johniac7078 Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 (edited) Given all the distress over more IDPA rule changes that are pending, I recalculated our September match scores at 1 second per point down. I will analyze the data more, but a quick glance of this limited reveals that the new scoring will have a major impact. It seems that as predicted, accuracy will count much more. Several of the highest placing shooters suffered, so at least in this match they were rewarded for speed. However, I am not sure this is an accurate conclusion, because one can imagine that top shooters may be better at "gaming" a stage which will be deemphasized at 1 pt per sec. Anyway, I will crunch more numbers as time allows and expand the analysis for the last 6 matches. For all you nerds, there may be a mathematical model that I can use to accurately predict the changes, but I will have to get my geek on when I have more time. Data comments: The first column in red shows the new overall placement, the revised total score in column I. I can't upload a .xls file here so The data can be found here: http://www.woburnactionshooters.org/files.html under match data analysis.... Discuss. Edited October 1, 2015 by johniac7078 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Tompkins Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 I did a similar review as this with results from a recent major match in the loca area. Out of ~150 shooters all but ~10-12 change overall finish order. I did not look at changes by Div / Class. However, some shooters moved 15-17 places but most moved 1 or 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Watson Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 I only replotted one local match. The top three positions were unchanged, there were two 4 place changes (4th and 8th actually swapped) balance 2, 1, or none. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johniac7078 Posted October 1, 2015 Author Share Posted October 1, 2015 Well, for a 50 something shooter match, we got some big changes. Admittedly, I will have to look at all the other matches and take a look at the changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilkMyDuds Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 I did a similar review as this with results from a recent major match in the loca area. Out of ~150 shooters all but ~10-12 change overall finish order. I did not look at changes by Div / Class. However, some shooters moved 15-17 places but most moved 1 or 2. Look at this analysis here across multiple local matches. http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=222250 Just count the dots on the line, which are the shooters have overall standing NOT impacted. Although the author did not indicate the sample size, visually we can see about 20% at most are NOT impacted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johniac7078 Posted October 1, 2015 Author Share Posted October 1, 2015 I did a similar review as this with results from a recent major match in the loca area. Out of ~150 shooters all but ~10-12 change overall finish order. I did not look at changes by Div / Class. However, some shooters moved 15-17 places but most moved 1 or 2. Look at this analysis here across multiple local matches. http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=222250 Just count the dots on the line, which are the shooters have overall standing NOT impacted. Although the author did not indicate the sample size, visually we can see about 20% at most are NOT impacted. Well, it is pretty hard to interpret data without statistics, so I won't. How about a P value? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johniac7078 Posted October 1, 2015 Author Share Posted October 1, 2015 My data, not from 2 matches suggests that the top 20% of shooters are most affected in terms of overall finish placement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewColonial Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 How did you account for people slowing and down and trying to be more accurate under new scoring than they might under the scoring in use when the data gathered? How did you account for people who would take makeup shots when scoring is -1 sec vs -.5 sec? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johniac7078 Posted October 1, 2015 Author Share Posted October 1, 2015 How did you account for people slowing and down and trying to be more accurate under new scoring than they might under the scoring in use when the data gathered? How did you account for people who would take makeup shots when scoring is -1 sec vs -.5 sec? how can you account fro something that did not happen yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewColonial Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 how can you account fro something that did not happen yet? Exactly. You are comparing apples to oranges. Any conclusions from all these "studies" recalculating scores are flawed and meaningless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FTDMFR Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 (edited) how can you account fro something that did not happen yet? Exactly. You are comparing apples to oranges. Any conclusions from all these "studies" recalculating scores are flawed and meaningless. I think there's great value in trying to figure out which type of shooter will need to change their current approach in order to stay competitive under the new system. I don't think the answer will be something as simple as "everyone across the board needs to slow down". Edited October 1, 2015 by FTDMFR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johniac7078 Posted October 1, 2015 Author Share Posted October 1, 2015 (edited) how can you account fro something that did not happen yet? Exactly. You are comparing apples to oranges. Any conclusions from all these "studies" recalculating scores are flawed and meaningless. All your comment does is show that you don't know how to interpret data. Anyway, you are totally missing the point. The purpose of the analysis is to see which shooters are most impacted by the impending rule change. The data already show that for slow shooters, the scoring change hurts the most. Slowing down will not help for this group, obviously. For top shooters, they will trade off speed for accuracy to a certain point assuming they