Train Tracks: 3 is a Magic Number

Until I get that library card and have something to read, I'm just going to have to keep thinking of stuff to blog about. So here we go kids another post on state medalists.

So how important is a front runner in cross country? How important are two? Are three? No obviously I discussed this before, but I think it would be interesting to revisit this concept with some added statistical relevance.

So let's look at this piece by piece. First let's consider one excellent front runner. No team has ever won a state championship without a state medalist. No team has gotten 2nd without a state medalist. Lasalle had their top guy finish 25th in 08 when they got 2nd. That's as close as things got. Lasalle also finished third in 09 with one of the tightest packs known to man, but they had no medalists and as a result were surprised by north allegheny who had the strong front runner.

The top runner on the last 8 state champs has been 3rd, 6th, 7th, 6th, 1st, 17th, 1st, 1st. That's crazy, especially when you consider that 2 of those performances that weren't first overall were 1st in team scoring. North penns squad is likely the exception that proves the rule as opposed to the rule itself, but hey it's happened before with teams like west Chester east over Craig millers super squad. Overall, if you have the best runner in the race, you usually win. It starts at the front, that guy sets the tone and leads the pack through the race and pushes everyone to their best in practice each day.

But here is the catch: you can't win a title without a front runner, but having a front runner is far from enough to win states, or even qualify you. I don't know some of the more random medalists teams well enough to give you an exact count, but I estimate about 50% of medalists aren't on state qualifying teams. So while you need one, it takes more than one.

So now two. My opinion is that two can be as sad as one. And yes I am aware that would make an excellent song lyric.

So here is why I say this. Since 06, there have been 31 teams with multiple medalists in the same championship meet. That's an impressive mark of almost 4 teams per year. Coatesville, Henderson, north penn, north hills, henderson, Ohara and Henderson have had more than 2 medalists in the same race during that span (7 squads) which leaves 24 schools with exactly 2.

Out of those schools, 2 have won state championships, 3 have been runner ups. That's 5 out of 24 schools that have left with medals, just over 20%. Meanwhile over the same span two teams won a state title with just one medalist and an additional 3 were runner ups with just the single medalist. You will notice that matches exactly. The take away: it makes no statistical difference if you have one medalist or two your chances of getting to the medal stand as a team are the same. That's telling.

Plus think of all the 2 medalist squads who didn't even qualify for states: 5. And then you have a slew of teams that finished mid pack with their two studs.

Now that being said two studs has given plenty of teams big success. The north penn squad in 09 at districts, perk valley's 4th place finish at states in 08, the strong Altoona teams that spanned 2009-2011. We are talking top 5 teams in the state. And that's why two is probably better than one.

But three seems to be the magic number. Out of the teams with 3 medalists or more at states (7), there has been one national champ, three national qualifiers, 4 state champs, 2 runner ups and one ... Um enigma for all time.

If you got three in the medals, your team is probably going home with gold. Exception being you run into one of the greatest teams in state history (Ohara and Henderson). Ohara didn't win a title in 2012 but my goodness that team was good. They were 5th at nationals! Nothing to be ashamed of and that top 3 medalists played a big time role. As for Henderson in 06, they lost to the national champs, the states greatest ever team. That Henderson squad gets massively overshadowed honestly. They probably would have made nats if there was an actual qualifying meet. And they took 4-11-13 at states! Plus they won a national championship in the dmr!

(I'm choosing to conveniently leave out the fact they were actually 3rd at districts to strath haven who gave them a real run for their money at states with 4 in the top 50 ... Seriously look up the 2006 meet it was absurd)

And then there is north hills. I could just shrug, say this is an outlier and move on but that's not my way. Here is what I will say about the north hills monster, if they made states as a team I believe they would have been easily in the top 10. I don't know exacts or anything but give them two of the last place finishers at states and add up the team scores and see where they would have fit in. I haven't done it but I bet the results surprise you (hopefully I don't end up being way off on this, if that happens just ignore the next paragraph).

Here is my theory, states is different than districts. Wow. Mind blowing. Let me clarify, states is different than the big districts. Look in district one if your 5th man runs 19 minutes, he probably gets 200th at best ... In the Jv race (maybe lower I ran 19:12 my freshman year and was straight buried). You are throwing up like 400 points from one guy and even if u take 1-2-3-4 you won't make top 10 in the district.

Flip the script on that and throw that team in states. Last place is probably only like 100-120 points or somethig like that. You take 1-2-3-4 and last you might not win the whole thing but it's gonna be real tough for somebody to beat you. Most years it's a score like 90-110 that wins if my memory serves me right, it's just we have been spoiled by these great teams the past two years.

Again you can check the math and get exact numbers but my point holds true I believe.

Look at north hills themselves for proof. In 2009 they basically had 3 medalists as hebda finished around 27th or so. That team also had two guys down around 19 minutes as their 4-5. That team was roughly a top 8 team at states, finishing a couple points away from some teams in front of them if I remember correctly (gosh this whole blogging on a train thing really inhibits my ability to look up stats as I go and seem really nick smart like I usually do .. Crashing back to earth .. Wait did I just put a nick in there that shouldn't have been? Sorry force of habit ....).

The next year the top 3 was better, took 1-2-3 at districts, but couldn't get out of the excellent wpial (that was their best year probably, they got both state golds and rivaled d1 in medals). So we don't know where they would have finished, but they would have been up in the mix no doubt.

So at this point some of you are saying well I'm glad I read etrains blog bc now I know if you have three runners who are really good that's better than having two runners that are really good. Man, how does he come up with this groundbreaking knowledge. Oh much does an actuary pay because I can do that job if he can ....

To which I first say, ouch and second say nice one and then go on to clarify. What I am trying to say is depth is not as important at states as front runners are. You need the low sticks more than ever when the talent is all at the top and the middle/back where most 4-5 guys are is basically a crapshoot. The race is decided out front with the first few guys and the rest kinda evens itself out. Depth isn't as important, but obviously you need a little bit to get by. And the magic number in my opinion is three.

So that's all I'm trying to say. Now somebody go look up those stats for me I'm curious how wrong I am.