The normal procedure is to combine all am and pro scores at Worlds on the same course so everyone will eventually get the same official rating Sep 1 for the same score on the same course. The only question that might be discussed is whether the conditions on Tuesday at any course means it should be rated separately from the other days. But that will be checked mathematically in addition to TD perception.

Tuesday wasn't the only day that played differently! Conditions were just as tough on some of the courses due to slick teepads which took players like Coda out of the game.

Combining the scores from separate rounds when there are this many props seems unnecessary as you have 72 in each pool.

We always calculate the rounds separately. If they are within 1.5 SSA, then they get combined. If more than 1.5, they are rated separately if there are enough props. Not everyone at Worlds is a prop BTW.

The normal procedure is to combine all am and pro scores at Worlds on the same course so everyone will eventually get the same official rating Sep 1 for the same score on the same course. The only question that might be discussed is whether the conditions on Tuesday at any course means it should be rated separately from the other days. But that will be checked mathematically in addition to TD perception.

As a TD - I can emphatically say IT WAS DIFFERENT Tuesday and needs to be rated separately! :)

I was wondering why FINALS rounds are not included in the unofficial results?

Semifinals and Finals unofficial ratings aren't calculated in the online program. No rounds less than 13 holes are calculated officially. Semifinal rounds of 18 holes such as Worlds will get official ratings when the event is processed.

Hi Chuck, not sure if you would know the answer or not but I played in this (http://www.pdga.com/tournament-results?TournID=8699#Open) tournament earlier this year. There aren't any points showing for anybody on the results page yet and I was wondering if you might know why?

Thanks.

Points are generated by the PDGA staff. Please send them a note with this event link at: tourmgr@pdga.com

My first round at worlds was played on the same course with some friends of mine at the same time, we all shot the same score, but their rating for that round is 10 points higher...just curious how that would work out. Thanks.

The unofficial ratings for the courses in the early rounds reflect what pool you were in at the end of Worlds. The unofficial software hasn't been programmed to retain the proper ratings before the shuffle. However, the official ratings process will handle those pre-shuffle round ratings properly.

Chuck can you point me in the direction of where the schedule of player ratings updates is posted?

I am wondering when the next 4 ratings are for instance?

It's in the Ratings FAQ:
http://www.pdga.com/faq#278n755

Only the months are provided in advance in this document (end of first paragraph) updated each year:
http://www.pdga.com/files/documents/RatingsGuide.pdf
Next one is officially due Sep 1 but there's a good chance it will be posted Aug 31 as we have been doing.

...

Chuck, I have a question.

What is the question that you have been asked more than any other question? (about disc golf)

Scott Rief

What is the question that you have been asked more than any other question? (about disc golf)

"What's my score?" on a hole during a round.

On here probably "When is the next ratings update?" or
"Why did someone get a different rating for the same score on the same course?"

thanks for all of your hard work and patience

Say, are you coming to the Super Class Nationals along with Greenwell and anyone else from your area? Or are you staying home to get ready for your A-tier?

staying home. Martin Young might go to the superclass.

Chuck,
Does the pdga contact TD's about tournament results not being submitted in a timely manner? If a tournament happened a couple of months ago, and the scores were not submitted for the last update, does the pdga contact them about getting the results in for the current update?
Thanks

Yes, to the best of my knowledge there's a regular procedure at the PDGA office to contact and follow up to get tournament reports once the 30-day deadline after the event is passed. However, local players in the event contacting their TD to get the report submitted can sometimes be more effective.

Just wondering if the points bonanza were entered in time for this update. Thanks for all you do Chuck.

I'm usually the last to find out in the processing sequence. All reports go to PDGA HQ, so contacting the tourmgr@pdga.com is the place to check on report status. All four Bonanza reports online are shown as Unofficial. So unless the reports have gotten to the PDGA office by today, they won't make this ratings update.

I'd like to propose that we day off this Saturday day 234 . with 131 days to go to 2010..our daily, weekly, monthly, yearly messages and there are so many important messages... and with so many members nowadays and more coming soon!

Here's a notion... no e-mail /internet messages and perhaps make an appointment or meet a new DG'er and play some discgolf and somewhere before, during and /or after the round(s) and see if Tim� , is also communicating with the 'frisbetarians' and others of that persuasion and just actually which DISC landed and what roof will be visited next.

+ one more as I wil not be using the computer on Saturday...suggestion... Round off all the DISCussions and take Friday evening off, too and write a letter and the next day, early, visit the post office on the way to the course (and don't forget to put your return address on the back of the envelope) and let us know there's a thread for '22 august 2009' or 'the 4th Saturday in August' or even a 'family day/weekend'

I hope the kids at Maple School's and its 'Edraa University' Flying Disc Team in Fontana recall Tim� and John Giza's generosity and sharing the many flying disc(s) with us,.. I can still recall.

mvg
Mike
#3129

Yo Chuck...When I try and access any page that is linked to my website I see this....


Fatal error: Call to a member function on a non-object in /home/content/t/e/a/teamjustice1/html/zencart/includes/classes/db/mysql/query_factory.php on line 105


any ideas

I'm not a web programmer so not sure how to help.

Chuck-

Heard you caught a round at Highland Park in Joliet, IL the other day. What did you think of the course? Also, any chance the ratings might be out a few days early?

Thanks and good luck this weekend in IN!

The earliest they might be posted is Monday the day before the planned update. There's a decent chance that might happen this time.

Highland was fun playing it with Super Class choosing the best SC tee on each hole. It's in pretty good shape for a new course still being tweaked. I have just a few issues with some things but otherwise very good.

any word on the update?

how was the supa-class?

Early tomorrow.

found it

Will the 2008 WC's be dropped out if an event from 8/15-8/16 09' is added in this update? Worlds ended on 8/16 08' and I just wanted to know if any or all of the rounds will be dropped.

Have 2 events that didn't get the stuff turned in so without that event dropping I don't see too much happening.

Early tomorrow.

ugh I hate when things are "on time" :D

Will the 2008 WC's be dropped out if an event from 8/15-8/16 09' is added in this update? Worlds ended on 8/16 08' and I just wanted to know if any or all of the rounds will be dropped.
Only if that event snuck into this update after Aug 16 like the Vibram Open did.

do you think that the USDGC will "sneak" in before the OCT 20 update?

on a side note, i really feel like the ratings system is a great way of judging a players current level. me and a few locals play games sometimes where strokes are given using out ratings, based on 10 points a stroke, and it comes down to the last hole more times than not.

one of the only "flaws" i see in the current system is...

What if several players have the round of their lives at the same time. Wouldn't this crush everybody else's ratings a bit for that round. An extreme example of this would be: what if everyone in the tournament played very very well. Would nobody get the extra ratings reward? I realize this has probably never happened. Is this where a course's SSA would come into play?

Just some curious ramblings, i love statistics so thanks chuck, you're the man.

thanks for the update chuck, keep up the good work!

The USDGC will make it into the next update in October.

The Ratings System is based on the science of statistics where more numbers produce more reliable values. The most likely time an SSA value could get skewed up or down from the "real" value is when we have as few as five propagators that all play worse or better than their "normal" performances in that round. Unless you have previous SSA data on that exact course layout under similar weather, you wouldn't even know whether it had happened because there would be no reference to compare against.

Mathematically, the typical 900 rated player will shoot more than 6 throws better or worse than their rating about 1 in 40 rounds. For five propagators to do this in the same round, the probability would be around once in 100 million rounds, similar to winning the lottery. Even if that happened, a 6 throw error in SSA would only amount to a little over 10% SSA error. The average round probably has around 30 props. So you can see the odds for even a 3 throw error is quite small, with at least a 6 shot error being something like once in 40 multiplied by itself 30 times rounds.

do you think that the USDGC will "sneak" in before the OCT 20 update?

on a side note, i really feel like the ratings system is a great way of judging a players current level. me and a few locals play games sometimes where strokes are given using out ratings, based on 10 points a stroke, and it comes down to the last hole more times than not.

one of the only "flaws" i see in the current system is...

What if several players have the round of their lives at the same time. Wouldn't this crush everybody else's ratings a bit for that round. An extreme example of this would be: what if everyone in the tournament played very very well. Would nobody get the extra ratings reward? I realize this has probably never happened. Is this where a course's SSA would come into play?

