So you continue to insist that I do the thing that I'm telling you is wrongheaded and foolish and actually suggests a debit in one's appreciation of the use of the statistic.

My doing this would indicate that I understand the stat-- something apparently not in evidence.

Fine. I will. Maybe tomorrow. Or the next day. Not because I'm busy. Or it's hard. Or I'm scared. I'm lazy. The prospect bores me. Contemplating the tedium of the circularity of it all, well, but fine. Probably tomorrow.

How about just an explanation for why you think it is wrongheaded and foolish? This coming after kbfc(who if memory serves me correctly makes his career in statistics) came in here and told you that you're wrong.

Sorry for troubling you. But when you call something laughable and borderline insult multiple people who are trying to have a discussion, all while refusing to explain your point, this is generally classified as "trolling"

I actually think I have is my answer to your question.

As for the second part, I don't have any idea of kbfc saying something specific was wrong. He asked me to admit something that I don't think needs to be admitted. As for what he does, I'd be surprised if he has much training or application in the area of dynamic programming specifically, or mathematical programming more generally.

shemp is being a huge tool in this thread. WTF is going on?

Stop being a tool, shemp. You have plenty of time to make long-winded, empty posts about your advanced math degree but you don't have the courtesy to explain why Tiger's putting was worth more than .2 strokes Sunday (or whatever you are arguing)?

Have I insulted you, borderline or otherwise? I don't know when or how, so I'd appreciate it if you could tell me when so I could give you an appropriate apology. In the meantime I'll give you a generic one: I'm sorry that something I said insulted you.

The problem I'm having here is that you appear to be asserting your superiority in the field of mathematics. I have no idea what kbfc's training background is, however I do know that if someone states something that I think is "laughable", "wrongheaded", or "foolish" in regards to a subject that I feel I have a pretty good grasp on(such as the golf swing or poker) it would take a relatively little amount of time to make my point.

It's tool behavior when someone tries nicely to explain a statistic to you and you throw your advanced math degree in their face and turn your nose up at them. And then fail to add to or progress the discussion further under the guise of being "busy". LOL.

I'll make this my last post in this forum. Bit of a drama queen, but I've had enough. I'll try and make good on my obligation below to give the stupid analysis.

Here is the long-winded empty brag post and the post it responded to.

I should not have said that. It was a horrible mistake. I apologized immediately. Someone challenged whether or not I had the chops and I responded childishly. Sad for an old geezer. I need to apologize again. I should not have said that. It was foolish and inappropriate.

As far as strokes gained putting. It is the most valuable statistic out there. That it has been reified and that the strokes gained concept has been reified is endemic to most of the posts that employ it. Making that case is hardly necessary with people with extensive training and experience in mathematical modeling and mathematical programming, and it is very difficult to make to those without such benefits. My attempts to even get things started in the right direction failed. I've made several.

So. I'll do the wrong thing, and give the promised analysis of the wrong kind-- none of the following should be taken as a criticism of strokes gained putting. Read that last sentence again, and when you think strokes gained putting is being attacked, remember that it isn't and your task will be try to reconcile how such two things could be true.

There are a few things Sunday that would nuance the stats:
1. Tiger putting for birdie all day, these makes would tend to be deflated (pros are worse when putting for birdie).
2. McIlroy putting for par all day, these makes would tend to be inflated (pros are better when putting for par).
3. Overlapping with 2 and bit with a follow on point I'll make next, SGP tends to steal from recovery/sand saves/up-and-down. Not all putts are created equal, and these are much more selected by makability.
4. Overlapping a bit with 2 and 3, 3-putting on Sundays. (I ASSUME WITHOUT EVIDENCE, PURE CONJECTURE HERE) that pros are better at 3-putt avoidance on Sundays.
5. Pros consciously accepting 50 ft are yes, driven partly by risk avoidance, but again I speculate, choosing a 50fter rather than winding up with one.
6. This overlaps with 4 & 5, pretty much another way of saying 5. As we move away from the hole, the cost hit is decreasing, I'd expect it to decrease even more rabidly on the selected side as opposed to be the result of a mis hit.
7. Can't remember what the last was. If it comes to me while I'm proof-reading this, I'll put it in.

ETA: Those above 6 points aren't all I have to say on the subject. I'm missing one. Moreover they are completely in the wrong direction from where I wanted to go, but couldn't get there.

I don't think what you've said there is the least bit accurate as it concerns my stupid/childish attempt at bragging. And the period that I was busy was about 12 hours yesterday. It has to be at least theoretically possible that I was busy yesterday during the brief window of time that I pretended I was. This hasn't been my finest moment, yes. But I was busy yesterday! Briefly!

