Don’t sleep on Oscar Angel (Manteca), Andres Lomeli (Kimball), or Miles Cook (Sacred Heart Cathedral). I don’t think they’d be NxN individuals or State Champs but they’re looking pretty good this early into the season. Angel and Lomeli went 15:07 and. 15:10 for 5k at Lodi Flame invitational (they ran 15:53 and 15:55 for 5k last season quite the improvement). Not only that, but Angel now has the course record for the Lodi Lake course (previous record was held by one of last seasons top SJS runners, Jeffery Overgaard with a 15:43, Angel shattered it by 36 seconds). Cook (15:09) has the #2 all time record for the Lagoon Valley course right behind Michael Vernau (15:07). Cook also ran 4:08 for 1600m last track season, 9:17 for 3200m, and 15:27 5k at Woodward Park. Oh yeah, don’t sleep on Vacaville too they’re on the come up.
-
40
-
$j$45 wrote:
Don’t sleep on Oscar Angel (Manteca), Andres Lomeli (Kimball), or Miles Cook (Sacred Heart Cathedral). I don’t think they’d be NxN individuals or State Champs but they’re looking pretty good this early into the season. Angel and Lomeli went 15:07 and. 15:10 for 5k at Lodi Flame invitational (they ran 15:53 and 15:55 for 5k last season quite the improvement). Not only that, but Angel now has the course record for the Lodi Lake course (previous record was held by one of last seasons top SJS runners, Jeffery Overgaard with a 15:43, Angel shattered it by 36 seconds). Cook (15:09) has the #2 all time record for the Lagoon Valley course right behind Michael Vernau (15:07). Cook also ran 4:08 for 1600m last track season, 9:17 for 3200m, and 15:27 5k at Woodward Park. Oh yeah, don’t sleep on Vacaville too they’re on the come up.
Cook is looking dangerous for this time of the year. The big test for all the major central coast teams will come this weekend at Lowell.
50 -
WaitForMoreData wrote:
Dkkub wrote:
San Clemente wins the CCA Ravens invite with a new squad. Top 5 are sophomores
As much as I respect tullyrunners ratings, and use it for the basis of all my work, I am really puzzled by these ratings. At Cool Breeze, he followed his typical fashion of giving very low ratings to the early season meets, with most runners WELL below their best SRs of last year. However at this meet, it was SpeedRating PR City. The result was that San Clemente team looks to be on nearly par with Great Oak (without W. Brown, but still 2nd at CB).
San Clemente
Yohan Anderson 10 San Clemente (SS) 15:09.0 167.00 167
Mattheus Dos Santos 10 San Clemente (SS) 15:19.1 163.63 164
Magnus Johansson 10 San Clemente (SS) 15:34.4 158.53 159
Erik Troester 10 San Clemente (SS) 15:50.7 153.10 153
Ben Wyman 10 San Clemente (SS) 15:53.0 152.33 152Note: NONE of the runners #2-5 have a PR of 4:45 OR 10:20, and even the #1 was 4:36/10:02
Great Oak
Jack Paradise 12 Great Oak (SS) 15:04.6 168.47 168
Jacob Brown 12 Great Oak (SS) 15:21.8 162.73 163
Christian Gump 12 Great Oak (SS) 15:27.6 160.80 161
Marco Franco 11 Great Oak (SS) 15:41.3 156.23 156
Carson Lynch 12 Great Oak (SS) 16:02.3 149.23 149It's not a big deal, no one wins prizes based on speed ratings. It would be an incredible story if they really are this good, and in 2 weeks they go against Beckman, Mira Costa, JSerra and Woodbridge, so that will give a better indicator.
I’ll admit I don’t fully understand the process, but isn’t the idea of speed ratings that you can use them to compare performances at different courses? So it looks like Meylan rated Cool Breeze and CCA almost the same, then? My understanding is he doesn’t game the system to hand out speed rating PRs, just does his best to handicap races.
I don’t know enough about either course (CCA or Cool Breeze) to have an opinion about their relative difficulty, but is your critique that CCA is an easier course? Like you said, in a few weeks we’ll have some head to head data so doesn’t really matter, but interesting nonetheless.
