Stat Geeks: ORDGC - MPO Hole by Hole Scoring Analysis

[Bullseye]

fun fun fun

[runnaman]

Edit: Sorry, didn't see the MPO

[Lund]

Originally Posted by Bullseye

fun fun fun

cool. who got the 3's on #16 ?

[Bullseye]

Originally Posted by Lund

cool. who got the 3's on #16 ?

Dion Arlyn & James Moore. Bryce Lang was the only one who 3'd it last year.

[chris7graham]

I seen Dion do it this year dont know who else did it.duh and james lmao

[jeverett]

Originally Posted by Bullseye

fun fun fun

I'd be happy to do the scoring spread calculations.. what's the average rating for all players for the MPO division? Any (low) outliers?

[Bullseye]

Avg MPO Rating at start of event: 981.74

[jeverett]

Originally Posted by Bullseye

Avg MPO Rating at start of event: 981.74

Hmm.. we'll need to drop the lowest-rated players' rounds then, to push the MPO average up toward 1000. Is that something you'd be able to do? I'd be happy to do that too, if you don't mind sending me enough of the data to accomplish that.

[Bullseye]

Originally Posted by jeverett

Hmm.. we'll need to drop the lowest-rated players' rounds then, to push the MPO average up toward 1000. Is that something you'd be able to do? I'd be happy to do that too, if you don't mind sending me enough of the data to accomplish that.

Here is the scoring averages that include the highest rated players who make up a 1000.2 rated average.

[jeverett]

Ok, Scoring Spread Analysis is done, using the 1000-average scores. Mind you, I didn't play in the event, and I've never seen the course before, so I can't comment beyond the actual scoring spread and listed par values.. so please feel free to chime in about any of the specific hole anomalies mentioned below:

Hole 4 - For a par 4, 70.00% of recorded rounds birdied this one. I don't know the distance on this one, but it feels like a (considerably) longer pin position may be needed to both increase the scoring spread and reduce the number of 3's?

Hole 7 - For a par 3, 73.33% of recorded rounds par'd this one, and 23.33% of recorded rounds birdied it. Perhaps a slightly tougher (more guarded or riskier, rather than longer) basket position on this one?

Hole 9 - For a par 3, 83.33% of recorded rounds par'd this one, and only 6.67% of recorded rounds birdied it. Perhaps a slightly easier basket position on this one?

Hole 10 - For a par 3, zero recorded rounds managed to birdie this one. Perhaps a shorter pin position on this one?

Hole 13 - Same as above.. zero recorded rounds managed to birdie this one. Shorter pin position?

Hole 14 - Same as above.. only one recorded round managed to birdie this one. Shorter pin position?

Hole 15 - For a par 3, 70.00% of recorded rounds par'd this one, and 20.00% of recorded rounds birdied it. Perhaps a tougher basket position?

Any thoughts?

[runnaman]

Hole 4, The tee should be moved back to give it a true par 4 feel.

Hole 7, perhaps adding an OB line ~20 above the water would not only increase the difficulty of this hole, but would also reduce the waiting on this hole. I saw a lot of people hit the grass and have to search for their discs.

Hole 9, this hole is weird because there is a hill directly in front of the tee forcing you to throw upwards, but with OB on the left you need to throw something flippy so as not to stall and fade over the path. Moving the basket to the right would increase the number of birdies, but I think a better solution would be to move the tee to the left (closer to the road) and make it a par 4.

Hole 10 is great.

Hole 13, either move the tee back and make it a par 4 or put the basket in it's normal location.

Hole 14 is great.

Hole 15, I think if the tee was moved back ~50 feet it would eliminate all birdies. Move it back another 50 and I think it would be a good par 4.

Just my opinions

[emmarose]

... if anyone mentions making any of these holes tougher one more time i will punch you right in the face cyber-ly...

... seriously...

[jeverett]

Hi emmarose and runnaman,

*laugh* Technically, the proposed changes wouldn't really affect the course difficulty overall. Between the seven holes mentioned, four of them could use tweaks to make them slightly easier to birdie. So overall we might be talking about adding at most +1 to every round for a 1000-rated player.

Also, I should probably mention that holes 10, 13, and 14 are still working as intended, and adequately spreading out their scoring distribution. The fact that they're giving so few birdies makes them 'tweener' holes.. which isn't necessarily a bad thing, as long as there aren't *too* many of them.

For hole 15, with 70% 3's and 20% 2's, adding distance doesn't really fix the problem short of adding a lot of distance and going to a par 4. Ideally, the frequency of 3's needs to be reduced without significantly impacting the number of 2's.. i.e. make the green or flight routes riskier without changing the distance. That said, I haven't seen any of these holes, so I don't know how possible that might be to accomplish.

