okansas.blogspot.com

okansas.blogspot.com
Occassional thoughts about orienteering

Friday, January 21, 2005

U is for U.S. Team

I look at the U.S. Team's yahoo discussion group every week or so. Recently the team has been discussing the size of the WOC team. How many people should the U.S. send to the WOC? 4 and 4? 5 and 5? Something else?

I glanced through a bit of the discussion. It reminded me of a little analysis I've been meaning to do. I don't have time to do that now, but let me describe what I was interested in.

The question: How well do the selection races predict WOC performane?

I'd like to look at a bunch of U.S. WOC teams. Check how often the best orienteer at the selection was also the best at the WOC. What about the worst runner at the selection -- how did they do at the WOC?

Ideally you put together a team and the individuals on the team perform exactly as selected. The first person you picked is the best at the WOC. The last person you picked is the worst at the WOC.

The ideal selection process looks like this:

Selection/WOC performance
1st/Best
2nd/Next best
3rd/3rd best
4th/4th best

The worst selection process looks like this:

Selection/WOC performance
1st/Worst
2nd/Next worst
3rd/Next best
4th/Best

I took a quick look at the 2004 team trials results and the WOC results. I didn't do anything systematic, but I'd say the selection process did a reasonable, but far from perfect, job of predicting WOC performances.

For example, Brian May was the first pick and had the best performance among the men. The process worked quite well in Brian's case.

But, James Scarborough only made the team as the first alternate (when Eric Bone declined a spot) and he was probably the best among the men in the middle qualifying.

If you looked at a bunch of U.S. WOC teams and WOC results you'd get an idea of how well the selection process predicts WOC results.

Why would you care? Well, if your interested in having the best possible results at the WOC, it'd be useful to know how well your selection process works.

posted by Michael | 7:41 PM

0 comments

Comments: Post a Comment

March 2002 April 2002 May 2002 June 2002 July 2002 August 2002 September 2002 October 2002 November 2002 December 2002 January 2003 February 2003 March 2003 April 2003 May 2003 June 2003 July 2003 August 2003 September 2003 October 2003 November 2003 December 2003 January 2004 February 2004 March 2004 April 2004 May 2004 June 2004 July 2004 August 2004 September 2004 October 2004 November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 January 2009 February 2009 March 2009 April 2009 May 2009 June 2009 July 2009 August 2009 September 2009 October 2009 November 2009 December 2009 January 2010 February 2010 March 2010 April 2010 May 2010 June 2010 July 2010 August 2010 September 2010 October 2010 November 2010 December 2010 January 2011 February 2011 March 2011 April 2011 May 2011 June 2011 July 2011 August 2011 September 2011 October 2011 November 2011 December 2011 January 2012 February 2012 March 2012 April 2012 May 2012 June 2012 July 2012 August 2012 September 2012 October 2012 November 2012 December 2012 January 2013 March 2013 April 2013 May 2013 July 2013 September 2013