Ratings

[kyle]

How many players are needed to generate ratings?

Anyone playing short tees at the Prairie Open doesn't have a rating for it, so I did a count.
We had 10 ADV Masters (who got rated for their first round from the pro tees), all 10 are rated. 33 Int. Men, 16 are rated.
6 Int. Women, 3 are rated.
2 Juniors, both are rated.

I think only the women were sub 800 ratings. Wouldn't that be enough to generate ratings?

[damonshort]

How many players are needed to generate ratings?

Anyone playing short tees at the Prairie Open doesn't have a rating for it, so I did a count.
We had 10 ADV Masters (who got rated for their first round from the pro tees), all 10 are rated. 33 Int. Men, 16 are rated.
6 Int. Women, 3 are rated.
2 Juniors, both are rated.

I think only the women were sub 800 ratings. Wouldn't that be enough to generate ratings?

Wonder if Paul knows anything about it... maybe there was a problem with the report...  

[Jon Brakel]

How many players are needed to generate ratings?

Anyone playing short tees at the Prairie Open doesn't have a rating for it, so I did a count.
We had 10 ADV Masters (who got rated for their first round from the pro tees), all 10 are rated. 33 Int. Men, 16 are rated.
6 Int. Women, 3 are rated.
2 Juniors, both are rated.

I think only the women were sub 800 ratings. Wouldn't that be enough to generate ratings?

In order to be a ratings generator you have to have a certain number of rounds in the data base. I think it's around 10 or 12. So even though those people had ratings, maybe they weren't ratings generators.

[Jon Brakel]

You need at least 10 people above 799 who have at least 10 rounds in. These people are called "propagators".

http://www.pdga.com/documents/04RatingsGuide.pdf

[Jon Brakel]

There was only one rating propagator in Intermediate and only 7 in Adv master. This is a problem with the trend that more and more TDs are not running their lower divisions PDGA sanctioned. Even though there are still some such as the Prairie Open and the Illinois Open Series, it doesn't allow the lower divisions enough chances to get in their 10 rated rounds so that they become propagators.

Since the courses that we are running the IOS on only have one set of tees, you are very likely to get rated off those rounds. Hopefully this will help get the Intermediates some more propagators.  

[Bruce Brakel]

There was only one rating propagator in Intermediate and only 7 in Adv master. This is a problem with the trend that more and more TDs are not running their lower divisions PDGA sanctioned. Even though there are still some such as the Prairie Open and the Illinois Open Series, it doesn't allow the lower divisions enough chances to get in their 10 rated rounds so that they become propagators.

Since the courses that we are running the IOS on only have one set of tees, you are very likely to get rated off those rounds. Hopefully this will help get the Intermediates some more propagators.

Also, since we run Am Masters and Pro 2 on Saturday we are more likely to have sufficient propagators.  Am Masters on a percentage basis are more likely to join the PDGA than Intermediates and are more likely to be propagators too.  Ditto the Pro 2s.  These players plus the four or five propagators in intermediate provide ratings for all of the other members.

[damonshort]

There was only one rating propagator in Intermediate and only 7 in Adv master. This is a problem with the trend that more and more TDs are not running their lower divisions PDGA sanctioned. Even though there are still some such as the Prairie Open and the Illinois Open Series, it doesn't allow the lower divisions enough chances to get in their 10 rated rounds so that they become propagators.

Since the courses that we are running the IOS on only have one set of tees, you are very likely to get rated off those rounds. Hopefully this will help get the Intermediates some more propagators.

it's a double whammy for the 'non-propagators' as well, since (if I understand it correctly) they won't be any closer to 10 rated rounds if these rounds weren't rated.   . Luckily this situation didn't arise at last year's Prairie Open.

This strikes me as an Oversight. Where's the Oversight Director?

As I've whined about before, this situation wiped out my best-ever back-to-back tournament rounds a couple of years ago, leaving me with a one-round rating based on the 3rd crash/burn round at a course that had enough 'propagators'
   

[Bruce Brakel]

There was only one rating propagator in Intermediate and only 7 in Adv master. This is a problem with the trend that more and more TDs are not running their lower divisions PDGA sanctioned. Even though there are still some such as the Prairie Open and the Illinois Open Series, it doesn't allow the lower divisions enough chances to get in their 10 rated rounds so that they become propagators.

Since the courses that we are running the IOS on only have one set of tees, you are very likely to get rated off those rounds. Hopefully this will help get the Intermediates some more propagators.

it's a double whammy for the 'non-propagators' as well, since (if I understand it correctly) they won't be any closer to 10 rated rounds if these rounds weren't rated.   . Luckily this situation didn't arise at last year's Prairie Open.

This strikes me as an Oversight. Where's the Oversight Director?

