Analyzing Short Game Performance

[TinHornDan]

Because there is such a huge wealth of books available on ball golf and so few, if any other than Scott Stokely's offerings, I like to try and apply the concepts presented in the ball golf books to disc golf. The most recent ball golf text I've read is called Dave Pelz's Short Game Bible. In it the author presents the concept of Percentage Error Index or PEI.

PEI is used to evaluate a player's performance with a given club for each shot. After so many shots an average is calculated and the result is an accurate measure of a player"s skill with each club.

The way to calculate PEI is quite simple. It's just the (distance from the original lie to the hole or other target being aimed at) divided by the (distance from where the shot actually lands to the hole or target).

For instance, if a player is 100 yards from his target and he takes the shot landing 7 yards from the hole, the percent error is: 7 yards/100 yards = 7% error. This would be done for all of his shots and then averaged to provide a PEI for each club.

In the book, the purpose of the PEI is to evaluate a player's skill at the short game (defined as any shot from 100 yards to the edge of the green) and to track improvement over time. It also allows them to know what skills they need to work on and which ones they could consider as strengths. The value of knowing one's strengths and weaknesses is that such information allows one to accurately "play within their abilities", which is key for becoming a successful golfer ball or disc.

Do you think that this concept could be applied to disc golf's short game? The units of measurement would have to be changed from yards to feet, of course.

In what ways does disc golf's short game differ from ball golf's?

I don't know if anyone else thinks that this whole idea is useful to disc golf or not, but I'm at least going to try and calculate my own short game's PEI to find out for myself. I suppose once I have some kind of results I'll post my findings back here. If anyone is even remotely interested.

I'm interested in hearing what others may think about this.


opcorn:

 

[optidiscic]

Our Short Game is different

We shape lines in the air Typically
They shape lines on the green Typically

This does want to make me go and practice throwing approaches...something I never do

 

[garublador]

I think it's a really great idea. I also think you'll have trouble getting people interested. I've posted an article about applying Six Sigma concepts to golf and explained how it could be applied to disc golf in a couple of forums in the past and had very few people show any interest.

 

[BigDaveC]

Yes I think it can be applied. The "how" of the short game is different in ball golf, but analyzing effectiveness to support decision making isn't and as Dan mentioned it would also be a good tool for evaulating and targeting areas of needed improvement. While you are at it Dan, go ahead and include, GIR, FIR, putts per round and percentage of up and downs for par ;-)

I think Garublador may be right though, no one may want to know or care about this kind of information.

 

[adamhaas]

Count me in

Count me in....I am analytical by nature and have applied these kind of statistics to the sports I have played in the past and have seen the dividends.

 

[djjeremiahj]

Because there is such a huge wealth of books available on ball golf and so few, if any other than Scott Stokely's offerings, I like to try and apply the concepts presented in the ball golf books to disc golf. The most recent ball golf text I've read is called Dave Pelz's Short Game Bible. In it the author presents the concept of Percentage Error Index or PEI.

PEI is used to evaluate a player's performance with a given club for each shot. After so many shots an average is calculated and the result is an accurate measure of a player"s skill with each club.

The way to calculate PEI is quite simple. It's just the (distance from the original lie to the hole or other target being aimed at) divided by the (distance from where the shot actually lands to the hole or target).

For instance, if a player is 100 yards from his target and he takes the shot landing 7 yards from the hole, the percent error is: 7 yards/100 yards = 7% error. This would be done for all of his shots and then averaged to provide a PEI for each club.

In the book, the purpose of the PEI is to evaluate a player's skill at the short game (defined as any shot from 100 yards to the edge of the green) and to track improvement over time. It also allows them to know what skills they need to work on and which ones they could consider as strengths. The value of knowing one's strengths and weaknesses is that such information allows one to accurately "play within their abilities", which is key for becoming a successful golfer ball or disc.

Do you think that this concept could be applied to disc golf's short game? The units of measurement would have to be changed from yards to feet, of course.

In what ways does disc golf's short game differ from ball golf's?

I don't know if anyone else thinks that this whole idea is useful to disc golf or not, but I'm at least going to try and calculate my own short game's PEI to find out for myself. I suppose once I have some kind of results I'll post my findings back here. If anyone is even remotely interested.

I'm interested in hearing what others may think about this.


opcorn:

i like the idea, and am very analytical, but i am not sure that it is as simple as you make it seem.

instead of trying to hit the pin, i try to land just before the pin. this way if i over shoot, i am still within the island, and if i undershoot, i should still be within the island. Also, by undershooting, you also reduce the risk and chance of errant throws to the right and left side.

i dont know about you, but for me and most that i see, any shot within 250' is a park (assuming there is a relatively clear line) as a result, the only time when our accuracy is in question is when we are driving very far distances or when the conditions (wind, elevation, etc) add wrinkles to the equation.

I see a possible potential for this concept in the distance drivers, but then again, the actual "work" you are doing to figure out how to "park" a disc from that range is good practice and within a few drives you would get it down. (how does that relate to an uneven course with trees, winds, and no physical "green" i am not sure.) <- Ie. you are doing fieldwork, and after a few throws, the PE ratio you mention is slightly irrelevant.

