#121  
Old 09-10-2020, 09:16 AM
txmxer txmxer is online now
Birdie Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Texas
Years Playing: 0.6
Courses Played: 2
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 317
Niced 257 Times in 121 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jugular View Post
So your definition of a top player is one that wins a lot but not with any reference to who they beat.

I think of a top player as someone who demonstrates a high skill level. The player ratings do this perfectly. They unfortunately are not as dynamic and changing as 'top player' lists so don't get people excited. You'll find most discussions of who top players are tends to centre around people claiming that someone else should be the top player because they demonstrate more skill. Unfortunately the player ratings are too good to provide this sort of argument.
I don’t know much about the PGA ranking system, but I do recall Tiger being ranked #1 for a long time after his fall from grace.

Basically there is a LOT of lag in that system for a player that is as dominant as he was. I think tennis has similar rankings lag.

Less than ideal IMO.

But, I can see the point that the ratings imply skill level and possibly overlook some intangibles.

Nothing is perfect.
Sponsored Links
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 09-10-2020, 09:25 AM
DG_player DG_player is online now
Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 689
Niced 299 Times in 174 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jugular View Post
So your definition of a top player is one that wins a lot but not with any reference to who they beat.
That's not the case at all.

Just to clarify the system: the ranking points are based off of the quality of the field. So if you win a tournament with most of the top players in the world present, you get a lot of ranking points. If you win a junior tour event you'll get much much less.
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 09-10-2020, 09:31 AM
DG_player DG_player is online now
Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 689
Niced 299 Times in 174 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by txmxer View Post
I don’t know much about the PGA ranking system, but I do recall Tiger being ranked #1 for a long time after his fall from grace.

Basically there is a LOT of lag in that system for a player that is as dominant as he was. I think tennis has similar rankings lag.

Less than ideal IMO.

But, I can see the point that the ratings imply skill level and possibly overlook some intangibles.

Nothing is perfect.
There's a two year lag, where your event points are reduced incrementally. So if you win a major it's worth 100, after a year it would be worth around 50, and near the end of two years it would be worth like 1. It works pretty good right now, the best player playing the best seems to be consistently ranked #1. Tiger was just so unbelievably dominant before his injuries and personal problems, his results, even after their value being cut in half, still ranked him higher than anyone else at the time.

I mean, Paul McBeth could have stroke and lose the use of his throwing arm, he'd probably remain the top rated player until such time as his scores rolled out of the PDGA system (however long that takes?).
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 09-10-2020, 09:39 AM
txmxer txmxer is online now
Birdie Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Texas
Years Playing: 0.6
Courses Played: 2
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 317
Niced 257 Times in 121 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DG_player View Post
There's a two year lag, where your event points are reduced incrementally. So if you win a major it's worth 100, after a year it would be worth around 50, and near the end of two years it would be worth like 1. It works pretty good right now, the best player playing the best seems to be consistently ranked #1. Tiger was just so unbelievably dominant before his injuries and personal problems, his results, even after their value being cut in half, still ranked him higher than anyone else at the time.

I mean, Paul McBeth could have stroke and lose the use of his throwing arm, he'd probably remain the top rated player until such time as his scores rolled out of the PDGA system (however long that takes?).

No expert, but the round ratings reflect the competition played against—thus the system seems that it does consider that only not as explicitly.

Just my understanding—I could be completely wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 09-10-2020, 11:58 AM
hiflyer's Avatar
hiflyer hiflyer is offline
Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: SoCal
Years Playing: 24.8
Courses Played: 23
Throwing Style: LHBH
Posts: 672
Niced 417 Times in 223 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by robdeforge View Post
if paul is gonna say "ratings don't matter!" I think it's pretty fair to point out that paul has financially benefitted a number of times by (a sponsor) specifically promoting his rating. terry could've asked a bit differently but that's the gist of it, and instead of a good/reasonable explanation we get this ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

if he has addressed it in further detail elsewhere, let me know and I'll give it a listen
Quote:
Originally Posted by robdeforge View Post
this was 6 years ago and of course people are allowed to change their minds. but still kinda funny

https://www.innovadiscs.com/team-new...e-1050-rating/
Quote:
Originally Posted by McCready View Post
Feeling a bit of a shifting attitude toward Paul lately.
HEY!! Paul!!!
Don't let money change ya!!!

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 09-10-2020, 03:32 PM
araytx araytx is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: DFW
Years Playing: 14.2
Courses Played: 213
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 2,618
Niced 611 Times in 363 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve West View Post
Actually, it's bothish. If I understand it.

The criterion is established as the SSA of the course. The SSA depends on propagator scores and prior ratings, so that's kind of normative. (I think.) That SSA alone establishes the points per throw (PPT). Round ratings are 1000 plus (SSA - score) times PPT.

So, maybe criterion-referenced with a normative criterion?

If ratings were purely normative, they would take into account the dispersion of all propagator scores. They don't. That's the biggest gap between the pragmatic ratings formula and a true statistical best estimate of player skill.

But, it seems to work OK.

So far.

We should keep an eye on it, though.
Steve, I think the SSA is NOT, however, an independent variable in this case. If I understand it correctly, the formula finds "how the course is playing" that day/that round/ that whatever, calculates an SSA or something similar, then utilizes that SSA for further calculations. That would make SSA in this scenario a dependent variable, would it not, Steve?

