PLayer ranking

[gdstour]

Would you prefer your player ranking on a natinal level as opposed to a player rating where lot sof players have the same rating?

[lafsaledog]

where would you get the ranking from ?
Player rating ?
If that is the case just do some counting as I have done .
I am a 944 advanced player who is around 360 ( tied with oh about 45 players ) out of 5514ish in advanced and compared to the pros I am 1350 ( tied with about 5 players ) some out of 2200 some
Which means I would be ranked , given the numbers above about 1700 ( give or take 50 ) out of 6900 .
Not that difficult to figure out .
Now with the difficulty of the delay of ratings updates , this becomes a little more complicated .

[ck34]

During the last four months we've been developing a World ranking system, initially for the top 100 players or so, that will blend ratings with finish position(s) at Pro Worlds, USDGC and European Championships and/or Open when they have them. First published version will be after the February ratings update which is the final ratings for 2005.

[neonnoodle]

I'll tell you why I wouldn't prefer rankings to ratings.

They are less useful.
They are less accessible(once WCP of a course layout is known and published).
They are less accurate.

That being said, they could be a lot of fun, so I support their development.

[michler]

i do like the idea of a ranking system, although i don't prefer it to replace ratings. Rankings would be good for the reason I mentioned on the ratings thread, that being that when you sort by ratings, alot of guys are mixed in that only have like 1 or 2 events played. i kind of discount them as their ratings are likely to be very inaccurate since they are based off of only a couple rounds (probably from their home course).

[eddie_ogburn]

During the last four months we've been developing a World ranking system, initially for the top 100 players or so, that will blend ratings with finish position(s) at Pro Worlds, USDGC and European Championships and/or Open when they have them. First published version will be after the February ratings update which is the final ratings for 2005.

Su-weet! I better go practice!

[gdstour]

Chuck,
Good to hear the pdga will be coming up with a ranking.
Will there be anyway to update it each week, like they do in college basketball?
Seeing your ranking go up or down each week will surely help to get members playing in more PDGA events.
A ranking will create much more hype on a national level and incentive to play more events. Of course it will also creat more controversy too, but we all no thats just part of disc golf

I had some formulas That I was working on before the player rating system was launched and would be curious to see how the rankings will be done.
I'm guessing you will be using the SSA of the courses when ranking players against each other who NEVER play against each other. Seeing as though tees and pin placements change all the time, even during an event I figured scores from each weeks events were best to use.
I used a strength of field multiplier as a barometer and related it to your score in comparison to the average or mean ( I cant remember which off the top of my head).
This seemed like the best way to move players up or down on a weekly basis.


Will there be a certain number of events played in to be eligible for the ranking?
A minnimum number of events played could also creat more incentive to travel and compete!

Will you be using all pdga events or just A tiers and NT?

[ck34]

It will initially be updated only when ratings are updated a few times a year until we're satisfied with the process and players are satisfied with the weighting factors involved including our International partners. The calculations will initially be done for men with ratings above 999 based on a minimum number of rounds (to be determined) and women above 899. We're looking at limiting the rating calculation to rounds at B-tiers and higher. For international players, we may have to include rounds from their C-tiers depending on the country.

Ratings will probably be worth at least 50% of the ranking and finish position in Worlds, USDGC and/or European Championship/Open will make up the rest. If you don't play in at least two of those events, you'll still be included but will be dropped down a certain number of positions.

[gdstour]

Chuck,
I guess my first question would be is any of the funding for this coming from the pdga or will any of its hired staff be spending there time on it?
If so, I feel if we should include as many players as possible ( maybe down to ratings of 955 or even 900)
I'm sure it would help create more competition as well as increase attendance at events.
Why does this orginization have to cater to the TOP players?
It may mean as much to a 200 ranked player to watch himself climb as a top 10 guy.
I know we had 180 club memebers with bag tags last year and there was a lot of action alll the way down in the 100's.
Our bag tag helped creat moor local competition and a national ranking all the way down to 1000 players should be the goal!

