Averages And Their "worth"

[Trees]

Instead of weighting averages why can't certain race results be taken away and averages altered accordingly, obviously a big job to do though ......

[g13webb]

The consequences of having protected heats, was always going to impale the averages, to a point when they would be deemed useless.. This was pointed out back in Dec 2013, when it was suggested, we have some form of calculation to get the truer figure from the easier heats. But as usual, this suggestion was frowned upon .

 

Welcome to the real world....

[Shale Searcher]

The consequences of having protected heats, was always going to impale the averages, to a point when they would be deemed useless.. This was pointed out back in Dec 2013, when it was suggested, we have some form of calculation to get the truer figure from the easier heats. But as usual, this suggestion was frowned upon .

 

Welcome to the real world....

 

Couldn't they just remove heat 2 and 12 from the average calcs for the edr/reserves?

[waiheke1]

Instead of weighting averages why can't certain race results be taken away and averages altered accordingly, obviously a big job to do though ......

 

 

Couldn't they just remove heat 2 and 12 from the average calcs for the edr/reserves?

 

The new heat format esstnially has four categories of heats.

HL only, HL &2nd strngs, 2nd strngs and reserves, and reserves only.

If you are going to remove the two reserve heats becaase they skew averages, then you need to do the same with the HL only heats.

That still leaves you in a situation where HL have more difficult "included" heats than 2nd stings, who have more difficult heats than reserves, so figures are still skewed, though you could argue that heat formats have always been slightly skewed.

But, what you've done is remove a third of the heats from inclusion in averages. And for some reserves, you've just removed 60% of their heats. For any statistical measure, reducing the population size reduced the meaningfulness of the outcome.

The above also ignores the fact that an integral part of a HL or reserves use to their team is their ability to beat riders of the same standard.

Removing hears 2 and 12, you could end up in a scenario where a rider who typically scored 5 in the reserve heats and none on the two more difficult heats ends up with a lower average than a reserve who scores 1 point in each rider.

Imo, weighting averages makes far,far more sense than exclusing certain heats from the calculations. It's simple to implement, and if you look at SCBs list, it's hard to argue there are any "false" averages in there - perhaps Batch and Schlein, but tbf they were genuinely poor last season.

[Joe Beevers]

 

Greg Laguta has consistently been one of the best performed riders in Poland/Sweden, so i think it is fair that he is on a par with AJ. With Lindback, I don't think you can read must into one performance. A better barometer is surely a whole season ridden in Poland/Sweden.

 

 

In my opinion though, it's not a barometer that I would use.

 

The problem is, is that UK shale and track shaping is totally bizarre to the majority of Johnny Foreigners and most take a year or two to get going. Even Tony Rickardsson I think struggled at first going to Poole from memory.

 

Gregory Laguta didn't pull any trees up riding in the SWC to say he was a 9.67 rider around Belle Vue and the same as Lindback at 9.03. Granted they were riding against tougher opposition but still, I could see Joe Jacobs beating them around there.

 

Also Marcin Nowak on over 6.03 scored one point in the Blue Riband.

 

Vaclav Milik also I doubt should be ahead of Iversen, Holder and Kasprzak in the averages around the UK....even Harris.

 

These riders need to be assessed on sensible averages i.m.o and weighted averages should only be used in the case of what SCB has done with the EL averages.

[waiheke1]

I understand your point, but the issue is that the BSPa have proved themselves incapable of making transparent and reasonable subjective assessed averages.
So a conversion of 125% for ekstraliga, 115% for elitseren, 65% for pl, 75% for swddish 2nd tier, 80% for polish 2nd tier and 90% for Denmark is at least transparent. Yes there will be bargains, and riders who are unappealing, but at least it is a level playing field. Above conversions assume 110% weighting for El riders converted averages.
I fail to see that 9 is unreasonable for Lindback when compared to 9.5 for aj and 8.8 for kk.
Maybe you don't apply the extra 10% to assessed averages, so lindback and Milik would end up similar to zagar at around 8.2. But would it be right for Woffy to be over a point less than Doyle when he averaged nearly the same in 16. Magic would become a 7.2 which is only marginally higher than Kim nilsson.
No perfect system, but personally I hold to the view that overseas league performances are a better indicator than outdated El averages or subjective assessed averages.

 

Maybe you do remove 10% and round to the nearest 0.5?

Taking that latter approach, is this a better indication (listing only riders "7" or above)

Bartosz Zmarzlik 10.00 Tai Woffinden 9.50 Greg Hancock 9.00 Janusz Kolodziej 9.00 Grigoriy Laguta 9.00 Patryk Dudek 9.00 Emil Sajfutdinov 8.50 Martin Vaculik 8.50 Vaclav Milik 8.00 Antonio Lindbäck 8.00 Nicki Pedersen 8.00 Artem Laguta 8.00 Przemyslaw Pawlicki 8.00 Piotr Protasiewicz 8.00 Tomasz Gollob 7.50 Piotr Pawlicki 7.50 Grzegorz Zengota 7.50 Leon Madsen 7.50 Pawel Przedpelski 7.50 Maciej Janowski 7.00 Kenneth Bjerre 7.00 Peter Ljung 7.00 Peter Kildemand 7.00 Rafal Okoniewski 7.00 Rune Holta 7.00

Edited October 19, 2016 by waihekeaces1

[g13webb]

 

 

Just want to say I always try and read your comments. I find your opinions are astute and are always worthy of consideration. Your opinion is not guided by your BV support and its obvious you have deep concerned for the sport....

 

What a pity there are not more posters like you.........

[SteveLyric2]

 

 

 

The new heat format esstnially has four categories of heats.

