Par Talk

[PMantle]

Well, one thing we definitely agree on is that there continues to be a confusion between course par and course rating.

Is there? I don't see ho that's possible.

 

[Steve West]

This post is just about my method of setting par based on scoring distributions of 1000-rated players, not par in general.

I have about 1400 examples, so I compiled a few thousand different virtual 18-hole courses and computed what an errorless-par score would be rated.

If everyone always used my method, then 2/3rds of the time, par would be rated between 1001 and 1020. 95% of the time, par would be rated between 990 and 1030.

I think this range of deviations fairly represents the differences from course to course in the opportunities to make - and punishment for - errors.

 

[Steve West]

To expand to the other skill levels:

I have several hundred holes worth of scoring distributions for various skill levels. I generated thousands of virtual 18-hole courses by combining holes at random. I then compared the average score to errorless par for that skill level. The results are plotted below.

As expected, for most courses, errorless par (expected score with no errors) is lower than average score (all the errorless throws plus the extra throws caused by errors).

Also not surprising is that 1000-rated players have the fewest extra throws as a result of errors (aka, "the throws I left out there today"). Averaging over all of the courses,

1000 rated players average about 1.6 throws over errorless par,
950 rated players average about 2.9 throws over errorless par,
900 rated players average about 4.7 throws over errorless par,
850 rated players average about 5.3 throws over errorless par, and
800 rated players average about 4.9 throws over errorless par.

Some of the differences are because each skill level played some holes that are different than the holes used for other skill levels.

We could say that for players up to about 900 rating, if they could just go a whole round without an error, they could play about 5 throws better.

Notice also that some courses offer the opportunity for the 950 and 1000-rated player to average better than errorless par. This comes from good throws that don't happen often enough to achieve the status of expected.

 

[biscoe]

Seems a bit odd that 800 rated players would average fewer errors than players rated 50 points higher.

 

[Steve West]

Seems a bit odd that 800 rated players would average fewer errors than players rated 50 points higher.

It's a sampling and simulation, so some fuzziness around the actual value is expected. But, if it is true, we can speculate why.

Perhaps the 800 rated players were on courses that offered less punishment for errors (which would be the nice thing for TDs to do).

Or perhaps the 800 players don't throw far enough to hit the first tree or OB area.

 

[PMantle]

This post is just about my method of

..rating courses.

 

[Steve West]

..rating courses.

.. by the score that an expert disc golfer would be expected to make on a given hole with errorless play under ordinary weather conditions.

What part of you gets a burning sensation when anyone suggests par and scores are related?

 

[PMantle]

.. by the score that an expert disc golfer would be expected to make on a given hole with errorless play under ordinary weather conditions.

What part of you gets a burning sensation when anyone suggests par and scores are related?

Cerebral cortex.

 

[DavidSauls]

"Par: The score an accomplished player is expected to make on a hole...."

Yeah, trying to find a relation between par and scores in the PGA's definition gives me a headache, too.

I should probably look harder.

 

[teemkey]

The new rule book, under Misplay (811.F.5), defines par as:

Par is the score that an expert disc golfer would be expected to make on a given hole with errorless play under ordinary weather conditions, as determined by the Director.

Basically the Director defines par, and, by extension, also the mythical expert disc golfer. I think the Director referred to is the Tournament Director. So, like so many difficult topics, look inward for understanding.

 

[Mushin No Shin]

Par is like a body of water

The more errorless it is, the deeper you can see into it

 

[Steve West]

Cerebral cortex.

Maybe you should get that checked.

 

[PMantle]

Maybe you should get that checked.

You have access to irony. That's awesome. lol

 

[TAFL]

Basically the Director defines par, and, by extension, also the mythical expert disc golfer. I think the Director referred to is the Tournament Director. So, like so many difficult topics, look inward for understanding.

I'm flattered so many Directors think of me as an expert golfer, instead of all those pros. Makes me feel all squishy inside!

 

[Steve West]

Here's my cheat sheet to know what to really expect when watching the videos.

 

[Steve West]

Las Vegas Challenge presented by Innova Champion Discs - National Tour 2018 Innova Course

There were no par 2s (but #3 came real close). Holes #9 and #14 should be par 3 (not par 4). Maybe #5 too, but it's close enough for a judgement call.

Course par of 61 would have been rated 990 which would be OK for a course that was very forgiving to errors. I don't think that's what the designers were going for, though.

There was enough data to compute pars for other skill levels:
Gold = 58
Blue = 60
Pink = 62
White = 64

 

[gdub58]

Innova course #3 is, for me, one of those holes where the current definition of par doesn't work so well. Hopefully we would agree that errorless play by an expert on this hole would result in a two the vast majority of the time. Don't get me wrong - as a renowned par-two-hater I applaud the efforts of the TDs to design short holes with plenty of risk/reward, but errorless play by definition would avoid OB and usually result in a makeable putt.

