Staake Trophy

HostBowdoin
Date03/22/2014
TypeNOT ALLOWED In-Conference
BoatFJ
ScoringTeam

#	School	Team	Rec.
1	Bowdoin College	Polar Bears	20–3
2	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	Engineers	16–7
3	Boston University	Terriers	12–11
4	University of Rhode Island	Rams	11–12
5	Northeastern University	Huskies	4–16
6	Salve Regina University	Seahawks	3–17

Pre-event forecast

Fitted on the 2,744 team race matches sailed before 2014-03-22, using the line-ups that actually raced. It called 52 of 66 matches (79%) with a log-loss of 0.461 (a coin flip scores 0.693), so the event went about as expected for the forecast. Orderliness +0.18 ± 0.24: a typical event, more orderly than 64% of college team race events (temperature of the forecast log-odds that best fits the results, relative to the league average; nothing about the field, venue or wind predicts it, see the Weather tab). vs forecast is a team's wins minus the wins the model expected from the matches it sailed: positive means it beat its rating.

Place	School	Pred.	Strength	Boats (skipper / crew, boat value)	Pred. win %	Record	vs forecast
1	Bowdoin College Polar Bears	1	10.02 school +0.46, home +0.27	Michael Croteau / Mary Paz 3.05 Jack Mcguire / Paige Speight 3.16 Peter Edmunds / Julia Rew 2.92	76%	20–3 (87%)	+2.6
2	Massachusetts Institute of Technology Engineers	2	9.75	David Alfonso / Christopher Ford 3.47 Alexander Stewart / Jordan Ladd 3.14 David Larson / Iris Xu 3.19 12–1 Joseph Paggi / Iris Xu 2.90 4–6	66%	16–7 (70%)	+0.9
3	Boston University Terriers	3	9.50	Cameron Fraser / Kayla Lynch 3.20 Brendan Cook / Hannah Callahan 2.87 Ryan Astwood / Margaret Swanson 3.35	59%	12–11 (52%)	−1.7
4	University of Rhode Island Rams	4	9.25 school +0.37	Caleb Armstrong / Elizabeth Durgin 3.24 Matthew Coughlin / Kaitlyn Norton 2.96 Samuel Cushing / Matthew Sola 2.69 10–8 Ian White / Matthew Sola 2.27 1–4	55%	11–12 (48%)	−1.7
5	Northeastern University Huskies	6	7.36	Maarten Eenkema Van Dijk / Margo Blagden Conor Lodge / Estelle Beguin Victoria Mcgruer / Elizabeth Sczerzenie 1.68	17%	4–16 (20%)	+0.6
6	Salve Regina University Seahawks	5	7.50	Robert Lippincott / Baillie Lawless 2.54 Christopher Jensen / Hayden Maguire 2.17 John Silvestri / Angelina Todaro 2.56	19%	3–17 (15%)	−0.8

Surprisal: who beat their rating

Pre-event strength against the strength that would have made each record least surprising, everything else fixed. Δ is in the model's logit units, the same scale as the boat values above (a side is three boats plus the school term); green is a clear over-performance, red a clear under-performance. Skippers need three or more matches.

Place	School	Strength	Perf.	Record	Exp. wins	Δ	Surprise (bits)	P(this good or better)
1	Bowdoin College	10.02	10.85	20–3	17.4	+0.83	1.5	14%
5	Northeastern University	7.36	7.61	4–16	3.4	+0.25	0.1	45%
2	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	9.75	9.97	16–7	15.1	+0.22	0.1	42%
6	Salve Regina University	7.50	7.16	3–17	3.8	−0.34	0.2	79%
3	Boston University	9.50	9.12	12–11	13.7	−0.38	0.5	85%
4	University of Rhode Island	9.25	8.85	11–12	12.7	−0.40	0.5	86%

