Where were the sandbaggers?

[bbbean]

Nearly every thread on the class system contains laments about sandbaggers, or complaints that the class system doesn't measure overall performance. I took a look at the class finishes in the 09 Limited Nats and found the following:

GM1 100

GM2 98.07

GM3 97.92

M1 92.84

M2 91.13

M3 89.99

A1 78.5

A2 76.91

A3 76.65

B1 73.93

B2 72.63

B3 72.51

C1 63.44

C2 62.25

C3 60.7

D1 50.98

D2 45.3

D3 32.05

Seems to me that with the exception of the top two D class shooters, the top of each class shot about where you'd expect them to, based on classifiers. I'd guess the D class finishes had to do with inconsistency (something that plagues me), and the fact that a tanked classifier sticks with a D-class shooter longer than it would for a C or above shooter.

I'm not sure why the A class finished weren't at the top edge of A, but they're certainly well within the range you'd expect from an A class shooter.

Comments?

[MoNsTeR]

My gut reaction was, sandbaggers don't go to Nationals. That may or may not be true, just a hunch.

On closer inspection though I'd say the answer to your question is "in B class", considering how close they finished to the A's. As a B class shooter frequently accused of sandbagging, I offer no further comment

[MarkCO]

There are of course sandbaggers, but I agree, they probably don't go to Nats. Maybe an area match where they can pick up a good prize, but then usually that bumps them up. All three of the top C class shooters are now in B class, so maybe there, but looking at scores won't tell you who is/or is not, a sandbagger. The combination of classifier scores as compared to other stages in local matches and overall finishes at larger matches tell a better story. However, some people naturally shoot classifiers well and field courses poorly, some the opposite. I've only really known one true sandbagger, and he did it to win the local match in class so he could shoot on match points reducing his costs. The jovial "sandbagger" shouted at most local matches is really just poking fun. YMMV.

[smokshwn]

IMO sandbagging is not near the problem in USPSA as grandbagging. If you look at most major match finishes the classification scores of high finishers match up pretty well with their match finish. However, it is very easy to pick out the grandbaggers who consistently finish 10-15% under their classification.

[Chris Keen]

Nearly every thread on the class system contains laments about sandbaggers, or complaints that the class system doesn't measure overall performance. I took a look at the class finishes in the 09 Limited Nats and found the following:

GM1 100

GM2 98.07

GM3 97.92

M1 92.84

M2 91.13

M3 89.99

Since you pointed specifically to my Nationals results, I'll add a little insight to my class progression.

2 years ago I went to my very first Nationals as an A Class LTD shooter, and finished 77%. Certainly within my class percentage (75-85%).

1 year ago I went to the Open/L-10 Nationals as an A Class in L-10 (still A in Limited, but went with an open shooter friend). and finished around 77% again. Still well within A Class (75-85).

This year I made Master in LTD & Open and was a little worried about my potential finish at major matches as a freshly minted Master. I finished 88% at Area 8, and 89% at Nationals. This came as a bit of a shock for me, but to be honest, I had been putting in a serious amount of work in the latter part of the Summer, so I shouldnt have been so surprised.

But this did re-enforce my belief in the Classification system (for the most part).

[EDIT TO ADD]

More importantly if you look at my actual class % you will notice that I was not far off the mark from my Nats %

OPEN.... Class: M Current Pct: 88.167 High Percent: 88.167

LIMITED Class: M Current Pct: 88.713 High Percent: 90.764

LIMIT10 Class: M Current Pct: 89.416 High Percent: 89.416

PROD.... Class: M Current Pct: 86.245 High Percent: 87.133

Edited November 16, 2009 by Chris Keen

[Chris iliff]

Info confirms what I learned from my own finishes at area/state matches. I have consistently finished right there close to my national classification percentage. I don't worry about sandbaggers and generally the term is used as an affectionate rub amongst friends where I shoot. Now of course, Flyin 40 shoots way below his ability (on classifiers) and is the only sandbagger I know.

I've said it b4, Flyin40 works all night, drives 4 hours, shoots Warsaw's Spectacular, and rob's me of the one stage I had in the bag before his sandbagging butt showed up.