[emmarose]

... yeah, yeah, jeverett, whatever...

... one thing to think about also, here, re: changes to the difficulty/length/whatever of the course, is that while the MPO boys provide the most exciting golf out there they are not the only ones playing the course... and it should, yes, be mostly about them, but not all about them... the best a girl like me could do on hole 17 is a 4... i was happy with a 5 (and i'm actually pretty good at disc golf)... anyway, just sayin', it's not all about the pro dudes...

[jeverett]

Originally Posted by emmarose

... yeah, yeah, jeverett, whatever...

... one thing to think about also, here, re: changes to the difficulty/length/whatever of the course, is that while the MPO boys provide the most exciting golf out there they are not the only ones playing the course... and it should, yes, be mostly about them, but not all about them... the best a girl like me could do on hole 17 is a 4... i was happy with a 5 (and i'm actually pretty good at disc golf)... anyway, just sayin', it's not all about the pro dudes...

Hi Emmarose,

I understand what you mean. I play MA1 and am currently rated 938.. Trojan in any layout is intimidating as heck, and for those of us well below the 1000 average for 'Gold' level courses, these kinds of optimization tweaks may not be beneficial for producing well-designed holes for us.

Honestly, the perfect solution is multiple tee pads per hole, each optimized around producing the desired scoring spread for a particular player skill level. For example I could certainly run the same analysis for a different division, and come up with pretty different results.. not to mention quite possibly a different course par value. Unfortunately, this typically isn't feasible for the growing but low-budget sport of disc golf. Multiple tee pads even at tourneys are a rarity, and multiple permanent tee pads are even rarer. That said, I'd love to see it done, and would be happy to contribute to the number-crunching to optimize for other divisions too.

[Bullseye]

Originally Posted by jeverett

Ok, Scoring Spread Analysis is done, using the 1000-average scores. Mind you, I didn't play in the event, and I've never seen the course before, so I can't comment beyond the actual scoring spread and listed par values.. so please feel free to chime in about any of the specific hole anomalies mentioned below:

Hole 4 - For a par 4, 70.00% of recorded rounds birdied this one. I don't know the distance on this one, but it feels like a (considerably) longer pin position may be needed to both increase the scoring spread and reduce the number of 3's?

Hole 7 - For a par 3, 73.33% of recorded rounds par'd this one, and 23.33% of recorded rounds birdied it. Perhaps a slightly tougher (more guarded or riskier, rather than longer) basket position on this one?

Hole 9 - For a par 3, 83.33% of recorded rounds par'd this one, and only 6.67% of recorded rounds birdied it. Perhaps a slightly easier basket position on this one?

Hole 10 - For a par 3, zero recorded rounds managed to birdie this one. Perhaps a shorter pin position on this one?

Hole 13 - Same as above.. zero recorded rounds managed to birdie this one. Shorter pin position?

Hole 14 - Same as above.. only one recorded round managed to birdie this one. Shorter pin position?

Hole 15 - For a par 3, 70.00% of recorded rounds par'd this one, and 20.00% of recorded rounds birdied it. Perhaps a tougher basket position?

Any thoughts?

Hole 4: No surprise there since I almost pushed this tee back a bit this year. I may push it forward to make it a par 3 or back further to make it a solid par 4. Either way, the data confirmed my suspicions.

Hole 7: I actually pushed this one forward slightly this year to encourage a few more 2s. Perhaps I made it too easy. Shame on me.

Hole 9: Scoring be damned, I like this hole. It is one of the few holes with no water danger, but still plays tough.

Hole 10: Based on the difficulty level of this hole, I should probably call this a par 4. The problem here lies with the wind. Without wind this hole can be birdied.

Hole 13: I moved the basket back 40 feet and it clearly made a difference. Without seeing how it played, it made sense to keep it a par 3. I'll probably call it a par 4 next year.

Hole 14: The is a risk/reward hole. I think the dearth of 2s is due to players wisely playing this hole safely.

Hole 15: This was the first year in this "harder" position, but it didn't increase the scores as much as I had hoped. Still, I do like the hole and short of possible minor tweak, it probably won't change much.

Lastly, I am still thinking about Hole 16. Some say it is much too hard, but at the same time I talked to people who played it safely and easily got the par. So the question might be is it too hard, or do people just not play it safely enough. In any case, there were twice as many 3s (2) on it this year as there were last year (1).

Jeff