Messages

 Mickelson, Tiger, Rory have good ratings along with some others this week

BOL

The above table was from 2011, here's 2010:

         Slope    R2    Rank
PB      0.63    0.44      1
BA      0.61    0.47      2
gir       0.55    0.27       3
pa        0.53    0.31      4
par4     0.51    0.35      5
par5     0.42    0.25      6
ppr       0.36    0.15      7
par3     0.35     0.18      8
sc        0.35     0.17      9
dd        0.25     0.08     10
da        0.08     0.01     11

It's like trying to discuss economics with someone that gets their "data" from Fox News - "please don't confuse me with the facts"  

I get the numbers Blue...really good stuff. But to completly disregard accuracy is ridiculous!

AJ - Believe it or not, I'm trying to be helpful.  If you want to turn this spiteful and sarcastic, then fine, I'll leave you to be the king of covers golf forum and I'll spend more time at actually winning money.

And, you say you get it, but you seemingly don't and here's why:

"tight" and "gnarly" are both subjective and relative terms

So, the equation that you proposed really is more like an hypothesis, that should read something like this:

The fairways are tight enough and the rough is gnarly enough that DA should be a leading indicator of finish position

The only thing I was trying to do was to point out to you is that over the last 2 years the data has shown that hypothesis not to be true.  And, in fact, that DA is the single lowest indicator of success of all of the parameters I look at.  Isn't that something you'd want to know if you were about to go off and use DA as your #1 criteria for the week?  I know I sure would, and I would hope that's the kind of information sharing that people would want to come to a forum for.

I check in on AJ's 'analysis' of the course.. It's pretty general explanations but it's nice to know if your not sure what the course setup is..

He was just giving a simple explanation of what the course is like.. I'm sure your calculations are correct to you and you go by the numbers fine.. But certain things factor in to certain courses and that's all he was saying..

What If I told you that your numbers and your stats didn't factor at all what would you say to me? Because I go by 'other factors' then stats and formulas.. I do think they 'matter' but I believe in other things that 'matter more'.. Why do you think your formulas are enough to tell someone their view isn't relevant?

I could sit back and look at the players you take this week and tell you they are gonna lose because their biorhythms are shitty.. But that's what I believe and go by just like your stats are what you believe and go by... It is not for you to tell someone that their 'view' won't matter..

Just let the guy explain what he's looking for on a weekly basis..

Well you said to him that DA has no correlation with how players finish.. Which is basically saying - he's wrong.

That's your opinion and that's fine. Those are your charts and your stats. Go by it. Give your opinion. After he say's his just leave it alone!

What MATH??? Because the last 2 years the finishers didn't have a high DA???

Who gives a garbage??? Honestly? Your math is bs in my opinion then.