2017 MPO Worlds - Augusta

[Ye Olde Am]

Anyone else find fault in the ratings system on courses like these? Ricky beat the rest of the field by 8, yet only averaged about a third of a stroke over his rating per round. Maybe its just me, but the ratings don't quite seem to reward his stellar play.

And he set new course records for both courses.

It looks like the difficulty of the courses was the main factor since the points per stroke were between 6 and 7 for both courses. That would make high ratings difficult for the over achievers. For example, at the BSF the points per stroke was about eight, so a round 8 strokes better than a 1000 rating would be 1064, while at 6.5 points per rating, that round would be rated 1052.

 

[@iDiscGolf]

Here's one for the numbers guys:

Ricky's only beat me ONE time. Adam beats me every week. ;-)

Looks like he's beat him 2x times. See what I did there...

 

[t i m]

Broken PDGA ratings formula

And he set new course records for both courses.

It looks like the difficulty of the courses was the main factor since the points per stroke were between 6 and 7 for both courses. That would make high ratings difficult for the over achievers. For example, at the BSF the points per stroke was about eight, so a round 8 strokes better than a 1000 rating would be 1064, while at 6.5 points per rating, that round would be rated 1052.

It's an inherent part of the brokenness of PDGA ratings. I used to fight with Chuck Kennedy over math back on the PDGA forums years ago. PDGA ratings treat every stroke as linear, and that's not how strokes work.

Theoretically, the lowest possible score on any course is an 18. But that requires Eagles, or better, on every hole.

It makes sense that there's a point of diminishing returns where every addition stroke saved is worth more than the one before it, and using a non-linear equation would fix the math.

On the other end of things, as scores get higher, strokes should matter less. The skill gap between a person who shoots a 200 and a 210 on a course is virtually zero--that's just dump luck between people who are terrible. The difference between a person who shoots a 40 and a 50 is astronomical. But in PDGA rating terms, they are both the same difference.

Basically, the PDGA formula is--and always has been--broken and doesn't appropriately rate outliers at either the high or the low end of the scale.

 

[DavidSauls]

Basically, the PDGA formula is--and always has been--broken and doesn't appropriately rate outliers at either the high or the low end of the scale.

Probably true....but at what consequence?

The main purpose of ratings is to divide Ams into reasonably competitive divisions. Everything after that is just entertainment. What difference does it make if the highest-rated handful of pros should have ratings 5 points higher? (Or, for that matter, to be precise on players rated in the 700s and below).

Nor are ratings intended to produce a precise value for a single round. It doesn't matter if it's not an exact reference for how great the round was, or wasn't. Variances in individual rounds will average out over the number of rounds used to produced a player rating, which his used for Ams to be sorted into divisions, which is the main point.

So it probably could be a little better at the extremes if it wasn't linear. I don't see it making that much difference, in the overall system.

 

[UP Mountain Man]

Looks like he's beat him 2x times. See what I did there...

Ha hah. I do see what you did there. Congrats to Ricky 2x

I also want to congratulate Adam Hammes on a solid performance in his Pro Worls debut :clap:

I think the world of this kid. I believe he'll become a common name on leaderboards soon, you heard it here! :thmbup:

 

[SD86]

Comment on Ricky Wysocki.

Last year, Ricky won his first world title on the wide open spaces of Kansas. This year, he won his second world title amongst the Georgia pines on very technical courses. IOW, he's won on different course layouts in various types of weather, and he's won both times going away.

So not that anyone was saying it was a fluke in the first place, but there can be no doubt at this time that Ricky is truly the World Champion of Disc Golf. Congratulations on a stellar achievement!

 

[WildlyMediocre]

OK, so again; where's your cut line? 3 strokes out of cash? 5? 10?

That's correct. However, with your suggestion to simply cut the B pool, it would take away any chance for B pool players to qualify for the cash payouts by playing well in the final two rounds even if there wasn't a semi.

Talk about a cure that's worse than the disease. One day, perhaps, Worlds might have such bad weather that results have to be backed up to the last evenly-completed rounds---in the current format, to the finish of round 2. It could happen. It never has, but of course it could.

So the solution proffered, for the current 2-pool, 4-round format, is to always do this for those who don't make the A-pool after the shuffle? Let them play if they want, but deem all of their scores below the cash line, regardless of how well they play in the second half of their tournament.

