Stat Geeks: Beaver State Fling - MPO Hole by Hole Scoring Analysis

[jeverett]

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.

[mine all mine]

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.

[snap7times]

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.

[Bullseye]

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.

[Chuck Kennedy]

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.

[Bullseye]

Originally Posted by Chuck Kennedy

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.

[mine all mine]

Originally Posted by Bullseye

The average rating of this field was 996.79.

'nough said!

[Chuck Kennedy]

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.

[jeverett]

Originally Posted by Chuck Kennedy

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.

[Jonesy]

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

[Scott]

Originally Posted by Jonesy

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

The only comment I heard regarding the baskets was that they looked freaking terrific. I heard that comment about 150 times.

[TreeLove]

Originally Posted by Bullseye

fun fun fun

Looks the Genius Hole truly is!

[LegoRules]

Originally Posted by Jonesy

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

I had no trouble seeing the baskets, and I have old lady eyes. Love them they look amazing.

Cindy

[mine all mine]

Originally Posted by Jonesy

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

I thought they ROCKED! The baskets looked great and the red was sweet!

[Bullseye]

Originally Posted by Jonesy

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

Proof: No matter how much time and effort you put into a project, you just cannot please everyone. Sheesh.

[Darr]

Originally Posted by Bullseye

Proof: No matter how much time and effort you put into a project, you just cannot please everyone. Sheesh.

Yeah, what a douche bag!

[Bullseye]

Originally Posted by Darr

Yeah, what a douche bag!

Well, I wouldn't go THAT far... it is Jonesy after all... but he did hurt my feeling. <Sniff>

[NWDiscer]

Originally Posted by Bullseye

Well, I wouldn't go THAT far... it is Jonesy after all... but he did hurt my feeling. <Sniff>

dam your down to just a single feeling.....Running the Fling must be a Rough Motha.

i think you "all" put in a great effort for the disc comm. as a whole.


Red Baskets are so much better than Yellow Baskets




maybe Jonsey just needs to work on his putting??

Originally Posted by Bullseye

Proof: No matter how much time and effort you put into a project, you just cannot please everyone. Sheesh.

Just coming from the 8% of males that are color blind, the most common type of color blindness is red/green color blind, so they are very hard to see for 8% of the male population. Up close they look very nice but finding a dark red basket in a green background is a challenge. Bright would be a better choice IMO, but you guys worked your butts off and made an amazing event either way. Thanks for all your hard work and Jonesy I feel your pain.

[jeverett]

Originally Posted by The Brodys

Just coming from the 8% of males that are color blind, the most common type of color blindness is red/green color blind, so they are very hard to see for 8% of the male population. Up close they look very nice but finding a dark red basket in a green background is a challenge. Bright would be a better choice IMO, but you guys worked your butts off and made an amazing event either way. Thanks for all your hard work and Jonesy I feel your pain.

Eh, I'm red/green colorblind too.. and while I need someone to help me find my red discs on even short-cut grass, I had no problem spotting the baskets.