Higher Ratings in PDGA Sanctioned Leagues

[Cgkdisc]

No matter how bad you feel ratings might be, they will always be better than the alternative which is simply trying to argue over the meaning of the same score on different courses or how good your rankings are in each event among incomparable fields of players. You're stuck with an imperfect but statistically better system than anything else anyone has come up with so far.

 

[juju]

ratings are screwed in general. Good things ratings don't win tournaments. It is probably the #1 worst thing implemented by the PDGA in 20+ years. Was much better when you played in the division that you thought you should be in, not what a rating suggests. I wish they were never created.

And I wish Chuck for once in his life would admit that he/they are wrong. Any given rating during any round can and does vary by around 25 +/- depending on who is playing or how they play that day.

Quit making so much sense.

I love that 95% of people I talk to don't think ratings are accurate, but most of them still can't wait to see the updates. "Its not that great a system, but its the best we've got." Yeah, heard that for years and have laughed in the faces of everyone I've heard it from. If, and I emphasize IF, I ever renew with the PDGA, I would ask that they save money calculating flawed numbers and focus on ANYTHING else. Who am I kidding, I'll never renew.

 

[BionicRib]

Just chiming in here....... Ratings in general are always going to cause arguments here and there. Handicaps in golf are the same way. Usually, IMO the ams are the biggest complainers, and with different divisions I really don't think there is ever going to be any system that isn't going to cause arguments..........If you guys really have a problem with the rating system then stop acting like babies and come up with your own perfect system. I think the system overall is great........I think what people have a hard time understanding is that the system is only taking numbers from a minimal at best, player pool. (there just isn't enough players out there to make the standard deviation small enough) If the sport takes off and you get a much larger playing field in leagues and tourneys the standard deviation in ratings will get smaller and there will be less complaining.

Less talky more fetchy guys. I believe Chuck has said atleast twice from what I've seen in other threads that they are working on whether or not they have to tweak something. My rating got a lil bit battered up.......but I'm still breathing aren't you?opcorn:

 

[chris deitzel]

Sad that a rating can determine whether or not you can or cannot enter certain events.

And who cares how a round at one course compares to the same score at another course. The only thing that matters is that you play a good round on the course that you are on and beat as many people as possible that you are playing against. I don't need a rating to tell me I sucked it up on the course. It's cool and all to see what my rating is every few months, but I also know that my rating can be flawed by about +/- 20 points at any given update. Which is fine, but should not be a tool used in determining tournament eligibility or a way to decide how well you finish at a tournament (USDGC)

 

[discdoh]

I am happy with the PDGA League ratings that have been calculated in the league that the OP is talking about...I am the league coordinator and have only heard one complaint, and that is from the only 1000 rated player. He shot a hot round (51 on a par 68) from the short tees and only got a 1018. Honestly, I think that 1018 is about right anyways.

BTW, I don't force anyone to PDGA sanction their round. If they want to take part in the league, but don't want to sanction it, they don't have to. It is purely optional. Maybe I am wrong in doing this (by the rules), but if it is any different, I will not sanction the league again. I honestly don't believe I am doing anything wrong by doing this. Humans always get to choose their fate...

 

[Scoot_er]

I am happy with the PDGA League ratings that have been calculated in the league that the OP is talking about...I am the league coordinator and have only heard one complaint, and that is from the only 1000 rated player. He shot a hot round (51 on a par 68) from the short tees and only got a 1018. Honestly, I think that is about right anyways.

Which course?

I know around here Pro par i usually set to equal 1000...

-17 seems pretty good to me!..

 

[discdoh]

Which course?

I know around here Pro par i usually set to equal 1000...

-17 seems pretty good to me!..

Its the Carrollton Park DGC Singles League. Its a par 68 course with mostly par 4s. I think from the red tees (recreational) it is 4 holes less than 300 feet and 14 holes more than 400 feet (a mix of mostly 4s and some 5s). And trust me, -17 is plenty good, but a -20 round or more is certainly possible.

 

[Scoot_er]

Its the Carrollton Park DGC Singles League. Its a par 68 course with mostly par 4s. I think from the red tees (recreational) it is 4 holes less than 300 feet and 14 holes more than 400 feet (a mix of mostly 4s and some 5s). And trust me, -17 is plenty good, but a -20 round or more is certainly possible.

Yea and that would probably be 1060+......the 1018 probably was a little low but not too much......he should be thankful he got a round over 1000 from what I have seen.

 

[chris deitzel]

I got a 975 rating in one of my league rounds which usually comes out to 920 during our tournaments because for whatever reason, the 5 pros played like crap that day. lol. The score was rated higher from these white tees than they were for the same score on the blue tees at the other events we had.

