DWTS Season 25 - Historical Comparisons

First, a preview / graphical summary of the ensuing DWTS Season 25 historically-based analysis:

Note: See link for an alternative clustering.

This Season 25 analysis is similar to the Season 24 analysis.  These analyses are not meant to be predictive.  They are merely an assessment of relative strength based on historical comparisons.  Job-age comparison groups for each star are listed below.  The "job" categories come from the defunct "Cast DWTS" game formerly on ABC's website.  The age ranges are typically the star's age +/- 5 years (with exceptions noted).  Past season results are scaled from 1-12 (representing 1st place through 12th place) so that results are comparable regardless of field size.  Withdrawals and All-Star season results are excluded.

The comparison groups are listed from strongest average to weakest average.  (Scroll down to view all groups):

Notes: Age range was adjusted for Lindsey, Jordan, Frankie, Nikki, Nick, Barbara, and Debbie because of excessive or insufficient comparison. Job categories were broadened for Drew and Barbara because of inadequate comparison.  "Singer" was the closest available category to "musician" for Lindsay, but that's admittedly a debatable point.

Here's a summary of the above age-job group averages, arranged in ascending clusters of average placement:

Here are the pro averages, from strongest to weakest.  (The average placement for new pros from seasons 4-25 is indicated in red):

Next are the height group averages, for same gender height +/- 1 inch.  These are especially interesting for season 25, imho:

Next are the overall weighted averages*.  They are arranged in clusters of average placement, from strongest to weakest.  Wildcards (highlighted in blue) are Victoria (physically challenged, but with an inspirational story) and Debbie (new pro).  EDIT: Marking Nikki as a wildcard, due to problematic comparison group (explained in addendum post).

*Technical Note: Averages are weighted as 50% Age-Job average, 33% Pro average, 17% Height average, based on correlation analysis of weighted historical averages versus actual historical results.

Comments:

First, a reminder that these are not predictions.  Inevitably, some stars will beat their historical averages and some will fall short.  That said, based on historical comparisons, stars within the same cluster are likely most competitive with each other relative to the field.  Also, stars are more likely to finish within one cluster of their historically-based clustering than to finish further away.  (This was true for the Season 24 analysis.)

Based on historical comparisons, it would be less likely that stars in the top cluster finish lower than 7th; stars in the 2nd cluster finish lower than 10th; stars in the 3rd cluster finish higher than 4th; and stars in the bottom cluster finish higher than 8th.  (These results are summarized graphically in the figure topping this post.)  I'll leave it to the reader to predict their most likely "less likely" results.