iamshack

QUOTE (bmags @ Aug 14, 2014 -> 02:26 PM) You'd think baseball was like, the most athletically demanding from the way you talk. Right, because you would know

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Aug 14, 2014 -> 02:20 PM) You ripped Wimpy for repeating things? How many Sox games do you actually watch that Hawk calls? That's all he does. You learn things from Hawk at this point? No one does. There's a difference between sometimes talking about old players or games and telling the same story 500 times, or making some stupid, incorrect, grandiose point, because he feels like he has to do so. I have watched other games. Not every team. But they are better than Hawk's absolute nonsense for 9 innings. I've watched more games that Hawk has called than probably 95% of people that post here, trust me. I've watched probably 80-90% of our games since 1983 or so. I know, I know...we kids and young adults always know so much more than our stupid elders... Do you think that your generation is the first to think they knew everything? Honestly? Can't you tell by now that basically every generation grows up thinking they know everything, only to realize as they grow older just how smart their parents and grandparents really were? I know I am coming off like some old fart here, but honestly, have some respect for people that have done things you haven't. Have some respect for a guy that played the game at an incredibly high level for many years. Have some respect for a guy that was a GM, turned down managerial jobs, and has been a broadcaster for 35 years. That certainly is not to say that 100% of what the guy says is correct. We all know it isn't. But c'mon...it usually turns out that people that have come before us aren't nearly as dumb as we once thought they were. He does know just a little bit about the game.

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Aug 14, 2014 -> 01:59 PM) Olbermann had a good piece on this yesterday, you should find it if you can. Kids is one thing, but the game overall is going down in popularity with all age levels. They are going to run into a bigger problem sooner than later. Adapt or die. You have plenty of people on here who think the pace is too slow and hurting the game, and I'm pretty sure all of them aren't 13 years old. Golf is getting hit with the same criticisms. Baseball and golf are not going to die. And we shouldn't be making huge changes to games that have been around for 2+ centuries so that the latest generation of teenagers can get their fat asses off the couch.

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Aug 14, 2014 -> 01:55 PM) Didn't read the article, but what he said is absolutely wrong. You can dismiss it as being OMG YOU ARE SO SENSITIVE but he talked down to a portion of the Sox fanbase. It's just pointless and stupid. He really needs to go. There's so much adding up at this point. He's flat-out bad at his job. He can't see the game (oh, the ball bounced over the wall?). Everything has to be some grandiose, incorrect point about the game of baseball. He doesn't understand, or dismisses, advanced statistics. Anyone who listened to any of those Wimpy and Stone games know what a non-s***ty broadcast booth can sound like. It was so refreshing to have people call a game, talk about today's game and the sport overall, and leave it at that. It wasn't hard, and every one of those broadcasts was so much better than any Hawk-called game right now. Best suggestion I heard is letting Hawk do home games next year, and that's it. Start to phase out. All I can say is watch the other games. You'll quickly find out that the vast majority of other team's broadcasters are dreadfully dull to watch. Yes, I agree, it would be nice if Hawk would be willing to repeat less of his "You show me a hitter who can't be jammed and I'll show you a bad hitter" nonsense. But at the same time, he does actually provide wisdom and experience from time to time. If you don't appreciate it, fine...but some people do. There are people who played this game before you started watching. There were great players that played before 1993. It would actually add some perspective to the game to recognize that. I'm not sure how many of you guys that rip on Hawk ever got a chance to hear Harry Caray call games. Hawk is to you guys what Harry Caray was to me growing up, and Jimmy Piersall to kids a decade or so older than me. When I was younger, we used to die laughing, or cringe, or just shake our heads at the stuff Harry Caray would say. Guy was flat out drinking old styles during the game. He'd say things like "Sosa spelled backwards is Asos" and "Hey Steve, I haven't seen you with any ladies lately." Once he reached a certain age, he was just brutal...but it was hilarious, and it added character to a game that has plenty of time for character to be added. Years later, do you think Cubs fans miss the games his much more professional grandson Chip called, or the ones that Harry called? Who cares if he can't see whether a ball bounced over the wall or not. You have 27 different replays to show you otherwise. You have Steve in there correcting him. And Wimpy...the guy is hilarious, but c'mon...he doesn't know the game any better...in fact, he knows a lot less. All he says is stuff like "Gee Steve, Gordon is really hitting the ball hard lately...watch how he lets the ball get deep on him so he can take it the other way." I mean that gets old after about the 4th time he says it. For as talented as Steve is, and as much as I enjoy listening to him, the games Hawk and Wimpy do are far more entertaining to me than the ones Steve and Wimpy do....but then again, maybe that's just because I grew up listening to the two of them for so many years.

