yes but your only measuring the hard numbers, theres more to it than numarical calculation.  for example.

hoe do you give a numaric value to the way i interact with the athletes, just ask around having me on the field changes some of the dynamic.  for the good i think???

or how i work the people on the other side of the fence, making the audence part of whats going on. 

and iam not sugesting that you do this at your games,  hell we have one of you here in st louis, GOD love Jim Detters, Caber maker to great and powerful,

its just something to think about and keep in mind.

Joe Moore

who me get long winded?

I put up version 2.0 of my scoring spreadsheet.  I included a way of ranking the throwers in a flight based on a set of records the user put in.  Whether the records are field records, class records, or pro records.

The formulas I used to rank is the same used by NASGA's rating but I take the formula over all events but caber.  A second version modifies this slightly. The other difference is NASGA compares all throws against the pros records whereas I allow the user to put in what every they want as a record (or ignore it completely).

I will use the winners score and compare it to the winners in other classes and use this in part to decide who wins athlete of the day (if I give that award out in the future). 

I do not think it is complicated, I think the way I explained it is complicated ~ I suffer from a common deficiency that many math geeks have, communication!  but I would not trade my geekness for the ability to communicate like a used car salesman!

JMOORE wrote: your making the system so complicated that only an accountant could understand it. soryy, and i ment that in a good way joe

Then I have toned it down!

Hey Mark,

I take it you are handing out not only the overall winners in each of your classes but also concocting a system to award an overall athlete with everyone combined?  You are just going one step farther then the rest of the games usually do, I think; you write so much I can't understand it all sometimes! 

Anyway, you might want to get with Bill Scruggs who runs the Masters World, he lives in Colorado.  He has created an excel program he uses when he awards the overall prizes for the 3 events he likes to keep track of: stones, hammer and distance events.  He somehow figures them all out based upon age, weight, skill, etc and it never matters who you are, you are rated against some kind of formula.  He may have the data you need and won't have to recreate it.

I think in KC we are going to just stick with what we have been doing and that is just overall for each class based upon your numbers for that day.  It is nice what St. Louis does but also very subjective; one person's opinion may be different then others and without numbers to justify it it then becomes opinions.

Lori

your making the system so complicated that only an accountant could understand it.

soryy, and i ment that in a good way

joe

From my point of view, the reason I would compare against the records in the given throwing division (Amateur, Women, 190, various masters groups, ....) is the resulting measure would indicate how that thrower performed against his peers.  apples to apples  

If the current overall records are used, one would need to assume that the women or a given masters group will perform equally (approximately the same distance) throwing their weights as amateur men are at throwing their heavier weights.  Empirical evidence indicates this is not true. Thus we are comparing apples to oranges.

Open stone world record for men = 63' 1"
Open stone world record for men 50-55 = 47' 6"
Open stone world record for women = 55' 9.5"

Assume the winners in Women's, men's, and master's division all threw the open stone 32'.  Using one standard fits all method, they all get equal contribution to total points indicating they all threw equally well in this event.  But is that true?

If one used the record for each class, the Master's winner threw 67.4% of his record, women threw 57.4% of her record, and the amateur male threw 52.4% of his record.   I belief the masters thrower out performed the other winners and his contribution to total points would reflect this. 

I am spending way to much over thinking athlete of the day when I am not even sure whether I will be doing the award. However, I am trying to make a usable tool in the form of a scoring spreadsheet and different ideas will only help in that endeavor.

Mark

Wouldn't it be easier to simply compare each of their throws to just the overall world record in that event, instead of the world record in that event in their class? I would think that just doing that would uncomplicate things a great deal.

Joe,

I am assuming by looking back in the database, the year was 2002. 

To fully explain where I am heading, the points awarded for each event will be calculated by the following:

Event points = throwers distance divided by
                           the throwers division record distance times 1000

sum the points up over all events scored.

If I compared Chad's throws to today's amateur records he would have scored across 6 events (excluding caber) 4504 points.  Take this total score and divide it by the 6 events scored and you get 751 -- which can be interpreted that on average over the 6 events, Chad threw 75.1% of the current records for the division he was throwing in.

Doing the same for Kevin but comparing it to the lightweight records, Kevin would have scored 4122 points. Taking this total score and divide it by the 6, one gets 687 -- Again this can be interpreted that Kevin threw on average over the 6 events, 68.7% of the records in his division. 

Doing the same exercise with Kevin's score but comparing them to the Masters U200 40-49 records, Kevin would have scored 4681 or an average of 78.0% of those records across the 6 events.

So if the event had happen today, Chad would have been awarded the athlete of the day over Kevin using just points. 

However, if one assumed Kevin threw in a fictitious Masters U200 class, he would have won the athlete of the day based on just points. 

Your point is well taken that other factors should be considered such as the fact that Chad had to gut it out to win against great competition.  

I am looking for a tool to rank the winners of the top divisions. When they are ranked, then for me I would need a reason to present the award to someone other than top ranked.  This is were other factors come into play. 

As I said, I feel uncomfortable with the athlete of the day award.  I do appreciate advice and insight on how others deal with this award and other issues.