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

  • Junior + U23 Development Index – Men
  • Junior + U23 Development Index – Women
  • The Path to GOAT Status
  • Most improved athletes this winter
  • New biathlon point system

Categories

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

Archives

  • 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

Category: Statistical analysis

Is one shot like any other in biathlon?

Posted on 2022-01-06 | by biathlonanalytics | Leave a Comment on Is one shot like any other in biathlon?

Introduction

My biathlon coach always tells me to see shooting as one shot at a time, rather than a series of shots. This is to prevent feeling more stressed about the fifth shot if the first four go down, and playing mind tricks if you miss the first shot(s), etc. By seeing them as individual shots, theoretically, they should all have the same odds of going down. But is that the case? Or is there certain pressure put on certain shots, based on the race standings and other circumstances at the time of the shooting?

About a month ago, the guys from Extra Runde (a great podcast with some English episodes worth listening to if you don’t understand German) asked me if I could “compare if there is a difference between 3rd and 4th shooting in mistakes. Especially when they’re shooting for the podium”. The latter part, shooting for the podium is not easily linked, but comparing between different shootings and shots is what I looked into below. It was interesting timing, as Penalty Loop had also mentioned on Twitter that it would be good to look into relay pressure. But unfortunately, that will have to wait until another article, as I focus only on non-team events in this one.

So, the goal of this article is to analyze individual shots in biathlon and see if every shot has the same chance of being a hit. I also want to see if we can use that data to say something useful about shooting pressure in biathlon. I want to reiterate that as I mentioned in other articles, biathlon is a sport of many, many factors. So to hope that any single event could explain something like shooting pressure would be ignorant. But perhaps we can see if these single events are likely to contribute to shooting pressure.

Data

I looked at five seasons of non-team races (with the current season only including the first 4 events), analyzing every single shot that was fired (227,227 data points!) by athletes that finished the race. The race disciplines included are Sprint, Pursuit, Individual and Mass Start.

Shot codes

We know that not every shooting and shot is the same, and we know that prone shooting generally has better hit rates than standing shooting. As race disciplines have different shooting orders, the second and third shootings can be prone or standing. To deal with that issue I assigned a shot code to every single shot. For example, shot code PU-3-4-S-1 tells me it was a Pursuit race, third shooting, fourth shot, standing position, hit. Based on these codes I can tell you that the Mass Start, first shooting, second shot in the prone position has the highest hit rate of 86.8% for the whole field of athletes that finished the race. And the Sprint, second shooting, first shot in the standing position the lowest, at 75.6%. If we take all these shots and average them per shot code, we can then throw it into a matrix we get the following:

As you would expect, generally speaking, the averages for standing shots are lower than the ones taken in the prone position. For prone, the lowest hit rates are the first and last shots of the first shooting and the highest are the third and fourth shots of the third shooting. In Standing shooting the lowest is the first shot in the second shooting where the highest is the third shot of the third shooting.

Filtering the data

One thing to remember is that by including all athletes we’re only taking 30 in Mass Starts, between 50 and 60 in the Pursuits, and around one hundred in Sprints and Individuals. This makes the Sprints and Individuals way heavier on the results. So let’s look at the same matrix but only include the top 30 ranked racers with the same colour scale:

As we would expect by only taking the top 30 athletes, the numbers are quite a bit higher than the chart showing the whole field of athletes. For prone we see a similar (but not quite identical) pattern compared to the previous chart, but the standing position looks quite a bit different in pattern with the fourth shooting clearly being the better of the three shootings in the standing position.

Shooting pressure

Since one of the goals is to look at shooting pressure, and as it is kind of hard to look at the data for prone and standing separately, I’m going to look only at Pursuits and Mass Starts, for the top 30 athletes. This gives me data with all shots in the same order and shooting position, and realistically you would expect more pressure when racing (wo)man to (wo)man, rather than against the clock. That leaves us just shy of 100,000 data points (shots) for the following chart:

Since the shooting order and positions are the same we don’t have to separate the prone and standing anymore, knowing that the first two shootings are in the prone position and the third and fourth in the standing position.

