Jump to content
British Speedway Forum
Gambo

Rolling Averages

Recommended Posts

I have another question:

 

Take Grzegorz Zengota. He rode 29 meetings last season and achieved an average of 5.65. If he joins Swindon mid-season in 2011 will he gain a rolling average based on his meetings last year minus what he has completed this year - and if so will they be deducted off the start of his 2010 scores?

 

Likewise, at the end of 2011, will his starting average for 2012 be his rolling average of 2010 + 2011 or will it just take into account his 2011 scores?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever his last 28 meetings will be his average

 

 

If however the fixtures are 2 home and 2 away next season, thats 36 matches .... so 28 may be changed at the EGM ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the rolling averages . Nick Morris started the season on something like 4.67 , he's banged in double-figure scores home and away all season and he's now only at 5.02 and still at reserve . :rofl: All hail the rolling averages . :approve:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the rolling averages . Nick Morris started the season on something like 4.67 , he's banged in double-figure scores home and away all season and he's now only at 5.02 and still at reserve . :rofl: All hail the rolling averages . :approve:

Similar at Sheffield with Simon Lambert, Nick Morris true average this season is around the 7 point mark, and Lambert true average is around 6.5 point.

If you look at the teams that have been in or around at the top this season, they are the teams that have a rider like these two at reserve. Somerset it was North, and Workington Ingalls. I am convince that one of the main reasons for Glasgow have been head and shoulders above everyone else is not only they have Nick Morris they have Rajakowski as well has been down at reserve for Glasgow until recently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With 28 matches counting towards the averages for next season, at Wolves all but Ty Proctor will start next season still using results from 2010 due to missed matches.

 

Freddie will have 25 pts from 12 rides, Ludvig at least 21pts from 15 rides, PK has 20pts from 14 rides while Tai however has 55 pts from 24 rides as he finished the 2010 season with four big scores, including a maximum in the final match, so it is unlikely his average will drop that much now from his 7.72.

 

 

 

The thing is that at the start of the 2012 season, should Tai start off poorly with say 16 points from his first five meetings, his GSA will then suddenly drop to around 7.10 where as the same scores for PK would result in his GSA staying around his final average which looks to be around 8+ points a match.

 

 

So if a team has a few riders like Tai in their starting line up next season with a 3.00 reserve, within a few matches they would be able to release that 3.00 rider for a rider carrying a 4-5 point average. Those with riders lke PK in their team wouldn't be able to strengthen much as poor scores will be replacing poor scores any way and their average wont really change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It really has not been thought through .In principle it works ,but when applied correctly . Like some have said 38 matches is way too long and unnecessary.

 

So, How many matches do you think the PL Rolling Average should be over?

At the end of the season the PL riders' averages would be calculated from their 38 matches anyway, whether you used R/A's or the pre-2011 method.

Next season, (if R/A's are retained) a greater number of riders will have their averages calculated over a common number of matches (EL 28 and PL 38) even if they didn't compete in all matches this year, due to injuries etc.

 

ATB

 

Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think 12 is a fair enough indicator of form.

 

Whilst being an indicator of form it would then mean even more 'issues' of team averages. We are currently on Issue 20 in the Elite League and there would be even more fluctuations in averages, which I believe is why Rolling Averages were brought in.

Just imagine if a team were certain of their place in the Play-Offs! How much average manipulation would be going on in their final few matches..........? :rolleyes:

 

ATB

 

Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst being an indicator of form it would then mean even more 'issues' of team averages. We are currently on Issue 20 in the Elite League and there would be even more fluctuations in averages, which I believe is why Rolling Averages were brought in.

Just imagine if a team were certain of their place in the Play-Offs! How much average manipulation would be going on in their final few matches..........? :rolleyes:

 

ATB

 

Dave

 

You have my sympathy Gambo and I hope that brick wall is not hurting your head too much! :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst being an indicator of form it would then mean even more 'issues' of team averages. We are currently on Issue 20 in the Elite League and there would be even more fluctuations in averages, which I believe is why Rolling Averages were brought in.

