The tyranny of the yurchenko full. Since the dawn of life on earth, we have been hearing about the wicked prevalence of yurchenko fulls on vault and how a lineup consisting of six of the same average, snoozer vaults is super boring. Then, in the year 2015, the NCAA coaches did something shocking. They actually decided to get up from their Rip Van Winkle naps and try to change the rules in order to improve the sport. I know. I'm still not over it. They downgraded the yurchenko full and (theoretically) the yurchenko half to a 9.95 start value with the dual aims of increasing variety on vault and encouraging/rewarding those who are able to show more difficulty. With a season of vaults under the new values behind us, let's look into how it actually worked.
A cursory glance at the lineups of the top teams tells us that we did see a greater variety of vaults this season than in recent years, though usually by about one vault per team. Oklahoma is vaulting three yfulls in 2016 compared to four last year. Florida and UCLA both have four yfulls this year instead of five like last year. LSU and Georgia were already showing a number of higher-difficulty vaults last year and stayed constant at those numbers. Utah showed one 1.5 and five fulls again this year, and Auburn's non-full options remain the same. Alabama and Michigan adapted the most among the top tier, each showing three 1.5s (when Casanova was healthy), compared to one most of last year for both teams.
The change has come about pretty much the way we all expected, with a number of top vaulters who have always been fully capable of performing 1.5s upgrading back to vaults they used to perform, like Kennedy Baker, Haley Scaman, Lauren Beers, Mack Brannan, Talia Chiarelli, and Elizabeth Price to the DTY, providing some more variety in their teams' lineups, as much as you can consider a yurchenko 1.5 instead of a yurchenko full "variety."
We've also seen a few 1.5s make it into vault lineups they weren't making previously from the likes of Breanna Hughes and Pua Hall. Hall is an interesting example of someone who prooooobably wouldn't be making that lineup if the 1.5 and the full were the same value because her landing gets a little 9.750, but the extra .05 in SV makes it worthwhile compared to an average full.
It isn't worth it for everyone, however. We know Bridget Sloan can do a 1.5. We all lived through the "BRIDGET SLOAN IS TRAINING AN AMANAR YOU GUYS I SWEAR" years, but she has stayed with the full all season to get a more reliable score and, primarily, to frustrate Kathy Johnson who always thinks she's going to do a 1.5 and is always disappointed. Not every gymnast who can do a 1.5 has been encouraged to do so by the paltry gift of an extra .05.
Less common, but still occurring, are Hunter Price situations. These are the pot of gold from the change in values. Price's handspring pike 1/2 has been on the cusp of that vault lineup forever but wasn't quite worth it in the lineup. She has used the .05 advantage to push her way into Oklahoma's six and provide a little extra variety.
I have not yet addressed those vaults-that-shall-not-be-named that masquerade as arabians and get a 10.0 SV, mostly because I'm done talking about them forever. The rule just needs to change for next year, though certainly teams have been getting an extra boost of 10.0 vaults and alleged variety by exploiting that loophole. This is the one area in which the new vault values have been a clear and indisputable negative, adding controversy where there should be none and confusion where there should be clarity.
Showing posts with label Fun with Numbers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fun with Numbers. Show all posts
April 6, 2016
April 5, 2016
Who Is Going to Make Super Six?
Are you still alive? Maybe? Ish?
The extended frigid hellscape that was regionals day is now squarely behind us, with all the Michigan tears and Stanford celebration dances accounted for, and if you were able to emerge from that 58-millenium barrage of meets and marathon of interminable bye rotations without passing out and deciding that you hate gymnastics now, you're the winner.
For a recap of all the action you may have missed, or seen, or intentionally got amnesia about, or found infuriating, be sure to listen to this week's episode of Gymcastic. I join Jessica and Uncle Tim to go through the day regional by regional to speculate about whether the Iowa regional was judged by three lemons and the concept of winter, argue over the merits of the handspring-onto-the-springboard vault, and warn that in spite of what you may have heard from your friends, the Stanford Rhythm Method is not a reliable form of making nationals. Among other topics. Get ready.
For the moment, let's look toward nationals. We know our semifinalists, and the rotation order has been released, so it's time to get a-speculatin'.
It was probably going to be the case anyway, but the Michigan upset has left what looks to be a golden opportunity for several teams to snatch the third spot out of the first semifinal, assuming that Florida and LSU are the favorites. After all the terrors of this season, has Georgia become the pick to advance? The Gymdogs get to start on beam again. Nothing like a high-budget dystopian horror comedy to start the day. But they hit beam at regionals! Kind of! They did enough! Hooray!
Few of the rotation assignments jump out as particularly disastrous for any of these teams, though I do think that Stanford benefited from finishing on its good events at regionals and will have the opposite order here, starting with events that need to score massively and finishing on events that are unlikely to. Stanford will need the judges to be willing to flash the 9.900-9.950s right from the first routine of the first session because Stanford really must get 49.5s on bars and beam.
In the coming days, I'll delve into more detailed prognostication about the semifinals, Super Six, and whether we even care about the individual competitions anymore, but for today, let's set things up with a glance at the numbers. Which are the key events to watch if we're looking for an upset? And who's capable of pulling it off? Categories in which a team places in the top three in the session (a qualifying spot) are highlighted.
SEMIFINAL 1
FLORIDA
Regional score: 196.725 [3]
RQS: 197.795 [1]
Regular season average: 197.502 [1]
Season high: 198.175 [1]
VT regional score: 49.225 [3]
VT RQS: 49.420 [2]
VT average: 49.341 [2]
VT season high: 49.500 [3]
UB regional score: 49.125 [4]
UB RQS: 49.500 [1]
UB average: 49.439 [1]
UB season high: 49.650 [1]
BB regional score: 49.300 [1]
BB RQS: 49.430 [1]
BB average: 49.318 [1]
BB season high: 49.525 [3]
FX regional score: 49.075 [4]
FX RQS: 49.505 [2]
FX average: 49.405 [2]
FX season high: 49.675 [2]
Florida should be the heaviest favorite in the first semifinal and settles in comfortably in the top three here in every category except those pertaining to that lackluster regionals performance. It's worth treating as just an odd blip for now that shouldn't compromise our expectations of Florida making it out of this semifinal safely and easily, but it doesn't help in the race to catch Oklahoma.
The extended frigid hellscape that was regionals day is now squarely behind us, with all the Michigan tears and Stanford celebration dances accounted for, and if you were able to emerge from that 58-millenium barrage of meets and marathon of interminable bye rotations without passing out and deciding that you hate gymnastics now, you're the winner.
For a recap of all the action you may have missed, or seen, or intentionally got amnesia about, or found infuriating, be sure to listen to this week's episode of Gymcastic. I join Jessica and Uncle Tim to go through the day regional by regional to speculate about whether the Iowa regional was judged by three lemons and the concept of winter, argue over the merits of the handspring-onto-the-springboard vault, and warn that in spite of what you may have heard from your friends, the Stanford Rhythm Method is not a reliable form of making nationals. Among other topics. Get ready.
For the moment, let's look toward nationals. We know our semifinalists, and the rotation order has been released, so it's time to get a-speculatin'.
It was probably going to be the case anyway, but the Michigan upset has left what looks to be a golden opportunity for several teams to snatch the third spot out of the first semifinal, assuming that Florida and LSU are the favorites. After all the terrors of this season, has Georgia become the pick to advance? The Gymdogs get to start on beam again. Nothing like a high-budget dystopian horror comedy to start the day. But they hit beam at regionals! Kind of! They did enough! Hooray!
Few of the rotation assignments jump out as particularly disastrous for any of these teams, though I do think that Stanford benefited from finishing on its good events at regionals and will have the opposite order here, starting with events that need to score massively and finishing on events that are unlikely to. Stanford will need the judges to be willing to flash the 9.900-9.950s right from the first routine of the first session because Stanford really must get 49.5s on bars and beam.
In the coming days, I'll delve into more detailed prognostication about the semifinals, Super Six, and whether we even care about the individual competitions anymore, but for today, let's set things up with a glance at the numbers. Which are the key events to watch if we're looking for an upset? And who's capable of pulling it off? Categories in which a team places in the top three in the session (a qualifying spot) are highlighted.
SEMIFINAL 1
FLORIDA
Regional score: 196.725 [3]
RQS: 197.795 [1]
Regular season average: 197.502 [1]
Season high: 198.175 [1]
VT regional score: 49.225 [3]
VT RQS: 49.420 [2]
VT average: 49.341 [2]
VT season high: 49.500 [3]
UB regional score: 49.125 [4]
UB RQS: 49.500 [1]
UB average: 49.439 [1]
UB season high: 49.650 [1]
BB regional score: 49.300 [1]
BB RQS: 49.430 [1]
BB average: 49.318 [1]
BB season high: 49.525 [3]
FX regional score: 49.075 [4]
FX RQS: 49.505 [2]
FX average: 49.405 [2]
FX season high: 49.675 [2]
Florida should be the heaviest favorite in the first semifinal and settles in comfortably in the top three here in every category except those pertaining to that lackluster regionals performance. It's worth treating as just an odd blip for now that shouldn't compromise our expectations of Florida making it out of this semifinal safely and easily, but it doesn't help in the race to catch Oklahoma.
March 23, 2016
Which Teams Can Pull Off the Upset at Regionals?
Like vicious bullies who don't understand that we won't know what to do with ourselves in a weekend without gymnastics, college gymnastics is taking a week off before regionals on April 2nd in order to do dumb things like rest and heal and train and be students. So overrated.
That does, however, provide plenty of time for previews of each regional competition, so I'll be breaking those down over the next week or so to make aggressively confident proclamations about what to look for. Helpful in making such prognoses are previous scores and results, so I have compiled a batch a vaguely relevant averages and RQSs, which should provide a clearer look at which teams have the advantage on which events, where teams need to capitalize in order to advance, and which teams are at least in the running for a spot at nationals.
For the host teams, I have included home-meet averages, and for visiting teams, I have included road-meet averages, hopefully to account for any boost a team might receive at a home regional (or eliminate any boost a visiting team might have been receiving during regular-season home meets), even though there are many factors that combine to account for home blah blah blah blah blah.
Each number is followed by the team's rank within that regional, with a top-two ranking in the regional (i.e., a qualifying spot) highlighted in blue. BECAUSE COLORS.
IOWA CITY, IOWA
[1] Oklahoma
RQS: 197.920 [1]
Season high: 198.075 [1]
Season average: 197.588 [1]
Road average: 197.538 [1]
VT RQS: 49.415 [1]
VT average: 49.356 [1]
Road VT average: 49.369 [1]
UB RQS: 49.575 [1]
UB average: 49.467 [1]
Road UB average: 49.428 [1]
BB RQS: 49.445 [1]
BB average: 49.362 [1]
Road BB average: 49.344 [1]
FX RQS: 49.575 [1]
FX average: 49.404 [1]
Road FX average: 49.369 [1]
[2] Nebraska
RQS: 196.635 [2]
Season high: 197.350 [2]
Season average: 196.205 [3]
Road average: 195.780 [3]
VT RQS: 49.105 [3]
VT average: 48.991 [3]
Road VT average: 48.865 [3]
UB RQS: 49.180 [2]
UB average: 49.016 [3]
Road UB average: 48.885 [5]
BB RQS:49.255 [2]
BB average: 49.068 [3]
Road BB average: 48.990 [2]
FX RQS: 49.260 [3]
FX average: 49.130 [2]
Road FX average: 49.040 [3]
[3] Arkansas
RQS: 196.575 [3]
Season high: 197.225 [3]
Season average: 196.335 [2]
Road average: 196.118 [2]
VT RQS: 49.160 [2]
VT average: 49.104 [2]
Road VT average: 49.139 [2]
UB RQS: 49.165 [3]
UB average: 49.08 [2]
Road UB average: 49.004 [2]
BB RQS: 49.195 [3]
BB average: 49.069 [2]
Road BB average: 48.971 [3]
FX RQS: 49.280 [2]
FX average: 49.079 [4]
Road FX average: 49.004 [4]
[4] Iowa
RQS: 196.330 [4]
Season high: 196.650 [4]
Season average: 195.456 [4]
Home average: 195.280 [4]
VT RQS: 49.095 [4]
VT average: 48.933 [4]
Home VT average: 48.765 [4]
UB RQS: 49.160 [4]
UB average: 48.846 [5]
Home UB average: 48.895 [4]
BB RQS: 49.095 [4]
BB average: 48.702 [4]
Home BB average: 48.605 [5]
FX RQS: 49.115 [5]
FX average: 48.975 [5]
Home FX average: 49.015 [5]
[5] Kent State
RQS: 195.595 [5]
Season high: 196.125 [5]
Season average: 195.102 [5]
Road average: 194.629 [6]
VT RQS: 48.675 [6]
VT average: 48.600 [5]
Road VT average: 48.508 [6]
UB RQS: 48.940 [6]
UB average: 48.73 [6]
Road UB average: 48.536 [6]
BB RQS: 48.915 [6]
BB average: 48.643 [6]
Road BB average: 48.538 [6]
FX RQS: 49.205 [4]
FX average: 49.123 [3]
Road FX average: 49.046 [2]
[6] Central Michigan
RQS: 195.440 [6]
Season high: 196.125 [5]
Season average: 194.910 [6]
Road average: 194.982 [5]
VT RQS: 48.795 [5]
VT average: 48.594 [6]
Road VT average: 48.596 [5]
UB RQS: 49.045 [5]
UB average: 48.910 [4]
Road UB average: 48.946 [3]
BB RQS: 48.945 [5]
BB average: 48.692 [5]
Road BB average: 48.861 [4]
FX RQS: 48.995 [6]
FX average: 48.715 [6]
Road FX average: 48.579 [6]
-As expected the #2 rankings are pretty much split between Nebraska and Arkansas, but Arkansas does take nine to Nebraska's six with Nebraska succeeding in RQS/season-high categories while Arkansas succeeds in season average. This reflects their season trajectories, with Nebraska struggling early but coming on strong toward the end and Arkansas remaining steadier throughout the compaign. It should be quite close between the two, so which do you value more? Are you Team RQS or Team Season Average? Team Peaking or Team Consistency?
-Nebraska has not performed particularly well on the road this year, but most of those road meets came early in the season. The somewhat paltry road averages may be more to do with timing than with location.
-Interestingly, Iowa does not get much of a boost from using home averages instead of road averages since the Hawkeyes were worse at home this year than on the road. Maybe not so much of a host bonus?
-Kent State is ranked higher than Central Michigan, almost entirely because of excellence on floor. Central Michigan is stronger on three events (significantly so when we look only at road meets), so I wouldn't be surprised if CMU finishes 5th here.
