I think the PDGA really overall doesn't understand how to handle the display of statistics.
For a sport trying to legitimize its professional ranks, the PDGA website's lack of truly comprehensive statistics that are organized in some logical manner is a total weak point. We get a ranking and a rating. But why aren't events that include distance competitions told to please submit results, so that numbers can be accumulated? We have major events with groups following virtually every card. With so much help emerging, the number of people out there just watching ropes, spotting greens, and so on and so forth - How hard would it be for a spotter to be given a list of players on each card coming through and a pencil so they can simply tick off putts taken/made at the green?
I get that it sounds like a lot of work but I'm not talking about a little C Tier event. I'm talking about the NATIONAL TOUR. This is the sort of thing that would fuel discussion among the fans. Imagine we move into 2014 and Paul McBeth is shooting just a hair shy of his 2013 pace, and everyone is wondering why he's coming up just short in those majors, being someone... lets say Schusterick? Instead of conjecture and the eye test we can point to the fact that in 2014 his number of putts taken per round has risen slightly, coupled with Schusterick experiencing a huge uptick, and distance results tell us that Schusterick has added a 35 foot boost in terms of consistent distance.
Suddenly we've got very real discussion around the way the players are playing the game. Lets say we had numbers over the last ten years and we could say "Well Kenny's actual putting percentage is down, but he's also dropped his number of total putts per round, which has kept him at an elite level as he's gotten older." From that information even guys who never got to see him in his prime could say "Oh, well the Champ is remaining elite because he's become more precise off of the tee and on his approaches to the green."
All just hypotheticals. I have no idea what sort of a player Kenny was in 2000 versus what he is now. But if we'd had the help we have now at NTs and we'd been compiling those numbers? I would know this! Right now we've got that kind of help. These ARE National Tour events. This IS a sport that wants further legitimization. So can we get this somewhere on the agenda? The PDGA wants more fans? Numbers matter in sports, even non-stat-geeks know who holds the big league homerun record. They know who has thrown for the most touchdowns. We've all heard about the longest hitters on the PGA Tour. Wilt scored 100 - we all know that.
In disc golf all we have in terms of numbers are the biggest ones - Kenny won 9 straight. Kenny has 12. What if all we knew about the early years of basketball was... the Celtics dynasty won 11. The debate about Celtics-Magic in the 80s would be measured only by who won more rings, and not talent and peak domination.
Sorry I ranted. I'm sitting at a Starbucks and... coffee. Basketball on my mind now, time to go watch the Pistons (probably) lose.
For a sport trying to legitimize its professional ranks, the PDGA website's lack of truly comprehensive statistics that are organized in some logical manner is a total weak point. We get a ranking and a rating. But why aren't events that include distance competitions told to please submit results, so that numbers can be accumulated? We have major events with groups following virtually every card. With so much help emerging, the number of people out there just watching ropes, spotting greens, and so on and so forth - How hard would it be for a spotter to be given a list of players on each card coming through and a pencil so they can simply tick off putts taken/made at the green?
I get that it sounds like a lot of work but I'm not talking about a little C Tier event. I'm talking about the NATIONAL TOUR. This is the sort of thing that would fuel discussion among the fans. Imagine we move into 2014 and Paul McBeth is shooting just a hair shy of his 2013 pace, and everyone is wondering why he's coming up just short in those majors, being someone... lets say Schusterick? Instead of conjecture and the eye test we can point to the fact that in 2014 his number of putts taken per round has risen slightly, coupled with Schusterick experiencing a huge uptick, and distance results tell us that Schusterick has added a 35 foot boost in terms of consistent distance.
Suddenly we've got very real discussion around the way the players are playing the game. Lets say we had numbers over the last ten years and we could say "Well Kenny's actual putting percentage is down, but he's also dropped his number of total putts per round, which has kept him at an elite level as he's gotten older." From that information even guys who never got to see him in his prime could say "Oh, well the Champ is remaining elite because he's become more precise off of the tee and on his approaches to the green."
All just hypotheticals. I have no idea what sort of a player Kenny was in 2000 versus what he is now. But if we'd had the help we have now at NTs and we'd been compiling those numbers? I would know this! Right now we've got that kind of help. These ARE National Tour events. This IS a sport that wants further legitimization. So can we get this somewhere on the agenda? The PDGA wants more fans? Numbers matter in sports, even non-stat-geeks know who holds the big league homerun record. They know who has thrown for the most touchdowns. We've all heard about the longest hitters on the PGA Tour. Wilt scored 100 - we all know that.
In disc golf all we have in terms of numbers are the biggest ones - Kenny won 9 straight. Kenny has 12. What if all we knew about the early years of basketball was... the Celtics dynasty won 11. The debate about Celtics-Magic in the 80s would be measured only by who won more rings, and not talent and peak domination.
Sorry I ranted. I'm sitting at a Starbucks and... coffee. Basketball on my mind now, time to go watch the Pistons (probably) lose.