New KCBS scoresheet

On the judge's average score, what is N? is N that judge's average for that particular contest or is N the cumulative average score for that judge over their entire history?

Mike Davis posted a picture of his print out in his facebook feed
Lotta Bull had a great weekend for sure
Thanks for for putting it up there Mike and Debbie

With at least 13 tables, wonder why the reps and table captains allowed two of his meats on the same table.

We really like it. A few observations:

At the risk of sounding obvious, the information contained in the new scoresheet has always existed but was not reported. I've heard a lot of grumbling about "bad tables", "Judge #5", "hard a** judges", etc. in the three or so years since we started competing, and now you can see exactly what table you landed on, who you were scored with, what the judges gave you, how your score compares to that judges' average score, and how you ranked on that table. If someone is of a mind to say they "got screwed by bad tables" I guess they've got something with which to try and make that argument. I look at it the other way: I've heard people say too many times to count "my _______ was terrible" and then they get a call in that category. Maybe on those occasions you thought your entry was bad, maybe it was. Maybe you landed on a "good" table and lucked out. Bottom line, over time the "good/bad" table/judge (if there really is such a thing) will even itself out. The very best teams win week in/week out because they cook consistently well, regardless of who is judging their food. You might suffer a little on a given week, or you might catch a break. But if you bring it strong every time the results will reflect that.

As far as the concept of good/bad tables, I'm not convinced there really is such a thing. Our practice is to turn in certain entries early/late in the allowable windows, and I am certain other teams do the same. I think this could result in multiple entries from more experienced teams getting turned in together, which could then result in some tables getting mostly experienced team entries and others getting newer teams' boxes. Experienced would reasonably translate to better scores on average, which would look like a "good table". But what if those experienced team entries ended up on a table of very tough judges? Might it then look like a "bad" table? And then I have seen/heard of boxes getting reshuffled onto different tables upon turn in so the judging tables don't necessarily get entries in the order in which they're turned in. All this means to me is anyone can read and interpret the data in any way they wish and justify any conclusion they wish to draw.

We're going to try not to use the additional data to justify a bad cook. Emphasis on "try". We are going to keep a close eye on how our scores compare with each individual judge's average score. If we're doing better than average on that number then I fel like we're on the right track. It will also be interesting how we stack up against the strongest competitors if/when that happens. All in all a giant leap forward in data analysis and a useful tool.

drbbq said:

So these judges gave you low scores and not the other teams? I'm guessing they didn't like your entry.

Click to expand...

Yes, that is what I know now. Before I assumed maybe the judge scored low on all teams. Now that I know how the judge scored the other entries it helps me understand that that this time the judge did not like our entry. You can't please everyone! I do wish that they could get comment cards going again and would mandate if you give a 6 or lower that you fill one out. We got a 6, when the rest of the judges scored 8-9, and we got a call on the entry??? Wierd.

Eggspert

Slamdunkpro said:

On the judge's average score, what is N? is N that judge's average for that particular contest or is N the cumulative average score for that judge over their entire history?

Click to expand...

I figure it's probably for the particular contest. It could be cumulative, but I see a potential data collection nightmare. The reps would have to have a datafile for every judge containing every score they'd ever submitted for every contest they'd judged. Sure, it could be done. But if you're sitting in a tent in Gettysburg running the scoring program, how would you access that datafile and integrate it into results for that day?

Funtimebbq said:

With at least 13 tables, wonder why the reps and table captains allowed two of his meats on the same table.

Click to expand...

I think there were 78 teams. You would think they wouldn't hit the same table though

Eggspert said:

Yes, that is what I know now. Before I assumed maybe the judge scored low on all teams. Now that I know how the judge scored the other entries it helps me understand that that this time the judge did not like our entry. You can't please everyone! I do wish that they could get comment cards going again and would mandate if you give a 6 or lower that you fill one out. We got a 6, when the rest of the judges scored 8-9, and we got a call on the entry??? Wierd.

Eggspert

Click to expand...

I got ya. As for the 6, it'd be great to know but of course that score got dropped.

CBQ said:

It also gives us more stuff to wonder about :becky: Like in Troy, NY today we were ranked 1st on every table our product landed on, but 4th overall in the contest. Was it the product? Did we just hit a low scoring table? Our ribs were middle of the pack overall, but still won the table that they were on. How much did the table we hit influence the result?

Click to expand...

