Really Small Baskets

[davetherocketguy]

If we even have a problem, it's par, not equipment.

^^^THIS

 

[jakebake91]

Sure. But, more 50 footers are missed and more 38 footers are missed. Which means more 4-6 foot putts.

Agreed. I didnt have much conviction in what I was saying lol

 

[DavidSauls]

I think what you were trying to say is that, with smaller baskets, 38-footers would be missed as often as 50-footers are now. Implying that the excitement of a 50-footer now, would still be there, just from 38 feet.

 

[jakebake91]

I think what you were trying to say is that, with smaller baskets, 38-footers would be missed as often as 50-footers are now. Implying that the excitement of a 50-footer now, would still be there, just from 38 feet.

Yes, that was what I was indeed attempting to convey.

 

[DanJon]

That would look so cool on ESPN.

 

[Rastnav]

Maybe an analysis of the actual numbers would prove me wrong, but watching lead card coverage it always feels to me that drive and approach gets you the chance to be on lead card, but putting is almost always the difference between the players on that card. That says to me that putting is neither too easy nor too hard.

And I really don't get the angst about scores vs. par. The whole point is about separating people based on how well they are performing, not some arbitrary number on a scorecard. If an individual hole isn't providing enough of a chance to separate, change that hole, not every basket on the course. That's why you do see raised baskets, baskets near OB, baskets tucked near trees, etc. Changing every basket means reassessing every single hole on every single course, from the tee all the way to pin position.

 

[zenbot]

That would look so cool on ESPN.

It's what the sport needs to finally get some respect.

 

[Steve West]

...not some arbitrary number on a scorecard. ...

If that number were truly arbitrary, you would be 100% correct.

If the number is thoughtfully set par, then it is a useful measure of how well they are performing during the round.

Par at most events seen on video is already appropriate enough that it makes sense to talk about things like whether there are enough holes left to get enough birdies to match the leader's under-par number. Or whether someone on the fourth card is actually making a run at the lead.

 

[Rastnav]

If that number were truly arbitrary, you would be 100% correct.

If the number is thoughtfully set par, then it is a useful measure of how well they are performing during the round.

Par at most events seen on video is already appropriate enough that it makes sense to talk about things like whether there are enough holes left to get enough birdies to match the leader's under-par number. Or whether someone on the fourth card is actually making a run at the lead.

I think you slightly misunderstand what I am saying. Let's say a hole averages 3.5 strokes with roughly an even division between the number of players stroking above and below 3.5. That's either a "must get" or maybe even a "soft" par 4, or a hard par 3. The decision whether to call it one or the other is essentially arbitrary, but the history of the sport says we call it a par 3 if it's "reachable" with a drive, and a par 4 otherwise.

The tradition of making par equal to the "reasonable" or "designed" number of strokes to reach the green + 2 is essentially a historical oddity (that I assume was driven by decision to name the sport disc golf). We never call something a par 2, even if it's just 200 feet and there is only one tree to beat in a field.

That's what drives the low numbers in relation to par. If a different convention had been adopted for deciding the par, or even the use of the word "par", we might be talking about the two times McBeth shot a perfect even par. Heck, the convention could have been reversed and McBeth might have shot the hot round of the day at +18, with the next best score a +10.

 

[Steve West]

I think you slightly misunderstand what I am saying. Let's say a hole averages 3.5 strokes with roughly an even division between the number of players stroking above and below 3.5. That's either a "must get" or maybe even a "soft" par 4, or a hard par 3. The decision whether to call it one or the other is essentially arbitrary, but the history of the sport says we call it a par 3 if it's "reachable" with a drive, and a par 4 otherwise.

The tradition of making par equal to the "reasonable" or "designed" number of strokes to reach the green + 2 is essentially a historical oddity (that I assume was driven by decision to name the sport disc golf). We never call something a par 2, even if it's just 200 feet and there is only one tree to beat in a field.

That's what drives the low numbers in relation to par. If a different convention had been adopted for deciding the par, or even the use of the word "par", we might be talking about the two times McBeth shot a perfect even par. Heck, the convention could have been reversed and McBeth might have shot the hot round of the day at +18, with the next best score a +10.

