What do you guys think about handicaps for double leagues? There have been many conflicts with handicaps for double leagues. What do you guys think?
Personally, I think getting rid of handicaps may make things much simpler. There would be no debates after the round on who & who should not get a handicap. I also think that we have been consistent with what we have done in the past 3 leagues. Today, 4 teams tied for 1st place. Only Jon & Damon got -1 handicap. They ended up finishing 4th anyway.
I think my only problem with handicaps is that many people, especially newcomers, don't know how to classify themselves. In those instances, the current handicap system can end up an advantage for that player because they can (potentially) pick up up to two strokes out of it.
I don't really know if there is a way around that either...
return to topic, please.... maybe start a new thread about the class?
isn't all that stuff on the message board? also, the league results were lost long before the server switch....
My 2cents:
Keep things the same for this league.
For next league, lets discuss Damon's idea of ties sharing the points, playing off for money. Kinda rough when one throw determines points AND cash. Not that the current way is bad at all. Everything has been working well overall.
I'll give ya 9 strokes and still whoop yo butt!
Winter League ends on March 9th.
Spring League starts the next week, March 16th and goes to May 25th. Sundays, 10 weeks.
Singles League goes from May 14th to August 20th. Wednesdays, 10 weeks.
Summer League goes from June 8th to September 14th. Sundays, 15 weeks.
Junior Leagues go from June 14th - August 16th. Saturdays, 10 weeks.
We also need volunteers to help teach a weekly class for which we will be paid. It is through the Waukegan Park District and will be at Bevier on Tuesdays from 6-7pm. Anyone interested in teaching between 5-30 people for 4 weeks (total 4 hours)? Let me know. We would be doing two 4-week sessions: (1) June 10th - July 1st and (2) July 15th - August 5th.
This will be discussed at the meeting this Sunday.
Oh, BTW, temp for Channahon Safari is supposed to be high of 26, with mod winds expected.
OK, another thing to vote on at Sunday's meeting. If you can't make it, voice your vote here.
My own opinion is that handicaps suck but are necessary. There's been a decent percentage of players I've met over the past few years who would not have started to play at leagues if there wasn't a handicap system or Upper doubles partner to play with. My original idea has been to make sure the club offers something to all types of new or Am players; Junior Leagues and Best Shot Leagues are meant for that. I kinda saw Tourneys and the new Singles League catering more toward the Upper Pool players (no handicaps, long and safari tees). Just my thoughts.....
13 was my only Ace at Parkside, in 2001 I think.
Nice job, SithLord!
I'm all up for discussing handicaps, tie breakers & points. We've modified them after past leagues & I personally think that leagues are more competitive then they have ever been. Each league, the points get tighter & tighter. I really like the point system. The league that we split points ended up with a problem. Jojo would have been very close to Al if all the lower ties would have been resolved. If they would have went in Jojo's favor, he may have beaten Al. I also believe that we've found a formula that has been very successful. Slight modifications would be alright with me but i'm hesitant of making wholesale changes.
As for the CTP, it is tough when it's a ctp but it's the same for both teams. We've discussed at past meetings & the majority of people chose a CTP rather than a sudden death playoff. You could end up having to play forever. This would be a big problem when we have meetings to follow & some people have other priorities in the afternoon. I've heard of a random draw hole. Before the round a hole #'s are randomly drawn before the round. The team with the best score on that hole would win the round.
PRO- 0 unless with Junior then -1
ADV- -1 unless 2 advanced players play together then 0. I messed that up yestarday but it did not affect 5th or 6th place. Adv/junior would get -2
AM -2 when playing with another AM.
I propose this. The winner of the 2002 Autumn League gets -6 handicap every week & everyone else gets 0. At least that way my group would have played even this week.
busted
pat,
i believe you are correct. while running the autumn league, the -1 handicap very rarely came into deciding if a player won a round. i was actually hoping each time that, that i won by 2 strokes so no one could complain about the handicap. i don't know how many times in the past 2 leagues that i thought one group had a great chance to win & another group ended up winning. i think groups are fairly even each week. i'd like to throw out handicaps just to make things simple.