We can see that for all four shootings the first and fifth shots have lower hit percentages than the other shots. And, as we discussed before, the prone shots are better than the standing shots. But if I had to look at this chart from a pressure standpoint, I would expect the fourth shooting to be worse than the third, which it is not.

One more thing we can try is to look only at the top 10 athletes, based on the debatable assumption that if you are out of the top 10 there is less pressure.

Although the averages are higher, as we would expect since we are looking at the “creme-de-la-creme” of biathlon, the general pattern is the same. The second shooting is the highest, and the third and fourth are the lowest (and have the same average). And, for the third and fourth shooting, the first and last shots are the lowest again.

One could argue that the fourth shooting is the one that has the most pressure, as it is the final shooting. And I can somewhat see why the first and last shots would be the most pressurized of them all; first coming into the stadium and last because, well it’s the last of the race. But it would be far too easy to assign these numbers directly to shooting pressure alone, as there are so many other factors in play (did I mention that already?) that also have an impact on the hit percentage for any shot. Think of crowds, conditions, etc.

Conclusion

So, although we cannot conclude that the data above tells us anything specific and directly related to shooting pressure, it gives us some interesting information. And it isn’t necessarily completely unrelated to shooting pressure either. But we can conclude that one shot is not the same as the other, even when in the same shooting position. Now the question is: is my coach is onto something new, or do biathletes just not listen to coaches when it comes to shooting one shot at a time?

Use the interactive charts on my Tableau Public site to look for your athlete of choice! But keep in mind when doing so the datasets may be limited.

Did you like this article, or do you have any comments or feedback? Please let me know on Twitter!

Posted in Statistical analysis | Tagged shot codes

Is there home advantage in biathlon?

Posted on 2022-01-05 | by biathlonanalytics | Leave a Comment on Is there home advantage in biathlon?

After seeing the races in Le Grand Bornand a few weeks ago, and especially some of the French athletes, I wondered how much impact a home crowd and venue has on an athletes performance.

As with most research projects for biathlon, it is impossible to isolate certain factors and exclude others. With that in mind, I realize that my research below has some influential factors that are not included; the sample size for home races is too small. Some of the more recent events had no spectators. The home events are not evenly spread over the time period of the used data. A home venue based on the nation is not necessarily the true home venue for all athletes. The conditions at certain venues may just be better or worse, generally, and suit some athletes more than others. Etc., etc. This all said, I still think the research below shows some interesting results. Just set aside your natural “well yeah, but…” reactions and continue reading.

Data

I took five seasons of data from RealBiathlon, starting with the 2017-2018 season, up until (and including) the fourth event in Le Grand Bornand this season (2021-2022). I removed all non-finishers from the data, and all team events. And for the final results, I focused on those athletes that are active in the current season. Then, as mentioned above, I assumed that when the nation of the athlete and the event are the same, it was a home event for those athletes.

In the given timeframe, we are talking about 222 races in total, with 581 athletes participating in one or more events. Of the 222 races, 206 had representation from the home nation, and generally, the home athletes represented about 4-5% of the total number of athletes per event.

The measure to show performance in this research is the overall ranking per athlete per race.

Nation averages

As athletes differ in how they deal with pressure and if they perceive a home crowd as an advantage or disadvantage, looking at the nation’s averages should be taken with a grain of salt. But it is still interesting to see how nations do on average for men and women. The chart below shows men in blue and women in pink, and the lines between dots, the average rankings, should be read from top to bottom. Going down and left means the nation performs better when in other countries, and going down and right means they do better at home.

Interestingly some nations are very similar for men and women, whereas others are completely different. It also shows how some nations, like France, are similar in performance whether racing at home or in another country. Other nations significantly over-or underperform when at home.

