Age-Job Assessment for DWTS Season 18
Assessing the Season 18 field of "Dancing with the Stars" is more problematic than usual, thanks to the possibility of a permanent "partner switch". The forthcoming breakdown is based on the historical approach from last preseason. To start, here's a brief review of Season 17's assessment:
In retrospect, the middle and bottom clusters of historical strength were mostly switched in actual results. Last preseason's write-up acknowledged Valerie and Jack as potential "wildcards" because of their health issues. Turns out that Valerie may have been hurt by hers, but Jack still performed to potential. The biggest positive surprise was Bill Engvall. The biggest negative surprise was Christina, followed by Brant.
In Bill's case, there was limited data for older male comedians. The two previous (D.L. Hughley and David Alan Grier) weren't "into" the DWTS process, yet still placed 8th-9th. That suggests decent fanbase support for this age-job category. Not much to say about Christina, except that Mark adds another "shocking elimination" to his DWTS tally. Also, both she and Brant seemed like nice enough but not memorable personalities who were possibly overshadowed by their over-the-top pro partners.
The always interesting story of middle-aged females continued in Season 17. Both Elizabeth Berkley and Leah Remini fared better than the historical average of females in their age and job-age groups. How successful they were is a matter of interpretation. Fans generally were predicting that capable dancer Berkley would do better than 6th place. Conversely, they generally felt that Remini outlasted her dance abilities by staying until 5th place, possibly assisted by anti-Scientology controversy. Personally, I consider Berkley and Remini to be further evidence that insecurities and mid-life crises may factor into 40's females' disconnection with the DWTS audience.
Now, onto Season 18:
Details of this analysis can be found in last season's assessment. The age-job groups have been expanded to five: Young (under 25), Adult (25-37), Mid-Age (38-49), Mature (50-60), and Senior (over 60). The following spreadsheet shows the average historical result (from 1st place to 12th place) for each Season 18 stars' age-job group.* Groups are combined wherever historical data is scarce, or stars are on the cusp between age groups. They are listed from historically strongest to weakest:
Notice that Sean Avery and Amy Purdy are listed twice, once as an "Athlete" and once as an "Athlete-BBT". The separation of lower performing basketball, boxing, and tennis (BBT) athletes from other athletes is based on historical results. Because Sean and Amy are DWTS pioneers as the first hockey and paralympic athletes, there is no historical basis for whether they more likely will perform like an "Athlete" or an "Athlete-BBT". Therefore, they are listed twice.
Nene Leakes and Diana Nyad have very limited historical data in their age-job groups, with only one comparable or semi-comparable prior celebrity each. Along with Sean and Amy, Nene and Diana can be considered "wildcards" this season due to the lack of historical data. Also lacking historical data are the new pros (Henry, Witney) and relatively new pros (Emma, Sharna). To some extent, they also can be considered wildcards.
Next are the weighted averages* for age-job and height results. Think of this as an assessment of historical strength for each star based on their age, job, and height. Not included are their pro partners. The wildcard stars are printed in shaded italics, with Sean and Amy listed twice. Listed from historically strongest to weakest:
Now we'll factor in the pro partners. Remember that this may change when the "partner switch" takes effect. First, here are the weighted averages* without Sean and Amy, listed from historically strongest to historically weakest.
Now, here are the weighted averages* with Sean and Amy listed twice, to allow for both "Athlete" and "Athlete-BBT" performances.
If Sean and Amy perform like non-BBT athletes, then what is true for other cohorts like the two ice dancers or the two young male performers will probably be true for them. Personality, attitude, and compatibility with their pros have often been more determining than natural ability for potentially "strong" competitors like these. Granted, this is true for every star in every season, but it can be especially limiting for stars who appear to have major physical or historical advantages.
As for the middle-aged actresses. We could argue that nostalgia should help both Danica and Candace; that prior dance training should help Danica; and that potential "controversy" could help Candace. However, that closely parallels what fans were saying about Elizabeth Berkley and Leah Remini prior to last season. While both Elizabeth and Leah had good results relative to the history of their age-job group, neither was quite the "hit" that many had expected.
Personal reminders and take-aways from this assessment:
1) Both Amy and Sean are making DWTS history and can be considered wildcards.
2) Whatever advantages they may appear to have, both Candace and Danica are fighting DWTS history.
3) As much as Diana and Nene appear to be fighting history, they have less history to fight. Either could pleasantly surprise with their dance skills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The weighted averages are somewhat arbitrary. They are ((1.5 * age-job average) + (0.5 * height average)) / 2 and ((1.5 * age-job average) + (0.5 * height average) + (1.0 * pro average)) / 3. I made a personal decision to give age-job greater importance or "weight", and to give height lesser importance or "weight", in the final overall average. This was guided somewhat by correlation data, so it wasn't completely arbitrary, but it was a deliberate rather than necessary choice on my part.
