Author: mixcspeedratings

Above are the graphs from the Boys MITCA race this past weekend. The line hits the y-intercept at 943, so the adjustment is 54 seconds faster than AF2018.

So for Brendan Favazza, the formula is:

(1560-(931.1+54))/3 = 191.6

He won the race, one loaded with all-state talent. THIS DOESN’T MAKE ANY SENSE. IT SHOULD BE HIGHER.

Here is the problem with the graphing method. It assumes that the field you’re comparing is equal.

Allendale Falcon is a pretty fair representation of an invitational. MITCA is not. Neither are States or Regionals. The faster runners are competing and many below our top sevens are not. The line for these races ends up trending towards too low of a number.

That’s where I use REFERENCE RUNNERS.

This late in the year, there are 35,000+ performances from either boys or girls, on average of about 6-7 rated races per runner. There is a built in expectation of one’s rating, and that’s what I used to determine the adjustment for MITCA.

Name	MITCA Time	Unadjusted Rating	Name	2019 Rating	Difference
Aidan Hollandsworth	19:35.2	128.3	Aidan Hollandsworth	162.9	-34.6
Akshay Reddy	16:44.3	185.2	Akshay Reddy	194.4	-9.1
Alan Atkinsmith	17:37.0	167.7	Alan Atkinsmith	169.4	-1.7
Alex Lawhorne	20:18.1	114.0	Alex Lawhorne	135.5	-21.5
Alex Mathews	19:14.9	135.0	Alex Mathews	151.2	-16.2
Andrew Daniels	19:13.7	135.4	Andrew Daniels	140.6	-5.2
Andrew Grier	19:43.5	125.5	Andrew Grier	117.8	7.7
Andrew Lane	15:56.1	201.3	Andrew Lane	204.5	-3.2
Andrew Nolan	15:44.7	205.1	Andrew Nolan	207.5	-2.4
Andrew Sesti	16:20.9	193.0	Andrew Sesti	194.9	-1.9
Armaan Lehal	21:56.1	81.3	Armaan Lehal	98.8	-17.5
Austin Aldrich	19:06.8	137.7	Austin Aldrich	159.3	-21.6
Austin Smelker	17:51.8	162.7	Austin Smelker	173.2	-10.4
Bo Anderson	18:48.8	143.7	Bo Anderson	151.9	-8.1
Braxton Shutko	19:03.7	138.8	Braxton Shutko	147.5	-8.7
Brendan Favazza	15:31.1	209.6	Brendan Favazza	216.7	-7.1
Brenden Schroeder	17:58.3	160.6	Brenden Schroeder	176.6	-16.0
Brenden Wallace	20:59.6	100.1	Brenden Wallace	118.0	-17.9
Bryce Brown	17:07.6	177.5	Bryce Brown	178.3	-0.8
Bryce Mathews	18:53.9	142.0	Bryce Mathews	142.8	-0.7

Here, I am determining how much slower Shepherd ran compared to the average rating. I had 143 matches, showing Shepherd was 7.9 rating points slower than the average rating.

But as with the graphing method, I want to eliminate outliers. Taking the average of the data points between the two lines, Shepherd ran 7.3 points (or 22 seconds slower) than the average rating.

So again, for Favazza:

(1560-(931.1-22))/3 = 217.0

Personally, I prefer using the graphing method first, especially in larger fields. We’re blessed here to have large meets opening the season, such as your Ann Arbor Early Bird, Pete Moss, Corunna, Portage Early Bird, or Under the Lights. Those help set a standard for using reference runners to begin the season. For the record, reference runners were the primary method used for Regionals and State.

Okay, they matter. But not how you think they do.

Came across this tweet the other day and it hit me pretty hard. Although I’ve posted a few times my methodology, it sometimes feels the word isn’t getting across. Which is 100% my fault, not that I’m seeking sympathy, but just giving myself an honest appraisal. I can explain it to myself in my head and in person to others, but usually in a convoluted ramble.

I’ll go into why times DO NOT matter but they really do kind of matter in a bit, but first a reminder of how ratings are created:

On my summer post, I mentioned how I was looking for a baseline. It wasn’t a Eureka! moment, but Allendale Falcon 2018 seemed to fit the bill. In comparison between that race and MIS 2018, the difference between the two ratings was very minimal (on both boys & girls), stdev of that difference also low.

