WPBA Rankings don't look right

[facets58]

Below is a quote from the WPBA Homepage.

"WE HAVE A NEW #1 RANKED PLAYER - KELLY FISHER
It'd didn't matter if Kelly won the finals or not, she had earned enough points to move into the #1 position just ahead of Karen Corr. Allison Fisher will drop to the #6 position while Ga Young Kim and Xiaoting Pan are tied for 4rd, Sarah Ellerby is 5th"


I'm not even going to start about how bad the new structure is, the lack of respect shown to ALL the top players is evident at this event.

Allison has won 2 of the 4 events this year and is ranked 5th...disgraceful, how can an organization be that short-sighted... This has to be one of the worst ideas ever for the WPBA.

The World Golf Rankings go off of a minimum 40 events over a 2 year period. The average events played for the top 50 players is about 52 events (26 per year)

http://www.officialworldgolfranking.com/rankings/default.sps


The WPBA rankings that I came up with are as follows.
BTW it is very short-sighted to have your events count for so little.

Two full years on the WPBA tour (16 events) is barely enough to establish an accurate ranking list.

Allison is still #1 based on an accurate ranking list. The new one is very inconsistant at best.

1. Kelly Fisher 15,000
2. Karen Corr 14,250
3. Xiao-Ting Pan 13,750
4. Ga-Young Kim 13,500
5. Allison Fisher 13,350
6. Sarah Elerby 12,500
7. Anna Kostanian 12,000
8. Gerda Hofstatter 11,250
9. Vivian Villarreal 10,750
10. Monica Webb 10,750

It's never too late to fix a mistake!!!
mike--

 

[av84fun]

I feel ya. The new rules were obviously designed to make it more difficult for Alli and Karen to become or remain #1. The final 16 re-shuffle is intended to accomplish the same result.

It is clear that the WPBA has decided that it is in their best interests to have new faces on TV and in the ranking statistics...and who knows...they may prove to be right. We'll just have to wait to see the TV rating numbers.

Certainly, more players will become candidates for endorsement sponsorships.

Also, there are precedents in many other sports regarding certain kinds of ranking statistics. In MLB, for example, batting championships are season-specific and don't carry over from one season to the next. And MVP awards in most other sports are the same way.

Bottom line...as the saying goes..."If what you are doing isn't working...then do something different."

In spite of the fact that the WPBA has been doing more right for much longer than any other pro pool-related entity, I think they correctly perceive that their tour needs to improve and that is what they are trying to accomplish.

At least it is irrefutable that what they are doing is bold and innovative (at least in the pro pool business) and we just need to give them time to see how it all plays out.

Finally, when the subject of the poor state of affairs in pro pool in general is discussed, the focus needs to turn AT LEAST as much to the players themselves as to the tour sponsors.

The number of pros who are actually busting their chops to maximize their own personal "celebrity" status and the income that could be achieved from it can be counted on the fingers of one hand...men and women included.

Most limit their personal exploitation activities to showing up at tournaments and matching up in gambling sessions.That ain't the way it's done folks....and never has been in any facet of the "celebrity" world.

Faith Hill makes no more than 25% of her gross income from RECORD SALES! And Jeanette Lee makes a LOT LESS than 25% of her annual income from WPBA events.

The best "move" for pro pool players to pefect is the "bootay shake" and few are shaking theirs nearly as much as they should in putting in the long, hard hours in the "career building" phase of what they do.

Regards,
Jim

Below is a quote from the WPBA Homepage.

"WE HAVE A NEW #1 RANKED PLAYER - KELLY FISHER
It'd didn't matter if Kelly won the finals or not, she had earned enough points to move into the #1 position just ahead of Karen Corr. Allison Fisher will drop to the #6 position while Ga Young Kim and Xiaoting Pan are tied for 4rd, Sarah Ellerby is 5th"


I'm not even going to start about how bad the new structure is, the lack of respect shown to ALL the top players is evident at this event.

Allison has won 2 of the 4 events this year and is ranked 5th...disgraceful, how can an organization be that short sided... This has to be one of the worst ideas ever for the WPBA.

The World Golf Rankings go off of a minimum 40 events over a 2 year period. The average events played for the top 50 players is about 52 events (26 per year)

http://www.officialworldgolfranking.com/rankings/default.sps


The WPBA rankings that I came up with are as follows.
BTW it is very shortsided to have your events count for so little.

Two full years on the WPBA tour (16 events) is barely enough to establish an accurate ranking list.

Allison is still #1 based on an accurate ranking list. The new one is very inconsistant at best.

1. Kelly Fisher 15,000
2. Karen Corr 14,250
3. Xiao-Ting Pan 13,750
4. Ga-Young Kim 13,500
5. Allison Fisher 13,350
6. Sarah Elerby 12,500
7. Anna Kostanian 12,000
8. Gerda Hofstatter 11,250
9. Vivian Villarreal 10,750
10. Monica Webb 10,750

It's never too late to fix a mistake!!!
mike--

 

[facets58]

av84fun what you call innovative I call lack of foresight.

The event last weekend was the 4th tourney this year for the WPBA.

