• Announcements

    • iacas

      Create a Signature!   02/05/2016

      Everyone, go here and edit your signature this week: http://thesandtrap.com/settings/signature/.


Forum Leader
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

153 Hall-of-Fame Candidate

About RandallT

Personal Information

  • Your Location East Coast USA

Your Golf Game

  • Handicap Index 14

Recent Profile Visitors

679 profile views
  1. FWIW- I re-ran the numbers against Broadie, based on the visual look of every putt on your round GG. Here's an example: For the 12th hole, I used an initial putt of 20ft (not the 30ft shown) since the second putt (shot 6) appears to be  a 10-ft comeback putt. I see you losing closer to 4 putts to pros (3.7ish, but the tenths digit is likely not too accurate). But that still is different than GG saying you lost 4.91 to scratch players. Not sure what might account for why you'd lose one more stroke to scratch players than we are calculating you'd lose to pros.  I think the GG team is pretty good, and they might shed some light on this. 
  2. I took a look at your actual round, and I've got a few comments that may be relevant. @iacas comments above are also good. 1. I ran your chart above in blue against my own strokes gained tool, and I came up with a similar number for strokes lost. So congrats to us both- we've both applied Broadie's numbers correctly (let's hope!). 2. I looked at your round and I think I spot a flaw in the methodology of converting their interface to our Broadie analysis. It would also make the putting numbers worse, which is what happened. Take your 4th hole, for example. Here's a screenshot. As you can see, your first putt (Shot 3) is NOT a 15-footer. The first putt is shown in white, and the second putt is shown in yellow.  The first putt rolled 15ft, and left you 9 ft past the hole, which you sank.  Eyeballing that, I would say GG thinks your first putt was 6 or 7 feet.  So GG thinks you 2-putted from 6/7ft. But we plugged in a first putt of 15feet, because the interface says Shot 3 was 15 feet. Confusing. So our calculations of a two-putt from 15-feet might lose 0.2 strokes.  A two-putt from 6-feet would be a loss of .6 or .7 strokes.  So that one hole could account for a half stroke difference right there. Similarly on the 12th hole, your chart shows a 30ft putt and a 10ft comebacker. Visually, it appears that you were 20ft away for the first putt, but you putt the ball 10ft past the hole. Then you hit that. So in reality, you should use 20ft for the first putt. 3. Lastly, there is lots of room for the numbers to be off, particularly when you compare pga vs scratch (different baselines). I once ran Broadie's exact numbers for a round where Rickie Fowler won a tournament. The PGA shotlink system gave the exact distance to the hole on every shot/putt. Here's the chart: http://www.pgatour.com/statsreport/2015/09/07/strokes-gained-at-deutsche-bank.html   Strokes gained per round (ranks in parentheses)   Rank Rickie Fowler Total Drive Appr Short Putt out of 2015 Season 1.4 (15) 0.2 (76) 0.5 (28) 0.3 (31) 0.4 (28) 205 Deutsche Bank Championship 3.7 (1) 0.4 (21) 1.6 (5) 0.0 (44) 1.8 (2) 74 Round 1 4.7 (9) 0.9 (10) 1.2 (27) -0.4 (62) 2.9 (6) 98 Round 2 3.5 (17) 0.5 (33) 2.9 (5) -0.1 (59) 0.2 (43) 98 Round 3 2.9 (11) -1.0 (68) 0.7 (26) 0.2 (36) 3.0 (3) 74 Round 4 3.7 (10) 3.7 (matches) 1.0 (10)2.0 1.4 (14)1.1 0.3 (32)-0.8 1.0 (17)1.4 74   (my results for strokes gained shown in RED) So comparing a pro with exact numbers against Broadie's published charts, the numbers evened out, but for putting it was off by 0.4. For driving, it was off by 1.0.  So if a pro on a pro course with exact numbers has this kind of variability when comparing against Broadie data, I imagine we shouldn't be too surprised when coming up with numbers that are off as well. It is useful for a general feel, but I don't get too hung up with differences of 1 or 2 strokes in any category.      
  3. Most Stressful Shot for You

    For me, playing through. I don't mind playing with strangers, initial tee shots, etc. No big nerves (not that I play in any competitions or anything).  But when it's appropriate to play through a group, the rhythm of everything gets thrown off. Our group seems to speed up in how we cycle through each player off the tee, we hustle off to the ball faster, we might let them hit their tee shot as we find our balls, and then we hit our next shots more quickly.... somehow just knowing that the hole will be a bit rushed and a tad awkward gets to me. I need to just put it out of my mind and tell myself I play PLENTY fast enough already. The problem is with the slow group I'm passing, not with me, so we should just play normally and be good.
  4. Donald Trump for president?

