Thread: Par Talk
View Single Post
  #3839  
Old 07-08-2019, 08:10 PM
Steve West Steve West is offline
Par Delusionary
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Years Playing: 45.3
Courses Played: 360
Posts: 4,878
Niced 1,604 Times in 790 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidSauls View Post
My own simplistic and somewhat vague answer would be, "Is it the expected score?"

If we expect players to get a score different than par, it's not doing it's job---at least, its job in producing many of the small benefits that it potentially could.

If a hole produces such a wide range of results that there is no expected score, then par is not going to be able to do its job, no matter how it's set.

My uncertainty is on holes that produce results like 40/30/20/10. The most likely result is the one 40% get; the expectation might be the score that 70% of players will get, or better.
Thanks. Maybe what I'm looking for is a way to choose among the possible numbers we could select for par for those holes where the expected score isn't obvious. For those, if the definition doesn't provide an single answer, perhaps we are free to set a secondary set of selection rules. Like, perhaps, choose the one that is closest to average.

However, talking about a possible rule like that is getting a little ahead of where I'm at. I want to step back and see if there is any way to look at par on a meta basis to see if it's good or not.

Sometimes when we can't define how to make something better, it is easier to define how to make it worse and then do the opposite.

We all knew par was not as useful as it should have been 5 years ago. We didn't need to look at individual holes to know that. (Although some individual holes provided more evidence.) How did we know par was not fully useful? What was bad about it? How could it have been worse?
Reply With Quote