Just some curious ramblings, i love statistics so thanks chuck, you're the man.Usually when several players have the round of their lives, several other players have the round they wish they could forget, so it all averages out.

But if for some reason everyone were to play 40 points over their rating relative to normal SSAs for the course, everyone would get credit for having merely played to their ratings. The same is true when everyone plays below their rating. Since these anomolies are statistically equal, they average out too.

So the ratings system assumes that with a large enough field good days and bad days will average out. Usually they do.

was there a particular reason why the Daytona Open from early July wasn't included in this update?
Thanks.

awesome answers. thats why i love stats.
thanks

Chuck, how angry do you think that Doss will be when he finds out he is not the current highest rated player in the world?

http://www.pdga.com/player-stats?PDGANum=40214

Chuck you might wanna check out this tournament:

http://www.pdga.com/tournament-results?TournID=8752&year=2009&include_ratings=1#Intermediate

something seems fishy. An intermediate guy apparently shot a 1040 round while the open players barely scraped 900 rated rounds. Fortunately, for the intermiediate guy, he's now the highest rated AM player ever.

was there a particular reason why the Daytona Open from early July wasn't included in this update? Thanks.
I can't answer questions on events that weren't included, only those included. The PDGA office can answer your question: tourmgr@pdga.com

Chuck, how angry do you think that Doss will be when he finds out he is not the current highest rated player in the world?
http://www.pdga.com/player-stats?PDGANum=40214 (http://www.pdga.com/player-stats?PDGANum=40214)

That's why we have PDGA World Rankings where players need at least 12 rated rounds in the last 12 months to get in. Sometimes it will happen like this for regular ratings where a person has a single hot round. We post what ratings players have even if it's just one round (member benefit). If I were him, I'd take a screen snapshot to save it for posterity. ;)

http://www.pdga.com/tournament-results?TournID=8589&year=2009&include_ratings=1#Advanced

Hey Chuck -- It appears that the Am2 and Am3 players were reported as playing the same layout as the advanced divisions (Short tees to long baskets) based on the ratings... they actually played a shoter layout (Short tees to Short baskets)

Thanks!

Chuck you might wanna check out this tournament:
http://www.pdga.com/tournament-resul...1#Intermediate (http://www.pdga.com/tournament-resul...1#Intermediate)
Already forwarded to Gentry and Roger for corrections.

thanks for the e-mail address.

I can't answer questions on events that weren't included, only those included. The PDGA office can answer your question: tourmgr@pdga.com

It appears this Intermediate player legitimately shot the 44 rated at 1041 which slightly helped depress the pro ratings for that round. I think we all hope to have that awesome round that's close to perfect.

OK, it's slightly believable that this guy signed up for his first tournament ever and shot a 1041 rated round, it's less believable that he shot 18 strokes less than the highest rated player in the tournament using the same layout with 27 holes. This really happened?

I don't think I'd believe it if you showed me a video. :)

How does a non-gator affect the ratings?

Why would he depress the pro ratings if he is not a propagator?

Actually he was not a propagator. But some of the other am props shot well in comparison to the pros and that affected the pro ratings. Non-gators have no impact on the ratings.

I don't think I'd believe it if you showed me a video.
Cubby can show you lots of his aces online...

Statistically, what is the probability of three pros, rated 966, 936, and 967 finishing 2nd, 3rd, and 5th respectively in intermediate (had they been able to play that division) where the highest rated player on that day was 904?

I'm just trying to grasp how our #1 rated player in the world is an AM2 guy who played a 9 hole course (twice through).

im still listed on the Oklahoma Am Men list, and i took some cashhhh. you can change my status if thats possible

http://www.pdga.com/player-ratings-search?offset=0&division=M1O&order=rating&state=OK

accepted the cash at 10,000 challenge

That is the case with 7-10 rookies from Michigan as well.

I really like the rating system the PDGA uses and I think it works very well. I do have two questions on how the formula is calculated. If the last 25% rounds are double weighted and I have 22 rounds, then 5.5 rounds would be double weighted? (22 rounds * 25% = 5.5 rounds). Would I still include the 6th round but only count .5 of it, and then for the total rounds used would be 27.5 rounds (22 rounds + 5.5 double weighted). Just want to make sure my math is correct. I did use this method and got the correct rating calculated.

Hi Chuck--Did the am ratings update happen as well? My rating did not get updated yesterday. played 2 tourneys since last update. are the am updates just running behind?
thanks

Statistically, what is the probability of three pros, rated 966, 936, and 967 finishing 2nd, 3rd, and 5th respectively in intermediate (had they been able to play that division) where the highest rated player on that day was 904?
Not out of the question for 27 holes. I see Intermediates beat pros all the time at leagues. This was a new course that hadn't been played before in PDGA so I'm not sure how well the pros knew the layout. If it was really wooded, it could have had a lot of lumber hit.

im still listed on the Oklahoma Am Men list, and i took some cashhhh. you can change my status if thats possible http://www.pdga.com/player-ratings-s...ating&state=OK (http://www.pdga.com/player-ratings-s...ating&state=OK) accepted the cash at 10,000 challenge
It's possible to be listed on both the Am and Pro Points and Money lists if you play in both during the year. Your points earned in pro are tracked separately from those earned in Am divisions. However, at the end of the year, your official status as an Am or Pro will determine which list will count for Worlds invites and toruing pin awards. I've got points in both for example since I've entered Advanced, Adv Master, Open, Master Pro and GM Pro during this year.

Hi Chuck--Did the am ratings update happen as well? My rating did not get updated yesterday. played 2 tourneys since last update. are the am updates just running behind?
Everyone's rating always gets updated every time we do ratings. But if you don't have any new events that have been officially reported, then your date doesn't change.

We're looking into a problem where it appears that anyone who played in the Steady Ed Birthday Memorial did not have their rounds included in their rating even though they show up on their Ratings Detail list.

Hi Chuck,
Curious about the first round rating of the Farragut Open...Pro Men played a different layout on two of the holes adding about 350 total extra feet to the course (and challenge) then the rest of the field....yet a 55 in open division was a 897 rated round and a 55 in all other divisions was a 933...any particular reason for this?

I've asked Roger to check into this. Doing things like special tees for only a small number of players is always risky because it reduces the number of propagators for each group and raises the chance for statistically less probable anomalies like this one.

Alot of us tried to mention this to the TD...to no avail, i believe hte whole prblem could have been resolved by simply allowing the AM1 division to play the same course thus increasing the amount of players eligiblae for ratings with the layout.
Thanks for the response...i couls understand i slight rating flux one way or the other, but 36 point difference seemed a bit of a large spread.

However, at the end of the year, your official status as an Am or Pro will determine which list will count for Worlds invites and toruing pin awards.

Chuck,

Please explain about the "Touring Pin awards."

I'm 100 points away from leading my state in points. Will I receive anything for being the points winner, if that happens?

Thanks in advance.

Not sure how it works in terms of who and how many get awards. Contact the PDGA office at: tourmgr@pdga.com

Thanks. I just did. I was curious since I heard the PDGA got rid of the pins last year.

Hey Chuck,

My wife has been playing open all year. We are playing a tournament this weekend where there is no Open Female division what so ever. So, under the Pros playing Am format she has decided to play Advanced Male. From what I've read it doesn't state whether or not she can accept prizes if she places. My question is, If she does place, can she accept prizes even though shes considered a pro?

Thanks Chuck!!!

Yes. Pros qualified by rating to enter an Am division qualify for the same merch prizes that Ams can win if they "cash." Wish her luck for me.

She could also play in the amateur division indicated by her rating, if it is being offered.

Chuck,

I'm wondering how I can calculate whether or not a recent rated round will count towards my rating. The round was rated slightly less than 100 pts below my rating, but I'm looking for a formula to try and calculate the 2.5xSD thing.

I'm just looking for a formula and I'll do the work, but for specific info-

Here's my ratings detail:

http://www.pdga.com/player-ratings-detail?PDGANum=24185&sort_style=Rating&sort_ascending=0&show_excluded=1

and the round was unofficially rated 892. Let's assume that's the official rating as well.

