First Round Leader History Data

Hello,

Is there a way to see how players tend to outperform in Round 1 relative to other rounds. It would be good to see what players tend to have a strong start vs looking at odds for the 72 Holes. Since FRL odds are usually tied to favorite to win the Tournament.

Having a historical data analysis that allows to see player Round 1 average strokes over a specific time period and a formula that allows us to use that information to calculate expected strokes for the upcoming round just like we do now with the Fantasy and the player decomp but with the formula more geared towards Round 1 only including the fields historical data for round 1.

Wave advantage aside why would any one player over-perform another in Round 1? I’ve seen people mention historical FRLeaders and just don’t get it. Seems quite likely to be noise?

1 Like

You would feel different when you see data that shows a pattern of certain players more like to lead than others. In NBA theres plenty of teams with High Tempo that can sustain it all game. Theres team that are 3rd quarter teams known to dominate in the second half.

Thats why theres definitely has to be data that shows patterns where some golfers tend to have great first or second rounds more than others.

I’m open to feeling different. I’m not sure what the thesis is though. Setting other sports aside what trait would make a player ‘better’ at Round 1 than another? That wouldn’t just translate to 72h skill?

‘That’s why there definitely has to be data’ - there doesn’t have to be anything. There either is or isn’t.

Ive read multiple ways data can be seen. Younger players that come out the gate great but are not able to maintain strong performances over 4 days. Players that have been trending up in recent days such as having a bad Thursday Friday but having great Saturday and Sunday and look bounce back good after that. People who tend to be erratic but not consistent. Players coming off a weeks rest and look poised to have a strong start.

Its a lot easier to be good for 1 round than 4. Scottie recently had a horrible 1st round and cleaned it up and managed to have a decent showing for the weekend. Some people start off strong and by the end of the tournament youll see them not even cracked the top 20, maybe they do that consistent. Without data we wont even know. The way you collect data is by grabbing the first round score of every tournament over 1-2 years to be conservative. Average the score for each round, then you can enter all the variables like DG does such as Course fit, average skill of group, expected score, etc etc. The more data we have and the more options we get it only benefits us. Never a downside to have more data.

On the query tool you can filter on round number (top right).

But I agree with T20, I don’t see any reason why there would be players who are better in round 1.

“It’s a lot easier to be good for 1 round than 4”… yes that’s true, and is accounted for in the odds (Scottie’s odds to be FRL are a lot longer than his odds to win).

1 Like

See my assumptions would be the opposite to you. I’d want a 50yo for FRL over outright as they’d fade across a long weekend. I’d assume fresh players off a weeks rest would have staying power but maybe not be super sharp very early (this is if there was any difference at all).

Aggressive play . Firing at pins, pushing driver when most players lay back, never leaving a putt short. You could avoid trouble for 18 doing these things but not over 72 holes. A theory.

I don’t have a horse in this race …but trying to gain an edge on a market as volatile as FRL seems …ambitious, at best.

Golf by nature is very volatile. I don’t see how anyone could gain a tangible edge on this market with 130+ players over a 18hole, about 70 shots, 4.5 hours event that is greatly affected by luck and randomness (bounces, lies, greens holding lines or not, wind, weather, name it).

The only possible little edge I see would be live betting when we already have some sort of usable data regarding weather or course difficulty, in an extreme situation where an early player shoots a 65 and there are typhoons in the PM, or everybody in the AM shoots +4 and Scheffler plays in the last group and the sun comes out lol.

Also, regarding aggressive play and firing at pins …I don’t think we should have the audacity to say the result of a shot is what the player intended every time. Many (most) players have talked about how great legendary shots were ‘‘misses’’. Think Cam Smith at Sawgrass’ 17th hole in R4 when he won the Players or Rory’s iconic thin 3-wood at Valhalla in 2014 …

Most of the time, players aim for the middle of the green, or away from the flag but to a safer location where a miss would result in a shot closer to the flag.

Im just asking for data. I like betting FRL because of the odds, and if I am able to get more data that can support my bet and give me any slight edge then Ill take it.

Yeah this was the only thing I could come up with. I’d ask what the incentive is for a player to do something that is sub-optimal for 72h results even if it increases 18h upside? I also don’t know how we’d identify an ‘aggressive’ player beforehand. They might have been aggressive in one round but suddenly pin positions or the side of bed they got out of changes it.

I’m with you on betting FRL Goats. I think the query tool @matt_courchene mentioned is your best bet for checking the data.

Appreciate that. Yeah I’m not asking for a tout to give me 100% guaranteed pick, I just want the data in order for me to make a better pick than just picking favorite or whatever. I like research. Ill try that out to see.

[Uploading: Screenshot 2024-06-24 at 3.11.31 PM.png…?()

With the Query tool, with the filters I selected, does this mean Scottie has been FRL in 15 times in the last 6 months ?

Players who tend to play aggressively with higher risk-reward shots would see a higher standard deviation in their scores, which is already accounted for in the model simulations and thus in the FRL fair odds.

Dude, you need to slow down a bit, you’ve been asking for a lot of the site managers’ time with half-baked posts across multiple threads. No one has a problem with questions or you being a beginner… but search the forum archives and FAQs/tutorials first, and if you still have a question at least make it a thoughtful one to be respectful of their time. You didn’t bother to check your screenshot before posting so no one can see it, but no, it clearly doesn’t mean that, as quickly glancing at a handful of tournaments on Scheffler’s profile page/a 5 second Google search would tell you. Given that he has played 15 tournaments in the past 6 months, I’d guess it’s a list of his FRL odds for each of them.

2 Likes

Ill keep asking every time I have a question. I’m not asking an idividuals answers, its a forum, its for a community to commiunicate hence I am asking questions so other people can chime in and maybe have different perspectives or different answers or even different solutions for one problem. I pay a monthly subscription that allows me to ask questions. If you dont have an answer I suggest avoid typin such a long paragraph for nothing.

That last sentence was all you needed to type. “Given that he has played 15 tournaments in the past 6 months, I’d guess it’s a list of his FRL odds for each of them.”

Thanks !

It is a forum for a community, but right now you are spamming multiple threads with incoherent posts which reduces the value of it for everyone else.

Most of your questions don’t make any sense, and you aren’t really listening to anyone’s feedback before you ask your next question.

On the query tool there are no betting odds listed, I honestly don’t how you could come to the conclusion that there were. You were probably looking at the “Events” column, and the number just tells you how many events they’ve played in your selected time period. Just spend some time on these pages… all the details are there for them to be understood on their own.

1 Like

I am new to golf, idk half of what these stats mean. I’m not looking for odds, I’m looking for performance data.

I saw something similar in the Performance Page or the Archives for the Raw scoring. The Raw Scoring CLV is the closest thing since you can filter by rounds, I would just have to download all of them, make them into one and be able to research that way.