The New Scoring System

[stuart road]

Not necessarily. This system could, theoretically, see a rider win each and every single GP, but still not be world champion, while the rider who folds in each and every GP when it gets to the business end, could be champion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

i meant sube,that the man who wins the gp is rewarded by being hailed "the winner", and everyone is rewarded by the points they score

[manchesterpaul]

Not necessarily. This system could, theoretically, see a rider win each and every single GP, but still not be world champion, while the rider who folds in each and every GP when it gets to the business end, could be champion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The scenario you mention above WOULD NOT happen. It is merely number crunching for the sake of it. Meanwhile in the real world we try to get on and devise a system as good and fair as possible.

 

Do not disagree with me on the above paragraph. If you do, i challenge you to put your money where your mouth is. I promise you that the first time your scenario occurs i will give to you ONE MILLION POUNDS. Until that happens, as forfeit you can give me just £100 at the end of each series. I'll forward you my details for the cheque at the end of this season.

 

The outcome you refer to is so statistically remote it will not come to pass. It's like during the football season, Manchester United and Chelsea drawing one match with Chelsea winning the other 1-0. In addition, in their other 40 matches United winning every game 20-0, whilst Chelsea only win their games 1-0. Chelsea would be crowned the champions and best in the sport. When clearly, as is the case now, Manchester United would be the best team in reality.

 

I reiterate a couple of points i made earlier;

 

With a revised system of 3-2-1-0 for the final you would come as close as is possible to getting a system that correctly rewards the best over every race of the whole thing. There would be none of the big failure of the old series occurring, that is, a top rider just lolling along scoring 7 or 8 to get to the semis, and only then pushing himself to the best of his abilities. Plus, you would get a closer run series overall.

 

As in the FA Cup or any sport, you can get one team over performing, putting their absolute all into one event and beating a superior opponent. However, they do not possess the ability to do it match after match over a prolonged period of time. Which is why, as in any sport, the Championship winners are lauded above cup winners. Also, the more consistently high performing team are clearly the ones who possess the superior ability. The new system provides this and would be even better for the tweaking i suggest above

Edited April 29, 2007 by manchesterpaul

[Subedei]

The scenario you mention above WOULD NOT happen. It is merely number crunching for the sake of it. Meanwhile in the real world we try to get on and devise a system as good and fair as possible.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Obviously didn't notice the "theoretically" in my post. I agree that it's not going to happen, now do me the courtesy of agreeing that it is theoretically possible.

What is more likely to happen, in fact I would say it's inevitable, is that a GP winner will not come away from a GP they've won with the most points. Now, would you care to give me a million pounds if ever that happens?

This new system was brought in for one reason and one reason only. And that was to improve the chances of a certain serial failure.

Edited April 29, 2007 by Subedei

[stuart road]

Obviously didn't notice the "theoretically" in my post. I agree that it's not going to happen, now do me the courtesy of agreeing that it is theoretically possible.

What is more likely to happen, in fact I would say it's inevitable, is that a GP winner will not come away from a GP they've won with the most points. Now, would you care to give me a million pounds if ever that happens?

This new system was brought in for one reason and one reason only. And that was to improve the chances of a certain serial failure.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

of course its theoretically possible,as are many things,and someone winning a gp and not being the nights top scorer,is almost a certainty.

but your suggestion that the system has been brought in to benefit one certain rider,is too absurd to be true.

 

and you dont drink?

[manchesterpaul]

Crump is on half the points that Nicki's on, even though BOTH made the Final.

But that's good, because Crump was only half as good as Nicki last night ! And I'm being generous to him !

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

A valid point.

 

Additionally a benefit of this new system is as follows. If Pedersen is truly twice as good as Crump, it will be proven by him scoring twice as many points in each meeting. If not, he will not and the system will allow this to be reflected in the final standings.

 

If two riders go into the final having scored the same amount of points, then one wins the race and the other comes third, and say by a bike length. There is only a two point gap. In the old system it would be seven. Multiplied over the season that equates to 77. Yet they might have raced each other closely. But looking at the old standings you would presume the riders are a class apart. I'm not even saying this extreme example needs to happen to show the benefit of the new system. Clearly, it does show a truer picture.

 

The margin of a riders superior quality is shown more accurately now. If in one season alternately rider X always scores '15' pts and rider 'Y' 14 pts, both go through to the final, in which rider X wins 7 of the finals and rider Y 6 of them. This is brilliantly reflected in rider A winning the title by one point. (before you get too pedantic, allow one meeting where they both score 14 in the initial part of the meeting).

