MeenaMadness

Published: May 26, 2020

Introduction

Like many others in this world without sports, I have kept busy by watching re-runs of historically great performances.  From the 1936 Olympics, to 1975 Wimbledon, to 1992 Dream Team, to 2008 Phelps & Bolt perfection, to 2019 Masters, to even simulations of the Kentucky Derby, it appears nothing but greatness is being shown right now.

Therefore, since we sadly missed March Madness (the collegiate swimming version) this year, I decided to spin some swims on their side to determine the greatest performances from the Female and Male NCAA Division 1 Swimming Championships.  Of course, this will all be from a MeenaMadness (ahem, MeenaMethod) perspective.

Now in basketball, and other Match Sports, the “madness” could be defined by buzzer-beaters and Cinderella stories.  However, in Metric Sports, like swimming, the madness is more likely defined by mind-blowing performances against not only historical records but also the rest of the field. 

Therefore, via a combination of unadjusted and adjusted performance points that address both the historical significance and present domination of a performance, I have created a list of swims that I believe to be some of the most maddening in recent NCAA history. 

Let us dive into, what I dub, MeenaMadness…

Criteria of Data

All performance points, unless otherwise stated, are calculated via the MeenaMethod equation = [1 - ((T - B) / B)] * 100, where T = Time Tested and B = Benchmark.

Historical Significance (HS): the Historical Significance factor takes into account the amount by which the record-breaking performance progressed the expectations of the event.  This is why the Benchmark (B) is set to the NCAA Record, and the Time Tested (T) is set to the 1st Place performance.

Present Domination (PD): The Present Domination factor takes into account the amount by which the record-breaking performance also dominated its competitors. This is why the Benchmark (B) is set to the 1st Place Performance, and the Time Tested (T) is set to the average of 2nd Place through 8th Place.

Total MeenaMadness Performance (MM) Points: once historical significance has been verified and calculated, as has present domination, the sum of the two performance points gives the total MeenaMadness Performance Points

MeenaMadness Performance Points = Historical Significance + Present Domination

or

MM points = HS + PD

Note, as I wrote in the MeenaMethod Math post, “all performance points are assumed to be unadjusted unless otherwise stated. Therefore, typically, adjustments come into play (pun intended) when performance points need to be gamified, for example, in a competition when first place is awarded extra points for winning.”

Up to this point, I have focused solely on the Historical Significance factor which makes all associated performance points unadjusted because only one equation is considered.  

Additionally, in this publication even though I presented the Present Domination factor, its point value is still unadjusted.

However, by combining the Historical Significance and Present Domination points, I created an adjusted point value called MeenaMadness points.  This is in essence an attempt to “gamify” these performances.

So, to recap, both Historical Significance and Present Domination points are unadjusted, but MeenaMadness points are adjusted.

Dataset

The follow data set was used for MeenaMadness:

• Competitions = 8

  • 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 Female and Male D1 NCAA Swimming Championships

• Pool Length: all races are Short-Course-Yards, “SCY” (i.e., a 25-yard pool)

• Events = 13 (per competition), 104 (total)

  • Freestyle (Free) = 5 = 50, 100, 200, 500, 1650 SCY

  • Butterfly (Fly) = 2 = 100, 200 SCY

  • Backstroke (Back) = 2 = 100, 200 SCY

  • Breaststroke (Breast) = 2 = 100, 200 SCY

  • Individual Medley (Medley) = 2 = 200, 400 SCY

• Performances: individual performances from A-Finals (places 1 - 8) only 

  • Performances from preliminaries, relays, and B-Finals (places 9-16) are not included

  • Some A-Final events did not contain 8 performances due to disqualifications, and in those events, the formulas have been appropriately adjusted to account to the correct number of performances

Absolute Data Highlights

Some highlights from an absolute data perspective are:

• 40 - the number of individual events (19 female, 21 male), across all competitions, genders, and performances included in which the NCAA record was broken by a swimmer in the individual event A-Final

• 19 - the number of swimmers (10 female, 9 male) who placed first in an individual A-Final and broke an NCAA record with their performance

Relative Data Highlights
(aka MeenaMadness)

As stated above, there are 40 performances from 19 swimmers that qualify for MeenaMadness.  But since there are many absolute disparities across the performances (e.g., gender, distance, stroke), each performance has been converted into a relative number on a 100.00 point scale using the MeenaMethod Historical Significance + Present Domination equations outlined in the Criteria of Data section.

