Lou Stagner’s stat of the week
- Thread starter Jigger
- Start date
Banchory Buddha
Well-known member
That's really bizarre, even scratch players are not playing the easiest hole under par?
Our easiest hole on my away course is SI 17 (the even SIs are on front 9), off 4.9 I play it under par over the last two years according to HDID.
This stat more than any other he throws up is really suspect
Our easiest hole on my away course is SI 17 (the even SIs are on front 9), off 4.9 I play it under par over the last two years according to HDID.
This stat more than any other he throws up is really suspect
D-S
Well-known member
Maybe I have got the wrong end of the stick here but if you (the 0 handicapper in this stat) are 0.2 shots over par on every hole doesn’t that mean that your average score is 3.6 over par? Is that really the average score of a scratch golfer and the 8 out of 10 reduces it to 0.
BiMGuy
LIV Bot, (But Not As Big As Mel) ?
Yep
Banchory Buddha
Well-known member
It shouldn't be because everyone will play the hardest holes higher than the easiest holes. Had a look back at old HDID stats from my home club (we moved from HDID 3 years ago, I have two holes where I play dead on par (SI 18 & 9), again not a scratch golfer by a distance. I find this stat from Lou to be highly suspect
Imurg
The Grinder Of Pars (Semi Crocked)
One assumes his SIs are allocated by difficulty and not spread out for a matchplay scenario........
RichA
Well-known member
It's not suspect, probably just an average of tens of thousands of rounds on thousands of different courses, so completely meaningless.
D
Deleted member 23270
Guest
I find most of Stagner's stats pretty dodgy to be honest. Having played quite a lot in the USA and watched guys play rubbish then enter their scores it does make me wonder.
D
Deleted member 23344
Guest
Did he state the source of his data?
The stathole.
Albo
Well-known member
He is the guy who works for Arccos so it will be hundreds of millions of shots over tens of thousands of courses
D
Deleted member 23344
Guest
pendodave
Tour Rookie
He also does a Saturday stat in the podcast he shares with Crossy and Greg Chalmers.
I find them quite interesting. For the most part they demonstrate that recreational golfers have completely unrealistic hopes for the outcomes of their shots. Often leading to (misplaced) sadness, which is never a good thing.
I find them quite interesting. For the most part they demonstrate that recreational golfers have completely unrealistic hopes for the outcomes of their shots. Often leading to (misplaced) sadness, which is never a good thing.
BiMGuy
LIV Bot, (But Not As Big As Mel) ?
Can’t be right. I birdied our SI 1.
PhilTheFragger
Provider of Entertainment for the Golfing Gods 🙄
But does it take The Fragger Factor into account? 
You can make statistics say whatever you want, it’s all about what you leave out and the proportion of “educated estimates”
You can make statistics say whatever you want, it’s all about what you leave out and the proportion of “educated estimates”
chrisd
Major Champion
I don't think life in general could take the "Fragger Factor" in to accountBut does it take The Fragger Factor into account?
You can make statistics say whatever you want, it’s all about what you leave out and the proportion of “educated estimates”
Some were fine, but I feel it has run its course unless they can find some new angle. There is only so much "from 150 yards in the fairway, chances of a 10hc making bogey versus chances of scratch making birdie" type permutations anyone needs.
Voyager EMH
Slipper Wearing Plucker of Pheasants
This year
SI 1. I am 0.96 (Oh, dear - too many doubles on that one)
SI 18. I am - 0.04 (under par, 5 birdie 2s and 4 bogeys in 23 rounds)
Not yer typical 5-handicapper then.
SI 1. I am 0.96 (Oh, dear - too many doubles on that one)
SI 18. I am - 0.04 (under par, 5 birdie 2s and 4 bogeys in 23 rounds)
Not yer typical 5-handicapper then.
Jigger
Club Champion
The thing with Stats is that you can’t personalise them you yourselves directly which a few are trying to do here. You might perform much better on some holes on your own course than the stats in the table suggest and occasionally do worse on them too but the times you do worse you may make it up on holes you normally don’t.
Also remember that most people play worse than handicap more times than to it, so over 100s of rounds for thousands of people the above stats will stack up.
for me the take away, as a mid handicapper, is about the likelihood of being over par on a hole and that the pars and odd birdie are going to be random. Also an early couple of bad holes will not likely ruin the round as I’m just as likely to bogey SI over a single figure SI.
Also remember that most people play worse than handicap more times than to it, so over 100s of rounds for thousands of people the above stats will stack up.
for me the take away, as a mid handicapper, is about the likelihood of being over par on a hole and that the pars and odd birdie are going to be random. Also an early couple of bad holes will not likely ruin the round as I’m just as likely to bogey SI over a single figure SI.
Banchory Buddha
Well-known member
That's what I mean too, I don't believe this stat at all, like @DaveR I find most of his stats to be rather out there and not my admittedly personal experience
