Averages

[Trevor]

I've been watching over the winter some recordings of Swedish Speedway, I made last Summer. I noticed that they have their averages out of three, in other words average points scored per race. While we in the UK have always had averages per meeting, assuming a four ride meeting. I don't know why we look at it differently but are there advantages at looking at points scored per race as opposed to per meeting?

[Shale Searcher]

I've been watching over the winter some recordings of Swedish Speedway, I made last Summer. I noticed that they have their averages out of three, in other words average points scored per race. While we in the UK have always had averages per meeting, assuming a four ride meeting. I don't know why we look at it differently but are there advantages at looking at points scored per race as opposed to per meeting?

Does it matter?

[steve roberts]

I've been watching over the winter some recordings of Swedish Speedway, I made last Summer. I noticed that they have their averages out of three, in other words average points scored per race. While we in the UK have always had averages per meeting, assuming a four ride meeting. I don't know why we look at it differently but are there advantages at looking at points scored per race as opposed to per meeting?

I know when I first starting going to speedway in the early seventies averages listed in some programmes generally used to be listed as per ride.

[Humphrey Appleby]

I don't know why we look at it differently but are there advantages at looking at points scored per race as opposed to per meeting?

Makes more sense to me. CMAs are somewhat meaningless where some riders routinely take five or more rides.

 

I suppose it made more sense with the old 13-heat format, and for the points limit as it approximated the match score.

[waiheke1]

Not really any more sense with the 13 heat format. In that format u had two reserves with only three rides, under the modern format you have two hl with five rides.

[Humphrey Appleby]

Not really any more sense with the 13 heat format. In that format u had two reserves with only three rides, under the modern format you have two hl with five rides.

Yes, but with the 15 heat format the top scorers will regularly score more than 12 in a match yet still have less than a 12-point average. So their CMAs are essentially calculated down, whereas reserve CMAs under the old 13-heat format were essentially calculated up which does not seem quite as illogical.

[ch958]

Does it matter?

 

yes it does because its confusing and yet another barrier to a newcomer's understanding of the sport

a race average is much better as is the grouping of riders A to D to make teams as they do in other, more succesful, leagues

[arnieg]

The difference is merely presentational. What makes a substantive difference is whether they are cumulative or rolling, and if rolling how many matches are included. There is also a debate to be had over what should be included (programmed rides only? reserve races? bonus points?).

 

I'm quite attracted to the formula used by the PZM in Poland a few years ago. Take last twelve matches, discard results of reserve races and remove two lowest and two highest scores, then calculate average on remainder. Would make average manipulation more difficult (Swindon, Eastbourne I'm looking at you).

[Grachan]

I think it's better having it as it is. It spaces the averages out more and makes the difference more easy to see.

 

On average per race everything would be in differences of decimal places.

 

If one rider averages 11.8 and one rider averages 8.2, you see a clear difference there.

 

Change that to 2.95 and 2.05? Meh. What's the diff?

 

As Arnie says, it's presentational.

[BWitcher]

I think it's better having it as it is. It spaces the averages out more and makes the difference more easy to see.

 

On average per race everything would be in differences of decimal places.

 

If one rider averages 11.8 and one rider averages 8.2, you see a clear difference there.

 

Change that to 2.95 and 2.05? Meh. What's the diff?

 

As Arnie says, it's presentational.

 

Correct, no need to change something that isn't broken.

[Humphrey Appleby]

I'm quite attracted to the formula used by the PZM in Poland a few years ago. Take last twelve matches, discard results of reserve races and remove two lowest and two highest scores, then calculate average on remainder. Would make average manipulation more difficult (Swindon, Eastbourne I'm looking at you).

Factored averages as previously used in Sweden would be better.

I think it's better having it as it is. It spaces the averages out more and makes the difference more easy to see.On average per race everything would be in differences of decimal places.If one rider averages 11.8 and one rider averages 8.2, you see a clear difference there.Change that to 2.95 and 2.05? Meh. What's the diff?As Arnie says, it's presentational.

I think it's just a matter of perception and what people are used to. Baseball batting averages are usually between .100 and .300 and quoted to three decimal places, but every baseball fan understands there's a vast difference in ability between the top and bottom of that range.

[Grachan]

Factored averages as previously used in Sweden would be better.

 

I think it's just a matter of perception and what people are used to. Baseball batting averages are usually between .100 and .300 and quoted to three decimal places, but every baseball fan understands there's a vast difference in ability between the top and bottom of that range.

It makes a clearer definition betwen the standard. The way to look at it is to round the rider up or down to the nearest point and add the word "man" afterwards.

 

Take, for example, Neils Kristian Iversen (8.98), Matej Zagar (7.83) and Craig Cook (7.29).

 

Iversen is a nine point man. Zagar is an eight point man. Cook is a seven point man.

 

Do it as average per race and you get 2.25, 1.96 and 1.82. Suddenly all 3 become 2 point men.

 

It's better as it is.

[arnieg]

I think it's just a matter of perception and what people are used to. Baseball batting averages are usually between .100 and .300 and quoted to three decimal places, but every baseball fan understands there's a vast difference in ability between the top and bottom of that range.

But true baseball fans ignore batting average - they place much more weight on OBP or slugging percentage. Then if you get into Bill James or Nate Silver territory it's all about the WARP these days.

