nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

PGA Tour Thread

GreeBo

Please use this thread for discussing anything to do with the "current" event on the PGA Tour.

Find more posts tagged with

pga tour

Comments

abff

After doing the above calculations, I had a look at the schedule for the remainder of the year and I can’t see DJ playing any more than 6 or 7 times between now and year end. Two playoff events, two majors, a WGC and possibly one or two others. I think that somewhat reduces the likelihood of CM passing him in the rankings by year end.

gypsy79

abff wrote: »

After doing the above calculations, I had a look at the schedule for the remainder of the year and I can’t see DJ playing any more than 6 or 7 times between now and year end. Two playoff events, two majors, a WGC and possibly one or two others. I think that somewhat reduces the likelihood of CM passing him in the rankings by year end.

Sorry but that shows complete lack of understanding of the reason why Morikawa may become world number 1

DJ has points coming on and off and will remain between 40 and 52 events

Morikawa has only played 29 events but must use 40 as a divisor

If he was allowed to use 29 then his average points would be 10.28 (298.18/29)

This would have him well ahead of DJ who has 9.16

abff

gypsy79 wrote: »

Sorry but that shows complete lack of understanding of the reason why Morikawa may become world number 1

DJ has points coming on and off and will remain between 40 and 52 events

Morikawa has only played 29 events but must use 40 as a divisor

If he was allowed to use 29 then his average points would be 10.28 (298.18/29)

This would have him well ahead of DJ who has 9.16

My projections were based on downloading the data from the OWGR and rolling forward the weightings to future dates. They are based on hard data, not conjecture.

To say that I show a complete lack of understanding is not only extremely insulting, it’s also completely inaccurate.

You are the one who seems to be having difficulty understanding how the rankings work.

bren2001

abff wrote: »

After doing the above calculations, I had a look at the schedule for the remainder of the year and I can’t see DJ playing any more than 6 or 7 times between now and year end. Two playoff events, two majors, a WGC and possibly one or two others. I think that somewhat reduces the likelihood of CM passing him in the rankings by year end.

That's all very interesting. I assume an additional 90 points gets Colin to around 370 with the weightings and all that?

I thought the gap between the two in terms of performance was slightly larger than it is. I did think DJ would have to have a big upturn or Colin a big downturn for him not to be number 1 but I didn't look at the maths in detail. Of course, you would expect one of them to outperform the other but it does go to show how close Colin is to #1.

The only thing I'm not following is why DJ not playing more than 6/7 impacts Morikawa. Surely the biggest variable is him closing in on 40 tournaments?

DuckSlice

DJ is number 1 that's all that matters.

abff

bren2001 wrote: »

That's all very interesting. I assume an additional 90 points gets Colin to around 370 with the weightings and all that?

I thought the gap between the two in terms of performance was slightly larger than it is. I did think DJ would have to have a big upturn or Colin a big downturn for him not to be number 1 but I didn't look at the maths in detail. Of course, you would expect one of them to outperform the other but it does go to show how close Colin is to #1.

The only thing I'm not following is why DJ not playing more than 6/7 impacts Morikawa. Surely the biggest variable is him closing in on 40 tournaments?

Colin currently has 298.18 points. The application of the weighting factor to tournaments more than 13 weeks ago will cause these points to be eroded to 266.93 points by end November and 252.65 points by end December. Adding 90 points would bring him to 356.93 and 342.65 points respectively. As his divisor will still be 40 (unless he’s played more than 11 tournaments by then, which seems highly unlikely), this would give him a points average of 8.923 at end November or 8.566 at end December. If some of those 90 points are earned in December, then the end November figure would be lower than the 8.923 shown above.

DJ currently has 412.28 points. This will reduce to 329.41 by end November and 304.08 by end December. He currently has 45 ranking events in the past two years (as adjusted for the COVID-19 break). 9 of these will fall out of the calculation by end November and a further one by end December. If he plays 11 tournaments between now and end November (and we know that’s Not going to happen), his divisor would be 47 at end November and 46 at end December, giving points averages of 8.924 and 8.567 respectively.

But say he only plays 6 tournaments between now and end November and 1 further tournament in December. In that case, his divisor would 42 at both dates, giving him an average of 9.754 at end November (assuming all 90 points are earned by then) and 9.165 at end December, both of which would be comfortably ahead of CM.

gypsy79

abff wrote: »

My projections were based on downloading the data from the OWGR and rolling forward the weightings to future dates. They are based on hard data, not conjecture.

