Par Talk

[DavidSauls]

OB isn't an "error" when it's expected -- and the happy surprise is when the throw makes in inbounds.

*

You'll need to figure into your "different games" formula, holes will extremely dense rough. I frequently play a course with lots of OB -- but also some holes with very dense rough, where often the result of a bad drive is a pitch-out back to the fairway, with the same scoring result as had the off-fairway area been OB. Sometimes worse, when the escape shot fails.

Perhaps we can identify holes with extreme pin placements, and designate those yet another different game.

 

[Ryan P.]

Good question. Apparently, this particular one hasn't made its way into the PDGA or DGCDg documents yet. (Perhaps it's in the internal guidelines the PDGA uses to decide whether to grant waivers, I don't know.)

So, here's the work that went into it. Decide for yourself.

www.stevewestdiscgolf.com/Proper_Sizes_for_Disc_Golf_Island_Greens.pdf

Thanks. Are there any studies you've done missing from your site?

 

[Steve West]

Thanks. Are there any studies you've done missing from your site?

On this topic, no.

There's probably some stuff in the Hole and Course Performance Statistics thread in Disc Golf Courses in General Disc Golf Discussions that didn't make it to my website.

 

[Steve West]

When do penalties move from being considered "errors" for setting par versus becoming part of the "normal" scoring for calculating the correct par appropriate for holes with penalty design elements intentionally placed with the expectation (or knowing via testing) that a significant number of players at that skill level cannot avoid them?

At DDO courses and on several others over the past years, players have averaged over 5 penalties per round even when the wind wasn't boosting those numbers. Seems like determining par for these holes/courses needs to incorporate "errors", and as a result, it becomes recognized as a different game...

I reject as baseless your leap from "par needs to be adjusted" to "it's a different game that needs its own rating". As for the rest:


There is probably a theoretical a point where an OB penalty should be included as one of the parlecules that add up to par.


To decide where to draw the line, the TD or Course Designer needs to ask: Can an expert be expected to avoid the penalty with errorless play?


Seeing a significant number of players get a penalty is not enough.


Certainly, OB that cannot be avoided would increase par. I don't think there are any holes anywhere near that.


Averaging 5 penalties per round (spread over all the holes) means that players avoid an OB penalty on 72% of the holes, or something like 90% of the throws. This would be very strong evidence that there is a way to play where an expect can be expected to avoid the penalties. Only the scores from the players who have figured it out should count in par.


Even if all 5 penalties came on the same 5 holes, unless they all happened from the same spot, most throws on those holes will not go OB. But, that much saturation would be getting close to where par should include a parlecule for an OB penalty.

Unless it happened because of extra-ordinary weather.

 

[Cgkdisc]

What statistical test would determine whether playing a course that produced an average of five penalties per player, even without wind, was probably a different game from playing a course with less than half a stroke of penalties per player per round? I used correlation of ratings to scores to show that the lower correlation at USDGC versus every other major with a similar player mix indicated a different game or scoring profile was in play. This is one reason round ratings there have not been included a player's stats.

Note: they could be used to produce a separate rating for courses like that but the PDGA has yet to recognize the validity and merits of doing so. It would be one way to improve player ratings at the elite level which have been muddled by including round ratings from a mix of courses where a different scoring profile is used, i.e., lots of OB penalties.

In basketball, the 3-pt shot rewards a point for higher skill or level of difficulty than 2-pointers. We need a similar distinction between games. OB penalties are indiscriminate awarding 1-stroke extra plus loss of some or full distance regardless of the skill required for the shot whether from the tee, upshot or putt. No problem continuing both scoring formats as long as the par, ratings and other stat calculations are separated. It will improve the quality of the stats as wagering gains ground and help clarify the games for viewers.

 

[Steve West]

What statistical test would determine whether playing a course that produced an average of five penalties per player, even without wind, was probably a different game from playing a course with less than half a stroke of penalties per player per round? ...

Not a par issue. Par should continue to be the expected score with errorless play across all formats - whether different or not.

What will happen is that the plethora of over-par scores from too much OB will cause consternation among players.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Not a par issue. Par should continue to be the expected score with errorless play across all formats - whether different or not.

What will happen is that the plethora of over-par scores from too much OB will cause consternation among players.

Determining par based on errorless play becomes irrelevant and less useful the more "errors" become an integral part of the scoring format.

 

[txmxer]

I would love it if someone could define errorless play in a meaningful way.

 

[foxdawg10]

I would love it if someone could define errorless play in a meaningful way.

I have seen videos of pros make what appear to be two errant throws, and still hit a 35-40 putt for par. It seems to happen fairly often.

To me the definition of errorless play seems to more closely match a birdie rather than par.

 

[DavidSauls]

I would love it if someone could define errorless play in a meaningful way.

I'd just like the phrase stricken from the par definition, altogether.

I don't expect experts to make errors, so the expected score is inherently errorless.

 

[Steve West]

I would love it if someone could define errorless play in a meaningful way.

Everyone who cares is probably here. Let's give it a go.

Maybe we can find a phrase made of words that spell check recognizes.

Golf just says "expert play" which doesn't seem helpful. Also, our errors are more impactful (on the score and on the trees) than golf's. I think that's why removing the throws that resulted in errors was more important to disc golf's definition.

Perhaps a list of all the possible errors that would disqualify a score could be compiled.

I have seen videos of pros make what appear to be two errant throws, and still hit a 35-40 putt for par. It seems to happen fairly often..

It does, for three reasons.

The Pros you watch on video are better than "expert".

There are still some holes where par is set too high. Not many at the videoed events.

