Disc Golf Course Review Hole and Course Performance Statistics
 Register Members List Social Groups - View All Groups - Your Group Messages Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

#1
06-01-2018, 12:43 PM
 Steve West Par Delusionary Join Date: Dec 2009 Years Playing: 45.5 Courses Played: 366 Posts: 5,004 Niced 1,711 Times in 840 Posts
Hole and Course Performance Statistics

This thread is for posting and talking about measures of how courses and holes perform.
#2
06-01-2018, 12:44 PM
 Steve West Par Delusionary Join Date: Dec 2009 Years Playing: 45.5 Courses Played: 366 Posts: 5,004 Niced 1,711 Times in 840 Posts

I’m 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
 SFOStars.jpg (70.7 KB, 367 views)
#3
06-01-2018, 01:28 PM
 ElementZ Double Eagle Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Madison, WI Years Playing: 10.6 Courses Played: 173 Throwing Style: RHBH Posts: 1,219 Niced 73 Times in 24 Posts

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?
#4
06-01-2018, 01:28 PM
 ThrowBot Double Eagle Member Join Date: Jun 2015 Location: Billings, MT Years Playing: 13.4 Courses Played: 126 Throwing Style: RHFH Posts: 1,474 Niced 896 Times in 399 Posts

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).
#5
06-01-2018, 09:09 PM
 Steve West Par Delusionary Join Date: Dec 2009 Years Playing: 45.5 Courses Played: 366 Posts: 5,004 Niced 1,711 Times in 840 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by ElementZ 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 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.
#6
06-01-2018, 09:22 PM
 Steve West Par Delusionary Join Date: Dec 2009 Years Playing: 45.5 Courses Played: 366 Posts: 5,004 Niced 1,711 Times in 840 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by ThrowBot 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)
#7
06-01-2018, 09:52 PM
 teemkey * Ace Member * Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: Hillsboro, OR Courses Played: 39 Posts: 2,544 Niced 520 Times in 247 Posts

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)
#8
06-01-2018, 10:40 PM
 Steve West Par Delusionary Join Date: Dec 2009 Years Playing: 45.5 Courses Played: 366 Posts: 5,004 Niced 1,711 Times in 840 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by teemkey 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 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.
#9
06-04-2018, 12:09 PM
 tbonesocrul Par Member Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: Detroit, MI Courses Played: 106 Posts: 112 Niced 51 Times in 31 Posts

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.

#10
06-04-2018, 02:58 PM
 Steve West Par Delusionary Join Date: Dec 2009 Years Playing: 45.5 Courses Played: 366 Posts: 5,004 Niced 1,711 Times in 840 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by tbonesocrul 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.