[PDGA Major] 2024 United States Women's Disc Golf Championships

[Cgkdisc]

R3 - 969

Pretty significant difference, over 2 strokes harder in R2 than R3. R4 looks like more wind than R2 which will increase the difficulty even further. Clean rounds by the two out in front will keep any chasers from catching up but the wind could be tricky and increase the penalties and total putt attempts.

If preliminary ratings are used to analyze daily course difficulty, it's important to also adjust for average OB strokes per player each round. OB strokes artificially boosts the ratings. For example, in R1 total OB 33 for 100 players is 0.3 strokes added to "difficulty". R2 total OB 91 for 100 players is 0.9 added to "difficulty". R3 total OB 114 for 96 players is 1.2 strokes added to "difficulty". I heard that stats were not entered uniformly throughout the field, so these numbers are low if anything. Regardless, using the OB values as entered, it means R3 may have been even easier than the ratings indicate in comparison to R2, and R1 closer to the same as R2. Even if OB counts are correct, it still doesn't account for the strokes added because the conditions of some OB penalties involve marking at a drop zone with loss of distance resulting in effectively a 2-shot penalty such as missing the island on hole 17 with a minimal chance to save par from a drop zone a bit too far from the basket.

 

[EllEstar]

If preliminary ratings are used to analyze daily course difficulty, it's important to also adjust for average OB strokes per player each round. OB strokes artificially boosts the ratings. For example, in R1 total OB 33 for 100 players is 0.3 strokes added to "difficulty". R2 total OB 91 for 100 players is 0.9 added to "difficulty". R3 total OB 114 for 96 players is 1.2 strokes added to "difficulty". I heard that stats were not entered uniformly throughout the field, so these numbers are low if anything. Regardless, using the OB values as entered, it means R3 may have been even easier than the ratings indicate in comparison to R2, and R1 closer to the same as R2. Even if OB counts are correct, it still doesn't account for the strokes added because the conditions of some OB penalties involve marking at a drop zone with loss of distance resulting in effectively a 2-shot penalty such as missing the island on hole 17 with a minimal chance to save par from a drop zone a bit too far from the basket.

Top 14 cards had stats entered in R2, 24 cards (all but 1) in R3, and in R1 it seems to have been 6 cards. In theory the bottom 10-11 cards should go OB more frequently than the top cards, but we can't know that for sure, at the very least OB numbers in R2 are likely to be around 70% higher than listed and R1 maybe around 4x too low.

That would bring it to 132 OBs R1, 155 R2 and 118 R3.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Wonder if Eveliina considered taking an Abandoned Throw penalty and rethrowing from her previous lie on hole 1?

 

[Steve West]

If preliminary ratings are used to analyze daily course difficulty, it's important to also adjust for average OB strokes per player each round. OB strokes artificially boosts the ratings. For example, in R1 total OB 33 for 100 players is 0.3 strokes added to "difficulty". R2 total OB 91 for 100 players is 0.9 added to "difficulty". R3 total OB 114 for 96 players is 1.2 strokes added to "difficulty". I heard that stats were not entered uniformly throughout the field, so these numbers are low if anything. Regardless, using the OB values as entered, it means R3 may have been even easier than the ratings indicate in comparison to R2, and R1 closer to the same as R2. Even if OB counts are correct, it still doesn't account for the strokes added because the conditions of some OB penalties involve marking at a drop zone with loss of distance resulting in effectively a 2-shot penalty such as missing the island on hole 17 with a minimal chance to save par from a drop zone a bit too far from the basket.

Hmm, silly me. I always thought everything that increases the scores boosts the rating for any given score. I guess I was misled because - according to how we keep score, which is how we know who won - an extra throw (or more) from throwing OB isn't any different than an extra throw (or more) from missing a putt or hitting a tree.

 

[glassila]

Wonder if Eveliina considered taking an Abandoned Throw penalty and rethrowing from her previous lie on hole 1?

Hard to say. Once she arrived to where her 2nd throw landed she should have considered that instead of throwing away from the basket to get clearance to go over the top again.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Hmm, silly me. I always thought everything that increases the scores boosts the rating for any given score. I guess I was misled because - according to how we keep score, which is how we know who won - an extra throw (or more) from throwing OB isn't any different than an extra throw (or more) from missing a putt or hitting a tree.

While artificial OB penalties do pad the scoring to boost the SSA, they don't significantly change the "difficulty" of the shots that must be made, just the appearance of more difficulty.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Hard to say. Once she arrived to where her 2nd throw landed she should have considered that instead of throwing away from the basket to get clearance to go over the top again.

Under the circumstances, I'm not sure the odds of saving a bogey were any better rethrowing. However, if they change the rule to allow the option of rethrowing just counting a stroke for the bad throw without tacking on a stroke, rethrowing would have been the choice and taken less time than what transpired.

 

[Steve West]

While artificial OB penalties do pad the scoring to boost the SSA, they don't significantly change the "difficulty" of the shots that must be made, just the appearance of more difficulty.

Avoiding OB seems pretty much the same as avoiding trees. They both could be set up so that the throw needed for one is nearly the same as for the other.

 

[glassila]

Under the circumstances, I'm not sure the odds of saving a bogey were any better rethrowing. However, if they change the rule to allow the option of rethrowing just counting a stroke for the bad throw without tacking on a stroke, rethrowing would have been the choice and taken less time than what transpired.

