Par Talk

[sidewinder22]

SSA = 63

 

[WilliamHill]

These questions don't stopping to appear.

 

[PMantle]

These questions don't stopping to appear.

All your base are belong to us.

 

[Steve West]

DGPT - Idlewild Open driven by Innova Discs & The Nati Idlewild DGPT FPO; 18 holes; Par 67

 

[Steve West]

FPO at Idlewild is a good case for those who say "fix the holes, not the pars". Even if we did "fix" the pars (increase par in holes #5 and #18 to get to a total of 69) none of the players would have had an even par or under round. That's too many bogeys to be any fun, even if the pars were correct.

So, how should the holes be changed? I decided to see how to change the holes so that the number of scores above par would be the same as the number of scores below par for the prototypical 930-rated FPO expert.

By looking at how the scoring distribution changes with rating of the player, we can get a good idea of how the scoring distribution would change if the hole was made easier. The scoring distribution of a hole played by a higher-rated player should be similar to the scoring distribution if the hole was made easier.

Once we find the scoring distribution we want, we can look at the resulting average score. If this is lower than the current average score for 930-rated players, we can calculate the number of feet shorter a hole needs to be made. On this course, 930-rated players averaged 1.95 non-distance based throws per hole, which leaves an average of 211 feet per distance-related throw.

For example, look at the par 4 hole #13. Here is the scoring distribution for 930-rated players:
3 23%
4 43%
5 22%
6 8%
7 5%
Which averages 4.29.

And here is the scoring distribution for a 940.5 rating:
3 28%
4 44%
5 18%
6 4%
7 6%
Which averages 4.16.

This translates into a (4.16 – 4.29) * 211 = 27 foot shorter hole to balance the number of 3s with the number of 5s, 6s, plus 7s.

The indicated change in length for all holes is:

1 =  +10      10 = -124
2 = -179      11 =  +98
3 =  -89      12 = -158
4 =  -64      13 =  -27
5 =  +31      14 = -113
6 =  -78      15 = -166
7 = -185      16 = -250
8 =  -72      17 =  -37
9 =  -52      18 =  -72

This would balance the number of 930-rated scores above par with the number below by making the course 7.23 throws easier and 1,527 feet shorter, and by raising par to 69 (#5 to par 4 and #18 to par 5).

However, this course has a lot of OB penalties: 3.55 per round for the FPO field. That's about half of the total indicated softening.

So, what I would do first is eliminate all the OB penalties by turning all the OB into 806.04 Relief Areas.

If we subtract the OB penalties, (using the OB penalties for the field as an approximation of the OB penalties for a 930-rated player), and re-do the calculations, the resulting changes in length to create the same number of scores above and below par for 930-rated players would be:

1 =  +22      10 = -124
2 = -146      11 =  +98
3 =  -31      12 = -155
4 =  -15      13 =  +52
5 =  +98      14 =  -67
6 =  -75      15 = -166
7 = -123      16 =   +4
8 =  -72      17 =  +43
9 =  -52      18 =  -69

This would still make the course 7.23 throws easier, but 3.55 of that would come from reducing OB penalties, and 3.68 from shortening it by 778 feet.

Yes, the OB penalties would likely have more impact on reducing the scores that were above par, but I can't measure how much without hole-by-hole-by-player OB data. And that's too much work to do for fun.

I wouldn't rush out and move all the FPO tee pads this much. There's no rule that says scores above and below par need to be exactly equal, and I like to have a variety of hole difficulties. But these figures do indicate which holes might be the least fun or too easy. It also gives a target length for choosing among the existing tee pads. Or, for guidance in where to look for interesting alternate target locations.

 

[Steve West]

DGPT - Idlewild Open driven by Innova Discs & The Nati Idlewild DGPT MPO; 18 holes; Par 68

I'd like to see par lower on holes #1, #8 and #13. But the par 5 on #16 is legit and there are no par 2s. Par of 65 would have been rated 1016 (vs. 997 for par 68) and par of 65 would have been 24th place (vs. 50th for par 68).

