Jump to content
IGNORED

FiveThirtyEight on Rory's Inconsistency


jamo
Note: This thread is 3529 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Recommended Posts

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/tiger-woods-was-right-about-rory-mcilroys-inconsistency-sort-of/ [QUOTE]Joe Posnanski [URL=http://www.nbcsports.com/joe-posnanski/woods-dealing-end-dominant-days]had a fascinating piece[/URL] at NBC Sports last week regarding comments made by Tiger Woods after Rory McIlroy’s British Open victory (the third major title for the 25-year-old). When asked for a reaction to McIlroy’s win — and his championship-winning form of recent years — Woods said: [QUOTE]Well, as you can see, the way he plays is pretty aggressively. When he gets it going, he gets it going. When it gets going bad, it gets going real bad. It’s one or the other. If you look at his results, he’s kind of that way. Very similar to what Phil [Mickelson] does. He has his hot weeks, and he has his weeks where he’s off. And that’s just the nature of how he plays the game – it’s no right way or wrong way.[/QUOTE] Posnanski’s (likely correct) reading of the remarks is that Woods attributes a high-variance playing strategy to McIlroy, implying the young champion is willing to accept bad rounds in exchange for dazzling ones. (It’s hard not to also read between the lines of Woods’s comments; he seems to be contrasting McIlroy’s bargain with variance against his own brand of consistent brilliance when he was at his peak.) It seems obvious that some golfers are inconsistent and some are steady. (Padraig Harrington made the same comparison between the supposed streakiness of McIlroy and Mickelson last summer.) But as we’ve seen in other sports, such as basketball, the human mind is wired to find patterns and attribute significance to sequences that often turn out to be totally random. So, is Woods’s perception of McIlroy off-base? At first glance, Woods seems right. If we look at the standard deviation of round-by-round major-tournament scores (relative to the field average) for players who have won multiple majors since 1958 (looking only at the years between their first and last major), McIlroy tops the list as the least consistent: There’s also a rhyme and reason to the list based on Woods’s reasoning. In addition to McIlroy ranking first (and, coincidentally, Harrington ranking second), John Daly — known primarily as a volatile, undisciplined long bomber — sits third. And, limiting the data to multi-major winners since 1980, a regression between the most common PGA Tour skill statistics (driving distance and accuracy, greens in regulation percentage, putts per round and sand save percentage, all relative to the tour average) reveals a statistically significant relationship between increased driving power and round-to-round inconsistency in majors, which jibes with Woods’s argument. But if Woods is on to something, then we would expect to find some consistency to a player’s, well, consistency. A pattern of wild round-to-round scoring swings should persist across a player’s whole career. But if we split players’ careers into random groups (I used even and odd years), the correlation between their round-by-round scoring standard deviation in one group of years and the other is just 0.15. That’s low, meaning even though a player like McIlroy has appeared quite streaky in majors so far, we should only expect him to be slightly less consistent than average going forward. The rest of the supposed streakiness Woods saw in McIlroy is probably just the product of randomness and not intrinsic to his game.[/QUOTE]

  • Upvote 1

In my bag:

Driver: Titleist TSi3 | 15º 3-Wood: Ping G410 | 17º 2-Hybrid: Ping G410 | 19º 3-Iron: TaylorMade GAPR Lo |4-PW Irons: Nike VR Pro Combo | 54º SW, 60º LW: Titleist Vokey SM8 | Putter: Odyssey Toulon Las Vegas H7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

McIlroy's career is a small sample size in and of itself. There could be other factors present in this small sample that will not repeat. The two obvious ones being Caroline Wozniaki and the change in equipment. One more could just be youth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Moderator

McIlroy's career is a small sample size in and of itself. There could be other factors present in this small sample that will not repeat. The two obvious ones being Caroline Wozniaki and the change in equipment. One more could just be youth.

Good point with McIlroy, but Phil has a significant sampling.  I would hope that Rory will become more consistent.

Scott

Titleist, Edel, Scotty Cameron Putter, Snell - AimPoint - Evolvr - MirrorVision

My Swing Thread

boogielicious - Adjective describing the perfect surf wave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Good point with McIlroy, but Phil has a significant sampling.  I would hope that Rory will become more consistent.

And I would never make the counter argument with Phil, since I agree that he has been more inconsistent than most other high end players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


McIlroy's career is a small sample size in and of itself. There could be other factors present in this small sample that will not repeat. The two obvious ones being Caroline Wozniaki and the change in equipment. One more could just be youth.

I think physical maturity is another factor you can put in there. With a relatively undiversified gene pool until very recently we Irish tend to mature physically in our early to mid 20s, and are at a significant disadvantage in some sports, especially power sports such as rugby, at youth level. Looking at recent photos of Rory, he seems to have bridged that gap in the past 12 months, and I think that, as well as a a greater focus and workrate, will see a far greater level of consistency. I also can't help but think that Tigers comments are motivated by a realisation that maybe Rory could actually be the real deal, as his attempt to place Rory in the Phil category of occasional brilliance but ultimately flawed doesnt really hold much water. Phil arrived on tour with even more hype than Rory, but had to wait until his early thirties before winning his first major, whereas Rory already has three at 25. Hardly a justifiable comparison really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I think Tiger is a grinder. He is more consistent than these guys because in the years described here he just never quit. In addition he has always had a more conservative approach to the game. Hitting 3 wood more, aiming away from flags, etc.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Moderator
I think Tiger is a grinder. He is more consistent than these guys because in the years described here he just never quit. In addition he has always had a more conservative approach to the game. Hitting 3 wood more, aiming away from flags, etc.

