Averages

[Trevor 270]

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 1,264]

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 9,247]

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 13,967]

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 4,295]

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 13,967]

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 2,396]

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 3,658]

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 7,364]

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 12,453]

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 13,967]

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 7,364]

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 3,658]

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 3,213]

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 3,954]

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