QUOTE (bmags @ Aug 14, 2014 -> 01:46 PM) Nor do I think it's a lack of political correctness, but this clip is going to make the rounds and it's going to confirm a lot of people's beliefs that this is a game for old men. Oh come on...baseball has trouble attracting younger viewers because of the slow pace. It has very little to do with what Hawk, or Vin or other "old men" say or do. God forbid kids actually have to sit down and think a little. Or take something at a little bit of a slower pace than their video games provide. I don't understand why everything needs to revolve around what "kids today want." Maybe the kids of today are wrong? Maybe the kids of today need to wake up and smell the coffee that the real world doesn't always give them exactly what they want RIGHT NOW? I get it, the kids of today determine where the money of tomorrow is spent, and we all need to please them...but it's really not a great lesson to be teaching them.

QUOTE (bmags @ Aug 14, 2014 -> 01:37 PM) I'm not a broadcaster. Talk to people about baseball now, everyone thinks it's a boring old mans game. Stuff like this just confirms it. That has everything to do with the lack of character and fun and not the lack of political correctness.

QUOTE (bmags @ Aug 14, 2014 -> 12:58 PM) I thought that was crap too and was glad I didn't see it. Obviously you know where that language comes from when talking to an older man but it's sentiment is so outdated and dumb. Blah. Live a little. Don't be so incredibly oversensitive. It takes all the fun out of life.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Aug 14, 2014 -> 01:14 PM) That writer should wear a skirt.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 14, 2014 -> 12:56 PM) Looks cool, but most golf gps apps let you log every one of your shots. You won't get a fancy overlay like that, but the data is still there if you take the time to put it into your phone. Yeah, I was actually looking for an app to do that last night...the problem is, I don't think they really provide you with the tools to do any kind of analysis....it looks like this device actually develops tools in-line with the analyses I'd like to perform, which is the reason I went looking for the app in the first place. I read Broadie's book, Every Shot Counts, which is what a lot of the tools this company is developing is based upon.

Oh my, might have to pull the trigger on this... Game Golf

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Aug 14, 2014 -> 08:48 AM) You may be right, but I think that all of us should accept the fact that our ability to judge a player's range is very, very limited. It's extremely hard to tell if another player would or should have caught any particular ball -- we almost never see their jumps and cannot, with any degree of accuracy, judge the distance player actually had to run. What he CAN see are the obvious screw-ups and therefore we're naturally inclined to over-represent them in our minds. I think this is the stuff that we need the data MOST for, because these measurements are much more accurate than our TV perceptions. Oh I agree. I'm not disputing any of the data. I think the data reflects what I see with my eyes. If he could go back on the ball with any degree of skill, I think we would see that the data would reflect better upon him. He certainly is not a terrible defender, but many people believe he is because of that deficiency and tendency. If he could go back on the ball more adequately, I think the data would show him to be a very good defender.

For whatever reason, De Aza has always been terrible at going back on the ball, whether in center or left. Most of the balls he gets a glove on and drops, at least from my observations, were balls he was going back on.