 

[Scoot_er]

I got a 975 rating in one of my league rounds which usually comes out to 920 during our tournaments because for whatever reason, the 5 pros played like crap that day. lol. The score was rated higher from these white tees than they were for the same score on the blue tees at the other events we had.

Sounds kind of like the only 4 propagators in the 800s or low 900s.....then each of them plays much better than normal......BOOM ratings end up 60pts lower than the week before.

 

[chris deitzel]

well it was 80 and sunny that day from the whites. I believe it was 81 and sunny for the blue tee rounds. That explains the fluctuations perfectly.

 

[urwatuh8]

I disagree with all the whining. Ratings are trying to make sense of statistics with a lot of noise. IMO, they do a pretty good job of this. Are they perfectly accurate? No, of course not. But having some, imperfect information seems a lot better than no information at all.

(I don't know much about league ratings. Maybe they make less sense. But I'm guessing it's probably too early to tell anything at this point.)

 

[harr0140]

Yup, they are def lower rated, im not a big fan of it because you have to put in ur pdga number to play, I wish it was an option to be rated or to not be rated

Matt, while I am not saying this is the case with you, your comments sparked these thoughts in my mind. Don't take this is a bash on you, because I don't even know you, but I think the comments you said represent a lot of people's thoughts about leagues and ratings.

Look at the two leagues in Milwaukee that are rated on courses that have had tourneys regularly.

Brown Deer league is apparently is an easy way to build your rating while Sussex has been known to bring your rating down (if you are a pro or advanced level player).

Don't you try the same whether in a league or a tourney? A rating is a measurement of all your rounds whether you felt good or bad going in, whether a course suits your skills or not, so why should league be any different. It is an average of all rounds basically. There should be no reason to ever fear a rated round . . . it is a measurement of your ability against whoever else is playing on that given day.

I play PDGA sanctioned leagues at a course (Sussex) that does not favor my noodle arm, and guess what my average rating is 907 (for about 8 or 9 rounds played) which is exactly what I have been rated for months now. I know multiple people who are rated lower than me but have a clear advantage over me at Sussex because of their distance ability, but I will never not play there because it will affect my rating. Just like I will never avoid a tournament because it isn't a course I normally shoot well on, or have ever played for that matter. Why? Many may ask, because I do not care what my rating is (it is what it is for a reason (I shot those rounds), I judge myself against the course and not other people. If I play well I am happy, if I play poorly I am dissatisfied, but it rarely comes down to comparing myself to other people (with the exception of a few people, but those people are usually rated higher than me anyways).

Unless someone can prove the ratings system is flawed because of leagues I will believe in the rating as it stands, the only difference is that a league may be a smaller size, but guess what, they pool all rounds from the league together to come up with an average, so in the end you might still have 70-90 rounds per league which is equivalent to a regular tourney.

I say don't let ratings scare you away from a league, consider it good practice for tournament competition! In my opinion all a rating is good for is keeping you from playing in lower divisions . . . and the second thing a rating is good for is boosting ones ego. We all protect those precious points as if it is life or death. Whenever someones rating goes down, the system is flawed, yet when someone takes a jump up, suddenly it was on their own accord. I just think far too many people do not understand the ratings system. Then there are others that need the high rating to keep their ego inflated.

 

[harr0140]

ratings are screwed in general. Good things ratings don't win tournaments. It is probably the #1 worst thing implemented by the PDGA in 20+ years. Was much better when you played in the division that you thought you should be in, not what a rating suggests. I wish they were never created.

And I wish Chuck for once in his life would admit that he/they are wrong. Any given rating during any round can and does vary by around 25 +/- depending on who is playing or how they play that day.

Sure there are variables but so what, it all averages out in the end . . .unless someone came in with a low rating, played awesome and never returned to play again, in the end the highs and lows will even out.

 

[Scoot_er]

Matt, while I am not saying this is the case with you, your comments sparked these thoughts in my mind. Don't take this is a bash on you, because I don't even know you, but I think the comments you said represent a lot of people's thoughts about leagues and ratings.

Look at the two leagues in Milwaukee that are rated on courses that have had tourneys regularly.

Brown Deer league is apparently is an easy way to build your rating while Sussex has been known to bring your rating down (if you are a pro or advanced level player).

Don't you try the same whether in a league or a tourney? A rating is a measurement of all your rounds whether you felt good or bad going in, whether a course suits your skills or not, so why should league be any different. It is an average of all rounds basically. There should be no reason to ever fear a rated round . . . it is a measurement of your ability against whoever else is playing on that given day.