Jim,
If you could, please bring the table of results from the Autumn League. It is with all the stats & paperwork that I gave you with all the Autumn League information. It was lost online with the switch of servers.
thanks mirth,
i forgot about the posts on the autumn league. got it printed, ready to go.
the more I look at the results of the 10 week autumn league & the 5 weeks of winter league, the more i think handicaps really don't make much of a difference. In those 15 weeks, the handicap has not helped win or lose first place. Only once has it determined 2nd place, & one other time it gave a team a chance to place in a playoff. Other than that it hasn't done a whole lot. Basically it ends up washing out anyway. Shawn, Jim, & Brett recieve 0 every time they play. Everyone else recieves -1. It hasn't made that much of a difference.
sweet ACE!
I think handicaps make the most sense when an am player is asked to move up due to lack of upper level players. Conversely, an upper pool player asked to move down also can tilt things in their favor once they are matched up with another upper pool player. However, I also agree with Jon when he says that the best players should win if they're the best. However, if the best players always win without handicaps, will this keep others coming out or will they give up? Heck, I don't know for sure what I think about handicaps. I simply think it needs a lot of discussion at the next meeting.
If everyone shared the points, the four teams would have gotten 4 points each, not 10.
The really only good way to find out how good a new player is to ask the people who he came with to tell you how well he or she is, compared to them. Also watch new people putt at the practice basket (we need to get 1). Once you play area tournaments you can place the face to their game, I'm bad with names but I remember players who I have seen at events.
singles league will be by division, so handicaps will not be needed. What are the next leagues by the way?
I have about 20 understable disc I can donate for the class, maybe give them away and I can help teach a few of the dates as long as they don't conflict with leagues at Parkside.
handicaps suck
Just read the post from Pat. Thanks, you had me laughing loud enough to wake Carolyn and get her pissed off at me. It was worth it...
If anyone wants some advice, ask me. I try not to blurt out to a person in the middle of a round that they are doing something wrong with their form, as it pisses most people off. But if you ask, I will help. My prices are always free, I love seeing players get better and rip a disc on a sweet line. Look at Brett, Myk or Dr. Dye, they can rip it now. I payed my dues for years, not winning anything, to get to the stage where my game is now. I still have lots of room to improve, but I am more confident in my game now.
By the way, Aced #13 long at Parkside today. It has been almost a year since my last one.
Jon that is exactly how I was going to propose a club system. When we start up singles we can get a good idea where people really stand. We will need about 7 events from players to figure out a players rating. This is where the PDGA kicks ass. In my opinion, this is the best benifit about my PDGA membership. They keep excellent stats on their members.
Whatever....
Damn fingers typing what I'm thinking... Is 3 rounds really that accurate? Yes it can be done with 1, 2, or 3 rounds but 7 is more realistic. Dropping the 2 worst rounds.
Ya, I threw a lazer down the fairway. I was shotting with Mark Peterson and he called it about 100ft out. When we were on #10 he asked me,"want to play 5 bucks for an ace?"
He still kicked my ass...
I have always wanted to warp the minds of small children and adults with my poor skills and lack of ability. In other words, count me in for the class. I get out of work at 5 during the week, so I may have to run straight there after work and be a little bit late.
kids are handicaps!! :P love ya
I have to agree with the doc on this one. Every time we're getting ready to end one league and start another, we bring up handicapping because someone's not happy about it. As the old line goes, "You can't please all of the people some of the time, or some of the people all of the time, so you might as well please some of the people some of the time."
I feel we should vote on keeping the handicaps or losing them. Don't change the way it's done if we do keep 'em. That's just my opinion.
Good deal on that Ace on 13 long. That's a really tight little fairway.
/me awaits the Spring Singles League
which I prolly won't be able to play, but am doing the handicaps for.
Handicaps are tricky because you are trying to boil down thousands of variables down to a 1 or 2 stroke advantage. For an example I will use Shawn and myself. Shawn has a PDGA rating of 932 and I have a PDGA rating of 905. In terms of PDGA tournaments this would make me eligible to play in the middle amateur division or higher and Shawn would have to play advanced or higher. The difference between our ratings is 27 points. The PDGA ratings docs say that 30 points is equal to about 2 or 3 strokes per 18 holes played. So, for arguments sake, lets say that 27 points is equal to 2 strokes per 18 holes.