To say that I show a complete lack of understanding is not only extremely insulting, it’s also completely inaccurate.

You are the one who seems to be having difficulty understanding how the rankings work.

Then explain how the 7 competitions reduce the chances of CM been number 1. I have shown that CM would be a full point ahead of DJ if the 40 multiplier didnt exist

DJ has 76, 56 and 68 that havent even moved off the multiplier of 1 so he will be losing point quicker than CM

He also has more points to loose. If their results were equal going forward CM will eventually overtake DJ. If that is not correct show me why it isnt true

abff

gypsy79 wrote: »

Morikawa has only played 29 events but must use 40 as a divisor

If he was allowed to use 29 then his average points would be 10.28 (298.18/29)

This would have him well ahead of DJ who has 9.16

Just to follow up on my previous response to your post, you’re ignoring one very important point in looking at the average figures.

The total points earned by Morikawa over those 29 tournaments was 328.96. Allowing for the weighting applied to points earned more than 13 weeks ago gives the adjusted total of 298.18 that is used to calculate his ranking. He therefore earned an average of 11.33 points per tournament, but the erosion of points values over time reduces this to 10.28.

In the 45 tournaments played by DJ, he has earned 771.56 points, a whopping average of 17.15 per tournament and over 50% higher than Morikawa’s average. Because these tournaments are spread over the full two year period, the erosion in point values is much higher, bringing his weighted average down to 9.16. But this weighting will remain relatively stable as new tournaments come into the calculation and older ones fall out of the reckoning.

But the same can not be said of Morikawa’s average weighting. This will gradually reduce over time until it becomes something closer to DJ’s.

Hopefully, this will help to explain the apparent dichotomy between Morikawa’s current average and his potential future ranking.

Of course, the biggest factor influencing where everyone will finish in future rankings will be how they perform in future tournaments and there’s no doubt that Morikawa looks to have the potential to be a future number 1.

abff

gypsy79 wrote: »

Then explain how the 7 competitions reduce the chances of CM been number 1. I have shown that CM would be a full point ahead of DJ if the 40 multiplier didnt exist

Sorry, just seen this now. Hopefully my last two posts explain things to your satisfaction, but I’m happy to discuss further if you’ve any additional questions.

gypsy79

abff wrote: »

Sorry, just seen this now. Hopefully my last two posts explain things to your satisfaction, but I’m happy to discuss further if you’ve any additional questions.

You are doing quite a bit of if my auntie had balls she would be my uncle. Statistics can be misused to prove nearly any reasonable point (see your point is reasonable but just wrong imo)

Just taking away the last two results from Dj (going soon) and his average drops to 16.17, take away 5 and it is 15.59

It will be a full year till Morikawa will have played two years and be in similar situation. He is nearly at Im levels of turning up for tournies

I have a degree in statistics and people (ab)using numbers to prove their point is a pet hate!!

bren2001

gypsy79 wrote: »

You are doing quite a bit of if my auntie had balls she would be my uncle. Statistics can be misused to prove nearly any reasonable point (see your point is reasonable but just wrong imo)

Just taking away the last two results from Dj (going soon) and his average drops to 16.17, take away 5 and it is 15.59

It will be a full year till Morikawa will have played two years and be in similar situation. He is nearly at Im levels of turning up for tournies

I have a degree in statistics and people (ab)using numbers to prove their point is a pet hate!!

Can you explain how the poster has misused statistics?

gypsy79

If I wanted to do what you just did I could say

Here are Morikawas averages in groups of 10

Last 10 22.281
Middle 10 3.816
First 9 7.514444444

His current form is 22,28 therefore he is destined to take over

I would happily take a bet that Morikawa will be ahead of DJ by the time he has 40 events

Points that is ignoring
DJ seems to be in great form - goes against
There are two majors upcoming - DJ hasnt previously had the bottle - that is a plus
Morikawa currently has a per event advantage given that win will be worth more points to him because of low divisor. Major win would be a 2.5 bump for CM vs approx 2.22 for DJ. That is every comp for next 12 which will be massive unless CM takes ages to play 12 but he has been pretty prolific

gypsy79

bren2001 wrote: »

Can you explain how the poster has misused statistics?

