Lou Stagner’s stat of the week

[Deleted member 30522]

And as if to emphasise how wrong he can be, he's calling today for free drop from divots

The guy has latched on to the very iffy arcos stats and now has a following who swallow every word he says without question. He's the david ickle of golf

 

[Neilds]

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

That’s because his stats are averages and none of us are average

 

[Voyager EMH]

89 competition rounds off the white tees over the last 3 years



It seems that 453 yard third hole is a very easy par 5 for me!

 

[Deleted member 25172]

Lou Stagner is being paid backhanders by the secret Stroke Index illuminati to keep this false information flowing to the masses. Good that some people are on to him after they birdied a Stroke Index 1 hole!

 

[Jigger]

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.

Out of interest, what’s your over par average from your MyEG record and what rounds do you register in it?

 

[Voyager EMH]

Out of interest, what’s your over par average from your MyEG record and what rounds do you register in it?

Logged in to My England Golf and I can't see how to answer those questions. I don't record casual play, only comps.

However, I hope the following clarifies things for you.
I added up my total over par for my last 20 rounds and it comes to 201. Average of 10 over par per round. Resulting in a HI of 4.3.
A round of 6-over par on my course gives a score differential of 4.5. (If I shot 6-over tomorrow, I would get cut to 4.1)
This included 2 comps off the yellows and one away score. A total of +5 in PCC adjustments in those 20 scores.
Neither of the yellow tee scores is in the best 8. This doesn't surprise me. I find the shorter yellow tee course much harder.
The away score included a PCC of +1 and it is in my best 8.

In a later post I made a whole table from howdidoody records. This records home course scores only and I was able to filter out yellow tee comps.
I felt white tee comps only gave a more consistent view of my per-hole-SI scores.

 

[Jigger]

Logged in to My England Golf and I can't see how to answer those questions. I don't record casual play, only comps.

However, I hope the following clarifies things for you.
I added up my total over par for my last 20 rounds and it comes to 201. Average of 10 over par per round. Resulting in a HI of 4.3.
A round of 6-over par on my course gives a score differential of 4.5. (If I shot 6-over tomorrow, I would get cut to 4.1)
This included 2 comps off the yellows and one away score. A total of +5 in PCC adjustments in those 20 scores.
Neither of the yellow tee scores is in the best 8. This doesn't surprise me. I find the shorter yellow tee course much harder.
The away score included a PCC of +1 and it is in my best 8.

In a later post I made a whole table from howdidoody records. This records home course scores only and I was able to filter out yellow tee comps.
I felt white tee comps only gave a more consistent view of my per-hole-SI scores.

Thanks and apologies I didn’t see that before posting. I just ask as the average score for a 5hcp in the stats is 9 and that will have a lot more rounds as I suspect people would track stats more than they perhaps register scores. Stagner does a decent job at normalising stats by refining the date to improve its quality.

As you’ve demonstrated you are close to what the overall average is but general stats can never really take into account course difficulty or personal ability on a given day.

What I find interesting about the stats is that I witness all the time people beating themselves up all of the time but the reality is that most of us think we are better than we are and seeing stats like this does give a level of awareness. Especially to a friend who plays off 7 and thinks he should be scoring par on every hole

Interestingly your table in the post you mention adds up to exactly what’s in the Stagner table for a 5hcp.

Thanks again for taking the time to dig out the data mate.

 

[Deleted member 25172]

I birdied our SI 1 today, so with that I can now confirm that Stagners stats as presented in this thread are BS. Case closed.

 

[IanM]

Data is as useful as the use made of it.

This gets as resounding "yeah and?" from me!

 

[Deleted member 25575]

I think for me what this says is, if I don’t score well on SI18 on any given day - as a 10 HCI - there isn’t an issue as even the players significantly better than me average over par on that hole.
Bogey on SI18 isn’t a bad score, keep my head together and not get down on myself

 

[D-S]

I assume this stat is only based on courses that have SIs based on difficulty. If the same analysis was done in the UK it would be all over the place.
Also would hate to play matchplay at the courses from which these were taken.

 

[Deleted member 25575]

I assume this stat is only based on courses that have SIs based on difficulty. If the same analysis was done in the UK it would be all over the place.
Also would hate to play matchplay at the courses from which these were taken.

Yeah it very much assumes it’s based on difficulty, but that said, none of the SI holes are par or under par for a scratch golfer, so even if I bogey, what I feel is the easiest hole, it’s not the end of the world?!

 

[Jigger]

I think for me what this says is, if I don’t score well on SI18 on any given day - as a 10 HCI - there isn’t an issue as even the players significantly better than me average over par on that hole.
Bogey on SI18 isn’t a bad score, keep my head together and not get down on myself

I applaud your sensible view on this.

 

[IanM]

I applaud your sensible view on this.

Indeed. A 10 handicapper can birdie any hole the course. They can also make double or worse anywhere.

Don't follow a mistake with another!

 

[Backsticks]

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

He is deliberately seeking out stats that go against the intuition of those less familiar with golf stats than he is. Out there, but no incorrect, is what he is going for. Old hat stats like 'lower HIs hit more GIRs', or 'this high% of 20+ HIs dont drive it beyond 200yds' isnt going to grab interest. So he goes for the ones that slay a few misconceptions.

