Hersh: Nagasu not on par with Flatt? HUH?

[janetfan]

On the average, there seems to be about a 6% "grade inflation" across the board, comparing national championships to international results. The judges have the most leeway in two categories, GOEs for non-jump elements and program components. It is interersting to break down the numbers for different skaters.

Here are Mirai and Rachael, comparing the short programs at U.S. Nationals with the Olympics (all four programs were excellent and represent pretty close to the skaters' best.)

Total SP scores:

Mirai: Olympics 63.76, Nationals 70.06, inflation factor 9.8%.
Rachael: Olympics 64.64, Nationals 69.35, inflation factor 7.3%.

Program components:

Mirai: Olympics 26.76, Nationals 29.86, inflation factor 11.6%.
Rachael: Olympics 29.96, Nationals 27.84, inflation factor 7.6%.

So overall, Mirai profited somewhat more from Nationals inflation than Rachael.

However, if you look at the total GOEs for non-jump elements, the situation is quite different.

Mirai: Olympics 5.00, Nationals 5.14, inflation factor 2.8%.
Rachael: Olympics 2.50, Nationals 3.50, inflation factor 40.0%.

Comparatively speaking, Rachael got a huge break from U.S. judges on GOEs on spins, spirals and step sequence, compared to international standards.

(I did the short programs because the scores in the long programs were dominated by under-rotation calls, which statistically overwhelmed these small discrepancies in GOEs and PCSs.)

Thanks for the stats.
Joesitz has reminded me more than once that "skating order" can be very important at these events.

Your comparison is interesting but is it fair to suggest that if Mirai had skated her Olympic SP much later - as opposed to as early as she did - her SP score might have been different?

After seeing Miki and Rachael far from clean, and skating so slowly and cautiously I think Mirai would have been scored a few points higher in her Vancouver SP had she skated later.

You can say maybe not - but a lot of years of skating history might show otherwise.
It does make the analysis questionable, as Mirai scoring a 65 or 66 changes the percentage boost your stats presented.

But I agree it is interesting to consider these scores.
I think the biggest reason Natls resulst were disputed was due to the wide scoring gap between Rachael and Mirai. If Rachael won by a closer margin it would have seemed more realistic.
Rachael was given a big boost in the areas where she is the weakest. It not only assured her victory but made the margin questionable - and unfortunately to some put the fairness of the judges under a cloud of suspicion.

[PolymerBob]

Since we are on the subject on inflation; here is an analysis I did last year. It is the top 5 ladies' National scores from 2008 and 2009, followed by the scores their next ISU competition ( whatever that happened to be ) Since Mirai had not yet had an ISU event since 2009 Nationals, I took her previous ISU result.

skater .............. Nats score ..... next ISU .... difference ( inflation )

2008

Mirai Nagasu ...... 190.41 ........ 162.89 ....... 27.52
Rachael Flatt ..... 188.73 ........ 172.19 ....... 16.54
Ashley Wagner ... 188.56 ........ 152.46 ....... 36.10
Caroline Zhang ... 173.16 ........ 171.84 ........ 1.32
Bebe Liang ......... 164.87 ........ 144.25 ....... 20.62

2009

Alissa Czisny ..... 178.06 ........ 159.81 ....... 18.25
Rachael Flatt ...... 173.78 ........ 162.83 ....... 10.95
Caroline Zhang ... 171.08 ........ 171.22 ....... -0.14
Ashley Wagner ... 165.33 ........ 153.57 ....... 11.76
Mirai Nagasu ...... 159.99 ..........124.22 ....... 35.77

So most of the girls seem to get double digit National inflation.

[gkelly]

Factored placements, as in the 6.0 system. The point totals for the SP would be used only to determine the placements in the short program. LP point totals determine placement in the LP. Final score = LP + 1/2 SP ordinals, lowest wins, LP break ties.

If you do the ...... um ...... mathematics on this theory, you end up with the result that the winner of the long program always wins the event. If that is the case, why have a short?

Not always. This is how it worked under the 6.0 system with factored placements for two programs (pairs 1981-2004; singles 1991-2004).

The winner of the long program was guaranteed to win the event if that skater had been among the top three in the short program.

If the winner of the long program had not been top three in the short, then whether or not that skater won the event would depend on what order the higher-ranked skaters from the SP finished in the LP.

