is pdga ratings crap?

[Cgkdisc]

Nonetheless, you've piqued my curiosity enough to take a peek to see if slope might have enough of a statistical peak...

 

[sisyphus]

:thmbup: I see what you did there!! ^^^

 

[ZAMson]

in streetwalking we call that "word play"

 

[gdub58]

Slope rating works in ball golf and is necessary because of nature of the game and the standardization of the courses.

Chuck uses the example of two courses with and SSA of 55 - a short, tight course and a long, open course. This comparison does not work for ball golf since they have a greater level of standardization of par and what a "standard" course looks like (par 70-72). Also, as iacas mentioned, the design of a hole and its associated hazards generally has more effect on a ball golf hole's scoring spread then in disc golf.

I guarantee that if I doubled the number of golfers out there, the actual number of golfers capable of playing the PGA Tour would not double.

This is a flawed statement. You can't measure the number of golfers "capable" of playing on tour, and the number of exempt players is fixed. However, if you're saying that doubling the number of golfers wouldn't double the number of players that are scratch or better, then that's just plain wrong since the handicap distribution is the same regardless of the number of players.

 

[swed]

I used to think that ratings were flawed, I stopped caring years ago. Shoot your best and accept your payout and stop whining. I do however, notice that when I play in events with many 1000 rated players, my average rounds are rated better.

 

[myroomisajunkyard]

Ratings only go back one year (from the most recently rated round). They only go back two years if you have less than eight rated rounds in the last year.

Also, your most recent rounds are doubled. So I think you're worrying way too much about those earlier rounds.

Anyway, ratings are a pretty inexact system. There really isn't enough data to make any system too precise.

That's what I was looking for the time cushion between the time it's adjusted, I thought it was two years back regardless, but eight round ratings. Thanks!

Sounds to me like the OP is blaming the ratings system for his 'choke' job during his first round. Suck it up. You played a bad round. It happens. Take some responsibility for your performance. The price you pay is a slightly lower rating for a year. Lesson learned. Don't choke next time.

Next PDGA bitch session...

Yeah, I know that I need to suck it up, I did.. I agree about not choking the next time. The first few tournaments, all the new things such as OB lines, factors, and stroke pentalies choked me, and got me figuring how this whole thing works, but yup sucking it up!

The OP takes the ratings so seriously that he is going to be one of those guys who drops out of tourneys where he is performing poorly, just so it does not affect his precious rating.

My precious!!! I dont think I would want to drop out, instead I try work harder and fix my mistakes regardless if it is inevitable.. So your assumptions about me are wrong..

I don't blame the OP. His performance is measured with a number. He naturally wants to make the number go up, and he's asking how it works. He's probably more worked up about it than I would be, but he's asking a legit question.

edit: The thread title is bad, I'll give you that.

Yeah the title might be bad, but thanks for understand where I was trying to get to with my question.

The OP says his rating is his motivation to play. That is no way to play. Every missed putt will leave you thinking, "Damn, my rating just fell 10 points" and will haunt you all round.
Someone motivated by numbers finds ways to manipulate the numbers (Play only their local course, drop out every time they have a bad day, or discover pencil whipping.)

Haha again, your assumptions about me is wrong! within a year i've played over 70 courses. I travel a lot, i enjoy playing disc golf, I love scoping out courses and playing them, meet bunch of locals in these areas. I'm not motivated to manipulate the numbers, I thought the system was crap because of the use of median number, with the first few bad tournaments that a newbie didnt expect at the first tournaments, therefore it was my fault that i choked on these tournaments yes, but after that i didnt see any 800's again, therefore that is my point. It isnt awful for somebody to want to see the best come out of themselves, and yet you're bashing me with your assumptions and leaving me in a spot thinking that you're very unpleasant with your ratings or that you're one of these players that play only at your local park since you seem to have experience in that? :\ It's okay buddy!

Is the need for a high rating so you can be better than someone without actually beating them? If your that much better than your rating play up in divisions. Problem solved.

No, not being better than someone without actually beating them, I would play with anybody regardless if they're good or bad. I enjoy the game.. The only person I really want to beat, is myself, hence the rating.. I want to see how far i can go with myself. I'm sure you've heard of self accomplishment?

I really don't think that this is a fair judgement to make about the OP based on nothing but the info in this thread.

When I play a tournament, I really care about winning that day. I am motivated to see how good I can do. I know many people are the same. Does that mean that every single one of us finds ways to subvert the rules?

:hfive: Thanks!!

