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
  #3891  
Old 07-14-2019, 06:41 PM
Steve West Steve West is offline
Par Delusionary
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Years Playing: 45.4
Courses Played: 364
Posts: 4,949
Niced 1,665 Times in 816 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teemkey View Post
Steve, I looked at the PDGA report of BC Open MPO scores and a 1000 rating was given to 60 (r2=1001, r2=999, r3=997).

RPS (Rating Points per Throw) values are r1=7.8, r2=7.9, r3=7.9.

If your analysis is that a 64 should be 900 rated, then the RPS for a 1000 rated round would be roughly 300% of the PDGA value.

Your methodology may be a little too aggressive.


I didn't say 64 should be 900 rated. Nor did I say 900 rated players average 64.

I said 64 was a good par for 900 rated players. There is a difference.

Ratings are based on average scores. I’m not computing average score because:
Par is not average.
Par is not average.
Par is not average.
I’m computing the score that an expert disc golfer would be expected to make on a given hole with errorless play under ordinary weather conditions. At the intermediate level, players make a significant number of errors. Take all those errors (and the unexpectedly good throws) out of the 71.295 average score, and you are left with the par of 64.

Here is the scoring distribution relative to course pars. As you can see (orange bars), par was most common, but players often got scores that were not only one throw higher than par, but sometimes up to five throws higher than par. (Maybe more, I stop counting at 9.)



The blue bars show the impact on the average score relative to par. (This is simply the frequency of the score times the difference from par.) The total size of the blue bars going up is much larger than the size of the blue bars going down. This indicates the average score is much higher than par.

Because course par is to be the most expected score, it indicates course par is a good par for 900-rated players.
Attached Images
File Type: png BCOpen2019900SD.png (10.0 KB, 213 views)
Sponsored Links
Reply With Quote
  #3892  
Old 07-14-2019, 08:20 PM
teemkey's Avatar
teemkey teemkey is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Hillsboro, OR
Courses Played: 39
Posts: 2,530
Niced 505 Times in 233 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve West View Post
I didn't say 64 should be 900 rated. Nor did I say 900 rated players average 64.

I said 64 was a good par for 900 rated players. There is a difference.
If 64 is a good par for 900 rated players, then a round of 64 should be rated 900. What, exactly, are you parsing here?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve West View Post
Ratings are based on average scores. I’m not computing average score because:
Par is not average.
Par is not average.
Par is not average.
I only cited round ratings. What are you fixating on?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve West View Post
I’m computing the score that an expert disc golfer would be expected to make on a given hole with errorless play under ordinary weather conditions. At the intermediate level, players make a significant number of errors. Take all those errors (and the unexpectedly good throws) out of the 71.295 average score, and you are left with the par of 64.
So you're saying that you expect a 900 rated player to shoot 71, but that 64 would be a "good par" for that player? You're even saying that you expect errors, but don't include them in the computation of par.

Maybe you have trouble seeing what I'm seeing -- trees vs forest. When you publish these charts for FPO, you change your definition of 'expert' don't you? So my natural thought is that this chart might be for 900 rated 'experts.'

Now it seems you are warping your own interpretation of the PDGA definition of 'par' to produce a par for non-expert levels, that players at the selected non-expert level are not expected to match (unless they play above that level). Is that what you're saying? Why?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve West View Post
Here is the scoring distribution relative to course pars. As you can see (orange bars), par was most common, but players often got scores that were not only one throw higher than par, but sometimes up to five throws higher than par. (Maybe more, I stop counting at 9.)
...
The blue bars show the impact on the average score relative to par. (This is simply the frequency of the score times the difference from par.) The total size of the blue bars going up is much larger than the size of the blue bars going down. This indicates the average score is much higher than par.

Because course par is to be the most expected score, it indicates course par is a good par for 900-rated players.
The 'most expected' score in a population of expected scores is the median, but there is no reason to say the median should be par among your arguments scattered throughout the nearly 4,000 posts in this thread. (Until now, of course.)

