Help understanding player ratings

[DiscFifty]

You're not rated how well you played the course, you're rated how well you played against the other players in your "pool" who played the same course/layout. Sounds like both pools were handled separately.

 

[Cgkdisc]

It was a small AM2 sample size. This is/just an example of my questioning the system. I find it strange you have to have high rated players to get a high rating.

I just ran the numbers combining the Intermediate R1 scores with the R2 scores for Open, Master and Advanced and a score of 53 should come within a point of 966 for everyone on that layout with a bit over 10 rating pts per throw. You only had 5 props we could use in the Intermediate division which will sometimes vary widely from a much larger pool of players on the same layout at other times. That's why we combine all the numbers for official ratings unless there's a severe weather issue.

 

[GoobyPls]

Sort of related issue: The player ratings page says the last 25% of rounds are double-counted. Does that mean the last 25% of events? i.e. if you have 12 rated rounds that apply, but the last two events have been two rounds each, do the last 2 events (4 rounds total) count double, or do they split up rounds from a single event and make it 3 rounds that count double?

 

[JC17393]

Sort of related issue: The player ratings page says the last 25% of rounds are double-counted. Does that mean the last 25% of events? i.e. if you have 12 rated rounds that apply, but the last two events have been two rounds each, do the last 2 events (4 rounds total) count double, or do they split up rounds from a single event and make it 3 rounds that count double?

It's the most recent 25% of your rounds but I believe they round up to include all rounds in an event if the 25% cut-off would split an event. So in your question, it would be four rounds counted double (3 of 12 = 25% plus the one to capture the complete tournament).

Chuck will correct me if I have it wrong, of course.

 

[brutalbrutus]

I assume this is as good a place as any to put this. Had a tournament this past weekend at a complex, Meyer Broadway, with 2 18 hole courses. AM2 was the only group to play longs on the North course in the morning. A guy shot 53, and it was rated at 924. Pros and AM 1 played the north in the afternoon under basically the same conditions. A 53 in the afternoon was 974. Huh?????????

I'm with Mr Sauls, particularly the smaller number of players/propagators in AM2 vs the pool with Pro and AM1 players. The smaller pool of propagators there is, the bigger influence an individual round can have on the numbers.

This is one of the reasons why, imo, TDs should always have people in the same pool play the same layout, along with pace of play, confusion about layouts and safety issues. Players do care, some a lot, about their ratings and having two small groups of propagators in one pool just has way to much of an affect on them.

Pros complaining about how Rec players effect the overall ratings(rec usually being the largest group) is apparently a big issue around here. Its not uncommon for the TDs to make one hole have a different tee for Pros and Adv players just so there is a different set of ratings.

 

[ToddL]

Pros complaining about how Rec players effect the overall ratings(rec usually being the largest group) is apparently a big issue around here. Its not uncommon for the TDs to make one hole have a different tee for Pros and Adv players just so there is a different set of ratings.

In my experience, the pros are often wrong when they make that complaint. It's not universal by any means, but I've TDed events where the ratings would have been better if you removed the pro field.

 

[brutalbrutus]

I never said they were right, just that it seems to be an issue around here.

 

[DavidSauls]

As TD, I'm more inclined to put players on appropriate tees, and deal with whatever happens with the ratings. Among other things, having weaker players play shorter tees improves pace of play for everyone.

But I'd never do it just to create two sets of ratings. I'm not doing anything for the ratings; that's a tail-wagging-dog scheme.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Sort of related issue: The player ratings page says the last 25% of rounds are double-counted. Does that mean the last 25% of events? i.e. if you have 12 rated rounds that apply, but the last two events have been two rounds each, do the last 2 events (4 rounds total) count double, or do they split up rounds from a single event and make it 3 rounds that count double?

We double weight the proper number of rounds even if only one is used in an event that has more than one. It's always the highest rated round used, not the last full round in the event.

 

[brutalbrutus]

As TD, I'm more inclined to put players on appropriate tees, and deal with whatever happens with the ratings. Among other things, having weaker players play shorter tees improves pace of play for everyone.

But I'd never do it just to create two sets of ratings. I'm not doing anything for the ratings; that's a tail-wagging-dog scheme.

Making the open and advanced players play a longer layout can also drag down the pace of play , or at the least, create a log jam on part of the course.

 

[DavidSauls]

Making the open and advanced players play a longer layout can also drag down the pace of play , or at the least, create a log jam on part of the course.

Assuming you've got a variety of divisions on the same layout, I'd rather have them play long, and others play short, than everyone play long. That really drags things out.

But of course it depends on the course, including how much difference there is between long and short.

On our course, when we had singles events, we'd have one hole with a shorter tee from some divisions. It has a water carry which is fine for higher divisions, but not appropriate for some others.

So, let the ratings fall where they may, we're putting players in the best place for those players, and the tournament.

 

[ToddL]

I find it strange you have to have high rated players to get a high rating.

I felt like running a fun little natural experiment this weekend with the ratings at the Konopiste Open. The TD was uploading scores about every hour, so we could see the ratings at various points through the day.

Round 1 was a random distribution of player. Rounds 2-4 were set based on previous score, so the higher rated players played later in the afternoon.

If you need high rated players to get high rated rounds, you'd expect to see the round ratings improve through the day, as more 1000+ and 1020+ guys turn in their scores.

Limitations: It's just one tournament. It's on a long and sorta-hard course (might see different results on a 4,000ft par 54). The low rated guys are 950 instead of 850. It's in Europe, so something something.

Results:

Round 1 - Random distribution of ratings. Ratings stayed steady all day long. Even after just 27 people finished, the ratings only fluctuated by 1 or 2 points the rest of the day.
Round 2 - Low rated players got their scores in first. As the day progressed and more high rated players turned in their scores, the ratings got progressively worse. They dropped by a solid 10+ points over the course of the day.
Round 3 - Low rated players got their scores in first. As the day progressed and more high rated players turned in their scores, the ratings got progressively worse. They dropped by a solid 6+ points over the course of the day.
Round 4 - The field was cut in half. Low rated players got their scores in first. As the day progressed and more high rated players turned in their scores, the ratings got progressively better. They increased by a solid 6+ points over the course of the day. (But the ratings for round 4 were lower than round 3 overall.)

Two rounds got worse ratings as more high rated players came in. One round got better ratings as more high rated players came in.

 

[Cgkdisc]

TDs are sometimes surprised when they try to game the system by changing one hole so the pros are rated with each other without the lower rated divisions. It's more likely that the lower pool playing a slightly shorter course will produce a higher rather than lower SSA than the Pros/Adv even with a slightly shorter course. The reality is that the tougher the course, the more likely a few more lower rated players will shoot higher scores than their ratings on average which boosts the SSA for the field.

The myth that higher rated players coming to town boosts the SSA may happen if there are many more lower rated players playing the same course and struggling more than normal on courses tricked out with lots of OB. It's not the ratings of the top guys that matter. If the top guys come to town and are playing a course like Toboggan with minimal OB, they are more likely to slightly depress the SSA because the locals are not struggling as much.

These are potential tendencies that sometimes occur. Otherwise, the system has been designed to be as neutral as possible with regard to higher or lower rated propagators producing the same course rating for that round.

 

[sidewinder22]

Tourneys like Memorial where the top pros are shooting 1100 rated rounds, and 900 rated players are shooting 800 rated rounds.