Disc Golf Course Review Par Talk
 Register Members List Social Groups - View All Groups - Your Group Messages Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 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

#3441
01-07-2019, 12:32 PM
 Steve West Par Delusionary Join Date: Dec 2009 Years Playing: 44.8 Courses Played: 326 Posts: 4,567 Niced 1,277 Times in 653 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by lyleoross I'm gonna disagree with trying to do analysis via errorless throw.
Right now, we’re talking about the pure definition. Specifically, what par we would get by watching experts play and disregarding any scores that included an errant throw, then picking the expected score from among those.

This is not about my method of choosing a par based on scores. By the way, I'm no longer using the label "errorless" for my method. I need a new name, because as you point out, it’s not truly choosing from among the errorlessly-gotten scores.

After we think about what score would result from errorless play, then we can use that thinking to choose among methods of selecting par from all the scores.

One issue at question is: If we did look at the pool of errorless scores and picked the expected from them, would a smaller percent pf players get par on higher par holes for the toughest holes at each par?

If the thinking about what score would truly result from errorless play can answer that question, then we can use the answer to assess which score-based (or distance-based) methods are closer what the definition actually means.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by lyleoross To start with, a bad throw for one player, disc in position a, might be a good throw for another player, disc also in position a, depending on throwing styles.
True, but not a problem. Just ask the player if that throw was good or not. If not, leave that score out of the pool.

For experts, I would think the good positions are about the same. For Recreational par, less so.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by lyleoross You're still looking at outcomes. Furthermore, a spanked throw that hits the tree and bounces into a nice lie isn't an errorless throw, no matter what the outcome.
Right. The score from that player would be ignored.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by lyleoross Your errorless only has meaning when looking at outcomes, via math. Math doesn't go, "Oh, errorless play!" It says these throws, when examined in this way, give this result. You can call a subset errorless, if it makes you feel good.
That is a correct statement about my method of picking par based on scores. But, we’re not talking about my method right now. We’re trying to see what would happen if the definition were applied literally with perfect knowledge.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by lyleoross Folks are too enamored with the notion of errorless play. There is no such thing. There is play that is better than your opponent's play. I've never seen an errorless throw. Anyone who thinks they have are looking at outcomes and saying errorless cause they got the outcome they wanted. I suppose you can say a throw that gives the outcome you want is an errorless throw?
Yeah, wouldn't that be what errorless means? (Unless it gave you the outcome through a lucky break.)

Isn’t errorless play pretty much like designer intent? Nobody ever throws the disc exactly in the middle of the invisible pipe, but if it gets through the gap, doesn't it still count as playing the way the designer intended?

I’m pretty sure there is something like errorless. Maybe errorless isn’t the right word, but we all know immediately when we make a bad throw. Most throws clearly fall into one of two categories: being disappointed with it or not. Errorless are the throws you are not disappointed with - excluding the throws that you are not disappointed with only because you got a lucky break.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by lyleoross That isn't to say you can't do analysis, but you may not be looking at what you think you're looking at, as entertaining as it might be.
OK, back to my method for now. It was not designed to suss out the scores that resulted in errorless play. (That would be impossible, as you point out.) It was designed to have the highest chance of picking the same score that we would get if we could suss out errorless play from looking at scores. I called it errorless as shorthand because matching the errorless score was the goal (as opposed to matching the average or most common or any other stat).
#3442
01-07-2019, 04:39 PM
 Karl Eagle Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 829 Niced 95 Times in 60 Posts

"...I need a new name..."

EAI? (Executed As Intended)
#3443
01-07-2019, 05:31 PM
 Steve West Par Delusionary Join Date: Dec 2009 Years Playing: 44.8 Courses Played: 326 Posts: 4,567 Niced 1,277 Times in 653 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Karl "...I need a new name..." EAI? (Executed As Intended)
Thanks for playing.

I can't use EAI, because looking only at scores doesn't really tell us whether the player got the score they intended. Besides, it sounds more like what CRP is getting at.

A description would be: A method that picks the score where at least a specified percentage of throws for each parlecule are good enough for par.
#3444
01-08-2019, 10:12 AM
 PMantle * Ace Member * Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: Alexandria, La. Years Playing: 6.7 Courses Played: 48 Throwing Style: RHBH Posts: 4,838 Niced 694 Times in 484 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by DG_player I don't see how you get that out of the definition. The entire pool of expert scores includes bad, good throws, and great throws. If you're going to define par as the expected expert score with errorless play, it seems you should merely look at the subset of scores that do not include errant play. This subset would include scores that had exceptional throws. If an expert player occasionally will make a throw in, than it's expected that this will happen at some rate, and should be included in calculating par. The definition doesn't say "errorless, non-exceptional play".
Ah, you've identified Steve's birdie reduction dealio.
#3445
01-08-2019, 11:06 AM
 DavidSauls * Ace Member * Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Newberry, SC Years Playing: 23.8 Courses Played: 125 Posts: 14,604 Niced 2,462 Times in 1,166 Posts

The problem I have with trying to quantify "errorless" is that shots aren't clearly exceptional, expected, or errors. They come in all degrees along a spectrum.

Defining errors as shots that increase the score, reflected in the hole results, misses the point that a shot might be slightly below average, or a bit more below average, but whether it affects the score may be influenced by that player's other shots on that hole. Not necessarily exceptional shots or clear errors, but other shots that are a little bit better, or worse, than average.