Thanks!

Put all of your ratings in a column of an Excel spreadsheet and activate the Standard Deviation function on it. That will give you the SD. Multiply that value by 2.5 which should get you reasonably close.

Sweet, 2.5SD=80.9, so is it correct that all rounds over 81 points below my rating will be dropped?

Thanks again.

Oh, speaking of ratings, do you think you can do something manually with the USWDGC amateur pool so that the amateur women get ratings? Maybe include 700+ Intermediate women as gatorettes or something? I noticed that they did not have enough gatorettes for unofficial ratings but did not take the time to check every one to see if there were enogh for official ratings.

John Resch already posted that we're on top of doing official ratings by Oct 20th for all who attended USWDGC.

Sweet, 2.5SD=80.9, so is it correct that all rounds over 81 points below my rating will be dropped? That's assuming the unofficial round ratings included in your rating for the next update stay the same once official and rounds don't drop off of your calculation changing your SD.

Hi Chuck,

Im running a Super Class event in a few weeks and am curious how the ratings work for this? How would I figure the rating for what would make a 1000 rated round at Camden 2? Thanks, and sorry because Im sure its posted elsewhere.

Hi Chuck,

I was wondering if you could take a look at a tournament's ratings for me.

http://www.pdga.com/tournament-results?TournID=9303&year=2009&include_ratings=1#Open

The tournament took place on a relatively simple 18 holes at about 4400 feet. The ratings seem off to me as -13 was needed for a 1000 rated round. I know of a course (Knollwood Park) in Kalamazoo from my memory was a 42 SSA. This course we played is not easier than Knollwood. Do you foresee these ratings changing when they get processed for the 10/20 ratings release?

I understand that a course like this likely messes with the system a bit, but needing -14 to surpass the SSA threshold is mean;)

Im running a Super Class event in a few weeks and am curious how the ratings work for this? How would I figure the rating for what would make a 1000 rated round at Camden 2? Thanks, and sorry because Im sure its posted elsewhere.
We don't yet know how to estimate the SC course rating ahead of time. Although it looks like the SCA is about 5 throws higher than the SSA if it's a course suitable for Super Class. We calculate the course SCA (Super Class Average) the same way as the SSA using the scores and regular PDGA ratings of the propagators who enter. Pete Hazen (MN) and I are the only SC propagators in the world so far with at least 8 rated SC rounds.

I was wondering if you could take a look at a tournament's ratings for me.
http://www.pdga.com/tournament-resul...ratings=1#Open (http://www.pdga.com/tournament-resul...ratings=1#Open)
The tournament took place on a relatively simple 18 holes at about 4400 feet. The ratings seem off to me as -13 was needed for a 1000 rated round. I know of a course (Knollwood Park) in Kalamazoo from my memory was a 42 SSA. This course we played is not easier than Knollwood. Do you foresee these ratings changing when they get processed for the 10/20 ratings release?
Looks like the results have gone official so I can't see ratings until we process them. A course with a 41.4 SSA is officially the lowest we can consider for viable ratings. Even then, each throw is worth more than any other course which means an OB, cut thru or spit hurts more. Regardless, we've determined that players can still average their rating on these courses, but they might not have as high or as low deviations from their rating as on courses in the 50 range.

Pete Hazen (MN) and I are the only SC propagators in the world so far with at least 8 rated SC rounds.

I wonder what percentage of members think that SC is a good idea.

I wonder what percentage of members think that SC is a good idea.

If they are smart members, alot, if not all of them. Ive been on board since it was announced, and Im planning on turning the QCs into a Super Class destination. Its taken a little longer than planned, but Ive already hooked about 20-30 golfers on it and am running an event in 2 weeks. Im planning on running several more tourneys for this next year, as it really doesnt conflict with other events. Our turnouts will be smaller for awhile, but I feel it wont be for long.

If you havent tried it out, its really your loss. It makes easier-to-play courses more difficult, and more people can compete on a level field. It is the answer to the past 3-5 years of disc tech advancement which is making alot of courses obsoulete.

It will also make you a better small disc player, as it forces you to play smart and focus. Dont knock it till you try it, and dont be suprised if you feel like I do after.

Dont knock it till you try it, and dont be suprised if you feel like I do after.

You're right, I haven't tried it, and I may like it. I also haven't tried playing tackle football with a leather helmet. :p

Yeah, c'mon. What fun is "aerodynamic" when you have "ballistic"?

Chuck, do you have access to the PDGA results database? I'd like to see a data pull of the ratings for all competitors for the year in Open, Pro Master, Pro Grand, and Advanced. My only option is a butt-load of copy-n-pastes from the website, like 4 times the number of events, and that ain't gonna happen.

I'm not looking for names, just something like
MPO
1023
1022
985
.
.
.
978

MPM
1020
990
993
985
.
.
.


Is it possible for a regular ole member in good standing to get that info? TIA.

I don't have access to the database. Gentry is the only one who could pull that for you at: dgentry@pdga.com

I am a 959 rated player. #38608 This is my first year as a PDGA member. When I play out of town at courses I've never played I play in the advanced division. Locally I play open.

Question: I took cash at a local event as a pro player in a PDGA event. A few friends and I are looking at going out of town to Flying Eye Open - Am "A" tier Athens, GA. I've never played in Athens and would like to make the trip.

I've been told 2 different things.

1. I can never play in a Amature divison again since I took cash.
2. As long as my rating is under a 970 I can play as a AM.

Its not a really big deal to me. I enjoy playing open, but before I drop $50+ to sign-up for it I need to know if I am aloud to. I'm no bagger, just want to have a disc golf weekend with some friends.

-Chris

You cannot play in an Amateur Major like Worlds or Am Nats. However, you may enter Advanced in any other sanctioned event if your rating is lower than 970. So, go ahead and enter Am in the Flying Eye if you want. It's a great course and should be fun.

Hey Chuck, is there any reason we can't use the last 28-32 rounds, no matter how old, for our player rating? I think 10-14 rounds are to small of a sample to really show what a players capabilities are( that's only 3 tourneys). Take my rating for example. The last tourney I played I was injured but finished the event, a National tour, which is double weighted. It was miserable but I've never not finished a tourney. It had a major impact on my rating, pushing out some other great 1000+ round ratings off my history of used rounds, and really knocked down my rating. I had that happen in 07 as well where I'd worked up to 985 and then a bad tourney pushed out some good rated rounds and it dropped 15 points. Then I worked up to 978 and the Masters Cup knocked it down 26 points! Even if you add up my last 10 rounds(one isn't used), I show my rating should be 958, not 952. I know it's just ratings but...
Besides a lot more work, which computers should be doing, what's the argument against using more rounds for ratings? People's golf games go thru ebb and flows and the last three tourneys aren't a whole picture of a players game.
Thanks for your time in advance :)

The disc golf season is essentially a 12 month cycle as it is in most sports. Player stats in most sports are tracked for each season and also long term. In fact, few sports go back into the prior season to get 12 months of data like we do with current ratings. There's always going to be a balance between how recent data should be to be included in stats versus how many data points at minimum need to be included for reasonable accuracy. That's why we do go back up to 24 months if a player has fewer than 8 rated rounds in their most recent year.

Using your most recent year of activity has a closer connection to your current performance than a longer time period. Remember that the practical reason for PDGA ratings is to reduce sandbagging primarily for amateurs and get players playing in the proper division. It's important to keep ratings based on more current info so fast improving players "graduate" quickly and those trapped in a higher division might be able to regroup in a lower division. That's why doubling the most recent rounds was added a few years ago.

Since round ratings are available for all members, they are free to calculate what they feel is a rating closer to their performance using any other formula they wish in the way you are suggesting better reflects your own performance.

I feel your pain, look what happened to Juliana, 960 to 916 due to 1 or 2 poor events. Is that accurate, no but say someone took 2 years off for some reason, would it be fair to include their old ratings if their game had truly declined. The current rating system does give a better "right now" rating, and I think makes us create more fluctuations which keeps it interesting.

