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

#3261
08-03-2018, 10:06 AM
 DG_player Eagle Member Join Date: Apr 2013 Posts: 563 Niced 169 Times in 113 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Steve West I’ve been refining my newest method (expectational par) which selects whichever par results in the highest expectation of normal throws underlying the scoring distribution. I’m comparing it to the Errorless method, as well as to the par people set for a hole, knowing its scores and stats. That’s where you come in – what par would you give these holes, and why? For this test, I used all the Idlewild MPO players as “experts” so the course statistics from Udisc could be used without adjustment. So, we’re setting par for the field here, not 1000-rated players. The average rating was 977, so it’s about halfway between Gold and Blue. For most holes, both errorless par and expectational par came up with the same par. Both came up with a total par of 65. I’ll post stats for the holes where there are differences. For discussion. One at a time. Hole 2, with 3=41%, 4=37%, 5=17%, 6=5% came out as par 4 using errorless, and par 3 using expectational. Par 4 errorless implies the top 94% of throws were errorless, while par 3 would imply the top 74% of throws were errorless. Using the expectational method, par 3 - with 26% errors - generated a higher chance of normal throws than par 4 with 6% errors, 23% heroes, and 3% double errors. 74% normal @ 3 vs. 70% normal @ 4. Udisc stats were: Average = 3.89, OB=0.19, FWH=81%, c1 in 2=48%, c2 in 2=57%, Scr.=50%, Parked=17%.
This seems like an obvious par 4, it has a 3.86 average and median score of 4. Maybe slightly easy for a par 4, but still a par 4.

Once again I will raise the question I raised earlier. What is the logic behind going with the score that generates the most "normal" throws? Certainly a distribution that includes the full range of shots is more realistic than one that only includes errors and normal throws. Especially considering more traditional statistics support a par 4.
#3262
08-03-2018, 10:40 AM
 Steve West Par Delusionary Join Date: Dec 2009 Years Playing: 45.9 Courses Played: 373 Posts: 5,130 Niced 1,821 Times in 898 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by DG_player This seems like an obvious par 4, it has a 3.86 average and median score of 4. Maybe slightly easy for a par 4, but still a par 4. Once again I will raise the question I raised earlier. What is the logic behind going with the score that generates the most "normal" throws? Certainly a distribution that includes the full range of shots is more realistic than one that only includes errors and normal throws. Especially considering more traditional statistics support a par 4.
Choosing the par that results in the most normal throws is one candidate for the rule to select from several candidate pars.

Choosing the par that has a typical "full range" of throws is another candidate for the rule to select from several candidate pars. I'm not sure what ratio is correct. Should we pick the par that comes closest to implying equally as many errors as heroes? Or do players make more throws that cost them a throw than throws are as good as two normal throws?

Perhaps not all holes offer opportunities for a typical balance between errors and hero throws. My thinking is that betting on normal throws predominating is safer than betting that a hole will have a full range of throws.
#3263
08-03-2018, 10:48 AM
 biscoe * Ace Member * Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: spotsylvania, va Years Playing: 24.9 Courses Played: 94 Posts: 6,872 Niced 2,417 Times in 978 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Steve West ... because...?
drive leg leaves you outside of close range.

 Niced: (1)
#3264
08-03-2018, 11:02 AM
 DG_player Eagle Member Join Date: Apr 2013 Posts: 563 Niced 169 Times in 113 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Steve West Choosing the par that results in the most normal throws is one candidate for the rule to select from several candidate pars. Choosing the par that has a typical "full range" of throws is another candidate for the rule to select from several candidate pars. I'm not sure what ratio is correct. Should we pick the par that comes closest to implying equally as many errors as heroes? Or do players make more throws that cost them a throw than throws are as good as two normal throws? Perhaps not all holes offer opportunities for a typical balance between errors and hero throws. My thinking is that betting on normal throws predominating is safer than betting that a hole will have a full range of throws.
Your method is purely numbers driven. You don't look at the physical throw required based on the actual hole to determine what qualifies as errorless throw quality. Therefore if you're going to qualify a shot as "normal" you need to base it on whether or not it gets you close to the expected score. Clearly the expected score for this hole is much closer to 4 than 3 (3.86 average and 4 median), so how is it possible that "normal" throws are going to result in a 3, when 4 is the expected score?

