PDGA Ratings Breakdown

[ERicJ]

I pulled the data from the PDGA member database and did some number crunching. The table below includes all 11,203 players with player ratings in the database as of the Nov'08 update. There is no breakout by age or gender, strictly ratings.

It's interesting to see that while the Mean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arithmetic_mean) and Median (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median) for MA1 and MA2 are pretty well centered at the midpoint, the MA3 group is top heavy.

.-----------------------------------------------------------.
| | Player | Number | | | | |
| | Rating | Mem- | | Med- | | |
| Class | Min-Max | bers | Mean | ian | Mode | StDev |
|-------+-----------+--------+--------+------+------+-------|
| All | 114-1041 | 11203 | 895.8 | 908 | 918 | 69.01 |
|-------+-----------+--------+--------+------+------+-------|
| MA4 | 114- 849 | 2088 | 787.0 | 810 | 837 | 71.01 |
| MA3 | 850- 899 | 2823 | 878.0 | 880 | 898 | 14.09 |
| MA2 | 900- 934 | 2983 | 917.5 | 918 | 918 | 9.87 |
| ~MA1 | 935- 969 | 2383 | 950.2 | 949 | 938 | 9.79 |
| ~MPO | 970-1041 | 926 | 985.9 | 983 | 970 | 13.48 |
|-------+-----------+--------+--------+------+------+-------|
| 1000+ | 1000-1041 | 148 | 1010.3 | 1008 | 1005 | 9.64 |
`-----------------------------------------------------------'ERic

[scoot_er]

I pulled the data from the PDGA member database and did some number crunching. The table below includes all 11,203 players with player ratings in the database as of the Nov'08 update. There is no breakout by age or gender, strictly ratings.

It's interesting to see that while the Mean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arithmetic_mean) and Median (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median) for MA1 and MA2 are pretty well centered at the midpoint, the MA3 group is top heavy.

.-----------------------------------------------------------.
| | Player | Number | | | | |
| | Rating | Mem- | | Med- | | |
| Class | Min-Max | bers | Mean | ian | Mode | StDev |
|-------+-----------+--------+--------+------+------+-------|
| All | 114-1041 | 11203 | 895.8 | 908 | 918 | 69.01 |
|-------+-----------+--------+--------+------+------+-------|
| MA4 | 114- 849 | 2088 | 787.0 | 810 | 837 | 71.01 |
| MA3 | 850- 899 | 2823 | 878.0 | 880 | 898 | 14.09 |
| MA2 | 900- 934 | 2983 | 917.5 | 918 | 918 | 9.87 |
| ~MA1 | 935- 969 | 2383 | 950.2 | 949 | 938 | 9.79 |
| ~MPO | 970-1041 | 926 | 985.9 | 983 | 970 | 13.48 |
|-------|-----------+--------+--------+------+------+-------|
| 1000+ | 1000-1041 | 148 | 1010.3 | 1008 | 1005 | 9.64 |
`-----------------------------------------------------------'ERic


So that is based only on ratings so many Pro players may be excluded as they are rated sub 970 and/or play in other Pro classes. Also the bagger AMs are shown to be pros?

[ERicJ]

So that is based only on ratings so many Pro players may be excluded as they are rated sub 970 and/or play in other Pro classes. Also the bagger AMs are shown to be pros?
This is everybody in the PDGA with an active rating. I wanted to break down the ratings into groups so I used the MPO/MA# splits for convenience. It's arbitrary. E.g. there may be players that play exclusively MPM who are rated 920, they showed up in my MA2 grouping. Like I said, this is based only on PDGA Player Rating. That's why I used the "~" prefacing MA1 and MPO.

Perhaps this is more accurate:

.---------------------------------------------------.
| Player | Number | | | | |
| Rating | Mem- | | Med- | | |
| Min-Max | bers | Mean | ian | Mode | StDev |
|-----------+--------+--------+------+------+-------|
| 114-1041 | 11203 | 895.8 | 908 | 918 | 69.01 |
|-----------+--------+--------+------+------+-------|
| 114- 849 | 2088 | 787.0 | 810 | 837 | 71.01 |
| 850- 899 | 2823 | 878.0 | 880 | 898 | 14.09 |
| 900- 934 | 2983 | 917.5 | 918 | 918 | 9.87 |
| 935- 969 | 2383 | 950.2 | 949 | 938 | 9.79 |
| 970-1041 | 926 | 985.9 | 983 | 970 | 13.48 |
|-----------+--------+--------+------+------+-------|
| 1000-1041 | 148 | 1010.3 | 1008 | 1005 | 9.64 |
`---------------------------------------------------'

[ERicJ]

...and yes, there really is someone with a rating of 114.

