Par Talk

[DavidSauls]

On any given hole, would those errors be expected of an expert?

Though "expected" may be a bit vague and undefined (as is "expert"), a little guidance would avoid a lot of statistical rigamarole. In looking at results to see if expectations were warranted, surely for any hole that produces the same result at least 50% of the time, that should be an expected score. For holes that don't, the median---at least half the scores are that, or better---would seem reasonable.

With that, there would be few errors, back kicks, OBs, etc. involved; the ones that are, would be offset by unexpectedly heroic recovery shots.

 

[Steve West]

On any given hole, would those errors be expected of an expert?

Though "expected" may be a bit vague and undefined (as is "expert"), a little guidance would avoid a lot of statistical rigamarole. In looking at results to see if expectations were warranted, surely for any hole that produces the same result at least 50% of the time, that should be an expected score. For holes that don't, the median---at least half the scores are that, or better---would seem reasonable.

With that, there would be few errors, back kicks, OBs, etc. involved; the ones that are, would be offset by unexpectedly heroic recovery shots.

For most holes, experts don't make many more errors than they make heroic recovery shots. But, we can't tell much about par by looking at most holes. To wit: Most holes are par 3, but that doesn't prove "all par 3" should be the definition.

On some holes, expert players do make errors, because of the attempts to create courses that challenge the best of the best. And what is usually meant by "challenge" seems to be "defeat".

Picking a par based on "at least half the scores are that, or better" is reasonable, usually. But, isn't that statistical rigmarole itself?

Here is a scoring distribution for 1000 rated players. You can see that there were a lot of bad throws made (and some of those throws cost the players two strokes).

To me, this is obviously a par 3 because that's the score 1000-rated players can get with some version of expert/errorless/no bad throws/whatever play.

This hole shows why we can't define par as a formula to be applied to scores; this hole breaks almost all of them. My method would call it a par 4; rounded average score would call it a par 5; at-least-50% would call it a par 4; mode would call it a par 3 (but mode would also call six of the holes on this course a par 2).

What I'm looking for is a phrase or word that would describe how players got those threes, but would exclude whatever it took to get those twos.

 

[DavidSauls]

That looks like a hole where an error is almost expected.

My thought is not that pros don't make errors; it's that on a given hole, with an expert throwing, you shouldn't expect it. If you do, maybe it's not an error but just part of the hole.

By "a little guidance", I meant that maybe the PDGA can tell us what to expect from "expected". Otherwise, I'm just using a casual everyday connotation. And looking at the results to say whether the expectation was justified.

 

[DG_player]

I agree that "errorless" is the next part of the definition to target for improvement. So, let's explore that.

1. If "errorless" were not in there, what would you mean by "expected" and how do you get there without statistical rigamarole?

2. I think we may need something that golf does not have, to indicate that par is something other than average (inclusive of all bad throws). The reason we need it and golf doesn't is that disc golf has way more opportunities to tack on a whole extra throw to a player's score.

Bad tree kicks and OB penalties hardly ever happen in golf, so for golf, "expert play" is virtually the same thing as "errorless" - so they don't need to mention it.

In disc golf, even top-level experts expect to hit a few trees on wooded courses, or go OB a few times on the ropes courses. Thus, I think we need a qualifier that means something like: "but not including the scores that result from going OB or pitching out of the woods".

To me, having this type of qualifier that makes it more like golf's definition (than not having it) because golf doesn't include any bad strokes in their par.

A median score should work. Occasional OBs and occasional tree hits shouldn't affect the median. The only time that having "errorless" in the definition should generate a par other than median, is when there is some much OB or random middle of the fairway trees, that going OB or hitting one on a given hole becomes expected.

Ball golf could have holes like that as well, they just don't, because it's dumb and not a good test of skill. (Actually occasionally the USGA does this in the US Open in an attempt to make courses harder, and it is usually met with ridicule)

 

[Steve West]

A median score should work. Occasional OBs and occasional tree hits shouldn't affect the median. The only time that having "errorless" in the definition should generate a par other than median, is when there is some much OB or random middle of the fairway trees, that going OB or hitting one on a given hole becomes expected.

Even if errors become expected, I don't think they become part of par.

Say a hole has so many Hazards scattered around the target that there is no strategy for avoiding them. Everyone who misses them gets a 3, everyone who lands in one gets a 4. Even if most players get 4, I would think the players who got a 3 would feel like they parred the hole, not the players who got a 4.

I am open to the possibility that a penalty could be part of par. But, it would be when the penalty is desired and a strategic choice. For example, there was a hole where the DZ was so favorable that the best play was to throw OB and advance to the DZ. Those players took a penalty, but did not make an error (or bad throw, or whatever we end up calling non-expert play).

