Who is really washed up?

[Dr.Smooth]

Washed up means no longer the same player they were. These guys have all dropped 20+ rating points the last couple seasons.

Feldberg played at an amazing level into his late 30s while not being a physical freak.
McCabe was hot mid 30s and won worlds but really hasn't fallen off a ton, he's probably doing the best of the bunch.
Schwebby is probably late 40s now and is a big guy who probably is losing mobility. Great thumbed though.
Avery is a physical freak, always hyped up for being about 6'4 and 250, innova really hyped him to make you think bigger is better. Had one great week and won worlds.
Rico has really fallen off the last 2 years, broke his 20 year cashing streak. Never had a big arm but his putting and diversity of shot always gave him a chance.
Shusterick got married and has really seemed to not care.

my thoughts too. except that rico can and still throws farther than all of these guys did or ever will.

as far as I'm concerned any of these guys in their hey day would smoke any of the young guns out their now.

 

[Moose33]

I can't throw 500 as easily anymore, am I washed up too? If someone would buy me an ACL I could probably get it back though.

All of these guys are either getting older or have diversified their lives. It's a bummer for us as fans but it's nothing unlike the Jeter/Chipper/Griffey type guys getting older. We just haven't had to see it for as long with disc golf.

 

[chosenmatrix]

my thoughts too. except that rico can and still throws farther than all of these guys did or ever will.

as far as I'm concerned any of these guys in their hey day would smoke any of the young guns out their now.

I love watching Rico play, but are you saying he throws farther than Will or Avery Jenkins ever did?

 

[discmatt]

You all will get older and lose some skill. Washed up is a lousy term. My rating started at 966 in 1998....now 969.

 

[trout_smith]

Most of the players you listed in the original poll are just getting older.

Nikko certainly seems to be fading this year though.

Not that it's related, but I was looking through the stats the other day, and Nikko is a big time traveler! Of the top pros, it looks like he definitely hits many many more tourneys than anyone else.

 

[mj20300]

I know I am washed up

 

[Muddyboots]

I know I am washed up

Only if you are laying on a beach somewhere. When are you coming back to VA to play?

KP

 

[lyleoross]

I know I am washed up

Must be dinner time?

 

[joecoin]

I know I am washed up

Edit the poll to put MJ as a choice.

 

[trout_smith]

I know I am washed up

If having the most consistent rating for the last 10 years is washed up, I hope to be washed up someday.

 

[Halcón]

my thoughts too. except that rico can and still throws farther than all of these guys did or ever will.

as far as I'm concerned any of these guys in their hey day would smoke any of the young guns out their now.

Good joke is good. :thmbup:

 

[DiscFifty]

Will seems out of place in this poll, he's too young at only 26.

 

[DiscFifty]

A pool of all 800 rated propagators (or averaging 800) playing any course will generate round ratings that average close to 800 or slightly higher.

A pool of all 1000 rated propagators (or averaging 1000) playing any course will generate round ratings that average close to 1000 or a little higher.

Pools as small as 5 propagators of 800 and 1000 will never shoot the same average score on a course unless it's maybe 18 5-ft holes. A true 800 rated player statistically has a minuscule chance shoot a better score than a true 1000 rated player on a normal course playing at the same time. With two players rated 60 points apart, the lower rated player has the statistical chance to beat the higher rated player in one round about 1 in 36 rounds.

Thx, but I'm not sure you answered my theoretical question. Let's just say for whatever reason why, pool A (800 rated) players shoot the same score as pool B (1000 rated players). 50 players in each pool, they all shoot the same exact score, same layout, etc, but on different days. Ratings are the same for each A & B group? Everything I've been told is ratings will be higher for the 1000 rated player pool. Thx. (Also, please quote me, just enough to trigger the system to let me know you replied. Thx!)

 

[Cgkdisc]

Thx, but I'm not sure you answered my theoretical question. Let's just say for whatever reason why, pool A (800 rated) players shoot the same score as pool B (1000 rated players). 50 players in each pool, they all shoot the same exact score, same layout, etc, but on different days. Ratings are the same for each A & B group? Everything I've been told is ratings will be higher for the 1000 rated player pool. Thx. (Also, please quote me, just enough to trigger the system to let me know you replied. Thx!)

The round ratings for the fifty 800 rated players would average 800 and the round ratings for the 1000-rated players would average 1000. The odds of this happening on the same course at any time is in the probability range of 1 in gazillion rounds. Steve West might be able to define what a gazillion means for your hypothetical.

