Player Ratings

How often, and what is the schedule for updating player and/or course ratings? Or are you stuck with the same rating for an entire calendar year? I assume that the ratings will reflect reality more once more data gets in the system, but I have seen my own rating higher than several golfers who are clearly better than me in both skill and scores, so I'm a little curious to see how these numbers change. Moreover, how could so-and-so have rated higher than ME? That's #^*!@(*@!

[ck34]

Player ratings are planned to be updated 4 times per year in January, May, July and September. About 100 out of 350 events from 1999 are in the system and no more will be added. This year, an electronic TD report is available so scores in Y2K events can be uploaded directly into the data files. The latest ratings update includes several early 2000 events.

If ratings seem to be off in some cases, it could be a mistake. The most common problem that causes someone's rating to be artificially high is when the TD doesn't report the fact that some Am groups or Women played shorter tees. If something seems out-of-line, contact Roger Smith at: roger.smith@mwrdgc.dst.il.us with the details. Until we get electronic reporting of all events, those that are not reported electronically will take longer to get in the system if they get in at all.

[neonnoodle]

Roger and Chuck,

Events are lining up here in MADC interested in running Players Ratings Based events.

If the mechanism to get accurate ratings is not yet in place in the PDGA, is there any chance of setting us up as a region to update our own ratings?

Contact me at nickkight@hotmail.com .

Thanks for all your work on this.

Nick Kight
MADC VP

[ck34]

Roger and I are meeting on Wednesday night to discuss this.

[korybski]

I have a theory on how the player ratings system can encourage Advanced players that have been labeled 'sandbaggers' to move up to Open.
This is all based upon the assumption that payouts per division will be based upon the size of the field.

1. Blue division (top ams) gets bumped up to include players with a rating above 925.
2. 33% (roughly) of those players naturally move up to Open. They either they want money, want to avoid the sandbagger label, or have a great sense of sportsmanship.
3. The field size of Blue gets smaller resulting in smaller payouts.
4. Those players that are sandbaggers are not longer getting what they want which is a large sum of merchandise at the expense of the entire advanced field.

The player needs to make a decision at this point. They either need to move up to Open or sabatoge their game until thier rating allows them into a lower division with a larger field. (I'm betting on the former) However, if they can be happy with the smaller payout and get enjoyment out of just playing then they can do whatever the hell they want. I don't consider that sandbagging.

Does this sound like a reasonable chain of events based upon my one assumption (payout dependent upon field size), or is there a flaw in my logic?

is any help needed for inputting results for the players ratings system? i wwwant to help if needed. who do i contact?

How does a person get qualified for the big tourneys like the AM-WORLDS and the USDGC? I've been trying to better understand this with mediocore results.

looking for some info,
Chris

Are invitees and qualifiers based on the player rating system? I've heard it is a matter of placing in the top 15 in major tourney's, either >B-tier, or maybe it was just in the supertour. Anyway, I'm really interested in getting to alot of PDGA sanctioned events in my region, and any clarification of this process would be greatly appreciated.

movin' on up!!!,
CHRIS

Christopher,
If you are a PDGA member (advanced or pro), then you earn points throughout the year at PDGA sanctioned events. A-tiers are x3 points,B-tiers x2, and C-tiers are x1. I believe you get 1 point for each player you beat or tie, then add in the appropriate multiplyer. If you are a new PDGA member, then your points earned this year will go towards an invitation to next year's Am Worlds.
That is the only tourney I know of that is invitation based for Amateur players (although you can also get in on the waiting list without an invite). The USDGC is another story for the pros, and it'd probably be best if a pro answered that one. I hope I have helped you out.

Thanks Alot, I had talked with a few people about it, but couldn't remember the details.

Thanks for the help,
Chris

Is there an amateur USDGC?

[terrycalhoun]

Chris, there is quite likely to be one this year - in Michigan in September, hosted by Club Kensington. The full name is under discussion, but the shorthand name is "Am Nationals."

I don't want to get anyone angry with me by providing possibly erroneous details, but I know the intent is to make it a very elite tournament with a select set of qualifiers.

The Z-Boaz A-Tier just held last weekend in Texas was the first tournament that counted as a "qualifier." How one "qualifies" in a qualifier is not, I believe, completely determined yet.

I personally hope to qualify at The Memorial in about 4 weeks http://pdga.com/discus/clipart/happy.gif

Thanks for the info, I'll run into you at one of these tourneys in the near future

[circlek13783]

As for the "AM Nationals", the site http://www.amnationals.com will explain most of the details. It's very sparse right now as I've been working on the details and not the site.

HTH,
-Todd

[terrycalhoun]

A very nice looking site, though, Todd, and easy to use and understand as well.

That site clarified everything, thanks Todd. Won't a 144 person field fill up quickly?

[circlek13783]

144 people that actually show up. Notice the tournament got stuck after school started. Oh well, won't get most of the hot < 24 year olds. Also, there is Worlds in Miami 2 months before and so on and so forth. It's a new tournament, but after the first year the word will get out that this is the tournament you want to play if your an AM that can get to qualifiers in the U.S.
But if you want a World title, you still need to play the "Worlds", which is nice little piece of bragging rights. ;-)

[crusher]

Sandalman, are you coming to Veterans for the Ice Bowl?

[ck34]

Talked with Roger last night and here's the latest on ratings updates. By this weekend he expects to complete the crunching thru the end of September 2001 which will shortly be followed in a few weeks by the update that will take us thru the end of 2001. These ratings should be the ones used for any pool seedings at the upcoming Worlds.

Theo has entered most of the 2002 events into the new PDGA database. So, the only part remaining, which still takes a fair amount of time, is coding the course configurations played. Roger feels September 15th they would finally be caught up and have the mechanism in place to maintain current ratings updates from then on.

[neonnoodle]

Is there anything anyone can do to help expedite this more quickly?

[ck34]

No more volunteer work can help other than making sure all of the 2002 events in your region are submitted on spreadsheets. The process to stay current is pretty much in place. The catching up part can only be done by Roger and Theo.

Chuck,

When will the ratings that are online reflect the updates through Sept 2001? Or do they already?

btl.

[ck34]

The ones online I believe are thru July 2001. Roger is finishing the ones thru Sept this weekend. However, it will only take him thru the end of the month to finish the remainder of 2001 so it's likely they'll wait to post the update in early July which will be the final yearend 2001 ratings.

It appears that the player ratings have been updated again. Does anyone know if the listed last updated date of “May-01-2002” is accurate. My rating and several others I looked at have changed since that date. If they have been updated, what date have they been updated through? Maybe I am just missing the info here on the board somewhere… /msgboard/images/clipart/proud.gif

[ck34]

I checked and the ratings are for events through the end of September 2001. Theo is crunching to get the yearend 2001 ratings done hopefully in time for Am Worlds.

Thanks. /msgboard/images/clipart/proud.gif

Geez, I lost another 2 points. 928 and falling. My handicap for money games keeps going up and up.

rodney

A little bird just dropped the 2001 year-end ratings in my e-mail box. I'm told there are only three tournaments yet to be included from 2001.