 

[Steve West]

Innova Baltic Tour - Alutaguse Open 2019 Mäetaguse Disc Golf Park Mäetaguse 2019; 18 holes; Par 64; 2,741 m

Someday, players in the MPO division may rise up and demand their own set of pars, no longer being forced to use pars that are appropriate for FPO. All it would take is for the TD to lower MPO par on holes 2, 3, 5, 11, 13, 15, 16, and 18.

 

[biscoe]

On this course, 930-rated players averaged 1.95 non-distance based throws per hole, which leaves an average of 211 feet per distance-related throw.

How are you arriving at these 2 numbers?

 

[Steve West]

How are you arriving at these 2 numbers?

Linear fit of hole scores to hole lengths.

 

[Steve West]

2019 Am Worlds courses, Advanced/Blue Pars

It would seem unlikely that a 712 foot hole should be par 3 for Advanced, but the numbers check out.

On the other hand, calling a 335 foot hole a par 4 is placing way too much faith in trees, I think.

 

[Steve West]

All the 2019 Am Worlds pars for which there was data.

             1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
BW  Par  54  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3
950 Par  53  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  2  3  3  3
930 Par  55  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  4  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3
900 Par  55  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  4  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3
850 Par  58  3  3  3  3  4  3  3  4  3  3  4  3  3  3  3  4  3  3
800 Par  64  3  4  4  3  4  3  3  4  4  4  4  3  4  4  3  4  3  3

CT  Par  56  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  4  3  4
850 Par  59  3  3  3  3  3  4  4  3  3  4  3  3  3  3  3  4  3  4
800 Par  60  3  3  3  3  3  4  4  3  3  4  3  3  3  3  3  4  3  5

CH  Par  60  3  4  3  4  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  5  4  3  3  4  3
950 Par  59  3  4  3  4  3  3  2  3  3  3  3  3  4  4  3  3  4  4
930 Par  59  3  4  3  4  3  3  2  3  3  3  3  3  4  4  3  3  4  4
900 Par  61  3  4  3  4  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  5  4  3  3  4  4
850 Par  65  3  4  3  5  3  3  3  3  4  4  3  3  5  4  3  4  4  4
800 Par  72  4  4  3  5  4  4  3  4  4  4  4  3  6  4  4  4  4  4

SR  Par  58  3  3  3  3  3  4  4  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  4  4  3
930 Par  58  3  3  3  3  3  4  4  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  4  4  3
900 Par  58  3  3  3  3  3  4  4  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  4  4  3
850 Par  59  3  3  3  3  3  5  4  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  4  4  3
800 Par  63  3  3  4  3  3  5  4  3  3  3  4  4  3  3  3  4  5  3

CSB  Par 63  4  3  4  3  4  3  4  3  4  3  3  4  3  4  4  3  3  4
950 Par  62  4  3  4  3  4  3  3  3  4  3  3  4  3  4  4  3  3  4
930 Par  62  4  3  4  3  4  3  3  3  4  3  3  4  3  4  4  3  3  4
900 Par  63  4  3  4  3  4  3  4  3  4  3  3  4  3  4  4  3  3  4
850 Par  69  4  3  4  3  5  3  4  3  4  4  3  5  4  5  5  3  3  4
800 Par  73  4  3  4  3  5  3  4  3  5  4  4  5  4  5  5  3  4  5

CSR Par  62  3  4  4  3  3  4  3  3  4  5  4  3  3  3  3  3  3  4
950 Par  60  3  4  4  3  3  4  3  3  3  5  4  3  3  3  3  2  3  4
930 Par  62  3  4  4  3  3  4  3  3  4  5  4  3  3  3  3  3  3  4
900 Par  64  3  4  4  3  3  4  4  3  4  6  4  3  3  3  3  3  3  4
850 Par  65  3  4  4  3  3  5  4  3  4  6  4  3  3  3  3  3  3  4
800 Par  70  4  5  4  3  3  5  4  3  4  7  4  3  4  3  3  3  3  5