As I've whined about before, this situation wiped out my best-ever back-to-back tournament rounds a couple of years ago, leaving me with a one-round rating based on the 3rd crash/burn round at a course that had enough 'propagators'
 

The solution lies with the people:  DO NOT PLAY PARTIALLY UNSANCTIONED TOURNAMENTS.  If intermediates who want ratings just refuse to play the events that go half unsanctioned, and send nice e-mail to the TD telling him that they look forward to playing it next year if he decides to offer their division in the sanctioned tournament, the TDs will change their opinion of sanctioning the lower divisions, there will be more ratings generators, and everyone will get ratings.

There is a reason why TDs go unsanctioned for half the tournament.  Ask anyone who played that recent Illinois tournament that was half unsanctioned where the TD paid the top four of 30-some intermediates.  

[damonshort]

The solution lies with the people:  DO NOT PLAY PARTIALLY UNSANCTIONED TOURNAMENTS.

But in the case of the Prairie Open, both days *were* sanctioned.

If I understand the process correctly, if the same combination of propagators/non-propagators were to play in another sanctioned tournament the next weekend, and (theoretically) every weekend for the rest of the year, none of the tournaments would have rated rounds!!?!

Sounds like part of the solution lies in tweaking the system; couldn't the scores be rated against the last SSA for the course or something?

[Jon Brakel]

The solution lies with the people:  DO NOT PLAY PARTIALLY UNSANCTIONED TOURNAMENTS.

But in the case of the Prairie Open, both days *were* sanctioned.

If I understand the process correctly, if the same combination of propagators/non-propagators were to play in another sanctioned tournament the next weekend, and (theoretically) every weekend for the rest of the year, none of the tournaments would have rated rounds!!?!

Sounds like part of the solution lies in tweaking the system; couldn't the scores be rated against the last SSA for the course or something?

The problem with the Prairie was that the propagators did not play the same tees as the non-propagators. If you have multiple tees that is another consideration. However, Bruce's theory is correct. The more sanctioned tournaments they play the more of them will be propagators. Although it could happen that every tournament they play they all play together and they play different tees or different days than the propagators, the fact remains that they will NEVER get rated off a non-sanctioned event. Many tournaments play the same tee pads with enough propagators to get rated.

You can't go off a course's SSA because of changing conditions. Also a course like Prairie View probably has several SSA's because of all the basket locations. The PDGA isn't not in a place where they can track all the various conditions and course variations. An organization would need a paid staff to do that.

[damonshort]

The solution lies with the people:  DO NOT PLAY PARTIALLY UNSANCTIONED TOURNAMENTS.

But in the case of the Prairie Open, both days *were* sanctioned.

If I understand the process correctly, if the same combination of propagators/non-propagators were to play in another sanctioned tournament the next weekend, and (theoretically) every weekend for the rest of the year, none of the tournaments would have rated rounds!!?!

Sounds like part of the solution lies in tweaking the system; couldn't the scores be rated against the last SSA for the course or something?

The problem with the Prairie was that the propagators did not play the same tees as the non-propagators. If you have multiple tees that is another consideration. However, Bruce's theory is correct. The more sanctioned tournaments they play the more of them will be propagators. Although it could happen that every tournament they play they all play together and they play different tees or different days than the propagators, the fact remains that they will NEVER get rated off a non-sanctioned event. Many tournaments play the same tee pads with enough propagators to get rated.

You can't go off a course's SSA because of changing conditions. Also a course like Prairie View probably has several SSA's because of all the basket locations. The PDGA isn't not in a place where they can track all the various conditions and course variations. An organization would need a paid staff to do that.

I understand all of that, but there still should be some sort of safety net. In my previous situation there were only about 10 players that day, but good grief, there were over 50 players on Sunday at Parkside!?

If the major attraction of playing in/running a sanctioned event is to provide officially rated rounds and you don't get them, I can understand the argument of not bothering with sanctioning after all.

(...."well, if you don't like it, just play Open....."   )

No one should misinterpret this as a knock on the Prairie Open whatsoever; my displeasure here is directed at a hole in the rating system    

[kyle]

Thanks to Jon and Bruce for explaining everything.

I understand what happened, but I'm with Damon on this one. It sucks.
Those were my two best tournament rounds so far and now they don't count towards my rating. (Of course in Steve's case, it was literally his best round ever).
I've played a few since, and I'll play more, but it's going to take me even longer to reach 10 now. (I'm figuring I would have been at 8 by the end of the year if I could the 2003 Prairie Open). And if Mad City Ams turnout was any indicator, I won't be getting a rating from that tournament either.

Ah well, as Bruce said it's a good reason to push for more sanction Int. tournaments(and hope they have enough propagators).

Does the PDGA ever "retro-rate" events? What I mean is, let's say in 6 months there are 10 guys who played the Prairie Open who have become generators. Are they able to go back and use those guys to calculate ratings?

