Ratings for this tournament so out of whack?

[JasonVista]

I know these are unofficial but I've never seen ratings so skewed. Just wondering if someone can identify why?

http://www.pdga.com/tour/event/31504

 

[Cgkdisc]

It's pretty obvious that some divisions played different tees than other divisions but the TD didn't set up separate course layouts when uploading the scores. However, TDs usually get this correct when they submit the report to calculate official ratings which is what matters.

 

[biscoe]

in what way are they skewed? did all players play the same layouts?

 

[JasonVista]

Everyone played the same layout. They are skewed because there are more than 18 1000+ rated rounds. And all players averaged 40 to 60 points above their rating.

 

[JasonVista]

All AMs tournament.

 

[JC17393]

I imagine the "skewing" is the slew of 1000+ rated rounds in MA2 and MA3. I suspect Chuck is right...different layouts were played but not accounted for when the scores were uploaded.

 

[JasonVista]

Same layout.

 

[biscoe]

Everyone played the same layout. They are skewed because there are more than 18 1000+ rated rounds. And all players averaged 40 to 60 points above their rating.

does appear a bit odd.

 

[brutalbrutus]

Is there an alternant layout for this course? If like you said they all played the same layout then its likely an error or oversight entering the layout. For instance the course has a long layout that he entered but they played the short. Or the course has more holes than they played.

 

[_MTL_]

It's pretty obvious that some divisions played different tees than other divisions but the TD didn't set up separate course layouts when uploading the scores. However, TDs usually get this correct when they submit the report to calculate official ratings which is what matters.

This was my immediate guess, but it still doesn't explain why so many rounds are inflated.

Typically when you see this, half the field has too high ratings and half the field has too low ratings.

 

[takman]

They are skewed because there are more than 18 1000+ rated rounds. And all players averaged 40 to 60 points above their rating.

That's not why they're skewed, that's just evidence they're skewed.

 

[JasonVista]

Yes. OK. I can't identify why. That's what I'm asking.

 

[Cgkdisc]

I broke out the Rec and Int Women divisions from the others on my rough Excel spreadsheet calculator and the numbers look more reasonable for each group with no rounds over 1000. Not sure what's going on but I haven't had access to the unofficial upload results on the PDGA site without working with the TD to take a look.

 

[brutalbrutus]

I broke out the Rec and Int Women divisions from the others on my rough Excel spreadsheet calculator and the numbers look more reasonable for each group with no rounds over 1000. Not sure what's going on but I haven't had access to the unofficial upload results on the PDGA site for several years now to take a look.

Is there an alternant layout for this course? If like you said they all played the same layout then its likely an error or oversight entering the layout. For instance the course has a long layout that he entered but they played the short. Or the course has more holes than they played.

:thmbup:

 

[ToddL]

The average propagator player rating is 887 and the average propagator round 1 score is 58.7
Yet, a 58 for round 1 is rated 948. Looks like something went weird in the ratings calculation. Those ratings look about 50-60 points too high.

 

[Discette]

The TD was able to update the Tournament Manager and now ratings look natural.

 

[JC17393]

The TD was able to update the Tournament Manager and now ratings look natural.

That's good. What exactly was updated to facilitate the change? If nothing else, it might make for a good lesson in how to use the Tournament Manager properly.

 

[_MTL_]

That's good. What exactly was updated to facilitate the change? If nothing else, it might make for a good lesson in how to use the Tournament Manager properly.

Exactly what I was thinking. I was really confused as to how it even happened without a portion of the field not having extremely low ratings to balance out the higher ones.

 

[Cgkdisc]

I don't know for sure but it looks like it could have been the number of holes was originally set for 36 instead of 18. That would make scores look much better and all of them getting much higher ratings than they should.

 

[Discette]

Exactly what I was thinking. I was really confused as to how it even happened without a portion of the field not having extremely low ratings to balance out the higher ones.

That's good. What exactly was updated to facilitate the change? If nothing else, it might make for a good lesson in how to use the Tournament Manager properly.

Chances are we will never know exactly what caused the problem. I prompted the TD to edit the default layout, add a second layout and assign the layouts for ratings. The TD is very relieved that adding proper course info and assigning layouts seems to have solved the problem.

The TD's hosted a very successful Am event. They did a great job even with the error in the initial scoring upload.