The first question to ask about the race is how did the field do in each leg
of the race compared to how they did overall? This question is answered below
in a stacked bar chart.
The view is made up of 1600+ colums, where the height of each column
represents the finishing time of each racer. Additionally, the column's color
shows how much of their race they spent swimming, biking, running and
transitioning. What immediately jumps out is that swim performance has such
little bearing on overall performance. It would be interesting to see a similar
graph for a full ironman or an olympic distance event to see how much the swim
portion matters in those races.
Notice also the occassional bars of green that shoot down into blue. That
is a racer who went relatively much faster on their bike leg versus
their run compared to the average time of the rest of the field. Or
said another way, it's a racer who went too hard on the bike and blew up
on the run.
Now let's look at a different view of the same data.
Each mark in the view is a racer's time in a particular leg given their
overall finishing place. Each racer is represented by three marks showing their
time in each leg, which line up vertically depending on their finishing place.
Trend lines are enabled (per color) to show average expected performance given
final overall place. This view works because the range of expected
finishing times for each sport is disjoint.
The conclusion I draw form this view is that the cluster of times of each
sport is tighter the higher your overall place, which means that as you get
faster in the sport, you must be fast in all three events to place high