Vince RnQ
is Blowin Smoke!
It's a conspiracy, I tell ya!
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???????
I'll admit that all the statistics stuff is over my head. I look at it this way -
1) if it gives me more information about why my stuff scored the way it did, thats a good thing (perfect? no, but I believe more is better).
2) I believe some people arent qualified to be KCBS CBJ's - If this can help indentify them for re-training/elimination, then I support it. This isn't about all judges giving everyone a 9, its about the few judges who consistenly score 3-4 full points under everyone else. There arent millions of them, but they do exist
1. I agree if the information is valid. If it's just the illusion of information (again think roulette history boards) then acting on it may be detrimental.I'll admit that all the statistics stuff is over my head, but I don't understand how random is better than applying what we know about a judges history? I look at it this way -
1) if it gives me more information about why my stuff scored the way it did, thats a good thing (perfect? no, but I believe more is better).
2) I believe some people arent qualified to be KCBS CBJ's - If this can help indentify them for re-training/elimination, then I support it. This isn't about all judges giving everyone a 9, its about the few judges who consistenly score 3-4 full points under everyone else. There arent millions of them, but they do exist
I understand point 2 might not be popular and could get a little scary with the wrong implemention, but I think its necessary for the continued growth of KCBS.
What about the few judges that constantly score 2 to 3 points higher than the rest of the table? Will they be retrained? I can see the future and it's score cards full of 8,8,8.:wacko:
How is Average Judge Score on the sheet defined? I thought it would be that judge's average score for the 6 entries in that category only. However, I did the math from my chicken table form last weekend and it doesn't add up. Is it that judge's average for the entire contest across all 24 samples?
You also have the judges that never score under a 7. I actually had a CBJ tell me he gives a 7 just for turning in because he doesn't want to disrespect the team. Fortunately he wasn't judging (and never will) at one of my contests. No amount of discussion would change his mind either.I'll admit that all the statistics stuff is over my head, but I don't understand how random is better than applying what we know about a judges history? I look at it this way -
1) if it gives me more information about why my stuff scored the way it did, thats a good thing (perfect? no, but I believe more is better).
2) I believe some people arent qualified to be KCBS CBJ's - If this can help indentify them for re-training/elimination, then I support it. This isn't about all judges giving everyone a 9, its about the few judges who consistenly score 3-4 full points under everyone else. There arent millions of them, but they do exist
I understand point 2 might not be popular and could get a little scary with the wrong implemention, but I think its necessary for the continued growth of KCBS.
You guys have convinced me, statistical analysis has no place in sports. And to think I have been wasting my time all these years paying attention to things like batting averages, ERA, yards per rush/catch, completion percentage, goals against average........
I asked for clarification on Judge Average Score.
It's the sum of that judge's scoring on that day at that contest for all 4 categories.
I'm wrong! The average is for all categories at that event that that judge judged.