If Rank Points Are Truly Here To Stay

[Happy Jack, SASS #20451]

Joe, I have communicated with CD Tom and Pitt Viper about the daily reports. What they are SUPPOSED to post are the shooter's name, and TOTAL time for the stage. Points are NOT suppsed to be mentioned. It will be fixed.

[Joe LaFives #5481]

That's good to hear.

[Rye Miles #13621]

I never was a fan of rank points, I prefer total time. Just MHO

 

Rye

[Jess Ducky]

Statisticians would be the first to reiterate that old saw, you can prove anything with numbers. In fact, two good statisticians can prove oppoosite sides of the same question to be true, just give 'em a pile of numbers and a a glib pen and watch the decimals fly! I note this old saw for the point that all discussions of scoring systems occur outside of the those systems. We look at them and say, "If...but...woulda...coulda...mighta" etc. And when we pick examples to shore up our ideas, we tend to skew the "numbers" to demonstrate our points.

The original premis of this post is that a safety penalty under rank scoring can go to naught. It can end up not being a penalty at all. And this is based on a particular example. My point is that the base premis of the post is in error. It is an example of "begging the question", only using a contrived example to make the point. One could also argue that the ten second MSV actually over-penalizes a shooter under the rank scoring system in some cases. I am sure all of the armchair strategists out there can understand this...how about a shooter who gets the MSV, even though running neck-and-neck with his buddy, and the rank scoring system dumps hundreds of points on him, because no one else in the major match he is at goofed much on that stage. We've all seen it, some of us have felt it, the slap across the ego when at EOT or WR, a miss, a proceedure, a MSV whacks the heck out of your score with hundreds of match points. Did the fact that the MSV or double misses or proceedural "only" cost ten seconds matter much? Heck no, it mattered enough to slide your score into perdition and heap dirt on it!

I do agree with Bud's notion that safety, as concept and chief working mechanism of our sport, is important. Changing the scoring system to further penalize a shooter for an MSV is not necessary. A minor safety violation is just that, minor. Important in its context, yes, but it should not be a hanging matter. If you turn a minor safey violation into a stage or match DQable offense, you will discourage many from playing the game.

Personally I dislike Rank Scoring. It is a throwback to a time when scoring was done by hand, with a calculator. In those days, we issued six individual score sheets to each competitor for a six stage match, and at each stage the posse would turn in the score sheet to the score keeper for that stage. Scorekeeper marks them all as the shoot progresses, then the pile of score sheets gets put in a pile at the scoring shack with all the other individual sheets for that stage. Scoring crew simply arranges the stack in order of fastest time on top, then records the names in order. Simple, direct, and saves the score crew the task of adding up seperate times on every stage for every shooter. When computers came along, those of us who scored those original matches thought we'd gone to heaven. But the system stayed on.

A scoring system must be transparant, easily understood by the rank and file, and it must be fair to all. A system such as rank scoring, which allows folks from different categories to determine the outcome of categories other than their own is by its nature unfair, and irrational. It has outlived its usefullness, and we need to change it. Ducky

 

[Bones McCracken SASS #46721]

^ ^ ^ Whot HE said ^ ^ ^

[Harvey Mushman]

+1

[Litl Red]

And changing a computer program is fairly simple for most good programmers.

[Allie Mo, SASS No. 25217]

BTT

[Jackrabbit Joe #414]

Alie Mo; Another great quote is; "I would much rather go with Total Time then by Rank Points"  Jackrabbit Joe #414

[Blackey Cole]

Total time is a sprint rank points is a marathon

[Doc Shapiro]

9 minutes ago, Blackey Cole said:

Total time is a sprint rank points is a marathon

 

I would suggest rather that TT is a marathon and RP is a collection of individual sprints with the scores being nothing more than the order of finish.

[Big Rock, SASS #44055]

On 9/24/2013 at 9:36 AM, Litl Red said:

And changing a computer program is fairly simple for most good programmers.

