SIMPLE Reason Speed Ratings R Higher 4 FOOT LOCKER... and some general Discussion

That is a problem isn't it? But some of you rely more on speed ratings than real world times.

He wrote an in depth analysis of the 2019 Footlocker vs NXN speed ratings:

http://tullyrunners.com/articles/Footlocker_NXN_2019.htm

Lots of articles here that answer your questions:

http://tullyrunners.com/Articles.htm

couldn't you just give me bullet points and save me a little time

Anyway that one graph seems to prove my point at least for that year

I Footlocker the top 5 or 10 times all skew High

While at nxn they actually skewed down

I'm telling you a Footlocker at the top give a tougher effort than the middle of the pack while most other High School races are much more consistent

Speedier than a Rating wrote:

That is a problem isn't it? But some of you rely more on speed ratings than real world times.

What are you blabbering about? It's not a problem except for one race Which is less than 1% of speed ratings

And even then it's like only inflated by 3 to 6 points so it's not a big deal

Anyway how the hell else can you compare times that are competed with varying difficulties of over a minute or more

He has bullet points in the article one of which addresses your point:

In typical Foot Locker form, the back 1/3 or 1/4 of the field ran increasing slower than the rest of the field (so they mostly get ignored when deriving the speed ratings)

----

So that graph does not prove your point. You need to do more reading and less typing.

Yeah this is probably right to some degree. It all depends on the year. Foot Locker is a race that could skew higher more easily. I could see some races being knocked down from like 1 to 5 Points depending on how much the top Runner wins by but. More data points you have the more reliable the overall score will be so I'm sure for races with tons of history and tons of competitors it's a lot harder to having off the chart performance. But with a small race especially on a course without much history easier to have an outlier.

Nah I'm pretty sure I'm right bro! If he's ignoring a third of the field and he's only got twenty-five datapoints much easier to have a skewing

I know how he does speed ratings I know the math. I taught myself differential calculus when I was 14. Trust me at Footlocker the top competitors just give a bigger effort and that's why it gets skewed top-heavy. Just look at how many of the elite speed rating time's happen at Foot Locker. It's simply because it's a small race where the fastest run 100% And The 5 through 40 runners give less effort

Exactly! Which is pretty much summed up by the fact that Footlocker is one of the few individual cross-country meet of the year. So yeah, I agree, when you have Runners running individually is much less incentive for middle-of-the-pack runners than there is if they were in a Team Battle. Just look at the way the first few Runners cross line in Footlocker compared to the middle of the pack.

100 girls race course A this week in perfect conditions and 99 of them go tactical because Thorvaldson takes off from the gun and they know they have no chance. Thor runs 15:58 and runner 2 finishes in 17 minutes and each runner after is another 1 second behind that. The next week, they all show up again in the identical conditions. The coaches of the 99 girls all told them all week that this course is lightning fast and that they can run with Thorvaldson and can certainly finish with a PR if only they have confidence. Thorvaldson takes off again and runs the identical race never seeing the 2nd place finisher. For all she knows, 2nd is 16 flat or 17 or 20 minutes. It does not matter. The 2nd place girl finishes in 16:20 this week and a handful of girls run sub 17. Somehow Thorvaldson has a different speed rating.

So you agree? Anyway I think speed ratings overall are pretty good and pretty accurate

The only reason I posted was cuz everyone always goes on and on about Footlocker and how some speed ratings are inflated and I just thought this was an obvious and simple reason and it really wasn't ever laid out in a way that most people agree about

It seems pretty clear that speed ratings give you and idea about how you relate to the field you just ran against

And Bill does his best to standardized the field so there's some reliability

But you much likely to get a high speed rating in a race where you win by a lot with a huge effort against a small field of Runners that only maybe give 90 95% of the same effort

Speed ratings work great overall to give you an idea of where you are compared to the competition on any given season! And they are really accurate for the vast majority of big high school team Cross Country meets.

Basically, as a couple of other people have said, they really are not a historical guide for comparing Runners from different seasons, because at the end of the day they tell you where you are compared to your competition. But obviously especially on the girls side the track times have been improving steadily, and a lot more girls are running times 950s for 2 miles sub 440 for the mile. But you haven't really seen a progression in speed ratings historically on the girls side.

Bill does a good job to give kids a snapshot of where they stack up compared to other kids that season. And 90% of the time the winners of the big meets and the order of finish is right in line with the better seasonal speed ratings

Must be nice to be wrong 10% of the time.

I've never recruited off Speed Ratings.

Yeah it's kind of an interesting thing the idea of assessing speed ratings historically verse just as a tool to compare in season runners. I think Bill does try to look at the history of courses but, I think it's more about how you compared to your fellow runners. At the end of the day better competition makes it harder be a huge outlier. Also I heard that they Balboa Park run a little slower over the years by adding wood chips. If this is significant it could be a reason why past performers had a higher speed ratings than the most recent runners, but I'm not sure about this just stuff I've seen posted on the board

Standard Setter wrote:

Must be nice to be wrong 10% of the time.

I've never recruited off Speed Ratings.

Yeah but I'm sure you're not a blind fool and you don't just take every time on a cross-country course as face value!

I mean I'm sure you have your own internal speed rating for how good a performance is which is really just all a speed is it's just a standardized form for most people sense of how times compared on different courses

Like you just had a lot of really good Runners running way slower on Bowdoin Park in New York because it was run on a crazy tough course in Winter rain conditions. I'm sure you take that into account otherwise you don't know what you're doing

When Hutchins and Thorvakdson run 9:29, maybe some of you will realize that track times are real but speed ratings are just another man's view of cross country performances.

