Upload a Photo Upload a Video Add a News article Write a Blog Add a Comment
MessageReportBlock
Blog Feed News Feed Video Feed All Feeds

My Photos

 

Statistics

100,587 total views
Overview
 

Followers (19)  

 

Who I Am...

.

 

Wall - 19 followers

Post to:  
Post as: 
 
Mike Newman commented on a news article - Nov 21 2014, 12:14 AM
Agreed... the question will be how much will Fisher beat Maton at San Diego?
By Doug Binder, DyeStat Editor The Boys Top 30, 11/20 ...
Published by:
 
 
Post as: 
35 comment(s)  
Joe Lanzalotto

watchout, on , said:

NOTE: The following is in regards to my opinion on developing individual rankings only. Individual and team rankings are different animals IMO.

BorderClash is an exception to the rule because it is an All Star contest that falls in the middle of a busy post-season schedule. It is not a championship meet, and it's place in the schedule - which varies for different athletes - doesn't always allow it to be a focus for the athletes. Usually, I think you can almost always throw out BorderClash results when considering who is the best runner IF you are talking about national title contenders. There are exceptions - Maton vs. Dressel vs. Hardy last year for example all seemed to be going at it - that's based on the combination of the 2 mile split times posted in the results and watching the video of the race (although, unfortunately, the video was only stationary cameras that year so we just got small bits of the race). So, last year, I think it's perfectly reasonable to consider the BC results for those three against eachother, but that definitely isn't always the case.

I don't think you can "throw out" results from a meet like State, NXN/FLN Regional or NXN/FLN National. BorderClash, despite it being a meet in November, just isn't the same. It's a fun experience and a state "rivalry", but it is in the middle of a crowded post-season schedule for those racing NXN-NW and looking towards either NXN or FLW (which is usually a good amount of the top WA/OR athletes).

Mid season invites, though? For individuals, it's hard to justify throwing any of those out in terms of head to head results but for caliber-of-performance comparisons or team rankings that might differ.


Well, we agree that individual and team rankings are different animals.
watchout

Joe Lanzalotto, on , said:

Then your rankings risk being viewed as arbitrary. How is the ranker to know how hard a runner could have gone but didn't or more importantly how is a ranker to know what a runner has a sub-par performance and simply says "I wasn't going all out"? The rankings are either based on what actually happened in a given period of time or they are not. I certainly can accept rankings from someone whose knowledge, insight and intelligence I trust that are based on what happened plus what the ranker thinks would happen. But that's a very different animal than rankings based solely on performance. At that point you've crossed the line from interpreting history to predicting the future. That's not bad, but it is different.


NOTE: The following is in regards to my opinion on developing individual rankings only. Individual and team rankings are different animals IMO.

BorderClash is an exception to the rule because it is an All Star contest that falls in the middle of a busy post-season schedule. It is not a championship meet, and it's place in the schedule - which varies for different athletes - doesn't always allow it to be a focus for the athletes. Usually, I think you can almost always throw out BorderClash results when considering individual rankings IF you are talking about national title contenders. There are exceptions - Maton vs. Dressel vs. Hardy last year for example all seemed to be going at it - that's based on the combination of the 2 mile split times posted in the results and watching the video of the race (although, unfortunately, the video was only stationary cameras that year so we just got small bits of the race). So, last year, I think it's perfectly reasonable to consider the BC results for those three against eachother, but that definitely isn't always the case.

I don't think you can "throw out" results from a meet like State, NXN/FLN Regional or NXN/FLN National. BorderClash, despite it being a meet in November, just isn't the same. It's a fun experience and a state "rivalry", but it is in the middle of a crowded post-season schedule for those racing NXN-NW and looking towards either NXN or FLW (which is usually a good amount of the top WA/OR athletes).

Early/Mid/Late season Invitationals, though? For individuals, it's hard to justify throwing any of those out in terms of head to head order of finish but for caliber-of-performance comparisons or team rankings that might differ.

Dual meets, generally I think you can safely throw those out.
Joe Lanzalotto

watchout, on , said:

I understand your point, but I don't think it has to be an "all or nothing" kind of approach.

Let's take, for example, dual meets. They are part of the season for a great many teams around the nation. If a runner doesn't win there, but won a week before at a major invite against the same runners, should that runner be penalized in the rankings for not taking the dual meet seriously?

Not all athletes (or teams) are going to take the same approach to the season. Some focus on one or two meets at the end of the year. Some focus on big mid-season showdowns. Some try to run their best every race, some train through meets. Some hold back and save themselves in certain races, some think they have to try to be Prefontaine every week.

