scraping run so she was not included until I added her to the roster.
I made a bunch of changes, breaking the website a few times in the process. I THINK we are back online now and things look somewhat better. Thanks for the help in finding errors! Sometimes a change I make in one place creates a problem in another place that I don't catch.80 -
Bijan Mazaheri wrote:
Hedegren wasn't on the roster for BYU during my last scraping run so she was not included until I added her to the roster.
I made a bunch of changes, breaking the website a few times in the process. I THINK we are back online now and things look somewhat better. Thanks for the help in finding errors! Sometimes a change I make in one place creates a problem in another place that I don't catch.
Thanks for the hard work in improvements. The only thing that comes to mind for a possible improvement now pertains to the sharing of a Simulation, because the effects of a box checked do not carry over in the shared link.
00 -
DIXC wrote:
Heading into the postseason, here is the LACCTIC simulation list of top 10 teams and top 32 runners.
How is Hilda Olemomoi ranked so high when she finished 9th in her only race of the season?
10 -
Dwightarm wrote:
DIXC wrote:
Heading into the postseason, here is the LACCTIC simulation list of top 10 teams and top 32 runners.
How is Hilda Olemomoi ranked so high when she finished 9th in her only race of the season?
30% weighted with 2024 XC results, 30% weighted with 15:03 outdoors, 40% weighted with the single 2025 XC result
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.10 -
rbtrackfan wrote:
Dwightarm wrote:
How is Hilda Olemomoi ranked so high when she finished 9th in her only race of the season?
30% weighted with 2024 XC results, 30% weighted with 15:03 outdoors, 40% weighted with the single 2025 XC result
Yes, publishing the ranking is part of the story, but one needs to drill down into LACCTiC further to answer questions like Dwightarm raised.
I wish there was some way to recall LACCTiC’s state on a particular date, so that we could see how it made its decision for ranking at that point in time. LACCTiC allows one to share a simulation, but the result will unfortunately not be exactly the same as what they were looking at, because the shared link doesn’t carry over whether or not one of the boxes were checked. (At out current point in time, the “Include inactive runners” box needs to be checked in order to get particularly impactful runners, like Lemngole, included in the simulation.)
00 -
NC State’s odds of winning (per LACCTiC) increase from 90% to 99% if Hutchins doesn’t run, in which case, Oregon would move into 2nd place.
10 -
D I XCountry wrote:
NC State’s odds of winning (per LACCTiC) increase from 90% to 99% if Hutchins doesn’t run, in which case, Oregon would move into 2nd place.
In her interview with Dominic Schlueter, Coach Henes shared her and the other coaches would prefer to go in as the underdog. That’s not the case for NC State this year (regardless of some coaches’ poll. But as Napoleon says, being rated first is a privilege.)
00
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.