JGS - Year over Year Improvement

[tiger1873]

On 10/4/2022 at 11:18 AM, wegobomber31 said:

I know the mechanics of the JGS adjustments but I don’t really know how you game it. The one thing is you need enough sample size in order for them to warrant a stroke adjustment, so this can be an issue particularly in younger divisions with less kids. And they cut-off the adjustment at +4 so one could argue that some rounds might’ve actually played tougher than that if the cap hadn’t existed, thus penalizing the kids instead. 
 

I think in general you see a big jump in JGS in the 13-14 range into that 14-15 year as kids likely go up against deeper competition, assuming they have the game to back it up. It’s easier for a kid to shoot 72 in a 77.5 rated event than it is to shoot 64 in a 69.5 rated event, though JGS treats them the same. 

 

With JGS it is more about selecting the correct golf course at a little luck you will get a boost with the field.  But you can gain an easy few points by just playing certain courses.   I know a few courses here where you pretty much guaranteed a big boost in rankings every time you play them.  There super easy (like half the field below par) and it has a high course rating. 

 

The other thing that can happen is some tours let's say play liberal with yardages and have rules in place to help the kids score less. By helping I mean doing things like playing lift clean and place with very liberal rules.   Kids are going to score less if they don't have to hit out bunkers and get a chance to choose their lie on the fairway when it is dry.

 

It's pretty clear some regions are actually over ranked in JGS because of the way they do things. Not sure if that is intentional but southern states with good weather seems to be the most effected.

 

Without Head to Head comparisons factored in JGS I am sure weighs a lot on how college coaches recruit.    

[heavy_hitter]

21 hours ago, tiger1873 said:

 

With JGS it is more about selecting the correct golf course at a little luck you will get a boost with the field.  But you can gain an easy few points by just playing certain courses.   I know a few courses here where you pretty much guaranteed a big boost in rankings every time you play them.  There super easy (like half the field below par) and it has a high course rating. 

 

The other thing that can happen is some tours let's say play liberal with yardages and have rules in place to help the kids score less. By helping I mean doing things like playing lift clean and place with very liberal rules.   Kids are going to score less if they don't have to hit out bunkers and get a chance to choose their lie on the fairway when it is dry.

 

It's pretty clear some regions are actually over ranked in JGS because of the way they do things. Not sure if that is intentional but southern states with good weather seems to be the most effected.

 

Without Head to Head comparisons factored in JGS I am sure weighs a lot on how college coaches recruit.    

This happens a lot with one of the tours in Texas.

[Ray Jackson]

4 hours ago, heavy_hitter said:

This happens a lot with one of the tours in Texas.

Ha Ha which tour is that so we can focus on that one 🙂

[tiger1873]

14 minutes ago, Ray Jackson said:

Ha Ha which tour is that so we can focus on that one 🙂

 

I think it has to do with the courses more then tours in Texas.  In Texas a lot courses are built along rivers and with girls it gets subjective where you place the tees. 

 

But Texas isn't the only place it happens.  I seen the same thing in Virgina, North Carolina and New York.  Also in a lot these places they  have what amounts to winter rules.  

 

In florida and probaly California and some other places we play the ball the down most of the time and the rules are the same thought the year.   I think that is a big difference and why you see kids in Florida under ranked.

[Ray Jackson]

56 minutes ago, tiger1873 said:

 

I think it has to do with the courses more then tours in Texas.  In Texas a lot courses are built along rivers and with girls it gets subjective where you place the tees. 

 

But Texas isn't the only place it happens.  I seen the same thing in Virgina, North Carolina and New York.  Also in a lot these places they  have what amounts to winter rules.  

 

In florida and probaly California and some other places we play the ball the down most of the time and the rules are the same thought the year.   I think that is a big difference and why you see kids in Florida under ranked.

Well so far in our 2 years here my son has played the ball down in all tournaments in TX. 

[tiger1873]

1 hour ago, Ray Jackson said:

Well so far in our 2 years here my son has played the ball down in all tournaments in TX. 

Texas is a big state so i don’t doubt that it different depending on where you play.

 

I think the DFW area is where a lot tournaments are played with ‘winter rules’.

 

We played a few tournaments there and everyone one of them were preferred lies with other player complaining it was not a free drop from the bunker. 
 

Doing tournaments in other states is interesting to say the least.   Looking for good fields is what it all about.

 

However I have noticed that high ranked JGS players don’t always have the skill you would expect.  When players can’t get out of bunkers or out of divots you sort of wonder why?  That leads me to believe the parents talking to  me about winter rules has some truth to it.

