FPO/MPO Ratings questions

[glassila]

Would an FPO player and an MPO player with similar rankings be expected to be nearly equal if they played against each other?

For example, if Catrina Allen (968 rating) and Beau Cleveland (968 rating) played 100 rounds on a variety of courses would you expect similar total scores?

OR would Catrina have to use FPO tees & FPO pars versus Beau using MPO tees & MPO pars to expect similar scores?

 

[araytx]

Would an FPO player and an MPO player with similar rankings be expected to be nearly equal if they played against each other?

For example, if Catrina Allen (968 rating) and Beau Cleveland (968 rating) played 100 rounds on a variety of courses would you expect similar total scores?

OR would Catrina have to use FPO tees & FPO pars versus Beau using MPO tees & MPO pars to expect similar scores?

Yes. Ratings have nothing to do with the sex of the player. A 968-rated player is a 968-rated player and has the same expected outcomes in similar conditions.

 

[Rastnav]

Yes. Ratings have nothing to do with the sex of the player. A 968-rated player is a 968-rated player and has the same expected outcomes in similar conditions.

I have a, perhaps niggling, caveat/question:

There was just a conversation here the other day about the effect that COVID will have had on isolated "pools" of players. If everyone in that pool gets better, the effect isn't to raise the ratings of the pool, but rather to only drop the SSA of the courses they play on. There has to be enough widespread interaction for ratings to propagate effectively (if I'm using the term propagate correctly). The system really only ranks players in comparison to everyone else who they play against, right?

So do we have enough female players playing in enough mixed events/courses to make sure the ratings really are equivalent? If we look at, say, the Mid-American open, where we had the FPO and the MPO field playing the exact same course (if I'm not mistaken) did the FPO field score, on average, as we would expect given the ratings?

I'm really not familiar how the C, B, and A tiers work for the FPO field, but the pro tours don't seem to play the same courses, by and large. So I wonder whether, especially at the highest level of play and ratings, we can truly say the ratings really are uniform.

 

[ru4por]

CHUUUUCK!!!

 

[Cgkdisc]

Too tired after Dubs tonight. I'll post tomorrow with a few nuggets on this topic.

 

[brutalbrutus]

Yes. Ratings have nothing to do with the sex of the player. A 968-rated player is a 968-rated player and has the same expected outcomes in similar conditions.

I'm not sure it's quite that cut and dry...For instance...

If you had a 968 rated player who exclusively played MPO tour events and a 968 rated player who exclusively played FPO tour events, they might not be equal head to head because the FPO player earned that rating on shorter layouts...


But i could be wrong and will defer to Chucky when he posts tomorrow.

 

[VictorB]

I'm not sure it's quite that cut and dry...For instance...

If you had a 968 rated player who exclusively played MPO tour events and a 968 rated player who exclusively played FPO tour events, they might not be equal head to head because the FPO player earned that rating on shorter layouts...


But i could be wrong and will defer to Chucky when he posts tomorrow.

This is the problem I've been talking about for almost 2 years now.

The FPO is able to garner higher ratings by playing protected setups that the MPO doesn't play (which are altered to be slightly shorter/easier)

This is why, if she had reached it, that Paige's 1000 rating would have been 'tarnished' somewhat in my opinion. The 1000 rating no longer means the same thing for both MPO and FPO out at the elite series events (if the setup differs for divisions) I don't think it's fair to Paige, or the MPO players that have reached that level, to not be able to achieve that number the same way.

 

[Rastnav]

This is the problem I've been talking about for almost 2 years now.

The FPO is able to garner higher ratings by playing protected setups that the MPO doesn't play (which are altered to be slightly shorter/easier)

This is why, if she had reached it, that Paige's 1000 rating would have been 'tarnished' somewhat in my opinion. The 1000 rating no longer means the same thing for both MPO and FPO out at the elite series events (if the setup differs for divisions) I don't think it's fair to Paige, or the MPO players that have reached that level, to not be able to achieve that number the same way.

