You are working on Staging2

U.S. Nationals Performance vs Seed so Far

2018 U.S. NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS

The U.S. national championships have been fast so far at the top end compared to last year. Average times in the finals are down almost across the board

Average Finals Times

Men

2018 2017 Diff
100 Fly 51.71 51.94 -0.23
100 Free 48.39 48.38 0.01
1500 Free 15:05.59 15:08.96 -3.37
200 Back 1:56.93 1:57.46 -0.53
200 Breast 2:09.54 2:09.90 -0.46
200 Fly 1:55.43 1:56.30 -0.87
200 Free 1:46.71 1:46.79 -0.08
400 IM 4:13.28 4:15.11 -1.83
50 Back 24.72 24.85 -0.13
50 Breast 27.32 27.36 -0.04
50 Fly 23.47 23.51 -0.04

Women

2018 2017 Diff
100 Fly 58.03 58.39 -0.36
100 Free 53.73 54 -0.27
200 Back 2:08.54 2:10.23 -1.69
200 Breast 2:24.77 2:25.38 -0.61
200 Fly 2:08.54 2:09.26 -0.72
200 Free 1:57.00 1:57.09 0.09
400 IM 4:38.11 4:39.47 -1.36
50 Back 28.04 28.10 -0.06
50 Breast 30.66 30.67 -0.01
50 Fly 26.44 26.37 0.07
800 Free 8:25.16 8:28.67 -3.51

It’s easy to look at the improvement at the top end of the meet and think that everyone is dropping time like crazy this week. While some swimmers have had great meets, it’s still hard to go best times at big national meets. Only 34% of women and 42% of men managed to beat their seed times so far (this analysis excludes cases where swimmer’s seed times were from other events such as the 50’s of stroke or some distance events.) Men have added an average of 1% to their seeds so far (median .3%, 576 data points). Women have added an average of 1% to their seed times (median .7%, 622 data points). Those numbers are pretty typical and fall in line with other big national meets.

The most likely explanation for the improvement at the top end of the meet is that the field of swimmers are better than last year.

Distribution of Time Changes vs Seed (negative is faster, positive is slower)

There have been some big time drops so far and those are worth highlighting. The top 20 time drops vs seed for men and women are in the tables below. Some seed times were yards times converted to meters. For this article those converted times were used and taken at face value.

For men the biggest time drop by percentage so far was Noah Bowers of Virginia Gators in the 100 fly where he beat his 55.87 100 fly seed time by 2.03 seconds. The biggest drop for women came from Mackenzie Looze of Indiana Swim Team whose 2:29.94 200 breast was a 4.59 improvement on her seed time.

Men

Name Club Event Time Seed Change
1 Bowers, Noah Virginia Gators 100 Fly 53.84 55.87 -3.6%
2 Chaney, Adam Mason Manta Rays 100 Free 49.95 51.81 -3.6%
3 Stewart, Coleman Nc State University 100 Fly 52.17 54.1 -3.6%
4 Finke, Robert Saint Petersburg 400 Medley 4:15.79 4:25.14 -3.5%
5 Iida, Sam Glenview Titan Aquatic Club 200 Breast 2:11.80 2:16.15 -3.2%
6 Urlando, Gianluca Dart Swimming 200 Fly 1:55.21 1:58.93 -3.1%
7 Casas, Shaine Aggie Swim Club 200 Back 1:58.65 2:02.03 -2.8%
8 Giller, Robby Cavalier Swimming 400 Medley 4:19.06 4:26.31 -2.7%
9 Devine, Abrahm Stanford Swimming 200 Free 1:47.78 1:50.77 -2.7%
10 Julian, Trenton Rose Bowl Aquatics 200 Fly 1:56.20 1:59.31 -2.6%
11 Khosla, Raunak Dynamo Swim Club 200 Fly 2:00.47 2:03.65 -2.6%
12 Julian, Trenton Rose Bowl Aquatics 200 Free 1:47.57 1:50.39 -2.6%
13 Julian, Trenton Rose Bowl Aquatics 200 Fly 1:56.27 1:59.31 -2.5%
14 Farris, Dean Harvard Swimming 100 Free 48.52 49.75 -2.5%
15 Seliskar, Andrew California Aquatics 200 Free 1:45.70 1:48.35 -2.4%
16 Harder, Ethan Billings Aquatic Club 200 Fly 2:00.81 2:03.82 -2.4%
17 Scheinfeld, Charles New Trier Aquatics 200 Breast 2:14.68 2:17.94 -2.4%
18 Stewart, Sam Unattached 400 Medley 4:13.65 4:19.69 -2.3%
19 Dahlgren, Jack Aquajets Swim Team 200 Fly 1:59.10 2:01.85 -2.3%
20 Saunderson, Jack Towson University Swimming 100 Fly 51.48 52.66 -2.2%

