Author Topic: Ratings update!  (Read 1588 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

coops

  • Guest
Re: Ratings update!
« Reply #15 on: April 24, 2013, 10:29:18 AM »
Why does it say below then?

This is terribly unclear language if they mean to say that outside 2.5 standard deviations above or below OR 100 below are dropped.

I'm just arguing from how I see it.

jamidanger

  • 1000 Rated Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 1437
  • 1= be safe 2= be courteous 3= all holes be par 3
    • View Profile
    • my goal is a pdga rating of 420
Re: Ratings update!
« Reply #16 on: April 24, 2013, 10:44:34 AM »
coop ; start a mega-wine thread
espouse elucidation

coops

  • Guest
Re: Ratings update!
« Reply #17 on: April 24, 2013, 10:45:05 AM »
This is from Chuck Kennedy. I've included my original email to show the question asked.

CK34@aol.com
10:36 AM (7 minutes ago)

to me
It's 2.5 std deviations below your round rating average not including your lowest rated round and without any weighting or 100 pts whichever number is smaller.
 
- Chuck
 
In a message dated 4/24/2013 10:32:49 A.M. Central Daylight Time, cooper.arnold@gmail.com writes:
I'm having an argument about which rounds are dropped and am hoping you guys could help clarify.

Others are contending that any round outside 2.5 stdev will be dropped while I read the language as any round 2.5 stdev below your average will be dropped.

So the main disagreement is do high rounds get dropped or not?

Thanks for the clarification!

Cooper Arnold
39511

jack

  • 1000 Rated Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 7204
    • View Profile
Re: Ratings update!
« Reply #18 on: April 24, 2013, 10:48:10 AM »
he doesn't answer your question.
===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: Ratings update!
« Reply #19 on: April 24, 2013, 10:51:31 AM »
Which I think is kind of weird, statistically speaking.  Why drop only abnormally low rounds, why not abnormally high rounds too?

exactly. this contributes to what I call ratings creep. Which the PDGA emphatically denies is happening.

Yep. It is hard to argue the numbers. When you don't drop high rounds it only contributes to inflated ratings which definitely speed up the creep.

coops

  • Guest
Re: Ratings update!
« Reply #20 on: April 24, 2013, 11:49:12 AM »
This seems timely. They at least admit that ratings creep is possible though they do argue against it.

http://www.pdga.com/why-so-many-1100s-at-memorial

coops

  • Guest
Re: Ratings update!
« Reply #21 on: April 24, 2013, 09:33:08 PM »
he doesn't answer your question.

Actually, Jack, he did. He said that rounds either 2.5 standard deviations or 100 points below your current average are dropped. He did not say anything about above.

Quote
my 1035 from Japan isn't in there as well.

Your 1023 wasn't on there because it was too long ago. Rounds drop off 1 year from your most recently rated round as long as you have at least 8 (I think it's around there) rounds to contribute.

bensdadfred

  • Pro Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 574
    • View Profile
Re: Ratings update!
« Reply #22 on: April 24, 2013, 09:47:59 PM »
he doesn't answer your question.

Actually, Jack, he did. He said that rounds either 2.5 standard deviations or 100 points below your current average are dropped. He did not say anything about above.

Quote
my 1035 from Japan isn't in there as well.

Your 1023 wasn't on there because it was too long ago. Rounds drop off 1 year from your most recently rated round as long as you have at least 8 (I think it's around there) rounds to contribute.

Tee Hee Hee.... :-[
2 Things: Don't sweat the small stuff & everything is small stuff!

jack

  • 1000 Rated Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 7204
    • View Profile
Re: Ratings update!
« Reply #23 on: April 25, 2013, 08:35:34 AM »
I forgot that got changed after calibration.  Yep it appears that I only have 1 1000+ rated round as does Fred Smith in this round of ratings.....
Looks to go back only two years, but I do know in the past that it was thrown out for my ratings as well because it was such an anomaly for my score.  I know Chuck created the handicapping  ratings so we do have him to blame for all of this....
===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: Ratings update!
« Reply #24 on: April 25, 2013, 09:16:28 AM »
We do have to blame him. And then we have to thank him for creating such a fun thing to argue about.

