| # | School | Team | Rec. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |  |
Hingham High School | Hingham | 6–1 |
| 2 |  |
Sharon High School | Eagles | 5–2 |
| 3 |  |
Wellesley High School | Varsity | 4–3 |
| 4 | |
Wellesley High School | Raiders | 1–4 |
| 4 |  |
Lincoln Sudbury Reginal High School | Warriors | 1–4 |
| 4 |  |
Natick High School | Redhawks | 1–4 |
Each side is the sum of its three boats (the skipper's fleet rating times 0.72 plus a team race offset learned from their past matches, plus the crew's offset and a small experience term) plus the school's team race strength and a home-water edge for the host. The win probability is a logistic function of the difference. The forecast was made before the event: the model was refitted on every match sailed before the first day, with fleet ratings as of the week before.
Fitted on the 8,308 team race matches sailed before 2022-04-24, using the line-ups that actually raced. It called 14 of 18 matches (78%) with a log-loss of 0.571 (a coin flip scores 0.693), so the event went about as expected for the forecast. Orderliness +0.62 ± 0.80: a typical event, more orderly than 87% of high school 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.
For each side, the performance strength is the value that would have made its record least surprising: the strength at which the model's expected wins over exactly these opponents equal the actual wins, with every opponent fixed at its pre-event strength. For a skipper, the same shift is applied only to their boat in the matches they sailed, with team-mates and opponents fixed; team-mates who sailed every match together therefore get the same number. Surprise is in bits: -log2 of the probability of the record at the pre-event strength minus the same at the performance strength. P(this good or better) treats matches as independent coin flips at the model's pre-event probabilities, so it ignores form within the day; read it as a rough guide.
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 | Hingham High School Hingham | 2.17 | 4.45 | 6–1 | 3.7 | +2.28 | 2.6 | 7% |
| 3 | Wellesley High School Varsity | 1.86 | 2.51 | 4–3 | 3.2 | +0.64 | 0.3 | 40% |
| 2 | Sharon High School Eagles | 2.99 | 2.98 | 5–2 | 5.0 | −0.01 | 0.0 | 68% |
| 4 | Wellesley High School Raiders | 1.11 | 0.17 | 1–4 | 1.7 | −0.94 | 0.3 | 88% |
| 4 | Lincoln Sudbury Reginal High School Warriors | 1.38 | 0.09 | 1–4 | 2.0 | −1.29 | 0.7 | 93% |
| 4 | Natick High School Redhawks | 1.79 | -0.01 | 1–4 | 2.4 | −1.80 | 1.4 | 97% |
| Skipper | School | Value | Perf. | Record | Exp. wins | Δ | Surprise (bits) | P(this good or better) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ashley Franklin | Wellesley High School | 0.49 | 1.13 | 4–3 | 3.2 | +0.64 | 0.3 | 40% |
| Kaitlin Hynes | Wellesley High School | 0.87 | 1.51 | 4–3 | 3.2 | +0.64 | 0.3 | 40% |
| Lila Groulx | Sharon High School | 1.09 | 1.09 | 5–2 | 5.0 | −0.01 | 0.0 | 68% |
| Helen Brewer | Sharon High School | 0.65 | 0.65 | 5–2 | 5.0 | −0.01 | 0.0 | 68% |
| Isabelle De Fontaine | Wellesley High School | 0.32 | -0.62 | 1–4 | 1.7 | −0.94 | 0.3 | 88% |
| Alice Moynihan | Lincoln Sudbury Reginal High School | -0.01 | -1.30 | 1–4 | 2.0 | −1.29 | 0.7 | 93% |
| Ann Eaton | Lincoln Sudbury Reginal High School | 0.52 | -0.77 | 1–4 | 2.0 | −1.29 | 0.7 | 93% |
| Chloe Sperry | Lincoln Sudbury Reginal High School | 0.52 | -0.77 | 1–4 | 2.0 | −1.29 | 0.7 | 93% |
| Anna Landgren | Natick High School | 0.52 | -1.28 | 1–4 | 2.4 | −1.80 | 1.4 | 97% |
| Amelia Weber | Natick High School | 0.52 | -1.28 | 1–4 | 2.4 | −1.80 | 1.4 | 97% |
| Laini Schneider | Natick High School | 0.52 | -1.28 | 1–4 | 2.4 | −1.80 | 1.4 | 97% |
| Annie Ward | Wellesley High School | 0.04 | -2.96 | 0–3 | 1.0 | ≤−3.00 | 1.6 | >99% |
