Tuesday, May 26, 2015

90 seconds to Boston

UPDATED! The analysis has been updated. The latest analysis is available here: http://boston-qualifier-stats.blogspot.ca/2015/08/santa-rosa-marathon-sways-boston-cutoff.html

With 22 of the top 25 feeder marathons complete, the current trend for the 2016 Boston Marathon Cutoff is 90 seconds. (or 91 if you're a pessimist).

Only 3 more left (Grandma's, Santa Rosa and Lehigh).


The Caveats:
The analysis assumes a lot of assumptions. I have outlined the objective and methodology on this page. Basically, I look at the number of people who qualified for the 2015 race, using the "feeder marathons". To qualify for the 2015 race, participants needed a BQ minus 1m2s. These races were all run last year. I then look at the same races for this year, and see how many people would qualify using the same cutoff.  If fewer people qualify, then I decrease to cutoff (make it easier to qualify), until the same number of people qualify as did last year. Conversely, if more people make the 1m2s cutoff than last year, I increase the cutoff (making it harder to qualify) until the same number of people qualify.


Table 1: Year vs Year, By Marathon
2015 Qualifying Year2016 Qualifying Year
MarathonFinishersBQBQ2015BQ2015%FinishersBQBQ2015BQ2015%
Big Cottonwood1,30826224419 %1,52728425217 %
Erie 97831228029 %95931728930 %
Berlin 36,1225,7695,45515 %29,0274,5304,30815 %
St. George 5,8181,1981,13720 %5,80699793916 %
Twin Cities 8,8551,01095311 %8,8531,04196711 %
Portland 6,9455044707 %6,4294293956 %
Chicago 38,8543,5273,3149 %40,5814,0043,7629 %
Steamtown 2,16537735917 %2,18443140819 %
Columbus 5,52361156110 %5,44562058111 %
Toronto Waterfront 3,60448745313 %3,97165460115 %
Baystate 1,30430127121 %1,53137835023 %
Marine Corps 23,3851,1701,0735 %19,6877186623 %
New York City 50,1343,9803,7257 %50,4333,6293,4007 %
Indianapolis Mon'tal 3,52151848314 %3,72559455215 %
Richmond 4,8424414189 %5,09552048710 %
Philadelphia 10,9141,3411,25211 %10,3331,3371,23512 %
California International 6,2381,2921,19519 %5,7931,2911,18520 %
Houston 6,9456986519 %7,1336986489 %
Boston 31,21010,56410,04632 %26,63512,79212,21846 %
Bayshore2,01731430015 %2,00834132916 %
Ottawa5,32481274514 %4,50180675017 %
Mountains 2 Beach1,61739937023 %1,58645241926 %
TOTAL257,62335,88733,75513 %243,24236,86334,73714 %
Notes:
1. BQ = Number of Runners who met the minimum Boston Qualifying Standard
2. BQ2015 = Number of Runners who met the Cutoff for the 2015 Boston Marathon (BQ minus 1m 2s)
3. BQ2015% = Percentage of finishers meeting the BQ 20015 cutoff time.
4. AG = Age Group on the day of the feeder race, not the subsequent year's Boston Marathon.
   This is a small source of error, as a person may "age-up" for the subsequent year's Boston Marathon.

Analysis
Looking at the table above: 257,623 runners finished a 2015 qualifying race, whereas 243,242 finished a 2016 race: 14,000 fewer people. However, more people met the minimum BQ standard 35,499 for the 2016 qualifying year versus 34,729 for the 2015 qualifying year. Moreover, more people met the 1 minute and 2 second cutoff in the 2016 qualifying year so far than did in 2015.

If the Boston Marathon registration opened today - assuming the same proportion of qualified runners apply for the race (see objective and methodology) - there wouldn't be enough spots for everyone. We have to increase the cutoff so that we whittle the 34,737 people (who met the 2015 cutoff in a 2016 qualifying race) down to 33,755 the number of people who met the Cutoff for 2015.

