The PDGA & Statistics

[ChrisWoj]

I think the PDGA really overall doesn't understand how to handle the display of statistics.

For a sport trying to legitimize its professional ranks, the PDGA website's lack of truly comprehensive statistics that are organized in some logical manner is a total weak point. We get a ranking and a rating. But why aren't events that include distance competitions told to please submit results, so that numbers can be accumulated? We have major events with groups following virtually every card. With so much help emerging, the number of people out there just watching ropes, spotting greens, and so on and so forth - How hard would it be for a spotter to be given a list of players on each card coming through and a pencil so they can simply tick off putts taken/made at the green?

I get that it sounds like a lot of work but I'm not talking about a little C Tier event. I'm talking about the NATIONAL TOUR. This is the sort of thing that would fuel discussion among the fans. Imagine we move into 2014 and Paul McBeth is shooting just a hair shy of his 2013 pace, and everyone is wondering why he's coming up just short in those majors, being someone... lets say Schusterick? Instead of conjecture and the eye test we can point to the fact that in 2014 his number of putts taken per round has risen slightly, coupled with Schusterick experiencing a huge uptick, and distance results tell us that Schusterick has added a 35 foot boost in terms of consistent distance.

Suddenly we've got very real discussion around the way the players are playing the game. Lets say we had numbers over the last ten years and we could say "Well Kenny's actual putting percentage is down, but he's also dropped his number of total putts per round, which has kept him at an elite level as he's gotten older." From that information even guys who never got to see him in his prime could say "Oh, well the Champ is remaining elite because he's become more precise off of the tee and on his approaches to the green."

All just hypotheticals. I have no idea what sort of a player Kenny was in 2000 versus what he is now. But if we'd had the help we have now at NTs and we'd been compiling those numbers? I would know this! Right now we've got that kind of help. These ARE National Tour events. This IS a sport that wants further legitimization. So can we get this somewhere on the agenda? The PDGA wants more fans? Numbers matter in sports, even non-stat-geeks know who holds the big league homerun record. They know who has thrown for the most touchdowns. We've all heard about the longest hitters on the PGA Tour. Wilt scored 100 - we all know that.

In disc golf all we have in terms of numbers are the biggest ones - Kenny won 9 straight. Kenny has 12. What if all we knew about the early years of basketball was... the Celtics dynasty won 11. The debate about Celtics-Magic in the 80s would be measured only by who won more rings, and not talent and peak domination.

Sorry I ranted. I'm sitting at a Starbucks and... coffee. Basketball on my mind now, time to go watch the Pistons (probably) lose.

 

[Jawa]

:clap:

Maybe one day

 

[Steve West]

Will you take on the job?

 

[ChrisWoj]

Will you take on the job?

If I was offered a competitive salary to coordinate the work - I would. haha. Obviously it isn't a one man job - you can't be on every green. But it is something that could be coordinated. We're talking about National Tour stops and Majors for what is supposed to be a growing sport, moving out of its nascent stages. To not have this is a fixable issue. It doesn't have to be one of the highest priority items to get done, when it is something that can be fixed without a drastic financial cost.

 

[Karl]

Chris,
You bring up a valid point (better statistics may lead to disc golf being perceived as being more 'professional') but without the money / volunteer base to do such it isn't happening. And we can't expect the players to do such (take meaningful statistics) if they're of the mindset (sometimes off in la-la-land) where we can't even get them to pick up their own litter / can't add their own scores correctly !
Karl

 

[DavidSauls]

I doubt there'd be enough interest to justify the effort.

I certainly wouldn't characterize this as something that needs to be "fixed", or having any noticeable affect on the PDGA's effort to "legitimize" the sport.

But in the hypothetical world where it does happen, I'm doubtful many statistics would be meaningful, because of the tremendous variations between courses, and individual holes on courses. Average drive distance could only be measured on open holes, longer than the maximum drives. All the reachable holes, reachable landing zones, tight wooded holes, etc. would skew it. And it would require accurate, detailed measurements, and adjustment factors for wind. Percentage of drives hitting fairway would be subjective, since fairways aren't clearly defined. Putting percentage would presumably mean putts inside 10-meters, but unless you have a huge database you'd be mixing drop-in putts with 30-footers, while adjusting for holes that aren't "putted" because the player hits a 35-footer. You'd also be averaging level, open, windless putts with extreme elevation, bending around trees, gale-force-wind putts. Hard to come up with something meaningful from all that.

The logistics are also greater than you might imagine. You'd need 18 volunteer statisticians, one for each hole or group. It's like providing an official scorekeeper, or even a rules official, for each group. Even at NTs, I doubt that many volunteers, for the entire tournament, would be easy to come by. And if they are, certainly a staff of rules officials would be much more valuable to the status of disc golf.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

^ While stats would be neat to see, Mr. Sauls makes some quite valid points.