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 | Wellesley High School Varsity | Wellesley High School Raiders | 63% | |
| 1 | 2 | Sharon High School Eagles | Lincoln Sudbury Reginal High School Warriors | 77% | |
| 1 | 3 | Hingham High School Hingham | Natick High School Redhawks | 55% | |
| 1 | 4 | Sharon High School Eagles | Wellesley High School Raiders | 80% | |
| 1 | 5 | Wellesley High School Varsity | Natick High School Redhawks | 50% | |
| 1 | 6 | Hingham High School Hingham | Lincoln Sudbury Reginal High School Warriors | 64% | |
| 1 | 7 | Sharon High School Eagles | Natick High School Redhawks | 71% | |
| 1 | 8 | Lincoln Sudbury Reginal High School Warriors | Wellesley High School Raiders | 55% | |
| 1 | 9 | Wellesley High School Varsity | Hingham High School Hingham | 44% | upset |
| 1 | 10 | Natick High School Redhawks | Lincoln Sudbury Reginal High School Warriors | 58% | |
| 1 | 11 | Sharon High School Eagles | Wellesley High School Varsity | 71% | |
| 1 | 12 | Hingham High School Hingham | Wellesley High School Raiders | 69% | |
| 1 | 13 | Wellesley High School Varsity | Lincoln Sudbury Reginal High School Warriors | 58% | |
| 1 | 14 | Wellesley High School Raiders | Natick High School Redhawks | 37% | upset |
| 1 | 15 | Hingham High School Hingham | Sharon High School Eagles | 35% | upset |
| 2 | 16 | Sharon High School Eagles | Wellesley High School Varsity | 71% | |
| 2 | 17 | Hingham High School Hingham | Sharon High School Eagles | 34% | upset |
| 2 | 18 | Hingham High School Hingham | Wellesley High School Varsity | 56% |
| # | Winner | Loser | Pos. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | |
Varsity | 1-2-3 | def. | |
Raiders | 4-5-6 |
| 2 | |
Eagles | 1-2-4 | def. | |
Warriors | 3-5-6 |
| 3 | |
Hingham | 1-2-4 | def. | |
Redhawks | 3-5-6 |
| 4 | |
Eagles | 1-2-3 | def. | |
Raiders | 4-5-6 |
| 5 | |
Varsity | 1-2-3 | def. | |
Redhawks | 4-5-6 |
| 6 | |
Hingham | 1-2-6 | def. | |
Warriors | 3-4-5 |
| 7 | |
Eagles | 1-3-4 | def. | |
Redhawks | 2-5-6 |
| 8 | |
Warriors | 1-2-6 | def. | |
Raiders | 3-4-5 |
| 9 | |
Varsity | 2-3-4 | def. | |
Hingham | 1-5-6 |
| 10 | |
Redhawks | 2-3-4 | def. | |
Warriors | 1-5-6 |
| 11 | |
Eagles | 1-3-6 | def. | |
Varsity | 2-4-5 |
| 12 | |
Hingham | 1-2-6 | def. | |
Raiders | 3-4-5 |
| 13 | |
Varsity | 1-2-3 | def. | |
Warriors | 4-5-6 |
| 14 | |
Raiders | 1-2-6 | def. | |
Redhawks | 3-4-5 |
| 15 | |
Hingham | 1-2-6 | def. | |
Eagles | 3-4-5 |
| 16 | |
Eagles | 1-3-4 | def. | |
Varsity | 2-5-6 |
| 17 | |
Hingham | 1-2-6 | def. | |
Eagles | 3-4-5 |
| 18 | |
Hingham | 1-2-6 | def. | |
Varsity | 3-4-5 |
| School | Team | Skippers | Crew | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Hingham High School | Hingham | Caroline O'Hara '25 Julia Scipione '25 Sara Menesale '24 |
Julia Scipione '25 Sara Menesale '24 Ellie Smith '24 |
|
Sharon High School | Eagles | Helen Brewer '22 Isabella Cho '23 Lila Groulx '22 |
Inbal Alkalay '22 Ranya Merchant '23 Venya Gupta '22 |
|
Wellesley High School | Varsity | Ashley Franklin '22 Kaitlin Hynes '25 Summer Mills '23 |
Alexa Quinn '22 Genna Gallico '23 Olivia Nolan '22 |
|
Wellesley High School | Raiders | Annie Ward '25 Eloise Zeng '23 Hannah Cronin '23 Isabelle De Fontaine '24 Syd Vecchiotti '25 |
Kathleen Gallico '25 Louisa Rossano '24 Avery Thornton '24 |
|
Lincoln Sudbury Reginal High School | Warriors | Alice Moynihan '24 Ann Eaton '24 Chloe Sperry '25 |
Gabriella Fragale '25 Grace Wood '22 Heidi Heindel '24 |
|
Natick High School | Redhawks | Amelia Weber '22 Anna Landgren '22 Laini Schneider '22 |
Anna Mcenaney '22 Cristina Cheung '22 Katie Dimmick '22 |
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 1% 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.
Short write-ups of what the ratings and results show, with the numbers and how they were computed.