However, as mentioned, looking at averages comes with many caveats. Take the French team for example. At the nation’s average level they look like this:

But when we look at the individual level, we can see that there are many differences between athletes:

Individuals

So, now that we are looking at the individual athletes, we can plot every athlete based on their average rank at home compared to their average rank when not at home. The darker the green, the better they do at home; the darker the red, the better they do when not at home. Circles are women, and squares are men.

Roughly looking at this chart, we can say that there is no clear tendency toward benefitting from performing at home or away from home. But this includes all athletes that have at least one race at home and at least one away from home, which can give a skewed picture. For example, the dark red square at the bottom right is Johannes Dale from Norway, who had only one race in Norway. He finished 63rd, where his average of 55 races outside of Norway is 15.23. Not really fair to say he does not do well at home based on one race there.

So let’s apply some filtering, saying that the included athletes must have raced at least 25 races in the given timeframe. And of those, at least 5 must have been at home. We also want to exclude any ranking above 40. And lastly, we want to only show athletes that are active in the current season. This gives the following picture:

Based on this chart we could conclude that for example, Hanna Oeberg does typically not do well at home, whereas Julia Simon does do well at home. Let’s double-check that by looking at all their rankings of their races, in which the size of the bubbles indicates the number of races (larger is more races; blue are home races):

Although Hanna Oeberg has some strong results at home, her three worst results were at home too. Contrarily, Julia Simon had only six races at home, but they were all strong with 17th being her lowest rank at home.

Conclusion

So, still knowing that many factors not included in this research can play a role in these results, I think it is fair to say this gives at least some indication of who is strong at home and who is not, over the five-season period. And that leaves us with seeing which athletes do best at home versus who do worst at home. We can show this simply by dividing the home average rank by the not-home average rank minus one. Anything below zero is better at home, and anything above zero is better away from home. The line thickness indicates the number of races participated in.

Some notable names are JT Boe, Emilien Jacquelin, Julia Simon and Doro Wierer in the positive sense. Hanna Oeberg, Tiril Eckhoff, Martin Ponsiloma and Thomas Bormolini stand out on the negative side of the scale.

What do you think? Based on this information, can we say that some athletes prefer home races over races in other venues? Let me know on Twitter!

Posted in Statistical analysis | Tagged home advantage

Fastest skiers in biathlon (2001 – 2021)

Posted on 2021-12-28 | by real biathlon | Leave a Comment on Fastest skiers in biathlon (2001 – 2021)

The bars show a 7-race moving average for the percentage back from the top 30 median. Unfortunately, no data exists before the 2001โ€“02 season.

Women

Men

Posted in Biathlon Media, Long-term trends, Statistical analysis | Tagged skiing

Most improved athletes this winter

Posted on 2021-12-19 | by real biathlon | Leave a Comment on Most improved athletes this winter

Improvements in Total Performance Scores of regular World Cup athletes. The last row of both tables shows improvement and decline in overall scores for this season compared to performances last season (only athletes with at least 6 races this winter). You can do your own season-to-season comparisons for all stats in the Patreon bonus area.


Note: The scores are standard scores (or z-scores), indicating how many standard deviations (SD) an athlete is back from the World Cup mean (negative values indicate performances better than the mean). The Total Performance Score is calculated by approximating the importance of skiing, hit rate and shooting pace using the method of least squares (for more details, see here and here), and then weighting each z-score value accordingly.