The problem with diagnosing swing flaws of others is that there are usually a multitude of things happening that are causing this ball flight. You've got to be careful because if you start making small adjustments looking for quick fixes, eventually you end up piling them on top of one another and you get so far away from where you should be that eventually you're hitting the ball both right and left, and you have no clue what is happening. I was driving the ball really well the last few years...that was pretty much the best part of my game, although I wasn't really playing very often. I was basically aiming right and swinging on an outside-to-inside swing path, but squaring the face up enough so that the ball was starting off straight and drawing slightly, despite my aiming well right. This sort of ball flight is basically optimal for distance, and so I was hitting the ball as far off the tee as I ever had. Fast forward to this year when I began playing much more regularly. I started struggling with big pull draws or even pull hooks. Apparently I was not unable to rationalize aiming as far right as before (because I was playing more regularly and found this concerning), and also starting to close the face as well (which caused the bigger draws and now the hooks). I started making little adjustments that I had read or watched online, then tinkering with my alignment and setup, and before you know it, I'm hitting the ball right sometimes, left sometimes, and I really have no freaking clue where the hell to even aim even more. Ultimately it took going back to the drawing board with a professional and sorting this out. All it took was one concept to fix and now I'm hitting more fairways than I've probably ever hit. But I had gotten so out of whack by adding one little adjustment after another that eventually I had no clue where the ball was going.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 13, 2014 -> 01:21 PM) This is your post on the matter. You assumed static percentages for each attempt in % of greens in regulation. What he is trying to tell you is that if the % goes up with the second attempt, that 30% number is too low. Instead of being a 55% chance times a 55% chance, it is a 55% chance times a higher percent chance the second time, which reduces the average number of times he misses. The second swing is relevant for as many times as he doesn't improve. If he improves 70% of the time, that means 30% of the time, his second shot is still worse than his first, and is relevant to the counter-factual at hand. BTW, I didn't just make up the results...this is what the computers say after millions and millions of simulations utilizing actual shotlink data. It has been proven anecdotally as well...a lot of pro golfers will play worst ball to prepare themselves for a major...Greg Norman said the best he ever remembered scoring in a worst ball round was 72. Lanny Wadkins lost a match against an 8 handicap in this format back in 1991 when he was a top 10 player in the world.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 13, 2014 -> 01:27 PM) I understand that, but his "first" shot, good or bad, ends up with him scoring at a 70 something clip. He doesn't get a redo when he plays on tour, that's just his skill level. That's his baseline. You're assuming that he'll shoot worse, or at least on average be worse just because he has to take a second shot. I'm saying that's not necessarily true. More often than not that 2nd shot is going to be better than the first, regardless of whether the first shot is bad or good. He's able to see how the wind affects the shot, how the ground affects the shot, if he's turning over his wrist, if he has some kink in his swing, if he ends up short or long etc. etc. He has more info on that 2nd shot. You're ignoring this by just saying "well he has a 60% GIR rate normally, so in two shots that's cut to 30%." Really, his "worst case scenario" is most likely going to be his first "bad" shot. And again, he's able to scramble from that bad shot more often than not and still shoot a 70 something on average. Yes, there is the possibility that he'll hit a good shot first, and THEN a bad shot. And that's where I agree he'll probably shoot a few shots worse than he normally does. That and his putting, which is bound to drop off if he's forced to make a 10+ footer more than once. I just don't see that happening nearly as much as you are claiming because of a pro's ability to adjust immediately. No, I'm assuming the results will be the same on each shot. If he hits 60% if fairways normally, he will continue to hit 60% of fairways normally. So if he has to hit 28 drives in a round instead of 14, he'll hit the