Par Talk

[Steve West]

Thanks. Looks like 13 out of 67 who finished were 1000 or above.

Were you wondering whether the results were reliable?

I got the equivalent of 62.84 rounds of data out of that field.

 

[Jimb]

Were you wondering whether the results were reliable?

I got the equivalent of 62.84 rounds of data out of that field.

No, not questioning the reliability. I was wondering if the field was a good representation of "1000 rated players." I'm not a big stats guy so this may be a bit remedial.

I trust that your data is reliable, and valid, for a 1000 rated player. Would you just use a straight average of the individual player ratings to get the average rating for the field? If so, I was wondering if the par set for the course was closer to reality based upon the actual players, vs. a theoretical 1000 rated group of players.

Hopefully that makes sense. And I do enjoy perusing your data. :thmbup:

 

[Steve West]

No, not questioning the reliability. I was wondering if the field was a good representation of "1000 rated players." I'm not a big stats guy so this may be a bit remedial.

I trust that your data is reliable, and valid, for a 1000 rated player. Would you just use a straight average of the individual player ratings to get the average rating for the field? If so, I was wondering if the par set for the course was closer to reality based upon the actual players, vs. a theoretical 1000 rated group of players.

Hopefully that makes sense. And I do enjoy perusing your data. :thmbup:

I don't care what the average rating for the field is. The bottom part of any field shouldn't really even be playing in Open, so who cares how they play? It irks me when a random assortment of various sizes of groups of no-chance donators are included in "this hole is averaging over par" and comments like that.

I apply weights to hole scores, but I don't get an average score. I apply the weights to each score independently; not what the player scored, but whether that player got each possible score. For example, when looking at the frequency of 2s, I count one if the player got a 2 and zero if they did not.

One of the constraints on the weights is that, when they are applied to the ratings of the players, they always generate a weighted average rating of exactly 1000. The other is that ratings far from 1000 get lower weights. The most weight a player can get is 1 per round. The sum of these weights for all players over all rounds is the effective number of rounds.

So, that gives me (in the example) the frequency of a theoretical 1000 rated player getting a 2. It is based on the actual play of the actual players. These frequencies go into the par calculation.

I can generate pars even if there are no exactly 1000-rated players. If there are players fairly near, and both above and below 1000, the data is still reliable. It's no stretch to say that a 1000-rated player will get a 2 with a frequency between that of a 1010 rated player and a 990 rated player.

If all the players are on one side of 1000 or the other, I calculate par based on an extrapolation. Better than nothing, but it might not rise to the level of reliable if no players are near 1000.

 

[Jimb]

I don't care what the average rating for the field is. The bottom part of any field shouldn't really even be playing in Open, so who cares how they play? It irks me when a random assortment of various sizes of groups of no-chance donators are included in "this hole is averaging over par" and comments like that.

I apply weights to hole scores, but I don't get an average score. I apply the weights to each score independently; not what the player scored, but whether that player got each possible score. For example, when looking at the frequency of 2s, I count one if the player got a 2 and zero if they did not.

One of the constraints on the weights is that, when they are applied to the ratings of the players, they always generate a weighted average rating of exactly 1000. The other is that ratings far from 1000 get lower weights. The most weight a player can get is 1 per round. The sum of these weights for all players over all rounds is the effective number of rounds.

So, that gives me (in the example) the frequency of a theoretical 1000 rated player getting a 2. It is based on the actual play of the actual players. These frequencies go into the par calculation.

I can generate pars even if there are no exactly 1000-rated players. If there are players fairly near, and both above and below 1000, the data is still reliable. It's no stretch to say that a 1000-rated player will get a 2 with a frequency between that of a 1010 rated player and a 990 rated player.

If all the players are on one side of 1000 or the other, I calculate par based on an extrapolation. Better than nothing, but it might not rise to the level of reliable if no players are near 1000.

Cool. Thanks.

Sometimes you list what par would be for 950 rated players, etc. So I just wondered, in this case, if the field playing the Open Division really would have been a "better" fit for blue level tees or something like that. No biggie.

 

[Steve West]

Santa Cruz Masters Cup presented by Innova - National Tour, Delaveaga Disc Golf Course

Par for MPO was set perfectly – if pouring rain is ordinary weather conditions. If not, holes #8a, #13, and #17 may be slightly generously parred.

FPO should get to play #4 and #14 as par 4s.

 

[Steve West]

Santa Cruz Masters Cup presented by Innova - National Tour, Delaveaga Golf Course

Perfect for FPO, a couple of weak par 4s for MPO.

 

[teemkey]

Hey Steve, can you do a comparison of Blue Lake 2014 with the Portland Open data?

 

[Steve West]

Hey Steve, can you do a comparison of Blue Lake 2014 with the Portland Open data?

Sure. If you supply the data.

 

[teemkey]

Sure. If you supply the data.

Don't you have access to the PDGA live scores?

 

[Steve West]

Don't you have access to the PDGA live scores?

You mean Pro Worlds? I can do that.

 

[Steve West]

Hey Steve, can you do a comparison of Blue Lake 2014 with the Portland Open data?

Couldn't find anything called Portland Open, so here's 2014 PDGA Professional Disc Golf World Championships, Blue Lake Park, Long Tees

Wow. Lots of opportunities for errors on that course?

Calculated par would be 60, which would have been rated 1042, which indicates the course gave out about six and a half extra throws from errors per round.

I guess that's what happens when every fairway is lined with OB.

(By the way, computed par for the TD's rating of 857 was 68.)

 

[teemkey]

You mean Pro Worlds? I can do that.

I don't think any major tournaments (e.g. significant touring pro attendance) have been played at Blue Lake since 2014 Worlds.

I hear several holes have been altered; I wonder if they're in the group of {3,4,5,6,9,13,14,18} (big group, btw -- I'm kind of surprised given that Feldberg is credited with the design).

It will be interesting to compare the scoring five years later.

Thanks!

 

[Steve West]

I don't think any major tournaments (e.g. significant touring pro attendance) have been played at Blue Lake since 2014 Worlds.

I hear several holes have been altered; I wonder if they're in the group of {3,4,5,6,9,13,14,18} (big group, btw -- I'm kind of surprised given that Feldberg is credited with the design).

It will be interesting to compare the scoring five years later.

Thanks!

Way back then, some people thought you could raise par and make a course better by adding penalties all over the place. We'll see if that's still the case.

 

[teemkey]

Way back then, some people thought you could raise par and make a course better by adding penalties all over the place. We'll see if that's still the case.

I've heard that Winthrop was used (partially) as a model. So, yeah. way back then. But it's an improvement to sacrificing a beaver and/or a steelhead I suppose.

 

[brutalbrutus]

Hey Steve, it be cool to see a comparison of the guys who played most/all of their rounds before the rain today...

 

[brutalbrutus]

^...and the ones who didn't.

 

[RunnerUp]

I really like where this thread is going / what its supposed to be about... I will also say that par is a measurement, and it doesn't matter how its defined as long as everyone is measuring the same. I'm an engineer so this seems like a discussion of SI vs Metric units. Metric units make more sense, but I think in feet and inches.

Now that I've typed more than I've read, I like what Steve West is doing. Probably gonna get hooked on this discussion now.

 

[Steve West]

DGPT - Discraft's Portland Open presented by Bevel Craft Brewing 2019 Blue Lake 8,980 ft

 

[Steve West]

^...and the ones who didn't.

Did you happen to save the tee times?

 

[brutalbrutus]

Did you happen to save the tee times?

Nah. It didn't occur to me to ask you till well after the scores had been posted, but next time something like that happens, i'll grab a screenshot...

...maybe udisc has them still?