Instead of ignoring their 3rd & 4th rounds (for cash purposes) on very rare occasions, do it always?

Well, first, cut line should be what it always is, percentage of the field. If a tournament wants their payout to be 50% of the field, that's their cut line. 60% of the field? That's their cut line.

And maybe I'm just more logical than inclusive. But when I look at true professional sports that use cuts, it's harsh sometimes. That's the reality of it, but it lets the event put more focus on the players that people are tuning in to see. Cut events are two-fold. You have to play your best to make the cut in the first half, then work to climb that pay ladder in the 2nd half.

That adds a level of interest to a tournament. People tune in to see who's making or missing the cut. Not just worrying about the final round, or waiting for round highlights to upload on YouTube.

Of course, the big difference in ball golf is that the people who miss the cut stop playing. So there's never a hypothetical, "Well, Jordan Spieth missed the cut but played out of his mind in rounds 3 and 4 and passed 20 players who made the cut after round 2." So again, in working to be more inclusive, it causes more logistical hurdles.

 

[JC17393]

Cuts are fine. Cuts at the cash line/percentage are fine. The only thing I disagree with is the idea that players who "miss the cut" continue playing. If you're removing their chance to earn prizes partway through the competition, why are they still playing?

The shuffle after two rounds is not a cut nor should it be viewed as such. It's simply a necessity in order to accommodate a field of players too large to fit on one course at one time (or in one day).

Frankly, we're nowhere near the point where level of spectator interest should be dictating the format of a tournament. So the intrigue of a cut doesn't really add or enhance anything. The focus regardless is only going to be on the top 2-3 cards of players. No one is watching for the guys finishing 35th or 43rd, so what does it matter if those players are in the A-pool or the B-pool?

 

[Steve West]

...I don't see it making that much difference, in the overall system.

As someone once said about some other number, it may not be very important, but it does have some value, so if we're going to have it, it might as well be as accurate as possible.

 

[DavidSauls]

Touche'

 

[DavidSauls]

Well, first, cut line should be what it always is, percentage of the field. If a tournament wants their payout to be 50% of the field, that's their cut line. 60% of the field? That's their cut line.

And maybe I'm just more logical than inclusive. But when I look at true professional sports that use cuts, it's harsh sometimes. That's the reality of it, but it lets the event put more focus on the players that people are tuning in to see. Cut events are two-fold. You have to play your best to make the cut in the first half, then work to climb that pay ladder in the 2nd half.

That adds a level of interest to a tournament. People tune in to see who's making or missing the cut. Not just worrying about the final round, or waiting for round highlights to upload on YouTube.

Of course, the big difference in ball golf is that the people who miss the cut stop playing. So there's never a hypothetical, "Well, Jordan Spieth missed the cut but played out of his mind in rounds 3 and 4 and passed 20 players who made the cut after round 2." So again, in working to be more inclusive, it causes more logistical hurdles.

The bigger difference is that in golf, they're all actual professionals. In disc golf, it's perhaps a dozen professionals, and a lot of semi-pros.

Nobody's tuning in---well, nobody in any significant numbers---and it's doubtful they ever will. I'm not sure of the logic of structuring Worlds around spectators.

The value of the bulk of competitors isn't their media draw----it's the fact that they're willing to pay money and show up, contributing their entries to the payout. If you told people they could pay the big entry, take a week off work, travel across the country, undertake all the expenses involved......and half of them would be sent home after two days, would they still show up?

 

[araytx]

Am I the only one that feels like the WR Jackson seems like it has a lot of poke an hopes? Perhaps the video did not do this course justice? I have not played it, but watching some of those holes after what seemed like a perfect drive left them nothing but a lucky approach to the green? I am struggling with only two courses and only four rounds crowning a world champ? Perhaps I am in the minority here...

W R Jackson, poke and hope??? I guess Ricky "hoped" his way to 23 birdies and only two bogeys out of those 36 holes "pokes".

By the way they played two courses last year (although of a different type). They had five rounds (four + semis). The final 9 was just a victory lap.

 

[WildlyMediocre]

The bigger difference is that in golf, they're all actual professionals. In disc golf, it's perhaps a dozen professionals, and a lot of semi-pros.