 

[tmahan]

The biggest difference is what is between the lie and the pin along those 100'. Obviously a wide open approach is going to have a lower error % than a tree lined approach through a 5' wide gate. If you just count relatively unobstructed approaches you might have something. Personally I'd just try to count my up-and-down % from within a given distance, say 150 - 200 ' for starters. It's not always about how close to the pin your approach gets. There may be a high risk straight route to the front of the pin but you'd have to navigate a tight gate to succeed. There may be a clearing 20-25' to either side of the pin that would take most of those obstacles out of play. As long as your confidant with your 20-25' putts that's probably a smarter play than trying to park it through the tight gate.

 

[TinHornDan]

I've been working with this concept since I submitted the first post.

In this time I've come to find that much of what you guys have submitted is true.
However, I still think that with the proper adjustments made, this concept could be rather useful to disc golfers.

One such adjustment is that our consistent putting range is farther than a ball golfers, our hole is bigger too. So, instead of using precise distances from the target it might be more useful to record whether a given approach landed within one's 90% successful putting range (15' to 20' maybe?), the >50% range (25'-30' maybe?) or the <50% range (30' and over). This would simplify data gathering and wouldn't really affect the accuracy of the information, since these 3 outcomes are enough to determine the success of a particular approach shot. Once calculated into averages per distance per disc (and even per kind of shot) the data would be useful to help a player decide which disc to use for a given shot with actual results to verify the validity of their decision.

I completely understand why this type of thing does not appeal to everyone, nor do I expect it to. However, I personally prefer to base my decisions on evidence whenever possible. This may seem like too much work to do for a game that's supposed to be fun, but to me this is all part of the fun. I have no idea why that is the case either.

Finally, if anyone is interested, this is what I've been doing:

-Setup DGA Mach Lite portable basket on a soccer or football field.
-Use measuring wheel to find 100 feet from the pin. Mark it with a mini marker disc.
-Throw my midrange discs as I would for an approach shot in a typical round. In my case, those discs are a KCPRO Roc, a EspFLX Buzzz, an eliteX MRV, and a Star Cro. (I realize that from 100' most of you would probably opt to use a putter instead of a mid. I plan to test my putters in this manner as well, but I wanted to do them separately.)
-After I've thrown all discs I walk to the basket, where I have a 100' measuring tape tied to the pole, and I measure and record how far away each disc has landed.
-Repeat 5-10 times then move on to 125' repeat process and so on...

Once I have what feels like enough data I plan to put the data into a spreadsheet and go from there.

BTW, I realize that on a real course there are trees and other obstacles to consider for most approaches, I just don't know how to consider that fact in relation to this experiment.

Even if the whole data gathering here is a waste of time, I'll at least benefit from the hours of practice that I'm getting from all this.

 

[SomeChump]

Because there is such a huge wealth of books available on ball golf and so few, if any other than Scott Stokely's offerings, I like to try and apply the concepts presented in the ball golf books to disc golf. The most recent ball golf text I've read is called Dave Pelz's Short Game Bible. In it the author presents the concept of Percentage Error Index or PEI.

PEI is used to evaluate a player's performance with a given club for each shot. After so many shots an average is calculated and the result is an accurate measure of a player"s skill with each club.

The way to calculate PEI is quite simple. It's just the (distance from the original lie to the hole or other target being aimed at) divided by the (distance from where the shot actually lands to the hole or target).

For instance, if a player is 100 yards from his target and he takes the shot landing 7 yards from the hole, the percent error is: 7 yards/100 yards = 7% error. This would be done for all of his shots and then averaged to provide a PEI for each club.

In the book, the purpose of the PEI is to evaluate a player's skill at the short game (defined as any shot from 100 yards to the edge of the green) and to track improvement over time. It also allows them to know what skills they need to work on and which ones they could consider as strengths. The value of knowing one's strengths and weaknesses is that such information allows one to accurately "play within their abilities", which is key for becoming a successful golfer ball or disc.

Do you think that this concept could be applied to disc golf's short game? The units of measurement would have to be changed from yards to feet, of course.

In what ways does disc golf's short game differ from ball golf's?

I don't know if anyone else thinks that this whole idea is useful to disc golf or not, but I'm at least going to try and calculate my own short game's PEI to find out for myself. I suppose once I have some kind of results I'll post my findings back here. If anyone is even remotely interested.

I'm interested in hearing what others may think about this.


opcorn:

2 thoughts:

1) People thought my putting game/contest was math intensive. Now you want them to work with percentages?

2) One of the biggest differences between ball and disc golf is the concept of a gimme. A gimme in disc golf is basically anything on the "green", 15 feet for an average player and 30 for a pro. It's relatively easy to miss a 5-6 footer in ball golf. In disc golf there is little difference between a 15 footer and a drop in par. So I don't think your percentage really matters much. I could care less if I'm 6 or 12 feet away, they're both gimmees. My favorite phrase after an approach is "Not good, but good enough" because I know I've gotten within my gimme range.

