The Wood Trophy

HostHarvard
Date03/07/2020
TypeNOT ALLOWED Two-Conference
BoatZ420
ScoringTeam

#	School	Team	Rec.
1	Harvard University	Crimson	13–4
2	Tufts University	Jumbos	12–5
3	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	Engineers	10–7
4	University of Rhode Island	Rams	9–8
5	University of Vermont	Catamounts	8–6
6	Fordham University	Rams	4–10
7	Northeastern University	Huskies	4–10
8	University of Pennsylvania	Quakers	2–12

Pre-event forecast

Fitted on the 14,785 team race matches sailed before 2020-03-07, using the line-ups that actually raced. It called 38 of 62 matches (61%) with a log-loss of 0.609 (a coin flip scores 0.693), so the event went poorly for the forecast. Orderliness −0.25 ± 0.27: a typical event, more orderly than 21% 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	Harvard University Crimson	3	9.60 home +0.39	Jonas Nelle / Christopher Wang 2.45 Emma Kaneti / Tyler Masuyama 2.94 11–2 Henry Burnes / Iulianna Taritsa 3.56 6–4 Eli Burnes / Emily Wang 3.57 7–2 Henry Burnes / Carolyn Wang 3.60 2–0	70%	13–4 (76%)	+1.1
2	Tufts University Jumbos	2	9.61 school +0.15	Ansgar Jordan / George Sidamon-Eristoff 3.22 Charlie Hibben / Emma Clutterbuck 3.08 Alex Fasolo / Emily Calandrella 3.17 7–2 Alex Fasolo / Duke Saunders 3.06 5–3	72%	12–5 (71%)	−0.2
3	Massachusetts Institute of Technology Engineers	1	9.82 school −0.08	Emily Haig / Jeremy Mcculloch 3.43 Ivan Shestopalov / Fiona Mckellar 3.39 5–5 Stephen Duncan / Julia Cho 3.12 5–5 Ivan Shestopalov / Marcus Abate 3.25 5–2 Stephen Duncan / Maaya Prasad 3.09 5–2	75%	10–7 (59%)	−2.8
4	University of Rhode Island Rams	6	8.10 school −0.22	Luke Ingalls / Kevin Stamp 2.98 Aidan Naughton / Taylor Borges 2.76 Michael O'Flaherty / Maguire Bennett 2.54	35%	9–8 (53%)	+3.0
5	University of Vermont Catamounts	5	8.12	Thomas Harden / Isabella Arnaboldi 2.98 Cameron Nash / Gabrielle Myers 2.68 Connell Phillipps / Lucy Mulvihill 2.40 6–6 Connell Phillipps / Nicholas Salvesen 2.50 2–0	39%	8–6 (57%)	+2.6
6	Fordham University Rams	4	8.21 school +0.35	Porter Kavle / Brigid Murphy 2.88 Clayton Snyder / Lauren Miller 2.71 Kenneth Corsig / Sam Johnsen 2.12	41%	4–10 (29%)	−1.8
7	Northeastern University Huskies	8	7.55	Kyle Riggs / Jon Ewing 2.77 Adrian Van Der Wal / Wyatt Fogg Ted Bjerregaard / Rob Brower 2.32 3–7 Ted Bjerregaard / Hannah Fay 2.30 1–3	26%	4–10 (29%)	+0.3
8	University of Pennsylvania Quakers	7	7.76	William Gallagher / Meghan Perez 2.44 Samuel Gavula / Jenna Weiner 2.56 Amanda Majernik / Adam Hano 2.66	30%	2–12 (14%)	−2.2

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)
5	University of Vermont	8.12	9.05	8–6	5.4	+0.93	1.7	10%
4	University of Rhode Island	8.10	8.97	9–8	6.0	+0.87	1.9	8%
1	Harvard University	9.60	10.02	13–4	11.9	+0.42	0.3	36%
7	Northeastern University	7.55	7.66	4–10	3.7	+0.12	0.0	54%
2	Tufts University	9.61	9.54	12–5	12.2	−0.07	0.0	67%
6	Fordham University	8.21	7.56	4–10	5.8	−0.64	0.8	91%
3	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	9.82	8.93	10–7	12.8	−0.89	1.9	97%
8	University of Pennsylvania	7.76	6.70	2–12	4.2	−1.07	1.6	96%

