Aggregate vs Sudden Death playoff

[araytx]

Yes, but those tiebreakers are typically used when it is impractical for teams to break the tie on the field. Particularly in a sport like football that is scheduled so precisely and isn't the type of game you can just throw an extra game in mid-week. In sports where a tiebreaker game is possible to schedule (baseball, for example), they do it. Very rarely is it impractical to send players out on the course to playoff a tie, and in the most likely instance of such a thing happening (weather delays), ties are now allowed to stand. There's little need for a statistical tiebreaker to ever be used in a disc golf setting.

Well, sometimes yes and sometimes no. In fact more often no than yes. In the NFL they've played IF they are in the same division. But often they've played twice, split the two games and then the tie breaker is division record, then conference record. And if they are tied for a wild card spot and not in the same division ditto when they haven't played each other.

Baseball plays the exact same game (more exact than basketball in that basketball overtime involves shorter periods). When the game is tied after regulation, a full extra inning is played. And if one inning isn't enough, they play another and another until an inning ends with a team leading.

While people keep saying specific hole scores and stats aren't the same game. Well neither is sudden death. You think a one-inning baseball game is the same as a nine-inning one? Not a chance. I've coached and played at a high level, and it ain't the same. Everything changes... there's a reason the home team has an advantage, and there's a reason the visitors can save their closer (typically) and home team can't. Because it's a different game in extra innings.

And while basketball has the shorter periods, they still have to play basketball the same way and put the best team out there to score and play defense. Sams shot clock everything.

A one-hole round (sudden death) is exactly the same as entering hole 18 when the two players are tied. Even to the point of which player goes first.

Three problems with using statistics to settle a tie:

1. Too often, the statistic you pick will also be a tie. It's a smaller sample than whatever number of holes the players just finished, so it is more likely to be a tie.

2. No matter what statistic you pick, an equally valid different statistic would have given the other player the win. Because the players are tied, the other player must have "won" the flip side of the tie-breaker.

3. The winner is not the player that got the lower score.

Steve I agree with that (in red). But I then contend, that if going into the 18th hole, one player knows he's behind, is that the same? If he knows, "if I birdie and my opponent bogeys I win, but if we both score the same then I lose," isn't that also the same understanding from both players' perspective? The only difference is that my proposal ends the round after the eighteenth hole, and more than likely, WITH THE SAME ANOUNT OF DRAMA.

As far as "choosing a stat", well recall that I began with saying to start with score an existing hole already played during the round and following hole-by-hole on down the line, so that's not really a stat. I only have to go to stats when both players who are tied scored the exact same score on all 18 holes for the entire tournament (very unlikely). But even in that event, you could construct a blue-ribbon panel to decide which stat is more valid than the next one. And the winner IS one with the LOWEST score for the event.

 

[Steve West]

As far as "choosing a stat", well recall that I began with saying to start with score an existing hole already played during the round and following hole-by-hole on down the line, so that's not really a stat. I only have to go to stats when both players who are tied scored the exact same score on all 18 holes for the entire tournament (very unlikely). But even in that event, you could construct a blue-ribbon panel to decide which stat is more valid than the next one. And the winner IS one with the LOWEST score for the event.

I lumped scores on specific holes (or rounds) in with stats - anything but the final score is a stat.

For any already played hole (and other string of holes as tie breakers) which one player did better on, there is another already played hole (with other holes as tie breakers) which the other player did better on. Double-counting the score of the first hole (or round) and going forward for tie-breakers is no more valid than double-counting the last hole (or round) and going backwards. Or any other way of choosing a subset of hole scores to decide the winner. You might as well flip a coin because the winner would be determined by how the tie-breaker was picked, not by skill.

Yes, the winner had the lowest score, but so did the other guy. Which is why I said the winner did not have the lower score - not lower than the second placed player. With a playoff, the winner scored a lower total score on the same holes played.

 

[araytx]

I lumped scores on specific holes (or rounds) in with stats - anything but the final score is a stat.

