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

Tag: shooting

Shooting Efficiency comparison: First trimester 2019–20 vs. First trimester 2020–21

Posted on 2021-01-07 | by real biathlon | Leave a Comment on Shooting Efficiency comparison: First trimester 2019–20 vs. First trimester 2020–21

Following up on my last post on skiing speed, this is a comparison of overall shooting quality between trimester 1 of last season and trimester 1 this winter. Shooting Efficiency is an attempt to combine shooting accuracy and shooting time. For more details how it’s calculated, see here.

If you can’t find a specific athlete, you can always look up the complete World Cup field (also available per trimester) for the ongoing season (as well as all previous seasons) here:

  • 2020–21 Shooting Efficiency: Men | Women

Note: Only athletes with at least 4 non-team races in trimester 1 of both the previous and the current season are included in the tables below. Shooting Efficiency is an overall shooting score, combining shooting accuracy and shooting time. It is the theoretical average time an athlete loses through shooting (based on hit rate, range time and potential penalty loops)


Men

Erik Lesser is the most improved shooter among regular starters, losing 2:06.6 min in a theoretical sprint at the range. He has always been fast, which hasn’t changed this year, however, his accuracy is currently at a career high (87.9%). Simon Eder is the best shooter overall (incredible 96.4% hit rate), also much improved over last year. Sturla Holm Lægreid isn’t far behind (1:56.2 min) – he doesn’t show up in the table, because his first World Cup race was in March. Johannes Thingnes Bø has been struggling with his shooting so far, his accuracy is down 4.2% (albeit on a very high level), plus he shoots 2.0s slower.

Changes in Shooting Efficiency compared to 2019–20 | World Cup Trimester 1

NoFamily NameGiven NameNationRacesHit RateRange TimePenalty LoopTime Loss
Sprint
Change
NoFamily NameGiven NameNationRacesHit RateRange TimePenalty LoopTime Loss
Sprint
Change
1LesserErikGER
987.8650.021.92:06.6-35.1
2GuigonnatAntoninFRA
990.7152.722.92:06.6-21.5
3StroliaVytautasLTU
780.0055.022.92:35.7-21.4
4EderSimonAUT
996.4349.323.11:46.9-19.4
5SamuelssonSebastianSWE
989.2953.321.32:09.4-16.6
6HasillaTomasSVK
677.5053.723.82:40.9-14.2
7MoravecOndrejCZE
987.1450.622.72:10.3-13.8
8PonsiluomaMartinSWE
981.4350.121.42:20.0-11.4
9NelinJesperSWE
975.7153.321.72:39.3-11.2
10KrcmarMichalCZE
990.0053.621.42:08.5-10.3
11WegerBenjaminSUI
986.4352.622.52:15.8-9.0
12ErmitsKalevEST
876.6753.322.92:39.9-8.4
13GaranichevEvgeniyRUS
593.7552.024.41:59.2-6.2
14DombrovskiKarolLTU
787.0056.622.72:22.7-5.6
15SinapovAntonBUL
680.0051.524.72:32.4-5.2
16HoferLukasITA
982.8651.520.02:17.4-5.1
17FakJakovSLO
992.1451.721.42:00.3-2.0
18DollBenediktGER
987.1450.822.02:09.9-1.7
19Fillon MailletQuentinFRA
992.1450.121.61:57.3-1.0
20ChristiansenVetle SjaastadNOR
990.0053.621.82:09.0-0.4
21FemlingPeppeSWE
881.6750.122.52:21.5-0.1
22NordgrenLeifUSA
681.2553.724.12:32.6-0.0
23PrymaArtemUKR
880.0050.923.12:28.1+1.4
24LatypovEduardRUS
985.0055.121.92:22.9+1.8
25BormoliniThomasITA
587.1452.921.82:13.8+1.9
26HiidensaloOlliFIN
676.2555.723.12:46.1+2.1
27ClaudeFabienFRA
980.0050.921.02:23.8+2.5
28RastorgujevsAndrejsLAT
880.8353.721.42:28.4+3.5
29DohertySeanUSA
880.0052.122.72:29.5+5.4
30JacquelinEmilienFRA
990.0049.220.41:58.7+6.1
31GowScottCAN
676.2550.723.62:37.5+6.2
32EberhardJulianAUT
878.3352.321.62:31.3+6.5
33PidruchnyiDmytroUKR
880.0049.222.52:23.5+9.2
34YaliotnauRamanBLR
769.0054.222.92:59.6+9.6
35PeifferArndGER
790.0052.421.92:06.6+10.6
36DaleJohannesNOR
987.1456.322.22:21.0+11.1
37SeppalaTeroFIN
878.3353.421.52:33.3+11.4
38DesthieuxSimonFRA
983.5751.621.52:18.7+11.6
39DovzanMihaSLO
686.2549.424.12:11.8+11.9
40TkalenkoRuslanUKR
576.6749.422.72:31.7+13.0
41KuehnJohannesGER
880.0056.020.72:33.4+13.1
42LeitnerFelixAUT
784.0058.222.62:32.6+13.3
43IlievVladimirBUL
675.0054.522.02:44.2+13.4
44BjoentegaardErlendNOR
585.7155.720.92:21.1+14.7
45VaclavikAdamCZE
673.7556.123.52:54.0+14.8
46BocharnikovSergeyBLR
880.8353.424.82:34.3+16.4
47GuzikGrzegorzPOL
772.0052.422.72:48.5+17.4
48WindischDominikITA
575.7155.220.92:41.1+17.6
49TrsanRokSLO
685.5649.823.42:13.4+18.0
50EliseevMatveyRUS
990.0049.722.52:01.8+18.5
51BoeTarjeiNOR
985.7153.520.62:16.4+18.8
52BoeJohannes ThingnesNOR
987.8652.021.32:09.8+20.8
53LangerThierryBEL
781.0054.522.32:31.5+23.5
54DudchenkoAntonUKR
680.0055.324.42:39.6+25.9
55ClaudeFlorentBEL
677.5058.521.82:46.2+29.5
56BauerKlemenSLO
774.0049.923.22:40.1+30.4
57LoginovAlexanderRUS
985.0051.722.42:16.9+30.8
58StvrteckyJakubCZE
764.0058.821.73:15.7+38.8