Good info.

[Mistral404]

You actually have a statistical problem. The percentages you see at Nationals have not been normalized so they only reflect the percentages of a small sample of shooters and not the population of USPSA shooters. If you look at the number of GMs that fell below their GM percentages, you might get the inclination there is another answer to the question.

Yes Sandbaggers do go to Nationals and every other match.

Some people do finish close to their USPSA average but IMHO those people are NOT grandbaggers, they have a solid skill set that is well rounded. I have not normalized the data, but I suspect with the number of GM shooting below their averages that shooting your average would result in a higher percentage once the data was normalized.

IMO the classifiers focus on speed of draw and reloads which tend to be negated somewhat at National and Area 2 matches that have more distances between shooting arrays which allow for reloads to occur while moving.

[el pres]

My gut reaction was, sandbaggers don't go to Nationals. That may or may not be true, just a hunch.

On closer inspection though I'd say the answer to your question is "in B class", considering how close they finished to the A's. As a B class shooter frequently accused of sandbagging, I offer no further comment

I'm actualy one of the guys on the list above and I have been called a sandbagger several times. After much study into

the problem and seeing where me and my buddies finish routinely at bigger matches, I now believe in the classification

system, sometimes it's almost scary accurate.

When I use to complain about the classification system was when it was'nt working for me. I think that it's not

that the "Sandbaggers" do not go to the Nats. It's that at the smaller matches the so called "Sandbaggers" are just that much more consistant then everybody else.

Edited November 20, 2009 by P.Pres

[Nik Habicht]

There's also the curve resetting that occurs at Nationals --- at most matches you won't be shooting against the very best of the sport. You may be shooting against local masters or grandmasters, but for the most part they won't be laying down high 90s finishes at the Nationals.....

Shooting against a local Master, I can manage 70-80% in Production Division; at Nats my best finish was ~50%. I have held a B card in production for ~ 4 years now....

[bbbean]

You actually have a statistical problem. The percentages you see at Nationals have not been normalized so they only reflect the percentages of a small sample of shooters and not the population of USPSA shooters. If you look at the number of GMs that fell below their GM percentages, you might get the inclination there is another answer to the question.

I don't see the problem. By definition, USPSA scores are assigned in relation to the top score on a stage, in a match, and/or on a classifier. If a GM has a bad match or a bad stage (even I beat the occasional GM on a stage!), it doesn't change the performance of the top shooter on that stage or in that match.

The hypothesis being tested is that the USPSA class system is an accurate measure of shooter ability as measured by major match performance. Based on this particular sample, it would appear that the top shooters in each class do, in fact, perform roughly where we'd expect them to based on USPSA class.

Keep in mind that the question isn't "how will an individual X class shooter perform at a major match", its "how will the top shooters in each class finish at a major match."

Yes Sandbaggers do go to Nationals and every other match.

That may be, but based on this particular sample, it would appear that they aren't throwing the system off. Maybe the D class shooter who shot 50% is a C class shooter who sandbagged his way into D, or maybe he's simply working his way up the ladder and hasn't pulled his average up enough to be a C yet. De may be a D class shooter who just had a great couple of days and caught every break. I didn't look at the rest of his scores. But if sandbaggers were a major factor, we'd expect to see this in every class, instead of seeing the top shooters in each class shoot within a few percentage points of the top of the class.

[Flyin40]

Info confirms what I learned from my own finishes at area/state matches. I have consistently finished right there close to my national classification percentage. I don't worry about sandbaggers and generally the term is used as an affectionate rub amongst friends where I shoot. Now of course, Flyin 40 shoots way below his ability (on classifiers) and is the only sandbagger I know.

I've said it b4, Flyin40 works all night, drives 4 hours, shoots Warsaw's Spectacular, and rob's me of the one stage I had in the bag before his sandbagging butt showed up.

Good info.

