The scoring system debate (again)

Does what it says on the tin!
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 2:32 pm

Village wrote:This is what spreadsheets are for……
No, this is what databases and web front ends are for
[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
West
Posts: 2624
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 4:51 pm
Location: Leamington Spa, UK

Re: The scoring system debate (again)

Post by West » Thu Nov 03, 2011 3:33 pm

bruce wrote:
Village wrote:This is what spreadsheets are for……
No, this is what databases and web front ends are for
Agreed.

But we need a system we can model before we can write one :twisted:
"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 » Fri Nov 04, 2011 2:59 pm

dunc wrote: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.
I diasagree, Dunc. The more people you beat, the more points you should reap. I can't see the sense in scoring constant values when the achivement based on the size of the field is not constant. All this will do is continue the problem of cheap points at under-attended events.

Yep, you score more at big events and less at small ones. This is a characteristic of this system and while not perfect is still much fairer than maximum points always being on offer at an event with say 5 players in a division.

The scoring system is not a safety-net to try and attract/force people to attend events that the majority have voted with their feet not to play at. If event attendance is falling, that's a wake-up call for the TD team to address the concerns of the player, not the responsibility of the scoring system.
Jester
BDGA #128
PDGA #8817
------------------------------------------------------
Croydon DGC: Hyzer Cup Champions 08/09, 13/14

Mr.Scary
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 4:45 pm
Location: Barton Bendish

Re: The scoring system debate (again)

Post by Mr.Scary » Fri Nov 04, 2011 3:27 pm

Jester wrote:
dunc wrote: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.
I diasagree, Dunc. The more people you beat, the more points you should reap. I can't see the sense in scoring constant values when the achivement based on the size of the field is not constant. All this will do is continue the problem of cheap points at under-attended events.

Yep, you score more at big events and less at small ones. This is a characteristic of this system and while not perfect is still much fairer than maximum points always being on offer at an event with say 5 players in a division.

The scoring system is not a safety-net to try and attract/force people to attend events that the majority have voted with their feet not to play at. If event attendance is falling, that's a wake-up call for the TD team to address the concerns of the player, not the responsibility of the scoring system.

I agree with Jester here but can see Dunc's and Tom's point.

Croydon will probably be happening in April next year from what I gather and if the results are duplicated and Phil or whoever wins beats me by 10 places it would suck to be trying to make up the 50 pts he has on me the rest of the Tour for 5-6 Events, but that's not the system's fault, I shoulda just played better.

Maybe a compromise?

Say 1 or 2 pts for each person you beat each tourney and bonus pts for the Top 5 of 5, 4, 3 , 2 & 1...???
I know it's the same 'maths' but it just won't seem as drastic.
"By far, the most important part of any shot is what is happening in the last split second as the disc is pulling itself from your grip. Focus there. It's the key."

"Don't let what you cannot do interfere with what you can do."

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

Re: The scoring system debate (again)

Post by bruce » Fri Nov 04, 2011 3:59 pm

Jester wrote:I diasagree, Dunc. The more people you beat, the more points you should reap. I can't see the sense in scoring constant values when the achivement based on the size of the field is not constant. All this will do is continue the problem of cheap points at under-attended events.

Yep, you score more at big events and less at small ones. This is a characteristic of this system and while not perfect is still much fairer than maximum points always being on offer at an event with say 5 players in a division.
I disagree that this system is in any way fairer. You can easily argue that the quality of your win at QP was higher than that of Derek's at Croydon because all the top 12 finishers on tour were at QP and 2 were missing at Croydon, but the PDGA system gives Croydon more points.

Equally, going by the relative quality of the fields at Essex and the Equinox my win was much tougher than Derek's, but again the PDGA system gives Essex more points.

Looking at the actual players beaten and round ratings required to win across the various events, I'd say players beaten is a very poor measure of the value of a win.