Men

2021โ€“22 z-Scores compared to 2020โ€“21 | Non-Team events

NoFamily NameGiven NameNationRacesSki Speed
Score
Hit Rate
Score
Range Time
Score
Total
Performance
Score
Change
NoFamily NameGiven NameNationRacesSki Speed
Score
Hit Rate
Score
Range Time
Score
Total
Performance
Score
Change
1StefanssonMalteSWE
6-0.340.610.770.07-0.63
2DudchenkoAntonUKR
6-0.89-0.940.16-0.78-0.50
3StroliaVytautasLTU
8-0.91-0.490.38-0.63-0.42
4SmolskiAntonBLR
9-1.25-0.82-0.71-1.06-0.40
5KuehnJohannesGER
7-1.20-0.65-0.25-0.93-0.39
6SchommerPaulUSA
7-0.08-0.72-0.01-0.26-0.37
7LatypovEduardRUS
9-1.30-0.99-0.86-1.16-0.36
8HiidensaloOlliFIN
6-0.52-0.491.07-0.32-0.34
9ChristiansenVetle SjaastadNOR
9-1.38-1.40-0.53-1.29-0.30
10ClaudeFabienFRA
9-1.45-0.07-1.17-1.02-0.25
11NelinJesperSWE
6-1.280.09-0.10-0.74-0.25
12SeppalaTeroFIN
8-0.90-0.97-0.43-0.87-0.25
13BakkenSivert GuttormNOR
9-0.90-0.99-1.31-0.97-0.22
14FemlingPeppeSWE
7-0.50-0.72-0.87-0.61-0.21
15HornPhilippGER
8-1.02-0.29-0.21-0.71-0.20
16VarabeiMaksimBLR
7-0.930.330.61-0.38-0.19
17GowScottCAN
7-0.50-0.49-1.28-0.59-0.18
18GuigonnatAntoninFRA
9-1.30-0.40-0.22-0.91-0.17
19JacquelinEmilienFRA
9-1.72-0.49-0.91-1.26-0.14
20BormoliniThomasITA
9-0.50-0.82-0.83-0.63-0.12
21PidruchnyiDmytroUKR
6-0.86-0.68-0.60-0.78-0.11
22SamuelssonSebastianSWE
9-1.86-0.16-0.51-1.20-0.09
23LazouskiDzmitryBLR
8-0.35-0.200.57-0.20-0.09
24WegerBenjaminSUI
9-0.88-1.32-0.00-0.90-0.09
25LeitnerFelixAUT
9-0.77-0.90-0.14-0.73-0.09
26KhaliliSaid KarimullaRUS
9-0.70-1.07-0.19-0.75-0.07
27AndersenFilip FjeldNOR
7-0.720.41-0.44-0.36-0.06
28DesthieuxSimonFRA
9-1.39-0.49-0.66-1.04-0.02
29LangerThierryBEL
7-0.32-0.02-0.11-0.21-0.01
30StvrteckyJakubCZE
6-0.720.680.77-0.14+0.00
31NawrathPhilippGER
9-1.240.09-0.01-0.70+0.00
32BoeTarjeiNOR
9-1.39-0.90-0.52-1.15+0.02
33GowChristianCAN
7-0.33-0.95-1.08-0.60+0.02
34Fillon MailletQuentinFRA
9-1.55-0.82-0.97-1.27+0.02
35KobonokiTsukasaJPN
70.04-0.840.06-0.21+0.02
36GiacomelTommasoITA
7-0.810.68-1.00-0.40+0.05
37KrcmarMichalCZE
8-0.88-0.58-0.38-0.73+0.06
38OzakiKosukeJPN
8-0.09-0.100.700.00+0.08
39BrownJakeUSA
8-0.840.580.85-0.23+0.08
40DovzanMihaSLO
80.09-0.78-1.69-0.37+0.09
41ReesRomanGER
9-0.58-0.90-0.13-0.62+0.10
42LoginovAlexanderRUS
9-1.32-0.16-0.58-0.89+0.11
43DollBenediktGER
9-1.12-0.49-0.27-0.83+0.12
44YaliotnauRamanBLR
6-0.800.870.70-0.14+0.14
45EderSimonAUT
9-0.53-1.24-1.27-0.82+0.18
46ClaudeFlorentBEL
8-0.22-0.490.58-0.20+0.21
47BoeJohannes ThingnesNOR
9-1.59-0.57-0.64-1.18+0.22
48LesserErikGER
8-0.69-0.68-1.13-0.74+0.24
49LaegreidSturla HolmNOR
8-0.97-1.55-1.05-1.15+0.24
50MukhinAlexandrKAZ
6-0.060.820.490.26+0.24
51BocharnikovSergeyBLR
6-0.54-0.040.10-0.32+0.26
52BauerKlemenSLO
6-0.120.97-0.640.13+0.27
53WindischDominikITA
6-0.610.74-0.39-0.19+0.36
54IlievVladimirBUL
6-0.761.260.63-0.01+0.41
55PonsiluomaMartinSWE
8-1.311.26-0.87-0.51+0.46
56GuzikGrzegorzPOL
60.410.970.520.59+0.47
57HoferLukasITA
9-0.63-0.65-0.18-0.58+0.50
58KomatzDavidAUT
70.22-0.840.57-0.05+0.50
59DohertySeanUSA
8-0.040.58-0.380.10+0.56