By skipper

Skipper	School	Value	Perf.	Record	Exp. wins	Δ	Surprise (bits)	P(this good or better)
Thomas Harden	University of Vermont	2.98	3.91	8–6	5.4	+0.93	1.7	10%
Aidan Naughton	University of Rhode Island	2.76	3.63	9–8	6.0	+0.87	1.9	8%
Michael O'Flaherty	University of Rhode Island	2.54	3.41	9–8	6.0	+0.87	1.9	8%
Jonas Nelle	Harvard University	2.45	2.87	13–4	11.9	+0.42	0.3	36%
Eli Burnes	Harvard University	3.57	3.97	7–2	6.5	+0.40	0.1	51%
Kyle Riggs	Northeastern University	2.77	2.88	4–10	3.7	+0.12	0.0	54%
Adrian Van Der Wal	Northeastern University	2.37	2.49	4–10	3.7	+0.12	0.0	54%
Ansgar Jordan	Tufts University	3.22	3.15	12–5	12.2	−0.07	0.0	67%
Alex Fasolo	Tufts University	3.17	3.10	12–5	12.2	−0.07	0.0	67%
Charlie Hibben	Tufts University	3.08	3.01	12–5	12.2	−0.07	0.0	67%
Clayton Snyder	Fordham University	2.71	2.07	4–10	5.8	−0.64	0.8	91%
Kenneth Corsig	Fordham University	2.12	1.47	4–10	5.8	−0.64	0.8	91%
Ivan Shestopalov	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	3.39	2.50	10–7	12.8	−0.89	1.9	97%
William Gallagher	University of Pennsylvania	2.44	1.37	2–12	4.2	−1.07	1.6	96%
Samuel Gavula	University of Pennsylvania	2.56	1.49	2–12	4.2	−1.07	1.6	96%
Amanda Majernik	University of Pennsylvania	2.66	1.59	2–12	4.2	−1.07	1.6	96%

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	Tufts University	Northeastern University	88%
1	2	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	University of Pennsylvania	90%
1	3	University of Rhode Island	Harvard University	21%	upset
1	4	University of Vermont	Fordham University	53%
1	5	Northeastern University	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	9%	upset
1	6	Harvard University	Tufts University	47%	upset
1	7	University of Vermont	University of Pennsylvania	59%
1	8	University of Rhode Island	Fordham University	49%	upset
1	9	Harvard University	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	39%	upset
1	10	University of Vermont	Northeastern University	63%
1	11	University of Rhode Island	Tufts University	19%	upset
1	12	Fordham University	University of Pennsylvania	60%
1	13	University of Vermont	Harvard University	13%	upset
1	14	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	University of Rhode Island	86%
1	15	Northeastern University	University of Pennsylvania	45%	upset
1	16	Tufts University	Fordham University	81%
1	17	University of Rhode Island	University of Vermont	50%	upset
1	18	Harvard University	University of Pennsylvania	91%
1	19	Tufts University	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	48%	upset
1	20	Fordham University	Northeastern University	65%
1	21	University of Pennsylvania	University of Rhode Island	42%	upset
1	22	Tufts University	University of Vermont	82%
1	23	Harvard University	Northeastern University	87%
1	24	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	Fordham University	82%
1	25	Tufts University	University of Pennsylvania	87%
1	26	Northeastern University	University of Rhode Island	36%	upset
1	27	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	University of Vermont	83%
1	28	Harvard University	Fordham University	78%
2	29	Northeastern University	University of Pennsylvania	45%	upset
2	30	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	University of Rhode Island	86%
2	31	Tufts University	Harvard University	52%
2	32	University of Vermont	Fordham University	50%	upset
2	33	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	Northeastern University	91%
2	34	Harvard University	University of Pennsylvania	91%
2	35	University of Rhode Island	University of Vermont	50%	upset
2	36	Fordham University	Tufts University	20%	upset
2	37	Harvard University	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	40%	upset
2	38	University of Vermont	Northeastern University	63%
2	39	Tufts University	University of Pennsylvania	87%
2	40	University of Rhode Island	Fordham University	46%	upset
2	41	University of Vermont	Harvard University	13%	upset
2	42	Tufts University	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	49%	upset
2	43	University of Rhode Island	Northeastern University	63%
2	44	University of Pennsylvania	Fordham University	38%	upset
2	45	Tufts University	University of Vermont	82%
2	46	Harvard University	University of Rhode Island	80%
2	47	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	University of Pennsylvania	89%
2	48	Fordham University	Northeastern University	67%
2	49	Tufts University	University of Rhode Island	81%
2	50	University of Vermont	University of Pennsylvania	58%
2	51	Harvard University	Northeastern University	87%
2	52	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	Fordham University	81%
2	53	University of Rhode Island	University of Pennsylvania	57%
2	54	Tufts University	Northeastern University	88%
2	55	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	University of Vermont	83%
2	56	Harvard University	Fordham University	77%
4	57	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	Tufts University	51%
4	58	Harvard University	University of Rhode Island	80%
4	59	Tufts University	University of Rhode Island	81%
4	60	Harvard University	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	40%	upset
4	61	University of Rhode Island	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	14%	upset
4	62	Harvard University	Tufts University	48%	upset