I assume the ratings will be on pdga.com when the Tech committee gets time to post them. Until then, here are the top players:
<TABLE BORDER=1><TR><TD>PDGA</TD><TD>Rating</TD><TD>Last</TD><TD>First</TD><TD>STATE</TD><TD>Rounds Used </TD></TR><TR><TD>4297</TD><TD>1036</TD><TD>Climo</TD><TD>Ken</TD><TD>FL</TD><TD>42 </TD></TR><TR><TD>12642</TD><TD>1030</TD><TD>Tracy</TD><TD>Eric</TD><TD>LA</TD><TD>25 </TD></TR><TR><TD>2007</TD><TD>1027</TD><TD>Lissaman</TD><TD>Geoff</TD><TD>CA</TD><TD>37 </TD></TR><TR><TD>9999</TD><TD>1027</TD><TD>Russell</TD><TD>Ron</TD><TD>FL</TD><TD>63 </TD></TR><TR><TD>3407</TD><TD>1026</TD><TD>Schack</TD><TD>Al Sugar</TD><TD>MO</TD><TD>59 </TD></TR><TR><TD>7225</TD><TD>1025</TD><TD>Nodland</TD><TD>Darrell</TD><TD>ND</TD><TD>7 </TD></TR><TR><TD>12827</TD><TD>1025</TD><TD>Todd</TD><TD>Cameron</TD><TD>GA</TD><TD>75 </TD></TR><TR><TD>962</TD><TD>1024</TD><TD>Greenwell</TD><TD>David</TD><TD>KY</TD><TD>19 </TD></TR><TR><TD>3832</TD><TD>1024</TD><TD>Leonard</TD><TD>Larry</TD><TD>NC</TD><TD>68 </TD></TR><TR><TD>6840</TD><TD>1024</TD><TD>Schultz</TD><TD>Barry</TD><TD>WI</TD><TD>48 </TD></TR><TR><TD>15239</TD><TD>1024</TD><TD>Lundmark</TD><TD>Jesper</TD><TD></TD><TD>17 </TD></TR><TR><TD>3351</TD><TD>1022</TD><TD>Oates</TD><TD>Jim</TD><TD>CA</TD><TD>17 </TD></TR><TR><TD>4010</TD><TD>1022</TD><TD>Gangloff</TD><TD>Craig</TD><TD>MD</TD><TD>25 </TD></TR><TR><TD>5560</TD><TD>1022</TD><TD>Martin</TD><TD>Scott</TD><TD>MI</TD><TD>27 </TD></TR><TR><TD>14609</TD><TD>1022</TD><TD>Dorius</TD><TD>Micah</TD><TD>CA</TD><TD>17 </TD></TR><TR><TD>2632</TD><TD>1021</TD><TD>Voakes</TD><TD>Rick</TD><TD>KY</TD><TD>31 </TD></TR><TR><TD>4666</TD><TD>1021</TD><TD>Rico</TD><TD>Steve</TD><TD>CA</TD><TD>36 </TD></TR><TR><TD>14118</TD><TD>1021</TD><TD>Jarvis</TD><TD>Ken</TD><TD>CA</TD><TD>17 </TD></TR><TR><TD>4622</TD><TD>1019</TD><TD>Tittle</TD><TD>Matt</TD><TD>FL</TD><TD>14 </TD></TR><TR><TD>9852</TD><TD>1019</TD><TD>McCray</TD><TD>John E.</TD><TD>FL</TD><TD>41 </TD></TR><TR><TD>6138</TD><TD>1018</TD><TD>Randolph</TD><TD>Mike</TD><TD>CO</TD><TD>27 </TD></TR><TR><TD>12989</TD><TD>1018</TD><TD>Schweberger</TD><TD>Brian</TD><TD>NC</TD><TD>33 </TD></TR><TR><TD>6005</TD><TD>1017</TD><TD>Pursio</TD><TD>Timo</TD><TD></TD><TD>11 </TD></TR><TR><TD>7808</TD><TD>1017</TD><TD>Young</TD><TD>Mike</TD><TD>AL</TD><TD>76 </TD></TR><TR><TD>7883</TD><TD>1017</TD><TD>McRee</TD><TD>Brian</TD><TD>NC</TD><TD>25 </TD></TR><TR><TD>3591</TD><TD>1015</TD><TD>Ginnelly</TD><TD>Dan</TD><TD>AZ</TD><TD>24 </TD></TR><TR><TD>2300</TD><TD>1014</TD><TD>Howard</TD><TD>Carlton</TD><TD>NC</TD><TD>28 </TD></TR><TR><TD>3140</TD><TD>1014</TD><TD>Stokely</TD><TD>Scott</TD><TD>CO</TD><TD>13 </TD></TR><TR><TD>5557</TD><TD>1014</TD><TD>Moser</TD><TD>Mike</TD><TD>DE</TD><TD>14 </TD></TR><TR><TD>6001</TD><TD>1014</TD><TD>Haney</TD><TD>Walter</TD><TD>NC</TD><TD>42 </TD></TR><TR><TD>10819</TD><TD>1014</TD><TD>Sinclair</TD><TD>Shawn</TD><TD>CA</TD><TD>59 </TD></TR><TR><TD>1213</TD><TD>1013</TD><TD>Beaver</TD><TD>Alan</TD><TD>NC</TD><TD>35 </TD></TR><TR><TD>5587</TD><TD>1013</TD><TD>Worboys</TD><TD>Bucky</TD><TD>FL</TD><TD>21 </TD></TR><TR><TD>2938</TD><TD>1012</TD><TD>McDaniel</TD><TD>Stan</TD><TD>NC</TD><TD>48 </TD></TR><TR><TD>9453</TD><TD>1012</TD><TD>McCoy</TD><TD>Kevin</TD><TD>OK</TD><TD>47 </TD></TR><TR><TD>2008</TD><TD>1011</TD><TD>Lissaman</TD><TD>Johnny</TD><TD>CA</TD><TD>37 </TD></TR><TR><TD>2607</TD><TD>1011</TD><TD>Mela</TD><TD>Joe</TD><TD>PA</TD><TD>25 </TD></TR><TR><TD>2619</TD><TD>1011</TD><TD>Vanderboss</TD><TD>Bob</TD><TD>TN</TD><TD>15 </TD></TR><TR><TD>7289</TD><TD>1011</TD><TD>Arthur</TD><TD>Phil</TD><TD>GA</TD><TD>19 </TD></TR><TR><TD>5703</TD><TD>1010</TD><TD>Harris</TD><TD>LaRon</TD><TD>MO</TD><TD>20 </TD></TR><TR><TD>7495</TD><TD>1010</TD><TD>Jenkins</TD><TD>Avery</TD><TD>OH</TD><TD>78 </TD></TR><TR><TD>10100</TD><TD>1010</TD><TD>Vitale</TD><TD>Patrick</TD><TD>IN</TD><TD>33 </TD></TR><TR><TD>9152</TD><TD>1009</TD><TD>Kelly</TD><TD>Joel</TD><TD>TX</TD><TD>40 </TD></TR><TR><TD>10789</TD><TD>1009</TD><TD>Wield</TD><TD>Aaron</TD><TD>WI</TD><TD>17 </TD></TR><TR><TD>11795</TD><TD>1009</TD><TD>Branch</TD><TD>Todd</TD><TD>MI</TD><TD>78 </TD></TR><TR><TD>17004</TD><TD>1009</TD><TD>Sandstrom</TD><TD>Christian</TD><TD></TD><TD>17 </TD></TR><TR><TD>3544</TD><TD>1008</TD><TD>Barley</TD><TD>Chris</TD><TD>FL</TD><TD>2 </TD></TR><TR><TD>7814</TD><TD>1008</TD><TD>Collicott</TD><TD>Mark</TD><TD>CA</TD><TD>44 </TD></TR><TR><TD>11110</TD><TD>1008</TD><TD>Babbit</TD><TD>Kevin</TD><TD>KS</TD><TD>25 </TD></TR><TR><TD>18675</TD><TD>1008</TD><TD>Rowell</TD><TD>Todd</TD><TD>AL</TD><TD>4 </TD></TR><TR><TD>4667</TD><TD>1007</TD><TD>Rico</TD><TD>Bamba</TD><TD>CA</TD><TD>29 </TD></TR><TR><TD>7846</TD><TD>1007</TD><TD>Raley</TD><TD>Mike</TD><TD>MI</TD><TD>29 </TD></TR><TR><TD>9293</TD><TD>1007</TD><TD>Gill</TD><TD>Timmy</TD><TD>MN</TD><TD>33 </TD></TR><TR><TD>11437</TD><TD>1007</TD><TD>Renz</TD><TD>Ryan</TD><TD>GA</TD><TD>21 </TD></TR><TR><TD>4665</TD><TD>1006</TD><TD>Sayre</TD><TD>Mike</TD><TD>TX</TD><TD>17 </TD></TR><TR><TD>6903</TD><TD>1006</TD><TD>LaBond</TD><TD>Larry</TD><TD>MI</TD><TD>14 </TD></TR><TR><TD>13571</TD><TD>1006</TD><TD>Koszyk</TD><TD>Dustin</TD><TD>IN</TD><TD>17 </TD></TR><TR><TD>15353</TD><TD>1006</TD><TD>Allen</TD><TD>Kelly M.</TD><TD>OK</TD><TD>18 </TD></TR><TR><TD>1602</TD><TD>1005</TD><TD>Hosfeld</TD><TD>Gregg Miniac</TD><TD>FL</TD><TD>34 </TD></TR><TR><TD>5453</TD><TD>1005</TD><TD>Ritter</TD><TD>Andy</TD><TD>KY</TD><TD>26 </TD></TR><TR><TD>6453</TD><TD>1005</TD><TD>Norris</TD><TD>Mark</TD><TD>TN</TD><TD>13 </TD></TR><TR><TD>12626</TD><TD>1005</TD><TD>Feldberg</TD><TD>David</TD><TD>MI</TD><TD>81 </TD></TR><TR><TD>15337</TD><TD>1005</TD><TD>Grundhoefer</TD><TD>Todd</TD><TD>MN</TD><TD>2 </TD></TR><TR><TD>580</TD><TD>1004</TD><TD>Wolfe</TD><TD>Lavone</TD><TD>AL</TD><TD>12 </TD></TR><TR><TD>1406</TD><TD>1004</TD><TD>Watson</TD><TD>Jeff Jaws</TD><TD>FL</TD><TD>24 </TD></TR><TR><TD>6185</TD><TD>1004</TD><TD>Smith</TD><TD>George</TD><TD>MO</TD><TD>14 </TD></TR><TR><TD>9648</TD><TD>1004</TD><TD>Convers Jr</TD><TD>Ronald</TD><TD>OK</TD><TD>17 </TD></TR><TR><TD>10409</TD><TD>1004</TD><TD>Pitts</TD><TD>Patrick</TD><TD>MD</TD><TD>12 </TD></TR><TR><TD>10628</TD><TD>1004</TD><TD>Brinster</TD><TD>Steve</TD><TD>NJ</TD><TD>35 </TD></TR><TR><TD>15477</TD><TD>1004</TD><TD>Renz</TD><TD>Scott</TD><TD>GA</TD><TD>13 </TD></TR><TR><TD>16824</TD><TD>1004</TD><TD>Pelg</TD><TD>Carlo</TD><TD>CA</TD><TD>21 </TD></TR><TR><TD>6941</TD><TD>1003</TD><TD>Belchik</TD><TD>Michael</TD><TD>CA</TD><TD>20 </TD></TR><TR><TD>10355</TD><TD>1003</TD><TD>Johnson</TD><TD>Ray</TD><TD>CA</TD><TD>23 </TD></TR><TR><TD>13150</TD><TD>1003</TD><TD>Kallstrom</TD><TD>Markus</TD><TD></TD><TD>17 </TD></TR><TR><TD>3178</TD><TD>1002</TD><TD>Kowalski</TD><TD>Javier</TD><TD>MI</TD><TD>18 </TD></TR><TR><TD>7041</TD><TD>1002</TD><TD>Petersohn</TD><TD>Todd</TD><TD>FL</TD><TD>14 </TD></TR><TR><TD>7750</TD><TD>1002</TD><TD>Gregory</TD><TD>John</TD><TD>MD</TD><TD>20 </TD></TR><TR><TD>9184</TD><TD>1002</TD><TD>Bessenbach</TD><TD>Kevin</TD><TD>OH</TD><TD>10 </TD></TR><TR><TD>10124</TD><TD>1002</TD><TD>Forton</TD><TD>Mike</TD><TD>MI</TD><TD>18 </TD></TR><TR><TD>14600</TD><TD>1002</TD><TD>Meresmaa</TD><TD>Jussi</TD><TD></TD><TD>5 </TD></TR><TR><TD>33</TD><TD>1001</TD><TD>Monroe</TD><TD>Tom</TD><TD>AL</TD><TD>24 </TD></TR><TR><TD>1467</TD><TD>1001</TD><TD>Wisecup</TD><TD>Steve</TD><TD>AZ</TD><TD>47 </TD></TR><TR><TD>4428</TD><TD>1001</TD><TD>Loya</TD><TD>Mike</TD><TD>CA</TD><TD>36 </TD></TR><TR><TD>6151</TD><TD>1001</TD><TD>Martin</TD><TD>Tim</TD><TD>IL</TD><TD>25 </TD></TR><TR><TD>7367</TD><TD>1001</TD><TD>Ellis</TD><TD>Tony</TD><TD>VA</TD><TD>18 </TD></TR><TR><TD>13219</TD><TD>1001</TD><TD>Grider</TD><TD>Nolan</TD><TD>TX</TD><TD>29 </TD></TR><TR><TD>2366</TD><TD>1000</TD><TD>McClellan</TD><TD>Clint</TD><TD>OK</TD><TD>12 </TD></TR><TR><TD>2830</TD><TD>1000</TD><TD>Hesselberth</TD><TD>Dave</TD><TD>NC</TD><TD>10 </TD></TR><TR><TD>2968</TD><TD>1000</TD><TD>Harper</TD><TD>Jeff</TD><TD>IA</TD><TD>28 </TD></TR><TR><TD>3513</TD><TD>1000</TD><TD>Whitlock</TD><TD>Glen</TD><TD>BC</TD><TD>40 </TD></TR><TR><TD>10870</TD><TD>1000</TD><TD>Weeks</TD><TD>Tim</TD><TD>NC</TD><TD>14 </TD></TR><TR><TD>13214</TD><TD>1000</TD><TD>Williams</TD><TD>Brent</TD><TD>CA</TD><TD>3 </TD></TR><TR><TD>13274</TD><TD>1000</TD><TD>Brophy</TD><TD>Chris</TD><TD>CA</TD><TD>38 </TD></TR><TR><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>

rodney

[ck34]

Several suspect player records will need to be checked and cleaned up before this yearend 2001 list is final final. The one known correction on the list above is Int Am player Todd Grundhoefer who was incorrectly recorded as playing the long tees but actually played short tees thus giving the highly inflated rating.

