It's that throw out question (again)

[hmeeder]

This really doesn't make too much sense to me.

1. Why would anyone have a need to drop a no-show? I mean, last time I checked "X minus Zero" still equals "Zero." You gain nothing by dropping a no-show.

2. If everyone is required to drop one event and no-shows are included, then the driver who shows up at every every AX loses points where the driver who skips one loses none. This in effect punishes the dedicated driver and rewards the guy who "wants a life." If this is the policy, we would be fools to show at every event. Skipping one would do you no points harm (in fact assuring your points are left alone) and also save $40/60 plus tires and wear and tear (not to mention the possibility of having a "Life"!)

3. Finally, it sounds like we get to choose which event is tossed. What mechanism is in place for this? I don't recall previous years with this provision having any way to "select the event." I would think this would be a total nightmare to administer.

I don't mean to be a PITA about this, but the first shot at the policy that I stated above in my first post is the only one that makes any sense.

[ttweed]

1. Why would anyone have a need to drop a no-show? I mean, last time I checked "X minus Zero" still equals "Zero." You gain nothing by dropping a no-show.

Herb- Put your thinking cap back on. X minus Zero equals X.

What you gain by being able to drop a "no-show" is the ability to miss one event without losing too much ground against your competitors. Last year we scored ALL the events, so consistency in attendance was rewarded.

I thought that we had decided for this year exactly what Kim C. posted above, namely, that you could throw out your lowest score for the year in calculating the year-end totals, regardless of how you earned it (no-show/rainout/mechanical DNF or whatever.) There would be no "choosing" which event each person wants to throw out, the year-end total is just calculated based on the best 8 out of 9 possible scores. There's no ambiguity about that and it is supremely easy to administer.

TT

[Gary Burch]

I believe what Dan meant to say is." A throw-out is just that, a throw-out. Chose your lowest score from the year of autocrossing and throw it out. Wether it is a rain-out, a no show, or a bad driving day."

That is what I think Dan meant to say

[hmeeder]

Well, that explains the "C" I got in Algebra! Yeah, X minus zero still equals X

With the scenario you describe, Tom, it's still in our best interest to skip an event. You lose nothing by doing so (other than a day screwing around with cars at the "Q", which to me is the greater loss!) and potentially gain ground on your competitors (assuming they don't skip one.)

Whatever the rule is for this year is just fine by me, I just was trying to see if the calculator was going to work in my favor this year!

My $.02 would be for no throwouts whatsoever. Take what you earn and shut up.

[ttweed]

With the scenario you describe, Tom, it's still in our best interest to skip an event. You lose nothing by doing so

You're right about this, Herb. If there is one throwout allowed, and you have an unassailable lead in your class, you could save some $$$ and make room for some family time, etc., by skipping an event intentionally.

If, however, there is a possibility that you can improve your total for the year by replacing a lower score with a higher one, there is still a motivation to attend them all. Since we had two rainouts already, everyone will have at least a 5-point score to throw out, given that they scored more than 5 on every other occasion. If you have usually averaged greater than a 5 point score per event, it will still behoove you to run every remaining event, so that you can throw out one of the 5 point scores rather than a 0 for a no-show.

TT

[paul-silver]

The rule just about every club uses is to include the top X scores of the year. Don't think of it as "throwing out the lowest score." If there's 9 events in the year, then we would use the best 8 finishes for the year for each person.

As far as the incentive to make it to every event if you could drop that no-show: the day you skip intentionally might just have been the day you would have been one with the car and the track. It might have been your day to get TTOD.

The intention of the rule is simple. There will be times when missing an autoX is unavoidable, due to family or other issues. People should not be penalized for that in year end scoring.

Yes, if all the events are scored, the person who shows up to all of them will have the advantage over the person who misses an event. But if we score only the top N-1 (where N is the number of events in the year), and the number of run events is equalized, then the advantage goes to the better driver!

And isn't that what the year end trophies are supposed to be about? Who is the better driver? Not just who shows up the most?