AF 2018 was the baseline for races this year. It may be the baseline for races next year. Other reasons I like it are that it’s in the middle of the season, reasonably healthy competition, and has a large sample of runners.

That large sample helps smooth out the graph. The graph is an S-curve, which you’ll get in almost all races. Extend that out to almost 500 runners, it gives you some pretty identifiable patterns. I drew a line through the mid-section of runners. Why the mid-section? These are your “average” runners, and with a greater number/less variability between “average” runners, one can begin to make an assumption between the difference between two races.

That line hits the Y-intercept at 997 seconds. Invitationals of a decent size (>150) and of comparable quality can then rated against this.

Here’s the graph from Holly this year:

Holly’s line hits the Y-intercept at 1031 seconds. The difference between the two is 34 seconds, and that is the course adjustment FOR THAT DAY. There are some drawbacks to merging races across a day, but I’m strapped for time as is, so that’s what we’re going with for now.

So, Carter Solomon ran 15:26.3 at Holly.
15:26.3 = 926.3
The formula for ratings calculation is: (1560 minus (time minus adjustment))/3
(1560-(926.3-34))/3 = 222.6

You may notice his rating this year was 221.6. AF2018 was listed in 2018 as 3 seconds faster than the baseline that year. I decided to try to keep the numbers consistent through the years, so the formula for Solomon’s race was actually (1560-(926.3-31))/3 = 221.6

TIMES DO NOT MATTER

Let’s say someone missed a turn at Holly and led everyone on a path to make the course 300m long. Every single runner in the boys races added exactly a minute to their time. Carter Solomon runs 16:26.3 in this example. Here’s the graph:

The line hits the Y-intercept at 1091 seconds. 1091-997 = 94. With the 3 second adjustment, then the difference is 91 seconds.

16:26.3 = 986.3
(1560-(986.3-91))/3 = 221.6

You can repeat this exercise for adding 10 minutes, 3 hours, subtracting 5 minutes.

A runner’s individual time, independent of everything else DOES NOT MATTER.

But you said time does matter. Yes, it does. The time it takes a runner to finish a course in and of itself doesn’t. The time it takes a runner to finish a course compared to other runners on that same course the same day does matter. For every runner in every race ever run, there is a time differential between that runner and every other runner in the race (this is the reason you can still make ratings if you start the clock when the first runner crosses the line – it would just be in a different format).

Comparing runners against one another

Athlete	Team	Holly	Difference (WS vs Others)
Peter Baracco	Farmington	987.8	-73.9
Adam Hill	Royal Oak	1006.6	-55.1
Connor Myatt	Royal Oak	1077.3	15.6
Jakar Dhillon	Bloomfield Hills	1057.2	-4.5
Weston Schroeder	Royal Oak	1061.7	0
Ian Dunn	Farmington	1065.1	3.4
Kemp Winkler	Royal Oak	1046.9	-14.8
Kevin Miller	Farmington	1077.9	16.2
Bryan Hanes	Royal Oak	1049.1	-12.6
Jack Rickle	Royal Oak	1081.9	20.2

The chart here shows 10 runners that ran at Holly. Third column is their time in seconds, fourth column is the difference between their time and Weston Schroeder’s time. Adam Hill ran 55.1 seconds faster than Schroeder here.

Now at the OAA White Jamboree the next week:

Athlete	Team	OAA White 2	Difference
Peter Baracco	Farmington	1001.5	-59.5
Adam Hill	Royal Oak	1009.1	-51.9
Connor Myatt	Royal Oak	1046.1	-14.9
Jakar Dhillon	Bloomfield Hills	1046.6	-14.4
Weston Schroeder	Royal Oak	1061.0	0.0
Ian Dunn	Farmington	1061.2	0.2
Kemp Winkler	Royal Oak	1068.3	7.3
Kevin Miller	Farmington	1069.2	8.2
Bryan Hanes	Royal Oak	1071.6	10.6
Jack Rickle	Royal Oak	1085.3	24.3

Same format as before, now Adam Hill ran 51.9 seconds faster than Schroeder. Now Adam’s rating would still being higher, having run the faster time. But relative to one another between races, Schroeder would cut the gap between the two.