Also, regarding PRs on the San Clemente crew, a 4:35/10:00 freshman is considerably different than the same times for a junior. Same could be said for a 4:50/10:20 Frosh. Add in the proven coaching pedigree down south, and it’s not inconceivable those athletes have made a more significant jump than their relatively modest track times might suggest possible.
Thanks for all the time you put into this thread, makes for interesting reading.
41 -
The Idiot Marathoner wrote:
WaitForMoreData wrote:
As much as I respect tullyrunners ratings, and use it for the basis of all my work, I am really puzzled by these ratings. At Cool Breeze, he followed his typical fashion of giving very low ratings to the early season meets, with most runners WELL below their best SRs of last year. However at this meet, it was SpeedRating PR City. The result was that San Clemente team looks to be on nearly par with Great Oak (without W. Brown, but still 2nd at CB).
San Clemente
Yohan Anderson 10 San Clemente (SS) 15:09.0 167.00 167
Mattheus Dos Santos 10 San Clemente (SS) 15:19.1 163.63 164
Magnus Johansson 10 San Clemente (SS) 15:34.4 158.53 159
Erik Troester 10 San Clemente (SS) 15:50.7 153.10 153
Ben Wyman 10 San Clemente (SS) 15:53.0 152.33 152Note: NONE of the runners #2-5 have a PR of 4:45 OR 10:20, and even the #1 was 4:36/10:02
Great Oak
Jack Paradise 12 Great Oak (SS) 15:04.6 168.47 168
Jacob Brown 12 Great Oak (SS) 15:21.8 162.73 163
Christian Gump 12 Great Oak (SS) 15:27.6 160.80 161
Marco Franco 11 Great Oak (SS) 15:41.3 156.23 156
Carson Lynch 12 Great Oak (SS) 16:02.3 149.23 149It's not a big deal, no one wins prizes based on speed ratings. It would be an incredible story if they really are this good, and in 2 weeks they go against Beckman, Mira Costa, JSerra and Woodbridge, so that will give a better indicator.
I’ll admit I don’t fully understand the process, but isn’t the idea of speed ratings that you can use them to compare performances at different courses? So it looks like Meylan rated Cool Breeze and CCA almost the same, then? My understanding is he doesn’t game the system to hand out speed rating PRs, just does his best to handicap races.
I don’t know enough about either course (CCA or Cool Breeze) to have an opinion about their relative difficulty, but is your critique that CCA is an easier course? Like you said, in a few weeks we’ll have some head to head data so doesn’t really matter, but interesting nonetheless.
Also, regarding PRs on the San Clemente crew, a 4:35/10:00 freshman is considerably different than the same times for a junior. Same could be said for a 4:50/10:20 Frosh. Add in the proven coaching pedigree down south, and it’s not inconceivable those athletes have made a more significant jump than their relatively modest track times might suggest possible.
Thanks for all the time you put into this thread, makes for interesting reading.
>>My understanding is he doesn’t game the system to hand out speed rating PRs, just does his best to handicap races.
That's true, and I trust his handicapping more than anyone's, even my own in most cases. I don't want to sound negative here, because I am so appreciative of what he does, and I know he gets a lot of heat from some other people.
My critique of this week's ratings was that I don't they were scaled equally. I saw that CoolBreeze race on video, and it was a fast, competitive race from the start. I would expect the runners who did the best to be near the best SRs of last season. Instead many of top finishers were 9+ SR points off that. CCA on the other hand, the top finishers were near their best SR of last season. 9 SR points is 27 seconds, so that's a big, big difference.
The other reason I commented on those ratings was because San Clemente was rated to be almost good as Hart as well (who I have ranked as the #7 team in Cal and who was about 40 secs per man faster over the 3200m just 5 months ago). Every team improves, and some more than others, but just how much did San Clemente improve? As I said in another post, I don't put much into early season results, but I do look for "Wow" teams or runners that surprise me. Was San Clemente that "Wow" team, or was it largely due to ratings inconsistency? It's an interesting question, and since they will race some top teams soon, well have a better understanding of that soon enough.
50 -
WaitForMoreData wrote:
The Idiot Marathoner wrote:
I’ll admit I don’t fully understand the process, but isn’t the idea of speed ratings that you can use them to compare performances at different courses? So it looks like Meylan rated Cool Breeze and CCA almost the same, then? My understanding is he doesn’t game the system to hand out speed rating PRs, just does his best to handicap races.