[Jon Brakel]

If the major attraction of playing in/running a sanctioned event is to provide officially rated rounds and you don't get them, I can understand the argument of not bothering with sanctioning after all.

That theory is self fulfilling.

[Jon Brakel]

Does the PDGA ever "retro-rate" events? What I mean is, let's say in 6 months there are 10 guys who played the Prairie Open who have become generators. Are they able to go back and use those guys to calculate ratings?

They don't do that for the same reason that they don't include events where the TD has taken an extremely long time to submit the results. Some people's skills change at such a quick rate that rating a tournament that took place 6 months ago with data from today would give inacurate results.

[Jon Brakel]

I do understand what you are saying Damon, but the answer is in having more fully sanctioned tournaments. I don't think the answer is to then not sanction everything. Half of the problem with getting the lower divisions sanctioned is that a lot of them are new and they don't have 10 rounds in the data base. The other half of the problem is that TDs are choosing not to sanction their lower division days. We have control over the second part. If those of us in the lower divisions don't play in half sanctioned events and we tell the TDs why we are not playing in it, then they may start to run more fully sanctioned events.

[damonshort]

I do understand what you are saying Damon, but the answer is in having more fully sanctioned tournaments.

In the long-term, I completely agree. My point is that something needs to be adjusted in the system. If you play in a sanctioned tournament you should expect to have your scores rated, and there's absolutely no guarantee that you will - ever. To me that's a fundamental flaw.

[Bruce Brakel]

I do understand what you are saying Damon, but the answer is in having more fully sanctioned tournaments.

In the long-term, I completely agree. My point is that something needs to be adjusted in the system. If you play in a sanctioned tournament you should expect to have your scores rated, and there's absolutely no guarantee that you will - ever. To me that's a fundamental flaw.

To get acceptably reliable ratings, there has to be a sufficient number of propagators.  So long as your potential propagators are playing unsanctioned tournaments, you will have this problem.  We cannot generate reliable ratings just going with Jon and a couple of other guys.    

On behalf of the MDGO let me be the first to apologize for creating the concept of partially sanctioned tournaments.  At the time that we created this concept the PDGA was doing NOTHING for intermediates and recreationals other than collecting the sanctioning fee and saying "Thank you very much."  At that time it made more sense to keep that money in the players' pockets.  Now Intermediates and Recs get points and ratings -- they did not back then -- and it makes more sense for them to join and pay their $2 and $3 fees.

The solution lies with the players.  Call or write your TDs and ask them to fully sanction their events.  Don't play a lot of unsanctioned stuff.  Play the Illinois Open Series!

[Bruce Brakel]

I should add, you also see this problem when the TD does a lot of different tee assignments for different divisions.  Women and juniors rarely get rated rounds when they are on short tees with the recs but everyone else is playing longs.

Some TDs understand this stuff and plan accordingly.  At Flip I asked my women and juniors, "Do you want your second round rated, or would you rather play the short tees?  For ratings you have to play longs."  They chose shorts.  Then I had to follow up with the PDGA after they did not rate the women and juniors at all and point out that they could be rated on round 1.  

Wow, Kelsey shot an 837 round from middles.  

On an unrelated front, someone tell the rest of the Intermediate pool that I did what was necessary to get Leeds out of Intermediate.  Leeds had a junior girl rated round suppressing his rating, but he had taken 12 or 16 penalty strokes for showing up late for the round.  I pointed it out to the ratings committee and they said that there was nothing they could do.  So I asked them to look at the IOS #1 results and think about whether they might be able to do something that was entirely beyond their power and authority.  

[Bruce Brakel]

If the major attraction of playing in/running a sanctioned event is to provide officially rated rounds and you don't get them, I can understand the argument of not bothering with sanctioning after all.

That theory is self fulfilling.

Virtually everything about tournament attendance is self-fulfilling and circular.  Which is so frustrating because I don't know how to get that wheel spinning.

Why does the A3Disc Ace Race have huge ace pots?  Because everyone goes.  Why does everyone go?  Because of the huge ace pots!

Why does the Bowling Green Open give the advanced player a better shot at getting into Worlds or USADGC than any other tournament?  Because so many players play it.  Why do so many players play it?  Because it is your best shot at qualifying for Worlds or USADGC if you can't play a lot of tournaments.

If 66 advanced ams were to show up for the Illinois Open #2, the winner would get $345, enough to go home with a Chainstar and a few discs.  The 66th will show up if he is convinced that 65 are showing up.  That's why I drove all the way to Bowling Green!  

How do you get that wheel spinning?

[Dan Michler]

don't worry about that leeds dude.  i don't think he's going to play intermed. at CL anyways.  He's not THAT much better than the intermediate pool either.  As far as getting the wheel spinning,  maybe u should try to hand out flyers that advertise the Illinois Open Series.   Just a thought.  Did you guys even make up any IOS flyers?