JENNA MF HUTCHINS - Runs 15:58 - 1st US HS Girl To Break 16:00 in XC!!

First you say that at a national meet, it is too hard to separate. Then you realize that she won by 1 minute and that is too much because the other runners ran too slow. That is not how it works. Had the field run 16:30, her speed rating would have been worse.

Not Her Dad wrote:

She has a short stride and high cadence. She is the poster child for being a grinder who can run close to redline without tiring.

I agree that may be her best event down the road. But taking her age and training volume into consideration, do you think she can run a better 10k than 5k? And would be running the 10k at such a young age be the best long term move?

When she ran 4:43 for the mile, her 5k PR from the prior fall was 17:25. She also won state in the 1600m and 800m that year. She is a little bit of a shuffler but she has very deceiving foot speed.

A shorter stride and a high cadence is a quality many long-distance runners have (opposed to middle distance runners) but it's more about what is physiologically there.

I think she can run 32:25 today. She can't run 15:20 today. I only throw it out there in order to run in the meet. I am not advocating changing her training.

Dr. of the right wrote:

First you say that at a national meet, it is too hard to separate. Then you realize that she won by 1 minute and that is too much because the other runners ran too slow. That is not how it works. Had the field run 16:30, her speed rating would have been worse.

I said neither of those. I said the other runners ran fast times (for them). Thus Hutchins very fast time got a lower speed rating than what one might have thought. If the bulk of the field had run slower times, Hutchins would have gotten a higher speed rating is she ran the same time.

But this really needs Bill's input, although I think he already gave it, and he also expressed a lot of frustrations with people questioning his numbers. I suggest you find those posts.

Dr. of the right wrote:

First you say that at a national meet, it is too hard to separate. Then you realize that she won by 1 minute and that is too much because the other runners ran too slow. That is not how it works. Had the field run 16:30, her speed rating would have been worse.

"Also, Jenna Hutchin's time (15:58.42) was remarkable, but many runners had fast performances and high speed ratings ... Jenna Hutchin's rating today was 167, and I'm sure some people were expecting a higher speed rating ... Remember that fast, easy courses give less time for the very best runners to separate themselves from the field and other good runners of known ability, and that typically lowers the rating somewhat for the winner"

So using your earlier point, had she paid off the other runners to run slower, her speed rating would have been higher.

Dr. of the right wrote:

So using your earlier point, had she paid off the other runners to run slower, her speed rating would have been higher.

not that I am suggesting that, but I believe that would have been the result.

She will run 15:30 next year and still not have the highest speed rating.

Not Her Dad wrote:

She will run 15:30 next year and still not have the highest speed rating.

it all depends on how fast the field runs :)

The girl who finished 2nd to Jenna Hutchins at RunningLane was freshmen Mia Prok (Niwot HS in Colorado) … she is very good freshman XC runner (has the 3rd highest Speed Rating of any freshman girl in the nation) … I followed her the entire season, and her seasonal speed ratings starting with the most recent are: 133 147 138 139 136 141 129 130 … the highest, 147 (actually 147.01), was against finishing 2nd the Jenna Hutchins at RunningLane.

I have multiple speed ratings for most of the top 100 girl finishers at RunningLane … 12 of these 100 had no previous or subsequent speed rating data, and 5 have only the RunningLane race data (and were excluded from all stats) … So I had multiple speed rating data for 83 of the top 100 girl finishers just from this season to use when speed rating the RunningLane meet.

And when looking at the Girl’s Speed Ratings from the RunningLane National Meet, 41 of the top 83 had their career high speed rating … Jenna Hutchins was not one of them despite running faster than 16:00 … about half of the field had a career day with respect to speed ratings and 89 of the top 100 set their XC race time PRs.

Ignoring speed ratings altogether at RunningLane … A straight multi-race correlation between the runners (time difference correlation between each of the top 100 finishers with ALL other top 100 finishers) shows the same statistical result as noted by the speed rating results.

That result being that the majority of the 99 girls behind Jenna Hutchins closed the gap between themselves and Jenna Hutchins based on previous race results … actually 58% closed that gap … and that’s why Jenna Hutchins’ speed rating was only 167 … and it does not deserve to be any higher than the posted value.

Quickly for boys at RunningLane … I had multiple race data for 177 of the top 200 finishers … 99 of these 177 boys set career speed rating PRs … Like the girls, that is a very high percentage … and a majority of boys closed the gap between themselves and the winner (not unusual on a fast easy course) … Maybe I over-rated both races (but I didn’t), and the top 80 boys ALL set 5K XC race time PRs.

One method of demonstrating an exceptional XC performance by a girl is compare her time to boy’s … Something similar to “she would have finished in the top 25 of the boy’s race” … The Boys’ race at RunningLane was about equal in quality to a Nike NXR Southwest Regional Qualifying race … Many of the top teams from the Southwest Region came to RunningLane (but not all … but good teams from Southeast were there to make up for it) … And with respect to Jenna Hutchins, her 15:58.42 time (fastest ever for any HS girl on a 5K course) would have finished 150th in the boys’ race … she was 1:31.5 slower than boy’s winner Parker Wolfe which makes her 167 speed rating agree nicely with Wolfe’s 195 rating.

