New Season Points Method?

[Loren]

Okay, cover me, I'm going in again...

This time, I did the math in Excel, so it should be a little less error prone and a little easier to read.

First, I made a scenario with 4 drivers to help evaluate things:
Driver 1 is our Jeremy. He missed 2 events, but finished first in all others.
Driver 2 always finishes second to Jeremy, but first in the 2 events that Jeremy missed.
Driver 3 turns times that are mere tenths less than 2, but missed the same 2 events that Jeremy missed.
Driver 4 turns times that are on par with 2 and 3, but slacked off a bit at two events.

Now, we're sort of playing god here. Where should each of these drivers finish? In my mind:
Driver 1 should be first, but not by a lot. (if he falters or misses more events, he win should not be guaranteed)
Driver 2 is clearly 2nd. He's the guy who takes the win when Driver 1 isn't around.
Driver 3 should be 3rd, as he ALWAYS turned times that were within tenths of Driver 2.
And Driver 4, because they slacked off a bit and had a couple low scores, should be 4th.
(the exception is that with 2 or more drops, 3 and 4 should tie with the 9/7/8 method due to same scores)

The other thing to remember is that the 9/8/7 method can award the same points to multiple drivers (except for first place) if their times warrant it. With the 9/6/4 method (current method), "there can be only one" driver for each points slot.

With all of that in mind, let's look at the data:
It's pretty straightforward, the Points column is the total pionts. Drops is the total number of points dropped, and the total is what's left. The Spread is the difference between that driver and the one above them, or how much they lost by.

I think the spread and finishing order are what's important here.

If you look at the 9/6/4 method, it's obvious that spread between 1-2 and 3-4 is huge. And I think that's what people have been complaining about.

Now, the 9/8/7 is a lot closer. Partly due to giving more points for closer-to-first finishes, and partly due to giving those points to more than one driver.

But, obviously using 1 drop with this method turns the tables too far in favor of the "perfect attendance" driver. It goes as far as to bump 2nd to 1st AND 4th to 3rd. I don't think that's quite what we want.

2 and 3 drops end up nearly identical in this data set. But, of course, for the drivers who miss 3 events (of which we have plenty), it would make more of a difference.

I can do more data modeling if anyone wants to see it. Maybe include some drivers with 3 and 4 events dropped, that sort of thing. But, I think this tells us what we need to know. Going with this new method and TIGHT 7/8 point margins with 2 or 3 (my preference would still be 3) drops would give us much closer points races and perhaps make things seem less "hopeless" mid-way through the season for anyone who's not in the top 2 or 3 in a class.

Thoughts?

[Jeremy]

I found some math errors,

9/8/7 3 drops for driver 2 should equal 24
9/6/4 3 drops for driver 2 should equal 18

Looking at the new math, I don't really like it. You could have a driver finish 4th all year and then be within striking distance for the championship.
It's just personal preference at this point, but I don't prefer it that way.

The current system puts drivers where they deserve to be IMO. I finished 4th or 5th in a few season championships when I first started and the last thing on my mind was trying to change the points structure to make myself more competitive.

[Jeremy]

Why didn't you include the 9-7 stuff in the new math? I thought we were on to something with that one.

I think new style 9-7 with 2 drops might be the one. However I am voting for whichever plan Brian K. likes. Seriously.

[Loren]

9/8/7 3 drops for driver 2 should equal 24
9/6/4 3 drops for driver 2 should equal 18

Figures. That's the part I did manually! (if you're wondering, I was

Didn't do a 9/7 option just because 3 variants of two options was enough. (and obviously, I didn't have enough time to even get THAT right this morning)

Would be cool if someone other than you and I would chime in on this. I agree, Kollar usually has good perspective on such things.

One thing you're overlooking is that even with the 8-point option... not every 2nd place finisher is going to get 8 points. Very few of them will. They have to be within like .2 seconds to earn those points... and within .5 to get 7 points. MOST 2nd place finishers will get 6 points except in those classes where competition is really tight.

[impalanut]

I think the idea of awarding points based on the time behind the fastest driver is a good idea. I like the idea that more than one person can get the same points if they drive well enough. We need to award the win, so the second place driver(s) should not get more than seven points if nine is for first. I am a little confused with the current choices. I would like to reward consistency of driving rather than attendance, and I think this would do it. Potentially a driver who is close second a few events and then wins by a wide margin could win. I would like to see a comparison of current, with one of results based on time back.

[Native]

Would be cool if someone other than you and I would chime in on this. I agree, Kollar usually has good perspective on such things.

Ron H, Eric, Matt, Joe, Chuck, Chris M, Chris B, Howard and I have all offered opinions. No one has supported staying with the current system as it is. Most have supported some formula of points per time from winner as you've been working with. A couple suggested just tightening the spread in the current system and/or changing drop scores. I must suspect the the vast majority of our entrants don't give a flip - the F stands for Fun, right, and they'll work with whatever points system we offer (including none, I suspect).