 

It the same thing with distance. I see girls who regular play 6000 yards yet somehow they can’t drive much more then 200 yards.  In a lot cases this happens because yardage is being reported longer then it really is.

 

JGS doesn’t care where your low scores comes from and that is the problem.  There is nothing stopping an instructor to run tournaments that will game JGS numbers.  

 

 

[wegobomber31]

My son has been playing in TX and primarily DFW the past three years (All-American/Legends in prior years, Legends exclusively this year). I cant speak for the girls side but I’ve yet to hear about any event there that was preferred lies or played dramatically different than the stated yardage. we haven’t doneTJGT so I can’t speak to that. 
 

I suppose with a small field one could jack around with the yardage and get a higher baseline JGS rating, but that seems like more trouble than it’s worth. And the same for trying to seek out tournaments to give you a slight edge. If there’s enough sample size and everybody goes low, then the rating will come down and it will be tougher to differentiate. In my experience its easier to make a big move (like -8 to -12 vs the rating) by having a good day when the field is having a tough time with it. All of this is predicated on playing well relative to the field, so at the end of the day you need to have some game or it’ll catch up with you sooner of later. 

Edited October 7, 2022 by wegobomber31

[heavy_hitter]

On 10/4/2022 at 7:11 PM, Pinewood Golfer said:

The math can’t be “gamed”. But if you understand the math you can select fields that have the highest likelihood of meeting the statistical requirements for the adjustment to kick in. 
 

the key is for the middle 80% to have as small difference in differential from top to bottom is possible. This makes the expected scoring range as compact as possible. 
 

if you have 20 ranked players in the field where the middle 80% range from a -1.00 diff to an 11.00 diff then the math is tougher than a field where you have the middle 80% range from, say, 0.00-5.00. 

I was in a group chat discussing this weekend discussing rankings and college commits.  The issue is that CCA from JGS really throws off the true ranking of the player if they play all AJGA events.  AJGA fields are generally good in the right events and end up seeing a CCA of 76-78.  This particular kid has played 9 events on the year and has a sub -4.0.  Ranked in the top 75 of the class and going to a garbage D1 school a plane flight away.  Yet in those 28 rounds only has 5 rounds under par.  Kid is ranked high because of the AJGA events he played in with a favorable CCA.  You can go to another kid with more rounds in the red that gets no CCA along with a better tournament average and they will be ranked worse.  I understand the premise of CCA, but it has been a failure within their rankings.

[wegobomber31]

19 minutes ago, heavy_hitter said:

I was in a group chat discussing this weekend discussing rankings and college commits.  The issue is that CCA from JGS really throws off the true ranking of the player if they play all AJGA events.  AJGA fields are generally good in the right events and end up seeing a CCA of 76-78.  This particular kid has played 9 events on the year and has a sub -4.0.  Ranked in the top 75 of the class and going to a garbage D1 school a plane flight away.  Yet in those 28 rounds only has 5 rounds under par.  Kid is ranked high because of the AJGA events he played in with a favorable CCA.  You can go to another kid with more rounds in the red that gets no CCA along with a better tournament average and they will be ranked worse.  I understand the premise of CCA, but it has been a failure within their rankings.

If I'm guessing who you are talking about...that kid is ranked around 90th in JGS and around 110th in Sagarin.  So maybe CCA is playing a role but it sounds like the kid is playing in higher profile events on tougher courses and still faring relatively well against the competition.  I mean the AJGA Ping Invitational has 36 of the best kids in the country playing Karsten Creek at 7400 yds in relatively cool weather.  Only 6 of the 72 rounds have been under par and the average score is around 77, so shouldn't that warrant a ~78-80 rating?

[leezer99]

19 minutes ago, wegobomber31 said:

If I'm guessing who you are talking about...that kid is ranked around 90th in JGS and around 110th in Sagarin.  So maybe CCA is playing a role but it sounds like the kid is playing in higher profile events on tougher courses and still faring relatively well against the competition.  I mean the AJGA Ping Invitational has 36 of the best kids in the country playing Karsten Creek at 7400 yds in relatively cool weather.  Only 6 of the 72 rounds have been under par and the average score is around 77, so shouldn't that warrant a ~78-80 rating?

 

The CCA is a really poor version of strokes gained. If the local PGA is rating courses properly then there shouldn't be a need to adjust scoring averages. 

[heavy_hitter]

3 hours ago, wegobomber31 said:

If I'm guessing who you are talking about...that kid is ranked around 90th in JGS and around 110th in Sagarin.  So maybe CCA is playing a role but it sounds like the kid is playing in higher profile events on tougher courses and still faring relatively well against the competition.  I mean the AJGA Ping Invitational has 36 of the best kids in the country playing Karsten Creek at 7400 yds in relatively cool weather.  Only 6 of the 72 rounds have been under par and the average score is around 77, so shouldn't that warrant a ~78-80 rating?

