DECADE by BirdieFire

[golfortennis]

4 hours ago, Krt22 said:

This one is hard. People in general don't like change, telling them the myths they have been believing/following/reiterating for years or even decades is a tough pill to swallow. Even tougher when PGA tour announcers continue to reiterate these myths of the past. A few weeks ago idiot Azinger said "I'd rather have a 20ft uphill putt than a 10ft downhill one".  

 

In his defense, how much downhill?  🤣

[thejazzmarauder]

On 9/2/2021 at 6:20 PM, golfortennis said:

 

I have no idea, but do RBs not matter, or do RBs no longer matter because the rules have changed to favor passing much more than in the past?  

 

The analytics people may be taking one on the chin in baseball, as they were the ones who pushed for the minor leagues to be shrunk, and it's causing some pretty big player development problems.  I typically support the analytics approach, but there are times it's overdone/done wrong.  (Notwithstanding the fact they seem to have made baseball completely unwatchable).   This may be one of them.

 

Getting back on topic, it is funny to still hear people talk as though being closer to the hole is not better.  If you are not in real trouble, how does it not improve your chances when that is what happens at the pro level?  

The nerds didn't make baseball unwatchable, they simply discovered how to maximize run creation. The fact that three-true outcome-guys are more valuable than slap hitters is a reality that every organization has had to adapt to. If you think that has ruined the game (and I certainly think it's less interesting to watch now), blame those who can change the rules but don't. 

 

As for RBs, they haven't mattered for a long time, if they ever did. In the words of Ben Baldwin's 'nerd-to-human translator', saying that running backs don't matter is really saying that: "the results of run plays are primarily determined by run blocking and defenders in the box, not who is carrying the ball. Running backs are interchangeable, and investing a lot of resources (in the draft or free agency) doesn't make sense."

Edited September 6, 2021 by thejazzmarauder

[golfortennis]

10 hours ago, thejazzmarauder said:

The nerds didn't make baseball unwatchable, they simply discovered how to maximize run creation. The fact that three-true outcome-guys are more valuable than slap hitters is a reality that every organization has had to adapt to. If you think that has ruined the game (and I certainly think it's less interesting to watch now), blame those who can change the rules but don't. 

 

As for RBs, they haven't mattered for a long time, if they ever did. In the words of Ben Baldwin's 'nerd-to-human translator', saying that running backs don't matter is really saying that: "the results of run plays are primarily determined by run blocking and defenders in the box, not who is carrying the ball. Running backs are interchangeable, and investing a lot of resources (in the draft or free agency) doesn't make sense."

 

Oh, I get that it maximizes run creation, and if I were employed by a team, I would follow the same.  But the ball is not in play anywhere near like it once was, and while I'm a pitchers guy, if everyone is getting 10 strikeouts a night, it's not really a feat anymore, is it?  One benefit of last year was that getting to watch the KBO allowed us to see baseball with the ball in play.  I certainly agree with the rules thing.  No idea how the umps can decide that the rule book strike zone is not what they will call.  Deaden the baseball, and call the strike zone, and it would bring back a lot IMHO.  I'm not a "ban-the-shift" guy, since a major league hitter should be able to take it the other way.

 

The RB thing makes a fair bit of sense.  Obviously it requires a certain level of athletic ability, but there are enough of those guys.  But football is won at the line of scrimmage is one of the old saws that actually does hold.

 

[Liveonce]

Is decade basic free? Do you get one course for free? Thx 

[xmanhockey7]

On 9/6/2021 at 10:48 AM, Liveonce said:

Is decade basic free? Do you get one course for free? Thx 

I think basic is the first month or foundations for free. Not sure about the free yardage book though. Still, just sign up for it. Honestly even just doing the $100 foundations may be the best $100 you spend on golf. 