Just imagine if a team were certain of their place in the Play-Offs! How much average manipulation would be going on in their final few matches..........? :rolleyes:

 

ATB

 

Dave

I said a while back on another thread that I would not comment on rolling averages again and here I am. Think you hit it on the head, We are after an indicator of form and 12 matches would give us that. Anywhere between 8 and 12 I think would be ok though. We would not need issues as such. As one match drops off another takes its place, so we would have a "rolling average" If we cannot get a grip on that idea we really are in a state. The way they are being done at present do not measure up to be called meaningful rolling average;(over too big a timescale) though there is room for arguement. Would we continue to support the sport if we thought "average manipulation" was going on?. Please nobody ask how we could tell if manipulation was taking place or not as that really would be a slight on everyones intelligence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst being an indicator of form it would then mean even more 'issues' of team averages. We are currently on Issue 20 in the Elite League and there would be even more fluctuations in averages, which I believe is why Rolling Averages were brought in.

Just imagine if a team were certain of their place in the Play-Offs! How much average manipulation would be going on in their final few matches..........? :rolleyes:

 

ATB

 

Dave

The original reason for the riders to have an Average is for them to have an indication of their ability against other riders, (ie. Golfer-handicap). If their average is not a correct assessment of their ability then they are pointless. Also, they have always been used to determine the strength of a teams, again based on a true reflection. The point is, using these rediculous method of 'RA' they are not a true reflection and the average are being manipulated to suit whatever you want them too. I dont see what was so bad when they use to use to old system, at least then we knew the average score was a current and true indication of their ability and team strengths were based on those scores.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The original reason for the riders to have an Average is for them to have an indication of their ability against other riders, (ie. Golfer-handicap). If their average is not a correct assessment of their ability then they are pointless. Also, they have always been used to determine the strength of a teams, again based on a true reflection. The point is, using these rediculous method of 'RA' they are not a true reflection and the average are being manipulated to suit whatever you want them too. I dont see what was so bad when they use to use to old system, at least then we knew the average score was a current and true indication of their ability and team strengths were based on those scores.

 

Rolling Averages were brought in because the Promoters wanted them. I may be failing to see your point, but it is harder to manipulate a 28 match Rolling Average. A rider who has completed the 2011 Elite season will have his average worked out over his last 28 matches. A rider who has missed matches in 2011 still has an average worked out over his last 28 matches. So they are both calculated using the same criteria. How much fairer can you get?

Hans Andersen started with his 2010 average of 8.39 and currently has an RA of 8.27. Having only completed 2 matches so far this season (for a two match average of 5.60), under previous rules he would start next year on 8.39 and not his RA of 8.27.

 

ATB

 

Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rolling Averages were brought in because the Promoters wanted them. I may be failing to see your point, but it is harder to manipulate a 28 match Rolling Average. A rider who has completed the 2011 Elite season will have his average worked out over his last 28 matches. A rider who has missed matches in 2011 still has an average worked out over his last 28 matches. So they are both calculated using the same criteria. How much fairer can you get?

Hans Andersen started with his 2010 average of 8.39 and currently has an RA of 8.27. Having only completed 2 matches so far this season (for a two match average of 5.60), under previous rules he would start next year on 8.39 and not his RA of 8.27.

 

ATB

 

Dave

Appreciate your response, Please dont think I hold you responsible for the RA system, its just that you come accross as something of expert in dealing with issues on this subject.

 

My gripe is that, in the present system the only time that the RA are current and correct is at the end of the season, only then providing the rider has competed in all of the 28 fixtures, failing that, then his previous meetings used to calculate are somewhat dated. A rider shouldn't be pressurized or burdened with scores he did years back. In the example of Hans Anderson you offered, is it right he should be laidened with scores of prevoius years, Surely it would be better to acess him at 8.39, and his average be worked out after he had completed say 6 or 8 meetings. That would give you a true average.

 

Manipulated is probably the wrong word to use, buy when working with fiures results can be worked to suit whatever way you want to look at them. Having a RA of 28 meetings is a way of lowering all riders averages to suit a team building limitations.

 

Again thank for the reply.

 

GRW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×