Post by Richie3Jack on Jan 10, 2014 14:38:28 GMT -5
Here's a new article.
www.golfdigest.com/golfworld/2014-01/gwar-shotlink-feature-david-barrett-0113
A lot of this has been already discussed here and with Golf Digest and GOLF Magazine.
I'm mainly interested in Broadie's 'Strokes Gained - Driving' rankings. We usually have very similar rankings. He has Bubba at #1, I had him at #9. The bigger surprise was Rory McIlroy who he has at #5. Broadie and I use different methodologies. I believe his is based on distance left to the cup and projecting what the score should be from there. So if a golfer hits a drive to 110 yards in the fairway, he may project that golfer will average 1.87 strokes after that versus the golfer that is 140 and in the rough may project to something like 2.15 strokes. My methodology is based more on historical data with relation to Adjusted Scoring Average. I take out putts gained (another Broadie metric) and created an algorithm that is based on weighting certain metrics with relation to how they have fared with adjusted scoring average. And now I base that on rolling 10-year, 5-year and 3-year data. The only change for me is that I will be doing it on an event-by-event basis. So a golfer that hits 60% of their fairways is only as good as the field average. If the field average in a particular event is 50%, then the golfer was accurate with their driver. If it was at 75%, then the golfer was less accurate. I find this will give a more detailed depiction of the golfer's performance.
The only thing I don't like about Broadie's works is that he splits the 'short game' into shots less than 100 yards and the 'long game' as shots longer than 100 yards. I've stated this before, but if the longest hole on Tour is about 650 yards, he's really comparing a 550 yard range (650-100) versus a 100 yard range. It is not really an apples to apples comparison because it's obvious that more shots occur from the 550 yard area than the area that is only 100 yards long. And it doesn't really tell me much as a golfer because a 20 yard pitch shot is completely different from a mechanical perspective than a 75 yard wedge. The same goes for a 110 yard wedge to a 190 yard 6-iron or a 225 yard 4-iron or a Driver off the tee.
But that's how the statistical game works. If the data is consistent and the statisticians know what they are doing, they should come up with very similar results. It's just the interpretation and telling the 'story' that may change. What's funny is that I grew up reading Bill James and other Sabermetricians since I was 11 years old and James was far from the best person with numbers. He just had far better ideas and was a much better writer than everybody else.
Anyway, I think people will enjoy the article and hopefully it gives insight that me stating things like 'the wedge game is overrated' won't make people think I'm the lone crazy out there.
3JACK
www.golfdigest.com/golfworld/2014-01/gwar-shotlink-feature-david-barrett-0113
A lot of this has been already discussed here and with Golf Digest and GOLF Magazine.
I'm mainly interested in Broadie's 'Strokes Gained - Driving' rankings. We usually have very similar rankings. He has Bubba at #1, I had him at #9. The bigger surprise was Rory McIlroy who he has at #5. Broadie and I use different methodologies. I believe his is based on distance left to the cup and projecting what the score should be from there. So if a golfer hits a drive to 110 yards in the fairway, he may project that golfer will average 1.87 strokes after that versus the golfer that is 140 and in the rough may project to something like 2.15 strokes. My methodology is based more on historical data with relation to Adjusted Scoring Average. I take out putts gained (another Broadie metric) and created an algorithm that is based on weighting certain metrics with relation to how they have fared with adjusted scoring average. And now I base that on rolling 10-year, 5-year and 3-year data. The only change for me is that I will be doing it on an event-by-event basis. So a golfer that hits 60% of their fairways is only as good as the field average. If the field average in a particular event is 50%, then the golfer was accurate with their driver. If it was at 75%, then the golfer was less accurate. I find this will give a more detailed depiction of the golfer's performance.
The only thing I don't like about Broadie's works is that he splits the 'short game' into shots less than 100 yards and the 'long game' as shots longer than 100 yards. I've stated this before, but if the longest hole on Tour is about 650 yards, he's really comparing a 550 yard range (650-100) versus a 100 yard range. It is not really an apples to apples comparison because it's obvious that more shots occur from the 550 yard area than the area that is only 100 yards long. And it doesn't really tell me much as a golfer because a 20 yard pitch shot is completely different from a mechanical perspective than a 75 yard wedge. The same goes for a 110 yard wedge to a 190 yard 6-iron or a 225 yard 4-iron or a Driver off the tee.
But that's how the statistical game works. If the data is consistent and the statisticians know what they are doing, they should come up with very similar results. It's just the interpretation and telling the 'story' that may change. What's funny is that I grew up reading Bill James and other Sabermetricians since I was 11 years old and James was far from the best person with numbers. He just had far better ideas and was a much better writer than everybody else.
Anyway, I think people will enjoy the article and hopefully it gives insight that me stating things like 'the wedge game is overrated' won't make people think I'm the lone crazy out there.
3JACK