Ranking individuals is tough because there are a whole lot of variables that should be considered. Obviously, head to head results is the biggest factor there because gauging how good winning individual performances is a whole different ballgame than gauging winning team performances (assuming the team in question doesn't sweep the meet).

To be clear on my position regarding the individual rankings for WA/OR athletes: I think what happens head to head matters most, particularly at State and NXR/NXN/FLW/FLN, HOWEVER I don't think BC is quite the same and doesn't necessarily say much about the runners (and therefore, shouldn't always be taken into consideration in rankings). Some runners do take the meet seriously, and I think it's perfectly fine to take those runner's performances into consideration, but I don't think other runners should be penalized for not taking the meet seriously when it doesn't fit into their plans for their season. The tricky part is usually trying to figure out who took the meet seriously and who didn't... if you have race video, splits, and/or interviews to go off of, it's not hard to figure out as long as you have background knowledge to put things in perspective as well (which is why, when in doubt, I'd just discount BC results all together when talking about potential national champions).


Then your rankings risk being viewed as arbitrary. How is the ranker to know how hard a runner could have gone but didn't or more importantly how is a ranker to know what a runner has a sub-par performance and simply says "I wasn't going all out"? The rankings are either based on what actually happened in a given period of time or they are not. I certainly can accept rankings from someone whose knowledge, insight and intelligence I trust that are based on what happened plus what the ranker thinks would happen. But that's a very different animal than rankings based solely on performance. At that point you've crossed the line from interpreting history to predicting the future. That's not bad, but it is different.
watchout

dkap, on , said:

Dressel obviously believed BorderClash was important, and I'd go so far as to say that Maton and Anderson are the first runners in the history of the event who were favorites to win and felt otherwise. (Quotes to the contrary notwithstanding.) I don't believe you can pick and choose which races you deem unimportant when ranking the top athletes. If a football team rests key guys in an early season non-conference game, do you think the rankings committee would be forgiving of the loss? A blemish on the record is exactly that.


I'd disagree with that - you only have to look back at last year to see race favorites not take the race seriously (both Wilmot and Anderson). Anderson and Dressel were almost always neck and neck (their close rivalry being discussed earlier this year), and we saw the week before at state what it was like when Anderson was going all out: he not only stuck with every move Hardy and Dressel made, but took it another step to break away with a big move a little after 1.5 miles in and held on to the finish; Wilmot, when at his best, did the same thing; Dressel and Hardy raced the same way. That happened once again at state this year, Dressel made a BIG move (much bigger than Hardy's last year) a little earlier in the race - Anderson, that time, wasn't able to reel him in until a little after the 4k mark but ended up with a stronger finish than last year to break away for the win. None of that happened at BC last year: Dressel tried to break away early, while Maton and Hardy tried to reel him in while Anderson and Wilmot were content to run mid pack. Maton caught up with Dressel around 3k or 2 miles IIRC and Hardy closed the gap a little, but Anderson and Wilmot didn't move to the front of the chase pack until the last half mile or so -- when they were 20 seconds behind the leaders. That's far from their usual race, and makes perfect sense if you are treating the race like a very controlled effort (re: not gunning for the individual title).

Individual rankings in cross country are completely different than team rankings in football, and all-star competitions are not necessarily the same thing as invitationals or championships (or regular or post-season games).

It's fine if you want to consider BC results in your rankings. I don't have a problem with that. I just wouldn't have them included in mine (at least, not for the three guys in question this year, nor the NC/GH/CC guys last year).

dkap, on , said:

As far as the bolded part, haven't we established that the rankings are a reflection of what the athletes have done so far this year, rather than an attempt to say who is fastest? That's the inconsistency I'm seeing.


I think there is a notable difference between (and these are just some of the ways you can look at it):
1. "Who has the most spotless record"
2. "Who has been the most impressive this year"
3. "Who has had the greatest performance this year"
4. "Who is the best runner this year"
5. "Who is the fastest runner this year"
6. "Who is the best runner lately"
7. "Who is the fastest runner lately"
and
8. "Who would win the race if all the top athletes toed the line tomorrow"

Not all of those things need to factor in EVERY single race with EXACTLY the same consideration for each, while still considering more than just "who has been" or "who is the fastest"... in fact, I'd say only the first one needs to take ALL races into consideration.
Bill Meylan

Joe Lanzalotto, on , said:


This was the Northwest Regional; they survived. We'll be fine at Bowdoin.