Women

2021โ€“22 z-Scores compared to 2020โ€“21 | Non-Team events

NoFamily NameGiven NameNationRacesSki Speed
Score
Hit Rate
Score
Range Time
Score
Total
Performance
Score
Change
NoFamily NameGiven NameNationRacesSki Speed
Score
Hit Rate
Score
Range Time
Score
Total
Performance
Score
Change
1JislovaJessicaCZE
9-0.62-1.09-0.65-0.76-0.65
2LieLotteBEL
9-0.43-1.41-0.83-0.76-0.56
3SolaHannaBLR
9-1.47-0.28-1.62-1.14-0.55
4OebergElviraSWE
9-2.06-0.28-1.06-1.42-0.51
5MagnussonAnnaSWE
9-0.82-0.44-0.30-0.65-0.50
6BescondAnaisFRA
8-1.45-0.910.26-1.09-0.46
7VoigtVanessaGER
9-0.71-1.090.70-0.65-0.41
8StremousAlinaMDA
8-0.65-0.541.94-0.31-0.38
9NilssonStinaSWE
7-1.440.420.12-0.71-0.38
10FialkovaIvonaSVK
7-0.840.46-0.34-0.40-0.32
11BrorssonMonaSWE
9-1.04-0.36-0.73-0.81-0.32
12IrwinDeedraUSA
70.15-0.560.36-0.03-0.27
13Braisaz-BouchetJustineFRA
9-1.960.68-0.43-1.01-0.25
14Chevalier-BouchetAnaisFRA
9-1.31-0.36-1.32-1.03-0.25
15VinklarkovaTerezaCZE
60.57-0.130.410.34-0.23
16NigmatullinaUlianaRUS
9-0.81-1.09-0.62-0.87-0.19
17AlimbekavaDzinaraBLR
9-1.28-0.84-0.87-1.10-0.18
18TodorovaMilenaBUL
6-0.800.26-0.47-0.45-0.17
19VittozziLisaITA
9-0.970.20-1.68-0.71-0.17
20OebergHannaSWE
9-1.730.04-1.87-1.24-0.16
21MaedaSariJPN
6-0.831.100.21-0.14-0.15
22RoeiselandMarte OlsbuNOR
9-1.50-1.17-1.30-1.38-0.12
23SimonJuliaFRA
8-1.390.40-1.83-0.93-0.10
24KlemencicPolonaSLO
7-0.000.34-0.150.08-0.09
25TachizakiFuyukoJPN
80.05-1.010.26-0.23-0.07
26ChevalierChloeFRA
7-1.160.340.82-0.48-0.06
27HauserLisa TheresaAUT
9-0.96-1.25-1.68-1.13-0.06
28DavidovaMarketaCZE
8-1.30-0.82-0.05-1.01-0.06
29KalkenbergEmilie AagheimNOR
6-0.36-0.630.02-0.39-0.06
30CharvatovaLucieCZE
7-1.071.02-0.53-0.40-0.04
31HerrmannDeniseGER
8-1.54-0.350.16-0.99-0.03
32MironovaSvetlanaRUS
9-0.86-0.44-0.64-0.71-0.01
33MinkkinenSuviFIN
70.22-1.12-0.39-0.24-0.01
34TomingasTuuliEST
7-0.410.120.17-0.19+0.02
35PerssonLinnSWE
7-1.13-0.33-0.49-0.82+0.03
36EganClareUSA
7-0.34-0.670.10-0.38+0.03
37AvvakumovaEkaterinaKOR
6-0.09-0.440.49-0.12+0.07
38TandrevoldIngrid LandmarkNOR
9-1.18-0.440.05-0.82+0.09
39KinnunenNastassiaFIN
60.070.121.300.23+0.10
40PuskarcikovaEvaCZE
70.06-0.67-0.24-0.18+0.10
41PreussFranziskaGER
6-1.50-0.26-0.61-1.03+0.12