Based on this information giving me a stroke when I play in the upper makes sense. However, you have to question what 18 holes the ratings docs are referencing when they say that 30 points is 2 or 3 strokes per 18 holes. If Shawn and I play 18 holes of disc golf against each other and all of the holes are 200 feet and mostly open, who has the advantage? I would say that none of those holes is challenging enough to differentiate our abilities. Now say we play a course that is 18 holes 250 to 300 feet and most of them are woodsy tunnel shots. I have not seen Shawn play a course like that, but I know on courses like that I can hold my own against most mortals, so I'm thinking I have a good shot at beating him. Last scenario. Shawn and I play against each other at Bevier. Just thinking of the cement tees, are there holes that differentiate between our abilities or are they holes where somedays I make the birdie and somedays he does? I know Shawn has an advantage on #9 because he usually makes it over the creek and I have never made it over the creek. However, he doesn't always make the deuce once he makes it over and I have made the deuce twice from the other side of the creek. Maybe Shawn has a 1/2 stroke advantage on 9? On number 2, I have only driven to within 50 feet of the basket once, but I did convert the birdie. I have seen Shawn drive basket high on that hole but don't know if he converts the birdie regularly. Advantage anyone? Number 5 and number 7 favor his abilities a little more than mine, but I couldn't say that gives him a 1/2 stroke advantage. Are there holes that I have an advantage over Shawn? So, how many stroke advantage does Shawn have over me at Bevier? Or does he have an advantage? I don't know. I know he has somewhere around a 2 stroke advantage on an "average" 18 hole course.
Now I have compared one aspect of our handicap system to two players. Now we just have to do this to all possible matchups to see if the system makes sense. The problem is we don't have enough data to match up Shawn and I, who are both PDGA rated, let alone anyone else. So, what do we do? Is there a system that would please all the players (yea, right!)?
This is perhaps why most disc golf leagues don't use any handicapping system. However if we were to stop having a handicap system, would it be fair to make someone play up when not enough upper people show up?
I know I've thrown out a lot of questions here, and not many answers, but these are the things I'm thinking of and I think we should all think of them. I'd love to read some answers even if I don't agree with them.
QuoteDR DYE (02-03-2003 05:27 p.m.):
I agree mostly with the book Jon wrote.
In that its hard to say when someone should or shouldnt get a handicap, when there are so many variables. But, what about someone who has only played a couple of rounds....EVER. And lets just say, I get paired up with them. Dont you think I should get a handicap...
But how do you decide what the handicap should be? There are as many different abilities of "newbies" as there are new people. If someone hasn't played, you don't know what their ability is. Do you ask them on a scale of 1-10 how bad they think they're going to suck at this game? Flip a coin? Consult the Magic 8 Ball?
Whatever the answer to the handicap question is, if handicaps are used we have to use information that we have, not speculation of how we think a player might play.
I don't think we should change the rules in the middle of a league, but I would support doing away with handicaps at the end of this league unless someone can come up with a system that addresses some of the shortcomings of the current system.
I'm going to generate "PDGA ratings" for everyone who plays leagues that has played a singles event with PDGA rated players. They won't be PDGA sanctioned ratings, but the PDGA ratings people have proven that ratings based on only a few rated players are accurate. Once I crunch the numbers, maybe we can use the ratings not only to decide who plays upper and who plays lower, but also for some kind of objective handicap system. I'll try to get something together by the league meeting, but I'm not promising.
QuoteSteve (02-07-2003 01:15 p.m.):
QuoteJim (02-06-2003 09:37 p.m.):
OK, another thing to vote on at Sunday's meeting. If you can't make it, voice your vote here.
I like Jon's idea about a player rating, but what would it be based on? Someone who regularly plays Bevier under par would obviously have a better ranking than someone who can only par it on a good day, but how do you figure out the inbetween? Anyway, handicaps have got to be used to keep the interest and the people, but at the same time, the person who had the best round (not always the best player, mind you) is definitely entitled to their win.
I would base the ratings on the players that have pdga ratings, the same as the pdga does, using the same methods they do. A rating of 1000 means that you will shoot the world class par on any particular course. There are a few pro players with ratings over 1000 who then should be able to shoot below the wcp (world class par).
An immediate benefit to having ratings of all of our players is that who plays upper and who plays lower on any given day, would be objectively decided for us. The half of the group with higher ratings plays upper the lower rated players play lower.
A side benefit would be to track your improvement. Lower rated players can see significant changes in their rating if they are at the point in the learning curve that strokes are shed easily.