Hehe - a 1000 rated player for a day. Way to go Todd /msgboard/images/clipart/proud.gif

[Chris Hysell]

Chuck, I was wondering if some of those players have even played a tournament round this century?

I think the list I posted is all players who have every had a rating, not just current members. So obviously, there could be some stale data in there.

rodney

[ck34]

Ratings FYI

- Roger says we now have over 6900 players who have had a rating at some point since we started after the Cincy Worlds in 1998.

- The PDGA will only be posting ratings for players who are current. The last known rating for players who are not current will be kept in the file for some time period that hasn't been determined yet.

- Regarding older data, a player's rating will not change until they play another event. It will be based on properly reported events up to 2 years prior to their last event or only one year prior if they played more than 20 rounds in that last active year.

- If a player hasn't played for more than 2 years, the player's new rating will not use any of the older info when they play again.

Yeah, what they said. I'm like the black market for ratings. Just a tease. I better be a little more careful or my source(s) might go away.

rodney

[pnkgtr]

Points from a tournament I played in May (24,25)are not posted. The Windjammer ProAm in Stockton Ca. I've sent an Email to the PDGA but this may be more closely monitored.

Rich

[neonnoodle]

Well, we're movin' on UP! 954 in 40 rounds. It's confirmed! I'm either a dam good mediocre golfer or a mediocre dam good golfer. Either way I should get some kind of billing as major PDGA sponsor. /msgboard/images/clipart/proud.gif

[rhett]

954??? Oh man, mine went down to something like 918. They must've figured in my dismal performance in M1O from last year. /msgboard/images/clipart/sad.gif The worst part is that I now have to admit that, on paper, Nick would kick my arse all over the course. /msgboard/images/clipart/proud.gif

[neonnoodle]

I RULE!!!

(Rhett at least...)

An interesting new game to play, since I've been calculating "Event Ratings" with Chuck's template, is to watch the behavior of 1000 players when they have a round at or near my rating. LOL! It has proven that good players are equally good at whining and making excuses.

"Wah! I'll never come back to this course!"
"Wah! This course s*cks!"

Hah! Hah! Hah! Gee, it's so surprising that they don't like a course that they have just shot like "ME" at. WELCOME TO MY WORLD! 950 golf. Imagine experiencing this ALL OF THE TIME?!?

And then they want to turn around an give me advice on keeping a positive mental attitude after not sticking around to collect their last place cash that I would give my left one for! Hah!

This proves that there certainly is a God.(with a good sense of humor)

nk

Great post Nick lol /msgboard/images/clipart/proud.gif

Nick is nuts,,,,but a good read...

[pterodactyl]

Hey Nick, I'd like to know what my rating is, but my money and points have somehow been split between two different names: Ken Pterodactyl Lee and Kenny Lee. Can you check into it for me?

KPL

[neonnoodle]

It's like a split disc, you have to take the bigger piece.

(You have two PDGA numbers?)

[pnkgtr]

Kenny, I'll bet your points from Stockton are missing from your total too. It's good to see another sane Central Valley player posting here now. Discgolfdude is not one of our finest representatives.

Rich

[pterodactyl]

Nick, I don't have two pdga numbers, but a mistake was apparently made by stats committee. If you look at the 2002 money and points totals, my name is in there twice. One says I'm from Florida with the money I won at the St Patricks.
What's up Modesto Rich?

[pnkgtr]

I'm just wishing I was playing in Berkeley today. I just can't devote that many weekends to DG. So I'm just playing in weeklies trying to get my game up so I'm not embarrassed next year when I have to play against you!

Rich

Hey PINKGATOR, blow me!

Kenny, since you're new I will help ya out...

Never ask things of Darling Nicki unless you are prepared for a LENGTHY debate. He has just proved to you his capacity for fixin a problem, he came back with the dumbest frickin answer possible.

In my best Billy-Joe-Jimbob voice "Du, Um, Maybe you be one o dem peoples that have 2 numburs?" Yes folks, the future of DG lies in his hands. We are all just one big bowl of Lucky Charms!/msgboard/images/clipart/proud.gif

[pnkgtr]

New fathers are so sensitive! With all the horrible things others say to you I'm surprised you noticed. I didn't even mention your putting like everyone else. Congrats Mark &amp; Mom.

Rich

[neonnoodle]

Kenny, you need to contact Chuck, Roger, or probably Theo about this. I have nothing to do with those stats?

This needs to be up-dated, its about 2-months behind.

[neonnoodle]

Great! We've found the volunteer to do this and all future work for nuttin' but a pat on the back (if he's lucky). "El Chile"! Way to go El! You da man!

Sure I'll do it.

[neonnoodle]

Whoo Hoo! Wide eyed and bushy tailed.

(If you're serious contact the PDGA. Contact info is available right here at the PDGA site, under contacts strangely enough...)

Here's a question about ratings. I spoke to Chuck Kennedy this weekend at Animalfest and he said the reason I don't have a PDGA rating is none of my tournament scores were submitted to the PDGA, or they weren't submitted in the proper form. I don't play very many tournaments, but as best as I can remember, last year I played at 2 or 3 that were B or C tiers. My question is: How do we force TDs to submit these results in a timely fashion? Is there a requirement for this, and if it is not met are the TDs penalized in some way?

Who did the up-dates last year? Who ever it was did a GOOD job.

Dan, I don't think timely fashion comes into it.
I believe results have to be submitted electronically in order to be included.

[neonnoodle]

I'm trying to fathom the idea that a TD running a PDGA event would not have access to MS Excel or not know someone local who did (or even more extreme, not know someone in the PDGA who did).

I say go ahead and require electronic submission. The days when one dude can throw a PDGA all by himself/herself are coming to an end. If you can’t fill out an electronic report or find someone who can, then I’m not sure what business you have running a PDGA event in the first place.

As far as finding PDGA “Thumb Breakers”… Chah Right! Why don’t you try enforcing it on a local level first and see how far you get? Sanctioning Agreements are gentlemen’s agreements, nothing more. If fees are not paid by a certain TD or club where they had an agreement to pay them, the only thing that seems to work is to try and shame them into complying (which is real comfortable as you can imagine).

There really is no other mechanism for getting TDs and Local Organizers to comply beyond this. Regional and National clubs don’t really hold enough power at this point to cut off certain non-compliant events.

A pound of prevention is worth a ton of cure; By setting and communicating better, more generally accepted, standards we will increase compliance. If you don’t believe me then just you try excluding an event in your local series who missed a few of the agreed upon standards from your next series. Now, try to understand the situation of a Regional or National club who tries the same thing.

Communication and events that better utilize teamwork are our main option for increasing compliance at our events. Perhaps someday punishing events that do not comply will be an option, but not now with so much else work to do and so few people to do it.

But hey! If you think you know a better way AND, YOU ARE WILLING TO DO IT YOURSELF (the PDGA is a volunteer group made up of YOU) then I will support you, just don’t foist yet another dime a dozen good idea on the few who do step up and do what they can.

When I hear someone say,”Well, you ought to …blah, blah” I just reflect it right back to them and say,”Good idea, when are YOU going to get started on it?”

[discgolf6481]

Theo,
As far as, having a volunteer to process tournament results and submitting them, could you break up the country like you do with regional coordinators? I am from Florida, CR Wiley is our coordinator, and I enjoy playing in and following the Florida tour.

I wouldn't mind excepting responsibility for all of the Florida tournament stops. I know that we have about 15-18 (am and pro legs) tournament weekends each year from the various cities. Dropping in 80-140 round by round scores every couple of weeks is easy enough.

Let me know...

[hapner]

As many know, the Masters Cup has it's scoring posted dynamically [I mean within a half hour of completed rounds] to the web via an online scoring program which I began developing several years ago. I have updated the application to allow any tournament director or authorized score keeper to be able to build an event and provide what most all of us want, which is near to realtime score viewing. This application will be used for the Amateur World Championships, and I am working with the good folks in Houston for the Pro World's ...

This application only requires the ability to manipulate a web page using a browser. Does not require the need be a Spreadsheet Scientist or, to own or operate Excel. The data is entered once, and can be 'mined' in a myriad of ways for later uses.

The application is still in beta, and there is still some work to be done. My head hurts from many weeks of revamping it, and I need to take a break. However, for any upcoming events, I will be happy to discuss the benefits of this application and how to use it.

[neonnoodle]

Do you need Theo's permission to do that Jeff? Just do it. Contact the TDs and tell them that you are willing to input the data, prepare the report and submit it on their behalf.

Either they're really into doing it themselves, or they'll jump at your offer. No PDGA dictum is going to change that (even if such a dictum were possible).

The MADC has made it the responsibility of our State Coordinators to make sure results are turned in in a timely manner and filled out correctly. This has improved our situation as far as getting results in, but only pressure from people at the local level can really influence these organizers and TDs to comply.

If a TD you know doesn't send in their results, it really is up to YOU to inform him that this is unacceptable. The PDGA and Regional clubs can communicate standards but we are in no position to issue punishments. Nor do we have the manpower to devote to pestering TDs to get their results in. Well, I guess we do, if you consider volunteers like yourself stepping up to remind them of their responsibilities.

We’re only as strong as our members make us. Your willingness to volunteer for this important task can only make us stronger. If I were you I’d contact the involved TDs and your State Coordinator directly. They are the ones that will make you efforts bare fruit or not. Theo may be able to offer support, but he is not directly involved at that level.

nk

[bruce_brakel]

I agree with Nick that electronic submision of TD reports should be required. If you can find a TD who has no computer and whose club or core group of volunteers has no member with a computer, I'll do their TD reports, or buy them a computer!

