tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6734272724196423841.post8488951787630823229..comments2023-11-03T05:53:58.211-04:00Comments on CFG Analysis: A Look Back at the 2013 Open: Part IAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11451889274303028096noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6734272724196423841.post-477772715013184252013-04-23T20:23:49.863-04:002013-04-23T20:23:49.863-04:00Matt,
In response to your first question (could s...Matt,<br /><br />In response to your first question (could someone have one bad event and still make regionals?), it depends on the region, but generally speaking, no. In the Central East, there were roughly 4800 men to start, so finishing 85th percentile in one event would give you 700+ points and give you no shot to recover. Even in 13.5, after the field slimmed down, 85th percentile was still worth about 500 points. Now, if you're asking whether I think an athlete SHOULD be able to get away with that, I'd say probably not. I was 300th-ish in my region at the end of the day and never finished below 506 in an event, and I don't consider myself a legitimate threat to make regionals, so I'd think our regional competitors should have to be at least 90th percentile across the board. Of course, last year you certainly could have gotten away with finishing 85th or even 80th percentile on an event.<br /><br />Anyway, I think the second part of your question is more intriguing. Were the point totals of the top athletes low because the Open was unbalanced? I personally say no. I didn't write about it (maybe I should have), but I looked at the correlations between each event to see if any two events were too similar. Among the top 1000 athletes, no two events were more than 26% correlated for men and 40% for women (13.1 and 13.4). So it's not like we were repeating the same thing over and over again. However, there weren't any events that were significantly NEGATIVELY correlated either - last year, 12.1 and 12.2 were -26% correlated among the top 1000, meaning that those who did well on one typically did worse on the other. I don't have necessarily have a problem with that on its own. But to me, the fewer skills you test per event, the more events you have to have. So if the Open had 10 events, then sure, throw in two single-modalities that are totally opposite. But with only 5 events, let's try to pick the 5 events that tell us the most about the athletes. I think this year HQ did a better job of that.<br /><br />If we threw a 10K run and powerlifting total in ON TOP of the five events we had, I think it wouldn't be a bad thing. But to replace two of the events we had with those would probably not be an improvement, in my opinion.<br /><br />Great question, though. Feel free to let me know what you think on the matter as well.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11451889274303028096noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6734272724196423841.post-30420709372772964282013-04-23T13:13:08.259-04:002013-04-23T13:13:08.259-04:00An earlier analysis you gave estimated the number ...An earlier analysis you gave estimated the number of points an athlete could surrender and still place top-48 in their region. That estimate ended up being far off; the best from each region were very consistent each event. <br /><br />Would you say someone can have one bad (relatively speaking .. maybe 85th percentile) event and still make Regionals? <br /><br />In your opinion, are the high correlation coefficients of individual event finishing order and overall finish order indicative of dominant top-tier athletes in a balanced test of fitness or is it indicative of an unbalanced test of fitness? Unbalanced because the same individuals are placing high in each event. For example, what would happen to overall order if a 10k and power lifting total were added to the mix (logistics notwithstanding)?<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17607137425054925682noreply@blogger.com