Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2014 w100 Marks Snob Rankings

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 2014 w100 Marks Snob Rankings

    Uh oh, the Marks Snob has a problem here. The women's 100 this year was WOEFULLY bereft of good data-points!

    The de facto World Championships happened at the Monaco DL, where almost all the best showed up and ran fast. After that, the only other meet with multiple suspects showing up was Zurich DL.

    What we saw was
    Monaco: Bowie - VCB - Ahoure - Okagbare - Felix - SAFP
    Zurich: VCB - Ahoure - Okagbare - Schippers

    What this means is that the sequence of marks emerges as a real deal-make/breaker.

    In this regard we have

    Ahye: 10.85 - 10.88 - 10.98 = 10.90
    Okagbare: 10.85 - 10.93 - 10.97 = 10.91
    Bowie: 10.80 - 10.91 - 11.05 = 10.92
    VCB: 10.86 - 10.96 - 10.96 = 10.92+

    which, essentially, is too close to call, given the vagaries of the conditions (and no, we're not going to look at 'basic times', because track composition plays too big a role).

    So now we're back to just two REAL meets.

    We see this order in both races: VCB-Ahoure-Okagbare, so that's that. Where does Ahye and Bowie fit in?

    Bowie beat them all in the #1 race and ran the #1 time. Is that enough?

    Ahye ran great times but didn't prove herself in either of the two biggest races - sorry, you're #5.

    When the smoke cleared, I had to give it to Bowie with her awesome win in the by-far top race in a SL. So we have

    1. Bowie
    2. VCB
    3. Ahoure
    4. Okagbare
    5. Ahye
    6. Schippers - Felix - SAFP - Bartoletta

    Feel free to praise my mad analytical skillz!

  • #2
    What about Kerron Stewart who was 2nd in the DL, behind Bowie, going into the final.

    How did her overall season look?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by ATK View Post
      What about Kerron Stewart who was 2nd in the DL, behind Bowie, going into the final.
      How did her overall season look?
      Not so bono

      best times w/finishes

      11.02 2nd in Kingston
      11.07 3rd in Glasgow
      11.08 2nd in Rome

      the problem is that the DL was very weak this year in the w100.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Atticus View Post
        Not so bono

        best times w/finishes

        11.02 2nd in Kingston
        11.07 3rd in Glasgow
        11.08 2nd in Rome

        the problem is that the DL was very weak this year in the w100.
        Based on that, she must be ahead of Felix and SAFP by all conceivable criteria.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Atticus View Post
          ... we have

          Ahye: 10.85 - 10.88 - 10.98 = 10.90
          Okagbare: 10.85 - 10.93 - 10.97 = 10.91
          Bowie: 10.80 - 10.91 - 11.05 = 10.92
          VCB: 10.86 - 10.96 - 10.96 = 10.92+

          which, essentially, is too close to call, given the vagaries of the conditions (and no, we're not going to look at 'basic times', because track composition plays too big a role).
          Well, you just about undermined your whole post here - because some factors also come in to play we will ignore that one that is most easily quantifiable and has been shown to be most systematically important.

          Another factor is if you take the top three times, are you taking three of ten or three of three. It makes a really big difference and this seemingly appropriate 'metric' has easily identifiable biases that are not even acknowledged. Now how is that for praise of your 'mad analytical skillz'. [On the other hand, your verbal skills almost always outshine mine.]

          Comment


          • #6
            don't know about the analytical skills but do agree with your rankings

            Comment


            • #7
              every time I look at this one I come up with a different answer (and none of the answers are particularly satisfying)

              Comment


              • #8
                You cannot legit use a couple of races and call them the main criteria for a no.1 decision when the season has had different priorities at different times for some athletes.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by bennyg View Post
                  You cannot legit use a couple of races and call them the main criteria for a no.1 decision when the season has had different priorities at different times for some athletes.
                  But that, in a nutshell, is exactly what I'm saying. The biggest races are when everyone SHOULD be at their best, because it's when it counts the most. That's why I stay away from
                  a. early season races - Pre being the earliest (i.e., don't compete there unless you're ready to compete there).
                  b. smaller meets/races, when only a few of the event's truly elite will even be there.

                  The Marks Snob Rankings only look at the very best competing against the very best . . . AT their best (hence good marks being an entering argument - tho who beats whom is the still the top criterion).

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by bennyg View Post
                    You cannot legit use a couple of races and call them the main criteria for a no.1 decision when the season has had different priorities at different times for some athletes.
                    Of course you can; it's the only pragmatically functional methodology there is. If Athlete A wins his/her most important meet and Athlete B does likewise (because A and B werent' allowed in each others' races), what do you do, flip a coin? The only rational answer is to determine which meet(s) came closest to being important for everyone. And the best criterion for assigning that is the number of top-rated people who show up (with whatever motivation). It's far from perfect, but I can't think of a better way.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      GH - As you say it is probably the only pragmatically functional methodology there is. However, the fairness in making one's judgment for AOY for an event depends on the weighting one gives.

                      Athlete "A" has targeted the CG as their season peak objective; athlete "B" the EC, and athlete "C" the Asian Champs. Athlete "D" comes from a country that is not eligible to compete at the CG, EC or Asian Champs, such as the USA. Athlete "D" decides to target the DL-Brussels as their season peak objective.

                      "A", "B", "C" and "D" all compete at the DL-Brusslels. "D" has peaked for this event. However, "A", "B" and "C" are a month or more past their peak.

                      Is it fair on "A", "B" and "C" to give DL-Brussels a greater weighting than the CG, EC and Asian Champs in deciding on AOY for this event?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Tuariki View Post

                        Athlete "A" has targeted the CG as their season peak objective;
                        athlete "B" the EC, and athlete
                        "C" the Asian Champs.
                        Athlete "D" comes from a country that is not eligible to compete at the CG, EC or Asian Champs, such as the USA. Athlete "D" decides to target the DL-Brussels as their season peak objective.
                        "A", "B", "C" and "D" all compete at the DL-Brusslels. "D" has peaked for this event. However, "A", "B" and "C" are a month or more past their peak.
                        Is it fair on "A", "B" and "C" to give DL-Brussels a greater weighting than the CG, EC and Asian Champs in deciding on AOY for this event?
                        In a word, Yes.
                        Athletes A and C have a flawed (in re: a high ranking) model in that they will probably not meet many top-tier athletes in their most-important-competition. Athlete B has a better chance, but still does not have the ability to beat the best. It's almost only in the the biggest DLs [this year - a little different for every event] that the Biggies can meet.
                        It is 'fair' to give the DL (Monaco & Brussels were huge this year in selected events) top billing, because it was only in that meet that you can compare athletes on an even footing. An athlete may not be 'peaked' (which is not as precise a science as some believe, which is why many elite athletes can stay at their best for two months) for that DL, and that's their choice, but the reality is, if you get beat there, you just got beat by the best and will not have another chance (at the Asian Champs, for example) to meet them again.
                        The only way you can succeed at the Rankings Game with facing the best would be in the 10K/Mar or Dec/Hep, where you put up a number so ridiculous that everyone must acknowledge it.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X