Mark Broadie: Scoring Volatility Study

[Vinsk]

Mark Broadie: Scoring volatility ranking reveals there are 2 kinds of golfers

---

Mark Broadie explains his new data that can classify your scoring strategies as either volatile or steady. The former...

I think this is pretty interesting. Good read. Also includes some more Tiger 2000 facts that are as usual, impressive. 

[HJJ003]

21 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

Mark Broadie: Scoring volatility ranking reveals there are 2 kinds of golfers

---

Mark Broadie explains his new data that can classify your scoring strategies as either volatile or steady. The former...

I think this is pretty interesting. Good read. Also includes some more Tiger 2000 facts that are as usual, impressive. 

Interesting article @Vinsk thanks for sharing. Some of it isn't very surprising. I think people would have pegged Mickelson as Volatile without a in depth analysis...the Cameron Champ one was interesting though. Swings for the fences every time and hitting too many foul balls? 

Tiger being the ultimate "steady Eddie" isn't surprising. I think that Koepka being "Volatile" is explained best in his own words when he describes how much he really doesn't care as much about regular events and plays a lot more aggressive. I think he mentioned it right before the PGA when he claimed that sometimes Majors were easier to win...I think that was part of the same press conference but I don't remember. 

[iacas]

Pretty much what you'd expect, no?

[Hardspoon]

Maybe a minor point (to some), but that is a pretty poor graphic, and basically pointless.

The article is about volatility...why not plot volatility (deviation of score to par) for each golfer against their strokes gained? Maybe they tried and it was flat so it didn’t make for a good article?

[Shindig]

The most important takeaway from the article is "(b)etter players birdie more holes and bogey fewer holes."  Glad I learned that!

 

But for real though, great article, thank you for sharing. 

 

Edited from braces around the b (to indicate I'm lowercasing it) to parenthesis so it doesn't become bold.  Whatever happened to source editor?  I feel we had that a few editions ago.

Edited June 6, 2019 by Shindig
Listed in post

[billchao]

I don't think it's anything really groundbreaking. Volatility is one of those things you can observe. It doesn't matter to me who ranks where.

[iacas]

4 minutes ago, billchao said:

I don't think it's anything really groundbreaking. Volatility is one of those things you can observe. It doesn't matter to me who ranks where.

The only thing he factored in was that some courses are tougher (i.e. more bogeys) than others. He didn't just count "non-par" holes.

But, yeah, I'm with you.

[Vinsk]

1 hour ago, billchao said:

I don't think it's anything really groundbreaking. Volatility is one of those things you can observe. It doesn't matter to me who ranks where.

It may be something the gambling side may like to know.

[p1n9183]

Pointless article. If you made 8 birdies and 7 bogeys or 2 birdies and 1 bogey it´s the same.. You don´t need to be a math geek to know witch one of those are the volatile player.  

[iacas]

2 hours ago, p1n9183 said:

Pointless article.

No it's not.

2 hours ago, p1n9183 said:

You don´t need to be a math geek to know witch one of those are the volatile player.  

You missed the part, I guess, where he adjusted for course difficulty. It's not as straightforward as counting up non-par scores.

[Yukari]

Well, that explains my scoring -- definitely volatile.