What I'm really interested in is what you mean by "work"? What's the ideal we are chasing here?

 

[DavidSauls]

What I'm really interested in is what you mean by "work"? What's the ideal we are chasing here?

Be the expected score of an expert.

The first duty of par.

 

[DavidSauls]

Say a hole has so many Hazards scattered around the target that there is no strategy for avoiding them. Everyone who misses them gets a 3, everyone who lands in one gets a 4. Even if most players get 4, I would think the players who got a 3 would feel like they parred the hole, not the players who got a 4.

I'm thinking of a theoretical island hole where the island is so small, relative to the distance, that 70% of throws miss it.

Surely, missing the island is expected, as it the resulting score, by any meaning of "expected" that comes to my mind.

Is missing the island an error? An expected error? I don't know. But I don't believe that a penalty-free score is expected, either.

 

[Steve West]

Be the expected score of an expert.

The first duty of par.

Hmm. I guess I think of the first duty as a way to tell whether the player accomplished the objective on the hole, in some sense. Did the player play it as an expert should?

Which is why both definitions don't stop at "expected". Both definitions have restriction on the quality of play that figures into par. As they should, I think.

Golf limits it to "expert play" (in the second sentence). To me, that excludes all the scores that were the result of play that was of a lower quality than expert play. (Also higher quality.)

Disc golf uses "errorless play" but I think there is a better term out there that does not imply absolute perfection.

Even if 70% miss the too-little island, I don't feel like I've done a good job on the hole unless I hit it.

If we go too far toward mathematical expectation, it would be the average score (of 1000-rated players), and not rounded to the nearest integer. There's a place for that, but it doesn't capture the essence of par to me.

A further thought: if par is expected, your measure of difficulty (average minus par) is lost. More high scores would just bump up expected, and difficulty for all holes would trend toward zero.

 

[DavidSauls]

I don't think average score should figure into it. It's inflated by the scores that are 2, 3, 4 and more strokes above expectation. It shouldn't matter how much higher than the expected score anyone shoots; just that they shot above it. Doesn't change what score you would expect.

Think of a theoretical island hole, with mandatory re-tee, and 70% of drives landing on the island. That's the expectation. Doesn't matter how many times someone re-tees and misses; it's still expected that they would land on the island.

P.S. I hadn't though of golf's "expert play" as meaning "played expertly", as much as "played by experts".

 

[Steve West]

...

P.S. I hadn't though of golf's "expert play" as meaning "played expertly", as much as "played by experts".

They certainly meant "played by experts", because of the first sentence. I think they also meant "played expertly" because it is in the second sentence alongside "ordinary weather conditions". That would seem to mean that both phrases are excluding some play by experts - the not-expertly played and the play in bad weather.

Par "Par" is the score that an expert player would be expected to make for a given hole. Par means expert play under ordinary weather conditions, allowing two strokes on the putting green.

 

[DG_player]

Even if errors become expected, I don't think they become part of par.

Say a hole has so many Hazards scattered around the target that there is no strategy for avoiding them. Everyone who misses them gets a 3, everyone who lands in one gets a 4. Even if most players get 4, I would think the players who got a 3 would feel like they parred the hole, not the players who got a 4.

I am open to the possibility that a penalty could be part of par. But, it would be when the penalty is desired and a strategic choice. For example, there was a hole where the DZ was so favorable that the best play was to throw OB and advance to the DZ. Those players took a penalty, but did not make an error (or bad throw, or whatever we end up calling non-expert play).

What I'm really interested in is what you mean by "work"? What's the ideal we are chasing here?

I think it depends on whether it's a matter of luck or skill. If you watch any professional golf there are certainly holes where less than half the field are getting on the green in regulation. Usually this is just a matter of the shots required being very precise.

On the flip side, usually when you see this in disc golf, it's a result of random obstacles, whether it be trees or OB that are essentially avoided by throwing a quality shot PLUS getting lucky. When that's the case I don't see how you can label one shot errant and one errorless based on whether you got lucky or not.

As far as the "work" part: Assuming an expert player is going to make an error less than 50% of the time, then the Median should give you the correct par for "Expert errorless play".

 

[Steve West]

...As far as the "work" part: Assuming an expert player is going to make an error less than 50% of the time, then the Median should give you the correct par for "Expert errorless play".

Does the expert have more chances to make an error on a par 5 than a par 3? Would the same expert who makes an error 50% of the time on a par 3 make one 69% of the time on a par 5?

 

[Steve West]

As much fun as it is to quibble over what "expected" and "errorless" mean, I'd like to take a step back to remind ourselves what the huger problem is.

