Off to Akron for the WGC Bridgestone at Firestone CC. It's a very respected Par 70 track, that measures more than 7,400 yds. The fairways are narrow, lined with bunkers and the rough is...well, it's rough! Length will help you here, but I don't think it's a must. Accuracy off the tee is #1 this week, followed by GIR's and Par 4 performance. The greens are not hard to read, as they are for the most part flat. Look for your big name, solid ball striker to suceed this week!
Off to Akron for the WGC Bridgestone at Firestone CC. It's a very respected Par 70 track, that measures more than 7,400 yds. The fairways are narrow, lined with bunkers and the rough is...well, it's rough! Length will help you here, but I don't think it's a must. Accuracy off the tee is #1 this week, followed by GIR's and Par 4 performance. The greens are not hard to read, as they are for the most part flat. Look for your big name, solid ball striker to suceed this week!
AJ - there is no formula that I presupposed, no guesswork, no hypothesis, no conjecture. That is as simple of data analysis as it gets and for the last 2 years, the data clearly shows that DA has the lowest correlation with a player's finishing position of all the stats that I do the correlation with. You can choose to think that for some reason this year will be different than the past two years, but that would just be silly if you ask me.
AJ - there is no formula that I presupposed, no guesswork, no hypothesis, no conjecture. That is as simple of data analysis as it gets and for the last 2 years, the data clearly shows that DA has the lowest correlation with a player's finishing position of all the stats that I do the correlation with. You can choose to think that for some reason this year will be different than the past two years, but that would just be silly if you ask me.
I get it dude...ok? Great info. you got there and it seems to work for you. Your doing SO WONDERFUL this year on your picks. Good job buddy! Keep it up man, seems like you got it all figured out. You should be making a living on your simple data golf picks.
Confuss you with the facts???? Really? How much more straight forward do I have to be?
tight fairways, fairway bunkers and gnarly rough = a need to drive it accurate.
After reviewing these FACTS, it's my OPINION that accuracy is important this week...
now if you belive that or not, that's your business....
I get it dude...ok? Great info. you got there and it seems to work for you. Your doing SO WONDERFUL this year on your picks. Good job buddy! Keep it up man, seems like you got it all figured out. You should be making a living on your simple data golf picks.
Confuss you with the facts???? Really? How much more straight forward do I have to be?
tight fairways, fairway bunkers and gnarly rough = a need to drive it accurate.
After reviewing these FACTS, it's my OPINION that accuracy is important this week...
now if you belive that or not, that's your business....
to begin with AJ you can't deny Blair's numbers indicate that driving accuracy in his sample years has not related directly to the top finishers positions. But Blair the assumption that then driving accuracy is not an important stat is a bit of a leap though not only because the level of inaccuracy is not recorded a drive 2 yards off the fairway records the same as a ball behind a tree in the bushes but obviously those top finishers in the sample years probably did not have bad numbers and the actual height of the rough may vary in any of those sample years which would skew those numbers anyway. My theory is that numbers must be linked DA as it related to GIR, GIR as it relates to hole proximity, hole proximity in relation to putting stats and so forth...
I can believe that few people that hit it so poorly they land behind trees will have DA stats that are comparable to a guy that drives it halfway decent all day but is just in the first cut and therefore has not so good DA stats...
to begin with AJ you can't deny Blair's numbers indicate that driving accuracy in his sample years has not related directly to the top finishers positions. But Blair the assumption that then driving accuracy is not an important stat is a bit of a leap though not only because the level of inaccuracy is not recorded a drive 2 yards off the fairway records the same as a ball behind a tree in the bushes but obviously those top finishers in the sample years probably did not have bad numbers and the actual height of the rough may vary in any of those sample years which would skew those numbers anyway. My theory is that numbers must be linked DA as it related to GIR, GIR as it relates to hole proximity, hole proximity in relation to putting stats and so forth...
I can believe that few people that hit it so poorly they land behind trees will have DA stats that are comparable to a guy that drives it halfway decent all day but is just in the first cut and therefore has not so good DA stats...
dry and fast this week...I will admit, the rough will not be that gnarly because of the lack of rain...but with all the fairway bunkers and tight fairways, accuracy is still needed....
dry and fast this week...I will admit, the rough will not be that gnarly because of the lack of rain...but with all the fairway bunkers and tight fairways, accuracy is still needed....
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.
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.
Blue- I get what you're saying. But, I use every round of every golfer in the tournament to do these correlations. So, the one-off cases that you bring up (miss behind a tree v miss in the first cut) are going to average out. GIR is much the same way, the guy that shortsides himself in 8" rough will avg out with the guy that misses on the fringe and can put. I fully agree that the statistical analysis I'm doing is in no way complete, but given the amount of data that's going into, I do think it's certainly viable to at least give a rank order of the parameters to key in on and some idea of relative strength as to how much to weight one v the other in your capping.
Blue- I get what you're saying. But, I use every round of every golfer in the tournament to do these correlations. So, the one-off cases that you bring up (miss behind a tree v miss in the first cut) are going to average out. GIR is much the same way, the guy that shortsides himself in 8" rough will avg out with the guy that misses on the fringe and can put. I fully agree that the statistical analysis I'm doing is in no way complete, but given the amount of data that's going into, I do think it's certainly viable to at least give a rank order of the parameters to key in on and some idea of relative strength as to how much to weight one v the other in your capping.
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..
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..
WeMoveLines - I'm in no way saying that any one factor is the ONLY factor that anybody should ever look at in making a pick. I look at a whole bunch of things: recent performance, H2H, course compatibility, if I've seen them play much recently-what have I noticed about their attitude, etc.
AJ started by saying that Accuracy of the tee is #1 this week, I'm simply saying that the data bears out that he should reconsider that.
Again, I really only brought it up to be helpful, and apologize if anyone feels like I'm "stepping on their turf". Maybe I just have the wrong idea about what what this forum is and should be.
WeMoveLines - I'm in no way saying that any one factor is the ONLY factor that anybody should ever look at in making a pick. I look at a whole bunch of things: recent performance, H2H, course compatibility, if I've seen them play much recently-what have I noticed about their attitude, etc.
AJ started by saying that Accuracy of the tee is #1 this week, I'm simply saying that the data bears out that he should reconsider that.
Again, I really only brought it up to be helpful, and apologize if anyone feels like I'm "stepping on their turf". Maybe I just have the wrong idea about what what this forum is and should be.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.