Tritonwear Race Analysis: 2018 Women’s NCAA DI Championships 800 Freestyle Relay

by SwimSwam 4

March 16th, 2018 Gear, News

TritonWear and SwimSwam bring you the best in swimming race analysis for the 2018 Women’s NCAA DI Swimming and Diving Championships.  With the power of TritonWear, you can access 12+ metrics for all athletes simultaneously, display the results in real-time to unlimited screens on deck, and review later in an easy to use interface for monitoring progress and identifying trends over time. SEE ALL 2018 WOMEN’S NCAA DI CHAMPIONSHIPS RACE ANALYSIS FROM TRITONWEAR HERE

The 2018 NCAA D1 Women’s Swimming kicked off with the women’s 800y freestyle relay. Last year, Stanford dominated the race, smashing the NCAA, American, and US Open records along the way.

Although Stanford switched out a couple of players this year, they still boasted an impressive group of swimmers – Katie Drabot, Ella Eastin, Brooke Forde, and Katie Ledecky. Their competition for the gold this year was Michigan, the top seed for this event, with Catie Deloof, Siobhan Haughey, Rose Bi, and Gabby Deloof.

The relay started off with Stanford’s Drabot leading with an early breakout, staying underwater for only 3.54 seconds and already taking a full stroke before Michigan’s Catie Deloof’s breakout more than half a second later. Catie Deloof consistently swam with a higher stroke index (DPS x Speed x Cycle Multiplier) at a faster stroke rate than Drabot, but had slower turn times at almost every turn, keeping Drabot ahead throughout their leg, clocking in a time of 1:42.99 to Catie Deloof’s 1:43.40.

Stanford’s Eastin maintained their advantage off the dive, but Michigan’s Haughey immediately caught up, gaining the lead off the first turn. Just like the previous swimmers in their respective teams, Haughey swam with a higher stroke index than Eastin. They both swam at similar speeds in the range of 1.73m/s – 1.88m/s after their first lap, but Haughey pulled a higher DPS in every lap, swimming with a DPS in the range of 1.08m – 1.36m to Eastin’s 1.01m – 1.24m. Haughey also pulled at a stroke rate 0.1 strokes per seconds faster than Eastin in majority of their leg, giving her a considerable lead.

Despite the fairly large differences in their metrics, Haughey was able to maximize her times underwater, making sure she didn’t lag too far behind. However, this was not enough for her to catch up to Haughey; Haughey reached the wall half a second before Eastin, clocking in the fastest split in her team with a time of 1:40.49.

Stanford and Michigan continued to be closely tied on the 3rd leg, with Stanford’s Forde and Michigan’s Bi going neck-and-neck in their first 150y. Bi rode the wave of their previous lead, but while Forde and Bi swam at similar speeds of 1.7m/s, with slight differences to the hundredth m/s, Forde had a higher DPS, gradually taking back the lead. It wasn’t until the turn off the 150y that Forde managed to shake Bi off, staying underwater for 3.01 seconds and using her powerful dolphin kicks to give her a significant advantage off the breakout in their final 50y.

Stanford’s lead only kept growing, as their anchor, Ledecky, was ahead of Michigan’s anchor Gabby Deloof, by almost a full body length at the breakout. While Ledecky swam at a faster stroke speed, with a higher stroke rate, Gabby Deloof pursued a higher DPS, as much as 0.18m/stroke at times. Even with more efficient strokes (higher stroke index) Gabby Deloof’s slower stroke rate allowed Ledecky’s lead to increase with each lap. This can be credited in part to Ledecky’s overall stroke speed, fast turns, and lengthy time underwater – with transitions propelling her even farther ahead at each breakout. More than anything else though, Ledecky’s ability to pull ahead with each lap comes down to maintaining a significantly higher stroke rate over a long period of time – as she outperformed Deloof 1.20 to 1.26 s/str on average over their 200m leg of the race.

In the end it was Stanford finishing two body lengths and 3.1 seconds ahead of Michigan, retaining their title with a time of 6:46.93.

If day 1 is any indication, the women’s D1 NCAA will definitely be a competition to watch out for. Stay tuned for our next race analysis tomorrow!

SEE ALL 2018 WOMEN’S NCAA DI CHAMPIONSHIPS RACE ANALYSIS FROM TRITONWEAR HERE

VISIT THE TRITONWEAR HQ

LIKE TRITONWEAR ON FACEBOOK

FOLLOW TRITONWEAR ON TWITTER

FOLLOW TRITONWEAR ON INSTAGRAM

Swimming analysis is courtesy of Tritonwear, a SwimSwam partner. 

In This Story

4
Leave a Reply

1 Comment threads
3 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
3 Comment authors
newest oldest most voted
CraigH

The last part of the analysis doesn’t make any sense to me: ” While Ledecky swam at a faster speed, Gabby Deloof swam with a higher DPS, the difference in their DPS going as high as 0.18m/stroke. Even though Gabby Deloof was taking more efficient strokes (higher stroke index) at a faster rate, Ledecky’s lead only increased with each lap.” If Deloof was taking more efficient strokes PLUS she’s swimming at a faster rate, how in the world could Ledecky be that much faster than her? I understand that Ledecky has decent turns, but that’s hardly the strongest part of her game. Towards the end she definitely has a faster turnover than her competition, but even early on when they… Read more »

TritonWear

Hi Craigh and John,

Thanks for your comments. There was a typo in the quoted statement above. Ledecky actually swam with a much faster stroke rate throughout the entire race, which is something she has come to be known for.

This is how she was able to continue to gain speed, even while Deloof had more efficient, longer (DPS) strokes.

We have submitted an updated paragraph, to reflect a more accurate account of what took place during the race. It should be up soon.

Let us know if you have any more questions or comments, we love hearing from our readers!

John

Agreed. I have wondered about the reliability and collection margin of error for this system.

TritonWear

Hi John, just wanted to quickly let you know the stats were accurate, it was the commentary that contained a typo (it indicated faster stroke rate for Deloof, when it was actually a higher stroke rate, – which translates to slower movement).

Let us know if there is anything else you would like clarification on, we are more than happy to discuss the error margins, or any other component of our platform. If your interested, just let us know by emailing [email protected]

Don't want to miss anything?

Subscribe to our newsletter and receive our latest updates!