Vanilla 1.0.1 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
-
One of my pet peeves is that the verbiage used to give ratings guidance is not that good. Or so it seems. Just kinda rough and fuzzy. I believe the scale descriptors have been tweaked recently (if not before), and I know it's just a 20 point scale, but information is power, is it not? The clearer things are up front to the user, the less work is involved for everyone later.
I'm not talking about rerating everyone, archetypes for certain totals, acceptable ranges by type of player, etc. That's for a different thread. Just talking about descriptors here.
I've been agitating the last little bit about getting this and some other niggling things fixed-- and it appears folks have heard me. So help me out so we can get it done once/right and not have to revisit...
Athleticism
1. Old & Tired. Slow, broken-down, need a cane to play
2. Fair. Not very athletic or not in very good shape.
3. Average. Fair conditioning and has difficulty getting open
4. Good. In good condition but doesn't have the speed to always get open
5. Very Good. Competitive athlete in good physical condition who can get open most of the time
6. Excellent. Well conditioned athlete who can get open consistently
7. Exceptional. Superbly conditioned athlete who can play at almost a professional level
Skills
1. New. Just started playing and not sure how to throw a disc or how to play the game
2. Fair. Just learned to throw and/or can only throw backhand or forehand with limited confidence. Not familiar with offensive or defensive strategy
3. Average. Can throw both forehand and backhand but with limited confidence as well as limited knowledge of offensive and defensive strategy
4. Good. Can throw both forehand and backhand and understands basic offensive and defensive strategies
5. Very Good. Can consistently make throws and understands both offensive and defensive strategies
6. Excellent. Can make just about any throw any distance and call offensive and defensive strategies
7. Exceptional. Can make any throw any distance in any weather and teach offensive and defensive strategies
Experience
1. New player -never played or just tossed a Frisbee
2. Pickup player with less than 3 years experience
3. College or league (1-3 years)
4. Sectional/Regional club level or experienced leagues (3+ yrs)
5. National level at College/Mixed/Masters
6. National level at Open/Womens -
1. I'm not going to quibble with the scale. A lot of things are tied into a 20 point scale so that's fine.
2. Somehow teaching ended up in the skills section. I'm not sure that's where it belongs. Teaching is a skill, but I think that fits more under experience? Or not at all?
3. It'd be interesting to play with adding a 'Captains' score to track leadership/teambuilding/team guidance and management for those who get asked to captain. For leagues like summer, maybe have the players rate at the end of each season and keep a decaying average of some sort.
4. Athleticism- I think this one isn't bad, though it's a bit odd that 3 is average. But it's not about the scale. I don't really like #4, "have the speed to get open" since it's not really about speed sometimes. Can't come up with better verbiage tho.
5. Skills- As I said, maybe skills and teaching are separate. Or maybe I feel like since most ultimate is taught wrong, that there are only a couple handfuls of people in the entire city who can teach strategies. I dunno. Seems unimportant in a league and region where most people force forehand by default and you still see three-finger forehands or 'the useless' sometimes. I throwing is not just about confidence but about range and conditions. I think range is a useful marker-- if you can throw far, then throwing short is proportionally easier. Being able to throw far usually means that you can also throw stably medium and short in bad conditions. Etc. Unfortunately that means you probably need to tweak the descriptors for men vs. women. Breaking the mark should be in there somewhere too. Maybe #4 is short and medium range forehands and backhands. #5 is longer but shakier throws and short to medium breakmarks. Etc. There are only a handful of throwers in the country who can throw any distance in any weather.
6. I think experience has been cleaned up, and it's pretty good. Thoughts? -
My feeling, and as I've mentioned in the other thread, I've given suggestions to board members before are as follows:
Experience needs to be worth much less, maybe a 3 point scale.
Height should be rated, ie add a point to athleticism if you are 6'2 or taller male or 5'10 or taller female
My biggest suggestion and most important in making the ratings better in my opinion is a Rating of how hard you play, or how bad you want to win in League play.
I play league games to win, other play for other reasons, that can very well make me a better league player than someone else with the exact same skillset/experience. -
I never liked how Athleticism was tied to getting open. Yes. it helps. But it's never defined who you're getting open on. Is it everyone? Is it everyone in the levels below you? I mean, there's some people who aren't in the greatest of shape that can get open on the dump because they know how to.
Maybe we should have a combine before the drafts. For athleticism you have to worry about top end speed, quickness in changing direction, and endurance. I mean running really fast in a straight line is great, but if your broken ankles mean it takes the width of the field to make a turn, well, that's not helping much.
I mean, if I could have drafted a team a of slow top end but quick players, I would have implemented a triple threat offense and dominated.
