#1  
Old 06-01-2018, 11:43 AM
Steve West Steve West is offline
Par Delusionary
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Years Playing: 44.2
Courses Played: 311
Posts: 4,163
Niced 953 Times in 505 Posts
Default Hole and Course Performance Statistics

This thread is for posting and talking about measures of how courses and holes perform.
Sponsored Links
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-01-2018, 11:44 AM
Steve West Steve West is offline
Par Delusionary
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Years Playing: 44.2
Courses Played: 311
Posts: 4,163
Niced 953 Times in 505 Posts
Default

Im trying out a new way to present measures of how each of the holes performed, relative to the other holes on the same course. See if this is self-explanatory.

Attached Images
File Type: jpg SFOStars.jpg (70.7 KB, 202 views)
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-01-2018, 12:28 PM
ElementZ's Avatar
ElementZ ElementZ is offline
Double Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Madison, WI
Years Playing: 9.3
Courses Played: 150
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 1,175
Niced 12 Times in 5 Posts
Send a message via AIM to ElementZ
Default

Wouldn't "correlation to other holes" and "correlation to rating" be strongly correlated? I think you'd be okay with leaving one of these out. Really cool visualization though, Steve.

Just to see if I understand...taking #3 as an example...

It has a very low average (presumably a short par 3), yet has an above average scoring spread (variance?). Performance on this hole has a very strong correlation with other holes, which means it's predictive of total round score?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-01-2018, 12:28 PM
ThrowBot's Avatar
ThrowBot ThrowBot is offline
Double Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Billings, MT
Years Playing: 12.1
Courses Played: 90
Throwing Style: RHFH
Posts: 1,032
Niced 397 Times in 190 Posts
Default

All of the parameters seem pretty self explanatory to me, except the top one: "Average"
Is that the average of the hole's scores, and how does that average perform better or worse relative to other holes?

Also, question on "Correlation to Other Holes" ... How is that different from "Contribution" ?
(My understanding is that Corr. to Other Holes is a measure of how similarly a hole distributes scores to players, compared to the other holes on the course. And Contribution is how closely that hole distributes scores, relative to the total round. So those two parameters should track closely in my mind. But I see that they don't always match that closely. Am I off in my interpretations?)

Also, unless my interpretation is wrong for "Correlation to Other Holes", I think that's a dubious way to judge hole performance. A course that only tests a small number of skills will have very high correlation between all the holes...but that's also boring design, in my opinion. I would almost rather see holes that don't correlate well with each other, as long as other metrics of randomness/fairness are good (i.e. correlation to rating, contribution).
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-01-2018, 08:09 PM
Steve West Steve West is offline
Par Delusionary
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Years Playing: 44.2
Courses Played: 311
Posts: 4,163
Niced 953 Times in 505 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElementZ View Post
Wouldn't "correlation to other holes" and "correlation to rating" be strongly correlated? I think you'd be okay with leaving one of these out. Really cool visualization though, Steve.
I'll probably leave out correlation to ratings, because ratings aren't always available at the same source as hole scores.

I like the five-pointed star because (at least in USA) it's a shape that people can instantly recognize as correct or warped. Good holes get a star.

So, I'm looking for a fifth number that represents what we want a score generating machine to do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElementZ View Post
Just to see if I understand...taking #3 as an example...

It has a very low average (presumably a short par 3), yet has an above average scoring spread (variance?). Performance on this hole has a very strong correlation with other holes, which means it's predictive of total round score?
Pretty much.

Scoring spread is like variance, but not the same. It counts how many different scores were given out, but with fractional counts for rarer scores. Scoring Spread doesn't care about the magnitude of scores, so a hole that gives out 50/50 2s and 3s would have the same scoring spread as a hole that gives out 50/50 2s and 4s. Both holes divide the field into two equal parts.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-01-2018, 08:22 PM
Steve West Steve West is offline
Par Delusionary
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Years Playing: 44.2
Courses Played: 311
Posts: 4,163
Niced 953 Times in 505 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThrowBot View Post
All of the parameters seem pretty self explanatory to me, except the top one: "Average"
Is that the average of the hole's scores, and how does that average perform better or worse relative to other holes?