If we decide to keep handicaps for doubles we could use rating points to decide what if any handicaps are given to a particular team. In one scenario you could add the ratings of each team and give handicaps for the lower combined ratings. We could make brackets and handicap the brackets. So, if your team has a player in the 1800-1850 bracket you get x handicap. I'm sure there are other ideas. When we look at how the ratings look after I crunch them, it might be obvious what we should do. (Or perhaps we will be muddled in debate for eternity. ;p )
We need to have about 3 events per player to get an accurate result. We don't need to wait for 7 events. See my thread on club ratings to see the ratings from the 1st safari event.
The more rounds the more accurate the ratings will be. If you look at 3 round tournaments, the field will be much more sorted out accroding to ratings than a 2 round tournament. With even more rounds, it gets even more accurate.
The PDGA takes your 85% best rounds or 17 best rounds per 20 rounds. So, after we get 7 rounds in, we'll drop the worst round.
The handicap point system was posted before league started, the same rules that have been used in the past.
It looks to me like the handicap system that is being used is working like it should. All of the top ten players in Winter League have played at least 4 out of 5 weeks. Well 9 are at 4/5 Mirth, dedicated soul that he is, is 5/5. The difference between 1 and 12 in the Winter League standings is only 12 points.
With a little luck anyone can still win this league. I say keep it like it is.
After going back to look over the weekly score tables from the 1st five weeks of winter league and the ten weeks of fall league I have to rethink my position on handicaps.
From what I can see handicaps played very little, if any, part in the overall standings for either league so far. For example I can't see where the handicap system has made any difference at all in the first five weeks of winter league. The rankings by the straight score for each team is how the ranking ended up with the handicaps. And I think the same is pretty much true of the fall league. Maybe someone else could look over those stats and point out something I may have missed.
Other wise, going by that information I see no need for handicapping.
I don't think anyone has proposed changing the way partners are drawn for league. I think random draw teaming of pro/adv with am/rec players should continue. In my opinion, this is probably what evens out the field.
We could also keep the handicap system although it doesn't seem to really make any difference. It may be more of a mental thing when you get spotted a point or two.
What keeps me coming back is how much fun the league has been for me and it's the best way for me to improve my game. There doesn't seem to be a overbearing sence of competativeness. A more relaxed atmosphere I guess. I also like the fact that the upper players are very helpful giving suggestions on how to improve my game. Even players on the other team I have been carded with who should be trying to beat me.
I get to see what other players are doing. How they approach a shot. Some angles or shots I would never think of to get to the basket. For me to improve my game I need to play with/against better players.
Last but not least, it's cheaper than paying Shawn the $25 and hour he said he charged for lessons. For only $8 a round he can teach me a lesson every Sunday. Just kidding, he really wanted $50 and hour.
I agree mostly with the book Jon wrote.
In that its hard to say when someone should or shouldnt get a handicap, when there are so many variables. But, what about someone who has only played a couple of rounds....EVER. And lets just say, I get paired up with them. Dont you think I should get a handicap. I remember a time that Bill brought his wife Angela to play. Which I think is cool, people out who havent played much can get a better idea of the game by watching and playing with people who love the game. But it would be unfair for whoever that "newbie" gets partnered with for them not to get a handicap. In fact is the 2 points that we have in place really enough for that particular situation.
No matter what, everone will not agree completely. But if change is coming, then it should wait until next season. Damon is right we cant change the rules in the middle of the game.
I also agree with Brett, modifications may be needed, but I dont know about dirsregaurding handicaps entirely.
Back to the topic...on best shot doubles....
Weither we keep the handicaps or not, we are still being "hanidaped". In that, we all chose what division we play in. For example, I play in ADV, but I think I am at the very low end of ADV. And there is a big difference between say Brett and myself. I would give him at least a 2 stroke advantage on me, if say we were to play any given 18 holes. Maybe more. My point is, no matter what we still are being handicaped. And when we chose to play in AM, ADV, or PRO the information we have to go on, is just as vague as our handicap rule as it stands. The only way to make everyone happy would be to make a thousand different classifications, for people to chose from, in order to find out what your handicap is.
But we cant make everyone happy, so I think we should all just vote on weither we should have them or not. I am not certin, but I lean towards keeping the handicaps as is.
