2017 Pittsburgh Flying Disc Open Presented by Discraft

[SD86]

Yes, it was Good pasture who made the call.

I honestly wasn't paying much attention as I was making my break for the bathroom to then set up for a shot from the tee at 11, but if there was a call to be made it wasn't much of one. It seemed like he just wasn't set up behind his mark properly?

(fwiw i never use a marker so i don't really know the exact rule)

I saw the video of the call, and it was proper. His foot was go the right of the disc on the ground, not behind it. And it looked like the second shot was as good or better...

 

[ChrisWoj]

Nothing I've found would be evidence that Geoff should have been expected to perform better than his rating would indicate.

The chance that he would perform as well as he did (assuming his rating was correct and he had no special super-powers specific to this course) was 1 in 447. That's a rare, but not incredible, event. It would be expected to happen to somebody every few big tournaments (given that there are dozens or hundreds of players at the big tournaments).

At home now, with time to look at it - looks like he is just on average +3 rating points relative to average over his three prior goes at the event, and I've no idea what courses or layouts have been played.

But - considering especially that your own Vibram is coming up - my question stands: will past historical play on a layout be considered in the future when looking at these numbers? Maple Hill has been a pretty stable layout, hasn't it?

 

[jeremyhilss]

So I missed the last page or two, but what happened to all the people that confirmed all Chainstars to spit more than a Copenhagen addict?

 

[lyleoross]

I saw the video of the call, and it was proper. His foot was go the right of the disc on the ground, not behind it. And it looked like the second shot was as good or better...

It was exactly the right call, and it helped Barry. It just tickled my funny bone since he also faulted. No ill intent, or he faulted on purpose, just amusing.

 

[lyleoross]

So I missed the last page or two, but what happened to all the people that confirmed all Chainstars to spit more than a Copenhagen addict?

You member that time when your mother caught you with a chaw and you swallowed it? We made the Chainstar bashers swallow a Chainstar. They're trying to keep it down.

 

[brutalbrutus]

I saw some spitouts and at least a couple chain tangles... There was a cut thru late in round3 that got snagged by the back rim.

 

[Steve West]

..will past historical play on a layout be considered in the future when looking at these numbers? ..

Maybe, if it's easy. But, just for fun and entertainment purposes. I doubt anyone could prove that historical play on a layout is a better predictor than rating.


Vibram is another Steve's (Dodge).

 

[jeremyhilss]

You member that time when your mother caught you with a chaw and you swallowed it? We made the Chainstar bashers swallow a Chainstar. They're trying to keep it down.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[ru4por]

So I missed the last page or two, but what happened to all the people that confirmed all Chainstars to spit more than a Copenhagen addict?

Oh boy, another thread drifting to this conversation? There is already a perfectly good thread ruined by rehashing this dead horse here.

https://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3217066#post3217066

 

[BuiltTooLong]

Oh boy, another thread drifting to this conversation? There is already a perfectly good thread ruined by rehashing this dead horse here.

https://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3217066#post3217066

RUINED!! RUINED I TELL YOU!!! Damn kids walked on my grass too and RUINED that as well

 

[ChrisWoj]

Maybe, if it's easy. But, just for fun and entertainment purposes. I doubt anyone could prove that historical play on a layout is a better predictor than rating.


Vibram is another Steve's (Dodge).

Not better, no - a contributor though. Different players have distinctly different skills, leading to small advantages on certain types of courses. I'm not saying that it is a better predictor by any means, merely looking to see if there's a way that it could be incorporated long term to improve the predictions by smaller increments. If the Disc Golf Pro Tour remains on the same courses, and the layouts remain stable - you could improve the predictions by comparing a player historically by how far above or below he plays his rating on the layout year-over-year.

The same could be said for weather conditions, if we track those.

I'm mostly spitballing ways to improve something built primarily on the ratings, not thinking of a way to replace their use.