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA
[1] Florida
RQS: 197.795 [1]
Season high: 198.175 [1]
Season average: 197.502 [1]
Road average: 197.217 [1]
VT RQS: 49.420 [1]
VT average: 49.341 [1]
Road VT average: 49.283 [1]
UB RQS: 49.500 [1]
UB average: 49.439 [1]
Road UB average: 49.388 [1]
BB RQS: 49.430 [1]
BB average: 49.318 [1]
Road BB average: 49.217 [1]
FX RQS: 49.505 [1]
FX average: 49.405 [1]
Road FX average: 49.329 [1]
[2] Denver
RQS: 196.725 [2]
Season high: 197.525 [2]
Season average: 196.377 [2]
Road average: 196.355 [2]
VT RQS: 49.110 [4]
VT average: 49.035 [2]
Road VT average: 48.971 [3]
UB RQS: 49.270 [2]
UB average: 49.171 [2]
Road UB average: 49.155 [2]
BB RQS: 49.115 [3]
BB average: 48.940 [3]
Road BB average: 49.029 [2]
FX RQS: 49.360 [2]
FX average: 49.231 [2]
Road FX average: 49.200 [2]
[3] Minnesota
RQS: 196.495 [3]
Season high: 197.425 [3]
Season average: 196.090 [3]
Home average: 195.555 [4]
VT RQS: 49.120 [2]
VT average: 48.975 [4]
Home VT average: 48.810 [4]
UB RQS: 49.180 [3]
UB average: 48.963 [4]
Home UB average: 48.770 [6]
BB RQS: 49.185 [2]
BB average: 49.021 [2]
Home BB average: 48.955 [3]
FX RQS: 49.270 [3]
FX average: 49.131 [3]
Home FX average: 49.020 [3]
[4] Missouri
RQS: 196.235 [4]
Season high: 196.650 [4]
Season average: 195.867 [4]
Road average: 195.696 [3]
VT RQS: 49.120 [2]
VT average: 48.990 [3]
Road VT average: 49.071 [2]
UB RQS: 49.120 [4]
UB average: 48.983 [3]
Road UB average: 48.989 [3]
BB RQS: 49.070 [4]
BB average: 48.883 [4]
Road BB average: 48.810 [4]
FX RQS: 49.180 [4]
FX average: 49.010 [4]
Road FX average: 48.839 [5]
[5] Ohio State
RQS: 195.885 [5]
Season high: 196.350 [5]
Season average: 195.448 [5]
Road average: 195.350 [5]
VT RQS: 48.985 [5]
VT average: 48.889 [5]
Road VT average: 48.936 [5]
UB RQS: 49.020 [5]
UB average: 48.875 [5]
Road UB average: 48.832 [4]
BB RQS: 48.955 [5]
BB average: 48.764 [5]
Road BB average: 48.729 [5]
FX RQS: 49.075 [5]
FX average: 48.920 [5]
Road FX average: 48.854 [4]
[6] BYU
RQS: 195.550 [6]
Season high: 196.100 [6]
Season average: 195.048 [6]
Road average: 194.894 [6]
VT RQS: 48.950 [6]
VT average: 48.755 [6]
Road VT average: 48.709 [6]
UB RQS: 48.980 [6]
UB average: 48.841 [6]
Road UB average: 48.800 [5]
BB RQS: 48.870 [6]
BB average: 48.623 [6]
Road BB average: 48.606 [6]
FX RQS: 49.065 [6]
FX average: 48.830 [6]
Road FX average: 48.784 [6]
-Minnesota is in the same boat as Iowa in terms of performing much worse at home this year than on the road, so the Gophers get little help from those home averages. But, Minnesota is the #3 team instead of the #4 team here, so it may not take as much of a home nudge to flip things around from the current situation, which has Denver taking the lion's share of the #2 spots. Actually, it's a surprisingly dominant statistical showing from Denver, perhaps more of a favorite than it might seem, but Minnesota was adjusted up two seeding places in the allocation so is not as close to Denver as a normal #14 would be. Minnesota has beam, but may also need a little stronger scent of home in this one.
-Then there's the matter of Missouri, sliding into the #2s on vault and reminding us of 2010.
That does, however, provide plenty of time for previews of each regional competition, so I'll be breaking those down over the next week or so to make aggressively confident proclamations about what to look for. Helpful in making such prognoses are previous scores and results, so I have compiled a batch a vaguely relevant averages and RQSs, which should provide a clearer look at which teams have the advantage on which events, where teams need to capitalize in order to advance, and which teams are at least in the running for a spot at nationals.
For the host teams, I have included home-meet averages, and for visiting teams, I have included road-meet averages, hopefully to account for any boost a team might receive at a home regional (or eliminate any boost a visiting team might have been receiving during regular-season home meets), even though there are many factors that combine to account for home blah blah blah blah blah.
Each number is followed by the team's rank within that regional, with a top-two ranking in the regional (i.e., a qualifying spot) highlighted in blue. BECAUSE COLORS.
IOWA CITY, IOWA
[1] Oklahoma
RQS: 197.920 [1]
Season high: 198.075 [1]
Season average: 197.588 [1]
Road average: 197.538 [1]
VT RQS: 49.415 [1]
VT average: 49.356 [1]
Road VT average: 49.369 [1]
UB RQS: 49.575 [1]
UB average: 49.467 [1]
Road UB average: 49.428 [1]
BB RQS: 49.445 [1]
BB average: 49.362 [1]
Road BB average: 49.344 [1]
FX RQS: 49.575 [1]
FX average: 49.404 [1]
Road FX average: 49.369 [1]
[2] Nebraska
RQS: 196.635 [2]
Season high: 197.350 [2]
Season average: 196.205 [3]
Road average: 195.780 [3]
VT RQS: 49.105 [3]
VT average: 48.991 [3]
Road VT average: 48.865 [3]
UB RQS: 49.180 [2]
UB average: 49.016 [3]
Road UB average: 48.885 [5]
BB RQS:49.255 [2]
BB average: 49.068 [3]
Road BB average: 48.990 [2]
FX RQS: 49.260 [3]
FX average: 49.130 [2]
Road FX average: 49.040 [3]
[3] Arkansas
RQS: 196.575 [3]
Season high: 197.225 [3]
Season average: 196.335 [2]
Road average: 196.118 [2]
VT RQS: 49.160 [2]
VT average: 49.104 [2]
Road VT average: 49.139 [2]
UB RQS: 49.165 [3]
UB average: 49.08 [2]
Road UB average: 49.004 [2]
BB RQS: 49.195 [3]
BB average: 49.069 [2]
Road BB average: 48.971 [3]
FX RQS: 49.280 [2]
FX average: 49.079 [4]
Road FX average: 49.004 [4]
[4] Iowa
RQS: 196.330 [4]
Season high: 196.650 [4]
Season average: 195.456 [4]
Home average: 195.280 [4]
VT RQS: 49.095 [4]
VT average: 48.933 [4]
Home VT average: 48.765 [4]
UB RQS: 49.160 [4]
UB average: 48.846 [5]
Home UB average: 48.895 [4]
BB RQS: 49.095 [4]
BB average: 48.702 [4]
Home BB average: 48.605 [5]
FX RQS: 49.115 [5]
FX average: 48.975 [5]
Home FX average: 49.015 [5]
[5] Kent State
RQS: 195.595 [5]
Season high: 196.125 [5]
Season average: 195.102 [5]
Road average: 194.629 [6]
VT RQS: 48.675 [6]
VT average: 48.600 [5]
Road VT average: 48.508 [6]
UB RQS: 48.940 [6]
UB average: 48.73 [6]
Road UB average: 48.536 [6]
BB RQS: 48.915 [6]
BB average: 48.643 [6]
Road BB average: 48.538 [6]
FX RQS: 49.205 [4]
FX average: 49.123 [3]
Road FX average: 49.046 [2]
[6] Central Michigan
RQS: 195.440 [6]
Season high: 196.125 [5]
Season average: 194.910 [6]
Road average: 194.982 [5]
VT RQS: 48.795 [5]
VT average: 48.594 [6]
Road VT average: 48.596 [5]
UB RQS: 49.045 [5]
UB average: 48.910 [4]
Road UB average: 48.946 [3]
BB RQS: 48.945 [5]
BB average: 48.692 [5]
Road BB average: 48.861 [4]
FX RQS: 48.995 [6]
FX average: 48.715 [6]
Road FX average: 48.579 [6]
-As expected the #2 rankings are pretty much split between Nebraska and Arkansas, but Arkansas does take nine to Nebraska's six with Nebraska succeeding in RQS/season-high categories while Arkansas succeeds in season average. This reflects their season trajectories, with Nebraska struggling early but coming on strong toward the end and Arkansas remaining steadier throughout the compaign. It should be quite close between the two, so which do you value more? Are you Team RQS or Team Season Average? Team Peaking or Team Consistency?
-Nebraska has not performed particularly well on the road this year, but most of those road meets came early in the season. The somewhat paltry road averages may be more to do with timing than with location.
-Interestingly, Iowa does not get much of a boost from using home averages instead of road averages since the Hawkeyes were worse at home this year than on the road. Maybe not so much of a host bonus?
-Kent State is ranked higher than Central Michigan, almost entirely because of excellence on floor. Central Michigan is stronger on three events (significantly so when we look only at road meets), so I wouldn't be surprised if CMU finishes 5th here.
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA
[1] Florida
RQS: 197.795 [1]
Season high: 198.175 [1]
Season average: 197.502 [1]
Road average: 197.217 [1]
VT RQS: 49.420 [1]
VT average: 49.341 [1]
Road VT average: 49.283 [1]
UB RQS: 49.500 [1]
UB average: 49.439 [1]
Road UB average: 49.388 [1]
BB RQS: 49.430 [1]
BB average: 49.318 [1]
Road BB average: 49.217 [1]
FX RQS: 49.505 [1]
FX average: 49.405 [1]
Road FX average: 49.329 [1]
[2] Denver
RQS: 196.725 [2]
Season high: 197.525 [2]
Season average: 196.377 [2]
Road average: 196.355 [2]
VT RQS: 49.110 [4]
VT average: 49.035 [2]
Road VT average: 48.971 [3]
UB RQS: 49.270 [2]
UB average: 49.171 [2]
Road UB average: 49.155 [2]
BB RQS: 49.115 [3]
BB average: 48.940 [3]
Road BB average: 49.029 [2]
FX RQS: 49.360 [2]
FX average: 49.231 [2]
Road FX average: 49.200 [2]
[3] Minnesota
RQS: 196.495 [3]
Season high: 197.425 [3]
Season average: 196.090 [3]
Home average: 195.555 [4]
VT RQS: 49.120 [2]
VT average: 48.975 [4]
Home VT average: 48.810 [4]
UB RQS: 49.180 [3]
UB average: 48.963 [4]
Home UB average: 48.770 [6]
BB RQS: 49.185 [2]
BB average: 49.021 [2]
Home BB average: 48.955 [3]
FX RQS: 49.270 [3]
FX average: 49.131 [3]
Home FX average: 49.020 [3]
[4] Missouri
RQS: 196.235 [4]
Season high: 196.650 [4]
Season average: 195.867 [4]
Road average: 195.696 [3]
VT RQS: 49.120 [2]
VT average: 48.990 [3]
Road VT average: 49.071 [2]
UB RQS: 49.120 [4]
UB average: 48.983 [3]
Road UB average: 48.989 [3]
BB RQS: 49.070 [4]
BB average: 48.883 [4]
Road BB average: 48.810 [4]
FX RQS: 49.180 [4]
FX average: 49.010 [4]
Road FX average: 48.839 [5]
[5] Ohio State
RQS: 195.885 [5]
Season high: 196.350 [5]
Season average: 195.448 [5]
Road average: 195.350 [5]
VT RQS: 48.985 [5]
VT average: 48.889 [5]
Road VT average: 48.936 [5]
UB RQS: 49.020 [5]
UB average: 48.875 [5]
Road UB average: 48.832 [4]
BB RQS: 48.955 [5]
BB average: 48.764 [5]
Road BB average: 48.729 [5]
FX RQS: 49.075 [5]
FX average: 48.920 [5]
Road FX average: 48.854 [4]
[6] BYU
RQS: 195.550 [6]
Season high: 196.100 [6]
Season average: 195.048 [6]
Road average: 194.894 [6]
VT RQS: 48.950 [6]
VT average: 48.755 [6]
Road VT average: 48.709 [6]
UB RQS: 48.980 [6]
UB average: 48.841 [6]
Road UB average: 48.800 [5]
BB RQS: 48.870 [6]
BB average: 48.623 [6]
Road BB average: 48.606 [6]
FX RQS: 49.065 [6]
FX average: 48.830 [6]
Road FX average: 48.784 [6]
-Minnesota is in the same boat as Iowa in terms of performing much worse at home this year than on the road, so the Gophers get little help from those home averages. But, Minnesota is the #3 team instead of the #4 team here, so it may not take as much of a home nudge to flip things around from the current situation, which has Denver taking the lion's share of the #2 spots. Actually, it's a surprisingly dominant statistical showing from Denver, perhaps more of a favorite than it might seem, but Minnesota was adjusted up two seeding places in the allocation so is not as close to Denver as a normal #14 would be. Minnesota has beam, but may also need a little stronger scent of home in this one.
-Then there's the matter of Missouri, sliding into the #2s on vault and reminding us of 2010.
September 4, 2015
American Skills – 2015 Edition
It's that time of year again. A brand new batch of fresh summer routines has once again been bestowed upon us by Mrs. Karolyi's Traveling Circus, which means it's now my turn to break these routines down into their constituent skills to see what trends in routine composition emerge. Which skills have become the coolest kids in school and are totally dating Brett Bretterson? Which loser skills are eating lunch by themselves in a bathroom stall like Stephanie Tanner before Gia teaches her about smoking and Ace of Base (and meth, probably)? And does any of it make sense? Or are all these routines stupid?
Let's get into it. On each event, the skills are broken down by category, with the corresponding numbers indicating the percentage of US senior elites who performed that skill at the national championship in the given year. I have included all skills of C value or greater (so none of this bhs or giant nonsense), as well as the A dance elements on beam as a way of keeping tabs on how people are choosing to fulfill the dance combination requirement. As always, I counted the skill attempted rather than the skill that would actually receive credit because this is about evaluating intended composition choices. Though let me tell you, that was a rough game this year on floor. We'll get there in a second.
Some of the notable rises, falls, and year-to-year comparisons are highlighted. Because people like things with colors on them. Apparently.
