Increased Randomness on Putting

[iacas]

  On 10/5/2021 at 4:45 PM, batchvt said:

Now we add a ½ bump random bump in either direction to the distribution and the make rates become this.

Expand  

  On 10/5/2021 at 4:45 PM, batchvt said:

Let’s assume that half of these remaining putts are hit from 2 ft, and half from 3 ft.

Expand  

  On 10/5/2021 at 4:45 PM, batchvt said:

Now you don't have to agree with my assumptions here.

Expand  

  On 10/5/2021 at 4:45 PM, batchvt said:

When you do consider every putt, it’s perfectly reasonable to believe that the good putter ends up better off than the poor putter.

Expand  

Look, you really, really don't understand how flawed what you're doing here is. So, no, nobody agrees with your assumptions, and while it may be "perfectly reasonable" it's still not true.

  On 10/5/2021 at 5:39 PM, batchvt said:

Really simplified version of the spirit of this post.

Expand  

Simplified to the point of being irrelevant.

  On 10/5/2021 at 5:39 PM, batchvt said:

Lets say make rates fall 10% on average for the good putter and fall 9% on average for the bad putter.

Expand  

Let's just make stuff up!

  On 10/5/2021 at 6:13 PM, batchvt said:

Golf is about how many strokes it takes to make the ball 18 times.

Expand  

Ground breaking stuff here. Truly.

  On 10/5/2021 at 6:13 PM, batchvt said:

The good player increased by 7.5 putts to hole the ball 18 times.  The bad putter increased by 12.6 putts to hole the ball 18 times.

Expand  

That's not how that works.

  On 10/5/2021 at 6:13 PM, batchvt said:

The problem is too complicated …

Expand  

… for you.

---

In the words of a friend, you seem to know just enough to think the data supports your backward conclusion, but not enough to actually properly interpret it.

[boogielicious]

  On 10/5/2021 at 6:13 PM, batchvt said:

Golf is about how many strokes it takes to make the ball 18 times.  

To keep this really simple, lets say that the stats you just provided are the stats for ever putt the good player and the bad player face. 

So to make the ball 18 times, the good putter will have to putt:

18/80% = 22.5 putts on average.  

the bad putter will have to putt:

18/50% = 36 putts on average.

Now after the bumps, here's what happens:

Good putter

18/60% = 30 putts on average

Bad putter

18/37% = 48.6 putts on average.

The good player increased by 7.5 putts to hole the ball 18 times.  The bad putter increased by 12.6 putts to hole the ball 18 times.

The bad putter was impacted more by the bumpy greens than the good player.  

The problem is too complicated to just compare make rates.  You have to apply those rates.

Expand  

You’re making it too complicated. You are also doing the math incorrectly. You continue to do that. Stop. Skill cannot control randomness, period. 

[phillyk]

  On 10/5/2021 at 5:39 PM, batchvt said:

Really simplified version of the spirit of this post.

Lets say make rates fall 10% on average for the good putter and fall 9% on average for the bad putter.

This is in agreement that the bumps narrow the range of make rates.

Now apply this to the # of putts each player typically hits per round:

10% * 29.5 = 2.95 more putts for the good putter each round.

9% * 33.5 =  3.015 more putts for the bad putter each round.

You can't just evaluate this problem through make rates.  The make rates can narrow, and still hurt the bad putter more than the good putter in total score.

Expand  

Let’s do 10% and 5% instead to your scenario, because why not?  I’ll make it up too. 

10% * 29.5 = 2.95 more putts

5% * 33.5 = 1.68 more putts

See! The gap narrowed!

We can’t make up a number for what a bump means. We also can’t make up numbers to fit our viewpoint.

[iacas]

I've talked with a number of people about this type of stuff in the time since this last post here.

All agree: increased randomness decreases the role of skill, and would narrow any gap that exists between good putters and bad putters.