I looked at all the Pro State and Provincial Championships in 2018; all events with a state's name and "Open" or "Championship". Presumably, these are some of the better-run events.

I looked at the round ratings Open players would get if they scored even par. Here are the ranges, by geography.

Legit par for Gold level players can be rated anywhere from 990 up. So we can say, for example, that a round rating of 840 to 890 or so probably indicates the event used Red/Recreational par.

Based on that, of the 96 rounds examined, more rounds used Red/Recreational par (6 rounds) than Open/Gold par (5). Almost half the rounds (46) used Blue/Advanced par, and the other 39 used White/Intermediate par.

So, the huger problem is events that use lower skill level pars for Open events.

 

[biscoe]

You are making a lot of assumptions about the nature of these events. I am pretty well informed on Virginia Disc Golf for instance and don't even know which event you are referencing without having to look it up. I thought the entire foundation of this thread was looking at events for the touring folks.

 

[DavidSauls]

South Carolina used to have 3 "championships", all of which were very low on the prestige totem pole, compared to others. That's a poor metric of event quality.

 

[biscoe]

Now that I have looked it up the only event in Virginia last year which meets the criteria was the Virginia Junior Disc Golf Championship- not a big draw for the open players for that one.

 

[Steve West]

You are making a lot of assumptions about the nature of these events. I am pretty well informed on Virginia Disc Golf for instance and don't even know which event you are referencing without having to look it up. I thought the entire foundation of this thread was looking at events for the touring folks.

Good catch, I don't have an event for Virginia. It should be blank.

The only assumption I've stated was that the events were well-run. (If that is wrong, I'd prefer someone else point out exactly which state championships are crap.)

All the events here (even the one that got shown in VA by mistake) have an Open division, listed par for that division, and had round ratings that could be looked up for that par.

I never said touring pros are the only players who should get appropriate par.

The point stands that there are a lot of tournaments not using Gold par for the Open division.

 

[DG_player]

Does the expert have more chances to make an error on a par 5 than a par 3? Would the same expert who makes an error 50% of the time on a par 3 make one 69% of the time on a par 5?

He obviously would. However, assuming that an expert can make a "recovery" shot, at some likelihood reasonably close to his likelihood of making an errant shot, the median score should still be par. The only time this wouldn't be the case is if you were dealing with a hole with excessively abundant and punitive hazards.

This is why it's important to look beyond the statistics and look at how a hole physically plays to make a par determination. I think in many cases the median could reasonably indicate a par that is less than "throws to reach plus two", but I would suggest that if it ever indicated a par greater than that, the true par should be "throws to reach plus two".

 

[DG_player]

As much fun as it is to quibble over what "expected" and "errorless" mean, I'd like to take a step back to remind ourselves what the huger problem is.

I looked at all the Pro State and Provincial Championships in 2018; all events with a state's name and "Open" or "Championship". Presumably, these are some of the better-run events.

I looked at the round ratings Open players would get if they scored even par. Here are the ranges, by geography.

Legit par for Gold level players can be rated anywhere from 990 up. So we can say, for example, that a round rating of 840 to 890 or so probably indicates the event used Red/Recreational par.

Based on that, of the 96 rounds examined, more rounds used Red/Recreational par (6 rounds) than Open/Gold par (5). Almost half the rounds (46) used Blue/Advanced par, and the other 39 used White/Intermediate par.

So, the huger problem is events that use lower skill level pars for Open events.

Honestly I don't see how any of this is such a huge problem.

People have this expectation that they want disc golf par to be ball golf par. Either they want it to be an accurate description of how a hole plays (shots to reach plus 2 putts), or they want it to be a an accurate representation of expected score. Disc golf par simply isn't and won't ever be ball golf par. Even if you only focus on one part like you do, it doesn't work. Your methods may make the overall par for an entire course look good, but on an individual hole basis for any given tweener hole it still looks bad and doesn't achieve its goal (indicating expected expert score), whether you assign it the higher or lower par.

 

[Steve West]

Honestly I don't see how any of this is such a huge problem.

People have this expectation that they want disc golf par to be ball golf par. Either they want it to be an accurate description of how a hole plays (shots to reach plus 2 putts), or they want it to be a an accurate representation of expected score. Disc golf par simply isn't and won't ever be ball golf par. Even if you only focus on one part like you do, it doesn't work. Your methods may make the overall par for an entire course look good, but on an individual hole basis for any given tweener hole it still looks bad and doesn't achieve its goal (indicating expected expert score), whether you assign it the higher or lower par.

So, is your logic: Because tweener holes exist, Recreational par is OK to use for Open players?