 

Better still, again the above is an extreme example and in reality the effect of the new system really will reflect more accurately riders standings.

Edited April 29, 2007 by manchesterpaul

[manchesterpaul]

Obviously didn't notice the "theoretically" in my post. I agree that it's not going to happen, now do me the courtesy of agreeing that it is theoretically possible.

 

If you agree it's not going to happen why put it forward as an argument to dispense with the new system?. I repeat;

 

'The scenario you mention above WOULD NOT happen. It is merely number crunching for the sake of it. Meanwhile in the real world we try to get on and devise a system as good and fair as possible'

 

Your local store or chemist makes provisions to allow for x number of bottles of cough medicine to be sold. Every year we all get what we need when we need it. If we, as theoretically could happen, all got a cough in the same week, the vast majority of us would not get any medicine.

 

However, it's only theoretically possible and is not going to happen in the real world. Therefore, unlike yourself, i will not be posting to medical forums asking for the health service or stores ordering systems to be dismantled.

 

What is more likely to happen, in fact I would say it's inevitable, is that a GP winner will not come away from a GP they've won with the most points. Now, would you care to give me a million pounds if ever that happens?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I've already said that could happen, but it is not a problem in any way. As i pointed out previously;

 

'As in the FA Cup or any sport, you can get one team over performing, putting their absolute all into one event and beating a superior opponent. However, they do not possess the ability to do it match after match over a prolonged period of time. Which is why, as in any sport, the Championship winners are lauded above cup winners. Also, the more consistently high performing team are clearly the ones who possess the superior ability. The new system provides this and would be even better for the tweaking i suggest above'

Edited April 29, 2007 by manchesterpaul

[Guest Schumi]

If you agree it's not going to happen why put it forward as an argument to dispense with the new system?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As far as I can see it was a statement of fact, not an argument either way.

[Subedei]

The scenario you mention above WOULD NOT happen. It is merely number crunching for the sake of it. Meanwhile in the real world we try to get on and devise a system as good and fair as possible

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But it could happen. It's theoretically possible for it to happen. The rest of your pseudo-justification is twaddle. I said merely that it's theoretically possible for it to happen. What on earth you're bringing the FA cup into this for, I don't know? I said it was theoretically possible and it is theoretically possible.

You say it's no problem that the winner of a GP does not necessarily get the most points, but I say it is a problem. The GP winner should get the most points, it's just nonsense if they don't.

Edited April 29, 2007 by Subedei

[stuart road]

But it could happen. It's theoretically possible for it to happen. The rest of your pseudo-justification is twaddle. I said merely that it's theoretically possible for it to happen. What on earth you're bringing the FA cup into this for? I said it was theoretically possible and it is theoretically possible.

You say it's no problem that the winner of a GP does not necessarily get the most points, but I say it is a problem. The GP winner should get the most points, it's just nonsense if they don't.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

whilst i agree with you that any reference to other sports,and their competions,are totally invalid.we will have to agree to disagree over the new points system.

 

however if the majority of speedway supporters agreed with you,and the system,reverted back,you would hear no complaints from me

[manchesterpaul]

As far as I can see it was a statement of fact, not an argument either way.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The 'statement of fact' wasn't just plonked into a thread titled 'New Scoring System' for the sake of it. There was an intention behind doing so. Which would be either expressing a point of view or, as in this case putting forward an argument against the new system.

 

Please note the difference between the word arguing and argument. One generally implies hostility, whilst the other (especially, as we are in a forum here) means putting forward a contrary view or an angle to be debated.

[Guest Schumi]

The 'statement of fact' wasn't just plonked into a thread titled 'New Scoring System' for the sake of it. There was an intention behind doing so. Which would be either expressing a point of view or, as in this case putting forward an argument against the new system.

 

Please note the difference between the word arguing and argument. One generally implies hostility, whilst the other (especially, as we are in a forum here) means putting forward a contrary view or an angle to be debated.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"Do not disagree with me on the above paragraph" (as you posted earlier) implies you're not up for a debate at all, and that others opinions do not matter.

 

And I used the word argument in the same sense that you did in your first paragraph above.

[manchesterpaul]

But it could happen. It's theoretically possible for it to happen.

 

I've just pointed out that billions of things are theoretically possible. However, nobody in their right mind would go posting to forums to debate things that are never going to happen.

 

The rest of your pseudo-justification is twaddle.

 

Where on earth does pseudo-justification come into it. Calm down please.

