[NSRCA-discussion] Nat's Fun Facts

[Phil S.]

Hmmmm...interesting piece of information.  However, with a cut-off at 
10, and with scores piled up in the upper range of the 0-10 span, a more 
useful statistic would be the median score.  In other words, we don't 
have a normal distribution, so a few low scores would drag the mean down 
disproportionally; so the median is a better estimate of the center of 
the distribution.  Sort of the reverse of looking at the "average" 
income in the US, where the few billionaires pull the mean 
disproportionally up.

Also, how did the total number of scores entered end up not being a 
multiple of the number of maneuvers -- different numbers of judges for 
different classes or phases (e.g., P1-F1)?

While I know these are "fun facts," and they are interesting and I 
really appreciate seeing them, I would still like to know the median, if 
possible...

Thanks for sharing, Scott!

On 7/30/2012 7:12 PM, Scott Smith wrote:
>
> Some numbers from this year's Nat's...
>
>
> Average of all raw scores...7.75
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


-- 
Phil Spelt, KCRC President
AMA 1294 Scientific Leader Member
SPA 177 Board Member
(865) 435-1476v, (865) 604-0541c

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20120731/c7f5996c/attachment.html>