Par Talk

[DavidSauls]

Slight drift, but have you ever broken down hole scores by rating?

That is, looked at a hole's birdies, pars, and bogeys, and calculated the average ratings of the players who produced each? Seems like it might give a little insight into how much those scores resulted from skill, or luck. Or maybe just how well they were tailored to the elite pros.

The average player rating of the median and most-common scores for a hole, might say a little about which "experts" it was geared to.

Just musing.

 

[txmxer]

FWIW, I thought #4496 was one of the more clear descriptions of what we should be looking for in a dg hole design.

 

[chevis]

FWIW, I thought #4496 was one of the more clear descriptions of what we should be looking for in a dg hole design.

linked it up fy

 

[Rastnav]

It's too late at night to process all of this, but what makes you think anyone is changing the definition of par? Do you have another older actual official definition you found somewhere?

Or could it be that we are just getting everyone to learn and apply THE definition, instead of all the various rules-of-thumb that are floating around?

When it comes to language, and definitions, I believe that those who assemble dictionaries follow a descriptivist model. Regardless of what we might try to prescribe as meaning for words, in actual usage their meanings may differ substantially.

And we can look around us and see that, regardless of what the PDGA may prescribe as the meaning of par, this isn't how par is used. And we can see specifically in the statements you made to me earlier in this thread:

I am focused on getting par to where it should be for top competition. From there, the effects should trickle down to make par somewhat better at all levels

You already have acknowledged that par as used doesn't conform to the prescribed definition. For another instance, we can look at your comments on this DGPT blog post.

And we can simply look out at the vast array of disc golf courses, holes and tournaments and observe that we do not see par 2s, no matter who is playing on the hole or how easy it is for them. As I have already pointed out, this applies the most to the vast mass of lower level tournaments where, for example, the MPO and FPO tiers are playing on less than gold level tees, alongside many other tiers.

Par, as used, doesn't mean what you want it to.

 

[Steve West]

Slight drift, but have you ever broken down hole scores by rating?

That is, looked at a hole's birdies, pars, and bogeys, and calculated the average ratings of the players who produced each? Seems like it might give a little insight into how much those scores resulted from skill, or luck. Or maybe just how well they were tailored to the elite pros.

The average player rating of the median and most-common scores for a hole, might say a little about which "experts" it was geared to.

Just musing.

I don't think there is much to this. The average ratings have more to do with who is in the pool than who the course was designed for.

I calculated it anyway for 2021 MVP Open, because Steve Dodge knows how to do par and surely targeted the experts.

It came out to 1010.25 for birdies, 1002.05 for pars, and 992.44 for bogeys.

Another way to look at it was that each 18 point increase in rating added 1 more birdie per 18 holes, while each 16 point decrease in rating added 1 more bogey.

 

[DavidSauls]

Thanks. Very interesting. I was thinking in terms of hole-by-hole, seeing of some holes had a greater spread in the ratings, than others. After which, I'd ponder what it meant.

 

[Rastnav]

Thanks. Very interesting. I was thinking in terms of hole-by-hole, seeing of some holes had a greater spread in the ratings, than others. After which, I'd ponder what it meant.

Generally, I would think that holes which yielded a higher percentage of birdies will have a more compressed ratings spread. The "easier" the hole is, the lower the skill range is that can get it. It's nearly tautological. This would be especially true for par-3s, as aces are always very rare. In general, easier par 4s and 5s start to give up eagles, thus mitigating that compression. Compression of rating points to strokes on courses that are less challenging, especially par-54 courses, is something that's known and talked about in the official PDGA page on the rating system.

Same thing the other way. Fewer birdies and more bogeys should result in a higher spread.

Once the pendulum swings too far, especially if scores start to be very clumped at one particular score, whatever that score is, my guess would be you may see a trend towards non-correlation of rating to scores other than that score. This would simply be because anyone in a field can throw in from long range, or make a very large mistake, and that's what may be required to break out of the clump on some holes.

 

[DavidSauls]

It's a good point.

I was thinking a bit more simplistically -- mainly, that if for a given hole, different scores come from players with the same average rating, it may have too much reliance on random luck over skill. I hadn't really thought about how the score distribution would factor into that.

It may be that within the largely-expert field of a DGPT event, it won't be enough to matter, anyway.

 

[Rastnav]

It's a good point.

I was thinking a bit more simplistically -- mainly, that if for a given hole, different scores come from players with the same average rating, it may have too much reliance on random luck over skill. I hadn't really thought about how the score distribution would factor into that.

It may be that within the largely-expert field of a DGPT event, it won't be enough to matter, anyway.

