WPBA Rankings don't look right

[Wyoming Will]

Not quite, the money won is not proportional to the player's placement in the tournament.

Look at the WPA ranking

http://www.wpa-pool.com/index.asp?content=players_men

AZ Money List

http://www.azbilliards.com/thepros/2000thepros.php

See the thread title. This is about the WPBA - not the men. The men don't have a tour.

 

[av84fun]

So your point is really questioning why US Open has been given a bigger weight and not really the ranking system?

No I am not questioning WHY there are more points for the Open. I know why...it is to attempt to add "prestige" to the event.

But that is a fictitious way to add prestige. In Golf, the "majors" are quite different in many ways to the standard tour events. Some are invititationals and all of them toughen up course conditions...sometimes quite dramatically so.

But the WPBA Open has no special features to it in terms of the contestants, playing conditions or prize money...as far as I know.

Going back to the original post, the ranking that was posted is for the current season and not for the all time best.

RIGHT...My comments are specific to the CURRENT SEASON.

Some of you are somehow affected by the "celebrity factor." Yes, we all know that Allison and Karen are the top 2 players of this era, but somehow we are forgetting the Allison didn't do well in the US Open, and some of you still think that that dismal showing shouldn't have affected her current ranking because she is truly the best.

I haven't noticed a post that expressed that opinion. Certainly I have not. The issue that you seem to be missing is NOT related to any one event...the Open or otherwise...but the player's records for ALL FOUR events so far.

And Allisions performance in the Open was anything but "dismal."

She went hill/hill in BOTH matchs and lost on the hill A) to the Iris who happened to have gone all the way to the FINAL MATCH and was obvioulsy playing JAM UP and B) Sarah Rousey who is no slouch and who can beat anyone on a given day.

Because Allison lost twice on the hill does NOT mean that her performance was "dismal". Gimme a break! (-:

The William sisters of tennis should be rank 1 and 2 if that is the case even if they only play selected tournaments because of their strong showing on tournaments that they played on. The ranking system is not designed to determine who is the best, it's designed to guage who is doing well.

OhhhhKaaaay....How about winning 50% of the events so far this year. How's THAT for "doing well." LOL

I don't like tweaking the ranking system here and there just to make it "seem" right. It will be more problematic and, at worst, more controversial. I prefer sticking to the standard that was agreed upon.

I agree. It shouldn't be tweaked here and there. I just don't think that finishing EIGHTH should result in getting 65% of the points as finishing FIRST.

Money is also not good way to determine the ranking or at least predict ranking as the money won is not proportional to the points garnered by the players. Case in point, winners of 9-Ball WPC will very well end up on top even if they don't do well on other tournaments. Dennis Orcullo is rank no. 1 but is only 3rd in the money list.

We're not talking about the WPC but the WPBA. As far as I know, the prize money for all their events is either the same or very nearly so. Therefore, ranking WITHIN the tour should very closely track with money won within the tour. They are pros and the play for money and that's that.

Regards,
Jim

 

[crosseyedjoe]

See the thread title. This is about the WPBA - not the men. The men don't have a tour.

WPA also has a ranking system with qualified tournaments. I presented that example because the difference between placing and earning is very very clear.

WPBA is not immune to disproportionate distribution of winning.

 

[crosseyedjoe]

. . .
OhhhhKaaaay....How about winning 50% of the events so far this year. How's THAT for "doing well." LOL

Regards,
Jim

There is it again, looking away from the dismal placement and disregarding other players placement. It seems like when you guys talk there is only a first-place finish and everything else. And everything else doesn't count.

. . .
We're not talking about the WPC but the WPBA. As far as I know, the prize money for all their events is either the same or very nearly so. Therefore, ranking WITHIN the tour should very closely track with money won within the tour. They are pros and the play for money and that's that.

Regards,
Jim

The WPA ranking I gave you is a very clear example of the difference between "placing and earning."

WPBA is not immune to disproportionate distribution of winning.

 

[Wyoming Will]

WPA also has a ranking system with qualified tournaments. I presented that example because the difference between placing and earning is very very clear.

WPBA is not immune to disproportionate distribution of winning.

If you cannot see the difference between the WPBA and the WPA then you are not familiar enough with the details of this discussion. You're comparing apples to telephones.