[John Leslie]

Our system is easily the best and easiest to understand.

 

It can easily be explained to a newcomer.

There are 15 heats. Every rider is programmed for 4 races in the first 14 heats, then the team manager nominates two riders for heat 15. The average figure, is the average number of points that a rider scores per 4 races.

 

 

(The only problem these days are that Elite League averages are badly skewed by the uneven race format).

[lucifer sam]

It makes a clearer definition betwen the standard. The way to look at it is to round the rider up or down to the nearest point and add the word "man" afterwards.

 

Take, for example, Neils Kristian Iversen (8.98), Matej Zagar (7.83) and Craig Cook (7.29).

 

Iversen is a nine point man. Zagar is an eight point man. Cook is a seven point man.

 

Do it as average per race and you get 2.25, 1.96 and 1.82. Suddenly all 3 become 2 point men.

 

It's better as it is.

 

I agree. No point in changing things for the sheer hell of it. It doesn't need fixing.

 

All the best

Rob

[steve roberts]

I actually admired the decision made by the BSPA, some years ago now, whereby riders acquired both home and away 'official' averages as well as an overall average. This system was put in place to make it fairer when teams chose a guest rider when replacing a missing one. The overall average of any particular rider often gives a false figure (based on the fact that most riders have a superior home average...unless you were Hans Nielsen!) and a guest can often strengthen the team he has been chosen to represent in an away fixture in particular. Unfortunately the concept proved difficult to grasp and was dropped after one (?) season.

 

Just one example (picked entirely at random) Marvyn Cox, of Oxford, in 1985 achieved a home BL average of 7.24 and an away average of 5.69. However a guest could have been used based on his overall average of 6.44.

 

I also remember a grading system that was once in operation but recall that it was fraught with problems.

 

PS Not wishing to head hunt but one glaring example was Vaclav Verner's (Exeter) average in 1977 (although Exeter's track would always produce examples of extremes due to its size and shape). Home average 10.90. Away average 6.62. Overall average 8.87.

Edited February 9, 2016 by steve roberts

[Sidney the robin]

I actually admired the decision made by the BSPA, some years ago now, whereby riders acquired both home and away 'official' averages as well as an overall average. This system was put in place to make it fairer when teams chose a guest rider when replacing a missing one. The overall average of any particular rider often gives a false figure (based on the fact that most riders have a superior home average...unless you were Hans Nielsen!) and a guest can often strengthen the team he has been chosen to represent in an away fixture in particular. Unfortunately the concept proved difficult to grasp and was dropped after one (?) season.

 

Just one example (picked entirely at random) Marvyn Cox, of Oxford, in 1985 achieved a home BL average of 7.24 and an away average of 5.69. However a guest could have been used based on his overall average of 6.44.

 

I also remember a grading system that was once in operation but recall that it was fraught with problems.

Steve what is your opinion of Bonus points? if someone scored 7 plus 3 from four for me that is as good as 10 points a team game why is bonus points not taken seriously.?

[steve roberts]

Steve what is your opinion of Bonus points? if someone scored 7 plus 3 from four for me that is as good as 10 points a team game why is bonus points not taken seriously.?

Hi Sidney!

 

Yes I'm a fan of bonus points. We know the reasons why it was introduced (I recall that payment of kind was removed at one time which caused some animosity amongst riders) Obviously the introduction of bonus points was to encourage a team ethic and not riders from the same team riding against each other. I was fortunate to watch Hans Nielsen who was, in my opinion, the best modern day rider when it came to team riding. Riders who unselfishly helped their partner to achieve the best possible result for the team putting personal gain to one side. Ronnie Moore, from a previous era, was a great exponent as was Ivan Mauger and a host of others I could name.

 

One reason I was never a great fan of Tony Rickardsson was that I never saw him team ride, or even look for his partner, during a race. I recently watched a video of him when racing for Poole and was dismayed at his lack of awareness regarding his partner...especially around turns one and two. I recall Peter Collins commenting that the advent of lay-down motors made it more difficult for riders to team ride due to the unpredictability of the bikes but riders, if they so desired, could manipulate the first bend to good effect if not necessarily attempting to team ride for the duration of a race.

 

As discussed on another thread I do feel that the advent of 'fixed gates' also makes team riding more difficult (it's difficult to dictate a race from the outside) but overall, certainly in my last years watching speedway, the art has been generally lost. Can't comment on racing today.

 

Whether bonus points should be included in the average of a rider is a debatable question. Again I agree with their inclusion (for the same reason as above) but it was interesting that another great exponent of the art, Ole Olsen, was always keen to go over the finishing line first after team riding with his partner!

 

Should bonus points attained during a meeting be added to the final score? Another argument entirely?

[Humphrey Appleby]

Whether bonus points should be included in the average of a rider is a debatable question.

They should not be included for overall team building, but should be included for the determining the heat-leader/second-string/reserves and guest purposes.

 

Should bonus points attained during a meeting be added to the final score? Another argument entirely?

The points system should be changed in team speedway so you only score points for finishing ahead of opposition riders. That then solves the problem of bonus points inflating averages and pay packets.

[pugwash]

Average per meeting or per race, no problem, it's all manipulative to Matt.