Oh lord, that's the wrong way to think about it. The FPO isn't being "protected" anymore than the non-professional divisions are being protected when they play an appropriate course for their arms/arm speeds. It's no secret that the FPO field doesn't throw as far, on average, as the MPO field. The courses are set up up for the players in the field, not some mythical ideal of purity. Eff that ****.

As long as women and men are playing the same layout "enough", everything propagates. The only question is whether that is occurring. It doesn't need to be the same tier of player either. If it did, then MPO ratings wouldn't translate to Ams in general, and vice-versa.

Ultimately rating are about rough approximations and self-assessment. At the highest level, they are just a useful stat, with no impact on results. Sure, people will chase records of any kind of stat, but so what? It's not like PP isn't "really" the highest rated FPO player ever. It's not like women haven't played, and played well, at mixed events, including at the highest levels, such as USDGC.

 

[glassila]

I'm not sure it's quite that cut and dry...For instance...

If you had a 968 rated player who exclusively played MPO tour events and a 968 rated player who exclusively played FPO tour events, they might not be equal head to head because the FPO player earned that rating on shorter layouts...


But i could be wrong and will defer to Chucky when he posts tomorrow.

I was wondering that too.

 

[ToddL]

The FPO is able to garner higher ratings by playing protected setups that the MPO doesn't play (which are altered to be slightly shorter/easier)

Half the people complain that it's impossible to get a high rating if you don't have highly rated players in your field.
Now we're complaining that the FPO get higher ratings because the high-rated MPOs aren't playing with them?

 

[glassila]

As long as women and men are playing the same layout "enough", everything propagates. The only question is whether that is occurring. It doesn't need to be the same tier of player either. If it did, then MPO ratings wouldn't translate to Ams in general, and vice-versa.

The FPO and MPO layouts at most tournaments are quite different as far as I have seen. Maybe 1/2 the holes are the same, but for the other half the FPO holes are a lot shorter. And when they use the same tee & basket the FPO par is often 1 higher for longer holes.

 

[EllEstar]

Another interesting factoid is that at the Vintage Open silver series event recently the MPO and FPO played the exact same layout, but the FPO had the par adjusted on a few holes. Because they had different pars they were technically different layouts according to how the PDGA does their ratings and as such the ratings were different between the two groups, despite playing the exact same holes.

Sarah Hokom won that event shooting a 64, 56 & 58 rated at 954, 986 & 1005 respectively. MPO players who shot the same scored 957, 996 & 1017, averaging ~8.3 points higher.

This was with a decently deep FPO field of 16, 13 of whom were 900+ rated. Now sure, maybe the weather was better for the FPO, but there is less time between the FPO and MPO lead card than a middle MPO and lead MPO, so there's that.

 

[VictorB]

Half the people complain that it's impossible to get a high rating if you don't have highly rated players in your field.
Now we're complaining that the FPO get higher ratings because the high-rated MPOs aren't playing with them?

It's fairly widely assumed that you're essentially playing for each other's rating points each round (for lack of a better explanation)

I'm not complaining - but in the current situation you can't justify that a 1000 rated FPO player is the same as a 1000 rated MPO player. The proof is in the ratings numbers from tournaments where those two pools play the same layout.

 

[Rastnav]

Another interesting factoid is that at the Vintage Open silver series event recently the MPO and FPO played the exact same layout, but the FPO had the par adjusted on a few holes. Because they had different pars they were technically different layouts according to how the PDGA does their ratings and as such the ratings were different between the two groups, despite playing the exact same holes.

Sarah Hokom won that event shooting a 64, 56 & 58 rated at 954, 986 & 1005 respectively. MPO players who shot the same scored 957, 996 & 1017, averaging ~8.3 points higher.

This was with a decently deep FPO field of 16, 13 of whom were 900+ rated. Now sure, maybe the weather was better for the FPO, but there is less time between the FPO and MPO lead card than a middle MPO and lead MPO, so there's that.

That's a good find of some good data.

