#181  
Old 09-15-2020, 05:37 PM
araytx araytx is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: DFW
Years Playing: 14.3
Courses Played: 213
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 2,619
Niced 611 Times in 363 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monocacy View Post
Maybe. But picture a basket set in a bowl behind a dense stand of closely-spaced trees. 1000-rated players have an easy throw over the top, and the bowl directs most errant shots to the basket. I could see 80% birdies.

800-rated players lack the power to go over the top, so they play poke and hope. If the trees are dense enough, I could see 20% pars and the rest worse.

Does such a hole currently exist? I dunno. Could such a hole exist? Yes. Would the scores be exactly 20% pars? Um, maybe. But the exact percentage is not the point.
If said SINGLE HOLE existed (as Steve W says it might) that's all well and good. But I said a COURSE. No such course exists. Not one on which this ratings system has validity and internal reliability. And if you were to construct one, then you have, once again rendered the experiment invalid-- so your example is meaningless when it comes to drawing valid and reliable conclusions about the ratings system.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monocacy View Post
As Inigo Montoya wisely said, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

If you substituted "prohibitively unlikely" or even "completely unrealistic" for "impossible", I would probably agree with your point unreservedly.

Apologies for focusing on the word "impossible", but much real-world anguish has been caused by the difference between impossible and highly improbable. For an example, see the demise of the Long Term Capital Management hedge fund in the 1998 financial crisis.

Fortunately, possible flaws in disc golf player rating systems are unlikely to disrupt worldwide financial markets.
Dude. I have a PhD from one of the top 25 colleges of education in this country. I know what the words mean. Quit questioning what "you think I mean or you think I don't know what it means" and have a discussion with what I mean. Which, ironically is what I am saying (imagine that, eh?). I even gave an example outside of disc golf. While a DNA paternity test may only calculate the probability at 99.999% that you are the father (the calculation itself being a mathematical model), the REALITY is that there exists no other possibility. It's certain. You the daddy.

I don't mean "prohibitively unlikely" or even "completely unrealistic." In this context (see post #161, purple) it is not possible. And I work now in finance. So don't give me a "certainty" about any hedge fund. You are comparing apples and oranges talking about theoretical mathematical constructs versus the reality of financial markets. No comparability in that analogy at all.
Sponsored Links
Reply With Quote
  #182  
Old 09-15-2020, 05:54 PM
Cgkdisc's Avatar
Cgkdisc Cgkdisc is offline
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Twin Cities
Years Playing: 31.6
Courses Played: 710
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 12,847
Niced 2,551 Times in 1,080 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moose33 View Post
Chuck, you know the most about this but it seems to me like it hard to get good ratings if higher rated propagators aren’t present.

I threw a round that was rated 945where several 950+ rated players were present and then shot the same score on the same course with almost identical conditions but the highest current PDGA players were in the 930s, and even though I got 3rd it was only a 915 rating.

Do they really weight that heavily based on who is playing?
Higher rated propagators are more likely to produce a lower SSA (round ratings) than lower rated propagators but it has more to do with the course than the player ratings. When higher rated players come to town, the courses are tricked out, typically with more OB and some longer pin placements. The lower rated players on average, typically play worse than their ratings in these conditions. Remember that the course ratings is directly based on the number of throws the propagators make. Who is more likely to take proportionately more the penalties, the elite players or the donators, especially regional pros under 1000 rating where they are traveling to the course versus home turf?

You don't have to take my word for it because you can watch it happen at any elite tee time event starting in round 2. Jot down the rating for a few scores posted by the early groups that come in. As the day goes on, typically the ratings go down as the better players finish. Our MP60 group was able to watch this progression in reverse this past weekend. The average ratings of our MP60 group was higher than the other divisions playing our course at Highbridge. We were the first group done and my 60 was temporarily rated 913. I told the guys to monitor how much higher their prelim ratings would go. As the lower rated MA60, MA50 and MA 40 cards came in, my 60 moved to 918, 921, 926 and ended at 928 unofficial.

If you don't see this happen, it's more likely due to course related factors like weather and/or time of day than the ratings calculations which are a fixed process.

Niced: (2)
Reply With Quote
  #183  
Old 09-15-2020, 05:55 PM
DiscFifty DiscFifty is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Years Playing: 9.6
Courses Played: 19
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 4,263
Niced 1,568 Times in 881 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moose33 View Post
Chuck, you know the most about this but it seems to me like it hard to get good ratings if higher rated propagators aren’t present.
Finally coming to the dark side I see....
Reply With Quote
  #184  
Old 09-15-2020, 06:01 PM
Cgkdisc's Avatar
Cgkdisc Cgkdisc is offline
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Twin Cities
Years Playing: 31.6
Courses Played: 710
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 12,847
Niced 2,551 Times in 1,080 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by txmxer View Post
are you saying that the ratings evaluation has actual numerical factors for courses that are incorporated in to the calculation? Or that the ratings results reflects the course design inherently?
There are no course factors entered into the calculations. So any oddities such as smaller than normal correlation of prop ratings and their round ratings (lots of trees, too narrow fairways), wider than "normal" scoring spread (lots of OB) or even zero correlation with ratings like the hole that Steve West mentioned, will be course related.
Reply With Quote
  #185  
Old 09-15-2020, 06:17 PM
Monocacy's Avatar
Monocacy Monocacy is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Maryland
Years Playing: 20.4
Courses Played: 180
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 2,148
Niced 1,473 Times in 580 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by araytx View Post
While a DNA paternity test may only calculate the probability at 99.999% that you are the father (the calculation itself being a mathematical model), the REALITY is that there exists no other possibility. It's certain. You the daddy.
Unless you have an identical twin. If you do, the probability is cut in half. Which again illustrates the difference between "impossible" and "highly unlikely".