 

[ChrisWoj]

Maybe, if it's easy. But, just for fun and entertainment purposes. I doubt anyone could prove that historical play on a layout is a better predictor than rating.


Vibram is another Steve's (Dodge).

Also, I apologize for mixing my Steves.

 

[Steve West]

Also, I apologize for mixing my Steves.

Don't, we both consider it a compliment.

 

[jeremyhilss]

Oh boy, another thread drifting to this conversation? There is already a perfectly good thread ruined by rehashing this dead horse here.

https://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3217066#post3217066

Someone's gotta stir the pot, it's DGCR!

 

[Steve West]

Not better, no - a contributor though. Different players have distinctly different skills, leading to small advantages on certain types of courses. I'm not saying that it is a better predictor by any means, merely looking to see if there's a way that it could be incorporated long term to improve the predictions by smaller increments. If the Disc Golf Pro Tour remains on the same courses, and the layouts remain stable - you could improve the predictions by comparing a player historically by how far above or below he plays his rating on the layout year-over-year.

The same could be said for weather conditions, if we track those.

I'm mostly spitballing ways to improve something built primarily on the ratings, not thinking of a way to replace their use.

I'll leave it to the ratings people to try to refine ratings to take into account course type or weather conditions. Meanwhile, I think I'll stick with the general overall skills rating we have now to compute expected scores.

In this case, Geoff did have highly rated rounds the last times he played this event. However, he averaged within 3 ratings points of his then-rating. That indicates he did not have some special advantage on this course; his rating was just a lot higher way back when he last played it. So, the best guess for this year was that he'd play near his rating again.

 

[lyleoross]

Also, I apologize for mixing my Steves.

Don't, we both consider it a compliment.

Now that's I funny. No, I don't mind people thinking I'm the other Steve. I'd hate for them to think I'm me.

 

[Steve West]

I looked into whether the Friday or Sat & Sun pin positions performed better. There weren't enough rounds to do my usual calculations so I used scoring spread and the average departure from expected score (where expected score is the linear fit of hole scores to total score for the round).

A wider scoring spread is better (more different scores to different players).

But, for each player, a better hole should give out fewer different scores, or at least not give out wildly different scores.

On this chart, that means up and right are "better". This shows just the holes that were changed from the Friday layout (F) to the Sat & Sun layout (S).

Holes 6, and 9 were better in both aspects on the Sat & Sun layout. They had both wider scoring spreads among all players, and smaller departures from expected scores.

Hole 14 widened the scoring spread at the cost of more departures from expected. However, the extra departures were less than what would be expected for the extra scoring spread, so it may have been a good move overall.

Holes 4, 5, and 11 were not much changed.

Holes 1, 2, and 18 merely made a trade-off of more scoring spread for a typical degree of more departures. However, note that the two ways for a hole to be bad are to have too little scoring spread or too many departures from expected. Since holes 1 and 18 are out there on the bad edges, we would prefer hole 1 to use the position with the wider scoring spread, and hole 18 to use the position with the smaller departures from expected.

So, hole 18 is the only one where the Friday position performed better. For Holes 1, 6, 9, and 14 the Sat & Sun position worked better, and the rest were a wash.

 

[Jabumbo]

I enjoy looking at those stats, even though I don't fully understand them.

I really enjoyed watching Simon park one on Saturday at 18 to end his round with an eagle.

 

[ChrisWoj]

I'll leave it to the ratings people to try to refine ratings to take into account course type or weather conditions. Meanwhile, I think I'll stick with the general overall skills rating we have now to compute expected scores.

In this case, Geoff did have highly rated rounds the last times he played this event. However, he averaged within 3 ratings points of his then-rating. That indicates he did not have some special advantage on this course; his rating was just a lot higher way back when he last played it. So, the best guess for this year was that he'd play near his rating again.

Eh, Bennett aside - just seemed fun to me.

 

[ChrisWoj]

Just watched the final round. Good lord does that course look fun to play....