 

The CCA is a really crappy tool and I am not talking about that kid.  The kid I am referring to is ranked higher.  There is absolutely no need for CCA.  If the course is rated a 77 there is no need to move it to an 80 to benefit a highly ranked AJGA field.  Same goes if a lesser field fares well on a 73 rated course and the field is rated lower.  JGS is not a course rating service and looks to the USGA for that.  I understand the philosophy, the implementation is terrible.

 

If you compare the rankings this year from when there was no CCA, there are more kids rated a lower scoring differential than ever before.  Sometimes a field will Overachieve and sometimes it will Underachieve.  With CCA there is no allowance for either.

Edited October 10, 2022 by heavy_hitter

[wegobomber31]

1 hour ago, heavy_hitter said:

 

The CCA is a really crappy tool and I am not talking about that kid.  The kid I am referring to is ranked higher.  There is absolutely no need for CCA.  If the course is rated a 77 there is no need to move it to an 80 to benefit a highly ranked AJGA field.  Same goes if a lesser field fares well on a 73 rated course and the field is rated lower.  JGS is not a course rating service and looks to the USGA for that.  I understand the philosophy, the implementation is terrible.

 

If you compare the rankings this year from when there was no CCA, there are more kids rated a lower scoring differential than ever before.  Sometimes a field will Overachieve and sometimes it will Underachieve.  With CCA there is no allowance for either.

I don't think anyone including JGS is too overly worried about the differential drift from 2019 to now.  A -4 just means something different now than it did then, but the real question is does the adjustment make it a better identification and differentiation of players in the country or not?  I'd argue that it's better off with it than without it.

[Pinewood Golfer]

5 hours ago, wegobomber31 said:

I don't think anyone including JGS is too overly worried about the differential drift from 2019 to now.  A -4 just means something different now than it did then, but the real question is does the adjustment make it a better identification and differentiation of players in the country or not?  I'd argue that it's better off with it than without it.

I would agree with you. But I also believe some pretty sensible adjustments could be made to the math that would yield even better results. 

[tiger1873]

11 hours ago, wegobomber31 said:

If I'm guessing who you are talking about...that kid is ranked around 90th in JGS and around 110th in Sagarin.  So maybe CCA is playing a role but it sounds like the kid is playing in higher profile events on tougher courses and still faring relatively well against the competition.  I mean the AJGA Ping Invitational has 36 of the best kids in the country playing Karsten Creek at 7400 yds in relatively cool weather.  Only 6 of the 72 rounds have been under par and the average score is around 77, so shouldn't that warrant a ~78-80 rating?

If i remember correctly 5 or 6 years ago JGS rankings were all about power ranking and playing the correct tournaments. Lots of people complained about that.

 

I rather they stuck to the old way then have some sort of secret formula that helps kids and hurts kids based on the tournament they have.

 

JGS is not hard to figure out how they calculate things. The CCA is complete joke and is only there for them adjust certain events and perhaps players to match what they want.

 

[heavy_hitter]

20 hours ago, wegobomber31 said:

I don't think anyone including JGS is too overly worried about the differential drift from 2019 to now.  A -4 just means something different now than it did then, but the real question is does the adjustment make it a better identification and differentiation of players in the country or not?  I'd argue that it's better off with it than without it.

 

The way it stands now with the algorithm I am against CCA.  I think my biggest issue is they are untruthful about it and when asked shy away from answering questions. JGS calls it a Course Condition Adjustment which is a complete lie.  It is a strength of field adjustment which they already have.

Edited October 11, 2022 by heavy_hitter

[tiger1873]

2 hours ago, heavy_hitter said:

 

The way it stands now with the algorithm I am against CCA.  I think my biggest issue is they are untruthful about it and when asked shy away from answering questions.  Another issue I have is they call it a  Course Condition Adjustment which it is not.  It is a strength of field adjustment which they already have.

 

 

You hit the nail on the head why it's a big problem.  They are not upfront on why it is there.  If it was true course condition to help with bad weather or course conditions it would be a good thing.  (which by the way would be easy to calculate and what they describe it as).

 

My guess the people running JGS are tired of tweaking things and are hoping enough junior parents care enough about it to subscribe to their website.   The college recruiting they push on the site is just another way to sell something to parents desperate for the myth of a free ride through school.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 11, 2022 by tiger1873

[Pinewood Golfer]

13 hours ago, heavy_hitter said:

 

The way it stands now with the algorithm I am against CCA.  I think my biggest issue is they are untruthful about it and when asked shy away from answering questions. JGS calls it a Course Condition Adjustment which is a complete lie.  It is a strength of field adjustment which they already have.

