Seed times: follow-up #2
I present the following table, mostly without comment. There are still some cases with entirely unnecessary seed-time inflations, but for the most part, the order was about the same (have to allow for some good days/bad days from the runners).
Most of the entries that were way off were from those who hadn’t yet raced. So I hope now that we’ve got a few under our belts, that we can just use the times that athletes have run. As you can see from here, there can be a range of deviation in performance, even if the most recent performance is used (Doheney was 4 sec slow, St-Pierre 6 sec fast, Hébert ran within .1 of her last race!). But, at least using that method, we’re all on the same page.
Jan 24, 2013 @ 15:39:37
Couldn’t agree more, especially after seeing some of the seed times listed for the McGill team Challenge… It would be interesting if you did the same analysis for more than just the womens K after this weekend.
Jan 24, 2013 @ 17:06:14
I would love to, but it’s a lot of work, and for what? I think I’ve made my point. Clearly some people still think it is necessary, and are happy to put a “win by Friday” attitude ahead of the good of the sport and the long-term good of athletes.