Women

Suvi Minkkinen is the most improved among women – she had a horrible December 2019, where she only managed to hit 66.0% of her targets. World Cup leader, Marte Olsbu Røiseland, is currently 11.9% more accurate than during trimester 1 last season. The results for Hanna Öberg (best shot overall) haven’t changed much, neither has the efficiency of Dorothea Wierer; her problems are almost exclusively skiing-related. Denise Herrmann is roughly 10s faster overall at the range (but in a sprint her 1.5% slower skiing loses her almost twice as much on the tracks).

Changes in Shooting Efficiency compared to 2019–20 | World Cup Trimester 1

NoFamily NameGiven NameNationRacesHit RateRange TimePenalty LoopTime Loss
Sprint
Change
NoFamily NameGiven NameNationRacesHit RateRange TimePenalty LoopTime Loss
Sprint
Change
1MinkkinenSuviFIN
785.0052.725.92:24.3-46.1
2FrolinaAnnaKOR
676.2555.725.72:52.4-42.3
3KadevaDanielaBUL
585.0054.927.12:30.4-32.0
4KocerginaNataljaLTU
580.0057.126.82:47.8-31.1
5DunkleeSusanUSA
878.3355.826.22:48.4-28.2
6RoeiselandMarte OlsbuNOR
988.5752.223.92:11.8-26.8
7ReidJoanneUSA
683.751:00.725.12:42.1-20.3
8ColomboCarolineFRA
881.6754.425.52:35.6-19.1
9TomingasTuuliEST
783.0058.025.32:39.0-17.2
10TachizakiFuyukoJPN
885.0059.225.92:37.2-16.2
11AlimbekavaDzinaraBLR
990.0054.724.02:13.4-15.4
12LunderEmmaCAN
991.4352.525.12:06.6-14.2
13CadurischIreneSUI
682.5049.525.82:24.3-13.4
14OebergElviraSWE
986.4353.424.52:20.1-13.0
15SemerenkoValentinaUKR
590.0052.825.62:11.2-11.6
16HerrmannDeniseGER
983.5754.223.72:27.4-10.4
17KlemencicPolonaSLO
675.0056.725.92:58.1-9.0
18HinzVanessaGER
786.0055.125.42:25.7-8.6
19SchwaigerJuliaAUT
787.0056.725.32:26.3-8.0
20KnottenKaroline OffigstadNOR
991.4351.125.52:04.0-7.8
21LescinskaiteGabrieleLTU
585.001:01.125.72:40.7-6.7
22OebergHannaSWE
990.0049.624.32:03.5-5.1
23DavidovaMarketaCZE
982.1457.124.02:37.0-4.4
24KryukoIrynaBLR
791.251:00.325.22:22.6-3.6
25Braisaz-BouchetJustineFRA
980.7156.622.92:37.5-2.7
26WiererDorotheaITA
991.4351.324.52:03.6-1.2
27Hojnisz-StaregaMonikaPOL
686.6755.725.12:24.8-1.1
28GasparinElisaSUI
782.0053.125.12:31.3-0.3
29EganClareUSA
985.0059.224.32:34.8+2.1
30HaeckiLenaSUI
879.1750.324.92:32.6+2.8
31MironovaSvetlanaRUS
678.7555.424.62:43.0+4.9
32TodorovaMilenaBUL
876.6756.824.72:51.2+5.7
33GasparinAitaSUI
784.0053.726.22:29.3+7.4
