DG Stats

[txmxer]

Looked at 24 DGPT events from 2022 (plus 2023 Waco) yesterday while sitting around watching sports. Pulled the round stats for the top 10 MPO players from each event off PDGA.com.

The stats include the event name, the average player rating for the top 10 finishers, average under par for the top 10, average round rating for the top 10 for the event. Took the difference between round rating and player rating. The results were surprising to say the least.

Spoiler

Course length for most of the MPO DGPT courses for 2023:

Spoiler

 

[ChrisWoj]

The results were surprising to say the least.

What was the surprise?

 

[txmxer]

What was the surprise?

the results were all so close from all the various events. The average rating for the players was 1027-1030, average under par 19-24, average round rating 1043-1046, average difference between the player ratings and round ratings for the top 10 were all ~16.

I did not expect to find that much consistency in the results.

 

[ChrisWoj]

the results were all so close from all the various events. The average rating for the players was 1027-1030, average under par 19-24, average round rating 1043-1046, average difference between the player ratings and round ratings for the top 10 were all ~16.

I did not expect to find that much consistency in the results.

So I'm not so surprised by the average rating score vs player rating thing being consistent, that makes some sense to me.

But, I think the one thing to note is that the average par isn't as consistent as your graphics would imply, unless you did something that I'm not recognizing to adjust for rounds per event?

For example... your graphic would imply that the players on average went the same number of strokes under par at Ledgestone and GLO, because you have them both at -21. However Ledgestone was a 4 round event and GLO was a 3 round event. So really the top 10 players were more like -7 per round under par at GLO and -5.25 under par at Ledgestone.

 

[txmxer]

So I'm not so surprised by the average rating score vs player rating thing being consistent, that makes some sense to me.

But, I think the one thing to note is that the average par isn't as consistent as your graphics would imply, unless you did something that I'm not recognizing to adjust for rounds per event?

For example... your graphic would imply that the players on average went the same number of strokes under par at Ledgestone and GLO, because you have them both at -21. However Ledgestone was a 4 round event and GLO was a 3 round event. So really the top 10 players were more like -7 per round under par at GLO and -5.25 under par at Ledgestone.

If you look at PDGA.com, each player has their finishing score published (like Klein was -31 at WACO this year). I took the scores for the top 10 finishers and averaged them. And yes, that is representative of the whole event, whether 3, 4 or 5 rounds, it is the players finish score. So, it's not my graphic that's questionable.

 

[ChrisWoj]

If you look at PDGA.com, each player has their finishing score published (like Klein was -31 at WACO this year). I took the scores for the top 10 finishers and averaged them. And yes, that is representative of the whole event, whether 3, 4 or 5 rounds, it is the players finish score. So, it's not my graphic that's questionable.

Sorry, it isn't your graphic that is questionable.

Just the interpretation of it as having "much consistency." This is why people tend to throw around the "lies, ****ed lies, and statistics" quote.

Is there consistency in the final number? Sure. Is it meaningful consistency? Absolutely not, because it is a presentation and interpretation that tells a false narrative. Both the graphic AND the way it is being interpreted as an example of you having found "that much consistency in the results" give people the impression that the courses at GLO and Ledgestone (among others) have similar under-par outcomes when they do not.

 

[txmxer]

Sorry, it isn't your graphic that is questionable.

Just the interpretation of it as having "much consistency." This is why people tend to throw around the "lies, ****ed lies, and statistics" quote.

Is there consistency in the final number? Sure. Is it meaningful consistency? Absolutely not, because it is a presentation and interpretation that tells a false narrative. Both the graphic AND the way it is being interpreted as an example of you having found "that much consistency in the results" give people the impression that the courses at GLO and Ledgestone (among others) have similar under-par outcomes when they do not.

You are wrong. Either your inability to understand the statistics as presented or your stubbornness to try to always be right is doing that thing you do. It presents exactly what I said. The top 10 have amazingly consistent outcomes. Don't pretend I am saying something I'm not.

Obviously each course is unique. EU open for instance, Eagle and Paul were 20 strokes ahead of third.

 

[ChrisWoj]

You are wrong. Either your inability to understand the statistics as presented or your stubbornness to try to always be right is doing that thing you do.

Or your presentation was complete garbage and totally misleading.

I absolutely understood what you presented. That's... pretty much the reason I was able to identify how badly it was presented.

 

[ChrisWoj]

You are wrong. Either your inability to understand the statistics as presented or your stubbornness to try to always be right is doing that thing you do. It presents exactly what I said.

As for me stubbornly trying to "always be right" lets note that this began not with you calling me out on being wrong about something, but me pointing out that what you were presenting and how you interpreted it, in terms of the under par scoring specifically, was misleading. The top 10's under-par scoring was not amazingly consistent, unless you presented the numbers in a way that strip them of context in order to present them as amazingly consistent.

You want stubbornness? Lets focus on the fact that my pointing out that the numbers are not amazingly consistent, and are presented poorly and interpreted poorly, resulted in you deciding to resort to personal attacks.

