Disc Golf Course Review Hey hey ho ho round ratings have got to GO!
 User Name Remember Me? Password
 Register Members List Social Groups - View All Groups - Your Group Messages Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

#221
09-17-2020, 11:24 AM
 txmxer Birdie Member Join Date: Aug 2020 Location: Texas Years Playing: 0.7 Courses Played: 2 Throwing Style: RHBH Posts: 403 Niced 322 Times in 156 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by jakebake91 I love that old adage. Just want to pile on to the discussion here, adding absolutely nothing to it in the process. I love when we sink to petty arguments on semantics. Are we really splitting hairs here over .000000001% odds? I mean, I know life is boring right now for many of us, but jeez.
There's common use of language versus the language of science. Since the discussion drifted in to statistics and probability, the choice of words is expected to be precise. Calling a non-zero probability "impossible" may be functionally accurate because it is never going to happen, but, in the world of numbers and science, people typically choose to caveat the term.

There are reasons why. To use your example of .000000001%--is that the line where we say something is impossible? Why not .00000001%...or .001%? Where is one allowed to accurately use the term?

The odds of winning powerball are about 1 in 300 million or .00000033%.

But it happens.

Nobody would object to "it's never going to happen" or "for all practical purposes, it is impossible"...

ahhh...but the original scenario didn't include a bunch of caveats. It was simply 800 rated players having a better round than 1000 rated players. So...there is a tournament on day 2 where the lower rated players play in the morning and the higher rated players play in the evening. At noon, a front rolls in. Wind gusts 40 MPH and temperature drops from 60 degrees to 40 degrees. Those scores in the afternoon are going to suck. If one only looks at the numbers, then there is no explanation other than the 1000 rated players had a really bad day.

So, when stating, "it's impossible"...the next thing you will read is a bunch of caveats basically stating that all other variables are equal. Once that caveat is inserted in to the discussion over word choice, then the issue is settled. If caveats are necessary to make the statement accurate then it's just a matter of choice as to how one caveats the statement.
Sponsored Links

 Niced: (2)
#222
09-17-2020, 11:29 AM
 txmxer Birdie Member Join Date: Aug 2020 Location: Texas Years Playing: 0.7 Courses Played: 2 Throwing Style: RHBH Posts: 403 Niced 322 Times in 156 Posts

I just realized we have to update the infinite monkey theorem...

if a billion monkeys buy a billion lottery tickets...
#223
09-17-2020, 11:38 AM
 Cgkdisc .:Hall of Fame Member:. Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Twin Cities Years Playing: 31.6 Courses Played: 710 Throwing Style: RHBH Posts: 12,850 Niced 2,556 Times in 1,082 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by txmxer ahhh...but the original scenario didn't include a bunch of caveats. It was simply 800 rated players having a better round than 1000 rated players. So...there is a tournament on day 2 where the lower rated players play in the morning and the higher rated players play in the evening. At noon, a front rolls in. Wind gusts 40 MPH and temperature drops from 60 degrees to 40 degrees. Those scores in the afternoon are going to suck. If one only looks at the numbers, then there is no explanation other than the 1000 rated players had a really bad day.
The rating system would not combine the scores for those two rounds to calculate the round ratings, they would be done separately. So yes, the scores would look odd in comparison, but the ratings calculations would automatically account for the different conditions.

This touches on my concern with variable weather conditions at different times during a tee time round, both for competitive fairness and ratings calculations. But that's another discussion topic.

 Niced: (1)
#224
09-17-2020, 11:59 AM
 txmxer Birdie Member Join Date: Aug 2020 Location: Texas Years Playing: 0.7 Courses Played: 2 Throwing Style: RHBH Posts: 403 Niced 322 Times in 156 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Cgkdisc The rating system would not combine the scores for those two rounds to calculate the round ratings, they would be done separately. So yes, the scores would look odd in comparison, but the ratings calculations would automatically account for the different conditions. This touches on my concern with variable weather conditions at different times during a tee time round, both for competitive fairness and ratings calculations. But that's another discussion topic.
thanks--I wasn't aware of that (obviously), but it is good to know.
#225
09-17-2020, 02:42 PM
 DiscFifty * Ace Member * Join Date: Sep 2012 Years Playing: 9.6 Courses Played: 19 Throwing Style: RHBH Posts: 4,273 Niced 1,581 Times in 883 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by araytx If the "better players" somehow played worse than the "worse players," well they wouldn't really have been the better players in the first place -- by definition.
Perhaps you're not looking at it in a small enough bite. Certainly for one day a worse player can beat a better player. It happens every tournament. Now the odds of every worse player beating the better players in 1 round are incredibly small, however...we're talking about avg rated round, so what increases those odds (perhaps alot).. is... some of the worse players shoot lights out and some of the better players shoot incredibly bad. If you think this scenario is flat out impossible... I would 100% disagree with that. Being human + weather conditions add random variables to the equation that will never provide a static result regardless the stability of the other variables.
#226
09-17-2020, 02:51 PM
 DiscFifty * Ace Member * Join Date: Sep 2012 Years Playing: 9.6 Courses Played: 19 Throwing Style: RHBH Posts: 4,273 Niced 1,581 Times in 883 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Cgkdisc The rating system would not combine the scores for those two rounds to calculate the round ratings, they would be done separately. So yes, the scores would look odd in comparison, but the ratings calculations would automatically account for the different conditions.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by DiscFifty What about course conditions and weather conditions?
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Cgkdisc Nope. Never has been involved in the calcs.
hmm....
#227
09-17-2020, 02:57 PM
 Cgkdisc .:Hall of Fame Member:. Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Twin Cities Years Playing: 31.6 Courses Played: 710 Throwing Style: RHBH Posts: 12,850 Niced 2,556 Times in 1,082 Posts

