WHAT PART OF STATS DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND? is a simple enough question. So let me give Tiger fans the answer. While Tiger is an active player on tour, there are two stats worth taking note of.
(1) On the PGA tour, Tiger WINS 1 in every 3.5 starts.
(2) In the MAJOR events, Tiger WINS 1 in every 4.5 starts.
This week at Firestone, Tiger is, as the odds show, not far off from winning, but also probably not going to win. Let us say, today, Sunday, that the world's greatest golfer ever shot a 57 today. He would probably post a WIN. This is not a major, that is next week. Next week, his STATS show it will be even harder to win. But, his WIN RECORD in PGA and MAJOR events is better than anyone in history. It is the rope whiners who love GC who are complaining about Foley, who got Tiger back, and complaining about everything except their inability to understand basic statistics, who expect Tiger to WIN every single week, which is NOT in the STATS.
IT SHOWS that the biggest rope gallery complainers have not a clue about the game of golf, nor the GOLF HALL OF FAME STATS.
Chill, TTFs, and
Interesting points but not quite true. Stats only apply to extrapolation IF there has been no significant change in the system under study. Most experts agree MANY things changed for Tiger after Nov 2009. There are many assignable causes for the change in his winning percentages. And his winning percentages did change tremendously. Over the last 3.5 years (since Jan 2009) his major winning percentage has dropped to 0% or 0 in every 13 starts . Will it stay at 0%, no one knows but I can guarantee it will NOT return to 1 in every 4.5 starts over any 2 year or longer period of time.
And there is at least one golfer who has far surpased Tiger's winning percentages in majors over a number of years. By a factor of almost 2.
I do agree, no one will win them all over any time period exceeding 2 years.
You need to study statistics. Statistics is based on RANDOM results, not select. For you to select a specific period of time to suit your theory is flawed.
Either a sample or ALL STATS. The notion of selection of data to fit a theory is what makes all the complainers wrong.
Tiger's recent WINS on the PGA tour is actually better than his lifetime record.
In order for MAJOR stats to be meaningful, a reasonable sample is needed since Tiger is back. Everyone is agreed, that Tiger is now back in 2012.If the winning major stat is 1 WIN in 4.5 majors, and he has only played 3 majors in 2012, then the SAMPLE is not large enough. For the stat in majorsto be meaningful, he will need a multiple, or in other words 4.5 X 4.5 major starts. Then we will talk RESULTS.
In other words, once again, all discussion of major results is nil until Tiger plays at least another 16 to 20 majors, that is 4 to 5 years.
Sorry to disappoint you, but complainers have NOTHING to complain about in major stats.
In PGA stats, Tiger is BLOWING AWAY THE NUMBERS!!!
You sure like to wave around the smoke and mirrors to make a point. I clearly said I selected a period of time since assignable cause came into play and therefore changed the stats from a former time period. That makes the prevous time period invalid for purposes of extrapolation. Maybe a simpler explanation would help you, Tiger's winning percentages clearly do NOT fit a normal (or as you call them a totally random) or Gaussian distribution. If anything, a case for a bimodal distribution better fits the data to date. The sample size since the assinable causes has been fairly large, 13 majors. Yes, a larger sample size wiould be better. But almost everyone agrees there are two time periods to consider in Tiger's golf career and accommplishments.
Why have you ignored my correcting you on your false claim that Tiger has the highest winning percentage in majors? Do you now accept you were wrong?
Of course, as a mathematician, I am not wrong. Statistics is a subset of math.
You are into SELECTING a period of Tiger's playing which included when he was injured and working his way back with Foley.
If you SELECT periods in Tiger's major past, he WON 3 out of 4 and other periods when he lost 8 out of 8. That alone shows the FLAW in selection when it comes to random stats. The WORLD GOLF HALL OF FAME STATS are based on random stats, ALL STARTS AND ALL WINS, and simple averaging of the results. You cannot deny that is how the stats in golf are and should be calculated.
I am clear on this. It cannot be argued, and this is my last post directly to you about this thread. You cannot select. And you cannot conclude, since Tiger has not played a meaningful sample of majors since back.
We will pick up this discussion in several years.
In the meantimes, Tiger is back and doing well on the PGA tour, well enough to be number 1 in FedCup.
Unfortunately you continue to be wrong. While there are career stats that indeed look at the golfer's entire career, there are much more meaningful stats on the current situation such as those that are reset and recalculated each tournament and each year like GIR, % of fairways hit, etc.
To make it more simple for you, do you think Tiger's career GIR regulation stats apply to his current season? Or even a simpler analogy for you, do you believe Jack's winning percentages during his first 15-20 years (lots of data there) accurately reflected his winning percentages from 1980 onward? No sane person would. The field of statistical process control (SPC) is based on the fact that the previous data and trends are NOT applicible WHEN assignable cause (non-randomness) comes into play. You cannot look at the data in its entirety when the distribution is NOT random. You may be a mathematician but you are not knowledgeable about stats.
And you still will not ackknowledge you were wrong about Tiger's major winning percentage being the best.