2024 U.S. Olympic Trials: One More Look at the Data

By Laura Rosado on SwimSwam

Thank you to Barry Revzin for running the numbers. 

With U.S. Trials in the rearview mirror, let's take one final look at the data from nine days of high-pressure racing.

We've done a few of these before, including breaking down the entry data, checking in mid-meet, and investigating if Hoosiers had a hometown advantage. In this article, we'll be breaking down improvement from seed time for individual performances.

To calculate this metric, an athlete's best performance across all rounds of an event (if they swam multiple rounds) is compared to their seed time.

Who Drops, Who Adds, Who Makes the Trials Cut? (Reprise)

In an earlier article, we noted that most swimmers at this meet add to their seed time. At that point, we reported that across 1040 swims, only 27.22% of them represented a drop from seed time. That number slightly improved with 655 more swims, but it's still less than a third (29.44%).

GroupTotal SwimsImprovedImproved %Made CutMade Cut %Biggest Drop (By %)
All169549929.44%103861.24%Liam Bell (1:01.66 –> 59.40), 100 Breast
Men93730432.44%59663.61%Liam Bell (1:01.66 –> 59.40), 100 Breast
Women75819525.73%44258.31%Lucy Bell (1:00.14 –> 58.85), 100 Fly
Indiana1243629.03%7358.87%Chris Guiliano (1:48.75 –> 1:45.38), 200 Free
Sandpipers22731.82%2090.91%Luke Ellis (3:54.33 –> 3:50.79), 400 Free

As we did in a previous article, we included rows for the Indiana LSC and the Sandpipers of Nevada club. These cohorts include athletes who represented that LSC/team at Trials.

The first time we published this data, athletes from the Hoosier state were beating the average in improved swims as a cohort (30.00% to 28.37%). However, as the meet wore on, they slipped below the average, putting an end to that hypothesis.

The biggest drops (by percentage) all came in the first half of the meet. Liam Bellstill tops the overall rankings, courtesy of his 2.26-second drop in the 100 breaststroke. When we first reported this data, 17 prelim events had swum. Eleven more were raced by the end of the meet. This could indicate fatigue across the athletes as the meet wore on, as there doesn't appear to be any correlation between shorter or longer events.

Tracking how many athletes made the Trials cut in their swim is an interesting metric to see the level of performance that was on display. It could indicate how many athletes targeted this meet versus those who grabbed their cut in the eleventh hour.

Check out the table below that breaks improvement down by event.

EventTotal AthletesImprovedImproved %Made CutMade Cut %Biggest Drop (By %)
M 400 FREE602643.33%3660.00%Luke Ellis (3:54.33 –> 3:50.79)
M 200 MEDLEY903640.00%5965.56%Will Modglin (2:01.37 –> 1:58.44)
M 200 BREAST762938.16%5369.74%Gabe Nunziata (2:15.38 –> 2:11.78)
F 400 FREE491734.69%3673.47%Mila Nikanorov (4:15.33 –> 4:11.57)
M 100 FREE632133.33%4266.67%Quintin McCarty (49.86 –> 48.95)
M 200 FREE541833.33%3870.37%Chris Guiliano (1:48.75 –> 1:45.38)
M 1500 FREE481633.33%3368.75%Carson Hick (15:37.15 –> 15:17.36)
M 50 FREE822732.93%4554.88%Payton Sorenson (22.76 –> 22.19)
M 800 FREE521732.69%3975.00%Sean Green (8:07.31 –> 7:56.47)
F 100 BACK632031.75%3149.21%Josephine Fuller (59.67 –> 58.79)
M 200 FLY541731.48%3462.96%Tommy Bried (2:00.43 –> 1:57.59)
M 100 FLY611931.15%4268.85%Danny Kovac (53.54 –> 52.14)
F 100 FLY762330.26%4559.21%Lucy Bell (1:00.14 –> 58.85)
M 200 BACK631930.16%4266.67%Tommy Hagar (2:01.33 –> 1:57.80)
F 800 FREE411229.27%2765.85%Mila Nikanorov (8:44.20 –> 8:35.36)
F 200 MEDLEY401127.50%2357.50%Zoe Dixon (2:14.37 –> 2:11.64)
F 50 FREE772127.27%4659.74%Erika Connolly (24.91 –> 24.54)
F 200 BACK591627.12%3152.54%Caroline Bentz (2:11.68 –> 2:10.23)
F 1500 FREE371027.03%2464.86%Mila Nikanorov (16:44.60 –> 16:27.05)
M 100 BACK752026.67%4661.33%David King (55.51 –> 54.67)
M 100 BREAST812125.93%4960.49%Liam Bell (1:01.66 –> 59.40)
F 100 FREE561425.00%3867.86%Lillie Nordmann (55.43 –> 55.03)
F 200 FLY511223.53%3262.75%Katie Crom (2:12.29 –> 2:09.81)
M 400 MEDLEY781823.08%3848.72%Levi Sandidge (4:22.85 –> 4:17.61)
F 200 BREAST43920.93%2251.16%Alex Walsh (2:25.25 –> 2:22.38)
F 200 FREE501020.00%3672.00%Katie Crom (1:59.26 –> 1:57.91)
F 100 BREAST761418.42%3444.74%Kaelyn Gridley (1:07.87 –> 1:06.67)
F 400 MEDLEY40615.00%1742.50%Audrey Derivaux (4:49.32 –> 4:45.23)