Steve, I see that your data shows that it's close to being a two using your definition, but I suspect the reason it didn't get there is the wind that was present for a portion of the round. Am I correct to assume you don't control for weather in your model? Although I can't imagine there is enough "expert" data to be reliable, it would be interesting to quantify changes in error rate by things like wind speed and precipitation.

You may have already addressed this elsewhere in this thread, but how do you propose establishing good pars before tournaments? I know that the TD has discretion and we keep pushing for the use of "good pars", but it's likely the only reason Innova #3 had a good par is that the wind was disruptive enough to cause more errors.

If that's the case, provided the hole doesn't change for next year's tournament and the forecast is for calm days, should it be called a par two :gross:? Or, is it still a par three but it becomes a "must birdie" hole?

The other hole that creates a challenge for the errorless play definition is #6 on the discgolfvalues course. One could argue that trying to throw anything but safe, safe, safe, putt for a four would be considered an error, regardless of result (especially in the wind). Does that make it the perfect par four, or the worst one if even attempting an under-par score is an error?

 

[Steve West]

Innova course #3 is, for me, one of those holes where the current definition of par doesn't work so well. Hopefully we would agree that errorless play by an expert on this hole would result in a two the vast majority of the time.

I don't agree. It didn't happen during the 152 rounds of data I used. Only 55% got a 2. At 270 feet, that's long enough that even with no trouble it would most likely be a par 3. Only at 250 or shorter is it a safe bet that a hole is a par 2 (but not all holes that short are par 2).

…errorless play by definition would avoid OB and usually result in a makeable putt.

Everyone overestimates how good errorless play is. It's not perfection or what players visualize in their minds before a throw. A throw that was an error is a pretty bad throw. The throws that go into figuring out par are the throws that are merely not bad enough to be called an error. A tee throw that lands near the target in a place where you have a 50% chance of making a putt is not an error, yet that errorless throw results in a score of 3 half the time.

I don't think this hole needed any OB to remain a par 3. If OB came into play, it was because the smart play was to throw something that is not quite at the target.

Steve, I see that your data shows that it's close to being a two using your definition, but I suspect the reason it didn't get there is the wind that was present for a portion of the round. Am I correct to assume you don't control for weather in your model? Although I can't imagine there is enough "expert" data to be reliable, it would be interesting to quantify changes in error rate by things like wind speed and precipitation.

Par isn't set according to perfect conditions, just ordinary. For my method, most of the time the bulk of the data will come during ordinary conditions; because ordinary conditions are what happens most of the time. Also, because most holes are solidly within a certain par, it would take really extraordinary conditions to bump a hole up into a higher par. A lot of errorless throws still happen in bad conditions. Usually enough to keep the hole at the same par as for ordinary conditions.

When the weather is not ordinary, we can't use my method directly. Actually, it should never be used directly, it's only input for the TD's judgement call.

Specifically, no, there is no mathematical adjustment for conditions.

Perhaps I'll compare this year's results to holes that didn't change from last year on the Disc Golf Values course.

You may have already addressed this elsewhere in this thread, but how do you propose establishing good pars before tournaments? I know that the TD has discretion and we keep pushing for the use of "good pars", but it's likely the only reason Innova #3 had a good par is that the wind was disruptive enough to cause more errors.

http://www.stevewestdiscgolf.com/PDGA_Compatible_Methods_of_Setting_Par_2018.pdf

If that's the case, provided the hole doesn't change for next year's tournament and the forecast is for calm days, should it be called a par two :gross:? Or, is it still a par three but it becomes a "must birdie" hole?

See way above; I don't think it's a par 2.

Is there a difference between "must birdie" and par 2? I thought that was just our insider secret code for par 2 so we don't scare away the millions of potential dollars and spectators.

The other hole that creates a challenge for the errorless play definition is #6 on the discgolfvalues course. One could argue that trying to throw anything but safe, safe, safe, putt for a four would be considered an error, regardless of result (especially in the wind). Does that make it the perfect par four, or the worst one if even attempting an under-par score is an error?

Last year, I'd say it was definitely a par 4. I assume expert players are experts at course management, so when so many of them got 4s, that must have been errorless play.

This year, we probably shouldn't use the results to set par because the conditions weren't ordinary. Still, it is interesting to note that the slightly shorter tee seems to have encouraged enough players to go for (and get) the 3 that perhaps this hole could be a par 3. Also, that it was not a safe play to go for 4.

 

[Steve West]

Lots of generous pars, as would be expected with par being rated 965. I guess they just used the blue tee pars.

 

[Steve West]

For Fountain Hills at the Memorial, they set perfect pars for FPO.

For MPO, there were 4 or 5 par 2s (#13 is on the bubble), and only hole #2 had few enough 2s and 3s to be called par 4. MPO par was rated 967, but a better par would be rated 1015 or 1024.