Flaws in the ratings system:

-Time Lag
-Inflation
-Higher rated field = Higher ratings for everyone
-Too much reliance on TD reports

I could go on, but those four are the most apparent to most people.

Yeah, three of them is apparent to me, Time lag, I was wondering what the length of time for the ratings to be dropped and etc. Inflation, yup.. Too much relying on the TD reports, One tournament it was windy as hell, and the ratings were like for a perfect day, even the pro's were getting 895-920 ratings, They weren't happy with the TD's report, then it got automatically changed after people mentioned something. So relying on TD decision on how ratings works on that day of tournament is :doh:

Ummmm, no. The best players are motivated by numbers, be it ratings, number of tournaments won, season standings, scoring titles, etc. Numbers allow us to track how we are performing versus others as well as ourselves. You ever hear of Tiger Woods and his quest to surpass Jack Nicklaus' total major victories? Lebron's quest to surpass Jordan? All the greats are obsessed with their standing. QUOTE]

:hfive:

What about ratings inflation? I keep hearing more and more about how a 1000 rated round is more like a 970. Any truth in this?

Maybe it is at some courses/tournaments with the TD that needs tuning in their decision in round ratings during that day?

CAn't get bogged down by the rating, but in general, they are accurate.

They might not tell the whole story, but what can in only 3-4 characters?

Practice, learn, practice more and the rating will take care of itself.

Thanks, yeah I plan on to do that, I was concerned about how long would i have to drag the anvil on my ankle from the first few tournaments, but it's been resolved :clap:

 

[Cgkdisc]

TDs have no direct impact on the ratings other than getting the reports to the PDGA as fast as possible and making sure the divisions are assigned to the course layouts correctly. They do not "judge the wind nor weather" to affect ratings. Even if they include that information, it's only advisory and doesn't impact the math.

 

[jeverett]

@Chuck,

Maybe I'm understanding your terminology incorrectly, but it seems to me that the disc golf ratings are indeed using a form of slope system. Just look how total score (difference) transfers over to total rating difference:

For SSA's above ~50.3289725:
Rating Interval = -0.225067 * SSA + 21.3858

For SSA's below ~50.3289725:
Rating Interval = -0.487095 * SSA + 34.5734

Note: the above formulas are approximated from SSA data, and are only accurate to 99.99% of the PDGA formulas.

For a 850 player to shoot their rating on a SSA 55 course, each throw off of 55 is worth 9.007115 rating points. So the 850 player would average ~71.65 throws (+16.65 over SSA).

For the same 850 player to shoot their rating on an SSA 72 course, each throw off of 72 is worth 5.180976 rating points. So the 850 player would average ~100.95 throws (+28.95 over SSA).

The implication here is that as SSA increases, the rating point interval per throw decreases (i.e. there is a slope system).

 

[jeverett]

TDs have no direct impact on the ratings other than getting the reports to the PDGA as fast as possible and making sure the divisions are assigned to the course layouts correctly. They do not "judge the wind nor weather" to affect ratings. Even if they include that information, it's only advisory and doesn't impact the math.

Just as an aside, from looking at data, I did find one or two historical instances where the incorrect rating interval was applied for round rating calculations (i.e. a course layout with an SSA of over ~50.32 had its rounds assessed using the wrong rating interval formula. I suspect this was definitely due to an incorrect TD report.

 

[Cgkdisc]

jeverett - If slope existed in DG as in BG it would mean that the 850 player got a different rating for a 70 on one SSA 55 course versus another SSA 55 course due to its different length and terrain characteristics. That's not the case. It has nothing to do with what we call the compression factor in DG ratings where the number of points per throw changes based on the SSA.

 

[myroomisajunkyard]

TDs have no direct impact on the ratings other than getting the reports to the PDGA as fast as possible and making sure the divisions are assigned to the course layouts correctly. They do not "judge the wind nor weather" to affect ratings. Even if they include that information, it's only advisory and doesn't impact the math.

I was told the factors for the wind and obstacles add +5/-5 within the math, also for footage of the park divided with a specific number (285) if i recall then get a SSA from there and factor +6 to +10/-6 to -10 points per stroke. all the mumbo jumbo, and the only way they can collect the information is via TD?

I do not have a local park and I have double your courses under my belt, so now it is your assumptions that are incorrect. Also my last 2 tournaments were 3 hours apart. (Scarboro Hills and Hot Shots)
I am not a current PDGA member so I do not have a rating, but I am very happy with my last round ratings. You are the one who thought your rating was so important that you had to start a thread about it and said that your rating was your motivation, not the competition nor the social aspects.