Allison had - 2 1st place and one 5th place (one match loss this year going into Oklahoma)

Here's an example: Allison could have won the 1st 3 events this year (losing once before the reseed) and she still would have lost her #1 ranking.

I have a very hard time looking at that fact, it leaves me with a sick feeling with all the bad decisions being made.

Someone stand up and say something!!!

 

[Barbara]

Mike,

Is there anywhere on the WPBA site that lists each players' finishes so that we can reconstruct what their rankings would have been under the old points system>

I'm looking, but I'm not finding anything.

Barbara

 

[facets58]

No Barbara, I will be posting that info later

 

[facets58]

Here are the 1st 3 events this year for Allison (Oklahoma not included)


Allison Fisher San Diego Tourney
Opponent / Allison
Melissa Morris 1 / 9
Jennifer Barretta 1 / 9
Vivian Villarreal 4 / 9
Cathy Metzinger 2 / 9
Helena Thornfeldt 7 / 9
Karen Corr 6 / 7
Gerda Hofstatter 4 / 7
25 / 59

Allison Fisher BCA Tourney
Opponent / Allison
Susan Mello 4 / 9
Ewa Laurence 7 / 9
Vivian Villarreal 5 / 9
Helena Thornfeldt 1 / 9
Anna Kostanian 9 / 6
26 / 42

Allison Fisher San Diego Tourney
Opponent / Allison
Leanne Amable 1 / 9
Melissa Little 2 / 9
Vivian Villarreal 7 / 9
Tiffany Nelson 5 / 9
Anna Kostanian 1 / 9
Karen Corr 4 / 7
Kelly Fisher 4 / 7
24 / 59

Allison total games won 160 / lost 75
Allison total matches won 18 of 19

Allison beat Karen Corr 2 times
Kelly Fisher 1 time
Vivian V 3 times
Gerda H 1 time
Tiffany Nelson 1 time
And avenged her loss to Anna with a 9-1 victory

just in case anyone was curious.
mike--

 

[Barbara]

No Barbara, I will be posting that info later

Here's the old points system:

1st - 200
2nd - 160
3rd - 125
4th - 100
5th/6th - 80
7th/8th - 65
9th/12th - 50
13th/16th - 40
17th/24th - 30
25th/48th - 25
49th/64th - 20

I agree with you Mike, if Allison has won 2 of the 4 events, she should absolutely NOT be in 5th place. I do not understand why they changed the point system to what it is now.

Barbara

 

[facets58]

25th/32nd - 25
33rd/48th - 20
49th/64th - 15

 

[facets58]

From what I understand the WPBA wanted to go with the Fedex Cup Points to shake things up. What they failed to understand is that Golf actually goes off of the World Golf Rankings as their actual ranking list. Fed Ex offered insane amounts of money (well over 10 million) to get that new points list off the ground.

The WPBA did the same type of thing but they tossed their ranking list out the window (I even tried to explain that to the board...lol).

How much did the WPBA benefit from the change??? NOTHING, not one penny!@!

 

[Barbara]

25th/32nd - 25
33rd/48th - 20
49th/64th - 15

Duh!! What was I thnking! :embarrassed2:

Barbara

 

[Pjadedd]

Here's the old points system:

1st - 200
2nd - 160
3rd - 125
4th - 100
5th/6th - 80
7th/8th - 65
9th/12th - 50
13th/16th - 40
17th/24th - 30
25th/48th - 25
49th/64th - 20

I agree with you Mike, if Allison has won 2 of the 4 events, she should absolutely NOT be in 5th place. I do not understand why they changed the point system to what it is now.

Barbara

I believe Allison is actually 6th. The winner of the US Open got 7500 points rather than the usually 5000. The points were increased for this event (worthy 1.5 times the normal amount).


PJ

 

[av84fun]

av84fun what you call innovative I call lack of foresight.

The event last weekend was the 4th tourney this year for the WPBA.

Allison had - 2 1st place and one 5th place (one match loss this year going into Oaklahoma)

Here's an example: Allison could have won the 1st 3 events this year (losing once before the reseed) and she still would have lost her #1 ranking.

I have a very hard time looking at that fact, it leaves me with a sick feeling with all the bad decisions being made.

Someone stand up and say something!!!

I didn't say that I AGREE with the ranking system. "Innovatinve" means newly changed and "bold" means daring in this context.

Probhibition was innovative and the attack on Pearl Harbor was bold.

I hear what you are saying about a player who has won 2 of 4 events not justifiably being in 5th or 6th place (I've seen both numbers used) but the rankings are and should be an accumulation of finishes in ALL events.

I haven't spent the time to fully parse the rating system but Allie going 2 and out in OK cost her a few thousan points...vs. finishing top 2-3 so that fact likely accounts for others pulling ahead in the standings.

In virtually any other sport, a player placing 2nd in 4 events would place higher than one who won 2, at finished last, for example, in 2.

Make no mistake...I think that Alli is the greatest female player who has never lived. And one interesting feature of the new final 16 re-shuffle is that it virtually assures that her EXISTING record of wins will not be broken for a VERY long time...IF EVER...because plenty of the up and coming new players will get knocked out with one loss after the shuffle too.