I play PDGA sanctioned leagues at a course (Sussex) that does not favor my noodle arm, and guess what my average rating is 907 (for about 8 or 9 rounds played) which is exactly what I have been rated for months now. I know multiple people who are rated lower than me but have a clear advantage over me at Sussex because of their distance ability, but I will never not play there because it will affect my rating. Just like I will never avoid a tournament because it isn't a course I normally shoot well on, or have ever played for that matter. Why? Many may ask, because I do not care what my rating is (it is what it is for a reason (I shot those rounds), I judge myself against the course and not other people. If I play well I am happy, if I play poorly I am dissatisfied, but it rarely comes down to comparing myself to other people (with the exception of a few people, but those people are usually rated higher than me anyways).

Unless someone can prove the ratings system is flawed because of leagues I will believe in the rating as it stands, the only difference is that a league may be a smaller size, but guess what, they pool all rounds from the league together to come up with an average, so in the end you might still have 70-90 rounds per league which is equivalent to a regular tourney.

I say don't let ratings scare you away from a league, consider it good practice for tournament competition! In my opinion all a rating is good for is keeping you from playing in lower divisions . . . and the second thing a rating is good for is boosting ones ego. We all protect those precious points as if it is life or death. Whenever someones rating goes down, the system is flawed, yet when someone takes a jump up, suddenly it was on their own accord. I just think far too many people do not understand the ratings system. Then there are others that need the high rating to keep their ego inflated.

First off the league's payout is a big :doh: and they are among the most casual rounds I get to play. Going out to a league where I may win $12 for 1st after paying $8 is not going to be a time where I enter "competition mode"..if anything it is "watch this crazy S**t" mode.

I usually end up walking around the course not really caring about my score since the difference in -2 and -12 is only around $5. Competition and practice are good things but this is diminished when you are put on the last card (due to the fact I won't play for tags anymore and never purchased one) and already rated 75pts above the next highest guy. In a nutshell this atmosphere does not bring the "animal" out in my game.....I may still shoot awesome but if I shoot bad it is no biggie.....since it is 99% for fun.


As far as the Ego thing comes and not playing due to the low ratings...think about this. I am rated 1014 now using 36 rounds (way down from my avg) and if I shoot -8/-9 on average (1010-1020 golf) at the league that will only rate (using the posted results) around 980........which over 9 weeks would be enough to almost drop me below 1000.......all because of borderline practice rounds. That weekend I go to an event and this creates a negative affect on the ratings there regardless of what I shoot...this is due to having a rating of 1000 which is an inaccurate estimate of what I would shoot (around 1014 on avg)

Like I mentioned earlier....the league if fun but not that appealing competition-wise and if anything the ace-pot is the main goal for the day........leagues should have requirements to be sanctioned, such as, minimum amount of average players/props....and well...that would probably do wonders on its own.

No bashing taken! :thmbup: Just posting my opinion which is biased in some regards due to the fact this program is not meant to appeal to the demographic of players I happen to fall in......I have said it before that the idea of the program is good it just needs better implementation

 

[harr0140]

First off the league's payout is a big :doh: and they are among the most casual rounds I get to play. Going out to a league where I may win $12 for 1st after paying $8 is not going to be a time where I enter "competition mode"..if anything it is "watch this crazy S**t" mode.

I usually end up walking around the course not really caring about my score since the difference in -2 and -12 is only around $5. Competition and practice are good things but this is diminished when you are put on the last card (due to the fact I won't play for tags anymore and never purchased one) and already rated 75pts above the next highest guy. In a nutshell this atmosphere does not bring the "animal" out in my game.....I may still shoot awesome but if I shoot bad it is no biggie.....since it is 99% for fun.


As far as the Ego thing comes and not playing due to the low ratings...think about this. I am rated 1014 now using 36 rounds (way down from my avg) and if I shoot -8/-9 on average (1010-1020 golf) at the league that will only rate (using the posted results) around 980........which over 9 weeks would be enough to almost drop me below 1000.......all because of borderline practice rounds. That weekend I go to an event and this creates a negative affect on the ratings there regardless of what I shoot...this is due to having a rating of 1000 which is an inaccurate estimate of what I would shoot (around 1014 on avg)

Like I mentioned earlier....the league if fun but not that appealing competition-wise and if anything the ace-pot is the main goal for the day........leagues should have requirements to be sanctioned, such as, minimum amount of average players/props....and well...that would probably do wonders on its own.

No bashing taken! :thmbup: Just posting my opinion which is biased in some regards due to the fact this program is not meant to appeal to the demographic of players I happen to fall in......I have said it before that the idea of the program is good it just needs better implementation

I think the biggest issue I see I guess is that players in the 900 range look at league differently than those in the 960 range, and completely differently than the 1000 range. While I know this . . . no matter what my rating I am always in competition mode. If I was 1000 rated or 100 rated I would still be trying my hardest. And it isnt because of the rating it is because I am competetive.

Sure I undertstand how ace runs might factor into someones play, but that is your choice to run for aces over trying to play safe for dueces and try to take down your division.