I disagree, Jmonny - the current ratings systemis not a great "right now" system. It distinctly lags behind. My own rating is a great example: I am not a 984 rated player right now. Due to serious consistency issues I'm probably, since the start of July, maybe a 970 rated player. Although I can (and do) still play above the 984 level, I also am frequently playing below it (evidenced by say... the Brent Hambrick which is in my profile - 880 and 1025 or so or the HollyWoods Open this past weekend with a 1024 and a 905 or so).

The system has a serious lag issue that is really going to be difficult to solve. I'm sure Chuck would agree. It isn't a terrible thing (I enjoy being rated above my game right now ha), and it isn't an issue that kills the system but it is something that could use some tweaking somewhere. However, the reality is that it will probably require more than tweaking to solve: in order to eliminate lag you need up to the week statistics, and with the way tournaments are reported and the amount of work that would need to be done constantly the PDGA couldn't possibly pull it off.

But, I digress. The rating system is great, about as good as we can do right now: but it definitely isn't a great "right now" system.

Any way of knowing why the Advanced scores don't appear anymore from this tournament. The Advanced players played during the Pro flight but don't show up on the official Pro results or Unofficial Am results.
http://www.pdga.com/tournament-results?TournID=9496
http://www.pdga.com/tournament-results?TournID=9076

Contact tourmgr@pdga.com regarding the Advanced scores not showing up.

At a recent tourney, MA3/MA4 played the white course first round and MA2 played the white course the second round, the SSA from the unofficial results are 42.65 and 41.18 respectively. Two questions: a) Will these be combined, and b) can they be used even with the SSA being so low?

41.4 is the minimum SSA that we've judged acceptable over the years. We would normally average those two rounds together anyway to do the ratings which would bring the SSA above the minimum.

I'm sure this has been discussed sometime in the past, but I haven't been around long enough to hear the arguments.

Why do we not implement a sliding scale of sorts to the ratings, to help prevent the lag mentioned by Chris. This would be especially useful for touring players and those who play a LOT of rounds in a 12 month period. Fast improving players who play a lot of tournaments in a 12 month span, will have low rated rounds as part of their rating, that were played a long time ago (in comparison to their current skill level). Their rating does not reflect their true skill level because of these rounds that are over 6 months old, but less than 12 months old.

Take myself as a prime example. My current rating is based off 62 rounds. However, my most recent 33 rounds are considerably better than the other 29 rounds. My rating can not catch up to my current skill level until I push those 29 lower rounds off my rating. If I continue improving like I want to, then by the time that happens, it will be time for 33 rounds to be pushed off because they would then be bringing my new and improved rating down. Hence the lag, which is even more noticeable to these fast improving young guns that are appearing.

A sliding scale limited to 30-40 rounds of data would be sufficient to get accurate ratings and keep up with a player's current skill level. If a player has not played enough rounds, then nothing changes and continue using data from the 12 month span.

Do ratings really matter? Do I think the PDGA should spend money on them? NO. It's just a number. Your either good or your not.

It's a reasonable request to consider. The main reason for the 12-month period for ratings is that most sports have a 12-month cycle for their stats, especially golf which even goes two years for their world rankings. Most stats experts would prefer at least 100 data points for accuracy. There are fewer than 10 players with over 100 rounds in a year. Now, if we only were to use your most recent 40 rounds (or 12 months whichever is smaller), then there are around 600 players with that many in a year. However, that's still less than 5% of the membership.

I'll mention it to the others on the ratings team. From a practical standpoint, it doesn't really matter too much if ratings for some touring players have a little lag in them since ratings are not used to determine divisions at that level. By yearend, you would want the full calendar year included in the ratings so that might be confusing to sometimes include less than a year and at yearend the whole year.

ratings DO matter for players trying to get sponsored - 10-20 ratings points can prove valuable if your improving quickly

While we understand that manufacturers use ratings as one criteria for sponsorship, their requirements are not under the control of the PDGA nor should they be. If anything, keeping the ratings process stable as it has been, and not changing it unless needed, becomes more important because they are used by others for purposes beyond their intent for PDGA division assignments.

ratings DO matter for players trying to get sponsored - 10-20 ratings points can prove valuable if your improving quicklyHave you considered that if the PDGA made the ratings system hotter, based on more current rounds, that it would be of less use to those who make decisions about who to sponsor?

If a sponsor is going to think about sponsoring someone when they reach 1000, reaching 1000 currently means they've been consistently playing at that level for a couple of years. That might mean more to a sponsor than someone reaching 1000 because they had a couple of hot tournaments.

I know that some of the sponsors are looking for that consistency in the players they sponsor. They may use the current ratings as a tool because the current formula reflects what they are looking for.

your both make good points, but my comment was mostly to the guy person who asked if ratings really matter and the answer is yes

Chuck,
Do you know what year the PDGA began the Hall of Fame, and is there a location that all the HOF discs can be seen?

Thx

The first group of players were inducted into the Hall of Fame in 1993. Here's the HOF website: http://www.discgolfhalloffame.org/dghof-members.html

The website doesn't have photos yet and I'm not sure there are photos online anywhere. Contact Speedy at: speedyinga at aol.com He would have the original artwork and might be able to supply PDF files of the disc artwork and also indicate where you could buy the discs. I'm pretty sure he has stock from recent years available.

Hey Chuck!

Is there a place to view the current Am points results? I've looked around to no avail.

Thanks!

Erick

The Statistics option under the PDGA Tour menu

http://www.pdga.com/tour-stats

Scroll to the bottom that page and make your selections

Chuck,

The link in your announcement post doesn't link to what I think you want it to link to.

Keith

Chuck - Quick question here. I played around 11 rounds last year and 3 this year that will be included in the next ratings update. Will you just add the three to my last years rounds or will all of last years round drop off, leaving only the 3 that I have played last month?

Thanks Pat

http://www.pdga.com/faq/ratings/how-is-your-rating-calculated

Chuck,

On the PDGA posted tournament (schedule)/results why are players' personal ratings not locked to the value they were at the time the event was held?

It's confusing and misleading to go back to my first tournament as a PDGA member when I was playing 820 golf in MA3 and see my current 930 rating next to my name.

http://www.pdga.com/tournament-results?TournID=7530&include_ratings=1#Recreational
(http://www.pdga.com/tournament-results?TournID=7530&include_ratings=1#Recreational)

This annoyance has been noted for years....

Just hasn't gotten to the top of the tech priorities yet to fix.

Chuck,

On the PDGA posted tournament (schedule)/results why are players' personal ratings not locked to the value they were at the time the event was held?

It's confusing and misleading to go back to my first tournament as a PDGA member when I was playing 820 golf in MA3 and see my current 930 rating next to my name.

http://www.pdga.com/tournament-results?TournID=7530&include_ratings=1#Recreational
(http://www.pdga.com/tournament-results?TournID=7530&include_ratings=1#Recreational)

i have wondered the same thing. old results are locked why are the old rating at the time of the yourny not locked?

The rating shown is a lookup to your current database entry. Because the designers are following a principle of not storing duplicate data, they have elected to not store the players rating at the time of the event with the event. Of course, they also overlook the fact that the players name is stored with the event thus they have already violated that principle.

How do you calculate the AHP for an individual their Per Hole Index and AHS?

Sorry if this is covered in an earlier post or thread.

Those details are not being made available.

The first group of players were inducted into the Hall of Fame in 1993. Here's the HOF website: http://www.discgolfhalloffame.org/dghof-members.html

The website doesn't have photos yet and I'm not sure there are photos online anywhere. Contact Speedy at: speedyinga at aol.com He would have the original artwork and might be able to supply PDF files of the disc artwork and also indicate where you could buy the discs. I'm pretty sure he has stock from recent years available.

Chuck,
Thx for the lead, only 5 more to complete a set. I found pix of most of them at disc golf traders http://onedrive.org/kc/kc_set.htm

Due to your request and a few others, Speedy our HOF administrator is looking into getting the photos posted online when he can get to it.

Chuck,

I was just looking at my rating history. I have played one sanctioned event this year which was in september. both rounds were above my rating. with the most recent updates (Oct 20th), my rating did not change. Is it wrong to be under the assumption that if I shoot above my rating than my rating would increase?