I agree they should be transparent with the methodology. AJGA is very transparent with their methodology. It’s crappy methodology but you know it. Golfweek doesn’t show their formula but any math person can come very close to recreating a Sagarin Power Rating system. 

[DAnnunzio]

On 10/11/2022 at 8:13 AM, heavy_hitter said:

 

The way it stands now with the algorithm I am against CCA.  I think my biggest issue is they are untruthful about it and when asked shy away from answering questions. JGS calls it a Course Condition Adjustment which is a complete lie.  It is a strength of field adjustment which they already have.

 

Thank you all for the eye opening insight to JGS.  I've been lurking here a bit as my son approaches high school and this is my first post.

 

Just curious, if parents can see ranking discrepancies (like the kid ranked top 75 because he played in mostly AJGA ), the JGS administrators must know too, correct?   On their web page describing CCA they say something about "this is our best effort after a year of research" - are they trying improve the algorithm over time?  Is the CCA adjustment publicized after a tournament? 

 

It sounds like nothing about the adjustments are published, they just happen.

[Pinewood Golfer]

1 minute ago, DAnnunzio said:

 

Thank you all for the eye opening insight to JGS.  I've been lurking here a bit as my son approaches high school and this is my first post.

 

Just curious, if parents can see ranking discrepancies (like the kid ranked top 75 because he played in mostly AJGA ), the JGS administrators must know too, correct?   On their web page describing CCA they say something about "this is our best effort after a year of research" - are they trying improve the algorithm over time?  Is the CCA adjustment publicized after a tournament? 

 

It sounds like nothing about the adjustments are published, they just happen.

They haven’t been known historically for continual tweaks in their methodology. They’re better known for occasional sledge hammers

[wegobomber31]

4 minutes ago, DAnnunzio said:

 

Thank you all for the eye opening insight to JGS.  I've been lurking here a bit as my son approaches high school and this is my first post.

 

Just curious, if parents can see ranking discrepancies (like the kid ranked top 75 because he played in mostly AJGA ), the JGS administrators must know too, correct?   On their web page describing CCA they say something about "this is our best effort after a year of research" - are they trying improve the algorithm over time?  Is the CCA adjustment publicized after a tournament? 

 

It sounds like nothing about the adjustments are published, they just happen.

the CCA adjustments are shown on the tournament page. One could recreate the calculation if they felt so inclined. 

[DAnnunzio]

15 minutes ago, Pinewood Golfer said:

They haven’t been known historically for continual tweaks in their methodology. They’re better known for occasional sledge hammers

 

11 minutes ago, wegobomber31 said:

the CCA adjustments are shown on the tournament page. One could recreate the calculation if they felt so inclined. 

 

It sounds like the best thing for now is to just control what we can - play tournaments, keep working to get better, then re-evaluate JGS once in high school.

Edited October 13, 2022 by DAnnunzio

[Pinewood Golfer]

29 minutes ago, wegobomber31 said:

the CCA adjustments are shown on the tournament page. One could recreate the calculation if they felt so inclined. 

I’ve tried. And I’m pretty good at math and advanced stats. I thought I had it figured out and I don’t. My son played in one recently where round 2 scores were 5+ strokes higher than “expected”. Standard Deviation and Standard Error checked the boxes, yet no adjustment. 

[wegobomber31]

If you really want to focus on righting some wrongs, try to figure out how winning the Campeonato Sudamericano Juvenil in Ecuador against 18 other golfers is worth more WAGR points than winning the Western Junior Championship.

 

https://www.wagr.com/events/campeonato-sudamericano-juvenil-69979

[Pinewood Golfer]

2 hours ago, wegobomber31 said:

If you really want to focus on righting some wrongs, try to figure out how winning the Campeonato Sudamericano Juvenil in Ecuador against 18 other golfers is worth more WAGR points than winning the Western Junior Championship.

 

https://www.wagr.com/events/campeonato-sudamericano-juvenil-69979

That’s a whole different discussion. Oh boy. Just use SPWAR if you want good Am rankings. 

[wegobomber31]

20 minutes ago, Pinewood Golfer said:

That’s a whole different discussion. Oh boy. Just use SPWAR if you want good Am rankings. 

