The scoring system debate (again)

Does what it says on the tin!
User avatar
West
Posts: 2624
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 4:51 pm
Location: Leamington Spa, UK

Re: The scoring system debate (again)

Post by West » Wed Nov 02, 2011 2:05 pm

From a calc/code/excel point of view, if all stats work in the same way and are driven from the PDGA divisional codes it would make things easier to work out/automate.
"West"
PDGA: #8823
BDGA: #250
Twitter: @WestDiscGolf
BDGA DoC 2007 - 2011

2020mad
Posts: 87
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 11:12 pm
Location: coventry

Re: The scoring system debate (again)

Post by 2020mad » Wed Nov 02, 2011 2:21 pm

I like the idea of the rec stats too, feel as tho if you dont have a strong game you can still take part and be competitive with others your level and over the year you do tend to play with same people in later rounds as similar scores and have a bit of friendly rivalry picking up points from each other all season.

i dont see its an issue if you make pdga ratings mid tour year and have to move up losing all rec points gained through year, going up a division on merit would certainly be more than enough reward for the season. :)
BDGA 303 PDGA 34660 Player Rating: Rubbish

User avatar
LostMeow
Posts: 555
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:34 pm
Location: London

Re: The scoring system debate (again)

Post by LostMeow » Wed Nov 02, 2011 2:24 pm

As I said, I don't think stat points could be transferred if moving up, so the player would have to start again from 0. This is the only fair way of doing it. Therefore, if a player at the start of the season is close to the boundary and feels they are likely to move up at some stage, then they'd be better off moving up immediately so that they collect AmStats (rather than RecStats) from the beginning of the season.

However... Of course the problem is that a player challenging for the RecStat title might be forced to move up mid-season, so in order to win the Recreational Tour they would have to try and play well whilst at the same time keeping their rating under 850, which is clearly nonsense, so to solve that problem:
Either:
1. Allow them to finish the season in the division they started (i.e. stopping the mandatory move up mid-season), or
2. When they do move up, recalculate the previous events' stats as if they had been playing in the Amateur, rather than Recreational, division.

Option 1 involves more upheaval of the present system; Option 2 involves more calculation work for the person in charge of AmStats/RecStats.

Thoughts?
Tom
ND

User avatar
Jester
Posts: 1782
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 10:10 am

Re: The scoring system debate (again)

Post by Jester » Wed Nov 02, 2011 2:37 pm

LostMeow wrote:As I said, I don't think stat points could be transferred if moving up, so the player would have to start again from 0. This is the only fair way of doing it. Therefore, if a player at the start of the season is close to the boundary and feels they are likely to move up at some stage, then they'd be better off moving up immediately so that they collect AmStats (rather than RecStats) from the beginning of the season.

However... Of course the problem is that a player challenging for the RecStat title might be forced to move up mid-season, so in order to win the Recreational Tour they would have to try and play well whilst at the same time keeping their rating under 850, which is clearly nonsense, so to solve that problem:
Either:
1. Allow them to finish the season in the division they started (i.e. stopping the mandatory move up mid-season), or
2. When they do move up, recalculate the previous events' stats as if they had been playing in the Amateur, rather than Recreational, division.

Option 1 involves more upheaval of the present system; Option 2 involves more calculation work for the person in charge of AmStats/RecStats.

Thoughts?
While an interesting suggestion, Tom, I don't think option 2 is possible. There is no guarentee Ints will play exactly the same holes as Advs at a Tour so I can't see how you could ever make an accurate recalculation if someone moves up mid-season. E.g. currently some Int Finals are 6 different holes to the Adv 9, or take The Lake at Essex or The White House at Croydon both of which use/have used different tees for different divisions.

