- Joined
- Nov 24, 2006
Cool- is he selling them? How much? Doesn't say on that tweet although I haven't read every single comment. Thanks for the info!
2017-18 State of U.S. Men's Figure Skating
- Thread starter Mrs. P
- Start date
Cool- is he selling them? How much? Doesn't say on that tweet although I haven't read every single comment. Thanks for the info!
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2014
I'm not really sure what your point is. I made a simple model showing one hypothetical way - not the only way - to justify the selection. I’m sure that the committee took many things into account that I didn’t, including head to head matchups and scoring tends. I personally think Vincent was lucky to make the team. Although he won JWC impressively, he didn’t have a great senior debut season; his placement over Adam at Nats was in large part due to highly generous PCS; and his “defeat” of Adam - just back from a major injury - at Finlandia by 0.13 points was basically meaningless.
Had Ross simply taken bronze at Skate America, I’m betting he would have been on the team instead of Vincent. Had Jason simply screwed up less profoundly, I'm betting he would have been on the team instead of Vincent. Vincent has potential and has made some progress with presentation this year, but I think he needed help to make the team. JMO.
My point was just that it wasn't lack of opportunity that kept Ross off the team. He competed in fewer events but could have earned his way on this season. It would have taken more consistency than for an athlete like Karen who had super high results in important events last year, but it could have been done. And it likely put more pressure on Ross early in the season.
Had Jason screwed up less profoundly, he could well have been on the team. Jason had a very strong argument on paper, and that is probably part of why he felt so much pressure. He looked good in practice & the warm up. He tightened up in the competition. And who could blame him or Adam, going up after two standing ovations & knowing there were only really two spots available? His placement on the alternate list makes perfect sense if you look at his placements and stats relative to all the listed criteria. I still think he needed to defeat one of Zhou, Nathan, and Adam, though. This is why they were all in the conversation on this thread prior to Nationals. They all had an argument based on results.
But Adam didn't have a strong enough argument against Vincent to be placed above him. Vincent had the two wins over him, one being tier one. And the Junior World gold. And the silver from last year's Nationals. Four bullet points. Adam was out the season before. He had only two bullet points over Vincent, one tier one (the GPF) and one tier two (the GP--though not the same events). Not enough, IMO.
Doesn't matter now. They're both on the team. But there's no evidence Adam could have kept Vincent off without a win over him at Nationals.
Had Jason screwed up less profoundly, he could well have been on the team. Jason had a very strong argument on paper, and that is probably part of why he felt so much pressure. He looked good in practice & the warm up. He tightened up in the competition. And who could blame him or Adam, going up after two standing ovations & knowing there were only really two spots available? His placement on the alternate list makes perfect sense if you look at his placements and stats relative to all the listed criteria. I still think he needed to defeat one of Zhou, Nathan, and Adam, though. This is why they were all in the conversation on this thread prior to Nationals. They all had an argument based on results.
But Adam didn't have a strong enough argument against Vincent to be placed above him. Vincent had the two wins over him, one being tier one. And the Junior World gold. And the silver from last year's Nationals. Four bullet points. Adam was out the season before. He had only two bullet points over Vincent, one tier one (the GPF) and one tier two (the GP--though not the same events). Not enough, IMO.
Doesn't matter now. They're both on the team. But there's no evidence Adam could have kept Vincent off without a win over him at Nationals.
And Jason said something to that effect in his post-skate interviews (http://web.icenetwork.com/news/2018...stic-chen-captures-second-straight-us-crown):
It's interesting to hear the great variance about the expectation of BOW playing into the decision making process. Adam and Jason (and their coaches) seem well aware of it, hence pushing their BOW credentials all season long, while Ross and his coaches (well more his coaches, Ross hasn't really given his take on BOW vs. Nationals) seem shocked and bothered that it was a factor after his steller Nationals performance. Is that reflective that USFS wasn't clear or that some embraced the change in the selection process more than others?
It does seem crazy that Jason could still end up in Pyeongchang. But given how injury prone skaters have been this season, it's not really that crazy of a concept. (To be clear, I'm not wishing injury on our U.S. Olympic team, just noting the craziness of this season).
Last edited:
Body of work. What an interesting and frustrating subject that has plagued the USFS for the last two olympic cycles.