 

[tucson9ball]

Ranking Systems

We could discuss different ways to give points all day long.
Currently Kelly Fisher is #1. But the bottom line is: who will be #1 at the end of the year? I say the cream will rise to the top! It does not matter what point system is in place, if you place well in all tournaments you will have more points at THE END OF THE YEAR. Nobody will remember who is #1 in week two or week four.
What dropped Allison was a very poor tournament. Going 2 and out gave her very few points. I am willing to bet she will rebound with a vengeance and regain the #1 spot in maybe 1 or 2 more tournys.

 

[crosseyedjoe]

If you cannot see the difference between the WPBA and the WPA then you are not familiar enough with the details of this discussion. You're comparing apples to telephones.

I think someone else is having trouble grasping the concept of PLACEMENT vs. EARNING?

 

[crosseyedjoe]

We could discuss different ways to give points all day long.
Currently Kelly Fisher is #1. But the bottom line is: who will be #1 at the end of the year? I say the cream will rise to the top! It does not matter what point system is in place, if you place well in all tournaments you will have more points at THE END OF THE YEAR. Nobody will remember who is #1 in week two or week four.
What dropped Allison was a very poor tournament. Going 2 and out gave her very few points. I am willing to bet she will rebound with a vengeance and regain the #1 spot in maybe 1 or 2 more tournys.

Exactly . . .

 

[facets58]

Some of you are somehow affected by the "celebrity factor." Yes, we all know that Allison and Karen are the top 2 players of this era, but somehow we are forgetting the Allison didn't do well in the US Open, and some of you still think that that dismal showing shouldn't have affected her current ranking because she is truly the best.QUOTE]

Joe, I really don't think you are getting it.

Allison's poor showing at the US Open should effect her ranking. Now, how do you figure out how much it should effect her depends on what the ranking points are.

Allison is hurt more by the fact that when she finishes a tournament in 1st place...2nd, 3rd, 4th etc., are getting too many points and she (Allison) is not able to build an accurate lead. The fact that she finished last at the US Open is not the argument, that is just something that she has to deal with (I think she will be ok).

If you were setting up a Points Breakdown, how much would you give 1st, 2nd, 3rd, & 4th. Whatever point value you come up with, Allison will be #1 using 8 tournaments, 10, 16 or 20 torunaments.
A points race will give you the Year To Date leader (much different than a ranking list).

When you look at the men's Golf Fed Ex points race, no one is foolish enough to seriously claim #1 if they win the first week and Tiger doesn't.

Golf goes off of the World Golf Rankings..........Period. Tiger is still #1 and he hasn't played in 2 months...He also has more points this year (426) than 2nd place (253). The reason he has more points is that he has performed better than the rest and the points also reflect accurately what #1's points should be, and what #2's points should be etc. (all the way down the list).

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

If you look at Allison's performance AT ANY POINT IN TIME SINCE SHE HAS BEEN ON TOUR (including NOW) she is ranked #1, except when Karen was #1 in 2001 & 2002.

Right now the WPBA is giving 25-32 on the ranking list getting more than what 4th place gets in Golf. That is one reason why there is a problem, the other big problem, is that you need 16 tournaments or more (IMO), to have an accurate ranking list.

All of the top players have played in the last 16 events except Jasmin (9 of 10), and of course Iris Ranola and Yu Ram Cha just started playing on tour.

All of the players in the top 16 (using the WPBA points for the last 16 events) have gone to 100% of the events, execpt.

Kelly Fisher missed 2 events
Anna missed 1 event
Dawn missed 2 events

That means out of 256 times that the top 16 players could have played in an event, they filled that spot 251 times. That's over 98% show ratio. That alone should allow for a 2 year ranking list or more to be in effect without anyone complaining. I mean, they all played in ALL of the events!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The reason they all complained is that they couldn't get the #1 spot. Well, when Allison wins between 40% & 60% of all events she plays in OF COURSE SHE SHOULD BE RANKED #1.

A good money breakdown looks like the right place for any ranking list to start.

mike--

 

[Wyoming Will]

I think someone else is having trouble grasping the concept of PLACEMENT vs. EARNING?

No. I am saying the point structure in the WPBA is flawed hence, the prize money should be viewed as a true measure of the standings. The only reason why I can say this has to do with the homogeny of WPBA events. They have nearly identical fields, formats and money. The WPA has no homogeny therefore drawing a comparison to it simply means you don't understand the discussion.