fairway 16.8 times. That means he will miss the fairway 11.2 times. Now I have conceded that he may miss the same fairway twice on one hole or hit the same fairway twice on one hole, and the ones he misses with both shots on he is more likely to make bogeys on. But he's also going to suffer on holes where he hits a killer drive on a relatively easy hole but then cannot duplicate that and has to use the lesser drive he hit. That is the difference between birdies and pars. Edit: As for the scrambling...you have to remember, he is going to have to scramble from there twice, not just once. If we know his scrambling rate is only 60%, then we know that 40% of the time he does not pull it off...if we make him do it with two balls, odds are that he isn't going to be able to pull it off again with any regularity. I do see your point in terms of being able to use experience in order to duplicate his earlier success when it comes to the short game, but when you look at the stats, I just think you're giving too much credit to the unknown and not enough towards execution and randomness. I think seeing a putt go in the first time may improve his chances to do it again versus if he had never seen it occur, to your point and to ssk's point, but I do not believe it would be significant by any means.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Aug 13, 2014 -> 01:20 PM) Yeah, which will usually be his first shot. Meaning you can't just split the percentages because his 2nd shot, by and large will be better, so worse case he plays his first shot 90% of the time, which is what he would have to do on tour, etc. These guys are such good putters, that while I think he'll give up some with the having to make puts twice, I still don't think he's going to miss that many puts to make up the difference cause I don't think the normal 90 is making up more then 10 strokes. Usually (and I have pretty close to a 90 average) when I have a bad shot and rehit from the same place, I follow it up with the same terrible shot. Less so when I get closer to the green but off the tees, certainly, and that tends to be where I lose a lot of shots. I do agree I'd get some back in these scenario, specifically near the greens, but again, I'm not making up the difference. I just don't agree with that logic. Maybe in terms of chipping and putting, because your ball is actually traveling on top of a physical surface (the green). But when you are hitting drives or irons or any shot that doesn't involve the ball rolling on the ground, these guys are hitting the ball through the air. There isn't much to be learned that they don't already know. A good drive is more the result of executing a swing optimally, not the result of not understanding where to land the ball on the fairway. If this was the case, we would almost always see scores improve in tournaments with each subsequent round as a result of experience gained. This simply is not the case.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Aug 13, 2014 -> 01:02 PM) Youre probably just coming in steep. Try making sure your left shoulder is higher than your right when you set up with your driver, your head should be behind the ball. Then try to finish with the clubhead pointing at Right Center field. Another drill I do is keep the driver head as low to the ground as possible in my backswing, this forces you to rotate with your body instead of taking the club straight up with your arms. I've always been told this is what you need to do with you have an early release and are hooking the ball...you're need to emphasize keeping your swing "down the line" of the target. The last sentence is what is known as "bringing the club back wide." You'll see Rickie Fowler practice this takeaway before every swing. It helps you avoid bringing the club back on the inside with your arms or cocking your wrists early.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 13, 2014 -> 01:09 PM) You are totally missing what he is saying. If he has a 55% chance at hitting the fairway on his first swing, that goes up on the second swing. So it isn't .55 times .55 to get a %. It is something more like .55 times .70 (or something higher than 55% if he gets better on his second swing). But if he misses the fairway with his first swing, it doesn't matter what he does with his second swing. If he hits the fairway with his first swing, then he still has to hit the fairway again with his second swing, or else he has to use that ball. The second swing is irrelevant unless it is worse than his first swing. If he improves every time with experience over his first ball, guess what? He will get to use that second ball 0 times, so it will have 0% effect on his score.

