SGP Averages

[tomhaines 68]

SGP Averages

 

I have worked out the averages of each rider who has ridden in the GP series. Results are quite interesting, and show that in some seasons the best rider hasn't always won the series.

 

Averages are worked out by traditional points scored (3,2,1,0) divided by rides and multiplied by 4. (Data from every single heat ever raced in a Grand Prix!)

[SCB 0]

Slightly flawed. Some rider have a lot mroe rides than other in the easier early heats. Doesn't make it fair.

[fatface 2,554]

Do you have the actual facts and figures? All I can see is a list of names.

[Dave the Mic 258]

falface, it's like an Excel document. Click on the years at the bottom of the page & the averages come up right before your eyes

[fatface 2,554]

Thanks Dave. I'll be back with my opinion after I've poured through these stats...

[Grachan 7,362]

Slightly flawed. Some rider have a lot mroe rides than other in the easier early heats. Doesn't make it fair.

Slightly flawed is, if anything, an understatement and claiming that they show the best rider hasn't neccesarily won is not true. It may be interesting to see how much they have averaged, but the fact is riders don't score points in the GP because of the format.

 

Using that method, a rider coming fourth in the final would get a 0 point average for that race, whereas a rider winning a first round eliminator would get 3.00 for that race.

 

It just doesn't add up, but well done for doing it anyway.

[fatface 2,554]

Interesting yes, but like Grach and SCB have said, it is flawed. I think the wild cards should be taken out too - have you never heard of the minimum six match rule!

[SCB 0]

Not only is the lesser riders getting easier rides compared to the big boys making it flawed, so is the fact that the clever riders (Hans Nielsen was one of the best) knew when to accept 2nd and didn't always go for the win. That more of a flaw with the system that the idea of averages though IMO, riders should not be allowed to settle for 2nd.

 

Still intresting though, would be more intresting to know how many GP's each rider rode in to get them averages.

 

Has anyone ever done anything similar with World Final results? (where it is represtentative, all rider meet each other and the guy with the highest average DOES become World Champion) I tried it with a few riders and Ivan Mauger had an awesome average, 11+ (using 4 rides).

Edited July 7, 2004 by SCB

[Shoddy 1]

I think it is slightly flawed as you go down the order but at the top end it highlights the best riders over the series regardless of how the points or consistency worked (ignoring wild cards of course). I think it's hard to argue with the numbers for the champion.

 

In my opinion Nielsen was the best rider in 96. 2000 was pretty well matched and nobody stood out but any one of Gollob, Hamill, Loram or Rickardsson would have a case as best rider in that year. I think Rickardsson and Crump were the best two of last year aswell as these numbers suggest.

 

In 97 Hamill made a late run and the points just favoured the way his form went over Nielsen and in 2000 and 2003 Loram and Pedersen benfitted from the format rewarding consistency across the series above several good meeting and a couple of bad ones.

 

All your sites are very interesting mate - keep up the good work.

[fatface 2,554]

All your sites are very interesting mate - keep up the good work.

Yes. I would agree with that sentiment. Even though me and a couple of others have nit-picked , don't let it put you off. Your site does make very interesting reading Tom.

Edited July 9, 2004 by falcace