 

[crosseyedjoe]

Some of you are somehow affected by the "celebrity factor." Yes, we all know that Allison and Karen are the top 2 players of this era, but somehow we are forgetting the Allison didn't do well in the US Open, and some of you still think that that dismal showing shouldn't have affected her current ranking because she is truly the best.QUOTE]

Joe, I really don't think you are getting it.

Allison's poor showing at the US Open should effect her ranking. Now, how do you figure out how much it should effect her depends on what the ranking points are.

Allison is hurt more by the fact that when she finishes a tournament in 1st place...2nd, 3rd, 4th etc., are getting too many points and she (Allison) is not able to build an accurate lead. The fact that she finished last at the US Open is not the argument, that is just something that she has to deal with (I think she will be ok).

If you were setting up a Points Breakdown, how much would you give 1st, 2nd, 3rd, & 4th. Whatever point value you come up with, Allison will be #1 using 8 tournaments, 10, 16 or 20 torunaments.
A points race will give you the Year To Date leader (much different than a ranking list).

When you look at the men's Golf Fed Ex points race, no one is foolish enough to seriously claim #1 if they win the first week and Tiger doesn't.

Golf goes off of the World Golf Rankings..........Period. Tiger is still #1 and he hasn't played in 2 months...He also has more points this year (426) than 2nd place (253). The reason he has more points is that he has performed better than the rest and the points also reflect accurately what #1's points should be, and what #2's points should be etc. (all the way down the list).

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

If you look at Allison's performance AT ANY POINT IN TIME SINCE SHE HAS BEEN ON TOUR (including NOW) she is ranked #1, except when Karen was #1 in 2001 & 2002.

Right now the WPBA is giving 25-32 on the ranking list getting more than what 4th place gets in Golf. That is one reason why there is a problem, the other big problem, is that you need 16 tournaments or more (IMO), to have an accurate ranking list.

All of the top players have played in the last 16 events except Jasmin (9 of 10), and of course Iris Ranola and Yu Ram Cha just started playing on tour.

All of the players in the top 16 (using the WPBA points for the last 16 events) have gone to 100% of the events, execpt.

Kelly Fisher missed 2 events
Anna missed 1 event
Dawn missed 2 events

That means out of 256 times that the top 16 players could have played in an event, they filled that spot 251 times. That's over 98% show ratio. That alone should allow for a 2 year ranking list or more to be in effect without anyone complaining. I mean, they all played in ALL of the events!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The reason they all complained is that they couldn't get the #1 spot. Well, when Allison wins between 40% & 60% of all events she plays in OF COURSE SHE SHOULD BE RANKED #1.

A good money breakdown looks like the right place for any ranking list to start.

mike--

There you have it. Tweaking the agreed upon standard to make it "seem" right.

If it so happened Allison is in the "right" place, I wonder if you guys will also argue about the veritability of the ranking system in behalf of Jennifer Chen.

 

[facets58]

agreed upon standard to make it "seem" right.

The problem is that there is no standard. I looked at other proven structures like Golf and Tennis. I have also run tournaments and I had found little problem with the WPBA points and rankings (very few of the players did either!!!)

I think the IDEA of being #1 has clouded the thoughts of many players. The rest of the group just went along for the ride. The players don't spend much time thinking about these things. If they are lucky maybe 1/3 are even informed enough to make an intelligent decision. Many of the players that do take the time to discuss the issues at hand are often times too exhausted to fight the board, and give up.

A good Ranking Report is not something to be taken lightly. It is the foundation of the tour. It is IMO the MOST IMPORTANT part of an organization like the WPBA.

mike--

 

[Pjadedd]

There will be flaws in nearly every sport's ranking system. In sports like football and baseball, the best teams don't always make it to the playoffs due to the way the teams are structured. In hockey, the top 3 seeds in the playoffs are based on the best of each division, not necessarily by best record.

In tennis, you have a system many people think are flawed. Rafael Nadal needed to win two grand slams and have Roger Federer lose early in some recent events to just now become number 1. Jelena Jankovic is basically the number 1 by default. She's been consistent while others have been injured and/or plagued with inconsistency. Jelena has yet to win a grand slam, something many people believe should be required to be number 1.

There's never going to be a system everyone agrees on. As I said in a previous post, going by the last 8 tournaments (I couldn't do 10), Kelly Fisher had a lead over Allison. I do agree that a fall from 1 to 6 is harsh, it will happen when a top player goes 2-and-out while her closest competition consistently makes it to, at the very least, the redrawing stage of the tournament.

