Why ratings are stupid to worry about

[luma]

Edit: sorry for the long post but see the underlined…:
Now, I have just read 5 out of the 12 pages of this Thread, I am not a regular forum user and I will probably not read this thread again, so I like to write everything at once that comes to mind BUT, I like maths and ratings, so I will say something here.

I agree that when you're looking at a specific tournament, the system might have a flaw. I mean I am frustrated myself, that the only local tourney in my area has cost me my 1000+ average. Maybe even twice depending on the official ratings at the next update. But on the other hand, I've had some tournaments that I played, where I thought ok, I might get a 1000 average and in fact had a 1020 then. Ratings even vary a lot inside Europe when you look at different countries. I don't even want to know how much difference there is between Europe and the US.
With all the statistics talk in here though: if you have like 40 rated rounds a year, then there is a great chance that your average rating will be your average level of play. You will have tournaments that were rated worse than they should've been and some that were higher than supposed to. You will have courses that favor beginners (like my home tournament. If a 920 rated guy can shoot a 50 (-6) easily, how much better can I do than 41?) and courses that favor big arms (like having holes where you have to throw 450' or you have to go through, around and under obstacles, so 450' throwers have a much easier course than 300' throwers)**. You will have your own bad rounds, rounds where you get rollaways and rounds where you make every putt. All of this will be statistically distributed. Of course if you only play 8 rounds or so it will not be as accurate as when you play 40+. So, even though it might not be exactly how you play, it will give a pretty good indication of it (maybe +/- 5 points?).
**This is why I don't have a problem with +/- 40 points difference of a rated round between pools. Think about it. You will certainly know a course where it makes a huge difference between being good and bad. You will also know that little beginner's course that won't reward a good player because even a beginner will shoot par. Imagine a course where an 850 rated guy can shoot a level par round consistently. Imagine it's just Par 3s so no Eagles except for aces. Now, how much more under than 18 can a guy like mcbeth or wysocki go? ->
So for another example let's look at a course where the top pros have to lay up just like 850 rated players who can shoot a 60 on that course. Let's say it's an easy course, but on 5 holes you have to lay up (so no stroke less for the pros there than for an 850 guy) and on 4 holes there are so many trees that there is luck involved and sometimes the 850 guy even gets one on McBeth. Then you only have 9 holes where the top guys will be able to make up a stroke. So let's say that you have only 850 guys playing with a round average of 60. Then a 1000 will be around a 47 maybe. If you have McBeths playing, they take a stroke from the 850 guys on every hole where they can (meaning NOT on the layup and wooded luck holes) plus additionally 5 due to better putting, better recovery shots or whatever. So they will average a 46. If you only had McBeths playing then, the 1000 round would be a 50 which is 3 strokes different from the 850 guys. (I'm not good at making up examples, but you know what I'm saying..I hope). This works the other way as well. On a course like the memorial, where McBeth can throw at everything with a hyzer, he can get 18 looks at a birdie. An 850 guy (who won't play there but I'm just trying to make up the example) won't have any birdie look and will even struggle to put his second shot close on some of the holes. So McBeth has an 18 throw advantage just from the amount of birdie looks he gets. Now comes the putting where he takes 5 more throws from the 850 guy and there you go. McBeth is 23 shots lower than the 850 guy in average. If a 1000 equals a 50 so one throw difference is 10 rating points, then there are 230 rating points between McBeth and the 850 guy on that course in the average score.

The other thing that I saw popping up here was that IN=OUT. At first I didn't agree with this at all, because if everyone plays well, my rating will be worse than if everyone played bad. True, BUT again, this won't have a huge impact on your rating over a lot of rounds. First of all the chance of everyone playing well for their standards is pretty slim. It might be bigger for tournaments in newer DG countries where you only have 10 propagators, but when you have 50 guys it won't make a difference. And again you have 10 tourneys that you play in, and in some you will play better or worse, or the other guys will have bad days, make a 15 on an island hole or whatever.
And the biggest props that I have to give to the rating system is that it's ultimately useable. Whatever the weather is, whatever the temporary tees, basket positions, islands and whatever are, it doesn't matter to the rating system. Imagine you would always have to play the standard course that is rated. Like not even an additional hole because the standard basket position is surrounded by a construction site. No way that would be a good idea.
We have been trying to get a system that incorporates at least bad weather or difficult pin positions in German ball golf now for years. And the result is just like when everyone plays bad, you will get one to three strokes added to your handicap. I mean, I really prefer the discgolf system to be honest…

So, I hope you haven't fallen asleep, aren't thinking "learn English before writing an English book in a forum" or whatever…. Plus I hope everything I wrote makes sense. Sometimes I know what I was trying to say, but if I read it a couple days later even I can't follow my thoughts that I had.... :doh::clap:

 

[RobA]

I really hope "propagator" doesn't start leaking into every day use on the DG course now.