 

[Backsticks]

Indeed. A 10 handicapper can birdie any hole the course. They can also make double or worse anywhere.

Don't follow a mistake with another!

He has some stat on just that which is rightly interesting. Effectively 10HIs and above do follow a double bogey with more bad golf. It was interesting, in the higher HIs are more put off by a single bad hole, regardless of where it comes in the round, and can be a turning point. Exactly what you say seems an important element of low golf, so that you normal service resumes immediately on the next hole.

 

[D-S]

For the stat experts - if it doesn’t matter where you ‘get a shot’ as ’it doesn’t matter’ because you will also just get a shot on a hole where ’you don‘t need it’ - then why on earth bother collecting the data and why don’t clubs just apply the same pattern at every course.
If it does indeed matter as it aids proper handicapping (i.e you need to have your shots on the hardest holes as the nett double bogey rule is part of the calculation) and the where you ‘get shots’ is part of the scaling up process in holes not played - then why can courses simply elect to have SIs fundamentally for matchplay as this will surely skew handicapping calculation?

 

[Backsticks]

For the stat experts - if it doesn’t matter where you ‘get a shot’ as ’it doesn’t matter’ because you will also just get a shot on a hole where ’you don‘t need it’ - then why on earth bother collecting the data and why don’t clubs just apply the same pattern at every course.
If it does indeed matter as it aids proper handicapping (i.e you need to have your shots on the hardest holes as the nett double bogey rule is part of the calculation) and the where you ‘get shots’ is part of the scaling up process in holes not played - then why can courses simply elect to have SIs fundamentally for matchplay as this will surely skew handicapping calculation?

Careful. 'Get shots' can be a trigger phrase around here.

 

[Deleted member 25575]

For the stat experts - if it doesn’t matter where you ‘get a shot’ as ’it doesn’t matter’ because you will also just get a shot on a hole where ’you don‘t need it’ - then why on earth bother collecting the data and why don’t clubs just apply the same pattern at every course.
If it does indeed matter as it aids proper handicapping (i.e you need to have your shots on the hardest holes as the nett double bogey rule is part of the calculation) and the where you ‘get shots’ is part of the scaling up process in holes not played - then why can courses simply elect to have SIs fundamentally for matchplay as this will surely skew handicapping calculation?

That’s a very good question and I’m a few glasses of wine deep, so may be missing things here, but;
For me it shouldn’t matter and for sure in strokeplay / stableford it doesn’t matter (for me), I aim to score as low as I can on any given hole regardless of the SI, in fact I pay zero attention to SI in these formats.
In match play….. that’s where it gets complicated, in my mind it shouldn’t matter, I approach each hole with the single focus of shooting the lowest number I can. However, coming down the stretch, if I’m up or down I may play my strategy differently, even though, if I look at things with cold logic that shouldn’t be the case, why would I ever play a hole with a a strategy that I didn’t think was my best chance of shooting the lowest number I can. But the truth is the lowest realistic score isn’t always the lowest actual score. If I’m 1 down on 18 tee I’m doing everything I can to make bird especially if my opponent is in good shape off the tee, even if that chance at bird brings double very clearly into play

 

[Orikoru]

I have my average score for each hole so I can post my stats for this. Home course, 2023 only, average amount over par - sorted by index and then by score:

SI 1: 1.42 SI 2: 1.22 SI 3: 1.28 SI 4: 1.31 SI 5: 1.14 SI 6: 1.22 SI 7: 1.03 SI 8: 1.00 SI 9: 0.85 SI 10: 0.86 SI 11: 0.69 SI 12: 0.67 SI 13: 1.00 SI 14: 0.69 SI 15: 0.79 SI 16: 0.69 SI 17: 0.90 SI 18: 0.42

SI 1: 1.42 SI 4: 1.31 ▲ SI 3: 1.28 SI 2: 1.22 ▼ SI 6: 1.22 ▲ SI 5: 1.14 ▼ SI 7: 1.03 SI 8: 1.00 SI 13: 1.00 ▲ SI 17: 0.90 ▲ SI 10: 0.86 ▼ SI 9: 0.85 ▼ SI 15: 0.79 ▲ SI 11: 0.69 ▼ SI 14: 0.69 ▼ SI 16: 0.69 SI 12: 0.67 ▼ SI 18: 0.42

A few anomalies then. Our stroke 13 plays harder for me I guess it's because it's an uphill par 3 and just long enough that it makes hitting the green a challenge.

Our stroke 17 used to be a short, driveable for some, par 4, but it had to be redesigned and a mid-length par 3, so that's why it plays a lot harder than it's current index. I was told by the captain that they're reviewing scores for the rest of the year and they will change the indexes at some point to reflect this change, because obviously it's a more difficult hole now.

Stroke 12 is a comparatively straightforward par 5 and under 500 yards. so perhaps it's SI should be higher than 12, judging by the fact it plays second easiest for me - although 11, 14 and 16 are all much of a muchness for me there anyway.