It's similar to the infinitesimal odds fifty scratch ball golfers would ever shoot the same average score as say fifty 25 handicappers on the same course.

 

[DiscFifty]

The round ratings for the fifty 800 rated players would average 800 and the round ratings for the 1000-rated players would average 1000. The odds of this happening......

I still don't think I'm being clear enough and I apologize... so I will try this one more time.

2 Pools: Pool A players all have 1050 ratings. Pool B all has 950 ratings. (We'll up the ratings so we don't care about the skill gap.) Both pools play the same course, same layout, shoot the same exact score. You said it was a myth that higher rated players affect the rating of the round. But I've been told "ratings in = ratings out" and that you're competing against the field, not the course. So with that in mind, I thought pool B would have lower rated rounds, but if what you say is true, then both pools should have the same rated round. ? ? ?

 

[Cgkdisc]

I still don't think I'm being clear enough and I apologize... so I will try this one more time.

2 Pools: Pool A players all have 1050 ratings. Pool B all has 950 ratings. (We'll up the ratings so we don't care about the skill gap.) Both pools play the same course, same layout, shoot the same exact score. You said it was a myth that higher rated players affect the rating of the round. But I've been told "ratings in = ratings out" and that you're competing against the field, not the course. So with that in mind, I thought pool B would have lower rated rounds, but if what you say is true, then both pools should have the same rated round. ? ? ?

Let's make it realistic where 5 propagators at 960 average the same score in the morning round as 5 propagators who average 950 playing the same course in the afternoon. The five 960 props will get round ratings that average about 960 and the five props who average 950 will get round ratings averaging about 950. That can happen every so often because course conditions are never exactly the same. The baseline interpretation is the course played about one shot easier in the afternoon. But due to statistical variance, we don't know for sure with so few props. So we average the numbers together to where the round ratings produced will average around 955.

 

[Steve West]

... I've been told "ratings in = ratings out" and that you're competing against the field, not the course..

Those are both true (mostly), but neither would be a reason to expect a higher rating when you play with more higher rated players in the pool.

If you are an 800 rated player who plays with 40 other players rated 1005, the average "rating in" is 1000, so the average "rating out" will be around 1000. Yours will fluctuate around 800 and theirs will fluctuate around 1005.

 

[Steve West]

...what a gazillion means for your hypothetical.

Random doesn't always mean a roll of the dice under identical conditions. In this case a gazillion means the course or the players changed in an unexpected way from day to day. Perhaps a hurricane hit, or lava swallowed the targets, or the atmosphere was blown away by a gamma ray burst. Or all the players had food poisoning and had their bags stolen and got "Dear John" letters and stopped caring about anything.

 

[SonicGuy]

I know I am washed up

Idk dude, looks like you are on a European shower schedule...

 

[DG_player]

I still don't think I'm being clear enough and I apologize... so I will try this one more time.

2 Pools: Pool A players all have 1050 ratings. Pool B all has 950 ratings. (We'll up the ratings so we don't care about the skill gap.) Both pools play the same course, same layout, shoot the same exact score. You said it was a myth that higher rated players affect the rating of the round. But I've been told "ratings in = ratings out" and that you're competing against the field, not the course. So with that in mind, I thought pool B would have lower rated rounds, but if what you say is true, then both pools should have the same rated round. ? ? ?

I assume what you're talking about is the issue where you have isolated groups primarily playing against each other. This is an issue with peer based rating systems. In order for them to work correctly there needs to be sufficient competition across players.

It is possible there are regional pockets where most players play against each other in rated rounds and there's no big tournaments to bring in a lot of big names (outside propagators). You could have two groups of players of similar average skill, with different ratings, simply because they keep propagating their own ratings. So the scenario of local players wanting to play against a few pros in their tourney is a distinct possibility (keep in mind it could work the reverse as well if the group was overrated).

Is there sufficient cross competition to statistically prevent this from happening? I have no idea. I would think certainly at the higher levels of competition since the pros are often traveling across the country, playing against each other, as well as local players from the area of their tournament, that this isn't an issue. I think it's unlikely, but at the lower levels of play it's a possibility that there are regional pockets of over or under rated players.

The other issue is the whole rating system is some big secret, and no outside parties can look at it and see if there are problems with how the calculations are made. Who knows if the system just does a bad job of issuing round ratings when you have outliers? For instance maybe Will's rating dropped because he doesn't play any big tournaments anymore and generally plays against large pools of lower rated propagators. Maybe the system can't generate a fair rating in this case. We'll never know because no one can verify it.