Joseph-Dirt

On Steve + Jeff’s podcast with Zack the discussion about how the new PST’s came about started with the history of the Classification system and how it’s required that a “review” of the PST’s is done each year. The review is done by Jeff + Zach with involvement of a committee. The result of the reviews are submitted to the Board and they can choose to implement them or not. It was also noted that the algorithm used in the reviews has changed over the years. At some point in the podcast it was stated that it was “too easy to make GM” in the Low Ready divisions. Editors Note: Jeff + Steve made GM under even easier standards than today. What is “too easy” and who determines that? I could not determine that from the discussion on the podcast. There was a lot of discussion about the origins of PST’s (1985 - developed for USPSA) and how the 95% standard for GM did NOT necessarily mean that the top 5% would get that classification. So what does that 95% mean? Unclear. It seems to be very subjective and open to interpretation. All that said, it was generally agreed that it’s “too easy” to make GM in the Low Ready divisions. Zack had some very interesting stats on SCSA member classifications. He asked Steve + Jeff to guess what percentage of Members across all divisions fell into the GM, M, A, B, C + D classifications. As of Dec 28, 2023 here are the numbers: GM - 4% M - 5% A. - 10% B - 30% C. - 40% D. - 12% Steve and Jeff guessed wrong for all the classes. 82% of SCSA members have a classification of B or lower. We have 3 times as many D shooters as GM’s. The entire discussion was centered on what effect new PST’s have on what it takes to make GM and whether that was too easy or too hard. Not a word about what the effect the new PST’s would have on what it takes to make any other class. Zack then provided numbers as of Dec last year for the Low Ready divisions: Pct of Members who are GM’s by division PCCI - 15% PCCO - 5.8% RFPI - 3.2% RFPO - 3.2% RFRI. - 11% RFRO - 6.1% Steve + Jeff were also unaware of those numbers. I’m going to call out Jeff here. A guy who is doing the work and making the recommendations to change PST’s. It seems he’s doing that without any idea how many GM’s we have. His guess for the overall number was 14%. Then after being told the percentages for the Low Ready divisions he insisted they were all greater than 4% when RFPI + RFPO are below 4%. Is it any wonder why he pushed for such aggressive changes? Looking at the Low Ready numbers, to me it looks like PCCI and RFRI would meet a definition of “too easy” to make GM. Go ahead and crank those PST’s down. The others? Maybe PCCO + RFRO should get a tweak but the RFP divisions? They already look pretty exclusive to me. What do the new PST times do to those divisions? Drop RFPO by 4 seconds and RFPI by 8 seconds. I’m trying to imagine the reaction of an RFPI C class shooter, a couple seconds from making B class and who is totally oblivious to how any of this works (As was I when I was a C class shooter) finding out that they are now 11 or 12 seconds away from making B class. (The way the percentages work it’s not a linear increase of just 8 seconds) Are the current PST’s for the RFP divisions really that far off? How long will it be before someone makes the climb from M to GM when they have 8 more seconds to shave off their time? How is this helping our sport? Editors Note: I have never shot RFPI and have no intention of ever shooting RFPI. Going forward I would hope Zack + Jeff would provide this level of detail for all divisions when the new PST’s come out. Assuming they’ve used that data as part of their review. Which this time it appears they did not.

I listened to Steve + Jeff’s podcast with Zack where they discussed how they come up with PST recommendations each year. For sure no matter what the result of their work is, it is impossible to please everyone. So before I start in with my critique let me say thanks to them for doing this work. And thanks for doing that podcast explaining how it’s done. One of the most basic issues as I see it is what data is used to compute these PST’s. Zack explained why the WSSC is used - Run by USPSA, laser sighted stages, best RO’s in the world. I have no argument with any of that but I will say that it gave me a Hunger Games vibe. Only things that happen in the Capitol City matter. You plebes out in the Districts just shut up and keep sending in your membership checks. So what about the Area matches? What are they, chopped liver? I would not suggest using Level 1 matches but if you are really interested in what’s happening in our sport using data from all the area matches would be the way to go. You’d have much more data to plug into the algorithm and those of us that will never make it to the Capitol City will feel more connected to the results. Instead of setting the low end threshold of 5 scores above 95% for inclusion you could raise it to 10 or even 20 would be my guess. More data would smooth out the results and likely avoid these one year spikes in results. One downside is that shooters who shoot in more than one district could have their scores sampled each time. While not ideal I think the number of shooters who fall into this category would be small enough that it’s not a big deal. However, that is the reason why I would only want the Area matches used and not include WSSC. Adding WSSC guarantees large numbers of shooters being sampled more than once. My guess is that over 90% of WSSC shooters also shoot an Area match. While it may be true that some Pro shooters only compete at WSSC do we really want to base PST's on scores from someone who rarely shoots a match? No need to include WSSC scores. Zack also mentioned that for some divisions the result of the calculations indicated increasing PST but traditionally those times have never been raised. Why not? You could have a scenario where a group of elite shooters rolls through a division, lowering PST’s and then moves on to something else. Is that fair to the shooters who faithfully shoot that division? Old scores drop off my classification record but scores used to calculate PST stay around forever? I would propose in cases where the PST calculated would result in an increased PST to leave the PST alone for the first 2 years (As is done now) but if it happens for 3 Years in a row go ahead and increase the PST that 3rd year. Maybe this is such an outlier that it never happens but it doesn’t seem right that individuals get scores rolled off classification records but PST’s stay around forever. What impact would these changes have on PST’s? Hard to say. Maybe it’s higher PST’s than the current method but then again maybe not. Maybe doing this only validates what’s been done so far. Whatever the result I think using the Area matches instead of WSSC makes them easier to justify/defend.