This is a tiny example of using reference runners. That is a different, yet still viable method of rating. I’ll get into it next week, but I believe around 100 runners ran at Holly and OAA White 2. The average time difference between the two had OAA White 2 around 24 seconds faster than Holly.

SUMMARY (or just a section where I use another source that might explain it better)

I’m stealing this from the Godfather, TullyRunners. Meylan’s explanations are much longer but cover all the bases:

Well, it’s been a grind, but I’ve gotten through this year in one piece.  This couldn’t be done without support from others.  I have an undying desire to crunch numbers, analyze data, and perform comparisons.  That would likely wane without the response from others.  The tweets, likes, messages, and all-around curiosity keeps me motivated.

Background

Speed ratings became an idea way back in 2007 when I was helping my uncle coaching at Woodhaven.  At the time, I was an avid Dyestat poster and knew of a fellow forum member doing the same thing out in Washington.  For a season, I was spitting out ratings and rankings and posting on the chaotic MLive forums (RIP).  Although I’m in all accounts a nerd, at that time I had little computer knowledge, it became impossible to balance ratings/life/running/school.  

In 2017, I came into work one day at Hansons and found that the person closing the night before had left a list of times from other schools competing for that D1 state title.  Comparing times is no way to evaluate cross country.  School was out of the equation, I’m definitely not running as much, so why not?  This is something I’ve wanted to do, forgot that I wanted to, remembered about, then had the impetus to get it going again. 

The Site

Not a blog.  If it were a blog, you’d know my personal thoughts on “issues”.  Heck, if you follow my twitter, you’re unfortunately privy to my thoughts on issues.  I’m never wrong and have to get the last word in, oh well. 

Anyhow, the site was launched in August 2018.  Enough of the story, you’re getting stats:

Month/Year	Views	Visitors
August 2018	2,281	958
September 2018	4,657	1,607
October 2018	4,391	1,326
August 2019	15,091	3,835
September 2019	18,507	3,799
October 2019	32,493	5,870

Season	Views	Visitors
XC 2018	11,329	3,891
XC 2019	66,091	13,504

Visitors are likely the better metric in tracking growth (more content, more individual page views). 

2018 vs. 2019 = 3.47x visitors, 5.83x page views. 

I should also mention this site will NEVER partner with a RunnerSpace or a MileSplit.  Not that there were any offers.  I value my independence and that stubbornness would be an issue.

Accuracy

An area I struggle with is getting across is that the ratings and projections are not predictions.  They’re not the determining factor in one’s team.  They’re just another data point, one using past results, to hopefully compare one performance against another.  One performance then becomes many performances, those many performances turned into what I look to be an accurate depiction of how championship races will score. 

How accurate were the ratings in 2019?

Category	2018 Overall	2018 %	2019 Overall	2019 %
Team Qualifiers	188 of 216	87.0%	190 of 216*	88.0%
Individual Qualifiers	881 of 1080	81.6%	892 of 1080	82.6%
All-State	191 of 240	79.6%	187 of 240	78.3%
Proj. Place vs. Actual Place	2.35 place difference		2.27 place difference

*(eliminated those additional qualifiers for comparison sake, but I did have 2 of the 3 finishing 4^th)

Improving on three of four ain’t bad.  But you know me, I’m competitive, especially with myself.  I’ll keep plugging away in order to get those numbers higher.

What’s often is heard is that Americans love the story of the underdog.  Miracle on Ice, 1969 Michigan vs. OSU (can we get a repeat of that, please?), I might even throw MSU’s Big Ten winning girls XC team into that mix.  I love when the projections are wrong, it gives greater life to the stories of runners like Jason Millis and Anna Petr, coming through in the final stretch of their final races for their teams.  The projections can’t capture the heart and the tales of great performances.  That’s perfect. 

Stories

In all, there were 50+ races projected this season.  Initially, I believed I could review those immediately, very soon I learned that just wasn’t going to happen.  We have a long, arduous winter ahead of us, and what better to do but look back at those races, interspersed with the stories of those who competed. 