I think there are some serious flaws:
1. Yes, the fed clearly states the the events looked at and their tiering but what does it really mean? IE: WHAT IF? What if it was between Mariah and Mirai and one of the tier 3 events the looked at was Worlds 2017. Mirai wasn't on the team and Mariah was but placed 12th. How do they weigh these results head to head?
2. This leads me to my next point, how do they weight the results of someone who hasn't had as many international outings? Especially if a skater has not had any head to heads or comparable events, how do you decide analytically between two skaters if it is between the two of them?
The data analyst in me says each placement should have a point attributed to it. Follow me on this hypothetical (all the numbers besides placement are just random numbers I used to do the math):
1. Each tiered event has a bonus weight: tier 1 is weighted +30%, tier 2 +10%, tier 3 no bonus
2. Using the Grand Prix point system, applying points based on placement. One addition is adding negative points based on poor placement mirroring the positive points based on placing 9th receiving 0 points and adding the bonus weight depending on the tier of the event.
Formula: (Placement Points * (1+Tier Bonus Weight %))= Weighted Points
Example: Ashley Wagner's Skate Canada Placement of 3rd - (11pts* (1+10%))=12.1pts
3. Doing the average of the points earned divided by the amount events.
Formula: Sum of Weighted Points/# of Events
Example: Mirai's weighted points earned / 5 events she earned them: 48.8pts/5 events=9.76 average
So a perfect example of this system is Mirai vs. Mariah. Based on their placement in the events looked at under the "body of work" Mirai accumulated 48.8 points vs. Mariah's 30.9 points. That being said, Mirai had 5 events vs. Mariah's 6 events so the average of Mirai was 9.76 in her 5 events vs. Mariah's average of 5.15 in her 6.
Another example for that is more in line with this thread is Vincent vs. Ross. Vincent had 6 events (3 tier 3, 2 tier 2, 1 tier 1) vs. Ross' 5 events (3 tier 3, 1 tier 2, and 1 tier 1). How do you compare? Obviously because Vincent had more outings he would have accumulated more weighted points: 65.2. Ross who had one less event only accumulated 41.4 in weighted points. That being said, Vincent's average for his 6 events was 10.87 vs. Ross' average for his 5 events being 8.28.
The point system can be changed, the weighting of events can be changed, but the math cannot be changed. Below is a worksheet where I did applied all these "hypothetical points" and "hypothetical bonus weights" to do the math:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1IM533AHFNLaI7biMvHohwj7Vlp0-raxB7r0NxgF4AaI/edit?usp=sharing
Again, this is all hypothetical but the point I am trying to get across is there is a way to apply hard analysis to "body of work". Again, the one thing that this does not take into account are more qualitative things like momentum etc. but at least it would give hard data to the concept of "body of work".
I emphasize that all the numbers besides placements are hypothetical and I did this of my own accord.
I think there are some serious flaws:
1. Yes, the fed clearly states the the events looked at and their tiering but what does it really mean? IE: WHAT IF? What if it was between Mariah and Mirai and one of the tier 3 events the looked at was Worlds 2017. Mirai wasn't on the team and Mariah was but placed 12th. How do they weigh these results head to head?
2. This leads me to my next point, how do they weight the results of someone who hasn't had as many international outings? Especially if a skater has not had any head to heads or comparable events, how do you decide analytically between two skaters if it is between the two of them?
The data analyst in me says each placement should have a point attributed to it. Follow me on this hypothetical (all the numbers besides placement are just random numbers I used to do the math):
1. Each tiered event has a bonus weight: tier 1 is weighted +30%, tier 2 +10%, tier 3 no bonus
2. Using the Grand Prix point system, applying points based on placement. One addition is adding negative points based on poor placement mirroring the positive points based on placing 9th receiving 0 points and adding the bonus weight depending on the tier of the event.
Formula: (Placement Points * (1+Tier Bonus Weight %))= Weighted Points
Example: Ashley Wagner's Skate Canada Placement of 3rd - (11pts* (1+10%))=12.1pts
3. Doing the average of the points earned divided by the amount events.
Formula: Sum of Weighted Points/# of Events
Example: Mirai's weighted points earned / 5 events she earned them: 48.8pts/5 events=9.76 average
So a perfect example of this system is Mirai vs. Mariah. Based on their placement in the events looked at under the "body of work" Mirai accumulated 48.8 points vs. Mariah's 30.9 points. That being said, Mirai had 5 events vs. Mariah's 6 events so the average of Mirai was 9.76 in her 5 events vs. Mariah's average of 5.15 in her 6.