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 09-10-2020, 04:43 PM
teemkey's Avatar
teemkey teemkey is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Hillsboro, OR
Courses Played: 39
Posts: 2,683
Niced 650 Times in 316 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by araytx View Post
Steve, I think the SSA is NOT, however, an independent variable in this case. If I understand it correctly, the formula finds "how the course is playing" that day/that round/ that whatever, calculates an SSA or something similar, then utilizes that SSA for further calculations. That would make SSA in this scenario a dependent variable, would it not, Steve?
Technically SSA is a summary statistic, not a variable.

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 09-10-2020, 09:35 PM
Steve West Steve West is offline
Par Delusionary
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Years Playing: 46.4
Courses Played: 426
Posts: 5,435
Niced 2,209 Times in 1,058 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by araytx View Post
...the formula finds "how the course is playing" that day/that round/ that whatever, calculates an SSA ..
That's what I said. It does that based on a secret formula applied to the propagators' scores and prior ratings.
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 09-11-2020, 08:31 AM
adamgservo adamgservo is online now
Newbie
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 36
Niced 33 Times in 19 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AHagglund View Post
This is a hard concept to explain, but the example discussed here--a field of 800 rated players shooting the same score as a field of 1000-rated player--does not expose a flaw in the round rating system. Here's my best shot at a clear explanation:

Round ratings, like all statistics, are an estimate rather than a clearly observable and defined phenomena. Your round rating on any particular day isn't an exact figure, it's just the best estimate of how good your round was, based on the data. As more and more data comes in, the estimate will get more and more accurate until it's essentially perfect.

If a statically impossible event occurs--and an entire field of rec players averaging the exact same scores as McBeth, Mcmahon, Wysocki, Heimburg, and Dickerson is certainly impossible--the statistic based on that event will indeed produce a wildly inaccurate estimate. But this doesn't invalidate the field of statistics.

For example, imagine you wanted to create a statistic that measured the number of eyes that a person has but you only used 18th century pirates as your sample population. Your statistic would estimate that people have an average of 1.0000 eyes per person, which is of course a little low. The problem isn't the statistic though, the problem was a weird and unrepresentative data set. As more and more data comes in, the estimate will better and better,

Did that make sense? No? We really need a statistics teacher in here.

Right. In other words, statistics never converge to individual truths, but statistics always converge to general truths.

Since I sit around and write code all day anyway, I took 5 minutes to run a statistics simulation. Take an ideal coin giving 50% heads and 50% tails. Flip it 10 times. How many heads do you get? There is no right answer. Now do the same experiment, and flip the coin 1 million times. How many heads do you get? 500k +/- some tiny amount. I ran the experiment and did 100 simulations of 10 coin flips and 100 simulations of 1 million coin flips. What was the max percent variance from the expected result of 5 heads and 500k heads on the 100 simulations? For the 10 flips, I saw 80% variation. Meaning 9 heads. (9-5)/5*100. For 1 million flips, I saw a max of 0.33% variation. Basically meaning it was exactly 500k each time.

What is the point of the simulation? If a single 1000 rated player and a single 800 rated player play the same course, same conditions but get rated differently: sure, they could get the same score and have completely different ratings if rated separately. What if ten 1000 rated players and ten 800 rated players now play? Mathematically sure you can break the system by pretending they can get the same scores, but it is not statistically possible. Then think of how many players are getting rated every weekend in tournaments. Each one building a better statistical foundation. The rating system is fine.

Reply With Quote
 

  #130  
Old 09-11-2020, 12:14 PM
araytx araytx is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: DFW
Years Playing: 14.2
Courses Played: 213
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 2,618
Niced 611 Times in 363 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teemkey View Post
Technically SSA is a summary statistic, not a variable.
Well, duh. Isn't that the same thing in a statistical analysis? (dependent variable, that is)

Quote:
Originally Posted by adamgservo View Post
Right. In other words, statistics never converge to individual truths, but statistics always converge to general truths.

Since I sit around and write code all day anyway, I took 5 minutes to run a statistics simulation. Take an ideal coin giving 50% heads and 50% tails. Flip it 10 times. How many heads do you get? There is no right answer. Now do the same experiment, and flip the coin 1 million times. How many heads do you get? 500k +/- some tiny amount. I ran the experiment and did 100 simulations of 10 coin flips and 100 simulations of 1 million coin flips. What was the max percent variance from the expected result of 5 heads and 500k heads on the 100 simulations? For the 10 flips, I saw 80% variation. Meaning 9 heads. (9-5)/5*100. For 1 million flips, I saw a max of 0.33% variation. Basically meaning it was exactly 500k each time.

What is the point of the simulation? If a single 1000 rated player and a single 800 rated player play the same course, same conditions but get rated differently: sure, they could get the same score and have completely different ratings if rated separately. What if ten 1000 rated players and ten 800 rated players now play? Mathematically sure you can break the system by pretending they can get the same scores, but it is not statistically possible. Then think of how many players are getting rated every weekend in tournaments. Each one building a better statistical foundation. The rating system is fine.
Exactly what I've been trying to tell these 'let's run a scenario' people. By the definitions is just not possible. It's like the old joke:

"...but there is no..."

Last edited by araytx; 09-11-2020 at 12:17 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Hey all! Joxiam Newbie Intros and Q&A 1 06-04-2017 03:46 PM
HEY HEY >>> JK Aviar: pre #'s, orange/yellow/color pablo.diablo The Marketplace 13 04-30-2013 10:06 AM
Hey! Help me help you QuinnAA199 The Marketplace 1 03-09-2013 08:39 AM
HEY, HEY,HEY!!!! JustSayin' The Marketplace 0 11-10-2010 12:01 AM
HEY HEY HEY HEY HEY HEY HEY HEY HEY HEY - cool your jets. JTacoma03 The Marketplace 20 08-26-2010 10:35 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:18 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.