real biathlon
    • Athletes
    • Teams
    • Races
    • Seasons
    • Scores
    • Records
    • Blog(current)
    • More
      Patreon Content Videos Explanations Shortcuts
      Error Report
      Privacy Policy About
    •     
  • Forum
  • Patreon
  • X
  • YouTube
    Instagram
    Facebook

Recent Articles

  • Biathlon World Cup podiums (1958 – 2025)
  • Junior + U23 Development Index – Men
  • Junior + U23 Development Index – Women
  • The Path to GOAT Status
  • Most improved athletes this winter

Categories

  • Biathlon Media
  • Biathlon News
  • Long-term trends
  • Statistical analysis
  • Website updates

Archives

  • 2025
    • November
  • 2024
    • March
  • 2023
    • March
  • 2022
    • December
    • June
    • May
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2021
    • December
    • November
    • September
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2020
    • December
    • November
    • August
    • June
    • March
  • 2015
    • December
  • 2013
    • August
    • July
  • 2012
    • July

Search Articles

Recent Tweets

Tweets by realbiathlon

Author: biathlonanalytics

Proud dad&husband; analyst & visualization specialist (Tableau, SQL & R); creator of Biathlon Analytics; blog poster on realbiathlon.com; passionate about biathlon, cross country skiing and canoeing

IBU -vs- WorldCup Performance, part I

Posted on 2021-02-01 | by biathlonanalytics | Leave a Comment on IBU -vs- WorldCup Performance, part I

Now that the Realbiathlon website has some IBU data as well (available to Patreon supporters), I wanted to do a comparison of metrics for athletes that competed at both levels for a minimum of five races (leaving 437 observations). Although there are different race disciplines for the two levels, in this first look I included all disciplines and combined the categories (genders). I looked at all athletes that competed in the current or last season at the IBU level, and at the World Cup level since the 16-17 season (661 athletes).

These charts are nothing fancy, just comparing athlete’s average metrics for the two levels and drawing a trend line to see what relationship exists between the results for the following metrics:

  • Total Shooting Percentage
  • Prone Shooting Percentage
  • Stand Shooting Percentage
  • Course Time
  • Shooting Time
  • Range Time

As the P-value for all charts is smaller than 0.0001 we can say all relationships are statistically significant, or, that there is a relationship between the results at the two different levels. But how strong is the relationship?

  • R2 = 0.929
  • P < 0.0001

For the Total Shooting percentage the relationship is very strong: if a shooter has a certain percentage at the IBU level, almost 93% of the time the shooter is has a similar percentage at the World Cup level.

Prone and Stand don’t differ much, with Prone having a 0.907 R2, and Stand a 0.916 R2.

Since Course time, Shooting time and Range time are not expressed in percentages but in Z-values, which looks at how how much the times differ from the average (negative is faster, positive is slower), we see different patterns. But the relationships are still very strong:

  • R2 = 0.851
  • P < 0.0001
  • R2 = 0.902
  • P < 0.0001
  • R2 = 0.899
  • P < 0.0001

In general, we can say that metrics from IBU level races translate very well to World Cup level races, but since the level of competition at the World Cup level would likely be higher than on the IBU level, the results for the athletes could, and likely will be very different. To make this more clear, here are the averages for the used shooting metrics at the two levels for all 661 athletes (rather than the subset of 437 athletes that have a minimum of five races at both levels):

  • Shooting Percentage: 80.1% (WC) versus 77.5% (IBU)
  • Prone 82.8% (WC) versus 80% (IBU)
  • Stand 77.34% (WC) versus 75% (IBU)

Note: Course Time, Shooting Time and Range Time are all Z-scores so on average they are the average (0).

From the shooting averages, we can conclude that the average shooting is better at the World Cup level than at the IBU level, which is what you would expect. So an athlete who had the same score on both levels can be above average at the IBU level and below the average at the World Cup level.

I hope to do further research on the IBU data once more seasons become available in the summer. To be continued.

Posted in Long-term trends, Statistical analysis | Tagged IBU, World Cup

The Consistency of Consistency tool

Posted on 2021-01-28 | by biathlonanalytics | Leave a Comment on The Consistency of Consistency tool

In biathlon, consistency is something most athletes are looking for, ideally from one season to the next, assuming the performance in a certain metric is at the level they are happy with. I built a dashboard in Tableau Public that looks at the career and seasonal form, averages and variance, and at consistency for the following metrics:

  • Prone Shooting
  • Standing Shooting
  • Total (combined) Shooting
  • Ski speed (in Km/H)
  • Ski Score (Z)
  • Rank
  • Shooting Time Score (Z)
  • Range Time Score (Z)

From the RealBiatlon.com website: Z-score (Standard score) Number of standard deviations by which metrics are above or below the mean (based on back from median data)

The data used goes back to the 2016-2017 season, so when I refer to career averages the data will not include any data from before the 2016-17 season. To highlight this I have used an asterisk whenever using career. Please note that when using different metrics like this, the meaning of above zero and below zero is not always positive or negative. I.e. Z scores for skiing are better when negative (meaning below average) but for shooting percentage the higher number the better.