He is cherry picking where it suits his argument.

And presenting the different parts of their records in a way that suit his narrative. The fact that Morikawas bad results are longer away is a good thing

DJ also more more points that are going to start eroding

bren2001

gypsy79 wrote: »

He is cherry picking where it suits his argument.

And presenting the different parts of their records in a way that suit his narrative. The fact that Morikawas bad results are longer away is a good thing

DJ also more more points that are going to start eroding

I don't see how he has done any of that. He's made reasonable and fair assumptions in projecting forward the rankings towards the end of the year which is in direct response to me.

You've a degree in statistics, I'd be interested in seeing your model for predicting who will be world number 1 by the end of the November.

gypsy79

bren2001 wrote: »

You've a degree in statistics, I'd be interested in seeing your model for predicting who will be world number 1 by the end of the November.

Eh I dont have the results

The parts he is picking out are all the positives for DJ vs the negatives for CM. II have show just one example of how I could do this the other way

When I look at the full

abff wrote: »

J
The total points earned by Morikawa over those 29 tournaments was 328.96. Allowing for the weighting applied to points earned more than 13 weeks ago gives the adjusted total of 298.18 that is used to calculate his ranking. He therefore earned an average of 11.33 points per tournament, but the erosion of points values over time reduces this to 10.28.

In the 45 tournaments played by DJ, he has earned 771.56 points, a whopping average of 17.15 per tournament and over 50% higher than Morikawa’s average.

Here he chooses to ignores the erosion that DJ will suffer. He does it at another stage but decides not to show it in actual points

abff wrote: »

In the 45 tournaments played by DJ, he has earned 771.56 points, a whopping average of 17.15 per tournament

Ignores this will drop 15 soon over 40 comps

abff wrote: »

But this weighting will remain relatively stable as new tournaments come into the calculation and older ones fall out of the reckoning.

Not true as per point above

I could go on but I wont.. People do this subconciously all the time

abff

gypsy79 wrote: »

You are doing quite a bit of if my auntie had balls she would be my uncle. Statistics can be misused to prove nearly any reasonable point (see your point is reasonable but just wrong imo)

Just taking away the last two results from Dj (going soon) and his average drops to 16.17, take away 5 and it is 15.59

It will be a full year till Morikawa will have played two years and be in similar situation. He is nearly at Im levels of turning up for tournies

I have a degree in statistics and people (ab)using numbers to prove their point is a pet hate!!

I’ve no idea why to seem to be taking exception to what I’ve done. To accuse me of abusing numbers is totally off the mark and, to be honest, quite offensive. I think you genuinely believe what you’re saying and are not being oppositional for the sake of it, but you have totally mischaracterised what I’ve been doing.

I’ve taken ALL the data underlying both players’ current rankings, so I haven’t cherry picked anything. I have shown a comparison between the average points per tournament won by each of them over the FULL period and then shown the weighted average factor that determines their current world ranking position.

The lowest weighting applied to any of Morikawa’s results is .5761. The lowest applying to DJ is .0109. The average weighting for Morikawa is 90.7%, for DJ it is 53.4%. Again, these are based on ALL the data underlying their current ranking.

The fact that you are making these totally false allegations against me indicates that I have somehow touched a nerve. In your initial response to my post setting out projected rankings, you suggested that I don’t understand how the rankings work.

I think I have clearly shown that I understand them very well indeed and I can only conclude that you are so traumatised at having been proved wrong that you feel the need to post baseless accusations.

Bubbaclaus

We all have degrees in statistics on boards.

gypsy79

abff wrote: »

The lowest weighting applied to any of Morikawa’s results is .5761. The lowest applying to DJ is .0109. The average weighting for Morikawa is 90.7%, for DJ it is 53.4%. Again, these are based on ALL the data underlying their current ranking.

The 90.7% is because Morikawas results initially were just OK. This is perfect example of what I am accusing you of doing!

In 4 weeks time this weighting will be still be well above 0.5 and the two of them will have played three comps with 70, approx 60 and 100 ranking points for the winner, The results in these are key. And if they match each other it will get closer!

Are you disagreeing?

GreeBo

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

We all have degrees in statistics on boards.