UNEVEN BARS:
Let's get into it. On each event, the skills are broken down by category, with the corresponding numbers indicating the percentage of US senior elites who performed that skill at the national championship in the given year. I have included all skills of C value or greater (so none of this bhs or giant nonsense), as well as the A dance elements on beam as a way of keeping tabs on how people are choosing to fulfill the dance combination requirement. As always, I counted the skill attempted rather than the skill that would actually receive credit because this is about evaluating intended composition choices. Though let me tell you, that was a rough game this year on floor. We'll get there in a second.
Some of the notable rises, falls, and year-to-year comparisons are highlighted. Because people like things with colors on them. Apparently.
UNEVEN BARS:
- The tkatchev made a nice little comeback this year in most of its flavors (stalder, piked, and plain). Only the toe-on variation saw a fall in 2015 as more people have started performing a greater variety of entries, which is always a good thing. It also makes sense to Shayla up these bars routine since tkatchev variations are so valuable for CV right now. Last year, I was a little surprised by how few we saw, but they're coming into line now. Overall, the gymnasts are stepping up the difficulty with their bars releases. Although some of that is just Brenna making the whole group look like daredevils.
- The straddled jaeger remains the gold standard of non-tkatchev releases. As in, the only one. No piked versions this year, and no giengers again. Poor gienger. The gienger is a leg-separation deduction trap (hi Sophina!) while the straddled jaeger isn't, so if you're choosing one, it makes sense to choose the jaeger. But seriously, you're telling me no one out there can throw us a nice little Peszek-level gienger?
- Everyone remains all about the toe-on. And by everyone, I mean 52.63% of people. I'm still not really clear on why this trend has come on so forcefully in the last couple years. Sure, many people do need an 8th skill to count and the toe-on is the easiest C element on bars, but that was also true in the last quad, when relatively few people were doing toe-ons with no pirouetting (14% in 2012).
- We also saw a bit of an upswing in the toe-on 1/2s this year, though not a terribly significant one. This is understandable as a result of the popularity of jaegers. Got to do something to get facing the right direction.
- The stalder full continues to be the big loser among bars turns after having enjoyed greater popularity in the last quad when D pirouettes were more valuable for CV. Now, not so much. The relatively strict deductions for late pirouettes (compared to releases) have also contributed to this decline since the value of the skill just isn't worth the potential for a large late-finish deduction. Now, the gymnasts shove their one D pirouette into the routine (toe-on full) for a necessary D skill, but they're loath to put in another one if they don't have to.
- Sadly, the weiler 1/2 (aka, the wolf turn of bars) has returned to its previous levels after a refreshing dip last year.
August 23, 2015
On Kyla, Gabby, and How It Doesn't Really Matter
It occurs to me I never wrapped up my thoughts on the national championship, so here are just a few behind-schedule cognitive tangles about that competition before we move on to remembering that there are still two more national team camps before the WC squad is named and two more months until the actual competition.
On day 2 of nationals for the women, the world righted itself, with most of the competitors remembering that hitting routines is a thing you should probably do. It also reinforced why prospective team selection is such a fun game. There are a TON of realistic permutations for Worlds teams this year, all of which will end up scoring very similarly to one another, and some of which belie visual impressions from the competition. But which one do you choose?
Take Kyla, for example. Expectations are a funny thing. Kyla has been a top-2 AAer for the US this whole quad, majoring in not sucking at bars. So when she suddenly has a nasty Nationals and looks weak on bars, the sky is falling. That was certainly the attitude of our broadcast team. Al was even asking whether Kyla would make the selection camp. (Tim was like, "Derp. Obvi she's making the selection camp.") Yes correct, Tim.
But to me, and contrary to the overall tone of things, Kyla helped her chances to make the team with her performance on day 2 of nationals. At least, she made an argument for including her in the squad that she didn't make on day 1. No, bars is not happening. But at this moment, it's not really about bars for her. That's the big change in expectations we have to make. With her current routine composition, Kyla isn't making the team to do bars in TF even if she shaves several inches off her height and lands a dismount. (If she returns to her planned 6.3 and can hit by selection camp, it's a different story, but that's a lot to do.) Right now, it's about beam. That's where she can be top three. And she stepped up like hell there and did her job on day 2.
In fact, because she did her job (scoring several tenths ahead of a connection-free Aly Raisman and a strong Alyssa Baumann, and a point ahead of a wobbly Gabby Douglas), suddenly a team with Kyla on it makes a little sense now and outscores many of the other permutations. At least on the day. Playing the same game I did for day 1 scores, here's the way some possible teams stack up according exclusively to their day 2 scores.
On day 2 of nationals for the women, the world righted itself, with most of the competitors remembering that hitting routines is a thing you should probably do. It also reinforced why prospective team selection is such a fun game. There are a TON of realistic permutations for Worlds teams this year, all of which will end up scoring very similarly to one another, and some of which belie visual impressions from the competition. But which one do you choose?
Take Kyla, for example. Expectations are a funny thing. Kyla has been a top-2 AAer for the US this whole quad, majoring in not sucking at bars. So when she suddenly has a nasty Nationals and looks weak on bars, the sky is falling. That was certainly the attitude of our broadcast team. Al was even asking whether Kyla would make the selection camp. (Tim was like, "Derp. Obvi she's making the selection camp.") Yes correct, Tim.
But to me, and contrary to the overall tone of things, Kyla helped her chances to make the team with her performance on day 2 of nationals. At least, she made an argument for including her in the squad that she didn't make on day 1. No, bars is not happening. But at this moment, it's not really about bars for her. That's the big change in expectations we have to make. With her current routine composition, Kyla isn't making the team to do bars in TF even if she shaves several inches off her height and lands a dismount. (If she returns to her planned 6.3 and can hit by selection camp, it's a different story, but that's a lot to do.) Right now, it's about beam. That's where she can be top three. And she stepped up like hell there and did her job on day 2.
In fact, because she did her job (scoring several tenths ahead of a connection-free Aly Raisman and a strong Alyssa Baumann, and a point ahead of a wobbly Gabby Douglas), suddenly a team with Kyla on it makes a little sense now and outscores many of the other permutations. At least on the day. Playing the same game I did for day 1 scores, here's the way some possible teams stack up according exclusively to their day 2 scores.
April 9, 2015
Onward to Nationals
One week to go until the national championship. Start getting emotionally prepared. Here's a look at how the semifinals will shape up.
We've ended up with a relatively lopsided arrangement this year, with one semifinal featuring three clear favorites in Oklahoma, LSU, and Alabama, and the other containing a whole bunch of bubble teams. That afternoon semifinal is going to be serious and seriously competitive, so make sure you'll be available to lap up the whole thing at the super convenient time of 1pm CT on a Friday. Everyone's always free then, right?
I'll do the usual previewing next week and break down some of these rotation orders (UCLA starts on floor, so Miss Val will already have broken six vases about it because we know how she feels about starting on floor). But for now, here's the scoring comparison for the teams in each semifinal, including all the usual info along with the scores achieved on each event at regionals. Categories in which a team ranks in the top three (qualifying position) are highlighted in blue.
SEMIFINAL 1
FLORIDA
Regional score: 197.475 [2]
RQS: 197.790 [1]
Season high: 198.225 [2]
Regular season average: 197.536 [1]
VT average: 49.482 [1]
VT RQS: 49.540 [2]
VT regional score: 49.625 [1]
UB average: 49.409 [1]
UB RQS: 49.500 [1]
UB regional score: 49.125 [4]
BB average: 49.225 [2]
BB RQS: 49.360 [2]
BB regional score: 49.325 [3]
FX average: 49.420 [1]
FX RQS: 49.505 [1]
FX regional score: 49.400 [2]
UTAH
Regional score: 196.575 [6]
RQS: 197.670 [2]
Season high: 198.250 [1]
Regular season average: 197.418 [2]
VT average: 49.480 [2]
VT RQS: 49.560 [1]
VT regional score: 49.500 [2]
UB average: 49.398 [2]
UB RQS: 49.500 [1]
UB regional score: 49.075 [5]
BB average: 49.205 [3]
BB RQS: 49.320 [4]
BB regional score: 48.625 [6]
FX average: 49.336 [2]
FX RQS: 49.415 [2]
FX regional score: 49.375 [3]
MICHIGAN
Regional score: 197.000 [4]
RQS: 197.270 [3]
Season high: 197.825 [5]
Regular season average: 197.143 [3]
VT average: 49.264 [4]
VT RQS: 49.330 [4]
VT regional score: 49.175 [6]
UB average: 49.264 [3]
UB RQS: 49.370 [4]
UB regional score: 49.150 [3]
BB average: 49.286 [1]
BB RQS: 49.325 [3]
BB regional score: 49.250 [4]
FX average: 49.330 [3]
FX RQS: 49.365 [3]
FX regional score: 49.425 [1]
We've ended up with a relatively lopsided arrangement this year, with one semifinal featuring three clear favorites in Oklahoma, LSU, and Alabama, and the other containing a whole bunch of bubble teams. That afternoon semifinal is going to be serious and seriously competitive, so make sure you'll be available to lap up the whole thing at the super convenient time of 1pm CT on a Friday. Everyone's always free then, right?
I'll do the usual previewing next week and break down some of these rotation orders (UCLA starts on floor, so Miss Val will already have broken six vases about it because we know how she feels about starting on floor). But for now, here's the scoring comparison for the teams in each semifinal, including all the usual info along with the scores achieved on each event at regionals. Categories in which a team ranks in the top three (qualifying position) are highlighted in blue.
SEMIFINAL 1
FLORIDA
Regional score: 197.475 [2]
RQS: 197.790 [1]
Season high: 198.225 [2]
Regular season average: 197.536 [1]
VT average: 49.482 [1]
VT RQS: 49.540 [2]
VT regional score: 49.625 [1]
UB average: 49.409 [1]
UB RQS: 49.500 [1]
UB regional score: 49.125 [4]
BB average: 49.225 [2]
BB RQS: 49.360 [2]
BB regional score: 49.325 [3]
FX average: 49.420 [1]
FX RQS: 49.505 [1]
FX regional score: 49.400 [2]
UTAH
Regional score: 196.575 [6]
RQS: 197.670 [2]
Season high: 198.250 [1]
Regular season average: 197.418 [2]
VT average: 49.480 [2]
VT RQS: 49.560 [1]
VT regional score: 49.500 [2]
UB average: 49.398 [2]
UB RQS: 49.500 [1]
UB regional score: 49.075 [5]
BB average: 49.205 [3]
BB RQS: 49.320 [4]
BB regional score: 48.625 [6]
FX average: 49.336 [2]
FX RQS: 49.415 [2]
FX regional score: 49.375 [3]
MICHIGAN
Regional score: 197.000 [4]
RQS: 197.270 [3]
Season high: 197.825 [5]
Regular season average: 197.143 [3]
VT average: 49.264 [4]
VT RQS: 49.330 [4]
VT regional score: 49.175 [6]
UB average: 49.264 [3]
UB RQS: 49.370 [4]
UB regional score: 49.150 [3]
BB average: 49.286 [1]
BB RQS: 49.325 [3]
BB regional score: 49.250 [4]
FX average: 49.330 [3]
FX RQS: 49.365 [3]
FX regional score: 49.425 [1]
March 27, 2015
Regional Scoring Comparison
A weekend without women's college gymnastics. What are we going to do? Good thing they've scheduled Jesolo for tomorrow, which I assume was done specifically with us in mind so that we don't have withdrawal symptoms. Very considerate.
I'll get into the real business of regional previews at some point. Perhaps. Maybe. But for now, I have some numbers. They'll be helpful in making any sort of apparatus-based regional prognoses. For each regional, I have assembled a batch of vaguely relevant scores and averages (using home averages for host teams and road averages for everyone else, which should help provide a method to evaluate how much boost the host teams may get from being at home). Each score is followed by the team's ranking within the regional in that category, with blue indicating that a team is overperforming its seeding in that category and that other weird color indicating that a team is underperforming its seeding in that category. That should give a quick glance at what some of the danger areas are for each team, as well as where those teams might pick up some ground. You'll see that, as expected, the category rankings for the Morgantown and Berkeley regionals are all over place. They'll be the most fun.
NORMAN, OKLAHOMA REGIONAL:
[1] Oklahoma
RQS: 197.895 [1]
Season high: 198.500 [1]
Season average: 197.675 [1]
Home average: 197.963 [1]
VT RQS: 49.495 [1]
VT average: 49.456 [1]
Home VT average: 49.494 [1]
UB RQS: 49.475 [1]
UB average: 49.408 [1]
Home UB average: 49.413 [1]
BB RQS: 49.530 [1]
BB average: 49.363 [1]
Home BB average: 49.544 [1]
FX RQS: 49.560 [1]
FX average: 49.448 [1]
Home FX average: 49.513 [1]
[2] Oregon State
RQS: 196.680 [2]
Season high: 197.250 [2]
Season average: 196.352 [2]
Road average: 196.592 [2]
VT RQS: 49.285 [3]
VT average: 49.155 [3]
Road VT average: 49.175 [3]
UB RQS: 49.215 [2]
UB average: 48.998 [4]
Road UB average: 49.113 [3]
BB RQS: 49.145 [2]
BB average: 49.059 [2]
Road BB average: 49.092 [2]
FX RQS: 49.360 [2]
FX average: 49.141 [2]
Road FX average: 49.213 [2]
[3] Penn State
RQS: 196.665 [3]
Season high: 197.025 [3]
Season average: 196.282 [3]
Road average: 196.321 [3]
VT RQS: 49.310 [2]
VT average: 49.205 [2]
Road VT average: 49.271 [2]
UB RQS: 49.180 [3]
UB average: 49.089 [2]
Road UB average: 49.125 [2]
BB RQS: 49.125 [3]
BB average: 48.945 [3]
Road BB average: 48.979 [3]
FX RQS: 49.190 [3]
FX average: 49.043 [3]
Road FX average: 48.946 [3]
[4] Southern Utah
RQS: 196.100 [4]
Season high: 196.475 [4]
Season average: 195.644 [4]
Road average: 195.529 [4]
VT RQS: 49.055 [4]
VT average: 48.979 [4]
Road VT average: 48.946 [5]
UB RQS: 49.095 [4]
UB average: 49.025 [3]
Road UB average: 48.975 [4]
BB RQS: 49.045 [4]
BB average: 48.773 [4]
Road BB average: 48.850 [4]
FX RQS: 49.060 [5]
FX average: 48.867 [5]
Road FX average: 48.758 [5]
[5] Missouri
RQS: 195.720 [5]
Season high: 196.150 [6]
Season average: 195.131 [5]
Road average: 195.125 [6]
VT RQS: 49.030 [6]
VT average: 48.935 [6]
Road VT average: 48.883 [6]
UB RQS: 48.975 [5]
UB average: 48.775 [5]
Road UB average: 48.725 [6]
BB RQS: 48.890 [5]
BB average: 48.552 [5]
Road BB average: 48.788 [5]
FX RQS: 49.120 [4]
FX average: 48.869 [4]
Road FX average: 48.721 [6]
[6] NC State
RQS: 195.385 [6]
Season high: 196.175 [5]
Season average: 194.746 [6]
Road average: 195.250 [5]
VT RQS: 49.045 [5]
VT average: 48.950 [5]
Road VT average: 48.963 [4]
UB RQS: 48.885 [6]
UB average: 48.650 [6]
Road UB average: 48.763 [5]
BB RQS: 48.720 [6]
BB average: 48.484 [6]
Road BB average: 48.663 [6]
FX RQS: 48.905 [6]
FX average: 48.661 [6]
Road FX average: 48.863 [4]
I'll get into the real business of regional previews at some point. Perhaps. Maybe. But for now, I have some numbers. They'll be helpful in making any sort of apparatus-based regional prognoses. For each regional, I have assembled a batch of vaguely relevant scores and averages (using home averages for host teams and road averages for everyone else, which should help provide a method to evaluate how much boost the host teams may get from being at home). Each score is followed by the team's ranking within the regional in that category, with blue indicating that a team is overperforming its seeding in that category and that other weird color indicating that a team is underperforming its seeding in that category. That should give a quick glance at what some of the danger areas are for each team, as well as where those teams might pick up some ground. You'll see that, as expected, the category rankings for the Morgantown and Berkeley regionals are all over place. They'll be the most fun.