 

[Dave242]

Yeah.....I think it is statistically a very small problem. Live video coverage has a much broader appeal than stats and yet viewership of live events is what....1000? That is around one person for every 20 cities in the US.

 

[Halcón]

I mentioned this several months ago, and I wholeheartedly agree with Chris. Let's git 'er done.

 

[DavidSauls]

Git'er done. How 'bout draw up some specifics, like

---What stats to keep, with standards and definitions.
---If they involve accurate measurements, how to procure them.
---How many volunteers required, and in which events. What sanctions if an event can't muster the volunteers.
---What system for submitting and compiling the stats.
---Costs.

 

[JC17393]

Git'er done. How 'bout draw up some specifics, like

---What stats to keep, with standards and definitions.
---If they involve accurate measurements, how to procure them.
---How many volunteers required, and in which events. What sanctions if an event can't muster the volunteers.
---What system for submitting and compiling the stats.
---Costs.

Before deploying the idea to a number of tournaments, perhaps some intrepid person or persons could guinea pig this idea at one tournament and see how it goes. Doesn't even have to be a big event. It could be a C-tier that's convenient to the stat organizers. Ideas are fun to talk about. Ideas in action make things happen.

 

[Steve West]

Get data, the statistics will define themselves. Start with recording where every player's disc lands every time.

A huge problem is how to collect the data without interfering with the players. You can't be running around with a tape measure, or asking them to wait, or setting flags in the ground.

I did collect this data once. We had three people with laser range-finders to trilaterate the location where each disc landed. We were on a 750 foot open, flat hole. We observed the players and identified who they were by matching up with the scorecards, so we knew their ratings.

We "got" most of the first throws, and some of the second. After that, players were going too fast to collect the data. (No walking time between one player throwing and the next. All five were ready to go at once.)

After being out there for 8 hours, and a few weeks of data clean up and analysis later, we had data on the first one or two throws on one hole at one tournament.

That's what went in to my Throw Simulator.

Another way to do it would be to take a photo of the entire hole from a high vantage point after every throw. Actually, a video would be better. The image could be un-distorted onto a regular grid to measure where each disc landed. Very tricky if the ground isn't planar, and it wouldn't work for wooded holes.

It would be nice if we could borrow golf's methods. They know exactly where every ball is in real time. But, that costs too much, and I don't know if they could do that with a lot of trees in the way.

 

[DavidSauls]

It'll have to be someone smarter than me. I know I've compiled statistics just from scores, to get hole averages, spreads, etc., from a single tournament, and it was quite time-consuming. That's just with a single number, per player per hole. Something that involves multiple data per player per hole, is more than I can imagine doing.

Distance of drive, whether drive is in fairway, distance of putt, putt made or missed, perhaps 2 putts per hole, that's 6 pieces of data, per player per hole. 6 pieces, 72 players, 18 holes, 4 rounds---that's about 31,000 numbers. For one tournament.

I'd say creating a phone app is going to be part of this process.

 

[Halcón]

I fear that one of the stats that players would want to see most (distance of drive) would also be the most difficult to accurately obtain.

Stats like OB %, putting %, shot % from the "rough," % of drives that are parked (in the circle)...are much easier to collect.

 

[shakatak]

"Distance OF Drive" isn't really all that meaningful but "Distance FROM basket after drive" would be a great stat, broken down to "Distance from basket on 200-300' holes", "Distance from basket on 300-400' holes", etc.

 

[DavidSauls]

It would be nice if we could borrow golf's methods. They know exactly where every ball is in real time. But, that costs too much, and I don't know if they could do that with a lot of trees in the way.

One day, with advances in RFIDs....

 

[Halcón]

^^You're sort of dealing with the same problem of having to measure a shot, which is difficult, and time consuming. The first stats we should worry about are the ones that are instantly recordable.

 

[DavidSauls]

I fear that one of the stats that players would want to see most (distance of drive) would also be the most difficult to accurately obtain.

Stats like OB %, putting %, shot % from the "rough," % of drives that are parked (in the circle)...are much easier to collect.

Those stats would tell you more about what kind of courses players played, than about the players themselves.

 

[Halcón]

Those stats would tell you more about what kind of courses players played, than about the players themselves.

In some ways, yes. Particularly OB %. But putting %, and driving accuracy are two great stats that tell you about the player's skills.

 

[scarpfish]

The problem with statistics is that too many people gospelize the damned things, and don't bother to read the context behind how they get like they do. Even our course ratings on here suffer from that. I've twice had to redirect travelers to better courses when traveling across KS on I-70 from an OK but not great course, because the better courses had their ratings dinged by sourpuss crybaby reviewers who think 100% of a course's rating lives and dies on navigation.

But putting %, and driving accuracy are two great stats that tell you about the player's skills.

But what constitutes a putt? What is an accurate drive vs. an inaccurate drive?

Stat buffs I think need to realize that for every person that cares about this sort of thing, there are probably twenty who don't care about the stats that do get collected. That's why I don't see this coming to fruition anytime soon.