Originally Posted by Smokinclone
Here is the one thing that is missing when we start throwing average scores out. In Holbrook, AZ there were 3 DQ's this weekend, 2 raw chickens and 1 foreign object. Not sure what tables they hit since I don't have my score sheet in front of me. Those scores are included in the averages which skew the data. A judge has no control over that DQ and what score he gives it. Should the new system not include that score when figuring the averages only?? Otherwise if you're a judge and go to every contest and your table gets a DQ won't it skew your judge average down and make the judge look like he's scoring low when really he has no control over that DQ, they are just following the rules???????
First of all, congrats on your GC in Holbrook! Sorry that we didn't see you in person after the awards ceremony. I also want to say that my analysis of the score sheet for that event in no way reflects negatively on your team's performance. You were in the lead after every category and I think, based upon your brisket score, that even if yours and the Hill's briskets had both missed Table 4 that you would still have taken GC but that the margin of victory would have been narrower. Regardless, great work, great cooking and a great win!
I think you bring up a good point about how to factor DQs into the equation but I also think that DQs will represent such a small percentage of judge's historical average so as not to require much weight. That will, of course, remain to be seen.
As for Holbrook, I only see one DQ on the score sheet and that was in the Brisket category as a late entry. That entry was assigned to Table 4. While the KCBS scoring average did include that DQ in the judge's contest scoring average, I did not include it when I ran the placing averages for that table since clearly a late entry has nothing to do with the judges. Regardless, Table 4 accounted for the last non-DQ placing in every category and for 10 of the 20 lowest non-DQ placings across the categories.