[Krt22]

OK I am sure this has been asked, but I some how missed it. On stat tracking, when you are listing your approach to the green on par 5s, there is only one option. Do you put the stats for your 2nd shot or potential 3rd shot? I'm guessing the 2nd shot, but just want to make sure

[Myherobobhope]

18 hours ago, Krt22 said:

OK I am sure this has been asked, but I some how missed it. On stat tracking, when you are listing your approach to the green on par 5s, there is only one option. Do you put the stats for your 2nd shot or potential 3rd shot? I'm guessing the 2nd shot, but just want to make sure

In the decade app? I’m not sure what your question is here… the elite has gps breakdown of your shots and the foundations Just tracks putting and the tiger 5.

[Krt22]

4 hours ago, Myherobobhope said:

In the decade app? I’m not sure what your question is here… the elite has gps breakdown of your shots and the foundations Just tracks putting and the tiger 5.

I was using the yardage books to stat track and then wanting to manually enter via the website. The App UX/I leaves a lot to be desired lol. Do you do it all via the app typically? 

[Myherobobhope]

1 hour ago, Krt22 said:

I was using the yardage books to stat track and then wanting to manually enter via the website. The App UX/I leaves a lot to be desired lol. Do you do it all via the app typically? 

Yeah, I don't love the GPS entry on the ELITE side... it takes awhile and isn't super intuitive... I also just found out you need to make sure your putts are lined up correctly (so if you roll your first putt 2 feet past, make sure the close dot is on the other side of the hole)... but it doesn't have me differentiate approach shots from recovery shots on the app itself... i just translate the GPS watch data into the app... (I have a Garmin S62).

 

Honestly, I haven't been that on top of my data recently, as it's a pain to get into the system, and I know where I'm struggling right now... currently working on a shift to heads up putting, so I'm just tracking SG Putting in the Foundations scorecards.

 

I'll go back to in depth stuff when I'm making my next big handicap push.

[Hstead]

I have to totally disagree with the RB thing.  I played RB in college, it absolutely matters.  Not all stat guys ever ran the ball or have a clue about running the ball.  Perfect example is Ohio State last year.  Master Teague was not very good.  Trey Sermon entirely changed OSU's offense.  

 

This year, they tinkered with Teague although he lost his starting job to Williams.  They went with Teague for a few series.  The offense was stale.  Then they went back to Williams.

 

On Williams' first play, he was hit in the back field, broke a tackle, hit again about one yeard past the LOS, then proceeded to drag the pile for a pick up of six and made it 2nd down and 4 versus the 2nd and ten Teague or any other back on the roster would have left the offense.  It is an entirely different play book now on 2nd and 4 vs 2nd and 9 or 10.

 

Football is a "game of inches" and every yard counts.  When you have a back that falls forward and gains an extra yard all night, it adds up to moving the chains and getting first downs and keeping your offense on the field.  

 

Christian McCaffrey absolutely makes a difference.  If the stat guy can't understand why then that is on him.

Edited September 10, 2021 by Hstead

[golfortennis]

1 hour ago, Hstead said:

I have to totally disagree with the RB thing.  I played RB in college, it absolutely matters.  Not all stat guys ever ran the ball or have a clue about running the ball.  Perfect example is Ohio State last year.  Master Teague was not very good.  Trey Sermon entirely changed OSU's offense.  

 

This year, they tinkered with Teague although he lost his starting job to Williams.  They went with Teague for a few series.  The offense was stale.  Then they went back to Williams.

 

On Williams' first play, he was hit in the back field, broke a tackle, hit again about one yeard past the LOS, then proceeded to drag the pile for a pick up of six and made it 2nd down and 4 versus the 2nd and ten Teague or any other back on the roster would have left the offense.  It is an entirely different play book now on 2nd and 4 vs 2nd and 9 or 10.

 

Football is a "game of inches" and every yard counts.  When you have a back that falls forward and gains an extra yard all night, it adds up to moving the chains and getting first downs and keeping your offense on the field.  

 

Christian McCaffrey absolutely makes a difference.  If the stat guy can't understand why then that is on him.

 

I don't disagree with what you are saying. I think there are two points I would bring up:  at the NFL level, guys like you mentioned are likely weeded out, to the point that while you do have a few standouts, there is a certain level of "performance" you can expect from any RB good enough to be a roster.  To put it in baseball terms, anyone good enough to make a major league roster is going to put up some numbers given enough plate appearances.  While Mike Trout hits 45 home runs, a replacement player would likely hit 15 given 600 PAs.  I would think given the same number of carries behind the same offensive line, most RBs are going to put up a fairly similar level of performance.