I also think Theo shouldn't waste any time copying data from paper reports. It won't hurt the integrity of the ratings process if paper data is excluded because there is no relationship between whether a td submits a paper report and how any player plays the course. If excluding paper reports from the ratings process excludes some players from getting a rating, that might encourage the td to submit electronicly.

[bruce_brakel]

Think of it this way:

Suppose my brother Jon were to send Theo a hand written letter containing a half dozen posts he would like to see on the message board but is too lazy to type. Would anyone expect Theo or any other volunteer to do Jon's typing for him?

Theo if you are going to waste any time on td reports, here is something to waste some time on: It would be cool if the XL report could automatically insert the player name after the PDGA number was entered.

[neonnoodle]

Your wish is their command. I've seen the prototype and it does a little more than that; it drops in their Player Rating as well! More to come...

Have you seen the new results sheets that will calculate player payouts in all divisions taking into account event expenses, fees, sponsorship, etc.? It is great! We were finished the paperwork for the Patapsco Picnic before the DiscTV Final 7 was even done! Contact the PDGA for your own copy. I figure we'll have this stuff down to a science soon.

Bruce said:
"If excluding paper reports from the ratings process excludes some players from getting a rating, that might encourage the td to submit electronicly. "

How would that encourage the TD to submit the report? All that would do is screw the player that played in the tournament and needed the rounds for his rating. And you must be smoking your socks if you think Theo is going to add 20,000 names and numbers to an excel spreadsheet. It sounds like Marty's Access-driven (I am assuming) submission form would have more promise for that, but that's a whole lotta code to write.

[hapner]

Hi Dan,

The tournament scoring application is designed completely with php and mysql, and again only requires a web browser, and therefore, also an online connection, to use. I would not waste my time building anything with microshaft programs, like the overpriced ACCESS.

The beauty of it is that as soon as scores are inputted, they become available dynamically on the web, without having to recompile and create a static webpage...thereby, making the whole process more efficient because all you have to do is input the scores, one time.

Theo, cut me in on those paper reports.

Just like moving boxes and furniture from one house to another, division of work is key in such an endeavor. Anybody else that can, please volunteer so we can spread this as thin as is feasible. Love to see Theo have to turn people away.

The real key is getting my wife, who is 10-key adept, to key them in for me.

I'll e-mail you whatever details you need to send me my share of the reports.

rodney

Thanks for the clarification, Marty. I had set up a complaint reporting database that was accessible thru our company's intranet site a couple of years ago, and since my SQL knowledge was limited to what the letters S, Q, and L stood for, Access and FrontPage were the easiest solutions.

[bruce_brakel]

Dan Howard wrote, quoting me,

"'...excluding paper reports from the ratings process'

"How would that encourage the TD to submit the report? All that would do is screw the player that played in the tournament and needed the rounds for his rating."

Maybe I was thinking most tds are motivated by a desire not to screw their players?

"And you must be smoking your socks if you think Theo is going to add 20,000 names and numbers to an excel spreadsheet."

The way computers work, Dan, Theo would have to add one pre-existing data base to the spread sheet and a command to the PDGA number column, if XL supports that function, and its done. And as Nick, who is always right, points out, they are already on top of that. WTG THEO!

Nick, I saw the automatic calculation of payouts when I did my last td report. I did my payouts in my head while we were playing and a laptop would have been a bit too much to drag around the course...

OK, so I guess I am the one smoking Bruce's socks. Can I get the patch instead? /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif

I don't want to make it sound like the TDs are trying to screw anyone, but, without naming names, there are some that perhaps don't realize the importance of this to some of the players. Guys that play more tournaments won't be hurt by one or 2 missing reports as much as guys like me that can only make a few each year.

What about the possibility of having TD's that don't have computer access sending their completed reports to their respective PDGA State Reps, who could then send the reports in?

Starting next year, of course... just a thought.

[neonnoodle]

Dan, the only way those TD's will understand the importance of these results to their players is if the players tell them. The PDGA requiring them is a good step, but only the TDs desire to please his players will have the result you hope for.

Bart, that's a good idea, and one we are trying to impliment here in the MADC, but the State Coordinators will need more motivation than a new responsiblity placed on them from the PDGA. Certainly it's not a bad idea to have it as part of their responsibilities as laid out by the PDGA, but again it will be up to the local and regional organizers and players to provide the appropriate kick in the a... I mean motivation. /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif

[dsahagian]

is it possible to shoot a negative rated round?
such as if you shoot 115 on a course with an SSA of 42. that should be about -34 player rating.
by the way, what does SSA stand for?

[ck34]

It's theoretically possible. I think a round rated 154 might be the lowest in the database but Roger or Jason could confirm. SSA=Scratch Scoring Average, the expected scoring average for a scratch, 1000-rated player.

[dannyreeves]

I have a question about ratings. When do rounds get excluded from your rating? I can tell that there are some very low rounds that are excluded from my rating. How much lower than your rating do they have to be to be excluded?

Also, how long does a rated round stay with you? I have heard that all rounds over 2 years old are not used in your average. Is this true?

[dannyreeves]

Or is it rounds over 1 year old are not used?

[ck34]

Your rating includes only the rounds within the last 12 months prior to your most recent rated round, whenever that is. For some players it theoretically could be 2001 or earlier if they haven't played events for two years and are still active members. If that is fewer than 20 rounds, then we go back up to another 12 months until we have a total of 20 rounds (or less). If your pool of rounds is at least 11, we don't include roughly the bottom 15% (3 out of 20) in the rating calculation.

Thanks for your answers Chuck!!

[dannyreeves]

Thanks Chuck.

[dixonjowers]

Why do some tournaments that are already reported not have ratings attached? The one in question is the Mr. Jim's Carrolton Open from October of 2003.

[ck34]

The PDGA scores and points are in a separate database that gets processed before the ratings get processed in another database some time later (5 times per year). Next ratings update, which is the final for 2003 data, is mid-Feb.

Thanks for the update Chuck.....

[esalazar]

Does anyone know why some rounds might be left out of my rating. at one tournament only 1 round was included, 2 rounds left out . the missing rounds were better rounds than the one included, by a couple strokes (octoberfest 2003).Also one entire tournament was left out(coastal clash) I want my rating to be higher . I won both of these tournaments.

[ck34]

The most likely reason for a round not being rated is there weren't enough players with established ratings (propagators) who completed that round on that layout. At least 10 'gators' are needed to get a round rating. Many times the Women, Int or Rec Ams will miss getting ratings on a round when they play a different layout than the Advanced or Pros.

[esalazar]

thanks chuck, i believe the included round was an alternate layout.. and non- included rounds were on established settngs..

[ck34]

It doesn't make any difference if the course layout is a standard one or a tournament alternate. It's who and how many gators plays the specific course layout that round with you.

[dixonjowers]

Thanks Chuck. However, there is a tournament from about a month later that already has rating attached to the rounds.

[ck34]

The last ratings update was mid-Dec so if we got the TD report in time it was processed for both points in early Dec and then mid-Dec for the ratings. Anything you see posted for points will be processed for ratings in the next update. I suspect the October event had not been processed for points prior to the Dec ratings update.

There's no mystery here. You'll always know ahead of time whether a report will be in the next ratings update. You'll always see the points posted first. If you don't see the points posted, you won't see the ratings.

[esalazar]

chuck , there are SSA's for all tee positions at this course,however in the MA2 division no ratings were attached to either of the first 2 rounds . Comparing open players scores and ratings on the same format at least one of my rounds should have been rated in the 950,960 range..the other I'm not sure ..

[ck34]

Coastal Clash report was not processed in time for the mid-Dec ratings update. It's in the next batch for mid-Feb update. At Oktober Fest, Int Ams did not play the same layouts in R1 & R2 as the divisions who have ratings and there were not enough propagators in Int, Rec and Women to get ratings for those rounds.

[esalazar]

either r1 or R2 was from the white tees in ma2. everyone played the whites. I believe the open and advanced played their 2nd round on the whites. do all propagators have to play the same round on the same tees.. I'm confused (obviously).. Just trying to get a better understanding of this points system...On another note my 2002 waterloo is not recognized... thanks for your patience...

[ck34]

According to Oktober Fest report, Int played White R1 and Red R2. Open played Blue R1 then White R2. We used to combine data from different rounds on the same layout. However, we're moving toward doing all rounds separately to avoid problems that arise due to differences in weather. Even though the weather may not be different both rounds on a day, the ratings process has to be automated one way or the other and we've gone to keeping round data separated where possible,

that doesnt sound right, but my memory is fuzzy.

usually everyone plays red, then everyone white, then third MA2 and below stay white, and MA1 and MPO go blue.

[ck34]

We process the reports as we get them unless something jumps out at us as a potential problem. I'm looking right at Moody's report for the event.

No tellin'....thanks for doing all you do Chuckypoo! :p

[esalazar]

yeah , I second that schmack (thanks CK)

I pretty sure ma2 played white,red,ian(pink)

open , advanced -blue,white,ian(pink)

THE pink was kinda like playing the course backwards..

[spartan]

you could always ask Moody: (512) 303-6080

[topdog]

If you have a player rating over 960 are you suppose to play pro?
Sean
#19579

[chris]

no

[eddie_ogburn]

If you have a player rating over 960 are you suppose to play pro?
Sean
#19579



If you don't, you are what people call a "bagger".

[topdog]

I was asking cause to guy who is winning Advanced by like 10 strokes at The Big Show has a player rating of 970.
Sean
#19579

[bruce_brakel]

If the TD indicates on the TD report that the Saturday players played under almost identical conditions as the Sunday players, but Sunday lacked sufficient ratings generators, generally will the PDGA members who played that day get ratings generated off the ratings generators who played the other day?

Kelsey shot an 830ish round today and is really hoping it counts.

[ck34]

Now that we are separating rounds, the short answer is no. However, if you can list those division scores on the report in a way such that it appears they were played at the same time (i.e. Round 1 scores all in the same column even though it was R1 Sat and R1 Sun), they will get rated. Although TDs need to understand how do this properly and selectively, we do want to make efforts to get small divisions legitimately rated when possible.

[tbender]

I was asking cause to guy who is winning Advanced by like 10 strokes at The Big Show has a player rating of 970.
Sean
#19579



Coda's also only 16....typically, I think high school kids can be cut at little slack... :)

Kid's got serious game.

