Stat Geeks: Beaver State Fling - MPO Hole by Hole Scoring Analysis Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Bullseye View Post
    Did it "feel" like a birdie... or an eagle?
    It felt like the best two shots I could have put together to get there. I would have liked it to be an eagle, but I agree the hole is a tweener.

    Comment


    • #17
      mmm stats.. ok, here's where the course design anomalies stand out.. for reference, as a guideline, a well-designed hole should produce a scoring spread with fewer than 70% of players scoring the same:

      E1 72.8% of scores are 3
      E2 71.0% of scores are 3
      E6 72.2% of scores are 3
      E8 75.3% of scores are 3
      E9 71.6% of scores are 3 (despite being a par 4)
      E13 82.2% of scores are 3
      E15 69.3% of scores are 3
      E18 70.6% of scores are 3

      W5 74.2% of scores are 3
      W6 68.1% of scores are 4 (it's a par 4)
      W8 66.3% of scores are 3, but there are also no 2s on this par 3
      W10 76.7% of scores are 3
      W15 73.6% of scores are 3
      W17 69.9% of scores are 3
      W18 79.8% of scores are 3

      As you can see, approximately 1/3 of the holes on each course came out over or very close to the 70% maximum guideline, with four particular holes really standing out:

      E9 - From the recorded scores, this really wasn't a par 4. 71.6% of players put up a 3 on it, suggesting it really could use redesign both to reduce the number of 3s and increase the number of 4s. How about a more protected basket placement?

      E13 - 82.2% of players parred this one, suggesting it could really use redesign to produce more 2s. Perhaps a shorter or less protected basket placement?

      W8 - While only 66.3% of players parred this one, not a single player birdied it. The particular combination of fairway obstructions, OB on the right, and small island green around the basket seems to have produced a lot of layups and not a lot of attempts at birdie. Perhaps a non-island basket placement for this one? None of the other island holes had this extreme of an effect on birdie attempts, but pretty clearly this one was a tough hole to have a reasonable shot at birdie on. I personally took my only 6p of the event on it. :P

      W18 - At 509', this one was a definite 'tweener'.. thus the 79.8% of players scoring a 3 on it. This one really needs either a tougher basket placement and a par 4 treatment, or a shorter basket placement.

      Comment


      • #18
        E9 is the Genius hole. I have long wondered why this is a par 4 when it seems like two decent shots should give you an easy 3.

        E13 is 2-able and I think should be left alone.

        W8's problem is that it is hard to reach the green and land on the green in the air. It is possible to get close but hard to get on. And stop complaining... I took an 11ppp on this hole at last year's M3PO.

        Please leave W18 alone. I didn't like it for a while but like it much more now that I can roll to a look.

        ďI believe I can hit 18 greens, hit every fairway, you know ó Vision 54, which means you birdie every hole, thatís in the back of my mind. I want to putt better, chip better. That day when I hit 18 greens and one putt, Iíll know Iím a complete golfer. Will that ever happen? Iím not sure, but itís possible. The 54 vision is always in the back of my mind.Ē
        ~Annika SŲrenstam

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by jeverett View Post
          <some text removed for brevity>

          As you can see, approximately 1/3 of the holes on each course came out over or very close to the 70% maximum guideline, with four particular holes really standing out:

          E9 - From the recorded scores, this really wasn't a par 4. 71.6% of players put up a 3 on it, suggesting it really could use redesign both to reduce the number of 3s and increase the number of 4s. How about a more protected basket placement?

          E13 - 82.2% of players parred this one, suggesting it could really use redesign to produce more 2s. Perhaps a shorter or less protected basket placement?

          W8 - While only 66.3% of players parred this one, not a single player birdied it. The particular combination of fairway obstructions, OB on the right, and small island green around the basket seems to have produced a lot of layups and not a lot of attempts at birdie. Perhaps a non-island basket placement for this one? None of the other island holes had this extreme of an effect on birdie attempts, but pretty clearly this one was a tough hole to have a reasonable shot at birdie on. I personally took my only 6p of the event on it. :P

          W18 - At 509', this one was a definite 'tweener'.. thus the 79.8% of players scoring a 3 on it. This one really needs either a tougher basket placement and a par 4 treatment, or a shorter basket placement.
          [E9]: This is the "Genius" hole. A tree fell two winters ago that made the hole considerably easier, however, the dilemma is that even with the tree gone it is still VERY hard to card a "2" on this hole. As it stands I consider it an easy par 4, which IMO is better than a "3" with almost no chance at the birdie.

          [E13]: This hole was shortened this year in an attempt to accomplish this. We did have more birdies this year than we did last year.

          [W8]: I definitely will not be taking this pin position off the island, but I have been fighting to re-introduce the "border" on the front side the island (but not on the back side) and upping the par to "4". This would prevent people from sliding an upshot onto the island. This one change made a huge impact on the way the hole played in the year we used the border.

          [W18]: I will have to start looking at options for this hole. It doesn't HAVE to change, but if we can make a minor change that will "mix it up" a bit it could be improved.
          "You won't like me when I am angry, because I always back up my rage with facts and documented sources". - The Credible Hulk

          Comment


          • #20
            Great suggestions Jeverret. I had some of those exact same suggestions. Especially on the genius hole.
            Support Disc Golf Tournament Solutions on Facebook

            DG Tournament Solutions Webpage

            Comment


            • #21
              Hi Sam, Bullseye, and all,

              First, I just quickly want to clarify that I'm in no way attempting to complain about any aspect of the BSF or the layout. I had a phenomenal time playing my first BSF, and both courses are absolutely top-notch.. by far the most impressive courses I've ever played. I dearly wish Milo wasn't a 2.5 hour drive for me.. I'd be there much more. :P

              For the Genius Hole (E9), as this was also my first time ever playing the courses, I didn't know about the tree opening up the 'fairway'. I agree with Bullseye in that it really can't be fixed by just reducing it to a par 3. As I recall, there's a very large fir tree to the right of the BSF basket placement. Would it be possible to place the basket off to the right of that tree somewhere more protected? I really feel like with more protection around the basket the hole would be a legitimate par 4.