Regardless, of those who have spoken, seems the consensus is change is in order. We can beat ourselves to death mentally playing scenario after scenario and still not cover every possibility. I'd suggest getting it "close," trying it for a season, or two, and seeing how it actually plays out. FWIW, as I stated earlier, I'm in favor of finding a way to not make the winning margins so large, and also, I have no problem awarding attendance - why would we celebrate someone who doesn't attend our events? I don't care if you drive better. Maybe we need to increase the number of events to qualify for the series in the first place (but that's another thread...).

[Loren]

Well said, Steve.

[Jeremy]

why would we celebrate someone who doesn't attend our events?

Because having a reliable car and no responsibilities doesn't necessarily make you a better person/member. Shit happens. I would have loved to attend every event this year, but it didn't work out that way THIS year.

By the way, me and you missed the same number of events this year. So we should be equally celebrated. And that also demonstrates how easy it is for a member to miss 3 events in a season. Not sure what the exact number you are referring to though when you said that. But as we have already shown, missing three events like we did, could be a knock out blow in regards to a season win. For example, I have no chance of beating Jamie for the season. Too lazy to do math right now, but I think with more drops I wouldn't be in such bad shape, and with the new system, I would probably be in even WORSE shape. Dunno.

Minimum number of events to qualify for a championship is a good idea though. Not sure if that would even affect the results anywhere though.

[Loren]

Somewhat off topic, but you had some pretty low finishes this season, Jeremy. You finished first twice. If you had even finished SECOND in the remaining 4 events that you attended, your 42 points (18 + 24) would beat Jamie's 40. Drops are not a factor for you this season. Poor performance (wrong car? wrong tires? whatever) was.

Steve's in the same boat. Drops would have helped a little, but his finishes just weren't enough to beat his competition. If he'd finished first in all the events he attended, he would have had 54 points. And he'd have taken 12 points away from Chris, bringing Chris down to 55. (and potentially bumped some of Chris' 2nd place finishes down to 3rd, taking a couple more points)

Maybe in the end 2 drops would be a good compromise. By the numbers, the great majority of our members would benefit from making it 3 drops. But, less than 3 should theoretically encourage more attendance. I really don't think 1 drop is enough, though.

[AScoda]

Getting caught up here--
Just what are people grumbling about with the current system that we need to change it?
Is it because they aren't in the championship points race because they missed too many events? Well, they shouldn't be. There should be no way someone who only comes to 1/3 of the events should be able to win over others who were consistently running. I understand that not everyone can make all the events, life, kids, what have you. I just think the championship should be for those who are battling it out month after month.

With the new time based system examples I see too many positions in class getting the same points. What if you have a very close class where all drivers are within .5 sec? Everyone after first gets the same points? Kind of defeats the purpose of awarding points. Those finishing positions would probably change from event to event and if one person keeps finishing second above the others, they still have the same points.

I did then, and would still vote for dropping 2 events. But, the more you drop, the more you punish the people that do attend all/most events because you would be dropping actual points and not just zeros. That's not really fair either.

[Jeremy]

Getting caught up here--
Is it because they aren't in the championship points race because they missed too many events? Well, they shouldn't be. There should be no way someone who only comes to 1/3 of the events should be able to win over others who were consistently running. I understand that not everyone can make all the events, life, kids, what have you. I just think the championship should be for those who are battling it out month after month.

I think that is mostly my grumble. But I wasn't referring to anywhere near 1/3 of events being able to compete. I think before we continue, we need to define how many events missed is what someone would consider normal.

SCCA does 50% + 1, which would be 4 drops on FAST's 10 points event calendar.
I don't think we need to go that far, but anything would be better than 1 drop.
And if someone other than me wanted to suggest going as far as 4 drops I wouldn't have a problem with that.

I think the grumbling mentioned is from people finishing in 4th and lower places, feeling like they have no chance to compete when the person in first is collecting 9 points per event. I guess the new system would allow them to gain more points just for getting close to the top time in class.

I did then, and would still vote for dropping 2 events. But, the more you drop, the more you punish the people that do attend all/most events because you would be dropping actual points and not just zeros. That's not really fair either.

It is unfair, but it's also fair at the same time. Unless you finish 1st every event, then the points you are dropping are not your best performances, so only your best performances would be left to count in the season championship. So it's fair in that regard.

[rojeho]

Without looking at the fine details, I'll make two comments related to the thread.

1. Conceptually, I am more in favor of a points system that rewards driving performance. If you have three guys that are within 0.5 seconds and fourth is 2.5 seconds back, it seems like points available should reflect that. If one of the by-products is that you are so close that you need to maintain that high level of standard to not fall out of that top three, then that's a good thing. And if 4th place improves over the course of the year, he'll start earning more points even though he's still in 4th.