For any already played hole (and other string of holes as tie breakers) which one player did better on, there is another already played hole (with other holes as tie breakers) which the other player did better on. Double-counting the score of the first hole (or round) and going forward for tie-breakers is no more valid than double-counting the last hole (or round) and going backwards. Or any other way of choosing a subset of hole scores to decide the winner. You might as well flip a coin because the winner would be determined by how the tie-breaker was picked, not by skill.

Yes, the winner had the lowest score, but so did the other guy. Which is why I said the winner did not have the lower score - not lower than the second placed player. With a playoff, the winner scored a lower total score on the same holes played.

True. Everything you said in the second paragraph is true. My point is that it's ditto for the first sudden death hole. And for each subsequent sudden death hole. There's no difference.

 

[scarpfish]

But I then contend, that if going into the 18th hole, one player knows he's behind, is that the same? If he knows, "if I birdie and my opponent bogeys I win, but if we both score the same then I lose," isn't that also the same understanding from both players' perspective? The only difference is that my proposal ends the round after the eighteenth hole, and more than likely, WITH THE SAME ANOUNT OF DRAMA.

One problem with this is that during live play, there is the theoretical chance that the player in question may not be aware of his opponent's score and who between them might have the tiebreaker due them being on another card.

 

[Orioles_Lefty]

At lower levels, it is true that players on different cards might not know where they stand. I'm sympathetic to that concern. That said, most conversations about playoffs begin with the situation of the tie after X holes (18, 36, 72, etc.), which is to say that the players had X" fair" holes over which to break a tie. Being overly-concerned about how fair a playoff is -- in terms of what holes get played or who tees off first -- overlooks that the players probably had all kinds of different luck over those holes that led to the tie.

For me, whatever the format of the tie is, short of randomness, should incentivize players to "go for the win" in regulation. There's nothing worse than watching NFL teams take a knee to play for overtime.

 

[araytx]

One problem with this is that during live play, there is the theoretical chance that the player in question may not be aware of his opponent's score and who between them might have the tiebreaker due them being on another card.

Is it then also likely that the player doesn't even know that there's a chance he's tied? In that situation, it also means that one player has two holes (at least) to make up or get out of the tie. I would think that players in tournaments would likely stop and find out where they stood, even if it meant sending a caddy back. Plus, in most big tournaments the live scoring feature makes it accessible.

 

[JC17393]

Is it then also likely that the player doesn't even know that there's a chance he's tied? In that situation, it also means that one player has two holes (at least) to make up or get out of the tie. I would think that players in tournaments would likely stop and find out where they stood, even if it meant sending a caddy back. Plus, in most big tournaments the live scoring feature makes it accessible.

You're assuming tee times rather than shotgun start. You're also assuming that either player is playing the tiebreaker hole late/last in the round. Neither may be the case.

If you've selected hole 18's score as the first tiebreaker in the event of a tie, does that hold for all divisions playing in the event? Even the MA2s who started on holes 9 through 13 and would be playing through hole 18 midway through their round when none of them have a clue whether there will be a tie at the end of the round?

The reason sudden death is the standard PDGA tiebreaker is because it is easily and universally applied to all divisions at all events. You have a tie, you play it off in the same manner no matter the division or the level of the event. It's simple and easily understood by all. Going back and breaking ties with a random hole or some other method using past performance is only inviting more headaches for the TDs and the players.

I think the debate of aggregate vs sudden death is a worthy one and I'd be fine with the PDGA allowing TDs to decide which they prefer, provided players are made aware in advance. But no way should there ever be statistically based tiebreakers such as who had the better score on hole X during round Y.

 

[araytx]

You're assuming tee times rather than shotgun start. You're also assuming that either player is playing the tiebreaker hole late/last in the round. Neither may be the case.

If you've selected hole 18's score as the first tiebreaker in the event of a tie, does that hold for all divisions playing in the event? Even the MA2s who started on holes 9 through 13 and would be playing through hole 18 midway through their round when none of them have a clue whether there will be a tie at the end of the round?

