PDA

View Full Version : WPBA Points System - For Comparison Sake (LONG)



05-24-2002, 09:48 AM
I read with interest the possible change to the point system that Fran drew out in another thread and thought I would work with the numbers a bit to see what happens with current rankings. I'm going to try and post the whole chart but it will probably be a mess, so if you want to see it all in a neater format you can send me a request at ChornyKarlaL@johndeere.com AND lady9ball@mchsi.com and I'll send you a .pdf file.

For those that didn't read Fran's other post, the tournament point values would be weighted, with the latest tournaments being worth 100% of their value, while earlier tournaments lose value the older they get. Fran's chart showed a hypothetical weighting as follows and that's also what I used to come up with a chart.

Latest to earliest:
1. 100%
2. 100%
3. 100%
4. 90%
5. 80%
6. 70%
7. 60%
8. 50%
9. 40%
10. 30%

I like this idea. It rewards current performance and is less likely to "punish" newer players who haven't been on the scene for 10 tournaments or more.

Anyway, here's the chart... a "-" shows an improvement in ranking. IE someone who was at 20 and moves to 12 under the suggested system would have a -8.

Player, Rank - Current Point System, Rank - Suggested Point System, Rank Difference

Karen Corr 1 1 0
Allison Fisher 2 2 0
Jeanette Lee 3 3 0
Vivian Villarreal 4 4 0
Helena Thornfeldt 5 5 0
Jennifer Chen 6 8 2
Gerda Hofstatter 7 6 -1
Ewa Laurance 8 9 1
Loree Jon Jones 9 7 -2
Monica Webb 10 11 1
Julie Kelley 11 12 1
Line Kjoersvik 12 14 2
Laura Smith 13 22 9
Dawn Hopkins 14 16 2
Robin Dodson 15 10 -5
Belinda Campos 16 18 2
Tiffany Nelson 17 23 6
Nicole Mancini 18 20 2
Melissa Little 19 19 0
Melissa Herndon 20 17 -3
Alice Rim 21 34 13
Ming Ng 22 15 -7
Sarah Ellerby 23 13 -10
Megan Smith 24 25 1
Stacy Hurst 25 28 3
Kelly Oyama 26 29 3
Ramona Biddle 27 35 8
Sharon Weis 28 30 2
Maureen Seto 29 21 -8
Darlene Stinson 30 27 -3
Romana Dokovic 31 38 7
Shari Stauch 32 31 -1
Aileen Pippen 33 33 0
Jan McWorter 34 41 7
Vicky Paski 35 39 4
Candi Rego 36 42 6
Shelly Barnes 37 43 6
Stefanie Boch 38 36 -2
Nesli O'Hare 39 37 -2
Fran Crimi 40 32 -8
Nikki Hollingsworth 41 50 9
Kim White 42 48 6
Gail Lave 43 44 1
Julie Mason 44 77 33
Jeannie Seaver 45 47 2
Kim Shaw 46 24 -22
Anita Kuczma 47 26 -21
Ikumi Ushiroda 48 40 -8
Linda Carter 49 49 0
Jeri Engh 50 62 12
Kathie MacDonald 51 57 6
Cassie Anderson 52 52 0
Gail Boyd 53 45 -8
Jenny Lee 54 56 2
Donna Tidwell 55 66 11
Sarah Rousey 56 51 -5
Leslie Rogers 57 53 -4
Janet Atwell 58 58 0
Akimi Kajitani 59 61 2
Shin-Mei Liu 60 46 -14
Betty Sessions 61 72 11
Mary Hopkins 62 55 -7
Angel Paglia 63 59 -4
Tracie Majors 64 60 -4
Liz Schwartziech 65 64 -1
Helen Gaughren 66 69 3
Kim-Ga Young 67 54 -13
Susan Mello 68 63 -5
Melanie Koger 69 88 19
Melissa Morris 70 65 -5
Noriyo Yurino 71 96 25
Linda Shea 72 67 -5
Lisa D'Atri 73 76 3
Karen Armstrong 74 85 11
Diana Minor 75 86 11
Ying-Ya Yin 76 95 19
Jane Fujinaga 77 78 1
Jean Vaillancourt 78 79 1
Bonnie Coats 79 87 8
Tina Larson 80 94 14
Christi Dickerson 81 97 16
Lisa Merkin 82 98 16
Karen Mayet 83 109 26
Denise Balenger 84 68 -16
Kelly Willis 85 93 8
Hsin Huang 86 111 25
Laura Friedman 87 70 -17
Sue Yen Rhee 88 71 -17
Kim White 89 73 -16
Tammy Cantoni 90 74 -16
Ulrika Anderson 91 75 -16
Penny Swann 92 99 7
Kim Gates 93 101 8
Anne Gray 94 106 12
Hydrid Makabali 95 80 -15
Mona Remedios 96 81 -15
Nicole Monaco 97 82 -15
Sherri Hudson 98 83 -15
Miriam LaFranchise 99 84 -15
Jennifer Page 100 89 -11
Liz Bernier 101 90 -11
Rachael Abbink 102 91 -11
Sue Backman 103 92 -11
Tammy Jones 104 100 -4
Brenda Plantz 105 102 -3
Laura Lo 106 103 -3
Sandi Lin 107 104 -3
Evelyn Hampton 108 105 -3
Julie Stephenson 109 107 -2
June Walter 110 108 -2
Tina Palowski 111 110 -1
C. Dawson 112 112 0

