- Joined
- Dec 19, 2009
- Messages
- 6,930
This thread is for posting and talking about measures of how courses and holes perform.
Discover new ways to elevate your game with the updated DGCourseReview app!
It's entirely free and enhanced with features shaped by user feedback to ensure your best experience on the course. (App Store or Google Play)
Wouldn't "correlation to other holes" and "correlation to rating" be strongly correlated? I think you'd be okay with leaving one of these out. Really cool visualization though, Steve.
Just to see if I understand...taking #3 as an example...
It has a very low average (presumably a short par 3), yet has an above average scoring spread (variance?). Performance on this hole has a very strong correlation with other holes, which means it's predictive of total round score?
All of the parameters seem pretty self explanatory to me, except the top one: "Average"
Is that the average of the hole's scores, and how does that average perform better or worse relative to other holes?
Also, question on "Correlation to Other Holes" ... How is that different from "Contribution" ?
(My understanding is that Corr. to Other Holes is a measure of how similarly a hole distributes scores to players, compared to the other holes on the course. And Contribution is how closely that hole distributes scores, relative to the total round. So those two parameters should track closely in my mind. But I see that they don't always match that closely. Am I off in my interpretations?)
Also, unless my interpretation is wrong for "Correlation to Other Holes", I think that's a dubious way to judge hole performance. A course that only tests a small number of skills will have very high correlation between all the holes...but that's also boring design, in my opinion. I would almost rather see holes that don't correlate well with each other, as long as other metrics of randomness/fairness are good (i.e. correlation to rating, contribution).
I don't know if you want to take the plunge, but a measure of consistency over multiple rounds (when available) would be great.
Another interesting summary number would be the Q-function of the score distribution (i.e. the probability a score will exceed some multiple of the standard deviation, which would identify "disaster holes"). Or do you think scoring spread is sufficient?
Is there any way you could compare the scoring spread with and without penalty strokes? That might be interesting.
...
Distance generally appears to make the star pointier.In the meantime, I've been cramming more info into the chart and re-scaled to better handle cases with negative values.
I also replaced Correlation to Ratings with Typicality which measures how well the holes scoring distribution matches the prototypical scoring distribution for a hole with the same average.
Usually, low scores of Typicality come from too many 3s or from an island hole with lots of 2s and 4s.
So here is San Francisco Open 2018 Gleneagles Golf Course MPO again.
and Santa Cruz Masters Cup presented by Innova - National Tour DeLaveaga Golf Course MPO
Distance generally appears to make the star pointier.
That would be really easy - if I could get the penalty throws player by player, hole by hole. PDGA Live doesn't record them, and I haven't figured out any way short of going through each player and picking them out by hand from the UDisc stats. Ain't nobody got time for that.
I'll let you know if I get bored one day and manually work through a round. I thought I read you didn't include scores with penalty strokes when you do your par ratings, maybe there is something similar you could do with a scoring spread analysis?