School of Golf

by The Constructivist on Feb 18, 2009 4:56 PM EST

Hey there, Wagglers! Are you as tired of reading tired debates over whether Michelle Wie lost the SBS Open or Angela Stanford won it as I am? Instead of criticizing the culprits in the golfy media--and they know who they are--I've decided to do some legwork for them. For free. Because that's the kind of guy I am.

First, I decided to analyze recent trends in the world of women's golf. I enjoyed it so much, I'm thinking of making it a regular Mostly Harmless feature. What say ye?

Next, I tried looking at the peak performances last week and the players who got to -5 or better at some point during the SBS Open. Come to think of it, I don't see why that couldn't become a regular feature, as well. What do you think?

Hope you find these interesting and useful. Any ideas as to what I should do for an encore?

FanPosts are written by Waggle Room members. Viewpoints expressed do not necessarily reflect those of WaggleRoom.com, editor, Charles Boyer or any other writer or member.

Tweet Comment 19 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Read More: angela stanford, michelle wie

Comments

oh come on...

…it was BOTH ! Wie gagged and Stanford played great – what we DIDN’T get was either a close finish or a playoff since both were at -10 on the back 9. :-D

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Feb 18, 2009 7:23 PM EST reply actions

it's good stuff, but...

…what stats don’t tell you is…well…most of what was going on. I’m sure you were watching on Saturday – and saw the conditions. Blustery wind, on and off rain – and in Hawaii, those things can be going on in different combinations just a few hundred yards apart. Wie’s misses can be chalked up to pressure, inexperience, immaturity, and swing changes that aren’t 100% ingrained. Stanford is just plain tough. I have no idea what the Ochoa comments meant – she wasn’t there – but Stanford put the birdies together.

Everybody else was chasing – hard – and we all know what that can do to your game. You start taking chances you wouldn’t normally take.

Stats are fun – but they don’t really tell the story.

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Feb 18, 2009 7:58 PM EST reply actions

so true

wanna pay for my GC sub?

by The Constructivist on Feb 18, 2009 10:13 PM EST up reply actions

read them Ochoa comments again

it’s called a “hypothetical”….

what if the person who had beaten Wie the way Stanford did was named Lorena Ochoa?

wouldn’t we be getting millions of stories about Ochoa’s continuing dominance?

by The Constructivist on Feb 18, 2009 10:15 PM EST up reply actions

2+2=....

5…if you’re going to insert hypotheticals into statistical analysis. And as good as Ochoa has been most of the last 2 years, she is not infallible, as she showed the second half of last year.

what’s a GC sub ?

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Feb 18, 2009 11:03 PM EST up reply actions

Golf Channel subscription

Last I checked, in the intro paragraph you’re allowed to give your readers a head fake before you drive for the basket!

by The Constructivist on Feb 19, 2009 12:15 AM EST up reply actions

it was dinner time...

…I was trying to figure out what was in a GC sub sandwich.

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Feb 19, 2009 9:21 AM EST up reply actions

Mark Twain once said

There are three types of lies

Lies, Damned lies, ~~golf stories~~, ~~golf reporting~~, statsistics?

by Bill Jempty on Feb 18, 2009 8:49 PM EST reply actions

GREENS IN REGULATION:
Angela Stanford – 83.3% – T1
Michelle Wie – 66.7% – T39

Are those lies, damn lies or statistics?

source

Truth has a well-known liberal bias.

by dianemarie on Feb 19, 2009 8:48 AM EST up reply actions

well...

….until the 49th hole of the tournament, it was all three. :-) and it wasn’t a GIR that killed Wie, it was her 3-wood that she flaired off into the netherworld.

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Feb 19, 2009 9:23 AM EST up reply actions

Maybe I should have chosen two different players. Are you accusing people who count the number of greens a player hits in regulation of lying? Seems you are.

Truth has a well-known liberal bias.

by dianemarie on Feb 19, 2009 9:38 AM EST up reply actions

that's not MY name on that post !! :-)

ok – maybe you don’t understand what the “lies, damn lies, and statistics” line means. Benjamin Disraeli said it first, and Mark Twain popularized it – talking about how persuasive numbers can be when used to support a weak argument.

by pointing out GIR percentages and patting Stanford on the back – you also leave out that Wie had a 3 shot lead on the back 9 with that middle of the pack GIR percentage and the 2 swings of the club that cost her 3 shots. You could have picked putting stats or driving distance or fairways hit – but the only stat that matters is Stanford -10, Wie -7.

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Feb 19, 2009 10:40 AM EST up reply actions

I'm familiar with the quote and its history

Let’s try this one.

SCORING AVERAGE
Jane Park – 71.67 – T10
Kristy McPherson – 72.67 – T23

Those are statistics. Are you saying those are lies? Probably not. Since the discussion started with Stanford and Wie, I continued using them in my example.

I was responding to Mr. Jempty

Truth has a well-known liberal bias.

by dianemarie on Feb 19, 2009 11:15 AM EST up reply actions

ok - I must be missing something...

…what’s your point ? you say you know what the quote means – but you’re jumping all over Bill for bringing up a quote that actually fits this discussion. He didn’t say that the stats were made up.

all these statistics you’re bringing up are accurate – but what are you trying to support with them ?

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Feb 19, 2009 11:43 AM EST up reply actions

joking, right?

it’s easy to lose tone/intent in email/discussion board exchanges. I took Bill’s statement as a double joke—note the strike-outs before he gets to statistics, on the one hand, and the fact of name-checking Twain to an Americanist, on the other—and actually thought he was teasing CG, who I thought was also being pretty funny in telling me to get back to my literary side and not rely on my other major from college so much!

Ah, but asking someone to explain their jokes is kinda wrong, eh?

by The Constructivist on Feb 19, 2009 4:24 PM EST up reply actions

the funny thing about that quote

is that people like to use it to say that statistics by themselves are a bad thing. I like to think of statistics as a quasi-superpower – in the hands of an unscrupulous individual, great harm can come from them. But when used by a benevolent one (like yours truly, of course!), the world can be made a better place.

by hound dog on Feb 19, 2009 1:46 PM EST reply actions

well said...oh benevolent one...

…statistics should be used to support and enlighten

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Feb 19, 2009 2:16 PM EST up reply actions

that plays perfectly into the Shane Battier piece that I linked to here. The Rockets GM said that he doesn’t hand these crazy stats that he has to any other player than Battier because they won’t be able to use it to their advantage like he does.

by Ryan Ballengee on Feb 19, 2009 3:58 PM EST up reply actions

the "star" mentality

I absolutely loved watching Battier play at Duke. (I’m sure RB had a little different take as a Terp) It always amazes me that guys like Stephan Marbury get huge contracts and attention for doing basically nothing other than having a reputation from high school. He is a selfish player who doesn’t make the rest of his team better. Battier, on the other hand, works hard, plays well with his teammates, and does a lot of things well, but isn’t flashy.

That was a good article – sure would be nice to see Battier get a little more recognition for what he does.

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Feb 19, 2009 4:15 PM EST up reply actions