34HauserLisa TheresaAUT
984.2953.623.42:24.1+7.9
35BescondAnaisFRA
982.8657.823.62:36.1+8.0
36SimonJuliaFRA
982.8650.124.82:22.7+8.6
37BrorssonMonaSWE
885.8354.424.82:24.0+8.8
38SolaHannaBLR
870.7752.924.32:56.8+9.0
39VittozziLisaITA
982.1454.323.92:31.3+9.9
40PreussFranziskaGER
986.4351.823.62:15.7+10.7
41EckhoffTirilNOR
984.2955.723.72:28.5+11.0
42BeaudrySarahCAN
778.0052.626.42:43.4+13.2
43SanfilippoFedericaITA
575.7158.425.62:58.9+13.2
44ZukKamilaPOL
778.001:01.125.72:58.7+14.0
45EderMariFIN
673.751:01.724.93:08.7+14.1
46TandrevoldIngrid LandmarkNOR
985.7156.423.82:26.8+14.2
47OjaReginaEST
571.6753.724.52:56.9+14.4
48PuskarcikovaEvaCZE
780.0051.327.42:37.3+14.4
49JislovaJessicaCZE
778.0057.225.92:51.4+15.6
50GasparinSelinaSUI
675.0058.024.42:57.0+15.7
51BlashkoDaryaUKR
992.1456.926.02:14.1+17.0
52PerssonLinnSWE
985.0054.324.62:25.5+19.9
53DzhimaYuliiaUKR
786.0056.925.22:29.0+20.1
54VoroninaTamaraRUS
584.0052.226.62:27.1+21.2
55PidhrushnaOlenaUKR
584.2955.726.52:33.0+21.2
56ZbylutKingaPOL
774.0056.724.72:57.6+24.1
57CharvatovaLucieCZE
763.7552.123.93:10.9+28.1
58TalihaermJohannaEST
676.251:00.826.33:03.9+31.3
59ChevalierChloeFRA
879.1758.824.52:48.7+32.6
60InnerhoferKatharinaAUT
865.8355.623.93:12.8+38.0

Posted in Statistical analysis | Tagged 2019–20 season, 2020–21 season, shooting

Is Oberhof the most challenging venue on the World Cup tour?

Posted on 2020-12-28 | by real biathlon | Leave a Comment on Is Oberhof the most challenging venue on the World Cup tour?

During the Christmas break, I worked on compiling a new data set: Statistics for each World Cup location. The full stats are available as bonus content (if you are interested in that you might have a look at the real biathlon Patreon page). Here’s a summary and some examples.

The upcoming World Cup stop, Oberhof, is probably not the most popular location among athletes, due to its notoriously bad weather, but the Oberhof shooting range (in parts because of the weather) has always been one of the most interesting. Here’s the data to back that up. Not only is Oberhof the venue with the lowest average hit rate (75.1%), it also has the highest average shooting time (36.8s) of regular World Cup venues (not including Brezno-Osrblie, which held its last race in 2006, when shooting times where generally slower than they are now).

