Seems like disc golf has done an awful lot of growing before Udisc and such came along and the only stats that were tracked was the strokes on the scorecard. :\ Only disc golf nerds (which is the vast majority of disc golf viewers already) are ever going to care about random circle stats.
I agree with what I think is your sentiment (and Biscoe's) that we haven't perfected our stats yet, and I think we're a little awkward with it right now (I think both stats systems are a little overthought personally).
However, I disagree that disc golf nerds are the only people that will find stats useful. I also don't abide by the mentality "well it's the way we've always done it (scores only), so we should keep doing it that way." If there is an opportunity to improve something, why not improve it? You can still ignore the stats all you like, it takes nothing away from you, but most people enjoy stats and are happy to have them.
You would know better than I but it strikes me that the "niche" appeal of both gymnastics and x-games competitions is light years beyond any level the DGPT or DGWT can objectively seek at this point.
In golf there are only a couple of stats anyone cares about and those are cared about primarily by golf nerds- greens in regulation, driving distance, etc. - the vast majority of folks (like me) who tune in a few times a year (generally to the majors) could not care less about them, they just want to see drama unfold.
Your point about X-games and gymnastics is well met. I think their popularity is similar in the sense that it isn't a "tour" but culminates around a big event (I feel like now that the X-games does that tour model it's less in the mainstream consciousness, compared to when it was a big event every July or so). So it may not be the best example, many lurking variables.
I will say to your point about stats only appealing to nerds is - remember from your perspective as a well-informed, experienced player - you understand the game. You can inherently look at a disc even in the air and start to think "oh that's bad" or "ACE RUN ACE RUN!"
New viewers can't see that until they gain that experience. So my goal with the analytical side of stats tracking is to translate that in the moment, so they can shortcut the learning curve to feel those same emotions as the experienced viewers. Maybe someone doesn't understand that Wysocki is far above the norm in putting from 50-70', and if they only see a few rounds a year where he's constantly doing that, they get the wrong impression...and they think everyone else sucks and Ricky is just doing an everyman's job on the course.
I believe cluing those people in to that emotional ebb and flow, the big moments, the letdowns, etc. can be significantly improved by strategic use of statistics in productions both live and edited.
...but yeah, the stats nerds will always love the numbers MORE. Baseball has proven that handily!