Another example for that is more in line with this thread is Vincent vs. Ross. Vincent had 6 events (3 tier 3, 2 tier 2, 1 tier 1) vs. Ross' 5 events (3 tier 3, 1 tier 2, and 1 tier 1). How do you compare? Obviously because Vincent had more outings he would have accumulated more weighted points: 65.2. Ross who had one less event only accumulated 41.4 in weighted points. That being said, Vincent's average for his 6 events was 10.87 vs. Ross' average for his 5 events being 8.28.
The point system can be changed, the weighting of events can be changed, but the math cannot be changed. Below is a worksheet where I did applied all these "hypothetical points" and "hypothetical bonus weights" to do the math:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1IM533AHFNLaI7biMvHohwj7Vlp0-raxB7r0NxgF4AaI/edit?usp=sharing
Again, this is all hypothetical but the point I am trying to get across is there is a way to apply hard analysis to "body of work". Again, the one thing that this does not take into account are more qualitative things like momentum etc. but at least it would give hard data to the concept of "body of work".
I emphasize that all the numbers besides placements are hypothetical and I did this of my own accord.
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2014
@Ice Dance, thanks for clarifying - and thanks for adding your perspective on Adam/Vincent and Jason’s practices. And regarding Ross, I absolutely agree that he could have earned his way on this season. I actually think USFS gave him a lot of opportunity this season (they sent him to 2 Sr Bs and selected him for SA; he didn’t get other GPs because of his performance in 2016).
It was so sad to see Jason implode like that - all the harder, I think, because it’s been so rare in his career to date. That’s not to say he handles pressure perfectly and never makes mistakes, but that was a screwup of truly epic proportions, on pretty much the biggest stage possible (except the Olympics).
@Mrs. P - that really is the $1,000,000 question - why is it that some skaters/coaches “got” the importance of BOW, while Ross (or his coaches) didn’t? In fact, I almost wonder if that’s part of why Mark Mitchell had such a strong negative reaction to the selection - out of guilt that he didn’t pay enough attention to the change, and thus didn’t prepare Ross better? Because theoretically, that’s one of the things you pay a coach for.
@tosca (va, tosca!), that was very interesting! If you have time, could you do it for the top 6 men? I’d love to see how it works out. Also, if you wanted to factor in non-quantitative stuff, how would you do it? The 3 biggest things I can think of would be (1) Adam’s consistency in the 2017/18 season, (2) Vincent winning Junior Worlds with a super high score and getting 3 spots; and (3) Jason outperforming expectations at Worlds and finishing high enough for the US to get 3 spots. How would you factor that in? A bonus? And how would you factor in the negative impact of Jason’s performance at Nats? A negative bonus? How big? Because they must have taken that into account.
I have to laugh that we’re still talking about this stuff a week later!
It was so sad to see Jason implode like that - all the harder, I think, because it’s been so rare in his career to date. That’s not to say he handles pressure perfectly and never makes mistakes, but that was a screwup of truly epic proportions, on pretty much the biggest stage possible (except the Olympics).
@Mrs. P - that really is the $1,000,000 question - why is it that some skaters/coaches “got” the importance of BOW, while Ross (or his coaches) didn’t? In fact, I almost wonder if that’s part of why Mark Mitchell had such a strong negative reaction to the selection - out of guilt that he didn’t pay enough attention to the change, and thus didn’t prepare Ross better? Because theoretically, that’s one of the things you pay a coach for.
@tosca (va, tosca!), that was very interesting! If you have time, could you do it for the top 6 men? I’d love to see how it works out. Also, if you wanted to factor in non-quantitative stuff, how would you do it? The 3 biggest things I can think of would be (1) Adam’s consistency in the 2017/18 season, (2) Vincent winning Junior Worlds with a super high score and getting 3 spots; and (3) Jason outperforming expectations at Worlds and finishing high enough for the US to get 3 spots. How would you factor that in? A bonus? And how would you factor in the negative impact of Jason’s performance at Nats? A negative bonus? How big? Because they must have taken that into account.
I have to laugh that we’re still talking about this stuff a week later!
I do some data analysis as part of my job and I'm digging your approach to the problem as giving us a mathematical representation of the system. Even though it's almost certain that if they did use any kind of weighting, this isn't it, I still think it has value for us to see. Thanks ^_^
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
I think that they intentionally meant to not provide specific weighting criteria to allow for intangibles and unforeseen events.