All-time shooting results for regular Biathlon World Cup venues

VenueNationFirst
Year
Last
Year
RacesTotal
hit rate
(in %)
Prone
hit rate
(in %)
Standing
hit rate
(in %)
Shooting
Time
(in sec)
Prone
Time
(in sec)
Standing
Time
(in sec)
Antholz-AnterselvaITA
1975202023877.681.274.132.933.531.9
RuhpoldingGER
1978202023580.683.977.432.933.632.3
HochfilzenAUT
1978202118978.381.675.135.436.134.7
Oslo HolmenkollenNOR
1983201917280.082.577.630.531.829.2
OestersundSWE
1970202016878.481.875.135.337.533.1
OberhofGER
1984202016175.178.971.436.836.736.4
PokljukaSLO
1993202015079.682.976.333.733.434.1
KontiolahtiFIN
199020219578.581.775.433.534.232.4
Khanty-MansiyskRUS
200020167979.282.376.132.933.532.2
Brezno-OsrblieSVK
199620066079.582.976.138.435.341.4
LahtiFIN
198020075578.780.876.531.633.130.0
Nove MestoCZE
201220204179.282.875.731.632.630.6
PyeongChangKOR
200820183377.881.374.334.835.434.2
CanmoreCAN
198720192776.879.574.134.535.533.5
Soldier Hollow, UtahUSA
200120192080.583.977.233.834.333.3
Annecy-Le Grand BornandFRA
201420201883.285.880.728.930.127.7
SochiRUS
201320141783.686.081.130.731.529.9
Cesana San SicarioITA
200520061678.180.975.434.135.332.9
WhistlerCAN
200920101682.184.979.433.434.032.8
Fort Kent, MEUSA
200420111281.184.278.029.230.627.8
Presque Isle, MEUSA
201120161176.980.673.233.934.832.9
TrondheimNOR
20092009683.385.680.929.030.427.7
TyumenRUS
20182018683.785.581.928.629.827.4

Although I didn’t include the data here, it’s worth pointing out that Oberhof isn’t just challenging at the range, it also has one of the most difficult and selective tracks: on average, 13.1 of the top 30 athletes ski outside a +/- 30 sec range of the median – also the highest for any venue with more than 30 World Cup races.

The other German location, Ruhpolding, is almost the polar opposite; arguably the easiest regular World Cup range (average shooting percentage of 80.6%). Le Grand Bornand has an even higher hit rate (83.2%), but has also staged over 200 races less; it’s likely that percentage will regress to the mean at least somewhat if more events are held there. Antholz is noteworthy as well, having a relatively fast average shooting time, but a poor average hit rate; apparently the nice weather there combined with the altitude is deceptive.

Overall hit rate (including relays) | Oberhof vs. Hochfilzen

In the chart above you can see a comparison for overall hit rates (per race, 10 race moving average) for the last and the upcoming World Cup stops. Hochfilzen (on average) had roughly 5% better shooting results in the last 15 years.

Ski Speed (in km/h) in Oberhof | Men’s Non-Team races

Here’s the winner’s ski speed (in km/h) for men’s non-team events in Oberhof. Clearly, there are huge differences between seasons (a good example why the physical speed isn’t a great data point for long-term ski speed comparisons).

Total Shooting Time comparison | Hochfilzen vs. Oberhof

Lastly, I added a chart of the average total shooting times (per race, 10 race moving average). Hochfilzen and Oberhof are actually closer in that category, however, the shooting times in Hochfilzen got faster over the last decade, while there is no such trend in Oberhof.

Posted in Long-term trends, Statistical analysis | Tagged shooting

Shooting Speed

Posted on 2020-12-02 | by biathlonanalytics | Leave a Comment on Shooting Speed

An analysis of shooting speed in biathlon, using the women’s individual race in Kontiolahti as an example. The data came from the real biathlon website, here is the exact link.

To get this data in a workable format, I just copied the table, pasted it in a text editor and copied/pasted that to Google Sheets. From there I had to do some splitting and moving things around but it was still fairly easy to get a working table. The only time consuming part was manually assigning hits or misses, and for that reason I only did to for the top 30 athletes. Then I added som ecalcualtion for athlete averages, max and min shooting times, etc. Although that can be done in Tableau, I find once you start working with filters etc. in becomes unnessessarily compicated in Tableau, just much easier to calculate the fields in Google Sheets.

