is pdga ratings crap?

[Cgkdisc]

When official ratings are produced, we usually average all of the socres together from multiple rounds on the same layout so that everyone gets the same rating for the same score, because people have come to expect it, not because it should really be that way. If the ratings for the same score are more than 30 points apart, we assume that there was a signifcant weather/wind factor affecting the ratings and rate that round separately.

The thing is, a variance in SSA less than 3 shots/30 points can fall within the normal statistical variance depending on how many propagators are involved. So you can't tell if there really was a difference or just normal variance. Averaging scores together makes more sense in this case. The cool thing is that whether we average the scores together on the same layout or not, you'll end up with the same average for your round ratings.

 

[grodney]

Hey Chuck in that correlation white paper, it starts out talking about correlating rank of player, but then it appears you correlate round ratings to player ratings. Is that right? Is there a reason rating was used instead of ranking? Did you correlate ranking, too? Would you expect, or did you see, much difference?

 

[Cgkdisc]

It's always player ratings correlated with round ratings not initial or final ranks. Using actual ranks has a bit less precision since it implies uniform steps (1, 2, 3) between players versus variable differences (1011, 1008, 1006).

 

[grodney]

Hmmm, yeah. But round ratings come in big chunks: 6-points per stroke on high-SSA to 10 per on a 50 SSA, so it feels like you lose some precision there, even when you average 2 rounds.

I don't know -- just a thought: Seems like the hope would be for a course to rank players close to how they are ranked -- not necessarily duplicate their ratings. Probably a very small difference, I know, just spitballin' here.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Steve West, who you may not know is a retired actuary, has advised on some of my stats analysis. He provided me with a white paper where it indicated using rank was not as good for correlation if you had an alternative value in this case scores or round ratings. I had already recognized that even going back to when we had Sagarin propose an alternative rating system for the PDGA around 2002. His process fails for DG because he was proposing using finish position rank instead of scores, which would have been a little better, but still doesn't work due to the difference in courses.

 

[Hegemony]

When official ratings are produced, we usually average all of the socres together from multiple rounds on the same layout so that everyone gets the same rating for the same score, because people have come to expect it, not because it should really be that way. If the ratings for the same score are more than 30 points apart, we assume that there was a signifcant weather/wind factor affecting the ratings and rate that round separately.

The thing is, a variance in SSA less than 3 shots/30 points can fall within the normal statistical variance depending on how many propagators are involved. So you can't tell if there really was a difference or just normal variance. Averaging scores together makes more sense in this case. The cool thing is that whether we average the scores together on the same layout or not, you'll end up with the same average for your round ratings.

Any luck on the Hotlanta review?

 

[Cgkdisc]

Still in progress.

 

[myroomisajunkyard]

I'm back on the forum, didnt notice that this post was still running.. I was studying the "grey fox park" up in silver lake wisc, there was a cold turkey tournament up there on the 25th of nov, I didnt make it, i twisted my ankle 180 deg the week before the tournament, and i'm still laying in bed with my leg up in the air.. They were using the "classic pin set up" and i was figuring the SSA to figure how to hit 1000 rated round, and i talked to a friend who played for years, we both got to the rough estimate of -7/-8 for a 1000 rated round. The tournament happened/ I went to check to see if the rough estimate was prox good, but found out it's roughly -3 to get 1000 rated (a bit of disappointment that my ankle had to blow the week before) But how is it that it is figured to a -3 to be a 1000 rated round? it was calm day, the park is somewhat easy. Just a bit puzzled..

 

[Cgkdisc]

For one, discs don't fly as far as the temperature falls. The same course plays tougher. Just playing in a tournament can add a few throws to the SSA versus a casual round. There are alternate pin placements on that course so SSA depends on where they were set.