You seem very informed about the rating system so let me ask you this. What would the top 5 list be if MONEY WON was the sole criterion?

Regards,
Jim

 

[Pjadedd]

I think the WPBA should adopt a system like pro tennis uses. They have two sets of rankings. One is a rolling system (like the WPBA used to have). In women's tennis, they use the best 17 events of the year. This year, I believe there are 7 events on the calendar. I liked when they used the previous ten.

The second set of rankings is the yearly rankings. They start over each year to see who was the best THAT year. The top 8 advance to the Year-Ending Championship.

The WPBA could use something like that. In tennis, the rolling rankings are used for seeding in events. The WPBA could do th same thing. They can also have rankings for just the year 2008. After all the events, the highest ranked (how many ever people they choose) can advance to a Year-End event (maybe something like the Tournament of Champions). That way, one event won't destroy your ranking for seedings, but could hurt you in the race to be the best player in a particular calendar year.


PJ

 

[facets58]

I believe Allison is actually 6th. The winner of the US Open got 7500 points rather than the usually 5000. The points were increased for this event (worthy 1.5 times the normal amount).


PJ

Thanks PJ, I wasn't sure if the WPBA decided to go with the 1.5 times the normal amount. If so, that compounds the problem.

That would mean that Allison would be 3975 points behind 1st place.

Almost an impossible number to make up with only 3 events left.

 

[Wyoming Will]

Below is a quote from the WPBA Homepage.

"WE HAVE A NEW #1 RANKED PLAYER - KELLY FISHER
It'd didn't matter if Kelly won the finals or not, she had earned enough points to move into the #1 position just ahead of Karen Corr. Allison Fisher will drop to the #6 position while Ga Young Kim and Xiaoting Pan are tied for 4rd, Sarah Ellerby is 5th"


I'm not even going to start about how bad the new structure is, the lack of respect shown to ALL the top players is evident at this event.

Allison has won 2 of the 4 events this year and is ranked 5th...disgraceful, how can an organization be that short sided... This has to be one of the worst ideas ever for the WPBA.

The World Golf Rankings go off of a minimum 40 events over a 2 year period. The average events played for the top 50 players is about 52 events (26 per year)

http://www.officialworldgolfranking.com/rankings/default.sps


The WPBA rankings that I came up with are as follows.
BTW it is very shortsided to have your events count for so little.

Two full years on the WPBA tour (16 events) is barely enough to establish an accurate ranking list.

Allison is still #1 based on an accurate ranking list. The new one is very inconsistant at best.

1. Kelly Fisher 15,000
2. Karen Corr 14,250
3. Xiao-Ting Pan 13,750
4. Ga-Young Kim 13,500
5. Allison Fisher 13,350
6. Sarah Elerby 12,500
7. Anna Kostanian 12,000
8. Gerda Hofstatter 11,250
9. Vivian Villarreal 10,750
10. Monica Webb 10,750

It's never too late to fix a mistake!!!
mike--

Under the old system, Kelly Fisher would still be the top ranked player but here are the top 9:

1 Fisher, Kelly 520
2 Fisher, Allison 495
3 Corr, Karen 410
4 Kim, Ga Young 385
5 Pan Xiaoting 340
6 Kostanian, Anna 315
6 Ellerby Sarah 315
8 Hofstatter, Gerda 300
9 Thornfeldt, Helena 200


If we give 1.5x points for the US Open, these are the standings:

1 Fisher, Kelly 620
2 Fisher, Allison 503
3 Corr, Karen 450
4 Kim, Ga Young 410
5 Pan Xiaoting 365
6 Ellerby Sarah 355
7 Kostanian, Anna 330
8 Hofstatter, Gerda 315
9 Thornfeldt, Helena 220

 

[facets58]

I pleaded with the board about keeping both ranking systems and it was turned down. I think the moment that ("were are trying to do what Golf did"), became the topic, all logic was tossed aside. The funny thing, the WPBA is not structured ANYTHING like golf or tennis. Starting the rankings at zero is used primarily for team sports. Last time I checked Golf and Tennis don't start at zero.

 

[JB Cases]

Well Whatever it is Kelly is finally at a place she deserves to be at!!!!

Under the new system it will be much harder to maintain a number one ranking so from this point on whoever does manage it will definitely deserve to be there.

 

[facets58]

Wyoming Will, the problem is mostly that their is no ranking list, only a year to date list. If you want to go with the old points structure use either 10 tournaments (which i never liked) or 16 tournaments (2 full years).

 

[Wyoming Will]

Wyoming Will, the problem is mostly that their is no ranking list, only a year to date list. If you want to go with the old points structure use either 10 tournaments (which i never liked) or 16 tournaments (2 full years).

You're right but still, the old ranking system would have Allison Fisher 2nd, not 6th.

 

[facets58]

You're right but still, the old ranking system would have Allison Fisher 2nd, not 6th.

Wyoming Will, How many events are you using? Four events is not enough to give an accurate ranking.