We are in the process of automating a disc golf ranking system that will complement the current PDGA Rating system. Where ratings determine a player's average score on any particular course, rankings determine who beat whom and how often.

We have compiled statistics from every A-Tier, NT and Major PDGA event as well as the MSDGC and Players Cup. For each player that competed against over 200 other players throughout the course of the 2005 season, we compiled a Modified Winning Percentage (MWP) (http://www.marshallstreetdiscgolf.com/MWP.html) for each of these players.

Next, we took the top 50 players and compiled a complete head to head matrix and recalculated their MWP within this group of the top 50 disc golfers in the world.

This list, and our 2005 Player of the Year, can be viewed here:

http://www.marshallstreetdiscgolf.com/2005DG_Ranking.html

--------------------------------------

In the coming months (I'd guess early Spring), we hope to unveil an automated system which has current rankings for the top Pro Open and Pro Women players. We plan on expanding the rankings to include B-Tier level tournaments. We also plan on incorporating a minimum number of events that must be played in order to qualify for the rankings - perhaps this minimum will be seven.

What will they come up with next?? :D

Fun stuff. As you consider your minimum # of events, you may want to also have a minimum of NT's and/or Majors.

I'm a fan of Scott Martin, but can't see him as #1 in rankings without having played Worlds.

Neat list. 8 guys from NC, not too shabby. I'd love to see Scott out playing more but with a family and a good job, hard to play a lot of tournaments. He's solid.

Like the new signature miTTenz

yeah �itenz, nice sig

Fun stuff. As you consider your minimum # of events, you may want to also have a minimum of NT's and/or Majors.

I'm a fan of Scott Martin, but can't see him as #1 in rankings without having played Worlds.



Greatly worded criticism Denny! If I wasn't planning on running for the BoD, I'd definitely vote for you first.

There are 11 NTs in the 2006 season, 4 majors (including the European Championships which is Europe players only, and the Japan Open, which is 150-Class discs only), and 2 big non-PDGA events (MSDGC & Players Cup). A total of 17 big events.

Perhaps to be eligible, a player should have to play at least three big events. And at least 4 other events.

Also, to me it seems that big events are automatically more important in the rankings as the players will have more wins and losses at these events (because the Pro fields are bigger).

But some have mentioned that we should add even more weight to the results of these events.

We plan on expanding the system to include B-Tiers and above in the 2006 season. Look for some numbers in the early Spring.

Is that supposed to be ranked by MWP? Looks like there's something screwy going on between 8 and 12 then:
<table border="1"><tr><td>rank </td><td>Name </td><td>MWP</td><td>Wins</td><td>Losses</td><td>Winning %
</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>Jason Light </td><td>57.98</td><td>41</td><td>17</td><td>70.69
</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>Jesper Lundmark </td><td>53.55</td><td>51.5</td><td>23.5</td><td>68.67
</td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>Brian Schweberger </td><td>53.19</td><td>173.5</td><td>110</td><td>61.20
</td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td>Josh Anthon </td><td>53.6</td><td>48</td><td>28</td><td>63.16
</td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td>Brad Hammock </td><td>52.4</td><td>84.5</td><td>53.5</td><td>61.23 </tr></td></table>

Good catch. A few minutes before we went live with this page, I did a big aesthetic correction. The losses all had .0 after them and the wins did not. I went ahead and replaced all ".0"s with "".

On those fellas, the ".0" was deleted. (it happened a bunch of other places too, and I corrected all the issues that I found).

Here are the corrected numbers (http://www.marshallstreetdiscgolf.com/2005DG_Ranking.html) (not in a pretty table format):

Jesper Lundmark 53.55
Brian Schweberger 53.19
Josh Anthon 53.06
Brad Hammock 52.04
Chris Sprague 50.78
Matt Orum 49.87

I was 57- 79 in NT's and ST's.

i think....i mean, i just added up the amount of people I beat and the amount of people that beat me.....thats how it works right?