[janetfan]

Since we are on the subject on inflation; here is an analysis I did last year. It is the top 5 ladies' National scores from 2008 and 2009, followed by the scores their next ISU competition ( whatever that happened to be ) Since Mirai had not yet had an ISU event since 2009 Nationals, I took her previous ISU result.

skater .............. Nats score ..... next ISU .... difference ( inflation )

2008

Mirai Nagasu ...... 190.41 ........ 162.89 ....... 27.52
Rachael Flatt ..... 188.73 ........ 172.19 ....... 16.54
Ashley Wagner ... 188.56 ........ 152.46 ....... 36.10
Caroline Zhang ... 173.16 ........ 171.84 ........ 1.32
Bebe Liang ......... 164.87 ........ 144.25 ....... 20.62

2009

Alissa Czisny ..... 178.06 ........ 159.81 ....... 18.25
Rachael Flatt ...... 173.78 ........ 162.83 ....... 10.95
Caroline Zhang ... 171.08 ........ 171.22 ....... -0.14
Ashley Wagner ... 165.33 ........ 153.57 ....... 11.76
Mirai Nagasu ...... 159.99 ..........124.22 ....... 35.77

So most of the girls seem to get double digit National inflation.

Thanks for the stats Bob.

Poor Caroline

[R.D.]

But you have to be careful with doing that...did they perform identically? If not there's going to be some variation in the numbers. Or if they had a rough Nationals and good comp the next time (i.e. Zhang) then the numbers will look even more skewed. JMO

[PolymerBob]

But you have to be careful with doing that...did they perform identically? If not there's going to be some variation in the numbers. Or if they had a rough Nationals and good comp the next time (i.e. Zhang) then the numbers will look even more skewed. JMO

Fair enough. Let’s see how much inflation Caroline got this year. Her National score was 138.27, while her 4CC score was 160.78 . So her Nationals inflation this year was ….. -22.51 points. Well, at least this time it’s double digit. :sheesh:

[Mathman]

I think the biggest reason Natls resultss were disputed was due to the wide scoring gap between Rachael and Mirai. If Rachael won by a closer margin it would have seemed more realistic.

Rachael was given a big boost in the areas where she is the weakest. It not only assured her victory but made the margin questionable - and unfortunately to some put the fairness of the judges under a cloud of suspicion.

I wish I had some way to get you to look at the numbers before making statements like that.

Downgrades, downgrades, downgrades.

Downgrades, downgrades, downgrades.

Downgrades, downgrades, downgrades.

If you click here

http://www.usfigureskating.org/leade...0/results.html

and scroll down to third place you will see at a glance why Rachael's score was ridiculously higher than Mirai's, and why, in fact, Mirai -- given the handicap of all the downgrades -- was lucky to hold off Ashley Wagner for second place overall.

The tech specialist laid three downgrades and an edge call on Mirai. Rachael picking up a few tenths of a point for generous GOEs on her spins, etc., really played no significant role in the margin of victory. The reason that the audience "put the fairness of the judges under a cloud of suspicion" is that they did not realize at the time that Mirai had been taken out of the competition by UR calls.

[Mathman]

If you do the ...... um ...... mathematics on this theory, you end up with the result that the winner of the long program always wins the event. If that is the case, why have a short?

The short is like the semifinals. If you win the semifinals, your reward is that you get to advance to the finals. The three top finishers in the short program win the "control your own destiny" pole positions for the big race.

There is still a chance for an underdog to compete in the final, but that person needs a little luck to win the event, having failed to qualify top tier in the semis.

That's the theory. As gkelly pints out, this is not a new idea; it is how things were done under 6.0 ordinal judging. The saying was, "You can't win the event in the short program, but you can lose it."

By the way, the question, "why have a short program at all" is far from rhetorical. I liked the old cheesefest format just fine. One program, winner take all, and the whole contest fills a nice television slot.

The biggest drawback to eliminating the short program is that it would be too boring to skaters to just practice the same one program over and over all season.

[FlattFan]

It seems like janetfan continued to spew the same crap about nationals score being fixed and Mirai was the undisputed winner.
Her downgraded lutz had 5 -2s.
Her solo 3T had 5 -2s.
The judges saw it without knowing whether or not the technical specialist would downgrade the jumps. Viewers at home saw it. She only had 6 triples and 3 were downgraded.

[janetfan]

I wish I had some way to get you to look at the numbers before making statements like that.

