Fan Nation
Forums
Forum list
Search forums
Rules & Policies
Podcast
Mobile App
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Shop
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forum list
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Horned Frog Athletics
Scott & Wes Frog Fan Forum
TCU Golf 2022-2023
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="JogginFrog" data-source="post: 3274053" data-attributes="member: 4994"><p>I suspect the primary input for the model is relative score--stroke differential to the other teams in the field, regardless of actual score or score relative to par.</p><p></p><p>But Golfstat lists a number of other metrics on its rankings page, and those may be contributors to their model as well. They include:</p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">relative winning percentage</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">adjusted scoring average--the adjustment accounting in some way for course difficulty and conditions, probably by mean-centering on field scoring average relative to expected scores based on prior events. Golfstat doesn't issue rankings for the first couple months of each season, giving time to build a baseline.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">adjusted drop score--considering all players' scores, not just the counters</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">relative winning percentage vs. top 25</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">schedule strength</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">event wins</li> </ul><p>In the end, I'd be surprised if much went into the algorithm beyond a regression on each team's scores relative to the fields they played against. As long as teams don't isolate themselves geographically or talent-wise--which NCAA rules mitigate against--that should generate a reliable ranking.</p><p></p><p>Edit: You can read all the Golfstat has to say about it at <a href="http://golfstat.com/coaches/HTH_explanation.htm" target="_blank">http://golfstat.com/coaches/HTH_explanation.htm</a>. It is not described as a regression-based model. Sounds similar to the college hockey pairwise comparison.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="JogginFrog, post: 3274053, member: 4994"] I suspect the primary input for the model is relative score--stroke differential to the other teams in the field, regardless of actual score or score relative to par. But Golfstat lists a number of other metrics on its rankings page, and those may be contributors to their model as well. They include: [LIST] [*]relative winning percentage [*]adjusted scoring average--the adjustment accounting in some way for course difficulty and conditions, probably by mean-centering on field scoring average relative to expected scores based on prior events. Golfstat doesn't issue rankings for the first couple months of each season, giving time to build a baseline. [*]adjusted drop score--considering all players' scores, not just the counters [*]relative winning percentage vs. top 25 [*]schedule strength [*]event wins [/LIST] In the end, I'd be surprised if much went into the algorithm beyond a regression on each team's scores relative to the fields they played against. As long as teams don't isolate themselves geographically or talent-wise--which NCAA rules mitigate against--that should generate a reliable ranking. Edit: You can read all the Golfstat has to say about it at [URL]http://golfstat.com/coaches/HTH_explanation.htm[/URL]. It is not described as a regression-based model. Sounds similar to the college hockey pairwise comparison. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Which team did TCU defeat in the College Football Playoffs?
Post reply
Forums
Horned Frog Athletics
Scott & Wes Frog Fan Forum
TCU Golf 2022-2023
Top