To sum up, I'd like to see "ability to get open" removed from the athleticism ranking.
Of course, how much does the opinion of an ex-leaguer count for? -
G- I like your thoughts. Not sure how to factor for height... there's always some tall guy taking shit for playing short, and some short guy with bounce, right? But I agree on experience being worth less...
Problem is that changing the scale is potentially a lot of work. I guess it's been 6 years since we launched the electronic league system, so maybe it's time but...
And how hard you play / how much you care.. geez.. I thought about that last night but damn that's hard to factor, and so easy to game the system with.
Now supplementing the current ratings with a height or effort factor (like attendance) should not be as hard to do. -
So I've been lurking for a while, but finally wanted to join the discussion.
I think height is an important factor, especially when you have a lot of people in the drafts that are relatively unknown. There is a big difference between two players rated at 7 (average athlete,average skill, no experience) when one is 5'5" and the other is 6'5", and in all reality that should be reflected in the numbers.
However I don't think the rating system itself is the biggest problem. The biggest problem is the ability of players to play the system. I had the opportunity to run the draft last year, which meant I got to see a lot of the players ratings and how they rated themselves. There were players I would personally rate in the 12-14 range that were rating themselves as high as 18, and Elite club players coming in at 13. The board and the people running the leagues do their best to catch these and adjust them, but obviously some will slip through the cracks.
I think that captains should be required to re-rate their players at the end of a season, so that after one or two seasons in the league players ratings will have adjust to where they are as players instead of being completely based on their opinion of themselves. -
- CommentAuthorms. ultimate
- CommentTimeFeb 22nd 2007 edited
I think it's also a bit confusing for club players to rate themselves for league play (particularly ones better than me, which is most). actually, there's probably enough of a difference in competitive spirit between spring and summer to weight those ratings too. It's hard to give yourself an absolute rating when they include relative criteria like, "can get open consistently" - the answer to that questions depends who is defending you and the overall level of play! I rated myself a 13 (4/4/5), but I don't know if that's right. If the BR's knew how to use the forum they'd probably give me a 2 in skill, at least in ability to look behind myself when cutting long. -
- CommentAuthormiss casual
- CommentTimeFeb 22nd 2007
you gave yourself a 4/4/5? you should be higher than that i think??!! you should at least be 5s across the board. i guess this hits at the confusion. you should re-rate me then. i guess i just dont know what any of this stuff means. claire you run like a puma! i would think that would make you a 5 in athleticism at least!
how about this for skills rating. the BRs wrote a multiple choice question for us to audition for a new claire when she goes to grad school and it goes like this. 'you are cutting towards the endzone. you are looking at 1. your shoelaces 2. a puppy on the sideline 3. your defender 4. the disc'
im pretty sure the implication is that claire would be a 2. -
Posted By: ayamagucExperience
1. New player -never played or just tossed a Frisbee
2. Pickup player with less than 3 years experience
3. College or league (1-3 years)
4. Sectional/Regional club level or experienced leagues (3+ yrs)
5. National level at College/Mixed/Masters
6. National level at Open/Womens
I wish this scale worked a bit differently-- ie, there's no way for me to differentiate between Kolb or Weasel and Timmy... 1x at Nationals being quite different (my opinion) than multiples... -
Continuing to think out loud here...
1. New player- never played or just tossed a Frisbee
2. Pickup player with less than 3 years experience
3. College or any league (1-3 years)
4. 1x Mixed Club Nationals or College Nationals or Club Regionals or experienced leagues (3+ yrs)
5. 1x Open/Womens Club Nationals or Multiple times Mixed Club Nationals
6. Multiple times Open/Womens Club Nationals
? -
Posted By: ayamaguc1. New. Just started playing and not sure how to throw a disc or how to play the game
2. Fair. Just learned to throw and/or can only throw backhand or forehand with limited confidence. Not familiar with offensive or defensive strategy
3. Average. Can throw both forehand and backhand but with limited confidence as well as limited knowledge of offensive and defensive strategy
4. Good. Can throw both forehand and backhand and understands basic offensive and defensive strategies
5. Very Good. Can consistently make throws and understands both offensive and defensive strategies
6. Excellent. Can make just about any throw any distance and call offensive and defensive strategies
7. Exceptional. Can make any throw any distance in any weather and teach offensive and defensive strategies
Skills
1. New. Just started playing. Learning how to throw the disc and play the game.
2. Fair. Learning to throw with the mark. Shaky throws with limited confidence.
3. Average. Struggles to break the mark. Consistent, basic, short range throws. Stability and distance greatly affected by wind.
4. Good. Learning to break the mark. Consistent basic throws out to medium range. Stability and distance affected by wind.