Using an extreme made-up example, say a horrid case of the flu swept the men's event at US Nationals. Every program looks like the Walking Dead. Everyone skates horribly, but by some miracle, three complete unknowns hold it together enough to sweep the medals, and all the better established favorites were dead last. And say, using a strict mathematical formula, the team would be comprised strictly of untested unknowns. I wouldn't have a problem with that personally, since I favor the trials approach, but USFSA would all have collective heart attacks.
Even the Canadian selection criteria, which is much more specific in terms of placements at events, still includes a vague "other factors" caveat. Off topic: Although I'm not sure the Canadian announcer understood that - since he proclaimed that so-and-so had earned a trip to the Olympics, like he decided that.
We'll be talking about this stuff four years later, LOL.
There are some interesting data points regarding Ross that might have raised some concern among the selection committee. Not only was the SP he did at Nationals clean, it was a notable outlier, scoring wise from his other short programs. Prior to nationals, his TES average was 32.78, which ranked 14th among all the U.S. men in the international selection pool, including those seniors who were on the JGP (Hiwatashi, Torgashev and Krasnozhon).
Ross' FS TES was a little bit better -- he had scored 80 TES at Finlandia, which was pretty solid, though still lower than a recovering Adam Rippon (81+) and Vincent Zhou (97+). And speaking of Vincent, even with massive URs, his lowest TES was still at 88, which is more than the averages TES of nearly everyone except Nathan. Of course, Adam and Jason with cleanish skates can earn 88 TES, but math really works in Vincent's favor.
I'm still honestly sad about Jason's implosion a week later. I knew he had an off season, but I never imagine that I see him do THAT badly and witness the whole thing in person. It's probably his worst nationals performance since 2012 Nationals, when he fell three times (and UR-ed all those jumps) at the end of his free skate, dropping from 7th to 9th. And guess where U.S. Nationals was that year? U.S. Nationals in San Jose = NHK Trophy.
I hope for redemption at 4CC. His season in 2012 ended on a positive note with a clean FS and a bronze medal at junior worlds. May 2018 be the same. 
Last edited:
Not one, but two mentions of U.S. men during my commute on NPR!
Tom Goldman, NPR's sports correspondent, mentioned Nathan Chen as someone to watch at the Olympics: This is at the end of a segment on North Korean/South Korean relations at the Olympics: https://the1a.org/shows/2018-01-17/north-and-south-koreas-warm-relations-over-ice-hockey
Here and Now did a piece on Adam Rippon: http://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2018/01/17/figure-skater-adam-rippon-olympics
This is a pretty good in-depth interview by host Robin Young.
Interesting to hear how much Raf helped him financially, too.
Tom Goldman, NPR's sports correspondent, mentioned Nathan Chen as someone to watch at the Olympics: This is at the end of a segment on North Korean/South Korean relations at the Olympics: https://the1a.org/shows/2018-01-17/north-and-south-koreas-warm-relations-over-ice-hockey
Here and Now did a piece on Adam Rippon: http://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2018/01/17/figure-skater-adam-rippon-olympics
This is a pretty good in-depth interview by host Robin Young.
Interesting to hear how much Raf helped him financially, too.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2014
You mean 20 years later, right?
In terms of Ross's body of work, I share his surprise that seemingly absolutely nothing he did at Nationals could have had any impact. He really couldn't have exceeded silver unless Nathan had a complete meltdown. His best made no difference weighted against his prior results. That IS shocking. I'll repeat what many have said, that the selection criteria are deliberately unclear. Assigning skaters cumulative point standings over the course of the current and prior seasons would offer some clarity. Still, Nationals is definitely devalued.
Adam is getting a ton of publicity. He just did an interview on Access Online and in just the past week he's probably gained over 30,000 Instagram followers. I wonder if this could influence whether or not he gets picked for the team event.
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
Nonsense. We figure skating fans are well-known for our dispassionate view of the sport, and our ability to quickly set aside any controversy.
Just kidding! A few weeks ago, I almost got involved in an online flame-war over the results of the 1980 Ladies Olympic Event.
I'm Team Linda, if you must know.
I hope he’s removed and replaced by the deserving Miner.