As far as the rankings go if you say that your rankings are a reflection of what the athlete has actually DONE this season but then make an exception and say "I know he wasn't going all out" you violate your own rule. On the other hand if you ignore the fact that a clearly superior runner did not DO it (yet) this season you risk looking foolish. Ain't an easy choice.


I suspect most of the snow at Bowdoin Park will melt by Saturday, but some of the ground may get a bit soft in a few areas.

Any rankings I post anyways reflect performance during the current season ... I used Cheserek as an exception because his less than all-out performances were still as good or better than his national competition.
dkap

watchout, on , said:

What do you mean?

I expressed my opinion that BorderClash doesn't really say who the best runner in the NW is.
I then explained why I think Fisher's argument for #1 is significantly different than Dressel's (or Anderson's or Maton's).
I pointed out that we have one race where two of the three runners at BorderClash pushed themselves to their limits, and expressed my opinion that that is what should be considered in any individual rankings.
I then re-iterated my opinion that what was essentially a meaningless meet for at least 2 of the 3 shouldn't be the prime factor in rankings, as it didn't really say anything about who is better than who.
And, finally, I explained my take on what some of the top individuals in WA/OR face in regards to BC and why they might place differing importance on the meet.

Not all runners treat every race equally. I wouldn't expect ALL rankings to take every race equally (some will, obviously, but others won't - and that's ok! different takes on the same information isn't a bad thing).

I don't see how I'm being inconsistent if I place more importance on some meets than others, or pointing out that there are multiple ways you can approach rankings.


Dressel obviously believed BorderClash was important, and I'd go so far as to say that Maton and Anderson are the first runners in the history of the event who were favorites to win and felt otherwise. (Quotes to the contrary notwithstanding.) I don't believe you can pick and choose which races you deem unimportant when ranking the top athletes. If a football team rests key guys in an early season non-conference game, do you think the rankings committee would be forgiving of the loss? A blemish on the record is exactly that.

As far as the bolded part, haven't we established that the rankings are a reflection of what the athletes have done so far this year, rather than an attempt to say who is fastest? That's the inconsistency I'm seeing.

Joe Lanzalotto, on , said:

As far as the rankings go if you say that your rankings are a reflection of what the athlete has actually DONE this season but then make an exception and say "I know he wasn't going all out" you violate your own rule. On the other hand if you ignore the fact that a clearly superior runner did not DO it (yet) this season you risk looking foolish. Ain't an easy choice.


Joe and I don't always agree, but that's exactly my sentiment.

Dan
watchout

Joe Lanzalotto, on , said:

Posted Image

This was the Northwest Regional; they survived. We'll be fine at Bowdoin.

As far as the rankings go if you say that your rankings are a reflection of what the athlete has actually DONE this season but then make an exception and say "I know he wasn't going all out" you violate your own rule. On the other hand if you ignore the fact that a clearly superior runner did not DO it (yet) this season you risk looking foolish. Ain't an easy choice.


I understand your point, but I don't think it has to be an "all or nothing" kind of approach.

Let's take, for example, dual meets. They are part of the season for a great many teams around the nation. If a runner doesn't win there, but won a week before at a major invite against the same runners, should that runner be penalized in the rankings for not taking the dual meet seriously?

Not all athletes (or teams) are going to take the same approach to the season. Some focus on one or two meets at the end of the year. Some focus on big mid-season showdowns. Some try to run their best every race, some train through meets. Some hold back and save themselves in certain races, some think they have to try to be Prefontaine every week.

Ranking individuals is tough because there are a whole lot of variables that should be considered. Obviously, head to head results is the biggest factor there because gauging how good winning individual performances is a whole different ballgame than gauging winning team performances (assuming the team in question doesn't sweep the meet).

To be clear on my position regarding the individual rankings for WA/OR athletes: I think what happens head to head matters most, particularly at State and NXR/NXN/FLW/FLN, HOWEVER I don't think BC is quite the same and doesn't necessarily say much about the runners (and therefore, shouldn't always be taken into consideration in rankings). Some runners do take the meet seriously, and I think it's perfectly fine to take those runner's performances into consideration, but I don't think other runners should be penalized for not taking the meet seriously when it doesn't fit into their plans for their season. The tricky part is usually trying to figure out who took the meet seriously and who didn't... if you have race video, splits, and/or interviews to go off of, it's not hard to figure out as long as you have background knowledge to put things in perspective as well (which is why, when in doubt, I'd just discount BC results all together when talking about potential national champions).
watchout

Bill Meylan, on , said:

Also agree ... But it got me to thinking (and doing some looking) ... How do we know Grant Fisher has not pushed it all season, or at least pushed it once??

