Scoring Vs Judging

[John Gayer]

Using the old "raw score" scoring system, it was possible to win a round 
and have to throw it away. This often happened, not just because of 
judging inconsistencies, but because gale force winds came up on Sunday 
afternoon, effectively ending the contest.  Not because noone was 
willing to fly but because it was impossible to score high enough to 
change the outcome.
While your analysis is correct, the inequities of normalization are much 
smaller than those of using "raw scores".
John Gayer

jed241 at msn.com wrote:
> You need to blame this e-mail thread on two things. One is the post that 
> said it was quite; and two, you will soon see I have too much time on my 
> hands...<VBG>
>  
> Before reading any further, I'm only trying to drum up trouble <VBG> I 
> could be way off base here....I really don't know...
>  
> Due to my competitive nature (certainly not my flying ability) I have 
> given thought to the relationship of judging, scoring, and the potential 
> outcome of a certain phenomena called a low average round (aka...a 
> typically low scoring set of judges by nature)...
>  
> I could be wrong on this so please correct me if I'm wrong...Here we 
> go...I'm putting on my flame suit as I type...
>  
> Theory:
> Since the scoring procedure is to normalize each round, a set of judges 
> that scores low by nature will have more influence on the outcome than a 
> set of judges that scores higher by nature.
>  
> Data:
> I pulled a spreadsheet together and came up with the following numbers 
> (rounded to the nearest .01):
>  
> Sportsman - Total KFactor points per round is 19. This translates a 
> perfect round that each raw score is worth 5.26 normalized points per 
> raw point (19*10*5.26). A round with an average of 7.5 KFactor points 
> has a normalized value of 7.0 normalized points per raw point.
>  
> If this is true (not claiming it is, cause I don't know) and two pilots 
> are close (separated only by 1 raw point per round). It's possible that 
> the pilot winning the lower averaged round could win even though they 
> share the same exact raw score. This wouldn't be the case if they 
> scoring system normalized the combined raw scores for all rounds to 
> determine the winner. This may be the case but I'm just trying to start 
> trouble...<VBG>
>  
> Average for rounds one and two per KFactor point is 8; Rounds three and 
> four is 7. Who should win?
>  
> Raw Scores:
> Pilot One (R1-152; R2-152; R3-132; R4-132) = total of 568
> Pilot Two (R1-151; R2-151; R3-133; R4-133) = total of 568
>  
> Should this be a tie?
>  
> Nope, cause when you normalize by the round and add individual rounds 
> together you get the following results. (assuming the formula is -->1000 
> / Highest raw score for the round X pilots raw score for the round)
>  
> Normalized:
> Pilot One (R1-1000; R2-1000; R3-992.5; R4-992.5) = total of 3985
> Pilot Two (R1-993.5; R2-993.5; R3-1000; R4-1000) = total of 3987
>  
> Pilot two wins due to the influence of the lower average scoring rounds.
>  
> I don't know how the scoring system works to compute the winner, but 
> would be interested to know if it is by the sum of the normalized rounds 
> or by normalized total of the raw scores per round.
>  
> If you really want to complicate things, just start thinking about the 
> shift of the outcome on Masters Maneuvers with high KFactors when the 
> difference between two pilots is only separated by 1/2 point on a given 
> maneuver.
>  
> Conclusion:
> Consistency of scoring from judge to judge is just as important as 
> judging each pilot in a round. Unless again the total raw score is 
> normalized to define the winner.
>  
> Now as my favorite comedian always says, "This is only my opinion, I 
> could be wrong". I also admit that I may not know what I'm talking about 
> cause I don't understand the math behind it. Not meant to be sarcastic, 
> cause it could be true.
>  
> If you actually got to this point, you are truly as demented as I am...LOL
>  
> Larry


=====================================
# To be removed from this list, send a message to 
# discussion-request at nsrca.org
# and put leave discussion on the first line of the body.
#