Worth noting, since it takes an NCAA record-breaking performance to be included in this case study, every performance analyzed achieved greater than 100.00 points.

The 40 performances (ranked in descending order of total MeenaMadness, MM, points) are:

1. Caeleb Dressel's 50 Free from 2018 = 108.45 MM points

2. Caeleb Dressel's 100 Fly from 2018 = 106.38 MM points

3. Lilly King's 100 Breast from 2019 = 105.17 MM points

4. Ryan Murphy's 100 Back from 2016 = 105.09 MM points

5. Caeleb Dressel's 100 Free from 2017 = 105.06 MM points

6. Katie Ledecky's 500 Free from 2017 = 105.02 MM points

7. Ryan Murphy's 200 Back from 2016 = 104.96 MM points

8. Caeleb Dressel's 50 Free from 2016 = 104.86 MM points

9. Will Licon's 200 Breast from 2017 = 104.77 MM points

10. Will Licon's 200 Breast from 2016 = 104.63 MM points

11. Lilly King's 100 Breast from 2018 = 104.61 MM points

12. Caeleb Dressel's 100 Free from 2018 = 104.59 MM points

13. Ian Finnerty's 100 Breast from 2018 = 104.383 MM points

14. Simone Manuel's 100 Free from 2017 = 104.382 MM points

15. Caeleb Dressel's 100 Free from 2016 = 104.36 MM points

16. Kelsi Worrell's 100 Fly from 2016 = 104.21 MM points

17. Beata Nelson's 100 Back from 2019 = 104.026 MM points

18. Joseph Schooling's 200 Fly from 2016 = 104.025 MM points

19. Caeleb Dressel's 100 Fly from 2017 = 103.96 MM points

20. Ella Eastin's 400 Medley from 2018 = 103.81 MM points 

21. Kathleen Baker's 200 Back from 2018 = 103.76 MM points

22. Lilly King's 200 Breast from 2018 = 103.71 MM points

23. Jack Conger's 200 Fly from 2017 = 103.67 MM points

24. Lilly King's 200 Breast from 2016 = 103.64 MM points

25. Joseph Schooling's 100 Fly from 2016 = 103.57 MM points

26. Lilly King's 100 Breast from 2016 = 103.30 MM points

27. Ella Eastin's 200 Medley from 2016 = 103.24 MM points

28. Ella Eastin's 200 Medley from 2018 = 103.16 MM points

29. Abbey Weitzeil's 50 Free from 2019 = 103.03 MM points

30. Townley Haas's 200 Free from 2016 = 102.97 MM points

31. Beata Nelson's 200 Back from 2019 = 102.95 MM points

32. Olivia Smoliga's 50 Free from 2016 = 102.89 MM points

33. Townley Haas's 200 Free from 2018 = 102.78 MM points

34. Louise Hansson's 100 Fly from 2019 = 102.64 MM points

35. Chase Kalisz's 400 Medley from 2017 = 102.56 MM points

36. Lilly King's 200 Breast from 2017 = 102.43 MM points

37. Townley Haas's 500 Free from 2019 = 102.34 MM points

38. Simone Manuel's 50 Free from 2017 = 102.05 MM points

39. Clark Smith's 1650 Free from 2017 = 100.96 MM points

40. Clark Smith's 500 Free from 2017 = 100.83 MM points

Exhibits

Admittedly, when it comes to 40 races I do not think lists are as interesting as tables and charts.  So, in an attempt to show how maddening these performances are, I have constructed the following exhibits:

1. Reference Data Table - all absolute and relative data points included in this analysis, sorted by performance

2. Scatter Plot - Historical Significance vs. Present Domination

3. Historical Significance Bar Chart - Performance Points Relative to the NCAA Record

4. Present Domination Bar Chart - Performance Points Relative to the Average of 2nd Place through 8th Place

5. Combined Bar Chart - Historical Significance + Present Domination = total MeenaMadness points

6. Reference Data Table - includes all the data from table 1. above, but is sorted by year by gender

7. Scatter Plot - # of Events and Average Performance Points by Year by Gender

Note: all charts are listed in descending order of most MM points to least, except for the scatter plot. Unless otherwise stated, all numbers are expressed as times in mm:hh.ss

1. Reference Data Table

Data included:

• swimmer, gender, school, event, year, previous NCAA record, 1st place time and performance points, 2nd - 8th place average time and performance points, combined performance points
  
  

Highlights: 

• 3 out of the top 5, and 7 out of the top 20, performances belong to Caeleb Dressel

  • 2018 was his best year where he averaged 106.46 MM points across his three individual events

    • His 100 Fly, #1 on the list with 108.45 MM points, achieved the most HS points with 101.79 (42.80 seconds vs. 43.58 seconds)

    • His 50 Free, #2 on the list with 106.38 MM points, achieved the most PD points with 7.44 (17.63 seconds vs. 18.95 seconds)

• Lilly King is the top female with 6 performances on the list

  • Her 100 Breast from 2019, #3 on the list with 105.17 MM points, achieved the most PD points for Females with +4.91 (55.73 seconds vs. 58.47 seconds)

• Simone Manuel’s 100 Free from 2017, #14 on the list with 104.38 total MM points, received the most HS points for Females with 101.15 (45.56 seconds vs. 46.09 seconds)

2. Scatter Plot
Historical Significance vs. Present Domination
Performance Points Relative to the NCAA Record vs. Performance Points relative to the average of 2nd place - 8th place

Regarding a single performance, all the way to the top and all the way to the right is nice, but there is an interesting story behind each of these dots.  

Highlights:

Aside from the isolated dots for Caeleb Dressel’s 50 Free and 100 Fly from 2018, the other noticeable dots to me are:

• 100 Back (M16) = #7 on the list with 104.96 total points = Ryan Murphy’s 100 Back from 2016 = 43.49, compared to an NCAA record of 43.51 and to a heat average of 45.68

  • In this performance, he did not smash a record with his 100.05 Historical Significance points, but he certainly smashed his heat with his +5.04 Present Domination points

• The Female 50 Free appears three times in this case study:

  • 50 Free (F19) = #29 on the list with 103.03 MM points = Abbey Weitzeil lowered the NCAA record of 21.15 to 21.02 in 2019 for 100.61 Historical Significance points against a heat average of 21.53 for +2.41 Present Domination points

  • 50 Free (F16) = #32 on the list with 102.89 MM points = Olivia Smoliga lowered the NCAA record of 21.27 to 21.21 in 2016 for 100.28 Historical Significance points against a heat average of 21.71 for +2.61 Present Domination points

  • 50 Free (F17) = #38 on the list with 102.05 MM points = Simone Manuel lowered the NCAA record of 21.21 to 21.17 in 2017 for 100.19 Historical Significance points against a heat average of 21.56 for +1.86 Present Domination points

  • Given 40 total performances, its interesting these three 50 yard events, in the same gender, are clustered relatively close to one another (i.e., less than 1.00 points separates the three)

3. Singular Bar Chart
Historical Significance
Performance Points Relative to the NCAA Record

On a standalone basis, this is a ranking of performances based on their historical significance of how much they exceed (i.e., broke) the existing NCAA record

Highlights:

• Of the 40 performances:

  • 6 broke an NCAA record by more than 1.00% (i.e., achieved more than 101 points), and

  • 0 performances broke an NCAA record by more than 2.00% (i.e., achieved more than 102 points)

    • Remember Jason Lezak’s 46.08 anchor leg on the 4 x 100 relay at the 2008 Olympics?  To put it into perspective, that time achieved 102.50 Historical Significance performance points (i.e., was 2.50% faster) when benchmarked against the world record.

• 200 Fly (M16) = #18 on the list with 104.03 MM points = Joseph Schooling’s 200 Fly from 2016 = 1:37.97 is #2 on this Historical Significance list compared to an NCAA record of 1:39.33, but #18 on the total MM list

  • This is a really exciting performance because Schooling and 2nd place (Jack Conger, also from Texas) both broke the NCAA record

  • Schooling earned 101.37 Historical Significance points with his time, and Conger went 1:38.06 which earned him 101.28 Historical Significance points

  • However, only Schooling qualified for this case study because he placed 1st

  • So while two performances “smash” a record in this case (i.e., break it by more than 1.00% with Schooling’s 101.37 and Conger’s 101.28 HS points) it is very exciting, and great for HS points, but actually can weigh down the overall MM points because it produces fewer PD points - in this particular event, the average time of 2nd place through 8th place was 1:40.61, which equates to 98.71 Historical Significance points, the third highest for any event (behind the 2017 Male 1650 and 500 Freestyle)