You would think it might go up but remember that when new rounds are added, some old rounds are usually dropped. I looked at what was dropped and it was four rounds from Sep 2007 that all had ratings higher than your current and previous rating. So your new slightly higher rated rounds essentially replaced the four that were dropped and you ended up the same.

Hey, Jen! I just noticed that you and Kiralyn are now tied!

Chuck,

On the PDGA posted tournament (schedule)/results why are players' personal ratings not locked to the value they were at the time the event was held?

It's confusing and misleading to go back to my first tournament as a PDGA member when I was playing 820 golf in MA3 and see my current 930 rating next to my name.

http://www.pdga.com/tournament-results?TournID=7530&include_ratings=1#Recreational
(http://www.pdga.com/tournament-results?TournID=7530&include_ratings=1#Recreational)
I like it how it is. I like being able to go back to my old tournaments and look at all the people that were pro back then, see who still has a higher rating than me, who I've caught or passed...

Both would be nice, I think. There's plenty of room for another 4 digit column.

Both would be nice, I think. There's plenty of room for another 4 digit column.

yes, that will appease the stat lovers and make ratings more prominent!

having member ratings appear above or below their avatar would also promote the ratings system ;)

I've got some questions concerning ratings that I hope you can answer. We've been using the rating calculator in Switzerland for the past two seasons to try and get an approximate rating for people who don't play outside the country.

Some background facts: We have a significant number of players that, for lack of a better word, suck. We play a lot of tournaments on courses that are only 12 holes or are 14 holes. We've tried to update our local ratings after every tournament we have because we only have 8 a year that we decided to use for these ratings.

We've noticed that the ratings we're getting are consistently higher than the ratings players get from the PDGA - especially for the better players. On average, I'd say they are about 1% higher.

My theories to explain this are as follows:

1) The significant number of bad players are raising the ratings for the better players.

2) The lower number of holes is somehow influencing the ratings

3) Our courses are in the lower range of SSA and this affects the ratings somehow

4) We update the ratings too often.

Could you comment and tell me what you think could be happening? I realize that you have limited data to work with here, but any advice would be helpful.

Having lower number of holes is going to create a wider swing in high to low ratings but the overall average should be the same. In the U.S., the number of under-rated amateur players who are improving quickly can tend to depress ratings. If you are only seeing 1% difference, that alons might be enough to do it. The other thing you didn't mention is whether you disallow a player who shoots more than 60 points below their rating from being used as a propagator in the the SSA rating calculation? That will tend to boost ratings compared to not including them.

Chuck,
Is the 44X fastback approved for Super Class?

Thx

All fastback molds up to 200g are approved for Super Class.

The other thing you didn't mention is whether you disallow a player who shoots more than 60 points below their rating from being used as a propagator in the the SSA rating calculation? That will tend to boost ratings compared to not including them.

The problem with this is that the spreadsheet is password protected and some values can't be changed. My only options are to convince you to send me the password or to get one of my IT buddies to hack the program! :D

Once you see a propagator has a local rating more than 60 points less than their rating, just delete their PDGA rating from the sheet where the scores are entered. That removes them asa propagator. They will still get a local rating for the event just like any other player who didn't have a rating.

And this is why we come to you with these questions...I'll give it a try and see what I can come up with.

Thanks!

3 more quick questions:

1) The most recent 25% of rounds are double weighted. Rounded up or rounded down? For example, it's clear that with 28 rounds 7 are double weighted. But with 27 rounds (6.75), do you double 6 or 7 rounds? What about 26 rounds (6.5)? 25 rounds (6.25)?

2) If a player has 28 total rounds that would be considered for ratings purposes (giving 7 double weight), but 4 of his/her rounds aren't used (more than 2.5 standard deviations or 100 points below rating), are 7 rounds still doubled or does it drop to 6?

3) If a player completes 2 rounds of a tournament and then DNFs because he doesn't play the last round or two, are the first two rounds still used for ratings?

Thanks again!

Not allowed to answer 1 and 2. Yes to question 3.

Just was looking over the ROY stats and Brad Williams' Major rating is 999 from USDGC but shouldn't he have worlds listed where he shot at least 1030? He also shot 1033 this weekend at an A-tier to probably move up a bit but I figured I'd mention it to see if an error had been made.

Also if this means anything he is the highest finishing player at worlds with a sub 1000 rated round and with a 976 is the highest finishing by far with a round that far under 1000.

AW! You took my workaround! Dang you I used that to find ratings of non-currents for unsanctioned events. :(

If I have 12 rounds with a group of players averaging 916.6666 shooting an average round of 50.25 over 18 holes, what is the likely ratings spread? 14 points per stroke? 12? 11? Would SSA be around 42?


-Chris.

Not allowed to answer 1 and 2. Yes to question 3.

Interesting. Why aren't you allowed to answer 1 and 2?

Could you answer them privately in a PM? I'll take whatever dark oaths are necessary to ensure you that the secret stays safe.

Just was looking over the ROY stats and Brad Williams' Major rating is 999 from USDGC but shouldn't he have worlds listed where he shot at least 1030?
Worlds is a separate factor that is used to determine final standings but not whether players make the final six. USDGC is his best Major/NT/ET excluding Worlds.

AW! You took my workaround! Dang you I used that to find ratings of non-currents for unsanctioned events.
Must be just part of the website database upgrades.

If I have 12 rounds with a group of players averaging 916.6666 shooting an average round of 50.25 over 18 holes, what is the likely ratings spread? 14 points per stroke? 12? 11? Would SSA be around 42?


-Chris.
^--- not allowed to answer that?

Find a course with an SSA like you suspect and see if the round ratings match the scores in the event record it was generated from. http://www.pdga.com/course-ratings-by-course

Chuck, who would be the best person to explain the current philosophy of the PDGA as it relates to charitable giving?

As 'forced donations' become more and more prevalent at tournaments like the Magnolia Open, players are forced to choose between supporting someone else's agenda or not playing the event. As a capitalist, I support giving only in exchange for something else. For example, if the Magnolia Open donates proceeds to a children's charity, then I think that the recipients should be present, spotting on holes and helping the tournament directors. It would be a great lesson to those children to learn that work garners reward, rather than the concept of naked need earning reward, not to mention the healthy sunshine and exercise they could get.

As it stands currently, if my views do not coincide with the charitable agenda of the PDGA or a TD, then I am encouraged not to attend an event.

Why does the PDGA encourage agenda's that force people into paying for something they may not believe in, or choose to not participate? How does this encourage growth of the sport?

Why not separate the charitable agenda and the sport? Mandatory donations should be disallowed so that personal decisions do not prohibit growth of the sport.

This philosophy closely resembles Obamaeconomics in that people should not be given a choice to support or not support their fellow man. I do not believe either philosophy encourages prosperity and societal health.

I suppose you could ask Brian Graham about the philosophy although I'm not sure there is any PDGA philosophy as such, just support for events of all kinds that a TD or club chooses to host including charitable if desired.

This philosophy closely resembles Obamaeconomics in that people should not be given a choice to support or not support their fellow man. I do not believe either philosophy encourages prosperity and societal health.
Sarah,

You're given every choice to simply not attend, as you acknowledged. There are hundreds of events every year. A tiny minority are supporting a charity. I'm sorry that that doesn't jive with your personal agenda, but the sport is still growing regardless of what a tiny tiny minority does, and in fact the likelihood of the event getting positive press increases as they work with charities, helping to grow the sport.

There are also plenty of cases where if a tournament is donating to a charity, sponsorship from local businesses increases.

You can still receive press and local sponsorship by supporting a charity without MANDATORY DONATIONS. Please read my point more carefully. Why not disallow forced compassion?

As you said, without choice of donating or not donating, the only choice left is non-attendence. You cannot argue this supports growth of the sport.

Which thread would be appropriate to ask Brian Graham?

You could create one in the Other PDGA topics area maybe called Charitable Events Sanctioning? Not sure Brian would respond but he would likely read the thread.

Which thread would be appropriate to ask Brian Graham?

You could start a thread since one does not exist. Or better yet, send an email directly to Brian. Here is a link to the contact page.

http://www.pdga.com/contact?a=sf

Which thread would be appropriate to ask Brian Graham?

The best thing you can do for a tournament that you don't like is not to play it. It's better for everyone really.