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2009
Gay Olympic figure skater Adam Rippon hits out at White House's decision to have Mike Pence leading the US delegation to South Korea
The man who is believed to be the first openly gay athlete to represent the United States in the Winter Olympics criticized the White House on Wednesday for tapping Vice President Mike Pence as the head of the American delegation to South Korea for next month’s Games.
‘You mean Mike Pence, the same Mike Pence that funded gay conversion therapy?’ Adam Rippon, 28, told USA Today on Wednesday. ‘I’m not buying it.’
'If it were before my event, I would absolutely not go out of my way to meet somebody who I felt has gone out of their way to not only show that they aren’t a friend of a gay person but that they think that they’re sick,' Rippon said.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...nt-want-Pence-leading-Olympic-delegation.html
The man who is believed to be the first openly gay athlete to represent the United States in the Winter Olympics criticized the White House on Wednesday for tapping Vice President Mike Pence as the head of the American delegation to South Korea for next month’s Games.
‘You mean Mike Pence, the same Mike Pence that funded gay conversion therapy?’ Adam Rippon, 28, told USA Today on Wednesday. ‘I’m not buying it.’
'If it were before my event, I would absolutely not go out of my way to meet somebody who I felt has gone out of their way to not only show that they aren’t a friend of a gay person but that they think that they’re sick,' Rippon said.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...nt-want-Pence-leading-Olympic-delegation.html
Nice to have another analyst on this forum
Been a crazy day but I did it for the top 6 men at nationals + Max Aaron. LOVE DATA.
Again using hypothetical points and weighting:
1. Looking at and weighting events based on tiers listed in under "Body of Work" criteria: +30% bonus for Tier 1 Events, +10% bonus for Tier 2 Events, no bonus for Tier 3 Events
2. Using Grand Prix point system to apply points based on placement w/ a 1st placement receiving 15pts and 9th receiving 0. Additionally, for poor placements I added the negative mirror w/ 17th placement receiving -15pts.
Formula: (Placement Points * (1+Tier Bonus Weight %))= Weighted Points
Example: Ashley Wagner's Skate Canada Placement of 3rd - (11pts* (1+10%))=12.1pts
3. Taking the average of the weighted points earned divided by the amount events in which the points were earned so that a skater is not penalized if they had less events looked at under the "body of work" criteria.
Formula: Sum of Weighted Points/# of Events
Example: Mirai's weighted points earned / 5 events she earned them: 48.8pts/5 events=9.76 average
Below is look to my google sheet where I did the math based on the hypothetical weighting and points:
MEN'S BODY OF WORK EVENT TIER POINT SYSTEM
1. Nathan Chen: 8 Events, 122 weighted pts earned, average of 15.25 pts
2. Ross Miner: 5 Events, 41.4 weighted pts earned, average of 8.26 pts
3. Vincent Zhou: 6 Events, 65.2 weighted pts earned, average of 10.87 pts
4. Adam Rippon: 5 Events, 60.4 weighted pts earned, average of 12.08 pts
5. Grant Hochstein: 5 Events, 20.7 weighted pts earned, average of 4.14 pts
6. Jason Brown: 8 Events, 69.7 weighted pts earned, average of 8.65 pts
9. Max Aaron: 5 Events, 29.5 weighted pts earned, average of 5.9pts
Based on the math, the Olympic team makes sense with Nathan far above everyone else followed by Adam then Vincent. Jason edges out Ross for 4th (or first alternate).
I know that I might be biased but applying a mathematical methodology to "body of work" would make the concept less grey and more black and white. As I mentioned in my previous post, there is not a mathematical way to look at qualitative things.
@tavi... I am not sure exactly how I would do it and no doubt, using more qualitative descriptors in the decision process would cause the same uproar as our currently ambiguous "body of work" criteria. That being said (and much to the chagrin of Wakaba fans... I AM A WAKA FAN TOO), I think a clear usage of some qualitative descriptors coupled with "body of work" can be seen with the ladies Japanese team. Arguably, Waka's overall body of work was stronger than Kaori's: GP placement, GPF qualifier. That being said, Waka had also proven that she had a tendency to falter at the high stake events. Worlds 17, 4CC 17, and one could argue that GPF17 as well as Nationals 17 showed that Waka was susceptible to the pressure. Another thing that I wonder if the JSF looked at was Kaori's upward swing from American Classic > Rostelecom > Skate America > Nationals.