[Suemac]

...and yes, there really is someone with a rating of 114.


ERic.....sorry you had to talk about your rating! j/k LOL :D ;)

[tarazarr]

...and yes, there really is someone with a rating of 114.
Just hang in there brother....you'll get better:D practice, practice, practice

[Miller]

I pulled the data from the PDGA member database and did some number crunching. The table below includes all 11,203 players with player ratings in the database as of the Nov'08 update. There is no breakout by age or gender, strictly ratings.

It's interesting to see that while the Mean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arithmetic_mean) and Median (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median) for MA1 and MA2 are pretty well centered at the midpoint, the MA3 group is top heavy.

.-----------------------------------------------------------.
| | Player | Number | | | | |
| | Rating | Mem- | | Med- | | |
| Class | Min-Max | bers | Mean | ian | Mode | StDev |
|-------+-----------+--------+--------+------+------+-------|
| All | 114-1041 | 11203 | 895.8 | 908 | 918 | 69.01 |
|-------+-----------+--------+--------+------+------+-------|
| MA4 | 114- 849 | 2088 | 787.0 | 810 | 837 | 71.01 |
| MA3 | 850- 899 | 2823 | 878.0 | 880 | 898 | 14.09 |
| MA2 | 900- 934 | 2983 | 917.5 | 918 | 918 | 9.87 |
| ~MA1 | 935- 969 | 2383 | 950.2 | 949 | 938 | 9.79 |
| ~MPO | 970-1041 | 926 | 985.9 | 983 | 970 | 13.48 |
|-------+-----------+--------+--------+------+------+-------|
| 1000+ | 1000-1041 | 148 | 1010.3 | 1008 | 1005 | 9.64 |
`-----------------------------------------------------------'ERic

Don't you mean that the MA4 group is top heavy. But if you look at their standard deviation (a measure of how much the ratings are spread out) you can see that the MA4 group is the most varied group by far. Makes sense though since it is the catch-all group.

[tarazarr]

...and yes, im one with a rating of 114.

EricJ - I took the liberty of condensing your qoute to "just the essentials":D

[tarazarr]

...and yes, really is me with a rating of 114.


and once more..condensed to "just the essentials" :D

[ERicJ]

Don't you mean that the MA4 group is top heavy. But if you look at their standard deviation (a measure of how much the ratings are spread out) you can see that the MA4 group is the most varied group by far. Makes sense though since it is the catch-all group.
No, I meant MA3 is top heavy. Since it has a "normal" upper and lower limit on the range I expected it to look closer to "MA1" and "MA2". Your right that the "MA4" group will be skewed because it has no artificial lower limit set.

I guess personally I was surprised at how high the overall Mean and Median were. I expected there to be more "Rec" type players than those of advanced skill levels. I thought it was surprisingly well distributed. Possibly due to players of lesser skill not actually joining the PDGA until they get "good"?

ERic

[Miller]

I see what you mean. You're saying that the mean/median/mode are not in the middle of the class (875). I was looking at it from the point of view of the relation between the mean and the median. Since those two values are close to each other that means you have a nice bell curve, it's just centered a little higher.

PS I'll be teaching my Stats review class again... JK

[ThePatrick]

Speaking of ratings, they are actually out a day early. They didn't include the most recent birdshot tourney though...Congrats/Condolences CJ you're now in the 800's.

[scoot_er]

Speaking of ratings, they are actually out a day early. They didn't include the most recent birdshot tourney though...Congrats/Condolences CJ you're now in the 800's.


It only includes tournaments from 2008. I reached my goal so I am fairly happy.

[ERicJ]

Speaking of ratings, they are actually out a day early.
Actually the last three updates have all been a day early.

[scoot_er]

Actually the last three updates have all been a day early.


I think they plan on it that way so they will get a pat on the back and make everyone happy. I think if you add up how many days late they have been and subtract the early updates they are still way behind.