I believe that scott martin lost twice last year. Once to dave feldberg in the USDGC, and once two Al schack in the Aj opener j-bird summer slam. I found this in his last year results.

and I think he barely cashed in one of our local leagues :)

you only count the people you beat ON THIS LIST, MTL. So if you are playing in a field of 40 pros, but only 12 are top 50 pros, and you came in 12th, but only beat 3 of them, you'd be 3 and 9, not 28 and 11. big difference.

aaaaaaaaah, that makes sense....thanks for the clarification

I believe that scott martin lost twice last year. Once to dave feldberg in the USDGC, and once two Al schack in the Aj opener j-bird summer slam. I found this in his last year results.



Yes, but we only included A-Tiers and above (AJ Opener is a C-Tier).

This decision was made because I was entering the data manually and including all of the events would have been too time consuming. We created this to flush out the system, get feedback, and see who was #1 in the top tournies.

We'll expand it next year and get more solid results. I also like the idea of creating a minimum number of events to qualify, as opposed to the minimum number of players played criteria on these stats. (to qualify, a player had to play against a minimum of 200 players)

and I think he barely cashed in one of our local leagues :)



And in the Flying Saucer Spring Fling, he finished out of the cash, being beaten by five players rated under 1000.

After we compiled all the data and crunched all the numbers, we were surprised to see Scott Martin on top. He played great at DGLO and the USDGC, which is not easy to do.

We thought about adding a minimum number of tourneys, but I felt that changing the criteria to qualify because the answer was different than I expected was wrong.

As we go forward and include more events, adding a minimum number of events to qualify makes sense and we'll do it.

Congrats to Scott on having a great season. He finished 10th in the NT Series Points Race - and he only played in two events!

enter them all and i might make the list.....SIKE...im start...And isnt only marshall street that counts anyway.

How can they only include the top 50 in the list of beat/beaten by? If #51 beats someone, HE is then in the top 50 and that changes everyone's number. It has to incorporate more than just the top 50, right? Maybe the top 100?

Or am I mulleting my math? :(

I believe that scott martin lost twice last year. Once to dave feldberg in the USDGC, and once two Al schack in the Aj opener j-bird summer slam. I found this in his last year results.




and I think he barely cashed in one of our local leagues :)



If the league was early 2005, then it would make sense. Scott was injured early this spring (Im pretty sure it was his throwing shoulder), and he played pretty poorly for a month or 2. Man it wouldve been nice had he taken USDGC, he shot -23 in his first 3 rounds and then -3 in his last!! What a choke. :mad:

If the league was early 2005, then it would make sense.


August 23rd
www.sundogtournamentseries.com/scores_wk22.htm (http://www.sundogtournamentseries.com/scores_wk22.htm)

But then, it's better to have your bad days at locals rather than nationals :)

How can they only include the top 50 in the list of beat/beaten by? If #51 beats someone, HE is then in the top 50 and that changes everyone's number. It has to incorporate more than just the top 50, right? Maybe the top 100?



We initially crunched the numbers for everyone that played in an A-Tier and above, but we did not create an all inclusive head to head matchups matrix for everyone on this list (I was doing this by hand in Excel and including a thousand players was too much for me!).

Therefore, in an effort to determine the feasibility of this method, I took the top 50 from this list (except I missed Micah and Carlo) and developed an all inclusive head to head matrix for this group of 50. The results of this 50 x 50 matrix are what is posted.

We are currently working on expanding the methodology to apply to the entire group. I just want to automate all of this so I can have time to change some diapers in Februray! Yahoo!

Steve,
Way to go!!!
I have been asking for a player ranking system long before the player rating system was even developed.
I know for a fact that rankings will increase competion over ratings!!
There is a way to rank players against each other on a weekly basis without having them play each other.
I was working on some formulas where a "strength of field" multiplier is used as a barometer and adjusted by your score above or below the average or mean for the round or event. Would you consider this type of data as opposed to only ranking players for rounds against common opponents?