Downgrades, downgrades, downgrades.

Downgrades, downgrades, downgrades.

Downgrades, downgrades, downgrades.

.

^ What's your point

What in the world makes you think I don't share Frank Carroll's view on this. I read he got into a pretty loud shouting match with the tech panel and after looking at the replay he said only the solo 3T deserved a dg. I am with Frank on this one. And I also agree with Scott, Sandra and Button that Mirai skated the best and deserved the title. Come to think of it I am in some pretty good company about this.

I don't get your "Rachael beyond any doubt was unfairy penalised in Vancouver - and Mirai without doubt deserved her dg's at Natls." That is your opinion and mine is different.

The calls have to be consistent at an event to have credibilty and they were not at Natls. We could see Sasha was treated differently. Was Ashley clean in her LP? Did she get hit as hard as Mirai for those two footed and scratchy landings? Did Ashley get an edge call she rarely avoids at Intl events?

The results of the SP made it clear something was up. I am not the only poster here who thinks Mirai won the SP and as RD said yesterday by 4-5 points.

Maybe we just see it differently. If I ever get the sense that scoring for whatever reason is being manipulated at an event I simply don't trust the results of the whole event. How can anyone who follows skating see it any differently?

As to the mythical fairness of US judging - why is it posters here still get unsettled about Alissa's '09championship? Why do they question it? Because they saw Rachael and Caroline skate and it does not take an Einstein to realize something seemed off with the way the scoring went down.

1980 Natls was a bad one - but this time it was Carroll and Linda who were gifted by a judging panel that wanted Linda to go to Lake Placid as the Natl champion and didn't care that she had an off night and that Lisa Marie should have won the title.

It looked to me that US Skating wanted Rachael, the highest finisher from '09 Worlds to go to Vancouver as the Natl Champion and did everything possible to make it happen. Sasha with even a decent skate would have been given 2nd. When she faltered it was Ashley who had mistakes overlooked so she would go with Rachael.

They never expected Mirai to skate the best and to win so they had to give her second. Nothing unusual about this and it happens all the time in skating. Or have you missed that part

[gkelly]

By the way, the question, "why have a short program at all" is far from rhetorical. I liked the old cheesefest format just fine. One program, winner take all, and the whole contest fills a nice television slot.

Well, the whole contest doesn't fill a nice television slot. A nice television slot is six long programs in an hour. But how is it decided which six skaters get to compete?

U.S. Nationals has one to two dozen competitors per discipline. Well, fewer in the years when there were hardly any senior dance teams in the country.

Worlds has . . . more than 50 ladies these days.

Olympics has 30 before withdrawals, or 24 after the long program cut.

The ISU is trying to cut those numbers somewhat, but they're not going to cut them down to only 6.

The GP Final only has 6, or fewer pairs and dance teams originally. That was more or less a made-for-TV event, like the invitational cheesefests.

How can you cut down the fields to sizes manageable for TV slots?

Hold more competitions -- get all the skaters to skate their one program at regional events, then bring the top finishers to a central location for quarter finals or semifinals, and then bring the top six to the big event with the expensive tickets and the

Except that fans who travel across the world to see the big event often want more for their money than the handful of skaters that TV audiences have patience for.

Or bring everyone to one central location, divide them into groups if there are too many entries, hold initial rounds and make a cut. Hold an intermediate round and make a cut. When you get the field down to a manageable size, that's who qualifies for the final.

Is it better to narrow down the field as drastically as possible as soon as possible? Or is it better whittle it down gradually and to leave the final round as a several-hour event for each discipline, a full evening's entertainment for the paying audience, perhaps seeded so that TV can package only the last few skaters who have a chance at the title?

Is it better to have skaters who survive each cut skate the same program in each successive round, or is there value in giving the skaters different tasks to emphasize in different rounds of competition and giving audiences who want to watch the semifinals a different program to watch from each skater?

The competitors, the competition organizers, the TV networks, the casual fans, and the avid fans might all have different answers to those questions.

What serves the TV networks and casual fans best might bring in the most outside money to the sport. But if it works against the best interests of those who are actually part of the sport, is it worth the money?

And would casual fans really be served if the opportunities for high-level, high-profile competition are so limited to easily televisable packages that there's less incentive for up-and-coming skaters to stay in the sport until senior level, thus diluting the field so that the 6th-best skater who makes it to the TV broadcast is as far below the winner in quality as the 18th-place skater in a deeper field?