 

[agent_peebody]

what's with all your analytics? can you not just play and have fun?

 

[GLong]

for me at least, playing well = having fun. Improving your putting and approach game is the one thing all golfers can do. Not everyone has the athletic ability or time for practice to get to throwing over 400 feet, but anyone with half-decent technique and a willingness to practice can putt and approach reasonably well.

 

[agent_peebody]

i understand that playing well is more fun than sucking. but do you really need to know what your error margin or whatever its called is?

peebz on the tee: yeah dude, my PEI is 8.538296%, what's yours?

:|:\

 

[GLong]

it's not going to help you directly, in the sense that thinking about it on the tee won't do anything. but knowing which shots you throw well/need to work on helps you improve areas of weakness and helps you make better decisions on the course, hopefully.

 

[craftsman]

I'm really struggling to find the usefullness of it all.
My approach for approaches is to view it as a larger area (the circle) instead of just the pin.
It's common for players to progress their skills so it seems like alot of work for something that could change in a few weeks.
For me, there's little difference between a 5ft putt and a 12ft putt so no reason to get held up on a couple percentages.
For a 100ft shot I could throw any disc in my bag and park it, so the question isn't which offers the closest position to the pin, it's what elements could effect my throw and possibly my disc selection.
Jmho

 

[craftsman]

it's not going to help you directly, in the sense that thinking about it on the tee won't do anything. but knowing which shots you throw well/need to work on helps you improve areas of weakness and helps you make better decisions on the course, hopefully.

I see line shaping drills a much better use of time.
For example, let's say I can park my force closer then my putter or mid by a few feet. The putter/mids fly on a controlled, slight h flip, producing a straight shot while the force hyzer stalls- that doesn't make the force the better selection.

 

[agent_peebody]

I'm really struggling to find the usefullness of it all.
My approach for approaches is to view it as a larger area (the circle) instead of just the pin.
It's common for players to progress their skills so it seems like alot of work for something that could change in a few weeks.
For me, there's little difference between a 5ft putt and a 12ft putt so no reason to get held up on a couple percentages.
For a 100ft shot I could throw any disc in my bag and park it, so the question isn't which offers the closest position to the pin, it's what elements could effect my throw and possibly my disc selection.
Jmho

word.

 

[HarkeyPuck]

i understand that playing well is more fun than sucking. but do you really need to know what your error margin or whatever its called is?

peebz on the tee: yeah dude, my PEI is 8.538296%, what's yours?

:|:\

NO WAY?!?! My PEI is 8.538297%.... weird.

 

[great white buffalo]

I've been working with this concept since I submitted the first post.

In this time I've come to find that much of what you guys have submitted is true.
However, I still think that with the proper adjustments made, this concept could be rather useful to disc golfers.

One such adjustment is that our consistent putting range is farther than a ball golfers, our hole is bigger too. So, instead of using precise distances from the target it might be more useful to record whether a given approach landed within one's 90% successful putting range (15' to 20' maybe?), the >50% range (25'-30' maybe?) or the <50% range (30' and over). This would simplify data gathering and wouldn't really affect the accuracy of the information, since these 3 outcomes are enough to determine the success of a particular approach shot. Once calculated into averages per distance per disc (and even per kind of shot) the data would be useful to help a player decide which disc to use for a given shot with actual results to verify the validity of their decision.

I completely understand why this type of thing does not appeal to everyone, nor do I expect it to. However, I personally prefer to base my decisions on evidence whenever possible. This may seem like too much work to do for a game that's supposed to be fun, but to me this is all part of the fun. I have no idea why that is the case either.

Finally, if anyone is interested, this is what I've been doing:

-Setup DGA Mach Lite portable basket on a soccer or football field.
-Use measuring wheel to find 100 feet from the pin. Mark it with a mini marker disc.
-Throw my midrange discs as I would for an approach shot in a typical round. In my case, those discs are a KCPRO Roc, a EspFLX Buzzz, an eliteX MRV, and a Star Cro. (I realize that from 100' most of you would probably opt to use a putter instead of a mid. I plan to test my putters in this manner as well, but I wanted to do them separately.)
-After I've thrown all discs I walk to the basket, where I have a 100' measuring tape tied to the pole, and I measure and record how far away each disc has landed.
-Repeat 5-10 times then move on to 125' repeat process and so on...

Once I have what feels like enough data I plan to put the data into a spreadsheet and go from there.

BTW, I realize that on a real course there are trees and other obstacles to consider for most approaches, I just don't know how to consider that fact in relation to this experiment.

Even if the whole data gathering here is a waste of time, I'll at least benefit from the hours of practice that I'm getting from all this.

I think it will end up as being a waste of time , but the practice you put in will benefit you.

 

[agent_peebody]

NO WAY?!?! My PEI is 8.538297%.... weird.

whoa dude! we should like, hang out or some shizz.

 

[HarkeyPuck]

whoa dude! we should like, hang out or some shizz.

Sure, You're gonna have to remind me again where Gangstaville is.