DUNEDIN POOL ASSOCIATION

Just been perusing the updated rankings and one thing jumped out to me as being a bit wrong and I wondered what everyone else thought.  It looks as though rankings are based on the difference between the number of frames won and lost regardless of how many games are played.  For example, Mark Stuart (ranked 44) has played 5 frames and won 3, so a difference of 1 but Alan Gill (ranked 45) has played 25 frames and won 13 of those, also a difference of 1, but is ranked lower than Mark.  This doesn't seem to make sense to me as Alan has won 10 frames more than Mark but is ranked lower.  A fairer approach would surely be to rank by frames won and then either by the difference or the percentage won.  I have never known a ranking list to rank someone who has won 4 out of 4 frames (Max Flaws ranked 27) ABOVE someone who has played 26 frames and won 15 of them (Dan Bowen ranked 30) as they both have the 'same' difference but Max has a higher winning % despite only playing 4 frames all season. 

To me this makes the rankings even less meaningful than they are already, as the only ranking that matters is the one that shows which TEAM is top of the league table!  What does everyone else think, or should I just shut up and get my coat?  

If we sort by FF first, then people who don't play every game would be a bit disadvantaged. As an example say someone played all 18 games won them all 2 - 1 and someone else played 17 games and won them all 2 - 0, the person who played 17 would come 3rd to the person who played 18 due to number of frames won. The person who got 2nd played all 18 games, won 17 of them 2 - 0 and lost the last 1 -2 Giving him 35 frames for.

:

Rank  Games Won ,  FramesPlayed     FF         FA       Diff      %

 1                  18                    54             36       18          18        50%

 2                  17                     37             35        2           33        97%

 3                  17                     34             34        0            34      100%

This is a great topic to discuss as we have ourselfs many times, your imput here would be greatly appreciated.

TK at 09:29AM on Jun 21, 2009

If we sort by FF first, then people who don't play every game would be a bit disadvantaged. As an example say someone played all 18 games won them all 2 - 1 and someone else played 17 games and won them all 2 - 0, the person who played 17 would come 3rd to the person who played 18 due to number of frames won. The person who got 2nd played all 18 games, won 17 of them 2 - 0 and lost the last 1 -2 Giving him 35 frames for.

 

:

 

Rank  Games Won ,  FramesPlayed     FF         FA       Diff      %

 1                  18                    54             36       18          18        50%

 2                  17                     37             35        2           33        97%

 3                  17                     34             34        0            34      100%

 

This is a great topic to discuss as we have ourselfs many times, your imput here would be greatly appreciated.

But surely of you dont play every game you deserve to be disadvantaged, as opposed to someone who makes the effort to turn up and play every week and then gets ranked below someone who is not as committed but happens to have the same frames difference...

I understand the reasoning but to me the guy who played and won 36 frames (18 matches) should finish above the guy who won 35 frames (17 matches) regardless of frames conceeded.  The way you do the rankings at the mo,  the guy who was unbeaten all season would finish third, behind two guys who did not complete their full season (for whatever reason) and who won less frames.  Surely anyone who doesn't complete a full season cant complain that they are not top of the rankings at the end of the season and if  they do complain, then they need to get a life!   

I have checked the rankings for several other pool leagues on the web and can confirm that NONE of them rank in the same way as the DPA.  They all rank on frames won and if that's the same then by winning %.

Maybe the fairest way then is to rank by number of matches won, then number of frames, then either difference or win percentage?

No disrespect but Sam Chin has won more frames than Ian Muir has played all season, so how can Ian be above Sam in the rankings?  This just doesn't make sense imho.

The consensus at our match tonight was that rankings should be based on matches won, then frames won, then either differential or win %...

Ok, i think the best thing to do would be to bring this topic up at the next meeting,  Would be great to keep this topic going till then so i can have as much imput as poss

Hi Maggi and Tony.  Read the following and tell me if  this would work?  If you apply a system where you get allocated points for winning the match 2-1 and points for winning the match 2-0.  For example if you win 2-0, then perhaps the winner should score 3 points and the loser o points.  If you win 2-1 then perhaps the winner should get 2 points and the loser gets 1.  Points accumulate as you play more.  The only way you could be ranked number one is by winning all of your matches 2 nil and playing all games throughout the season.  If for example you play 18 matches and win all of them 2 nil and some one plays 17 matches also winning all two nil the person who played and won 18 would score 54, and the person who played 17 would score 51.  Justice is done to some respects.  Those who play more matches risk losing more.  It is harder to go 18 matches undeafeted than 17, hence the person winning 18 deserves a higher rank than the person winning 17.  This would ensure those who show up week in and week out are like rewarded too.  The flaws are if you miss quite a few weeks you could be ranked lower than someone who has lost more than you. But You could also continue in another column what the DPA already has in place which rates according to the frames you have won in a loss win ratio.  Do not have an answer for those who play 4 and win 4 being ranked first, middle last or where ever.    The way I have been playing this year I would rather there was no ranking system!!!  But good on those people who consistently win, it is not easy and they deserve to be recognised in the ranking system. 

