The PDGA & Statistics

[Halcón]

True. But I'm curious as to the value of a formula that rates a 2' putt and a 32' putt the same. Or considers someone who always lays up from 35' to be a better putter than someone who occasionally makes putts from 35'.

I think those 2's and 32's would even out. It is meaningful that McBeth shoots 85% from the circle, and I shoot 70%, for example. It's a very tangible stat that all disc golfers can relate to. The nitty gritty stats could come later, but we need to start somewhere.

 

[Steve West]

Let's start even simpler. I know that some TD's use software that captures hole-by-hole-by-player scores. Let the PDGA create a database where these can be uploaded. Make it optional at first.

 

[tracytw]

There's an app for that. It's called frolf data manager. You can put in your discs, their weights, add your courses, and the best part is that it's gps based. You can mark the tee box and pin position. You can mark each of your shots. It calculates the rest. Who gives a damn about average drives? I care about average scores at each course I play. And let's be honest, average drive distance wouldn't tell you squat. This isn't like ball golf where you use the same driver at the tee box. I use many different discs each time I play. Depending on the season, wind conditions, and possibly alternate pin position.

 

[ChrisWoj]

I'll backtrack to say, some statistics for an individual event might be interesting and useful. It would give a clue as to where certain players won, or lost, the event.

But over the course of a season or longer? Take the most universal one: putting percentage. Which I assume to mean, percentage of putts made inside the 10-meter circle. Player A is 90%, player B is 80%.

Is that because player A is a better putter? Or because player A puts more drives or upshots within 5' of the basket, while player B is often barely getting inside the circle. If you putt from 50' and make it, it doesn't affect your percentage; but if you putt from 50' and lay up, making your drop-in, your putting percentage goes up. How can you tell from the statistics that Player A plays a lot of events on courses with easy greens (level, treeless, light wind), while Player B plays a lot of events on courses with tough greens (drop-offs, raised baskets, trees on greens, wind-prone locations)?

And that's the easy stat. Hitting the green off the tee? Some courses, pros do it almost every hole; some, almost never. What does an average over a lot of varied courses tell you?

When combined with putts taken, you get a valid number. The guy with a lower percentage also happens to take fewer putts? You know that he's approaching the green more cleanly. Edit: I just noted the way you asked it nullifies what I said.

My thought is - you can also add a "drop in" circle, clearly mark out 5' from the pin as a drop-in zone, so something taken from that spot isn't a putt. This is something to do once you've begun the initial process.

 

[DavidSauls]

I would find it interesting if it could be broken down by range, like field goals in football. Percentage from 15'-25', 25'-35', or whatever.

Then it would be more meaningful.....though in my opinion, not valuable enough to be worth the effort.

Short of a technology breakthrough. Some sort of RFID-like chips in the minis and targets to measure and report distances, for example.

 

[DavidSauls]

My thought is - you can also add a "drop in" circle, clearly mark out 5' from the pin as a drop-in zone, so something taken from that spot isn't a putt. This is something to do once you've begun the initial process.

If you trusted the judgement of the volunteers recording putts, you might just exclude everything inside 15'. We're talking top pros here and, while they don't make every 12-footer, they miss so few that you can probably disregard those putts entirely.

 

[iacas]

Then it would be more meaningful.....though in my opinion, not valuable enough to be worth the effort.

I disagree. You seem to be stuck on the fringe events that wouldn't happen with great regularity. Collect a lot of data and those types of things smooth out. You're not going to get a guy who is a lousy putter ranking 40 slots higher because he routinely misses from 10.5m but makes everything from 9.5m and in. The more data you have, the more you can combine them to get a better understanding.

Right now we've got nothing. Your posts almost read as if the putting stats would be just as useless as the complete lack of stats we have now.

The PGA Tour has some weird stats. They track GIR, but you can hit a GIR and have a 70 foot putt, or you can miss the green by two inches and have a ten-foot putt, but the first is a GIR and the second is a missed GIR. Over the course of the year, they balance out. Nobody's GIR rankings are out of whack.

Same with putting. Sometimes a player has a lot of easier putts, sometimes they get tougher putts. It evens out over the course of the year, often enough for the results to still be valuable and meaningful.

I think you'd find a similar thing happening in DG.

I also think you could count ALL putts, not just putts in the circle. Golf has a clear "green" to putt from, but because disc golf's putting is so much easier, people "putt" from "off the green" (outside the circle) regularly. But their motions look like putting motions, not throwing motions. So just keep track of all putting motions. Then you'll get the "layups" too.

If you can't tell whether a throw was a "putt" or a "throw" make your best guess and move on. Those kinds of little things will REALLY average themselves out over time.

P.S. Note, I'm not talking about the practicality or impracticality of any of this. You still need 18 trained people per tournament, and they have to be near enough to the basket to see all putts without getting in the way.

 

[grodney]

I kept GIR and putting stats for the 4 rounds I caddied at the USDGC. Even with that small of a sample, the data is compelling (at least to stat-heads). Just keeping track of GIR and putting allowed for more complex stats such as putts-per-GIR, putts-per-hole-when-not-GIR. Three-putts % in both cases. 1-putt % in both cases. Etc.

I tend to agree that the 18 stat-gatherers required per course is troublesome.

Separate from that, I have kept putting stats in the following way for my personal rounds:
- % made under 15 feet
- % made 15-33 feet
- % made over 33 feet

Pretty easy to compile, if you have the manpower. Over time, the number of putts in each of those ranges tends to settle to an average. But if you want, you could even compare putts-per-round in each of those categories. Such as: Climo only makes 13% of his putts over 33 feet, but he only attempts 4 of those per round because he's so good at getting close. Barry makes 22% of his long putts, but he attempts 7 of those per round.