-
Discover new ways to elevate your game with the updated DGCourseReview app!
It's entirely free and enhanced with features shaped by user feedback to ensure your best experience on the course. (App Store or Google Play)
DGPT - Jonesboro Open
- Thread starter LetsPlayGolf
- Start date
brutalbrutus
* Ace Member *
With the way Eagle has been carving up courses like this with the FH and BH, as long as he keeps it out of the ponds and isn't wild with his putting, I have a hard time believing he wont win this. Its always possible someone else goes nuts but...
Define strongest.
Vegas:
MPO 156 total, 64 players at 1000+ rating, 12 at 1030+
FPO 31 total, 13 players at 930+
Memorial:
MPO 183 total, 70 players at 1000+ rating, 10 at 1030+
FPO 32 total, 14 players at 930+
WACO:
MPO 120 total, 56 players at 1000+ rating, 11 at 1030+
FPO 24 total, 9 players at 930+
Jonesboro:
MPO 124 total, 52 players at 1000+ rating, 13 at 1030+
FPO 30 total, 13 players at 930+
It would seem that unless you're basing the judgement of "strongest" on a specific player or two making their first appearance of the year on "tour", Jonesboro doesn't really stand out against the rest of the elite events this year as far as depth/strength of field goes. It is definitely a strong field, but at the same time, most of the top players have been at all of these events.
lyleoross
* Ace Member *
DGPT.tv
You guys are harsh. Some positives. First, the discgolf basket wifi logo isn't bad. Second, the layout isn't any worse than YT, in fact, it's cleaner. Third, you get to see the strengths of the videographer's Steve hired. No, they don't understand discgolf, but they understand action shots and emotion. The two minute waco review is really good. And no, no one cares, but as part of a marketing package, it's damned good.
My parents were old school. Something that seems quite dead now. They believed you should be honest about strengths and weaknesses. The notion that you'd view anything in black and white was a laugh to them. The whole DGPT has become way too black and white.
You guys are harsh. Some positives. First, the discgolf basket wifi logo isn't bad. Second, the layout isn't any worse than YT, in fact, it's cleaner. Third, you get to see the strengths of the videographer's Steve hired. No, they don't understand discgolf, but they understand action shots and emotion. The two minute waco review is really good. And no, no one cares, but as part of a marketing package, it's damned good.
My parents were old school. Something that seems quite dead now. They believed you should be honest about strengths and weaknesses. The notion that you'd view anything in black and white was a laugh to them. The whole DGPT has become way too black and white.
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2009
- Messages
- 6,854
OK.
I'll define it like this: If the two fields went head-to-head, which field would win? (Win is have the lowest score from either field.)
This takes into account the size and depth of the field, as well as the skills of the top players.
I simulated a 4-round tournament on a course with SSA=63, just based on player ratings. After a couple of thousand tournaments, the stronger field is the one that wins more often.
Here are the results:
MPO
Jonesboro 63.2% vs. Memorial 36.8%
Jonesboro 61.3% vs. Vegas 38.7%
Jonesboro 58.4% vs. WACO 41.6%
WACO 51.4% vs. Vegas 48.6%
WACO 51.1% vs. Memorial 48.9%
Vegas 51.2% vs. Memorial 48.8%
So, for MPO
Jonesboro>WACO>Vegas>Memorial
FPO
Jonesboro 59.2% vs. WACO 40.8%
Jonesboro 54.8% vs. Vegas 45.2%
Jonesboro 53.6% vs. Memorial 46.4%
Memorial 53.2% vs. WACO 46.8%
Memorial 52.5% vs. Vegas 47.5%
Vegas 52.7% vs. WACO 47.3%
So, for FPO
Jonesboro>Memorial>Vegas>WACO
So, yes, this is the strongest field.
lyleoross
* Ace Member *
You're not just a nerd, you're a nerd sandwich... which isn't the same thing as a hot dog, which isn't a sandwich.
How much does having sub-900 rated MPO players in the field impact this kind of simulation? Sub-800 (call it the Weema effect)?
Considering how much redundancy there is between the "rosters" of each event, if we're taking the entirety of the field into account, it would seem that the difference maker would be the quality of the players unique to each event. In that case, wouldn't the larger fields be more adversely affected by the extra players, most of whom are of what I'd call the donor class (people who would be pulling off the weekend of their life just to finish in the cash/top 50%). That Vegas and Memorial, which have about 30-50% more players than the other two, rank at the bottom in your sims suggests that's a likely theory.
To me, gauging the strength of the field should focus on the contenders for a) the cash line and b) podium spots. With 50+ 1000 rated players in each tournament, the odds of someone under 950 (arguably 970 or so) making the cash line is extremely low. I don't know if I'd count them out entirely in an exercise like this, but certainly they should be discounted to some degree.
Flick Maniac
* Ace Member *
There you go.