Fisher did run the 3rd fastest time ever (14:52.5) at the Michigan State course which has been used since 1996 ... I can understand not over-extending yourself trying to break Dathan Ritzenhein's course record (14:10.4) since that mark is one of the premier performances in high school XC history ... I assume Fisher's 14:52.5 time took some effort, but I have no idea how much.

I would make Grant Fisher the favorite in any high school XC race held tomorrow ... But I would not rank him above guys he has not beaten this season when those guys have turned in better XC performances .... I would give Grant Fisher the benefit-of-the-doubt in current ranking IF he was in the same position as Edward Cheserek as a HS senior ... As a junior, Cheserek turned in multiple XC performances at higher level than any of his senior-year competition ... That's not the case with Fisher ... I could understand ranking Fisher #1 right now if considering a combination of XC and track, but this is 2014 XC ranking.

Definitely looking forward to this weekend's NXN and Footlocker regional races ... Bowdoin Park is expecting 4-8 inches of snow from Wed-Thur!!


Very good point. That's one reason why I'm glad I don't do individual rankings: they are completely different than team rankings in that you usually don't know how much faster winners might or might not have been able to run, so ranking two runners that didn't race head to head is a MUCH harder thing to do.

Can't wait to see what happens over the next few weekends, should be some great racing!
Joe Lanzalotto
Posted Image

This was the Northwest Regional; they survived. We'll be fine at Bowdoin.

As far as the rankings go if you say that your rankings are a reflection of what the athlete has actually DONE this season but then make an exception and say "I know he wasn't going all out" you violate your own rule. On the other hand if you ignore the fact that a clearly superior runner did not DO it (yet) this season you risk looking foolish. Ain't an easy choice.
watchout

dkap, on , said:

I hate to say it, but I think you're being inconsistent and losing your way in the analysis now. You just transitioned from it being a ranking of what they've done this year and not a prediction, to basically a prediction rationalizing away what they've done on the basis of what they're saving themselves for.

Dan


What do you mean?

I expressed my opinion that BorderClash doesn't really say who the best runner in the NW is.
I then explained why I think Fisher's argument for #1 is significantly different than Dressel's (or Anderson's or Maton's).
I pointed out that we have one race where two of the three runners at BorderClash pushed themselves to their limits, and expressed my opinion that that is what should be considered in any individual rankings.
I then re-iterated my opinion that what was essentially a meaningless meet for at least 2 of the 3 shouldn't be the prime factor in rankings, as it didn't really say anything about who is better than who.
And, finally, I explained my take on what some of the top individuals in WA/OR face in regards to BC and why they might place differing importance on the meet.

Not all runners treat every race equally. I wouldn't expect ALL rankings to take every race equally (some will, obviously, but others won't - and that's ok! different takes on the same information isn't a bad thing).

I don't see how I'm being inconsistent if I place more importance on some meets than others, or pointing out that there are multiple ways you can approach rankings.
View More
 
Mike Newman commented on a news article - Nov 21 2014, 12:11 AM
Lindsay Graham runs 16:23 at the Illinois State meet, the fifth fastest time ever on that course, and she is on the bubble? Wow.
By Doug Binder, DyeStat Editor The Girls Top 30, 11/20 ...
Published by:
 
 
Post as: 
3 comment(s)  
MatthewXCountry
@Mike the girls are extremely deep. For example, look at #25 and #26. Belf is the US junior 5k champion in track with 4:45 speed. She has won a ton of XC meets this year and finished second in the NXN midwest regionals. Marissa Williams just set the 8th fastest time ever at Mt. Sac, arguably one of the most traversed courses in high school cross country and set the Pierce course record on her way to her third straight Los Angeles city section title. Note these ranking came out before the SS finals. Ortega is likely to fall out after losing to Graves and Gore. There are so many talented girls this year. I think Doug would agree that the top 40 or so girls are separated by maybe 15 seconds or so. Graham is great but so are others.
DougB
It was a tough week. Graham could be in that 25-30 range but so could a handful of others.
Mike Newman
Lindsay Graham runs 16:23 at the Illinois State meet, the fifth fastest time ever on that course, and she is on the bubble? Wow.
 
