#71  
Old 08-07-2018, 05:43 PM
tdschrock1's Avatar
tdschrock1 tdschrock1 is offline
Double Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Canton, OH
Years Playing: 10.6
Courses Played: 6
Posts: 1,311
Niced 13 Times in 10 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JC17393 View Post
As has been posted already, the PDGA has lots of data that has guided their decisions on the range of ratings for each division and keeping them competitive. Curious if you have something to counter it?
I don't know if there is good data on either side of this argument. Can you show anything from the PDGA that shows that current divisions are set up in a statistically sound way?

This is an opinion/editorial piece, not a data-driven research article. I have stressed - the numbers used for the divisional breaks should be researched closely before something like this would be implemented.
Sponsored Links
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 08-07-2018, 05:52 PM
_MTL_ _MTL_ is offline
Flippy Flopper
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Raleigh, NC
Years Playing: 26.7
Courses Played: 142
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 3,083
Niced 1,030 Times in 450 Posts
Default

The author didn't even mention that TD's can limit divisions and that rating's based divisions are currently offered. They can also do a true am event with no payout.

The PDGA does the right thing - give TD's options. If the TD chooses to offer all divisions or payouts or do division based, that's their decision. That isn't the PDGA's fault and nor should they demand one way or another.

One blanket solution doesn't work across the board. Ultimately it's up to the TD to pick how they want to do their event, publish it. And then it's up to the players to choose which events they choose to support.

This is just lazy reporting, I hate to say.

Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 08-07-2018, 05:57 PM
Karl Karl is offline
Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 895
Niced 150 Times in 90 Posts
Default

I don't believe rating are "as pure" a way to go regarding divisional split-outs as age-group divisions because with ratings one "can't in all cases really improve their chances" by improving! In fact, they may severely go down (if you bridge a cusp in divisions). A 934 kicks butt (in theory) in INT but improve 1 point and face getting trounced in ADV. And this can happen a whole lot of times (vacillation city...) in a half / full decade. At least with age-groups, you're only the "young buck" every 5 or 10 years and if you 'get better' you (in theory) will benefit. ALWAYS playing with players of "similar abilities" is akin to poker where every once in a while you're dealt pocket aces...and have a pretty good chance of winning the hand. But next time it's someone else. Repeat. Once more. Again. IMO that really isn't 'competition', it's coin flipping. At least with age groups, you get better you WILL reap the benefits.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 08-07-2018, 06:14 PM
JC17393 JC17393 is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Years Playing: 22.1
Courses Played: 151
Throwing Style: LHBH
Posts: 7,962
Niced 3,965 Times in 1,635 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tdschrock1 View Post
I don't know if there is good data on either side of this argument. Can you show anything from the PDGA that shows that current divisions are set up in a statistically sound way?
*I* don't have anything to show, but I'm certain that the PDGA does. The current divisional structure, in particular the ratings breaks associated with it, was not pulled out of thin air nor chosen without a lot of thought and discussion. Chuck, being the man behind the ratings, is probably the best person to provide the process and data involved.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tdschrock1 View Post
This is an opinion/editorial piece, not a data-driven research article. I have stressed - the numbers used for the divisional breaks should be researched closely before something like this would be implemented.
I understand that it's an opinion piece. But it is an opinion piece suggesting making significant changes to an established structure. I don't think such changes can or should be made unless there's a solid reason to do so that goes beyond someone opining "I think this would be better". In other words, demonstrate how the current system is broken and demonstrate how this new system would be an improvement. It's the only way to make progress.

An opinion piece is a good starting off point for the discussion, but where is it going to go if it only remains a matter of opinion?

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 08-07-2018, 06:40 PM
tdschrock1's Avatar
tdschrock1 tdschrock1 is offline
Double Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Canton, OH
Years Playing: 10.6
Courses Played: 6
Posts: 1,311
Niced 13 Times in 10 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JC17393 View Post

An opinion piece is a good starting off point for the discussion, but where is it going to go if it only remains a matter of opinion?
Fair question. This conversation is happening now on this forum, Reddit, Facebook and on the article itself. Some are standing firm in the idea that the current system is fine as-is. Others have expressed their interest in a simplified system (or have looked at pros/cons associated with it).

This article is somewhat lengthy for an opinion piece. If it were a proposal to the PDGA, It would require much of the data-driven observations and numerical models with outcomes, as was as a lengthy discussion and plans to deal with possible issues. As it stands, the article's title simply raises a question: should we reconsider the structure of current PDGA Am divisions? I say yes.
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 08-07-2018, 07:34 PM
_MTL_ _MTL_ is offline
Flippy Flopper
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Raleigh, NC
Years Playing: 26.7
Courses Played: 142
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 3,083
Niced 1,030 Times in 450 Posts
Default

You want to eliminate bagging, this isn’t the solution.

The solution is a $10 entry fee for ams, you get a DX disc and then have fun.

Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 08-07-2018, 08:11 PM
JC17393 JC17393 is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Years Playing: 22.1
Courses Played: 151
Throwing Style: LHBH
Posts: 7,962
Niced 3,965 Times in 1,635 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by _MTL_ View Post
You want to eliminate bagging, this isn’t the solution.