HH  Par  69  4  4  3  4  4  3  5  4  5  4  3  3  4  4  3  4  3  5
950 Par  68  4  4  3  4  4  3  5  4  5  4  3  3  4  3  3  4  3  5
930 Par  70  4  4  3  4  4  3  5  4  5  4  3  3  4  4  3  5  3  5
900 Par  71  4  4  3  4  4  3  5  4  5  4  3  3  4  4  3  5  4  5

KR  Par  60  3  3  3  4  3  4  3  3  3  3  3  4  3  4  3  4  3  4
950 Par  59  3  3  3  4  3  4  3  3  3  3  3  4  3  3  3  4  3  4
930 Par  60  3  3  3  4  3  4  3  3  3  3  3  4  3  4  3  4  3  4
900 Par  61  3  3  3  4  3  5  3  3  3  3  3  4  3  4  3  4  3  4
850 Par  62  3  3  3  4  3  5  3  3  4  3  3  4  3  4  3  4  3  4
800 Par  68  3  3  3  5  3  5  3  4  4  3  4  4  3  5  3  5  3  5

MR  Par  67  4  4  4  4  3  3  3  4  3  4  4  3  3  5  4  4  4  4
950 Par  64  4  3  4  4  3  3  3  4  3  4  4  3  3  4  3  4  4  4
930 Par  66  4  4  4  4  3  3  3  4  3  4  4  3  3  4  4  4  4  4
900 Par  67  4  4  4  4  3  3  3  4  3  4  4  3  3  5  4  4  4  4
850 Par  67  4  4  4  4  3  3  3  4  3  4  4  3  3  5  4  4  4  4

QC-L Par 69  3  4  5  4  3  5  5  4  3  4  4  4  3  4  3  5  3  3
950 Par  66  3  3  5  4  3  4  4  4  3  4  4  4  3  4  3  5  3  3
930 Par  68  3  4  5  4  3  5  4  4  3  4  4  4  3  4  3  5  3  3
900 Par  72  3  4  6  5  3  5  5  4  3  4  4  4  3  4  4  5  3  3
850 Par  82  4  4  6  5  4  5  5  5  4  5  5  4  4  5  4  5  4  4

 

[Steve West]

Mid America Open sponsored by Discraft/Harmony Bends Disc Golf at Strawn Park


It would be difficult to criticize these pars.

But, I'll give it a shot. Hole #8 would be the easiest hole to par at par 3, and the hardest at par 2. But, there are so many 2s.

Hole #9 is one of the easiest at par 5, and would be the hardest at par 4 (not counting #8 if it was par 2).

They are both near the edge of their given par. Perhaps a tie-breaker is needed. Looking at the round ratings, course par came in at 1004, implying less than one net extra throw as a result of errors. Par of 66 would imply three net extra throws because of errors. Having played the course, three sounds more likely.

Perhaps #8 could be made longer and par on #9 set lower (maybe mixed with some softening).

But, there are at least three legit par 5s. You don't see that every day.

For FPO, these are pure extrapolation as there weren't any 930-rated players. I'm not even sure the hole lengths are correct, as PDGA doesn't agree with UDisc.

 

[Steve West]

IOS #97 Sinnissippi Open - MPO/MA2/MA4/FA2/FA4/Sinnissippi Park

Nice job resisting the temptation to call everything over 400 feet a par 4.

Now, what to do about those holes that don't measure up to be par 3s?

(Mike, since your goal seemed to be to make the format as complicated as possible, next time you could split the pools so half play a different course in the same round.)

 

[Steve West]

2019 PDGA Professional Disc Golf World Championships

Very good job of setting pars.