Now, this really doesn't tell you all that much unless you can look back at the points earned for each player in the last ten tournaments. I won't even attempt to post that here, but would send anyone a .pdf if they wanted it as well.

Karla

05-24-2002, 10:23 AM
Nice job, Karla. I know this must have taken quite a bit of work. Now it's time to lobby, lobby, lobby.

I suggest you send it to Mike Hurst who does our present rankings, for his feedback.

Regards,

Fran

Alfie
05-25-2002, 04:26 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Karla_in_IA:</font><hr> I read with interest the possible change to the point system that Fran drew out in another thread and thought I would work with the numbers a bit to see what happens with current rankings.

For those that didn't read Fran's other post, the tournament point values would be weighted, with the latest tournaments being worth 100% of their value, while earlier tournaments lose value the older they get. Fran's chart showed a hypothetical weighting as follows and that's also what I used to come up with a chart.

Latest to earliest:
1. 100%
2. 100%
3. 100%
4. 90%
5. 80%
6. 70%
7. 60%
8. 50%
9. 40%
10. 30%

I like this idea. It rewards current performance and is less likely to "punish" newer players who haven't been on the scene for 10 tournaments or more.

Anyway, here's the chart... a "-" shows an improvement in ranking. IE someone who was at 20 and moves to 12 under the suggested system would have a -8.

Player, Rank - Current Point System, Rank - Suggested Point System, Rank Difference

[snip list]
<hr></blockquote>

Here they are sorted from losing the most ranking to gaining the most.

Using the same column headings

Julie Mason 44 77 33
Karen Mayet 83 109 26
Noriyo Yurino 71 96 25
Hsin Huang 86 111 25
Melanie Koger 69 88 19
Ying-Ya Yin 76 95 19
C. Dickerson 81 97 16
Lisa Merkin 82 98 16
Tina Larson 80 94 14
Alice Rim 21 34 13
Jeri Engh 50 62 12
Anne Gray 94 106 12
Donna Tidwell 55 66 11
Betty Sessions 61 72 11
Karen Armstrong 74 85 11
Diana Minor 75 86 11
Laura Smith 13 22 9
Hollingsworth 41 50 9
Ramona Biddle 27 35 8
Bonnie Coats 79 87 8
Kelly Willis 85 93 8
Kim Gates 93 101 8
Romana Dokovic 31 38 7
Jan McWorter 34 41 7
Penny Swann 92 99 7
Tiffany Nelson 17 23 6
Candi Rego 36 42 6
Shelly Barnes 37 43 6
Kim White 42 48 6
K. MacDonald 51 57 6
Vicky Paski 35 39 4
Stacy Hurst 25 28 3
Kelly Oyama 26 29 3
Helen Gaughren 66 69 3
Lisa D'Atri 73 76 3
Jennifer Chen 6 8 2
Line Kjoersvik 12 14 2
Dawn Hopkins 14 16 2
Belinda Campos 16 18 2
Nicole Mancini 18 20 2
Sharon Weis 28 30 2
Jeannie Seaver 45 47 2
Jenny Lee 54 56 2
Akimi Kajitani 59 61 2
Ewa Laurance 8 9 1
Monica Webb 10 11 1
Julie Kelley 11 12 1
Megan Smith 24 25 1
Gail Lave 43 44 1
Jane Fujinaga 77 78 1
J. Vaillancourt 78 79 1
Karen Corr 1 1 0
Allison Fisher 2 2 0
Jeanette Lee 3 3 0
V. Villarreal 4 4 0
H. Thornfeldt 5 5 0
Melissa Little 19 19 0
Aileen Pippen 33 33 0
Linda Carter 49 49 0
Cassie Anderson 52 52 0
Janet Atwell 58 58 0
C. Dawson 112 112 0
G. Hofstatter 7 6 -1
Shari Stauch 32 31 -1
L. Schwartziech 65 64 -1
Tina Palowski 111 110 -1
Loree Jon Jones 9 7 -2
Stefanie Boch 38 36 -2
Nesli O'Hare 39 37 -2
J. Stephenson 109 107 -2
June Walter 110 108 -2
Melissa Herndon 20 17 -3
Darlene Stinson 30 27 -3
Brenda Plantz 105 102 -3
Laura Lo 106 103 -3
Sandi Lin 107 104 -3
Evelyn Hampton 108 105 -3
Leslie Rogers 57 53 -4
Angel Paglia 63 59 -4
Tracie Majors 64 60 -4
Tammy Jones 104 100 -4
Robin Dodson 15 10 -5
Sarah Rousey 56 51 -5
Susan Mello 68 63 -5
Melissa Morris 70 65 -5
Linda Shea 72 67 -5
Ming Ng 22 22 15 -7
Mary Hopkins 62 55 -7
Maureen Seto 29 21 -8
Fran Crimi 40 32 -8
Ikumi Ushiroda 48 40 -8
Gail Boyd 53 45 -8
Sarah Ellerby 23 13 -10
Jennifer Page 100 89 -11
Liz Bernier 101 90 -11
Rachael Abbink 102 91 -11
Sue Backman 103 92 -11
Kim-Ga Young 67 54 -13
Shin-Mei Liu 60 46 -14
Hydrid Makabali 95 80 -15
Mona Remedios 96 81 -15
Nicole Monaco 97 82 -15
Sherri Hudson 98 83 -15
M. LaFranchise 99 84 -15
Denise Balenger 84 68 -16
Kim White 89 73 -16
Tammy Cantoni 90 74 -16
Ulrika Anderson 91 75 -16
Laura Friedman 87 70 -17
Sue Yen Rhee 88 71 -17
Anita Kuczma 47 26 -21
Kim Shaw 46 24 -22

