|
Post by teeace on Nov 12, 2014 1:53:37 GMT -5
He won the Quicken Loans, but that was his 3rd best putting event of the season. He had a t-4th at Sawgrass, and that was his best putting event of the season. But after that, East Lake was his 6th best putting event and Firestone was his 8th best putting event. 3JACK That's about what I'm talking about Richie. JR is hitting ball so well for the moment that when he get hot with his putter, he make top 10 or even win. He don't do big mistakes and stays high about all the time, but there is not a lot players like him. There is lot of guys who can miss the cut and be in top 10 next week or at top 20, sometimes win. I have followed some players at bit lower levels who can have MC in 40% of tournaments and play really badly there and then get top 3's and even win some other. I have followed one Finnish player on ET who is maybe most steady in scoring but couldn't keep his card again as top5's are missing. So if you take average of those two players, you will see the better guy couldn't keep his card and the worse guy earned 4 times more money. And hi's much worse in stats.... as an average
|
|
|
Post by Richie3Jack on Nov 12, 2014 8:58:05 GMT -5
He won the Quicken Loans, but that was his 3rd best putting event of the season. He had a t-4th at Sawgrass, and that was his best putting event of the season. But after that, East Lake was his 6th best putting event and Firestone was his 8th best putting event. 3JACK That's about what I'm talking about Richie. JR is hitting ball so well for the moment that when he get hot with his putter, he make top 10 or even win. He don't do big mistakes and stays high about all the time, but there is not a lot players like him. There is lot of guys who can miss the cut and be in top 10 next week or at top 20, sometimes win. I have followed some players at bit lower levels who can have MC in 40% of tournaments and play really badly there and then get top 3's and even win some other. I have followed one Finnish player on ET who is maybe most steady in scoring but couldn't keep his card again as top5's are missing. So if you take average of those two players, you will see the better guy couldn't keep his card and the worse guy earned 4 times more money. And hi's much worse in stats.... as an average That path to more Tour success is to increase your average earnings per event though. When the player can play poorly and still make cuts is where the success comes from. The more times you can get into the top-10, the more you are likely to win rather than playing in 25 events and having 2 top-10 finishes and hoping that one of them turns into a victory or a 2nd place finish. Here's another example, from one of my clients. I started working with Daniel Summerhays in 2012. He made $1,111,522 that season. 77% of his earnings came from 20% of his events. And he made $42,750 per event. Fast forward to 2013-2014, the season where he made the most he made on Tour. He makes $1,509,542.72. 63% of his earnings came from 20% of his events. And he made $55,909 per event (a 31% increase from 2012). Daniel is not on the same level as Rose as a player. But, he greatly improved his consistency in performance and started to make cuts despite playing poorly. And the 2013-2014 season included a 2nd place finish which would normally jack up that % of earnings from 20% of the player's events. Instead, it remained a lot amount because Daniel was a much more consistent performer. 3JACK
|
|
|
Post by teeace on Nov 12, 2014 9:45:02 GMT -5
Here's another example, from one of my clients. I started working with Daniel Summerhays in 2012. He made $1,111,522 that season. 77% of his earnings came from 20% of his events. And he made $42,750 per event. Fast forward to 2013-2014, the season where he made the most he made on Tour. He makes $1,509,542.72. 63% of his earnings came from 20% of his events. And he made $55,909 per event (a 31% increase from 2012). Daniel is not on the same level as Rose as a player. But, he greatly improved his consistency in performance and started to make cuts despite playing poorly. And the 2013-2014 season included a 2nd place finish which would normally jack up that % of earnings from 20% of the player's events. Instead, it remained a lot amount because Daniel was a much more consistent performer. 3JACK As a stats guy you should really understand that that doesn't prove anything. 2-3 higher places according other year can make that average rise. So this can be also one provement against average method.
|
|
|
Post by Richie3Jack on Nov 12, 2014 12:20:30 GMT -5
Obviously, you refuse to budge on your argument against using averages. You simply do not understand statistical analytics or how it is used. You are not educated on the matter unlike myself and you continue to use confusing arguments and contradict yourself roughly every other post.
I have shown that your claim that Rose is not a good example because he is an elite player is not valid as Summerhays is not an elite Tour player and he increased his earnings per event and went from 77% of his earnings coming from 20% of his events to 62% coming from 20% of his events. It has lowered his Adjusted Scoring Average and more importantly, increased his earnings per event by 31%. I have shown that Rose's best performances do NOT always coincide with his best putting. And I could show you how that goes for best performances and other parts of the game as well, but you have made up your mind and are going to continue to spout off wildly inaccurate statements, regardless of what anybody says on the subject.
So, I have no more desire to try and educate you on your mistakes since you are dead set on not acknowledging your numerous inaccuracies.