 

The other part is, in a salary cap world, is it better to get a top level RB(and pay commensurately for it), or is it better to save on RB and spend it elsewhere.  I haven't followed much so I'll use some older names, but is it better to pay Ladanian Tomlinson $7 million for his production(say 1,500 yards and 300 yds catching), or pay $2 million to an average RB who can get 800-900 yards rushing and a few receiving yards, and put that $5 million to use somewhere else.

 

Back to the Trout scenario, yes 30 more home runs is great, but it comes at a cost of likely $25 million more than what you pay replacement.  Where is the balance?  

 

Not saying you should or shouldn't pay Trout, or Tomlinson, I'm just saying when there are scarce resources, what is the most efficient way to use them to achieve success? 

 

 

 

[bladehunter]

Anybody else having the app crash ?  Ive tried for 3 days to enter stats for a round snd halfway through it will lock up and the app will eventually self close.  It’s updated to the new format.  Snd has always worked great before. 

[bladehunter]

Anybody know how to contact “ customer service “? So to speak.  I’ve asked this question through the help tab on the app and no response.  I tried to enter stats for another round yesterday and it froze twice.  So two rounds Not entered now.  I’ve triple checked the update of the app . The operating system on my phone and still no good. Any idea is appreciated. 
 

edit -  got it to work on the site.  Just the app THats not working.  

Edited September 12, 2021 by bladehunter

[Myherobobhope]

2 hours ago, bladehunter said:

Anybody know how to contact “ customer service “? So to speak.  I’ve asked this question through the help tab on the app and no response.  I tried to enter stats for another round yesterday and it froze twice.  So two rounds Not entered now.  I’ve triple checked the update of the app . The operating system on my phone and still no good. Any idea is appreciated. 
 

edit -  got it to work on the site.  Just the app THats not working.  

Harass scott on Twitter?

[GoTime]

For those who have gone through the whole process and have made the whole maps/layouts, how did you print/store them? Especially for clubs you regularly play?

 

I'm trying to figure out how to print and laminate 18 holes, ideally in small spiral bound booklet that's about 4x4.5" inches but am having a beast of a time finding anywhere that can do it.

 

 

[xmanhockey7]

13 hours ago, GoTime said:

For those who have gone through the whole process and have made the whole maps/layouts, how did you print/store them? Especially for clubs you regularly play?

 

I'm trying to figure out how to print and laminate 18 holes, ideally in small spiral bound booklet that's about 4x4.5" inches but am having a beast of a time finding anywhere that can do it.

 

 

I usually just remember then go play a practice round. Or you can create a packet in something like PowerPoint, save as PDF and email to yourself or I use Mac and just save it to cloud files then use my phone. 

[RCGA]

13 hours ago, GoTime said:

For those who have gone through the whole process and have made the whole maps/layouts, how did you print/store them? Especially for clubs you regularly play?

 

I'm trying to figure out how to print and laminate 18 holes, ideally in small spiral bound booklet that's about 4x4.5" inches but am having a beast of a time finding anywhere that can do it.

 

 

 

I printed mine off on 8.5x14 20lb paper. Can't find anything heavier at a reasonable price atm (best is around $50 for 100 sheets in Canada)

 

No cover or anything. I leave it in my push cart.

 

I've drawn a line from the tee box through the center of my decision tree up to the green. It's easy to narrow in on targets even if I can't hit them. Plus I stared 2-3 targets for the greens based on a 30y-wide, 20y-deep general dispersion oval; beyond that I simply have to live with the fact I put a bad swing on it (no access to a GCQuad).  

[Deepy]

Hey everyone,

 

I once worked through all the video content of the DECADE App but didn't focus on the recommendations and numbers for ladies which I'm now interested in. So if anyone remembers something related to strategy or numbers especially for ladies, I would appreciate if you could direct me there.

