New Season Points Method?

[Loren]

There has been some discussion here and there about changing the way that we do points to make things a little more competitive throughout the season.

Our current method is simple. No matter who shows up and runs in your class, or how many people are in your class, you get points based on your finishing position in class as follows:
1st - 9 points
2nd - 6 points
3rd - 4 points
4th - 3 points
5th - 2 points
Below - 1 point

Obviously, this can make for a pretty big spread between first place and the rest of the field, even if the competition in class is very close. The guy who finished a tenth ahead of his close competitors gets A LOT more points.

And, on the flip side... if there are only 2 cars in your class, even if you're 5 seconds back in 2nd place, you get 6 points for that "achievement".

And if you're the lone car in your class, you still get max points for "attendance".

So, we're open to suggestions to improve that system. Mine will follow...

[Loren]

Okay, in the past the method I'm proposing would have been a pain in the ass. But, since the world is all-digital now, it's not.

What I'm proposing is to award points based on how close each driver is to the fastest time in their class. This will make for closer points races (decent times within a few tenths will only be a single point apart in the points). It will also not overly award points to drivers who finish 2nd or 3rd in an under-subscribed class. (which is good or bad depending on your perspective) The only thing it doesn't address is single car classes, but I guess we could add another rule to handle that if we want to. (like award 6 points to "first place" in a single-car class)

So, here's my proposal:

Each driver's time will be converted to an "index" by dividing it by the fastest time in their class. So, by default, first place = 1.0 and everyone else is something less than that.

Points are awarded as follows:
1.0 = 9 points
> .99 = 8 points
> .96 = 7 points
> .93 = 6 points
> .90 = 5 points
> .85 = 4 points
> .80 = 3 points
< .801 = 1 point

As an example, I crunched the numbers from the last event (I did change Chuck's time just to see how low he could go and still get 8 points). See attached.

I really like this method because it awards points based less on how many people are in class, and more on actual driver performance. This is most obvious in M1 and M2 where there are several drivers who would be getting "scrap" points in the current system.

Discuss.

[rojeho]

I've seen this theme before and it works well.

I can't remember the details of the system we used, but it won't be hard to figure out the calculation. 1st place is 100 points. This also takes care of the single car class. Everyone's points are based on the time back from the leader, with say 25 points being the minimum (so that a novice doesn't just end up with 2 points).

So some classes end up with the top three scoring 100, 98, 92 and other classes will have 100, 70, 55.

[Loren]

By the way, we're not changing THIS season. This discussion if for next season, which begins in September.

[shakedown067]

I dig it!

Lone car in a class gets 1 point...if we are going for keeping things competitive. The main issue with that, is if there are normally 3 cars in a class, and two miss the same event, the guy who actually shows up isn't really rewarded for it. But should he be....Maybe your time could be based on overall placement vs last event? You were 2.5 seconds off the overall lead last event attended and 2.6 seconds off this event, then you'd be awarded similar points to last event. Sure drivers change per event, but seems like a simple solution. You also have to worry about someone just joining mid season, and can be competitive right away...but then is that bad either?

I would have enjoyed this in my first season where I was able to run away with first place due to inconsistent competition (and I did have one solo event if I remember right).

[Jeremy]

Sounds cool. Doesn't bother me either way.

But..
Kind of rewards conservatism though. Like I would have got more points last weekend by playing it safe and getting a slow, clean run in, rather than trying to get 1st place.

And it also diminishes the value of a win. In the words of my idol Vin Diesel, it doesn't matter if it's an inch or a mile, a win is a win. And I think that win deserves more than a 1 point spread.

Personally I wonder if a season championship is even needed at all.

And I am also wondering how this system would make things "a little more competitive throughout the season." If you really want to make things competitive, increase the dropped events. That would make it instantly more competitive, but no one supported that idea last time it was brought up. It was like pulling teeth just to agree on one or two drops, if I remember correctly. Not sure how people would react to making it ~5 drops per season.

[Loren]

Not following you on the "5 drops" thing, Jeremy.

I do get what you're saying about the question of what a "win" is worth. But, this is autocross. It's all about time. There is no other strategy (no passing, no lap after lap consistency, no "racecraft" per se... just time) Personally, I think a "slight win" should be worth less than a "big win". If you win by a tenth, you just barely won and maybe that's only worth a point over the guy you beat? But, if you beat him by 2 seconds... well, that's worth a lot more.

I might add that the method I described can be adjusted. A LOT.

For instance, instead of giving 8 points for .99 (which is about half a second), we could only give 8 points for .995. We can skew the scale any way we want to in order to make the points spread as narrow or wide as we want.

Eric, I could go with 1 point for single car in class if that's what people want. But, that seems like a little too harsh of a penalty to take just because your competition didn't show up. It could make it worthwhile for a competitor to no-show! If you're ahead by 3 points and there's one event left... if a single-competitor gets 6 points, you'd better show up to try to hold your victory! But, if he only gets 1 point... you have zero risk by not showing up, vs. the potential to lose to him if you do.

[Jeremy]

Well, I was thinking that the reason its not competitive is because people miss events. So more drops would fix that.

Even with the new method its still an attendance award. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

[Lava Speed 05]

I was going to suggest something like the Indycar point system, but Loren emphasizing that in autocross it's about time, not strategy makes me agree with him.

I know there have been plenty of times M1 has had multiple competitors within 1 second of first place and that puts guys only a few tenths or hundredths of a second apart pretty spread out points wise. I would go for the new points system as it would make me at least feel some what more competitive in my class.. At least it will once John and Loren decide to switch to race tire... ;-)

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

[Loren]

I think we should address dropped events as a separate issue.