3JACK
|
|
|
Post by teeace on Nov 12, 2014 12:51:23 GMT -5
Obviously, you refuse to budge on your argument against using averages. You simply do not understand statistical analytics or how it is used. You are not educated on the matter unlike myself and you continue to use confusing arguments and contradict yourself roughly every other post. I have shown that your claim that Rose is not a good example because he is an elite player is not valid as Summerhays is not an elite Tour player and he increased his earnings per event and went from 77% of his earnings coming from 20% of his events to 62% coming from 20% of his events. It has lowered his Adjusted Scoring Average and more importantly, increased his earnings per event by 31%. I have shown that Rose's best performances do NOT always coincide with his best putting. And I could show you how that goes for best performances and other parts of the game as well, but you have made up your mind and are going to continue to spout off wildly inaccurate statements, regardless of what anybody says on the subject. So, I have no more desire to try and educate you on your mistakes since you are dead set on not acknowledging your numerous inaccuracies. 3JACK There is none Richie and this turns to same kind of debate you had with Frans about MOI / SW. You are so deep in your way of thinking and averages that you can't think outside of the box. It was same with wedge shots and now here. I really expected something better from you and progress to read the stats by quartiles or something deeper. And Richie, I really understand stats and how to read them. I made same mistakes at 90's when I counted averages. When I changed my thinking I found the reality behind of them. There were just too many things that didn't fit and they all came clear after that change. I also understand this game and how it changes from day to day and week by week. But if you think 0,1-0,2 shots per round makes difference of 10 shots in tournament, it's really up to you.
|
|
|
Post by teeace on Nov 12, 2014 13:11:31 GMT -5
24 Tournaments. 1.781.122 Euros. 1.107.000 of those in 4 tournaments. 1.203.000 in 5. About 74.000 avg means the avg of those 5 best were about 170.000 higher than total average.
70,69 scoring avg 2014 with 1781 thousand , 70,96 at 2013 with 1065. Do someone really believe that 0,27 shot better avg made that 700.000 difference?
Another player 21 tournaments 174.000 euros with scoring avg of 71,09 !! What a heck?? 0,4 shots higher and only 10% of money?
Average is dead.
|
|
|
Post by Richie3Jack on Nov 12, 2014 15:52:58 GMT -5
This has nothing to do with my debate on MOI/SW with Frans. Frans inferred that Tom Wishon was a con man trying to make money. He actually had good points, but couldn't answer why he originally stated that he felt swing weight was better than MOI. Even worse, he could not explain why other clubmakers besides myself were consistently showing improved impact dispersion thru using MOI matching. His argumentative style was much like yours...he just claimed that it was a 'placebo effect', but had no proof that there was a placebo effect when I had tested thru my own research *specifically* against the placebo effect and found that there was none. If he had tested for a placebo effect and actually found it occurring, then he would have had a substantial argument. Instead, he seemed to have an axe to grind with Tom Wishon and had a small leg to stand on, but didn't fully think out his argument.
This is the same thing that is going on here, except Frans actually has quality knowledge about the subject in that thread (club fitting and equipment design) It's obvious that you don't understand statistics and how to read them. I was educated on them extensively in college and work as a statistician in my day job. You're not going to get an educated statistician and analytics expert that is going to agree with your notion that using the mean is useless. As far as highs and lows, that's what the standard deviation is for.
As far as your last post, it's practically un-readable. I will say that your big mistake is that you're basing this off of European Tour scoring averages. You've got two players playing a different number of events. The European Tour does *not* adjust the scoring averages in accordance to what the field average score is in that event. It also doesn't account for the purse size per event.
Let's take a low scoring event with a high purse like Deutsche Bank versus a high scoring event with a low purse like Tampa. A player can shoot -12 at Deutsche and make less money than they did if they shot -8 at Tampa.
On the PGA Tour, a difference of 0.27 adjusted scoring average is going to be worth roughly 25-40 spots on the Money List for the entire season. It depends a bit on where they are on the money list. The lower on the list, the more potential they have to jump up the list. So, let's say that it comes out to 32 spots on the Money List, going from 100th to 68th on the Money List. Last year John Huh was 100th on the PGA Tour Money list at $970,043. #68 was Russell Knox at $1,513,630.
That's a difference of $543,587. That's not very far off from your number of $700k and you have not accounted for any adjusted scoring average.
It's examples like this and this claim that using the average (or the median) is useless that shows you are not educated and have no expertise in the area of statistical analysis.
3JACK
|
|
|
Post by Richie3Jack on Nov 12, 2014 16:21:44 GMT -5
Here’s another example, based on the Tour’s data (from the 177 players that qualified statistically) last season.