It should just be that if you move up mid season you start again from zero.
Jester
BDGA #128
PDGA #8817
------------------------------------------------------
Croydon DGC: Hyzer Cup Champions 08/09, 13/14

2020mad
Posts: 87
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 11:12 pm
Location: coventry

Re: The scoring system debate (again)

Post by 2020mad » Wed Nov 02, 2011 3:43 pm

I think winning rec title is not really winning if someone has moved up, like i said before points are purely bragging rights in rec, if you move up mid season no more prize than that. i dont think there is a current int am winner so there should be no "winning" situation just how you played againt your mates with a few points thrown in to make it a bit more exciting to want to play more events.
BDGA 303 PDGA 34660 Player Rating: Rubbish

2020mad
Posts: 87
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 11:12 pm
Location: coventry

Re: The scoring system debate (again)

Post by 2020mad » Wed Nov 02, 2011 3:49 pm

compleatly agree with Jester mid tour move up. start on zero points again.
BDGA 303 PDGA 34660 Player Rating: Rubbish

User avatar
rhatton1
Posts: 1692
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 12:13 pm
Location: Leamington Spa
Contact:

Re: The scoring system debate (again)

Post by rhatton1 » Wed Nov 02, 2011 3:54 pm

Think the point that's being missed with the "recstats" is not for the person that moves up the division but for those that are still down the bigger problems lie.

You could be second place all season and on the last update your rival moves up a division as he crosses 850. You win the title. Well done, you win by default. Who wants to achieve that? as Tom says above it leaves people with a dilemma, play well and move out of the division or tailor your results to win the int tour.

Int am is a stepping stone, a place to gain experience of finals and pressure golf. An overall tour of int am just doesn't make sense.

I'm personally also against the PDGA scoring system, if you are playing at the top of the division, again you are getting extra points for beating people you were, lets face it, going to beat anyway. Why should that raise the reward when you could beat the same five people of your own standard at every tour event, yet get more points because 20 people who are approx 5 shots worse a round than you on average happen to be at one tour event and not another? This was already the problem I had with the old system and why I much prefer the F1 system - or modifcations of this idea. This is a system that should encourage attendence at smaller events as there is a much better chance of point scoring even if playing badly - mercenary thinking I know, but it does make sense. This way If I have two events to pick from, one is well attended one isn't and the end result could affect my overall tour placing I know which I will be attending.

This is where I think we are now, once we have fields of 80 at every event then maybe think again.

EDIT* Martin has posted in between mine, he kind of reflects what I'm saying.
www.discgolfuk.com
richard@discgolfuk.com
Home of the Midlands One Day Series
Talk to us about courses!

2020mad
Posts: 87
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 11:12 pm
Location: coventry

Re: The scoring system debate (again)

Post by 2020mad » Wed Nov 02, 2011 4:05 pm

No one is going to sand bag a title that does not exsist.
BDGA 303 PDGA 34660 Player Rating: Rubbish

User avatar
West
Posts: 2624
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 4:51 pm
Location: Leamington Spa, UK

Re: The scoring system debate (again)

Post by West » Wed Nov 02, 2011 4:36 pm

I guess the easy option is much like the split between Open and Am ... the last/first update of the year which ever is just before the tour starts the split is set. Then you play in that division for the season. You don't get people* moving up from Am to Open mid season and you can't drop down.

As you may get Ams going over the 920 mid season but they're not forced up. If we go this way the split between Adv and Int might need to be looked at to make the divisions "even" ish in players to start with.

Thoughts?



* I know Timmy did a couple of years ago after winning at Bristol
"West"
PDGA: #8823
BDGA: #250
Twitter: @WestDiscGolf
BDGA DoC 2007 - 2011

User avatar
Jester
Posts: 1782
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 10:10 am

Re: The scoring system debate (again)

Post by Jester » Wed Nov 02, 2011 4:38 pm

2020mad wrote:No one is going to sand bag a title that does not exsist.
Adroitly put, Martin.

If there is no season-long Recreational title to play for, then...:
- Rec players will focus on their player rating (as pointed out by more than one person already, a far more accurate measure of player ability than Amstats)
- there is no impact on the rest of the Rec players when one moves to Am (no one can 'win by default' a title that doesn't exist)
Jester
BDGA #128
PDGA #8817
------------------------------------------------------
Croydon DGC: Hyzer Cup Champions 08/09, 13/14

User avatar
West
Posts: 2624
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 4:51 pm
Location: Leamington Spa, UK

Re: The scoring system debate (again)

Post by West » Wed Nov 02, 2011 4:44 pm

Jester wrote:
2020mad wrote:No one is going to sand bag a title that does not exsist.
Adroitly put, Martin.