 

If you have the source code....

[Noz]

Let's do this:  Since one of the most raised points in favor of Rank Points is the suspense at the awards ceremony, Lets do Total time and everybody promise to not peek at the score sheets,

[Dogmeat Dad, SASS #48563L]

Necro-Thread Rises From The Dead.    Of course the subject matter will never go away. 

 

There are, have been, and will be, valid reasons for and against both scoring methods but, at least at the moment, SASS has made Rank Points a requirement at State and Above matches.  Most of the top shooters understand this, and adjust their game to meet the requirements of the match.  Scoring method may shuffle the positions a place or two, but the cream still rises to the top.

 

Based on my personal experience of being firmly established in the top of the bottom third in the scores, it doesn't matter to me much at all, and I would suspect that is also true 80% - 90% of the shooters,  I've heard people lament about losing by one rank point and I've heard them lament about losing by one one-hundredth of a second, just as I have heard them celebrate their wins by the same small amounts.

 

Go out, enjoy the game, enjoy the time with friends, celebrate their wins, console their losses, and play cowboy.  At the end of the day, you will be driving home in the same vehicle that you came in 'cause there ain't no Cadillac waitin' for the winner.  Life is just too short to worry about it.  

 

 

[The Original Lumpy Gritz]

Many folks in the original tread, that haven't posted in a good spell. 

OLG

[Marauder SASS #13056]

On 6/29/2017 at 2:53 PM, Blackey Cole said:

Total time is a sprint rank points is a marathon

Have to generally agree.

 

Total time is more of a sprint as you can go as fast as you can since misses, while having some impact, generally will not hurt you as badly as in a rank point match.  So the two do have to be shot slightly differently.  That is one of the reasons many do not rank.

 

With Rank, it is how many gunfights did you win. 

 

WIth total time, it is not how many fights you won but more about how much you won on those that you won.

[El Hombre Sin Nombre]

11 minutes ago, Marauder SASS #13056 said:

Have to generally agree.

 

 

With Rank, it is how many gunfights did you win. 

 

WIth total time, it is not how many fights you won but more about how much you won on those that you won.

Not exactly. With rank scoring, it's not only possible, but highly probably to win the match but lose 5, 6, 7, 8, and even 9 individual gunfights. It's far less likely with total time. 

[Marauder SASS #13056]

1 hour ago, Redwood Kid said:

Not exactly. With rank scoring, it's not only possible, but highly probably to win the match but lose 5, 6, 7, 8, and even 9 individual gunfights. It's far less likely with total time. 

Do you understand Rank scoring? 

 

Your answer would indicate that you do not.

 

In either system, you do not have to win all the "gunfights", but in rank it means you won more than those who scored lower than you did.

Edited July 3, 2017 by Marauder SASS #13056
Expansion

[El Hombre Sin Nombre]

12 minutes ago, Marauder SASS #13056 said:

Do you understand Rank scoring? 

 

Your answer would indicate that you do not.

I assumed you did, but it seems otherwise. Or else you haven't fully thought it out. Example: you've got five really good shooters that keep swapping first place stages throughout the match. One of the shooters gets anywhere from 1-4 first place, but second in all the rest. His score ends up being lower so he ends up winning the match but didn't win the majority of stages. In another shoot, shooter gets 8 first place but has two stages where he didn't shoot bad but those two stages were really fast stages where he lost a lot of points so he wins the most stages but loses the match. Both of these examples are not made up, but actually exist. 

 

Rank points is like the falcons winning the Super Bowl because they won 3 out of 4 quarters. A preferable outcome in this case in my opinion. But instead the super bowl is determined by total time, thus the patriots win. 

[Marauder SASS #13056]

You are only comparing two shooters, is that is all that is in the match.  You are actually "cherry picking" in your example and leaving out everyone else that shot the match.   I realize this is common misunderstanding and complaint about rank.

 

Rank scoring is about how many shooters you beat out for each stage - that includes everyone.  Your example is missing the understanding of how rank is done.