I think a lot of your analyses are helpful. Laying out the scoring separation, correlation to rating, the star diagrams and performance charts are pretty cool. As I've said before, it would be nice to see comparisons from year-to-year when the same course is played, and/or when a hole is tweaked or a new hole added.

I understand you're the only one doing these analyses (at least on DGCR), and sometimes your descriptions include unusual uses of commonly used words. Maybe it's a argot specific to disc golf statisticians, but you shouldn't be surprised when you're misunderstood (nor when posters fail to remember, or refuse to use your definitions in their posts).
Reply With Quote
  #3893  
Old 07-14-2019, 09:34 PM
ChrisWoj's Avatar
ChrisWoj ChrisWoj is offline
Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Toledo, Ohio
Years Playing: 14.6
Courses Played: 144
Posts: 948
Niced 277 Times in 166 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teemkey View Post
If 64 is a good par for 900 rated players, then a round of 64 should be rated 900. What, exactly, are you parsing here?



I only cited round ratings. What are you fixating on?



So you're saying that you expect a 900 rated player to shoot 71, but that 64 would be a "good par" for that player? You're even saying that you expect errors, but don't include them in the computation of par.

Maybe you have trouble seeing what I'm seeing -- trees vs forest. When you publish these charts for FPO, you change your definition of 'expert' don't you? So my natural thought is that this chart might be for 900 rated 'experts.'

Now it seems you are warping your own interpretation of the PDGA definition of 'par' to produce a par for non-expert levels, that players at the selected non-expert level are not expected to match (unless they play above that level). Is that what you're saying? Why?



The 'most expected' score in a population of expected scores is the median, but there is no reason to say the median should be par among your arguments scattered throughout the nearly 4,000 posts in this thread. (Until now, of course.)

I think a lot of your analyses are helpful. Laying out the scoring separation, correlation to rating, the star diagrams and performance charts are pretty cool. As I've said before, it would be nice to see comparisons from year-to-year when the same course is played, and/or when a hole is tweaked or a new hole added.

I understand you're the only one doing these analyses (at least on DGCR), and sometimes your descriptions include unusual uses of commonly used words. Maybe it's a argot specific to disc golf statisticians, but you shouldn't be surprised when you're misunderstood (nor when posters fail to remember, or refuse to use your definitions in their posts).
What he's saying makes sense to me. An average score doesn't have to be the par for the course. If that layout was designed for 900 rated players, it was designed specifically as a track that would play difficult for 900 rated players. A course can be appropriate for a skill level and play above its appropriate par for those players, that's how it comes together intuitively for me.
Reply With Quote
  #3894  
Old 07-14-2019, 10:11 PM
DavidSauls's Avatar
DavidSauls DavidSauls is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newberry, SC
Years Playing: 24.3
Courses Played: 125
Posts: 15,107
Niced 3,303 Times in 1,462 Posts
Default

Among other things, the expected score for the course isn't the sum of the expected scores of the holes.
Reply With Quote
  #3895  
Old 07-14-2019, 10:30 PM
Steve West Steve West is offline
Par Delusionary
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Years Playing: 45.4
Courses Played: 364
Posts: 4,949
Niced 1,665 Times in 816 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teemkey View Post
...
I understand you're the only one doing these analyses (at least on DGCR), and sometimes your descriptions include unusual uses of commonly used words. Maybe it's a argot specific to disc golf statisticians, but you shouldn't be surprised when you're misunderstood (nor when posters fail to remember, or refuse to use your definitions in their posts).
I’m no longer surprised when I’m misunderstood. Befuddled, maybe. Anyway, thanks for asking for clarification. I’ll try.

1. Good catch, for the chart with White bars I should have said that “I’m computing the score that an Intermediate/900-rated disc golfer would be expected to make on a given hole with errorless play under ordinary weather conditions.”
Whether that should be called “par” for Intermediate players - or whether Gold par is the only par - is an unresolved question. My point was that par is too high for Open players by a couple of skill levels.

2. Par is based on errorless play. There is a difference between errorless play and average score. Round ratings are based on average scores. So, a score equal to “Intermediate par” will not generally be rated at 900; usually it will be rated higher.