If there is no season-long Recreational title to play for, then...:
- Rec players will focus on their player rating (as pointed out by more than one person already, a far more accurate measure of player ability than Amstats)
- there is no impact on the rest of the Rec players when one moves to Am (no one can 'win by default' a title that doesn't exist)
So now we're just down to how the points get allocated?!
"West"
PDGA: #8823
BDGA: #250
Twitter: @WestDiscGolf
BDGA DoC 2007 - 2011

User avatar
West
Posts: 2624
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 4:51 pm
Location: Leamington Spa, UK

Re: The scoring system debate (again)

Post by West » Wed Nov 02, 2011 7:16 pm

If we go with the current F1 scoring then it already gives more points to the higher placed players so I don't think we need to have top 3 bonuses.
"West"
PDGA: #8823
BDGA: #250
Twitter: @WestDiscGolf
BDGA DoC 2007 - 2011

dunc
Posts: 325
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 3:32 pm
Location: Rugby

Re: The scoring system debate (again)

Post by dunc » Wed Nov 02, 2011 8:24 pm

rhatton1 wrote:I'm personally also against the PDGA scoring system, if you are playing at the top of the division, again you are getting extra points for beating people you were, lets face it, going to beat anyway. Why should that raise the reward when you could beat the same five people of your own standard at every tour event, yet get more points because 20 people who are approx 5 shots worse a round than you on average happen to be at one tour event and not another? This was already the problem I had with the old system and why I much prefer the F1 system - or modifcations of this idea. This is a system that should encourage attendence at smaller events as there is a much better chance of point scoring even if playing badly - mercenary thinking I know, but it does make sense. This way If I have two events to pick from, one is well attended one isn't and the end result could affect my overall tour placing I know which I will be attending.

This is where I think we are now, once we have fields of 80 at every event then maybe think again.
I'm most definately with Richard on this one!

I don't agree with the placings offering different points values at different events. As Rich said you should not get more points at one tournament just because extra people that you were going to beat anyway turned up.

If you go for a PDGA style then the title could easily be decided by the simple fact the the winner played Croydon and the nearest challenger had a wedding that weekend.

Playing Devils advocate here..... We may end up with a two tier tour, i.e people play Croydon, the 2 QP events and one other minor tour event because that's where they get points - You could easily kill Burnlaw off as there would be no value in going, you'd definitely kill Mull - Mull is one thing and we know there are multiple issues there but Burnlaw? Really! What if St Andrews or Ullapool or a (new venue altogether that isn't within 2 hours drive of London or Warwick) wanted to run an event and come back as a tour venue? Nobody would travel and the events would fail even if there was a 10 or so person local playing base! Hardly a way to encourage growth in the sport is it?

Now that also might not sound too bad if you are a player in London or warwick and challenge regularly...you only have to make the close four and they are the "big four" so you're happy right? Well what if one of you had a change in job and went to Scotland? Or a new challenger pops up from the Bonnie land, is it fair that he would have to travel 5-8 hrs to make the furthest away tournaments just because they offer more points and that if he didn't there was no way he could win the Tour? Ams or Open??

It may not happen thw way i describe above but it is hardly an inclusive way to grow the sport and it is a RISK that I would strongly advise against taking. Please choose the option that encourages attendance at all events!

Static values are the way to go in whatever form, F1 or some other ratio! Please don't make tournaments vary in value - I feel very stongly on this and I hope it comes accross that i do
The Treasurerrer..... hic!

PDGA #8822
BDGA #154

User avatar
LostMeow
Posts: 555
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:34 pm
Location: London

Re: The scoring system debate (again)

Post by LostMeow » Wed Nov 02, 2011 11:04 pm

I dunno. I must have been playing a different tour, because I've never heard anyone say "I'm only playing this tournament because of the AmStat points on offer." I made two long, long trips up to Burnlaw because it is an awesome place and a fantastic course and I knew I'd have a great time throwing discs and hanging out with everyone there. Whether I might get some stat points or not was completely irrelevant. The idea that people might stop playing an event because it didn't offer them enough AmStat points just seems like nonsense to me.