The solution is a $10 entry fee for ams, you get a DX disc and then have fun.
No the solution is to first define "bagging" in an objective, concrete way, then find a solution if one is necessary. This article creates a subjective and vague definition of "bagging", one that unsurprisingly isn't solved by the current divisional structure, and attempts a fix. It's the epitome of a false narrative.

Irrespective of that, the problem with the article's fix to "bagging" is that a system that relies on ratings to define divisions is incompatible with one that has bump rules based on win totals. This is primarily because it assumes all wins are equal and they are not. One could very easily accumulate three wins in a year (the criteria for a forced bump) without ever having their rating reach the point where it fits into the range definition of the next division up. That's true whether we're talking about the current ratings breaks or the ones proposed in the article. Eventually, the result is going to be a whole bunch of players forced out of the division their rating suggests is their ideal one. And when you have players forced to play in a division where they can't compete, they're not going to continue competing for long.

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 08-07-2018, 08:17 PM
tdschrock1's Avatar
tdschrock1 tdschrock1 is offline
Double Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Canton, OH
Years Playing: 10.6
Courses Played: 6
Posts: 1,311
Niced 13 Times in 10 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by _MTL_ View Post
You want to eliminate bagging, this isn’t the solution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JC17393 View Post
No the solution is to first define "bagging" in an objective, concrete way, then find a solution if one is necessary. This article creates a subjective and vague definition of "bagging", one that unsurprisingly isn't solved by the current divisional structure, and attempts a fix. It's the epitome of a false narrative.
The article is not about bagging.

The PDGA offers quite a few Amatuer divisions. The article breaks looks at combining and simplifying those divisions.

I do agree that the number (and nature) of wins could be adjusted to be a bit more fair, or even possibly omitted.
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 08-07-2018, 09:20 PM
Lewis's Avatar
Lewis Lewis is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Marietta, GA
Years Playing: 12.6
Courses Played: 18
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 4,465
Niced 8 Times in 8 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bbwrenn View Post
As for the article, for most amateur players, 876 to 950 is waaaay too big of a gap. ... A victory for an 876 player against a 950 rated player is very, very unlikely over 2 rounds, and a near impossibility over 4. (paging Chuck K. for the actual statistics...)
This is true, but we'll need Chuck to show us the numbers before it's "proven."

Quote:
Originally Posted by numbernine View Post
Also, and I keep saying it in my day to day conversations, so pardon me if I sound practiced, I think it is bad for the sport to encourage paying out 15 guys in a field of 35 disc golfers...
I agree completely. I'm probably in the tiny minority saying this, but I'd happily forego "player's packs" and "merchandise payout" in favor of a singe trophy or a prize for the top two or three finishers in amateur divisions, and everyone else wins by having fun at the event and enjoying the atmosphere.

Quote:
Originally Posted by teemkey View Post
At a typical 2-round C-tier where the SSA works out to 10 rating points per throw, a ratings protected division covering 50 points (e.g. MA3 850-900) makes for a 10 throw difference in expected performance. That's a reasonable difference that the even the lowest rated player might hope to overcome with a great day.
Until someone with actual statistics shares them, I'm going to have to share bbwrenn's gut feeling instead of yours. I'm under the impression that the standard deviation of a player's round from his rating is something like 3 or 4 strokes, and is even smaller at higher ratings. For a player rated 900 to place highly in a division with players rated up to 950 would require the 900 player to be on his A+ game all day, while all of the 950-rated players are on their F games all day, all of the the 940 players are on their D games all day, all of the the 930 players are on their C games all day, all of the the 920 players are on their B- game all day, etc, all at the same time. Remember it's not that Mr. 900 has to beat Mr. 950 over 36 holes, which he might pull off once in 50 events, but he has to beat a couple dozen players in the same way, many of whom are rated well outside his 1-in-10 chance to beat.

I know I'm speculating as much as we all are here until somebody with the dg version of sabermetrics shows up to enlighten us, but I also have the impression from my own experience a major difference between the 900-rated player and the 950-rated player is driving distance. That makes the 900-rated player's attempt something like trying to break the sound barrier in a P-51 Mustang.

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
 

  #80  
Old 08-07-2018, 09:32 PM
krupicka's Avatar
krupicka krupicka is online now
Double Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Naperville, IL
Years Playing: 18.6
Courses Played: 72
Posts: 1,304
Niced 295 Times in 160 Posts
Default

We have found that to win one of the Am divisions around here for a two round event, you need to average 20-30 rating points per round over the cap to do it.
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
Great article on Disc Golf Annakin SkyHyzer General Disc Golf Chat 2 02-27-2015 08:40 AM
Another great article about Disc Golf discgman General Disc Golf Chat 6 10-16-2014 01:50 PM
Great DG article Chiefstang General Disc Golf Chat 0 05-14-2012 05:11 PM
APE WRAITH KATANA XTREME TL DESTROYER Great Discs, Great prices! :::LSWT::: The Marketplace 6 07-13-2011 01:09 AM
Great Discs, Great Selection: Black Yeti (2), Lat 64, Katana, more! :::LSWT::: The Marketplace 5 05-16-2011 11:03 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:33 AM.


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