[gang4010]

Wasn't Sam Ferrans "only" 16 when he won the PDGA World Championships in Rochester? Skill is skill - let's quit hiding behind age.

[scoop]

Maybe Coda and Matt Hall (another 16 y/o phenom) are holding out and maintaining their amateur status in hopes/belief that Disc Golf will become an Olympic Sport (one can dream) within the next 8 years, when they'll still be in their youthful prime and still have their amateur status...

Besides...they're only 16...they don't have jobs yet. They need to stockpile stacks of plastic to ensure they have enough to carry them through their remaining teen years. Or at least till their old enough to drive to the store and buy their own.

Both of these kids...yeah, their still kids even though they play like seasoned pros...are great for our sport.

And I would hardly call Coda's play 'hiding behind his age'...if you want to hide, you do it from the middle of the pack...not the front.

[tbender]

Matt turns 15 in 2 weeks... :D

College Financial Aid can also be a reason for maintaining amatuer status...

As for hiding behind age? They don't play Masters (or run to Masters at big events or when a touring pro or two shows up)....

[topdog]

So what if he is 16 we have two 16 year old here in NorCal
Gregg Barsby and Myles Harding that turned Pro last year.
Sean
#19579

[rhett]

They had to turn pro because of all the dollars they took off me at Miami Am Worlds. :)

[slowmo_1]

maybe they would like a chance to play for an Am World title?

[bruce_brakel]

Now that we are separating rounds, the short answer is no. However, if you can list those division scores on the report in a way such that it appears they were played at the same time (i.e. Round 1 scores all in the same column even though it was R1 Sat and R1 Sun), they will get rated. Although TDs need to understand how do this properly and selectively, we do want to make efforts to get small divisions legitimately rated when possible.



I'm not the TD, unfortunately, or I'd figure out what you are saying and make it so.

The lower divisions at the Cracked Plastic did not have enough ratings generators for them to get rated, although there were several members playing. I played one day and spotted the other and felt like the slight changes in the weather conditions from Saturday to Sunday would not have affected most players. On Sunday we had more sunshine and finished a little earlier, but both days started in bitter windless cold, played through frosty breezy cold and began and finished in the daylight. Both days it was too cold for the snow to melt but not so cold as to chill our enthusiasm!

[ck34]

I'm not the TD, unfortunately, or I'd figure out what you are saying and make it so.



Just ask the TD to submit all divisions on the same sheet with Round 1 scores all in the same column. Assuming everyone played the same layout under the same conditions, that will be fine. The only problem is if you had players in one division one day and another division the next. Then, the two days results have to be separated.

[neonnoodle]

Can the system handle the same guy playing in the same round 2 times (Pro2)?

Other discussion: There will always be this situation so long as our sport lacks any amateur class. Once we have that, no pro will ever complain about an am not turning pro, and no am will feel like they are being put upon by any pro. As it stands now, am is just a protected professional division.

[ck34]

Can the system handle the same guy playing in the same round 2 times (Pro2)?




No. That's why I made the comment that you can combine the two days only if you didn't have that situation. I know Michigan has had this happen on occasion with separate competitions each day. The ratings database can handle the same player entering Pro 2 the next day after entering Advanced the day before. However, I believe it has to be entered in the computer as a separate event.

[neonnoodle]

When do you think that we could get to the point, that the valid SSA from a round with lots of Gators could be used to assign Played At Round Ratings for players of a round on the same course, under normal conditions, with few to no Gators?

Is the ratings technology capable of working in that direction?

[ck34]

When do you think that we could get to the point, that the valid SSA from a round with lots of Gators could be used to assign Played At Round Ratings for players of a round on the same course, under normal conditions, with few to no Gators?




That's along the lines of our original plan for calculations. We were only planning to use gators until a course layout had an SSA based on maybe 50 rounds of gator data. It would then have a "permanent" SSA that could be used to produce ratings no matter who played it. The practical problem is to know when a course being used for a round already has an established SSA. That became the sticking point that kept us from going that direction for now. At some point, we might be able to close the loop so that the TD report gets loaded with local course data. However, there are many times where a TD throws in an extra hole at the last minute to accommodate the field or sets the course slightly different from the year before. Our current method eliminates that problem.

[james_mccaine]

We were only planning to use gators until a course layout had an SSA based on maybe 50 rounds of gator data. It would then have a "permanent" SSA that could be used to produce ratings no matter who played it.



Couple of questions:

After 50 rounds had been played and the course had a "permanent" SSA and there is a tournament with enough gators, you still plan on rating tournies based on calculated SSAs and not by the permanent SSA, correct? If not, then:

You described the problems with knowing the actual course that was played after you had a "permanent" SSA. Are you confident that your 50 rounds of data used for the permanent calculation were the exact same course? The credibility of that data rests on the same reporting concerns that you mention.

Additionally, the notion that a course stays static, even with no box or pin placement changes seems flawed. Trees/branches grow. Trees/branches die. Trees/branches are cut down by bitter whiners and for legitimate reasons. If you couple factors like these with reporting concerns on the 50 data points you have, then the notion that a course could have a "permanent" SSA seems dubious.

I realize that that a "permanent" SSA is useful for the moments that Nick describes, but I hope it does not supplant calculated SSAs for the purpose of ratings (at least when enough gators are available).

[ck34]

We aren't doing the permanent SSA calculations. It was what we thought we should do in the beginning. But it was abandoned due to several of the issues that have been presented. However, we have no problem eventually producing tables of SSA values generated from events for Course Pros to use to determine a "normal" SSA rating for typical course configurations. This could be posted on signage and/or in the Course Directory.

[pjefferies]

Other discussion: There will always be this situation so long as our sport lacks any amateur class. Once we have that, no pro will ever complain about an am not turning pro, and no am will feel like they are being put upon by any pro. As it stands now, am is just a protected professional division.



I love it how you can find any little point to get back on the soapbox.

Keep the fight alive. Bring on the true amature class!

[md21954]

can someone either tell me about how and when rounds are dropped from your rating or point me to where it's been discussed before?

thanks

[neonnoodle]

It takes a special kind of shyness. :D

[bapmaster]

can someone either tell me about how and when rounds are dropped from your rating or point me to where it's been discussed before?

thanks



It goes back 1 year from your last rated tournament, OR far enough to collect 20 rounds. I think.

[magilla]

Can the system handle the same guy playing in the same round 2 times (Pro2)?

Other discussion: There will always be this situation so long as our sport lacks any amateur class. Once we have that, no pro will ever complain about an am not turning pro, and no am will feel like they are being put upon by any pro. As it stands now, am is just a protected professional division.



Hey Noodle.Quit changing the subject.. :p

That was covered in another arguement..errr..thread :D

[magilla]

can someone either tell me about how and when rounds are dropped from your rating or point me to where it's been discussed before?

thanks



It goes back 1 year from your last rated tournament, OR far enough to collect 20 rounds. I think.



Yes, but isnt there also a criteria for rounds that are way off base from your current rating....ie, certain rounds are just not counted...
I have not noticed any good rounds eliminated but REALLY POOR ones are not used...sometimes.. :confused:

[rhett]

I have not noticed any good rounds eliminated but REALLY POOR ones are not used...sometimes.. :confused:



I think they get the 20 rounds and then drop the worst 15%, or something like that. That way you would have to intentionally tank a bunch of rounds for them to affect your rating in a "good for sandbagging" way.

[bruce_brakel]

Are we there yet?

[dannyreeves]

The PDGA scores and points are in a separate database that gets processed before the ratings get processed in another database some time later (5 times per year). Next ratings update, which is the final for 2003 data, is mid-Feb.



Chuck, it is almost mid-February. Do you have a guess at when the final ratings for 2003 will be ready? Not complaining or anything. Just curious. :)

THANKS!

:mad: YEAH!!!!


;)

[bruce_brakel]

It's just like waiting for Christmas, isn't it? I may get a lump of coal. My two worst rounds got turned in, finally. Three good rounds are permanently lost and three other good rounds don't look like they are ever going to get rated.

That will leave me waiting on the Cracked Plastic rounds to restore me to Advanced Mediocrity!

[ck34]

Do you have a guess at when the final ratings for 2003 will be ready?



My best guess is late next week at the earliest. I haven't gotten my group of files from Theo yet to process the course layout info. However, Rodney's wizard to do this may reduce a lot of that manual labor this time so it might be sooner.

[dannyreeves]

Cool, thanks Chuck. Keep us posted.

If I keep shooting the way I have been, i may be back in Rec soon®

:(

[ck34]

Roger is just now getting the batches of the final 2003 TD reports to the volunteers today. So, it's looking like the first draft for our review won't be until this weekend with hopefully the new ratings posted by Monday.

THANKS CHUCK!!!!!

[dannyreeves]

Sweet, thanks Chuck! 1 week and counting.

[rob]

On or about one week and counting :D

Does anyone know where i can get an answer back about a ratings question???

Specifically, Wintertime Open AMs & PROs
played different weekends but with almost identical layouts.


i am looking at the round ratings,
AMS
1st round - score of 77 rating - 908
2nd round - score of 81 rating - 938
3rd round - score of 85 rating - 919
PROS
1st round - score of 77 rating - 944
2nd round - score of 81 rating - 962
3rd round - score of 85 rating - 960


just wanted to know why this is.

[girlie]

Ratings are calculated on a curve for each round based on those that played that one round at that specific time in that particular layout. That much I know - as for the rest of it... ?

:)

Yea, i feel ya. It just seems odd that it would play that much harder. Especially because Steve Rico spanked the course with a nasty 43 under for 3 rounds.

[Moderator005]

Does anyone know where i can get an answer back about a ratings question???

Specifically, Wintertime Open AMs & PROs
played different weekends but with almost identical layouts.


i am looking at the round ratings,
AMS
1st round - score of 77 rating - 908
2nd round - score of 81 rating - 938
3rd round - score of 85 rating - 919
PROS
1st round - score of 77 rating - 944
2nd round - score of 81 rating - 962
3rd round - score of 85 rating - 960


just wanted to know why this is.



Even though they may have played the exact same layout, the Open divisions' scores are from an entirely different weekend and are not used to calculate the ratings for the Am tournament.

Are you sure that the exact same course setup was played in Rounds 2 and 3 versus round 1? Across the board, nearly all the scores are higher. Longer pin placements maybe? How about the weather, was there a significant amount of wind or rain in rounds 2 and 3 versus calm conditions in round 1?