By skipper

Skipper	School	Value	Perf.	Record	Exp. wins	Δ	Surprise (bits)	P(this good or better)
David Larson	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	3.19	4.45	12–1	10.3	+1.26	1.3	20%
Michael Croteau	Bowdoin College	3.05	3.89	20–3	17.4	+0.83	1.5	14%
Jack Mcguire	Bowdoin College	3.16	3.99	20–3	17.4	+0.83	1.5	14%
Peter Edmunds	Bowdoin College	2.92	3.76	20–3	17.4	+0.83	1.5	14%
Maarten Eenkema Van Dijk	Northeastern University	2.78	3.03	4–16	3.4	+0.25	0.1	45%
Conor Lodge	Northeastern University	2.35	2.60	4–16	3.4	+0.25	0.1	45%
Victoria Mcgruer	Northeastern University	1.68	1.93	4–16	3.4	+0.25	0.1	45%
David Alfonso	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	3.47	3.69	16–7	15.1	+0.22	0.1	42%
Alexander Stewart	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	3.14	3.36	16–7	15.1	+0.22	0.1	42%
Ian White	University of Rhode Island	2.27	1.97	1–4	1.3	−0.30	0.1	77%
Joseph Paggi	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	2.90	2.59	4–6	4.7	−0.31	0.2	79%
Robert Lippincott	Salve Regina University	2.54	2.20	3–17	3.8	−0.34	0.2	79%
Christopher Jensen	Salve Regina University	2.17	1.83	3–17	3.8	−0.34	0.2	79%
John Silvestri	Salve Regina University	2.56	2.23	3–17	3.8	−0.34	0.2	79%
Cameron Fraser	Boston University	3.20	2.82	12–11	13.7	−0.38	0.5	85%
Brendan Cook	Boston University	2.87	2.49	12–11	13.7	−0.38	0.5	85%
Ryan Astwood	Boston University	3.35	2.97	12–11	13.7	−0.38	0.5	85%
Matthew Coughlin	University of Rhode Island	2.96	2.55	11–12	12.7	−0.40	0.5	86%
Samuel Cushing	University of Rhode Island	2.69	2.27	10–8	11.5	−0.42	0.4	86%

Match by match

Probability the model gave the side that went on to win. Red bars are upsets (the winner was given under 50%).

