| |
Main
Date: 12 Oct 2006 05:53:04
From: Larry Bud
Subject: Scrambling Statistic
|
Can someone explain how the "value" here is determined:
http://www.thegolfchannel.com/core.aspx?page=13201&select=29
At first it looked like Par or Better / Missed GIRs, but it's slightly
off:
For example, it says Luke Donald is 66.40, but if you take
237/357=66.39
Paul Azinger 63.30, but 336/531=63.28
???
|
|
| |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 11:18:38
From: Mike Dalecki
Subject: Re: Scrambling Statistic
|
Larry Bud wrote:
> Can someone explain how the "value" here is determined:
>
> http://www.thegolfchannel.com/core.aspx?page=13201&select=29
>
> At first it looked like Par or Better / Missed GIRs, but it's slightly
> off:
>
> For example, it says Luke Donald is 66.40, but if you take
> 237/357=66.39
>
> Paul Azinger 63.30, but 336/531=63.28
>
> ???
>
Ummm, they're rounding up?
|
| | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 13:00:12
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Scrambling Statistic
|
Metric system data can be a real challenge to us Americans.
"Mike Dalecki" <mike@clubdor.com > wrote in message
news:4p786uFhh73qU1@individual.net...
> Larry Bud wrote:
>> Can someone explain how the "value" here is determined:
>>
>> http://www.thegolfchannel.com/core.aspx?page=13201&select=29
>>
>> At first it looked like Par or Better / Missed GIRs, but it's slightly
>> off:
>>
>> For example, it says Luke Donald is 66.40, but if you take
>> 237/357=66.39
>>
>> Paul Azinger 63.30, but 336/531=63.28
>>
>> ???
>>
>
> Ummm, they're rounding up?
|
| |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 09:17:43
From: Birdie Bill
Subject: Re: Scrambling Statistic
|
On 12, 10:01 am, "Larry Bud" <larrybud2...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> > "Larry Bud" <larrybud2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:1160657580.787472.298970@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> > > Can someone explain how the "value" here is determined:
>
> > >http://www.thegolfchannel.com/core.aspx?page=13201&select=29
>
> > > At first it looked like Par or Better / Missed GIRs, but it's slightly
> > > off:
>
> > > For example, it says Luke Donald is 66.40, but if you take
> > > 237/357=66.39
>
> > > Paul Azinger 63.30, but 336/531=63.28
>
> > > ???
> sfb wrote:
> > It is a PGA Tour stat athttp://www.pgatour.com/stats/leaders/r/2006/130
> > where value is a percent rounded to tenths. TGC is presenting the rounded
> > data as hundreds.But it's rounded incorrectly. That's what was throwing me.- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
The two examples you gave are rounded correctly. Can you give an
example of
incorrect rounding?
|
| |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 08:03:13
From: Larry Bud
Subject: Re: Scrambling Statistic
|
warren montgomery wrote:
> > Can someone explain how the "value" here is determined:
> >
> > http://www.thegolfchannel.com/core.aspx?page=13201&select=29
> >
> > At first it looked like Par or Better / Missed GIRs, but it's slightly
> > off:
> >
> > For example, it says Luke Donald is 66.40, but if you take
> > 237/357=66.39
> >
> > Paul Azinger 63.30, but 336/531=63.28
> >
> Not much to do today? I can't imagine they really figure these things to
> four signficant figures. (Must be the end of the baseball season where all
> those statistics hounds look for other sports)
Nah, my Tigers are still in it ;-)
I'm writing a web based golf stat program and I thought I'd check to
see what stats are compiled for the pros. Doesn't make any sense that
you would round the figure to 2 decimal places, yet round it
incorrectly.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 15:51:25
From: Roger Thaat
Subject: Re: Scrambling Statistic
|
Larry Bud wrote:
>
> I'm writing a web based golf stat program and I thought I'd check to
> see what stats are compiled for the pros. Doesn't make any sense that
> you would round the figure to 2 decimal places, yet round it
> incorrectly.
>
They round to one place, then add a 0 to give the impression of precision.
--
Roger Thaat
You may remember me. I used to be called Howard U. Dewing, but only one
guy ever answered the question.
|
| |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 08:01:46
From: Larry Bud
Subject: Re: Scrambling Statistic
|
>
> "Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1160657580.787472.298970@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> > Can someone explain how the "value" here is determined:
> >
> > http://www.thegolfchannel.com/core.aspx?page=13201&select=29
> >
> > At first it looked like Par or Better / Missed GIRs, but it's slightly
> > off:
> >
> > For example, it says Luke Donald is 66.40, but if you take
> > 237/357=66.39
> >
> > Paul Azinger 63.30, but 336/531=63.28
> >
> > ???
sfb wrote:
> It is a PGA Tour stat at http://www.pgatour.com/stats/leaders/r/2006/130
> where value is a percent rounded to tenths. TGC is presenting the rounded
> data as hundreds.