Nobody's tuning in---well, nobody in any significant numbers---and it's doubtful they ever will. I'm not sure of the logic of structuring Worlds around spectators.

The value of the bulk of competitors isn't their media draw----it's the fact that they're willing to pay money and show up, contributing their entries to the payout. If you told people they could pay the big entry, take a week off work, travel across the country, undertake all the expenses involved......and half of them would be sent home after two days, would they still show up?

I would argue it's not that different in terms of scale. Meaning that the tops pros in our sport against the 'semi-pros' are not that much different from the top golf pros against the bottom of the pros (they call them Journeymen, which is much the same as you using 'semi-pro').

I do get your point. I'm not being willfully ignorant. Even Journeymen on the PGA Tour tend to make enough to not need day jobs, and they have sponsors, etc. But I think the big question is, what does the PDGA want to be? I've said earlier, I'm slightly out of touch having stepped away for the past few years. But I've been around, done my share of TDing, had input on different things. And the thing I see most is the opinion that, "We aren't X, so why would we emulate it?" And unfortunately, that opinion is the biggest hurdle to ever coming close to "X." A lot of people are basing these opinions with the already defeatist attitude that disc golf will never be a true pro sport, never be on the national stage, etc. When a lot of focus should be on, "What makes X work like it does?"

No, we don't have a nationwide viewership. No, we don't have multi-million dollar sponsors like Adidas or Nike. But if anyone has been paying attention, how often have commentators during the BSF and the Worlds talk about McBeth's Adidas gear?? Not saying that means anything...but I also wouldn't be surprised if there are steps being taken behind the scenes that us normal folk don't know about.

Because we're all poor and have normal jobs and families, we don't necessarily look at what disc golf can be in 20 years. We worry more about what we want it to be for us right now. Golf was invented in the 1400s, tennis was in the 1500s. Disc golf was invented in the 60s.

All this mildly incoherent rant is trying to say is, lack of progressive thinking never resulted in success. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" is only applicable when you're happy with where you're at. And I would be shocked if where we are now is the PDGA's idea of the pinnacle of disc golf. Not saying one specific direction (and especially not my opinion) is the right way. But being closed to new directions (not saying you, I just mean a general opinion), is only going to ensure we don't reach the next levels a lot of people would like to see.

 

[Shamis]

Poor Adam Hammes. He was throwing WAY above his rating for 3 rounds. Then poops the bed on the final round. That sucks.

 

[SD86]

Poor Adam Hammes. He was throwing WAY above his rating for 3 rounds. Then poops the bed on the final round. That sucks.

I suspect everything, from his illness to the relentless pressure, finally got to him. It'll just make him stronger for the future.

 

[WildlyMediocre]

I suspect everything, from his illness to the relentless pressure, finally got to him. It'll just make him stronger for the future.

Yeah, at 18 he did something that's just second to somehow pulling out a miraculous win; he served notice. He made everyone notice something more than Wysocki crushing it or McBeth uncharacteristically struggling through 3 rounds.

It'll be interesting to see what he does with the microscope on him now. I really hope he excels.

 

[ODRB]

So why don't you host Worlds, prepare the 4 courses, provide the staff for 6+ rounds and meet all the requirements for a major event since it's so manageable?

That's productive.

Do you feel that the World Championship ought to be exactly the same format is every other A-Tier? That it should not differentiate itself? Did I suggest that it was an easy undertaking?

"This beer isn't my favorite."

"Then brew your own, asshat."

"Productive."

 

[KenanFlagler01]

Poor Adam Hammes. He was throwing WAY above his rating for 3 rounds. Then poops the bed on the final round. That sucks.

Yeah, only a 986 on the final round. I'd love to be that terrible at Worlds!

I watched rounds 3 and 4 today. Even though he did struggle, you can tell the kid has mad talent. He will be a top 10 contender--or better--for years to come.

 

[air show]

Just wondering who would have come out on top if it have been the old Worlds format. A 8 or 10 round tournament would have been much more fun. Just doesn't feel like the Worlds of past. This years Worlds just seemed like a cookie cutter format.

 

[DavidSauls]

Just wondering who would have come out on top if it have been the old Worlds format. A 8 or 10 round tournament would have been much more fun. Just doesn't feel like the Worlds of past. This years Worlds just seemed like a cookie cutter format.

Hard to say, since it would have also been on easier courses.