On the other hand, I don't see how anyone could argue that the field at Croydon wasn't more competitive (in the Adv Ams, for example) than any other event. Richard says "you just turn up and beat the same people" as if all the extra players were of lower ability, which patently wasn't true. The number of highly ranked Ams that turned up to that event dwarfed all the other events.

What it comes down to is this: I don't believe that stat points should be used to motivate people to turn up to events, nor do I think they fill this role at present. I think the events themselves take care of that: people love playing their sport and will make the effort to turn up to whatever they can manage, especially if the events are made as appealing as possible (which they are). The stat points should be used to (as accurately as possible) reflect the ranking of the players on the Tour so that there is an overall level of competition. This, in my opinion, should reflect the difficulty of winning or placing highly in a given tournament.

People are already "encouraged to turn up to the 'smaller' events" and do so if they can. Offering more stat points for Mull is still not going to enable me to get the necessary time off work and I'm sure something similar is true for many others. We shouldn't allow the tail to wag the dog.

There, I've said it.
Tom
ND

mat cutler
Posts: 948
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: bristol
Contact:

Re: The scoring system debate (again)

Post by mat cutler » Thu Nov 03, 2011 1:11 am

So i've generally avoided this thread as stats/points/ divisions / am / int am bores me to tears! :D

In my opinion i don't even agree with divisions (hinders new fast improving players, causes stagnation of people being "competitive" at some arbitrarily picked division level divide. etc) juniors, women, masters - fine, but come one all have equal potential! If not can we have the under 5'7" division next season, or maybe the blue eyed division, full head of hair division? with enough of these I maybe able to win something :mrgreen:

Your performance at a disc golf tournament should be about how YOU play to YOUR potential against the course. If you do well at this you will probably find yourself fairly high up the leaderboard anyhow.

If you are so obsessed with points and stats can we have some kind of pdga ratings based handicap table. Therefore the better you perform against your rating over a number of tournaments is recognised, consistency can be rewarded and all you stats heads can have a wail of a time working it all out!

andy cotgreave produced some great stuff like this with his hotrounds last year and i tried to do something similar as a net prize at the bristol open last may.

sorry if i come across as offensive, but there are so many more important things to work on than how many points we award each other!

to list a few:
eg. retention of juniors and new talent - couple of promising players over the last few years who've drifted away from the tour.
only 3 women regularly playing tour events.
number of actively touring players same as it's been the whole 15 years i've been playing just a different set of faces.
events like mull struggling to have a proper attendance.

it is not all doom and gloom as so much stuff is done brilliantly and things are moving forward fast in places. just a shame in my opinion so much hot air there has been on this topic when it'd be nice to get some positive discussion on something that would make our sport actually grow.

Rant over

matt
:twisted:

dunc
Posts: 325
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 3:32 pm
Location: Rugby

Re: The scoring system debate (again)

Post by dunc » Thu Nov 03, 2011 7:45 am

Ok, lets assume that nobody has ever played a 5th or 6th event because it have them the opportunity to drop a poor result or two. Or chosen which event they will attend based on the propensity to accumulate points

Let's look instead at a couple of situations from this years tour and apply the potential scoring options to assess which best reflects the level of competition.

The Advanced Am division for Burnlaw Snowbow and the Croydon Cyclone and two players in particular, Rich Hatton and Phil Wood.

Rich won Burnlaw, Phil was fourth
Phil won Croydon, Rich was eighth

Rich's tournament rating for Burnlaw was 922 he won by a single shot. Phil's rating was 905 for fourth. This was a small but competitive field.