 

I remember the sentence: If you hit it less than 270y of the tee you should probably hit driver on every hole, but this was meant for men afair.

 

So how would a driving decision tree for a lady golfer with lengths around typical LPGA pro look like? How wide is their typical dispersion (especially lateral!) pattern? I spend a lot of time looking for data but couldn't find a single hint.

 

Any help appreciated.

 

Deepy

Edited September 14, 2021 by Deepy

[ThinkingPlus]

4 hours ago, Deepy said:

Hey everyone,

 

I once worked through all the video content of the DECADE App but didn't focus on the recommendations and numbers for ladies which I'm now interested in. So if anyone remembers something related to strategy or numbers especially for ladies, I would appreciate if you could direct me there.

 

I remember the sentence: If you hit it less than 270y of the tee you should probably hit driver on every hole, but this was meant for men afair.

 

So how would a driving decision tree for a lady golfer with lengths around typical LPGA pro look like? How wide is their typical dispersion (especially lateral!) pattern? I spend a lot of time looking for data but couldn't find a single hint.

 

Any help appreciated.

 

Deepy

Unlikely you will find anything or get viable recommendations from DECADE.  All the assumptions are built off pro tour and male amateur golfers data.  For example, I know, in my own game, hitting fairways is more important to scoring than DECADE or other strokes gained philosophies would indicate.

[Krt22]

2 hours ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Unlikely you will find anything or get viable recommendations from DECADE.  All the assumptions are built off pro tour and male amateur golfers data.  For example, I know, in my own game, hitting fairways is more important to scoring than DECADE or other strokes gained philosophies would indicate.

There is actually one video (yes just one) specifically for this, where LPGA players sort of run into issues with the decision making tree since at their length since the hazards are different relative to a male driving it 300 but playing the course from much farther back. I will need to rewatch.

[ThinkingPlus]

1 minute ago, Krt22 said:

There is actually one video (yes just one) specifically for this, where LPGA players sort of run into issues with the decision making tree since at their length since the hazards are different relative to a male driving it 300 but playing the course from much farther back. I will need to rewatch.

Doesn't surprise me.  Women playing golf is in many ways a different game.  Unsurprisingly, the optimal strategies are different as well.

[Shades234]

On 9/10/2021 at 8:22 AM, Krt22 said:

I was using the yardage books to stat track and then wanting to manually enter via the website. The App UX/I leaves a lot to be desired lol. Do you do it all via the app typically? 

In that case you want to write down your distance for each shot so you can later go back into the app and drag the cursor to the right place. So if I have a par 5 and I'm 270 from the green and don't go for it, I'd write down 2 numbers... 270 & 95. If I'm going for it from 270, I'd just write down the 1 number. Then I write down a C if I miss the green so I remember that I chipped and I drag the cursor to about where I was chipping from. The app is far from perfect, but I think it does a decent job. Wish there was a way to get the collars and mouths of greens to show up as fairway instead of rough, but I think Scott and his programmer are doing the best they can with the course gps library they use. 

[Deepy]

Interesting!

It was clear to me, that the driving descision tree would look somewhat different for women than for men since its basically a model where two variables are involved:

1. the expected strokes from distance x and lie y (so basically the strokes gained values for elite women golfers) and
2. the dispersion pattern for the clubs used from the tee

#1 is hard to find, I was able to find the fairway stats from LPGA (written on the new decade card) but most likely the values from the rough differ - and differ differently than for men - so fairway hits are more important.

#2 is even harder to find, but I will ask some women for a trackman session as I'm curious and browse through some of the combine reports at mytrackman.com

 

21 hours ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Unlikely you will find anything or get viable recommendations from DECADE.  All the assumptions are built off pro tour and male amateur golfers data.  For example, I know, in my own game, hitting fairways is more important to scoring than DECADE or other strokes gained philosophies would indicate.

 

From your experience: Is the approach recommendation part of the DECADE system as unsuitable as the driving descision part?

[ThinkingPlus]

3 hours ago, Deepy said:

Interesting!

