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

Quote:
Originally Posted by lyleoross View Post
I'm gonna disagree with trying to do analysis via errorless throw.
Right now, were 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, its 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 View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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, were not talking about my method right now. Were trying to see what would happen if the definition were applied literally with perfect knowledge.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lyleoross View Post
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.)

Isnt 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?

Im pretty sure there is something like errorless. Maybe errorless isnt 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 View Post
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).
Sponsored Links
Reply With Quote
  #3442  
Old 01-07-2019, 04:39 PM
Karl Karl is offline
Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 829
Niced 95 Times in 60 Posts
Default

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

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl View Post
"...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.
Reply With Quote
  #3444  
Old 01-08-2019, 10:12 AM
PMantle's Avatar
PMantle PMantle is offline
* 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
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DG_player View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #3445  
Old 01-08-2019, 11:06 AM
DavidSauls's Avatar
DavidSauls DavidSauls is online now
* 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
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #3446  
Old 01-08-2019, 11:07 AM
DavidSauls's Avatar
DavidSauls DavidSauls is online now
* 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
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve West View Post
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."
Reply With Quote
  #3447  
Old 01-08-2019, 11:20 AM
aphilso1's Avatar
aphilso1 aphilso1 is offline
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
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidSauls View Post
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)
Reply With Quote
  #3448  
Old 01-08-2019, 12:19 PM
Steve West Steve West is offline
Par Delusionary
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Years Playing: 44.8
Courses Played: 326
Posts: 4,567
Niced 1,277 Times in 653 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidSauls View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #3449  
Old 01-08-2019, 12:29 PM
Steve West Steve West is offline
Par Delusionary
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Years Playing: 44.8
Courses Played: 326
Posts: 4,567
Niced 1,277 Times in 653 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aphilso1 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
 

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidSauls View Post
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)
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 08:09 AM.


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