Paige Pierce To Discraft 2020

[Rastnav]

OK, bear of little brain question.

How many "propagators" are their for a given round? How are they decided?

Because if there are a select few propagators, at that simply determines what a 1000 rated round is, then it doesn't matter what "your competition" (writ large) scores, nor does it matter what their ratings are, it only matters what the progagators score and incoming rating is.

So, are their 2 propagators for the MPO field? 10? 1? Is the propagator always in the field? Mostly just curious.

 

[Discette]

OK, bear of little brain question.

How many "propagators" are their for a given round? How are they decided?

Because if there are a select few propagators, at that simply determines what a 1000 rated round is, then it doesn't matter what "your competition" (writ large) scores, nor does it matter what their ratings are, it only matters what the progagators score and incoming rating is.

So, are their 2 propagators for the MPO field? 10? 1? Is the propagator always in the field? Mostly just curious.

Simply go to the PDGA FAQ and the answers are right there.

PDGA FAQ


Here is the basic answer:

Propagators are players with a rating above 699 and based on at least 8 rated rounds. Their scores each round are used to determine the course rating (SSA) and subsequent unofficial ratings for each player that round. It takes at least two propagators (also known as props or gators) playing a specific course layout for the online software to calculate unofficial ratings for a round. Propagators are shown on the tournament pages with their rating in bold type.

 

[Rastnav]

Simply go to the PDGA FAQ and the answers are right there.

PDGA FAQ


Here is the basic answer:

That doesn't quite actually answer the question I asked. Maybe it's supposed to mean that ALL of those players are propagators. Based on looking at tourney results and which ratings are bolded, it does look like nearly all of the MPO field, and all of the FPO field, were classified as propagators.

So, if everyone is a progator, and the FPO course is unique, I'm not quite seeing how you aren't being rated based on how did versus all of your competitors, as everyone's score goes into rating the course. Probably me not understanding something else, though.

 

[Cgkdisc]

A propagator is everyone playing whose PDGA Player Rating is based on at least 8 rounds. Anywhere from 15 to 40 in elite FPO rounds and over 100 in elite MPO rounds. Something to consider is the average player will shoot more than 3 throws above their rating 1 in 6 rounds and the same percentage more than 3 throws below their rating. 4 of 6 rounds will be between +/- 3 throws of their rating. The odds the SSA produced by just five props being more than 3 throws in error is 1 in 7776 rounds (6 to the 5th power). So you can see that even with the number of props as low as 15, the odds of much error in the SSA calculation for each round is very low.

With regard to some offset in the ratings pool in isolated populations, it doesn't matter for the purposes of comparative ratings within that population, just comparisons to the global pool. As soon as players from the global pool play in the isolated pool or players from the isolated pool travel to play in the global pool, the isolated pool ratings will naturally converge into the global pool. Considering that players not paid in events based on their rating but their actual performance scores, are potentially depressed isolated pool ratings a real problem?

I can see where the competition and registration rules in say Europe might not account for this possibility in countries newer to continental competition? The U.S. had lower thresholds for International players entering World Championships for many years when it was hard to know how good they might be until playing in big time events. Maybe Europe needs to consider lower rating thresholds for registering from countries thought to be emerging with depressed ratings?

 

[ToddL]

If this guy said "ratings in equlals ratings out", then 'this guy' was trying to simplify it for someone. If he more accurately said, "ratings points in = ratings points out" he'd be accurate. It's a zero sum game if all the players are propagators. In either case, he's a smart guy. And playing "pro divisions" at your local events where there are different layouts for pro and am would mean he was basically saying, "there are more ratings points in to chase in those divisions."

Ratings points in = ratings points out is indeed true, but like you said, it's a zero sum game.

If McBeth shows up to your tournament, it's not like there will be an additional 1062 points that get passed around to the rest of the players. If he puts 1062 points in and takes 1075 points back out, then his presence actually harms the rest of you. If he puts 1062 points in and plays poorly and takes 1020 points back out, then the rest of the field gets to gorge themselves on the 42 points he gave up.

 

[araytx]

OK, bear of little brain question.

How many "propagators" are their for a given round? How are they decided?

Because if there are a select few propagators, at that simply determines what a 1000 rated round is, then it doesn't matter what "your competition" (writ large) scores, nor does it matter what their ratings are, it only matters what the progagators score and incoming rating is.

So, are their 2 propagators for the MPO field? 10? 1? Is the propagator always in the field? Mostly just curious.

