Stats (for those who are interested only)

[Jigger]

Please read before posting.

Every time someone posts an interesting stat it gets pulled apart by people who hate stats or think they are rubbish because they don’t reflect their game and the stat discussion gets lost in the mess.

I’ve created this thread purely for those interested in stats and can take stats for what they are, which is a general reflection on the general population that are tracking shots.

If you’re feeling the need to pick a stat apart please be courteous enough to leave this thread alone and start a new one.

Thanks for reading.

 

[Albo]

Great thread, 100% of the people who read this or contribute won’t adhere to your request though OP

 

[Backache]

I am interested in stats and think they can be very valuable, but I'm also interested in their limitations. Should I post or not?

 

[Jigger]

First stat comes from Lou Stagner and the Arccos database, on how much we generally hit the green from certain distances on the fairway.

I’ve been guilty of thinking on the range that I’m excellent from 95yards and then getting angry when I miss a couple on the course. This proves why I shouldn’t be.

 

[Jigger]

I am interested in stats and think they can be very valuable, but I'm also interested in their limitations. Should I post or not?

All I ask is just not to negatively slate it. “Maybe this is a good stat for this reason but may be limited in this scenario”

Stats are too general to fit every scenario and some are extremely floored. Ideally this will become a thread that just allows people to positively impact their thinking on the course.

 

[Mel Smooth]

Thermostats?

I was torn between a hive and the Tado. Went for the latter, and not disappointed.

I’m not really a stats golfer in fairness, but considering a launch monitor, which will obviously change my position..

 

[3offTheTee]

Great thread, 100% of the people who read this or contribute won’t adhere to your request though OP

I guarantee it will be less than 100%!
I am I terested in stats and probability questions

 

[Backache]

All I ask is just not to negatively slate it. “Maybe this is a good stat for this reason but may be limited in this scenario”

Stats are too general to fit every scenario and some are extremely floored. Ideally this will become a thread that just allows people to positively impact their thinking on the course.

OK, one thing I would point out about your first stat is that the figures for most people on the forum could be worse without meaning we are worse.
I think Arcoss has a strong American bias in it's user based.
My impression is that because of land availability American courses tend to have bigger greens than in the UK where courses are tighter so we may have a smaller target than the average of Stagners database.

 

[Deleted member 1147]

First stat comes from Lou Stagner and the Arccos database, on how much we generally hit the green from certain distances on the fairway.

I’ve been guilty of thinking on the range that I’m excellent from 95yards and then getting angry when I miss a couple on the course. This proves why I shouldn’t be.

I've been telling people that for years

 

[HomerJSimpson]

Big fan of Arcoss.

Current strokes gained vs 13 handicap

Overall +1.6
Driving -2.1 (mainly lack of distance and penalties)
Approach +0.6
Short game +1.8
Putting +1.3

Pretty pleased that the 3 release short game and work I've done on my holing out in the 2-5 foot range are paying off. Need to try and keep the penalties off the card (had been getting better) and simply getting no run on sodden fairways so waiting to see where the driving stat trends in the Spring

 

[Imurg]

Interesting that a 20 handicapper has more chance of hitting the green from 76-80 than 71-75.....

 

[Deleted member 1147]

OK, one thing I would point out about your first stat is that the figures for most people on the forum could be worse without meaning we are worse.
I think Arcoss has a strong American bias in it's user based.
My impression is that because of land availability American courses tend to have bigger greens than in the UK where courses are tighter so we may have a smaller target than the average of Stagners database.

Isn't Arcoss worldwide?

 

[Jigger]

OK, one thing I would point out about your first stat is that the figures for most people on the forum could be worse without meaning we are worse.
I think Arcoss has a strong American bias in it's user based.
My impression is that because of land availability American courses tend to have bigger greens than in the UK where courses are tighter so we may have a smaller target than the average of Stagners database.

Yep that’s a very fair point but at least they are a yardstick and probably the best we’ll get unless someone is include to do a comparison with shotscope data which is still largely UK based.

 

[Jigger]

Interesting that a 20 handicapper has more chance of hitting the green from 76-80 than 71-75.....

Never noticed that. Could be a typo but maybe better with a slightly longer club or with a bigger swing I suppose

 

[Jigger]

Isn't Arcoss worldwide?

Yep but it will be influenced hugely by the American market as that’s where it started and they probably have a bigger player percentage.

 

[Backache]

Isn't Arcoss worldwide?

It is indeed worldwide but the average will be biased towards the area where most users are.
The important thing in doing the comparison if comparing yourself is comparing your own course against the average.
If you regularly play the Old course the opposite will apply and you should be hitting more greens.

 

[Jigger]

It is indeed worldwide but the average will be biased towards the area where most users are.
The important thing in doing the comparison if comparing yourself is comparing your own course against the average.
If you regularly play the Old course the opposite will apply and you should be hitting more greens.

Actually that would be a great app function. Ability to reduce field by country/region.

 

[Backache]

One of the points that Stagner often makes with these kind of Stats isn't just expectation management, but also that handicap golfers should be biasing their aim towards the middle of the green rather than the pin even on fairly short shots.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

First stat comes from Lou Stagner and the Arccos database, on how much we generally hit the green from certain distances on the fairway.

I’ve been guilty of thinking on the range that I’m excellent from 95yards and then getting angry when I miss a couple on the course. This proves why I shouldn’t be.

Hands up never been a stats man

But that’s an interesting one

So are those stats taken just from people using Arccos and then it relies on people updating etc

It’s prob not far from what I see - for example most of the time I aim for the centre of the green and 9/10 that’s what I’ll find but I find when going for the pin more I’ll miss the green - that’s certainly a stat above that could help people’s expectations

 

[Deleted member 1147]

Hands up never been a stats man

But that’s an interesting one

So are those stats taken just from people using Arccos and then it relies on people updating etc

It’s prob not far from what I see - for example most of the time I aim for the centre of the green and 9/10 that’s what I’ll find but I find when going for the pin more I’ll miss the green - that’s certainly a stat above that could help people’s expectations

It's common sense really isn't it. Aim at the middle and if you pull, push, under or over club etc you may still find the green. Aim at a pin and one of those will make you miss the green.
Unfortunately we don't always use common sense whilst playing golf. Even though when watching others it can be obvious!