Rd	#	Winner	Loser	P(winner)
1	1	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	Northeastern University	95%
1	2	Boston University	Salve Regina University	90%
1	3	Bowdoin College	University of Rhode Island	74%
1	4	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	Boston University	59%
1	5	Northeastern University	University of Rhode Island	9%	upset
1	6	Bowdoin College	Salve Regina University	93%
1	7	Boston University	University of Rhode Island	54%
1	8	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	Salve Regina University	92%
1	9	Bowdoin College	Northeastern University	94%
1	10	University of Rhode Island	Salve Regina University	87%
1	11	Boston University	Northeastern University	91%
1	12	Bowdoin College	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	60%
1	13	Northeastern University	Salve Regina University	45%	upset
1	14	University of Rhode Island	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	44%	upset
1	15	Bowdoin College	Boston University	62%
2	16	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	Boston University	59%
2	17	Bowdoin College	Northeastern University	94%
2	18	University of Rhode Island	Salve Regina University	87%
2	19	Bowdoin College	Boston University	62%
2	20	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	Salve Regina University	92%
2	21	University of Rhode Island	Northeastern University	88%
2	22	Bowdoin College	Salve Regina University	92%
2	23	Boston University	Northeastern University	89%
2	24	University of Rhode Island	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	44%	upset
2	25	Northeastern University	Salve Regina University	47%	upset
2	26	Bowdoin College	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	61%
2	27	University of Rhode Island	Boston University	46%	upset
2	28	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	Northeastern University	92%
2	29	Boston University	Salve Regina University	88%
2	30	University of Rhode Island	Bowdoin College	25%	upset
3	31	Bowdoin College	Boston University	63%
3	32	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	University of Rhode Island	56%
3	33	Salve Regina University	Northeastern University	52%
3	34	Bowdoin College	University of Rhode Island	75%
3	35	Boston University	Northeastern University	89%
3	36	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	Salve Regina University	91%
3	37	Northeastern University	University of Rhode Island	13%	upset
3	38	Bowdoin College	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	61%
3	39	Boston University	Salve Regina University	88%
3	40	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	Northeastern University	92%
3	41	University of Rhode Island	Boston University	46%	upset
3	42	Bowdoin College	Salve Regina University	92%
3	43	Boston University	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	40%	upset
3	44	Bowdoin College	Northeastern University	93%
3	45	Salve Regina University	University of Rhode Island	15%	upset
4	46	Bowdoin College	University of Rhode Island	75%
4	47	Boston University	Salve Regina University	87%
4	48	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	Northeastern University	92%
4	49	University of Rhode Island	Salve Regina University	85%
4	50	Bowdoin College	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	62%
4	51	Boston University	Northeastern University	88%
4	52	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	Salve Regina University	91%
4	53	University of Rhode Island	Boston University	46%	upset
4	54	Bowdoin College	Northeastern University	92%
4	55	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	Boston University	60%
4	56	Bowdoin College	Salve Regina University	92%
4	57	University of Rhode Island	Northeastern University	86%
4	58	Bowdoin College	Boston University	64%
4	59	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	University of Rhode Island	56%
4	60	Salve Regina University	Northeastern University	51%
4	61	Bowdoin College	University of Rhode Island	75%
4	62	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	Boston University	60%
4	63	Boston University	University of Rhode Island	54%
4	64	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	Bowdoin College	38%	upset
4	65	Boston University	Bowdoin College	36%	upset
4	66	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	University of Rhode Island	56%

Round 1

Team	Rec.	Bears	Engineers	Terriers	Rams	Huskies	Seahawks
Bowdoin College Polar Bears	5–0	✕	W	W	W	W	W
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Engineers	3–2	L	✕	W	L	W	W
Boston University Terriers	3–2	L	L	✕	W	W	W
University of Rhode Island Rams	2–3	L	W	L	✕	L	W
Northeastern University Huskies	2–3	L	L	L	W	✕	W
Salve Regina University Seahawks	0–5	L	L	L	L	L	✕

Round 2

Team	Rec.	Bears	Engineers	Terriers	Rams	Huskies	Seahawks
Bowdoin College Polar Bears	4–1	✕	W	W	L	W	W
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Engineers	3–2	L	✕	W	L	W	W
Boston University Terriers	2–3	L	L	✕	L	W	W
University of Rhode Island Rams	5–0	W	W	W	✕	W	W
Northeastern University Huskies	1–4	L	L	L	L	✕	W
Salve Regina University Seahawks	0–5	L	L	L	L	L	✕

Round 3

Team	Rec.	Bears	Engineers	Terriers	Rams	Huskies	Seahawks
Bowdoin College Polar Bears	5–0	✕	W	W	W	W	W
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Engineers	3–2	L	✕	L	W	W	W
Boston University Terriers	3–2	L	W	✕	L	W	W
University of Rhode Island Rams	1–4	L	L	W	✕	L	L
Northeastern University Huskies	1–4	L	L	L	W	✕	L
Salve Regina University Seahawks	2–3	L	L	L	W	W	✕

Round 4

Team	Rec.	Bears	Engineers	Terriers	Rams	Huskies	Seahawks
Bowdoin College Polar Bears	6–2	✕	L	L	W	W	W
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Engineers	7–1	W	✕	W	W	W	W
Boston University Terriers	4–4	W	L	✕	W	W	W
University of Rhode Island Rams	3–5	L	L	L	✕	W	W
Northeastern University Huskies	0–5	L	L	L	L	✕	L
Salve Regina University Seahawks	1–4	L	L	L	L	W	✕

Filter by team:

#					Pos.
1	Engineers	1-2-3	def.	Huskies	4-5-6
2	Terriers	2-3-4	def.	Seahawks	1-5-6
3	Polar Bears	1-2-4	def.	Rams	3-5-6
4	Engineers	1-2-3	def.	Terriers	4-5-6
5	Huskies	1-3-6	def.	Rams	2-4-5
6	Polar Bears	1-2-5	def.	Seahawks	3-4-6
7	Terriers	1-2-6	def.	Rams	3-4-5
8	Engineers	1-2-6	def.	Seahawks	3-4-5
9	Polar Bears	1-2-3	def.	Huskies	4-5-6
10	Rams	1-2-6	def.	Seahawks	3-4-5
11	Terriers	1-2-6	def.	Huskies	3-4-5
12	Polar Bears	1-3-6	def.	Engineers	2-4-5
13	Huskies	2-3-4	def.	Seahawks	1-5-6
14	Rams	1-3-6	def.	Engineers	2-4-5
15	Polar Bears	1-4-5	def.	Terriers	2-3-6
16	Engineers	2-3-4	def.	Terriers	1-5-6
17	Polar Bears	1-2-5	def.	Huskies	3-4-6
18	Rams	1-2-3	def.	Seahawks	4-5-6
19	Polar Bears	1-2-5	def.	Terriers	3-4-6
20	Engineers	1-2-3	def.	Seahawks	4-5-6
21	Rams	2-3-5	def.	Huskies	1-4-6
22	Polar Bears	1-2-6	def.	Seahawks	3-4-5
23	Terriers	2-3-5	def.	Huskies	1-4-6
24	Rams	1-2-5	def.	Engineers	3-4-6
25	Huskies	1-2-4	def.	Seahawks	3-5-6
26	Polar Bears	1-2-5	def.	Engineers	3-4-6
27	Rams	1-2-6	def.	Terriers	3-4-5
28	Engineers	1-2-3	def.	Huskies	4-5-6
29	Terriers	1-2-5	def.	Seahawks	3-4-6
30	Rams	2-3-5	def.	Polar Bears	1-4-6
31	Polar Bears	1-2-5	def.	Terriers	3-4-6
32	Engineers	2-3-4	def.	Rams	1-5-6
33	Seahawks	2-3-5	def.	Huskies	1-4-6
34	Polar Bears	1-4-5	def.	Rams	2-3-6
35	Terriers	1-2-5	def.	Huskies	3-4-6
36	Engineers	1-2-6	def.	Seahawks	3-4-5
37	Huskies	1-3-5	def.	Rams	2-4-6
38	Polar Bears	1-2-6	def.	Engineers	3-4-5
39	Terriers	1-2-6	def.	Seahawks	3-4-5
40	Engineers	1-2-6	def.	Huskies	3-4-5
41	Rams	1-2-6	def.	Terriers	3-4-5
42	Polar Bears	1-4-5	def.	Seahawks	2-3-6
43	Terriers	1-2-6	def.	Engineers	3-4-5
44	Polar Bears	1-3-5	def.	Huskies	2-4-6
45	Seahawks	1-2-3	def.	Rams	4-5-6
46	Polar Bears	1-2-4	def.	Rams	3-5-6
47	Terriers	1-3-5	def.	Seahawks	2-4-6
48	Engineers	1-2-4	def.	Huskies	3-5-6
49	Rams	1-3-5	def.	Seahawks	2-4-6
50	Polar Bears	1-2-6	def.	Engineers	3-4-5
51	Terriers	1-2-4	def.	Huskies	3-5-6
52	Engineers	1-2-4	def.	Seahawks	3-5-6
53	Rams	1-2-5	def.	Terriers	3-4-6
54	Polar Bears	1-2-6	def.	Huskies	3-4-5
55	Engineers	2-3-4	def.	Terriers	1-5-6
56	Polar Bears	1-2-4	def.	Seahawks	3-5-6
57	Rams	1-3-6	def.	Huskies	2-4-5
58	Polar Bears	1-2-4	def.	Terriers	3-5-6
59	Engineers	1-2-4	def.	Rams	3-5-6
60	Seahawks	1-2-6	def.	Huskies	3-4-5
61	Polar Bears	1-2-6	def.	Rams	3-4-5
62	Engineers	1-2-4	def.	Terriers	3-5-6
63	Terriers	1-2-3	def.	Rams	4-5-6
64	Engineers	1-3-4	def.	Polar Bears	2-5-6
65	Terriers	1-2-3	def.	Polar Bears	4-5-6
66	Engineers	1-2-6	def.	Rams	3-4-5