I doubt many will be surprised that Hole #12 at Northwood Gold calculated out as a par 6.

 

[Steve West]

I have philosophical questions for everyone. I'm venturing into par for other skill levels.

First, some background. My method of setting par is based on the idea that for even the toughest-to-par holes a certain percentage of throws are good enough to help to generate a par score. Looking at it another way, if each throw has a high enough chance to be a contributor to a certain score, then that score should be par.

I've set "high enough" at 76.7%. Call that the cutoff percentage. This means that for 1000-rated players, each throw has no more than a 23.3% chance of being an error which would result in a bogey - net of unexpectedly good recovery throws.

There are a number of reasons why cutoff percentages around this range work. The final reason for 76.7% was that for my database of scores from 1000s of holes, this number resulted in the same number of scores over par as under par. Not on each hole, but the holes with more scores over par were balanced by holes with more scores under par.

That seemed like a nice result, and the number was right around where I thought it should be for other reasons. So, I'm happy with it for 1000-rated players.

Now, I'm wondering if the cutoff percentage should be different for other skill levels. Let's use 900-rated players as test case.

Should 900-rated players also have pars for which scoring over par is as likely as under par?

Should 900-rated players expect more scores over par because they are not as good at avoiding errors?

Does "errorless" for a 900-rated player have a different implication, so they could expect no more than a maximum of 16.6% of throws will result in an unrecoverable error (compared to the 23.3% net errors for 1000-rated)? Or, are 900-rated players more likely to be able to make unexpectedly good recovery throws, (because of lower expectations), so that reduces the percent of throws that will result in unrecoverable errors?

A typical average round for a 1000-rated player would be about a throw over par. Using the same cutoff as 1000-rated, a typical average round for 900-rated player would be about four throws over par. Should the relationship between par and average be the same for 900-rated players as 1000-rated players, or different?

Since it doesn't really matter, should we set the cutoff so that 900-rated players can expect just as many under- as over-par scores, just to be nice?

Is it worth having a different set of parameters to set par for different skill levels?

 

[Improbably]

Should 900-rated players expect more scores over par because they are not as good at avoiding errors?

YES!

 

[DavidSauls]

Probably.

Anecdotally speaking, from down here in the mid-800s, about 70% of my throws are unrecoverable errors. Though I recover from about 10% of those, anyway.

One problem with expected scores for lower-rated players is that a lot more than errors are involved. There is a huge difference in distances---driving distances and putting distances. Usually with an inverse relationship---young new players with live arms but no putting touch; old guys with noddle arms but steady putting.

But also an awful lot of flat-out errors. When I shoot a hundred points over my rating, it's a few good shots and a surprisingly small number of errors; my next round is a hideous string of errors, of the sort 1000-rated players can't even imagine.

I'm no fan of trying to quantify errors, since they come in many degrees. But yes, if you must, it's going to be a much bigger number at 900 than at 1000.

 

[SD86]

Since it doesn't really matter, should we set the cutoff so that 900-rated players can expect just as many under- as over-par scores, just to be nice?

Is it worth having a different set of parameters to set par for different skill levels?

A good number of years ago (pre-Internet), this same question was asked in golf ball golf. Some golf courses tried having higher pars (par 6, 7, even a couple of par 8s) for amateur players. It was not received particularly well and didn't catch on.

So is it 'worth it' to do that? IMHO, probably not. Also: we have different lengths due to tee boxes being at different distances from the basket, and that seems to be what people want.

 

[Steve West]

In the meantime, 2019 Delaware Disc Golf Challenge - National Tour.

Overall, great job.

I would call hole #17 for FPO a par 6.

Hole #8 MPO is actually surprisingly par 5ish for a 670 foot hole, but I'd say it didn't quite overcome its shortness to attain par 5 status.

 

[PMantle]

I

Is it worth having a different set of parameters to set par for different skill levels?

No. Par is already set.