It's a "holy war" topic that I'd rather not muddy this topic with.

[jev61]

Our current method is:
1st - 9 points
2nd - 6 points
3rd - 5 points
4th - 4 points
5th - 3 points
Below - 1 point

Maybe we tighten the spread a little bit on our current method:
1st - 7 points
2nd - 5 points
3rd - 4 points
4th - 3 points
5th - 2 points
Below - 1 point

If we still don't like the outcome after the 2013 season ends, we can modify the points system again. I like the idea I might be able to catch the guy/gal ahead of me if I improve during the season, instead of resigning myself to the all others category. And I like the idea of rewarding folks for showing up, event after event, trying to improve.

Maybe it doesn't matter if an under represented class gets as many points for first place as a highly represented class does. If only three people normally show up, those three will have a high point total, but they aren't competing against another class total, so it shouldn't matter.

I used to build Habitat Houses for a free t-shirt, now I race for a free t-shirt. Something must be seriously wrong with me.

[Jeremy]

I thought the current system was

1st - 9
2nd - 6
3rd - 4
4th - 3
5th - 2
6th and lower -1

Maybe you should know the current system before trying to mod it?

[Loren]

Corrected first post. I was close.

[Rosko]

I like this idea. Pretty cool.

It will be a bit of extra work, though.

[Loren]

I like this idea. Pretty cool.

It will be a bit of extra work, though.

The timing software will give me best times in Excel format. It's just a matter of copy/pasting some data and formulas from there. 10 minutes.

Take it from the guy who used to hand-enter hand-written times into a spreadsheet after every event so that they could be published online and in a club newsletter... that's nothing!

[Jeremy]

I would really love to see a comparison of this season's results with the old style vs. new. It would be pretty funny if nothing changed based on the system used.

I still think a win is a win and should be highly rewarded as such. If winning was easy, everyone would be doing it.

But seriously, if this new system makes the series race a little closer than I am for it.

[Loren]

If enough people are supportive of it, I might do at least a 6-event comparison. I'd want to tweak the numbers to everyone's liking first, though.

We can make certain assumptions based on an average course length of... say 45 seconds (30-40 seconds for SPC, 50-60 seconds for Brooksville).

If fast time is 45-seconds, and our split is .99, .96, .93, .90, .85, .80

Then we're looking at points split of:
45.000 (winner) = 9
45.455 (-.455) = 8
46.875 (-1.875) = 7
48.387 (-3.387) = 6
50.000 (-5.000) = 5
52.941 (-7.941) = 4
56.250 (-11.25) = 3

Now, I'll readily admit that I pulled those initial numbers right out of the air... and looking at them in this way, I think they're clearly too conservative.

I think we should be aiming for figures that would net us something like:
Winner = 9
-.100 = 8
-.250 = 7
-.500 = 6
-1.000 = 5
-1.500 = 4
-2.000 = 3

(and if anyone is thinking about breaking it down further, there's a technical reason why I only want to do 7 levels... Excel will only do 7 nested IF statements, and that's the simplest way to accomplish this)

I can run a quick simulation of that and see how it works on the last event if those numbers look right to anyone else. The goal is to reward the REALLY close to the top finishers with appropriate points. (at least that's the way I'd like to see it)

[Jeremy]

Now, I'll readily admit that I pulled those initial numbers right out of the air... and looking at them in this way, I think they're clearly too conservative.

They are conservative, but they did a good job of boosting the points up for all the runners up. Only one person lost 1 point on the example results as compared to the current style system.

If you go too far the other way you could have exactly the opposite effect of what you want. It's going to be a really delicate balance.

[Loren]

If you go too far the other way you could have exactly the opposite effect of what you want. It's going to be a really delicate balance.

Agreed.

I tried to (in my second example) slant the scale so that the "high points" are hard to get, and the middle points a little easier. I think the top end will be the biggest change. Whereas now 2nd and 3rd place get 6 and 4 points, with this change, 2nd and 3rd could get 7 or 8 points if they're close enough.

[nc4me]

If enough people are supportive of it, I might do at least a 6-event comparison. I'd want to tweak the numbers to everyone's liking first, though.

We can make certain assumptions based on an average course length of... say 45 seconds (30-40 seconds for SPC, 50-60 seconds for Brooksville).

I think we should be aiming for figures that would net us something like:
Winner = 9
-.100 = 8
-.250 = 7
-.500 = 6
-1.000 = 5
-1.500 = 4
-2.000 = 3

(and if anyone is thinking about breaking it down further, there's a technical reason why I only want to do 7 levels... Excel will only do 7 nested IF statements, and that's the simplest way to accomplish this)

I can run a quick simulation of that and see how it works on the last event if those numbers look right to anyone else. The goal is to reward the REALLY close to the top finishers with appropriate points. (at least that's the way I'd like to see it)

This! If you compare this to the first example table you linked. This is much more fair when it comes to Auto-X times. In the PDF file linked Jason Ball, who is almost 3.2 seconds behind, would get 6 points. Way to much. With the above break down he would get 3 which is more than the current 1 point and seems fair. I really like this system. I would just change second place to 7 points or first to 10 points. A win is a win and sometimes you go ape poo trying to get that win even if it is only by one one thousandth of a second and should be rewarded accordingly. I get that the other guy is going just as ape poo as you and he barely lost, but a win is a win and you should get a little bump for winning. If it comes up for a vote at the annual meeting I'd approve!