But it's rounded incorrectly. That's what was throwing me.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 12:59:08
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Scrambling Statistic
|
It is rounded correctly to tenths per the PGA stats - 66.39 to 66.4 and
63.28 to 68.3 . TGC just adds a unnecessary or erroneous zero when
presenting PGA tenths data (66.4) as hundreds (66.40).
"Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1160665306.326357.40300@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>>
>> "Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1160657580.787472.298970@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>> > Can someone explain how the "value" here is determined:
>> >
>> > http://www.thegolfchannel.com/core.aspx?page=13201&select=29
>> >
>> > At first it looked like Par or Better / Missed GIRs, but it's slightly
>> > off:
>> >
>> > For example, it says Luke Donald is 66.40, but if you take
>> > 237/357=66.39
>> >
>> > Paul Azinger 63.30, but 336/531=63.28
>> >
>> > ???
>
> sfb wrote:
>> It is a PGA Tour stat at http://www.pgatour.com/stats/leaders/r/2006/130
>> where value is a percent rounded to tenths. TGC is presenting the
>> rounded
>> data as hundreds.
>
> But it's rounded incorrectly. That's what was throwing me.
>
|
| |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 09:14:19
From: warren montgomery
Subject: Re: Scrambling Statistic
|
> Can someone explain how the "value" here is determined:
>
> http://www.thegolfchannel.com/core.aspx?page=13201&select=29
>
> At first it looked like Par or Better / Missed GIRs, but it's slightly
> off:
>
> For example, it says Luke Donald is 66.40, but if you take
> 237/357=66.39
>
> Paul Azinger 63.30, but 336/531=63.28
>
Not much to do today? I can't imagine they really figure these things to
four signficant figures. (Must be the end of the baseball season where all
those statistics hounds look for other sports)
--
Warren Montgomery (wamontgomery@att.net)
http://home.att.net/~wamontgomery
|
| |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 09:19:57
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Scrambling Statistic
|
It is a PGA Tour stat at http://www.pgatour.com/stats/leaders/r/2006/130
where value is a percent rounded to tenths. TGC is presenting the rounded
data as hundreds.
"Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1160657580.787472.298970@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> Can someone explain how the "value" here is determined:
>
> http://www.thegolfchannel.com/core.aspx?page=13201&select=29
>
> At first it looked like Par or Better / Missed GIRs, but it's slightly
> off:
>
> For example, it says Luke Donald is 66.40, but if you take
> 237/357=66.39
>
> Paul Azinger 63.30, but 336/531=63.28
>
> ???
>
|
| |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 15:53:33
From: Birdie Bill
Subject: Re: Scrambling Statistic
|
On 12, 1:32 pm, "Larry Bud" <larrybud2...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> > > > > For example, it says Luke Donald is 66.40, but if you take
> > > > > 237/357=66.39
>
> > > > > Paul Azinger 63.30, but 336/531=63.28
>
> > > > > ???
> > > sfb wrote:
> > > > It is a PGA Tour stat athttp://www.pgatour.com/stats/leaders/r/2006/130
> > > > where value is a percent rounded to tenths. TGC is presenting the rounded
> > > > data as hundreds.But it's rounded incorrectly. That's what was throwing me.- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
>
> > The two examples you gave are rounded correctly. Can you give an
> > example of incorrect rounding?Huh? Those ARE incorrect examples. The link I gave says
> 336/631=63.30%, but it's really = 63.276%, or 63.28%. 237/357=66.386%
> or 66.38% but they round it to 66.40%
I'm not following any friggin link or doing any math. The examples you
gave in
your post said:
> > > > For example, it says Luke Donald is 66.40, but if you take
> > > > 237/357=66.39
> > > > Paul Azinger 63.30, but 336/531=63.28
Those are both rounded correctly. 66.39 rounds to 66.4 and 63.28
rounds to 63.3.
Then someone added a bogus 0 on the end. Can you say Communications
Major?
|
| |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 11:36:14
From: Larry Bud
Subject: Re: Scrambling Statistic
|
>
> "Mike Dalecki" <mike@clubdor.com> wrote in message
> news:4p786uFhh73qU1@individual.net...
> > Larry Bud wrote:
> >> Can someone explain how the "value" here is determined:
> >>
> >> http://www.thegolfchannel.com/core.aspx?page=13201&select=29
> >>
> >> At first it looked like Par or Better / Missed GIRs, but it's slightly
> >> off:
> >>
> >> For example, it says Luke Donald is 66.40, but if you take
> >> 237/357=66.39
> >>
> >> Paul Azinger 63.30, but 336/531=63.28
> >>
> >> ???
> >>
> >
> > Ummm, they're rounding up?
sfb wrote:
> Metric system data can be a real challenge to us Americans.