You are pointing out what bothers many, but not how the match is scored.

 

Is not the Super bowl is determined by the number of times you cross the goal line - not how many yards you gained in the game.  The first is like of rank, the second is more like total time.

 

Similarly, baseball is how many Runs you get, not how many hits.

In both these cases, the yards and hits will not matter unless you finish the defined goal. 

 

There are issues with rank scoring such as when someone far out shoots the rest but only gains 1 rank point for a major win.  That happened to several top shooters over the years - although they often still won the match.

[El Hombre Sin Nombre]

Your analogies fail because you are trying to call one thing something else. In no way can you call either example rank scoring. Rank scoring would be winning the most amount of innings in baseball regardless of the score, such as beating your opponent in eight innings and winning the game despite the final score being 10-8. In rank scoring, it doesn't matter how handily you beat out your second place opponent that stage as you get first and he gets second. Total time takes that really good inning into consideration. Admittedly, it's a tough comparison either way since both examples are two competitors and not hundreds that affect the outcome. 

[Marauder SASS #13056]

Sorry, but I don't agree and you already demonstrated that you see a symptom of rank while missing how it is actually scored.

[Cheatin Charlie]

Anytime a scoring system such as rank time has to be explained in detail over and over again and still most shooters don't understand it it tells me that it is a flawed system.

And I will never accept it over total time which needs little explanation and everybody understands the results.   I think rank time is an answer looking for a problem that doesn't

exist.  

[Marauder SASS #13056]

Just because a system is complicated, doesn't make it wrong.

 

But you are correct in that there are problems with Rank scoring.  And it does not work well at all for smaller matches.  Just too many holes.

[El Hombre Sin Nombre]

Nor does it work for a game that has categories of competition in which you are competing against those within your category only yet the outcome is influenced by those outside your category that you aren't competing against. 

[Marauder SASS #13056]

And if you try using rank within category, it is a total mess.  You need a large sampling to provide an adequate index for a good measurement.

 

Since the old gunfights didn't have categories, they lumped everyone together, just like rank does now.

 

[Cheatin Charlie]

Rank point are like complicated rules and regulations at the work place.  The more people disagree with them the more they get ridiculed. And by association the people

who implemented them.  Right or wrong it is bad for moral and respect of the workforce towards management.

[Kirk James]

While I am in favor of total time, I want to congratulate all the champions of rank point matches.  I believe rank pt matches are very strategic in knowing how to shoot them and can understand their challenge.   Just to help those that are having a tough time understanding the problem shooters have with rank points, I want to share the difference between two stages and times at EOT.  On stage 7 a score of 21.18 had 199 rank pts.  On the same stage a 5+/- second faster score of 16.17 had 36 rank points.  In the 5 second difference there were 163 shooters who shot between the 5 second difference equaling 163 rank pts.  On stage 6 a score of 31.41 had 200 rank pts. while a 5 second faster score of 26.38 had 88 rank pts, there was  a 112 pt difference.  A miss, fumbled shotgun reload, rifle jam cost more on stage 7 than stage 6 costing the shooter 51 more rank pts.  A championship won in the 1990's is just as hard to win as championship win in 2017.   While I know there is more to it than this one illustration, I hope it helps understand the differences in opinions.     

[Jabez Cowboy,SASS # 50129]

With Rank Points shooting FC you can beat a fellow FC shooter by 20 seconds TT And beat him on 7 of 10 stages having fewer misses and still get beat by him ....

Please tell me how that is even the slightest bit fair ...

 

Jabez Cowboy

[El Hombre Sin Nombre]

19 minutes ago, Jabez Cowboy,SASS # 50129 said:

With Rank Points shooting FC you can beat a fellow FC shooter by 20 seconds TT And beat him on 7 of 10 stages having fewer misses and still get beat by him ....

Please tell me how that is even the slightest bit fair ...

 

Jabez Cowboy

It's simple. All stages are equal, but some stages are more equal. 