I understand statistically speaking that it makes the most sense to throw out high rounds but I also know I would be pissed if they tossed a high rating for me.

At least theoretically speaking I think it has to be that a bad round can be accidental and an anomaly but a high round cannot be accidental. It can be an anomaly but in order to shoot well you have to actually possess a high level of skill.

LKillian

  • Am Poster
  • *
  • Posts: 196
    • View Profile
Re: Ratings update!
« Reply #25 on: April 25, 2013, 09:23:22 AM »
I think that we can all agree that it will be much more uncommon for someone to throw a round 100 points above their rating. Where from personal experience it is not that difficult at all to take a dump on a round that is 100pts below your rating ;D.

As for all the ratings creep talk. I have to strongly disagree. My rating is the same as it was 10 years ago. That would mean my skill level has actually regressed over the last decade. On second thought...
Cooter was here.

bensdadfred

  • Pro Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 574
    • View Profile
Re: Ratings update!
« Reply #26 on: April 25, 2013, 09:26:29 AM »
I think that we can all agree that it will be much more uncommon for someone to throw a round 100 points above their rating. Where from personal experience it is not that difficult at all to take a dump on a round that is 100pts below your rating ;D.

As for all the ratings creep talk. I have to strongly disagree. My rating is the same as it was 10 years ago. That would mean my skill level has actually regressed over the last decade. On second thought...

Does this mean that Ziploc will return?!! ;D
2 Things: Don't sweat the small stuff & everything is small stuff!

Loomis

  • Guest
Re: Ratings update!
« Reply #27 on: April 25, 2013, 10:12:44 AM »
Ratings mean nothing unless you're trying to sign up for a tournament with a ratings protected sign in. Otherwise, all of this talk is very 950 rated.

Do these ratings make sense; are they fair or accurate? And which rating should be considered more impressive?

These are all NT tournament scores, so the field was packed with 1000 rated pros:

Barry Schultz shoots a 1100 round of 49 at Maple Hill back in 2009; one of the hardest courses in the world. -13 under par.

Micheal Johannsen shoots a 1113 round of 41 at Bradford in 2012; BUT... it's one of his home courses. -17 under par.

Paul McBeth shoots 1132 round of 39 at Fountain Hills in 2013; the next hottest round of the day was 41, McBeth's record on the course was 41 from the year before.  -17 under par.

My point is that ratings don't reflect certain aspects of a round and therefore it's not an adequate measure of your talent. Ratings are a like a judgement call made my the French Judge at the Olympics. Don't let the ratings get you down OR fill you up. They do nothing more than give you something to talk about.

Do they still have the 1000rated website or is that defunct? 
« Last Edit: April 25, 2013, 10:23:07 AM by Loomis »

coops

  • Guest
Re: Ratings update!
« Reply #28 on: April 25, 2013, 10:42:19 AM »
The site is currently under construction.

They are probably in the process of building 1100rated.com

LKillian

  • Am Poster
  • *
  • Posts: 196
    • View Profile
Re: Ratings update!
« Reply #29 on: April 25, 2013, 03:51:37 PM »
Ah hell, I have been playing in open pools tracy. That must mean i am regressing far worse than i thought.  :o

No more ziploc fred, but i'll be counting down the months (20) til i get my pull cart and go hunt down some greybeards in masters. Well maybe greybeards is to harsh, more like salt and pepper beards. I'll never be called a greybeard though, because i can't grow a beard. Well i guess i can, but in a wierd phenomenom it actually makes me look younger. Like a teenager with some heavy peachfuzz trying vainly to look cool. Yeah and that wasn't me as a teenager either. I couldn't even grow peach fuzz. What the hell was i talking about....

Cooter was here.