Monday, October 04, 2010

CCS Girls' Rankings by MV Moose...

As posted below in comment section.

CCS Girls...

Since most of the top teams took the week off, I simulated the Stanford Invite with the "top 13 teams" plus a couple of tough individuals. Turned the crank and out came my rankings for the week. 

1. Gunn 93 ( a bit of a gap to #2)
2. Mountain View 123 (#2 and #3 close)
3. Carlmont 127
4. St. Ignatius 165 (#4, #5, and #6 very close)
5. SLV 166
6. Presentation 170
7. Los Gatos 210 (#7, #8 & 10 close)
8. Scotts Valley 219
9. St. Francis (not simulated, insufficient results)
10. Mitty 223
11. Half Moon Bay (not simulated, insufficient results)
12. Aptos 232 (#12 and #13 close)
13. Palo Alto 239
14. Valley Christian 268
15. San Benito 279
16. Sacred Heart Cathedral (not simulated)
17. Aragon (not simulated)

Gunn wins on the strength of having 4 runners finishing before Mountain View's second finisher. However, MV had five in front of Gunn's fifth and all seven finishing before any other team's fourth!


Thoughts about above rankings?  Anybody want to take a shot at the boys?

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

Are these team rankings based on if they all ran one race together (like they do for the final ranking) or what your ranking is off of current races?

In the end...

Mountain View will be #1 based on their #5 runner.

Santa Cruz will be in the top 15.

Aptos will probably make state but when total results are combined not be in top 15 because of their #5.

Valley Christian will be 2nd ranked WCAL team...as always.

Los Gatos will drop in ranking because of weaker #4 & 5.

Albert Caruana said...

Looks like the rankings are based on these teams competing in one big race together.

Anonymous said...

How are you ranking Gunn so high when they only had two runners in Stanford. I think Gunn is ranked too high.

MV Moose said...

I rolled thirteen teams (plus a couple of individuals, e.g. Huang and Croshaw, that I let displace others) into a single meet based on the core Stanford results. Seeded races, D1, D2, and D3 got their straight times from Stanford. For the D4 teams, I added 30 seconds to each runners' time to account for their "optimal" conditions. (n.b. I could have taken 30 seconds off the times of everyone else, but it was easier to mess with just a few teams times.)

For the teams that weren't at Stanford...
For Gunn, I doubled the times from Stevensen for their #3, #4, and #5. Check the comparisons for other runners, it's pretty close.
For Carlmont and St. Ignatius, I dropped a few seconds off their Earlybird times.
I also assumed Sherman would have finished with Maxwell.
If a team was without one of their top runners, I estimated a time based on prior races, e.g. Korpusik from Presentation.

I was just messing around and thought some of you would like to see the results. Enjoy at your own risk.

Lastly, this is not a prediction for what happens "In the end...." Its the best snapshot I can provide for the current team performances.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, but this doesn't make sense. If you aren't accounting for missing runners for some teams (due to sickness, injury, etc), than how can you take a team of two (i.e. Gunn, and a few others) and add in the other 3-5 missing runners by estimating their time from a completely different race than Stanford? Why wouldn't you do that for all missing runners from all teams then? That doesn't seem statistically equal/fair/correct - but good effort. You should stick to your original rule, from postings in the past, that you only make predictions based on those who run, not "could haves and would haves".

MV Moose said...

Anon #3:
Please reread my guidelines for this "simulated" race.
I DID include missing runners. At least the ones I know about. Please notice I mentioned I included Sherman and Korpusik. I tried to go out of my way to be statistically equal/fair, but can make no claim on being correct.

The reason I deviated from my original rule was the slow week. I guess I have too much time on my hands, insomnia and all.

Best to all.

Kevin said...

Amazing how the "anonymous cowards" (to use a Flotrack term) come out of the woodwork to bash other people's hard work. Anyone who dares to put out a rankings list deserves praise for their efforts, not insult for their mistakes. If you don't like the rankings, make your own! Well done Moose!

Coach Small said...

I don't mind the Anonymous posters...makes things interesting for a normal slow week. As someone who has taken some heat for my rankings I enjoy the discussion, and defending why I ranked teams where I did. Takes some thick skin at times, especially over on Letsrun.com.

The great thing about rankings is everyone has their opinion and it means absolutely NOTHING! This is not the BCS... The beauty of our sport is that on November 13th all the teams come together and race and sort out the rankings themselves. Kids have bad days, good days and sometimes there is a hero or two. While I do wish the best raced each other in the same race, the results are combined and there you have it.

And if you think about it, MV Moose is just as anonymous to me as someone who is "Anonymous."

I appreciate the time MV Moose puts into his rankings and all the comments that result. Makes me feel like there are one or two out there who care about our sport which is on the bottom of the High School sports totem pole!

Anonymous said...

Kevin, I don't see any "bashing" at all. In fact in my comment I started off with "sorry" and also threw in a "good effort". I think you need to not take things so personally. All people are doing are trying to understand the logic/statistics used to get those rankings, and ask some questions or make some suggestions/comments. Isn't that what this blog is for? I don't think MV Moose took it personally, so I don't see why you did?


Again, thanks for the effort Moose!

Craiggypop The Angry Panda said...

Well put, Josh. Rankings are fun to look at and interesting to think about but in the end, anything can happen in November.

Nice job with the "simulated" rankings, MV Moose. I always love reading rankings by others as it gives me an idea of other people's opinions or hints about teams I don't always think about or know much about.

See you on Wednesday, Smalls! Good luck!

Craig Lee

Anonymous said...

Gunn Results from Hawaii:

https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B9VYIJI5jSXPMTY3MGQyODktYjJkMy00MzA2LWExNTUtZmU1MzVkMjI4NTQz&hl=en

GIRLS Varsity
3 miles

1. Erin Robinson - 19:15
2. Sarah Robinson - 19:45
3. Melia Dunbar - 21:30
4. Sylvia Zhang - 23:42
5. Ally Reister - 23:46
6. Kimberly Yu - 24:33

BOYS Varsity
3 miles

1. Andrew Prier - 16:56
2. Peter Chen - 16:58
3. Rury Runser - 17:06
4. Daniel Krigel - 17:56
5. Sam Dawson - 18:18
6. Michael Underwood - 18:19

Boys and Girls both third place teams!

Popular Posts