[ck34]

It's not specifically a PDGA project, just Roger and Chuck for the time being. The ratings are more than acceptable for most players to determine ranking. Only the top ball golfers have rankings because they regularly face each other on tour in a series. Handicaps are the ranking mechanism for the majority of ball golfers just like ratings are for disc golf. However, we do have some head to head competitions among our top players including international players and these results can be used besides ratings. So, a ranking system for them starts to make some sense. But, we don't have common events played by players much below the top, especially lower rated international players, so ratings are the only thing that makes sense for now.

[gdstour]

Like I said in my previous post,
You can use the player ratings as a strength of field multiplier and use the average or mean as the barometer as to " how well you shot that week". This is how you can compare players from week to week and adjust their ranking without having them playing against each other.
College basketball ranks their teams each week, why cant we?

Is it mostly because of slow reporting or are there other reasons??

[sandalman]

i dont understand why you want a specific ranking. we could easily publish a table in 5 or 10 rating point bands showing the number of players in each band. that would tell you the same thing.

we could also write a very small piece of code that counts how many players are RATED higher than your rating, and give you the exact number.

in the middle areas, say from 890 to 940 there are many ties of course, so you'd be tied at that ranking.

[bschweberger]

should be interesting to see what the Rankings would be.

[MiTTenZZ]

It's just one more thing for players to bi*ch about. 'I should be ranked higher than this guy, this guy sucks, why is he higher than me??'
Expect lots of that should this ever surface.

[gnduke]

I think what Dave was referring to was a little more realtime than what we could pull from existing data on the site. That would require much more timely reporting from the TDs and a body to keep the stats up to date every week.

[gdstour]

Dave -

Answer: College Basketball has 100x the resources of PDGA. How much work do you think would be involved in updating ratings week to week? Remember we're talking ratings for several thousand players , as opposed to a few hundred college b-ball teams. My guess is close to 1 more full time staff person. If you are prepared to provide us with an extra $30K for each of the next 2-3 years, then we should be able to make your wish come true.

If I had an extra 30K I'm thinking of a few better ideas for me to spend it on, but if the pdga were to raise the pro players dues to a $100.00 per year,would that help?
Are you afraid less pro players wouldnt sign up for the pdga if the dues were raised?

[gdstour]

i dont understand why you want a specific ranking. we could easily publish a table in 5 or 10 rating point bands showing the number of players in each band. that would tell you the same thing.

we could also write a very small piece of code that counts how many players are RATED higher than your rating, and give you the exact number.



in the middle areas, say from 890 to 940 there are many ties of course, so you'd be tied at that ranking.

The reason is simple; it will create more incentive to compete, for the players who want to be ranked.
This will be specially true if it is updated weekly

I see Marshall street has developed a Ranking Sytstem for last years NT events, worlds, players cup, the innova championships and Msdgc?

In my opinion they have done a lot of hard work, but it is not perfected yet. A good place to start, but feel it should include A tiers as well.

Why do you think all other individual sports rank ther players instead of rate them?
It's to create the competition among them!!!!!
If a players is barely ranked above you and you beat him one week, you move up and he moves down.
Believe me, this will have that guy out the next week trying to climb back up in the rankings.

This is a very worth while thing for the pdga to invest time and money into.

I may start another poll on ranks VS ratigs, does anyone have a suggestion on how to word it better?

[ck34]

Why do you think all other individual sports rank their players instead of rate them?

They don't. What's your ball golf ranking? Is it 127,423rd or perhaps a 12 handicap? Is it 10,368th in tennis or 3.0? Is it 87,345th or 1155 in chess? Only the top players get ranked. The rest of the players have ratings of some sort.

[gdstour]

Chuck ,'I get the point about only ranking the top pros, but maybe we should at leat rank 500 players.

Here is a copy of an email I sent Steve Dodge.