The correlation coefficient of Adjusted Scoring Average to Earnings Per Event was -0.77927. That is a very strong indirect correlation. Meaning that is a very strong relationship between the lower the Adjusted Scoring Average the more money the player is going to make per event.
Running a regression analysis based on the 2013 data, the formula to determine a player’s predicted earnings per event based on their Adjusted Scoring Average is:
Projected Earnings per Event = (Adjusted Scoring Average *-81092.76396) + 5811496.201
Last year, the average Adjusted Scoring Average was 70.831 strokes per round. If the player knocked off 0.27 strokes per round that would mean their Adjusted Scoring Average would drop to 70.561 strokes per round.
At 70.831 strokes per round, that comes to a projected earnings per event of $67,614. At 70.561 strokes per round, that comes to a projected earnings per even of $89,510.
That’s a difference of $21,896 dollars per event.
The average Tour player played in 25 events last season. So, if the average Tour player improved by 0.27 strokes of Adjusted Scoring Average and played in the same 25 events with the same purse size, they would earn a projected $547,400 *more*.
As Lynn Blake pointed out years ago, *1* stroke better or worse in Adjusted Scoring Average is worth roughly 100 spots on the Money List. It doesn’t take much for it to make a sizeable impact on your earnings on Tour.
3JACK
|
|
|
Post by teeace on Nov 13, 2014 1:07:32 GMT -5
This has nothing to do with my debate on MOI/SW with Frans. 3JACK This got a lot to do with it. In both cases it's clear you can't accept another opinion even it's well argumented. You fight against with examples that fit to your opinion and dismiss those that are against you, no matter how clear facts they are. It was same with the wedge thread where you were 100% wrong and couldn't admit it.. not even when all numbers were against you. Like I said, I really expected something better from you Richie. Open discussion with respect for another people who has done different stats calculations 20 years as a coach trying to find out most relevant things. And for he you say he don't understand stats?? Just because he has understood what has been wrong with those all the time and why they give wrong view? ps. And I was curious and started to investigate that MOI thing even I'm not interested about fitting. Frans was right, MOI is far away from scientific and so worse than SW. The point is that MOI balanced club can behave totally differently and have totally different specs even with same MOI. I haven't talked with Frans, but I think this is what he tried to explain
|
|
|
Post by teeace on Nov 13, 2014 1:24:54 GMT -5
Here’s another example, based on the Tour’s data (from the 177 players that qualified statistically) last season. The correlation coefficient of Adjusted Scoring Average to Earnings Per Event was -0.77927. That is a very strong indirect correlation. Meaning that is a very strong relationship between the lower the Adjusted Scoring Average the more money the player is going to make per event. Running a regression analysis based on the 2013 data, the formula to determine a player’s predicted earnings per event based on their Adjusted Scoring Average is: Projected Earnings per Event = (Adjusted Scoring Average *-81092.76396) + 5811496.201 Last year, the average Adjusted Scoring Average was 70.831 strokes per round. If the player knocked off 0.27 strokes per round that would mean their Adjusted Scoring Average would drop to 70.561 strokes per round. At 70.831 strokes per round, that comes to a projected earnings per event of $67,614. At 70.561 strokes per round, that comes to a projected earnings per even of $89,510. That’s a difference of $21,896 dollars per event. The average Tour player played in 25 events last season. So, if the average Tour player improved by 0.27 strokes of Adjusted Scoring Average and played in the same 25 events with the same purse size, they would earn a projected $547,400 *more*. As Lynn Blake pointed out years ago, *1* stroke better or worse in Adjusted Scoring Average is worth roughly 100 spots on the Money List. It doesn’t take much for it to make a sizeable impact on your earnings on Tour. 3JACK What you don't seem to understand is that first of all.. you are totally wrong about my ability and education.... but lets move on. Average change when high end changes if the rest of the data is at the same level. So if one plays 40 rounds about 72 shots avg in both years, but other year he also plays 20 rounds 71 and another year 67, that would make huge difference. So average changes, but in reality he's median is still the same and what makes the difference in money list is not those 40 rounds but those 20 and how they fit to each other. 8 to those 67's in two tournaments and wins... that's it. So we see average is changing but we have to deeper to find what changed it and how. Was it so that he played more 71's or did something else happened. In my other post the other guy.. even you tried to hide behind smoke curtain with that adjusted score... he is the guy with lot of 71's.. and 170.000. The other guy is player with 67's and 75's but making enough those 67's in a row sometimes to earn that 1.700.000. So about same average, but different way to get it. So about Lynn Blake.. it's easy to find correlations, much harder to find causality
|
|
|
Post by Richie3Jack on Nov 13, 2014 8:53:14 GMT -5
You are evading what I had posted. You made the claim:
Do someone really believe that 0,27 shot better avg made that 700.000 difference?