I see you've played for nearly 6 years, I've played just turned a year. I'm not really comparing notes with you, just shoving your word back in your mouth where it belongs since the bashing was uncalled for in the first place. I'm glad that youre happy with your round ratings, :clap:.. Ratings is my motivation to succeed in being a better player, sense of self accomplishment, the competition can be fun, i like to challenge people that are better than me and Yes, i can accept when i lose. It's the fun of playing tournaments, social aspects too, it's part of the package of playing disc golf. Ratings just pushes me to go farther and farther in what my abilities can do, I dont think there's anything wrong with that? Apparently some people do?

 

[Cgkdisc]

I was told the factors for the wind and obstacles add +5/-5 within the math, also for footage of the park divided with a specific number (285) if i recall then get a SSA from there and factor +6 to +10/-6 to -10 points per stroke. all the mumbo jumbo, and the only way they can collect the information is via TD?

The math produces those figures, not the TD. It all gets generated from the scores and ratings of the players in each round.

 

[Happablap]

opcorn:

 

[Hegemony]

The math produces those figures, not the TD. It all gets generated from the scores and ratings of the players in each round.

Chuck,

Could you explain then why a rec player in a small rec group with few propagators could shoot the same score from the red tees as an advanced player from the long tees in the same round of a tournament and yet receive a higher round rating than the advanced player?

The round ratings held even after the PDGA published the final numbers.

 

[Dan Ensor]

Chuck,

Could you explain then why a rec player (Player A) in a small rec group with few propagators could shoot the same score from the red tees as an advanced player from the long tees in the same round of a tournament and yet receive a higher round rating than the advanced player?

The round ratings held even after the PDGA published the final numbers.

Player A played well; everyone else shooting red tees shot poorly. Everyone on blue tees played exceptionally well.

Or for some reason the blue tees are actually easier.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Chuck,

Could you explain then why a rec player in a small rec group with few propagators could shoot the same score from the red tees as an advanced player from the long tees in the same round of a tournament and yet receive a higher round rating than the advanced player?

The round ratings held even after the PDGA published the final numbers.

I'd have to see it. But the ratings system is a statistical process and you'll sometimes see anomalies like this. The PDGA has chosen to reduce the minimum number of propagators needed below what stats professors would consider acceptable so everyone will get ratings, every round. If the PDGA required a higher minimum number of propagators, many players would either not get ratings or be forced to play longer layouts, but the ratings would be more consistent. That's the trade-off.

I'd like the ratings to be more consistent/better because I'd have a lot less 'splainin' to do. But I like that we can provide the ratings the best we can for everyone even with its wider fluctuations. No one gets paid based on their rating. They still have to throw.

 

[Happablap]

In other news, Iron Hill has sustained minimal damage on the course.

Super competitive disc golfers make me chuckle, in other news.

 

[Hegemony]

I'd have to see it. But the ratings system is a statistical process and you'll sometimes see anomalies like this. The PDGA has chosen to reduce the minimum number of propagators needed below what stats professors would consider acceptable so everyone will get ratings, every round. If the PDGA required a higher minimum number of propagators, many players would either not get ratings or be forced to play longer layouts, but the ratings would be more consistent. That's the trade-off.

Then I call your attention to Hotlanta 2012. The Rec group and I think the Int women played the short layout. Everyone else played the long. There were only 3-4 propagators in the smaller group. Per round, the rec group has ~20 point high round rating for the same score. SSA for the larger group is around 57 for all three rounds.

I think this is an example of the sample size problem that the PDGA system has. Again, it's a general statistics problem and I can only speculate as to the exact regression methods you're using, so this isn't an accusation on how it's being done. It's also definitely not a argument for doing it the way ball golf does it.

 

[iacas]

Sorry but I have to interject here. It is tough to debate an opponent who's got over 10 years of real data at his disposal. That doesn't mean he's right, but your posts are going to have a credibility deficit unless you counter with actual data. You are speculating about what different players "might average" on a made-up course you "imagine". Instead it would be nice to see the real data.

Two things... First, I've mostly been responding to what I feel are incorrect statements about golf and how terrible the handicapping is there. Slope is not a "fudge factor," among other things, in golf, and I've given examples of why.

Second, I've asked Chuck this question but he hasn't answered yet.

