PGA Tour Thread

LuckyGent88 wrote:

This Collin Morikawa lad could be very special. Think he is definitely the best out of the new big three out of Wolff, hovland and himself. He is set to make his 22nd straight cut since he began on tour. Tiger made 25 so that would be some record to beat.

Have you ever heard him interviewed? He reminds me of Tiger in interviews, same focused thought process.

Mantis Toboggan

https://twitter.com/dylan__beirne/status/1271935354539520001?s=09

Looks like shuffles to lose!

gypsy79

Mantis Toboggan wrote: »

Looks like shuffles to lose!

Why??

Bit retarded comment

That is essentially the odds turned into percentage

He is light favourite according your 'evidence'

gypsy79

and by the way his to lose would mean at leat 50% imo

gypsy79 wrote: »

and by the way his to lose would mean at leat 50% imo

Firstly, "his to lose" does not imply a probability of >0.5. That's how you arbitrarily define it, there's no mathematical foundation for that view. If someone had a 0.49 chance of winning with 51 other competitors having a 0.01 chance each, you'd say it was theirs to lose.

Secondly, Dylan Beirne is a data analyst. The evidence they present is effectively the bookies odds but it is built on a statistical model that is pretty accurate. It's not "evidence" as you put it nor is it a stupid comment. It is a well informed opinion.

While I wouldn't say it's Xanders to lose, it's very hard to look past Xander or JT. Of course, Rory could eagle the first and those probabilities change dramatically.

gypsy79 wrote: »

Why??

Bit'

Your post is the most ignorant one I’ve read in the golf forum.

bren2001 wrote: »

it's very hard to look past Xander or JT. Of course, Rory could eagle the first and those probabilities change dramatically.

It’s a cracking leaderboard.
I would say with Reeds 7 under yesterday any of the top 15 could win this.
Might suit the type of player who prefers the chase rather than the lead.

I’m going with Reed. Based on no statistical evidence..... other than his 7 under, won in Feb and he’s Texan!

Having said all that I backed Xander on Thursday!

CMcsporty wrote: »

It’s a cracking leaderboard.
I would say with Reeds 7 under yesterday any of the top 15 could win this.
Might suit the type of player who prefers the chase rather than the lead.

I’m going with Reed. Based on no statistical evidence..... other than his 7 under, won in Feb and he’s Texan!

Having said all that I backed Xander on Thursday!

I'm backing Spieth myself as he's a Texan, I think the long lay off has helped him and I want him to win. Great leaderboard for the first week back.

bren2001 wrote: »

I'm backing Spieth myself as he's a Texan, I think the long lay off has helped him and I want him to win. Great leaderboard for the first week back.

Great to see him back.
Had a quick look at his driving stats this week. It looks like he has found something to get it in play more.

Strokes gained putting are well below the field average

Texan golfers are supposedly decent wind players.
Garry Woodland (Kansas) won at Pebble. Not sure if there is a correlation there?

OutTheGap

bren2001 wrote: »

I'm backing Spieth myself as he's a Texan, I think the long lay off has helped him and I want him to win. Great leaderboard for the first week back.

Good to see him in contention again but he throws in the odd very bad hole now and again (like the 4 putt on Friday) Will be interesting to see if he can get the job done tonight.

That probability thing is funny. It's so accurate it didn't have Schauffele in it after round 2.

eagle eye wrote: »

That probability thing is funny. It's so accurate it didn't have Schauffele in it after round 2.

https://www.pgatour.com/statsreport/2020/06/12/golf-stats-numbers-win-probabilities-charles-schwab-challenge.html
Xander Ranked 3rd after round 2 here

eagle eye wrote: »

That probability thing is funny. It's so accurate it didn't have Schauffele in it after round 2.

Data analysts are not clairvoyants, it's just a statistical model that gets more and more accurate the closer you get to the end point. No different then predicting the weather or modelling an electric grid.

OutTheGap

Statistical models are interesting but golf is probably the hardest sport to predict, particularly in the final round. Lots of times the leader plays a bit defensively and somebody under less pressure comes from the pack to win.

There are 14 players within 3 shots of the lead. Any of them have a decent chance of winning if they hit form. I’d say bookmakers margins are better for golf than any other sport.

Mantis Toboggan

gypsy79 wrote: »

Why??

Bit retarded comment

That is essentially the odds turned into percentage

He is light favourite according your 'evidence'

Classy!

Roger_007

OutTheGap wrote: »

Statistical models are interesting but golf is probably the hardest sport to predict, particularly in the final round. Lots of times the leader plays a bit defensively and somebody under less pressure comes from the pack to win.

There are 14 players within 3 shots of the lead. Any of them have a decent chance of winning if they hit form. I’d say bookmakers margins are better for golf than any other sport.

Nick Faldo, when asked once what it takes to win a tournaments, said you need just three things:
1. The skill,
2. The confidence, and
3. The luck.

All players on the PGA tour have the skill, confidence can come and go but it is luck that often determines the result in the end. That’s why it’s so difficult to predict.

bren2001 wrote:

Data analysts are not clairvoyants, it's just a statistical model that gets more and more accurate the closer you get to the end point. No different then predicting the weather or modelling an electric grid.

It's statistical and that's the problem with it. It's based on history and in professional sports that's a problem as everybody is looking to improve and change things all the time.
It doesn't account for three months off, coaching, improvements, injuries, off course issues which may affect a player.
A guy just looking at the tournament for the three days is likely to be more accurate each day than stats.

eagle eye wrote: »

It's statistical and that's the problem with it. It's based on history and in professional sports that's a problem as everybody is looking to improve and change things all the time.
It doesn't account for three months off, coaching, improvements, injuries, off course issues which may affect a player.
A guy just looking at the tournament for the three days is likely to be more accurate each day than stats.

I agree with all of that. I just find it funny when people say things like "It's so accurate that it didn't predict X". Maybe because I've done some work in the field (not sports related). The models of course cannot take every variable into account. Any predictions made after a 3 months lay off have to be taken with a slightly bigger pinch of salt.

The_Kew_Tour

Just great to have a bit of a Golf to enjoy tonight. Better that I’m off tomorrow. What a terrific leaderboard at minute. Golf has some quality of players at the top at minute. May it long continue.

callaway92

Nick Faldo is such a bad commentator.

It’s an unfortunate regular occurrence of a former best in the world player commentating and can contribute nothing but clichès and the odd bit of hyperbole.