Paul

[MikeD]

And isn't that what the year end trophies are supposed to be about? Who is the better driver? Not just who shows up the most?

No way man! I got my trophy last year for showing up the most. I didn't drive all the well or consistent, I just showed up. Dig it! Heck, it's all just for fun anyway, right?

[Dan Chambers]

My Bad!!

Jad was right, twice!!! I blew it, and my mind was already in the South Pacific surf!!! Last year, no throw-outs. This year, no throw-outs.

Last year we had no throw outs. Gary and I didn't discuss it this year because it raised less furor than usual last year. So, we'll keep it at no throw outs. You drive, you earn. Very very sorry to screw that up. So, to be clear ... No throw-outs at all for 2004.

Sorry, Gary. I blew that one, didn't I?

Again, my bad! You can all roast me on a spit (like last night's dinner) for making such a faux pas.

From a rainy Singapore,
Dan

[Gary Burch]

Maybe we should revisit this and not make a unilateral decision. And if we do stay with the above policy, then next year at the very first autocross we will state the policy; Everybody that participates in at least 50% of that years autocrosses will throw-out one event wether it is a rainout, a no show or a bad driving day. I feel this is the only fair policy.

Thanks and sorry for the confusion,

[Henry Walker]

As I recall in January it was stated that one throw-out would be allowed this year. We had a rain-out and it was made clear that the throw-out could be used on ANY event. Well, after the long thread in August, I was REASSURED there was one throw-out this year. Now with Dan's announcement, can anyone recall what was said in January? It the decision documented?

This certainly needs to be made perfectly clear next January for the next season AND posted prominantly on the AX webpage--so as to avoid any confusion.

It so happens that I am one point ahead of Gary Burch. With the throw-out rule I would've been 6 points ahead. Now I intend to make all of this moot by beating Gary in October. But it would be a shame to decide someone's season by this sudden 'rule clarification'.

[ttweed]

can anyone recall what was said in January? Is the decision documented?

I tried to go back to the old forum site and read the threads there about autox throwouts, but I can't bring them up (database error?). My memory roughly corresponds to your recollections, though, Henry.

TT

[Henry Walker]

Thanks Tom for chiming in. The situation between Gary and myself in FS makes it interesting. I anticipate the Oct AX more than any AX this year.

Anyway, I was scanning the season results and found a handful of classes that are affected by the throw-out rule.

After looking over the numbers I especially like the situation between Charlie Keinhans & Kim Crosser in LSS. IF we have throw-outs and IF the rain-outs were not allowed then their situation would be much closer. Charlie is behind by 10 pts. Even though Charlie beat Kim 3-to-1 in head-to-head races. Charlie likely will lose the season because he didn't attend ONE race. It just doesn't seem right. No offense Kim.

If I were king, then I think I would have ONE throw-out and would not allow a rain-out to be used as a throw-out.

Comments?

[Gary Burch]

I am king and my last message will stand next year.

[David J Marguglio]

Why all this talk of exclusion? Shouldnt we all be working to be more inclusive? To that end, I like Paul's earlier suggestion that we just use the best 9 (or whatever number) scores. Wouldnt that end the debate on whether we include rain or not? And we would accentuate the positives rather than reflect on the negative. Okay, break is over, back to my sensitivity training seminar.

[Henry Walker]

I don't see any difference between the nine best finishes or throw-out the one worst finish.

However, I do see the difference in using the throw-out on a rain out. For example, just look at the situation in LSS. Go ahead, look. See how Charlie is ahead of Kim 3-to-one. But with the one no-show, Charlie is a whopping ten points behind with one race to go. Even IF there was one throw-out, it doesn't affect much (5 points-big deal). Charlie still gets penalized for the no-show, which is contrary to the idea of the throw-out rule.

Using the throw-outs on a rain-out makes the throw-outs pointless. Might as well make everything count.

BTW was anyone able to find documentation as to what was decided back in Jan 2004?