Also, question on "Correlation to Other Holes" ... How is that different from "Contribution" ?
(My understanding is that Corr. to Other Holes is a measure of how similarly a hole distributes scores to players, compared to the other holes on the course. And Contribution is how closely that hole distributes scores, relative to the total round. So those two parameters should track closely in my mind. But I see that they don't always match that closely. Am I off in my interpretations?)

Also, unless my interpretation is wrong for "Correlation to Other Holes", I think that's a dubious way to judge hole performance. A course that only tests a small number of skills will have very high correlation between all the holes...but that's also boring design, in my opinion. I would almost rather see holes that don't correlate well with each other, as long as other metrics of randomness/fairness are good (i.e. correlation to rating, contribution).
It is just the average score. For all the stats, what is shown as a longer point is just bigger. Perhaps higher average isn't always better. However, generally the higher the average score the better the hole performs. Most of the time, most of the signs of a weakly performing hole can be solved by making the hole harder.

All of these stats are like components of good performance, or tools to use to get good performance. None are direct measures of a general concept of "good performance" (whatever that would be). That takes a lot more data and a lot more complicated formulas, and it would be less obvious how to change the hole to increase performance.

I share your concern about correlation. If we relied too heavily on it, we would end up with nothing but 320 foot hyzer throws. However, the variety of holes out there is so great that at this point, if a hole does not correlate well with other holes, it's most likely because of a bad design.

Contribution is a check on correlation. A hole gets a big contribution by non-randomly sorting out the players that the other holes did not sort out. If a hole has low correlation and a big contribution, that indicates it is properly testing a different skill than the other holes.

Conversely, a hole that has high correlation but low contribution is just being a yes-man to the other holes.

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-01-2018, 08:52 PM
teemkey's Avatar
teemkey teemkey is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Hillsboro, OR
Courses Played: 39
Posts: 2,213
Niced 186 Times in 100 Posts
Default

I don't know if you want to take the plunge, but a measure of consistency over multiple rounds (when available) would be great.

Another interesting summary number would be the Q-function of the score distribution (i.e. the probability a score will exceed some multiple of the standard deviation, which would identify "disaster holes"). Or do you think scoring spread is sufficient?

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-01-2018, 09:40 PM
Steve West Steve West is offline
Par Delusionary
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Years Playing: 44.2
Courses Played: 311
Posts: 4,163
Niced 953 Times in 505 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teemkey View Post
I don't know if you want to take the plunge, but a measure of consistency over multiple rounds (when available) would be great.
I do look at that when there are four or more rounds. For this chart I want to keep it to a straightforward scores-in stats-out function.


Quote:
Originally Posted by teemkey View Post
Another interesting summary number would be the Q-function of the score distribution (i.e. the probability a score will exceed some multiple of the standard deviation, which would identify "disaster holes"). Or do you think scoring spread is sufficient?
Good idea, thanks. I'll need to look at that. It sounds like it could be a check on scoring spread, to see if the hole is too loose.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-04-2018, 11:09 AM
tbonesocrul tbonesocrul is offline
Bogey Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Detroit, MI
Courses Played: 54
Posts: 70
Niced 35 Times in 20 Posts
Default

Is there any way you could compare the scoring spread with and without penalty strokes? That might be interesting.

Also this is really interesting. I'm also curious more about the actual numbers/scaling methods.
Reply With Quote
 

  #10  
Old 06-04-2018, 01:58 PM
Steve West Steve West is offline
Par Delusionary
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Years Playing: 44.2
Courses Played: 311
Posts: 4,163
Niced 953 Times in 505 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbonesocrul View Post
Is there any way you could compare the scoring spread with and without penalty strokes? That might be interesting.
...
That would be really easy - if I could get the penalty throws player by player, hole by hole. PDGA Live doesn't record them, and I haven't figured out any way short of going through each player and picking them out by hand from the UDisc stats. Ain't nobody got time for 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


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.