That's what I thought too. She probably figured it would be easier to save bogey doing what she did, it just didn't work out.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Avoiding OB seems pretty much the same as avoiding trees. They both could be set up so that the throw needed for one is nearly the same as for the other.

They "could be" but typically are not, especially with OB in the woods and in blind positions. Getting a stroke penalty for hitting a specific tree that players could easily see and avoid would be a fairer challenge than unseen OB lines where their location and distance are hard to gauge. But have you ever seen that particular design element used?

 

[glassila]

Great interview with Missy and Tom Gannon!
Perkins is really good at that.

 

[Steve West]

They "could be" but typically are not, especially with OB in the woods and in blind positions. Getting a stroke penalty for hitting a specific tree that players could easily see and avoid would be a fairer challenge than unseen OB lines where their location and distance are hard to gauge. But have you ever seen that particular design element used?

The following statement is just as valid (and just as slanted):

"Getting a stroke penalty for hitting a specific pond that players could easily see and avoid would be a fairer challenge than unseen ghost trees where their location and distance are hard to gauge."

 

[geebob]

I thought DGN missed some interesting stories this weekend.

Chantel Budinsky with a hot round of -3 yesterday to finish tied for 11th. She had a solid putting tournament 80% C1x and 22% C2 [stats from round 2-4 only] in her best finish ever in a major.

Cadence Burge also finishing T11th, with a tournament total of 78% C1x, 17% C2, and 68% fairway hits. With those kind of numbers on a really nasty track, I can see her being a real threat in other tight courses.

Ali Smith managed to cash (T42), but while her fairway hits were a very good 72%, her C1x was a shocking 53%, made even worse by missing "at least 10 bullseye putts" (via Instagram). [stats from round 2-4 only]

 

[geebob]

Is there any footage of that?!
I saw the eagle on her card and figured she must have had a 350-400 foot drive and a longish throw-in. In reality she had a 180 foot drive. Probably hit a tree on her drive I would guess.

I found no mention of it, so starting to wonder if the recorded distance was a mistake or what exactly happened. Only mention I heard on DGN was that she was "two under."

 

[geebob]

Kristin is really in a funk, mostly mental i believe. When's the last time she threw a +3 round?

Posted on IG:




It did appear from yesterday's coverage that she was in a significant amount of pain, but that having as good a round as she did playing on that ankle only increases the respect I have for her.

 

[Cgkdisc]

The following statement is just as valid (and just as slanted):

"Getting a stroke penalty for hitting a specific pond that players could easily see and avoid would be a fairer challenge than unseen ghost trees where their location and distance are hard to gauge."

Not even a small visible pond that's 10 feet in diameter or a creek 3 feet wide crossing a fairway are equivalent to a tree in terms of our visual ability to judge their distance from our lies and for our practiced or unpracticed lizard brains to make that judgment which unconsciously controls the energy and release timing of our throws.

 

[biscoe]

Not even a small visible pond that's 10 feet in diameter or a creek 3 feet wide crossing a fairway are equivalent to a tree in terms of our visual ability to judge their distance from our lies and for our practiced or unpracticed lizard brains to make that judgment which unconsciously controls the energy and release timing of our throws.

Got any data supporting this assertion?

I dislike OB in the woods as much as the next guy but I also think your bogeyman of unseen OB lines does not apply well when players spend multiple days learning courses set up for specific events.

 

[Steve West]

Not even a small visible pond that's 10 feet in diameter or a creek 3 feet wide crossing a fairway are equivalent to a tree in terms of our visual ability to judge their distance from our lies and for our practiced or unpracticed lizard brains to make that judgment which unconsciously controls the energy and release timing of our throws.

Says who? It may be different for someone from North Dakota who has never seen a tree. Anyway, even if true it does not lead to the conclusion that OB somehow messes up ratings.

 

[glassila]

I thought DGN missed some interesting stories this weekend.

Chantel Budinsky with a hot round of -3 yesterday to finish tied for 11th. She had a solid putting tournament 80% C1x and 22% C2 [stats from round 2-4 only] in her best finish ever in a major.

Cadence Burge also finishing T11th, with a tournament total of 78% C1x, 17% C2, and 68% fairway hits. With those kind of numbers on a really nasty track, I can see her being a real threat in other tight courses.

Ali Smith managed to cash (T42), but while her fairway hits were a very good 72%, her C1x was a shocking 53%, made even worse by missing "at least 10 bullseye putts" (via Instagram). [stats from round 2-4 only]

I was pretty impressed with Heidi Laine. Lead card of a major and she seemed like she was having fun. Holyn Handley on the other hand...

 

[Cgkdisc]

Got any data supporting this assertion?

I dislike OB in the woods as much as the next guy but I also think your bogeyman of unseen OB lines does not apply well when players spend multiple days learning courses set up for specific events.

That's an excuse for weak design (not specific to USWDGC but in general) when players can't see the extent of the challenge(s) ahead and expect them to literally memorize the myriad GPS landmarks and how they will be impacted by random kicks and different wind directions than they were able to practice. The point being that the challenges of trees, obstacles (the small walls on hole 18 were cool but being located in an OB area was unnecessary) and natural or marked relief areas are good enough to produce fairer scoring separation without tacking on a penalty stroke. I really liked their efforts at Sprinkle to create some natural looking barriers for shot shaping in the few open areas. Add their nicely mulched wooded fairways to provide excellent skill challenges and the course would still play well to provide skillful scoring separation with no OB penalties needed.