Women

Name Club Event Time Seed Change
1 Looze, Mackenzie Indiana Swim Team 200 Breast 2:29.94 2:34.53 -3.0%
2 Sumrall, Micah Chattahoochee Gold Swim Club 200 Breast 2:22.06 2:26.16 -2.8%
3 Sarazen, Kyra Irish Aquatics 200 Back 2:11.37 2:15.09 -2.8%
4 Moroney, Megan Cavalier Swimming 200 Back 2:10.53 2:14.15 -2.7%
5 Seidt, Asia Kentucky Aquatics 200 Fly 2:09.62 2:13.14 -2.6%
6 Weitzeil, Abbey California Aquatics 100 Free 53.56 54.99 -2.6%
7 Small, Meghan Tennessee Aquatics 100 Fly 59.27 1:00.83 -2.6%
8 Bonnett, Bailey Kentucky Aquatics 200 Breast 2:27.35 2:31.04 -2.4%
9 James, Lauren University Of Louisville 200 Breast 2:29.00 2:32.57 -2.3%
10 Smith, Regan Riptide 200 Fly 2:07.42 2:10.47 -2.3%
11 Lazor, Annie Mission Viejo Nadadores 200 Breast 2:24.42 2:27.87 -2.3%
12 Ivey, Isabel Laker Swim 100 Fly 59.29 1:00.67 -2.3%
13 Pfeifer, Evie Longhorn Aquatics 200 Free 1:58.54 2:01.19 -2.2%
14 Sullivan, Erica Sandpipers Of Nevada 200 Back 2:14.45 2:17.44 -2.2%
15 Kovac, Bailey Indiana University 200 Breast 2:28.92 2:32.17 -2.1%
16 Goettler, Laura Lake Erie Silver Dolphins 200 Breast 2:29.38 2:32.62 -2.1%
17 Sargent, Makayla Irish Aquatics 400 Medley 4:40.24 4:46.07 -2.0%
18 Madden, Paige Cavalier Swimming 200 Free 1:58.50 2:00.96 -2.0%
19 Denigan, Mariah Northern Ky Clippers Swimming 800 Free 8:28.15 8:38.64 -2.0%
20 Walsh, Gretchen Nashville Aquatic Club 100 Free 54.38 55.5 -2.0%

7
Leave a Reply

Subscribe
Notify of

7 Comments
newest
oldest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
KeithM
6 years ago

Be great to get some median data since averages are sometimes skewed by outliers. Also depth comparison. What times did it take to make finals or even top 16/24 just to get a broader comparison of depth.

Andrew Mering
Reply to  KeithM
6 years ago

But this is finals times data. A really fast winning time or really slow times at the back end of the heat are part of the overall speed of the heat. With the small number of data points and the goal of capturing the entire data set, I think averages are better in this case. Medians are usually better, but in this case I prefer an average. We have the entire final. Outliers arguably don’t exist when the sample is the entire population. A median here is just the average of the 4th and 5th place times. By using it we’re throwing out a lot of information. I reported the medians for the overall time drop distributions where they are… Read more »

Andrew Mering
Reply to  Andrew Mering
6 years ago

A depth comparison would be useful. I did a partial look at that on day 1.
Check it out here: https://staging2.swimswam.com/u-s-nationals-day-1-prelims-much-faster-than-recent-nationals/
I might do a more complete version after the meet.

StuartC
6 years ago

Good stuff! In the 200 free women, the 0.09 diff is in wrong direction. The figure of distribution of time changes is interesting. Men overall are doing slightly better than women. Can this same figure be repeated and compared for men2017 vs men2018 and for women?

Andrew Mering
Reply to  StuartC
6 years ago

This is why I shouldn’t do subtraction manually. Sign error corrected. The 2017 data looks pretty similar. I have the 2017 data in a different format, so overlaying it is annoying. By visual inspection, it’s pretty similar.

StuartC
Reply to  Andrew Mering
6 years ago

Thanks for your efforts! I am a stats person too, so love this!

KeithM
Reply to  Andrew Mering
6 years ago

Thanks for this. Very interesting. Is Trenton Julian the son of olympian Kristine Quance?

About Braden Keith

Braden Keith

Braden Keith is the Editor-in-Chief and a co-founder/co-owner of SwimSwam.com. He first got his feet wet by building The Swimmers' Circle beginning in January 2010, and now comes to SwimSwam to use that experience and help build a new leader in the sport of swimming. Aside from his life on the InterWet, …

Read More »