It was clear to me, that the driving descision tree would look somewhat different for women than for men since its basically a model where two variables are involved:

1. the expected strokes from distance x and lie y (so basically the strokes gained values for elite women golfers) and
2. the dispersion pattern for the clubs used from the tee

#1 is hard to find, I was able to find the fairway stats from LPGA (written on the new decade card) but most likely the values from the rough differ - and differ differently than for men - so fairway hits are more important.

#2 is even harder to find, but I will ask some women for a trackman session as I'm curious and browse through some of the combine reports at mytrackman.com

 

 

From your experience: Is the approach recommendation part of the DECADE system as unsuitable as the driving descision part?

I am not an expert on DECADE, but my guess is that hitting greens is more important for women.  Women are not as good out of bunkers or deep rough around the green.  These areas will have lower strokes gained values than for men.  Also women probably need to layup to wedge distance more often on par 5s than go for the green relative to men because of the added difficulty of getting up and down around challenging green complexes.  Of course not having hard data makes my assertions just speculation.

[RCGA]

I'd personally avoid thinking about the decision tree and instead consider the decision cone I posted earlier. Just modify the distances for your driver/3w/5w.

 

The cone lets you see all 3 options right away and the "right" choice becomes obvious. 

[RCGA]

If my greens are all 20y x 20y, my target should be the centre of the green for basically everything more than ~125y, right? Let's assume no bunkers, hazards or anomalies. 

 

I'm trying to simplify the approach target on a course I play all the time.  

[Krt22]

1 hour ago, RCGA said:

If my greens are all 20y x 20y, my target should be the centre of the green for basically everything more than ~125y, right? Let's assume no bunkers, hazards or anomalies. 

 

I'm trying to simplify the approach target on a course I play all the time.  

No, not quite. He actually posted a simulation on his Instagram a week or two ago where center of the green was statistically worse than using a proper decade target. There is the baseline lateral target (in which this case would be relative to the edge of the green) and there is also the distance target. If its a back left pin, center of the green isn't going to be the best.  From the decade card 190-200y is where middle of the green becomes the target (at least laterally). 

[RCGA]

I saw that simulation but in my situation with a 20x20 green, it also encompasses my shot pattern with scoring irons. The pins are usually 5 from the front/back and 5 from the left/right

 

For example, my 8i goes 155-165y and I usually play it to be a 160y shot. My side to side dispersion is, let's say, 25-30y. Maybe there's a little fudge factor based on a front/back pin placement, but going with a 7i (165-175y) or 9i (145-155y) I'm really flirting with the front/back edges

[Krt22]

If you have a perfectly round green and the middle of the green was smack in the middle of one of your clubs, sure that makes sense, just not sure if that is a universal approach. I have never played a course were every green is the same size and shape with such benign pins. I think the main take away was for some back pins you can underclub if you are playing the middle of the green and with shorter clubs you can leave yourself a longer putt if you get too conservative with your lateral target. The decade card gives you a specific lateral target based on distance to the flag. If you are going by the method and trusting the stats, I would venture to think being overly conservative is just as problematic as being overly aggressive. I would not expect a 20-30Y wide dispersion pattern as 125 like I would at 165 or farther

[xmanhockey7]

On 9/14/2021 at 4:57 AM, Deepy said:

Hey everyone,

 

I once worked through all the video content of the DECADE App but didn't focus on the recommendations and numbers for ladies which I'm now interested in. So if anyone remembers something related to strategy or numbers especially for ladies, I would appreciate if you could direct me there.

 

I remember the sentence: If you hit it less than 270y of the tee you should probably hit driver on every hole, but this was meant for men afair.

 

So how would a driving decision tree for a lady golfer with lengths around typical LPGA pro look like? How wide is their typical dispersion (especially lateral!) pattern? I spend a lot of time looking for data but couldn't find a single hint.

 

Any help appreciated.

 

Deepy

It’s basically the same except he is more ok if you have less than 65y to hit driver because dispersion is typically smaller given the skill level and less CHS. He also says some holes you just have to hit 6i 7i because holes are just setup weird when played from the lady tees.