Alfie
05-25-2002, 05:49 AM
some rank shift stats if the new system were to be adopted-

by eighths (14 players per) highest ranking to lowest

avg, st dev, median, high, low

1.07, 2.56, 0.5, 9, -2
1.07, 5.99, 2, 13, -10
1.5, 5.67, 2, 9, -8
0.21, 13.8, 0.5, 33, -22
-1.57, 8.65, -4, 19, -14
9.29, 11.64, 11, 26, -16
-5.86, 14.44, -15, 25, -17
-5.71, 4.91, -3, 0, -15

by quarters (28 players per) highest to lowest

avg, st dev, median, high, low

1.07, 4.52, 1, 13, -10
0.86, 10.37, 0.5, 33, -22
3.86, 11.48, 1.5, 26, -16
-5.79, 10.58, -7.5, 25, -17

Rich R.
05-25-2002, 05:50 AM
Thanks for doing all that hard work Karla.
I find it very interesting that the top 5 places all remain unchanged. All of the shuffling is below that point. I guess I should have been able to guess that, but it is nice to see it proven.
As far as lobbying for the adoption of a weighted system like this, I think we have to get a complete list of WPBA Board members and see how they would fair under this system. The few board members I know, would all go down in the rankings, but I do not have a list of all board members.
By seeing how the board would fair, we could predict the outcome of a vote on adoption of this system.
Rich R.

05-25-2002, 08:13 AM
Exactly what I was thinking, Rich. You would hope that the board would make decisions for the long term good of the tour. But it's probably very hard for some people to vote something in that is immediately detrimental to their own position. It would be nice if the membership could vote on it.....

Karla

PS It wasn't hard. I keep updated spreadsheets from every tournament... it was just a matter of using the power of MS Excel. /ccboard/images/icons/smile.gif

05-25-2002, 08:29 AM
Thanks, Alfie. This would have been the most logical way to present these numbers.. /ccboard/images/icons/smile.gif

I guess the biggest thing I get from all of this is that some of the players wouldn't be able to "ride" on past performances (up to two years old!), and may need to put more effort into their own current level of competiveness to keep up. It also provides for a more "meteoric" rise to the upper ranks for new players who are competing well which, in my opinion, is a good thing. It would be great to see some new faces in the TV matches!

Karla

Rich R.
05-25-2002, 10:46 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Karla_in_IA:</font><hr> Exactly what I was thinking, Rich. You would hope that the board would make decisions for the long term good of the tour. But it's probably very hard for some people to vote something in that is immediately detrimental to their own position. It would be nice if the membership could vote on it.....

Karla <hr></blockquote>
A vote by the membership would be ideal. Unfortunately, the board would have to approve that also.
From what I have seen from the current board, they are less interested in improving the WPBA than protecting themselves.
JMHO. Rich R.