2. No more than two drops. It's a season championship, meaning who performs the best over the course of a season. There are individual event FTD's or class wins to recognize daily performance.

[Loren]

I think a system that awards bonus points for being within .5 seconds and even more for within .2 seconds of the leader fosters stronger competition than what we have now. If you have someone fast in your class (Jeremy, Chris, hell, even me if I'm in the right car) you might be inclined to say "oh, I'll never catch him, I'm just fighting for second and I only have to be within a second of his time to beat the rest of the class handily. There's NO reason for you to strive to get close to that top guy under the current system.

While the F in FAST is for fun... I like to help people to improve. That's fun, too. A scoring system that rewards how close you can get to the top guy instead of merely rewarding the fact that you could beat everyone BUT the top guy inspires better performance from all drivers. It doesn't inspire complacency by rewarding them with big points for being 2 or more seconds back.

[Native]

Well said, Steve.

Thanks.

why would we celebrate someone who doesn't attend our events?

Because having a reliable car and no responsibilities doesn't necessarily make you a better person/member. Shit happens. I would have loved to attend every event this year, but it didn't work out that way THIS year.

Exactly. It didn't work out - you didn't attend. No attendance, no points. Not enough points, no championship. I'm ok with that. And it has nothing to do with being a "better" person.

By the way, me and you missed the same number of events this year. So we should be equally celebrated.

As so we will be - neither of us was present. Neither of us should win.

Minimum number of events to qualify for a championship is a good idea though. Not sure if that would even affect the results anywhere though.

Thanks. That minimum number is 4 right now (same as defines "membership"). I don't know if it would make a difference either - was just brainstorming other possible ways to address the issue at hand.

[puncturina]

OK, you wanted some input from the peanut gallery, so here's my 2 cents:

I must suspect the the vast majority of our entrants don't give a flip - the F stands for Fun, right, and they'll work with whatever points system we offer (including none, I suspect).

I would guess that most of us are going to show up for as many events as we can and drive as well as we can, regardless of the points involved.

While the F in FAST is for fun... I like to help people to improve. That's fun, too. A scoring system that rewards how close you can get to the top guy instead of merely rewarding the fact that you could beat everyone BUT the top guy inspires better performance from all drivers. It doesn't inspire complacency by rewarding them with big points for being 2 or more seconds back.

Do you really think people are going to drive better because of the points? In my class, the lead was locked in several events ago, but I don't think that fact affects my wanting to drive better/faster, even though I don't have a prayer of catching Mr. Number One.

If you really feel the need to change things, I suggest the 9/7/6 etc. points and allow 2 drops, as Chris suggested. If you have another fun event (like the duel this year), that means only 9 events for the season. The whole thing with the calculations seems to introduce a layer of effort. How many questions are you going to answer from people who can't figure out how you calculated the points? How about rounding effects and how close you are to one of the breakpoints? Seems like a lot of potential aggravation.

Anyway, thanks to you guys who are always thinking about how to improve the club. The rest of us appreciate your efforts.

[Lava Speed 05]

I chimed in to agree that as far as autocross goes awarding points off of time not just position is better, but I never had a gripe with the old system until it was brought up here. I agree with the F is for fun part and as Eva said I'm going to drive to improve myself regardless.

Maybe once I've improved myself enough to be consistently competitive in my class I'd worry about it more, but regardless I'm there to have fun flogging my car...



Sent from my DROID RAZR

[Loren]

You know... "I don't really care about points" is just about my favorite answer here.

But, I know that some people find the competition to be part of the fun.

[Lava Speed 05]

Well the competition is part of the fun, but it's not the end all...

Sent from my DROID RAZR

[Gerry]

lol, your maths are way wrong.

or I am not following you or something.

Way too much math. It's waivering me to just stay with the current points scheme.

I found some math errors,

Did someone say math? I just tried to read over this whole thread. I like the concept of basing points off of relative performance to other drivers, but I must say that to accurately do this, the current math is completely wrong.

What does being 0.5 seconds within first place have to do with anything? Mathematically, nothing. So why should we award it, or any specific time interval, for that matter?

The working model is flawed. It's biased. If you want to do something like this, I suggest the usage of real math. What you need to do is base a point system on a Gaussian distribution, or some other comparable statistical distribution. Points should be based on standard deviation. This way, if you drive very average, then you're left with very average points. Below average times will get below average points, and above average times will get above average points. Regardless of course duration and conditions (rain?), this math holds true for all ranking purposes as long as all runs were considered "fair" (in the same run group, so everyone would drive the same conditions).

Would everyone understand this? Probably not. Would people like to use a point system they don't understand? Probably not. What I do know is that the "math" currently proposed in this thread is flawed and will not work correctly.

*OR* we can simplify it to how it is now: a system that everyone understands.

Let me put my flame suit on... that was my two cents.

[Loren]

I quit reading at "gaussian distribution".