              For E13, the whole point of this exercise is to not debate "is it 2-able?". Sure, you can get a 2 on E13. But out of 163 recorded rounds, only 10 people actually accomplished that. Be it flight path, distance, landing placement, etc., in the BSF configuration this hole is still not producing the desired scoring spread. Honestly, I don't really have a great solution for it, either.. there aren't a lot of (other) good basket placement options for it. Perhaps long-term a different tee pad location could help?

              For W8, I definitely liked the island position, and I'm not sure what other basket placements might really be good options. That said, I'm not a huge fan of artificial 'hay bale' obstacles either. Are there really no good options on the left side (heading toward the next tee pad)?

              For W18, it really felt like there should have been a viable 'shortcut' route. If you examine the hole diagram in the caddy book/tee sign for this hole, you can easily see where I mean. There's that tiny strip of fairway just short of the two trees. But that line wasn't actually there on the hole itself. Perhaps that could be cleared out slightly, to allow for a dialed-in shorter drive for a window at the basket?

              I also probably should have mentioned W10 as another with redesign potential (76.7% of players put up 3s on it). I recall that the lower branches of some of the fir tree guarding the basket were already cleared, so that pretty much just leaves moving the basket slightly to allow for more birdie lines. No real suggestion here.

              Comment


              • #22
                W18 is one of my favorite holes out there because it challenged me to work on my roller so I would one day birdie it. I finally had a decent look this year but left my putt low rattling the cage. I will get it next year!

                I am not sure this course needs to be changed at all. I did like the few tweeks this year, 1W/10E. It would be cool to see little changes like that each year so we have a little different look at a few holes each year. The top pros showed that milo is vulnerable and I personally scored my best rounds this year as well. It may have been the later date and beautiful weather that contributed to that though.

                Comment


                • #23
                  The branches and hanging branches on 13E's tree on the right side 250-325' down the fairway blocked alot of perfect shots for birdie, for example watch the BSF video of the lead card where Nate Doss has a beautiful shot that would have been parked but hit some small hanging branches and put him 25 short...
                  9E was a bit harder in the past when that tree on the right side of the basket was not trimmed the way it is now.
                  I look forward to 2 to 4 changes in 2012 similar to 1W and 10E.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    FYI: The players who carded a "3" on E14 were:

                    Jere Eshelman
                    Paul Ulibarri
                    Dana Vicich

                    Mad props to these guys. That is quite an accomplishment.
                    "You won't like me when I am angry, because I always back up my rage with facts and documented sources". - The Credible Hulk

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Analyzing this data is faulty without knowing the average rating of the players included AND adjusting the percentages to the skill level the course is intended to challenge if necessary. So if the average rating of these players is 984, the scoring spreads need to be adjusted to a 1000 equivalent before evaluating if they need tweaking for Gold level play.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Chuck Kennedy View Post
                        Analyzing this data is faulty without knowing the average rating of the players included AND adjusting the percentages to the skill level the course is intended to challenge if necessary. So if the average rating of these players is 984, the scoring spreads need to be adjusted to a 1000 equivalent before evaluating if they need tweaking for Gold level play.
                        The average rating of this field was 996.79.
                        "You won't like me when I am angry, because I always back up my rage with facts and documented sources". - The Credible Hulk

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Bullseye View Post
                          The average rating of this field was 996.79.
                          'nough said!

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            The average rating of this field was 996.79.
                            That's pretty good. I would still drop the scores from the lowest rated players in this pool, all players under 960 for sure and continue dropping from 960 up, until the average is 1000 +/- 0.1. They are the ones who are likely to have the higher hole scores and make the spreads a little wider on some of these holes. It will likely highlight your "problem par 2s" even more and either lower your scores of 3 percentages or boost them on certain holes.

                            Separate from BSF, if you truly want to determine any hole adjustments for Gold level daily play, you only include scores from players with ratings from 975-1025 in the analysis and see what it looks like.
                            Last edited by Chuck Kennedy; July 14th, 2011, 05:26 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Chuck Kennedy View Post
                              That's pretty good. I would still drop the scores from the lowest rated players in this pool, all players under 960 for sure and continue dropping from 960 up, until the average is 1000 +/- 0.1. They are the ones who are likely to have the higher hole scores and make the spreads a little wider on some of these holes. It will likely highlight your "problem par 2s" even more and either lower your scores of 3 percentages or boost them on certain holes.

                              Separate from BSF, if you truly want to determine any hole adjustments for Gold level daily play, you only include scores from players with ratings from 975-1025 in the analysis and see what it looks like.
                              The advantage of the BSF data is that this particular pool (MPO) only includes data from players 970+ (no one with a rating of under 970 got into the event before it filled). I was operating under the (thankfully correct) assumption that the average rating would come out very close to 1000 already, but it's good to note that we are technically a few points off of that. I'd be interested in seeing 'normed' data, where the very lowest ratings get removed until we hit a true 1000 average, if anyone with access to that would be willing, but I strongly suspect that the specific 'problem' holes won't change.

                              As for daily play, with (I'm assuming) multiple basket locations (not to mention 9 holes that aren't used for daily play) I can't really see that data being all that useful.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                what was the effect of the really hard to see red baskets on the field this year? dark red, really?

                                Comment

                                Announcement Announcement Module
                                Collapse
                                No announcement yet.
                                Working...
                                X