Agreed. I remember in his book he talks about how he made a conscious effort to play less aggresively (how he played as a teenager) with the intention of becoming more consistent. It's something he desires and strives for.

Bill

“By three methods we may learn wisdom: First, by reflection, which is noblest; Second, by imitation, which is easiest; and third by experience, which is the bitterest.” - Confucius

My Swing Thread

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Agreed. I remember in his book he talks about how he made a conscious effort to play less aggresively (how he played as a teenager) with the intention of becoming more consistent. It's something he desires and strives for.

But that might work against him now. He can no longer hit three wood and get it out there where everyone else is with their driver like he once did. Tiger may be forced to play a little differently, and no telling how that will work out. Conservative may mean just getting close now in majors, but not winning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Note: This thread is 3529 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • TST Partners

    TourStriker PlaneMate
    Golfer's Journal
    ShotScope
    The Stack System
    FlightScope Mevo
    Direct: Mevo, Mevo+, and Pro Package.

    Coupon Codes (save 10-15%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope.
  • Popular Now

  • Posts

    • I agree with @klineka, you're clearly doing something right.  Its always going to be a bit of a guessing game if you don't have any scoring history.  On the other hand, understanding that it takes only 54 holes to establish an actual handicap, and they have about 6 weeks in which to play and post enough scores, I don't think its at all unreasonable to require them to have an official handicap before they become eligible for prizes.  I don't know how you structure the fees for the series of competitions, but if its possible they'll play with the group without being eligible for prizes, you could consider a way to let them do that without contributing to the prize pool.
    • I run tournaments and want to put in a local rule that allows relief from tree roots and rocks that are not loose impediments. We have some really terrible lies in some of our courses in my area and nobody is getting paid enough to break clubs. Let me know if you think the verbage for this rule makes sense. Local Rule Roots and Rocks You may move your ball from a tree root or buried rock one club length for free relief no closer to the hole. However you may not use this rule to get relief from a tree, bush, boulder, or other foliage hindering your swing. Your only option here is to play it as it lies or take an unplayable for a one stroke penalty.
    • Makes sense.  Like I said, I wouldn't have been upset at their original offer either, and based on the fine print it seems like they've held up their end of the deal.  
    • If you've only had to adjust retroactively one time in 8 years and have around 5 people each year without handicaps, that's like 40-50 people total so it sounds like you're doing a pretty good job. I think your questions give enough to go off of. This might be a good way to get new people to actually post a few scores during the 6 weeks leading into the first event. Something like "New members will be eligible for tournament money once they have at least 3 posted rounds in GHIN" or something like that. If they can get 3 rounds in prior to their first event, then they're eligible. If not, they'll soon become eligible after an event or two assuming they play a little bit outside of events.
    • This is a loooooong winded narrative so if you don't like long stories, move on. 😉 Our senior club typically gets about 25 new members each year. We lose about 25 members each year for various reasons (moved to FL/AZ, disabled, dead, too expensive). Of the new members, usually 20 have an active GHIN handicap. About 5 each year do not have a GHIN handicap. When they join our club, we give each member a state association membership that includes GHIN handicapping services. We play a series of handicapped tournaments over the summer. When we sign up a new member who does not have a GHIN handicap, we attempt to give them an estimated index until they have sufficient scores posted to have an actual GHIN index.  Our first event typically is around May 15 so, in theory, a new member has about 6 weeks to post a few scores. Posting season in the Mitten starts April 1. Inevitably, several of the unhandicapped individuals seem  to either not play until the first tournament or can't figure out how to enter scores (hey, they are seniors). That situation then leads to my contacting the new member and asking a series of questions: a. Did you ever have a GHIN handicap? If yes, which State and do you recall what it was? b. Do you have an alternate handicap through a non-GHIN handicap service or a league? c. What do you think your average score was last year (for 9 or 18) d. What was your best score last year? Where did you play and which tee was used? e. What do you consider a very good score for yourself? Based on their responses I attempt to give them an index that makes them competitive in the first couple events BUT does not allow them to win their flight in the first couple events. We don't want the new members to finish last and at the same time, we don't want someone with a "20" playing handicap to win the third flight with a net 57. In the event some new member did shoot a net 57, we also advise everyone that we can and will adjust handicaps retroactively when it is clear to us that a member's handicap does not accurately reflect their potential. We don't like to adjust things retroactively and in the 8 years I have chaired the Handicap Committee, we have only done it once. So here are the questions to the mob: Any ideas how to do this better? Any questions one might ask an unhandicapped individual to better estimate their index/handicap? Would it be reasonable to have a new player play once (or more?) without being eligible to place in the money?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...