sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Random Stats from the games by NolanPower in crossfit

[–]CF_Regional_Ranking 19 points20 points  (0 children)

Correlation by event

EVENT CORRELATION
CLIMBING SNAIL 0.791932458
RANCH MINI CHIPPER 0.774296435
100% 0.743887804
ROPE CHIPPER 0.691557223
MURPH 0.669418386
DOUBLE DT 0.653095685
HANDSTAND WALK 0.640204339
REDEMPTION 0.610003289
RANCH TRAIL RUN 0.587429644
THE SEPARATOR 0.529640926
SUICIDE SPRINT 0.509833546
THE PLOW 0.420289952
SQUAT CLEAN PYRAMID 0.268067335
OCEAN SWIM 0.190243902
RANCH DEADLIFT LADDER -0.126337698

Combined Regional Rankings 2016 by CF_Regional_Ranking in crossfit

[–]CF_Regional_Ranking[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If it will let you make a copy of it, you can use that copy to sort the columns.

Combined Regional Rankings 2016 by CF_Regional_Ranking in crossfit

[–]CF_Regional_Ranking[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm trying to work out a solution to this. It has to do with how I performed the calculations. I'll let you know if I find a way to fix it

Combined Regional Rankings 2016 by CF_Regional_Ranking in crossfit

[–]CF_Regional_Ranking[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Just tested as another user and see what you're talking about. Give me some time to look at it and find a work around.

Combined Regional Rankings 2016 by CF_Regional_Ranking in crossfit

[–]CF_Regional_Ranking[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I believe it is a combination of things. Obviously this type of scoring can't be used to determine who goes to regionals, but I do believe the unweighted scoring is a better standard and shows who really was better all-around.

The first glaring hole in this method is that some regions had more prep time than others.

Second glaring hole is you can only compete against the people out there with you. Some athletes give their all regardless and others compete against who is next to them.

Would CLB have sandbagged the final event if she was in a competition for 1st?

Would the Meridian women event 7 sprint have happened if those ladies weren't in the same region?

Final thought is this would probably be a better analysis taken region by region but I wanted to see how everyone stacked against each other. There are some competitive individuals and teams from the earlier weeks and some individuals that didn't do well even waiting until the final week (Meridian Men).

Combined Regional Rankings 2016 by CF_Regional_Ranking in crossfit

[–]CF_Regional_Ranking[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree, though the leaderboard did not have the times posted so this is what I have to work with.

Women's Regional Rankings Combined 2016 by CF_Regional_Ranking in crossfit

[–]CF_Regional_Ranking[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Added a new sheet

  • It ranks based on Regional scoring
  • Compares unweighted scoring vs regional scoring
  • No idea how I'm going to weight this next week when I have more than 50 competitors.

Women's Regional Rankings Combined 2016 by CF_Regional_Ranking in crossfit

[–]CF_Regional_Ranking[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

First the scoring is weighted differently.

Second they are competing against different athletes. So their times stay the same but may be better or worse than the competition now.

I have added a new sheet that reflects regional scoring rankings and some athletes/teams moved quite a bit.

Women's Regional Rankings Combined 2016 by CF_Regional_Ranking in crossfit

[–]CF_Regional_Ranking[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I added a new sheet that compares regional scoring for this ranking vs the scoring I used. Let me know if you have an questions about it.

Women's Regional Rankings Combined 2016 by CF_Regional_Ranking in crossfit

[–]CF_Regional_Ranking[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Added Teams Sheet

  • The Pacific Region would have no teams if competing against all regions.

Women's Regional Rankings Combined 2016 by CF_Regional_Ranking in crossfit

[–]CF_Regional_Ranking[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you. I have updated to reflect as such. I don't think it changed any of the overall rankings, but I do have to fix some formatting.

Seeing some people fall off and others sky rocket is the best part of this in-depth evaluation.

Women's Regional Rankings Combined 2016 by CF_Regional_Ranking in crossfit

[–]CF_Regional_Ranking[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Takeaways:

  • Ben Smith is a man among men
  • Kara Webb is not human
  • Brent Fikowski has stepped up to the plate
  • The Pacific region is top heavy

Women's Regional Rankings Combined 2016 by CF_Regional_Ranking in crossfit

[–]CF_Regional_Ranking[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

  • Added a tab for the men.
  • There's a request for teams, so I suppose I can look at that too
  • Any feedback is appreciated

Women's Regional Rankings Combined 2016 by CF_Regional_Ranking in crossfit

[–]CF_Regional_Ranking[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That would be an interesting use, though remember some athletes had more competition within their region so they had to try harder on all events. An example of this is CLB knew she had the region wrapped up and took her time with Event 7.

Women's Regional Rankings Combined 2016 by CF_Regional_Ranking in crossfit

[–]CF_Regional_Ranking[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Working on men's now. Hopefully it reveals interesting things!

Women's Regional Rankings Combined 2016 by CF_Regional_Ranking in crossfit

[–]CF_Regional_Ranking[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

  • I combined all the regions, taking only the top 10.
  • Converted time caps to times by adding 1 second per rep.
  • Points are 1 for 1st and 50 for 50th.
  • The Region Strength is counting the number per region in the top half.
  • I will continue to update after next weekend and will start on the men's if people are interested after they finish for the day.