Just a reminder the Tableau Dashboard below is interactive and intended to be used for further exploration of data. If you open it on the Tableau Public site you can use it full screen. Enjoy!

Posted in Statistical analysis | Tagged data visualization, Puck Possessed, shooting

Improvements season-to-season

Posted on 2020-11-18 | by real biathlon | Leave a Comment on Improvements season-to-season

The new website allows you to look up basic biathlon data on your own (for different disciplines, periods, categories, etc.), so I won’t be posting too many of the regular statistical updates that I have done in the past. If you are interested in a specific statistic or ranking, you can always check out:

  • 2019–20 Shooting hit rates: Men | Women
  • 2019–20 Ski speed: Men | Women
  • 2019–20 Shooting Times: Men | Women
  • 2019–20 Range Times: Men | Women
  • 2019–20 Shooting efficiency: Men | Women
  • 2019–20 Overall Performance Score: Men | Women

These will be updated after each race. I thought it would still be interesting though to take one high-level look at last season’s performances. Below I listed the season-to-season changes in the Overall Performance Score of regular World Cup athletes (at least 14 races in the last two seasons).

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 values 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

Émilien Jacquelin was the most improved athlete last season, getting better in all major aspects of the sport: 5.5% higher hit rate, 1.8% faster skiing and 1.8s lower range time. Vytautas Strolia improved by the same amount, albeit on a much lower level, earning his first career top 20. They are followed by Johannes Kühn, who almost halved his average ski rank (12.3 to 6.7), and Erlend Bjøntegaard, who managed to increase his hit rate by 7.4%. On the flip side, Lukas Hofer‘s and Benjamin Weger‘s performance scores declined the most; both skiing over 1% slower; Hofer also hit 4.5% less of his targets.

Martin Fourcade ended his record-breaking career with his highest ever hit rate (91.8%), while his ski speed was almost back to his previous best (after a big decline in 2018–19): he had an average Course Time rank of 6.0 last winter – in 5 of his 7 title winning seasons his average ski rank was in the 4.5-5.0 range. The improvement of the French men really stand out (three in the top 10 below). Quentin Fillon Maillet became the second-fastest skier overall (1.5% faster). Johannes Thingnes Bø‘s ski speed declined slightly (on the highest possible level), yet he managed to set the best shooting percentage (92.1%) for a World Cup winner ever.

2019–20 z-Scores compared to 2018–19 | 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
1JacquelinEmilienFRA
20-1.27-0.83-1.36-1.15-0.44
2StroliaVytautas LTU
14-0.68-0.050.30-0.38-0.44
3KuehnJohannesGER
21-1.510.02-0.17-0.90-0.28
4BjoentegaardErlendNOR
18-1.38-0.77-0.40-1.08-0.28
5SeppalaTeroFIN
17-0.980.15-0.55-0.60-0.26
6FourcadeMartinFRA
21-1.63-1.26-0.71-1.41-0.21
7PrymaArtemUKR
20-0.79-0.53-0.72-0.71-0.20
8Fillon MailletQuentinFRA
21-1.68-0.84-1.05-1.36-0.15
9IlievVladimirBUL
16-1.140.45-0.44-0.60-0.12
10EliseevMatveyRUS
20-0.63-0.68-0.85-0.67-0.11
11BoeTarjeiNOR
21-1.50-0.93-0.51-1.21-0.09
12BoeJohannes ThingnesNOR
17-1.89-1.30-1.01-1.62-0.08
13GuzikGrzegorzPOL
14-0.18-0.19-0.81-0.26-0.08
14KrcmarMichalCZE
20-0.84-0.44-0.59-0.69-0.08
15BormoliniThomasITA
15-0.59-0.62-0.47-0.59-0.06
16YaliotnauRamanBLR
14-0.920.240.18-0.46-0.05
17PidruchnyiDmytroUKR
19-0.83-0.50-1.35-0.80-0.05
18DollBenediktGER
21-1.42-0.26-1.04-1.04-0.03
19ClaudeFlorentBEL
17-0.58-0.730.78-0.46-0.02
20FakJakovSLO
20-0.77-1.00-1.04-0.87-0.02
21SamuelssonSebastianSWE
16-0.94-0.22-0.44-0.67-0.01
22ChristiansenVetle SjaastadNOR
21-1.18-0.70-0.69-0.98+0.03
23NelinJesperSWE
17-1.050.00-0.28-0.66+0.03
24LoginovAlexanderRUS
19-1.22-1.03-1.15-1.15+0.03
25LeitnerFelixAUT
19-1.00-0.370.16-0.68+0.04
26BauerKlemenSLO
15-0.59-0.10-1.46-0.55+0.04
27MoravecOndrejCZE
17-0.54-1.06-0.71-0.71+0.05
28DesthieuxSimonFRA
21-1.33-0.76-0.81-1.10+0.08
29EberhardJulianAUT
18-1.350.24-1.11-0.86+0.13
30GaranichevEvgeniyRUS
16-0.80-0.86-0.64-0.80+0.16
31GuigonnatAntoninFRA
15-0.96-0.52-0.72-0.80+0.17
32RastorgujevsAndrejsLAT
17-1.160.11-0.26-0.68+0.18
33PeifferArndGER
20-1.15-0.97-0.79-1.06+0.18
34WindischDominikITA
21-0.990.13-0.04-0.55+0.22
35DohertySeanUSA
14-0.49-0.33-0.61-0.46+0.25
36EderSimonAUT
15-0.67-0.86-1.12-0.78+0.28
37WegerBenjaminSUI
16-0.85-0.34-0.19-0.62+0.33
38HoferLukasITA
20-1.160.12-0.06-0.65+0.35