LOL How you been?? I'm still planning on coming back next yr and bringing a crew with me

Have you figured out how I won that stage yet?? I can't remember if I told you or not?? Did you start on the left or right side?? If you started on the right side there was actually a big advantage

I think the classification system works pretty well, its pretty much right on target for my Uspsa percentage. Most Uspsa shooters get a rare glance at majors of where they stack up against the best in the sport if they only go to locals and maybe a major or 2. If you go to Nationals you get a much better idea of how you stack up. There are too many shooters who compare local matches to try and figure how they really stack up. Unless you shoot with a Top 5 or Top 10 Nationals shooter at your local club you really don't get a true picture.

Flyin

[Chills1994]

I've come full circle on this whole issue. I used to be rather vocal about it, enough to get me banned/suspended from this forum a number of times already.

Let me put it to you all this way:

You should spend more time dry firing, and less time worrying about who is grandbagging or sandbagging.

Don't let those people rent space in your head.

ETA: I forgot the "it". Ooppss

ETA #2: I added the "y" in "worrying"

Edited November 30, 2009 by Chills1994

[murkish]

I've come full circle on this whole issue. I used to be rather vocal about it, enough to get me banned/suspended from this forum a number of times already.

Let me put to you all this way:

You should spend more time dry firing, and less time worring about who is grandbagging or sandbagging.

Don't let those people rent space in your head.

+9 +40 and +45

[Nik Habicht]

I've come full circle on this whole issue. I used to be rather vocal about it, enough to get me banned/suspended from this forum a number of times already.

Let me put to you all this way:

You should spend more time dry firing, and less time worring about who is grandbagging or sandbagging.

Don't let those people rent space in your head.

+9 +40 and +45

So now you want to know which caliber is best? :D

Thereby morphing from one noisy topic to the next?

[moverfive]

Wow, someone actually used to facts to show why I haven't been able to find that elusive sandbagger in my 18 years of shooting.

[Chills1994]

I'm off to go dry fire.... wish me luck fellas!

[pjb45]

I have been off the computer over the holidays, sorry for the delay in responding.

I don't see the problem. By definition, USPSA scores are assigned in relation to the top score on a stage, in a match, and/or on a classifier. If a GM has a bad match or a bad stage (even I beat the occasional GM on a stage!), it doesn't change the performance of the top shooter on that stage or in that match.

You can not compare scores from a sample to the population without normalizing the data. This is not a straight percentage comparison issue. Some people scores may seem close to their scores from the classifier that is more co incidence than validation of the definition. If the top GM gets 100% and the next three percentages are in the low 90, statistically those low 90s may result in a GM level percentage when the entire sample is normalized to the population. The laws of statistical analysis are at play here not simple percentages.

If there are ~19,000 shooters in the population of USPSA, then those shooters attending the Nationals are a small percentage of the population, perhaps 1%. Comparing a 1% sample to the percentages of the population is bad inferential statistics.

[warpspeed]

There are sand baggers. you just need to know where to look. Try the Open Nats.

[bbbean]

You can not compare scores from a sample to the population without normalizing the data.

You can when the question is "Do the Nationals (and by extension, major matches in general) measure the same thing the classification system does?"

This is not a straight percentage comparison issue. Some people scores may seem close to their scores from the classifier that is more co incidence than validation of the definition. If the top GM gets 100% and the next three percentages are in the low 90, statistically those low 90s may result in a GM level percentage when the entire sample is normalized to the population. The laws of statistical analysis are at play here not simple percentages.

Note that both USPSA match scores and USPSA class are determined in relation to the top score in a given match or classifier. While it might be interesting to examine mean, mode, median, etc. scores, distribution is irrelevant to match score and class system.

Consider two hypothetical matches:

Match A - 3 GMs and 1 D shooter compete. The scores are 100, 99, 98, and 41

Match B - 1 GM and 3 D shooters compete. The scores are 100, 41, 39, 38.

Although the distributions are very different, both fit the model predicted by the USPSA classification system.

If there are ~19,000 shooters in the population of USPSA, then those shooters attending the Nationals are a small percentage of the population, perhaps 1%. Comparing a 1% sample to the percentages of the population is bad inferential statistics.