It does answer the question. Have you met Mr. Prerube yet???

Ratings points in = ratings points out is indeed true, but like you said, it's a zero sum game.

If McBeth shows up to your tournament, it's not like there will be an additional 1062 points that get passed around to the rest of the players. If he puts 1062 points in and takes 1075 points back out, then his presence actually harms the rest of you. If he puts 1062 points in and plays poorly and takes 1020 points back out, then the rest of the field gets to gorge themselves on the 42 points he gave up.

An oversimplification, but yes, that's true. (Fyi, I know DiscFifty, he lives in my home town. The "that guy" we were both talking about is me.)

But even when McBeth shows up, (lets face it, BEFORE the tournament we only know how we think he's gonna play; we don't know how he'll actually play. We do know, as Chuck just stated above, close to the statistical probabilities) ... now back to point...
BEFORE the tournament actually starts we don't know anything about how McBeth or any other elite player will play. But we do know that he brought those 1,060-plus ratings point with him, 75-90 more (individually) than my average local pro. But yes, in general for McBeth, or any player, when they play above their average, they also take those ratings points out with them .... and ultimately getting those "rounds above his rating" put into the formula at the next ratings update, likely raising his rating to what it should be. The lag is relatively short at about a month in between.

 

[ru4por]

Here are a couple good ratings discussion threads. Maybe the mods could move the rating technical discussion here to one of them? Some of us think ratings are magic and are perfectly fine in our beliefs.

https://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=130754&highlight=understanding+ratings

https://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=98287&highlight=understanding+ratings

 

[Cgkdisc]

Remember that double weighting, dropping extra low rounds and the fact that lower rated props are less consistent means they tend to bring "extra" rating points to the table. About one third of the props are over 40 and the majority are at the point of trying to cling onto their rating and reduce the natural speed of decline. That's another source of rating points added to the prop pool that Masters are trying to retain but with less success on average.

 

[Jugular]

Considering that players not paid in events based on their rating but their actual performance scores, are potentially depressed isolated pool ratings a real problem?

I think its only an issue in extreme cases and apart from the issue you raise about thresholds for competing its effect is purely one of perceptions. In either depressed or inflated ratings people can put a lot of self worth into their rating and if they find its not in line with their "true" rating it can evoke strong feelings. Where strong feelings take people depends on the person. Does the stats team at the PDGA put time into analysing potential localised differences?

 

[Cgkdisc]

The initial purpose for the ratings system (which I discussed in the podcast) is to better assign amateurs to the correct division and prevent them from playing in a division below their current skill level and simultaneously, determine the challenge level of a course (SSA). And the process works well even in isolated populations. Beyond that purpose, others have emerged and taken on a life of their own with people projecting accuracy for various values that are really only there as distributions versus precise numbers. There are ways the process and resulting numbers can be improved that Roger and I were trying to implement before we turned over the system last year but the PDGA hasn't yet gotten around to doing those things to our knowledge due to other priorities.

 

[teemkey]

...
With regard to some offset in the ratings pool in isolated populations, it doesn't matter for the purposes of comparative ratings within that population, just comparisons to the global pool. As soon as players from the global pool play in the isolated pool or players from the isolated pool travel to play in the global pool, the isolated pool ratings will naturally converge into the global pool. Considering that players not paid in events based on their rating but their actual performance scores, are potentially depressed isolated pool ratings a real problem?
...

The recent decision to exclude <900 rated players from MPO in premier events is probably the only real impact. If, say, Lloyd Weema improves his rating to 895, he would be excluded from, while a 901 rated MP65+ would be accepted into, the MPO division.

 

[Cgkdisc]

The recent decision to exclude <900 rated players from MPO in premier events is probably the only real impact. If, say, Lloyd Weema improves his rating to 895, he would be excluded from, while a 901 rated MP65+ would be accepted into, the MPO division.

What happens at elite events, especially those with lots of OB penalties, is that several lower rated propagators shoot more than 60 points below their rating and get excluded from propagating that round. So it's hard to determine whether eliminating props under 900 will make a difference for a specific round or course.

 

[teemkey]

What happens at elite events, especially those with lots of OB penalties, is that several lower rated propagators shoot more than 60 points below their rating and get excluded from propagating that round. So it's hard to determine whether eliminating props under 900 will make a difference for a specific round or course.

Yeah, but who doesn't like the odd miracle from time to time.

 

[DiscFifty]

If this guy said "ratings in equlals ratings out", then 'this guy' was trying to simplify it for someone. If he more accurately said, "ratings points in = ratings points out" he'd be accurate......(snip!)