Phil undoubtedly played lights out at Croydon and rated 945. Rich was about 905 It was a very competitive tournament

Now for the different scoring methods based on Adv Ams only i.e excluding Ints as has been suggested

PDGA + BonusBurnlaw
Rich 95pts (9players beaten*5+50bonus)
Phil 25 pts (5players beaten no bonus)

Croydon
Phil 190pts (28*5 +50)
Rich 85 pts (21*5)

Comments on PDGA + Bonus
Agreed, Croydon was harder to win and Phil's rating was higher. Arguably he deserves more points than Rich for the wins. But is double right??
Rich beat Phil at burnlaw, played 922 and won by a single shot. should the reuslt for the overall tour be swayed twice as much by a result at Croydon than Burnlaw.
Rich would have achieved almost the same points at both tour events despite playing better at Burnlaw and winning.
Phil's 25 points for fourth and a 905 rating at burnlaw seems incredibly paltry, rich's 905 rating at Croydon gave him an extra 60 points just because there was more people below him despite the same 905 rating - Does this refelct well for the overall tour result?
To achieve the same 25pts that Phil scored at Burnlaw all he would have had to do at croydon was change his name to Andy Cotcgreave play 875 golf and finish 24 out of 29
This does not seem to be a particularlar fair barometer in terms of points relative to the level of competition to me

Current Scoring
Burnlaw
Rich 100
Phil 60ish
Croydon
Phil 100
Rich 72ish
NB remember these won't be what show in powerstats as I have excluded Ints
Comments
Rich is rewarded more for his 8th/29 than Phil is for 4/10 as it is a higher percentile finish.
Both get the same for the win
Rich would actually be ahead in the tour if it was just down to these events

F1 Scoring
Burnlaw
Rich 30
Phil 14
Croydon
Phil 30
Rich 8
Comments:
Both get same for the win
Phil gets more for the 4th than Rich the 8th
Phil would be ahead in the race if it was just these two events

Conclusion
PDGA + points looks the least fair barometer of competiton
The current system seems ok
The F1 could work

Now I have specifically picked one example and I'm sure you could pick another where the disparity would not be so great for the PDGA + points. But would thase look so bad on either the current or the F1 as this scenario does for the PDGA + bonus

The PDGA system works for the PDGA for what they use it for because they don't cap it the 4 best event scores. people could play 40 small events or 4 big ones and end up with similar scores. It is not designed at getting a tour winner from a short list of events

I agree that the scoring method for the tour should not necessarily be used to drive tour attendace. However, if we are looking at changing the current system and have two alternatives. One that may potentially encourage attendance at all events and one which may potentially focus attendance around a "big four" at a cost to the rest I know which one i'd pick
Last edited by dunc on Thu Nov 03, 2011 10:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
The Treasurerrer..... hic!

PDGA #8822
BDGA #154

dunc
Posts: 325
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 3:32 pm
Location: Rugby

Re: The scoring system debate (again)

Post by dunc » Thu Nov 03, 2011 10:13 am

Some more food for thought, the table below shows all of the Am events this year and the PDGA ratings points earned by the top three finishers at each event

Entrants 14 15 10 20 4 10 29 15

WhitcombeQP Burnlaw Essex Mull QP Croydon Burnlaw
1st 916 943 922 951 938 941 944 928
2nd 906 916 912 930 888 926 934 934
3rd 896 903 915 926 886 900 923 921

NB analysis includes scores for non members such as James Mckay at Essex and Ben Bolton at Mull

What does this tell us? quite a lot I think....

Irrespective of the larger turnout at Croydon, it was as hard to win or place in the top 3 at Essex and the second Burnlaw event as it was at Croydon.

It also highlights the problem of the drastically unattended Mull, which shows as the easiest to place top 3 - still a nice winning score by Ben Bolton though!

Broadly the results are similar and there is some slight movement in the tables to due unrated Final rounds. This reaffirms to me my personal opinion that we should not make any tournament more valued in points than any other. But lets do something about Mull and maybe make it Bi-annual
The Treasurerrer..... hic!

