- Joined
- Dec 19, 2009
- Messages
- 6,852
Jonesboro Open 2017 Hole Analysis.
The size of the bubbles in the first chart shows how much impact each hole had on spreading out the total scores of all the players (Contribution). All holes had a positive impact. Hole 13 was the weakest, and hole 2 did the most work.
The horizontal axis is the width of the scoring spread, and the vertical axis shows how well a hole sorted out the scores by skill.
We can see that the cause of hole 13's weak showing was that it gave out less than 2 different scores, and it gave them out in a mostly random fashion, better than only 72% of all possible ways of sorting. (50% would be completely random).
Hole 2 gave out a respectable 2.84 different scores, and gave them out in a way that was better than 96% of all possible arrangements.
Because there were four rounds, we can also measure how well a hole treated players consistently from round to round.
A completely consistent hole would give out an average of 1.68 different scores to each player over four rounds. (More than one, because most player's expected score on a hole would fall in between two integer scores.)
A hole that gave out scores entirely at random from round to round would give out an average of 2.54 different scores.
In the chart below, the vertical axis is consistency, the horizontal is scoring spread across all players, and the size of the bubble shows the average score.
Holes 3 and 13 are more consistent than should be possible. This is a result of giving out scores across a range narrower than a full throw. In this case, they gave out too many 3s.
When a hole gives out more scores to all players, it is not as easy for that hole to be consistent. Holes 2 and 18 stand out as being more consistent (to each player) than you would expect or holes with such wide scoring spreads (across all players).
Holes 6 and 8 are perhaps less consistent than they should be, compared to other holes on the course.
Here are some x-rays of selected holes.
The size of the bubbles in the first chart shows how much impact each hole had on spreading out the total scores of all the players (Contribution). All holes had a positive impact. Hole 13 was the weakest, and hole 2 did the most work.
The horizontal axis is the width of the scoring spread, and the vertical axis shows how well a hole sorted out the scores by skill.
We can see that the cause of hole 13's weak showing was that it gave out less than 2 different scores, and it gave them out in a mostly random fashion, better than only 72% of all possible ways of sorting. (50% would be completely random).
Hole 2 gave out a respectable 2.84 different scores, and gave them out in a way that was better than 96% of all possible arrangements.
Because there were four rounds, we can also measure how well a hole treated players consistently from round to round.
A completely consistent hole would give out an average of 1.68 different scores to each player over four rounds. (More than one, because most player's expected score on a hole would fall in between two integer scores.)
A hole that gave out scores entirely at random from round to round would give out an average of 2.54 different scores.
In the chart below, the vertical axis is consistency, the horizontal is scoring spread across all players, and the size of the bubble shows the average score.
Holes 3 and 13 are more consistent than should be possible. This is a result of giving out scores across a range narrower than a full throw. In this case, they gave out too many 3s.
When a hole gives out more scores to all players, it is not as easy for that hole to be consistent. Holes 2 and 18 stand out as being more consistent (to each player) than you would expect or holes with such wide scoring spreads (across all players).
Holes 6 and 8 are perhaps less consistent than they should be, compared to other holes on the course.
Here are some x-rays of selected holes.