ED EYESTONE: Batty would have been top 5

Really? Do you really not see the advantage that might be there? Look at those ahead, not all of them matter (e.g., Levins).

He has to be 23 seconds faster to beat Levins -- and drop 7 sticks. If the 4/5 guys each are half that delta Time (i.e., 11 seconds) slower, they both add more than 20 sticks for a net loss of 35 in the team scoring. That same 11 seconds on 2/3 saves 7-10 each.

If BYU adds a mere 11 points they go from the podium to 6th and if they add 60 (remember it will also lower the scores of their competitors) it takes them down to 9th. The effect is not likely to be that large, but it likely made the difference of 4th versus 6th.

26mi235 wrote:

Really? Do you really not see the advantage that might be there? Look at those ahead, not all of them matter (e.g., Levins).

He has to be 23 seconds faster to beat Levins -- and drop 7 sticks. If the 4/5 guys each are half that delta Time (i.e., 11 seconds) slower, they both add more than 20 sticks for a net loss of 35 in the team scoring. That same 11 seconds on 2/3 saves 7-10 each.

If BYU adds a mere 11 points they go from the podium to 6th and if they add 60 (remember it will also lower the scores of their competitors) it takes them down to 9th. The effect is not likely to be that large, but it likely made the difference of 4th versus 6th.

You both make good points. In the end, I highly doubt Batty would have been top 5. Maybe he would have nipped the pack behind Puskedra for 7th or so, but Eyestone is off in saying he would have been top 5. At the same time, the team probably did better because he ran with the team.

You are in the wrong business. Why aren't you coaching. You obviously know the athlete and team better than the coach. Not only that, you know running better than a world class athlete with more experience than you.

Bravo.

"Pack running" is dubious at nationals; Batty's teammates don't need to see him in order to run their own good races. But there's a legitimate basis for Eyestone's opinion. Going with the lead group is a risk: you might blow up. If Batty were calculating strictly as an individual, he might well have decided that the chance of finishing in the top 5 is worth the risk of tanking and finishing 50th. If he's thinking as a team member, it becomes less rational to take that kind of risk.

This is why Chris Derrick was right not to try to go with Lawi. He might have had a win in him (unlikely, but who knows?). He might also have gotten in over his head, rigged up, and finished 20th. Maybe worth the risk for an individual; probably not worth the risk if your team is counting on your low stick.

Well put, this is what Eyestone meant. He also didn't say Batty would be Top 5, he said he'd be in the group for top 5, as in running near the front and competing for a top 5 spot—running a gutsier race because he need not focus on delivering a strong but safe performance for his team.

If Batty was good enough to finish fifth, he would have finished fifth. Team tactics don't hold you back that much. If he was cruising for 8k, he could have picked it up and hammered for the last 2k, but he didn't. He didn't catch anyone after 8k and the two OK State runners put distance on him.

Still a great run for Batty.

Dean is spot on. If he had anything left he wouldn't have lost ground to German and Colby in the last 2K. I had a laugh when Batty won his regional to be honest. I had a feeling he wouldn't be in the mix at nationals. On many occasions I have seen guys run well at home when nothing is on the line. Levins didn't have any reason to run hard at regionals.

dean moriarty wrote:

If Batty was good enough to finish fifth, he would have finished fifth. Team tactics don't hold you back that much. If he was cruising for 8k, he could have picked it up and hammered for the last 2k, but he didn't. He didn't catch anyone after 8k and the two OK State runners put distance on him.

Still a great run for Batty.

This is correct. They blathered on about Wisco all finishing together all year but they won the title by all running on their own as they should. The "spread" which is really idiotic for anybody to even worry about was 1:13.

BYU 3-5 runners couldn't even see Batty at the mile as they were all more than 5 seconds back in a huge pack.

My guess is Batty running as an individual would have either finished the same as he did or "went for the win" and finished lower.

I don't think Coach Eyestone meant Batty would have been top 5. He probably meant he could have gone out with the top 5 and perhaps have finished there. However, going out a little more conservatively probably resulted in a better final place. He chose a conservative race for a good place rather than risking going out in the top 5 and hoping for the best.

The problem with Eyestone's statement is that Batty was not the only guy racing primarily for his team and not for himself. After all, at least Krause, Lowe and Fernandez (and perhaps Ryan Hill, David Forrester and Andrew Colley)were all racing on the conservative side. Would Batty have beat those guys if he was going full out and so were they? No way of knowing, so Eyestone prediction is based on limited data.

[quote]snow wrote:

From the Salt Lake Tribune:

I understand the whole "pack running" strategy but not once during the entire race did Batty run with another guy on his team. Instead, he was tag-teaming it with Medina and others.

You idiot. were you in the race? did you even watch it? batty ran with shields for a long time in the first third of the race. then he tried to take off. he was in no man's land forever.

Batty ran the smartest race possible, just like Chris Derrick. If here were good enough to run for the top 5, he would have. Instead, he had nothing to move up with the last 2k, showing that he ran a perfectly paced race and could have expected nothing but a lower finish had he gone out faster.

He did say he would have finished in the top 5. he could have been in the group. he could have gone out with them. instead he chose to run farther back than he has all year with his teammates then try and move up. maybe he did have a bad race, its hard to catch the top guys at nats, but the point is he went out more conservative with his team. heres the actual quote:

“Miles sacrificed for team glory,” a pleased BYU coach Ed Eyestone said. “He could have been in the group for top five.

“We’re very excited, very ecstatic. It was the culmination of a long season.

miles and eyestone were happy with where he finished.

and look at the batty and shields 2k splits hater.

31 14 Miles Batty SR BYU 5:46

32 22 Rex Shields JR BYU 5:46

This year's field was so deep. There were at lesat 20 guys who were capable of being top 5 on their best day. Miles Batty definitely was. It seems pretty clear that if he really wanted to go for the top 5 he wouldn't have let the pack go like he did. Instead he ran a consistent race for him and helped his team by not going out too fast and blowing up. If that would have happened BYU probably would not have been 4th.

watch the race wrote:

and look at the batty and shields 2k splits hater.

31 14 Miles Batty SR BYU 5:46

32 22 Rex Shields JR BYU 5:46

The first 2k means very little in a 10k race. I know they go down hill past the grandstands but they were still running 28:50 pace.

The name "Ed Eyestone" gives me the heebie-jeebies for some reason.

It does look like Batty held back in the first 2k. Rather than running right up at the front he was in 31st.

He finished 14th. His last 5k and last 2k were both 15th best in the field.

If he had gone out near the lead at 2k (~5 seconds faster) and run the rest of the race the same he would have only gained 2 places. He also could have gone out and lost places after 5k rather than holding his place.

By running the first 2k a fraction slower he gave up a chance at the top 5 and also limited the risk of blowing up and hurting the team.

So yeah, I'd say he ran a smart team race.

So, in conclusion, he ran as fast as he could and placed 14th.