I'm a numbers guy. Anyone who reads this blog gets that. It’s
why I love baseball; baseball is a quantifiable game. It’s a numbers game. And
I love the advanced metrics of baseball too, because it goes a long way toward
explaining the seemingly unexplainable. But worry not: This will not devolve
into another long-winded treatise on baseball numbers.
So yeah. I’m a numbers guy. Of course! What do I post after
every track meet? Splits, splits and more splits. Sometimes even splits of splits. In
numbers, there are truths. Right. Right?
Well. Trying to apply this to cross country sometimes proves
to be a slippery slope. Lord knows, I have tried. Anyone who has ever seen my all-time
Van Cortlandt Park time lists for men gets it. The course at Vanny remained
unchanged for decade after decade after decade; we were able to compare and
contrast generations of runners – from Marty McGowan (1970s) to Marty Feeney
(1990s); from Greg Salamone (late-90s/early 00s) to Nick Salamone (current
freshman). However, in the past five or so years, due to construction at the park,
the Vanny course has undergone many different variations. This, of course,
skewed the record-keeping; which, of course, annoyed me – and others who care
about such stuff -- to no end. But alas, it is what it is.
Through the years, I have come to realize that cross country
is a sport that is about place. Whenever we try to judge cross country teams
and cross country athletes strictly by time performance, we often miss the
mark. It’s about beating the guy next to you. Oh sure, we set time goals,
especially on courses that we have run year after year after year. But
ultimately, we must judge as much on place as on time; track is not always like
that, but cross country is usually like that.
This brings us to the men’s results of today’s Iona meet at
Vanny. Alumni and close followers of the program may be taken aback at the
relatively slow times posted by the men. My quick analysis of the meet to the
team was this: We are definitely not pleased with how we ran, but we are also
not discouraged. The effort was there, top to bottom. Do we need to get better?
Of course we need to get better!
But OK, here’s what you are waiting for (or not): How about
some numbers analysis, huh? Top to bottom, all coaches agreed that the times
were much slower than normal today, for whatever reason. We will not try to
delve into the “why” of this. Rather, how about a little perspective, shall we?
OK. Here goes. Today’s winning team, by a lot, was Iona
College. No shocker there. It’s their home meet, they are nationally ranked as
usual and they appear to be the top team in the Northeast Region again. So, how
fast did the Gaels run today? Their top-5 man average time was 25:45.
Now, a little Marist program history: The top four team
top-5 averages in Marist history goes like this:
1. MAAC 2011, 25:40.6 (Griffin, Flint, DelaCruz, Lipari, Walshak)
2. IC4A 2010, 25:42.0 (Flint, DelaCruz, Griffin, Walshak, Keegan)
3. IC4A 2008, 25:44.6 (Raucci, Segni, Keegan, Griffin, Shelley)
4. Iona 2008, 25:45.6 (Segni, Raucci, Shelley, Flint, Keegan)
This means that Iona’s team today was exactly equivalent to
the fourth-best team in Marist history – and the exact same team, timewise, as
the one that ran at this very meet, almost to the day, five years ago. Think
about that for a moment. That team, which by the way finished an excellent
sixth place at that meet, was not national caliber; not even close. It wasn’t
even the best Vanny team in school history. And yet, it was equivalent today to a
national powerhouse team. Do you think my friends down at Iona are crunching
the numbers and wringing their hands like this over these times today? Uh, no. Their
athletes won the race. They raced hard, and they raced in a strong pack, and
they dominated a pretty strong field out there. The times are what they are.
This bothers the logical, numbers guy in me, but it is also instructive in
terms of the importance of placement over time.