Why do you hate freedom, John Lambert? Why is giving a player the freedom to choose to give or not give something that should withheld?


"A tournament that I don't like?" Way to misconstrue. I like tournaments. I don't like deprivation of personal decisions.

I also like the idea of maximum participation at events which in turn grows the sport. If the "best thing I can do is not to play" when my freedom is threatened, then how does this grow the sport?

Let's stop subverting the real issue I brought up with diversions, shall we?

I saw a bumper sticker that said, "Don't like abortion? Don't have one". How about, "Don't like tournaments that donate to causes you don't support? Don't enter it."

Playing in tournaments is a privilege, not a right. You have the "freedom", love it or hate it, to participate or not.

Why do you hate freedom, John Lambert? Why is giving a player the freedom to choose to give or not give something that should withheld?


"A tournament that I don't like?" Way to misconstrue. I like tournaments. I don't like deprivation of personal decisions.

I also like the idea of maximum participation at events which in turn grows the sport. If the "best thing I can do is not to play" when my freedom is threatened, then how does this grow the sport?

Let's stop subverting the real issue I brought up with diversions, shall we?

I'm not really in to debating about disc golf freedom, all I was trying to say is do not participate, that's the best way to not support a organizational agenda. I suppose you could argue that you're raising awareness, but I'd guess most of us could care less about such a trivial issue. Good luck with your cause! Maybe I'll feel more enlightened if you use bigger words. That usually works for me.

Chuck, do you know when the ratings correction will be made for the last update. We had a couple tournaments where the wrong course was tied to a round giving extremely inaccurate round ratings.

I'm not sure there's a correction run in-between updates this time since the deadline for events to be reported for the regular December update is already coming up in a few weeks just after Thanksgiving.

<!-- / icon and title --><!-- message -->
Chuck, do you know when the ratings correction will be made for the last update. We had a couple tournaments where the wrong course was tied to a round giving extremely inaccurate round ratings.

Sounds like there might be a correction run posted on Nov 24.

Thanks for the info.

Hey Chuck,

Any ideas when there might be another Super Class ratings update? We just finished another tourney and had some pretty good rounds turned in. We have a couplke of guys who are really hammering each other about who will be the top Super Class player in the state.

I still LOVE Super Class!!!

The SC Ratings were updated in October. The Super Class link page on the PDGA site was accidentally deleted when they were doing some changes. I need to get the page re-established with Dave from the backup files. There will be another SC ratings update each time the regular ratings are updated if there are a few new reports to process.

The Super Class page is now back up again: http://www.pdga.com/super-class

The current Super Class ratings for October are here: http://www.pdga.com/pdga-documents/super-class-ratings

Usually PDGA posts when the next ratings update is on the front page...haven't seen it yet. Do you know when that is. THANKS!

The dates for this year and in the future will be maintained in this FAQ: http://www.pdga.com/faq/ratings/when-updated

Dec 15th next full update with a small correction run at the end of this month.

This was in the October teleconference: Feldberg is talking to Chuck trying to come up with a mathematical way to change the ratings. What does Feldberg want to do with the ratings?

Dave and I talked more about the World Rankings process than ratings, especially now that the Players Cup is on hiatus for a few years. The other issue is currently the Memorial gets more weight than other NTs. We talked about ways to incorporate the NT events in a different way than specifically highlighting just the Memorial even though it's usually the biggest field and in a different time of the year than the other major events used in the rankings. I am testing some options along those lines and we'll use something a little different for NTs other than just using the Memorial for the 2010 World Rankings.

Regarding ratings, Gentry, Roger and I have been looking at ways to improve the process of producing SSAs for each round. Rather than use the scores of every propagator who plays a round, we're looking at only using the propagators that have the lowest std deviations and a rating based on more rounds IF we have enough of these "premium props" playing. We're doing some tests to figure out what those criteria might be.

When do TD reports need to be submitted to be included in the December 15th ratings update?

12/1

http://www.pdga.com/announcements/next-ratings-update-december-15-2009

Had a question. Where would I find the document that states for example...

MA1 is such and such of a rating
MA2 is ....
You know from 850-915 is one class etc...

I've searched all over this website and can't find it. Thanks!

NEVER MIND! Found it...just took me an hour. I'm slow I know!

Regarding ratings, Gentry, Roger and I have been looking at ways to improve the process of producing SSAs for each round. Rather than use the scores of every propagator who plays a round, we're looking at only using the propagators that have the lowest std deviations and a rating based on more rounds IF we have enough of these "premium props" playing. We're doing some tests to figure out what those criteria might be.

I suggested this approach about 2 years ago...glad to see the PDGA is finally looking at this.

Hey Chuck,
Is it the 25% most recently "played" rounds that get double weighted or the most recently "added" rounds? I assume the most recent played rounds do even if an older tournament is added later....thanks

The weighting goes strictly by event date. As a bonus, let's say only one of three rounds at an event is supposed to be doubled. It will be the best rated round of the three, not automatically round 3 like you might expect.

thanks chuck.....you = the man!

will the ratings be on time, early or late this time around?
Thanks.

Usual. Probably Monday morning.

Are there tourneys still listed as unofficial that are going to make it in to the update?

No. The ratings have been processed and should be posted Monday. Reports from any event remaining this year or currently posted as unofficial will hopefully be received at the PDGA office in early January so we can complete processing all reports for 2009 and post the final ratings, World Rankings, Player and Rookie of the Year standings by the end of January.

Thanks.

If a player with a rating stops playing sanctioned events for 2 years and comes back, and only plays 3 rounds on the current update would all the old rounds drop?

Yes, if all of the previous rounds were more than 24 months before the date of the most recent round.

Quick question Chuck; How come the Orlando Open ratings from the 2008 are not removed from my rating calculation now that the 2009 Open results are a part of my rating?
I thought that year old ratings, where removed from the calculation.
Thanks.

If the event dates are more than 365 days older they are dropped. But if a particular event is always on the same weekend each year and is your most recent event, then the previous year will always be included since it will be less than 366 days ago by just a day or so.

Gotcha!

Had a quick question similar to the one above and maybe I'm just missing it? In my new rating I've got a tournament calculated in that's over 365 days old. Why is that? Also, I played in a tournament back in the middle of October. I had just figured those rounds would have been entered by the TD by now? I didn't see them though on my list of tournaments. Any way we can check and see if they were in and just missed. It was the Rocket City Amatuer Open on the 17th of October. Thanks Chuck.

Check out the Ratings FAQ section for your answers. http://www.pdga.com/faq
Is your "old" event more than 365 days older than the date of your most recent event? Float your mouse over the gold cup by the Rocket City event on the Schedule and you'll see it's still Unofficial meaning it hasn't been turned in yet.

Got it on the "365" I thought that it was based on the day the rating went out. (which in this case all events before Dec 15,2008 would have been dropped. Got it. Will those "unofficial" rounds have to wait to be figured in until January or will there be a correction in between. That majorly sucks! I needed those rounds!

No correction update. New events are not included in those anyway.

XC tier- do you get ratings or points? Also, if there are only 4 in a division do you get a round rating? Thanks in advance.

You always get points in any sanctioned event even doubles and match play. You can get ratings in an X-tier at any level depending on the format. If it's Super Class you get Super Class ratings. If the X is for mulligans or stableford scoring, then no ratings. Glow format or graduated entry fees, you get ratings. Basically, if you are playing straight singles golf you get ratings.

If you have 5 propagators playing the format, you'll always get ratings. If you have less than that, we will try a few ways to get them. If say 3 players are props and you play the same course layout twice, that's like having six props so ratings will be calculated. If we can get the course length and foliage density, we can compare the manual calculation with a limited prop calc and come up with something that's fair.

Great! One more question, do the 5 propagaters have to be PDGA members with a rating?

Scores from all those with a rating that qualifies them as a propagator are used regardless whether they are current members.

Quick question. When the new ratings come out in January, I won't have played any new tournaments BUT there's a couple rounds now that weren't figured in in the last one cause they were "unofficial" Will those be averaged in now? Cause I know a RATING usually doesn't update unless you've played a round in between the last update and the new one. Also...Does the round ratings still figure back a year from the last tournament you played or once the calender year is over it's only the rounds from 2009 - Present? Thanks Chuck!

