Why Ratings are awful

[_MTL_]

How about instead of insulting me everyone, someone answer my question.

 

[Allurex]

I simply asked a question. I presented a scenario. Chuck will say that you can't compare the memorial round and the maple hill round. Yet they will be equally weighted and averaged together when calculating Paul's personal rating. How can you average them together if they can't be compared? Then that rating is used to rate future rounds.

I simply don't understand the logic. I don't need data for this example.

You're right, you can't compare a round on Maple Hill to one on Fountain Hills. But you can use Paul's rating to judge how he would shoot on your average course.

The ratings system isn't meant to judge and compare individual rounds, but to get a statistical metric for how well a player often shoots, based on multiple round ratings.

 

[turbosteve]

I do find it to be accurate quite a bit. But I would say only 7 out 10 rounds are correct. And that's not a good percentage.

I just want an answer to my question.

Do you have any data that shows that only 7 out of 10 rounds are correct?

 

[_MTL_]

Do you have any data that shows that only 7 out of 10 rounds are correct?

It's a professional opinion based on thousands and thousands and thousands of rounds of experience and 20 years of playing.

 

[_MTL_]

You're right, you can't compare a round on Maple Hill to one on Fountain Hills. But you can use Paul's rating to judge how he would shoot on your average course.

The ratings system isn't meant to judge and compare individual rounds, but to get a statistical metric for how well a player often shoots, based on multiple round ratings.

Ok, but averaging these rounds together does just that, doesn't it? Compare them? Make them equal?

How can you not compare something yet average them together?

This is what I'm trying to understand.

 

[theeterrbear]

I simply asked a question. I presented a scenario. Chuck will say that you can't compare the memorial round and the maple hill round. Yet they will be equally weighted and averaged together when calculating Paul's personal rating. How can you average them together if they can't be compared? Then that rating is used to rate future rounds.

I simply don't understand the logic. I don't need data for this example.

It's actually pretty simple. If you're going to look at the round ratings between rounds at different course all you can really determine his if one was better than the other. I wanted to put quotes around better, but it's as straightforward as that. It doesn't actually tell you anything about the round, just which is considered better.

Over a period of time you can use these to follow how you're playing, which is what they are meant for. The ratings limits imposed on the different divisions are arbitrary in that there isn't any one metric that is used to to determine where the limits are other than the players' rating. So it doesn't matter if you can throw 450' but can't putt or if you can make every shot dead accurate under 150' but can only throw that far. It really opens the playing field.

So, what I believe Chuck means when he says that you can't compare the Maple Hill round and the Fountain Hills round is that you get no qualitative information by comparing the ratings. You get no real quantitative data either, unless you have the round scores too. All you get is a measure of which round is better when compared to all peers.

 

[Vorpaljesus]

They don't mean much because you don't ever have to even get a rating until you want to and if you're good enough to play open it's not rating protected anyway. Just my opinion

 

[mashnut]

I do find it to be accurate quite a bit. But I would say only 7 out 10 rounds are correct. And that's not a good percentage.

I just want an answer to my question.

It doesn't seem like you actually want an answer to your question. You brought up a problem caused by one specific part of the ratings system, condemned the whole system based on that, then asked a rhetorical question so you could ignore any answers that weren't what you wanted to hear.

Hahahaha.

You really have no idea who you are talking to.

I do, actually, and I couldn't care less. I've read a lot of your posts here, and based on that I very much doubt your ability to communicate effectively. All the things you like to bring up that you've done for the sport are completely irrelevant to that.

It's a professional opinion based on thousands and thousands and thousands of rounds of experience and 20 years of playing.

So your gut feeling is more accurate and should be the defining standard ratings are held to rather than looking at any of the real data?

 

[_MTL_]

It's actually pretty simple. If you're going to look at the round ratings between rounds at different course all you can really determine his if one was better than the other. I wanted to put quotes around better, but it's as straightforward as that. It doesn't actually tell you anything about the round, just which is considered better.

Over a period of time you can use these to follow how you're playing, which is what they are meant for. The ratings limits imposed on the different divisions are arbitrary in that there isn't any one metric that is used to to determine where the limits are other than the players' rating. So it doesn't matter if you can throw 450' but can't putt or if you can make every shot dead accurate under 150' but can only throw that far. It really opens the playing field.

So, what I believe Chuck means when he says that you can't compare the Maple Hill round and the Fountain Hills round is that you get no qualitative information by comparing the ratings. You get no real quantitative data either, unless you have the round scores too. All you get is a measure of which round is better when compared to all peers.

Thanks for a logical response.

So do you believe that a 39 at the Memorial is better than a 45 at Maple Hill because the ratings say it is?