Yeah i will take all options to the meeting, We cant change the way its done this year, But will look at the better way of doing it next year...

The new NZPA 8ball Ranking list has now been posted as well as the latest DPA Results

Stupid question, but why can't it be changed this year?  Do the politics of the DPA really matter when it comes to sorting a spreadsheet in a different order so that the information being presented is actually meaningful?  I really hope not, but if so, I would like to know which ego's on the committee would actually care that their 'decisions' have been 'undermined' by that actual pool players that couldn't care less about a constitution...  Damn politics, why does it always get in the way of pool players, seems to be the same everywhere, so this is not a dig at the DPA specifically...

If what I suspect is true, then I will simply post 'unofficial' rankings on here so that the PLAYERS can actually see where they reallty ranked over the course of the season...

Simple.

btw, nice thinking Phil, that's a much better proposal than what is currently being implemented by the DPA, so keep on banging the drum!!!

How about a win loss ratio score like the Dpa has now.  Then another score that recognises percentages of matches played and then add those to get a total score.

Say a players like Dan Bowen (sorry Dan) has played all matches to date and there has been 12 matches and they have a win loss ratio of 26 frame wins and 15 frames losses.   Their percentage (26 divided by 41 = 63%) win loss ratio would be 63%.  Then they have played a possbile 12 matches out of 12, so they get 100% for that.  Their total ranking score would be 163%.  Say (sorry Max) Max played 2 matches and won both 2 nil his win loss ratio would be 100%.  But he only played 2 matches out of 12, (2 divided by 12=16.6%) so his percentage there  would be 16.6%. His total score and ranking score would then be 116% as 100 + 16.6 = 116.6%.  Now Dan Bowen ranks higher than Max Flaws giving credit to Dan for playing more games.  This system would give credit for those playing every week and also recognise playing more increases the risk of losing and it is harder to achieve.  Yet it still recognises Max's effort in winning 2 matches 2 nil.  It may be more wholistic of the system than the current system and hopefully satisfy most- like can the dpa ever please everyone.  What do you think of that?
Regards

Phil

Nice concept Phil, again much better than what's currently in place, but the one thing I keep asking myself after reading your latest post is 'why are we even trying to compare Dan Bowens stats to Max Flaws'?  As you said, Max has only played 2 matches (4 frames) ALL season, so i fail to see why someone who has played 12 matches even needs to be on the same ranking page as someone else who has only played 2 matches, regardless of the results.  What credit do you want to give Max?  ...  Well done for playing in 16.67% of the matches this season (2/12)!?!?!  That hardly deserves to be 'rewarded' in the rankings in my opinion when compared to someone who has played 100% of the matches this season (12/12).  No disrespect to Max, but winning 4 out of 4 frames throughout a whole season hardly warrants a decent ranking...  Max's 'effort' would be rewarded by being ranked along others who have won 4 frames all season, but he would be above them as his win % would be better.

What do you reckon?  For me its still gotta be ranking by number of matches won, then frames, then either % or differential.  This is how ALL other leagues do it, so I dont see the rocket science in DPA's approach to this issue...

Bottom line is this, if a player is 'disssatisfied' with the DPA over their ranking, then they can solve this by making sure they play a full season and by winning all their frames, thus ensuring a satisfactory ranking at the end of the season... 

Yes wins 1st, then frames, then differential. That is the way it should be done. I Agree you cant change it in the middle of the year, it would upset people and the complants would flood in. But do look at the change next year.

Great site TK you done well with this.

Would the people who would be 'upset' be either the committee who might throw their toys out of the pram or the players who have currently got an inflated ranking and who's ranking would surely tumble if the rankings were actually representative of how they had performed all season?  'Complaints would flood in'...I find that hilarious and can imagine the jist of what they would be saying... 'how dare you change the rankings so that instead of finishing in the top 30 i actually finished in the bottom 30!'

Would players in the league really be that bothered by the DPA sorting the rankings so that they ACCURATELY reflected who has done what this season???

Good post Jas, it's definately the way it should be done...sooner rather than later I say!

It wouldnt just be down the order that would change, the order of the top 5 would change too, Doesnt matter what sport you play no one changes the format of the way its done in the middle of a season because one person is not happy with the way things are done, Its been this way since player stats were introduced.