I don’t know enough about either course (CCA or Cool Breeze) to have an opinion about their relative difficulty, but is your critique that CCA is an easier course? Like you said, in a few weeks we’ll have some head to head data so doesn’t really matter, but interesting nonetheless.
Also, regarding PRs on the San Clemente crew, a 4:35/10:00 freshman is considerably different than the same times for a junior. Same could be said for a 4:50/10:20 Frosh. Add in the proven coaching pedigree down south, and it’s not inconceivable those athletes have made a more significant jump than their relatively modest track times might suggest possible.
Thanks for all the time you put into this thread, makes for interesting reading.
>>My understanding is he doesn’t game the system to hand out speed rating PRs, just does his best to handicap races.
That's true, and I trust his handicapping more than anyone's, even my own in most cases. I don't want to sound negative here, because I am so appreciative of what he does, and I know he gets a lot of heat from some other people.
My critique of this week's ratings was that I don't they were scaled equally. I saw that CoolBreeze race on video, and it was a fast, competitive race from the start. I would expect the runners who did the best to be near the best SRs of last season. Instead many of top finishers were 9+ SR points off that. CCA on the other hand, the top finishers were near their best SR of last season. 9 SR points is 27 seconds, so that's a big, big difference.
The other reason I commented on those ratings was because San Clemente was rated to be almost good as Hart as well (who I have ranked as the #7 team in Cal and who was about 40 secs per man faster over the 3200m just 5 months ago). Every team improves, and some more than others, but just how much did San Clemente improve? As I said in another post, I don't put much into early season results, but I do look for "Wow" teams or runners that surprise me. Was San Clemente that "Wow" team, or was it largely due to ratings inconsistency? It's an interesting question, and since they will race some top teams soon, well have a better understanding of that soon enough.
This is normal for early season meets though. I used to give him a lot heat but I was more naive and immature back then. I am just glad he had it fixed last year before Woodbridge Invite.
20 -
Was the cool breeze course as long as it was last year? Are the times comparable?
10 -
coolbreeze times wrote:
Was the cool breeze course as long as it was last year? Are the times comparable?
strava shows on average .04-.05 shorter than last year. My guess is 12 second difference
02 -
WaitForMoreData wrote:
The Idiot Marathoner wrote:
I’ll admit I don’t fully understand the process, but isn’t the idea of speed ratings that you can use them to compare performances at different courses? So it looks like Meylan rated Cool Breeze and CCA almost the same, then? My understanding is he doesn’t game the system to hand out speed rating PRs, just does his best to handicap races.
I don’t know enough about either course (CCA or Cool Breeze) to have an opinion about their relative difficulty, but is your critique that CCA is an easier course? Like you said, in a few weeks we’ll have some head to head data so doesn’t really matter, but interesting nonetheless.
Also, regarding PRs on the San Clemente crew, a 4:35/10:00 freshman is considerably different than the same times for a junior. Same could be said for a 4:50/10:20 Frosh. Add in the proven coaching pedigree down south, and it’s not inconceivable those athletes have made a more significant jump than their relatively modest track times might suggest possible.
Thanks for all the time you put into this thread, makes for interesting reading.
>>My understanding is he doesn’t game the system to hand out speed rating PRs, just does his best to handicap races.
That's true, and I trust his handicapping more than anyone's, even my own in most cases. I don't want to sound negative here, because I am so appreciative of what he does, and I know he gets a lot of heat from some other people.
My critique of this week's ratings was that I don't they were scaled equally. I saw that CoolBreeze race on video, and it was a fast, competitive race from the start. I would expect the runners who did the best to be near the best SRs of last season. Instead many of top finishers were 9+ SR points off that. CCA on the other hand, the top finishers were near their best SR of last season. 9 SR points is 27 seconds, so that's a big, big difference.
The other reason I commented on those ratings was because San Clemente was rated to be almost good as Hart as well (who I have ranked as the #7 team in Cal and who was about 40 secs per man faster over the 3200m just 5 months ago). Every team improves, and some more than others, but just how much did San Clemente improve? As I said in another post, I don't put much into early season results, but I do look for "Wow" teams or runners that surprise me. Was San Clemente that "Wow" team, or was it largely due to ratings inconsistency? It's an interesting question, and since they will race some top teams soon, well have a better understanding of that soon enough.
