- Joined
- Dec 19, 2009
- Messages
- 6,957
For MPO, hole #16 had the weakest correlation of scores to ratings. Only 0.1% of the total variance in scores came from the variance of the expected scores based on ratings. (Ball golf analysts call the other 99.9% "luck".)
To be fair, all holes are overwhelmingly luck-based by this measure. For comparison, the least lucky hole was #2 where 10.2% of the variance in score came from player ratings. Or, you could say hole #2 was about 100 times as effective as #16 at reflecting player ratings in the scores.
Another way to look at it would be to see how many extra ratings points it would take to expect a player to get a score which is 1 throw lower. For hole #16, that's 661 ratings points. There was only a 105-point difference between the top- and bottom-rated player. So, the expected average score for every player on hole #16 fell into a narrow slot about one-sixth of a throw wide.
The most effective hole by this measure was hole #18 where only 63 extra ratings points would be needed to expect a player to get a score one throw better. The expected average scores on this hole had a range that was 1.66 throws wide.
For FPO, hole #16 performed just fine. Only 88.7% luck and one throw saved per 135 ratings points. Both comparable to other holes.
For FPO, hole #16 had a different problem in that there weren't enough scores of 2 and 3 to legitimately call it a par 3. A 930-rated player would be expected to get a score of 4 about 66% of the time.
To be fair, all holes are overwhelmingly luck-based by this measure. For comparison, the least lucky hole was #2 where 10.2% of the variance in score came from player ratings. Or, you could say hole #2 was about 100 times as effective as #16 at reflecting player ratings in the scores.
Another way to look at it would be to see how many extra ratings points it would take to expect a player to get a score which is 1 throw lower. For hole #16, that's 661 ratings points. There was only a 105-point difference between the top- and bottom-rated player. So, the expected average score for every player on hole #16 fell into a narrow slot about one-sixth of a throw wide.
The most effective hole by this measure was hole #18 where only 63 extra ratings points would be needed to expect a player to get a score one throw better. The expected average scores on this hole had a range that was 1.66 throws wide.
For FPO, hole #16 performed just fine. Only 88.7% luck and one throw saved per 135 ratings points. Both comparable to other holes.
For FPO, hole #16 had a different problem in that there weren't enough scores of 2 and 3 to legitimately call it a par 3. A 930-rated player would be expected to get a score of 4 about 66% of the time.