Averages and Comparisons

For fun, lets look at how the averages of these performances would alter the current Male 100-meter dash running world record of 9.58 seconds, set by Usain Bolt in 2009

• Performances #1 - #40 = 100.54 points = 9.528 seconds

• Performances #3 - #38 = 100.51 points = 9.531 seconds

• Female Performances = 100.47 points = 9.535 seconds

• Male Performances = 100.61 points = 9.522 seconds

4. Singular Bar Chart
Present Domination
Performance Points Relative to the Average of 2nd Place through 8th Place

On a standalone basis, this is a ranking of performances based on their domination of the other swimmers in the heat 

Highlights:

• Of the 40 performances, 15 performances (3 female, 12 male) are above the average of +3.29 points, resulting in 25 performances below the average

• 500 Free (F17) = #6 on the list with 105.02 MM points = Katie Ledecky’s 500 Free from 2017 = 4:24.06 compared to a NCAA record of 4:25.15 and a heat average of 4:36.28

  • This is Katie’s only appearance in this case study and on absolute terms she effectively beat the rest of the field by almost 25-yards (i.e., a length of the pool)

• Worth nothing, Clark Smith’s

  • 1650 Free (M17) = #39 on the list with 100.96 MM points with a 14:22.41 = 100.19 HS points + 0.77 PD points

    • Smith did not necessarily smash the NCAA record of 14:24.08, but he did win a very tight race that consisted of four total swimmers (including Smith) breaking the NCAA record

      • As such, the average of 2nd - 8th place achieved 99.42 HS points, the most of any event, with a 14:29.08 average

  • 500 Free (M17) = #40 on the list with 100.83 MM points = 100.07 HS points + 0.76 PD points

    • Smith was the only 500 Free (M17) swimmer to break the NCAA record, but the heat was still the second fastest of the 40 performances in this case study, achieving 99.32 HS points with a 4:10.30 average

Averages and Comparisons

For fun, lets look at how the averages of these performances would compare to the 2008 Olympics when Usain Bolt set the 100m dash world record of 9.69 seconds (against a field that, 2nd through 8th place, averaged 9.96 seconds):

• Performances #1 - #40 = +3.29 points = 10.009 seconds for the field

• Performances #3 - #38 = +3.26 points = 10.006 seconds for the field

• Female Performances = 3.11 points = 9.991 seconds for the field

• Male Performances = 3.45 points = 10.024 seconds for the field

5. Combined Bar Chart of total MeenaMadness Points
Historical Significance + Present Domination
Performance Points Relative to the NCAA Record + Performance Points Relative to the Average of 2nd Place through 8th Place

On a combined basis, this is a visual of each performance weighted by their Historical Significance + Present Domination contribution

Highlights:

• This chart shows that it is “easier” to get MM points in the Present Domination (i.e., the blue in the chart) category

• Will Licon from Texas appears only twice on the list and both his swims end up next to each other as #9 and #10

  • 200 Breast (M17) = #9 on the list with 104.77 MM points = 1:47.91 is 15th on the HS list compared to an NCAA record of 1:48.12, and #7 on the PD list compared to a heat average of 1:52.85

  • 200 Breast (M16) = #10 on the list with 104.63 MM points = 1:48.12 is 20th on the HS list compared to an NCAA record of 1:48.66, and #10 on the PD list compared to a heat average of 1:52.61

6. Reference Data Table
All performances sorted, and averaged, by year by gender

7. Scatter Plot
All performances grouped and averaged by total MeenaMadness points by Gender by Year

Highlights:

In total, a breakdown of the 40 performances spread across the years by:

# of Events

• 2016 Female = 5 events @ 103.46 average performance points

• 2017 Female = 4 events @ 103.47 average performance points

• 2018 Female = 5 @ 103.81 average performance points

• 2019 Female = 5 @ 103.56 average performance points
  
  

• 2016 Male = 8 @ 104.31 average performance points

• 2017 Male = 7 @ 103.12 average performance points

• 2018 Male = 5 @ 105.32 average performance points

• 2019 Male = 1 @ 102.34  average performance points
  
  

Other category breakdowns are:

Stroke

• Butterfly (Female) = 2

• Butterfly (Male) = 5

• Backstroke (Female) = 3

• Backstroke (Male) = 2

• Breaststroke (Female) = 6

• Breaststroke (Male) = 3

• Freestyle (Female) = 5

• Freestyle (Male) = 10

• Individual Medley (Female) = 3

• Individual Medley (Male) = 1
  
  

Distance

• 50 = 5

• 100 = 15

• 200 = 14

• 400 = 2

• 500 = 3

• 1650 = 1

Conclusion

Lilly King and Caeleb Dressel would be the so-called champions of this inaugural MeenaMadness index, combining for 13 out of the 40 (~33%) record-breaking performances from 2016 - 2018.