I showed that:
1. Part of the issue is that you are using Actual Scoring Average instead of Adjusted Scoring Average
2. Even with using Adjusted Scoring Average that using linear regression based on the strong correlation between Adjusted Scoring Average and Earnings per Event that 0.27 strokes based off the average Tour scoring average is worth $550K for a season based on 25 events played. The more events played, the larger the difference. And anybody that is below the average score per round is going to see an even larger difference. Lastly, if I were to use Actual Scoring Average, there would be a potentially larger difference than $550k because the correlation between Actual Scoring Average and Earnings per Event.
So yes, I do believe that 0.27 strokes better could very well make a $700k difference. I showed you the math and the formula for calculating it.
And there is no 'smoke curtain' behind using Adjusted Scoring Average. It's specifically built to take into account what the field has done for each round because the goal on Tour is to beat everybody in the event you are playing. A Tour player can shoot -10 at Tampa and either win or be closer to winning than if they shoot -10 at Palm Springs. Adjusted Scoring Average accounts for that and records the measurement as such...your methods do not. And calling it a 'smoke curtain' once again tells us about how uneducated you are when it comes to statistical data.
Unless you are capable of refuting the actual statistics where I showed how 0.27 strokes with all things being equal equates to roughly $550k, something that YOU claimed wasn't possible, I'm closing the thread because this has become ridiculous.
3JACK
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Nov 13, 2014 10:20:10 GMT -5
So not only is Tapio incapable of using the English language properly, but he's also horrible at statistics and deductive reasoning. Glad to see nothing changes.
|
|
|
Post by Richie3Jack on Nov 13, 2014 15:19:17 GMT -5
So not only is Tapio incapable of using the English language properly, but he's also horrible at statistics and deductive reasoning. Glad to see nothing changes. You're only using the average of the average of Tapio. On his great days he's less than incapable of using the English language properly and less than horrible at statistics and deductive reason. 3JACK
|
|
|
Post by teeace on Nov 13, 2014 18:17:38 GMT -5
You are evading what I had posted. You made the claim: Do someone really believe that 0,27 shot better avg made that 700.000 difference?
I showed that: 1. Part of the issue is that you are using Actual Scoring Average instead of Adjusted Scoring Average 2. Even with using Adjusted Scoring Average that using linear regression based on the strong correlation between Adjusted Scoring Average and Earnings per Event that 0.27 strokes based off the average Tour scoring average is worth $550K for a season based on 25 events played. The more events played, the larger the difference. And anybody that is below the average score per round is going to see an even larger difference. Lastly, if I were to use Actual Scoring Average, there would be a potentially larger difference than $550k because the correlation between Actual Scoring Average and Earnings per Event. So yes, I do believe that 0.27 strokes better could very well make a $700k difference. I showed you the math and the formula for calculating it. And there is no 'smoke curtain' behind using Adjusted Scoring Average. It's specifically built to take into account what the field has done for each round because the goal on Tour is to beat everybody in the event you are playing. A Tour player can shoot -10 at Tampa and either win or be closer to winning than if they shoot -10 at Palm Springs. Adjusted Scoring Average accounts for that and records the measurement as such...your methods do not. And calling it a 'smoke curtain' once again tells us about how uneducated you are when it comes to statistical data. Unless you are capable of refuting the actual statistics where I showed how 0.27 strokes with all things being equal equates to roughly $550k, something that YOU claimed wasn't possible, I'm closing the thread because this has become ridiculous. 3JACK And I showed you really clearly why guys who got really close avg can make totally different earnings and that got nothing to do with adjustment avg. It's because they got totally different player profiles. One can make cuts as he about never plays more than 1 over par but rarely also under 68. Another guy can play 76 + 75 and get mc, but also 4 times 66 in one week and win. And all that is very easy to understand because prize fund is so top heavy and you need to get top 5's to get paid well. Lot of top 30's is nothing but avg, adjusted or not, can be about same. And once again Richie, you are totally wrong about my education. I really understand perfectly your point and also flaws in it. BTW... those 2 guys had about 1.6 million difference in money list and played lot of same tournaments. And it's loud and clear that the explanation is those best tournaments, not the avg.
|
|
|
Post by teeace on Nov 13, 2014 18:20:02 GMT -5
So not only is Tapio incapable of using the English language properly, but he's also horrible at statistics and deductive reasoning. Glad to see nothing changes. You're only using the average of the average of Tapio. On his great days he's less than incapable of using the English language properly and less than horrible at statistics and deductive reason. 3JACK That's very low Richie and shows you are not able to discuss if someone got different way of thinking. It's sure my english is not perfect, but I think all should be able to understand and accept that. And it seems to be still better than Clay's
|
|