Added a new worksheet called '1 per person'. What I've done is greatly reduce the value of beating other players relative to the top 3's bonuses, so it's 1 instead of 5
[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
Jester
Posts: 1782
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 10:10 am

Re: The scoring system debate (again)

Post by Jester » Fri Nov 04, 2011 4:22 pm

bruce wrote:I disagree that this system is in any way fairer. You can easily argue that the quality of your win at QP was higher than that of Derek's at Croydon because all the top 12 finishers on tour were at QP and 2 were missing at Croydon, but the PDGA system gives Croydon more points.

Equally, going by the relative quality of the fields at Essex and the Equinox my win was much tougher than Derek's, but again the PDGA system gives Essex more points.
As you've pointed out previously every system has it's flaws and I'm not saying this one is perfect. The even bigger flaw with the current system however is that cheap points can be won for much less effort if a field doesn't turn up to make it a fair contest.
Jester
BDGA #128
PDGA #8817
------------------------------------------------------
Croydon DGC: Hyzer Cup Champions 08/09, 13/14

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

Re: The scoring system debate (again)

Post by bruce » Fri Nov 04, 2011 4:38 pm

Jester wrote:I can't see the sense in scoring constant values when the achivement based on the size of the field is not constant
And this is where we differ. I can't see that the achievement of winning has anything to do with the size of the field! It seems abundantly clear that the only real measure is who you beat, not how many of them there are.

Man City drubbed Man U 6-1 the other week but it only counts for 3 points, just the same as scraping past Swansea 1-0 in the 5th minute of injury time.
[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

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

Re: The scoring system debate (again)

Post by bruce » Fri Nov 04, 2011 4:49 pm

Jester wrote:The even bigger flaw with the current system however is that cheap points can be won for much less effort if a field doesn't turn up to make it a fair contest.
I can't see how that's a bigger flaw than in a system where my win at Burnlaw is worth the same as 13th at Croydon.
[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
Jester
Posts: 1782
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 10:10 am

Re: The scoring system debate (again)

Post by Jester » Fri Nov 04, 2011 5:02 pm

bruce wrote:
Jester wrote:The even bigger flaw with the current system however is that cheap points can be won for much less effort if a field doesn't turn up to make it a fair contest.
I can't see how that's a bigger flaw than in a system where my win at Burnlaw is worth the same as 13th at Croydon.
Becuase it means new events that come on the calander and get a low turnout (or existing events that don't attract a decent field) reward players artifically with points they haven't had to propperly earn.
Jester
BDGA #128
PDGA #8817
------------------------------------------------------
Croydon DGC: Hyzer Cup Champions 08/09, 13/14

Hopper
Posts: 189
Joined: Mon May 28, 2007 11:50 am
Location: Harwich

Re: The scoring system debate (again)

Post by Hopper » Fri Nov 04, 2011 5:11 pm

Good to see lots of different views over 6 pages in 10 days. However I tend to agree with Village, would the result of the last three years open been changed with a change of system ? As far as adv ams I dont think anybody would have or would have deserved to beat Phil this year, last year was tight but a worthy winner Rich Wood, the year before a close encounter could have been Chris or James cant remember any more. TD's now have BDGA number on entry so scoring under system should be easy. This year the stats were not up as quick so there wasn't so much banter and chat. From the looks of the discussion we are never going to find a system that everyone is in agreement with. With the current system everybody scores and if you have a bad tourny you can always try to make it better by getting a fifth in if possible. :D Doesnt bother me as not going to be in top bunch but the system at mo usually produces the best player :D

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

Re: The scoring system debate (again)

Post by bruce » Fri Nov 04, 2011 5:12 pm

Jester wrote:Becuase it means new events that come on the calander and get a low turnout (or existing events that don't attract a decent field) reward players artifically with points they haven't had to propperly earn.
Now I know you're just applying the tree based soup eating device :wink:
[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

Mr.Scary
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 4:45 pm
Location: Barton Bendish

Re: The scoring system debate (again)

Post by Mr.Scary » Fri Nov 04, 2011 6:06 pm

bruce wrote:
Jester wrote:I diasagree, Dunc. The more people you beat, the more points you should reap. I can't see the sense in scoring constant values when the achivement based on the size of the field is not constant. All this will do is continue the problem of cheap points at under-attended events.