HL only, HL &2nd strngs, 2nd strngs and reserves, and reserves only.

If you are going to remove the two reserve heats becaase they skew averages, then you need to do the same with the HL only heats.

That still leaves you in a situation where HL have more difficult "included" heats than 2nd stings, who have more difficult heats than reserves, so figures are still skewed, though you could argue that heat formats have always been slightly skewed.

But, what you've done is remove a third of the heats from inclusion in averages. And for some reserves, you've just removed 60% of their heats. For any statistical measure, reducing the population size reduced the meaningfulness of the outcome.

The above also ignores the fact that an integral part of a HL or reserves use to their team is their ability to beat riders of the same standard.

Removing hears 2 and 12, you could end up in a scenario where a rider who typically scored 5 in the reserve heats and none on the two more difficult heats ends up with a lower average than a reserve who scores 1 point in each rider.

Imo, weighting averages makes far,far more sense than exclusing certain heats from the calculations. It's simple to implement, and if you look at SCBs list, it's hard to argue there are any "false" averages in there - perhaps Batch and Schlein, but tbf they were genuinely poor last season.

Lets not forget Heat 15 which can often feature a Heat leader plus an in-form reserve!!

Edited October 20, 2016 by Skidder1

[waiheke1]

ok, have had a look at which riders represent the best value when you compare their weighted avrage per scb ( guide as to "real" performance) and compare to their 2017 official figure.

Assuming that Woffy is not available for the EL, the strongest team you can build is:

Lindgren

Swiderski

Lambert

Klindt

Masters

S Lambert

Clegg

 

that's a team you would expect to have scored about 47 points per meeting in the FY16 EL

 

Conversions to show value (lower the better) (and I would note that this should be taken as a guide only, as Schlein and Watt for example clearly have potential to vastly improve on last year's perfomances):

1 Nicolai Klindt 1.01 2 Tai Woffinden 1.17 3 Simon Lambert 1.21 4 Piotr Swiderski 1.28 5 Robert Lambert 1.29 6 Sam Masters 1.33 7 Max Clegg 1.34 8 Kim Nilsson 1.35 9 Chris Harris 1.36 10 Fredrik Lindgren 1.36 11 Josh Bates 1.36 12 Krzysztof Buczkowski 1.37 13 Jason Doyle 1.37 14 Richard Lawson 1.38 15 Krzysztof Kasprzak 1.38 16 Edward Kennett 1.39 17 Niels K Iversen 1.39 18 Matej Zagar 1.39 19 Chris Holder 1.40 20 Danny King 1.41 21 Hans Andersen 1.41 22 Patrick Hougaard 1.41 23 Craig Cook 1.42 24 Troy Batchelor 1.43 25 Joonas Kylmakorpi 1.43 26 Andreas Jonsson 1.45 27 Adam Roynon 1.49 28 Scott Nicholls 1.50 29 Szymon Wozniak 1.51 30 Kyle Newman 1.51 31 Jacob Thorssell 1.52 32 Josh Grajczonek 1.54 33 Nick Morris 1.54 34 Lewis Rose 1.56 35 Adam Ellis 1.58 36 Kai Huckenbeck 1.59 37 Max Fricke 1.60 38 Mads Korneliussen 1.61 39 Justin Sedgmen 1.64 40 Peter Karlsson 1.66 41 Steve Worrall 1.67 42 Lewis Bridger 1.67 43 Jason Garrity 1.68 44 Paul Starke 1.68 45 Charles Wright 1.75 46 Joe Jacobs 1.77 47 Rohan Tungate 1.79 48 Kacper Woryna 1.80 49 Brady Kurtz 1.81 50 Bjarne Pedersen 1.82 51 Josh Auty 1.84 52 Mikkel B Jensen 1.86 53 Kyle Howarth 1.87 54 Richie Worrall 1.88 55 Lewis Kerr 1.93 56 Robert Mear 2.00 57 Aaron Summers 2.01 58 Nikolaj Busk-Jakobsen 2.03 59 Rory Schlein 2.07 60 Davey Watt 2.09 61 James Sarjeant 2.17 62 Stefan Nielsen 2.23 63 Sebastian Ulamek 2.31 64 Ashley Morris 2.42 65 Carl Wilkinson 2.54 66 Grzegorz Walasek 3.58

 

Interesting that despite the complaints out of Poole about Ellis' average, he shows up mid-pack for value, and given his age clearly has the ability to improve.

If Brady Kurtz average is actually 7.65 (as SCB and others seem to think), that makes his ratio 1.5. Poole riders on the whole actually look goof value, Aces riders not so much.

Edited November 6, 2016 by waihekeaces1

[INCOGNITO]

How about once a rider has ridden 8 home and 8 away meetings his average is from those meetings and at the end of the season what he averages is his average and doesn't include meetings from the previous season. Even if they have ridden 18 or 28 meetings the average for the following year needs to be what they did in one season.

 

 

As for this season coming and the inflated or weakened averages because of the format used, I think in some cases it needs recalculating. Take Adam Ellis who averaged a creditable 5.60 for Poole which should be moved to 7.84 which seems a bit high and think 6.50 or 7.00 would be more appropriate.

 

Then you have Nicolai Klindt who did a great job for Leicester and averaged 6.36 which becomes 8.90 however he has a average with Scunthorpe from the start of the season of just 5.42 which is the figure that should be used next season. However one is too high and one is too low so a more realistic figure would be 7.00

[waiheke1]

Thing is if you start manually adjusting averages everything becomes subjective.

The above shows Ellis at 7.8 is correct, as he sits mid-range for value at that figure.

Klindt is a 5.4ish, which is his PL average from last year, hence why he is the best value of any rider.