#41  
Old 04-30-2013, 02:48 PM
ScottyLove ScottyLove is offline
Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Years Playing: 3
Courses Played: 93
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 818
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave242 View Post
j
You probably don't/can't know this exactly, but how many PDGA "regulars" were there (those are the most likely propagators)?
It's easy to see the propagators... the are in BOLD in the results.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 04-30-2013, 02:52 PM
jeverett's Avatar
jeverett jeverett is offline
Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Eugene, OR
Years Playing: 5.3
Courses Played: 20
Throwing Style: LHBH
Posts: 966
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottyLove View Post
It's easy to see the propagators... the are in BOLD in the results.
Is this definite? I suspected that, but hadn't ever seen it confirmed.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 04-30-2013, 03:21 PM
1978 1978 is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Charlotte, Nc
Years Playing: 6.1
Courses Played: 169
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 2,866
Say you have a course that has little scoring separation, poorly designed holes I guess. Wouldnt having a higher field average = a much better rating for similar scores across different pools?

What am I missing about the example below?
Field A - Average Rating 1000 average score = 50
Field B - Average rating 950 average score = 52

Field A score 50 = 1000 rated
Field B score 52 = 950 rated the 50 would only be like 980 rated.

So can the design of a course + difference in average ratings make it so different fields can create a different SSA just based on their ratings.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 04-30-2013, 03:24 PM
Cgkdisc Cgkdisc is offline
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Twin Cities
Years Playing: 25.4
Courses Played: 586
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 7,631
Course design affects the standard deviation of the scores not necessarily the SSA produced by propagators of different skill levels.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 04-30-2013, 06:00 PM
jeverett's Avatar
jeverett jeverett is offline
Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Eugene, OR
Years Playing: 5.3
Courses Played: 20
Throwing Style: LHBH
Posts: 966
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1978 View Post

What am I missing about the example below?
Field A - Average Rating 1000 average score = 50
Field B - Average rating 950 average score = 52

Field A score 50 = 1000 rated
Field B score 52 = 950 rated the 50 would only be like 980 rated.
Hi 1978,

The missing component there is the relationship between player (initial) rating and rating-points-per-throw. The PDGA uses two linear equations to match SSA up with an (arbitrary) associated rating-points-per-throw. In order for the difference between a 950 rated player shooting an 'average' 52 and a 1000 rated player shooting an 'average' 50 means a rating-points-per-throw of 25.. much higher than either the PDGA linear compression formula or the observed slope of initial rating vs. scoring spread. Realistically, the value is typically in the 5-15 points-per-throw range, both using the PDGA compression formulas or the slope of initial rating vs. scoring spread. Does that help at all?
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 04-30-2013, 06:24 PM
jeverett's Avatar
jeverett jeverett is offline
Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Eugene, OR
Years Playing: 5.3
Courses Played: 20
Throwing Style: LHBH
Posts: 966
Just to add a little to the above, here's the 'compression' formula that would apply:

For SSA's below 50.3289725:
rating_points_per_throw = -0.487095 * SSA + 34.5734

So, if the SSA after field A plays is determined to be 50, the rating_points_per_throw increment would be 10.21865. So a 52 would be rated at 979.5627 (rounded to 980). So your field B would be vastly more likely to average ~55 than 52. (actually 54.89301424356).
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 05-01-2013, 09:22 AM
1978 1978 is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Charlotte, Nc
Years Playing: 6.1
Courses Played: 169
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 2,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeverett View Post
Just to add a little to the above, here's the 'compression' formula that would apply:

For SSA's below 50.3289725:
rating_points_per_throw = -0.487095 * SSA + 34.5734

So, if the SSA after field A plays is determined to be 50, the rating_points_per_throw increment would be 10.21865. So a 52 would be rated at 979.5627 (rounded to 980). So your field B would be vastly more likely to average ~55 than 52. (actually 54.89301424356).
Can you explain the 2 tournaments played 2 weeks apart, same exact layout and conditions, basically. Am vs pro