I talked to a buddy that played both weekends. He said that they moved a couple of holes a little longer on the second and third round.
It was windy both weekends.
Check this out, my buddy that played both weekends shot a 233 for the three rounds during AM weekend
He was rated 929, 949 & 947 on his three rounds.
PRO weekend he shot a 243.
He was rated 938, 987 & 943
I mean a 10 stroke difference and he was rated higher overall?!?!?!?
I don't get it.

[james_mccaine]

The factors mentioned above could all be contributing factors, but another factor is simply found in the math behind the calculation of SSAs.

(Give me some latitude here and I'm sure I'll be corrected if the following is complete BS)
If two sets of players or propagators in ratings parlance(I'll call them group 1 and group 2) could concievably play the exact same course at the exact same time, the calculated SSA (and thus the rating for any particular score) would be different for group 1 and group 2, even though common sense would say otherwise. It's simply an output of the math. In other words, a 50 for group 1 would be 990 and a 50 for group 2 might be 980.

This difference between the two calculated SSAs will probably be diminished as the number of people in group 1 and 2 increase and can probably be "corrected" by further tweaking (and may be for all I know). However, this "correction" would also be open to debate.

[Moderator005]

I talked to a buddy that played both weekends. He said that they moved a couple of holes a little longer on the second and third round.
It was windy both weekends.
Check this out, my buddy that played both weekends shot a 233 for the three rounds during AM weekend
He was rated 929, 949 & 947 on his three rounds.
PRO weekend he shot a 243.
He was rated 938, 987 & 943
I mean a 10 stroke difference and he was rated higher overall?!?!?!?
I don't get it.



Just to clarify one more time, ignore the Pro weekend completely for a minute. I was talking about the difference in layout between rounds 2 and 3 versus round 1 of the Am weekend. Was there a change in layout or deterioration in weather conditions, such as high winds as you mentioned, after round 1? That would account for higher scores across the board amongst all players and why your ratings were better in rounds 2 and 3 versus round 1; even though you shot higher scores, it was still better golf considering the layout and the weather.

Okay, now back to your buddy who played both weekends. You mentioned that the layout changed for the Pro weekend with several holes moved longer. There's your answer right there - you'd be surprised how taking away a couple of deuce opportunities and making them tough 3s would have a significant effect on the round ratings. Once again, even though he shot higher scores, it was still better golf considering the layout and the conditions (high wind) and that's why his ratings were better.

[ck34]

Please look at the Course stats first which are posted online for each event with ratings. I made this table:

<table border="1"><tr><td> Layout</td><td>SSA Ams</td><td>SSA Pros</td><td>Diff
</td></tr><tr><td>Oak Grove Park 18+9t Long</td><td>75.43</td><td>75.74</td><td>0.31
</td></tr><tr><td>Oak Grove Park 18+9t Med</td><td>70.98</td><td>73.64</td><td>2.66
</td></tr><tr><td>Oak Grove Park 18+9t Short </td><td>68.42</td><td>69.24</td><td>0.82
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

It's not clear without asking whether long, med and short mean the same each week. Obviously the R2 layout was likely different each week. But less than a 1-throw variance between weeks on a 27-hole course isn't too bad, especially when the weather could have been somewhat different.

I fully (or as much as anyone can) understand the effect of the conditions and the moving of holes on the ratings. What i am having a hard time understanding is the change in ratings between the two weekends. Basically, they are saying that the tournament played at least 10 strokes tougher!!! Actually more than that as ratings were still higher even with a 10 stroke decrease in score.

[girlie]

Scratch Score Averages used to determine Players Ratings are dynamic and change with the group of people who play the course. When you have better players playing the same layout they bring the SSA up and therefore the Ratings go up. This is why 2 identical rounds shot by the same person can be rated differently.

You play with the big boys and you benefit by having a higher rated round (or so it appears to me).

When and If a system is ever designed that can determine a static SSA for a course layout (and of course allow certain set + or - for foul weather and such variables) then we will begin to see more consistent ratings produced for like rounds. There seems to be much debate about this topic on another thread and there seem to be many problems with a static SSA vs. fewer problems with the dynamic SSA - or that's the impression I'm gathering. In any case, there is much debate :) I only wish I had greater understanding of the statistics and calculations to join the debate, but my brain does not function that way :D

[rhett]

This tournament was played with the following layouts each weekend:

Round 1: all short
Round 2: mix of short and long
Round 3: all long

I believe the same layouts were used both weekends, hence Mark's question. Ten strokes worse being rated higher when there weren't any real weather concerns seems to indicate a real problem in the system. Maybe a couple of stroke swing for propoagators and stuff, but 10?

[james_mccaine]

I'll give you an example of 2 data sets that illustrate this effect. Maceman at the vet (end of Jan 2004). The data for identical course layouts:

Saturday-regular course
Shoot a 49 in the morning (am), you got a 990.
Shoot a 49 in the afternoon (pro), you got 1002.

Saturday-temp course
Shoot a 51 in the morning (pro), you got a 987.
Shoot a 51 in the afternoon (am), you got 981.


Sunday-regular course
Shoot a 46 in the morning (pro), you got 1026
Shoot a 46 in the afternoon (am), you got 1016

Sunday-temp course
Shoot a 50 in the morning (am), get a 974
Shoot a 50 in the afternoon (pro), get a 1001

Couple of observations:
1) Ams always got lower ratings for the same score
2) On sunday, when the weather was worse in the afternoon, the large difference between pros and ams on the temp course makes sense due to tougher conditions in the afternoon. However, the pros also had higher ratings on the regular course for the morning round, even though the conditions were easier.

There may be possible theories to explain these strange results. I myself suspect that the apparent oddity is simply a result of what I would term "the reliability of the propagators." My suspicion is that this particular am group had people whose ratings do not exactly mirror their ability (at least for that weekend). There are certainly other plausible explanations, none of which are provable, but the main point of my babbling is that oddities are simply an outgrowth of the math which generates the ratings. I'm also sure that the ratings people are aware of this, have thought about it, are contemplating some tweaks, feel the tweaks are not worth the effort given their resources, or feel that the cure is worse than the disease.

Please note that the difference that you are talking about is an average of 13.75 rating points, that seems fairly close. I am talking about a change in ratings of 33.6 rating points.

This is my first post:
<font color="blue">
AMS
1st round - score of 77 rating - 908
2nd round - score of 81 rating - 938
3rd round - score of 85 rating - 919
PROS
1st round - score of 77 rating - 944
2nd round - score of 81 rating - 962
3rd round - score of 85 rating - 960
</font>
i am not yapping just to yap. It just seems like there is something odd going on.

[gnduke]

James had it nailed when he said it depends on the reliability of the propagators. The propagators set the standard by which the rest of the feild is judged. If the majority of the propagators play above their ratings, the calculated ratings will be lower than reality. If the majority of propagators play below their rating, the calculated ratings will be higher than reality. I would think that the consistency of the propagators in the PRO ranks is better than the consistency of the propagators in the AM ranks so the PRO numbers are probably closer to the real numbers.

[james_mccaine]

I'm not belittling what you are saying. I was just giving possible reasons for the phenomenon.

Just to keep the figures comparable, per 18 holes, the variant between the two weekends for the Cali tournament with the same layout according to Rhett is really 22.4 rating points. These tournaments were also on different weekends. I have no idea how the conditions were for each weekend, so I have little sense how "bad" the ratings look.

I will say that in my mind, it would not be unusual for a course to change 40 points in one day. In my opinion and based on my experience, my home course will often have an SSA around 50 in the calm morning and a 54 by the afternoon. So 22.4 points for different weekends seems entirely possible. However, if I was there both weekends and intimately knew the conditions, I might think the ratings looked real "bad." At that point, I would look to other variables like the one I described.

[bruce_brakel]

There may be possible theories to explain these strange results. I myself suspect that the apparent oddity is simply a result of what I would term "the reliability of the propagators." My suspicion is that this particular am group had people whose ratings do not exactly mirror their ability (at least for that weekend).



I think I can explain why the am group gets lower ratings than the pros and it is related to the reliability of the propagators. Within the am field there are more propagators who are still in a steep place in their learning curve. In the am group you are more likely to find players who learned how to do the "x" step a month ago, or changed to a more powerful grip, or figured out the whole hip rotation thing, or finally realized that time spent practicing rather than just playing rounds might benefit their game. These guys and gals may be playing 20 or 30 points over their average, especially since that average may go all the way back to their very first tournament when they had only been playing for a month. So you wind up with maybe six to a dozen 880 rated men who are really shooting 920 kinds of rounds. But the ratings formula treats those rounds as 880s to be averaged in with the rounds shot by players who are in a flatter place in their learning curve. The effect is to drag down ratings for everyone in that pool.

If you are concerned about boosting your rating, play in the same pool as the pros, not necessarily the same division, but in a division that shoots the same courses from the same tees to the same baskets at the same time.

[james_mccaine]

Gary, I think you are right. However, if I was in the position of seeing these ratings made on a regular basis, I might feel different.

As I've stated before on this subject and based on experiences in other fields, creating a "true" rating is much more of an art than a science. In other words, the ratings maker would look at these odd data points created by the math and say "I think that's wrong" and change them based on their subjective sense of true reality.

This might pass muster in certain fields, but I suspect it would lead to ugliness in our field.

In summary (I'll shut up after this). People tend to think ratings are actually an objective "true" measure of performance. They are not. They are simply figures generated from the statistical data. However, to paraphrase what Chuck has stated before, "the ratings do a good job of generally measuring someones performance over time." Even though I often don't put much stock in the rating of one of my rounds, my overall rating is a good measure of how my last twenty rounds were played.

Bruce thanks, I think your post has helped clear up for me how Idlewild can have a 67.15 WCP from the long tees and a 60 WCP from the short tees based on last May's Disc-n-Dat Bluegrass Open tournament. Pros played long tees, AM.s played short tees. A difference of seven strokes seems like too much since there is only a short and long tee option on three holes, and the difference between the course records is 4 strokes. Given the many AM players are on a learning curve and playing better than their rating scenario -- it would make the ratings for the round from the shorts lower than it might actually be. Does that make sense to you?

[bruce_brakel]

Bruce thanks, I think your post has helped clear up for me how Idlewild can have a 67.15 WCP from the long tees and a 60 WCP from the short tees based on last May's Disc-n-Dat Bluegrass Open tournament. Pros played long tees, AM.s played short tees. A difference of seven strokes seems like too much since there is only a short and long tee option on three holes, and the difference between the course records is 4 strokes. Given the many AM players are on a learning curve and playing better than their rating scenario -- it would make the ratings for the round from the shorts lower than it might actually be. Does that make sense to you?



Yes. That's what I'm saying.