    I just think he won so much at golf, he got tired of winning. He just couldn't take it anymore.      
  5. Claim Your Achievements Here!

    Broke 90 (can't seem to get under 80 on my short/easy course near me either!). Sheepishly lucked out with a hole-in-one last year, which I posted to my MySwing thread. Kind of a lost year as far as developing my golf skills (lack of time to invest), but I'll take the lucky achievement!  
  6. Donald Trump for president?

    This. I think the federal executive powers are nearly unlimited right now. Seriously- who really stops the executive branch when they want to disregard the law/constitution? Plus, it takes so long to get a court case rolling and decided. Quite a lot of the blame rests on the legislative branch for that. If we had a President Trump, you could be certain that the media would lead the cheers for the legislative branch to limit the executive. If we have a President Sanders, on the other hand, the media will bemoan a "do nothing" Congress and encourage executive action. It's all predictable. I think the Senate should be elected by the state legislatures, as they used to be. This way, they are beholden to the states, and not in it for their own aggrandizement. Part of that aggrandizement has been to push the federal agenda by cozying up with lobbyists and the federal establishment. Big mistake, IMHO. If they were appointed by the states, the states could yank them back when they stopped serving the interests of the state. As it stands now, the legislative branch doesn't see a need to limit the executive- and the lawmakers can benefit more by being in cahoots with it all.
  7. Most Stressful Shot for You

    It's pretty stressful to line up for the 3.5ft comeback putt after that!
  8. Donald Trump for president?

    You must've read about the Dem process, and you're entirely correct. The Republicans did a pretty much straight vote using paper at each site and reporting totals by precinct in drips and drabs- from what I understood. Iowa is a strange place though. It seems the right side of the electorate skewed right-wing evangelical. The left side of the electorate skewed toward the democratic socialist view of things. They must have some crazy, vehement political arguments there! The two big beneficiaries were the candidates on those edges: Cruz and Sanders. I think other states will favor more centrist candidates, but we shall see. And great graph. Wow! Trump's stock took a hit.
  9. Donald Trump for president?

    Yah, I think John King/CNN is pretty good at his analysis on election nights, but this time, I think I may have misunderstood him. When we were at 99% precincts reporting, he made the comment that the 99% was a bit deceptive, and implied that we could have a lot more vote tallies coming in. In the end, I think each candidates' totals went up maybe about another 5% (a couple thousand votes or so). I wish I had a screenshot to verify my memory though. But I get that 1% of precincts could be 5% of votes, but he was saying something else. That the estimated number they were using for "% precincts reported" was based on estimates of vote totals of precincts from the previous cycle, so they could be quite a bit off. Since the voting was about 50% higher this election cycle, I got the impression that we could have tons more votes to go, but it wasn't that much. Wish I could replay what it was he meant. Curious more than anything, not that it matters. 
  10. Donald Trump for president?

    John King just said that when they say 99% of vote counted they mean of the "expected" vote, based on previous election.  They might have many many more votes to count. Trump might drop to #3.
  11. Donald Trump for president?

