Hey hey ho ho round ratings have got to GO!

[ToddL]

Originally Posted by DiscFifty

maybe...maybe not... Two divisions play the same course, shoot the same scores, as long as the divisions are rated separately, the division with the avg higher rated players get the higher rated rounds.

That would be the case. But it also extremely unlikely. If one group of players is higher rated than another, then they'd very likely shoot better scores.

[Steve West]

Originally Posted by ToddL

That would be the case. But it also extremely unlikely. If one group of players is higher rated than another, then they'd very likely shoot better scores.

Have you ever noticed that most criticisms of the ratings start with an impossibly unlikely scenario, then claim ratings are broken because they wouldn't work in that scenario?

[araytx]

Originally Posted by ILUVSMGS18

I have to agree and I'm "875" rated. I play more like 925 most of the time, but my putting is what's killing my rating.

Yes, but putting is part of the sport. If you're (in theory) a 925 thrower and an 825 putter, then you're likely an 875 disc golfer. It works.

Originally Posted by robdeforge

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/

That's because the ratings system IS accurate for what it does, based upon what it is supposed to do.

Originally Posted by DiscFifty

maybe...maybe not... Two divisions play the same course, shoot the same scores, as long as the divisions are rated separately, the division with the avg higher rated players get the higher rated rounds.

That's not a possibility -- the first part, that is. How/why would two divisions playing the same course same event, same day, same conditions, same time, etc. be "rated separately"? That's not the way the ratings system is designed.

Originally Posted by DiscFifty

If conditions were tougher for one division, of course. But that's the flaw imop, if all things being equal, the division with the higher avg rated players will have higher ratings. But I don't want to thread drift too much, this was already discussed and proved in another thread.
https://www.dgcoursereview.com/forum...d.php?t=137064

Nope, sorry. I know what you're trying to do, but if ALL THINGS are equal, they can't be rated separately. No way.

Originally Posted by ToddL

That would be the case. But it also extremely unlikely. If one group of players is higher rated than another, then they'd very likely shoot better scores.

Not just unlikely, his premise is impossible. Think about it. They can't be "better players" (on average) and shoot the exact same scores as "worse players" (on average). The system is inherently a sort & select system.

__________________________________________________ __________________

All in all, there is no reason to get rid of ratings. They accurately do what they are designed to do. The reason so many players don't like them is

(see the previous sentence)

.

[txmxer]

Originally Posted by DiscFifty

maybe...maybe not... Two divisions play the same course, shoot the same scores, as long as the divisions are rated separately, the division with the avg higher rated players get the higher rated rounds.

Can you provide an example?

[DavidSauls]

Would it matter?

If, for example, for a give round, the ratings are 20 points off what they "should" be (whatever that is). After 4 rounds of a tournament, that's an effect of 5 points. After 10 tournaments, that would skew each player's rating by about a half point.

And that's if all of the other rounds are "accurate" (whatever that is). Odds are, if some are a tad high, some are a tad low, and they'll offset, so the effect of a given aberrant round is even less.

[araytx]

Originally Posted by DiscFifty

maybe...maybe not... Two divisions play the same course, shoot the same scores, as long as the divisions are rated separately, the division with the avg higher rated players get the higher rated rounds.

Originally Posted by txmxer

Can you provide an example?

He's speaking of a hypothetical example. However, there is a flaw in the premise as I mentioned.

[Discette]

Originally Posted by Steve West

Have you ever noticed that most criticisms of the ratings start with an impossibly unlikely scenario, then claim ratings are broken because they wouldn't work in that scenario?

Originally Posted by DiscFifty

If conditions were tougher for one division, of course. But that's the flaw imop, if all things being equal, the division with the higher avg rated players will have higher ratings. But I don't want to thread drift too much, this was already discussed and proved in another thread.
https://www.dgcoursereview.com/forum...d.php?t=137064

Originally Posted by DiscFifty

So for a few years now, I've been asking about a simulated scenario similar to this:

MPO Division: 50 players all rated 1000.
REC Division: 50 players all rated 800.

Both play the same course, except REC plays 1 hole shorter. This way each division is rated on it's own, which is the key for this scenario.

Both divisions, all players shoot the same score of 54. What is the round rating going to be for each division?

The public answer from those in the know, has always been "this scenario will never happen due to the difference in skills sets". Well... what IF it actually happened?

I talked to a TD today who is going to work with me and try to get a clear answer, but it's not going to happen for a few weeks or so because he is out of town. (He's very curious about this as well. lol..) So I thought I would post this here and see if any other TD wants to plug in this scenario using their TD tools and post the results.

Yes, yes I have noticed...

[DiscFifty]

Originally Posted by araytx

Not just unlikely, his premise is impossible. Think about it. They can't be "better players" (on average) and shoot the exact same scores as "worse players" (on average). The system is inherently a sort & select system.

Mathematically...it's....possible...that's.....the ......flaw.

[ToddL]

Good thing we live in the real world and not inside a random number generator.

[AHagglund]

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.