Dave's 40/30/20/10 Rule

[iacas]

It would mean something only if we can assume the DD environment of 2 holes applies to the 12-14 other holes, which is impractical when navigating doglegs, bunkers, trees, and other obstacles.

It's not impractical over the course of a few tournaments or over a month. Dave's rule isn't the best at predicting each tournament - look at the Tour Championship numbers he ran last year. But it's been pretty darn good over the course of a season, which eliminates those possibilities.

C'mon, don't try to make it something it's not. We've never said it's great for one particular tournament. It does a decent job per-tournament, but it's more accurate over a longer haul.

Trying to get Driver Distance to mean something appeals to every golfer's common sense. The caveat is in how it was collected to support the overall data analysis objective: Is there a way to use golfer's performance rankings to predict a player's actual ranking of a golf event or season?

That's what the rule does. If you say you'll be 10th in GIR, Putting, etc. on down the line, you can figure out what your approximate rank would be in scoring average. Per-tournament you're a lot more likely to be "off" than for the whole season.

Didn't you just say that a

While that may be true in general, it's not necessarily true between two players. Tiger Woods had a longer average drive yet Sergio Garcia (and a few other people) had higher GIR %s. Plus "proximity to the hole" doesn't factor in missing a pin on the short side versus hitting the green but leaving yourself a 100 foot putt.

You're trying to make too much of all this.

[All4Golf]

I appreciate Dave's attempt to offer some new insight and correlate available stats to a player's actual finish. It is a refreshing presentation and am curious to see how it works out with 2006 tournament data.

Look forward to new 40-30-20-10 developments as they occur.

Regards,
Todd
All4Golf

[jeffgladchun]

The reasoning behind this theory is sound and the best fit line fits very accurately, but I think All4Golf is right when he says that valuing driving distance over driving accuracy so dramatically could be a mistake. I think the rule should be more like the 40/30/15/15 with DD and DA valued equally.

On a sidenote, are all the stats you use available on PGATour.com?

[iacas]

The reasoning behind this theory is sound and the best fit line fits very accurately, but I think All4Golf is right when he says that valuing driving distance over driving accuracy so dramatically could be a mistake. I think the rule should be more like the 40/30/15/15 with DD and DA valued equally.

If it were 40/30/15/15 it'd just be the 40/30/30 rule... with 30 being "total driving."

But I digress away from that nit... Dave analyzed the stats and came to determine that 40/30/20/10 was best. I don't know that he tried 40/30/30 specifically, but he didn't just randomly pick numbers and then say "fits good enough, that's my rule!"

[All4Golf]

Being objective here, I've yet to see a well reasoned reply to the optimized weighting of ranked stats. It has a much better predictive relationship of the player's actual finish in the 2005 Tour Championships by statistically eliminating Driving Distance and Driving Accuracy as variables to the model.

There is no denying how it presents a legitimate challenge to the overall validity of the rule. Common sense says that driving distance and accuracy are important but if the data doesn't validate it - unwanted noise is being added .

Just be prepared to walk the line of real data validation. If factors are deemed statistically insignificant, recognize it and potential reasons why. Don't just throw 20% DD 10% DA or 30% weighting because it makes common sense. Perhaps DD or DA info or comparable info needs to be introduced to the model in a different manner.

Regards,
Todd
All4Golf

[jeffgladchun]

An editor of the forum who gets involved in name calling or attacking of members is on a fast track to lose credibility and *potential* future sponsors. ... I hope that all future posts will focus on the discussed topic without name calling or attacking of forum members. OK?

He was just havin' a bit of a go. Nothing to get all ruffled up about.

Rationalizing the 40/30/20/10 rule in my head, it seems to make sense. I'm no statistician, so I'm not going to get very technical. But, evident at Baltusrol last year, Tiger opted to hit driver on almost every hole becuase he liked his chances better from 40+ yards up in the rough than 40 back in the middle of the fairway. That may not be the best example thanks to the course layout, but it says something at least.

[iacas]

An editor of the forum who gets involved in name calling or attacking of members is on a fast track to lose credibility and *potential* future sponsors.

Don't throw the "potential future sponsors" line out there as some sort of threat, particularly when I've not "name called" or "attacked" anyone. Go ahead, quote the text in which I did either?