    Hey- don't laugh. I was downtown with family the other day, not far from the White House. A new Trump hotel is due to open up a couple blocks from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, at the old Post Office building, which had a pretty grand lobby (that was actually a crappy food court), and a rickety elevator ride up to get a good view of the city. It's premium real estate definitely- kinda overlooks the White House. Here's a view of the White House from there (just beyond the Treasury Building, a bit hidden past those trees, but in front of the ugly Old Executive Office Building): So the next president will feel a Trump presence nearby regardless.
  12. I recall reading this thread on posture...:   ...and fixing my spine curvature at address. I think I've gotten to a decent posture at address, and in my "My Swing" thread, I believe you mentioned that address looked good (but downhill from there! lol). Anyway, this pic was helpful to me then.   I still get lower back issues when I play a fair amount (rare for me!), and it just now crosses my mind now during the winter when I can't really get out and practice much that during the swing, I am shifting from posterior at address to anterior tilt in my finish. I think I get confused by my goal to extend to a finish with my belt buckle pointing to the sky, so my subconscious tries to arch my back (which then adds some anterior tilt)- which doesn't help at all. When I go to a static finish position now in my foyer, I can adjust my hips to try both ways, and I feel like my finish position has been more "anterior" than "posterior" above.   In fact, the anterior tilt also seems to be my "default" position when I'm relaxed doing routine daily things, which I think is not good. It's my lazy position when I allow my posture to go to its natural state. I definitely need to engage my core to keep the posterior tilt, so it's a conscious effort. I think I make the conscious effort at address when golfing, but my natural tendencies take over on the downswing, and I lose the posterior tilt. Anyway, this is not intended to discuss my own personal issues, but do you ever see people who start out with a good hip tilt at address when they are conscious of it, but lose that tilt dynamically during their swing? Or is that too hard to analyze?
  13. TST Fantasy Golf 2016

    Just googled the Round 1 leaderboard thus far this week (in progress). Leaderboard - Ongoing R1 R2 R3 R4 Total Thru   T1 Vijay Singh -7 – – – -7 18   T1 Ricky Barnes -7 – – – -7 18   T1 Morgan Hoffmann -7 – – – -7 18   4 Si Woo Kim -6 – – – -6 18   T5 Jerry Kelly -5 – – – -5 18   T5 Shane Bertsch -5 – – – -5 18   T5 Luke Donald -5 – – – -5 18   T5 Sean O'Hair -5 – – – -5 18   T5 David Hearn -5 – – – -5 18   T5 Zac Blair -5 – – – -5 18   Can't imagine too many of us have these guys on our roster for the week. Totally different dynamic between one of these "off weeks" compared to last week's smaller and more exclusive field. Point totals will be a fraction of what they were, huh? Guess we gotta capitalize on those big weeks when we can. Anecdotally, I noticed during Tourney #1 that when I was about the TST 50-percentile after Round 3 (I think I was near 22/44 then), I was about 75-percentile for the overall Yahoo community. Then I had an awful round 4 and dropped to about TST 20-percentile, and I'm around 34-percentile for the overall.  It's early and meaningless probably, but for Tourney #1, TST's median and lower players likely did better than the overall median and lower players.    
  14. Funny/Bizarre Internet Stuff

    First watch this guy falling down in the snow, then watch him try to score:        
  15. Donald Trump for president?

    Gotta say I'm with @Gunther here. Strip away the actual platform and policy positions, but I am not seeing any of the Republican contenders being able to match Trump. Oddly, I think only Chris Christie could get the moxie, but he hasn't gained traction. That has surprised me, but he does have baggage. For the ruthless image that Cruz has, he just appears small when compared to Trump. Trump wins that battle, I think. Rubio just comes off lightweight. Bush, a joke. Nobody else is credible. Again, not policies. Strictly force of personality and aura. Then in the general election, Clinton might get obliterated. She might be the one candidate on the planet more despised than Trump.  Trump is upbeat, optimistic, appeals to young people, and he has a Teflon quality (similar to what I saw in Reagan and Obama). Trump fans are big time Trump supporters. Clinton is comparatively defensive, lacking in charisma, and will not generate much enthusiasm. If she wins, it would be strictly through the political machine carrying her over the finish line. Trump is not my guy (but I do like that he would blow up the status quo. It's past time for that), but my honest assessment right now is that 2016 is his to lose. No matter what the establishment politicians and media try to do.  I could be monumentally wrong. He's a crash and burn kinda guy, so anything could happen. I comfort myself that we still have the US Constitution. For those who think that's antiquated, I think you'll become familiar with it again. Come join me in limited federal powers, more state and local rights.