42KruchinkinaElenaBLR
7-0.480.010.12-0.27+0.15
43HaeckiLenaSUI
8-0.47-0.54-1.26-0.59+0.15
44HinzVanessaGER
9-0.57-0.60-0.37-0.56+0.18
45KazakevichIrinaRUS
9-0.830.520.24-0.31+0.18
46EderMariFIN
9-1.190.841.30-0.30+0.19
47WiererDorotheaITA
9-1.03-0.60-1.05-0.91+0.19
48LienIdaNOR
7-1.200.460.25-0.55+0.19
49HettichJaninaGER
7-0.61-0.44-0.07-0.49+0.20
50LunderEmmaCAN
60.05-0.88-2.07-0.47+0.21
51FialkovaPaulinaSVK
6-0.720.680.45-0.17+0.23
52BilosiukOlenaUKR
70.05-1.23-0.03-0.33+0.27
53KuklinaLarisaRUS
6-0.510.12-0.64-0.35+0.28
54BendikaBaibaLAT
6-0.870.400.19-0.37+0.29
55Vishnevskaya-SheporenkoGalinaKAZ
60.17-0.441.250.12+0.29
56GasparinAitaSUI
6-0.03-0.30-0.71-0.19+0.29
57LeshchankaIrynaBLR
7-0.32-0.220.77-0.16+0.34
58ReidJoanneUSA
7-0.431.020.410.09+0.35
59KnottenKaroline OffigstadNOR
60.06-1.01-0.96-0.37+0.36
60ZukKamilaPOL
6-0.581.240.350.06+0.38
61EckhoffTirilNOR
7-1.500.34-0.66-0.86+0.41
62DzhimaYuliiaUKR
9-0.750.31-0.57-0.42+0.43
63Hojnisz-StaregaMonikaPOL
7-0.29-0.720.10-0.37+0.44
64ZdoucDunjaAUT
60.35-0.86-0.23-0.07+0.58
65BeaudrySarahCAN
61.12-0.72-0.320.41+0.62
66TalihaermJohannaEST
60.530.260.510.45+0.77

Posted in Statistical analysis

An analysis of the always exciting pursuit races

Posted on 2021-12-10 | by biathlonanalytics | Leave a Comment on An analysis of the always exciting pursuit races

I did an analysis of the 142 pursuit races from the 2012-2013 season up to today (I’m writing this after the 2nd world cup of the 2021-2022 season). I wanted to see what the odds are of winning based on the starting position, expressed in seconds behind the first starter, based on previous results. The outcome was pretty interesting and somewhat unexpected!

Read the analysis below or use the interactive version on my Tableau Public page.

Posted in Long-term trends, Statistical analysis

Posts navigation

Older posts
Newer posts

Recent Articles

  • Junior + U23 Development Index – Men
  • Junior + U23 Development Index – Women
  • The Path to GOAT Status
  • Most improved athletes this winter
  • New biathlon point system

Categories

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

Archives by Month

  • 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