If events that hadn't been processed officially before the last update get processed this time, then your rating will be updated even if you didn't play any new rounds. The calendar year means nothing regarding your rating 12 months. It's only based on the date of your last event processed. Many players will still have some 2008 events in their rating in the January update.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Hey Chuck,

At a tournament recently a guy was telling me that we can now see ratings sorted for age based divisions. I was telling him, not true. We can only sort for pro/am and gender.

Was he right? Do you have a link? The ratings page that is easy to find only allows sorting by pro/am and gender.

I know it's on Gentry's To-Do list but he hasn't told me that it's possible yet, even on a "secret" link.

Chuck -

The ratings from the second round of the Vineland Open (http://www.pdga.com/tournament-results?TournID=9678) are too low. The weather was constant and the layout for the pros was only shortened by 40' on one drive. The ratings are so low that it must have fallen below the 2 std deviations for me and therefor is not being counted against me.

Obviously some players shot well the second round and are having their ratings adversely impacted while I get no penalty for my sub-rating play since the round is being miscalculated. I realize in the overall scheme of things this is not of any major concern -- but is it an easy fix?

-Paul Wharton

I'll have Roger take a look but there's nothing that looks unusual with the ratings for the pro pool at first glance other than the SSA for the second round is 3 shots lower for what you say was just a 40 foot shorter course.

Hi Chuck,

What happens when you're at a B-tier tournament and groups decide it's too dark to finish, so they pick up with a few holes to go? It's been raining all day by the way, and everyone is soaked, out of towels, etc. Other groups continue to play for another 40 minutes, and finish their rounds. There was still plenty of light when the groups quit. The TD allows people to finish in the morning, where the forecast is rain free, and the unfinished groups have a fresh stash of dry towels, gear, etc.
What's the rule on unfinished holes?

Greetings from the Savannah Open

Report it to Gentry at PDGA HQ. Players do not have the option to stop play. See 804.04G for a 2-throw penalty at minimum. Disqualification for subverting the rules. Considering that glow events are now being sanctioned, loss of light cannot be considered a hazardous condition unless the TD decides to stop play for everyone. I think the case can be made that being prepared for dusk/night play for a few holes may become a normal part of preparation for certain rounds just like deciding whether to carry an umbrella. The Tech Standards group has talked about what might be acceptable for updating the standards for lighting discs in glow rounds so there's some consistency in what is allowed.

Other than that, it was ran very well. Quick awards, etc, great course. Fun time.

Other than that, it was ran very well. Quick awards, etc, great course. Fun time.

"Other than that"; reminds me of:

"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?"

I'll have Roger take a look but there's nothing that looks unusual with the ratings for the pro pool at first glance other than the SSA for the second round is 3 shots lower for what you say was just a 40 foot shorter course.

This isn't worth bothering? Just asking, "no" is an acceptable response -- c'est la vie.

-Wharton

Roger took a look and it was an odd combination of factors. I think he's looking at an adjustment. The Masters played the way you would expect but the Open shot 6 throws better on average in R2 with just a slightly shorter course. These kinds of things can happen every once in a while when you only have a small group of propagators.

Chuck
I know you get asked this all the time but this thread
is too long to read through every post.

Are the round ratings for the Savannah Open
going to be included in the January update?

The results have been posted online.

Thanks

No 2010 events are processed in the 2009 yearend ratings update being posted next week. First ratings for 2010 events won't be until late March. Here are the planned ratings updates this year.

March 23rd
May 4th
June 22nd
July 20th
Aug 31st
October 19th
December 14th
January 25th, 2011 (2010 Yearend wrap-up)

Ratings:
early, late or on time?
thanks

Posted tomorrow.

thanks

congrats on getting back up past 1000, boobs.

Thanks man!

Roger took a look and it was an odd combination of factors. I think he's looking at an adjustment. The Masters played the way you would expect but the Open shot 6 throws better on average in R2 with just a slightly shorter course. These kinds of things can happen every once in a while when you only have a small group of propagators.

Thanks Chuck -- that seems much more better/fair/right now on the ratings for the Vineland Open -- take care!

-Wharton

Chuck
It would be nice if players location (city and state) stayed
up after score were posted. That way you could see what
players are local and which are out of towners.


Just another stat to look at.

All good ideas but I have no control over the website displays. We haven't been able to get things done on the displays that were suggested 5 years ago yet. Maybe this year now that the website underpinnings have been revamped. You can always click on the player to see their location but I know that's not as easy.

In my opinion stats should always
have room in the budget.

That is one of the many reasons ball
golf is so popular. STATS.

Keep fighting for the numbers Chuck.

Chuck,
I was looking at some scores from a recent tournament. I noticed a couple of people had shot the same score for both rounds, but yet they were rated differently.... can you explain this one?

If it's a tournament during 2010, those results are unofficial. Ratings are calculated separately based on the scores in each round for unofficial ratings so they will vary. When we get the tournament report and process them officially, all rounds played on the same layout will end up with the same rating for the same score. It surprises me the people expect ratings to be the same from round to round because course conditions (and thus its difficulty) are always somewhat different even if the changes are subtle and the wind is "identical." For example, the lighting (sun position, clouds) on the course is automatically different which can make some holes more or less difficult than in the morning round. Sticks and stones on the ground are in different positions, the grass has grown, dew has dried, etc.

Thanks for the reply.... I just did not know how it all worked. It would make sense for ratings to differ from round to round IF the conditions dramatically change. But, when the conditions are for the most part the same is what I was interested in. Thanks.

My point is that it's impossible for the conditions to ever be the same from round to round. How small is a small change? Ten rating points are only a 1% difference and the course differences can easily be in that range. The funny thing is that courses don't seem to play that much different in the dark based on ratings from sanctioned glow rounds. The trees must not be as intimidating when you can't see them to worry about avoiding them.

Chuck...where can i find a link to disc golf world records...and not the out of date Hoss site...thanks

I don't know if anyone else is doing them. The distance records are on the WFDF site but that's all I know besides the Hosfeld site: http://www.wfdf.org/index.php?page=records/index.htm

Thanks...that was the one i needed

I plan on playing in tournaments the last two weekends of march, and in another tournament may 1...based on these tentative ratings updates, the tournament rounds I play in march will not reflect in my rating come time for the may 1 tourney? So where I stand now is where I will stand in early may, assuming I won't be playing in any tournaments until the end of march? If that makes any sense.


No 2010 events are processed in the 2009 yearend ratings update being posted next week. First ratings for 2010 events won't be until late March. Here are the planned ratings updates this year.

March 23rd
May 4th
June 22nd
July 20th
Aug 31st
October 19th
December 14th
January 25th, 2011 (2010 Yearend wrap-up)

Yep.

Another 1100 rated round, this time by Nikko? CS Otter Open R2?

I checked it out. It looks like it will hold up within a point when ratings are done officially in March.

Hey there Chuck. I'm curious as to why there is no penalty for quiting a round because a player is shooting poorly to protect their precious rating. I was in a tourney yesterday and my cardmate who shall remain nameless announced with 5 holes to go that he wasen't going to finish the round, but was going to ace run every hole and simply not putt out on the final hole. Classless no doubt and he's done it many times in the past. Doesn't seem fair to the rest of us who grind it out and finish with honor. His health was not an issue but I'm sure if an official confronted him he would make up something.

What do you think that penalty should be? It's probably better that the player stays with the group rather than walks off as long as they aren't cussing and bringing the group down. It never hurts anyone else if a player dumps a round to "protect" their rating. It actually helps everyone because it's anti-sandbagging since the player may have to play in a division higher than their "real" skill level. What's the downside of that? In the case of sponsored players tryingto protect a rating over 1000, the manufacturers are now aware of checking the stats to see if an yof their players are DNFing to maintain it.

Some may not be aware that disciplinary action has been taken on some players who had been reported as chronic DNFers.

I don't know what the penalty should be. I'm not on the board. I just think it makes the sport look bad and not professional when someone doesn't finish because they aren't playing well. The ratings should reflect that imo.