I agree that there are potentially holes like that. Jones Supreme #1 comes to mind as one where this might be true. I seem to recall that Steve has previously done something where he calculated how correlated a score on a particular hole was with the players final score. That might be the kind of analysis you are looking for.

OTOH, this may not necessarily mean the the hole is bad, per se. Goat Hill #14 from this past weekend comes to mind. It's uphill, and 508 feet, seemingly only generating 3s. It's named as a par 4, although I'm guessing that Steve would have it as par 3.

It's bad from the standpoint that it doesn't generate much scoring separation. But I could see it being the kind of hole where someone could potentially achieve scoring separation that would be very hard for someone else to match. Down by 3 on Sunday, Gibson clearly tried to get aggressive on his drive, but turned it too much to let it get its full flight, as it dove into the hill. That's not necessarily a bad hole to have on a course.

 

[Steve West]

Thanks. Very interesting. I was thinking in terms of hole-by-hole, seeing of some holes had a greater spread in the ratings, than others. After which, I'd ponder what it meant.

-1 0 1
1 1025 1003 991
2 1013 1000 994
3 1016 1002 992
4 1004 1002 994
5 1006 1000 993
6 1014 1004 996
7 1012 1004 995
8 1012 1000 992
9 1009 1000 993
10 1025 1003 989
11 1012 1003 986
12 1013 1001 985
13 1008 1003 990
14 1012 1002 993
15 1004 1003 992
16 1010 1001 998
17 1012 1002 986
18 1014 1003 994

 

[txmxer]

-1 0 1
1 1025 1003 991
2 1013 1000 994
3 1016 1002 992
4 1004 1002 994
5 1006 1000 993
6 1014 1004 996
7 1012 1004 995
8 1012 1000 992
9 1009 1000 993
10 1025 1003 989
11 1012 1003 986
12 1013 1001 985
13 1008 1003 990
14 1012 1002 993
15 1004 1003 992
16 1010 1001 998
17 1012 1002 986
18 1014 1003 994

are those based on player ratings or event/round ratings?

And to answer David's question, seems you would look at the standard deviation of those round ratings and scores. A higher standard deviation might imply a hole has a higher luck factor.

 

[Steve West]

are those based on player ratings or event/round ratings?

And to answer David's question, seems you would look at the standard deviation of those round ratings and scores. A higher standard deviation might imply a hole has a higher luck factor.

Player rating.

And lower variance would be higher luck.

 

[Steve West]

The 1050 foot Hole 12 at Northwood Black has always generated scores that are more typical for a par 6, though it seems short enough to be a par 5.

One theory was that players were playing for birdie 4 and sabotaging their chances to get a 5. If only the players would learn to throw four accurate 265 foot throws - instead of going big - they could get a 5.

I had hoped the Masters at Worlds would show such wisdom, yet they did no better. (Or perhaps they did play smart, but their lack of forehands prevented them from getting 5s.)

Anyway, if the experts haven't figured out a way to expect a score of 5 by now, I'm saying this hole should be changed to par 6.

 

[biscoe]

I think the drive on that hole is simply too random to regularly reward either smart or aggressive play.

 

[txmxer]

On holes where PAR has changed without significant change to the hole design, have you noticed a change in raw scores?

Wondering if PAR has a discernible effect on player mentality ?

 

[Steve West]

On holes where PAR has changed without significant change to the hole design, have you noticed a change in raw scores?

Wondering if PAR has a discernible effect on player mentality ?

I doubt it would be significant (not enough data, and only a slice of the players might be at the skill level where they might try for a different score), but I'll look into it.

 

[txmxer]

I doubt it would be significant (not enough data, and only a slice of the players might be at the skill level where they might try for a different score), but I'll look into it.

Thanks. I kind of figure the data would be limited. I believe there is one in Waco that fits the mold, but not sure about many others.

 

[Steve West]

Thanks. I kind of figure the data would be limited. I believe there is one in Waco that fits the mold, but not sure about many others.

This was A LOT of work, just figuring out whether two courses with slightly different names are actually the same. I left all those details out.

http://www.stevewestdiscgolf.com/DoesChangingParAffectScores.pdf

 

[txmxer]

This was A LOT of work, just figuring out whether two courses with slightly different names are actually the same. I left all those details out.

http://www.stevewestdiscgolf.com/DoesChangingParAffectScores.pdf

Nicely done. The question obviously peaked your interest.

If I followed your analysis correctly, it would be fair to say that changing PAR does not have significant impact on how pro level players perform on the hole.

 

[Steve West]

Nicely done. The question obviously peaked your interest.

If I followed your analysis correctly, it would be fair to say that changing PAR does not have significant impact on how pro level players perform on the hole.

Hey! Spoiler!