Tuesday, November 30

The 'Patrick Chan System' Part Two: How Much Did the New Scoring Help Oda and Rippon?



My first post focused on Patrick Chan's programs at Skate Canada, as I scored them using the Code of Points from the 2009/2010 season. The end result was that he scored 8.28 points higher than he would have if the old system was still in place. I didn't think that seemed like too huge of a difference considering some of the more fine changes that were made, but then I scored Nobunari Oda and Adam Rippon's programs from the same competition to see if they also followed the trend..



If any of you want me to write out all of the exact numbers, let me know. However, I figure that most of you are just interested in the final totals so that is what I'm going to present. First, the silver medalist from Skate Canada, Nobu Oda.

Short Program

Total Element Score = 44.20 (compared to his actual score, 43.37)
Program Component Score = 38.00


Total Segment Score = 82.20 (compared to his actual score, 81.37)


So he LOST 0.83 with this new system. Continuing on..

Long Program


Total Element Score = 82.84 (compared to his actual score, 81.87)
Program Component Score = 74.28
Deductions = -1.00


Total Segment Score = 156.12 (compared to his actual score, 155.15)


Total Competition Score = 238.32 (compared to his actual score, 236.52)


So once again, he lost almost a point in the free skate with the new system, and he lost 1.80 points overall. Keep in mind that Patrick Chan was able to GAIN 8.28 points with the new system.


Here are Adam Rippon's scores.

Short Program


Total Element Score = 41.59 (compared to his actual score, 41.10)
Program Component Score = 36.43


Total Segment Score = 78.02 (compared to his actual score, 77.53)


See a trend here? Rippon also LOST 0.49 points under the new system.

Long Program


Total Element Score = 81.57 (compared to his actual score, 80.35)
Program Component Score = 75.16


Total Segment Score = 156.73 (compared to his actual score, 155.51)


Total Competition Score = 234.75 (compared to his actual score, 233.04)


Following a similar pattern to Oda, Rippon lost 1.71 points overall.

Remember that the second footwork sequences are all started on a 2.0 base value, but for purposes of this study, I've thrown in the level and GOE received at Worlds last season for Chan and Rippon, and the Grand Prix Final for Oda. If I would have kept that 2.0 and worked the GOE off of it, Oda and Rippon would have ended up with just about the same total scores in both systems.

So now the major question, where did Patrick Chan make up all of these points? This small study obviously suggests that errors are counted much less severely this year-- but are they now too small of a penalty?

For what it's worth, the final standings of Skate Canada scored under the 2009/2010 system would have looked like this:

1. Nobunari Oda 238.32 points
2. Adam Rippon 234.75 points
3. Patrick Chan 231.24 points

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

Very interesting. I wonder if Patrick would have even made it to the final under the old rules.

Tony said...

I'm guessing you mean the podium when you say "final", yes?

I think he was definitely safe in that regard.

Anonymous said...

Well, your small study should definitely be mentioned to the ISU just so that they actually realize they have major revising to do to the current IJS.

Sequinsgalore said...

Let's hope the ISU raise the negative GOE's for the next season! Would they be reluctant to change it again so fast?

Tony said...

Unless something even stranger than Chan's win happens, I don't see them addressing anything until the 2012 Congress.

There's no way they will make any changes to the IJS in the middle of the season.

Anonymous said...

Would he still have made the Grand Prix final under the new rules is what I was wondering

Tony said...

I wouldn't be able to give you an accurate answer unless I scored the top three or four in every event.

I like playing with numbers, but not quite *that* much. ;-)

Anonymous said...

I like the new system. It did bring the quads backs. Under the old system Chan would probably still have won just with fewer falls and fewer rotations...

Anonymous said...

Disagree. How many of the top guys (medalists, or GPF qualifiers) actually added in a quad this season because of the new rules. Patrick Chan. And Oda's actually been attempting them in competition (but it's not like he didn't have them).

IMO, I preferred the previous set of values, and I feel like the underrotation/downgrade rules THIS season should have been enough for guys who were ever planning on attempting a quad to do one. As far as the value of negative GOEs go, I think the punishment for not completing the element should be more proportional to the reward for being able to do it.

Tony said...

I also disagree.

I'm going to agree with the last poster, as I think my biggest issue with the re-worked system is the lessening of the +GOE's on the triples, and at the same time reducing the -GOE's on the harder jumps.

In what world is a total crash on a rotated quadruple toe loop still worth 7.3 points, while a triple Lutz with a +2 GOE is worth just 0.1 MORE?

I'm somewhat in favor of a -GOE system where the -3 is close to 50% of the original base value. It more-or-less works out with the lesser jumps, but come the triple Axel and quads, it's not even close. On top of receiving around 50% of the base value for the unsuccessful jump, there would also be the one-point deduction.

You can try to promote more difficult jumps by offering up big points, but it doesn't mean that wildly unsuccessful attempts should also score huge points just because a man is capable of getting himself around four times in the air.

Anonymous said...

I have always felt that the GOE values should be calculated as percentage of the base value of each jump, rather than fixed values, and I think I am even more convinced of it after reading your analysis.

melissagoestohollywood said...

Does anyone else feel that when skaters fall, they should get 0 points for that jump element? For me, a fall on a quad is worse than a cleanly executed double. I know I have a 6.0-mentality, but I just feel that, as Chan's GP win shows, falls aren't taken seriously enough.

Tony said...

To the last anonymous- I also think something like that needs to be done.

melissa- 0 points for the element is a bit harsh. I do understand the comparison to different sports where an unsuccessful element receives no credit, but Chan losing 27.3 points for those three jumps at Skate Canada would have completely taken him out and left a huge separation in the standings. At that point, there really is no excitement left.

Anonymous said...

I don't think a fall should count for nothing, as I see it as an "incomplete" element, rather than one that wasn't attempted at all. Accidents happen, and in my mind, a jump could still be of great quality execution and they just happen to catch a bad edge or a hole in the ice - and as it is, falls are already counted as moreso of a mistake than really bad step-out or a hand down.

However, multiple falls tell me it's more a lapse in focus or bad technique than just plain chance, so I do believe that the penalties should match the reward of if you had completed it. One fall won't take you out of the running, but three falls tell you to get your head on straight.