IL detweiler park question

ric flair woo wrote:

So Tully Runners has Josh Methner's 14:11 at detweiler this year as a 188 speed rating. They rated Liam Anderson's NXN win as a 201. And if each point is worth 3 seconds, they are basically predicting that Liam Anderson could run a 13:32 on detweiler, which would beat Craig Virgins record by 18 seconds. Am I understanding how speed ratings work correctly?

Speed ratings have and always will be inaccurate. When Katelyn Tuohy ran 16:21 on Holmdel Park (a super hilly course where even during the coaches meet, no guys broke 16). Somehow, her speed rating was still well below Amber Trotter’s 180 speed rating at Footlocker Orlando (much hillier and flatter than Footlocker California). Looking at speed ratings from other courses, to run a 180 speed rating, you would have to run sub 16 at NXN and sub 14:30 at Detweiller. These times seem much better than 16:28 on a flat course.

Speedratings wrote:

ric flair woo wrote:

So Tully Runners has Josh Methner's 14:11 at detweiler this year as a 188 speed rating. They rated Liam Anderson's NXN win as a 201. And if each point is worth 3 seconds, they are basically predicting that Liam Anderson could run a 13:32 on detweiler, which would beat Craig Virgins record by 18 seconds. Am I understanding how speed ratings work correctly?

Speed ratings have and always will be inaccurate. When Katelyn Tuohy ran 16:21 on Holmdel Park (a super hilly course where even during the coaches meet, no guys broke 16). Somehow, her speed rating was still well below Amber Trotter’s 180 speed rating at Footlocker Orlando (much hillier and flatter than Footlocker California). Looking at speed ratings from other courses, to run a 180 speed rating, you would have to run sub 16 at NXN and sub 14:30 at Detweiller. These times seem much better than 16:28 on a flat course.

yeah I agree they seem inaccurate and its basically up to the author to select the scale for a particular course and its conditions.

the fanboy in me would love to see a national championship race on detweiler with ritz in his prime and see how fast they could torch that course

My impression is that the speed ratings for individuals can get out of whack if a lot of the field has a good or bad day. I may be wrong, but that is my impression. For example, in the girls race Saturday the top finishers ex Tuohy largely had their "normal" speed ratings, yet my impression is they all had very very good races and times. In the Orlando race I recall all of the runners from one section did very badly and I wonder how much this pushed up the speed rating of Trotter, who as you point out ran a decent time on what looked to be an easy course (that somehow many runners bombed on). Despite all this, I think they are the best thing out there to try to compare most performances, especially when you factor in a number of races. For any one race vs another on a different course, the accuracy probably suffers.

ric flair woo wrote:

So Tully Runners has Josh Methner's 14:11 at detweiler this year as a 188 speed rating. They rated Liam Anderson's NXN win as a 201. And if each point is worth 3 seconds, they are basically predicting that Liam Anderson could run a 13:32 on detweiler, which would beat Craig Virgins record by 18 seconds. Am I understanding how speed ratings work correctly?

NO ... That is NOT how speed rankings work.

Speed ratings are a runner-to-runner comparison and NOT a runner-to-course comparison.

My typical example ... Any invitational meet is raced on any course and the individual runners are speed rated ... the following week, the same runners race on the same course and everybody runs 15 seconds faster ... everybody expects the speed ratings to go up ... BUT the speed ratings stay exactly the same because on a runner-to-runner comparison basis Nothing Changed ... Many Track coaches hate this concept or can’t understand it.

Speed ratings (derived from horse racing) want to know who to bet based on where runners finish relative to each other (time difference between individuals) ... Speed ratings are a measure of relative speed.