I'd say you have to leave the rules the way they are until the session finishes; but I'm not entirely clear on how the handicap exactly works - I assume if there's one pro on the card, no handicap; one adv (no pro), 1 stroke; 2 ams - 2 strokes(?).
I can see how it's dicey since on any given day there might not be much difference between pro/adv and adv/am, so ultimately I might go with eliminating handicaps for this - the better players are the better players, after all, and deserve to win if they're playing better - but ya can't change the rules in the middle of the game.
I'd like to toss another monkey wrench into the works, though. What about splitting the points for ties - playoff for the cash, fine, but for example in a four-way tie each team would get 7 pts (10-8-6-4). This divides out evenly up to a 6-way tie for 1st. Beyond that, the 'odd points' would go to a playoff winner. (If you're following this, it *could* happen on a 6-way tie for 2nd, or a 5-way tie for 3rd, but figure the odds on any of these being somewhere close to that of me hanging onto my bagtag beyond next weekend....)
Just a thought, and honestly it has nothing to do with Jon & me finishing 4th in the 4-way playoff today, I'd been thinking of this earlier.
QuoteShawn (02-03-2003 09:27 a.m.):
If everyone shared the points, the four teams would have gotten 4 points each, not 10.
10+8+6+4 (1st-4th place) = 28; 28/4=7
QuoteJim (02-05-2003 09:59 a.m.):
Oh, BTW, temp for Channahon Safari is supposed to be high of 26, with mod winds expected.
23 mph is moderate? :o
Hole #1 there is *always* windy anyhow; not so much a factor on other holes, there are plenty of trees that seem to cut it back, but I've never played it in Feb
I lean towards keeping some sort of handicap but I'm not passionate about it - in fact, this is the first place I'd encountered it.
I *would* be more passionate about keeping the upper/lower pools, although I don't think that eliminating that is really being suggested.
As I mentioned before, though, I think there should be some sort of penalty/reward for two-uppers or two-lowers on a team. Beyond that I don't see a real need for handicaps.
QuoteJim (02-05-2003 09:59 a.m.):
We also need volunteers to help teach a weekly class for which we will be paid. It is through the Waukegan Park District and will be at Bevier on Tuesdays from 6-7pm. Anyone interested in teaching between 5-30 people for 4 weeks (total 4 hours)? Let me know. We would be doing two 4-week sessions: (1) June 10th - July 1st and (2) July 15th - August 5th.
This will be discussed at the meeting this Sunday.
I will not be able to make it to either this Safari round Saturday or to the meeting Sunday, I've got a family event to attend (grrrr...). Will more information on this class be available on a post somewhere after the meeting? I can probably volunteer for it, heck, after my performance on Saturday, I may end up taking it! :D
QuoteJim (02-06-2003 09:37 p.m.):
OK, another thing to vote on at Sunday's meeting. If you can't make it, voice your vote here.
As a definite AM player (since nothing lower is offered ;) ) here is my opinion on handicaps:
For random doubles, no matter what the format (shadow, best shot, etc.) lose them. One week I could get paired up with Brett, Shawn, Jim, Al, one of the Brakel Bros, etc, etc, (the list of people better than I is quite extensive, so I will stop there), the next, I could get paired with 10yr old Sally playing her first round ever. The random draw part of it evens the field enough that I don't think handicapping is necessary. In case of tie, do a random or safari CTP (decided before the round), and see what happens. The one thing I would add would be that teams need to change week to week to keep the randomness of it intact.
For singles:
Fact #1: Playing against someone better than you will improve your own game over time.
Fact#2: In the short run, it's going to cost you.
Think of it as a paid for lesson (in humility, if nothing else), cuz you are going to get whupped on, so pay attention to what is happening and let it help you improve your own game. In singles, though, I think handicapping is necessary only if you are an AM/Lower matched against a Adv/Pro/Upper. Especially if you want to keep people coming back, got to give everyone a chance! Paying $7 to get your butt handed to you week after week is not likely to maintain the masses. I like Jon's idea about a player rating, but what would it be based on? Someone who regularly plays Bevier under par would obviously have a better ranking than someone who can only par it on a good day, but how do you figure out the inbetween? Anyway, handicaps have got to be used to keep the interest and the people, but at the same time, the person who had the best round (not always the best player, mind you) is definitely entitled to their win.