3. I did not mean to imply that the median score is the one that should be chosen for par. (It's an OK choice, not my favorite.) Only, that the heap at par indicates the course par would appear to work well for these Intermediate players - if there was such a thing as Intermediate par.
Reply With Quote
  #3896  
Old 07-14-2019, 11:31 PM
TAFL's Avatar
TAFL TAFL is offline
Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Kansastan
Years Playing: 34.2
Courses Played: 30
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 678
Niced 125 Times in 82 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teemkey View Post
So you're saying that you expect a 900 rated player to shoot 71, but that 64 would be a "good par" for that player? You're even saying that you expect errors, but don't include them in the computation of par.
I think this may be where you're getting lost.

The definition of par expressly calls for errorless play. So, no, par won't be set with the expectation of strokes due to error.

Par would be set with the assumption of errorless play--and nobody expects 900-rated players to play without error, so a good score for such a player is likely to be well over par. If those players were to be expected to play without error--or be able to recover from errors with heroics--then they'd be 1000-rated experts.

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
  #3897  
Old 07-15-2019, 09:27 AM
Steve West Steve West is offline
Par Delusionary
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Years Playing: 45.4
Courses Played: 364
Posts: 4,949
Niced 1,665 Times in 816 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TAFL View Post
I think this may be where you're getting lost.

The definition of par expressly calls for errorless play. So, no, par won't be set with the expectation of strokes due to error.

Par would be set with the assumption of errorless play--and nobody expects 900-rated players to play without error, so a good score for such a player is likely to be well over par.
Right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TAFL View Post
If those players were to be expected to play without error--or be able to recover from errors with heroics--then they'd be 1000-rated experts.
Not quite.

"Errorless play" for an Intermediate player will not usually be 1000-rated.

It is not an error for a 900-rated player to fail to throw a full 400 feet, like it could be for a 1000-rated player. So, errorless play for an Intermediate player would usually still be worse than average play by 1000-rated players.

At this event, errorless play by a 900-rated player would have been rated 967. However, I suspect this course had a lot of punishment for errors. That would inflate the errorless rating. So, 967 might be untypically high.

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
  #3898  
Old 07-17-2019, 11:11 AM
Steve West Steve West is offline
Par Delusionary
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Years Playing: 45.4
Courses Played: 364
Posts: 4,949
Niced 1,665 Times in 816 Posts
Default

ET#7 - Estonian Open 2019 powered by Prodigy Disc, Kõrvemaa Prodigy Disc Golf Park, Modified Layout; 18 holes; Par 59; 2,246 m

Apparently, they used Advanced pars for Open players. Which makes FPO come out OK. Hole 1 maybe could be higher par for FPO, but there weren't many near-930 rated FPO players and if you also mix in the 930-rated MPOs, it stays par 3.

Attached Images
File Type: png Estonia Open.png (47.0 KB, 170 views)
Reply With Quote
  #3899  
Old 07-17-2019, 03:08 PM
TAFL's Avatar
TAFL TAFL is offline
Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Kansastan
Years Playing: 34.2
Courses Played: 30
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 678
Niced 125 Times in 82 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve West View Post

Not quite.

"Errorless play" for an Intermediate player will not usually be 1000-rated.

It is not an error for a 900-rated player to fail to throw a full 400 feet, like it could be for a 1000-rated player. So, errorless play for an Intermediate player would usually still be worse than average play by 1000-rated players.
True. Mea culpa for not covering that angle.

Even my erorr-free rounds wouldn't warrant a 1000 rating because I don't throw near as far as experts.
Reply With Quote
 

  #3900  
Old 07-20-2019, 10:10 PM
Steve West Steve West is offline
Par Delusionary
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Years Playing: 45.4
Courses Played: 364
Posts: 4,949
Niced 1,665 Times in 816 Posts
Default

European Open 2019, The Beast, European Open 2019; 18 holes; Par 64; 2,738 m



Par might have been a couple too high for MPO and a couple too low for FPO.

MPO had a birdie-rich environment, while FPO had lots of holes aspiring to a higher par.
Attached Images
File Type: png EO2019.png (29.5 KB, 132 views)
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 09:15 AM.


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