The "relative part" is based on statistical derivations and cross-correlation that includes:

(1) seasonal speed ratings of the individual runners

(2) historical statistical profiling on the individual race

(3) historical statistical profiling on the individual course

(4) a cross-correlated library of known race adjustments for the current season and prior seasons

My speed rating process started with one "baseline" race in Section 3 of New York (sectional championships that includes a good cross-section of large and small schools such as Fayetteville-Manlius, Liverpool, Tully and others) ... From that race, I decided that a final time of 26:00 would equal 0 speed ratings points and every 3 seconds faster would add 1 speed rating point ... That’s where the speed rating numbers are derived from.

For every race I speed rate:

(1) I apply the statistical correlation noted above to derive a "race adjustment" ... the "race adjustment" is the number of seconds in time the race was faster or slower than a "baseline" ... the baseline is usually for that race specifically already determined from historical data ... all baselines in my library have been cross-correlated backwards so that applied race adjustments yield times where 26:00 will equal 0 speed rating points.

(2) I take the race adjustment and add it to the actual final times of the race in question ... I then take the adjusted final times and calculate the speed ratings for the race (26:00 will equal 0 speed rating points).

Determining the race adjustment is a time-consuming process when building of databases and data retrieval is included.

The overall process is part statistics and part "art" ... some believe the "art" part means it’s nothing more than Meylan’s opinion ... But most of the "art" part and guessing I have talked about involves statistical iteration which is a well known process in statistics where guesses are made to help fit the available data to find an acceptable solution. The "art" part is also necessary for other situations where anomalies occur in the data and human interaction is required.

Subjective opinion of hard and easy courses has no place or inclusion in speed rating ... speed rating is based on fast or slow and the final times alone are all that is needed to determine if the race was fast or slow ... the final times of the race derive the speed ratings (not weather, mud, hills, flat or any other factor).

The race adjustment for NXN Nationals was 60 seconds for both boys and girls (I added 60 seconds to the final times and calculated the speed ratings) ... Last year, the adjustment was 54 seconds for the boys and 39 seconds for the girls (the boys mucked up the course for girls and made it slower).

This year, 9 of the top 10 boys set speed rating PRs and bunch guys behind them set speed ratings PRs (looked more like a Foot Locker race, but that’s what happens when top competitive runners are in the same race under decent conditions ... the top guys can distance themselves from most runners and that results in higher speed ratings) ... Many girls set speed rating PRs (some by a lot).

Detweiller is a fast course (I suppose 3 miles in distance and being flat helps explain it) ... and it ran quite fast for Detweiller at the Illinois State Meet (the race adjustment was 144 seconds) ... Josh Methner has improved since the State Meet and running against top competition has also improved his speed ratings (Meylan's opinion) ... Also, the top boys at IL State Meet had lower speed ratings than normal (some boys are usually in the 190s), while the girls ran fast (Naperville North girls similar ratings to NXN and Yorkville much higher) ... I don't know how fast Detweiller ran in 1972 when Craig Virgin ran 13:50 (compared to 2018), but 2nd place was 14:20 (so I assume it ran much slower in that 1972 race).

but what we want to know is...what time would dathan ritzenhein have thrown down on detweiler?

so your speed ratings tell us what the times already tell us in the first place: the guy with the fastest time won and therefore was faster

What now strikes me as odd is that in 2018 Tuohy runs 7 seconds faster than she did in 2017 and gets a SR 5 lower. To me this means the course was 20 seconds or so faster in 2018 than 2017. The conditions might support that although 20 seconds seems like a lot. A lot of girls did run good times this year though. But, on the boys side a 6 second faster time in 2018 gets the same SR as 2017. In 2016, a much slower time on the boys side (15:28) also gets a 200 SR, and a slower time on the girls (17:10) gets a 165 SR. My simple mind cannot understand how that can be unless we say the bad conditions in 2017 impacted the girls a lot more than the boys, and 2016 was worse than 2017 which I do not believe.

