All-Star Let's Discuss Worlds Scoring

[King]

Viva la Universal Scoresheet!

 

[King]

While we're at it...

Viva la Wetzel Pretzel inside each gym!

 

[BlueCat]

It would also be interesting to see how scores are affected by going immediately after a very strong team (or very poor one) on days with random order.

 

[King]

Oh.... I can do that

Hold on!

 

[katstat1]

I know that our team went after Macs, that ended up 3rd. They did great. We had a few little things happen, but were surprised at low our score was. And Desert Storm went after Brandon and also had a lower than expected score.

 

[f5forever]

When you all are doing these analyes, what are you all taking into account? Certain categories like just building or tumbling or overall score? Raw score or scores with ded?

 

[King]

OK, for small senior in the at large bids the average score is 197.2. The standard deviation is 22. If we ignore one team that was an extreme outlier (Niagara) the average is 198.1 and the standard deviation is 21.2. Niagara's score was so low it has to be looked at as an aberration.

Ignoring the outlier the average score of a team that goes AFTER a team that is above the standard deviation is 206.3, and the standard deviation is 12. Meaning its pretty consistently higher.

I think a team competing before you that does well will improve your score by 4 or 5 points.

Ignoring the low outlier the score teams competing after a team that competes a low scoring team outside the standard deviation the average is 203.8 and a standard deviation of 26.1.

I do not think a team competing before you that scores low helps your score at all.

 

[CGAcheer]

Scoring idea for Varsity:

What if for every section on the scoresheet you must attempt level appropriate skills. Instead of being 8-9 for level 5 and 6-7 for level 3... Yadda yadda

It was 0-1 if not level appropriate and then 1-10 for level appropriate?


The Fierce Board App! || iPhone || Android || Upgrade Your Account!

Or at least go to a two pt range
L5 8-10
L4 7-9
L3 6-8
L2 5-7
L1 4-6

 

[L5cheermom]

OK, for small senior in the at large bids the average score is 197.2. The standard deviation is 22. If we ignore one team that was an extreme outlier (Niagara) the average is 198.1 and the standard deviation is 21.2. Niagara's score was so low it has to be looked at as an aberration.

Ignoring the outlier the average score of a team that goes AFTER a team that is above the standard deviation is 206.3, and the standard deviation is 12. Meaning its pretty consistently higher.

I think a team competing before you that does well will improve your score by 4 or 5 points.

Ignoring the low outlier the score teams competing after a team that competes a low scoring team outside the standard deviation the average is 203.8 and a standard deviation of 26.1.

I do not think a team competing before you that scores low helps your score at all.

That's counterintuitive. I would have thought it would be just the opposite. It seems logical that following a strong team would accentuate a team's flaws and that performing right after a low performing team would create the illusion of a stronger routine. Hum.

 

[King]

That's counterintuitive. I would have thought it would be just the opposite. It seems logical that following a strong team would accentuate a team's flaws and that performing right after a low performing team would create the illusion of a stronger routine. Hum.

That's why collecting this data and analyzing it is important. Sometimes the things you find out are counterintuitive. That does not make them any less true though.


The Fierce Board App! || iPhone || Android || Upgrade Your Account!

 

[L5cheermom]

That's why collecting this data and analyzing it is important. Sometimes the things you find out are counterintuitive. That does not make them any less true though.


The Fierce Board App! || iPhone || Android || Upgrade Your Account!

It is certainly intriguing. After establishing the what it is helpful to investigate the why. Perhaps some of the energy of the high performing routine leaches out onto the subsequent team. Is the higher score representative of the performance of the team or the perception of that performance by the judges? Does following a well performing team encourage the athletes while following a lower performing team makes the athletes more complacent? Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[Ja-Mez]

And confirmation this exists is when you make the dataset small enough judges are not as concerned with saving room. In medium coed there were so few teams competing for top 10 there was basically no advantage.

(am I the only one really enjoying this? my day job is inventory forecasting and regression analysis so I am geeking out over this a bit. )

View attachment 138

No King, this is TRULY AWESOME MAN!! I have always felt this way, but you are logistically proving it. Keep them coming man, I love it!!

 

[katstat1]

So how can they fix this for upcoming years? And are they willing to admit there was a problem and try to change things?

What if they did smaller groups, say like 20 teams and they take top 5 from each group of 20? Or something along that line, where basically the same judges aren't sitting there watching 40 teams. I also feel like they probably did hold back a little on scores if they knew a big name gym was coming up. Have to wonder if it would have been the same effect if Smoed would have gone very early in the order? Either way, it clearly happened, hope they can figure out a way to fix it.

 

[NJ Coach]

Did the deductions that were given also come out of their raw score. Meaning, were teams hit more than once? Looking at some of these scoresheets, not only are there huge deductions, but raw scores seem very low (I concentrated on "name" programs and teams I know had great routines). Could this possibility skew these charts?

 

[gymcatmomx2]

So how can they fix this for upcoming years? And are they willing to admit there was a problem and try to change things?

What if they did smaller groups, say like 20 teams and they take top 5 from each group of 20? Or something along that line, where basically the same judges aren't sitting there watching 40 teams. I also feel like they probably did hold back a little on scores if they knew a big name gym was coming up. Have to wonder if it would have been the same effect if Smoed would have gone very early in the order? Either way, it clearly happened, hope they can figure out a way to fix it.

I have always wondered how the scoring would change if cheer comps were like dance comps where you wouldn't know the name of the team or gym until awards. The unis would have no team or gym designation on them and would only be identified by a number and division level.