Saturday, November 05, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Popular Posts
-
You can now view all the entrants plus their performance mark from the section qualifier for this weekend's CA State Track and Field ... -
One more bump. Please list below athletes that you feel belong on the lists below. One more trivia question. Who is the runner ... -
Below is the schedule for the 2013 Cross Country season. If you see any errors, additions or can confirm any dates, please email me at alb...
-
Central Coast Section Results: http://www.rtspt.com/events/cif/2017Meets/ccsxc17/ Sac-Joaquin Section Section Finals: http://timerhub....
-
Just added: Info for Ghebray Invitational on September 22nd. With one extra Saturday in September next year, I started to hunt down the d...
-
Bold meets are confirmed for 2014 season. Non bolded dates are from 2013 season. August 2014 8/22 Ryan Bousquet Memorial Run at Yorba Reg...
-
I will start with one: “Somewhere in the world someone is training when you are not. When you race him, he will win.” — Tom Fleming What...
-
If you are an athlete and you have a question about race strategy, training or anything else that is pertinent to Track & Field and/o...
-
I will continue to update this list throughout the year. Please feel free to add others in the comment section below. I know I do not hav... -
I am very sad to report that Bob Shor passed away this morning after battling illness for the past few year...
16 comments:
Problem with the combined results is it gives people with the same time an assigned ranking based on alphabetical order based on school name. It doesn't matter for estimates but it does for the final ranking when often a teams final rank can be determined by a few points.
Can't the computer give kids with the same time a "tie" for the combined results?
There are lots of problems with combining results like that but the bottom line, it's a fun way to play with all the results and everybody can get a very rough estimate of how the divisions might pan out this coming Saturday.
I might be missing something, but when did Lauren Croshaw, Kylie Goo, and Sarah Schreck run those times that are listed on Crystal? You might want to check the accuracy of all the times from their League race.
Yep, just checked some more PAL VG results...all the times are off by a LOT on this combined race. Looks like a "0" was put in the spot after the ":". For example a 18:23 became a 18:02. Might want to re-do those for some more accurate individual and team estimates.
As a parent of one of the 3 PAL girls who were previously mentioned, believe me they are not stupid, and although "flattered by the ranking my daughter is quite aware that the list is not accurate. Thanks for feeling the need to point out the obvious.
No need to be touchy, they were just pointing out a mistake / typo. It was not a slam.
I have a problem with the alphabetical order... it doesn't work. A few years ago Mt. View was the fastest team in the State yet was 4th or 5th in scoring and was left out of NXN. Makes no sense to me. In a sport that can time down to the hundredth, we should either figure it out or score it as a tie!
Unfortunately at this point in the season comments with names attached as in previous comments usually are meant as a "slam" even if not directly. As Albert points out this list is just fun to look at and play with as you see it. The kids also get a kick out of seeing where an individual or computer may rank them even if inaccurate. They know exactly where they stand in the rankings.
As the person who wrote that comment, it was NOT meant as a slam at all. All I was pointing out was the the times for those three runners was completely wrong/inaccurate/an error. Then I went back and checked and noticed that ALL the girl's times I looked at in that race were wrong (not just those three). That was all I was pointing out. I didn't say anything about the girls AT ALL, just the black and white fact that the times were recorded incorrectly.
Seriously, if you took that as a slam then you should not be on the blogs!! You obviously are a little overly sensitive and need to have a reality check about people just trying to get the real stats used in a comparison. Geez - have a beer and relax!
And as for the comment at 7:31, what does "at this point in the season" have to do with someone's comments about wrong times being used?! Albert was pointing out that the stats can't be perfect, but can't we at least ask them to be accurate?!?! Right now with the massive errors in the girl's times, you can't even use them to compare because they are just plain WRONG. I think that ALL of the girls times in the PAL race are wrong. I didn't even look at the boys, they could be wrong too. The whole rankings (individual and teams) will change if they are corrected.
With my beer in hand, I love all that was read into my little comment. Cheers, I will leave the blogging to the experts.
"I have a problem with the alphabetical order... it doesn't work. A few years ago Mt. View was the fastest team in the State yet was 4th or 5th in scoring and was left out of NXN. Makes no sense to me. In a sport that can time down to the hundredth, we should either figure it out or score it as a tie!"
Mt. View being 5th in scoring (which is the way cross country placement is determined) had nothing to do with ties. At the state meet times are taken to the 10th of a second and the combined results (when comparing across different races) took that into account.
In XC there is no "tie". However the finish judge lines you up in the chute is how you finish, so, nope, the computer can't come up with a tie (I didn't program it to and I'm not going to mess with the programming logic now) so it (the computer) sorts them alphabetically (or however it does it, to tell you the truth, I'm not sure how it sorts after time...).
As for the PAL girls times, yes, they are incorrect (but only the VG times). If you look at the original PAL results, you'll see that all of the results are in MM:SS format EXCEPT the VG which are in HH:MM:SS format (which messed my program up when I downloaded the results - bummer that the same format wasn't used across the board). So, I will fix it tomorrow and then recalc ALL of the results [I mean, what else have I got to do :)] and then will re-post. Even I will be interested in seeing how much it changes the results around.
hank
All fixed. Let me know if you see something that doesn't look right.
hank
It moved Aragon girls from 1st place to 4th place in D2...so I would say that is pretty substantial. Thanks for fixing it Hank, I figured it was some sort of stats/spreadsheet glitch.
Albert,
Thanks for putting this together. Very entertaining. I have a question though. In the Varsity Boys CCS prediction according to posted times, you have Los Altos in 8th with a team time of 1:22:48 followed by Half Moon Bay in 9th with a team time of 1:21:43. Was this just a clerical error? I am fully aware that this list is just pure speculation based on past performance and what really matters is what takes place this coming Saturday. Good stuff though.
I was not the one that put these lists together. Hank Lawson is your man. I am just the middle man that posted the link.
It's possible that a team will be ranked lower than another team with a faster team time based on how their runners will finish. When one team has a superior runner with a very fast time, their team time will be faster but could be ranked lower than somebody with a slower team time.
This is exactly the case on why LA is ranked ahead of HMB (team time means nothing - it's all about place).
hank
Post a Comment