NORMAN, OKLAHOMA REGIONAL:
[1] Oklahoma
RQS: 197.895 [1]
Season high: 198.500 [1]
Season average: 197.675 [1]
Home average: 197.963 [1]
VT RQS: 49.495 [1]
VT average: 49.456 [1]
Home VT average: 49.494 [1]
UB RQS: 49.475 [1]
UB average: 49.408 [1]
Home UB average: 49.413 [1]
BB RQS: 49.530 [1]
BB average: 49.363 [1]
Home BB average: 49.544 [1]
FX RQS: 49.560 [1]
FX average: 49.448 [1]
Home FX average: 49.513 [1]
[2] Oregon State
RQS: 196.680 [2]
Season high: 197.250 [2]
Season average: 196.352 [2]
Road average: 196.592 [2]
VT RQS: 49.285 [3]
VT average: 49.155 [3]
Road VT average: 49.175 [3]
UB RQS: 49.215 [2]
UB average: 48.998 [4]
Road UB average: 49.113 [3]
BB RQS: 49.145 [2]
BB average: 49.059 [2]
Road BB average: 49.092 [2]
FX RQS: 49.360 [2]
FX average: 49.141 [2]
Road FX average: 49.213 [2]
[3] Penn State
RQS: 196.665 [3]
Season high: 197.025 [3]
Season average: 196.282 [3]
Road average: 196.321 [3]
VT RQS: 49.310 [2]
VT average: 49.205 [2]
Road VT average: 49.271 [2]
UB RQS: 49.180 [3]
UB average: 49.089 [2]
Road UB average: 49.125 [2]
BB RQS: 49.125 [3]
BB average: 48.945 [3]
Road BB average: 48.979 [3]
FX RQS: 49.190 [3]
FX average: 49.043 [3]
Road FX average: 48.946 [3]
[4] Southern Utah
RQS: 196.100 [4]
Season high: 196.475 [4]
Season average: 195.644 [4]
Road average: 195.529 [4]
VT RQS: 49.055 [4]
VT average: 48.979 [4]
Road VT average: 48.946 [5]
UB RQS: 49.095 [4]
UB average: 49.025 [3]
Road UB average: 48.975 [4]
BB RQS: 49.045 [4]
BB average: 48.773 [4]
Road BB average: 48.850 [4]
FX RQS: 49.060 [5]
FX average: 48.867 [5]
Road FX average: 48.758 [5]
[5] Missouri
RQS: 195.720 [5]
Season high: 196.150 [6]
Season average: 195.131 [5]
Road average: 195.125 [6]
VT RQS: 49.030 [6]
VT average: 48.935 [6]
Road VT average: 48.883 [6]
UB RQS: 48.975 [5]
UB average: 48.775 [5]
Road UB average: 48.725 [6]
BB RQS: 48.890 [5]
BB average: 48.552 [5]
Road BB average: 48.788 [5]
FX RQS: 49.120 [4]
FX average: 48.869 [4]
Road FX average: 48.721 [6]
[6] NC State
RQS: 195.385 [6]
Season high: 196.175 [5]
Season average: 194.746 [6]
Road average: 195.250 [5]
VT RQS: 49.045 [5]
VT average: 48.950 [5]
Road VT average: 48.963 [4]
UB RQS: 48.885 [6]
UB average: 48.650 [6]
Road UB average: 48.763 [5]
BB RQS: 48.720 [6]
BB average: 48.484 [6]
Road BB average: 48.663 [6]
FX RQS: 48.905 [6]
FX average: 48.661 [6]
Road FX average: 48.863 [4]
December 6, 2014
Returning Scores for 2015
Yesterday, the Oklahoma Sooners got all intrasquady and have posted a few videos to faceplace. At the very least, it appears we will have to change Chayse Capps Love Fest 2014 to Chayse Capps Love Fest 2015. Also Haley Scaman is getting really familiar with the floor this year.
In other news, while we wait for the coaches to release their annual and extremely meaningful poll so that we can spend a week making fun of it, I decided to check out how the top teams stack up based only on the scores they're returning from their postseason lineups last season. Because why not.
For each of the top 10 teams last season, I inserted the RQSs of the returning gymnasts back into the lineups on each event, then replaced all the lost scores from now-departed seniors with 9.800, dropping the lowest score as we always do. I chose 9.800 because for teams of the highest level, it is the baseline replacement-level score. They all should be able to come up with at least 9.800s from backups. It's a fine, regular, middle-of-the-road score.
Ranking the teams like this is a way of seeing how much scoring value each team has lost since last year. We can always say that one team lost 10 routines while another lost only 4, but that doesn't necessarily reflect the value of those individual routines. If a team is losing a bunch of routines, but they're mostly 9.825s, it's probably not that hard to replace those scores. If a team is losing a few routines, but they're 9.950s, that's going to be much harder. Inserting 9.800 in place of those scores illuminates how much scoring value the freshmen, injury returners, and backups from last season will have to contribute for the team to return to (or improve on) last year's level, not just how many lineup spots they'll have to fill.
For gymnasts without an RQS, or one that was not appropriately representative, I used the season average for hit routines, which best mimics what RQS is intended to tell us.
1. LSU – 197.725
Vault - 49.475 [2]
Bars - 49.320 [5]
Beam - 49.375 [1]
Floor - 49.555 [1]
2. OKLAHOMA - 197.650
Vault - 49.530 [1]
Bars - 49.353 [3]
Beam - 49.329 [2]
Floor - 49.438 [3]
3. FLORIDA - 197.600
Vault - 49.390 [4]
Bars - 49.360 [2]
Beam - 49.325 [3]
Floor - 49.525 [2]
-A clear top three emerges in LSU, Oklahoma, and Florida, which is not surprising. Along with Alabama, they were the top teams last season, and Alabama lost a big bag of essential routines.
-Of these three, Florida is taking the biggest knock this year without Caquatto and Johnson, but the Gators will balance that out by having the year's most impressive freshman class. It does means that among these teams, Florida needs to get the most out of its freshmen and returning backups, whereas LSU is returning its entire floor lineup from Super Six last year, so further contribution there would just be a bonus.
-LSU is retaining the most value of any team, but that bars ranking (5th of these 10 teams) reflects the dire lack of Sarie Morrison. The other low(ish) team ranking in this group is Florida's vault, with the 4th-best returning vault contingent, but they do look to be stronger there is season than last season with Kennedy Baker and Alex McMurtry coming in.
-Oklahoma is already returning the best vault scores, and now they're adding Brenna Dowell and Ali Jackson. So there's that. Interestingly, without Taylor Spears, Oklahoma drops below LSU on beam for its returning scores, but make no mistake, the Sooners won't be throwing up some measly replacement-level 9.800 in that lineup.
In other news, while we wait for the coaches to release their annual and extremely meaningful poll so that we can spend a week making fun of it, I decided to check out how the top teams stack up based only on the scores they're returning from their postseason lineups last season. Because why not.
For each of the top 10 teams last season, I inserted the RQSs of the returning gymnasts back into the lineups on each event, then replaced all the lost scores from now-departed seniors with 9.800, dropping the lowest score as we always do. I chose 9.800 because for teams of the highest level, it is the baseline replacement-level score. They all should be able to come up with at least 9.800s from backups. It's a fine, regular, middle-of-the-road score.
Ranking the teams like this is a way of seeing how much scoring value each team has lost since last year. We can always say that one team lost 10 routines while another lost only 4, but that doesn't necessarily reflect the value of those individual routines. If a team is losing a bunch of routines, but they're mostly 9.825s, it's probably not that hard to replace those scores. If a team is losing a few routines, but they're 9.950s, that's going to be much harder. Inserting 9.800 in place of those scores illuminates how much scoring value the freshmen, injury returners, and backups from last season will have to contribute for the team to return to (or improve on) last year's level, not just how many lineup spots they'll have to fill.
For gymnasts without an RQS, or one that was not appropriately representative, I used the season average for hit routines, which best mimics what RQS is intended to tell us.
1. LSU – 197.725
Vault - 49.475 [2]
Bars - 49.320 [5]
Beam - 49.375 [1]
Floor - 49.555 [1]
2. OKLAHOMA - 197.650
Vault - 49.530 [1]
Bars - 49.353 [3]
Beam - 49.329 [2]
Floor - 49.438 [3]
3. FLORIDA - 197.600
Vault - 49.390 [4]
Bars - 49.360 [2]
Beam - 49.325 [3]
Floor - 49.525 [2]
-A clear top three emerges in LSU, Oklahoma, and Florida, which is not surprising. Along with Alabama, they were the top teams last season, and Alabama lost a big bag of essential routines.
-Of these three, Florida is taking the biggest knock this year without Caquatto and Johnson, but the Gators will balance that out by having the year's most impressive freshman class. It does means that among these teams, Florida needs to get the most out of its freshmen and returning backups, whereas LSU is returning its entire floor lineup from Super Six last year, so further contribution there would just be a bonus.
-LSU is retaining the most value of any team, but that bars ranking (5th of these 10 teams) reflects the dire lack of Sarie Morrison. The other low(ish) team ranking in this group is Florida's vault, with the 4th-best returning vault contingent, but they do look to be stronger there is season than last season with Kennedy Baker and Alex McMurtry coming in.
-Oklahoma is already returning the best vault scores, and now they're adding Brenna Dowell and Ali Jackson. So there's that. Interestingly, without Taylor Spears, Oklahoma drops below LSU on beam for its returning scores, but make no mistake, the Sooners won't be throwing up some measly replacement-level 9.800 in that lineup.
September 14, 2014
Let's Discuss Your Skill Set - 2014 Edition
(Before we begin, Bailie Key has verbally committed to Florida. For the moment, let's put this in the "we'll see" category along with Biles and UCLA. We have some big years to get through first.)
Now to the business at hand. I've gone and done it again. The elite season is all a-flurry. Classic and US Championships are behind us and Mrs. Karolyi's Wild Ride begins tomorrow, which means we have a brand new batch of American routines to dissect to find out which skills are becoming more popular, which skills are becoming less popular, and how that relates to our expectations for the current code of points. Numbers! Thoughts! Squinting!
Below are tables listing the skills performed by US senior gymnasts this summer (with the exception of skills like giants and back handsprings because obviously), broken down by event and skill type. The percentages indicate the proportion of gymnasts who chose to perform each skill, and the info from 2013 and 2012 is included as well for comparison.
Notes: The colors indicate an increase/decrease of at least 10 percentage points in a single year. As with the past two years, I counted the skill attempted—even if it shouldn't receive credit—because this is about evaluating intended composition. This year, I also included the seniors who competed at Classic but not Championships just to give us a few more people to work with. There weren't exactly a lot of seniors this year. And as such, keep in mind that it doesn't take that many gymnasts performing a skill to create a large change in the %s.
UNEVEN BARS:
-JAEGERS! Everyone needs a Jaeger! THERE ARE NO OTHER RELEASES! We can call this the tyranny of the grip-change requirement, but it's getting worse.
-The tkatchev is not as popular this year for some reason. It's not really a code issue, since E tkatchev variations connected into paks are extremely valuable for CV. This may just be a year with fewer gymnasts capable/comfortable with that type of skill. This is the year of Ashton Locklear and Madison Kocian on bars, and they're more of the Russian style than the Tweddle style.
-Bye, gienger. We'll always have NCAA.
Now to the business at hand. I've gone and done it again. The elite season is all a-flurry. Classic and US Championships are behind us and Mrs. Karolyi's Wild Ride begins tomorrow, which means we have a brand new batch of American routines to dissect to find out which skills are becoming more popular, which skills are becoming less popular, and how that relates to our expectations for the current code of points. Numbers! Thoughts! Squinting!
Below are tables listing the skills performed by US senior gymnasts this summer (with the exception of skills like giants and back handsprings because obviously), broken down by event and skill type. The percentages indicate the proportion of gymnasts who chose to perform each skill, and the info from 2013 and 2012 is included as well for comparison.
Notes: The colors indicate an increase/decrease of at least 10 percentage points in a single year. As with the past two years, I counted the skill attempted—even if it shouldn't receive credit—because this is about evaluating intended composition. This year, I also included the seniors who competed at Classic but not Championships just to give us a few more people to work with. There weren't exactly a lot of seniors this year. And as such, keep in mind that it doesn't take that many gymnasts performing a skill to create a large change in the %s.
UNEVEN BARS:
-Can we talk about these toe-ons? And why? Everyone and her coach's elderly aunt who always needs to be picked up from the dry cleaners for some reason is doing a toe circle with no pirouetting this year. That skill is booming, up from just 14% in 2012. Now it's in almost half of routines. The stalders are getting in on the action as well with 20% doing stalders compared to none last year.
A couple people need these C elements to count as part of their 8, but many who perform the toe-on aren't using it as a counting skill. Is it a rhythm thing? Is everyone systematically being forced to put toe-ons that don't count into their routines because of a yet-to-be-determined evil plan involving bees and world domination? It could be a backup skill in case something else gets downgraded, but that's what B giants before the dismount are for. And why suddenly now? What has changed to make this skill more useful than before? Anything?
-We're also seeing slight decreases in the numbers of toe-on fulls and stalder fulls being performed. These decreases are not too large or significant, but they make sense since D pirouettes are less valuable now that skills must have flight to earn significant CV.