PDGA #8822
BDGA #154

dunc
Posts: 325
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 3:32 pm
Location: Rugby

Re: The scoring system debate (again)

Post by dunc » Thu Nov 03, 2011 12:30 pm

the same info on the tournament ratings on last years tour for the Open placings is below, if anyone's interested

Entrants 15 15 13 12 5 19 23 11

WhitcombeQP Burnlaw Essex Mull QP Croydon Burnlaw
1st 1010 1028 1004 991 976 982 1008 992
2nd 996 983 994 969 917 994 997 985
3rd 968 972 988 954 903 982 977 995

Again there's a little bit of final movement i.e Jest*'s blinder in the summer QP final and the all change in the 2nd Burnlaw final. but in general these seem to be incredibly consistent apart form Mull and maybe Essex as only really Del form the top guy's went to that one!

It seems that:
1000+ wins you the tournament
990 gets you second
970-980 places third

there seems very little correlation between the required skill level to win an event and the number of players at the event

PS can you tell that I am currently unemployed :wink:
The Treasurerrer..... hic!

PDGA #8822
BDGA #154

bruce
Posts: 2581
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 4:13 pm
Location: Leamington Spa
Contact:

Re: The scoring system debate (again)

Post by bruce » Thu Nov 03, 2011 1:01 pm

I think Dunc gets to the heart of the issue here, which is that the relative quality of a win/result is not purely based on the number of people in a field, it's also the quality of those players. That is how the PGA develop their ranking lists, based on the quality of the players you beat. We don't have the resource to match that, so we're looking for a fair and equitable alternative.

I'd agree that the value of a win should be fixed, simply because we cannot accurately model how good or otherwise a win is. Arguably you could simply take every player's average rating and that gives a value, but that would force the end of unrated finals and delays results until ratings updates.

The main issue people have with the current system is that while the value of 1st is fixed, the value of 2nd, 3rd etc isn't. Looking at Dunc's analysis of ratings there's an argument that at least the top 3 should be fixed, e.g. at 5ppp. Then you go back to the argument of whether or not the rest of the places should get points or not. If yes then you have to use the existing system to calc the rest of the points, which adds complexity. If not you just use the ppp all the way down, and you can tweak the PPP to get whatever number of players you want to cover; 5ppp = 20 players, 2 = 50.

You can easily tweak this to boost the win or top 3 a la F1
[Standard post disclaimer] My posts are never intended to undermine the work of the Board or individuals putting in effort to grow the sport, they are my honest thoughts on the best ways to grow the game

BDGA: 145
PDGA: 8824

User avatar
Village
Posts: 1024
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 1:54 pm
Location: I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you

Re: The scoring system debate (again)

Post by Village » Thu Nov 03, 2011 2:24 pm

bruce wrote:To address Pete's 'why re-invent the wheel' comments, I think there are problems with all systems, but the particular problem with the current system is that it's a pain to administer with points per place changing at every event. All the alternative proposed systems would be much easier to use from our side I believe.
This is what spreadsheets are for…….


bruce wrote: My big problem is that I think the Am attendance is too volatile for the PDGA system to work, there would be a massive emphasis on attending the big events. This year if you couldn't make Croydon you might as well forget it
Then give the winner 100 point and the last place 1……


LostMeow wrote:As I said, I don't think stat points could be transferred if moving up, so the player would have to start again from 0. This is the only fair way of doing it. Therefore, if a player at the start of the season is close to the boundary and feels they are likely to move up at some stage, then they'd be better off moving up immediately so that they collect AmStats (rather than RecStats) from the beginning of the season.

However... Of course the problem is that a player challenging for the RecStat title might be forced to move up mid-season, so in order to win the Recreational Tour they would have to try and play well whilst at the same time keeping their rating under 850, which is clearly nonsense, so to solve that problem:
Either:
1. Allow them to finish the season in the division they started (i.e. stopping the mandatory move up mid-season), or
2. When they do move up, recalculate the previous events' stats as if they had been playing in the Amateur, rather than Recreational, division.

Option 1 involves more upheaval of the present system; Option 2 involves more calculation work for the person in charge of AmStats/RecStats.

Thoughts?
Neither option if fair on a rapidly improving beginner, would this have been fair on Jed last year? I think the answer is patently “NO”!

Give all Ams points (in some form) and see how the season pans out.
The worst thing about having a failing memory is.....no, its gone...

Running with scissors since 1977

BDGA 173 PDGA 8831

Post Reply