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

#3891
07-14-2019, 07:41 PM
 Steve West Par Delusionary Join Date: Dec 2009 Years Playing: 45.7 Courses Played: 367 Posts: 5,053 Niced 1,753 Times in 861 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by teemkey 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
 BCOpen2019900SD.png (10.0 KB, 213 views)
#3892
07-14-2019, 09:20 PM
 teemkey * Ace Member * Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: Hillsboro, OR Courses Played: 39 Posts: 2,550 Niced 524 Times in 251 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Steve West 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 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 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 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).
#3893
07-14-2019, 10:34 PM
 ChrisWoj Eagle Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Toledo, Ohio Years Playing: 14.9 Courses Played: 148 Posts: 960 Niced 279 Times in 167 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by teemkey 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.
#3894
07-14-2019, 11:11 PM
 DavidSauls * Ace Member * Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Newberry, SC Years Playing: 24.6 Courses Played: 125 Posts: 15,271 Niced 3,603 Times in 1,561 Posts

Among other things, the expected score for the course isn't the sum of the expected scores of the holes.
#3895
07-14-2019, 11:30 PM
 Steve West Par Delusionary Join Date: Dec 2009 Years Playing: 45.7 Courses Played: 367 Posts: 5,053 Niced 1,753 Times in 861 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by teemkey ... 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.
#3896
07-15-2019, 12:31 AM
 TAFL Eagle Member Join Date: Oct 2014 Location: Kansastan Years Playing: 34.5 Courses Played: 30 Throwing Style: RHBH Posts: 685 Niced 128 Times in 85 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by teemkey 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)
#3897
07-15-2019, 10:27 AM
 Steve West Par Delusionary Join Date: Dec 2009 Years Playing: 45.7 Courses Played: 367 Posts: 5,053 Niced 1,753 Times in 861 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by TAFL 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 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)
#3898
07-17-2019, 12:11 PM
 Steve West Par Delusionary Join Date: Dec 2009 Years Playing: 45.7 Courses Played: 367 Posts: 5,053 Niced 1,753 Times in 861 Posts

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
 Estonia Open.png (47.0 KB, 170 views)
#3899
07-17-2019, 04:08 PM
 TAFL Eagle Member Join Date: Oct 2014 Location: Kansastan Years Playing: 34.5 Courses Played: 30 Throwing Style: RHBH Posts: 685 Niced 128 Times in 85 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Steve West 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.

#3900
07-20-2019, 11:10 PM
 Steve West Par Delusionary Join Date: Dec 2009 Years Playing: 45.7 Courses Played: 367 Posts: 5,053 Niced 1,753 Times in 861 Posts

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
 EO2019.png (29.5 KB, 132 views)