Or... Dont know if it translates but in Finland theres a saying 'lie, blatant lie, statistic'
Or... Dont know if it translates but in Finland theres a saying 'lie, blatant lie, statistic'
There you go.
Or... Dont know if it translates but in Finland theres a saying 'lie, blatant lie, statistic'
There's an English version of that expression: "lies, damned lies, and statistics".
lyleoross
* Ace Member *
There you go.
Or... Dont know if it translates but in Finland theres a saying 'lie, blatant lie, statistic'
I love Mark Twain, but he was also a dip who was bad with his money.
Folks who think statistics are bad or lies, don't understand statistics. They are a reflection of the whole of reality (of a number area) and have been rigorously tested over hundreds of years. They only get it wrong with humans mess with them (typically by selecting the data being analyzed poorly, either accidentally or on purpose). So the saying should be lies, damned lies, and the humans that tell them.
I promise you, no corporation does business without looking at the data and using statistics to see if the deal works. Most of the folks who don't like statistics don't, because the numbers aren't telling them what they want to hear.
Take the Trump Clinton campaign. Neutral statistics, not biased by one side or the other, suggested that Trump would win. The biased numbers the DNC got and that were used by the MSM, were biased based on selection criteria. They fudged their own numbers by ascertainment bias. That is, it wasn't on purpose, they simply drank the koolaid.
Many folks do this.
In Steve's case, there's no ascertainment bias. He simply looked at all the data, not a subset that fit his desires, and did a full on statistical analysis. See, good statistics.
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
The stats are good but perhaps didn't answer the question depending on what people were looking for.
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2009
- Messages
- 6,854
I view strength of field as answering the question: How hard will it be to win?
In this simulation, the only players who impact the results are those who have a chance to beat all the players in the other field. The smaller their chance, the less impact they have. It would take a lot of lower-rated players to make much of a difference compared to the presence of any of the highest rated players.
For example: a field of one Paul McBeth is an even match for a field of 100 A.J. Risleys. (Yes, I did the math.)
Also, no matter how many lower-rated players are tacked on to the bottom, it doesn't hurt the field at all. Instead, they would have an immeasurably small positive impact on the strength of the field. This isn't an average.
Exactly. It's not the stats or the conclusions based on those stats that are "wrong" necessarily, it's whether they're actually answering the question being asked. Steve asked his own question. Or perhaps more accurately, he defined to criteria of the question before answering it.
It'd be like asking who the best pitcher in baseball is. You might define best by lowest ERA and make your case for the guy with the lowest ERA, but if I think WHIP or K/BB or win percentage is the better measure, I'm might have a different answer. Doesn't make either of us wrong.
lyleoross
* Ace Member *
I admit, I went as simply as I could. But yes, folks do have a knack for asking the wrong question.
texasissouth
Double Eagle Member
I don't remember too many polls which had Trump winning. Everyone knows results don't retroactively effect statistics. Just because something is statistically improbably does not mean the model is flawed when that statistical improbability happens. Like rolling a 2% crit in Fire Emblem when you've calculated out the damage and you think your character will live and then you have to restart the whole chapter. Or Dewey Defeats Truman
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
538 is a very well regarded statistical site. Here was the detailed breakdown of how they assimilated their data.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...ethirtyeights-2016-general-election-forecast/
lyleoross
* Ace Member *
I thought Nate Silver had said it wasnt as clear cut as the National polls were making it. LA times had Trump winning.
I think the point is that if you ask the wrong questions, you might get a bad result. As per DF and Chuck's comments. I'm pretty sure that most polls were asking the wrong questions, given the outcome. But, if you want, I'll concede whatever position you'd like on this issue. It was only meant to convey the point that poorly structure information gathering, bad questions, can goof the result.
Let's set politics aside. Statistical analysis, where you look at a subset of data, gathered carefully, is a pretty accurate method of determining final outcomes. No matter what Mark Twain said.
I think the point is that if you ask the wrong questions, you might get a bad result. As per DF and Chuck's comments. I'm pretty sure that most polls were asking the wrong questions, given the outcome. But, if you want, I'll concede whatever position you'd like on this issue. It was only meant to convey the point that poorly structure information gathering, bad questions, can goof the result.
Let's set politics aside. Statistical analysis, where you look at a subset of data, gathered carefully, is a pretty accurate method of determining final outcomes. No matter what Mark Twain said.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2009
- Messages
- 6,854
What I did was not a prediction. No two pools of players are ever going to go head to head. 1051 rated Paul from Vegas is not going to play 1054 rated Paul from Jonesboro. We will not be able to look at the results from Jonesboro and say whether the field was stronger than any other tournament or not.
Most of the discussion of stronger fields comes down to comparing the ratings of the players who are entered.
So, I made a model to approximate a more theoretically correct but enormously complicated way of using all those ratings to come up with a number that is bigger for one group.