Suppose, for example, that the Jones dectuplets [ten twins] all start playing disc golf in January. By June they've all played five tournaments and have ten rounds in the database. They all have 800 ratings and its pretty dismal. So they pool their savings and pay Barry to skip the Great Lakes Open and a couple of other Super Tours so he can give them some lessons. Barry obliges. A month later Barry is back on tour and the Jones dectuplets are all playing 12 strokes better per round. If their rating was based on all rounds, like a USGA handicap, instead of just tournament rounds, they'd already be rated 880 or 890 because they've played a lot of rounds over the last month, but no tournaments. So they go to a tournament. They play rec. They are the only rec players and only rec players play short tees. No matter how well they shoot, they cannot improve their ratings. But it gets worse. At the next tournament next week they play intermediate. The only other intermediate there is Jamie, a 900 rated player. At this tournament the Intermediates are the only ones playing the short tees. Jamie and the Joneses all shoot the same. So they all get 810 ratings at the second tournament no matter how well they shot. 30 over is 810 rated as is 30 under!

This sounds insane but it is how ratings work. That is why we don't let dectuplets play PDGA golf and why Barry does not give lessons to dectuplets.

Some time ago, I aggregated thousands of rounds played, and charted the average round rating as compared to the players' rating at the time of the round.

The chart can be seen here (http://home.carolina.rr.com/rodneyg/handicap.jpg).

I think it shows that an 855ish player will average about 10 points above his/her rating. And for players over about 940, they will average about 8 to 10 points below their rating.

Note this is over all players, and may not be applicable to any one particular person or performance.

[bruce_brakel]

Some time ago, I aggregated thousands of rounds played, and charted the average round rating as compared to the players' rating at the time of the round.

The chart can be seen here (http://home.carolina.rr.com/rodneyg/handicap.jpg).

I think it shows that an 855ish player will average about 10 points above his/her rating. And for players over about 940, they will average about 8 to 10 points below their rating.

Note this is over all players, and may not be applicable to any one particular person or performance.



So if a TD rus a format that puts all the 940ish players in one pool playing course A in the morning and Course B in the afternoon, and all the 855ish players playing the courses in the reversed order, we should expect to see a 20 rating point difference for the same score on the same course between the two pools.

[dannyreeves]

Roger is just now getting the batches of the final 2003 TD reports to the volunteers today. So, it's looking like the first draft for our review won't be until this weekend with hopefully the new ratings posted by Monday.



[patience off] Any updates Chuck? :D [patience on]

[ck34]

We had a glitch with last minute error corrections just prior to the whole team leaving for AZ Summit and Memorial. Good news is that they have highspeed internet at the hotel. The bad news is that the port needed to upload the data to the server is blocked. Theo says he might be able to get around that. Otherwise, Jason will post them Monday night when he's back home.

The last minute corrections were an effort to clean up the final data for 2003 using some new automated data filters. One is an anti-sandbagging process. Another makes sure we eliminate statistically improbable rounds on the high side. For example, where the TD likely made a mistake reporting a new 12-yr old member as playing the same layout as the pros and appears to shoot a 1054 round.

[topdog]

Are the new player ratings coming out tonight.

[ck34]

The file is done and ready to be uploaded to the server. Jason is the only one who does that. He's flying back today from Phoenix. If it's not too late when he gets home, he may do it later tonight, otherwise tomorrow.

[topdog]

Thanx Chuck

[eddie_ogburn]

Woohoo! Ratings tonight! :D

[topdog]

Hopefully they're tonght.

Oh come on now, when has Chuck ever been right about when they will post them...lol...j/k Chuck :D

[topdog]

I believe they will be up tonight and if not Jason is probaly jetlagged.

[ck34]

Jason already posted them to our development server for final review. I gave my 'go ahead' but Theo makes the final call to post. I see Jason is online so it looks like he'll be ready to go when Theo logs in.

Why,
so you can see a 926.

[topdog]

Yea playing rating soon.
Thanx Chuck and Jason

[chris]

C'mon Theo!

[topdog]

Theo we need you and good shooting at the Memorial.

[ck34]

Here's a bonus for youse guys:

Heeren 1006
Currier 920
Linthicum 913
Reeves 926
Ogburn 923

[topdog]

Thanks Chuck

That was pretty cool of ya Chuck :cool:

[chris]

Nice!

Chuck, could you type out everyone's? :D

[ck34]

Take a look now. Jason updated them...

[eddie_ogburn]

Here's a bonus for youse guys:

Heeren 1006
Currier 920
Linthicum 913
Reeves 926
Ogburn 923



Thanks Chuck! You da man!

I believe they will be up tonight and if not Jason is probaly jetlagged.



Not nearly as jetlagged as I am humiliated getting beat by Rhett... :eek: :D

[chris]

****! I'm still not #1 in my state, I was hoping to pass him up this update!!! He's not even that good of a player.

So on what basis are rounds "dropped" as sandbagging rounds??? I know for a FACT that some of the rounds that are being dropped from my scores were not sandbagged, but rather REALLY bad rounds that I played. How can you throw these bad rounds out and not the anomalies toward the top out???? Here is a nice 71 that was not rated for some reason??? http://pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=3892&year=2003&include_ratings=1#Open

Let me be the first to say that it is WEAK that no 2004 information is included in this update. As a Texas player who has played 6 plus sanctioned events in 2004 (and yes I know the scores were turned in fast as I turned most of them in myself), I am VERY disappointing that none of this data is being used yet. I guess I should not turn in scores the day after the event when I run a B-tier during the 2nd weekend of January. What difference does it make anyway if they can not be included in a MARCH update – truly disappointing…

Heck, the SCORES from the 2004 events I ran cannot event be seen yet - what is the point of turning them in fast???? We can't do a end of the year rating in January? Make the TD's who don't turn in their stuff on time pay, don't punish the early year events, tds and players - - weak weak weak...

For anyone who played in a Team Disaster event in 2004, scores can be found at www.teamdisasterdiscgolf.com (http://www.teamdisasterdiscgolf.com) (just as they could be found the DAY after the event). Shoot me an email and I'll look up the estimated ratings for you for those events as well (just as they were posted the DAY after the event). I guess the PDGA will get around to posting this information sometime in JULY give or take a few months...

Where do I send the check again????

[ck34]

I know for a FACT that some of the rounds that are being dropped from my scores were not sandbagged, but rather REALLY bad rounds that I played. How can you throw these bad rounds out and not the anomalies toward the top out???? Here is a nice 71 that was not rated for some reason???



A few extreme anomalies from the top but several from the bottom are being thrown out based on ratings beyond acceptable standard deviations. It amounts to fewer than 1% of all rounds in 2003. We're not publishing specifics for the moment until we get the process automated and also, to some extent, prevent manipulation. Also, look for more information codes to be included in future displays so you'll know specifically why a round was either excluded or not calculated.

The February/March update continues to be the wrapup for the prior year with no events from the current year included so we have archival yearend ratings concurrent with final point totals. Mid-May continues to be the first ratings update but I suspect the first points update for 2004 will be sooner.

An important reason for getting early year event reports processed is to get new and renewed members processed quickly. If we ever decide to do an earlier ratings update for the new year, it would likely only include ratings for players who didn't have one yet. How to do that is in the planning stages.

[tpozzy]

Gimp,

The reason that the 2004 events haven't been officially processed yet is because I haven't had the time to get the updated tools in place for the office yet. I have been working hard on the new schedule and live scoring mechanisms, as well as revisions to the ratings processing that will take effect for the final 2003 data.

As soon as we get that taken care of, we'll start cranking out the 2004 data and stats. I'm sorry if we haven't met your expectations, but in the past, it was April before any stats for the new year were processed. Now, we are getting live results in real time, and we're going go be following up with officially processed results as soon as possible.

My goal is to get the data processed as quickly as possible, and I've been working with a team of volunteers for two years two improve the timeliness of our efforts. We're in the midst of some major technology changes, and we're doing the best that we can. Please bear with us and help us through the changes.

-Theo Pozzy
PDGA Commissioner
Pdga.com Webmaster

[slowmo_1]

C-mon Gimp, why would we want ratings from Jan and Feb events posted before like June? It's to much work for you TD's if the ratings get updated more often according to what I read way back earlier in this thread. :D

[schick]

Gimp.......chill man....they are called volunteers!

Theo, Chuck, and everyone else involved, keep up the good work.

Illegitimis non carborundum.

I'm excited to see the next ratings with my Memorial scores factored in. Should jump me up 20 points or so.

[Moderator005]

I believe they will be up tonight and if not Jason is probaly jetlagged.



Not nearly as jetlagged as I am humiliated getting beat by Rhett... :eek: :D



Rhett has a player rating 30 points higher than you - the only humiliation would be his if you were to beat him.

[Nelle 18131]

I am not on the list for am women in Texas, can someone help me? I have a rating but I am not on this list.

[topdog]

Theo, Chuck and Jason thanks for your hard work in keeping the stats up.

[Nelle 18131]

Yes, thanks for the hard work guys.

I am not even on the list for am women at all. HELP. As an am all I have are my stats. Can someone please help?

****! I'm still not #1 in my state, I was hoping to pass him up this update!!! He's not even that good of a player.



Chris, you only have to improve your rating 33 points to pass Barry :D
In many states -- you'd be numero uno, but if you were in NC there would be several people above you. Looks like you have the most recent PDGA number of anyone at or over 1000, so the top ten probably see you in their rear-view mirror. Good luck this year and keep up the great work.

[Nelle 18131]

I found it. I am listed as an Am Man. I know the long drives confuse many but I am a female and I have always played in the womens division. Can this be changed?

[ck34]

I notified the database boys for the correction. Your gender change should be painless and hopefully quick :)

[Nelle 18131]

Thanks. :D

[bapmaster]

Fortunately, disc golf doesn't have the same regulations ball golf has concerning women who used to be men... :p

[Nelle 18131]

I have ALWAYS been a woman! :D

[bapmaster]

Well, I suppose that's something you would know better than anyone else, but a PDGA-posted statistic is not something to be taken lightly. :eek:

[Nelle 18131]

Your telling me! :D

Sorry to vent. I have always been VERY appreciative of the ratings crew (if you have followed ratings over the years you will know this).

I just happen to find it disappointing that event results are not posted sooner and ratings calculated faster, especially at the beginning of the year. I guess I just really don’t see a value in an “end of the year” rating when there is perfectly good data that could have been added to this one.

