suggestion for 2018 SCS


Flawed because why? The “best players” aren’t included? It’s not a “best player” format… it’s a circuit format where people collect points by PLAYING.


Which, in a field of 16 is equal to 12.5% of the field.



you’d make a great politician.


in one sentence, you just described why the SCS is a terrible metric for determining the best and is really just a who plays the most system. thank you.


The same could be said for the entire WPPR ranking system


and has been before…


So through 400 posts, let’s just bring this home . . . your original question:

"Only count the top 20 events that year in that players state ranking.

Or, rank the top 16 based on their average points per event.


We’re LITERALLY doing the first thing you mentioned for next year. It’s a great idea. You’re one of the main reasons that pushed us to make this change.

What more can I do for you on this?

#YOUWIN :slight_smile:


And I thought we were just starting to get along :stuck_out_tongue:


The argument that higher average finish in tournaments should take precedent over “grinders” is very problematic. Our standings are a mix of both, and a couple of our better players are at risk of not qualifying because they can’t usually make it to our monthly events, but when they do, they often place high. But when it comes down to it, they didn’t put in the time. They know this and don’t expect to be able to participate in the state finals when they hardly played all year.

If a football team didn’t show up and play in half their scheduled matches, but won by an average of 35 points in the half they came to, should they really be in the playoffs with a .500 record? What happens if you get one less-than-average player who has a couple of miracle days (they happen), and that player wins two tournaments that are weighty, but doesn’t make it out often after that? Everybody knows that guy “doesn’t belong and just got lucky,” right? Should we come up with a rule to include point modifiers for “isn’t as good as his points say” to apply?

The system in place has its problems, but it works better than trying to add in a bunch of complicated tweaks that will undoubtedly impact things in ways that other people find unfair. As it is, show up, play pinball, get your freaking points. If you grind your way to qualification status, congrats, you put in your time. If you qualified on the strength of a couple of great outings, good job, you earned it too.

And also be honest with yourself. If you’re struggling to make either by grinding or by placing well, do you really deserve to cry about it? Both options are always available to you, especially the the latter (play better, pile up points, and never worry about the grinders).


Dear Mr. Hartman,

The IFPA appreciates your continued interest in the evolution of our State Championship Series.

With the help of your insights as to the impact that this capped system would have had on the SCS qualifying process, we’re excited about our move forward of implementing this change for the 2018-19 season.

It’s the feedback from people like yourself that drive us to make changes to our system for the better, and I can’t thank you enough for taking the time to share your opinions with us. You speak, we listen and this time we’ve acted.

Josh Sharpe
IFPA President


That wasn’t my point :yum:, the point was the SCS is no better or worse than any other ranking system currently employed.

If I was a State rep, I would propose an entirely different system; but I’m not - so I won’t :joy:


first of all no one is crying, second of all im not even sure if youre post is for or against the changes, you said something about football??? thanks for trying though.


I can’t think of two things I love more than:

  1. The bitching of the current system

  2. Hearing proposals of a new system

Let’s hear it!


Exactly! There’s no perfect way. Every sport has its issues with how they handle their playoff qualifications. Whether it’s due to imbalanced divisional alignments in sports like the NBA or NFL, or it’s based on subjective selection where personal bias can screw things up (college football and basketball), there’s always going to be the argument at the end of the season that a deserving team or individual is left out while an undeserving one is included in the playoff.

The thing is with pinball is that you always, ALWAYS control your own fate. If grinding through lots of events isn’t an option, then win the events that you do make it out to. If you can’t do that, you probably can’t realistically expect to win the SCS either.

I get it though, it sucks to feel like some people are left out that “should be there.” But that’s competition. People who don’t make the top 16 either aren’t good enough, or it wasn’t a priority for them during the year. Maybe next year it can be. As it is now, the top 16 are either those who are simply good enough or those who were willing to make it a priority and put in the time. Things are always changing though, but I expect that attendance and strong play are always going to be the two biggest determining factors in qualification.


They can’t even figure out what is a foul or a catch :slight_smile:


I always scratch my head when I hear people complain about the “accuracy” of WPPRs/ ranking system/SCS/whatever. How exactly are you determining whether the system is accurate or inaccurate? Whether or not it aligns with your feelings? The point of the system is to provide an objective metric and remove subjective bias from the equation. Moreover, accuracy is something that can be measured. So please, if you are going to make a claim about accuracy, sit down and do the computations. The IFPA will be more than happy to provide you with the data.


In other words, we grinders are too polite and not angry enough! Well, gosh darn it to heck.


Agreed. WPPRs are always a participation metric, not a “who is better” metric. The latter is an incredibly difficult thing to codify in a ranking system.

Above say, rank 25 or so, WPPRs do correlate strongly with who is the better player because in order to accumulate that many points in your ranking 20 events, you need to win a lot, and win big tournaments. That’s the realm of the best of the best.

Outside maybe top 200 or so (and that’s debatable), WPPRs have little value in saying Player A is better than Player B, because one good outlier event will cause people to jump hundreds or thousands of ranking positions.

Bringing this back around to the SCS, I’m personally happy that we’re limiting to top 20 ranking events for the year not because this materially changes who qualifies (I admit I was wrong on that before) but because it makes sense when compared to your general WPPR ranking. It’s consistent. Now, one can make the argument that points-per-event average is a better way to rank the top 16 qualifiers and I’d be interested to see that explored from an academic perspective. But with pure points, capping at 20 really only has the effect of limiting the 1-16 range of points, so that one “big win” is more impactful in the standings. Before, one could qualify simply by being a grinder and nothing else. Now, grinders can still make it in but would be much more secure in their qualification with a win or two under their belt.

So it’s the best of both worlds really - volume can get you in, and winning if you only play seldom or don’t have access to weeklies can also get you in.


My complaint is that Pin-Masters isn’t following the IFPA Heads-Up challenge and moving to Chicago.