I'm not 100% behind the new system (I think two sets of rankings should be used for seeding and yearly purposes), but I'm not so against it either. And, if the players are not against it (I know members other than Melissa - who may not be on the Board . . . don't know who is all on it - post here, and I haven't heard of any complaints), I don't see much of a problem.


PJ

 

[akaTrigger]

I'm prolly gonna get slammed for this, but am I the only one that doesn't see much issue with this? It was voted on, implications on this thread are this ranking system was chosen on purpose, but from what I see is yea it sucks right now for Ali, but maybe that will give her even more drive! That would be impressive and awesome.

Would this even be discussed if she placed better in the tournament and was ranked either 1 or 2?

 

[crosseyedjoe]

I'm prolly gonna get slammed for this, but am I the only one that doesn't see much issue with this? It was voted on, implications on this thread are this ranking system was chosen on purpose, but from what I see is yea it sucks right now for Ali, but maybe that will give her even more drive! That would be impressive and awesome.

Would this even be discussed if she placed better in the tournament and was ranked either 1 or 2?

You are not the only one. Count me in.

 

[Johnnyt]

I'm sure the idea was from the board. As far as the players/members voting it in...well of course they would. 90% of them voted in favor of it I'm sure. Johnnyt

 

[Barbara]

Not only was this point system voted on by the WPBA pros, but Allison also voted for the final 16 redraw/single elim format.

Barbara

I'm prolly gonna get slammed for this, but am I the only one that doesn't see much issue with this? It was voted on, implications on this thread are this ranking system was chosen on purpose, but from what I see is yea it sucks right now for Ali, but maybe that will give her even more drive! That would be impressive and awesome.

Would this even be discussed if she placed better in the tournament and was ranked either 1 or 2?

 

[facets58]

... going by the last 8 tournaments (I couldn't do 10), Kelly Fisher had a lead over Allison. I do agree that a fall from 1 to 6 is harsh
PJ

This is so ridiculus, but here goes.

Kelly has placed higher than Allison in only 1 event in the last 8 (the US Open).

Here are the last 8 events:

1. AF-- 49
1. KF-- 1

2. AF-- 1
2. KF-- 2

3. AF-- 5
3. KF-- 5

4. AF-- 1
4. KF-- 5

5. AF-- 1
5. KF-- 2

6. AF-- 2
6. KF-- 5

7. AF-- 1
7. KF-- 2

8. AF-- 1
8. KF-- 5


Allison 1st---5 times
-------2nd---1 time
-------5th---1 time
-------49th---1 time

Kelly 1st---1 time
-----2nd---3 times
-----5th---4 times

Sorry PJ, but if you think Kelly should be ranked #1 over the last 8 tournaments you need to go back to Pool School.

With the 8 tournaments listed above, Allison does have a lead over Kelly 32650 vs 32375 based on the WPBA points.

Let me also remind you the Kelly gained 6975 pts over Allison at the US Open alone.

Allison also has a 2500 point advantage for the 9th and 10th events (the ones you don't have).

 

[akaTrigger]

Not only was this point system voted on by the WPBA pros, but Allison also voted for the final 16 redraw/single elim format.

Barbara

Excellent points.

 

[Pjadedd]

This is so ridiculus, but here goes.

Kelly has placed higher than Allison in only 1 event in the last 8 (the US Open).

Here are the last 8 events:

1. AF-- 49
1. KF-- 1

2. AF-- 1
2. KF-- 2

3. AF-- 5
3. KF-- 5

4. AF-- 1
4. KF-- 5

5. AF-- 1
5. KF-- 2

6. AF-- 2
6. KF-- 5

7. AF-- 1
7. KF-- 2

8. AF-- 1
8. KF-- 5


Allison 1st---5 times
-------2nd---1 time
-------5th---1 time
-------49th---1 time

Kelly 1st---1 time
-----2nd---3 times
-----5th---4 times

Sorry PJ, but if you think Kelly should be ranked #1 over the last 8 tournaments you need to go back to Pool School.

With the 8 tournaments listed above, Allison does have a lead over Kelly 32650 vs 32375 based on the WPBA points.

Let me also remind you the Kelly gained 6975 pts over Allison at the US Open alone.

Allison also has a 2500 point advantage for the 9th and 10th events (the ones you don't have).

I never said Kelly should or should not be ranked #1.
When I did those calculations, I was just checking for myself what the rankings would look like using the old system.


PJ