This TD collects a TON of money for the PDGA, even MORE this year with higher sanctioning fees and more money coming from the players ($3 instead of $2 in B-tiers). Can PART of that money PLEASE start going to someone who is paid to take care of ratings and updates. If the volunteers are overworked, get someone in there to help them.

I just competed a survey of some of the folks who play in my events and I asked them what they liked about the events being PDGA sanctioned. Ratings and points were two of the main responses. It is a shame that they will have to wait up to five months for their rounds played early in the year to be added to their ratings…

I guess the range of my rated rounds falls out of the normal range since two of them have been mysteriously dropped.

B1TCH, B1TCH, B1TCH....... :D

TEAM 902!!!!!

Thanks Theo and crew!!!!!!

Up 2 points for me this time around!! 886!

Yea that is pretty *** that my doubles partner now has the same rating as I do lmao. Only because my bad rounds are SOOOO bad that they are considered statistical anomalies (or something like that since we don't know the real answer lmao)

[cbdiscpimp]

WHOOOOOOOOOOO HOOOOOOOOOOOO my rating DROPED 14 Points from a 880 to an 866. That makes my 15th place finish at The Memorial look even better :D

Woo-Hoo up 3 points! /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Doesen't include my stellar play at Mooky's(round 1 at least :D)!! Yeah right....like that's gonna help my already sorry rating!!!

When it comes to playin' in NC against NC Open players, you gotta be at least a 985/1000+ rated player to make some noise in these woods!! :D

Be prepared if your coming to our house to play!

-m

My player rating sucks but most of my rounds were from when i really sucked at disc golf my rating is at 831 but i play much higher than that i need to play better rounds

Only because my bad rounds are SOOOO bad that they are considered statistical anomalies (or something like that since we don't know the real answer lmao)



You don't know anything at all about ratings do you? Everyone has a percentage of their lowest rounds tossed out. Only a few high rounds are tossed when they are considered to be statistical anomolies. I quickly scanned your rounds, and it seemed to me that only low ones were dropped. This is true for everyone.

[seewhere]

what is Nolan Grider's rating? is the rating for current people or what?

[Chris Hysell]

Mine went up again. It would have been some more except that in the final round of an event I was leading, I slacked up and played conservative. Of course they kept the 948 round. Come on guys, I was only playing around. I complained about the same thing at Buckhorn this year. I had a 6 stroke lead going into the final round and gave a few back just playing safe. Can't I ask that my final round not count if I am leading? Please?

[richard_r]

jimg,

You don't know anything about Gimp or about sarcasm. Gimp is a stats freak. His knowledge of numbers will make you dizzy and is dry sense of humour will pull you in every time!!!

[dannyreeves]

what is Nolan Grider's rating? is the rating for current people or what?



How is Nolan such a bum that he can't renew his membership? :DCan he play this weekend in Waco if he isn't current???

[rhett]

Not nearly as jetlagged as I am humiliated getting beat by Rhett... :eek: :D



I have pictures. And I'm going to post them! :)

[scoop]

what is Nolan Grider's rating? is the rating for current people or what?



How is Nolan such a bum that he can't renew his membership? :DCan he play this weekend in Waco if he isn't current???



Which raises an even more important and serious question: If (according to the PDGA (http://www.pdga.com/documents/04EventsGuide.pdf)) all players MUST be a current member of the PDGA to play in A-tier or higher sanctioned events...then how did he place third in the A-tier Big Show Pro/Am at Veteran's Park (http://www.pdga.com/schedule/event.php?TournID=3984) last month?

[tpozzy]

Gimp,

Two things:

1. TDs can now upload their event results to pdga.com directly, before they are processed for points and ratings by the office. In the future, as we have more staff resources, we will be working towards the official processing happening every two weeks or so (and maybe even more frequently someday).

2. Related to that, the PDGA has budgeted a third full-time staff position this year. However, we are waiting until the office moves to Augusta to hire that person. Hopefully (if the immigration process goes in our favor), that will happen in the next month or two.

Theo Pozzy
PDGA Commissioner
Pdga.com Webmaster

[boobs]

I was wondering why my rating hasn't been updated it says that it has been updated through February 14 2004, but the tournment of Z-Boaz of January 27-28 2004 is not included, just wondering how the system works.
Boobs

[spartan]

wondering the same about the Big Show 04 at the Vet.

[tbender]

February update was for 2003 events.
Next update is for 2004 events.

[dannyreeves]

This update was the 2003 year end update. It doesn't include anything in 2004.

[spartan]

thanks

[spartan]

thanks too :p

[ck34]

The update date is when the ratings are posted. The last event included is always about 6 weeks or more earlier. The link on the PDGA front page syas it's the final 2003 ratings so it includes every event we received for 2003 that had enough info to be rated. It's your final 2003 rating.

[spartan]

thanks ³

[ck34]

We're looking into the ratings update sequence. We have been planning four updates to cover events from Jan 1 to Oct 31. It would be nice if each update included about the same number of events. The Feb update just posted is a small one to clean up the prior year and handle events in Nov and Dec. So, we'll try to get the same number of events in each update. That probably means we might shoot for an earlier update than mid-May but it depends on the event count.

I know Theo mentioned the plan will be to process results faster. I'm sure that getting ratings updated more frequently is NOT good, with the exception of a player's first rating.

Stats PhDs would likely cringe at the few number of rounds we use for some processing as it is. Even though we had an impressive number of rounds processed last year at 90,000, that's still less than one rated round per month for every PDGA member. We require at least 8 rounds for a player to be part of the SSA process. So that means the average new member takes almost a year to become an SSA propagator.

Posting a rating on the web after even 2 rounds makes it seem more accurate than it is just because it's in print. I could see just posting only those with ratings established after 8 rounds but I suspect we'd have a member mutiny :) We at least now have unofficial round ratings primarily due to the work of Jason if the TD uploads the event. That's a nice step forward to provide information without making it official. The PDGA needs to try and balance what seems to be the popularity of generating ratings as soon as possible with their intended and primary purpose of getting players in the proper playing division (at least for amateurs so far) with as much background data (rated rounds) as possible.

[scoop]

This update was the 2003 year end update. It doesn't include anything in 2004.



True, but that doesn't answer our question: If you click on Nolan Grider in the PDGA memebership directory, it says his membership is not current, yet he played in an A-tier event this year. If memberships are good for an entire calendar year, and you must be a PDGA member to play in an A-tier event...then it stand to reason that any/all players who played at the Vet last month would still be current memberships.

It seems most likely that Nolan's membership is updated, but that updated status is not correct on his page.

And the whole point is not that we're trying to give him (Nolan) grief...it's just that he's arguably the best Pro player in Texas, and a young guy to boot, and we're all just curious to see how his ratings have changed since the last update.

[dannyreeves]

well, hopefully Nolan renewed his dues at the event and the page has not been updated yet.

[woodpecker]

maybe,thats why he did'nt go to the Memorial...I was wondering....

[dannyreeves]

He doesn't travel very far too often.

[ck34]

and we're all just curious to see how his ratings have changed since the last update.




He's still above 1000

[tbender]

Thanks Chuck.

News Flash: Nolan Grider still good. Texans everywhere relieved. :D

Well, thank god for that. I was sooooooo worried. :)

Great news on a new staff person! (BTW - you ratings dudes and dudettes rock - I just needed to vent a little since I felt the players at my events were getting cheated).

"You don't know anything at all about ratings do you? Everyone has a percentage of their lowest rounds tossed out. Only a few high rounds are tossed when they are considered to be statistical anomolies. I quickly scanned your rounds, and it seemed to me that only low ones were dropped. This is true for everyone."

Jimg - - You would have to look INSIDE each event to see the ratings I am talking about - they did not even produce a score to be dropped... Opps, I guess you were the one without the knowledge this time :D PS – you might want to mix in a spell checker next time you are going to try to slam someone.

Check out round two in this one: http://pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=3751&year=2003&include_ratings=1#Intermediate

and round four in this one: http://pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=3892&year=2003&include_ratings=1#Intermediate

if you want to see what I am talking about (not that I am proud of these scores).

[ck34]

Actually, Garnett has one of them dropped similar to Gimp if he checks his Fountain Hills Thrills round ratings (R3).

Welcome to my world Jim :cool::D:o:D :p :Dlol

[rhett]

He doesn't travel very far too often.



WHAT?!!!! A Texan who doesn't travel??? :D

Glad to see the ratings posted. Even happier mine went up slightly. I do have a question,however.
When I bring up the ratings page the 4 headings you can look at are Open men, Open women, Am men and Am women. The problem is that I have two kids that want to see their ratings in the context of where they rank in the state or with other junoirs. For example my 14 year old is registered as a Junoir but plays advanced. The only way we can find his rating is to go to the member search. Same deal with my daughter.
Any help?

[rob]

Mine went up 5 points, to 893. Not quite 900 yet, but I'm knocking at the door! :)

[nicholson5150]

:D

[rob]

:D



Post-***** :D

[gnduke]

At the rate I am going, I should hit 900 by the end of the year. Just from the wrong direction. More fuel for my theory that involvement in the adminsitrative side of DG erodes the performance side.

Just played in my 1st Sanctioned event of the year last weekend. Oh JOY! Now my embarrassing rating will be even lower!!!!!! ARRRRRGGGHHH!!! :mad::mad::mad::mad:

Oh well, at least I didn't play too poorly in the unsanctioned ZLT10 on Saturday. :)

Gotta have a sanctioned event in the Big B so my rating can get a little boost.

Still undefeated by any OMB in Big B! Just Bring It!

[bruce_brakel]

At the rate I am going, I should hit 900 by the end of the year. Just from the wrong direction. More fuel for my theory that involvement in the adminsitrative side of DG erodes the performance side.



Todd White figured that out last year and now only runs one tournament. I have not seen that yet, but I've pretty much streamlined my life to work, disc golf and sleep.

[gnduke]

I guess that's the other option. Get rid of all that other distracting stuff out there except Disc Golf. Now if I had the time to practice 8-10 hours a day, I might get good enough to give up my day job. Now how do I find the time to practice without giving up my day job first?

[dannyreeves]

It is kinda the "Chicken and the Egg" question. lol

Come on boyz, "Work, sleep and disc golf", I like disc golf as much as the next guy, but let's have some clarity.

[ck34]

I'm sure Theo will get around to announcing this but the site now has a whole new page of information on ratings and links for all of the documents you may want to download. Go to the INFORMATION link above and click on the Player Ratings & Course Ratings link on the top of the right side.

[Moderator005]

Ahhhh, besides there being some new information and documents that I hadn't seen before, everything is now organized in one place. Thank you Theo and the PDGA!!!