|
|
Post by AFCTUJacko on Jan 15, 2016 6:05:51 GMT -5
The mistake was removing the inactives in the first instance IMO - making almost everyones WGR "artificially" better than it really was for months.
If the inactive players continue to be inactive they will drop and drop and drop. If they return they can start with the points previously earned still intact - which is fair. They earned them after all.
Needs to be a good filtering method so people know where they stand for Major/WGC Qualification etc
but pretty much No complaints here.
|
|
|
|
Post by boomboom on Jan 15, 2016 6:06:48 GMT -5
It seems better to rank who is playing better now rather then who played better then. It won't be such a slog and slow climb for new players. It provides incentive to move up tours. It better rewards solid, consistent, recent and steady week after week play. Sorry I can't see any downside here. 100% agree, but how are the inactives playing better now than they were when they were on tour? I agree, that needs further explanation and I'm sure there are some kinks to work out. In reading the op and the email, the intent is to have the inactive drop off. |
|
|
|
Post by dh-nufc on Jan 15, 2016 6:10:11 GMT -5
Can't we just ignore the inactive players anyway though? They will drop off slowly.
|
|
|
|
Post by ijs1543 on Jan 15, 2016 6:18:36 GMT -5
The mistake was removing the inactives in the first instance IMO - making almost everyones WGR "artificially" better than it really was for months. If the inactive players continue to be inactive they will drop and drop and drop. If they return they can start with the points previously earned still intact - which is fair. They earned them after all. Needs to be a good filtering method so people know where they stand for Major/WGC Qualification etc but pretty much No complaints here. but if some 1 had 3/4 wins 3 months ago and is on 24 points without playing in 3 months, than how is someone with 6 wins 3 in the last month or so on the same points? maybe the drop off isn't big enough?
also im sure a few people are less sure where they stand now than before when it comes to majors etc because if ur ranked around the 50 mark theres a few inactives who could decide to come back for the masters and take there spot which they have grinded for all year and the other person stopped playing for 3 months
|
|
|
|
Post by Roosroan on Jan 15, 2016 6:24:45 GMT -5
Dropped from 81 to 112, but I rank 13th in hotness  I'm ok with the changes though. I play for fun and the only thing to do when ya want to climb in WGR is play good. |
|
|
|
Post by SweetTeeBag on Jan 15, 2016 7:11:28 GMT -5
Comments as I see 'em.
I am looking at David Williams (DLW1964) He hasn't played since June but he goes up in the WGR for a couple weeks in late Novemeber/early December into the Top 20?(huh?) I thought inactives would go down?
Garreth Mitchell hasn't played since July and hasn't moved down at all (17th WGR). Is he to be outside the Top 50 by what 2019?
I'm sure there is more but this was just a quick glance. Hopefully someone can explain this to me that makes any sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Jan 15, 2016 7:19:00 GMT -5
The mistake was removing the inactives in the first instance IMO - making almost everyones WGR "artificially" better than it really was for months. If the inactive players continue to be inactive they will drop and drop and drop. If they return they can start with the points previously earned still intact - which is fair. They earned them after all. Needs to be a good filtering method so people know where they stand for Major/WGC Qualification etc but pretty much No complaints here. Couldn't have said it any better Jack... That was OUR mistake and for that we apologize. It basically created a "false positive", but we did it and now we have to move on, and we think showing all of the WGR players with a filter is best. I think it's pretty neat that you can still see how you stack up against EVERYONE that has played on our tours. I know this is not real life, but when Tiger when on his leave of absence in 2010, they didn't remove him :-). Who knows when folks will come back.. I think it will be more perplexing to see guys that do pop back in after 4 weeks (what we use to mark inactives) jumping guys they have never seen before. Thanks, Tim |
|
|
|
Post by smurfblade88 on Jan 15, 2016 7:34:04 GMT -5
There does seem to be a few odd cases of ppl not droppin down at all for bein inactive for months.
