Go Back   Disc Golf Course Review > General Disc Golf Discussions > General Disc Golf Chat

View Poll Results: Which of these best describes Hole 18 at the Utah Open?
A par 2 where 38% of throws are errors, and 1% of throws are hero throws. 6 25.00%
A par 3 where 24% of throws are errors, and 33% of throws are hero throws. 16 66.67%
A par 4 where 16% of throws are hero throws, and 23% are double heroes. 1 4.17%
A par 5 where 37% of throws are hero throws, and 21% are double heroes. 0 0%
A par 6 where 16% of throws are hero throws, and 62% are double heroes. 1 4.17%
Voters: 24. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #3741  
Old 05-23-2019, 11:41 AM
Steve West Steve West is online now
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 Jimb View Post
Thanks. Looks like 13 out of 67 who finished were 1000 or above.
Were you wondering whether the results were reliable?

I got the equivalent of 62.84 rounds of data out of that field.
Sponsored Links
Reply With Quote
  #3742  
Old 05-23-2019, 12:52 PM
Jimb's Avatar
Jimb Jimb is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: WV near Cumberland, MD
Years Playing: 12.6
Courses Played: 106
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 3,705
Niced 324 Times in 150 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve West View Post
Were you wondering whether the results were reliable?

I got the equivalent of 62.84 rounds of data out of that field.
No, not questioning the reliability. I was wondering if the field was a good representation of “1000 rated players.” I’m not a big stats guy so this may be a bit remedial.

I trust that your data is reliable, and valid, for a 1000 rated player. Would you just use a straight average of the individual player ratings to get the average rating for the field? If so, I was wondering if the par set for the course was closer to reality based upon the actual players, vs. a theoretical 1000 rated group of players.

Hopefully that makes sense. And I do enjoy perusing your data.
Reply With Quote
  #3743  
Old 05-23-2019, 02:54 PM
Steve West Steve West is online now
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 Jimb View Post
No, not questioning the reliability. I was wondering if the field was a good representation of “1000 rated players.” I’m not a big stats guy so this may be a bit remedial.

I trust that your data is reliable, and valid, for a 1000 rated player. Would you just use a straight average of the individual player ratings to get the average rating for the field? If so, I was wondering if the par set for the course was closer to reality based upon the actual players, vs. a theoretical 1000 rated group of players.

Hopefully that makes sense. And I do enjoy perusing your data.

I don’t care what the average rating for the field is. The bottom part of any field shouldn’t really even be playing in Open, so who cares how they play? It irks me when a random assortment of various sizes of groups of no-chance donators are included in “this hole is averaging over par” and comments like that.

I apply weights to hole scores, but I don’t get an average score. I apply the weights to each score independently; not what the player scored, but whether that player got each possible score. For example, when looking at the frequency of 2s, I count one if the player got a 2 and zero if they did not.

One of the constraints on the weights is that, when they are applied to the ratings of the players, they always generate a weighted average rating of exactly 1000. The other is that ratings far from 1000 get lower weights. The most weight a player can get is 1 per round. The sum of these weights for all players over all rounds is the effective number of rounds.

So, that gives me (in the example) the frequency of a theoretical 1000 rated player getting a 2. It is based on the actual play of the actual players. These frequencies go into the par calculation.

I can generate pars even if there are no exactly 1000-rated players. If there are players fairly near, and both above and below 1000, the data is still reliable. It’s no stretch to say that a 1000-rated player will get a 2 with a frequency between that of a 1010 rated player and a 990 rated player.

If all the players are on one side of 1000 or the other, I calculate par based on an extrapolation. Better than nothing, but it might not rise to the level of reliable if no players are near 1000.
Reply With Quote
  #3744  
Old 05-23-2019, 07:20 PM
Jimb's Avatar
Jimb Jimb is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: WV near Cumberland, MD
Years Playing: 12.6
Courses Played: 106
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 3,705
Niced 324 Times in 150 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve West View Post
I don’t care what the average rating for the field is. The bottom part of any field shouldn’t really even be playing in Open, so who cares how they play? It irks me when a random assortment of various sizes of groups of no-chance donators are included in “this hole is averaging over par” and comments like that.

