There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
I've been looking at the Flat Jockeys Championship table and wondering if a fairer or better system could be used to decide the winner.
Currently the jockey with the most wins from early May to late October (Champion's Day at Ascot) is crowned Champion Flat Jockey, and it's hard to argue that number of winners wouldn't be the best metric to use.
However there are other metrics available, and with a bit of thought I think an algorithm could be created to come up with a fairer and more interesting way to decide the Champion Jockey.
Metrics such as Win (and Place) Strike Rate, Prize Money earned, Group/Black Type races won, Actual:Expected ratio (based on ISP), Disciplinary Record (suspensions/penalties for improper riding offences), subjective opinion (perhaps a "ride of the day/week" metric, judged by peers/ex jockeys/stipes) could all be weighted and combined to come up with a much more equitable system.
Currently;
Sylvestre de Sousa has 141 wins at 18% and approx £1.5m in Prize Money.
Jim Crowley has 101 wins at 18% and approx £4.5m in Prize Money.
Ryan Moore has 90 wins at 22% and approx £6m in Prize Money.
Most judges consider SDS to be an excellent jockey, especially from the front, and he has worked hard to regain his title this year. It looks like he has it wrapped up and few would begrudge him the win. However now that he likely has it in the bag is it possible that he has eased off slightly and that his performance has dropped a few percent%? Nearing the end of the season is he anywhere near as hungry to compete as he was during his quest to win the title?
In my opinion motivation is definitely a factor in performance. Is it fair to punters if they are backing a horse being ridden by a jockey not fully motivated to be at his peak?
A Jockey Championship that was decided by factors other than just number of wins might mean that punters are getting a fairer deal. It could also mean that Owners and Trainers are getting full value by employing a jockey motivated to give his best.
Number Of Wins as the strongest metric could be given a weighting of say 50%.
A minimum number of wins by each jockey would be needed to qualify (50 wins for example).
Other metrics could each be given a lower weighting and combined to make up the remaining 50%.
The score could be updated after each jockey's ride so that jockeys and racing fans would be aware of the standings.
A (cash) prize and trophy could be awarded for overall Champion Jockey, and then separate prizes could be awarded for each metric that is used to calculate the score (with each metric having a minimum score to qualify).
A similar type of system is used elsewhere. The NFL uses an algorithm to come up with a Quarterback Rating, weighting and combining the different stats that QB's have control over, and this Rating is considered a fairly accurate measure of performance.
Maybe the racing game is too invested in tradition and set in its' ways to be able to change something like this, but it seems the data and computing technology is available to create a system that would be better than the current one in lots of different ways.
Currently the jockey with the most wins from early May to late October (Champion's Day at Ascot) is crowned Champion Flat Jockey, and it's hard to argue that number of winners wouldn't be the best metric to use.
However there are other metrics available, and with a bit of thought I think an algorithm could be created to come up with a fairer and more interesting way to decide the Champion Jockey.
Metrics such as Win (and Place) Strike Rate, Prize Money earned, Group/Black Type races won, Actual:Expected ratio (based on ISP), Disciplinary Record (suspensions/penalties for improper riding offences), subjective opinion (perhaps a "ride of the day/week" metric, judged by peers/ex jockeys/stipes) could all be weighted and combined to come up with a much more equitable system.
Currently;
Sylvestre de Sousa has 141 wins at 18% and approx £1.5m in Prize Money.
Jim Crowley has 101 wins at 18% and approx £4.5m in Prize Money.
Ryan Moore has 90 wins at 22% and approx £6m in Prize Money.
Most judges consider SDS to be an excellent jockey, especially from the front, and he has worked hard to regain his title this year. It looks like he has it wrapped up and few would begrudge him the win. However now that he likely has it in the bag is it possible that he has eased off slightly and that his performance has dropped a few percent%? Nearing the end of the season is he anywhere near as hungry to compete as he was during his quest to win the title?
In my opinion motivation is definitely a factor in performance. Is it fair to punters if they are backing a horse being ridden by a jockey not fully motivated to be at his peak?
A Jockey Championship that was decided by factors other than just number of wins might mean that punters are getting a fairer deal. It could also mean that Owners and Trainers are getting full value by employing a jockey motivated to give his best.
Number Of Wins as the strongest metric could be given a weighting of say 50%.
A minimum number of wins by each jockey would be needed to qualify (50 wins for example).
Other metrics could each be given a lower weighting and combined to make up the remaining 50%.
The score could be updated after each jockey's ride so that jockeys and racing fans would be aware of the standings.
A (cash) prize and trophy could be awarded for overall Champion Jockey, and then separate prizes could be awarded for each metric that is used to calculate the score (with each metric having a minimum score to qualify).
A similar type of system is used elsewhere. The NFL uses an algorithm to come up with a Quarterback Rating, weighting and combining the different stats that QB's have control over, and this Rating is considered a fairly accurate measure of performance.
Maybe the racing game is too invested in tradition and set in its' ways to be able to change something like this, but it seems the data and computing technology is available to create a system that would be better than the current one in lots of different ways.
sort by:
Show
per page