If we were sampling C class shooters at the Nationals to determine what the typical C class shooter can do, you'd have a point. But that's not the question at hand.

[murkish]

I've come full circle on this whole issue. I used to be rather vocal about it, enough to get me banned/suspended from this forum a number of times already.

Let me put to you all this way:

You should spend more time dry firing, and less time worring about who is grandbagging or sandbagging.

Don't let those people rent space in your head.

+9 +40 and +45

So now you want to know which caliber is best? :D

Thereby morphing from one noisy topic to the next?

Sure, why not. Or we can jump to the Glock vs. 1911 discussion and debate grip angles, safeties, etc. ad nauseum.

[Loves2Shoot]

Nearly every thread on the class system contains laments about sandbaggers, or complaints that the class system doesn't measure overall performance. I took a look at the class finishes in the 09 Limited Nats and found the following:

GM1 100

GM2 98.07

GM3 97.92

M1 92.84

M2 91.13

M3 89.99

Since you pointed specifically to my Nationals results, I'll add a little insight to my class progression.

2 years ago I went to my very first Nationals as an A Class LTD shooter, and finished 77%. Certainly within my class percentage (75-85%).

1 year ago I went to the Open/L-10 Nationals as an A Class in L-10 (still A in Limited, but went with an open shooter friend). and finished around 77% again. Still well within A Class (75-85).

This year I made Master in LTD & Open and was a little worried about my potential finish at major matches as a freshly minted Master. I finished 88% at Area 8, and 89% at Nationals. This came as a bit of a shock for me, but to be honest, I had been putting in a serious amount of work in the latter part of the Summer, so I shouldnt have been so surprised.

But this did re-enforce my belief in the Classification system (for the most part).

[EDIT TO ADD]

More importantly if you look at my actual class % you will notice that I was not far off the mark from my Nats %

OPEN.... Class: M Current Pct: 88.167 High Percent: 88.167

LIMITED Class: M Current Pct: 88.713 High Percent: 90.764

LIMIT10 Class: M Current Pct: 89.416 High Percent: 89.416

PROD.... Class: M Current Pct: 86.245 High Percent: 87.133

Sandbagger (we know you know it.)

Anyone who can do their math knows if you finish in the top of your class percentage at Nats you are not shooting in your class and your are under classified statistically. The first 21 finishers at the Limited Nats spread from 100% to 85% Most were GM's with some sandbagging M's thrown in for good measure. Generally the curve is skewed by 10%, look back as far as you want and you will see this is true all the Nats where a good number of GM show up. That the classification system does not allow for downward classification means there are folks that are over classified for their current skill level also, as it takes some serious work to stay in the top percentages and lots of folks takes time on and time off the work it takes to stay there.

You can go back bunches of years and look at the top 20 and it is generally a 15% gap or more between the top GM's, not 5%. That is where you get the 10% skew.

Edited December 1, 2009 by Loves2Shoot

[Nemo]

What is the difference between sandbagging and grandbagging?

[Dan Sierpina]

What is the difference between sandbagging and grandbagging?

A sandbagger shoots over his classification, a grandbagger shoots under.

[pjb45]

bbean,

With all due respect, the distributions of sample and population are key. You are using simple percentages which I guess prove your point to yourself. But reality is this is a statistical analysis problem.

Match A and Match B are simple samples of the population. As a B class shooter, I can score 95% of the points in a match. That does not make me a GM. I can also score 30% in a match, again that does not make me a D shooter. Hence, I have proven the null hypothesis to be true which means your hypothesis is not true.

If you are going to compare a sample (a match) to the population (classifier system) the data has to be normalized.

At this point I concede the point.

As usual, Scott does a much better job of explaining things than I ever will. He is also a helluva gunsmith and squad mate. Although very selfiish when it comes to dessert. Do not go to the Cheesecake Factory with him and expect him to share!

[moverfive]

There are sand baggers. you just need to know where to look. Try the Open Nats.

I don't see them there either......?

And before anyone points to C-class, you might want to look at the classifier history of those shooters along with how long they have been shooting this game.