I am heading to your ranking link right now!!

My initial reaction is that you have several palyers ranked fairly high that do not seem to have enough rounds.
One guy ranked in the top 10 played almost all of his events within 2 hours of his house.

At least 100 or more head to heads would seem more fair, seeing as though the actual top touring players are way above 200!

This is a great way to start a ranking but the minnimum amount of rounds should be within a certain percenatge of the amount possible!

I agree wholeheartedly (if that is really a word). One of our goals in getting this data out there is to here some thoughts on how may events a player should have to play in the be eligible.

Assuming 17 big events (11 NTs, 4 PDGA Majors, 2 big non-PDGA events), how many should a player need to play to qualify to be in the rankings?

How many additional tournaments should they have to play?

I've got thoughts. I want to hear more thoughts.

Steve,
If you are going with 17 events , why not use 10 of the Nt's and majors and 10 additional events A or B-tier.
If your not playing in 20 events a year you shouldnt even be considered for the ranking in the top 50.

I hope you consider ranking down to 200 or so players maybe reducing the criteria, it could create quiet a bit more play from the players with less than 20 events in the 51- 200 and above range!!!

Would you rather not do this through the PDGA and solicit your efforts for a possible grant to produce the results and maintain them monthly?

I completley disagree with using a European championship that does not allow Americans to play in it, as one of the events. How could you justify using an event that is exclusive by what country your from?
Descrimination isnt even a good enough word for this :(
What if we hosted a major event in the US( like the USDGC) and did not allow Europeans to compete?
Well for one, it would not be right and 2nd all hell would break loose.

I know that Shawn Sinclair went to England and Sweden and won both of their Major championships. Since that trip they do not allow Americans to compete in those 2 events.
Doesnt seem to good for US - European realtions to me!

In my opinion, the European Champioships has the quality of an A Tier. The fact that they don't let US folks compete will only make the event worse (less competition) and will make them count less in this ranking system (less quality competition). However, I feel that they meet the criteria of being an A-Tier or above quality event, so I include them.

The question I would have is how can the PDGA sanction the event as an A-Tier last year when:
1. It was restrictive (not all PDGA members could play in it) and
2. It does not meet the A-Tier criteria: not all players were PDGA members.

So after making this mistake, what does the PDGA do this year? They reward the European Championships and make it a Major. This makes the whole concept of a Major event a joke.

I understand events like Mid-Nationals being a Major, because it is the biggest event for players of a certain caliber. But for an event to be an Open Major, such as the ECs are purported to be, and then not allow the top players to compete? That is ridiculous.

Imagine if one of the PGA Majors didn't allow Tiger Woods to compete? Because of his country of origin! I suspect that event would not be a PGA Sanctioned Major the next year.

But as far as inclusion in the ranking system, I think it is valid to include it because it is a high quality event. It is just not as good as it could be, and it is a shame that the Europeans don't understand that having Shawn Sinclair go over their and whoop up on them will only make the Europeans that much better.

Perhaps we will revisit this issue in the tweaked ranking system that should be out in early Spring. It does kind of put a bad taste in your mouth to include a restrictive event in an Open ranking system.

If I understand correctly, the European Open held on years between the EC events (like this year), is actually open to non-Europeans. So, it's just every other year that has the restriction.

10 big events and 10 other events (presumably B-Tier quality and above) seems excessive. Touring ball golfers play about 25 to 35 events a year, on average.

When disc golfers are truly earning a living playing disc golf professionally, I like the idea of setting a minimum number events (at 25 or so). Until then, we should setup a system that reflects how close we are to that goal.

Over 90% of the top 25 ball golfers compete in the big PGA events.

In disc golf, this number is currently 33%. Making a scale, perhaps we can increase the minimum number of events as the number of top pros going to these events increases.