So, we agree that "lots under par" is not a reason for small baskets?

 

[Rastnav]

So, we agree that "lots under par" is not a reason for small baskets?

Yes, we certainly agree on that.

Personally, I don't really see any good reasons for small baskets. It's not as if the best players aren't being identified by the courses as they are set up. Players have to execute at a very high skill level, in all phases of the game, in order to win.

And if a pro is arguing for small baskets because -7 is (somehow) a better course record than -13, that doesn't strike me as compelling.

 

[glassila]

I just looked at the course stats for the OTB.
Par for the course was 66, Eagle won at -32.
The average score for round 1 was 66.77 (.77 over par), Eagle was -13.
The average score for round 2 was 66.78 (.78 over par), Eagle was -10.
The average score for round 3 was 65.74 (.26 under par), Eagle was -9.

If you make shooting par a lot tougher via par adjustments/course design/smaller baskets, etc. the scores of the all players will go up significantly.
If Eagle finishes the OTB at even par then Nate Sexton finishes at +14, Kevin Jones goes +18, Garrett Gurthie +19, Philo +23, etc. For anyone who feels that a score of -32 makes the sport look bad, how does it look when other top players shoot +10, +15, +20? I'm not saying this is a bad thing.

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing winning scores in the 10-20 under range instead of 30-40 under. I think the easiest way to increase scores is by par adjustments. Take holes that are playing .5 or more under par and reduce the par on these holes (as long as they are par 4 or 5). This concept would not work well for the OTB/Swanson Park as only hole 7 would fit the bill as a par 4 which played .35, .45 and .36 under par for the 3 rounds.

I am all for making courses more challenging, but I am totally against more artificial OB.
I think the smaller basket idea is foolish for a number of reasons.

 

[Steve West]

I just looked at the course stats for the OTB.
Par for the course was 66, Eagle won at -32.
The average score for round 1 was 66.77 (.77 over par), Eagle was -13.
The average score for round 2 was 66.78 (.78 over par), Eagle was -10.
The average score for round 3 was 65.74 (.26 under par), Eagle was -9.

If you make shooting par a lot tougher via par adjustments/course design/smaller baskets, etc. the scores of the all players will go up significantly.
If Eagle finishes the OTB at even par then Nate Sexton finishes at +14, Kevin Jones goes +18, Garrett Gurthie +19, Philo +23, etc. For anyone who feels that a score of -32 makes the sport look bad, how does it look when other top players shoot +10, +15, +20? I'm not saying this is a bad thing.

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing winning scores in the 10-20 under range instead of 30-40 under. I think the easiest way to increase scores is by par adjustments. Take holes that are playing .5 or more under par and reduce the par on these holes (as long as they are par 4 or 5). This concept would not work well for the OTB/Swanson Park as only hole 7 would fit the bill as a par 4 which played .35, .45 and .36 under par for the 3 rounds.

I am all for making courses more challenging, but I am totally against more artificial OB.
I think the smaller basket idea is foolish for a number of reasons.

The pars at OTB were quite good. For the two holes for which par could have been lower (#4 and #7 for MPO, #1 and #8 for FPO) both were near the edge.

When I say "could have been lower" I mean to get as low as the toughest pars I've seen. Large well-run events seem to all be asymptotically approaching these same toughest pars, with none going lower.



Oh, and...

Par is not average.
Par is not average.
Par is not average.

 

[glassila]

The pars at OTB were quite good. For the two holes for which par could have been lower (#4 and #7 for MPO, #1 and #8 for FPO) both were near the edge.

When I say "could have been lower" I mean to get as low as the toughest pars I've seen. Large well-run events seem to all be asymptotically approaching these same toughest pars, with none going lower.

Oh, and...

Par is not average.
Par is not average.
Par is not average.

Yes, the MPO pars at the OTB were right on the money.
There were a few FPO holes (9, 16, 17) that were off by more than .6, but these played overpar.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Yes, the MPO pars at the OTB were right on the money.
There were a few FPO holes (9, 16, 17) that were off by more than .6, but these played overpar.