-Overall, the routines this season contain more pirouetting skills than last season, which runs slightly counter to the expectation that flight would progressively take over for pirouetting in the 2013-2016 quad because of the changes in CV. It's something to keep an eye on in 2015 and 2016.
-The Weiler kip moment appears to be passing. Good.
-JAEGERS! Everyone needs a Jaeger! THERE ARE NO OTHER RELEASES! We can call this the tyranny of the grip-change requirement, but it's getting worse.
-The tkatchev is not as popular this year for some reason. It's not really a code issue, since E tkatchev variations connected into paks are extremely valuable for CV. This may just be a year with fewer gymnasts capable/comfortable with that type of skill. This is the year of Ashton Locklear and Madison Kocian on bars, and they're more of the Russian style than the Tweddle style.
-Bye, gienger. We'll always have NCAA.
August 17, 2014
Post-Classic, Pre-Championships Difficulties
Now that we have lurched ourselves in that strange, antsy interim period between Classic and Championships, it's time to revisit the difficulty scores for the US women based on what we learned at Classic, which was mostly nothing. Classic essentially served to confirm what we already knew, that Simone Biles and Kyla Ross are dominating the all-around picture, without providing many answers about the rest of the senior elite group.
But the picture has adjusted slightly, so I have updated the super cool, popular kid spreadsheets of current D-scores on each event after the performances at Classic. I retained a couple D-scores that we haven't yet seen this season, like the 6.4 and 6.1 on bars for Ross and Biles respectively, because even though they didn't try those routines at Classic, both are intending to build back up to those scores as the year progresses.
As necessary, I tried to remove the stick bonus from Classic (which was irritatingly added to the D-Score) wherever it reared its ugly head, so I have Biles at her real score of 6.5 on floor and Locklear at her real 6.5 on bars, but I grant I may have missed a few.
VAULT
Biles, obviously. With Maroney injured and Price off to Stanford, Biles is clearly the best vaulter in the country. After that, it gets a bit interesting.
Mykayla Skinner, you guys. What are we going to do about this situation? Without that many difficult vaults being done right now, 2014 would seem like the year for her to muscle her way onto the team as a vault specialist with that Dadaist Cheng of hers. Yet, at Classic she scored lower on vault than Ross, even if we take out Kyla's stick bonus. You don't get to be a vault specialist if you're scoring lower than Kyla Ross's DTY. That's the rule. We tend to look only at the highest difficulty vaults in formulating prospective team final scenarios, but the US could be perfectly fine at Worlds using Ross's DTY as a leadoff. They'd still have a big vault advantage. If Skinner is going to make it to Worlds as a vaulter, she'll have to prove that she is markedly and reliably better than Ross, which she hasn't done yet.
However, Skinner's vault fate may rest mostly in the hands of Gowey and Dowell, the final two current members of the Amanar club. Gowey went for the 2.5 at Classic and fell, so she'll have to prove some consistency with that vault at Championships/selection to be considered as a vaulter. She is a Martha favorite, though, so she'll have time to find that consistency. With Dowell, who even knows where she is with that ankle injury, but her 2.5 has been usable in the past. She'll still be in the conversation if she ends up showing four events soon. We have the potential for an entertaining vault showdown brewing among this group of non-Biles vaulters. A couple of them need to finish top 3 on vault at Nationals.
But the picture has adjusted slightly, so I have updated the super cool, popular kid spreadsheets of current D-scores on each event after the performances at Classic. I retained a couple D-scores that we haven't yet seen this season, like the 6.4 and 6.1 on bars for Ross and Biles respectively, because even though they didn't try those routines at Classic, both are intending to build back up to those scores as the year progresses.
As necessary, I tried to remove the stick bonus from Classic (which was irritatingly added to the D-Score) wherever it reared its ugly head, so I have Biles at her real score of 6.5 on floor and Locklear at her real 6.5 on bars, but I grant I may have missed a few.
VAULT
Biles, obviously. With Maroney injured and Price off to Stanford, Biles is clearly the best vaulter in the country. After that, it gets a bit interesting.
Mykayla Skinner, you guys. What are we going to do about this situation? Without that many difficult vaults being done right now, 2014 would seem like the year for her to muscle her way onto the team as a vault specialist with that Dadaist Cheng of hers. Yet, at Classic she scored lower on vault than Ross, even if we take out Kyla's stick bonus. You don't get to be a vault specialist if you're scoring lower than Kyla Ross's DTY. That's the rule. We tend to look only at the highest difficulty vaults in formulating prospective team final scenarios, but the US could be perfectly fine at Worlds using Ross's DTY as a leadoff. They'd still have a big vault advantage. If Skinner is going to make it to Worlds as a vaulter, she'll have to prove that she is markedly and reliably better than Ross, which she hasn't done yet.
However, Skinner's vault fate may rest mostly in the hands of Gowey and Dowell, the final two current members of the Amanar club. Gowey went for the 2.5 at Classic and fell, so she'll have to prove some consistency with that vault at Championships/selection to be considered as a vaulter. She is a Martha favorite, though, so she'll have time to find that consistency. With Dowell, who even knows where she is with that ankle injury, but her 2.5 has been usable in the past. She'll still be in the conversation if she ends up showing four events soon. We have the potential for an entertaining vault showdown brewing among this group of non-Biles vaulters. A couple of them need to finish top 3 on vault at Nationals.
July 2, 2014
Things I Don't Entirely Hate: 2014 Uneven Bars Edition
The early-summer lull. It can be a difficult slog to endure with so little interesting gymnastics going on, but we have had the pleasure of the World Cup and watching Miroslav Klose eat it on a punch front goal celebration (best part by far). There was also a web-streamed Pro Gymnastics Cup debacle that I skipped through most of. Katherine Grable did a comaneci, Luiza Galiulina is from Pakistan now, Jake Dalton's eyes and Chris Brooks' nipples did some high bar, and it was extremely pointless.
We're at the bottom of the barrel. But that's about to change soonish. The US women are heading south to the Theater of Broken Dreams for their final camp verification before things become real, a camp which has taken on a little more interest because of the Gabby Douglas comeback. We don't really know anything yet, but Martha's positive reaction from last camp has people mildly optimistic because she didn't give the old, expected "It's very difficult to come back. Just because you won in the past, that doesn't guarantee you anything" routine, what we'll call the Shawn Johnson treatment.
A somewhat in-form Gabby Douglas would throw a very pleasant little wrench into the whole post-Elizabeth Price elite landscape. The most interesting part of the Douglas comeback for me is bars because it's the event I really enjoy her on, and it would be the biggest asset event (both for herself and the team) if she could perform at even 3/4 of her 2012 self. To be honest, she could sit on the low bar and knit a tea cozy and I would want her on the Worlds team to do bars.
USAG did produce a video about her return with some blips of her training bars and, at the very beginning, getting some brief shaposh action on to the tune of a music clip obviously called "general uplifting while overcoming obstacles #2." The shaposh is new, but of course she would be training it. This is the quad of the shaposh.
Did you like that segue into a discussion of bars composition? Because I did.
As much as it pains me to say it, the FIG's adjustments to the uneven bars code for the 2013-2016 quad are smart and have produced better and more entertaining routines. I know. I'm sorry. I won't make a habit of it.
The emphasis on rewarding flight combinations more than pirouetting combinations has forced gymnasts to compose more dynamic routines, which is what uneven bars is supposed to be. The bars final was the best part of Euros this year, and not just because Beckie Downie won and then everyone cried. Only mostly.
Bars is my event for 2014. I have a different event every year. Last year it was beam. In 2012 it was vault. This year it's bars. It hasn't been floor in a long while. Let's work on that. And by "work on that," I don't mean introducing more rules requiring people to look backward before starting a tumbling pass (ARTISTRY!)
We're at the bottom of the barrel. But that's about to change soonish. The US women are heading south to the Theater of Broken Dreams for their final camp verification before things become real, a camp which has taken on a little more interest because of the Gabby Douglas comeback. We don't really know anything yet, but Martha's positive reaction from last camp has people mildly optimistic because she didn't give the old, expected "It's very difficult to come back. Just because you won in the past, that doesn't guarantee you anything" routine, what we'll call the Shawn Johnson treatment.
A somewhat in-form Gabby Douglas would throw a very pleasant little wrench into the whole post-Elizabeth Price elite landscape. The most interesting part of the Douglas comeback for me is bars because it's the event I really enjoy her on, and it would be the biggest asset event (both for herself and the team) if she could perform at even 3/4 of her 2012 self. To be honest, she could sit on the low bar and knit a tea cozy and I would want her on the Worlds team to do bars.
USAG did produce a video about her return with some blips of her training bars and, at the very beginning, getting some brief shaposh action on to the tune of a music clip obviously called "general uplifting while overcoming obstacles #2." The shaposh is new, but of course she would be training it. This is the quad of the shaposh.
Did you like that segue into a discussion of bars composition? Because I did.
As much as it pains me to say it, the FIG's adjustments to the uneven bars code for the 2013-2016 quad are smart and have produced better and more entertaining routines. I know. I'm sorry. I won't make a habit of it.
The emphasis on rewarding flight combinations more than pirouetting combinations has forced gymnasts to compose more dynamic routines, which is what uneven bars is supposed to be. The bars final was the best part of Euros this year, and not just because Beckie Downie won and then everyone cried. Only mostly.
Bars is my event for 2014. I have a different event every year. Last year it was beam. In 2012 it was vault. This year it's bars. It hasn't been floor in a long while. Let's work on that. And by "work on that," I don't mean introducing more rules requiring people to look backward before starting a tumbling pass (ARTISTRY!)
May 21, 2014
2014 NCAA Team Scoring: It's Comfy at the Top
For the last few seasons, I've been particularly interested in the trend of rising scores in NCAA, which is a relevant issue considering that the average team score for the top 36 teams in the country increased four tenths from 2012 to 2013 (from 195.406 in 2012 to 195.802 in 2013). That's almost a fall worth of increase per team per meet, which is fairly insane. Were teams really a fall better in 2013 than in 2012? No. The evaluation of routines is clearly getting more lenient across the board. Now that the 2014 season is over, it's time to revisit the topic following a year in which scores appeared to increase another notch with all the 10s and 198s we saw. Here are the average scores for the NCAA top 36 from 1999-2014:
And here's the same information, but limited to just the span from 2006-2014 to zero in on recent trends.
The results are somewhat interesting for 2014 because while the scores did increase over last season, just as anyone who watched this year would have guessed, the overall increase is not particularly large. Now, those of us who have been following the scores closely would certainly argue that the mega-scoring we saw this season is only part of a trend that began in earnest last season, which is reinforced by the numbers, with 2014 seeing another jump over 2013 and coming in as the second-highest scoring season in NCAA history behind 2004.
But, the increase is perhaps surprising in its smallness. In fact, the increase from 195.802 in 2013 to 195.861 in 2014 comes out to only .059, or just a little bit more than one step per meet per team, which is notable but not exceptionally significant in the grand scheme of meet scoring. It's certainly not the full four tenths leap we saw the previous year. So, why is that? We saw more 198s in 2014 than in 2013, and way more 197s, and the general perception is that scores skyrocketed this season and showed a clear departure even over the high scores of the previous season. What's the deal? Well, the deal becomes somewhat more clear if we break down the top 36 into manageable chunks. Here are the average scores for only the top 12 teams from 1999-2014:
And here's the same information, but limited to just the span from 2006-2014 to zero in on recent trends.
The results are somewhat interesting for 2014 because while the scores did increase over last season, just as anyone who watched this year would have guessed, the overall increase is not particularly large. Now, those of us who have been following the scores closely would certainly argue that the mega-scoring we saw this season is only part of a trend that began in earnest last season, which is reinforced by the numbers, with 2014 seeing another jump over 2013 and coming in as the second-highest scoring season in NCAA history behind 2004.
But, the increase is perhaps surprising in its smallness. In fact, the increase from 195.802 in 2013 to 195.861 in 2014 comes out to only .059, or just a little bit more than one step per meet per team, which is notable but not exceptionally significant in the grand scheme of meet scoring. It's certainly not the full four tenths leap we saw the previous year. So, why is that? We saw more 198s in 2014 than in 2013, and way more 197s, and the general perception is that scores skyrocketed this season and showed a clear departure even over the high scores of the previous season. What's the deal? Well, the deal becomes somewhat more clear if we break down the top 36 into manageable chunks. Here are the average scores for only the top 12 teams from 1999-2014:
April 9, 2014
Nationals Scoring Comparison
As I did with regionals, I've put together a comparison of relevant scores for the teams in each semifinal grouping at nationals, with each score followed by the team's ranking within its semifinal.
In addition to the event statistics, I've added in each team's highest score per event from regionals to tell us which teams are most likely to get that huge 9.950 at the end to save a rotation, but I've also included a total of the lowest counting scores on each event from regionals. I like the lowest counting score as a reference point because so many of these teams have top-scoring gymnasts hanging around that team titles are often decided by what happens early in the lineups.
Afternoon session:
OKLAHOMA
Regional score: 197.715 [2]
RQS: 197.775 [1]
Season high: 198.175 [2]
Regular season average: 197.513 [1]
VT average: 49.481 [2]
VT RQS: 49.525 [2]
VT regional score: 49.700 [1]
UB average: 49.315 [3]
UB RQS: 49.470 [2]
UB regional score: 49.175 [6]
BB average: 49.315 [1]
BB RQS: 49.445 [1]
BB regional score: 49.400 [3]
FX average: 49.418 [2]
FX RQS: 49.520 [1]
FX regional score: 49.450 [3]
Highest scores per event from regionals: VT - 9.975; UB - 9.850; BB - 9.900; FX - 9.925; TOT - 39.650 [2]
Lowest counting scores per event from regionals: VT - 9.900; UB - 9.800; BB - 9.875; FX - 9.850; TOT - 39.425 [2]
LSU
Regional score: 198.325 [1]
RQS: 197.720 [2]
Season high: 198.325 [1]
Regular season average: 197.496 [2]
VT average: 49.506 [1]
VT RQS: 49.550 [1]
VT regional score: 49.650 [2]
UB average: 49.333 [2]
UB RQS: 49.430 [3]
UB regional score: 49.425 [2]
BB average: 49.268 [2]
BB RQS: 49.295 [2]
BB regional score: 49.600 [1]
FX average: 49.454 [1]
FX RQS: 49.490 [2]
FX regional score: 49.650 [1]
Highest scores per event from regionals: VT - 9.950; UB - 9.900; BB - 9.975; FX - 10.000; TOT - 39.825 [1]
Lowest counting scores per event from regionals: VT - 9.900; UB - 9.850; BB - 9.875; FX - 9.850; TOT - 39.475 [1]
Aside from Oklahoma's bars score from regionals, both Oklahoma and LSU are the favorites based on both recent and season-long performances. For the remaining teams, I have put in blue the areas where each is in the top three among the teams in the semifinal.
