Too Much Value on NewComers

The model predictions seem to show a lot of value on a lot of guys who have played Augusta 0 or 1 time. I don’t think the model is correctly accounting for the experience Augusta takes. I believe DG posted an article that players with 0 experience roughly perform -.28 strokes below their baseline yet the model doesn’t seem to reflect that. Additionally is it fairly concerning how much value the model shows on longshots when Augusta is one of the primary courses where the creme always rises to the top. Any thoughts?

To add, I am a big fan of datagolf and think their predictions are generally very very good. I just worry a bit here when so many guys are so off market. Curious on the why if there is an explanation.

@matt_courchene @will_courchene

The -0.28 you are referencing is (maybe) coming from this post? That is the unadjusted figure, i.e. it doesn’t account for the fact that inexperienced players at the Masters are just worse golfers in general. The next plot adjusts for that, and it’s pretty in line with the experience adjustments we are making on the course history page.

It seems like there is a decent amount of value on a few different types of players (a few LIV guys, some inexperienced guys, proven non-winners like Conners). Our model always disagrees with the market a lot during major weeks. I think most people/books are happy (rightly or wrongly) to fade players who haven’t proven themselves in majors.

1 Like

Great response! Thank you, makes sense. Doesn’t the course fit link you shared only downgrade a player at most -.05 strokes per round though? Surely some of these golfers like Beck, Campos, etc should be much closer to the -.28?

The 0.28 is not the adjustment you are after, as it’s confounded by differential skill between players with different experience. You want to look at the second plot in that post, which looks at performance relative to expectation.

Thank you, apologize for wasting your time.

No worries, this will be useful for other people to see. I also was interested to see what numbers were actually in that old blog post.