 

[Steve West]

The loudest arguments happen when both are correct. Here's the bridge:

The amazing part is that the total-under-par is kept consistent by using courses that generate about 5 under when there are four rounds, and courses that generate about 7 under when there are three rounds.

 

[txmxer]

The loudest arguments happen when both are correct. Here's the bridge:

The amazing part is that the total-under-par is kept consistent by using courses that generate about 5 under when there are four rounds, and courses that generate about 7 under when there are three rounds.

This.

I didn't have/present a conclusion. I simply found something that surprised me. I shared it.

Dude couldn't understand it. Maybe it was too simplistic. It wasn't meant to be a statement when I shared it.

But, after considering the implication, it implies (but does not confirm), that the courses that are 4 rounds are more difficult than 3 round courses, as does it imply the courses that are 5 rounds are more difficult than the 4 round courses.

Exactly the OPPOSITE of Chris' interpretation. Lol.

Not that I ever claimed ANY statistical significance.

 

[txmxer]

As for me stubbornly trying to "always be right" lets note that this began not with you calling me out on being wrong about something, but me pointing out that what you were presenting and how you interpreted it, in terms of the under par scoring specifically, was misleading. The top 10's under-par scoring was not amazingly consistent, unless you presented the numbers in a way that strip them of context in order to present them as amazingly consistent.

You want stubbornness? Lets focus on the fact that my pointing out that the numbers are not amazingly consistent, and are presented poorly and interpreted poorly, resulted in you deciding to resort to personal attacks.

No, I didn't attack you, I simply pointed out your behavior. It's consistent.

I don't hold animosity towards you, but I'm not going to bend over when you act this way.

As I said above and previously, I did not draw a conclusion. You did. Then you decided that was my intent. You were wrong. I was just sharing something I stumbled upon. In my reply to Steve, you can read what I think the numbers might mean. But I recognize it is not statistically significant enough to draw that conclusion. Why I just shared it without stating a conclusion. You, OTOH, took your completely unsupported belief and chose to defend that belief as well as "attack" me for no reason. You called me a liar. To me that's utterly stupid since I didn't say what you accused me of saying.

Ultimately, the root of this is my belief that distance is the most significant factor—not the only factor—but the most significant factor in separating players.

If there was a course that was basically 350' -400 per hole, but, other factors were enhanced (such as tightness of lines), we would see a better more entertaining disc golf.

 

[ChrisWoj]

I was just sharing something I stumbled upon. In my reply to Steve, you can read what I think the numbers might mean. But I recognize it is not statistically significant enough to draw that conclusion. Why I just shared it without stating a conclusion. You, OTOH, took your completely unsupported belief and chose to defend that belief as well as "attack" me for no reason. You called me a liar. To me that's utterly stupid since I didn't say what you accused me of saying.

First lets be clear about the sequence of events - I did not start discussing your conclusions until after you provided them in the follow-up post.

Now lets focus on the fact that I did not call you a liar. I was pointing out why people use that quote - in this case the presentation and the interpretation that you went with. People that present misleading information very rarely intend to lie, unless they're trolling or in it for profit (which if you're a troll its way over my head because I've missed it). Usually they believe in the rightness of what they're presenting.

Look at the contemporary use of the quote - it is very often wielded as a cudgel against expertise. People look at the fact that poorly presented information paired with conclusions that rely on that poor presentation exist - and then they use that to attack expertise whenever it is convenient. I was not calling you a liar. I was pointing out how work like yours leads to people feeling supported in using that stupid ****ing quote, hence my stating: "This is why people tend to throw around the '...' quote" At no point did I put into the world that you are a liar. A false narrative can be developed without someone being a liar.

I thought that absolutely all of this should be plain on its face. Apparently not.

And then you chose to respond to that by attacking who I am, claiming despite immediate evidence to the contrary, that I can never be wrong (I had just admitted that I had been wrong and the graphic had not been on its own the problem). Which I saw as you starting the line of personal attacks.

 

[ChrisWoj]

This.

I didn't have/present a conclusion. I simply found something that surprised me. I shared it.

Dude couldn't understand it. Maybe it was too simplistic. It wasn't meant to be a statement when I shared it.

That's why I didn't comment until after you provided a statement, a conclusion.

But, after considering the implication, it implies (but does not confirm), that the courses that are 4 rounds are more difficult than 3 round courses, as does it imply the courses that are 5 rounds are more difficult than the 4 round courses.

Exactly the OPPOSITE of Chris' interpretation. Lol.

Not that I ever claimed ANY statistical significance.

Had this been anywhere NEAR what you said I would have agreed. However you were very specific that regardless of number of rounds your data showed consistency regardless "whether 3, 4 or 5 rounds."

But you know what, if you want to glom onto Steve's completely different interpretation to claim you were right about everything all along - go right ahead. Enjoy being exactly what you've screeched that I am in this thread.