2020 Las Vegas Challenge Feb 20-23

[Cgkdisc]

Well, with all the Discraft buzz going on lately, they certainly didn't put on much of a show at this event

Preparing for more buzz this week.

 

[chosenmatrix]

Mark Sanchez says hi.

Lance Brown's trash can would also like to say hello

 

[brutalbrutus]

Who made the vid?

 

[DanJon]

Anyone else notice the camaraderie on the FPO card last day? Notice who wasn't there? Just sayin'

Is this a PP joke?

 

[Flick Maniac]

Ok, that´s not really nice.

But i think the Discgolf media i quite "nice" to the players . . . if a player in Soccer or mosts other sports made a huge mistake like that they would have shown rerun after rerun in different angles

I mean David Beckham missed a penalty decades ago and he will hear that for the rest of his life

To be fair he was 11 meters out still got it at least as high over the goal as Cat did

 

[Steve West]

Having so many players on three different courses creates an opportunity to look directly at how well each hole helped to sort players by skill.

Scoring spread width of total scores is a measure of the amount of information contained in the total scores. A hole which increases the scoring spread width of total scores adds to the amount of information about who played better. Conversely, a hole that decreases the scoring spread width of total scores destroys information about who played better.

The scoring spread width of total scores for the first three rounds was 30.87. This is equivalent to assigning 30.87 different scores to the 97 players with ratings over 970. Or, you can think of it as saying a player is typically in a 3.14-way tie (97 players divided by the equivalent of 30.87 different scores.)

Each hole has an impact on the scoring spread. If the hole's scores increase the spread, the hole is contributing information. The hole that contributed the most information was hole 8 on the Innova Champion Course. Without hole 8, the scoring spread would have been only 28.29 instead of 30.87; so this hole created 2.58 units of information. (Or, it caused players to be in 3.14-way ties instead of 3.42-way ties.)

A hole can also destroy information. Without hole 5 on the Innova Champion Course, the scoring spread would have been bigger at 32.65 instead of 30.87. This hole destroyed 1.77 units of information. (Or, hole 5 caused players to be in 3.14-way ties instead of 2.97-way ties.)

The y-axis on the charts shows the units of information created or destroyed. Up is better.

The x-axis is the correlation to the total scores of other holes. The size of the dots is proportional to the average scores minus 2.

 

[Monkeypaws]

Between Double T, Albert Tamm, and Emerson Keith, Team Lat has a promising future.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Steve, do you have an example of courses with a "better" distribution than the ones shown? In theory, would the "perfect" distribution have every dot on the 0 axis with 100% correlation?

 

[Ryan P.]

"eagle"

On a 294 foot long hole.

Where 83% of 1000-rated players get a 2 or 3.

:wall:

[SARCASM]One throw per landing area, plus two putts. Why wasn't this par 5? He should be on SportsCenter![/SARCASM]

Call it what you will, but my point still stands: Mr. Smart Golf took the risk and got a 2 on a hole where most people try and play safe and get the 3.

 

[Steve West]

Call it what you will, but my point still stands: Mr. Smart Golf took the risk and got a 2 on a hole where most people try and play safe and get the 3.

Yes, your point stands.

You could have made your point better if the par had let you use the word for a score that is ONE less than what most people get.

 

[Steve West]

Steve, do you have an example of courses with a "better" distribution than the ones shown? In theory, would the "perfect" distribution have every dot on the 0 axis with 100% correlation?

That will take some more thought. This comparison is really geared to comparing holes to each other.

Tweaking the holes in the negative and leaving alone the ones in the positive would be the plan for improving the courses' abilities to sort players by skill.

Or, if you're going for drama, tight finishes, and more chance of a playoff - do the opposite to mask the differences in player skills.

 

[Cgkdisc]

That will take some more thought. This comparison is really geared to comparing holes to each other.

Tweaking the holes in the negative and leaving alone the ones in the positive would be the plan for improving the courses' abilities to sort players by skill.

Or, if you're going for drama, tight finishes, and more chance of a playoff - do the opposite to mask the differences in player skills.

It seems to me that the net contribution of all holes is designed to result in zero overall. If you continue to replace the negative contribution holes with holes like the ones that currently have the highest positives, you should get higher correlations but lower contributions per positive hole, with some holes that were positive and not redesigned dropping into the negative contribution, so the cumulative contribution is still zero. If you continue this process of replacing negative contribution holes with higher contribution holes, the average absolute value of the contributions should continue to converge towards zero but with progressively higher correlations.

 

[jdm0514]

Well, with all the Discraft buzz going on lately, they certainly didn't put on much of a show at this event

 

[ToddL]

It seems to me that the net contribution of all holes is designed to result in zero overall. If you continue to replace the negative contribution holes with holes like the ones that currently have the highest positives, you should get higher correlations but lower contributions per positive hole, with some holes that were positive and not redesigned dropping into the negative contribution, so the cumulative contribution is still zero. If you continue this process of replacing negative contribution holes with higher contribution holes, the average absolute value of the contributions should continue to converge towards zero but with progressively higher correlations.

Is the conclusion of this to just skip the tournament altogether and hand out awards based on player rating?
(Steve, don't answer that question.)

 

[Steve West]

It seems to me that the net contribution of all holes is designed to result in zero overall. If you continue to replace the negative contribution holes with holes like the ones that currently have the highest positives, you should get higher correlations but lower contributions per positive hole, with some holes that were positive and not redesigned dropping into the negative contribution, so the cumulative contribution is still zero. If you continue this process of replacing negative contribution holes with higher contribution holes, the average absolute value of the contributions should continue to converge towards zero but with progressively higher correlations.

First, I should make clear these are the contributions of each hole on top of what the other 53 holes have already done. I split them into three graphs just because it was getting crowded.

Scoring Spread Width of Total Scores is a measure of teamwork.

The sum of the individual contributions is a positive number. There is no reason the contributions cannot all be positive and large. In fact, fixing one hole would normally have the synergistic effect of raising the contributions of other holes.

The end game is not more and more correlation. Too much correlation can result in smaller scoring spread of total scores. For example, if all the holes were perfectly correlated a lot of players would be tied with the lowest score. A lot of others would be tied at 54*3=162.

Different holes can play different roles for the sake of the team.

 

[Cgkdisc]

First, I should make clear these are the contributions of each hole on top of what the other 53 holes have already done. I split them into three graphs just because it was getting crowded.

Scoring Spread Width of Total Scores is a measure of teamwork.

The sum of the individual contributions is a positive number. There is no reason the contributions cannot all be positive and large. In fact, fixing one hole would normally have the synergistic effect of raising the contributions of other holes.

The end game is not more and more correlation. Too much correlation can result in smaller scoring spread of total scores. For example, if all the holes were perfectly correlated a lot of players would be tied with the lowest score. A lot of others would be tied at 54*3=162.

Different holes can play different roles for the sake of the team.

Getting back to one of my original questions, can you post or point to a posted course example of the best or better contribution chart than the ones for Vegas or are those charts already on the better end from your experience?

 

[hurricaine]

wait til paul shows up

 

[Steve West]

Getting back to one of my original questions, can you post or point to a posted course example of the best or better contribution chart than the ones for Vegas or are those charts already on the better end from your experience?

I'll put that in the Hole and Course Performance Statistics thread in Disc Golf Courses.

Eventually.

 

[KaBooM]

Actually thought that Cat rebounded very strongly on Day 4 and also made some nice putts. Nice win!!

 

[takman]

This tournament is really tough to watch. The MPO course is so boring. There are maybe 3 interesting holes on it. Maybe.

MPO played 3 courses. You only found 3 of 54 holes interesting?