PDGA Round rating question

[jksdg]

Never thought of looking at that
Correlation to PDGA rating, standard deviation
1 -34%, .77
2 -16%. .99
3 +9%, .71
4 -61%, 1.17
5 -40%, 1.08
6 -51%, .96
7 -39%, .78
8 -13%, .79
9 -21%, .65
10 -16%, .57
11 -21%, .84
12 -42%, 1.09
13 -25%, .59
14 -47%, .99
15 -45%, .62
16 -22%, 1.02
17 -38%, .97
18 -6%, 1.14

 

[jksdg]

The above numbers...
=CORREL (hole score, PDGA rating)
=STDEV (holescore)

 

[Steve West]

How do you know they were on the "edge" versus being too tight? One thing to look at is the correlation between the players' ratings and their round ratings from the event. A "good" course for the skill levels of the players should produce a good correlation in these ratings. I get 77% correlation in these numbers which isn't too bad overall but 85%-90% is more common on more open or well-worn tracks with minimal OB.

Steve may not want to do it, but correlations could be done on individual holes to determine some holes that might be "too lucky". Separate from narrowness of fairways, recoverability is also a key element in testing skill versus luck. Typically, the rough areas just beyond the newer fairways through the woods either haven't been cleared sufficiently or beat down enough for more skilled players to execute a recovery shot to save a stroke versus getting randomly punished the same as lower skilled players.

With this few players, and everyone only playing each hole once, I'd trust an experienced player's judgement about too-tightness over a statistical analysis. However, the 9 extra throws per round that the trees caused would support the nearly-too-tight call.

Are there another couple of hundred player-rounds of data out there somewhere?

 

[Cgkdisc]

Never thought of looking at that
Correlation to PDGA rating, standard deviation
1 -34%, .77
2 -16%. .99
3 +9%, .71
4 -61%, 1.17
5 -40%, 1.08
6 -51%, .96
7 -39%, .78
8 -13%, .79
9 -21%, .65
10 -16%, .57
11 -21%, .84
12 -42%, 1.09
13 -25%, .59
14 -47%, .99
15 -45%, .62
16 -22%, 1.02
17 -38%, .97
18 -6%, 1.14

Considering these scores were thrown in winter, the tightness factor will presumably only get worse once there's more foliage.

 

[jksdg]

This is all the useful data we have

Will be a flex start, an am day , and a pro B tier to get more data in summer

Yes it will get tougher in the summer, hopefully not too tough

 

[jksdg]

Still trying to figure out an answer to my initial question though

 

[Cgkdisc]

Still trying to figure out an answer to my initial question though

It's close to a zero-sum game in terms of propagators "that were used" producing the same average round ratings as their average player ratings but there are automated objective adjustment factors that have been determined from data analysis over the years to deal with issues such as fast improving players as Biscoe mentioned. In most cases, the average of the round ratings will be somewhat higher than the average player ratings of the propagators used.

 

[jksdg]

Interesting (OAF) or (AOAF)

The 1002 par per unofficial ratings is more in line than what people thought par would be vs the zero sum 995.

I estimated par to play near 1015, but I was wrong and/or a lot of people had good days (including me!)

Thanks for your answer