I'll tell you why speed ratings can be valuable. Look at 2017 nxn and Katelyn Tuohy s breakout performance

She was running times of 1650 and low 17 minutes. You had Kelsey Camille who is running about 30 seconds to a minute slower than her. And then you had girls like London culbreath who was running times similar to Katelyn Tuohy and you have Katelyn Hart who runs in Illinois on 3 Mile courses but was also competitive with them maybe a little slower

Katelyn Tuohy was running on really hard courses and was getting speed ratings of around 170. Kelsey chmiel had been able to in her career come close to 160. London culbreath was in the high 140s. Katelyn Hart in the low 150s

Anyway if you just looked at times Tuohy and culbreath would have been the same with Katelyn Hart right behind them and Kelsey Camille slower than them all

But if you look at speed ratings you would get an accurate picture of reality

I'm sure a lot of people here saw the race but culbreath and hart made the mistake of trying to keep up with Tuohy while Kelsey chmiel paced her self in a smart way

And the predictable thing happened that both Culbreth and Hart blew up and had worse races and they would have. And the one with the slowest speed ratings had the worst race because she went out with a girl who is by Times the same as her but by speed ratings on a whole nother level

Anyway if Culbreth and hart would have paced themselves accordingly to speed ratings they would have had way better races but if you're just looking at times you would have no way of knowing that....

Clearly it's not perfect but it works really well if you understand that there's always going to be some variability with Runners from race to race

Cross Country Speed Ratings were never intended to be historical record markers of significance like Track & Field records ... Like thoroughbred speed ratings that were invented in the early 1970s by Andrew Beyer and a mathematician at Harvard, I adapted the concept for the purpose of predicting the results of upcoming XC races (I wanted to know if the Tully girls were at a “performance level” having a chance to win a State title in the upcoming season).

Foot Locker was the highest elite “performance level” in high school, and evaluating the top runners is interesting … But right from the start, it was obvious that Foot Locker National races are unique and different in profile from seasonal XC races … So speed rating them initially required some approximations and assumptions … Small races (32 runners at the time) where the slower finishers were typically below seasonal levels and the top runners seemed to be excessively fast.

So one initial assumption used to speed rate older Foot Locker races was that mid-level finishers (give or take) were approximately at the same “performance level” from year-to-year with some variability (because some years are a bit better than others) … This allows an initial “ball-park” estimation of the speed ratings via correlation with the most recent Foot Locker races … That coupled with comparative profiling of all Foot Locker races annually (meaning graphical comparison which shows runner separation and “possible” higher speed ratings) and my “best-guess” led the Foot Locker Speed Ratings of most older races … It would not surprise me if some are over-rated a bit, but not by much based on the methodology (but maybe enough to question a “precise” record-keeping list).

Foot Locker Quality … Relative “performance levels” of Foot Locker changed with the advent of Nike Team Nationals, especially when NXN included individual runners (Foot Locker got slower for the most part) … In my opinion, the lack of competition due to dividing the top runners (especially on the boys-side) has resulted in some lower Foot Locker speed rating in recent years.

Why are some Foot Locker Speed Rating so High? … Two possible reasons:

(1) Top runners actually competing with each other and trying to run fast, especially pre-NXN years.

(2) Balboa Park has one “natural separation” section that allows the very top runners (having great days) to separate themselves from other elite runners who are racing at a normal level.

I will use last year’s girls race as an example … Zofia Dudek went from a speed rating best of 160 (pre-Foot Locker) to a Foot Locker speed rating of 169 … In my opinion, Zofia Dudekwould not have run nearly as fast as she did (16:45) without the competition … she was effectively paced through nearly 2 miles by Katelynne Hart who set fast splits for everybody … she entered the Balboa “natural separation” section(the 2nd time up-and-down the hill) with three close competitors (Starliper, Hart, and Vanderkooi) … Dudek took the lead surging up the hill only to be passed by Starliper near the top of the hill and get slightly gapped by Starliper coming the hill … the 2nd time up-and-down the hill commonly separates runners at Foot Locker … Dudek had to run all-out to the finish to beat Starliper … I doubt the times would have been nearly as fast without the competition that simply does not occur during the season … and the race was missing Katelynn Tuohy, Sydney Thorvaldson, Claire Walters, Brooke Rauber and Charlotte Bednar (probable competitors pre-NXN years)

Think about the guys Foot Locker 2019 was missing … Watch some the older boy’s Foot Locker videos and how the guys raced … even early tactical races became very fast finishing races with separation.

But one bottom-line … Any speed rating usefulness of Foot Locker ratings in predicting future races is mitigated because the season has mostly concluded ... so from a betting perspective, what good are they?

Track Times vs. Speed Ratings ... That's a whole other subject ... I think runners now have more opportunities than in "older" years (Brooks PR, Arcadia for those not in CA, and other races including "pro" types races) ... The correlation of track times with speed ratings differs somewhat between different States such as NY and CA.

Very, very much appreciate your work Mr Meylan. Statistical analysis of running data has a few standouts and your work is definitely up there as it has had an impact on US HS XC.

With regards to track times, it’s always interesting to see how many sub 9:00 3200 meters/converted 2 milers there are. Im guessing that number usually lines up with the number 190+ SR boys plus or minus a few each year

Betting not. There have been as many as 50 boys go sub 9 and it has been averaging about 35 over the last 10 years. But go back a few years earlier and there were only a handful.