I think you're missing Steve's point that par is not average and also not in relation to the averages for the field on UDisc. Proper par calculations "should" be based on the scores of the pool of players whose ratings average 1000 for MPO and 930 for FPO. The UDisc field averages include scores from players below the reference skill level, making those padded scoring averages less useful for analysis.

 

[Steve West]

I think you're missing Steve's point that par is not average and also not in relation to the averages for the field on UDisc. Proper par calculations "should" be based on the scores of the pool of players whose ratings average 1000 for MPO and 930 for FPO. The UDisc field averages include scores from players below the reference skill level, making those padded scoring averages less useful for analysis.

That's right, Chuck. Hole 17 is a good example. Here are the scoring distributions for the field and the prototypical 930-rated player.

There are two mistakes in saying "The field averaged 4.91, so par should be 5." The first mistake is that not all of the field are experts. It's easy to think of the donators as non-experts, but remember that the top end of the field are better than mere experts. Par is not based on "everyone who enters" nor is it based on "best in the world".

Par is the score that an expert disc golfer would be expected to make on a given hole with errorless play...

For FPO, 930 is the best analogy to 1000 for MPO. So, we look at scores of players rated around (and averaging) 930. For these players, the average was 4.67. However, rounding 4.67 to get par would be the second mistake. Par is not average, par is the score expected with errorless play.

Looking at the distribution, 930-rated players CAN get a score of 3, but not enough actually did to say that 3 would be expected. There were obviously enough 930-rated players who got 4 to say that an expert could be expected to get a 4 with errorless play.

Once that is determined, it doesn't matter what higher scores the players got by making errors. Those 6s, 7s, 8s and 9s raised the average, but they don't have anything to do with par.




(Now I must go put a dollar into the "Talked Par Out of Par Talk" jar.)

 

[glassila]

I think you're missing Steve's point that par is not average and also not in relation to the averages for the field on UDisc. Proper par calculations "should" be based on the scores of the pool of players whose ratings average 1000 for MPO and 930 for FPO. The UDisc field averages include scores from players below the reference skill level, making those padded scoring averages less useful for analysis.

Thanks for the info. I assumed all scores were factored in.

 

[txmxer]

That's right, Chuck. Hole 17 is a good example. Here are the scoring distributions for the field and the prototypical 930-rated player.

There are two mistakes in saying "The field averaged 4.91, so par should be 5." The first mistake is that not all of the field are experts. It's easy to think of the donators as non-experts, but remember that the top end of the field are better than mere experts. Par is not based on "everyone who enters" nor is it based on "best in the world".



For FPO, 930 is the best analogy to 1000 for MPO. So, we look at scores of players rated around (and averaging) 930. For these players, the average was 4.67. However, rounding 4.67 to get par would be the second mistake. Par is not average, par is the score expected with errorless play.

Looking at the distribution, 930-rated players CAN get a score of 3, but not enough actually did to say that 3 would be expected. There were obviously enough 930-rated players who got 4 to say that an expert could be expected to get a 4 with errorless play.

Once that is determined, it doesn't matter what higher scores the players got by making errors. Those 6s, 7s, 8s and 9s raised the average, but they don't have anything to do with par.




(Now I must go put a dollar into the "Talked Par Out of Par Talk" jar.)

That's actually enlightening. The average score is not pertinent, more the number that make a specific score with weighting based on their rating.

I would also say that the player rating is less relevant as well.

 

[Steve West]

That's actually enlightening. The average score is not pertinent, more the number that make a specific score with weighting based on their rating.

I would also say that the player rating is less relevant as well.

Maybe. You could choose some set of players who were experts and set par as the score that enough of them make. That would work, but par would change depending on the particular mix of players you select (or happen to be in the field).

The weighted-average rating is just to keep the skill level consistent across events.

 

[tallpaul]

Here's an effective way of "making the basket smaller."
Trouble was, for many years, this kind of violated green building rules, regarding having obstacles too close to pins.
Also, if the trees are much smaller than these; and a couple of these even fall into the category of; "some chucker" snapping them in half.