Women

Tang Jialin improved the most among regular starters, skiing an impressive 2.5% faster. Emma Lunder increased her hit rate from 74.3% to 82.1% and lowered her average Course Time rank by 7.4. Baiba Bendika improved virtually by the same amount, mostly thanks to skiing 1.7% faster. Not far behind was Tiril Eckhoff, who went on an incredible run of 6 wins in 8 races, in large parts thanks to a career-best hit rate (83.1%); her already high ski speed also increased slightly, however, she had been faster in 2015–16.

One of the pre-season favorites, Lisa Vittozzi, had a winter to forget: her overall shooting percentage fell by 7.6%, while her ski speed declined roughly to its 2017–18 level. Susan Dunklee proves that aggregate data isn’t everything, winning world championship silver in one of her worst seasons statistically. Dorothea Wierer claimed her second overall title, shooting minimally worse (-0.9%), but skiing faster than ever (career-best average Course Time rank: 10.0). Kaisa Mäkäräinen ended her long World Cup career (358 individual top-level races, 3rd all time) on a slight uptick; although her hit rate stayed below 80% for a second consecutive year, she managed to improve her ski speed in her final season.

2019–20 z-Scores compared to 2018–19 | 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
1TangJialinCHN
14-0.36-0.941.15-0.35-0.49
2LunderEmmaCAN
18-0.50-0.57-1.29-0.61-0.46
3BendikaBaibaLAT
17-0.77-0.52-0.88-0.71-0.45
4EckhoffTirilNOR
20-1.57-0.67-0.40-1.17-0.42
5BraisazJustineFRA
21-1.450.09-0.18-0.85-0.35
6FialkovaIvonaSVK
16-0.800.25-0.30-0.44-0.33
7SemerenkoValentinaUKR
16-0.70-0.65-0.77-0.69-0.30
8ZukKamilaPOL
15-1.060.480.38-0.44-0.28
9SanfilippoFedericaITA
15-0.69-0.420.03-0.52-0.26
10PreussFranziskaGER
17-0.95-1.17-1.40-1.07-0.25
11DavidovaMarketaCZE
20-1.22-0.370.33-0.79-0.23
12RoeiselandMarte OlsbuNOR
14-1.47-0.82-1.04-1.23-0.23
13Hojnisz-StaregaMonikaPOL
18-1.09-1.100.02-0.96-0.22
14TandrevoldIngrid LandmarkNOR
21-1.15-0.68-0.23-0.90-0.21
15AymonierCeliaFRA
15-1.42-0.080.59-0.79-0.21
16MakarainenKaisaFIN
21-1.56-0.240.42-0.94-0.20
17GasparinElisaSUI
15-0.46-0.47-0.58-0.47-0.18
18HerrmannDeniseGER
21-1.66-0.21-0.30-1.07-0.18
19Kristejn PuskarcikovaEvaCZE
16-0.48-0.64-0.67-0.55-0.18
20ZbylutKingaPOL
15-0.35-0.37-0.35-0.36-0.17
21SimonJuliaFRA
21-1.05-0.24-1.69-0.89-0.16
22HaeckiLenaSUI
18-1.040.49-1.49-0.65-0.15
23OebergHannaSWE
19-1.14-0.94-1.57-1.14-0.14
24Yurlova-PerchtEkaterinaRUS
19-0.82-0.74-1.01-0.82-0.13
25BescondAnaisFRA
20-1.03-0.55-0.34-0.81-0.11
26PerssonLinnSWE
18-0.89-0.91-0.13-0.81-0.10
27WiererDorotheaITA
21-1.24-0.73-1.43-1.11-0.09
28BrorssonMonaSWE
18-0.80-0.74-0.03-0.69-0.06
29HorchlerKarolinGER
14-0.41-1.01-0.59-0.61-0.06
30HauserLisa TheresaAUT
18-0.63-0.99-1.06-0.78-0.04
31FialkovaPaulinaSVK
19-1.01-0.62-0.39-0.83-0.02
32HinzVanessaGER
19-0.85-0.69-0.45-0.75+0.01
33EganClareUSA
14-0.79-0.640.09-0.64+0.01
34OjaReginaEST
15-0.06-0.29-0.79-0.21+0.02
35KryukoIrynaBLR
18-0.69-0.690.06-0.60+0.07
36DunkleeSusanUSA
14-0.720.20-0.61-0.44+0.14
37VittozziLisaITA
21-0.92-0.40-0.82-0.76+0.24
Posted in Statistical analysis | Tagged 2019–20 season, overall performance, shooting, skiing

