ToastyKen
Member
Working on a video of the epic showdown between Mats and Felix, and I thought I'd share some math I worked out:
Feliks took an early lead in the first 3 rounds. Not too much to analyze the
By the time Solve 4 rolled around, Mats needed a 7.7 to have a chance of taking the lead (assuming best and worst solves were tossed after solve 4*, and Feliks gets a terrible solve 4, Mats would still need a 7.7. If Feliks gets something than his worst solve, Mats would need to do even better).
(*Of course, tossing best and worst after solve 4 makes no real sense, but it seems to make more sense to estimate a sense of who has "the lead" than actually using all the solve times?)
Mats gets a 7.31.
So now Feliks needs an 8.2 or better in Solve 4 to keep his lead (again, assuming best and worst at the end of solve 4 were tossed).
Feliks gets a 7.36.
Now at the beginning of Solve 5, Mats, needs an 8.1 or better to have a chance of winning. (That is, assuming Felik gets his worst solve in Solve 5, Mats would still need an 8.1 to win. If Feliks gets something better than his worst solve in Solve 5, Mats would need to do even better.)
So then, boom. 7.76, which is better than 8.1, but possible penalty. At this point:
If there's no penalty:**
Mats Valk: 8.81, (9.52), 7.61, (7.31), 7.76 Avg: 8.06
Feliks Zemdegs: 8.39, 7.95, 8.21, 7.36
Feliks would need an 8.02 on his final solve to tie.
If there is a penalty, then 9.76 is worse than 8.1, and so:
Mats Valk: 8.81, 9.52, 7.61, (7.31), (9.76+) Avg: 8.65
Feliks Zemdegs: 8.39, 7.95, 8.21, (7.36), (x) Avg: 8.18
Feliks would win no matter what.
**Of course, it's also important to keep in mind that "if Mats's solve 5 didn't have a penalty" is a bit more complex than it first appears, in that (a) if there were no penalty, it likely would've been due to him spending slightly more time turning the piece, which means the time would've been slightly higher, and (b) if Mats's solve 5 time were around 8 seconds, Feliks might've tried a bit harder on solve 5 and gotten a better time.
So you can't just blindly say "if there were no penalty, Mats would've won", because neither of the solve 5 times penalty are independent variables from the penalty and would've been different if there were no penalty.
That's my analysis. Let me know if anything seems off?
I think the real lesson here, is that both Feliks and Mats are amazeballs.
Feliks took an early lead in the first 3 rounds. Not too much to analyze the
By the time Solve 4 rolled around, Mats needed a 7.7 to have a chance of taking the lead (assuming best and worst solves were tossed after solve 4*, and Feliks gets a terrible solve 4, Mats would still need a 7.7. If Feliks gets something than his worst solve, Mats would need to do even better).
(*Of course, tossing best and worst after solve 4 makes no real sense, but it seems to make more sense to estimate a sense of who has "the lead" than actually using all the solve times?)
Mats gets a 7.31.
So now Feliks needs an 8.2 or better in Solve 4 to keep his lead (again, assuming best and worst at the end of solve 4 were tossed).
Feliks gets a 7.36.
Now at the beginning of Solve 5, Mats, needs an 8.1 or better to have a chance of winning. (That is, assuming Felik gets his worst solve in Solve 5, Mats would still need an 8.1 to win. If Feliks gets something better than his worst solve in Solve 5, Mats would need to do even better.)
So then, boom. 7.76, which is better than 8.1, but possible penalty. At this point:
If there's no penalty:**
Mats Valk: 8.81, (9.52), 7.61, (7.31), 7.76 Avg: 8.06
Feliks Zemdegs: 8.39, 7.95, 8.21, 7.36
Feliks would need an 8.02 on his final solve to tie.
If there is a penalty, then 9.76 is worse than 8.1, and so:
Mats Valk: 8.81, 9.52, 7.61, (7.31), (9.76+) Avg: 8.65
Feliks Zemdegs: 8.39, 7.95, 8.21, (7.36), (x) Avg: 8.18
Feliks would win no matter what.
**Of course, it's also important to keep in mind that "if Mats's solve 5 didn't have a penalty" is a bit more complex than it first appears, in that (a) if there were no penalty, it likely would've been due to him spending slightly more time turning the piece, which means the time would've been slightly higher, and (b) if Mats's solve 5 time were around 8 seconds, Feliks might've tried a bit harder on solve 5 and gotten a better time.
So you can't just blindly say "if there were no penalty, Mats would've won", because neither of the solve 5 times penalty are independent variables from the penalty and would've been different if there were no penalty.
That's my analysis. Let me know if anything seems off?
I think the real lesson here, is that both Feliks and Mats are amazeballs.