I’ve had many interactions with coaches, parents, supporters, and athletes over the season.  We often lament kids for what we perceive to be negative attributes, they’re the same as when we were kids.  They have more stimuli, more expectations, less time, more stress.  Yet they’re still out here training and hitting pain levels in races that we wouldn’t dare experience.  Their stories need to be told. 

MGoBlog, Spencer Hall, and The Athletic are some of my favorite online reads when it comes to sports.  I grew up listening to Keith Jackson call college football games.  Here you get Spencer Hall writing about Keith Jackson.  I can’t even read the entire article without getting emotional.  Can I write on that level?  Probably not.  Will I try?  Yes.

You ever listen to those old British announcers calling a track meet?  I can hear it now, “Baumann’s a whiiiirlwind on the last lap”, “Gammoudi is bankrupt, so too is Prefontaine”.  Numbers and facts are great, but we can do a better job of crafting a tale. 

Logo

The site desperately needs a unique logo.  With zero design experience, I’m opening this up to you.  I’d prefer it to be minimal, but announce that the site is covering XC in Michigan.  If there are enough submissions, I’ll make it a contest.  If you win said contest, you’ll get free t-shirts/hats/hoodies/other swag.  Yes, I want to make shirts. 

This leads me to…

Money

I will likely place ads on the site.  I really want to be careful with this, for two reasons.  One, they get in the way of everything and diminish the online experience.  Gaudy and cumbersome ain’t gonna happen, minimal will be the way to go. The other is when runners see ads on a site, they see ads for buying running shoes online.  You really need to go support your local running shop.  If the ads start to head into that realm, I’ll pull them.  But I’m an adult, there’s bills to pay, and operating this is a major opportunity cost when it comes to earning money. 

The hope is at some time get to a point where there’s a subscription, but the content isn’t there yet.  See kenpom (easiest $20 spent every year), UMHoops for examples. 

If you want, you can always donate.  I have a paypal link in the bottom right corner.  That money will go towards awards (more on that tomorrow).  Since I’ve been running for awhile and work at one of those local running shops, the awards will be various items that I find useful and humorous. 

Winter Projects

• Figuring out how to code

If I can find a way to cut into the time needed to produce ratings, they’ll be done more accurately.  Manually pulling results, compiling them, then graphing takes a little time.  I’d like to find a method that does this all a bit quicker.  This would also help in the whole website building world.

• Finding a suitable Monte Carlo simulator

Monte Carlo simulations take the speed ratings and then generate thousands of projected races given those ratings. It’s something that gives added value to a consistent runner and takes into account someone who alternates “good” and “bad” races. When you simulate thousands of examples, it helps to eliminate the sample size issue inherent with many of the projections.

• Evaluating incoming freshmen, year to year improvements, track times

You won’t be seeing middle school ratings.  But they’ll secretly be done in order to fully get a grasp of what we can expect from newcomers.  My assumption is that there’s more variability in the length of middle school courses.  I did work on year to year improvement during last winter, but I think I have a better method for determining that this year.  Same with how to add track times into the preseason projections.  Why do all this?

• Regional suggestions

There’s no way Pittsford girls or Pinckney boys should miss out on the state meet.  When you’re arguably a top-10 team in the state, you should be running in November.  I know there are other many other considerations.  We’ve improved from the days of Pioneer, Huron, Saline, Bedford, and Monroe being in the same region.  I know you can’t quantify summer training and coaching.  But maybe we can nail down who is expected to be good and have a good baseline to go from to ensure the best 27 teams are competing on the first Saturday in November.  I’d love to get in that site selection room at some point.  Maps and XC?  You’re really not gonna find a guy more interested in the two than I am. 

• Sub 5/Sub 6 Challenge

Found this on ILXCTF and figured it would be a good idea for Michigan.  Will release details on that before indoor track starts up. 

Thanks for reading all of my rambling.  As I stated, this little project of mine wouldn’t be where it is without you.  And obviously, as I interact with so many, you get a voice.  Please e-mail or message me with suggestions, concerns, encouragement.  I listen even if it’s not immediately apparent. 

I will take a little, tiny break from content, but I’ll be back to evaluate the MITCA race, who to look for at MidEast MOC, and I’ll scout as much as I can so we can get as many FootLocker qualifiers as possible.    

Thank you,

Matt