The reason sudden death is the standard PDGA tiebreaker is because it is easily and universally applied to all divisions at all events. You have a tie, you play it off in the same manner no matter the division or the level of the event. It's simple and easily understood by all. Going back and breaking ties with a random hole or some other method using past performance is only inviting more headaches for the TDs and the players.


I think the debate of aggregate vs sudden death is a worthy one and I'd be fine with the PDGA allowing TDs to decide which they prefer, provided players are made aware in advance. But no way should there ever be statistically based tiebreakers such as who had the better score on hole X during round Y.

I'm not assuming anything about shotgun vs tee times. If you know in advance the tie-breakers holes, you can choose to play them a certain way way or not — it's up to you — regardless of order.


I get the reasons. I just simply disagree that "it's better" to select a winner using a different, often less fair, format, than simply leaving it as a tie. I also understand I'm in the minority, but I don't see the logic in "that's better." Like shootouts in soccer, sudden death is solely about the drama, not about selecting a winner via fair method.

 

[DavidSauls]

Why is it better for a competition to determine a winner?

Just a matter of taste, of course, but I suspect I'm in in the majority in thinking that if I'm going to engage in a competition---or even watch one---I want it to result in a conclusion: that someone won it. Though you can find exceptions, it seems prevalent at most levels of sport, from media-driven spectator sports down to the grassroots.

As to the method, its fairness or similarity to the main competition, this is a matter of practicality and compromise. At one ludicrous extreme you could re-stage the entire event. At the other, you could flip a coin. Somewhere in between, sports settle on a format that weighs fairness, time considerations, and sometimes entertainment value.

In our case, my question would be, if you have a situation where sudden death (or 3-hole aggregate followed by sudden death) is not practical or presents problems, what are the other options? Leaving it tied, or some other formula based on the completed play? We can lampoon either because, being compromises, they have their faults. It's just a matter of which is best (or least worst), and live with it.

To my taste, an unbroken tie---an unresolved competition---is tough to swallow.

 

[Steve West]

...
To my taste, an unbroken tie---an unresolved competition---is tough to swallow.

Does that only apply to first place? What about first place in all the divisions where the players have already admitted they can't really win by not entering Open? Are ties for other places OK, or would it be ideal to have no ties if the time was available to resolve them?

 

[DavidSauls]

Does that only apply to first place? What about first place in all the divisions where the players have already admitted they can't really win by not entering Open? Are ties for other places OK, or would it be ideal to have no ties if the time was available to resolve them?

Yes, ties for first place, in any division.

If I'm competing against someone in an casual round or pickup basketball or monopoly, the winner is what matters. Not so much the lower finishing spots (though if I finish tied with one of my brothers, it's a little unsatisfying---but that's a side competition).

The other divisions are competitions---if I'm playing in an amateur geezer division, which is normal, we're seeing which of us can beat the others.

I don't mean this in a Vince Lombardi, "Winning is the only thing that matters" sort of way. Just that a competition should resolve into a clear winner. Not always practical but where it is, it should be done.

 

[davetherocketguy]

If I am TD and I go through the trouble of making/buying a trophy for first place for whatever division it happens to be you better believe we are doing a playoff. No way am I going to buy/make another 1st place trophy.

 

[Lazerface]

Why? Explain the reasoning. Particularly the part about any tier level.




And who said it wouldn't be? The score you got on hole #1 during the round WAS on the course.

It happens all the time in team sports. Two teams tie for the conference or division title, and the championship goes to...(wait for it)... the team who beat the other one head-to-head ON THE FIELD.


Basketball is basically the only sport that has its tie-breaker be essentially the same game. Shootouts, extra innings, NCAA tiebreaker in football, sudden death, NFL tie-breaker are all playing a slightly different sport than the one they played to get to a tie.

I have not given it much thought. It just induces vomiting.

 

[Zanguini]

I would like some combination of the two. Play the handicap 1,2,3 holes as aggregate then sudden death i liked last years majestic where they switched back and forth between ace run island holes.