If we look at similar data for the Mid-America Open, it looks to me like the FPO field was broadly lower rated for with identical scores compared to the MPO field, and I believe that was the exact same layout, with the same pars, unless I am remembering incorrectly .

 

[VictorB]

If we look at similar data for the Mid-America Open, it looks to me like the FPO field was broadly lower rated for with identical scores compared to the MPO field

A cursory look at Heather Young's scores/ratings show that to not be true

 

[ToddL]

If we look at similar data for the Mid-America Open, it looks to me like the FPO field was broadly lower rated for with identical scores compared to the MPO field, and I believe that was the exact same layout, with the same pars, unless I am remembering incorrectly .

At MAO all players were on the same layout and were rating on the same scale (a 60 in MPO got the same rating as a 60 in FPO). The results of that tournament are:
Place - Score Name: Player rating / Weekend average rating
1 - 167 Young: 951 / 954
2 - 168 VVD: 934 / 950
2 - 168 Widboom: 937 / 950
4 - 169 Gannon: 952 / 947
5 - 173 Gilpin: 933 / 934
6 - 179 Carey: 913 / 914
6 - 179 Cannon: 907 / 914
6 - 179 Mertsch: 911 / 914
9 - 180 Cox: 931 / 911
10 - 181 Fish: 885 / 908
11 - 182 Riccardi: 888 / 905
12 - 183 Ricciotti: 908 / 901
13 - 184 Kersey: 906 / 898
14 - 196 Jacobs: 858 / 859
15 - 203 Kerman: 758 / 835
Field: 905 / 913
The MPO field pulled their ratings up a little bit that tournament, but the results are in line with what you'd expect. Most players shot very close to their rating (as is the definition of "average performance"), and the winning rating fell in line with what you'd expect. When you beat two mid-930s players by 1 stroke, your ratings aren't going to be exceptionally high.

 

[Rastnav]

A cursory look at Heather Young's scores/ratings show that to not be true

Heather Young is rated 951 and finished with 167 strokes. The MPO players who finished with 167 strokes were rated 976, 965 and 933. One stroke higher rated 975, 910, and 988. Two strokes higher rated 1001, 925 and 920. That's 6 of 9 players who finished within +2 strokes than her rated higher than her. That also applies to the other 3 FPO players finishing with two strokes of Young. The MPO field finishing in the same range rated generally higher.

Sarah Gillian finished at 173 rated at 933. The MPO players finishing one stroke higher at 174 rated 966 and 955.

Deann Carey, Courtney Cox and Kat Mersch finished at 179 rated 907, 911 and 913. The MPO player finishing one stroke higher at 180 rated at 919.

This is obviously just one event, I'm not doing a full regression analysis of all results, players will not play exactly to their rating every single time, etc. however, broadly the FPO field underrated compared to the MPO field that finished similarly.

 

[VictorB]

Why are you comparing overall results versus round by round scores/ratings? That's asinine and not how ratings work.

Heather shot 55 (960) 57(941) and 55 (960). MPO with same scores in those rounds were rated exactly the same.

 

[Rastnav]

Why are you comparing overall results versus round by round scores/ratings? That's asinine and not how ratings work.

Heather shot 55 (960) 57(941) and 55 (960). MPO with same scores in those rounds were rated exactly the same.

I can only react to this with a sarcastic snort.

Of course they rated exactly the same. That's how the ratings work. When everyone plays the same course, they receive the same rating for the same score.

You, however, made claims about the FPO field being overrated as a result of being "protected" by playing shorter, different courses than MPO. If your contention was true, we would expect the FPO field to underperform their similarly rated MPO compatriots. We would see MPO players with the same score being lower rated than their FPO counterparts. We would see the women as a whole lose rating points to the field.

Instead the FPO field as a whole outperformed their rating by nearly a fulling bleeping stroke per round (thanks ToddL).

 

[VictorB]

This discussion has been done before and on actual pro tour level courses (which Albert Oakland isn't) on the same setup, the results are quite different.

I don't feel like repeating myself or what others have posted. It's all in the PP thread.