Updated OWGR Algorithm

[iacas]

43 minutes ago, mdl said:

My understanding was that the criteria they don't meet are kinda ticky-tacky?

They fail to meet several criteria

[woodzie264]

I feel bad for the guy

Jon Rahm throws some shade on the Official World Golf Ranking (and Patrick Cantlay!) after latest win | This is the Loop | GolfDigest.com

 

[iacas]

26 minutes ago, woodzie264 said:

I feel bad for the guy

Jon Rahm throws some shade on the Official World Golf Ranking (and Patrick Cantlay!) after latest win | This is the Loop | GolfDigest.com

 

Oy. These guys had like two years where they could have investigated this and commented on it.

It's tough to beat a full field of PGA Tour players. Tougher than a field of 30, even if most of the 30 are highly ranked.

There will always be small issues, but I think the current OWGR algorithm is much better than the old one.

[Aguirre]

On 1/10/2023 at 5:53 PM, iacas said:

Oy. These guys had like two years where they could have investigated this and commented on it.

It's tough to beat a full field of PGA Tour players. Tougher than a field of 30, even if most of the 30 are highly ranked.

There will always be small issues, but I think the current OWGR algorithm is much better than the old one.

It's far better. Here's what I think the OWGR needs to set straight. 

1. Ranking points based on pure merit of the strength of the field

2. Ranking points based on accomplishment. (ie, tournament strength, placement in field (1 vs 2, 5 vs 25, 40 vs mc, etc)). 

I think this new system does a better job of both. It's never going to be perfect. But it would probably help the OWGR is they explicitly labeled their rankings in terms of merit vs probability of future results. Like, what are they aiming for? Or which of the two do they think is more important in determining the rankings? And to what extent? That would help clear the air a bit.

[iacas]

5 hours ago, Aguirre said:

It's far better. Here's what I think the OWGR needs to set straight. 

1. Ranking points based on pure merit of the strength of the field

2. Ranking points based on accomplishment. (ie, tournament strength, placement in field (1 vs 2, 5 vs 25, 40 vs mc, etc)). 

I think this new system does a better job of both. It's never going to be perfect. But it would probably help the OWGR is they explicitly labeled their rankings in terms of merit vs probability of future results. Like, what are they aiming for? Or which of the two do they think is more important in determining the rankings? And to what extent? That would help clear the air a bit.

They've never been about the future. I'm not sure what you mean by that part.

[Aguirre]

9 hours ago, iacas said:

They've never been about the future. I'm not sure what you mean by that part.

The rankings could have a predictive element about them, like metrics in other sports. There's enough data that this can be accomplished. But I don't know if that's their goal.

[iacas]

2 hours ago, Aguirre said:

The rankings could have a predictive element about them, like metrics in other sports. There's enough data that this can be accomplished. But I don't know if that's their goal.

It is not. Someone could win a bunch, and then have their game fall off or something.

Look at Anthony Kim. People forget his last year on the PGA Tour was abysmal.

[Aguirre]

6 hours ago, iacas said:

It is not. Someone could win a bunch, and then have their game fall off or something.

 

Ok. I agree.