 

What on earth you're bringing the FA cup into this for, I don't know?

 

It's what's known as an analogy.

 

If i hadn't pointed out that every other sport in the world has similar aspects, all the moaners and whingers, who only ever speak when there is something negative to say would of had a field day decrying speedway.

 

 

I said it was theoretically possible and it is theoretically possible.

 

I didn't say it wasn't theoretically possible. Just so highly outside the bounds of reality for it to occur, that there is no point debating it or getting rid of a system that is as fair as possible in determining an overall winner.

 

You say it's no problem that the winner of a GP does not necessarily get the most points, but I say it is a problem. The GP winner should get the most points, it's just nonsense if they don't.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

There is no point in going round in circles. I've already explained why this isn't such a great crime. Both our reasons and reasoning are there to see.

[manchesterpaul]

"Do not disagree with me on the above paragraph" (as you posted earlier) implies you're not up for a debate at all, and that others opinions do not matter.

 

It was meant in a jocular manner.

 

And I used the word argument in the same sense that you did in your first paragraph above.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thanks for clarifying that.

[Subedei]

I've just pointed out that billions of things are theoretically possible.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I suppose it's theoretically possible you'll post something worthwhile. But, I tell you what, we'll not bother debating it, since it's just one of those billions of things that are theoretically possible.

[From PC to KC.]

 

This new system was brought in for one reason and one reason only. And that was to improve the chances of a certain serial failure.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thats a bit harsh on Leigh Adams.

[manchesterpaul]

I suppose it's theoretically possible you'll post something worthwhile.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Dear, oh, dear! Yet another who has to resort to personal attacks having been brought to task on points and failing to address them.

[Subedei]

You're points didn't merit addressing, since they consisted largely of balderdash.

[lucifer sam]

The scenario you mention above WOULD NOT happen. It is merely number crunching for the sake of it. Meanwhile in the real world we try to get on and devise a system as good and fair as possible.

 

Do not disagree with me on the above paragraph. If you do, i challenge you to put your money where your mouth is. I promise you that the first time your scenario occurs i will give to you ONE MILLION POUNDS. Until that happens, as forfeit you can give me just £100 at the end of each series. I'll forward you my details for the cheque at the end of this season.

 

The outcome you refer to is so statistically remote it will not come to pass. It's like during the football season, Manchester United and Chelsea drawing one match with Chelsea winning the other 1-0. In addition, in their other 40 matches United winning every game 20-0, whilst Chelsea only win their games 1-0. Chelsea would be crowned the champions and best in the sport. When clearly, as is the case now, Manchester United would be the best team in reality.

 

I reiterate a couple of points i made earlier;

 

With a revised system of 3-2-1-0 for the final you would come as close as is possible to getting a system that correctly rewards the best over every race of the whole thing. There would be none of the big failure of the old series occurring, that is, a top rider just lolling along scoring 7 or 8 to get to the semis, and only then pushing himself to the best of his abilities. Plus, you would get a closer run series overall.

 

As in the FA Cup or any sport, you can get one team over performing, putting their absolute all into one event and beating a superior opponent. However, they do not possess the ability to do it match after match over a prolonged period of time. Which is why, as in any sport, the Championship winners are lauded above cup winners. Also, the more consistently high performing team are clearly the ones who possess the superior ability. The new system provides this and would be even better for the tweaking i suggest above

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Manchester Paul,

 

Putting things in bold, red and capitals doesn't make your points any more valid. You're still talking rubbish and the new points scoring system is still a sham - how can the winner of the meeting not end up as the top points scorer.

 

All the best

Rob

[manchesterpaul]

I quite liked the system in a way as it made each race seem more important throughout the match. It's certainly fair way to decide the points.

 

It definitely becomes fairer the further along the length of the series it is.

 

 

Slight negatives though. The final didn't seem to be quite so important as it did in the past, and Nicki's celebrations seemed slightly muted as he must have already known that he had the meeting in the bag.

 

Overall, though, I think it's a pretty good system, but my guess is it won't last long as the final isn't quite so dramatic.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

A possible angle to look into is a 'winner takes all' final race. In that only the winner of the race receives points. Whether that should be three or two would have to be worked out. As one wouldn't wish to create big gaps again. Although it would be a solid reward for the winner and winner alone on the night. It would also go some way to solving the problem of the 'chokers' by rewarding those who can pull it off on the night.

Edited April 29, 2007 by manchesterpaul

[manchesterpaul]

All the best

Rob

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thanks