Round 1

Team	Rec.	Crimson	Jumbos	Engineers	Rams	Catamounts	Rams	Huskies	Quakers
Harvard University Crimson	5–2	✕	W	W	L	L	W	W	W
Tufts University Jumbos	5–2	L	✕	W	L	W	W	W	W
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Engineers	4–3	L	L	✕	W	W	W	L	W
University of Rhode Island Rams	4–3	W	W	L	✕	W	W	L	L
University of Vermont Catamounts	4–3	W	L	L	L	✕	W	W	W
Fordham University Rams	2–5	L	L	L	L	L	✕	W	W
Northeastern University Huskies	3–4	L	L	W	W	L	L	✕	W
University of Pennsylvania Quakers	1–6	L	L	L	W	L	L	L	✕

Round 2

Team	Rec.	Crimson	Jumbos	Engineers	Rams	Catamounts	Rams	Huskies	Quakers
Harvard University Crimson	5–2	✕	L	W	W	L	W	W	W
Tufts University Jumbos	6–1	W	✕	W	W	W	L	W	W
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Engineers	5–2	L	L	✕	W	W	W	W	W
University of Rhode Island Rams	4–3	L	L	L	✕	W	W	W	W
University of Vermont Catamounts	4–3	W	L	L	L	✕	W	W	W
Fordham University Rams	2–5	L	W	L	L	L	✕	W	L
Northeastern University Huskies	1–6	L	L	L	L	L	L	✕	W
University of Pennsylvania Quakers	1–6	L	L	L	L	L	W	L	✕

Round 4

Team	Rec.	Crimson	Jumbos	Engineers	Rams
Harvard University Crimson	3–0	✕	W	W	W
Tufts University Jumbos	1–2	L	✕	L	W
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Engineers	1–2	L	W	✕	L
University of Rhode Island Rams	1–2	L	L	W	✕

Filter by team:

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

School	Team	Skippers	Crew
Harvard University	Crimson	Eli Burnes '22 Emma Kaneti '22 Henry Burnes '22 Jonas Nelle '22	Emily Wang '21 Tyler Masuyama '23 Iulianna Taritsa '20 Carolyn Wang '23 Christopher Wang '23
Tufts University	Jumbos	Alex Fasolo '22 Ansgar Jordan '22 Charlie Hibben '22	Duke Saunders '20 Emily Calandrella '20 George Sidamon-Eristoff '22 Emma Clutterbuck '20
Massachusetts Institute of Technology	Engineers	Emily Haig '21 Ivan Shestopalov '21 Stephen Duncan '20	Jeremy Mcculloch '22 Fiona Mckellar '20 Marcus Abate '20 Julia Cho '20 Maaya Prasad '22
University of Rhode Island	Rams	Aidan Naughton '22 Luke Ingalls '21 Michael O'Flaherty '21	Taylor Borges '22 Kevin Stamp '22 Maguire Bennett '21
University of Vermont	Catamounts	Cameron Nash '21 Connell Phillipps '23 Thomas Harden '20	Gabrielle Myers '21 Lucy Mulvihill '22 Nicholas Salvesen '22 Isabella Arnaboldi '21
Fordham University	Rams	Clayton Snyder '22 Kenneth Corsig '23 Porter Kavle '22	Lauren Miller '23 Sam Johnsen '21 Brigid Murphy '20
Northeastern University	Huskies	Adrian Van Der Wal '22 Kyle Riggs '21 Ted Bjerregaard '23	Wyatt Fogg '23 Jon Ewing '21 Rob Brower '23 Hannah Fay '24
University of Pennsylvania	Quakers	Amanda Majernik '22 Samuel Gavula '24 William Gallagher '20	Adam Hano '23 Jenna Weiner '21 Meghan Perez '22

Conditions — 03/07/2020 (8am–6pm)

☁️Overcast

Humidity 31% · Pressure 1018.9 hPa

Temperature

37°F

↑ 42°F ↓ 29°F

Feels like 24°F

Wind

● from ▲ toward

13.7 kn

avg · max 15.0 kn

Gusts to 28.2 kn

From NNW (342°)

Sky & Precipitation

Cloud cover61% Sunshine9.2 hrs Humidity31% Pressure1018.9 hPa

What this breeze does at Harvard — from fleet racing

Breeze: N about 15 kn (weather reanalysis in the scorer’s units)

In fleet races at Harvard in this breeze: a typical day (+0.02)

Nothing in this breeze favours either side in fleet racing here: results follow the ratings about as 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 ±0.02 means a rating gap counts about 2% more 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 Harvard by wind direction (angle) and speed (rings), fitted surface; dots are labelled regatta-days, ★ this regatta (59 labelled fleet-race days at Harvard).

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