|
|
|
|
Post by SweetTeeBag on Jan 15, 2016 7:35:24 GMT -5
There does seem to be a few odd cases of ppl not droppin down at all for bein inactive for months. I agree. How can you not play for 4 months and move up in points? Hell I finished 12th in the FedEx Cup and I'm going the other way. |
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Jan 15, 2016 7:38:23 GMT -5
Comments as I see 'em. I am looking at David Williams (DLW1964) He hasn't played since June but he goes up in the WGR for a couple weeks in late Novemeber/early December into the Top 20?(huh?) I thought inactives would go down? Garreth Mitchell hasn't played since July and hasn't moved down at all (17th WGR). Is he to be outside the Top 50 by what 2019? I'm sure there is more but this was just a quick glance Just because he isn't playing doesn't mean his adjusted points event after the 1/92 dropoff each week isn't better than other guys dropoffs.. If someone ahead had better weeks before him, their drop-off could be significantly greater causing him to jump up spots. But the thing is, he is trending down. Gareth, had a 1st and 4th place finish in his last weeks playing.. that's what is keeping him up there, but he has lost 3 spots.. so he is trending down, just not as fast as someone who didn't have high finishes. |
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Jan 15, 2016 7:40:45 GMT -5
There does seem to be a few odd cases of ppl not droppin down at all for bein inactive for months. I agree. How can you not play for 4 months and move up in points? Hell I finished 12th in the FedEx Cup and I'm going the other way. It's the way the formula works man.. It's the same way on the real tour.. people go up without playing.. happens all the time mainly because people older better rounds are fading off making the inactive's player great rounds move ahead...The reason you don't see it as much at the lower ranks is because the points are minimal. Believe me, I spent over 4 hours studying this Tuesday night.. It's right. |
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Jan 15, 2016 7:42:56 GMT -5
There does seem to be a few odd cases of ppl not droppin down at all for bein inactive for months. And they wouldn't drop down fast if they had HIGH finishes b/c a top 5 on a PRO or EURO event brings major points. I think this will make more sense once I expose the week by week WGR points. |
|
|
|
Post by smurfblade88 on Jan 15, 2016 7:43:34 GMT -5
There does seem to be a few odd cases of ppl not droppin down at all for bein inactive for months. And they wouldn't drop down fast if they had HIGH finishes b/c a top 5 on a PRO or EURO event brings major points. I think this will make more sense once I expose the week by week WGR points. Cool. |
|
|
|
Post by ijs1543 on Jan 15, 2016 7:45:14 GMT -5
The mistake was removing the inactives in the first instance IMO - making almost everyones WGR "artificially" better than it really was for months. If the inactive players continue to be inactive they will drop and drop and drop. If they return they can start with the points previously earned still intact - which is fair. They earned them after all. Needs to be a good filtering method so people know where they stand for Major/WGC Qualification etc but pretty much No complaints here. Couldn't have said it any better Jack... That was OUR mistake and for that we apologize. It basically created a "false positive", but we did it and now we have to move on, and we think showing all of the WGR players with a filter is best. I think it's pretty neat that you can still see how you stack up against EVERYONE that has played on our tours. I know this is not real life, but when Tiger when on his leave of absence in 2010, they didn't remove him :-). Who knows when folks will come back.. I think it will be more perplexing to see guys that do pop back in after 4 weeks (what we use to mark inactives) jumping guys they have never seen before. Thanks, Tim agreed when tiger took a leave of absence in 2010 they didn't remove him, but they didn't freeze his points so when he decided to come back he would still be #1 by 10 points, I just don't see how by not playing for 3 months ur on the same points as some1 who won fed ex cup and 6 trophies.
|
|
|
|
Post by ijs1543 on Jan 15, 2016 7:55:00 GMT -5
also I thought the last 13/14 weeks of performance counted for more but with the inactives
it seems there last performance on tour counts for a lot more than the 3 months they took off.
btw these are just queries I have about inactives, everything else u done for wgr is a lot better
now
|
|