Yep, you score more at big events and less at small ones. This is a characteristic of this system and while not perfect is still much fairer than maximum points always being on offer at an event with say 5 players in a division.
I disagree that this system is in any way fairer. You can easily argue that the quality of your win at QP was higher than that of Derek's at Croydon because all the top 12 finishers on tour were at QP and 2 were missing at Croydon, but the PDGA system gives Croydon more points.

Equally, going by the relative quality of the fields at Essex and the Equinox my win was much tougher than Derek's, but again the PDGA system gives Essex more points.

Looking at the actual players beaten and round ratings required to win across the various events, I'd say players beaten is a very poor measure of the value of a win.

Added a new worksheet called '1 per person'. What I've done is greatly reduce the value of beating other players relative to the top 3's bonuses, so it's 1 instead of 5

Um, am I missing something here?
Why are you giving 50pts bonus for coming in 1st and 25pts for 2nd, etc?
I thought we were talking about 5 or 10 points for winning if we only got a point for every person you beat...???
"By far, the most important part of any shot is what is happening in the last split second as the disc is pulling itself from your grip. Focus there. It's the key."

"Don't let what you cannot do interfere with what you can do."

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 » Fri Nov 04, 2011 8:03 pm

Whatever is decided I don't think this should be decided by the small amount of the membership base who play disc golf in the UK who hang out on the forum. All the suggestions need to be put together and sent out to the membership. Once everyone who wants to has reviewed etc. then we can have a vote at the AGM.

So what I suggest is ...

i - 2012 is scored as the current system
ii - All the suggestions are put together in a proposal
iii - Its put on the AGM agenda for next Sept/Oct for 2013

Simples
"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 » Fri Nov 04, 2011 8:17 pm

We were giving a bigger bonus as it was kind to the PDGA = bonus theory, If the bonus is smaller then it means a win at Croydon is more like three times more valuable than a win at Burnlaw!

As far as i see it's all about Quality not Quantity. All things being equal beating 29 people would be worth more than beating 10 - However, this is the real world and things are different, namely the skill level of individuals.

As has been proven many times by far more qualified people than i. If you were to graph skill level agains the number of players this would follow a "Bell Curve" graph. My anbalysis above has already proved that scoring based on the number of players alone does not offer afair representation of competitiveness.

I have offered a lot of statistics and evidence to support the case for static scoring as well as pointing out big flaws in the soring on a per person basis. I am yet to see any factual based evidence to support the per person scoring methodology. All I've seen so far are "I feel" or "I like" statements - Please feel free to do some in depth analysis like me and offer any findings in support that you can find
The Treasurerrer..... hic!

PDGA #8822
BDGA #154

Mr.Scary
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 4:45 pm
Location: Barton Bendish

Re: The scoring system debate (again)

Post by Mr.Scary » Fri Nov 04, 2011 9:57 pm

Yeah.
Last edited by Mr.Scary on Sat Nov 05, 2011 7:51 am, edited 2 times in total.
"By far, the most important part of any shot is what is happening in the last split second as the disc is pulling itself from your grip. Focus there. It's the key."

"Don't let what you cannot do interfere with what you can do."

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

Re: The scoring system debate (again)

Post by dunc » Fri Nov 04, 2011 10:07 pm

Dave, you're so right. let's just play (disc) golf
The Treasurerrer..... hic!

PDGA #8822
BDGA #154

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 » Mon Nov 07, 2011 9:15 pm

dunc wrote:Dave, you're so right. let's just play (disc) golf
Dave? Don't you mean Rodney?
The worst thing about having a failing memory is.....no, its gone...

Running with scissors since 1977

BDGA 173 PDGA 8831

Post Reply