I do not think a sport where artistry comes to play can ever be truly black and white (obviously... let's look at the PCS of some reputation skaters...) but at least in my opinion, I have shown that math can make a grey area a little less grey. :agree:
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2012
So what you really mean is:
Based on *your* hypothetical points and weighting, the Olympic team makes sense ....
It is not "the" math -- it is *your* math.
As has been discussed many times, none of us know the weighting/points used by the selection committee.
If -- hypothetically -- the selected ladies' team had been Bradie, Mirai, and Ashley, no doubt someone could come up with a weighting/points system that would show that Ashley's selection "makes sense."
And someone else could come up with a weighting/points system that would show that Karen's selection "makes sense."
ETA:
For the sake of discussion, I have used your weighting/points system to make calculations for Karen and Ashley.
Your weighting/points system would give Ashley quite an edge in "body of work."
So we know that at least for the ladies, either the selection committee clearly did not use the same weighting/points system as yours -- and/or that the committee felt that one or more other factors should be taken into account beyond an arithmetical formula for body of work.
According to your weighting/points system (altered only to put competitions into the correct tiers):
To be clear: I am not attempting to make a case that Ashley should have been selected instead of Karen.
My point is that because we do not know the actual parameters used by the selection committee, mathematical methodology is not reliable (and cannot be reliable) in explaining the committee's decisions.
Your arbitrary/hypothetical system of weighting/points does nothing to make the selection of the U.S. ladies more black and white.
If anything, it does the opposite.
Your weighting/points system would give Ashley quite an edge in "body of work."
So we know that at least for the ladies, either the selection committee clearly did not use the same weighting/points system as yours -- and/or that the committee felt that one or more other factors should be taken into account beyond an arithmetical formula for body of work.
According to your weighting/points system (altered only to put competitions into the correct tiers):
Karen:
Ashley:
Tier 1: 2018 Nats 3rd + 2017 Worlds 4th [(11 + 9) x 1.3 = 28.6]
Tier 2: 2017 Skate America 8th + 2017 Skate Canada 7th + 2017 Four Continents 12th [(3 + 4 - 5) x 1.1 = 2.2]
Tier 3: 2017 U.S. Classic 3rd + 2017 Nats 1st [11 + 15 = 26]
(28.6 + 2.2 + 26) / 7 events = 8.1
Tier 2: 2017 Skate America 8th + 2017 Skate Canada 7th + 2017 Four Continents 12th [(3 + 4 - 5) x 1.1 = 2.2]
Tier 3: 2017 U.S. Classic 3rd + 2017 Nats 1st [11 + 15 = 26]
(28.6 + 2.2 + 26) / 7 events = 8.1
Ashley:
Tier 1: 2018 Nats 4th + 2017 Worlds 7th [(9 + 4) x 1.3 = 16.9]
Tier 2: 2017 Skate America 3rd [11 x 1.1 = 12.1]
Tier 3: 2017 Nats 2nd [13]
(16.9 + 12.1 + 13) / 4 events = 10.5
Tier 2: 2017 Skate America 3rd [11 x 1.1 = 12.1]
Tier 3: 2017 Nats 2nd [13]
(16.9 + 12.1 + 13) / 4 events = 10.5
To be clear: I am not attempting to make a case that Ashley should have been selected instead of Karen.
My point is that because we do not know the actual parameters used by the selection committee, mathematical methodology is not reliable (and cannot be reliable) in explaining the committee's decisions.
Your arbitrary/hypothetical system of weighting/points does nothing to make the selection of the U.S. ladies more black and white.
If anything, it does the opposite.
ETA:
Your spreadsheet has a few errors:
2017 Worlds was a Tier 1 competition (not Tier 3) in the USFS criteria.
2017 Four Continents was a Tier 2 competition (not Tier 3).
Jason Brown's results are from 2017 Worlds. Not 2017 Junior Worlds, which is what your spreadsheet shows.
Your spreadsheet inexplicably omits Grant Hochstein's ninth place at 2017 Four Continents -- so the truth is that he competed in six events, not five.
His 2017 Four Continents ninth place is "worth" zero points, according to your points system. But your spreadsheet does show other instances of ninth place.
2017 Four Continents was a Tier 2 competition (not Tier 3).
Jason Brown's results are from 2017 Worlds. Not 2017 Junior Worlds, which is what your spreadsheet shows.