can. Without doing so, this group is impacted the most in terms of where they place. The problem with the idea that people will adjust is that you are assuming they can. The data will bear that out. About make up shots- top shooters call shots, and ONLY take make up shots if needed because it SLOWS YOU DOWN and screws up your stage planning. In that case, make up shots may actually make things worst, forcing a reload for example. Data are only meaningless if you are unable to understand what they actually show, and understand the limitations of a given data set. Right now, this "meaningless" data is showing pretty strongly that this plan will not have much of an effect other than at the very top, and since the folks on the top are likely to figure it out, it will only make MM-NV level shooters post worst scores. Edited October 1, 2015 by johniac7078 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johniac7078 Posted October 1, 2015 Author Share Posted October 1, 2015 how can you account fro something that did not happen yet? Exactly. You are comparing apples to oranges. Any conclusions from all these "studies" recalculating scores are flawed and meaningless. I think there's great value in trying to figure out which type of shooter will need to change their current approach in order to stay competitive under the new system. I don't think the answer will be something as simple "everyone across the board needs to slow down". I agree. If you are slow, slowing down more will not help. It is absurd to think otherwise, but hey, who needs data when you can just assert BS? LOL. Nice job on your number crunching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FTDMFR Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 (edited) As I'm looking at more and more data, I'm starting to think the shooters that will be hurt the most in terms of ranking are low Masters / high Experts. I'll post more in the other thread. Edited October 1, 2015 by FTDMFR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrBorland Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 (edited) As I'm looking at more and more data, I'm starting to think the shooters that will be hurt the most in terms of ranking are low Masters / high Experts. I'll post more in the other thread. My bet is that it'll be as the OP suggested. The very top and bottom won't change. Those at the bottom tend to be new shooters. They're slow and their points down, relative to their raw time, is often actually pretty good. IOW, they're relatively accurate, so they won't be affected much. Those at the top tend to be among the more accurate, so they won't be affected much. The most variability in accuracy lies in the shooters between the top and bottom, so they're the ones most likely to be affected. A small few are very accurate, and a small few are very inaccurate, so these few will be very affected (for better or worse). Edited October 2, 2015 by GrandBoule Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathanb Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Anyone else think this is the way tthe old guys on the board are trying to stay relevant? Not as fast as they used to be but stil shoot good and aren't happy to see themselves further down the standings because the younger crowd games it and is fast enough the points down don't hurt as bad. After all they made a big deal about experience in the announcement. Little conspiracy theory for ya lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johniac7078 Posted October 2, 2015 Author Share Posted October 2, 2015 As I'm looking at more and more data, I'm starting to think the shooters that will be hurt the most in terms of ranking are low Masters / high Experts. I'll post more in the other thread. THIS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MMC Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 Exactly. I think peoples approach would be different if they knew they were competing under the new rule. I definitely go faster when I shoot USPSA limited division than when I shoot IDPA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FWSixgunner Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 No shock there, our top shooters are always down more than me. It still won't even come close to making up for my sloth-like speed. Besides, the top shooters will adjust. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DellConagher Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 (edited) Anyway, you are totally missing the point. The purpose of the analysis is to see which shooters are most impacted by the impending rule change. The data already show that for slow shooters, the scoring change hurts the most. Slowing down will not help for this group, obviously. For top shooters, they will trade off speed for accuracy to a certain point assuming they can. Without doing so, this group is impacted the most in terms of where they place. Along with IDPA, I particapte in a league that uses a different scoring system. They use 0-down for head shots and 0-down for heart-shots. So, theorhetically, I can shoot 5 targets with five bullets and complete a stage 0-down if I landed them all in the head or heart 1-each per target. Pop-Pop-Pop-Pop-Pop. Done. (Of course they rarely go down like that, but it's possible) The reason I mention this is that I see how those guys shoot that league vs IDPA. You still have the fast guys, but you also have the slower but deliberate guys. The same good guys show up at the top. The really good guys (top 10%) are both fast and accurate. The only people that are really, really penalized are the new shooters who simply don't know the rules of scoring, are nervous, and are generally inexperienced in this game. ALL 3 of those go away after a handful of matches. So, the bottom-scoring shooters aren't at the bottom because they are trying to "slow down". They are there becasue they, "don't know how to do things faster." (acquire a sight picture, fire a good shot, reload, change positions...). All of those things are known by the mid and upper level shooters. Personally, I don't think things will change much in the end as everyone will reevaluate their strategies...except the newbies who have no established strategies at all, and therefore no reason to complain. Edited November 30, 2015 by DellConagher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now