Oh bullshit. It's a legit gripe. If they are to display the % to
hundredths, they should round to hundredths, not tenths.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 15:17:43
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Scrambling Statistic
|
Lost your sense of humor?
Please read the other posts carefully. The PGA Tour rounded the data. TGC
has screwed up the presentation of the rounded PGA Tour data by adding an
extraneous 0.
"Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1160678174.020896.317310@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>>
>> "Mike Dalecki" <mike@clubdor.com> wrote in message
>> news:4p786uFhh73qU1@individual.net...
>> > Larry Bud wrote:
>> >> Can someone explain how the "value" here is determined:
>> >>
>> >> http://www.thegolfchannel.com/core.aspx?page=13201&select=29
>> >>
>> >> At first it looked like Par or Better / Missed GIRs, but it's slightly
>> >> off:
>> >>
>> >> For example, it says Luke Donald is 66.40, but if you take
>> >> 237/357=66.39
>> >>
>> >> Paul Azinger 63.30, but 336/531=63.28
>> >>
>> >> ???
>> >>
>> >
>> > Ummm, they're rounding up?
>
>
> sfb wrote:
>> Metric system data can be a real challenge to us Americans.
>
> Oh bullshit. It's a legit gripe. If they are to display the % to
> hundredths, they should round to hundredths, not tenths.
>
|
| |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 11:34:49
From: Larry Bud
Subject: Re: Scrambling Statistic
|
sfb wrote:
>
> "Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1160665306.326357.40300@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> >>
> >> "Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1160657580.787472.298970@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> >> > Can someone explain how the "value" here is determined:
> >> >
> >> > http://www.thegolfchannel.com/core.aspx?page=13201&select=29
> >> >
> >> > At first it looked like Par or Better / Missed GIRs, but it's slightly
> >> > off:
> >> >
> >> > For example, it says Luke Donald is 66.40, but if you take
> >> > 237/357=66.39
> >> >
> >> > Paul Azinger 63.30, but 336/531=63.28
> >> >
> >> > ???
> >
> > sfb wrote:
> >> It is a PGA Tour stat at http://www.pgatour.com/stats/leaders/r/2006/130
> >> where value is a percent rounded to tenths. TGC is presenting the
> >> rounded
> >> data as hundreds.
> >
> > But it's rounded incorrectly. That's what was throwing me.
> It is rounded correctly to tenths per the PGA stats - 66.39 to 66.4 and
> 63.28 to 68.3 .
Yes, I agree.
> TGC just adds a unnecessary or erroneous zero when
> presenting PGA tenths data (66.4) as hundreds (66.40).
Correct, that's what they are doing. I just wanted to make sure I knew
the formula was as simple as I though.
|
| |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 11:32:52
From: Larry Bud
Subject: Re: Scrambling Statistic
|
> > > > For example, it says Luke Donald is 66.40, but if you take
> > > > 237/357=66.39
> >
> > > > Paul Azinger 63.30, but 336/531=63.28
> >
> > > > ???
> > sfb wrote:
> > > It is a PGA Tour stat athttp://www.pgatour.com/stats/leaders/r/2006/130
> > > where value is a percent rounded to tenths. TGC is presenting the rounded
> > > data as hundreds.But it's rounded incorrectly. That's what was throwing me.- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
>
> The two examples you gave are rounded correctly. Can you give an
> example of incorrect rounding?
Huh? Those ARE incorrect examples. The link I gave says
336/631=63.30%, but it's really = 63.276%, or 63.28%. 237/357=66.386%
or 66.38% but they round it to 66.40%
|
| | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 15:15:13
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Scrambling Statistic
|
You have the wrong they. The stat rounders are the PGA Tour who only carries
the stat to 1 decimal place, i.e. tenths of a percent.
TGC isn't rounding anything. TGC is adding an extraneous 0 when they present
the rounded PGA value of 66.4 as 66.40.
Luke Donald is 237 for 357 or 66.38655% which rounds to 1 decimal place as
66.4%, to 2 decimal places as 66.39%, and three as 66.387%.
"Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1160677972.816068.304880@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> > > > For example, it says Luke Donald is 66.40, but if you take
>> > > > 237/357=66.39
>> >
>> > > > Paul Azinger 63.30, but 336/531=63.28
>> >
>> > > > ???
>> > sfb wrote:
>> > > It is a PGA Tour stat
>> > > athttp://www.pgatour.com/stats/leaders/r/2006/130
>> > > where value is a percent rounded to tenths. TGC is presenting the
>> > > rounded
>> > > data as hundreds.But it's rounded incorrectly. That's what was
>> > > throwing me.- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
>>
>> The two examples you gave are rounded correctly. Can you give an
>> example of incorrect rounding?
>
> Huh? Those ARE incorrect examples. The link I gave says
> 336/631=63.30%, but it's really = 63.276%, or 63.28%. 237/357=66.386%
> or 66.38% but they round it to 66.40%
>
|
|