Odds of a relatively stable propagator at 850 rating beating a stable 1000-rated propagator on a normal course both are familiar with is about 1 in 1000. Add another pair of players with these two ratings where both 850s beat the two 1000s in a single round, it's 1/1000 times 1/1000 or 1 in a million. Each new pair extends the odds another 1000 times. In Jim Carrey's voice, "So you say there's a chance?"

 Niced: (2)
#228
09-17-2020, 03:09 PM
 Cgkdisc .:Hall of Fame Member:. Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Twin Cities Years Playing: 31.6 Courses Played: 710 Throwing Style: RHBH Posts: 12,850 Niced 2,556 Times in 1,082 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by DiscFifty hmm....
There are no weather adjustment factors entered into the formulas. Worse playing conditions cause scores to automatically move higher. So, the scores incorporate the weather without needing to come up with a special adjustment factor for them in the equation.

For example, a pool of 30 propagators averaging 925 rating average a score of 55 in R1 then average 59 in R2 in much tougher conditions on the same course. The formula determines that the conditions were different and calculates the ratings for each round separately. If the scoring average in R2 was close enough to R1, the formula assumes the conditions were similar enough so scores from both rounds are combined to where the same score gets the same rating in each round. In most 2-round events, the scores are combined from both rounds for the calculations.
#229
09-17-2020, 03:16 PM
 ballgolfconvert Birdie Member Join Date: Jan 2019 Years Playing: 36.9 Courses Played: 2 Throwing Style: RHBH Posts: 340 Niced 169 Times in 104 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Cgkdisc Ratings are simply a way to normalize performance on courses of different difficulty. We wouldn't need ratings if all courses were the same like a bowling alley (without special competition oiling). Your rating would simply be your scoring average and you could compare your averages to know where you rank. The idea that ratings aren't important for elite pros is a U.S. centric position. The PDGA ratings system is credited by several sports administrators as the number one reason for international growth not only in the PDGA but global participation because they want to compare their performance and advancement to our top male and female players. Any ranking system that is unable to compare performances, especially wins, from various tier events around the world becomes U.S. centric tour hype and not an appropriate World Ranking process. Curiously, the PDGA has not updated their World Rankings during 2020, perhaps due to lack of Majors, although they could have since there have been ratings updates this year that included "major" DGPT events. There are some tweaks that could be made to improve the ratings for everyone, not just elite pros, but the PDGA has not yet acted on those suggestions that are now several years old.
Biggest problem with ratings is that they reflect an average. Handicaps for example show how well a player is capable of playing throwing out the worst 10 if last 20 scores. . ratings could work the same way if they discarded the worst 50% of the ratings for each player. 20 rated rounds. The top 10 count in your rating. This would move a bunch of players who shouldn't be in Rec, out of Rec, and same for other divisions. It would go a long way to prevent sandbagging, which is why ball golf has the system they have.

#230
09-17-2020, 04:06 PM
 DiscFifty * Ace Member * Join Date: Sep 2012 Years Playing: 9.6 Courses Played: 19 Throwing Style: RHBH Posts: 4,273 Niced 1,581 Times in 883 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Cgkdisc There are no weather adjustment factors entered into the formulas.
I was fine and all things groovy until....

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Cgkdisc but the ratings calculations would automatically account for the different conditions.

 Niced: (1)

 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 Rules
 Forum Jump User Control Panel Private Messages Subscriptions Who's Online Search Forums Forums Home General Disc Golf Discussions     DGCR Announcements & News     General Disc Golf Chat     Newbie Intros and Q&A     Disc Golf Courses         Course Design         Course Development         Course Maint. & Equipment     Tournaments & Leagues         TD's Corner         LC's Corner     Rules Questions & Discussion     Hole of the Day Improve Your Game     Technique & Strategy     Form Analysis/Critique     Bag Suggestions & Feedback Equipment     Bags / Carts / Straps / Tags     Discs     Other Gear     Disc Dyeing Travel & Meets     Vacations & Road Trips     DGCR Meets     DGCR Travel Tags DGCR Commerce     The Marketplace     The Flea Market DGCR Sponsors & Vendors     DGCR Sponsors & Vendors     Commercial Marketplace

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post Joxiam Newbie Intros and Q&A 1 06-04-2017 03:46 PM pablo.diablo The Marketplace 13 04-30-2013 10:06 AM QuinnAA199 The Marketplace 1 03-09-2013 08:39 AM JustSayin' The Marketplace 0 11-10-2010 12:01 AM JTacoma03 The Marketplace 20 08-26-2010 10:35 PM

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:21 PM.

 -- Default Style -- Mobile Style Contact Us - Archive - Top

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