Impact of external factors on shooting performance in biathlon

Posted on 2020-08-27 | by biathlonanalytics | Leave a Comment on Impact of external factors on shooting performance in biathlon

by
Puck Possessed

In the third issue of Puck Possessed Biathlon, I want to look at the influence of things like weather and snow conditions, as well as course information. This is all summarized in reports made available on the https://biathlonresults.com/ website as Final Results – Competition Data Summary:

From this report, I used the measurements provided, except for the measurement taken half an hour before the race, as it doesn’t seem that relevant. Also, all these measurements should be taken with a grain of salt (how accurately are they measured, it’s only on one measure location, and some “measurements” are qualitative. In addition I tried my best to find a general elevation for the biathlon stadiums using Google Earth, so that data quality is also limited. Lastly, working only with the data I have, I had to make some assumptions. I realize that a maximum climb right before the shooting range makes a course harder than when it is right after the stadium. I tried looking into course profiles, but they are surprisingly hard to get (in a useful format).

To make all this data a bit easier to work with, I created a number of categories or indexes based on similar/related measurements, rather than using all data individually:

Wind

  • Wind strength (using the maximum value of the Wind Direction/Speed row);
  • Wind direction variability (the maximum difference in degrees between the three measured wind directions;
  • Wind strength variability (difference between minimal and maximum).

Visibility

  • Weather description (qualitative) is typically the same during the race, with a few exceptions (two out of 25 at the time of writing). I grouped some values in categories as they are very similar related to visibility:
    • Clear sky & Sunny
    • Cloudy, Low-level cloud, Partly cloudy
    • Light rain, Light snow, Light snowfall and Rain
    • Heavy snow & Snow

Humidity

  • Humidity measurements.

Course

  • Total Course Length;
  • Height Difference;
  • Maximum Climb;
  • Total Climb;
  • Elevation;
  • Snow of the track.

Not included

  • Air Temperature. Even though it varies, I don’t see how this could have an impact on performance, especially since events get cancelled when the temperature drops below a value where it could impact shooting. Note that I am aware that temperature impacts the tracks, but I think that is better measured by using Snow temperature;
  • Humidity. I tried to find any correlation between humidity and shooting performance but was unable to, leading to the conclusion that humidity by itself has no impact on shooting performance. Of course humidity is related to precipitation, but that aspect is covered in the Weather section.

Now the question is how to measure shooting performance. The obvious measurement is the number of shots missed, but I don’t want to ignore shooting times. For example if athlete A has no misses but takes 30 seconds longer to shoot than athlete B who may have one miss, that still says something about shooting performance compared between athletes A and B. I also considered including range time, but I consider that to be more related to ski performance. So for this exercise I am using Shooting Times and Penalty Times (in seconds) as the latter are directly related to misses and allows for combining it with shooting speed.

