Forum: HoseHeads Sprint Car General Forum (go)
Moderators: dirtonly  /  dmantx  /  hosehead

I have been working on a new stat, a computer ranking for sprint car drivers. In other sports, they compile "computer rankings" based solely on numbers/results. In sports like college football, golf, tennis, etc., to try to show a true reflection of how each rank with each other.

I have been compiling all 410 sprint car results since Jan 1 2015. I have had to guess on the purses of a few races and tracks, as I have not been able to find accurate purses for them. But the numbers I have, along with some of the guesses of the purse, I still think I am pretty close. I also have not been able to find results for about 10-20 races.

Eventually, I would like the rankings to be based on the last 2 years worth of results.

410 Computer Rankings

That's really cool Bill, much appreciated.  It is nice to have a drivers ranking list to see how everyone compares to each other throughout the sprint car world.  A win percentage column would be interesting to see as well.

I'd love to see the full list of drivers with at least 25 races. I'm surprised Kyle Hirst isn't on here. He seems to be pretty strong in California recently. I assume this is winged 410 only. 

Thank you thirteen.

uckzx6, Kyle Hirst has only run 23 races, so he didn't meet that minimum.  If I run my numbers for drivers with at least 20, he ranked 49th out of 143.  Yes, this is 410 winged only.

I did not want to give the full rankings, as I didn't want the list to be demeaning to any driver towards the bottom of the ranking, or have a driver be listed as the 'worst' 410 driver.  So I just listed the top 50.  But I did add a list to the bottom of the page of the other 49 drivers with at least 25 races, listed in alphabetical order.

Interesteing how Jamie Veal is ahead of Brian Monteith????

Bill, this is a really cool program you have got here. Interesting to see everyone compared on the same basis.

Was wondering the same thing. 8 wins in PA vs 0 anywhere & almost double the money won. 

I applaude your effort. However, in my opinion money won should not be in the equation. The reason is simple.....the WoO drivers will dominate that catagory solely on the fact that they will run 90 times a year. Who is the most effective behind the wheel in regard to driver rankings? A driver with 3 wins in 60 events or a driver with 8 wins in 32 events? The major sports that have rankings are all working with similar if not identical numbers of games (events) so the rankings are pretty well evaluated on the same information for all. I know what you are doing is a work in progress, but be very careful about the weight of certain criteria and it's importance to what you are trying to ackomplish. Rather than money as a stat....how about podium finishes involved in the rankings....1st, 2nd, 3rd. ?

tenter...This list is based solely on results and numbers, from a formula that I have worked on for the past 2 months, and continue to re-define.  Obviously there will be drivers who's numbers are higher and lower than they should be, because of the races they run.

fyi...During my calculations, I rank each race run, based on the average rank of drivers there, car count, purse, etc.  So winning a Outlaw race weighs more than winning a local show, or finishing 6th at Williams Grove might rank higher than finishing 10th at Lernerville, for example.  Also, I consider the Kings Royal and Knoxville Nationals as 'majors', and running that race alone, and how you do, adds weight to your rankings.

Having said that, what hurts Monteith, is hes not traveled outside of central PA, and didn't at all run in the 'major' races, where Jamie Veal has run alot of higher ranked races, and did well in some of them.

I continue every week to look at my rankings, and see flaws where some drivers are too high or too low, and look at why that is, and if I see problems, I work on redefining the calculation.  But the calculation I have now, I think is pretty good.

blazer00...I completely understand your point.  Money is just a smal part of my calculations.  I felt, money won, and purse, helps define the ranking of the races, which in turn helps weigh how finishing in one race compares to the finish in another race.

fyi...Here is a small breakdown of how the rankings are compiled.  These are what I continue to redefine, and I'm all for getting feeback like this (thank you)...

-10% money earned per race

-10% total money

-20% average finsh of all races

-5% total wins

-5% wins per race run

-7.5% average finish of top 5% of race rankings

-5% wins of top 5% of race rankings

-7.5% average finish of top 10% of race rankings

-5% wins of top 10% of race rankings

-7.5% average finish of top 25% of race rankings

-5% wins of top 25% of race rankings

-7.5% avg finish of 'major' races

-5% wins of 'major' races

I looked over your criteria factors. I think you are on the right track! I see what you're doing, but give this some thought....remove the money factor completely because it really isn't a good comparison when everybody is racing for different purses. The larger purses should have no bearing simply because of the fact that only a limited number of drivers can make those shows, with the exception of the Knoxville Nationals, of course. The results of the Nationals could be a factor all of it's own. Just a matter of fixing a percentage to that factor. Instead of the two money catagories, equate a drivers win, place and show results to total number of events particiated in. You are already factoring in the dificulty of the different levels of competition, so that should work out for you.  Breakdown the % factor of those results in to an equation that fits your model. Just trying to help....not being critical.

money per race

1 schatz 8444

2 stewart 4742

3 smith 3700

4 madsen 3599

5 lasoski 3372

6 sweet 3306

7 pittman 2833

8 blaney 2752

9 saldana 2740

10 mcmahan 2569

11 abreu 2527

12 hodnett 2507

Thank you for the follow up. Definitely some interesting stuff. Thank you you for the time and effort. Would love to see non wing, 360 and combined results. You know, in your free time .

This is something like they were doing on Late Model Racer for the late Models National and Regional. Purse Money, number of cars, Who was in the other cars, etc....

lol...Yes, I've already spent a lot of man hours on just doing 410s, with just keeping up with the results, finding purses, and the work on my database and app to enter the results!  Doing non-wing or 360s, and getting all the information for those races, would be VERY difficult!

I disagree about removing the money factor. Honestly the money of the races and the money won should be directly proportional to the strength of the competition of the race. Money has a place in the calculation. 

I wanted to add. You first probably need to compile a list of weekly races at the various tracks and the number of competitors vs the payout. You also need to consider special shows at these tracks and the payouts at the special shows.  IE the drivers the do well at the Knoxville nationals should be ranked higher due the perceived toughness of the field due tbe the money at stake vs a regular outlaw show or even a weekly show.  Food for thought.

kossuth...I do take all of that into consideration.  I actually rank EACH race, similiar to how I rank the drivers, but with a different calculation.  I consider purse, car count, quality of field.  Like the drivers calculation, I continue to redefine it as I look at the results I get. 

The main problem I ran into, is just getting it started.  For me to rank the drivers, I needed to have a good ranking for the races, but to rank the races, I need a good ranking for the drivers...lol  It's like a vicious circle.

But as time goes on, and I keep redoing the rankings for both, I feel I am getting there.  I would like to eventually release the rankings for the races, maybe a "Top 100" races of the year, but I'm still not completely comfortable with the race ranking calculations.

Very, very, very nice!  Your format is well thought out.   Of course all of the local cliques are not going to like this because it does not reward them for not leaving the porch.  But, I was just at Knoxville last weekend.  I think the list is pretty much right on the money and I don't know how anyone could argue that the WOO has an unfair advantage on your list.  They wiped up last week.  ???  

However, it does also recognize those that do stay local but face stiff competition and that is more than fair.  

Nice work.  I hope this is a program that you share constant updates on!  Keep it going!  

This is a cool project. I'm sure as you continue to update it you'll tweak it here or there. Interesting that Pittman is 3rd, as he's had a lousy year. I think Sweet has had a better year honestly Especially winning front row challenge.