That's good to know.  My son is ranked 1400+ spots on Scratch ahead of the 371st ranked player on WAGR 🙂

[Pinewood Golfer]

31 minutes ago, wegobomber31 said:

That's good to know.  My son is ranked 1400+ spots on Scratch ahead of the 371st ranked player on WAGR 🙂

SPWAR methodology far superior to WAGR. Neither are perfect. Golfweek has the best methodology but they won’t apply it to enough events

[tiger1873]

12 hours ago, Pinewood Golfer said:

I’ve tried. And I’m pretty good at math and advanced stats. I thought I had it figured out and I don’t. My son played in one recently where round 2 scores were 5+ strokes higher than “expected”. Standard Deviation and Standard Error checked the boxes, yet no adjustment. 

One of things i noticed is JGS looks and feels like it was designed 10-15 years ago.

 

I have a feeling there is a lot processing of spreadsheets when they are sent to them. Over the years they most likely just added a line here and there to scrips that process them. 

 

The top of the rankings are for sure manipulated manually.  With girls is a lot easier to see this going on.   With some sort of manual intervention you will never get it correct.
 

When those top ranked players play a tournament the adjustment almost always comes into play that helps them.  Other players lower ranked don’t get that boost.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[wegobomber31]

On 10/14/2022 at 6:55 AM, tiger1873 said:

One of things i noticed is JGS looks and feels like it was designed 10-15 years ago.

 

I have a feeling there is a lot processing of spreadsheets when they are sent to them. Over the years they most likely just added a line here and there to scrips that process them. 

 

The top of the rankings are for sure manipulated manually.  With girls is a lot easier to see this going on.   With some sort of manual intervention you will never get it correct.
 

When those top ranked players play a tournament the adjustment almost always comes into play that helps them.  Other players lower ranked don’t get that boost.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Have you looked at the Scratch ratings website? JGS looks like the Metaverse compared to that one. 
 

I really doubt the ratings are adjusted manually to help the top players. The top 10% of the field is removed in their calculation. And for them, aren’t these just faceless names on a page? Virtually none of the top kids need or use their premium profile upgrade. I can’t see why they would care about ranking one kid over another. 

[tiger1873]

On 10/16/2022 at 10:47 AM, wegobomber31 said:

Have you looked at the Scratch ratings website? JGS looks like the Metaverse compared to that one. 
 

I really doubt the ratings are adjusted manually to help the top players. The top 10% of the field is removed in their calculation. And for them, aren’t these just faceless names on a page? Virtually none of the top kids need or use their premium profile upgrade. I can’t see why they would care about ranking one kid over another. 

Does anyone even care about scratch??? JGS only matter because a lot tours  will accept that as a resume and Equipment Reps will use it to give discounts. I know JGS is  supposed to matter for college recruiting but I wonder about that. However JGS will help you qualify for bigger tournaments and coaches attend those tournaments.

 

JGS looks like it was designed 10 years ago or more and their uploads format is old.

 

I have also seen strange things for kids ranked in the top 10.  The biggest swings happen with girls. 
 

Over the years I have seen the top player be some random girl out rank and be number 1 overall only the replaced with girls who match other rankings.

 

To me that indicated something happens manually there to their numbers. Most of us can calculate how the rankings work but there is always strange things that a person can’t figure out that sort of doesn’t add up.

 

That could be because they run another data point in there or it is because there manually adjusting things.  The manual adjustment seems more likely.   I have come the the conclusion that those adjustments generally hurt lower ranked kids.

 

Personally wish golfweek had more tournaments.  I also wish the USGA extended their WAGR to juniors. 
 

To me the core issue with JGS is it relies on score far to much and not how you place against other players.   

Edited October 17, 2022 by tiger1873

[heavy_hitter]

On 10/16/2022 at 10:47 AM, wegobomber31 said:

Have you looked at the Scratch ratings website? JGS looks like the Metaverse compared to that one. 
 

I really doubt the ratings are adjusted manually to help the top players. The top 10% of the field is removed in their calculation. And for them, aren’t these just faceless names on a page? Virtually none of the top kids need or use their premium profile upgrade. I can’t see why they would care about ranking one kid over another. 

Here is one for you.  If a 54 hole tournament is played on 2 or more courses with split fields, JGS can't figure out how to give CCA.  Some of the things coming from Junior Golf Scoreboard are just bizarre.  

 

This is one tournament in the several.  They took the average across the the two course and combined them for a 74.6 although the rating.  One course was a 75.2 and the other a 73.7.  So if you played well on the 75.2 and not the 73.7 the kid got screwed with a 74.6.  No common sense was used in this at all.  Same thing happens at the national high school tournament in Pinehurst.

 

https://www.juniorgolfscoreboard.com/smtresultscourse.asp?TID=59578