 Niced: (1)
#3265
08-03-2018, 11:22 AM
 Steve West Par Delusionary Join Date: Dec 2009 Years Playing: 45.9 Courses Played: 373 Posts: 5,130 Niced 1,821 Times in 898 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by DG_player Your method is purely numbers driven. You don't look at the physical throw required based on the actual hole to determine what qualifies as errorless throw quality. Therefore if you're going to qualify a shot as "normal" you need to base it on whether or not it gets you close to the expected score. Clearly the expected score for this hole is much closer to 4 than 3 (3.86 average and 4 median), so how is it possible that "normal" throws are going to result in a 3, when 4 is the expected score?
Which kind of expected score is exactly what we're trying to figure out. More specifically, expected with errorless play.

Average score is one kind of expected score, but it includes errors. Average score without errors would be nice to have. That might be 3 on this hole. Can we figure that out from the Udisc stats?

The kind of expected score that is under scrutiny is based on the presumption that if par is the expected score, then par-quality throws should dominate, so the best par is the one which implies the most par-quality throws.

We'll try to see whether it works or not by looking at this and a few other holes where par is arguable.
#3266
08-03-2018, 12:00 PM
 Cgkdisc .:Hall of Fame Member:. Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Twin Cities Years Playing: 31 Courses Played: 702 Throwing Style: RHBH Posts: 12,449 Niced 1,896 Times in 841 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by DG_player Your method is purely numbers driven. You don't look at the physical throw required based on the actual hole to determine what qualifies as errorless throw quality. Therefore if you're going to qualify a shot as "normal" you need to base it on whether or not it gets you close to the expected score. Clearly the expected score for this hole is much closer to 4 than 3 (3.86 average and 4 median), so how is it possible that "normal" throws are going to result in a 3, when 4 is the expected score?
So if players average more than 0.5 penalties on a hole, should that flip the par towards the higher integer par because it's "normal" for the hole or be removed as an error and the par resolved to the lower integer?
#3267
08-03-2018, 12:10 PM
 DG_player Eagle Member Join Date: Apr 2013 Posts: 563 Niced 169 Times in 113 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Steve West Which kind of expected score is exactly what we're trying to figure out. More specifically, expected with errorless play. Average score is one kind of expected score, but it includes errors. Average score without errors would be nice to have. That might be 3 on this hole. Can we figure that out from the Udisc stats? The kind of expected score that is under scrutiny is based on the presumption that if par is the expected score, then par-quality throws should dominate, so the best par is the one which implies the most par-quality throws. We'll try to see whether it works or not by looking at this and a few other holes where par is arguable.
You might as well throw errorless out the window. It's completely undefined. You can't determine the definition simply by using statistics.
#3268
08-03-2018, 02:00 PM
 Steve West Par Delusionary Join Date: Dec 2009 Years Playing: 45.9 Courses Played: 373 Posts: 5,130 Niced 1,821 Times in 898 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by DG_player You might as well throw errorless out the window. It's completely undefined. You can't determine the definition simply by using statistics.
So is "as determined by" for that matter. Rather than make a wild guess as to whether that means announced at the players meeting, on the scorecard, or in the caddy book, or in the TD's most private thoughts, I guess we could throw that part out the window.

I prefer to try out various working definitions to see if there is a practical benefit. The one I'm working on now for "expected errorless" is: a throw that does not increase or decrease the expected score.

Answering Chuck's question is also a step toward defining it.
#3269
08-03-2018, 10:05 PM
 DG_player Eagle Member Join Date: Apr 2013 Posts: 563 Niced 169 Times in 113 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Cgkdisc So if players average more than 0.5 penalties on a hole, should that flip the par towards the higher integer par because it's "normal" for the hole or be removed as an error and the par resolved to the lower integer?
If the majority of experts are throwing OB, I don't see how you could discard it from the expected score.

 Niced: (1)

#3270
08-03-2018, 10:15 PM
 Cgkdisc .:Hall of Fame Member:. Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Twin Cities Years Playing: 31 Courses Played: 702 Throwing Style: RHBH Posts: 12,449 Niced 1,896 Times in 841 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by DG_player If the majority of experts are throwing OB, I don't see how you could discard it from the expected score.
Related question, Is it acceptable hole design if players are already starting the hole with the expectation of a penalty every other time they play it?