As examples often are a good way of explaining visualizations I am going to start with Lisa Hauser, and her Ski Score (Z).

Chart 1: Averages

This simply shows Lisa’s average for Ski Score (Z) and the sharp drop for the current season clearly stands out, meaning she went from a just below average skier to a faster than average skier. Also, we can see she has been much faster than her career* average, indicating she must have really focussed on her skiing the last preparation. Has that affected her shooting? Let’s see by changing the metric to Total (combined) Shooting and look at…

Chart 2: Actual Results

This tells us that her current season’s average and her career* average are almost identical, so no change here. We can also see that as the season progresses she is seeing better results (for shooting percentage, higher is better).

Now can we get more out of this? The following shows the difference between actual results and the career* average and shows it cumulatively, based on the assumption the multiple bad results in a row, even with a good result between a number of bad ones, has a bad impact on form.

Chart 3: Cumulative difference for career*

Due to her less than ideal first number of races (with regards to total shooting) and a lesser performance in the last race of the previous season, the chart shows a lower than desired profile, that however sings upward towards the current status of the current season.

One could argue however, that the seasons are separate entities, and the end of last season would not impact the form of an athlete at the start of the current season.

Chart 4: Cumulative difference for season

The same applies in this case for the current season, showing the bad start and the incline due to better results in the second trimester, but the previous season now has no impact at all. A better example of showing a differnece between career* and season is the follwing for Shooting Time Score (Z):

If we want to see more about consistency, the metrics are used in absolute form. It doesn’t matter if a result is good or bad, as long as it differs from the previous results it introduces inconsistency. So the next chart shows the absolute values of the differences between actual race resultes and season averages.

Chart 5: Cumulative absolute difference for season

Now the hight (or depth) of the chart shows the size of inconsistency, where the direction and steepness show how much the race result impacted the consistency.

Lastly to satisfy the more statical inclined readers below are the Variance charts, showing the spread of results and the average Variance per season (still Lias Hauser’s Shooting time score (Z)).

Chart 6: Variance

This dashboard is not coming to a specific conclusion, but rather a tool to further research an athletes’ performances, form, and consistency, intended to be used interactively by you! So go have a look and have fun with it.

Posted in Long-term trends, Statistical analysis | Tagged Tableau, Tool

Norwegian Dominance

Posted on 2021-01-19 | by biathlonanalytics | Leave a Comment on Norwegian Dominance

The guys from Extra Runde had another great podcast on Monday, in which they talked about Leistungs Dichtheit, which I would translate as Proximity of Performance; how close to each other are athletes from the same nation in the world cup rankings? They looked at the Biathlon World Cup standings and noticed that in the top 15 of the men, there were 5 Norwegians, 33.3% of all athletes, and even almost 40% of the total score for the top 15:

For the women the dominance is not the same, with France, Sweden and Norway all having three athletes in the top 15. But when looking at score percentage, the Norwegians are again ahead:

Historically the Norwegians typically have the majority of the athletes, and often the majortiy of the points. Below I look at the top 30 athletes for men and women by number of athletes and score percentage:

With 16.67% of the athletes and 24.18% of the score, the Norwegians are dominant overall this season. To try your own settings, check the report here, or use the embedded version below:

Cheers!

Posted in Long-term trends | Tagged Norway, World Cup score

“Whether the weather is better or worse, the race is still always made on the course”

Posted on 2021-01-13 | by biathlonanalytics | Leave a Comment on “Whether the weather is better or worse, the race is still always made on the course”

In August of last year, I wrote an article on this website about “Impact of external factors on shooting performance in biathlon“. I was still limited to using hand-scraped race data of women’s sprint races only and had to work with the restrictions of using weather data of which the quality was unknown but likely not very high (“all these measurements should be taken with a grain of salt; how accurately are they measured, it’s only on one measure location, some measurements are qualitative”). For shooting performance, I used Shooting time + Penalty time, and I came to the conclusion that for impact on shooting performance the most important indicators are the combination of maximum wind speed and change in speed and visibility, and that course conditions had limited impact.

Then on RealBiathlon the article “Is Oberhof the most challenging venue on the World Cup tour?” appeared at the end of last year, which looked at venue hit rates and average shooting times over the years, as well as venue course difficulty and median ski speed, and provided this data to its subscribers. From this data, I only used venues that were still in use in the 2016-2017 to the current season period, and that had 40 races or more:

This clearly shows basically for all factors (ski speed, shooting percentage, and shooting time) that Oberhof is the least favourable venue for athletes from a performance perspective.