Azalea Am
R1-R4 Score of 60
Average player rating 895, average propigator rating 904
977 980 974 982 (average for a 60, 978)

Azalea Open
R1-R4 Score of 60
Average player rating 963, average propigator rating 963
989 988 994 993 (average for a 60, 991) (13 pts higher)

How is this not mostly because of the higher rated players in the open tournament padding the ratings of the rounds.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 05-01-2013, 09:48 AM
Lefty23899 Lefty23899 is offline
Bogey Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1978 View Post
Can you explain the 2 tournaments played 2 weeks apart, same exact layout and conditions, basically. Am vs pro

Azalea Am
R1-R4 Score of 60
Average player rating 895, average propigator rating 904
977 980 974 982 (average for a 60, 978)

Azalea Open
R1-R4 Score of 60
Average player rating 963, average propigator rating 963
989 988 994 993 (average for a 60, 991) (13 pts higher)

How is this not mostly because of the higher rated players in the open tournament padding the ratings of the rounds.
I've seen the exact same thing on several occasions

My favorite example is from this tournament:
http://www.pdga.com/tournament_results/16071

Round 3: Pro and Adv played with extremely tight OBs and 5 longer tees, INT and lower played on the same course at the exact same time without the OBs and from the regular tees. An INTs 72 was rated higher from the easier layout than the 72s from the tougher layout.

I wish I could find the response when I asked CK about it. It was actually pretty comical, something about having to be more focused to get 2s with the added OB, thus making it easier
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 05-01-2013, 11:34 AM
jeverett's Avatar
jeverett jeverett is offline
Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Eugene, OR
Years Playing: 5.3
Courses Played: 20
Throwing Style: LHBH
Posts: 966
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1978 View Post
Can you explain the 2 tournaments played 2 weeks apart, same exact layout and conditions, basically. Am vs pro

Azalea Am
R1-R4 Score of 60
Average player rating 895, average propigator rating 904
977 980 974 982 (average for a 60, 978)

Azalea Open
R1-R4 Score of 60
Average player rating 963, average propigator rating 963
989 988 994 993 (average for a 60, 991) (13 pts higher)

How is this not mostly because of the higher rated players in the open tournament padding the ratings of the rounds.
Hi 1978,

Hmm.. do you happen to have the initial ratings of all propagators/players as well as their scores for each round? Without actually graphing it all, it's tough to really see what was happening with ratings/round scores. I watched footage of that event, and the course looked like it had a fair number of really short but really technical holes, and then some longer (but still really technical) holes too. Given the better angular accuracy of gold-level players, I admit that particular 13-point gap looks odd. If anything, I'd expect it to be in the other direction (the Open field 60 would rate lower). How many players were in each event, by the way? If you can get me initial ratings and round scores, I'd be happy to make some charts and run the regression.. it may help explain it.

Edit: running a Pearson Correlation Coefficient for the rounds may prove interesting, too. Heavily wooded courses tend to have low(er) correlation coefficients (the predictive value of initial player rating vs event score).. i.e. they tend to induce a lot more randomness into round scores than less wooded courses).

Last edited by jeverett; 05-01-2013 at 11:38 AM.
Reply With Quote
 

  #50  
Old 05-02-2013, 11:43 PM
RogerSmith RogerSmith is offline
Newbie
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Years Playing: 35.3
Courses Played: 81
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 6
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1978 View Post
Can you explain the 2 tournaments played 2 weeks apart, same exact layout and conditions, basically. Am vs pro

Azalea Am
R1-R4 Score of 60
Average player rating 895, average propigator rating 904
977 980 974 982 (average for a 60, 978)

Azalea Open
R1-R4 Score of 60
Average player rating 963, average propigator rating 963
989 988 994 993 (average for a 60, 991) (13 pts higher)

How is this not mostly because of the higher rated players in the open tournament padding the ratings of the rounds.
I think I can explain this very easy - without using fancy charts, regression, or even a Pearson Correlation Coefficient: You are looking at unofficial results. Wait until the results are official, and then take another look at these events.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.