School	Team	Skippers	Crew
Bowdoin College	Polar Bears	Jack Mcguire '17 Michael Croteau '15 Peter Edmunds '14	Paige Speight '16 Mary Paz '17 Julia Rew '16
Massachusetts Institute of Technology	Engineers	Alexander Stewart '17 David Alfonso '14 David Larson '16 Joseph Paggi '16	Jordan Ladd '17 Christopher Ford '16 Iris Xu '14
Boston University	Terriers	Brendan Cook '16 Cameron Fraser '14 Ryan Astwood '16	Hannah Callahan '16 Kayla Lynch '16 Margaret Swanson '16
University of Rhode Island	Rams	Caleb Armstrong '16 Ian White '16 Matthew Coughlin '16 Samuel Cushing '15	Elizabeth Durgin '16 Matthew Sola '15 Kaitlyn Norton '15
Northeastern University	Huskies	Conor Lodge '14 Maarten Eenkema Van Dijk '14 Victoria Mcgruer '17	Estelle Beguin '14 Margo Blagden '16 Elizabeth Sczerzenie '15
Salve Regina University	Seahawks	Christopher Jensen '14 John Silvestri '16 Robert Lippincott '14	Hayden Maguire '16 Angelina Todaro '16 Baillie Lawless '15

Conditions — 03/22/2014 (8am–6pm)

🌨️Moderate snow

Humidity 78% · Pressure 1008.5 hPa

Temperature

33°F

↑ 39°F ↓ 22°F

Feels like 25°F

Wind

● from ▲ toward

6.8 kn

avg · max 11.1 kn

Gusts to 27.8 kn

From S (183°)

Sky & Precipitation

Cloud cover77% Sunshine5.6 hrs Humidity78% Pressure1008.5 hPa Snow0.50 in

What this breeze does at Bowdoin — from fleet racing

Breeze: S about 9 kn (weather reanalysis in the scorer’s units)

In fleet races at Bowdoin in this breeze: a strongly underdogs’ day (−0.12)

Underdogs’ conditions: in fleet racing here the fleet bunches up and lower-rated boats beat the seeds more often than usual.

Orderliness is how tightly a fleet race’s finishing order follows the pre-regatta ratings, relative to a typical event (0): positive is the favourites’ day, negative the underdogs’. A value of ±0.12 means a rating gap counts about 10% less than on a typical day. This event is not a fleet race the rating model scores, so there is no actual value for it: this is what this venue’s fleet racing history says about the breeze on the day, read off the chart at the star. How this is estimated · compare venues.

Orderliness beyond the fleet at Bowdoin by wind direction (angle) and speed (rings), fitted surface; dots are labelled regatta-days, ★ this regatta (33 labelled fleet-race days at Bowdoin).

From the notes

Short write-ups of what the ratings and results show, with the numbers and how they were computed.

How team race forecasts workThree boats’ ratings, a school term and a home edge; 78.8% of held-out matches called.
Play 1, Play 2, Play 4: how team races are wonHow often each play happens, how that shifts with breeze and level, and whether a star wins differently.
Which team races go to form?Orderliness is a real property of a team race regatta and nothing known in advance predicts it.

All notes →

Navigate

Menu