I apply weights to hole scores, but I don’t get an average score. I apply the weights to each score independently; not what the player scored, but whether that player got each possible score. For example, when looking at the frequency of 2s, I count one if the player got a 2 and zero if they did not.

One of the constraints on the weights is that, when they are applied to the ratings of the players, they always generate a weighted average rating of exactly 1000. The other is that ratings far from 1000 get lower weights. The most weight a player can get is 1 per round. The sum of these weights for all players over all rounds is the effective number of rounds.

So, that gives me (in the example) the frequency of a theoretical 1000 rated player getting a 2. It is based on the actual play of the actual players. These frequencies go into the par calculation.

I can generate pars even if there are no exactly 1000-rated players. If there are players fairly near, and both above and below 1000, the data is still reliable. It’s no stretch to say that a 1000-rated player will get a 2 with a frequency between that of a 1010 rated player and a 990 rated player.

If all the players are on one side of 1000 or the other, I calculate par based on an extrapolation. Better than nothing, but it might not rise to the level of reliable if no players are near 1000.
Cool. Thanks.

Sometimes you list what par would be for 950 rated players, etc. So I just wondered, in this case, if the field playing the Open Division really would have been a “better” fit for blue level tees or something like that. No biggie.
Reply With Quote
  #3745  
Old 05-24-2019, 05:05 PM
Steve West Steve West is online now
Par Delusionary
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Years Playing: 45.3
Courses Played: 360
Posts: 4,878
Niced 1,604 Times in 790 Posts
Default

Santa Cruz Masters Cup presented by Innova - National Tour, Delaveaga Disc Golf Course

Par for MPO was set perfectly – if pouring rain is ordinary weather conditions. If not, holes #8a, #13, and #17 may be slightly generously parred.

FPO should get to play #4 and #14 as par 4s.

Attached Images
File Type: png SCMS2019.png (34.7 KB, 184 views)
Reply With Quote
  #3746  
Old 05-24-2019, 05:12 PM
Steve West Steve West is online now
Par Delusionary
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Years Playing: 45.3
Courses Played: 360
Posts: 4,878
Niced 1,604 Times in 790 Posts
Default

Santa Cruz Masters Cup presented by Innova - National Tour, Delaveaga Golf Course

Perfect for FPO, a couple of weak par 4s for MPO.

Attached Images
File Type: png SCMCGolf2019.png (22.0 KB, 58 views)
Reply With Quote
  #3747  
Old 05-24-2019, 05:29 PM
teemkey's Avatar
teemkey teemkey is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Hillsboro, OR
Courses Played: 39
Posts: 2,515
Niced 488 Times in 222 Posts
Default

Hey Steve, can you do a comparison of Blue Lake 2014 with the Portland Open data?
Reply With Quote
  #3748  
Old 05-24-2019, 06:54 PM
Steve West Steve West is online now
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 teemkey View Post
Hey Steve, can you do a comparison of Blue Lake 2014 with the Portland Open data?
Sure. If you supply the data.
Reply With Quote
  #3749  
Old 05-24-2019, 07:24 PM
teemkey's Avatar
teemkey teemkey is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Hillsboro, OR
Courses Played: 39
Posts: 2,515
Niced 488 Times in 222 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve West View Post
Sure. If you supply the data.
Don't you have access to the PDGA live scores?
Reply With Quote
 

  #3750  
Old 05-24-2019, 09:16 PM
Steve West Steve West is online now
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 teemkey View Post
Don't you have access to the PDGA live scores?
You mean Pro Worlds? I can do that.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Par 4s - multiple in a row or sprinkle par 3s into them? ToddL Course Design 9 02-23-2018 09:47 AM
Poorly designed par 4,5,and par 6 holes and bad high par courses optidiscic Course Design 159 09-12-2014 10:53 AM
Cgkdisc and jeverett talk about par Steve West Course Design 53 05-05-2012 08:37 AM
Deuce or die par 3's or play for par, par 3's? BrotherDave Disc Golf Courses 14 04-29-2011 12:04 AM
Par and Pro Par for multiple tees with different pars? marcusmpe General Disc Golf Chat 6 04-26-2010 06:13 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:27 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.