DWTS Season 27 - Historical Comparisons
This Season 27 analysis is similar to previous analyses meant to assess the relative strength of Dancing with the Stars contestants based on historical comparisons. Note that these are not meant to be predictive.
Job-age comparison groups for each star are listed below. "Job" categories derive from the defunct "Cast DWTS" game formerly on ABC's website. Age ranges are typically the star's age +/- 5 years (with exceptions noted). Past seasons' results are scaled from 1-12 (representing 1st place to 12th place) so that they are comparable regardless of field size. Withdrawals, All-Star season, and Athletes season are excluded.
The comparison groups are listed from strongest average to weakest average. (Scroll down to view all groups):
Notes: Age range was broadened for Nancy, Mary Lou, Bobby, Nikki, Alexis, and Danelle because of insufficient comparison. They were tightened for DeMarcus and Evanna because of excessive comparison.
Here's a summary of the above age-job group averages, arranged in ascending clusters of average placement. Red print indicates averages based on limited or insufficient comparisons. The "Place" column shows rounded averages that better represent places 1-12:
Here are the pro averages, from strongest to weakest. The "Place" column shows rounded averages that better represent places 1-12. Light print indicates substituted averages. For 3rd season pros whose 2nd season was the abbreviated All Athletes, the substitute is the default expected average of 6.5. For new pros, the substitute is the average result for same gender new pros from seasons 4-25.
Wildcards (highlighted in blue) are Danelle (physically challenged, but inspirational), Mary Lou and Nikki (insufficient age-job comparisons); and Tinashe, Alexis, Joe (newer pros). Personal note: Evanna with work-in-progress pro Keo might be considered wildcards.
*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 tend to be most competitive with each other relative to the field. Also, stars within one cluster tend to be more competitive with stars in adjacent clusters than with stars in further away clusters. Those in the top cluster(s) are least likely to finish in the bottom cluster, and vice versa.