Despite many reports of an American weakness in the men's 400 freestyle, that was the event where the most athletes (by percentage) dropped from seed. While it's unlikely to translate into Olympic medals this summer, it's a hopeful statistic for those concerned about yards-centric training on mid-distance training.

At the opposite end of the spectrum is the women's 400 IM, where only six athletes improved from seed. This follows a trend of female athletes under-performing compared to seed time; we see the same trend when viewing men's and women's events, and the four events with the lowest improvement percentage are all women's events.

The only athlete who made this list with an Olympic qualifying swim is Notre Dame’s Chris Guiliano. He became the first American man since Matt Biondi (1988) to qualify individually in the 50-100-200 freestyle. He was seeded way back in 29th in the 200 free, but put together a surprising swim out of lane 1 to book his ticket to Paris.

Alex Walshis the other Paris Olympian who leads the rankings in an event. In her case, she punched a best time in the 200 breast to finish 3rd behind Virginia teammate Kate Douglassand Tokyo silver medalist Lilly King. Walsh ended up booking her ticket in the 200 IM, where she is the defending silver medalist.

Cumulative Performance Metric

To put a bow on our Trials coverage, we're debuting a new metric for tracking a swimmer's meet performance. Here, we've summed an athlete's improvement percentage across all their entered events. Take a look at the top 10:

NameTeamImprovement (Cumulative %)Total Events
Tommy BriedUniversity of Louisville-6.79%4
AJ PouchVirginia Tech-5.72%2
Chris GuilianoUniversity Of Notre Dame-5.29%3
Mila NikanorovHighlands Ranch Aquatics-4.91%3
Caeleb DresselGator Swim Club-4.84%3
Danny KovacTeam Triumph-4.54%2
Lucy BellAlto Swim Club-4.48%4
David KingCavalier Aquatics-Piedmont Fam-4.37%3
Joe PolyakIowa Flyers Swim Club-4.35%3
Luke EllisSandpipers Of Nevada-4.22%4

Leading the way is Louisville's Tommy Bried, who crushed massive personal bests in the 200 fly and 200 breast on opposite ends of June 18th's prelim session. He made both semifinals, improving in the 200 fly again but fading a bit in the 200 breast. Still, he had a whopping 6.79% cumulative improvement across all four of his events, which also included the IM events.

The top three on this list are all ACC swimmers, who we noted were having a strong meet after seven sessions.

Caeleb Dresselalso makes an appearance on this list. While he didn't touch his personal best times (which includes the world record in the men's 100 butterfly), he made his third Olympic team after a tumultuous two years, swimming his fastest since his 2023 comeback.

Finally, here are the top 10 teams by this metric.

TeamImprovement %Number of Swims
Team Triumph-6.61%6
Virginia Tech-4.22%13
Duke University-3.01%5
Ridgefield Aquatic Club-1.61%6
Alto Swim Club-1.02%34
Nashville Aquatic Club-0.93%15
Arlington Aquatic Club-0.48%5
Jersey Wahoos-0.33%10
Eastern Express Swim Team0.04%5
Gator Swim Club0.05%13

This stat is a bit misleading; teams with fewer swims overall (in other words, fewer swimmers making finals) tended to lead the group. Alto Swim Club, which has a number of Stanford swimmers, is an exception.

If you're wondering where powerhouse squads like California or Texas lie, their club teams rank last, ahead of all the unattached swimmers. However, this is across 53 and 60 swims respectively, the most and third-most swims overall for a team. (Texas is tied with Florida.) It makes sense considering how many high-caliber swimmers represent these teams. Swimmers who are good enough to vie for Team USA don't necessarily need to hit best times to make it through the rounds.

Read the full story on SwimSwam: 2024 U.S. Olympic Trials: One More Look at the Data

×