Makes sense.
I'm pretty sure Meylan doesn't factor this into his ratings, but I almost ascribe an opposite weight to performances than you described in terms of meet competitiveness. Meaning, on two courses of equal difficulty, if one was a more competitive field I would value an equivalent time at the OTHER course more highly.
But that's just my own weird idiosyncracy.
30 -
trailrunner86* wrote:
cool breeze always puzzles me tbh. I never understood how guys can go 15:00 at cool breeze than 14:10 at woodbridge a week later than 15:50 at woodward park a week later? then you have guys go 15:05 cool breeze then 15:20 woodbridge? I imagine it's tricky to speed rate early races. There really needs to be that one big race that can be used as a guideline for the west. Usually that would be woodbridge, then clovis. Speed ratings are always better towards the middle/end of the season. I would say he got footlocker/nxn pretty spot on.
Cool Breeze and Clovis seem to suffer from weather issues while Woodbridge (sweeps and rated at least) is usually happening during favorable weather.
Cool Breeze happens early enough in the season that even late at night it can be 80°F or higher and all the previous races could happen in 90°F+ temps. Plus it's the season opener for most people, so they can overestimate their fitness and blow up.
Clovis happens later in the season, but being a morning race, they are susceptible to rising temps very quickly depending on their luck and scheduling. Some races get absolutely screwed. Less of an effect for State Meet, but they can still get struck with a heat wave that makes combined results a bit unfair to compare when one race gets to run early and one is suffering 20°F hotter. And at the end of the day, Clovis is a 5K on a fairly difficult course vs ~3 mile on generally flat courses for the other 2 races.
Woodbridge happens almost a month after Cool Breeze so they generally get some better temperatures and teams have had time to acclimate to racing more in 70°-80°'s if needed. They are also used to their race paces by then.
Not sure how often people run Woodbridge slower than Cool Breeze though if they are running both high level races
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.30 -
The Idiot Marathoner wrote:
WaitForMoreData wrote:
>>My understanding is he doesn’t game the system to hand out speed rating PRs, just does his best to handicap races.
That's true, and I trust his handicapping more than anyone's, even my own in most cases. I don't want to sound negative here, because I am so appreciative of what he does, and I know he gets a lot of heat from some other people.
My critique of this week's ratings was that I don't they were scaled equally. I saw that CoolBreeze race on video, and it was a fast, competitive race from the start. I would expect the runners who did the best to be near the best SRs of last season. Instead many of top finishers were 9+ SR points off that. CCA on the other hand, the top finishers were near their best SR of last season. 9 SR points is 27 seconds, so that's a big, big difference.
The other reason I commented on those ratings was because San Clemente was rated to be almost good as Hart as well (who I have ranked as the #7 team in Cal and who was about 40 secs per man faster over the 3200m just 5 months ago). Every team improves, and some more than others, but just how much did San Clemente improve? As I said in another post, I don't put much into early season results, but I do look for "Wow" teams or runners that surprise me. Was San Clemente that "Wow" team, or was it largely due to ratings inconsistency? It's an interesting question, and since they will race some top teams soon, well have a better understanding of that soon enough.
Makes sense.
I'm pretty sure Meylan doesn't factor this into his ratings, but I almost ascribe an opposite weight to performances than you described in terms of meet competitiveness. Meaning, on two courses of equal difficulty, if one was a more competitive field I would value an equivalent time at the OTHER course more highly.
But that's just my own weird idiosyncracy.
>>Meaning, on two courses of equal difficulty, if one was a more competitive field I would value an equivalent time at the OTHER course more highly.
Assuming the courses and times are deemed to be equivalent, I think Meylan has said that a big margin of victory can help create a higher SR. But that is only if the time is as good, and beating a weak field easily but without a big margin isn't going to rate that well. I think the intention of the speed rating is to try and give cross country something similar to a track time, that can be compared across different meets and states. In track, a 4:15 1600m is 5 seconds better than a 4:20, even if the 4:15 was run in a much more competitive race. Just like in track, you don't get a bonus for, "Oh, but he ran it so easy with nobody pushing him". Then you are getting into subjective judgements, and I believe the SR tries to avoid that as much as possible, for good reason. The rankings I post here are like that, based purely on times people have actually run. But I also have "gut feeling" rankings that I don't post, that take into account that runner/team X is probably better than the times show so far because of the meets they have been in.
