DGPT: The Memorial Championship presented by Discraft 27-Feb to 01-Mar-2020

[DiscJunkie]

Thread drifts about ratings are an annual feature of the Memorial Tournament thread.
So here's my 2 cents.
Ratings compression and inflation happens all the time, depending on the course SSA and layout.
It's a regrettable quirk of our present ratings system.
I'm/We're still waiting for a workable alternative. Any ideas?

 

[dorseymatt]

The glitch isn't about math. The glitch is, its outdated... and for a number of reasons I laid out in the above response to Chuck.

Now if you want to stop tour events from playing on short, wide open Intermediate level courses, then fine, we can keep the system as is.

I feel like your use of the word glitch is causing some of the problem here. There is no error in the ratings. You just don't like the ratings, and you wish they were calculated differently.

 

[brutalbrutus]

 

[brutalbrutus]

I feel like your use of the word glitch is causing some of the problem here. There is no error in the ratings. You just don't like the ratings, and you wish they were calculated differently.

Nah, I'm just going to recommend to the IO TDs that they use all the crappy old letter holes, the two doinkers they skip and then either skip or shorten all the rest of the good holes at Idlewild to less than 350ft. Problem solved.

 

[dorseymatt]

Nah, I'm just going to recommend to the IO TDs that they use all the crappy old letter holes, the two doinkers they skip and then either skip or shorten all the rest of the good holes at Idlewild to less than 350ft. Problem solved.

I have no idea what you're talking about, sorry.

 

[brutalbrutus]

I feel like your use of the word glitch is causing some of the problem here. There is no error in the ratings. You just don't like the ratings, and you wish they were calculated differently.

Nah, I'm just going to recommend to the IO TDs that they use all the crappy old letter holes, the two doinkers they skip and then either skip or shorten all the rest of the good holes at Idlewild to less than 350ft. Problem solved.

I have no idea what you're talking about, sorry.

Then... maybe you shouldn't butt into other people arguments.

 

[biscoe]

I have no idea what you're talking about, sorry.

neither does Brutus...

 

[dorseymatt]

Then... maybe you shouldn't butt into other people arguments.

You directly responded to me with something about layout changes at Idlewild. Were you trying to run it by me for approval? I'm just a guy on a message board telling you that your understanding of the word "glitch" has a glitch in it.

 

[brutalbrutus]

I was just rebutting your theory that the problem is on my end. We're gonna turn Idlewild into a pitch and putt to attract more players... and then I wont have a problem.

 

[brutalbrutus]

 

[elmexdela]

any video of the big jerm ace

 

[ThrowBot]

Brutus's ratings rant and comments on the minutiae of the Idlewild layout: 1/5.

Brutus posting links to Jomez coverage of the tournament that is the subject of this thread: 5/5.

 

[ToddL]

Looks like Eagle choked another one away

Well, Calvin shot the hot round of the day and tied the hot round of the course, so let's not go too far out of our way to give him some credit for earning the win.

 

[Soups]

Well, Calvin shot the hot round of the day and tied the hot round of the course, so let's not go too far out of our way to give him some credit for earning the win.

Agreed. I don't even think Eagle can be criticised too badly for the point where the lead shifted hands, with him striking the base of the elevated basket and getting a massive roll away.

 

[ThrowBot]

Just finished up the final round. Fun battle, right down to the wire.

What was the max # of live viewers, does anyone have those stats?

 

[brutalbrutus]

Just finished up the final round. Fun battle, right down to the wire.

What was the max # of live viewers, does anyone have those stats?

It was around 12k at one point near the end of the MPO, not sure if it got higher cause I didn't refresh for awhile.

 

[araytx]

Odd stats. .

Paige shot a 55 in R4 rated 1017 this year. . last year she also shot a 55 in R4 but that time it was rated 1001

Eagle shot a 52 in R4 rated 1043 this year. . last year he also shot a 52 in R4, that was rated 1046

So both Paige and Eagle shot the same score in R4 both 2020 and 2019
But Paiges was rated higher in 2020, Eagles round was rated lower??


And its just insane that Paige shot the same score in R4 both 2019 and 2020. . and still got a 26 shots better total in 2020

They played different courses Round 4 -- this year was Vista del Camino; last year was Fountain Hills. The diff in Vista and Fountain might account for that -- not just for Paige but for everyone.

I understand the system and when you designed it, it was probably the best way to go... But its time for a change. Disc technology has changed. The player's talent level has changed and quite frankly, course design has changed. When all these very talented guys are playing intermediate level courses, in near perfect conditions, it creates badly flawed ratings. You can't hope that the wind will pick up and keep the scores down any longer. There needs to be an adjustment of some kind.

The glitch isn't about math. The glitch is, its outdated... and for a number of reasons I laid out in the above response to Chuck.

Now if you want to stop tour events from playing on short, wide open Intermediate level courses, then fine, we can keep the system as is.

Nah, I'm just going to recommend to the IO TDs that they use all the crappy old letter holes, the two doinkers they skip and then either skip or shorten all the rest of the good holes at Idlewild to less than 350ft. Problem solved.

I was just rebutting your theory that the problem is on my end. We're gonna turn Idlewild into a pitch and putt to attract more players... and then I wont have a problem.

Brutus -- you say you understand ratings, then you keep talking about the courses. Ratings ARE NOT about the course; they were designed as a measure of how player performance compares (internally, to each other); that is, all propagating players on that layout that day in similar conditions and how the individual fares versus that group of props. It's NOT a measure of how an individual player performs relative to the course. It just isn't -- that's why your assertions don't make sense to us.

 

[brutalbrutus]

They played different courses Round 4 -- this year was Vista del Camino; last year was Fountain Hills. The diff in Vista and Fountain might account for that -- not just for Paige but for everyone.










Brutus -- you keep saying you understand ratings, then you keep talking about the courses. Ratings ARE NOT about the course; they were designed as a measure of how player performance compares (internally, to each other); that is, all propagating players on that layout that day in similar conditions and how the individual fares versus that group of props. It's NOT a measure of how an individual player performs relative to the course. It just isn't -- that's why your assertions don't make sense to us.

First, they did play Vista in the final round last year. They changed it last year so they would be closer to Spinners.

Second, I've heard many a people say over the years that the course and weather don't matter to the ratings. Except, if they weren't playing a course, where would the scores come from? It may not be directly involved with the calculation but what course they are playing does matter.

 

[jvphobic]

Peak concurrent viewers hit just over 13K for the final round. Probably the 2nd or 3rd most watched event in Live Disc Golf history. Worlds hit over 15K last year.

 

[Steve West]

....It's NOT a measure of how an individual player performs relative to the course.

Well, ... that's not entirely true.

If I understand it.

The scores of the players go into coming up with an SSA. That SSA determines the ratings points per throw. Each player's rating is 1000 plus the ratings points per throw times the difference between the SSA and the player's score.

So it may be most correct to say they are competing against a very simple model course whose one parameter is determined by how everyone played.


If ratings were based on how players all compared to each other, they could take into account weird things like all 850-rated players getting the same score. They don't.