Training Log Archive: iansmith

Today, as an exercise, I modeled my bowling score in a game as a function of three statistics I regularly record: number of strikes, first-ball pins (average pins felled by the first ball in each frame), and spares. I used a simple linear regression, and while the input statistics aren't wholly independent, it's a good first model. The model is pretty good, with r² = 0.88, and a standard error of the predicted score of 7.70 pins/game. The residuals were normally distributed.

Here's the weird thing: while a strike is more valuable in a bowling game, the coefficient for the number of spares in a game was actually higher than that for the number of strikes. According to the (admittedly simple) model, I earn 12.4 points for each additional spare I hit and only 10.1 for each additional strike.

I suspect the reason for this is that the number of spares is a better indicator of how well I am bowling. I haven't bowled more than 5 strikes in a game, and even on my best days, strikes occur somewhat randomly (apparently with 17.6% probability on average). A strike is satisfied by a single criterion - placing the ball in a relatively small area in the position-momentum space that characterizes the impact. A spare requires two events - an initial hit, then a successful subsequent hit. The probability is maximized if both hits are good, though non-zero even for really bad first shots. Consequently, the variation in the number of spares I hit is more strongly correlated with competent bowling than the variation in the number of strikes.

This exercise is somewhat pointless, since calculating bowling scores is not a difficult process from the raw data. I'm sure that if I focused on training a particular technique, the regression model would also change; this model is only valid for the data I have collected over the past year, and would probably be better modeled by a piecewise regression as my technique has changed.

C • correlations are probably important 4

On the SLOC Relay champs:

Mispunches:
The high density of parallel features typical of flood plain terrain coupled with mass start and relatively high visibility suggest that mispunching will be a fairly common mistake. To completely disqualify a team for such an error seems a bit draconian. Therefore, a team may negate a mispunch by running a penalty loop subject to the following restrictions:

It seems easier to just have people check their codes. While it might be charitable to include a penalty loop, it vastly complicates the process. When you finish a leg, you need to download quickly to check for MPs, then quickly run a penalty loop while the race admins bust out a ruler to see if the mp'd control is within 250m of the correct control (not crossing bank lines).

C • Mispunching 17

My office building was evacuated late Thursday evening due to reports of a gas leak, so I went home and went on a run. In my haste to evacuate, I forgot my 305 in its cradle, charging in my office, so the distance and time are less precisely measured than usual. Legs felt good.

I ran at a deliberately easy pace to the river and ran an Eliot-Western Ave loop, crossing the Harvard and Weeks bridges twice. I estimated the time by glancing at the clock on my phone in my apt before and after the run. I felt acceptable, apart from a bout of weakness and jitters halfway through the run. I continued part 5 of The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, and I'm entering the military strategy section, with which I'm vastly more familiar than the political maneuverings of the 1920s and 1930s. Sucks to be General Gamelan and the poorly coordinated military commands of the Dutch and Belgians in the aftermath of the conquest of Norway and Denmark. The allied commanders were two decades behind the Germans in their grasp of military tactics, and adhering to notions of guaranteed neutrality from a megalomaniacal warlord with 136 infantry and armored divisions standing on your border is not good strategy. For not the first time in European history, the English channel saved Western civilization from cultural and social cataclysm. It's much easier in hindsight to identify errors, but I'm still incredulous at how badly the democracies of Western Europe played both the peace and the first year of war with the Germans. Despite his debacle of the British naval intervention in Norway, Churchill was the first leader to effectively stand against Hitler and adequately understand how critical the situation was, as early as the Anschluss of Austria. I suspect the modern stereotype of the French as lackluster in war stems from their defeat in essentially five days by the Panzer divisions under Guderian and Rommel in the Ardennes, though it was probably exacerbated by de Gaulle's obstinacy.

My second favorite warship, mostly for all that she represented in the twilight of the British Empire (as opposed to her tremendously flawed armor design) is unquestionably the HMS Hood. There is some symbolism to be found in her catastrophic demise at the hands of the Bismarck; the massive and senseless loss of life in her sinking is a testament to the insanity of war, particularly the war that only Imperialistic Europe seems to know how to wage. What a beautiful ship.