Heck sometimes it would be a week or two late.

[derek]

are they still using WCP?

[ERicJ]

are they still using WCP?
WCP was a bit before my time, but the way I understand it WCP has evolved into the current SSA system. So you probably won't find references to "WCP" in any current PDGA documentation except in historical context.

ERic

[scoot_er]

WCP was a bit before my time, but the way I understand it WCP has evolved into the current SSA system. So you probably won't find references to "WCP" in any current PDGA documentation except in historical context.

ERic


WCP was basically an avg (median would work too) of an estimated SSA on a course. SSA varies round to round but WCP is a good way to guess at a 1000 rated round.

[derek]

It seems like the WCP is lower than what new SSA's are showing

[scoot_er]

It seems like the WCP is lower than what new SSA's are showing


Depends on what course you are looking at and WCP is under normal conditions.

[ChingLizard]

I think they plan on it that way so they will get a pat on the back and make everyone happy. I think if you add up how many days late they have been and subtract the early updates they are still way behind.

Heck sometimes it would be a week or two late.

Holy crap Matt!!! Geez...this is really unfair!!! You have absolutely no idea about the complexities involved in transferring the amount of tournament results data they have (in various forms that they get it in...) to the various different servers and databases internally and then get it all wired back into the website database (which by necessity) is completely isolated from their internal network where most of the grunt-work is done.

There are only a very small group of people which have the access levels necessary to do certain parts of this stuff and almost all of the code is written by (and supported by) volunteers who often have real jobs, and real families and what-not.

The fact that the folks are getting them cranked out regularly now speaks to increasing professionalism by the staffers and the system they are building. [Recall that they were hacked badly last year and they are making concerted efforts to rebuild it all in a very secure environment.]

I know about this stuff because I'm one of the volunteers that has worked on some of their code.

Do you wake up every moring wondering about why everyone else in the world and their efforts seems so inferior to you?

Geez brother...get your facts straight before you start casting stones at the PDGA or its network of volunteers.

I'm glad to see that they are consistently cranking them out on time. The TD reports getting submitted are often messed-with or messed-up when they get back to the HQ. I know too that often the problem was often the "fault" of a TD or two that couldn't seem to get their event's results in on time...we had "troubles" once because we hadn't finished the financial section yet, but we found out that they would take the tournament results separately from the financial ones and that took a lot of pressure off TDs when holding an event the size of Texas States for example...

[scoot_er]

Holy crap Matt!!! Geez...this is really unfair!!! You have absolutely no idea about the complexities involved in transferring the amount of tournament results data they have (in various forms that they get it in...) to the various different servers and databases internally and then get it all wired back into the website database (which by necessity) is completely isolated from their internal network where most of the grunt-work is done.

There are only a very small group of people which have the access levels necessary to do certain parts of this stuff and almost all of the code is written by (and supported by) volunteers who often have real jobs, and real families and what-not.

The fact that the folks are getting them cranked out regularly now speaks to increasing professionalism by the staffers and the system they are building. [Recall that they were hacked badly last year and they are making concerted efforts to rebuild it all in a very secure environment.]

I know about this stuff because I'm one of the volunteers that has worked on some of their code.

Do you wake up every moring wondering about why everyone else in the world and their efforts seems so inferior to you?

Geez brother...get your facts straight before you start casting stones at the PDGA or its network of volunteers.

I'm glad to see that they are consistently cranking them out on time. The TD reports getting submitted are often messed-with or messed-up when they get back to the HQ. I know too that often the problem was often the "fault" of a TD or two that couldn't seem to get their event's results in on time...we had "troubles" once because we hadn't finished the financial section yet, but we found out that they would take the tournament results separately from the financial ones and that took a lot of pressure off TDs when holding an event the size of Texas States for example...


All I meant is that CK probably sets a date with hopes to get them out a day or two early as it is a good way to keep people happy in the customer service department.


Also mentioned something about the early updates which were sometimes a week or two late. If anything that in itself is admitting the system had improved as of late.


Larry why did you have to pull up an old post? I have no ideas what stories I am casting but feel free to let me know.

[TBender]

It looks like the system has become more efficient (could be that they've gotten more help in processing the TD reports and more strict/obvious in their cutoff date).

CK picks a Tuesday knowing he'll have them up Monday. Insurance against a computer hiccup. :)