It also seems a bit circular: Par is the score without errors, and errors are shots that increase the score.
#3446
01-08-2019, 11:07 AM
 DavidSauls * Ace Member * Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Newberry, SC Years Playing: 23.8 Courses Played: 125 Posts: 14,604 Niced 2,462 Times in 1,166 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Steve West I can't use EAI, because looking only at scores doesn't really tell us whether the player got the score they intended. Besides, it sounds more like what CRP is getting at.
I'm not sure if, by EAI, Karl mean "as intended by the player" or "as intended by the designer."
#3447
01-08-2019, 11:20 AM
 aphilso1 Birdie Member Join Date: Sep 2018 Location: Nebraska Years Playing: 1.5 Courses Played: 18 Throwing Style: RHBH Posts: 459 Niced 261 Times in 164 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by DavidSauls Defining errors as shots that increase the score, reflected in the hole results, misses the point that a shot might be slightly below average, or a bit more below average, but whether it affects the score may be influenced by that player's other shots on that hole. Not necessarily exceptional shots or clear errors, but other shots that are a little bit better, or worse, than average.
Ball golf has a formula for this, as they calculate "strokes gained" from every possible distance/lie combination. This article does a good job of explaining it: http://www.strokesgainedgolf.com/How...ned-Works.html

It wouldn't be a direct correlation to disc golf but, given enough data inputs, could theoretically be used as a starting point.

 Niced: (1)
#3448
01-08-2019, 12:19 PM
 Steve West Par Delusionary Join Date: Dec 2009 Years Playing: 44.8 Courses Played: 326 Posts: 4,567 Niced 1,277 Times in 653 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by DavidSauls The problem I have with trying to quantify "errorless" is that shots aren't clearly exceptional, expected, or errors. They come in all degrees along a spectrum. Defining errors as shots that increase the score, reflected in the hole results, misses the point that a shot might be slightly below average, or a bit more below average, but whether it affects the score may be influenced by that player's other shots on that hole. Not necessarily exceptional shots or clear errors, but other shots that are a little bit better, or worse, than average. It also seems a bit circular: Par is the score without errors, and errors are shots that increase the score.
Recursive, not circular. Recursive leads to a solution, even though the formula depends on itself. Circular would allow for any value of par to be the result of inputting that same value of par.

Fortunately, the fuzzy definition of errorless works OK because par is - in a sense - the big fat part of the scoring distribution; it's an easy target. As long as everyone uses 1000-rated play.

For example, if we merely labeled everything that was not clearly exceptional nor clearly an error as erroless, we would narrow down the range of possible par scores quite a bit. Then, take the second step of picking the expected score from among those, and it's hard to see how you would end up with a bad par.
#3449
01-08-2019, 12:29 PM
 Steve West Par Delusionary Join Date: Dec 2009 Years Playing: 44.8 Courses Played: 326 Posts: 4,567 Niced 1,277 Times in 653 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by aphilso1 Ball golf has a formula for this, as they calculate "strokes gained" from every possible distance/lie combination. This article does a good job of explaining it: http://www.strokesgainedgolf.com/How...ned-Works.html It wouldn't be a direct correlation to disc golf but, given enough data inputs, could theoretically be used as a starting point.
I really liked strokes gained. It's the ultimate stat for golf. I hope we can get there for disc golf, but it will be a while. Not only do we need to track millions of throws first, I think we will need to add at least one more dimension. (Unless disc golf hole become as homogenized as golf holes.) That means we'll need a lot more data than golf.

We have so many more lie types. We can't even say the tee is the same kind of lie for all holes. Some tees have a big tree in front of them, or a narrow gap to hit. Not too mention the different materials. There's no way to say that since this a 450 foot hole and the player is on the tee, their expected score is the same as every other 450 foot hole.

As for lie types, just think of the difference between being behind a tree where you can reach far enough to throw around it from a standstill vs. behind a tree where you can do a run-up, vs. being behind a tree where you have to pitch backwards.

But, to tie it back because it is a good concept to pursue, how many strokes gained does it take for a golf shot to be errorless? I would think it would be some range on both sides of zero.

#3450
01-08-2019, 01:59 PM
 DG_player Eagle Member Join Date: Apr 2013 Posts: 524 Niced 137 Times in 93 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by DavidSauls The problem I have with trying to quantify "errorless" is that shots aren't clearly exceptional, expected, or errors. They come in all degrees along a spectrum. Defining errors as shots that increase the score, reflected in the hole results, misses the point that a shot might be slightly below average, or a bit more below average, but whether it affects the score may be influenced by that player's other shots on that hole. Not necessarily exceptional shots or clear errors, but other shots that are a little bit better, or worse, than average. It also seems a bit circular: Par is the score without errors, and errors are shots that increase the score.
That's the problem with using a complicated statistical method to define par.

It makes much more sense to look at the physical layout of a hole, and come to a reasonable conclusion of how many shots it should take for an expert to hole out assuming they don't screw up. If you want to back that up with a simple statistical method, such as an average or median, to determine if the original conclusion was accurate, that's fine. However I don't see the benefit in doing anything more complicated than that.

 Niced: (3)