Your spreadsheet inexplicably omits Grant Hochstein's ninth place at 2017 Four Continents -- so the truth is that he competed in six events, not five.
His 2017 Four Continents ninth place is "worth" zero points, according to your points system. But your spreadsheet does show other instances of ninth place.
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2014
Nice to have another analyst on this forum
Been a crazy day but I did it for the top 6 men at nationals + Max Aaron. LOVE DATA.
Again using hypothetical points and weighting:
1. Looking at and weighting events based on tiers listed in under "Body of Work" criteria: +30% bonus for Tier 1 Events, +10% bonus for Tier 2 Events, no bonus for Tier 3 Events
2. Using Grand Prix point system to apply points based on placement w/ a 1st placement receiving 15pts and 9th receiving 0. Additionally, for poor placements I added the negative mirror w/ 17th placement receiving -15pts.
Formula: (Placement Points * (1+Tier Bonus Weight %))= Weighted Points
Example: Ashley Wagner's Skate Canada Placement of 3rd - (11pts* (1+10%))=12.1pts
3. Taking the average of the weighted points earned divided by the amount events in which the points were earned so that a skater is not penalized if they had less events looked at under the "body of work" criteria.
Formula: Sum of Weighted Points/# of Events
Example: Mirai's weighted points earned / 5 events she earned them: 48.8pts/5 events=9.76 average
Below is look to my google sheet where I did the math based on the hypothetical weighting and points:
MEN'S BODY OF WORK EVENT TIER POINT SYSTEM
1. Nathan Chen: 8 Events, 122 weighted pts earned, average of 15.25 pts
2. Ross Miner: 5 Events, 41.4 weighted pts earned, average of 8.26 pts
3. Vincent Zhou: 6 Events, 65.2 weighted pts earned, average of 10.87 pts
4. Adam Rippon: 5 Events, 60.4 weighted pts earned, average of 12.08 pts
5. Grant Hochstein: 5 Events, 20.7 weighted pts earned, average of 4.14 pts
6. Jason Brown: 8 Events, 69.7 weighted pts earned, average of 8.65 pts
9. Max Aaron: 5 Events, 29.5 weighted pts earned, average of 5.9pts
Based on the math, the Olympic team makes sense with Nathan far above everyone else followed by Adam then Vincent. Jason edges out Ross for 4th (or first alternate).
I know that I might be biased but applying a mathematical methodology to "body of work" would make the concept less grey and more black and white. As I mentioned in my previous post, there is not a mathematical way to look at qualitative things.
@tavi... I am not sure exactly how I would do it and no doubt, using more qualitative descriptors in the decision process would cause the same uproar as our currently ambiguous "body of work" criteria. That being said (and much to the chagrin of Wakaba fans... I AM A WAKA FAN TOO), I think a clear usage of some qualitative descriptors coupled with "body of work" can be seen with the ladies Japanese team. Arguably, Waka's overall body of work was stronger than Kaori's: GP placement, GPF qualifier. That being said, Waka had also proven that she had a tendency to falter at the high stake events. Worlds 17, 4CC 17, and one could argue that GPF17 as well as Nationals 17 showed that Waka was susceptible to the pressure. Another thing that I wonder if the JSF looked at was Kaori's upward swing from American Classic > Rostelecom > Skate America > Nationals.
I do not think a sport where artistry comes to play can ever be truly black and white (obviously... let's look at the PCS of some reputation skaters...) but at least in my opinion, I have shown that math can make a grey area a little less grey. :agree:
Great job! Thank you so much - you’ve really shown how applying a formula makes sense.
I guess the only thing I might tweak in your model is the use of GP points for everything. If I assign the same value (not counting the bonus) to a 6th place finish at a challenger series event, a GP event, and a Championship or Final event, I’m basically saying that they’re worth the same thing. But for World Standings purposes, these events are weighted differently. I think you get more points for a championship event because the competition there is theoretically tougher. Also, I’m not sure about using averages to avoid penalizing someone with fewer events, because it kind of flattens things out. If you are assigned to more events than others, it usually means you earned them by performing well the previous season. If you are assigned fewer events, it can mean that you performed poorly the previous season and didn’t earn them, are new (ie inexperienced), were injured, or withdrew from an assigned competition for personal reasons. Since the idea is to look at someone’s work over time, just looking at the average doesn’t give you a true picture. JMO! Thanks again!
Similar threads
