Ratings School...

[jksdg]

The biggest knock against it is that it doesn't do things that it wasn't designed to do, anyway.

Like create a fixed, permanent number (SSA) for a particular course. Or produce a single round rating so specific and accurate that it means something all by itself.

that's the biggest strength in my mind coming from someone with both a GHIN handicap and PDGA rating.

Weather and pin placements are so important.

I'd love to see a permanent SSA for each course. If pin placements were a constant than it would be possible with a few tournaments averaged hoping to take weather variations out. I'd love to see this site try to use actual tournaments as opposed to guess based on yardage and trees and elevation. PDGA merged with discgolfscene, perhaps it could join an alliance here.

Who says the purpose of the rating was to quantify the strength of a course. Isn't it designed to quantify the ability of the player.

 

[iacas]

that's the biggest strength in my mind coming from someone with both a GHIN handicap and PDGA rating.

I don't agree that your GHIN handicap is "bad." It's also not rating the same thing. Your handicap in golf is more about your potential, for actual handicapping. Players are only expected to play at their handicap 40-50% of the time. They are different numbers.

Weather and pin placements are so important.

That matters quite a bit more in disc golf than golf.

I'd love to see a permanent SSA for each course. If pin placements were a constant than it would be possible with a few tournaments averaged hoping to take weather variations out. I'd love to see this site try to use actual tournaments as opposed to guess based on yardage and trees and elevation. PDGA merged with discgolfscene, perhaps it could join an alliance here.

I've long supported the idea of more permanent SSAs, but I also don't think that you can use the SSA alone. Something like the USGA's "slope" would be needed, I think, because not every 53.5 course is the same for the 800-rated player.

Who says the purpose of the rating was to quantify the strength of a course. Isn't it designed to quantify the ability of the player.

They kind of go hand in hand, no?

I mean, in golf, a 74.3/144 course is more difficult - for all players - than a 71.1/115 course. A player who shoots 75 on the first course is almost scratch, a player shooting 73 on the other course is still about a 2 handicap.

 

[DavidSauls]

that's the biggest strength in my mind coming from someone with both a GHIN handicap and PDGA rating.

Weather and pin placements are so important.

I'd love to see a permanent SSA for each course. If pin placements were a constant than it would be possible with a few tournaments averaged hoping to take weather variations out. I'd love to see this site try to use actual tournaments as opposed to guess based on yardage and trees and elevation. PDGA merged with discgolfscene, perhaps it could join an alliance here.

Who says the purpose of the rating was to quantify the strength of a course. Isn't it designed to quantify the ability of the player.

Who says? Ratings critics say! (I'm not among them---the whole purpose of the ratings system was to allow players to compete in divisions among player of similar skills, which I think it does very well).

At our course, which has 2 overlapping layouts, we ran a number of events where the SSAs were pretty consistent. So, as far as we're concerned, it has an unofficial SSA (the average) for each layout.

At the other 2 courses I play most, it would be impossible because of constant layout and pin placement changes.

 

[jksdg]

So , in theory, would you rather see rounds rated to the established SSA with a very large sample size OR the way it is done now.

I would love to see this site have a field where you can put in that SSA.

 

[DavidSauls]

The way it's done now. It makes a lot more sense for generating player ratings.

But, where a course can have a set SSA---where the layout and SSAs are consistent---I'd like a field for that on this site. It gives a nice idea of what sort of course I might be playing.

But that part is for amusement only. Nobody should put a great deal of weight on it.

 

[Steve West]

..
But, where a course can have a set SSA---where the layout and SSAs are consistent---I'd like a field for that on this site. It gives a nice idea of what sort of course I might be playing.

..

That field is here. Fourth column, at the bottom.

 

[DavidSauls]

That field is here. Fourth column, at the bottom.

I'm missing something---I don't see it---just length and par.

 

[Steve West]

I'm missing something---I don't see it---just length and par.

Gold par should be near or under SSA. Close enough for the static SSA-ish number you were wishing for.

 

[DavidSauls]

Only if you're confident as to the method by which Gold Par was set. In this case, I'm not sure, and I'm the one who set it.