Originally Posted by araytx View Post
Baseball and Basketball is basically the only sport that has its tie-breaker be essentially the same game. Shootouts, extra innings, NCAA tiebreaker in football, sudden death, NFL tie-breaker are all playing a slightly different sport than the one they played to get to a tie.

Well it stands to reason right, they couldn't find a winner playing by the original rules. So you have to change them to get a winner or else we are going to be here all night.

 

[John Rock]

Baseball is experimenting with a change for breaking a tie. In the World Baseball Classic I saw a new (to me) method which after the 10th or 11th inning each inning started with your player who last batted out starting on 2nd base.

A couple of weeks ago our 13U baseball team played a tournament in Albq., NM and in our last game we were tied after 7 innings (regulation play) This same format was used for another 3 innings until our catcher made an error at home and the other team scored to win. I'm split on whether or not I like it. It instantly creates drama at the start of an inning, but man this is BASEBALL, a game pretty much unchanged for many years.

 

[Karl]

Take solace aray, there's at least two of us who think ties aren't that terrible. Maybe it's my chess upbringing, but sometimes two players - over a stipulated time, format, etc. - just are "equals" (at least on that day). They've had their chance to 'prove themselves' and it just so happens that neither can make headway (over the other). They fought to a draw. Such outcomes are okay by me! And this coming from someone who is 6 for 11 in 2-person playoffs.

 

[Steve West]

www.stevewestdiscgolf.com/Sudden_Death_in_Disc_Golf.pdf

 

[JC17393]

Take solace aray, there's at least two of us who think ties aren't that terrible. Maybe it's my chess upbringing, but sometimes two players - over a stipulated time, format, etc. - just are "equals" (at least on that day). They've had their chance to 'prove themselves' and it just so happens that neither can make headway (over the other). They fought to a draw. Such outcomes are okay by me! And this coming from someone who is 6 for 11 in 2-person playoffs.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but chess competitions are rarely about a single game. If you're just playing one game and it ends in a draw, sure, no big deal. But typically a chess tournament/competition comprises a series of games, either a best of X series or a first to X wins sort of thing. The Chess World Championship, for example, is a best of 12 series between the challenger and the champion. The last World Championship was tied 6-6 after 12 games (some games were drawn with players each getting .5 credit), so they played off to determine a winner.

 

[Discette]

www.stevewestdiscgolf.com/Sudden_Death_in_Disc_Golf.pdf

Very interesting.


Why would the higher rated player be considered the "correct winner"? Does that mean it is "incorrect" for the lower rated player to win? Maybe the phrase "expected winner" could be used? Then if the lower rated player wins, they are the "unexpected winner" not the "incorrect winner".

 

[Steve West]

Very interesting.


Why would the higher rated player be considered the "correct winner"? Does that mean it is "incorrect" for the lower rated player to win? Maybe the phrase "expected winner" could be used? Then if the lower rated player wins, they are the "unexpected winner" not the "incorrect winner".

Excellent question. It's not the higher rated player, it's the player who is playing at a higher level of skill during the simulated tournament.

There's a subtly in the model that eliminates the day to day variation in skill level that players experience. In real life, a player might play above or below their rating on any given round for two reasons: One, they are actually playing better (or worse) because the course suits their style (or not) or they are hungover, or any number of factors that affect their play. The second reason is that for a given level of play, there are random results. Sometimes the disc that hits only nubs goes in and sometimes it rolls away. Sometimes the disc barely misses a tree, and sometimes a puff of breeze will knock it into the hanging dead branch.

I eliminated the first variation. In the model, when a 1005 "rated" player is pitted against a 995 "rated" player, each player's expected score on every hole is based on their skill level that day. For example, the 1005 rated player will have a better chance of getting a two on every hole.

The actual score is randomly selected from each player's expected distribution of scores for that hole. As a result, the player who is playing higher rated golf that day doesn't always get assigned a better or equal score on each hole.

In other words, before the simulated players get started, I know exactly at what skill level they are going to play, so I know who should win. A tournament (with tiebreaker) has failed to do its job if it didn't identify the player who I know was playing better that day. That's why I use the correct/incorrect terminology.