20 -
I'm seeing a lot of 3.04-3.05 while last year it was 3.08-3.09. But te times make sense compared to last years course... It doesn't seem like the times are faster.
Also, did they even change anything about the course? Could this just be flawed GPS?
10 -
WaitForMoreData wrote:
Dkkub wrote:
Redondo Union boys team wins without Divinity.
Trabuco Girls team wins without Guilfoile but their #3-5 gap was still small
In my projections, Redondo and Ayala were right next to each other, so Redondo winning without their #1 runner is impressive.
I wonder if Ayala's timing chips were on the right runners, because their #1 and #3 runners were freshmen. If so, that's good news for a team that was already state finalist level. But they will need a low stick or two to get to the top level.
Ayala’s #1 ran the middle school nationals mile last season, so it means he is a freshman
Ayala times are entered into the Hoka rankings too
50 -
Dkkub wrote:
WaitForMoreData wrote:
In my projections, Redondo and Ayala were right next to each other, so Redondo winning without their #1 runner is impressive.
I wonder if Ayala's timing chips were on the right runners, because their #1 and #3 runners were freshmen. If so, that's good news for a team that was already state finalist level. But they will need a low stick or two to get to the top level.
Ayala’s #1 ran the middle school nationals mile last season, so it means he is a freshman
Ayala times are entered into the Hoka rankings too
Wow that’s incredible
10 -
November 30th wrote:
Would have liked to see Beckman and Jesuit today in the race but it looks like both schools had good days at their respective meets. Jesuit historically peaks late in the season I am not worried about them running well late in the year but Beckman seemed to burn out late last year if I remember. I do want to see how their transfers impact the squad but I think they have the best depth. Great Oak and MLK have great talent 1-5 but see a decent drop off so they are going to have to stay healthy for sure. Jesuit though overall seems to be the team to beat though right now but at the end of the day its a long season a lot can happen
The thing about Jesuit is, they don’t have as good of a front runner as ML King. Westin Brown (great oak) is faster than all Jesuit guys too if healthy
22 -
TopStix wrote:
November 30th wrote:
Would have liked to see Beckman and Jesuit today in the race but it looks like both schools had good days at their respective meets. Jesuit historically peaks late in the season I am not worried about them running well late in the year but Beckman seemed to burn out late last year if I remember. I do want to see how their transfers impact the squad but I think they have the best depth. Great Oak and MLK have great talent 1-5 but see a decent drop off so they are going to have to stay healthy for sure. Jesuit though overall seems to be the team to beat though right now but at the end of the day its a long season a lot can happen
The thing about Jesuit is, they don’t have as good of a front runner as ML King. Westin Brown (great oak) is faster than all Jesuit guys too if healthy
Beckman seems to lack a front runner too. Zavaleta and Westin Brown are faster than all of those Beckman guys
50 -
At the end of the day this is a team sport not a front runner type of sport. You need 5 guys to win a meet not one. Jesuit seems to have the best team overall at the moment. They will be the team to beat at Portland, Clovis ect.
24 -
Iknowstats wrote:
At the end of the day this is a team sport not a front runner type of sport. You need 5 guys to win a meet not one. Jesuit seems to have the best team overall at the moment. They will be the team to beat at Portland, Clovis ect.
Yes it takes 5 but if a team's #1 is scoring 1 pt, that's a good start.
30 -
Yeah but if your 4 and 5 guy aren’t the best only running 16:20s at Woodward rather than your other 4 and 5 running 15:40 that’s gonna hurt your places
40 -
With Zavaleta, healthy Lunetta, and three other top-15 finishes at Cool Breeze (Quezada, Carlson, Wesolowski), ML King has a deadly top-5.
They were missing Stewart (who raced at state for them last year) and the Watkins transfers.Great Oak (last year’s NXN qualifiers) doesn’t have a bad top-5 either. Healthy W Brown (low stick), J Brown, Paradise, Gump, Franco.
40 -
Without W Brown, it’s very unlikely that Great Oak makes NXN.
Jesuit has a solid top 5 (at least), but they don’t have 1 guy who stands out, so their success depends on where this pack ends up
20