So compromises that allow TV networks to package smaller portions of the larger contest for casual-fan consumption, e.g., short programs to seed the start order for three hours worth of long programs, may be in order.

[Mathman]

I don't get your "Rachael beyond any doubt was unfairy penalised in Vancouver - and Mirai without doubt deserved her dg's at Natls." That is your opinion and mine is different.

Since you put that in quotation marks I assume you are actually quoting someone and not just making stuff up for fun.

My opinion, which I have stated over and over and over, is that Mirai's scores at Nationals were lower than I expected, watching the performance, and that the reason they were lower was because of the downgrades.

My opinion is that Rachael's scores at the Olympics were lower than I expected, watching the performance, and that the reason they were lower is because of downgrades.

As far as I could tell, watching at home without benefit of slo-motion, etc., Mirai's jumps looked OK at Nationals and Rachael's jumps looked OK at the Olympics -- but I am not a figure skating judge or technical specialist.

[Mathman]

Well, the whole contest doesn't fill a nice television slot. A nice television slot is six long programs in an hour. But how is it decided which six skaters get to compete?...

On second thought it would be better to keep the short program to seed the long.

Events like Nationals have to be organized in a way that makes sense as a national championship competition, and the television networks have to work around it as best they can. If the short program seed results in the top skaters being in the last group, then the network can decide to show just the top flight if that is all the time they choose to devote to the competition. Also the live audience could decide o come for the whole thing or just the last hour or two, if they wanted to. (They would still have to pay full price for a ticket, though. )

The networks might choose not to televise the short program at all. Again, that would be a programming choice on the part of the network, based presumably on audience interest and sponsorship.

I guess what I miss the most are the invitationals, like pro-ams, where only a few top guns are invited and the whole show lasts three hours or so. The event organizer would invite the skaters that he feels will bring in the biggest gate.

[janetfan]

Since you put that in quotation marks I assume you are actually quoting someone and not just making stuff up for fun.

My opinion, which I have stated over and over and over, is that Mirai's scores at Nationals were lower than I expected, watching the performance, and that the reason they were lower was because of the downgrades.

My opinion is that Rachael's scores at the Olympics were lower than I expected, watching the performance, and that the reason they were lower is because of downgrades.

As far as I could tell, watching at home without benefit of slo-motion, etc., Mirai's jumps looked OK at Nationals and Rachael's jumps looked OK at the Olympics -- but I am not a figure skating judge or technical specialist.

Sorry if I was not clear about your thoughts regarding the dg's.
I appreciate the link from your previous post and I did go over the numbers. I simply do not agree with the way the judges marked the the top girls.

I also do not agree with the way the IJS fails to differentiate between one of the best spinners in the world and one of the weaker ones at the senior level. Same for laybacks, spirals, skating skills, performance execution - and "flow over the ice" as it relates to IN and CH. One girls has superior flow and the other covers the ice more like a junior skater.

I do not need a column of numbers or a hi-def instant replay to tell me what I think is good skating and what skating I clearly see lacking important qualities. I am not a judge - just a fan who has been watching for a while.

At Natls it did not appear to be very close and I saw one girl skate cirlces around the others. Not to repeat this - but many experts felt the same way. Why is that?

Skating will never be about a race for points to me but it will always be comparitive (ordinal based) when it comes to competitons. Who was better - and not who managed to score the most points with some very bad looking positions and slow skating.

Sorry if I complain too much and don't trust the ISU and the federations to play fair. I have seen too many strange things over the years to believe that a group that was so profficient at deal making and cheating suddenly changed their ethics just because they were FORCED to change the scoring system.

[Joesitz]

My emphasis on skating order as a factor in how well contestants skate is felt by intimidation. The first person to skate hasn't a clue whether to take risks or not (think Kwan/Lipinsky) If a skater is the next competitor to skate, and hears the "bravos" from the audience while in the waiting room could aslo give a bit of shaky nerves. And, of course, if a Favorite has a melt down, and there is just pleasant applause. it could give the next skater to skate his best.

There are a lot of psychological reasons for a skater to be at his best or worst on the day of reckoning.

In the case of Mirai, I agree with Janetfan that, it is possible she may be less sure of herself skating early in the event. We will see more of this in the coming season.