Through a numerical modelling approach, the answer to the solution, of what the cutoff should be becomes 90 seconds.

At 90 seconds, 33,765 people will make it into the marathon. (10 more than this year).

At 91 seconds, 33,731 people will make it into the marathon. (24 fewer than this year)

Table 2: Projected qualifiers by AG based on an 90 second cutoff.
AGFinishersBQBQ2015 @62sBQ2016 @90sBQ2016%
F18-3441,2405,1364,8404,71111 %
F35-3916,7212,4402,3062,24813 %
F40-4416,2252,4762,3022,23014 %
F45-4912,0942,5392,3832,30819 %
F50-547,9421,5721,4861,44318 %
F55-593,97884479878720 %
F60-641,62138336636222 %
F65-6951311110910721 %
F70-7415532303019 %
F75-792844414 %
F80+633350 %
M18-3439,8314,8924,6514,53311 %
M35-3921,8812,6582,4912,42311 %
M40-4424,5743,1952,9962,90112 %
M45-4921,3753,8793,6473,54017 %
M50-5416,7862,9652,7692,67516 %
M55-599,9131,8921,7891,73718 %
M60-645,1831,1131,0651,03420 %
M65-692,16352050049223 %
M70-7476516616015620 %
M75-7920635343316 %
M80+4288819 %
Total243,24236,86334,73733,76514 %
Notes:
1. BQ = Number of Runners who met the minimum Boston Qualifying Standard
2. BQ2015 = Number of Runners who met the Cutoff for the 2015 Boston Marathon (BQ minus 1m 2s)
3. BQ2016 = Number of Runners who met the projected Cutoff for the 2016 Boston Marathon (BQ minus 90s)
4. BQ2016% = Percentage of finishers meeting the projected BQ 20016 cutoff time.
4. AG = Age Group on the day of the feeder race, not the subsequent year's Boston Marathon.
   This is a small source of error, as a person may "age-up" for the subsequent year's Boston Marathon.



Other Interesting Numbers:


Combined, to date - Year vs Year Analysis, By Age Group
2015 Qualifying Year2016 Qualifying Year
AGFinishersBQBQ2015BQ2015%FinishersBQBQ2015BQ2015%
F18-3442,7774,5304,27310 %41,2405,1364,84012 %
F35-3917,2212,3212,17113 %16,7212,4402,30614 %
F40-4416,8302,4232,28414 %16,2252,4762,30214 %
F45-4912,6172,5182,40019 %12,0942,5392,38320 %
F50-548,4691,6391,54718 %7,9421,5721,48619 %
F55-593,90474671218 %3,97884479820 %
F60-641,67033932319 %1,62138336623 %
F65-6951011510721 %51311110921 %
F70-74134232317 %155323019 %
F75-79195526 %284414 %
F80+72114 %63350 %
M18-3443,6314,7844,51710 %39,8314,8924,65112 %
M35-3923,6162,7092,50411 %21,8812,6582,49111 %
M40-4426,7163,3633,14312 %24,5743,1952,99612 %
M45-4922,7733,7793,54716 %21,3753,8793,64717 %
M50-5417,8822,9472,73015 %16,7862,9652,76916 %
M55-5910,1391,8241,72617 %9,9131,8921,78918 %
M60-645,4951,1051,05219 %5,1831,1131,06521 %
M65-692,18849648022 %2,16352050023 %
M70-7477917616822 %76516616021 %
M75-79192373619 %206353417 %
M80+546611 %428819 %
Total257,62335,88733,75513 %243,24236,86334,73714 %
Notes:
1. BQ = Number of Runners who met the minimum Boston Qualifying Standard
2. BQ2015 = Number of Runners who met the Cutoff for the 2015 Boston Marathon (BQ minus 1m 2s)
3. BQ2015% = Percentage of finishers meeting the BQ 20015 cutoff time.
4. AG = Age Group on the day of the feeder race, not the subsequent year's Boston Marathon.
   This is a small source of error, as a person may "age-up" for the subsequent year's Boston Marathon.