So a quick, unthought out table might be:

% of top 25 disc golfers attending big events / minimum # to qualify for rankings

90% --> 25 events
75% --> 20 events
67% --> 18 events
60% --> 16 events
52% --> 14 events
45% --> 12 events
37% --> 10 events
30% --> 8 events
22% --> 6 events
15% --> 4 events
7% --> 2 events
0% ---> 0 events

We are currently at 33%, which puts the minimum number of events at 8. At the end of each year, we can determine the percentage of top pros attending big events, and adjust the min. # of events accordingly.

Assuming we go with a minimum of 8 events, should we also set a minimum number of big events?

If I understand correctly, the European Open held on years between the EC events (like this year), is actually open to non-Europeans. So, it's just every other year that has the restriction.



So I guess it will just be a PDGA Major every other year? :D

I have just finished the calculations for the Pro Women Player of the Year. Congratulations to Juliana Korver for earning our inaugural honors. Complete Top 10 results can be found here:

http://www.marshallstreetdiscgolf.com/2005DG_Ranking.html

What is MWP, did Barry really win 4 events EACH weekend, and how can there be such a thing as a "half win" when that is strictly verbotten?!?

What is MWP, did Barry really win 4 events EACH weekend, and how can there be such a thing as a "half win" when that is strictly verbotten?!?


Less BOLD & CAPS and more research, my friend. See the very 1st post of this thread! /msgboard/images/graemlins/ooo.gif

I see responded to what was the top of my second page [thinking it was the start]; my bad. Rankings, not even using the Ratings. Nice!

....but even head-to-head, how do the 'half' wins come about?

Italics are hard to discern, ergo boldness.

I see responded to what was the top of my second page [thinking it was the start]; my bad.



Set your total parent posts to show per page and total posts to show on one page when viewing a post in flat mode to 99 (instead of the default, 10) and you won't have that problem. :cool:

how do the 'half' wins come about?



Half wins would be from ties. If two players tie for fifth, they both get a half win over each other.

What is MWP



What is MWP: In simple terms, it measures the quality of players that you compete against, and adjusts your winning percentage accordingly. For example, if Steve Brinster (#18) defeats Dave Feldberg (#10), his MWP gets a bigger bump than if he had beaten Mitch Sonderfan (#42). Similarly, if Steve Brinster loses to Dave Feldberg, his MWP will go down less than if he had lost to Mitch Sonderfan. How is MWP calculated? (http://www.marshallstreetdiscgolf.com/MWP.html)

I found this fine print on the rankings page to be amusing:

We apologize to Micah Dorius and Carlo Pelg who were mistakenly left out of the top 50 in the above chart. After a review of the data (which was mostly entered by hand) it became apparent that Micah and Carlo were clearly missing. This was caused by a human oversight and we apologize. It would take approximately two weeks to redo the calcuations and we decided our time would be better spent apologizing.

I find it amusing on the third and fourth read too. :D

O.k., if the gateway guy does not like your rankings maybe he needs to come up with a system. Then we can do this like professional boxing or wrestling and have the multiple disputed ranking and ratings World Champions meet to duke it out and crown the undisputed world champion. Only no dukes. Just frisbees.

Only no dukes. Just frisbees.



So Gary isn't invited, but Morgan is?

Actually, Chuck Kennedy told me that the PDGA is coming out with their own ranking system. This will complement the current rating system, as our system also does.

The duking should be done between the champions of the ranking systems and the rating champion is a separate category. Unless you want to duke it out about who should duke it out.

And regarding the apology to Micah and Carlo, yes, bald faced honesty is always a good policy. Even when it sounds funny. :o

"The Modified Winning Percentage is an iterative computer algorithm which requires multiple iterations to determine any single result..."


Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh..... :confused: :D

I...ah, didn't do my homework that day! But thanks for the responces. As for the default>>>99, that might slow things a bit [loading], might be a reason for NOT doing so?