GEORGIA
Regional score: 196.375 [6]
RQS: 197.265 [3]
Season high: 197.650 [4]
Regular season average: 197.029 [3]
VT average: 49.342 [3]
VT RQS: 49.415 [3]
VT regional score: 49.425 [3]
UB average: 49.494 [1]
UB RQS: 49.580 [1]
UB regional score: 49.600 [1]
BB average: 49.046 [4]
BB RQS: 49.240 [4]
BB regional score: 48.475 [6]
FX average: 49.097 [5]
FX RQS: 49.280 [4]
FX regional score: 48.875 [6]
Highest scores per event from regionals: VT - 9.950; UB - 9.950; BB - 9.850; FX - 9.900; TOT - 39.650 [2]
Lowest counting scores per event from regionals: VT - 9.825; UB - 9.900; BB - 9.250; FX - 9.475; TOT - 38.450 [6]
MICHIGAN
Regional score: 196.750 [4]
RQS: 197.105 [4]
Season high: 197.825 [3]
Regular season average: 196.791 [4]
VT average: 49.298 [4]
VT RQS: 49.365 [4]
VT regional score: 49.200 [4]
UB average: 49.244 [4]
UB RQS: 49.375 [4]
UB regional score: 49.275 [5]
BB average: 48.877 [6]
BB RQS: 49.075 [6]
BB regional score: 48.700 [5]
FX average: 49.369 [3]
FX RQS: 49.490 [2]
FX regional score: 49.575 [2]
Highest scores per event from regionals: VT - 9.900; UB - 9.900; BB - 9.850; FX - 9.950; TOT - 39.600 [6]
Lowest counting scores per event from regionals: VT - 9.750; UB - 9.800; BB - 9.600; FX - 9.900; TOT - 39.050 [5]
STANFORD
Regional score: 197.275 [3]
RQS: 196.815 [5]
Season high: 197.275 [5]
Regular season average: 196.400 [5]
VT average: 49.206 [5]
VT RQS: 49.325 [5]
VT regional score: 49.175 [5]
UB average: 49.156 [5]
UB RQS: 49.305 [5]
UB regional score: 49.325 [4]
BB average: 49.108 [3]
BB RQS: 49.260 [3]
BB regional score: 49.450 [2]
FX average: 49.002 [6]
FX RQS: 49.120 [6]
FX regional score: 49.325 [4]
Highest scores per event from regionals: VT - 9.875; UB - 9.950; BB - 9.925; FX - 9.875; TOT - 39.625 [4]
Lowest counting scores per event from regionals: VT - 9.800; UB - 9.675; BB - 9.850; FX - 9.850; TOT - 39.175 [3]
It's interesting how clear-cut the difference on the apparatuses is among these next three teams. Georgia is all about vault and bars, Michigan is all about floor, and Stanford is all about beam. Stanford's ideal route to Super Six would be identical to what happened at regionals: nail beam and hope that Georgia and Michigan struggle there. For Michigan, it's staying as close as possible on three events and burning down the floor to gain a big edge, and for Georgia, it's building up a big lead early and hoping it holds up.
ILLINOIS
Regional score: 196.600 [5]
RQS: 196.650 [6]
Season high: 197.100 [6]
Regular season average: 196.204 [6]
VT average: 49.034 [6]
VT RQS: 49.155 [6]
VT regional score: 49.025 [6]
UB average: 49.034 [6]
UB RQS: 49.205 [6]
UB regional score: 49.400 [3]
BB average: 49.035 [5]
BB RQS: 49.175 [5]
BB regional score: 49.150 [4]
FX average: 49.131 [4]
FX RQS: 49.240 [5]
FX regional score: 49.025 [5]
Highest scores per event from regionals: VT - 9.900; UB - 9.925; BB - 9.900; FX - 9.900; TOT - 39.625 [4]
Lowest counting scores per event from regionals: VT - 9.725; UB - 9.850; BB - 9.800; FX - 9.725; TOT - 39.100 [4]
In addition to the event statistics, I've added in each team's highest score per event from regionals to tell us which teams are most likely to get that huge 9.950 at the end to save a rotation, but I've also included a total of the lowest counting scores on each event from regionals. I like the lowest counting score as a reference point because so many of these teams have top-scoring gymnasts hanging around that team titles are often decided by what happens early in the lineups.
Afternoon session:
OKLAHOMA
Regional score: 197.715 [2]
RQS: 197.775 [1]
Season high: 198.175 [2]
Regular season average: 197.513 [1]
VT average: 49.481 [2]
VT RQS: 49.525 [2]
VT regional score: 49.700 [1]
UB average: 49.315 [3]
UB RQS: 49.470 [2]
UB regional score: 49.175 [6]
BB average: 49.315 [1]
BB RQS: 49.445 [1]
BB regional score: 49.400 [3]
FX average: 49.418 [2]
FX RQS: 49.520 [1]
FX regional score: 49.450 [3]
Highest scores per event from regionals: VT - 9.975; UB - 9.850; BB - 9.900; FX - 9.925; TOT - 39.650 [2]
Lowest counting scores per event from regionals: VT - 9.900; UB - 9.800; BB - 9.875; FX - 9.850; TOT - 39.425 [2]
LSU
Regional score: 198.325 [1]
RQS: 197.720 [2]
Season high: 198.325 [1]
Regular season average: 197.496 [2]
VT average: 49.506 [1]
VT RQS: 49.550 [1]
VT regional score: 49.650 [2]
UB average: 49.333 [2]
UB RQS: 49.430 [3]
UB regional score: 49.425 [2]
BB average: 49.268 [2]
BB RQS: 49.295 [2]
BB regional score: 49.600 [1]
FX average: 49.454 [1]
FX RQS: 49.490 [2]
FX regional score: 49.650 [1]
Highest scores per event from regionals: VT - 9.950; UB - 9.900; BB - 9.975; FX - 10.000; TOT - 39.825 [1]
Lowest counting scores per event from regionals: VT - 9.900; UB - 9.850; BB - 9.875; FX - 9.850; TOT - 39.475 [1]
Aside from Oklahoma's bars score from regionals, both Oklahoma and LSU are the favorites based on both recent and season-long performances. For the remaining teams, I have put in blue the areas where each is in the top three among the teams in the semifinal.
GEORGIA
Regional score: 196.375 [6]
RQS: 197.265 [3]
Season high: 197.650 [4]
Regular season average: 197.029 [3]
VT average: 49.342 [3]
VT RQS: 49.415 [3]
VT regional score: 49.425 [3]
UB average: 49.494 [1]
UB RQS: 49.580 [1]
UB regional score: 49.600 [1]
BB average: 49.046 [4]
BB RQS: 49.240 [4]
BB regional score: 48.475 [6]
FX average: 49.097 [5]
FX RQS: 49.280 [4]
FX regional score: 48.875 [6]
Highest scores per event from regionals: VT - 9.950; UB - 9.950; BB - 9.850; FX - 9.900; TOT - 39.650 [2]
Lowest counting scores per event from regionals: VT - 9.825; UB - 9.900; BB - 9.250; FX - 9.475; TOT - 38.450 [6]
MICHIGAN
Regional score: 196.750 [4]
RQS: 197.105 [4]
Season high: 197.825 [3]
Regular season average: 196.791 [4]
VT average: 49.298 [4]
VT RQS: 49.365 [4]
VT regional score: 49.200 [4]
UB average: 49.244 [4]
UB RQS: 49.375 [4]
UB regional score: 49.275 [5]
BB average: 48.877 [6]
BB RQS: 49.075 [6]
BB regional score: 48.700 [5]
FX average: 49.369 [3]
FX RQS: 49.490 [2]
FX regional score: 49.575 [2]
Highest scores per event from regionals: VT - 9.900; UB - 9.900; BB - 9.850; FX - 9.950; TOT - 39.600 [6]
Lowest counting scores per event from regionals: VT - 9.750; UB - 9.800; BB - 9.600; FX - 9.900; TOT - 39.050 [5]
STANFORD
Regional score: 197.275 [3]
RQS: 196.815 [5]
Season high: 197.275 [5]
Regular season average: 196.400 [5]
VT average: 49.206 [5]
VT RQS: 49.325 [5]
VT regional score: 49.175 [5]
UB average: 49.156 [5]
UB RQS: 49.305 [5]
UB regional score: 49.325 [4]
BB average: 49.108 [3]
BB RQS: 49.260 [3]
BB regional score: 49.450 [2]
FX average: 49.002 [6]
FX RQS: 49.120 [6]
FX regional score: 49.325 [4]
Highest scores per event from regionals: VT - 9.875; UB - 9.950; BB - 9.925; FX - 9.875; TOT - 39.625 [4]
Lowest counting scores per event from regionals: VT - 9.800; UB - 9.675; BB - 9.850; FX - 9.850; TOT - 39.175 [3]
It's interesting how clear-cut the difference on the apparatuses is among these next three teams. Georgia is all about vault and bars, Michigan is all about floor, and Stanford is all about beam. Stanford's ideal route to Super Six would be identical to what happened at regionals: nail beam and hope that Georgia and Michigan struggle there. For Michigan, it's staying as close as possible on three events and burning down the floor to gain a big edge, and for Georgia, it's building up a big lead early and hoping it holds up.
ILLINOIS
Regional score: 196.600 [5]
RQS: 196.650 [6]
Season high: 197.100 [6]
Regular season average: 196.204 [6]
VT average: 49.034 [6]
VT RQS: 49.155 [6]
VT regional score: 49.025 [6]
UB average: 49.034 [6]
UB RQS: 49.205 [6]
UB regional score: 49.400 [3]
BB average: 49.035 [5]
BB RQS: 49.175 [5]
BB regional score: 49.150 [4]
FX average: 49.131 [4]
FX RQS: 49.240 [5]
FX regional score: 49.025 [5]
Highest scores per event from regionals: VT - 9.900; UB - 9.925; BB - 9.900; FX - 9.900; TOT - 39.625 [4]
Lowest counting scores per event from regionals: VT - 9.725; UB - 9.850; BB - 9.800; FX - 9.725; TOT - 39.100 [4]
March 5, 2014
Home/Road Disparity 2014
In this week's quick look at the numbers inside the sport, it's time for the annual dissection of everyone's favorite topic, home and road scoring.
Below is a comparison of the difference between the top 36 teams' averages at home and averages on the road so far this season. Teams at the top of the list have received the biggest boost from competing at home (with the first couple teams averaging nearly 1.500 greater at home than on the road), and teams at the bottom of the list are scoring better on the road than at home. The disparity list is followed by a ranking of the top 36 teams by home average and by road average for reference.
This is not meant to be exclusively a look at judging or inflated home scoring because many factors contribute to a team's performing better at home, of which home scoring is one, but just one. Regardless of the reason for the scores, there are many teams that tend to score significantly better at home, and in general, the bigger the disparity between the home and road scores, the more questions we should have about realistic performance level come the postseason. What scores are you going to get when you have to travel away for Regionals?
It's not always decisive that a team with a big scoring disparity will get knocked down a peg in the postseason when competing on the road, and Florida is a good example of that. Last season, the Gators followed a similar path to this season, with big home scores and normal road scores for much of the year, but by SECs and Championships, they were getting the same big scores on the road as well, ultimately resulting in a title. Plus, when you're getting a 198.4 at home, you can afford to score quite a bit lower on the road and still be successful.
A couple comments:
-Rarely, one really bad score will have a disproportionate influence, and that is the case with Kentucky's road 190, which makes it look like they have a much bigger difference between home and road than they do otherwise.
-Also, note that the teams with the biggest differences aren't necessarily the top teams. We tend to hear a lot of complaints about only the top teams receiving a big home scoring boost, but in general, the top teams have pretty reasonable home/road splits.
Largest Home/Road Scoring Disparity - 2014
1. West Virginia +1.663
2. Penn State +1.423
3. Arizona +1.358
4. Kentucky +1.112
5. Washington +1.031
6. BYU +0.984
7. Oregon State +0.948
8. California +0.888
9. UC Davis +0.874
10. Florida +0.819
11. Georgia +0.771
12. Michigan +0.713
13. NC State +0.655
14. Alabama +0.494
15. Illinois +0.480
16. Utah +0.468
17. Arkansas +0.456
18. San Jose State +0.446
19. Utah State +0.334
20. Kent State +0.333
21. Stanford +0.315
22. Southern Utah +0.303
23. Iowa +0.235
24. Boise State +0.232
25. Missouri +0.179
26. LSU +0.069
27. UCLA +0.063
28. Auburn +0.031
29. Denver +0.008
30. Nebraska 0.000
31. Ohio State -0.075
32. Arizona State -0.105
33. Minnesota -0.150
34. Oklahoma -0.306
35. Rutgers -0.433
36. Central Michigan -0.698
Below is a comparison of the difference between the top 36 teams' averages at home and averages on the road so far this season. Teams at the top of the list have received the biggest boost from competing at home (with the first couple teams averaging nearly 1.500 greater at home than on the road), and teams at the bottom of the list are scoring better on the road than at home. The disparity list is followed by a ranking of the top 36 teams by home average and by road average for reference.
This is not meant to be exclusively a look at judging or inflated home scoring because many factors contribute to a team's performing better at home, of which home scoring is one, but just one. Regardless of the reason for the scores, there are many teams that tend to score significantly better at home, and in general, the bigger the disparity between the home and road scores, the more questions we should have about realistic performance level come the postseason. What scores are you going to get when you have to travel away for Regionals?
It's not always decisive that a team with a big scoring disparity will get knocked down a peg in the postseason when competing on the road, and Florida is a good example of that. Last season, the Gators followed a similar path to this season, with big home scores and normal road scores for much of the year, but by SECs and Championships, they were getting the same big scores on the road as well, ultimately resulting in a title. Plus, when you're getting a 198.4 at home, you can afford to score quite a bit lower on the road and still be successful.
A couple comments:
-Rarely, one really bad score will have a disproportionate influence, and that is the case with Kentucky's road 190, which makes it look like they have a much bigger difference between home and road than they do otherwise.
-Also, note that the teams with the biggest differences aren't necessarily the top teams. We tend to hear a lot of complaints about only the top teams receiving a big home scoring boost, but in general, the top teams have pretty reasonable home/road splits.
