Author Topic: Player Ratings  (Read 628 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

coops

  • Guest
Player Ratings
« on: February 18, 2010, 01:32:51 PM »
I know this has probably been explained before somewhere else, and that this is probably not the appropriate forum for asking this question but since the search feature on this site is so cumbersome and the PDGA boards for some reason will not let me post this there I appeal to all learned golfers, specifically in the field of understanding player ratings, to answer a question for me.

At worlds this year both MPO and FPO played their semi-final round at WW correct? If so, how is it possible that, for example, Valerie Jenkins shot a 50 and received a round rating of 1041 while Eric McCabe also shot a 50 and received a round rating of 1017? Since they were playing the same course, at the same time, it seems to me that it makes sense that the ratings should be the same and not at all different. But, obviously, if I am wrong about the venue for semis then that makes sense. Does anyone out there have the necessary wisdom or divining powers to answer this question for me? Thanks.

 

The Bird Father

  • 1000 Rated Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 1820
  • WOOT! WOOT!
    • View Profile
Re: Player Ratings
« Reply #1 on: February 18, 2010, 01:37:39 PM »
Not completely sure, but I believe the ratings are also based on an average score for the entire field.  So, say finals are 5 people with an average score of 54...then a 50 is hot for that particular round.  Where 5 people having an average score of 51 makes a 50 less of an accomplishment and more average.....lower rated....
Just Another Dirty Bird

Bird > Word

coops

  • Guest
Re: Player Ratings
« Reply #2 on: February 18, 2010, 06:03:23 PM »
Yeah, they must have done that, Tracy. Kind of brings into question what the value of the ratings system is if they calculate it separately for some divisions even when they were playing the exact same course at the exact same time.

Schoen-hopper

  • Pro Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 636
    • View Profile
Re: Player Ratings
« Reply #3 on: February 19, 2010, 11:11:00 AM »
Email Chuck Kennedy or ask him on the PDGA thread for ratings.  He's pretty good about answering questions.

coops

  • Guest
Re: Player Ratings
« Reply #4 on: February 19, 2010, 11:28:26 AM »
That's a good idea, except for some reason the PDGA board won't let me post anything... I guess I'll have to get to working on getting that fixed so I can ask him.

Timko

  • 1000 Rated Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3714
    • View Profile
Re: Player Ratings
« Reply #5 on: February 19, 2010, 11:56:45 AM »
Email Chuck Kennedy or ask him on the PDGA thread for ratings.  He's pretty good about answering questions.

Yeah, but will he share the "magic formula" so it can undergo scrutinization from other sources?  From what I understand, the PDGA guards it like their proprietary holy grail.  :(   Making the formula public can only help improve it. And encourage it's use throughout the sport.  


Ya, he won't.  I've begged him for the exact equation, but as I understand it, ratings for a round are formed using a zero sum game.

For those not familiar:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum

jack

  • 1000 Rated Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 7316
    • View Profile
Re: Player Ratings
« Reply #6 on: February 19, 2010, 12:33:56 PM »
It is an error in the input on the side of the PDGA and is being looked at to be corrected.....

"That looks like a mistake of course assignments (user input) that has the FPO on another course (Rosedale, Wyandotte or Cliff) than MPO in the semis. The MPO ratings are correct and Valarie should also have the same rating as McCabe. I'll check to see and get that corrected."

Tahnks for pinting this out, figured someone would have caught this much earlier.
===o  {>[]----
Jack Lowe-
Parks Development Director for KCFDC
Multiple PDGA Worlds TD
Course Designs
913.485.5123-C
"Disc Golf-
Like ball golf, only faster,
cheaper, and healthier!"

coops

  • Guest
Re: Player Ratings
« Reply #7 on: February 19, 2010, 05:02:50 PM »
No prob! I guess it makes me feel a little better knowing it was just an error and not something intentional (unless they created a separate women's rating system, which might make a little sense).