Additionally, I find it interesting that the records were relatively split with 19 female and 20 male, along with, as you will read below in the Notes, that all but 4 out of 26 events were broken in a 4-year span at the D1 NCAA Championships.  With that sort of turnover, it will be interesting to see what other performances qualify for MeenaMadness in the future.

Author’s Notes

Worth Noting

• Of the 104 NCAA records that stood going into the individual A-Final across the eight competitions, 40 (or 38%) of them were broken

  • That means, on average, 5 out of the 13 individual events contested at each competition will be broken annually
    
    

• 23 - the number of swimmers (11 female, 12 male) who swam in an individual A-Final and broke an NCAA record with their performance, regardless of their place in the heat

• 4 - the number of individual swimmers who broke an NCAA record (1 female, 3 male) but did not finish first in the individual A-Final heat

• 13 - the number of collegiate universities represented by swimmers who broke an NCAA record
  
  

• 47 - the number of individual performances (21 female, 26 male) that finished with a time faster than the NCAA record that existed when the race began

  • Said differently, even if a performance did not win the race, the performance still broke the NCAA record

  • 5 - the number of individual events (2 female, 3 male) in which two or more  performances broke an NCAA record

  • 1 - the number of individual events (male only) in which four (and three) performances broke an NCAA record (the Male 1650 Freestyle from 2017)
    
    

• 13 out of 13 - the number of separate individual events in which an NCAA record was broken

  • Said differently, every individual event contested at the NCAA championships has been broken at least once (by either a male or female) in the last four years

  • 10 out of 13 - the number of separate individual events broken by a female

  • 12 out of 13 - the number of separate individual events broken by a male
    
    

• 4 out of 26 - the number of separate individual events in which an NCAA record was not broken

  • Female 200 Butterfly - which was broken by Ella Eastin at the 2018 PAC-12 Championships (1:50.67)

  • Female 1650 Freestyle - which was broken by Leah Smith at the 2016 ACC Championships (15:25.30) and then ultimately by Katie Ledecky at the November 2017 Adamson Invitational at Texas A&M (15:03.31)

  • Female 200 Freestyle - which still belongs to Missy Franklin from 2015 (1:39.10)

  • Male 200 Individual Medley which was broken by Caeleb Dressel at the 2018 SEC Championships (1:38.15)

Honorable Mention

As previously stated, there were some performances that did not place 1st but still broke the NCAA record.  As such, their performance points total (NCAA record scale + 2nd - 8th Place scale) are listed here:

• Jack Conger's (2nd place) 200 Fly from 2016 = 101.28 + 2.57 = 103.84 MM points

• Joseph Schooling's (2nd place) 100 Fly from 2017 = 100.59 + 2.60 = 103.19 MM points

• Kathleen Baker's (2nd place) 200 Medley from 2018 = 100.36 + 1.76 = 102.12 MM points

• Miranda Tucker's (2nd place) 200 Breast from 2017 = 100.03 + 1.80 = 101.83 MM points

• Felix Auboeck's (2nd place) 1650 Free from 2017 = 100.14 + 0.72 = 100.86 MM points

• Akaram Mahmoud's (3rd place) 1650 Free from 2017 = 100.13 + 0.70 = 100.83 MM points 

• Jordan Wilimovsky's (4th place) 1650 Free from 2017 = 100.07 + 0.65 = 100.72 MM points 

Note: these performances were not removed from the 2nd place - 8th place averages so the equation remains the same.  Said differently, they are included in the averages.

Footnotes

Author: Elliot Meena

Published: May 26, 2020

Sources: National Collegiate Athletic Association (“NCAA”)

Notes:

• SCY: Short-Course-Yards (i.e., a 25-yard pool)

• Download PDF

• Copyright 2022, all rights reserved