The new pro average was based on the average result of the 6 new pros in seasons 16 and 17. For this calculation, the Season 16 new pro results were changed from 10th, 8th, and 7th to 12th, 8th, and 7th. We know that a new pro would have been eliminated first that season if not for an injury withdrawal. OTOH, 8th and 7th place probably reflect the true ceiling for new pros that year.
Val's all-star season result was included in his pro average. His overall average hasn't yet stabilized to the point where excluding it doesn't affect his star's overall assessment. In other words, Danica's assessment would be "weaker" had I not included Val's all-star result. This was a subjective call in Danica's favor.
Notice that Sean Avery and Amy Purdy are listed twice, once as an "Athlete" and once as an "Athlete-BBT". The separation of lower performing basketball, boxing, and tennis (BBT) athletes from other athletes is based on historical results. Because Sean and Amy are DWTS pioneers as the first hockey and paralympic athletes, there is no historical basis for whether they more likely will perform like an "Athlete" or an "Athlete-BBT". Therefore, they are listed twice.
Nene Leakes and Diana Nyad have very limited historical data in their age-job groups, with only one comparable or semi-comparable prior celebrity each. Along with Sean and Amy, Nene and Diana can be considered "wildcards" this season due to the lack of historical data. Also lacking historical data are the new pros (Henry, Witney) and relatively new pros (Emma, Sharna). To some extent, they also can be considered wildcards.
Next are the weighted averages* for age-job and height results. Think of this as an assessment of historical strength for each star based on their age, job, and height. Not included are their pro partners. The wildcard stars are printed in shaded italics, with Sean and Amy listed twice. Listed from historically strongest to weakest:
Now we'll factor in the pro partners. Remember that this may change when the "partner switch" takes effect. First, here are the weighted averages* without Sean and Amy, listed from historically strongest to historically weakest.
Now, here are the weighted averages* with Sean and Amy listed twice, to allow for both "Athlete" and "Athlete-BBT" performances.
Observations
The historical strength assessment aligns quite well with the general predictions I've seen. To me, it looks like the main discrepancies result from two issues: 1) The newness of the first hockey and paralympian athletes, and 2) The conundrum of middle-aged actresses.If Sean and Amy perform like non-BBT athletes, then what is true for other cohorts like the two ice dancers or the two young male performers will probably be true for them. Personality, attitude, and compatibility with their pros have often been more determining than natural ability for potentially "strong" competitors like these. Granted, this is true for every star in every season, but it can be especially limiting for stars who appear to have major physical or historical advantages.
As for the middle-aged actresses. We could argue that nostalgia should help both Danica and Candace; that prior dance training should help Danica; and that potential "controversy" could help Candace. However, that closely parallels what fans were saying about Elizabeth Berkley and Leah Remini prior to last season. While both Elizabeth and Leah had good results relative to the history of their age-job group, neither was quite the "hit" that many had expected.
Personal reminders and take-aways from this assessment:
1) Both Amy and Sean are making DWTS history and can be considered wildcards.
2) Whatever advantages they may appear to have, both Candace and Danica are fighting DWTS history.
3) As much as Diana and Nene appear to be fighting history, they have less history to fight. Either could pleasantly surprise with their dance skills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Technical Notes:
All-star season and withdrawals are excluded from the historical data.The weighted averages are somewhat arbitrary. They are ((1.5 * age-job average) + (0.5 * height average)) / 2 and ((1.5 * age-job average) + (0.5 * height average) + (1.0 * pro average)) / 3. I made a personal decision to give age-job greater importance or "weight", and to give height lesser importance or "weight", in the final overall average. This was guided somewhat by correlation data, so it wasn't completely arbitrary, but it was a deliberate rather than necessary choice on my part.
The new pro average was based on the average result of the 6 new pros in seasons 16 and 17. For this calculation, the Season 16 new pro results were changed from 10th, 8th, and 7th to 12th, 8th, and 7th. We know that a new pro would have been eliminated first that season if not for an injury withdrawal. OTOH, 8th and 7th place probably reflect the true ceiling for new pros that year.
Val's all-star season result was included in his pro average. His overall average hasn't yet stabilized to the point where excluding it doesn't affect his star's overall assessment. In other words, Danica's assessment would be "weaker" had I not included Val's all-star result. This was a subjective call in Danica's favor.