Speed Ratings Limits wrote:

What now strikes me as odd is that in 2018 Tuohy runs 7 seconds faster than she did in 2017 and gets a SR 5 lower. To me this means the course was 20 seconds or so faster in 2018 than 2017. The conditions might support that although 20 seconds seems like a lot. A lot of girls did run good times this year though. But, on the boys side a 6 second faster time in 2018 gets the same SR as 2017. In 2016, a much slower time on the boys side (15:28) also gets a 200 SR, and a slower time on the girls (17:10) gets a 165 SR. My simple mind cannot understand how that can be unless we say the bad conditions in 2017 impacted the girls a lot more than the boys, and 2016 was worse than 2017 which I do not believe.

The girl's race was 21 seconds faster in 2018 compared to 2017 by my calculations ... In 2017, only 3 girls finished within 1:10 of Katelyn Tuohy ... In 2018, 33 girls finished within 1:10 of Katelyn Tuohy ... It was combination of some girls running faster and Katelyn running slower ... The course was in better condition for the girls in 2018 and that helps a top competitive field of runners like the girls had in 2018 ... Tuohy was not 100% (I wish she was because she could have popped a much faster time).

The boys ran before the girls in 2017 and deteriorated the course for the girls ... and hearing from several coaches and boy runners later on, the front pack of the boys was actually deteriorating the course somewhat for the guys in the back (there is an advantage to being forwardly-placed even in horse races in the mud) ... So by my numbers, Tuohy would have run 15 seconds faster in 2017 had the girls run before the boys.

The Glendoveer course was definitely slower in 2016.

What would Ritz have run at Detweiller? Don Sage was 4 seconds behind Ritz when Ritz set the Orlando FL course record. Sage ran 14:03 at Detweiller at IL state champs a month earlier. So Ritz would probably have come close to Virgin's 13:50 course record but he definitely would not have shattered it by any means.

Detweiller is flat, well maintained, and always competitive. It's a legit course and Virgin was a legit all time high school great. His Detweiller course record has stood up to Jim Spivey, Jorge Torres, Evan Jager, Chris Derrick, and Lucas Verzibicas.

It has always bothered kids from neighboring states, who end up at college with IL kids, to hear about their silly XC PRs. Somehow the kids from the other states who run 9:15, only manage XC PRs of 15:45 but the IL kids who run 9:15 manage to run 14:25 for 3 miles. To make matters worse, they meet up at the Footlocker regional and those 15:$5 kids from Indiana, Michigan, Iowa, and Wisconsin run 15:50 while the 14:25 Illinois kids run 16 minutes. Many of these 14:25 kids go on to run 14:45 on the track in college while the 15:45 kids end up running 14:15.

Short Course IL wrote:

It has always bothered kids from neighboring states, who end up at college with IL kids, to hear about their silly XC PRs. Somehow the kids from the other states who run 9:15, only manage XC PRs of 15:45 but the IL kids who run 9:15 manage to run 14:25 for 3 miles. To make matters worse, they meet up at the Footlocker regional and those 15:$5 kids from Indiana, Michigan, Iowa, and Wisconsin run 15:50 while the 14:25 Illinois kids run 16 minutes. Many of these 14:25 kids go on to run 14:45 on the track in college while the 15:45 kids end up running 14:15.

danny killrea of IL won the FL regional that you talk about. in a 14:53....pretty sure thats either a course record or very close. IL runners also took 3rd and 5th in that race.

Oh and we won the year before in 2016 taking 1st and 2nd with dylan jacobs and jack aho 14:58 and 15:00...and another IL runner got 6th. (dylan won FL nationals)

oh and we won the year before in 2015 with jon davis running 14:57.

Jesse Reiser of IL took 3rd both 2013 and 2014. (the years grant fisher won)

couple years before that we had lukas verzbicas idk if you have heard of him. won the regional back to back (and won nationals)

couple years before that chris derrick won the regional and took 3rd at FL finals

sorry that it hurts your ohio ego to have slower PRs. but saying IL kids go to the regional to run 16 minutes and lose to all the other top midwest kids is not accurate. IL is the Midwest powerhouse, as seen nearly every single year at FL regional and as seen in most NXN regionals where IL often sends 2 teams on the boys side.