As far as im concerned the committee are doing a good job in making sure the season runs smoothly (eg, monday nights, ranking tournaments and this website),

if you think you can do better mayby you should put your hand up and join the committee. Maybe that would be a better option than sitting back and dishing the DPA

In response to Maggi.  Why do we compare Mr. Bowen with Mr.Flaws?  Because we do, that's what ranking system do.  Just because a person does not play as much as another in ranking events it does not mean you should have a different ranking system or page for them.  They still need to rank on the same page as they play in the same league.  The central issue is determining how to rank that best encapsulates the win loss ratio over a period of time that is deemed fair.  If for example Maggi you are ranked number one in a national ranking system and for some reason you miss playing in a ranking event and the number two ranked player wins the ranking tournamnet they get points.  Perhaps those points accumulate to the point where they now put that person in the number one ranking position, too bad for you, right!  So the DPA system needs to replicate that.  The way to do that is described above in my first post.   A win 2-0 equals three points for the winner and zero for the loser.  A win 2-1 equals 2 points for the winner and one for the loser.  Every weeks play is in essence a ranking event.  You do not play then you give the opportunity up to accumulate more points.  This system is easy to implement and accurate.   It also awards maximium points for a 2 nil win, which supports the notion it is harder to win 2 nil than 2-1.  The 2-1 awarding of points still awards points for a win while recognising the loser grabbed a frame-it was a closer battle.      You could word it in that you get 2 points for a match win.  If you win 2 nil you get awarded a bonus point, hence 3 points.  If you won a frame but lost the match you get a bonus point for winning a frame.  Seems very easy and obviously fair.    PS Maggi, perhaps you should attend the next dpa meet and provide a concrete example of a ranking system.  The time is 7pm Wednesday 1st July at Sourthern Sports Bar and Grill, but check with TK first

Regards

Phil. 

Hey Jas, I'm purely playing devils advocate so don't think that i'm dissing the DPA, cos I'm not, all I'm trying to do is get people...like yourself...interested and involved on this website.   Which co-incidentally was setup by a member of the committee who actually stated earlier in this thread that it' 'would be great to keep this topic going so i can have as much imput as poss' as 'your input would be greatly appreciated' which is all I'm doing.  It's not about me being 'unhappy' with the ranking, you couldn't be further from the truth, infact I'm trying to stand up for the players who appear well down the current rankings despite having better records than players above them, which was the impetus for my original post.  I agree with you, the committee are doing a good job, but that doesn't mean that things can't and shouldn't be even better...  I didn't realise that to have a valid opinion you had to join the committee, as to be honest i'd rather play the game than talk about playing the game, so not really interested in getting involved in the politics.  I'd much rather discuss pool issues in a forum like this in my own good time than in a formal meeting, but like I said, I'm just trying to provoke reaction...and it appears it has worked!  Fair point regarding changing the rankings mid season, glad someone could answer the question so cheers!

Phil, good post but I think you missed my point, (or more than likely I didnt explain myself clearly enough), i meant that if you printed the ranking list then someone might well have tumbled from page 1 (Top 50 rankings) to page 3 (bottom 50 rankings).  Of course they are on the same ranking list, but in Dan Bowen and Max Flaws' case, they would be on 'different pages' of the one ranking list if printed (like the ones on the board at Q Rooms), hope that clarifies what I was trying to say. 

I totally agree with your idea and think that it would basically produce very similar results to the format I suggested, so either option would be a step forward from the current method being used.  Regarding attending committee meetings, as I said to Jas, i don't want to get involved in the politics, but I would happily post links on here to several different pool leagues which provide alternative concrete ranking system formats for consideration by the committee for future reference.

Regards & Peace!

I agree, changing it mid season would be the wrong thing to do jas but maggi it right in saying that it doesnt reflect the players true ranking and it needs to be looked at, and it will be.

Thanks for sticking up for the committee, The committee do a great job and are open to suggestions to make pool in Dunedin even better, and the way for that to happen is to get imput from it members. Im grateful to have the support of such a great committee and wouldnt be able to do the job im doing now without them.

Darlene does a wonderful job getting the draw done and posting the results and emailing important dates out so everyone is up to date with whats happening....

DPA Wouldnt be here now if it wasnt for the committee members and past president that have put the time in to make it happen...

Like i said, you imput on here is so important to us and the future of the game and this is a discussion forum, and thats what we are doing.. There is no one right or wrong at this stage, its just your opinion which helps us pinpoint areas that need to be looked at..

I totally agree TK, well said!  As there are 17 members signed up so far and judging by the number of views this topic has generated, i reckon this debate is helping the future of the DPA in engaging players to voice an opinion that usually would be unheard, hence the current status quo with the ranking system...that will change. 

Together we can affect change in the right direction for the future.

I spoke to Darlene at the weekend about easy ways to help her produce the league tables and rankings with minimal effort so that going forward, she doesn't have to spend loads of her own time doing this manually, as I appreciate from experience that being on a pool league committee is a thankless task so again, keep up the good work! 

Just to let you know TK, and with no intention of undermining the committee or their decision making process, I will be producing an 'unofficial' ranking list at the end of the season so that those interested can accurately see how they got on this season!

Change is good but at the start for sure

Just wanted to point out that Phil's idea doesn't really work. I've tinkered with exactly the same idea before, but it gives you some inconsistent rankings. For example, say two players have three matches against each other 2:1, 0:2, 2:1. Surely, the first player winning two games should be ranked higher. With Phil's proposed system the first player would only get 4 points, 2 each for the two wins, while the second player would get 5, 3 for the 2:0 win, and 1 each for the two lost games cause he scored a frame in each. Not really fair, is it?