[Jabez Cowboy,SASS # 50129]

Well repeat after me ,,,,,,,,,, RANK POINTS STINK !!!

 

Jabez Cowboy

[Jailhouse Jim, SASS #13104]

Some years ago before there was a DNF designation, I shot only 8 stages of a 12 stage match and still beat several folks in my category who shot the whole match simply because of rank points.  Another shooter at the same match won her category under the same circumstances.  Had the match been TT, that would not have happened.  

 

There's something about crossing the finish line behind a faster shooter and still winning the category that just rubs me wrong.  

 

If it was a gunfight at High Noon, just because you put down the first three gunmen fastest doesn't mean you are the winner when you get killed by the fourth when your gun jams.

[COLORADO JACKSON]

On ‎7‎/‎3‎/‎2017 at 5:46 PM, Marauder SASS #13056 said:

Just because a system is complicated, doesn't make it wrong.

 

But you are correct in that there are problems with Rank scoring.  And it does not work well at all for smaller matches.  Just too many holes.

Rank is no different in small matches versus large matches, it is not a complicated system, very easy to score. The smartest thing I have heard stated in this debate is "If you score a match with two different methods and end up with different results, one of them is wrong", The largest problem with rank is it punishes shooters differently who commit the same error. EX: One shooter may get 50 rank points for a miss on a stage, another shooter might get 95 rank points for a miss on the same stage, how is this correct?

[COLORADO JACKSON]

On ‎7‎/‎3‎/‎2017 at 8:56 PM, Kirk James said:

While I am in favor of total time, I want to congratulate all the champions of rank point matches.  I believe rank pt matches are very strategic in knowing how to shoot them and can understand their challenge.   Just to help those that are having a tough time understanding the problem shooters have with rank points, I want to share the difference between two stages and times at EOT.  On stage 7 a score of 21.18 had 199 rank pts.  On the same stage a 5+/- second faster score of 16.17 had 36 rank points.  In the 5 second difference there were 163 shooters who shot between the 5 second difference equaling 163 rank pts.  On stage 6 a score of 31.41 had 200 rank pts. while a 5 second faster score of 26.38 had 88 rank pts, there was  a 112 pt difference.  A miss, fumbled shotgun reload, rifle jam cost more on stage 7 than stage 6 costing the shooter 51 more rank pts.  A championship won in the 1990's is just as hard to win as championship win in 2017.   While I know there is more to it than this one illustration, I hope it helps understand the differences in opinions.     

EXACTLY!!

[Marauder SASS #13056]

37 minutes ago, COLORADO JACKSON said:

Rank is no different in small matches versus large matches, it is not a complicated system, very easy to score. The smartest thing I have heard stated in this debate is "If you score a match with two different methods and end up with different results, one of them is wrong", The largest problem with rank is it punishes shooters differently who commit the same error. EX: One shooter may get 50 rank points for a miss on a stage, another shooter might get 95 rank points for a miss on the same stage, how is this correct?

 

As a student of statistics, sampling and measurement, it does make a difference in the impact, although not the process.

The number of shooters defines the index or sampling for the accuracy of the system.  Just as a valid sampling is needed for a poll.  So the larger the sample, the more accurate the measurement.

 

If you are in a gun fight close up, misses are much more dangerous to you than if you are at 20 yards - because your opponent is much less likely to miss at close range than further out. .  So it is entirely appropriate for the impact of a miss or mistake to vary, depending on the circumstance. For example, if you stumble and lose 5 seconds in a race.. If it is a sprint, that stumble has a MUCH larger impact than in a longer run. Are you saying that is not fair?

 

Similarly, if you fumble on the 2 yard line in football, it normally is much worse than fumbling at mid-field.  Should football change it's scoring to make that more fair?

In a rank point match, it is important to beat out as many people as you can on each stage.  So if it is a fast stand and deliver, a miss will hurt you much more because many more shooters will beat you.  That is fair - they beat you.