MSA Fieldhouse - Grand Rapids, MI, USA
Explore the probability of achieving at least a certain number of victories in the pool for each fencer, with their actual victories highlighted in a box. Learn more.
| # | Name | Number of victories | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | ||
| 1 | WOJCIECHOWSKI Matthew N. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 78% | 34% | |
| 2 | XIAO Yichen | 100% | 100% | 98% | 86% | 56% | 20% | 3% |
| 3 | PIENTA Chris J. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 83% | 51% | 15% |
| 3 | DHAL Leon | 100% | 100% | 98% | 88% | 58% | 21% | 3% |
| 5 | TOLLEFSON Zachary | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 73% | 38% | 9% |
| 6 | TIKHOMIROV Theodore | 100% | 100% | 96% | 78% | 41% | 10% | |
| 7 | FANG Hanning | 100% | 93% | 61% | 21% | 3% | - | |
| 8 | HU Anton | 100% | 96% | 73% | 35% | 9% | 1% | |
| 9 | WILLIAMS Logan | 100% | 99% | 90% | 65% | 31% | 8% | 1% |
| 10 | SOBESHKEVYCH ROMAN | 100% | 100% | 95% | 77% | 42% | 10% | |
| 11 | GIOVAGNOLI Nolan | 100% | 100% | 95% | 75% | 39% | 9% | |
| 12 | DITTEL Aaron K. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 52% | 13% | |
| 13 | ASGARALLY Anthony | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 67% | 31% | 6% |
| 14 | DEPAUW Devan | 100% | 100% | 96% | 74% | 35% | 7% | |
| 15 | CAMP Ethan | 100% | 94% | 65% | 25% | 4% | - | |
| 16 | ZHANG Michael | 100% | 99% | 87% | 55% | 21% | 4% | - |
| 17 | KANAR Ian | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 88% | 50% |
| 18 | JUSCINSKI Michal | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 88% | 56% | 15% |
| 19 | BROOKS Zach B. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 81% | 47% | 13% |
| 20 | MAZZOLI Julio C. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 88% | 59% | 20% |
| 21 | GINZBURG Adam | 100% | 100% | 99% | 87% | 54% | 16% | |
| 22 | JOHNSON Jay | 100% | 100% | 97% | 82% | 46% | 11% | |
| 23 | CONKLIN Jim | 100% | 100% | 95% | 73% | 33% | 6% | |
| 24 | ROWLAND Marsden | 100% | 100% | 97% | 84% | 53% | 18% | 2% |
| 25 | HU Robert J. | 100% | 99% | 92% | 65% | 28% | 5% | |
| 26 | UNG Kei | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 66% | 27% | 5% |
| 27 | CHEN Bowen | 100% | 98% | 86% | 55% | 21% | 4% | - |
| 28 | BECKER Thomas | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 95% | 73% | 30% |
| 29 | WILLIAMS Derek | 100% | 99% | 92% | 67% | 30% | 6% | |
| 30 | HAUCK Samuel J. | 100% | 99% | 85% | 50% | 16% | 2% | - |
| 31 | SWANSON Dave | 100% | 100% | 96% | 75% | 36% | 7% | |
| 32 | LIU Quincy | 100% | 52% | 13% | 1% | - | - | |
| 33 | BAMPTON Nicholas J. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 88% | 57% | 20% | 2% |
| 34 | BOSS Evan | 100% | 94% | 72% | 36% | 11% | 2% | - |
| 35 | LASIYCHUK Nikita | 100% | 100% | 94% | 69% | 31% | 7% | 1% |
| 36 | SALLAM omar | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 61% | 21% | |
| 37 | ZHANG James | 100% | 98% | 81% | 45% | 14% | 2% | |
| 38 | HUANG Kenneth | 100% | 100% | 96% | 80% | 45% | 14% | 1% |
| 39 | TOWNSEND George | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 53% | 15% |
| 40 | ELTERMAN Lev | 100% | 99% | 93% | 73% | 39% | 12% | 1% |
| 41 | ECKEL Anson J. | 100% | 99% | 93% | 70% | 33% | 7% | |
| 42 | ALI Adam | 100% | 78% | 37% | 10% | 1% | - | |
| 43 | HERDMAN Julian | 100% | 77% | 26% | 4% | - | - | |
| 44 | EVERT Todd | 100% | 98% | 78% | 37% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 45 | RODACHY Jeffrey M. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 82% | 50% | 15% |
| 46 | WANG Kaiyan | 100% | 95% | 71% | 35% | 10% | 1% | - |
| 47 | TU Jimmy | 100% | 96% | 76% | 41% | 13% | 2% | - |
| 48 | ROBINSON Matthew | 100% | 95% | 62% | 24% | 5% | 1% | - |
| 49 | VELDTMAN Gruschen | 100% | 59% | 16% | 2% | - | - | |
| 50 | WEINSTEIN Ethan | 100% | 82% | 46% | 16% | 3% | - | - |
| 51 | SAYLOR Nathaniel | 100% | 90% | 53% | 18% | 3% | - | - |
| 52 | APANASEWICZ Dan | 100% | 39% | 7% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 53 | FANG Yunhan | 100% | 97% | 80% | 45% | 15% | 3% | - |
| 54 | TIMEK Jan | 100% | 81% | 39% | 10% | 1% | - | - |
| 55 | SEABLOOM Jack | 100% | 49% | 10% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 56 | BENSCH Vincent | 100% | 75% | 33% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
| 57 | GREEN Brian | 100% | 76% | 36% | 10% | 1% | - | - |
| 58 | JANYSKA Allen | 100% | 81% | 41% | 11% | 2% | - | |
| 59 | LARSON Vaughn | 100% | 51% | 13% | 2% | - | - | |
The heatmap in this table provides a visual representation of the victory probability distribution for each fencer in their respective pools:
This heatmap visualization offers an immediate understanding of each fencer's expected performance compared to their actual results.