Actually, in this case, you'd have to be confident that those tee colors match skill levels, which they don't, as noted at the bottom of the page. They were the best way to wedge a course with multiple overlapping layouts into one screen. This site, fabulous as it is, isn't designed for a course as convoluted as ours. (Fingers crossed we get enough work done in 2017 that we can list it normally).

I'd agree that a well-done and reliable "par" would be quite informative. But it's still different from SSA, depending on how many holes have an average score a little below par, and how many a little above.

For what it's worth, our results are (White) par 59, SSA 54.0; (Gold) par 62, SSA 58.5. The former is significantly easier than the latter---the SSA gives a better indication of that.

 

[DavidSauls]

Anyway, that's a serious digression on one of the minor side benefits that can be extracted from the ratings system, for courses with consistent layouts.

It's a long way from the rating system itself, and the discrepancy between tournament play and league play. Sorry for the drift.

 

[jksdg]

I'd still like to see what the average deviation to his/her rating on someone playing their home course in a tournament.

I'd bet marrying that with the different % of locals playing leagues vs tournaments would explain a lot.

 

[DavidSauls]

I agree, within limits.

I had a long string of events in which my rating was 50 points below my average, in the final round on home-course tournaments. Which probably had something to do with the fact that I was also working them, sometimes TDing, and exhausted.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Part 2 > http://www.pdga.com/leagues-vs-tournaments-pt-2

 

[krupicka]

If League ratings are separated from tournament ratings, sanctioned leagues will die.

 

[cjman]

Chuck, thank you for writing these two pieces. The conversations I have had with local members regarding the ratings articles have been great. Now that more members have been educated on how the rating system works, the mysterious ratings illusion has been cleared.

Seems that most think it is doing or telling us something that it wasn't. Hopefully these articles will help bring about the change in our sports "rating system" so many of us have been longing for! Thanks!

 

[lyleoross]

opcorn:opcorn:opcorn:opcorn:opcorn:

The model is accurate because the bullies that created it said so. The rating system is a joke. I could have two entry level employees create something in a couple of hours that makes more sense.

Looking forward to using it. No cost to the PDGA?

 

[Rob Martin]

If League ratings are separated from tournament ratings, sanctioned leagues will die.

I've ran 5 PDGA leagues. I tend to agree with this statement.

 

[DanJon]

If League ratings are separated from tournament ratings, sanctioned leagues will die.

Do sanctioned leagues water down the rating system?

 

[DavidSauls]

Not the system itself, but.....

I'd rather my rating reflect my tournament play, which I think of as a higher level of competition. It gives me a number to say, this is how I've played in tournaments. If it mixes in league play, it may better describe my skill level---with more data---but means a little less to me.

At least theoretically, as there is no sanctioned league play near me, and I wouldn't have time for it if there were.

The issue might be that, for people who feel the opposite, the ratings are a big bonus of sanctioning leagues. Having two separate ratings---a tournament rating and a league rating----would make me happy, but probably not them.

 

[DG_player]

Not the system itself, but.....

I'd rather my rating reflect my tournament play, which I think of as a higher level of competition. It gives me a number to say, this is how I've played in tournaments. If it mixes in league play, it may better describe my skill level---with more data---but means a little less to me.

At least theoretically, as there is no sanctioned league play near me, and I wouldn't have time for it if there were.

The issue might be that, for people who feel the opposite, the ratings are a big bonus of sanctioning leagues. Having two separate ratings---a tournament rating and a league rating----would make me happy, but probably not them.

Are you so sure it's not the system itself?

Per article 1, the difference in tournament pressure should already be accounted for in the lower SSA for league rounds. However there is still a tendency for higher rated players to do better in tournament vs. league play, and vice versa for low rated players. The easy answer is, "oh it's a difference in ability to handle pressure". How can you be so sure that it's not a flaw in the rating system though?

Perhaps it comes down to the propagators. I would be willing to bet that the average SSA of propagators in a league setting is much lower than the average SSA of propagators in a tourney setting. Maybe the system just doesn't work well if you're a high rated player playing in league with a bunch of lower rated players or if you're a low rated player playing in a tournament with a bunch of higher rated players.

We will never know because the PDGA refuses to be transparent about how their rating system actually works.