This ranking is based on how those shooters did on that day in those conditions against each other. The scoring system used does not matter as it is based on the winner receiving 100 points and the rest a percentage of that.
Do not try to link me in any way to ko2m. I do not use any scoring system related to King of 2 Mile at Spearpoint in any way unless it is by coincidence. I wasn't doing these matches in 2015 so I don't have any idea what you were using. As far as the cold bore, you well know we haven't even shot a cold bore target since March let alone scored one. I switched back to a straight 1x distance system starting in June because the old one wasn't doing what I wanted it too. You really need to give up on beating a dead horse.
I would say the fucked up system that is out there currently is the one that compares raw data totals from matches that have extremely different target sizes, number of shots per target, and number of targets as well as tracking shooters as far back as 2020. Several of which haven't shot a match in several years and have sold all their gear. Compare Shane's ranking to yours and they are nothing alike. I believe Shane's is a much more precise measure of the skill out there.
Steve, all ranking systems are an attempt to reconcile a variety of factors into some kind of comparable format. There are strengths and weaknesses for each. Shanes system is probably quite good when comparing large matches but completely excludes people who shoot at smaller events regardless of their performance. His assumptions there are correct and if he did include the small matches, the results would be less meaningful. My system is an attempt to include everyone but it certainly biases against ranges that are extremely challenging. Black Bear for instance is probably the most challenging 2100 yard target in the country and even seasoned shooters regularly eat shit on that target. That essentially means that my ranking system actually biases against my home range. Are there different approaches that would shift the bias? For sure. There will always be bias though so in the end it comes down to minimizing it as best as is possible.
In Shanes system, a non-uniform scoring system does not really cause bias, it causes a lack of fidelity. If you assume that any statistical model has error bars, a lack of fidelity makes those error bars larger. A system that uses finishing order as the dominant factor is VERY sensitive to the victory conditions being the same.
The yards = points approach was what I originally used back in 2015 at Ko2M. It seemed reasonable to award hits at longer ranges more points rather than simply awarding a point for each hit. I tweaked that to a multiplier system the next year and then in subsequent years I used an exponential curve so longer range targets have higher proportionate value. The logic as I have told you is simply that a hit at 2 miles vs 1 mile is FAR harder than twice as hard. It is actually statistically more like 8 to 10 times as hard. My current system only gives 4x as many points as you double the range and if I'm being honest I've been thinking of tweaking it to be a 2.5 exponent rather than 2 so scores better match reality. That modification would be made with statistical evidence in mind rather than a random attempt to achieve an objective without the math to support it. In many ways I feel the Ko2M base score is better suited for matches that don't do hit to move since you are unlikely to have accidental first round hits on the last target pull someone out of the gutter. The problem is that it ends up with a lot of ties and that can be a pain in the ass for a match director. Using time left on the clock as a tie breaker was my original solution and could solve that issue in most cases. Score = yards has the same issue of course and it also biases the winner towards the people that do better on close range targets.
I don't think it is much of a dead horse to say that having a consistent scoring system matters. In fact when Jay and I spent and hour or so talking to Alex Wheeler about integrating ELR into PRS in some way, his chief reason for not wanting to touch it with a ten foot pole is the lack of consistency in scoring system. It is also a major complaint from shooters that the scoring system changes from match to match. Running through multiple scoring systems in a season like you did last year and now this year, does not inspire confidence from competitors. Judging who won at the end of a season while using a hodge podge of systems also generates some pretty legitimate complaints.
There have been a lot of people over the last year or two that have tried to go off on their own as far as scoring systems and the result of those modifications are that output is either unexpected or not understood. In your case you got output so far off expected that the first time you used it you had to modify it during the match. In other cases like the 2.5,1.25,1,1,1 system the result is something that actually biases results further towards first round impacts.
Statistics is a bitch and the results of seemingly simple changes when you don't understand what is going on, can result in garbage. Most people have neither the training nor the inclination towards statistics (looking at you lash) and that is fine. Most people have zero fucking reason to know what an Eigenvalue is. But if you have had no reason to study it, don't make the assumptions that you understand the ramifications of what you are doing. Running a system that has at least been vetted by someone that has studied it will get you a much better result. If you want to try a new scoring system run it by Wink or Mann if you don't want to deal with me and at listen to them if they have concerns.
If you really want to use a system that I have never used (and this kinda seems to be the case), I have never used PRS-like one point per hit scoring... Still does ok vs target size correction at least.
-Alex
P.S.: Shane, keep at it but always be looking to improve your model. There are no First and Final truths in statistics.
