Live feed for USDGC

[Dave242]

Based on player rating, the course (with loads of OB) combined with Stroke & Distance added only around 6 strokes per round for the top players (over 960). But it seems to really hammer lower level players.

P.Par --- Avg over
62-69 -- 23.7
70-74 -- 25.5
75-79 -- 47.1
80-84 -- 45
85-92 -- 43.9


The course/rules seems to be a good/fair test for Gold level players, but not so much for all lower levels.

 

[grodney]

what does this event say about the rating system since only 25 people are within 10 strokes of projected score which is formulated by ratings? Shouldn't everyone be around even

No, y'all are missing something here.

The projected scores were indeed formulated by ratings, but the actual round ratings (and SSAs) haven't been published. The fact that so few people played better than the projected just means that the course played way harder than the numbers used for the projection.

I mean, they had to make a reasonable guess at some point. If they would have based it on a projected scratch score of 80 (instead of 70), then lots of people would have shot better than projected.

 

[Discwrangler]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like the system worked well, except for the guy who won. His projection was a little high, which could point to the fact that he had 2 rounds this year to take a rating from, and the rest was from last year.

Again, ratings are great, but they have no place in tournaments let alone a "major".

 

[Dave242]

No, y'all are missing something here.

The projected scores were indeed formulated by ratings, but the actual round ratings (and SSAs) haven't been published. The fact that so few people played better than the projected just means that the course played way harder than the numbers used for the projection.

I mean, they had to make a reasonable guess at some point. If they would have based it on a projected scratch score of 80 (instead of 70), then lots of people would have shot better than projected.

So you think the course played ~10 strokes harder this year? I did not look this up, so in my comments I was going off my memory that recollects that 70 was the typical SSA the course generated.

 

[grodney]

So you think the course played ~10 strokes harder this year? I did not look this up, so in my comments I was going off my memory that recollects that 70 was the typical SSA the course generated.

I have no idea -- I haven't looked at the numbers, beyond knowing very few shot "under par". But I wouldn't be surprised if the SSA is 75 or 76 or even higher. The projected scores were indeed built with an assumption of 70. I'm just saying that guess was too low for how it actually played, thus the small number of people "under par".

Two things skewing it: 1) Top pros taking scores they normally wouldn't take. I'm just saying, maybe some guys didn't throw the shots they would have if there were actually something on the line. 2) Lots of lower-rated players playing who don't have the skills necessary to play this course.

As for #2, as you know well, Dave, an underlying assumption of the ratings system is that it doesn't matter what ratings the propagators have. If you calculate the SSA based on the 900-950 players you'll get the same SSA using the 1000-1030 players. I've always thought this to be a bad assumption (though I could never isolate it in results) for certain course types, though not a huge factor overall. I think a course like this shows that lower-rated players won't propagate the same SSA as higher-rated players.

(By the way, Chuck will soon be here "explaining" that the ratings system wasn't built for stroke-and-distance, and therefore blah blah blah blah, as if the formulas somehow know what rules were in effect. Yawn/guffaw.)

 

[Cgkdisc]

The ratings system could be used to handle a disc golf game that had courses where T&D was rampant throughout most hole designs - but it wasn't developed for that game. It was developed for conventional disc golf where T&D occurs only occasionally on very few holes. It will be interesting to see what happens with the ratings calculation. Note that we drop any propagators who shoot more than 60 points below their rating. So when they are dropped, the SSA could still end up back around 70 instead of something like 75-78 where it might be if we kept all prop scores.

Statistically, for 10 years about 4.5% of props are dropped in all sanctioned events. For the USDGC from 2002-2008, only 2.7% were dropped. In 2009, 6.7% with the buncr rule. In 2010, 11.7% with the T&D rule. In 2011?

 

[grodney]

Note that we drop any propagators who shoot more than 60 points below their rating. So when they are dropped, the SSA could still end up back around 70 instead of something like 75-78 where it might be if we kept all prop scores.

Statistically, for 10 years about 4.5% of props are dropped in all sanctioned events. For the USDGC from 2002-2008, only 2.7% were dropped. In 2009, 6.7% with the buncr rule. In 2010, 11.7% with the T&D rule. In 2011?

Interesting -- thanks Chuck.