I think finishing 1st at each table you should expect to place in the top 5 of a field the size of the one in Troy. The rib table was a killer, we were on the same table finished 2nd on the table which was good enough for 20th O/A. I agree they werent my best ribs but there is no way there were 19 better rib entries at that contest

Kit R said:

As far as the concept of good/bad tables, I'm not convinced there really is such a thing. Our practice is to turn in certain entries early/late in the allowable windows, and I am certain other teams do the same. I think this could result in multiple entries from more experienced teams getting turned in together, which could then result in some tables getting mostly experienced team entries and others getting newer teams' boxes. Experienced would reasonably translate to better scores on average, which would look like a "good table". But what if those experienced team entries ended up on a table of very tough judges? Might it then look like a "bad" table?

Click to expand...

I disagree, I think it will point out that low scoring table that can kill your scores. Defining that table as wither bad or tough is up to you but I think it wil highlight the table that is out of the norm in either direction. I think an additional statistic ranking each table with the average score given would be really helpful.

Take table 4 from the Troy contest Chris and I landed on together in ribs. In that category we were 1 & 2 on the table which was 13th & 20th O/A. During the entire contest only one team recieved a score from that table good enough for a top 10. Table 2 on the other hand had a minimum of 2 entries in the top 5 of each category.

Granted I don't think there is going to be anything we as cooks can do about this but I do think it will help you get a better understanding of whether your score is a byproduct of your cooking or the judges judging. That goes both ways for good and bad scores, how many times have you turned in something you thought was just downright bad and then heard your name called? I know I will use this data as a point of reference before i go changing anything in my process.

I like it. We finished Gettysburg with 1st Chicken, 2nd ribs, 2nd pork and 15th place brisket.

Now, for the breakdown. We won each table we landed on, except brisket where we were 2nd. The highest score on brisket was 158, and finished 13th.

I don't know if its a "bad" table, but certainly we all scored low on that table.

Pig Headed said:

We liked the new format, now if it could only teach me how to cook brisket

Click to expand...

or pork for us ha ha....

its ok, i can see this causing some table bashing and such, but hey more ways to blame others for my failure to cook is always a good thing right ?? lol ha ha...

Dan - 3eyzbbq said:

I like it. We finished Gettysburg with 1st Chicken, 2nd ribs, 2nd pork and 15th place brisket.

Now, for the breakdown. We won each table we landed on, except brisket where we were 2nd. The highest score on brisket was 158, and finished 13th.

I don't know if its a "bad" table, but certainly we all scored low on that table.

Click to expand...

Clearly I'm missing something - How do you know what tables everyone else landed on? (other than asking each team) I only see what tables we landed on.

Look at each sheets breakdown, next to the judges scores. You, for instance, never landed on table 2.

Slamdunkpro said:

Clearly I'm missing something - How do you know what tables everyone else landed on? (other than asking each team) I only see what tables we landed on.

Click to expand...

If you look on the individual sheets for each meat it will show to the right of each team what table they were on.

so when is this to be rolled out across KCBS? Sure wish we had ours from the 3 we've done so far!

Stoke&Smoke said:

so when is this to be rolled out across KCBS? Sure wish we had ours from the 3 we've done so far!

Click to expand...

This past weekend was the first time we've seen them. I'm sure you'll see it now when you compete KCBS. It was full of great information for us to analyze our scores.

Funtimebbq said:

With at least 13 tables, wonder why the reps and table captains allowed two of his meats on the same table.

Click to expand...

Thinking out loud here, but the later the category(eg brisket), the harder it is to avoid a duplication.

Stoke&Smoke said:

so when is this to be rolled out across KCBS? Sure wish we had ours from the 3 we've done so far!

Click to expand...

My understanding was this past weekend.

I think it is farking awesome. I learned more the past two days pouring over the score-sheets than I have the past five years. Thank you KCBS!:eusa_clap

Muzzlebrake said:

I do think it will help you get a better understanding of whether your score is a byproduct of your cooking or the judges judging.

Click to expand...

Exactly right. There is a fair bit of KCBS bashing on here (and I'm not immune to that myself on occasion) but I think KCBS does deserve some kudos here.

The new KCBScore appears to accomplish what it set out to do. It gives the teams more context about their scores. Sean had some good observations about our rib scores and having that info available is valuable to the teams as we ponder the questions about why we got the scores we did. Did we hit a bad table or a good one? Do we have a problem with what we turned in it not? Was a generous table masking a problem we do have? The new system does give us insight we didn't have before.

Muzzlebrake said:

Take table 4 from the Troy contest Chris and I landed on together in ribs. In that category we were 1 & 2 on the table which was 13th & 20th O/A. During the entire contest only one team recieved a score from that table good enough for a top 10. Table 2 on the other hand had a minimum of 2 entries in the top 5 of each category.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I think its important to look at all four categories to determine if a table is "bad". When looking at just one category, there are clearly two options, the table is scoring low or the cooks deserved 13th and 20th place.

Its unlikely that across four categories all the table winning entries are out of the top 10. But for a single category it should be expected.

A great improvement.