From 35-40 feet an expert can often make a putt, but isn't expected to, so that's a little bit of a save. I know, no one will believe this, so look at the UDisc statistics. Most Circle 2 putts are attempted from just a little outside circle 1. The best C2 putter in 2021 made only 36.2%.
https://udisc.com/blog/post/2021-pro-superlatives-best-putters-highest-birdie-rates-more

To me the definition of errorless play seems to more closely match a birdie rather than par.

That would be a problem.

Since par is expected, a true birdie gains a throw against competitors. To gain a throw against their equally rated competitors, a player needs to play better than they are expected to play.


How do we distinguish between the set of throws an expert would make to avoid losing ground against their competitors vs. the set of throws they hope - with some luck - will gain them a throw?

I read "errorless" as not including lucky breaks or unusually good throws. What's a better term for that?

I'd just like the phrase stricken from the par definition, altogether.

I don't expect experts to make errors, so the expected score is inherently errorless.

Have you watched any DGPT disc golf lately?

 

[Ryan P.]

I'd just like the phrase stricken from the par definition, altogether.

I don't expect experts to make errors, so the expected score is inherently errorless.

I'm not sure I understand. Experts do make errors. Experts are not flawless, just the best humanity has to offer. But maybe I'm missing what you're saying.

 

[DavidSauls]

I'm not sure I understand. Experts do make errors. Experts are not flawless, just the best humanity has to offer. But maybe I'm missing what you're saying.

Of course they make errors. But not often enough to expect them, on a given hole.

Par is the expected score on a given hole. When I consider a hole, the expected score is what I would expect, with neither errors, nor extraordinarily good shots.

Over the span of a full round, I expect everyone, even experts, to make errors, and to make some great shots. But that's different from the expectation, on any particular hole.

 

[Ryan P.]

Concerning the word errorless:

I think that we've simply codified the word "errorless" and given it a precise meaning that's close to (but not exactly the same as) it's common meaning. Using a phrase might be more accurate, but that is often more cumbersome and harder to understand for the average person (hence why codification happens).

Without the techno-babble: "errorless" is helpful because the general definition becomes easier to understand on the surface. This is good for most people. For people who want to understand the nuances, they ask questions (like "what does errorless mean"), get answers (see this thread), and then understand the meaning more in-depth.

If an expert plays a hole multiple times, they will often have a variety of scores. Am I right in understanding that the word "errorless" is a way of saying "take the best score for an expert once they've played the hole X amount of times"? I know there's a better/more precise definition of the word, but is that the practical reference for it?

 

[DavidSauls]

If an expert plays a hole multiple times, they will often have a variety of scores. Am I right in understanding that the word "errorless" is a way of saying "take the best score for an expert once they've played the hole X amount of times"? I know there's a better/more precise definition of the word, but is that the practical reference for it?

The best score might involve an extraordinary shot. If that player aces a hole, does that mean every time he played it without an ace, he erred?

I think the most common score would be the expected score, and that any worse score would presume an error along the way. The expected score wouldn't necessarily be errorless; it could involve an error, and an above-average recovery shot.

The problem with errors is that there's a spectrum of them. If I hit a tree 10' off the tee, that's an error. If my drive is 10% shorter than normal, is that an error? It's below-average. It might contribute to a higher score on that hole, but probably won't. Is a shot on a fairway on a higher-par hole, but not in the sweet spot for the next dogleg, an error or not?

That's why I just want to jettison the term, in the par definition.

 

[BuiltTooLong]

I agree it's not a par 4.

No automated system works every time, because all systems have human activity in the input stream, so they need human intervention to deal with it.

Sometimes players don't play a hole as it should be played. That could either be because of the greed of going for 2, or high winds, or the hole just doesn't give the players a fair shot. Or all three, and maybe other reasons.

When that happens, we can't prove by the scores that it should have par less than 4. That's when human judgment kicks in. To set the right par (assuming normal winds and smartened up players), or to fix the hole.

In this case, the fix is pretty obvious. The size of the green is only 44% as big as recommended for the length of the hole. The green should be 50% larger in each direction, or the hole should be shortened to 195 feet.

If they added another layer of those stones to increase the height of the back wall it would deflect some of those tee shots we saw skip off/just make it over and would also encourage more of a run from the DZ. This would pull the average score down to an acceptable level perhaps.

 

[Steve West]

If they added another layer of those stones to increase the height of the back wall it would deflect some of those tee shots we saw skip off/just make it over and would also encourage more of a run from the DZ. This would pull the average score down to an acceptable level perhaps.

There are a lot of obsolete 14-foot satellite dishes out there in rural Kansas. I'm thinking put one of those behind the target so the target is at the focal point of the parabola.

 

[Agricolae]

"Par is the score that an expert disc golfer would be expected to make on a given hole with errorless play under ordinary weather conditions."

So ... under ordinary weather conditions, an expert disc golfer steps up on the tee. You have $1,000 and must place a bet on the score they'll receive after completing the hole. Even odds. If their score is lower, you lose. If higher, you lose. Get it right and you're $1,000 ahead. Place your bet.

My take on "expected" score.

 

[Ryan P.]

That's why I just want to jettison the term in the par definition.

I'm starting to see your point. Would you define par simply as "what an expert would be expected to score on a hole"? If not, how?

I read "errorless" as not including lucky breaks or unusually good throws. What's a better term for that?

What does "errorless/without error" add to the definition? How does it modify the meaning of "expected score" in a helpful way?

 

[Cgkdisc]

My preference would be:

"Par for a player skill level is one stroke higher than the score a player within that skill level would be expected to score with errorless play."

In other words, first determine the legit "birdie score", and determine par from that. This way, there are no par 2s nor even a calculation that would produce them unless the expected score was actually 1 on say a putting course.