To paraphrase a common complaint I get “My team (or my runner) ran a better-than-normal race and your speed ratings don’t show it, so there is something wrong with your speed ratings!” … At times I ask “How about the other runners in the race – How did they run?” … A common answer, “Who cares about them?, my team or runner set a course record or ran an exceptional fast time or team average record!”

Speed ratings care about the other runners … Speed ratings measure “who beat who and by how much?” and “how fast did runners run relative to other runners?” … Speed ratings don’t care about course records … Usually speed ratings are higher when teams or runners run a better-than-normal race … But when many runners run a better-than-normal race, the speed ratings indicate it and that’s exactly what I want to know when betting an upcoming race.

I’ve had three emails asking me to apologize to Jenna Hutchins for under-rating the “greatest high school performance of all-time” … Well I’m sorry that it is speed-rated correctly.

I think Jenna Hutchins might be capable of posting an exceptional 170+ speed rating at Foot Locker, Balboa Park where separation from top elite runners can be demonstrated … But credit for doing it must wait until it happens … Foot Locker has posted date of Dec 11, 2021.

Thank you for the comprehensive reply. You got me curious about the stats so I started checking and have found 4 boys already in the top 80 who have faster PRs than what they ran at RunningLane. The fastest I found was Justin Wachtel who has a 14:26 PR.

Rate This wrote:

Speed Ratings just jumped the shark. The official national record doesn't make the top 40 all-time performance speed ratings list but the runner then also sets the all-time national 5k track record. Maybe that track was all downhill.

Jenna Hutchins got Speed rated at 171 this season. Which makes her one of only a handful of girls to break 170

Also remember that speed ratings compare you to the runners around you. The runners you're competing against. It's not meant as a historic barometer

Further not many girls ran track 5Ks during cross-country season so there's not a lot of competition for that record

Basically there's no doubt that Jenna Hutchins is running really fast historically, but speed ratings only tell you how you relate to the girls around you. And it's probably pretty likely that other girls stood out more in relation to who they were competing against

Anyway I think she's the only other girl besides Katelyn Tuohy to break 170 in the last decade so speed ratings are very accurate. It's just the competition is also improving

Hutchins is right up there with Tuohy in terms of reaching an incredibly high level of running, but the thing is that there's a lot more girls running really fast recently so it's not as hi a number in comparison

Try to think about it a little more logically instead of just going for the emotional

YMMV wrote:

I would predict the same as I did for Hutchins: 15:32.

Doesn't Sydney have on more track race on the docket?

What do people expect for Sydney in the mile this Saturday? Will be probably the first time to see what speed she has.

Rauber 4:39

Thorvaldson 4:40

Sounds right. By year end, Hutchins 4:32, Brown 4:33, Rauber 4:34, and Thorvaldson 4:35.

Go run fast and jump wrote:

Sounds right. By year end, Hutchins 4:32, Brown 4:33, Rauber 4:34, and Thorvaldson 4:35.

I can't see anything close to those mile times for those runners. Hutchins today ran 9:52.3 for 3200 (all by herself) something like 2:24/2:30/2:31/2:27 for her 800 splits. This is also a long way from 9:30.

FastTuohy wrote:

Go run fast and jump wrote:

Sounds right. By year end, Hutchins 4:32, Brown 4:33, Rauber 4:34, and Thorvaldson 4:35.

I can't see anything close to those mile times for those runners. Hutchins today ran 9:52.3 for 3200 (all by herself) something like 2:24/2:30/2:31/2:27 for her 800 splits. This is also a long way from 9:30.

That’s for sure! None of those girls can even break 4:40 for the full mile let alone those mile times. Except for Brooke, the other three are all trying to break 3200m, 2mile, and 5k records because it is way harder to break records in the 1600 and mile. There coaches are doing them a disservice for their college careers by racing those higher distances so much. It is much easier to go up in distance than to go down. They will not see much gain in college in the distances they race so much until they learn how to race at shorter distances. They are not even in the same league as the recent HS greats at the Mile and 1600 like Tuohy, Starliper, and Hart! Or even Parks, Starcher, and Dudek!

Looking back can we all acknowledge the running lane course was either short or extremely downhill or some combination of the two. Some kid from my local area ran sub 15 and i know his track times will be slower than the top guys that have come through my state, which very few (maybe 2-3) have broken 15.

It's great to hear from guys who don't run in the meets and don't attend the meets and probably don't even watch the meets. I ran ran the course both days and measured it at 3.17 and 3.18 which is right in line with what I normally get on a cross country course. The start and finish line were next to each other with at most a few feet of elevation difference. Wachtel ran 14:36 and then ran 14:15 on the track 2 weeks later. Hutchins ran 15:58 and then ran 15:34 on the track 2 weeks later.