Largest Home/Road Scoring Disparity - 2014
1. West Virginia +1.663
2. Penn State +1.423
3. Arizona +1.358
4. Kentucky +1.112
5. Washington +1.031
6. BYU +0.984
7. Oregon State +0.948
8. California +0.888
9. UC Davis +0.874
10. Florida +0.819
11. Georgia +0.771
12. Michigan +0.713
13. NC State +0.655
14. Alabama +0.494
15. Illinois +0.480
16. Utah +0.468
17. Arkansas +0.456
18. San Jose State +0.446
19. Utah State +0.334
20. Kent State +0.333
21. Stanford +0.315
22. Southern Utah +0.303
23. Iowa +0.235
24. Boise State +0.232
25. Missouri +0.179
26. LSU +0.069
27. UCLA +0.063
28. Auburn +0.031
29. Denver +0.008
30. Nebraska 0.000
31. Ohio State -0.075
32. Arizona State -0.105
33. Minnesota -0.150
34. Oklahoma -0.306
35. Rutgers -0.433
36. Central Michigan -0.698
February 26, 2014
The Individuals
IT'S ALL ABOUT THE TEAM, YOU GUYS!
Except for right now because I'm talking about individuals and their various individualities. That's right, it's time to think about the all-around. The NCAA all-around title is a bit like the ugly cousin who is forced to live in the attic and be silent when visitors come around (you know, like you have). No one is really allowed to talk about it or acknowledge caring about it because that might make it seem like they are putting personal goals above the team (THE HORROR!), but the quest for the all-around title is an exciting battle this year that I'm eager to keep an eye on more than I have been in most years for some reason.
So, who are the frontrunners? I'm glad you asked, person I invented. There are a few. One might look at the RQS rankings to find out, but this is the balance beam situation. It's about going deeper. The season RQS leader is notorious for not winning the ultimate AA title, unless you're Courtney Kupets (which is a phrase I use a lot—she should write an autobiography called Unless You're Courtney Kupets). Season average is a slightly better indicator, but why use one indicator when you can use 8? Exactly.
I have taken the top AA contenders this season and ranked them in a series of categories below [rankings are in brackets], including RQS, season averages, and high scores, and then averaged their rankings from each category. My focus in these categories is more on season averages than RQSs because I think the averages are more helpful in this kind of evaluation. RQS tends to get rid of the bad performances, reflecting a gymnast's quality at her peak rather than quality throughout the season, but increased potential for mistakes is important to take into account when evaluating AA contention. For instance, Kytra Hunter can be great on beam, but her inconsistency so far this season is quite relevant to this discussion and gives her a question mark on that event that some of the other top women may not have.
The list is limited to 16 gymnasts–anyone who has hit 39.500 in the AA in any meet this year and is currently making all four lineups for her team. That means that Georgia Dabritz is included because she's in on beam now, and if she can even do just OK on beam, she can ride her other events to becoming a frontrunner. Conversely, Macko Caquatto isn't here because she hasn't appeared on floor in weeks. Although if she does come back, she's certainly another member of this conversation. We will have other contenders beyond this 16 emerge as we go on (for instance, Sam Peszek would certainly be right in any AA battle if UCLA can find enough super glue to get her feet in shape to compete floor), but for now these are the top 16 we have.
This system is scientific kind of like in the way that awarding 10s has been scientific. Not. But I like it as an overview of who's in the picture right now moving into the business end of the regular season.
1. Bridget Sloan - Florida
RQS: 39.540 [3]
Season high: 39.750 [T1]
Season average: 39.593 [1]
Event averages:
VT - 9.929 [T2]
UB - 9.900 [2]
BB - 9.836 [T4]
FX - 9.929 [4]
High scores: VT - 9.950, UB - 9.925, BB - 10.000, FX - 10.000, TOTAL: 39.875 [1]
Average ranking: 2.250
2. Rheagan Courville - LSU
RQS: 39.595 [1]
Season high: 39.750 [T1]
Season average: 39.525 [4]
Event averages:
VT - 9.919 [4]
UB - 9.834 [11]
BB - 9.872 [3]
FX - 9.900 [8]
High scores: VT - 10.000, UB - 9.950, BB - 9.950; FX - 9.950, TOTAL: 39.850 [2]
Average ranking: 4.250
3. Katherine Grable - Arkansas
RQS: 39.555 [2]
Season high: 39.725 [3]
Season average: 39.568 [2]
Event averages:
VT - 9.907 [6]
UB - 9.843 [10]
BB - 9.886 [2]
FX - 9.932 [3]
High scores: VT - 9.950, UB - 9.900, BB - 9.925, FX - 9.950, TOTAL: 39.725 [T8]
Average ranking: 4.500
4. Kytra Hunter - Florida
RQS: 39.475 [5]
Season high: 39.700 [4]
Season average: 39.513 [6]
Event averages:
VT - 9.936 [1]
UB - 9.832 [12]
BB - 9.739 [13]
FX - 9.954 [1]
High scores: VT - 10.000, UB - 9.900, BB - 9.900, FX - 10.000, TOTAL: 39.800 [T3]
Average ranking: 5.625
5. Georgia Dabritz - Utah
RQS: N/A [T14]
Season high: 39.625 [7]
Season average: 39.538 [3]
Event averages:
VT - 9.911 [5]
UB - 9.939 [1]
BB - 9.775 [11]
FX - 9.939 [2]
High scores: VT - 9.975, UB - 9.975, BB - 9.875, FX - 9.975, TOTAL: 39.800 [T3]
Average ranking: 5.750
Except for right now because I'm talking about individuals and their various individualities. That's right, it's time to think about the all-around. The NCAA all-around title is a bit like the ugly cousin who is forced to live in the attic and be silent when visitors come around (you know, like you have). No one is really allowed to talk about it or acknowledge caring about it because that might make it seem like they are putting personal goals above the team (THE HORROR!), but the quest for the all-around title is an exciting battle this year that I'm eager to keep an eye on more than I have been in most years for some reason.
So, who are the frontrunners? I'm glad you asked, person I invented. There are a few. One might look at the RQS rankings to find out, but this is the balance beam situation. It's about going deeper. The season RQS leader is notorious for not winning the ultimate AA title, unless you're Courtney Kupets (which is a phrase I use a lot—she should write an autobiography called Unless You're Courtney Kupets). Season average is a slightly better indicator, but why use one indicator when you can use 8? Exactly.
I have taken the top AA contenders this season and ranked them in a series of categories below [rankings are in brackets], including RQS, season averages, and high scores, and then averaged their rankings from each category. My focus in these categories is more on season averages than RQSs because I think the averages are more helpful in this kind of evaluation. RQS tends to get rid of the bad performances, reflecting a gymnast's quality at her peak rather than quality throughout the season, but increased potential for mistakes is important to take into account when evaluating AA contention. For instance, Kytra Hunter can be great on beam, but her inconsistency so far this season is quite relevant to this discussion and gives her a question mark on that event that some of the other top women may not have.
The list is limited to 16 gymnasts–anyone who has hit 39.500 in the AA in any meet this year and is currently making all four lineups for her team. That means that Georgia Dabritz is included because she's in on beam now, and if she can even do just OK on beam, she can ride her other events to becoming a frontrunner. Conversely, Macko Caquatto isn't here because she hasn't appeared on floor in weeks. Although if she does come back, she's certainly another member of this conversation. We will have other contenders beyond this 16 emerge as we go on (for instance, Sam Peszek would certainly be right in any AA battle if UCLA can find enough super glue to get her feet in shape to compete floor), but for now these are the top 16 we have.
This system is scientific kind of like in the way that awarding 10s has been scientific. Not. But I like it as an overview of who's in the picture right now moving into the business end of the regular season.
1. Bridget Sloan - Florida
RQS: 39.540 [3]
Season high: 39.750 [T1]
Season average: 39.593 [1]
Event averages:
VT - 9.929 [T2]
UB - 9.900 [2]
BB - 9.836 [T4]
FX - 9.929 [4]
High scores: VT - 9.950, UB - 9.925, BB - 10.000, FX - 10.000, TOTAL: 39.875 [1]
Average ranking: 2.250
2. Rheagan Courville - LSU
RQS: 39.595 [1]
Season high: 39.750 [T1]
Season average: 39.525 [4]
Event averages:
VT - 9.919 [4]
UB - 9.834 [11]
BB - 9.872 [3]
FX - 9.900 [8]
High scores: VT - 10.000, UB - 9.950, BB - 9.950; FX - 9.950, TOTAL: 39.850 [2]
Average ranking: 4.250
3. Katherine Grable - Arkansas
RQS: 39.555 [2]
Season high: 39.725 [3]
Season average: 39.568 [2]
Event averages:
VT - 9.907 [6]
UB - 9.843 [10]
BB - 9.886 [2]
FX - 9.932 [3]
High scores: VT - 9.950, UB - 9.900, BB - 9.925, FX - 9.950, TOTAL: 39.725 [T8]
Average ranking: 4.500
4. Kytra Hunter - Florida
RQS: 39.475 [5]
Season high: 39.700 [4]
Season average: 39.513 [6]
Event averages:
VT - 9.936 [1]
UB - 9.832 [12]
BB - 9.739 [13]
FX - 9.954 [1]
High scores: VT - 10.000, UB - 9.900, BB - 9.900, FX - 10.000, TOTAL: 39.800 [T3]
Average ranking: 5.625
5. Georgia Dabritz - Utah
RQS: N/A [T14]
Season high: 39.625 [7]
Season average: 39.538 [3]
Event averages:
VT - 9.911 [5]
UB - 9.939 [1]
BB - 9.775 [11]
FX - 9.939 [2]
High scores: VT - 9.975, UB - 9.975, BB - 9.875, FX - 9.975, TOTAL: 39.800 [T3]
Average ranking: 5.750
February 12, 2014
RQS Progress
It's coming. Whether you're ready or not, the annual nightmare that is RQS is coming. On February 24th, RQS will take over from season average in determining the rankings, so now is a good time to check out where teams stand and what they still need to do to achieve a worthwhile RQS.
The rules: RQS (Regional Qualifying Score) is used to determine which 36 teams advance to the Regional Championships. It is calculated by taking a team's six highest scores on the year, of which at least three must be road scores, dropping the highest score, and averaging the remaining five.
If you have been reading this blog for a while, you may know that I have a love/hate relationship with RQS. I love the fact that it involves calculations and spreadsheets, but I hate the fact that it imposes an artificially small sample size on the rankings in a sport that already has a small sample size of meets to begin with. It throws out a majority of the data points and shouts, "Do-over!" on most of the routines during the year so that there are few repercussions for top teams having bad meets.
1. Florida (Current RQS: X)
Road Score 1: 197.175
Road Score 2: 197.075
Road Score 3: 196.650
Road/Home Score 1: 198.050
Road/Home Score 2: 197.875
Road/Home Score 3: X
Florida is in a perfectly solid position for RQS and will end the season with a large number, but for a team looking to finish the year in the top spot, those road scores are not devastatingly amazing. The Gators are currently trailing both Oklahoma and LSU in the road race, so even though having a counting 197.875 home score is an asset, Florida will probably need to put up a couple mid-197s in the remaining three road meets to feel comfortable in maintaining that #1 spot. The Gators will not have a chance to bounce that road 196 until the meet in Alabama on the 28th, which is after RQS kicks in, so don't be surprised if the Gators drop a couple ranking places in the first week of RQS from where they are now.
2. Oklahoma (Current RQS: X)
Road Score 1: 197.575
Road Score 2: 197.225
Road Score 3: X
Road/Home Score 1: 197.700
Road/Home Score 2: 197.325
Road/Home Score 3: 196.675
While currently ranked lower, Oklahoma is in a nearly identical RQS position to Florida with their stronger road numbers balancing out Florida's stronger home numbers. Over the next two weeks, Oklahoma has Metroplex and then the "road meet that's not a road meet" in Oklahoma City, which is a very advantageous position for extending the road advantage over Florida and settling into a comfortable mid-197 RQS with a whole month of the season remaining.
3. LSU (Current RQS: 197.225)
Road Score 1: 197.650
Road Score 2: 197.225
Road Score 3: 196.875
Road/Home Score 1: 197.650
Road/Home Score 2: 197.200
Road/Home Score 3: 197.175
Kick back and relax, LSU, because 197.225 is already an excellent RQS. Based on precedent and the scores currently being recorded, it shouldn't take all that much more to secure a top 6 ranking and a #1 Regionals seed. There are no clunkers in this group of scores already, and they'll have a chance to go straight 197s across the board after Metroplex this weekend. The Tigers' only wish will be that RQS kicked in this coming Monday instead of the next week, because they may very well finish this weekend with the #1 RQS given the 196.6s that Florida and Oklahoma will still be hanging onto.
4. Utah (Current RQS: X)
Road Score 1: 197.200
Road Score 2: 196.875
Road Score 3: X
Road/Home Score 1: 197.825
Road/Home Score 2: 197.125
Road/Home Score 3: 196.650
While the Utes are mostly keeping pace with the current top 3 in the season average department, they won't be able to count that big home 197 for the time being, so they're going to need a couple more scores in the mid-197 family to keep within striking distance. They've got a nice edge over the teams below right now, but a high road score at Stanford this weekend would help them become part of the lead pack instead of the leader of the second pack.
The rules: RQS (Regional Qualifying Score) is used to determine which 36 teams advance to the Regional Championships. It is calculated by taking a team's six highest scores on the year, of which at least three must be road scores, dropping the highest score, and averaging the remaining five.
If you have been reading this blog for a while, you may know that I have a love/hate relationship with RQS. I love the fact that it involves calculations and spreadsheets, but I hate the fact that it imposes an artificially small sample size on the rankings in a sport that already has a small sample size of meets to begin with. It throws out a majority of the data points and shouts, "Do-over!" on most of the routines during the year so that there are few repercussions for top teams having bad meets.
1. Florida (Current RQS: X)
Road Score 1: 197.175
Road Score 2: 197.075
Road Score 3: 196.650
Road/Home Score 1: 198.050
Road/Home Score 2: 197.875
Road/Home Score 3: X
Florida is in a perfectly solid position for RQS and will end the season with a large number, but for a team looking to finish the year in the top spot, those road scores are not devastatingly amazing. The Gators are currently trailing both Oklahoma and LSU in the road race, so even though having a counting 197.875 home score is an asset, Florida will probably need to put up a couple mid-197s in the remaining three road meets to feel comfortable in maintaining that #1 spot. The Gators will not have a chance to bounce that road 196 until the meet in Alabama on the 28th, which is after RQS kicks in, so don't be surprised if the Gators drop a couple ranking places in the first week of RQS from where they are now.
