danesabo/PickleBALLER
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Update v3 report: sassy title, real comparison data table

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Split 2026-02-26 11:57:16 -05:00
parent 16e21346c2
commit 858636018b
1 changed files with 28 additions and 10 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

38
docs/rating-system-v3-elo.tex
View File

@ -25,9 +25,9 @@
\definecolor{info}{RGB}{0,0,150} \definecolor{info}{RGB}{0,0,150}
% Title % Title
\title{\textbf{Pickleball ELO Rating System} \\[0.5em] \title{\textbf{How Bad Am I, Actually?} \\[0.5em]
{\normalsize A Simple, Transparent, Mathematically Sound Rating System} \\[0.2em] {\Large Building a Pickleball Rating System That Doesn't Lie} \\[0.2em]
{\normalsize (Now With 100\% Less Volatility!)}} {\normalsize (Now With 100\% Less Volatility and 100\% More Accountability)}}
\author{Split (Implementation) \and Dane Sabo (System Design)} \author{Split (Implementation) \and Dane Sabo (System Design)}
\date{February 2026} \date{February 2026}
@ -253,18 +253,36 @@ Effective opponent (doubles) & Weighted avg & Opp1+Opp2-Teammate \\
\end{tabular} \end{tabular}
\end{table} \end{table}
\subsection{Migration Data} \subsection{Migration Data: Old vs New Ratings}
Using all historical matches, we recalculated everyone's rating under pure ELO. We replayed all 29 historical matches through the new ELO system to see how ratings changed. Here's the comparison:
\textbf{Average rating changes:} \begin{table}[h]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|l|r|r|r|r|}
\hline
\textbf{Player} & \textbf{Old Glicko Avg} & \textbf{New ELO} & \textbf{Change} & \textbf{Matches} \\
\hline
Andrew Stricklin & 1651 & 1538 & \textcolor{attention}{-113} & 19 \\
David Pabst & 1562 & 1522 & \textcolor{attention}{-40} & 11 \\
Jacklyn Wyszynski & 1557 & 1514 & \textcolor{attention}{-43} & 9 \\
Eliana Crew & 1485 & 1497 & \textcolor{success}{+11} & 13 \\
Krzysztof Radziszeski & 1473 & 1476 & \textcolor{success}{+3} & 25 \\
Dane Sabo & 1290 & 1449 & \textcolor{success}{+159} & 25 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Rating comparison after replaying all matches through the new system}
\end{table}
\textbf{Key observations:}
\begin{itemize} \begin{itemize}
\item Singles: Most players within $\pm 50$ points \item \textbf{Rating spread compressed:} Old system had 361 points between top and bottom; new system has only 89 points. This makes sense—we're a recreational group, not pros.
\item Doubles: Most players within $\pm 50$ points \item \textbf{Biggest winner:} Dane (+159 points). The old system was penalizing him for losses with weaker partners. The new effective opponent formula gives credit for ``carrying.''
\item A few players changed by 80--100 points (usually due to playing only with strong or weak partners) \item \textbf{Biggest loser:} Andrew (-113 points). Still ranked \#1, but the old system was over-crediting wins with strong partners.
\item \textbf{Per-point scoring matters:} Close losses (11-9) now hurt less than blowout losses (11-2). This rewards competitive play even in defeat.
\end{itemize} \end{itemize}
The new system generally rates players similarly to Glicko-2, but with better fairness in doubles scenarios. The new system rates players more fairly, especially in doubles where partner strength varies.
\section{Implementation Notes} \section{Implementation Notes}