I guess I can see all sides of the argument at this point, despite the fact I would never avoid a league for fear my rating would drop. Again I view that as a ego kick more than anything because rarely if ever do ratings factor into qualification for anything upward, only downward. If there were PDGA rules that kept 999 rated players from playing certain events because they are not cream of the crop that would be more of an argument, but at this point a rating really only keeps you from moving down, it nevers keeps you from moving up . . . except int he performance edition based events.

 

[Scoot_er]

I think the biggest issue I see I guess is that players in the 900 range look at league differently than those in the 960 range, and completely differently than the 1000 range. While I know this . . . no matter what my rating I am always in competition mode. If I was 1000 rated or 100 rated I would still be trying my hardest. And it isnt because of the rating it is because I am competetive.

Sure I undertstand how ace runs might factor into someones play, but that is your choice to run for aces over trying to play safe for dueces and try to take down your division.

I guess I can see all sides of the argument at this point, despite the fact I would never avoid a league for fear my rating would drop. Again I view that as a ego kick more than anything because rarely if ever do ratings factor into qualification for anything upward, only downward. If there were PDGA rules that kept 999 rated players from playing certain events because they are not cream of the crop that would be more of an argument, but at this point a rating really only keeps you from moving down, it nevers keeps you from moving up . . . except int he performance edition based events.

They don't even have a "Pro" division......I play Adv (but never write it down myself )

I am competitive to the point I want to win each league....but it doesn't matter by how many...we play golf. If the best score is going to be -5 then I will be content shooting just good enough to finish -6 or -7.

Our sponsors also care about ratings.....although Discraft puts even more weight into PDGA points which is even more :wall: ...

Back on track..there are plenty of players who care about ratings and rankings and since they are good estimators of one's play they are used as benchmarks for these players. Getting to 900, then 950, 975,990, the big 1000, and above to the 1020s can be a big thing and those guys at the top feel good knowing they are rated/ranked #X in the world......SHANE SEAL :wall:

Do you try your hardest every single round you play? Do you ever play a round where you practice new shots half the time? The last league out there I threw a Nuke OS off every tee and shot pretty good.......but it was practice

 

[harr0140]

They don't even have a "Pro" division......I play Adv (but never write it down myself )

I am competitive to the point I want to win each league....but it doesn't matter by how many...we play golf. If the best score is going to be -5 then I will be content shooting just good enough to finish -6 or -7.

Our sponsors also care about ratings.....although Discraft puts even more weight into PDGA points which is even more :wall: ...

Back on track..there are plenty of players who care about ratings and rankings and since they are good estimators of one's play they are used as benchmarks for these players. Getting to 900, then 950, 975,990, the big 1000, and above to the 1020s can be a big thing and those guys at the top feel good knowing they are rated/ranked #X in the world......SHANE SEAL :wall:

Do you try your hardest every single round you play? Do you ever play a round where you practice new shots half the time? The last league out there I threw a Nuke OS off every tee and shot pretty good.......but it was practice

I have only "taken off" a couple of rounds ever and that was because I was injured, already frustrated, or didnt have my mind in the game from the outset. Otherwise I am always trying as hard as I can on any given shot and on every hole.

My practice comes in the form of casual rounds and solo rounds where I play 2 discs at once that way i do not need to "practice" in the middle of a competition, even if it is just league. I am only trying to replicate what I practiced alone the day before.

keep in mind I play about 400 rounds a year, so I have plenty of time to practice, others may not be so lucky! I totally get that.

P.S. Matt Hall . . . when I said Matt earlier in my posts I was referring to Matt Horsmann not you. I know it doesn't matter, because i wasn't specifically calling anyone out, just that his comments are what brought something to my attention.

 

[ERicJ]

Through 24 sanctioned league rounds this year, averaging 19 players with probably 5-7 propagators... I'd say ratings are typically +/- 10 points of where they should be.

http://www.pdga.com/tournament-results?TournID=13326
http://www.pdga.com/tournament-results?TournID=13736
http://www.pdga.com/tournament-results?TournID=14018

BTW, we rotate through five different courses in the league.

 

[Dave242]

Results from the league http://www.pdga.com/tournament_results/95531%2526s%3D1829231521

are they playing that league from a different park or different tees from week to week? One of those dudes got a 54, which was only rated 834 and the week before it was 894....strange

I was travelling last week without a real computer, so looking at this stuff closely was tough.

Yeah - jcrab, I have the same question? 55 was rated (# players in parentheses - no sure how many are propagators):

900(7), 872(10), 887(9), 860(6), 873(7), 882(5), 820(6)

That is some very small sample sizes and that ratings fluctuate 80 points (about 7 strokes)! But, if you toss out rounds 1 & 7, the variation is only about +/-1.5 throws (not too bad)