Quote:
Originally Posted by araytx View Post
And I work now in finance. So don't give me a "certainty" about any hedge fund.
Are you familiar with Long Term Capital Management? They were run by finance PhDs and two Nobel prize winners. And yet they managed to lose $4.4 billion out of $4.7 billion in assets in a year by being a little too sure they were right.

Look, I respect your knowledge of disc golf and statistics, and life is too short to spend it arguing on the internet. As I stated previously, I agree with your underlying point about the rating system.

So I respectfully suggest using a different word than "impossible" for that which is supremely unlikely to ever happen. But you are a grownup and may certainly do as you wish.
Reply With Quote
  #186  
Old 09-15-2020, 06:25 PM
DiscFifty DiscFifty is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Years Playing: 9.6
Courses Played: 19
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 4,263
Niced 1,568 Times in 881 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cgkdisc View Post
There are no course factors entered into the calculations.
What about course conditions and weather conditions?
Reply With Quote
  #187  
Old 09-15-2020, 06:33 PM
Moose33 Moose33 is online now
Salient/Yikun Groupie
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Atlanta, GA
Years Playing: 8.8
Courses Played: 82
Throwing Style: RHFH
Posts: 5,855
Niced 1,501 Times in 957 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DiscFifty View Post
Finally coming to the dark side I see....
The only side I’m ever trying to on is above the cash line, but it would be nice to have blazing rounds recognized as such even if the the field is not rated super high.

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
  #188  
Old 09-15-2020, 06:33 PM
Cgkdisc's Avatar
Cgkdisc Cgkdisc is offline
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Twin Cities
Years Playing: 31.6
Courses Played: 710
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 12,847
Niced 2,551 Times in 1,080 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DiscFifty View Post
What about course conditions and weather conditions?
Nope. Never has been involved in the calcs. All of those factors are inherently incorporated in the scores the propagators shoot. That's the key to making the system work without needing to try and figure out how much each of the thousands of tiny factors impact the course rating during that time period.

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
  #189  
Old 09-15-2020, 06:36 PM
Cgkdisc's Avatar
Cgkdisc Cgkdisc is offline
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Twin Cities
Years Playing: 31.6
Courses Played: 710
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 12,847
Niced 2,551 Times in 1,080 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moose33 View Post
The only side I’m ever trying to on is above the cash line, but it would be nice to have blazing rounds recognized as such even if the the field is not rated super high.
Take a look at Darrell Nodland's stats on PDGA. He's maintained an elite rating for almost 20 years playing North Dakota events where his rating is usually 30 to 50 points higher than the average rating of propagators that affect his round rating.

Niced: (2)
Reply With Quote
 

  #190  
Old 09-15-2020, 06:37 PM
Moose33 Moose33 is online now
Salient/Yikun Groupie
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Atlanta, GA
Years Playing: 8.8
Courses Played: 82
Throwing Style: RHFH
Posts: 5,855
Niced 1,501 Times in 957 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cgkdisc View Post
Higher rated propagators are more likely to produce a lower SSA (round ratings) than lower rated propagators but it has more to do with the course than the player ratings. When higher rated players come to town, the courses are tricked out, typically with more OB and some longer pin placements. The lower rated players on average, typically play worse than their ratings in these conditions. Remember that the course ratings is directly based on the number of throws the propagators make. Who is more likely to take proportionately more the penalties, the elite players or the donators, especially regional pros under 1000 rating where they are traveling to the course versus home turf?

You don't have to take my word for it because you can watch it happen at any elite tee time event starting in round 2. Jot down the rating for a few scores posted by the early groups that come in. As the day goes on, typically the ratings go down as the better players finish. Our MP60 group was able to watch this progression in reverse this past weekend. The average ratings of our MP60 group was higher than the other divisions playing our course at Highbridge. We were the first group done and my 60 was temporarily rated 913. I told the guys to monitor how much higher their prelim ratings would go. As the lower rated MA60, MA50 and MA 40 cards came in, my 60 moved to 918, 921, 926 and ended at 928 unofficial.

If you don't see this happen, it's more likely due to course related factors like weather and/or time of day than the ratings calculations which are a fixed process.
I guess that makes sense as in the lower rated round I was two strokes off the lead and the higher rated round I was four strokes off and the guy who won was rated 970 something.

The course didn’t have any differences other than one OB line gone and it was on the same course so that’s why I found a swing that big to be odd.
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 11:02 AM.


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