2010 Nats Stunt Seeding

[Howard Rush]

Paul Walker sent me the official seeding spreadsheet for stunt at the 2010 Nats. I calculated the seeding based on his spreadsheet.  The seeding formula is based on Nats placing for the last 10 years. US team members are included, ranked the same as Nats winners. I'll put the seeding into the Nats stunt tabulation program. I'll forward copies of the seeding spreadsheet to anybody who wants it. Likewise, I'll send the tabulation program to anybody who wants it. Here are the top 30 seeds:

1   David   Fitzgerald
2   Orestes   Hernandez
3   Brett   Buck
4   Paul   Walker
5   Derek   Barry
6   Windy   Urtnowski
7   Matt   Neumann
8   Terry   Fancher
9   Randy   Smith
10   Bill   Rich
11   Frank   McMillan
12   Richard   Oliver
13   Howard   Rush
14   Dan   Banjock
15   Bill   Werwage
16   Alberto   Haber
17   Kenny   Stevens
18   Germanico   Bercerril
19   Masaru   Hiki
20   Mike   Palko
21   Doug   Moon
22   Richard   Giacobone
23   Kaz   Minato
24   Gordan   Delaney
25   Bob   Hunt
26   Josias   Delgado
27   Kent   Tysor
28   Bud   Wieder
29   Steve   Moon
30   Eric   Taylor

Paul's spreadsheet is the official word, but here is my unofficial understanding of how it works:

For the top 20 in Open for the last ten years, Paul assigns 20 points for first place, 19 for second, and so on. US Team members who were out of town for the WC get 20 points each. Scores get multiplied by 10 for 2009, 9 for 2008, and so on. Advanced scores are then multiplied by .5. Orestes's score includes both his Open and Advanced placings, for example. Top score is seeded #1. Guys who haven't placed in the top 20 in either Advanced or Open are unseeded. Their assignment to one of the four groups for qualifying rounds is done by random draw.

This seeding is only used to distribute contestants among four circles for qualifying.  It might make the circles more uniform, but it has little effect on the outcome of the contest. 

Comments on the method should go to Paul, as should corrections.

[Dennis Moritz]

Flying with no.14 and no.20 all the time, very degrading. I'll have to talk to them. I'm better than that.

[Brett Buck]

Flying with no.14 and no.20 all the time, very degrading. I'll have to talk to them. I'm better than that.

   Try flying with 1, 4, and 8 every other weekend for 25 years, then I will have some sympathy for you...

    Brett

[Jim Pollock]

Gee,

I guess that #15 is unworthy of being on the WC team then huh?

Jim Pollock 

[Brett Buck]

I guess that #15 is unworthy of being on the WC team then huh?

    Once again, this is not an attempt to RANK pilots according to their capabilities or a "skill list". It's based on the NATS results, and Billy hasn't been to the NATs since 2004 - more than half the 10 year "window". So a bunch of 0's fill in his seeding, sending him down the list. It's really not that hard to understand, and its not a value judgement.

      Brett

[Howard Rush]

I know Jim doesn't like this method.  I don't think there's anything sacred about it.  If somebody wants to propose something else, he should do so.  The good things about this method are that it's mechanical, objective, and the work has already been done. 

[Howard Rush]

Jim, what's your email address?  I sent the spreadsheet to the address you have listed here, and it bounced.

[Derek Barry]

I am curious about who the top five will be this year! I have my own thoughts about who to look out for!

 The seeding at the Nats always seems to work out pretty good. There are always those who complain about being on a "loaded circle" but like Howard said it has little effect on the overall outcome.

[Jim Pollock]

Howard,

I know Billy hasn't flown at the Nats much and therefore has his seeding placed down a ways.  Thats also why Doug is seeded 21.  I just wish there was some way to factor in results when someone does show up and fly, but is not a regular.......oh well, maybe someday....

Jim Pollock   

[Paul Smith]

I know Jim doesn't like this method.  I don't think there's anything sacred about it.  If somebody wants to propose something else, he should do so.  The good things about this method are that it's mechanical, objective, and the work has already been done. 

You need to trow yourself a bone for that ting down in Brazil. 

[Brett Buck]

I know Billy hasn't flown at the Nats much and therefore has his seeding placed down a ways.  Thats also why Doug is seeded 21.  I just wish there was some way to factor in results when someone does show up and fly, but is not a regular.......oh well, maybe someday....

    But you realize that a "better" system would merely move Billy from Circle 2 to Circle 3, or something like that. There's never going to be a valid "ranking" system.

      Brett

[Howard Rush]

Howard,

I know Billy hasn't flown at the Nats much and therefore has his seeding placed down a ways.  Thats also why Doug is seeded 21.  I just wish there was some way to factor in results when someone does show up and fly, but is not a regular.......oh well, maybe someday....

Jim Pollock   

Someday is as soon as you do it. Send me your real email address, and I'll send you the current file so you can get to work.  Remember that it needs to be objective and maintainable.  You can see for yourself if you do a little analysis how little effect seeding has, hence my conclusion that it's not worth any more of my effort.   

[john e. holliday]

Howard, I appreciate what you ae doing even tho I don't fly aerobatics at the NATS.  The ones that seem to complain the most are the ones trying to make the top 20.  The guys/gals on the dark side(R/C) do something they call normallizing the scores.  Does not matter where you fly on the flight lines or the judges you are flying in front of.   Then I wonder if they don't get complalints also about their system of picking a National Champion.  Keep up the great work until somebody steps up with something that proves to be better.

[Howard Rush]

So they compare scores from different sets of judges by taking the fraction of the highest-scoring guy's score?  The stunt Nats for the past several years has taken the best five from each of four groups for the top 20.  I have gradually come to think that this is OK.  We do normalize scores to rank folks from 21 on down. 

Please note that we changed the subject: ranking contestants' performance at the contest is different than seeding.