Shemp, I don't think you should leave the forum. I thought your posting during the Honda was great, very funny.

This whole deal went a little sideways obviously, but not worth quitting if you enjoy posting here for the most part.

If you do decide to post more, some follow-up on your point #3 would be great, as well as some laymans explanations of reified. I read this wiki but it's pretty sparse.

In regards to 1 & 2, while it is true that pros are better when putting for par than for birdie, that had a minimal effect Sunday. SGP EV is from your first putt on the green. So when Rory had a 50 footer for birdie his strokes gained was X.X. It didn't change when he hit a poor first putt and left himself 7 feet for par. Rory had 7 par putts and 11 birdie putts, Tiger had 6 par putts 10 birdie putts(4 par putts, 12 birdie putts depending on whether SGP takes into account putts from the fringe), and 2 eagle putts. And on the longer putts that Tiger made(the 2 25'+ putts), even if he was less likely to make them because it was for birdie, the EV difference is so negligible. The average tour player who hits a GIR to 20-25 feet makes the putt .85% of the time. Even if you gave Tiger a 50% smaller chance of making it the amount of stokes he gained by making the putt is essentially the same. Also you are not sure whether the SGP statistics takes into account the fact that they are putting for par or birdie. It is entirely possible that it does, as PGA Tour.com breaks down some of their putting statistics based on the player hitting the GIR.

#3 You appear to be saying that on scramble shots, the professionals can be a bit more accurate on what putt they choose to leave themselves. I agree, but the putt is a completely independent event, and as kfbc addressed previously nowhere during the round did it appear that Rory or Tiger made a putt whose make % would be significantly lower/higher due to the difficulty of the putt.

For #4. PGA Tour.com has 3 putt avoidance stats broken down on a round to round basis. Let us know what you find.

#5. You are saying that Rory chose to hit the ball to 50 feet/safe side of flags(?) which I agree with. But how does that play any role in this argument. Everyone knows Tiger took more aggressive lines on Sunday and this played a role in the significant difference in score of 2 people who putted similarly.

#6. This is the 2nd time I think I've seen you address this. You appear to be saying that Rory was hitting it to 50 feet but on the right side of the hole. Well sure that is nice, but when you are hitting it 50 feet away from the hole there is generally only 1 side you can miss it to and still be on the green. It's not like he had the choice between hitting it 50 feet left of the flag and leaving him a quadruple breaking down hiller or 50 feet right of the flat and having the easiest imaginable 50 footer.

Shemp this was the post I was referring to.

You aren't actually leaving the forum, are you? Or just this thread?

That would be whack of you. You are normally a very good poster and have brought the lulz recently. But if you are going to thumb your knowledge at us at least engage us in conversation as to why we are idiots.

The best part of that quote, is that I wasn't even necessarily explaining the strokes gained stat to shremp exclusively. I did it for whoever is following the discussion bc I figured that not 100% of people would know how the stat is calculated. I wanted people reading the back and forth to understand if they had no prior knowledge of the stat.

id like to ask a stupid question nxt. do they allow for the difficulty in the stat?

say a downhill left to right 6ftr with 9inches of break vs a straight uphill 6ftr?

and do they adjust for speed? same put at augusta is going to be way tougher than at say bay hill.

There is a new stat called "strokes lost putting" and it is used with 2000 Tiger as the baseline. Obviously no one has ever gained strokes against GOAT 2000.

See shemp that wasn't so hard! All I wanted to know was your reasoning

See! The pressure was back on him, couldn't handle it after his great round on Sunday.

Tiger thread is serious business, apparently.

id love to see bubba or white tiger be able to hold up for 4 days.

could Tiger be acting like a bigger bitch out there today?

how awesome was it when he yelled at the guy for making noise and the ball lands 4ft from the hole. then he blows the birdie loooooooool !

Is Tiger GOAT?
IDK
Do you care that he had 13 mistresses?
Nope, for most people this stuff happens in college, being that he was only in college for two years he probably felt like he missed out on that stuff and lived a college life while being married, bad timing for his wife for sure.
Is he going to be as dominant as he once was?
He's looking like he's getting there but so far no dice, got to make puts to be dominant. I'd like to see him get to where he once was.
What do you think of his new swing change?
Must be good if he thought his last one wasn't good enough. just ned to get consistent with it. But im a firm believer of "if its not broke don't fix it" motto.
Is Tiger a good guy?
meh
Does Tiger act like a gentleman on the course?
meh
Does Tiger get enough TV coverage?
meh
Would you like to see him get run over by a steamroller?
why?

pvr'd about 5 hours of tv today, just skimmed through except to watch all the tiger stuff obv

he's really close, today was a really solid round. swing looks great

who's white tiger?