Which is better? Kenny's 50 at Hippodrome in 2006 at Skinners' 41 at The Dark Side?

 

[Allurex]

Ok, but averaging these rounds together does just that, doesn't it? Compare them? Make them equal?

How can you not compare something yet average them together?

This is what I'm trying to understand.

No averaging them together is how you get an accurate representation.


If you had a putting competition, but only gave each player 1 or 2 putts, it would be unfair to compare different players because of the small sample size. If you give each player 100 putts, you have a larger sample size and thus a more accurate result.

 

[_MTL_]

I've read a lot of your posts here, and based on that I very much doubt your ability to communicate effectively. All the things you like to bring up that you've done for the sport are completely irrelevant to that.

My degree in Communications extremely disagrees with you.

I've done stuff for disc golf? Interesting. Had no idea.

 

[mashnut]

Ok, but averaging these rounds together does just that, doesn't it? Compare them? Make them equal?

How can you not compare something yet average them together?

This is what I'm trying to understand.

Golfers get a handicap and a ranking based on the average of their performance on links style courses, tight technical courses, long windy courses and everything in between. Tennis players are ranked by how they perform across three very different court surfaces, and some have the reputation of being great on one and not on the others. This seems like a pretty similar situation where players have to be good on different types of disc golf courses to maintain a high rating on average. I don't quite understand your issue with that.

 

[Allurex]

Thanks for a logical response.

So do you believe that a 39 at the Memorial is better than a 45 at Maple Hill because the ratings say it is?

Which is better? Kenny's 50 at Hippodrome in 2006 at Skinners' 41 at The Dark Side?

I'm saying that you can't use ratings to compare those individual rounds at completely different courses. That's not what the ratings system is designed to do.

 

[_MTL_]

No averaging them together is how you get an accurate representation.


If you had a putting competition, but only gave each player 1 or 2 putts, it would be unfair to compare different players because of the small sample size. If you give each player 100 putts, you have a larger sample size and thus a more accurate result.

Sure, I get that larger sample size = more accurate results.

But a putting competition, while your percentage accuracy increases each putt with more data, is very linear. Make or miss. No real other factors.

But that's not the case with ratings. There are many factors involved in it.

 

[_MTL_]

Golfers get a handicap and a ranking based on the average of their performance on links style courses, tight technical courses, long windy courses and everything in between. Tennis players are ranked by how they perform across three very different court surfaces, and some have the reputation of being great on one and not on the others. This seems like a pretty similar situation where players have to be good on different types of disc golf courses to maintain a high rating on average. I don't quite understand your issue with that.

Now as much as I don't personally like you and don't think you add much to this site except spewing crap and inaccuracies, this is a very good post.

I see your point.

 

[DavidSauls]

It's not the purpose of the ratings to determine which particular round is better. It never has been.

A single round is a small sample, with some variability in it. The more rounds you average together, the better the result. Hence, player ratings and SSAs are more consistent than individual round ratings.

I don't know the context of Chuck saying you can't compare rounds from different courses, but I suspect you're extrapolating too much from it.

I saw the figures on how close Worlds results, with the benefit of so many rounds, came to the player ratings.

I find that I can almost always guess my rating at the end of a tournament round, and come pretty close to what it turns out to be.

 

[_MTL_]

I don't know the context of Chuck saying you can't compare rounds from different courses, but I suspect you're extrapolating too much from it.

On my facebook page, Chuck said:

"It's apples and oranges comparing courses like Fountain and Maple Hill which are about 10 apart on SSA values that's why we have "Best Ever" rounds in different SSA ranges."

Don't think I'm extrapolating....

 

[bikinjack]

How about instead of insulting me everyone, someone answer my question.

I did. Please see post #2. You seem to be one of those people who don't like math.

Look inside yourself, the answers you seek can often be found there. If not, you're just looking for attention.

 

[theeterrbear]

Thanks for a logical response.

So do you believe that a 39 at the Memorial is better than a 45 at Maple Hill because the ratings say it is?

Which is better? Kenny's 50 at Hippodrome in 2006 at Skinners' 41 at The Dark Side?

It doesn't matter what I believe. The numbers say that statistically the 39 is a better round and is less attainable. And that's all I'd trust the numbers to tell me.

Personally, I think a 45 at Maple Hill is more impressive. Probably more likely to be repeated than Paul's 39 though.

And I'm not going to get egg my face trying to compare the Champ's and Skinners's. I don't know enough about the courses or the rounds themselves.

 

[_MTL_]

And I'm not going to get egg my face trying to compare the Champ's and Skinners's. I don't know enough about the courses or the rounds themselves.

Just look at the ratings! It's that simple, isn't it?