For weather, I’m going to focus on wind specifically. Due to the qualitative and somewhat inconsistent weather data I don’t feel comfortable enough about this data to draw any conclusions (as I also concluded in August). Here are some combinations of Sky values at the start, after the start and at the finish. Depending on when athletes start they can have very different experiences, and remember the sky value comes from one location at the venue.

So let’s look at wind again then, now that we have a lot more and better data for men and women, all non-team races and going back to the 2016-2017 season:

As with the previous analysis we can see from the above that Wind Strength correlate strongest with Shooting performance, with roughly 12% of the change in shooting Performance being attributed to the maximum wind strength, and about 6% to the change in wind strength. The wind direction has no statistically significant impact on the shooting performance.

The table below compares the measured values from August 2020 to this article. There are some changes, but the top two variables remains he ones statistically significant although their impact changes somewhat:

CorrelationAugust 2020Jan. 2021
Max. Wind Strength – Shooting PerformanceR2=0.356R2=0.121
P=0.0017P<0.0001
Change in wind Strength – Shooting Perf.R2=0.043R2=0.063
P=0.043P=0.0006
Change in Wind direction – Shooting Perf.R2=0.3R2=0.0015
P=0.189p=0.603

Also the same as in August is that the correlation between Maximum Wind Strength and Change in Wind Strength is strong, be it a little less at 61% but that the Change in Wind Direction does not correlate much with the Maximum Wind Speed (just over 2% with a significance of just below 5%).

If we plot the average change in wind speed (vertical) and average maximum wind speed (horizontal) for all locations since the 2016-2017 (I lexcluded PyeongChang, Sodier Hollow and Tyumen as they are not regular event locations) we can see which venues have tough wind-conditions, and – as we know now – have tough shooting conditions:

In some cases there is clear overlap with the chart shown at the beginning of the article (Oberhof) but almost all venues do not align between the two charts. This is where we need to remind ourselves we are talking about 36% impact at the most, which leaves 64% impact for other variables.

In the end I was happy to see the wind charts that now used much more data produced similar results, but dealing with weather data remains risky when it comes to drawing any conclusions.

Posted in Statistical analysis | Tagged weather

Fehlerfrei – a quick article on shooting clean

Posted on 2021-01-08 | by biathlonanalytics | Leave a Comment on Fehlerfrei – a quick article on shooting clean

The Germans have a great word they use for shooting clean in biathlon: Fehlerfrei. The visual below is a brief look into shooting Fehlerfrei and how it relates to shooting and shot times. The interactive version allows you to filter to only men or women, by default both are included.

After reviewing shootings based on over 200,000 shots we can see just over 39% of shootings are Fehlerfrei. The men and woman have a very similar percentage.

When looking at the biathlon nations and Canada, we can see there is not much difference between Canadian men and women, but for the Swedes the women better than the men, where for the French and Norwegians the men do better than the women:

For men and women combined, the Norwegians are doing best with regards to the Fehlerfrei percentage, but the Canadians are the fastest shooters of the group.

Now let’s look at the same data split between men and women:

For the men (left) the Norwegians (red) are shooting clean over 50% of the time, but have been taking more time in the current season compared to previous seasons. The Canadians are improving from last season in both categories but are still on the low end (~35%) of the Fehlerfrei %, even though their shooting is still very fast.

The women (right) tell a different story; Germany, Sweden en Norway are heading exactly in the direction you want to go: bottom right of the chart (which means quick shooting and large percentage of Fehlerfrei shooting). In that second category Canada was in the wrong area in the last two seasons but heading in the right direction this season. Russia is going in the opposite direction.

If these trends continue this season, the Canadian women are looking promising. Although it should be noted, as shown in the first chart, the Canadians have a lot fewer shots as they have less athletes participating, so the success of individuals has a larger and more direct impact on the nation’s data/

The Tableau report contains more details and I am planning to do further analysis in R, depending on time availability. If you have any feedback or suggestions, please leave a comment below.

RJ

Posted in Statistical analysis | Tagged Fehlerfrei, shooting clean

Posts navigation

Older posts
Newer posts

Recent Articles

  • Biathlon World Cup podiums (1958 – 2025)
  • Junior + U23 Development Index – Men
  • Junior + U23 Development Index – Women
  • The Path to GOAT Status
  • Most improved athletes this winter

Categories

  • Biathlon Media
  • Biathlon News
  • Long-term trends
  • Statistical analysis
  • Website updates

Archives by Month

  • 2025: J F M A M J J A S O N D
  • 2024: J F M A M J J A S O N D
  • 2023: J F M A M J J A S O N D
  • 2022: J F M A M J J A S O N D
  • 2021: J F M A M J J A S O N D
  • 2020: J F M A M J J A S O N D
  • 2015: J F M A M J J A S O N D
  • 2013: J F M A M J J A S O N D
  • 2012: J F M A M J J A S O N D

Search Articles