Mike Newman commented on a news article - Nov 17 2014, 12:32 PM
Community and Kids Races - You would have to contact timingmd.com who did the timing for the meet yesterday. It was announced that those results would be on that site. I checked and there were no links for those two races.
NXN Midwest Regional MEET DATE & LOCATION11.16.2014LaVern Gibson Championship XC CourseTerre Haute, IN ...
Published by:
 
 
Post as: 
8 comment(s)  
Mike Newman
Community and Kids Races - You would have to contact timingmd.com who did the timing for the meet yesterday. It was announced that those results would be on that site. I checked and there were no links for those two races.
goprefontaine
Where are the results for the community and kids races?
ross
They are now posted.
hollyhitchcockwilson
Where are the results for the Girls' Championship?
Shane
I can see them posted above. Try using your browsers search. Example: In Firefox, use Ctrl + F, and then type in "girls championship" and you will be able to find them.
Mike Newman
Weather is good here at Lavern Gibson - 32 degrees with 4 mph sw unnoticeable breeze. Course is in good shape.
bhamrunner
Will there be a live webcast like last year?
ross
 
Mike Newman commented on a news article - Nov 16 2014, 03:25 PM
Weather is good here at Lavern Gibson - 32 degrees with 4 mph sw unnoticeable breeze. Course is in good shape.
The 2014 NXN Midwest Regional will be broadcast live from Terre Haute, Indiana on Sunday, November 16 via the NXN Midwest website. Details are below. WATCH HERE ...
Published by:
 
 
Post as: 
1 comment(s)  
Mike Newman
Weather is good here at Lavern Gibson - 32 degrees with 4 mph sw unnoticeable breeze. Course is in good shape.
 
Mike Newman commented on a news article - Nov 15 2014, 11:24 PM
NXN Northwest Regional MEET DATE & LOCATION11.15.2014Eagle Island XC CourseBoise, ID ...
Published by:
 
 
Post as: 
50 comment(s)  
DontStopPre
How funny that it was posted under the wrong region!? Funny? Well, sorta funny. Times are soooo slow. Looks like if you didn't get out and run in the top 15 you were "screwed". Some of the top times in the varsity race faired well against 20+ times in the championship race. Like I said, if you didn't get out, you got screwed. Wow am I impressed with Tanner though. a BEAST!!!!
cmprun
Thanks everyone! Hope your teams and people had a good day!
mace6223
http://nxnmw.runners...&news_id=298524 Posted under Midwest results... LOL
DontStopPre
Washington's state meet also had updates each mile and much more than that actually. you could ask the blogger a question and he would answer it. And NXR Midwest had a live video feed again this year ... looks like somebody in Boise just felt that we didn't need to get a feed this year. Booooooo to him I say!
Susan Lorenzen
Uh - I wouldn't get too excited about Wash state meet in Pasco. They changed runner's places and runner's times multiple times hours after the race. Not acceptable.
lukelebron6
Who are the individual qualifiers on the mens side?
MontanaRunner
Anyone know what company is failing to post the results here?
spokie_runner
And by "see" I mean hear about someday if results are ever posted in any forum anywhere....
cpetpe
The pony express rider has a cold. Results will be here tomorrow.
spokie_runner
Would have been nice to see Maton and Tanner Anderson square off in Boise then Portland. Oh well...
View More
 
Mike Newman posted a video - Nov 2 2014, 09:01 PM
Mike Newman talks to Jack Carroll of Loyola Academy after he won the Boys Race at the IHSA 3A Niles West Sectional - Skokie IL - November 1, 2014
 
Post as: 
 
Mike Newman posted a video - Nov 2 2014, 08:30 PM
Mike Newman talks to Lauren Van Vlierbergen of Jacobs HS after she ran 17:08 to win the IHSA 3A chaumburg Sectional Girls Race - Schaumburg IL - November 1, 2014
 
Post as: 
 
Mike Newman posted a video - Oct 12 2014, 01:55 AM
Mike Newman talks to Gabby Juarez of Streamwood HS after she ran 17:33 for 3 miles to win the Girls Varsity Race at the West Aurora Stampede - Stuart Sports Complex, Montgomery IL - October 11, 2014
 
Post as: 
View More
 

Arcade

 

Videos

Monday Morning Finish Line - November 3, 2014 - 3A State Edition
Monday Morning Finish Line - November 3, 2014 - 2A State Edition
Monday Morning Finish Line - November 3, 2014 - 1A State Edition
Jack Carroll of Loyola Academy wins the 2014 IHSA 3A Niles West Sectional Boys Race - DyeStat Illinois
Lauren Van Vlierbergen of Jacobs HS wins the 2014 3A Schaumburg Sectional Girls Race - DyeStat Illinois

Video Folders