5. Very Good. Has at least one go-to breakmark throw. Can make many throws to medium range. Stability and distance affected by wind.
6. Excellent. Proficient breakmark throws (multiple). Can make most throws to most distances. Stability and distance somewhat affected by wind.
7. Exceptional. Trivially breaks the mark. Can make most throws to all distances. Stability and distance only slightly affected by wind.
? -
Posted By: ayamagucAthleticism
1. Old & Tired. Slow, broken-down, need a cane to play
2. Fair. Not very athletic or not in very good shape.
3. Average. Fair conditioning and has difficulty getting open
4. Good. In good condition but doesn't have the speed to always get open
5. Very Good. Competitive athlete in good physical condition who can get open most of the time
6. Excellent. Well conditioned athlete who can get open consistently
7. Exceptional. Superbly conditioned athlete who can play at almost a professional level
1. Old & Tired. Out of shape, inactive lifestyle, or new to sports.
2. Fair. Not in very good shape or not very athletic. Alt: a tall 1.
3. Average. Fair conditioning. Works out sometimes. Alt: a tall 2.
4. Good. Good conditioning. Works out regularly and/or plays sports regularly. Alt: a tall 3.
5. Very Good. Great conditioning. Competitive athlete. Trains for sports. Alt: a tall 4.
6. Excellent. Gifted athlete. Trains for ultimate. Good all-around. Alt: a tall 5.
7. Exceptional. Tremendous package of quickness, speed, power, vertical, hands, explosiveness, and fitness. At least one breakout physical ability. -
Trying to summarize in a single post. There are some basic assumptions built in.
1. It is not necessary / it is not worthwhile to completely revamp the player rating system. So changes will take place within the current structure.
2. The scores most deserving of scrutiny are those at the top. This, b/c those players at the top are most under pressure to fudge their scores to fit in a core; top players who are underrated can do the most damage to competitive balance; it is structurally difficult to find all the cases of 8s who should be 6s or 12s who should be 10s, and these players' impact on the overall experience is more limited.
Athleticism: Gary, I need a definition of tall for league. M > 6'1"? W > 5'9"?
Athleticism
1. Old & Tired. Out of shape, inactive lifestyle, or new to sports.
2. Fair. Not in very good shape or not very athletic. Also: a tall 1.
3. Average. Fair conditioning. Works out sometimes. Also: a tall 2.
4. Good. Good conditioning. Works out regularly and/or plays sports regularly. Also: a tall 3.
5. Very Good. Great conditioning. Competitive athlete. Trains for sports. Also: a tall 4.
6. Excellent. Gifted athlete. Trains for ultimate. Good all-around. Also: a tall 5.
7. Exceptional. Tremendous package of quickness, speed, power, vertical, hands, explosiveness, and fitness. At least one breakout physical ability.
Skills: I think I'm close here. Power, breakmarks, and stability in the wind are the keys determinants.
Skills
1. New. Just started playing. Learning how to throw the disc and play the game.
2. Fair. Learning to throw with the mark. Shaky throws with limited confidence.
3. Average. Struggles to break the mark. Consistent, basic, short range throws. Stability and distance greatly affected by wind.
4. Good. Learning to break the mark. Consistent basic throws out to medium range. Stability and distance affected by wind.
5. Very Good. Has at least one go-to breakmark throw. Can make many throws to medium range. Stability and distance affected by wind.
6. Excellent. Multiple, proficient, breakmark throws. Can make most throws to most distances. Stability and distance somewhat affected by wind.
7. Exceptional. Trivially breaks the mark. Can make most throws to all distances. Stability and distance only slightly affected by wind.
Experience: I'm proposing rescaling this one slightly to better differentiate those at the top. This may result in some players going down in experience by a point.
Experience
1. New player- never played or just tossed a Frisbee
2. Pickup player with less than 3 years experience
3. Mixed Club Regionals or any college ultimate or any league
4. 1x Mixed Club Nationals or 1x College Nationals or Open/Women's Club Regionals
5. 1x Open/Womens Club Nationals or multiple times Mixed Club Nationals or multiple times college nationals
6. Multiple times Open/Womens Club Nationals -
- CommentAuthorms. ultimate
- CommentTimeFeb 26th 2007
sweet jesus, akira, are you just cut-and-pasting text from the CUSL website now to compete with miss casual in number of comments added? (incidentally, you're 21 behind). I rate you a 6/3/5 (quantity/repeats/conservative use of emoticons).
-
Athleticism: Gary, I need a definition of tall for league. M > 6'1"? W > 5'9"?
sounds good -
- CommentAuthormiss casual
- CommentTimeMar 1st 2007
1 to 16 of 16