All you had to do was say "yes".

 

[DiscFifty]

Ratings points in = ratings points out is indeed true, but like you said, it's a zero sum game.

If McBeth shows up to your tournament, it's not like there will be an additional 1062 points that get passed around to the rest of the players. If he puts 1062 points in and takes 1075 points back out, then his presence actually harms the rest of you. If he puts 1062 points in and plays poorly and takes 1020 points back out, then the rest of the field gets to gorge themselves on the 42 points he gave up.

Let's continue the discussion here perhaps....
https://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=137064

 

[Jolt]

So Paige is now 13points ahead of the 2nd higest rated woman. . and have 12 points left to get to a 1000.
She was at 970 a year ago. . so she has jumped 18 points in just one year . .but she was at 976 all the way back in 2014

So can she do it? . .well she can but will she? . . to me it looks hard when she is making 903-905 rounds mixed in with all her +1000 rounds

 

[Nick Pacific]

So Paige is now 13points ahead of the 2nd higest rated woman. . and have 12 points left to get to a 1000.
She was at 970 a year ago. . so she has jumped 18 points in just one year . .but she was at 976 all the way back in 2014

So can she do it? . .well she can but will she? . . to me it looks hard when she is making 903-905 rounds mixed in with all her +1000 rounds

I think she's going to make it, I would guess either next year or the year after. I think once she starts pushing 30 she'll naturally start to play more high % shots/putts and more conservative golf (without sacrificing any distance) and that will clean up a lot of the unforced errors she tends to make playing overly aggressive.

I see Paige playing her best rated golf in her early 30's. Any distance she'll lose from now will be minute (if any) and not a factor, but she will gain patience and experience and throw more golf shots, which will lead to that extra 2 strokes a round she'll need to push past 1000.

She's got room for improvement. Her forehand game still is overly reliant on flexing stable discs and her roller game could also improve as well, given how often they play on ball golf courses (and that will only increase) a good roller game is only going to continue to be more important. A little more touch with the forehand, more consistency with the roller, and just more patience in general and she can shave off 2 strokes no problem.

 

[ChrisWoj]

That doesn't quite actually answer the question I asked. Maybe it's supposed to mean that ALL of those players are propagators. Based on looking at tourney results and which ratings are bolded, it does look like nearly all of the MPO field, and all of the FPO field, were classified as propagators.

So, if everyone is a progator, and the FPO course is unique, I'm not quite seeing how you aren't being rated based on how did versus all of your competitors, as everyone's score goes into rating the course. Probably me not understanding something else, though.

The course acts as a common filter. We enter all of the different props into that filter, and by running through that common filter they're kept from skewing too far from each other. There's some random stuff in the conversation above regarding some layout with just one ten foot difference on one hole - the ratings scale for FPO and MPO coming out of an event shouldn't be significantly different for a layout like that even if your rating is based on this group of competitors instead of that group of competitors.

 

[araytx]

I think its only an issue in extreme cases and apart from the issue you raise about thresholds for competing its effect is purely one of perceptions. In either depressed or inflated ratings people can put a lot of self worth into their rating and if they find its not in line with their "true" rating it can evoke strong feelings. Where strong feelings take people depends on the person. Does the stats team at the PDGA put time into analysing potential localised differences?

So many things here I disagree with. "Inflated" ratings, or "depressed" ratings do not exist. There is a lag in ratings, based upon the total of which things count when (as in become official) and which don't; it's particularly shown when player is rapidly improving or rapidly declining -- bu those ratings are not "inflated" or "depressed". People just don't like to believe what the ratings say they are, and yes, THAT is a self-worth issue. I giggle inside every time I hear someone at a tournament say something like, "my rating says I'm 950, but I'm actually much better than that." Nope. Over time, and on average you're gonna shoot 950. And if you don't, the ratings will make the appropriate adjustment at next update. As I like to say, you can't trick the math. It's a formula. It has no feelings whatsoever.

 

[araytx]

So Paige is now 13points ahead of the 2nd higest rated woman. . and have 12 points left to get to a 1000.
She was at 970 a year ago. . so she has jumped 18 points in just one year . .but she was at 976 all the way back in 2014

So can she do it? . .well she can but will she? . . to me it looks hard when she is making 903-905 rounds mixed in with all her +1000 rounds

If she continues to shoot high enough, those 903 rounds could drop into the "not counted column," capisce?