Actually only 79% of posters do, but 98% of people don't know that.:D

abff

gypsy79 wrote: »

Here he chooses to ignores the erosion that DJ will suffer. He does it at another stage but decides not to show it in actual points

Actually, I showed the eroded figure in the very next sentence.

gypsy79 wrote: »

Ignores this will drop 15 soon over 40 comps

I was referring to the original points won, not their eroded value. I've no idea what point you're trying to make here. Can you clarify, please?

gypsy79 wrote: »

Not true as per point above

I'm not sure what you mean by the reference to "point above", but the fact that the weighting will remain relatively stable is not incorrect. For example, next week a tournament with a weighting of .0109 will fall out of the calculation and whatever points he earns next week will have a weighting of 1.

Even if we take the worst case scenario of him earning zero points this week (which seems unlikely), he will still have earned 735.56 points over 45 tournaments, an average of 16.35. His weighted points total will reduce from 412.28 to 406.16 and his average will reduce from 9.16 to 9.03. But his weighted points as a percentage of his total points will go UP from 53.4% to 55.2% and this percentage will be even higher if he earns any points this week.

A similar situation will apply next week as another tournament will fall out of the calculation. Then there will be a few weeks during which the average weighting will reduce because nothing further is due to fall out of the (adjusted) two year average until 5 weeks later. Is is this type of ebb and flow that will lead to average weightings remaining broadly unchanged unless there is a run of results that are either significantly better or worse than average.

If you don't believe me, try running the figures yourself rather than just blindly rejecting them because they don't fit your narrative, which seems to be based on gut feel rather than any scientific method. If you have a degree in statistics, I'm sure the maths won't be beyond you.

gypsy79 wrote: »

I could go on but I wont.

I think you already have.

gypsy79 wrote: »

People do this subconciously all the time

Do what? Or are you talking about yourself?

HighLine

abff

gypsy79 wrote: »

The 90.7% is because Morikawas results initially were just OK. This is perfect example of what I am accusing you of doing!

I'm still not sure what I'm being accused off here. As I've said previously, I used ALL the data, so I can't be accused of cherry picking. But I agree that one of the reasons the figure is so high is because Morikawa has done so well in his recent tournaments. But the figure would still be over 80% if he had earned zero points in the PGA Championship and the Workday Charity Open, instead of 100 points and 62 points respectively.

gypsy79 wrote: »

In 4 weeks time this weighting will be still be well above 0.5 and the two of them will have played three comps with 70, approx 60 and 100 ranking points for the winner, The results in these are key. And if they match each other it will get closer!

Are you disagreeing?

At last, something we can agree on! Yes I agree that they will get closer if they achieve similar results. My projections show that the gap will reduce from the current 1.71 points to 1.20 points if they both pick up zero points (which I know is not going to happen - even if they play rubbish, they'll pick up points for the 30 player Tour Championship).

If they both pick up 20 points in total, the gap will reduce to 1.14 points and to 1.01 or 0.87 points if they both pick up 60 or 100 points respectively.

And I definitely agree with your assertion that these results will have a key impact on their respective rankings.

DuckSlice

Jaysus lads will ye give it a break!

abff

etxp wrote: »

Jaysus lads will ye give it a break!

Fair enough! Just standing up for myself, but I'm sure I can find something better to do than running loads of different calculations just for the hell of it.

It's not that I have any particular interest in either of the players. I'm just something of a numbers nerd.

Tinytemper

You do find some sad people on the internet. :eek:

munster87

Webb withdrew this week

Macker1

Covid situation and possibly working from home seems to be sending people over the edge.

gypsy79

Macker1 wrote: »

Covid situation and possibly working from home seems to be sending people over the edge.

**** off Macker...I would love go to work

Stop boasting

[Deleted User]

Why do people seem to prefer a thread to be dead then discussion they aren't interested in.

If you dont like it, you dont have to read it, but it was on topic and nice to see the thread get some traffic.

Like we had a clinic of golf the weekend just past and very little happening here.

I'd prefer if people didnt moan the place to death

PARlance

abff wrote: »

Fair enough! Just standing up for myself, but I'm sure I can find something better to do than running loads of different calculations just for the hell of it.

It's not that I have any particular interest in either of the players. I'm just something of a numbers nerd.

Your posts/updates are always insightful and accurate and has been the case for years.