Really, I think you need to back off a little bit. First you call for an apology because I disagree with someone in a perfectly normal, fair fashion and now you're throwing this garbage out there? Cut the crap. This is your second warning.

Being objective here, I've yet to see a well reasoned reply to the optimized weighting of ranked stats. It has a much better predictive relationship of the player's actual finish in the 2005 Tour Championships by statistically eliminating Driving Distance and Driving Accuracy as variables to the model.

We've given you several. Scroll back and read them.

I hope that all future posts will focus on the discussed topic without name calling or attacking of forum members. OK?

Continue to level false charges and you won't be a part of this or any future discussions. In short, grow up, buddy, or grow a skin of some sort.

[All4Golf]

We can go one of three routes for a successful proof of concept:
A) It really works as is and have data to significantly back it up for all components of the model.
B) The model is improved and better than original concept.
C) The model does not work for 2006 tour data with reasons why. It could be due to reasons of statistical insignificance, ranked nature of the data, or how the data was analyzed.

My take is option B - it can get better. It's ok with me if you want the concept to be left alone as is.

Regards,

Todd
All4Golf

[iacas]

I am not trying to level any false charges but it is easy for anyone to find the top threads and review them.

You're making the accusations. I asked you to do it. You've failed to do so.

Any poster or member here can be a potential sponsor and can see "what's in it for me" from these top threads. From a business stanpoint, the ability to grow the membership and attract frequent visitors are important to you and sponsors.

No offense, but you don't really know that. In fact, I can say without hesitation that being honest, forthright, etc. are far more important to me

and to my sponsors than pandering and politics. In other words, you're wrong. Please don't presume to know how this site is run, sponsored, or operated.

Asking me to reproduce the evidence when it has been deleted, including my own posts, does not allow me to respond to your question.

I haven't deleted a post in

months , and the last five or six I've deleted were spam. Now you're making stuff up. You've been officially warned. Now I'm telling you to drop it or you're out.

If I spoke to you or others in this tone, there probably would be some consequences.

My response was in response to your lies and accusations. That's pretty clear.

A forum like this permits golfers to share their experiences and ideas.

Yet you called for an apology when I expressed my ideas and experiences (and opinions). I agree that a forum like this permits this. What it doesn't permit - and what I don't permit - is your false accusations.

It has been an ongoing challenge to create more value out of stats collected and thought we could make progress together in achieving something that really works and deserves recognition and attention. Validation from an independent source is helpful to prove that it really works and can be applied.

And yet, the 42.323636/31.28386363/26.32356326 rule just doesn't have the same ring, does it?

If anyone has managed to swerve this topic from its intended course of discussing the stats leading to scoring ranking, I think it's been you with your accusations, demands for apologies, etc.

How shall we proceed from here? I'd welcome founder (NCGolfer) of the 40-30-20-10 rule to chart the future course and direction.

He writes a

weekly column . Please continue to enjoy his "future course and direction."

My take is option B - it can get better. It's ok with me if you want the concept to be left alone as is.

My take is that you don't quite understand what Dave's job is here. 52 columns per year, and a lot of stats. Not every column, nor even a large percentage, can be devoted to this rule. And again, the "42.323636/31.28386363/26.32356326 Rule" just doesn't have the same ring as the 40/30/20/10 rule, which seems to me to be about as accurate as any other "rule" in sports, like "football teams with +3 takeaways always win" and so forth.

You're welcome to continue to participate in this discussion so long as you can stay on-topic. I know for a fact Dave would be interested in refining his rule, but not to some bizarre decimal level and not without some hard evidence that he could improve it dramatically. Further off-topic (and false) accusations, lies, etc. will not be tolerated. This is your final warning.

[All4Golf]

I look forward to seeing how things work out in regards to the 40-30-20-10 rule. Please purge the content of my threads here.

Todd
All4Golf

[iacas]

I look forward to seeing how things work out in regards to the 40-30-20-10 rule. Please purge the content of my threads here.

We don't do that. In your case, we won't remove your false accusations as I believe they reflect poorly yet accurately on you.

If this is your sign-off, well, you're always welcome back. Bring a skin next time, eh?

[jeffgladchun]

All4Golf's responses seem strangely hostile. No reason for hostility, bud. Its just a friendly forum.