Next step is indexing the different categories, starting with Wind. Let’s look first at the correlation between the different wind factors and shooting performance as described above:

This tells me that the biggest correlation (and most reliable) is the wind strength, and that both strength and direction variability are not significant:

Let’s dig a little deeper here. Although on it’s own the maximum wind speed may have the most (and only) impact, how about the combination of wind speed and speed variability and direction variability?

The following charts show there is actually a almost 70% correlation between wind strength variability and maximum strength (direction variability not at all):

So we’ll need to look at combinations of maximum wind speed and change in speed. Logically it makes sense too. Even if the wind changes direction, if the wind is not very strong it won’t have much of an impact. But variable wind speeds, especially whit some strong gusts are tough to adjust to).Now how about visibility? That becomes a bit more complicated, or less objective, as we don’t have measures for visibility, but rather subjective observations. Let’s look at the number of athletes with specific number of misses per race per season, and relate that to the weather description:

This gives me some indication of what are good shooting conditions, and which ones are less preferable. Let’s simplify this a bit more, by assuming a solid shooting performance is two misses or less; anything more and you are typically out of the race for gold (expect when you have exceptional ski speed):

Based on all this information (and knowingly ignoring other factors that contribute to these number), I’m going to state that Clear sky, Sunny, Cloudy, Light snowfall and Rain typically lead to solid shooting performances, with well over 70% of all athletes having 2 misses or less, whereas Partly cloudy, Snow, Heavy snow, Light rain, Light snow and Low-level cloud lead to lesser shooting performances. Partly cloudy, Light snow and Light rain appear to be the worst conditions.

That leaves us with the course conditions. And other than Total Climb in meters (which is still statistically insignificant with a p-value of 0.06) none of the course condition factors show any correlation to shooting performance (defined as shooting and penalty times), with p-values over 0.7 and R2-values lower than 0.005:

These charts look at event averages, but looking at individual athlete shooting performances the results are very similar:

Although it is hard to imagine course conditions having no indirect impact on shooting performance (many steep climbs, especially before entering the stadium, or wet, slow snow which makes the athletes work harder, etc.) I’m going to assume there is no direct impact on shooting performance. But that would be an interesting analysis for a future edition of Puck Possessed Biathlon for sure.

So in summary, we are going to index or score wind influence and visibility influence. And based on the information we gathered so far, I’m going to say that 

Weather

Clear sky, Sunny, Cloudy, Light snowfall and Rain = Good

Snow, Heavy snow and Low-level cloud = Medium

Partly cloudy, Light snow and Light rain = Bad

Wind

IF [WindStrengthMAX (copy)] >= 2 AND [WindStrengthDiff] >= 1.2 THEN "Bad"
ELSEIF [WindStrengthMAX (copy)] >= 2 AND [WindStrengthDiff] < 1.2 THEN "Medium"
ELSEIF [WindStrengthMAX (copy)] < 2 AND [WindStrengthDiff] >= 1.2 THEN "Medium"
ELSE "Good"
END

Now we can assign values to good, medium and bad (1, 2 and 3) and create a External Factor Index, that we can then try to measure up against the Shooting Performance indicator described earlier:

The green dots symbolize events in the 2017-2018 season, yellow 2018-2019 and grey the current season.

All in all a lot of work to come to the conclusion that there is a correlation between our defined Shooting Performance, and the External Factor Index, mostly based on wind and weather: the P-value is 0.0041 and thus significant, and the R2-value is 0.295. 

As I am sure you have figured out if you got this far, my statistical knowledge is limited. But I would say, that based on all assumptions made above, roughly 30% of shooting performance is impacted by weather conditions mentioned above.

Of course this research can use a lot of improvement. For example rather than comparing average shooting performances per event, look at standardized shooting performances. And the External Factor Index is based on a number of assumptions that are, to say the least, arbitrary. But the exercise was fun, and I believe I learned a lot more about the data of women’s biathlon sprint races.

If you have any feedback or comments, please reach out on Twitter: @rjweise

Posted in Statistical analysis | Tagged Puck Possessed, shooting

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