 

[VictorB]

Better system? How about no ratings?

I could actually get behind this.

Then, you'd only have 2 division splits though, Pro and Amateur. I'm not sure the current rec/int players would be ok with that.

I've always thought there should be less divisions and trophy only play for AMs, putting all the prize money into player packs. That's a different subject for a different thread though.

 

[krupicka]

IIRC, the formula to calculate PDGA ratings is a well kept secret. Jeverett and some others spent lots of time essentially "redesigning the wheel" to get us DGCR ratings.

That is precisely why the exact details are kept somewhat secret. It is IP of the PDGA and if it was all public, I'm sure some site would pop up stealing that data and methods and try to offer the service for free making money in some other manner.

 

[RobA]

I could actually get behind this.

Then, you'd only have 2 division splits though, Pro and Amateur. I'm not sure the current rec/int players would be ok with that.

I've always thought there should be less divisions and trophy only play for AMs, putting all the prize money into player packs. That's a different subject for a different thread though.

I'm on board with no ratings. Not so much for trophy only. What is incentive to play? I can buy my own discs and t shirts.

 

[scarpfish]

Not so much for trophy only. What is incentive to play? I can buy my own discs and t shirts.

Might want to ask people who do pretty much every other competitive amateur pursuit where a participation prize is about all they get. Believe it or not, some people are just fine with competing for competition's sake.

 

[dbanderson]

You guys must not have been around before there were ratings. Some of the biggest complaints back then were about sandbagging and the PDGA needs to do something about it. The rating system has pretty much squashed those complaints.

 

[scarpfish]

The rating system has pretty much squashed those complaints.

Well, its pretty much demonstrated those complaints are about 98% unfounded. Considering how many times the sandbagging topic comes up around here, I don't know about "squashed".

 

[runningDoc]

I'm on board with no ratings. Not so much for trophy only. What is incentive to play? I can buy my own discs and t shirts.

I could actually get behind this.

Then, you'd only have 2 division splits though, Pro and Amateur. I'm not sure the current rec/int players would be ok with that.

I've always thought there should be less divisions and trophy only play for AMs, putting all the prize money into player packs. That's a different subject for a different thread though.

the play for just a trophy method of Tourneys seems like it wouldn't work but damn there is a super successful tourney here in Connecticut called the ACT (held at the beautiful Wickham Park, Hartford, CT) thats only for AMs.

Its a one day tourney full 90 player field (so 180 different players for sat/sun) that usually sells out in less than a week.

Entry fee's only freaking $20 and you get 3 discs, minis, tech tshirt (cool DD design), comics (one of the founders of the course was a comic book store owner), stickers, ect. There are CTP prizes and top 3 in division get trophies. the discs were awesome too (vibram mids/drivers vibram minis (always fetch great resale prices) and innova mid range).

Its run as professionally as an A-Tier (because the local A-Tier crew that runs the major A-Tier in CT runs it). Its a way of generating some operating funds for the local DG club while running an awesome tournament for AMs.

Its basically a tourney that was originally made for AM's to get their feet wet (especially at the rec/AM2/women's levels). but it eventually became that and a way to see who the best AM players are in New England.

The only problem, for some, is that there is no PDGA ratings (to save money) sanctioning.

A lot of the newly sponsored Open Players have played in this tourney as AMs.

 

[sidewinder22]

Not so much for trophy only. What is incentive to play? I can buy my own discs and t shirts.

Cheaper to compete in trophy only, so you can save your money for stuff you actually want/need. AM merch prizes are often stuff that is not your choice, or limited selection. You can also make side bets for cash with other players as an AM instead of putting your money in the pot for merch.

 

[TalbotTrojan]

This is why the system is flawed and should never be a determining factor as to a tournament requirement for registration or anything else.

I think I agree with your conclusion here. I on the other hand think the ratings system, despite its apparent flaws is still a necessary thing to have. It really is the best way to create divisions for amateur players to encourage them to keep playing in tournaments. It is not the best way to determine which pros should sign up before other pros, or which pros can play a tournament at all.

If you want to create a way to qualify for a tournament look at what USDGC or Maple Hill does.

 

[VictorB]

I'm on board with no ratings. Not so much for trophy only. What is incentive to play? .

Trying to win is the only incentive I need. Or at least get bragging rights by kicking my friends butts. For the record I've only ever won one C-tier tournament.

 

[onemilemore]

I didn't read the whole thread, so this may have been mentioned. But I wonder what others might think of this: Could the ratings system be something that eventually hinders disc golf's growth a bit?

For many players who want to improve, or for sponsors who want to be able to easily gauge a player's performance, I wonder if introducing a simpler rankings system might be more effective. Obviously it wouldn't work for the average Joe/Joann disc golfer, but on a professional level I think something like the world golf rankings might be a more effective way of determining who is the best.