Sorry I hurt your feelings stating the truth. Yes Illinois has had some of the best runners in the country. It may even be the best state for distance runners. The guys that you mentioned are pretty much 8:50 type guys, not 9:15. That doesn't change the facts though. Everything that I said is true. You can go through all of the 14:25 IL kids and see what type times they run at Footlocker as compared to the kids coming from other states.

Short Course IL wrote:

Sorry I hurt your feelings stating the truth. Yes Illinois has had some of the best runners in the country. It may even be the best state for distance runners. The guys that you mentioned are pretty much 8:50 type guys, not 9:15. That doesn't change the facts though. Everything that I said is true. You can go through all of the 14:25 IL kids and see what type times they run at Footlocker as compared to the kids coming from other states.

So your only point was to bash guys that don't win our state meet for not making it out of a regional that only takes the top 10 among 13 states.....cool bro. keep patting yourself on the back for being right on that lmao

Short Course IL wrote:

Sorry I hurt your feelings stating the truth. Yes Illinois has had some of the best runners in the country. It may even be the best state for distance runners. The guys that you mentioned are pretty much 8:50 type guys, not 9:15. That doesn't change the facts though. Everything that I said is true. You can go through all of the 14:25 IL kids and see what type times they run at Footlocker as compared to the kids coming from other states.

Matt Pereira ran 14:24 and qualified for FL

Matt Aho ran 14:27 and qualifed for FL

Both of them ran 2016....I'm not even going back further because your trolling isn't worth the time.

durrrrrr wrote:

Short Course IL wrote:

Sorry I hurt your feelings stating the truth. Yes Illinois has had some of the best runners in the country. It may even be the best state for distance runners. The guys that you mentioned are pretty much 8:50 type guys, not 9:15. That doesn't change the facts though. Everything that I said is true. You can go through all of the 14:25 IL kids and see what type times they run at Footlocker as compared to the kids coming from other states.

Matt Pereira ran 14:24 and qualified for FL

Matt Aho ran 14:27 and qualifed for FL

Both of them ran 2016....I'm not even going back further because your trolling isn't worth the time.

I'll go back further.

2011 Malachy Schrobilgen runs 14:28 at detweiler and qualified for FL finals

2011 Michael Clevenger 14:26; qualifies for FL

2011 Grant Nykaza 14:37; qualifies for FL

2009 Martin Grady 14:48; qualifies for FL

2008 Danny Pawola 14:32; qualifies for FL

2003 Michael Popejoy 14:52; qualifies for FL

2002 Stephen Pifer 14:33; qualifies for FL

I left off quite a few because they ran 14:24 and 14:23

Yes, the 2011 guys and prior are legit. The point is that the course used to be accurate but one of the stakes got squeezed in about 5 years ago. It used to wheel about 10 meters short so it was accurate. It now wheels about 30 meters short.

I'm with the 2/3 of the former coaches that believe Virgin's run was 2.96 miles, not the accurately measured 3.0 miles of today's course.

ric flair woo wrote:

So Tully Runners has Josh Methner's 14:11 at detweiler this year as a 188 speed rating. They rated Liam Anderson's NXN win as a 201. And if each point is worth 3 seconds, they are basically predicting that Liam Anderson could run a 13:32 on detweiler, which would beat Craig Virgins record by 18 seconds. Am I understanding how speed ratings work correctly?

I'd have to say the speed ratings are off and/or the conversion. I'd be surprised if Liam were able to run under 14:00 at Detweiller. Illinois has had a lot of kids do well at these national meets and none of them could beat Virgin's time. Predicting 18 second faster than multiple Olympians from Illinois is pretty bold.

BS! All reports on the course have shown it to be within a tight margin of error of 3 miles. Prove otherwise! When did that pole move in?