Course A:
All identical 300 foot holes with that are wide open. Let's say ten (or fifty, or however many you want) 1000 rated players play the course and they average 43.2. An equal number of the equivalent of "bogey golfers" play the course and average 57.6. That's a differential of 14.4.

Course B:
All identical 300 foot holes with a massive wall of trees and crap from 100 to 250 feet off every tee. The gap is wide enough that the pro hits it easily virtually every time, but the "bogey golfer" hits it every other throw. The 1000 rated players average 44.2 (they hit the trees once a round and it costs them a shot) and the "bogey golfers" average 66.6 - they hit the trees half the time and it only adds one shot to their score on that hole. That's a difference of 22.4.

Does the SSA change all that much when the average of the 1000 rated disc golfers goes from 43.2 to 44.2? Will the people I called "bogey golfers" get the same rating on both courses?

Until you can separate types of courses and crunch the numbers, there's no way to know if slope is needed or not.

Your rating system says a 1000-rated player will average 55 on both courses, regardless the type of course. Your rating system also says an 850-rated player will average a 72 on both courses, regardless of the type of course.

That seems, to some at least, counter-intuitive. That's not to say it's true or false, but so far you've not provided any proof either.

Yes, that seems counter-intuitive to me based on my example above. I realize too that I made up the numbers, but I think the example still holds, just as it "works" in golf to illustrate the need for slope - some hazards affect the poorer golfers at a more significant rate than their handicap index would otherwise predict. Slope brings their differentials on higher-slope courses back to where they should be.

This is a flawed statement. You can't measure the number of golfers "capable" of playing on tour

You could if you simply said "+5 or better index" or something like that. That golfer is "capable" of playing on the PGA Tour.

Double the number of golfers in the world and you should not see the number of +5s also double.

Then again, golf is closer to exhausting itself than disc golf - maybe there are skilled, athletic guys still out there, and maybe the number of 1000-rated players can remain constant for now.

But it won't if you're simply adding people to the bottom levels of the sport, and they're not advancing enough to reach the 1000-rated level. Then you'd see a drop in the percentage of 1000-rated players, and if the percentage remained the same then you could point to artificially increased ratings.

However, if you're saying that doubling the number of golfers wouldn't double the number of players that are scratch or better, then that's just plain wrong since the handicap distribution is the same regardless of the number of players.

That's not true. If I add 5 million new golfers to the game, within the first year or two very, very few of them will become scratch golfers, and the % of scratch golfers will drop while the % of golfers with handicaps of 18 or higher will increase quite a bit.

NEW golfers - and new disc golfers - don't enter the sport at scratch or 1000 ratings. They enter as beginners. If more enter the sport than the necessary percentage already in the sport can advance to scratch/1000 rating, the % of scratch/1000-rated players will decrease.

Thus most of the time when a sport is growing rapidly in popularity, as a percentage, the top tier players decreases. As a static count, it's likely to increase, but 5 of every 1000 players is a larger percentage than 6 of every 1500 players.

Maybe I'm understanding your terminology incorrectly, but it seems to me that the disc golf ratings are indeed using a form of slope system. Just look how total score (difference) transfers over to total rating difference:

For SSA's above ~50.3289725:
Rating Interval = -0.225067 * SSA + 21.3858

For SSA's below ~50.3289725:
Rating Interval = -0.487095 * SSA + 34.5734

Note: the above formulas are approximated from SSA data, and are only accurate to 99.99% of the PDGA formulas.

For a 850 player to shoot their rating on a SSA 55 course, each throw off of 55 is worth 9.007115 rating points. So the 850 player would average ~71.65 throws (+16.65 over SSA).

For the same 850 player to shoot their rating on an SSA 72 course, each throw off of 72 is worth 5.180976 rating points. So the 850 player would average ~100.95 throws (+28.95 over SSA).

The implication here is that as SSA increases, the rating point interval per throw decreases (i.e. there is a slope system).

I'm mostly (kind of) trying to stay out of the disc golf side because I don't know much about how SSAs truly work (except to know that they're only assigned during tournaments and don't come into play for casual rounds), but that does indeed seem like a form of slope.

jeverett - If slope existed in DG as in BG it would mean that the 850 player got a different rating for a 70 on one SSA 55 course versus another SSA 55 course due to its different length and terrain characteristics. That's not the case.

Could you address my question above about the 300 foot hole courses?

 

[Cgkdisc]

I'm checking out Hotlanta. The TD report I have shows the Intermediate playing the same layout as the Rec division but the posted ratings show the Intermediate with the Advanced.