Why would you drop someone's rating so they could potentially play in a lower division than their skill? If that was the policy, then it would encourage the behavior even more since people could just drop their rating by dumping rounds. They can't do that now. They're actually getting their penalty by paying their entry fee, not completing their round or completing it well and being in contention for prizes. That's one more prize for another player. Everything we've done with the ratings process is biased toward preventing sandbagging. The only thing unprofessional is if the player is kicking their bag and/or cussing. In that case, they can be DQ'd and potentially reported to the PDGA for possible disciplinary action.

I think when a player gets to around 20%
of rounds not finished a penalty should be
issued.

In my opinion a one year suspension should
be issued.

I don't think an automatic rule like a percentage is necessary. In some cases, there may be legit DNFs (injury, sickness, family emergency, weather) mixed in with ones that were more suspect. However, if players knew that TDs might report them to the PDGA for disciplinary action for a pattern of DNF behavior, that may become a deterent. Like I said, some players have been contacted and some disciplined for DNFs especially when connected with bad behavior.

When a player DNF's does he get to keep the rest of his round ratings? For example, if a player DNF's the last round of a 2 day tournament, does he/she keep the previous 3 round ratings?

Yes. All completed rounds get rated.

Chuck,

I am thinking of playing smaller tourneys with only forehand, roller, or overhand drives. This will improve my overall game, but my rating will take a beating. My rating does not matter to me. If I promise to use my disc powers only for the forces of good and not show up at Am Worlds playing backhand Intermediate, does it matter to you? I may end up with a new record for standard deviation.:)

Doesn't matter. Any players who shoot more than 60 points below their rating don't get included in the calculation that produces ratings for everyone in the event. Good luck. Just for fun I played the second round of an event with a roller off the tee for the challenge even if it wouldn't normally make sense.

It never hurts anyone else if a player dumps a round to "protect" their rating.

Never sounds a bit over-reaching. if their are 10 propagating players on an 18 hold par 72 course and a 1000 rated Pro DNF's what would have been a 890 round -- it can artificially make the that round's rating lower for everyone else -- and for the course (than it would be if the player finished). In short, it messes with the numbers. right?

A propagator only "propagates" in that round if their round rating is no more than 60 points below their rating. So he wouldn't have been used anyway.

A propagator only "propagates" in that round if their round rating is no more than 60 points below their rating. So he wouldn't have been used anyway.

But if he tanks what would have been a 950 then it does......

A propagator only "propagates" in that round if their round rating is no more than 60 points below their rating. So he wouldn't have been used anyway.

okay, so when a player DNF's in a round that they would have shot 59 points below their rating it artificially skews the data (even more so if the sample size of propagators is small). every system has its vulnerabilities -- even [y]ours -- right?

i like the rating system -- don't get me wrong. i like it so much that i wish it was revealed under our message board ID's here at pdga.com's DISCussion Board by default with every post (and those who wish to not show their rating would have to uncheck its being shown with their posts)

btw -- did you hear that Pieradise is for sale?

http://www.pieradisediscgolf.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=64&Itemid=68

okay, so when a player DNF's in a round that they would have shot 59 points below their rating it artificially skews the data (even more so if the sample size of propagators is small). every system has its vulnerabilities -- even [y]ours -- right?
No, because 59 points low is within the normal variation a player of any rating might shoot. It would be hard for a player to precisely calculate what they need to shoot 59 points low. And why would they try? They would be kicking themself for not playing bad enough to have the round dropped and not affect their rating. So a 59 pt low rating is more likely legit than deliberate.

i like the rating system -- don't get me wrong. i like it so much that i wish it was revealed under our message board ID's here at pdga.com's DISCussion Board by default with every post (and those who wish to not show their rating would have to uncheck its being shown with their posts)


"Click, click, back, back," which then became some insane combination of 12 steps due to thin-skinned low rated people in power, is now "click, close." I guess thats what happens when you get a couple of pros on the board? :D

No, because 59 points low is within the normal variation a player of any rating might shoot. It would be hard for a player to precisely calculate what they need to shoot 59 points low. And why would they try? They would be kicking themself for not playing bad enough to have the round dropped and not affect their rating. So a 59 pt low rating is more likely legit than deliberate.

who said anything about the player calculating it out? They are shooting a bad round and they know it is below their rating and they want the rating to go up not down next update. so they drop out. granted -- sometimes they were not shooting as bad as they thought. point is that at those times when they are 30 to 59 points below their rating and when the number of propagators on their layout is less than 10 it skews the numbers.

to Bruce -- yeah, how long was it (a week?) that we actually had the ratings automatically beneathe our ID? that was a terrible thing Pat did i guess :rolleyes:

point is that at those times when they are 30 to 59 points below their rating and when the number of propagators on their layout is less than 10 it skews the numbers.
It does not skew the ratings because everyone has good and bad rounds on a regular statistical basis. If a 950 prop shoots 30 or 55 points low in a round, it does not affect the ratings calculation any more than a 1000 rated player or 850 propagator shooting the same amount low. For every prop who shoots low, there are other props shooting higher by that amount.

It does not skew the ratings because everyone has good and bad rounds on a regular statistical basis. If a 950 prop shoots 30 or 55 points low in a round, it does not affect the ratings calculation any more than a 1000 rated player or 850 propagator shooting the same amount low. For every prop who shoots low, there are other props shooting higher by that amount.

it does not skew the ratings if the player in question finishes their round. but above example refers to a player that DNF's a round that would have been 30 or 50 points below their average. while in theory the amount of propagators is significantly high enough to mitigate the guy who DNF's due to interest in the next ratings update, in practice the amount of propagators is sometimes pretty small and that is when the data is most skewed by a ratings-concern-based DNF. granted -- if someone shooting a round 30 to 50 points above their rating also DNF'ed in the example your response holds true. but how comparatively often does that happen?

It still doesn't skew the ratings. A DNF is no different than all of the props who didn't show up to play that day. Who's to say that the numbers aren't better or more accurate without that prop's score in the mix? We don't really know that. Occasional DNFs are all part of the statistical soup that produces the ratings.

It still doesn't skew the ratings. A DNF is no different than all of the props who didn't show up to play that day. Who's to say that the numbers aren't better or more accurate without that prop's score in the mix? We don't really know that. Occasional DNFs are all part of the statistical soup that produces the ratings.

Yes, in theory that is exactly why ratings work. I can understand if you feel a disinclination to discuss ways the ratings can get skewed, but isn't one of the reasons rounds get reviewed before going official due to the fact of 'garbage in = garbage out?'

we can say a DNF caused by a golfer's wish to be rated higher than his buddies or high enough to become sponsored will come out in the wash, but -- what of the example of how a particular layout played for a particular round on a given course? (which impacts anyone who played that same layout for that round as well as the course rating for that particular round).

i am sure you (and others) can offer examples of atypical situations in which a round's rating on a given course could get skewed. Of course since a DNF never enters the statistical equation -- it cannot skew the ratings -- in the same sense evoked by the old saying: "dead men tell no tales."

pardon me for not knowing, but i think it's worth noting here: is there anything in the rules of conduct which explicitly states that DNF'ing to protect one's rating (positively) or that throwing a round to protect one's rating (negatively) is considered unprofessional and poor sportsmanship and is grounds for expulsion form the PDGA?

I can understand if you feel a disinclination to discuss ways the ratings can get skewed, but isn't one of the reasons rounds get reviewed before going official due to the fact of 'garbage in = garbage out?'
No one knows whether including a round or not will produce a more accurate SSA value because there's no independent baseline SSA that's known, only what is generated from the propagator scores. The only rounds deemed inappropriate are those more than 60 points low because players can either deliberately produce those scores or they can arise due to injury.

If TDs report consistent DNF behavior, the PDGA Disciplinary Committee may get involved (and has).

Chuck, any way you could tell me if the Hartselle Ice Bowl from February 27th has been put in for the ratings update coming up? Thanks!

Nope. I'm the last to know. Always contact the PDGA office for the answer on tourney reports if the event results are not yet posted online as "Official." If they are listed as Official without ratings, that means the report has been received and processed.

Hi Chuck

Thought you might like this that one of our UK stattos produced:
http://public.tableausoftware.com/views/BDGATour_1/Playerandroundratings?:embed=yes&:toolbar=yes

Keep up the great work :)