I am not entirely sure how you would qualify rankings for those who are not on the pro tour - maybe just a handicap, like some local leagues do? - but I feel that having a ratings system that only a small number of people can truly calculate makes the sport less accessible overall.

(And before anyone gets upset about why the sport should grow/keep at its current growth pace/not grow at all...I am on the slow growth side of things. Simply bringing this up for the sake of discussion.)

 

[geoloseth]

The other thing that I saw popping up here was that IN=OUT. At first I didn't agree with this at all, because if everyone plays well, my rating will be worse than if everyone played bad. True, BUT again, this won't have a huge impact on your rating over a lot of rounds.

While in theory that would be correct. In reality though most players only play a handful of tournaments a year, with a large majority of those being C tiers. Those events tend not to draw 1000+ rated players and have very few high 9xx rated players. This means that your left with the constant average in the low 9's that you're trying to overcome. You have to shoot MUCH better than the average of everyone there in order to improve in the ratings standpoint. In the larger events that average round rating is artificially dragged up because the average propagator rating is already higher.

 

[Cgkdisc]

While in theory that would be correct. In reality though most players only play a handful of tournaments a year, with a large majority of those being C tiers. Those events tend not to draw 1000+ rated players and have very few high 9xx rated players. This means that your left with the constant average in the low 9's that you're trying to overcome. You have to shoot MUCH better than the average of everyone there in order to improve in the ratings standpoint. In the larger events that average round rating is artificially dragged up because the average propagator rating is already higher.

Not true. The average rating of propagators does not matter as long as they are playing in the same conditions. However, you only see top rated players in higher tier events with more tournament pressure which will produce a higher rating for the same score. If you're a local who is not affected by tournament pressure and you're able to shoot as well in a local high tier tournament as in your rec rounds on those courses, then you'll get a higher rating for the same score. But the stats show otherwise, i.e. locals choke up under pressure just like the top rated pros. In fact, they choke up even more than the top pros who are more used to the pressure. That's one factor that produces their higher ratings.

 

[geoloseth]

For numbers sake from local DFW C tier tournaments in 2014 - taking the first 10 events there were: 1780 total players, 47 players over 970 rated, and 5 over 1000 rated.

Not true. The average rating of propagators does not matter as long as they are playing in the same conditions. However, you only see top rated players in higher tier events with more tournament pressure which will produce a higher rating for the same score. If you're a local who is not affected by tournament pressure and you're able to shoot as well in a local high tier tournament as in your rec rounds on those courses, then you'll get a higher rating for the same score. But the stats show otherwise, i.e. locals choke up under pressure just like the top rated pros. In fact, they choke up even more than the top pros who are more used to the pressure. That's one factor that produces their higher ratings.

So then how does and intangible like pressure get a numerical value in an equation? Does a player experience more/less pressure if they only get to play 5 tournaments a year vs. the next guy on the card that plays 50 events in that same time frame?

 

[Cgkdisc]

So then how does and intangible like pressure get a numerical value in an equation? Does a player experience more/less pressure if they only get to play 5 tournaments a year vs. the next guy on the card that plays 50 events in that same time frame?

It's not in the equation. It shows up in the scores. That's a fundamental reason why this ratings process is better overall than a fixed course rating system like ball golf. The scores of the propagators carry all of the information about what's different about the "average" playing environment for that round. And BTW, it's different each round on the same course. There's no such thing as "the same conditions", just similar conditions.

 

[RobA]

Might want to ask people who do pretty much every other competitive amateur pursuit where a participation prize is about all they get. Believe it or not, some people are just fine with competing for competition's sake.

I like competing for sure. I just don't like the idea that my division would be used to fund raise for other divisions. I played in a non-sanctioned tourney over the weekend, 100% payout to each division. It was a lot of fun, and fair at the same time.

I am moving up to open master/grandmaster next year anyway so it is non-issue for me. I am sure this is a separate topic that has been discussed in other threads.

 

[RobA]

You guys must not have been around before there were ratings. Some of the biggest complaints back then were about sandbagging and the PDGA needs to do something about it. The rating system has pretty much squashed those complaints.

I remember those days well and you are right, the ratings system has eliminated it for the most par. I think the system is about as good and fair as anything else that could possibly be implemented.

 

[VictorB]

It's not in the equation. It shows up in the scores. That's a fundamental reason why this ratings process is better overall than a fixed course rating system like ball golf. The scores of the propagators carry all of the information about what's different about the "average" playing environment for that round. And BTW, it's different each round on the same course. There's no such thing as "the same conditions", just similar conditions.

I think I know the answer, but how is an 'average propagator' defined? Scores of 1000 rated players on any given course at any give time?