14 comments:

  1. If 22 of the 25 top feeders are in the books, and really only Grandma's is in the top half of those, are things getting a bit locked in as far as what the range looks like? I'd think statistically now it'd be hard to move the average. It is just a matter of the degree of follow through from those who BQ vs. prior years. I do feel like while enthusiasm is still strong, can it remain at the fever pitch of the last two years?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It would appear the cutoff is getting locked in. Barring some major statistical event (one of the marathons getting cancelled; or extremely poor weather). Currently, 1000 more people have a BQ time than at this time of the year last year. Add to that the mystery of the Berlin Marathon (many fewer qualifiers than last year, and that's pulling the average down), it would appear that the cutoff is 90seconds or higher.

      Delete
  2. Thanks for all of this great work. It's been a fun read. It's a shame that Boston removed Eugene from their feeder list because we had a gorgeous race day two weeks ago-- enough so that it could possibly influence things a bit. Heck, I even bested my BQ time from Chicago there… and Chicago was just about perfect last fall!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think if it was removed, it's not a poor reflection of the Eugene race. I think it's more a reflection on what are the top 25 races that people apply with a BQ from. If Eugene has a field of 1000+ and had great conditions this year, it may very well influence the "Top 25 feeder list", and could definitely influence the BQ Cutoff (despite not being on the feeder list). The feeder list is just a starting point for my analysis to spot year vs year trends.

      Delete
  3. I currently have a BQ -116 Seconds. Should I be sweating it? It would be my first BM, and I would love to go. Thanks for this site!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't give up hope! I have BQ-67 seconds. This blog started as a feel-good exercise to validate that I would be going... I guess I have opened a can of worms now! There's an interesting theory emerging... Next year is 120th anniversary, that may mean a larger field ? There's always hope!!!

      Delete
  4. At -118 seconds here. Before the 'incident' of 2013, the current standards allowed all qualifiers to register, plus a window opened for a bit as a free for all after the squeakers with less than 5:00 cushion applied. Then post-2013, there was renewed enthusiasm, plus some people being allowed to finish from 2013. I have to imagine after a couple of years, each coming with a bill for several thousand dollars to do the race, there may well be a dip in the number of qualifiers who apply. Maybe that is wishful thinking, don't know. I like the 120th anniversary, expanded field thought. I feel like I read quotes after last year not promising anything, but acknowledging they look at ways to make sure as many people who qualify can run, but have to be cognizant of numbers for safety, timing, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Sitting at -82 and can do nothing but feel sick for the next three months. I'm curious: roughly how many qualified runners "sit" within each second span? That is, how many people, say, are between my -82 and the -90 you're predicting? I'm just wondering if there are a thousand people between me and the cutoff, or a couple dozen.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I mean, I'm guessing that is not a steady state number and that it likely gets increasingly larger with each second closer you get to the BQ cutoff. Thanks. -Ray

      Delete
  6. When can we expect the next update? Love all the info!

    ReplyDelete
  7. How close in seconds - either way - were your calculations/predictions last year for this years' (2015) Boston cut-off? I can't find those results on the blog.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I only started doing this for this year. Frankly, I'm hoping I'm way off as I only 67 seconds in the bank!

      Delete
  8. I hppe you are way off too...ha ha! I am at 1:10 under the BQ. I've never cut it this close but totally okay if I don't return to Boston next year although I'd love to say I made it by a second. A'way, I've been guesstimating the cut-off these last two years and for '14 was 3 seconds off (they let in more people than what I had heard) and this past year I guessed within 7 seconds. My guess for '16 is 58 seconds. How I've arrived at that # is totally embarrassing compared to your analysis/methodology which I LOVE to read. Hope Lehigh doesn't do the damage that Santa Rosa did!

    ReplyDelete