Your the math guy, maybe you can help with a formula here;

Steve,
I will call you once I go back over some of my old notes on the ranking system.
Ill try right now by memory.
The idea would be to start with an initial ranking of players or use the existing player ratings to develop a strength of field barometer for the event.
Lets say the average rating for the open field of 60 players for an event on the east coast was 960 and the average score was 68.
your ranking nationally is 45 and you shoot 68.

Now lets say there is an event on the west coast where there was also 60 players but the average player rating was 980, the avearge score 54 and you, ranked 46, shoot a 54.
I cant remember off the top of my head, but I was working on a formula where the player who matched the average score at the west coast event with the higher average player rating or stronger field would jump in front because his round is better compared to the field.
This is just an example of how it would work and not really the formula, but you should get the idea.
Of course the trick would be for ALL TD's to get the PDGA all of the results by tuesday and the pdga spit back out the new Rankings by Thursday.
Realistically it could be done each month at first.
I ama frim beliver that the PDGA should develop a staff and run the NT events,
That way they w ould have the numbers and could get the ranking updated each week eventually.

I know this seems like a pipe dream but for the money the pdga is charging per player for yearly dues and at each event, combined with the annual increase in sanctioned evenst ( which I think also went up) it seems like a hired staff memebnr to keep track of the rankings is a good way to spend some of the increased revenue.

Chuck,
How much do you get paid by the pdga for all you do?

[adogg187420]

They don't. What's your ball golf ranking? Is it 127,423rd or perhaps a 12 handicap? Is it 10,368th in tennis or 3.0? Is it 87,345th or 1155 in chess? Only the top players get ranked. The rest of the players have ratings of some sort.

Excellent point/post.

[ck34]

When the PDGA rankings come out, they will be global, not just North America. North American players play each other much more frequently and ratings can handle that below the top level. So far, worldwide players see each other only at the USDGC, Pro Worlds, European Open/Championships and Japan Open, and the attendance could still be better at those. For the time being, it only makes sense to rank the 100 or so men with ratings above 1000 based on a minimum number of events, and women over 900. Plus, we'll include the top rated man and woman in each country with PDGA members.

[j_d]

I think you should do it for the age-protected divisions, too -- give we older people something to shoot for

[ck34]

There are quite a few players from the older divisions who will be included among men over 1000 rating and women over 900. What we can do is break them out into additional age based rank lists so the older divisions know who they are.

[pterodactyl]

I may start another poll on ranks VS ratigs, does anyone have a suggestion on how to word it better?

You could maybe try allowing only "one" vote for the two choices!

[sandalman]

I may start another poll on ranks VS ratigs, does anyone have a suggestion on how to word it better?

or even spell it better?

[bruce_brakel]

I thought the question was fairly worded if not well spelled. I'm glad to see that a veto-proof majority prefers a rating over a ranking. It is easy enough to figure your ranking from your rating, but you cannot figure a rating from a ranking.

[gnduke]

I thought the ranking was based on performance against other ranked players, not on ratings ?

If so, there is no easy way to convert from ratings to rankings.

[gdstour]

I thought the ranking was based on performance against other ranked players, not on ratings ?

If so, there is no easy way to convert from ratings to rankings.

Exactly the point!
In my opinion, Ratings are for Handicapping and recreational golfers, while the rankings would be for the more serious competitors and touring players.

I have been playing disc golf in pdga events for 23 years.
I am constantly asked, Are you ranked or what is your ranking?

A good ranking system will be difficult to perfect and may take time and money to develop, but it will eventually bring about more competition, while the ratings will then become meaningless to the serious golfers!

I know Chuck and others have done a lot of hard work on getting the ratings perfected but the reality is, a ranking system is much more important for the growth of the pro divison and highest level of competitors within the Amateur divisions as well!!!

[gnduke]

Well not really for the amatuers unless it becomes more than just a personal decision to become a Pro player.