 

[grodney]

found out it's roughly -3 to get 1000 rated

ProTip: The course page on this site lists the Estimate at 50.1 (which I assume you call -4) based on the pins/tees currently listed.
http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=3889

 

[myroomisajunkyard]

For one, discs don't fly as far as the temperature falls. The same course plays tougher. Just playing in a tournament can add a few throws to the SSA versus a casual round. There are alternate pin placements on that course so SSA depends on where they were set.

Gotcha about the disc not flying as far, I'll give it a few month before i could try throwing it again when the ankle heals hopefully in feb

ProTip: The course page on this site lists the Estimate at 50.1 (which I assume you call -4) based on the pins/tees currently listed.
http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=3889

I see the SSE, mm who decides the SSE on dgcoursereveiw? and wonder if most of the TD uses the info from Dgcr? or do they actually do the math themselves or do they take a 'shortcut' in running the tourney?

 

[grodney]

Happy Holidays!

 

[DavidSauls]

I see the SSE, mm who decides the SSE on dgcoursereveiw? and wonder if most of the TD uses the info from Dgcr? or do they actually do the math themselves or do they take a 'shortcut' in running the tourney?

The TD doesn't set the SSA, at all.

It's established by the players' scores, and their player ratings entering the event.

 

[rocthecourse]

I'm back on the forum, didnt notice that this post was still running.. I was studying the "grey fox park" up in silver lake wisc, there was a cold turkey tournament up there on the 25th of nov, I didnt make it, i twisted my ankle 180 deg the week before the tournament, and i'm still laying in bed with my leg up in the air.. They were using the "classic pin set up" and i was figuring the SSA to figure how to hit 1000 rated round, and i talked to a friend who played for years, we both got to the rough estimate of -7/-8 for a 1000 rated round. The tournament happened/ I went to check to see if the rough estimate was prox good, but found out it's roughly -3 to get 1000 rated (a bit of disappointment that my ankle had to blow the week before) But how is it that it is figured to a -3 to be a 1000 rated round? it was calm day, the park is somewhat easy. Just a bit puzzled..

I am not an SSA expert, but I do know the Grey Fox(500+ rounds.) Usually all longs has an SSA around 54. The Classic Layout they used has 7 holes that are short, though only 3-4 of those are likely to add a stroke, which is a 50-51, so the SSA is close to the same. The last time it was all shorts the SSA was a 47, that was for the Women's Global Event. The course does play easier this time of year, less leaves means more openings. But I think the cold hurt the scores a little.

It does seem like people are throwing lower and lower scores here. I assume it has to do with people learning the course and the rough getting beat down.

As for "the park is somewhat easy" I don't think that is the case, it is one of the harder courses in the area. Throwing good rounds here isn't hard, consistently throwing good rounds is.

 

[Jax11]

I am not an SSA expert, but I do know the Grey Fox(500+ rounds.) Usually all longs has an SSA around 54. The Classic Layout they used has 7 holes that are short, though only 3-4 of those are likely to add a stroke, which is a 50-51, so the SSA is close to the same. The last time it was all shorts the SSA was a 47, that was for the Women's Global Event. The course does play easier this time of year, less leaves means more openings. But I think the cold hurt the scores a little.

It does seem like people are throwing lower and lower scores here. I assume it has to do with people learning the course and the rough getting beat down.

As for "the park is somewhat easy" I don't think that is the case, it is one of the harder courses in the area. Throwing good rounds here isn't hard, consistently throwing good rounds is.

The thing I love about grey fox in the classic layout is that 12-14 of the holes out there "can" be birdied if you execute, but if you do not execute, you will be taking 4's and 5's from the nasty rough. It is by no means an easy course, it forces you to focus the whole round and kicks you where it counts if you get too greedy.

I played the Cold turkey Tournament and the temp was right around freezing the whole time. It was a battle between keeping yourself warm while still being able to move with multiple layers on.

Also, there is OB for the classic layout. Just going OB once or twice can cover those 3-4 throws against your estimate OP. A -3 there on that day was a well earned 1000 rated round.