2. Oklahoma (Current RQS: X)
Road Score 1: 197.575
Road Score 2: 197.225
Road Score 3: X
Road/Home Score 1: 197.700
Road/Home Score 2: 197.325
Road/Home Score 3: 196.675
While currently ranked lower, Oklahoma is in a nearly identical RQS position to Florida with their stronger road numbers balancing out Florida's stronger home numbers. Over the next two weeks, Oklahoma has Metroplex and then the "road meet that's not a road meet" in Oklahoma City, which is a very advantageous position for extending the road advantage over Florida and settling into a comfortable mid-197 RQS with a whole month of the season remaining.
3. LSU (Current RQS: 197.225)
Road Score 1: 197.650
Road Score 2: 197.225
Road Score 3: 196.875
Road/Home Score 1: 197.650
Road/Home Score 2: 197.200
Road/Home Score 3: 197.175
Kick back and relax, LSU, because 197.225 is already an excellent RQS. Based on precedent and the scores currently being recorded, it shouldn't take all that much more to secure a top 6 ranking and a #1 Regionals seed. There are no clunkers in this group of scores already, and they'll have a chance to go straight 197s across the board after Metroplex this weekend. The Tigers' only wish will be that RQS kicked in this coming Monday instead of the next week, because they may very well finish this weekend with the #1 RQS given the 196.6s that Florida and Oklahoma will still be hanging onto.
4. Utah (Current RQS: X)
Road Score 1: 197.200
Road Score 2: 196.875
Road Score 3: X
Road/Home Score 1: 197.825
Road/Home Score 2: 197.125
Road/Home Score 3: 196.650
While the Utes are mostly keeping pace with the current top 3 in the season average department, they won't be able to count that big home 197 for the time being, so they're going to need a couple more scores in the mid-197 family to keep within striking distance. They've got a nice edge over the teams below right now, but a high road score at Stanford this weekend would help them become part of the lead pack instead of the leader of the second pack.
January 29, 2014
2014 vs. 2013
Numbers! We've got 'em! More specifically, scoring comparisons! We've got 'em!
This week, I'm looking at the average scores the top 15 teams have achieved so far this season versus their scores from the same point last season (January 28, 2014 rankings vs. January 27, 2013 rankings), broken down by team and event to see where these teams are improving compared to the beginning of last year and where they have fallen off. We often view scoring in terms of overall rank, but this is more of an opportunity to compare a team with itself and our expectations of for that team on each event.
Blue equals YAY! and red equals BOO! That probably didn't need to be explained.
Oklahoma
Vault: +0.279
Bars: +0.111
Beam: -0.013
Floor: +0.002
Total: +0.379
The beam and floor results are basically identical to last year, but the vault increase is the one that really stands out. Oklahoma started out slower on vault last year, not having Kanewa at the beginning and throwing in some early 9.6s and 9.7s. That has surely not been the case this year.
Florida
Vault: -0.180
Bars: -0.063
Beam: +0.244
Floor: +0.231
Total: +0.232
We know the deal with floor. Beam has also seen an improvement, whereas last season Florida started out surprisingly wobbly with some early Sloan and King falls before finding their way. As I have mentioned before, Florida's vault hasn't been all that impressive so far. That's the event I'm most interested in this weekend.
LSU
Vault: +0.061
Bars: +0.314
Beam: +0.292
Floor: +0.023
Total: +0.690
It's a land of blue for LSU. While LSU did get into the 197s by February last season (scoring quite similarly to how they have started this season), the beginning of 2013 was marked by counting bars and beam falls and some low team scores, which accounts for the increase this year. They've started about a month faster this season.
Utah
Vault: +0.225
Bars: +0.467
Beam: -0.266
Floor: +0.175
Total: +0.601
Yep. I think anyone would have called this breakdown. Vault has been the most impressive event for Utah this year (currently #1 in the country), and that's reflected in the increase, but the Utes started miserably on bars last year, so the security we've seen so far there has been the biggest relative accomplishment.
Michigan
Vault: +0.125
Bars: -0.013
Beam: -0.169
Floor: +0.039
Total: -0.018
As noted in the rankings post, Michigan has started 2014 much the same way as 2013, so there is little remarkable change in the scores. The beam decrease may be a bit troublesome, but the Wolverines are mostly on the exact same track.
This week, I'm looking at the average scores the top 15 teams have achieved so far this season versus their scores from the same point last season (January 28, 2014 rankings vs. January 27, 2013 rankings), broken down by team and event to see where these teams are improving compared to the beginning of last year and where they have fallen off. We often view scoring in terms of overall rank, but this is more of an opportunity to compare a team with itself and our expectations of for that team on each event.
Blue equals YAY! and red equals BOO! That probably didn't need to be explained.
Oklahoma
Vault: +0.279
Bars: +0.111
Beam: -0.013
Floor: +0.002
Total: +0.379
The beam and floor results are basically identical to last year, but the vault increase is the one that really stands out. Oklahoma started out slower on vault last year, not having Kanewa at the beginning and throwing in some early 9.6s and 9.7s. That has surely not been the case this year.
Florida
Vault: -0.180
Bars: -0.063
Beam: +0.244
Floor: +0.231
Total: +0.232
We know the deal with floor. Beam has also seen an improvement, whereas last season Florida started out surprisingly wobbly with some early Sloan and King falls before finding their way. As I have mentioned before, Florida's vault hasn't been all that impressive so far. That's the event I'm most interested in this weekend.
LSU
Vault: +0.061
Bars: +0.314
Beam: +0.292
Floor: +0.023
Total: +0.690
It's a land of blue for LSU. While LSU did get into the 197s by February last season (scoring quite similarly to how they have started this season), the beginning of 2013 was marked by counting bars and beam falls and some low team scores, which accounts for the increase this year. They've started about a month faster this season.
Utah
Vault: +0.225
Bars: +0.467
Beam: -0.266
Floor: +0.175
Total: +0.601
Yep. I think anyone would have called this breakdown. Vault has been the most impressive event for Utah this year (currently #1 in the country), and that's reflected in the increase, but the Utes started miserably on bars last year, so the security we've seen so far there has been the biggest relative accomplishment.
Michigan
Vault: +0.125
Bars: -0.013
Beam: -0.169
Floor: +0.039
Total: -0.018
As noted in the rankings post, Michigan has started 2014 much the same way as 2013, so there is little remarkable change in the scores. The beam decrease may be a bit troublesome, but the Wolverines are mostly on the exact same track.
January 22, 2014
The Land of 9.9s
It's all about the 9.9s. To win a national title, it usually takes about 50% of routines receiving 9.900 or greater. Last year in Super Six, Florida scored 9.9+ in 58% of routines, and they needed every bit of it after beam. We're quite some distance from Nationals right now, but many teams appear well on their way to vacationing in the land of 9.9s already.
In fact, over the first two real weekends of the season, the 9.9s have been flying. So, for this week's quick look at statistics, I checked out some of the destinations of those 9.9 flights. Which teams are getting the most 9.9s, how many are they getting, and how does that compare with precedent?
I limited this to the current top fourteen teams because they are the ones that have been putting up a measurable number of 9.9s. After that it's more like . . . one. For each team, I took the number of routines scoring at least 9.900 as a percentage of the total routines competed.
% of routines scoring 9.900 or greater
1. UCLA [8] - 31%
2. Oklahoma [1] - 29%
3. Florida [3] - 25%
3. Utah [4] - 25%
5. Georgia [6] - 24%
6. LSU [2] - 23%
7. Minnesota [13] - 17%
7. Michigan [5] - 17%
9. Alabama [7] - 15%
10. Nebraska [9] - 13%
10. Auburn [14] - 13%
12. Stanford [12] - 11%
13. Arkansas [10] - 8%
13. Illinois [11] - 8%
AVERAGE: 18%
It's worth noting that both of the top two teams in this table have yet to compete away, which is clearly a significant factor in the results. UCLA and Minnesota have noticeably outperformed their current rankings in the 9.9 table, and usually when a team does that it means they are on track to improve that ranking soon as they get rid of the nasty little low numbers bringing the team score down for the time being.
In fact, over the first two real weekends of the season, the 9.9s have been flying. So, for this week's quick look at statistics, I checked out some of the destinations of those 9.9 flights. Which teams are getting the most 9.9s, how many are they getting, and how does that compare with precedent?
I limited this to the current top fourteen teams because they are the ones that have been putting up a measurable number of 9.9s. After that it's more like . . . one. For each team, I took the number of routines scoring at least 9.900 as a percentage of the total routines competed.
% of routines scoring 9.900 or greater
1. UCLA [8] - 31%
2. Oklahoma [1] - 29%
3. Florida [3] - 25%
3. Utah [4] - 25%
5. Georgia [6] - 24%
6. LSU [2] - 23%
7. Minnesota [13] - 17%
7. Michigan [5] - 17%
9. Alabama [7] - 15%
10. Nebraska [9] - 13%
10. Auburn [14] - 13%
12. Stanford [12] - 11%
13. Arkansas [10] - 8%
13. Illinois [11] - 8%
AVERAGE: 18%
It's worth noting that both of the top two teams in this table have yet to compete away, which is clearly a significant factor in the results. UCLA and Minnesota have noticeably outperformed their current rankings in the 9.9 table, and usually when a team does that it means they are on track to improve that ranking soon as they get rid of the nasty little low numbers bringing the team score down for the time being.
January 8, 2014
First Meet - Last Meet
Are you ready for meets? In two days, you'll need to be all about it because there are a bunch. Tomorrow, I'll do the rundown of the weekend to get prepared, but for now, I've been thinking about the first meet of the season and how much it can tell us about what will happen at the end of the season. Rare is the team that ends up using the score from the first meet for RQS, but I was curious about lineups. We sometimes see lineups at the beginning of the season that seem awfully weaker than what we would hope to see in April, but how much change is there really? And are some teams more likely to change around the lineups than others?
I took the current top 10 teams, and over the last five years, compared the lineups from the first meet to the lineups from the last meet to see what proportion of routines from that first meet were still in the lineup at the end of the season. Here we go. (Championship seasons in bold.)
I added the ranking positions to the list because rankings make things more exciting, but there's not necessarily a good or a bad to this list, a winner or a loser. It's just what is. In fact, the teams that have won championships in this span are all on the lower half with less lineup retention, so is that the better end? Of course, a lot depends on whether lineups have changed because people returned from injury or because people were lost to injury.
1. Nebraska - 88% (2013 - 75%; 2012 - 87%; 2011 - 87%; 2010 - 91%; 2009 - 100%)
2. Oklahoma - 84% (2013 - 83%; 2012 - 75%; 2011 - 92%; 2010 - 88%; 2009 - 83%)
3. Utah - 83% (2013 - 79%; 2012 - 96%; 2011 - 79%; 2010 - 83%; 2009 - 75%)
4. LSU - 82% (2013 - 79%; 2012 - 71%; 2011 - 79%; 2010 - 78%; 2009 - 100%)
T5. Michigan - 80% (2013 - 83%; 2012 - 75%; 2011 - 75%; 2010 - 92%; 2009 - 75%)
T5. Georgia - 80% (2013 - 79%; 2012 - 83%; 2011 - 83%; 2010 - 71%; 2009 - 83%)
7. Florida - 79% (2013 - 71%; 2012 - 88%; 2011 - 79%; 2010 - 88%; 2009 - 71%)
T8. Alabama - 78% (2013 - 79%; 2012 - 83%; 2011 - 75%; 2010 - 88%; 2009 - 63%)
T8. UCLA - 78% (2013 - 83%; 2012 - 79%; 2011 - 75%; 2010 - 83%; 2009 - 67%)
10. Stanford - 72% (2013 - 58%; 2012 - 63%; 2011 - 83%; 2010 - 83%; 2009 - 75%)
A few thoughts:
I took the current top 10 teams, and over the last five years, compared the lineups from the first meet to the lineups from the last meet to see what proportion of routines from that first meet were still in the lineup at the end of the season. Here we go. (Championship seasons in bold.)
I added the ranking positions to the list because rankings make things more exciting, but there's not necessarily a good or a bad to this list, a winner or a loser. It's just what is. In fact, the teams that have won championships in this span are all on the lower half with less lineup retention, so is that the better end? Of course, a lot depends on whether lineups have changed because people returned from injury or because people were lost to injury.
1. Nebraska - 88% (2013 - 75%; 2012 - 87%; 2011 - 87%; 2010 - 91%; 2009 - 100%)
2. Oklahoma - 84% (2013 - 83%; 2012 - 75%; 2011 - 92%; 2010 - 88%; 2009 - 83%)
3. Utah - 83% (2013 - 79%; 2012 - 96%; 2011 - 79%; 2010 - 83%; 2009 - 75%)
4. LSU - 82% (2013 - 79%; 2012 - 71%; 2011 - 79%; 2010 - 78%; 2009 - 100%)
T5. Michigan - 80% (2013 - 83%; 2012 - 75%; 2011 - 75%; 2010 - 92%; 2009 - 75%)
T5. Georgia - 80% (2013 - 79%; 2012 - 83%; 2011 - 83%; 2010 - 71%; 2009 - 83%)
7. Florida - 79% (2013 - 71%; 2012 - 88%; 2011 - 79%; 2010 - 88%; 2009 - 71%)
T8. Alabama - 78% (2013 - 79%; 2012 - 83%; 2011 - 75%; 2010 - 88%; 2009 - 63%)
T8. UCLA - 78% (2013 - 83%; 2012 - 79%; 2011 - 75%; 2010 - 83%; 2009 - 67%)
10. Stanford - 72% (2013 - 58%; 2012 - 63%; 2011 - 83%; 2010 - 83%; 2009 - 75%)
A few thoughts:
December 7, 2013
Land of the Rising Scores
You know that rainy Saturday feeling when you just want to put on your floor exercise music Pandora station and kick back with some data entry? No? Anyone? OK. Deal with it anyway.
I've addressed the trend of drastically rising scores in NCAA before (at least weekly), but this should be a somewhat more complete assessment. For each of the last 15 years of NCAA competition, I averaged the team scores of the top 36 teams (regular season) to arrive at a single number to indicate the average score for that season, at least for the higher-level teams. Knowing as I do how much you all love graphs, I have plotted them to display the results:
The 2004 season is still unparalleled in being the land of 198s, but as is made obvious in the scores, a significant adjustment was made after that season. It has been a gradual ascent, but scores have now all but returned to the levels from 2004, with 2013 ranking as the second-highest scoring season of the last 15. What's been happening over the last couple of years interests me the most since it's happening right now, so let's focus specifically on that chunk of the graph:
I've addressed the trend of drastically rising scores in NCAA before (at least weekly), but this should be a somewhat more complete assessment. For each of the last 15 years of NCAA competition, I averaged the team scores of the top 36 teams (regular season) to arrive at a single number to indicate the average score for that season, at least for the higher-level teams. Knowing as I do how much you all love graphs, I have plotted them to display the results:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)