QUOTE (BigHurt3515 @ Aug 13, 2014 -> 12:59 PM) I literally have to turn my body to the left just to try and get it on the fairway. You are likely making it worse by doing that. When you turn your body left it encourages an even bigger slice because you are likely increasing the amount you are cutting across the ball. There could be any number of reasons you are slicing the ball...could be your swing path, could be you are leaving the face of your club open, most likely it is both. Look up ball flight laws on google...that will help you understand what your problem is. Then you can google those problems and look at tips for addressing them.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 13, 2014 -> 12:31 PM) But you're ignoring the big chance that he would improve on the first shot with his second, which I think any pro would do the vast majority of the time. HE CANNOT USE HIS SECOND SHOT. HE MUST USE HIS WORST BALL ON EVERY SHOT

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 13, 2014 -> 12:09 PM) Well as-is with one shot he hits about 61% of greens in regulation, which is about 11 holes. So I think for 11 holes, played with two balls, you're still talking absolute worst score is even par because it'd be rare that he three putts any of them. He would then have 7 holes to scramble around. And I still think he's at or near the green most of the time, so you're talking a chip and a putt or two for most holes. 4-5-6 over might be reasonable for him. But I just don't see a 90 score guy improving 12-15 shots by getting a second shot at it. I don't think you understand...if he hits 11 of 18 greens with one ball, if he has to hit two balls, he's only going to hit 5.5 greens with both balls. So now he is scrambling on 12-13 holes instead of 7. He gets up and down about 61% of the time, which is pretty solid. But if he has to do it twice, he's only going to do it about 30% of the time. So now he's making bogeys on 7-9 of those 12-13 greens he missed. Edit: Now granted, it won't exactly play out that way...there are certain holes that are easier and he is going to hit two good shots because the skill required is just not that difficult. There are also holes that are going to be difficult and he is going to hit two bad shots because the skill level required is high. So he probably makes a higher percentage of pars on easy holes with both balls but also a higher percentage of bogeys with both balls on hard holes...which leads to him being right around where you had him...6 over for 78.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 13, 2014 -> 12:02 PM) Ok, I read it wrong. I thought you meant the pro literally gets you to about the 100 yard marker and then it's your turn. But that's kind of a silly hypothetical because the pro would basically get you on the green 60-70% of the time in regulation, so of course you would take that. Well within the parameters of the normal game...you're not going to have to hit another shot from 100 yards because you had him hit from 130 yards. But yeah, now think about the inverse. Take your game, and think of how many shots you take from inside 100 yards each round. Now imagine a pro is hitting them all. Most people think of it that way and think how many stokes could be shaved off.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 13, 2014 -> 11:57 AM) I guess I don't see that as a huge deal. He's hitting fairways and hitting greens and giving himself great scoring chances most of the round. Not making the birdie or par putts from long range means at worst he's dropping one shot. But he's still going to make a fair number of those putts twice simply based on the distance and percentage from 5-6 feet and in. How many fairways and greens do you think he is hitting?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 13, 2014 -> 11:43 AM) I guess I was assuming the 90 scorer again. That's not someone who is hacking their way around the course. They're playing bogey golf, which means get it on in 3-4 and putt it a couple of times. I think the pro's ability to chip, pitch, hit sand shots, lag putt and putt gives a far greater advantage than driving the ball farther and straighter. The difficulty with this hypothetical is the 100 yard line. That's not really THAT much of an advantage unless you're talking straight off the drive. Let's say we have a par 4 of 450 yards. A pro is getting you within 100 yards in two shots. Most 90 scoring amateurs can do that too. You have to think about where most opportunities for improvement lie. Like you said, the 90 golfer isn't a hack. And the easiest clubs to hit in one's bag are? Wegdes. He's obviously not likely to be Justin Rose with his wedges, but he is going to hit it near the green most of the time with a wedge in his hand. On the other hand, what are the most difficult clubs to hit in the bag, or where does the pro have a huge advantage over the average golfer? Pros hit their long-irons like you and I can only dream of. They also drive the ball much further than most 90 golfers. Think about par 5's and par 3's. If the pro is hitting your shots outside of 100 yards, he's going to be hitting the approach into almost every par 3 out there. He's also going to be getting you on or near the green in 2 on most par 5's. You might even have him layup on short par 4's so he can hit your approach shot in for you . I don't have a great short game by any means, but the worst I am going to do on most greens is 3 putt, and I am going to have the same amount of putts on the vast majority of greens anyways. I wouldn't get up and down nearly as much as a pro, but the difference there is usually going to only be 1 shot. Whereas if we're going tee to 100 yards short of the green, I might hit it OB, I might hit it into that lateral hazard, I might shank a few. I might make a 9 on a hole because I hit not one, but two balls in the water.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 13, 2014 -> 11:38 AM) You can't look at the stats that way. Those are stats over rounds of golf, not one shot right after the other. You're giving a tour player the option to re-hit a "bad" shot. I'd say 85-90% of the time he's going to hit it right the 2nd time. Els getting one shot is, for the most part, going to be his "worst" because if given a second chance he will adjust properly. Not all the time, which is why he may shoot slightly worse if he's always forced to take his worst shot, but it's not nearly as significant as an amateur. Even with those figures, he's still average par or better. Whereas you're asking an amateur to take two shots and massively improve from one to the next. That's something he/she doesn't have the skill for. I think your putting numbers are wrong. The % of makes are WAY more for a pro than the amateur. Pros are nearly automatic from 5' in, and their lag putting is significantly better. But in this hypothetical the player can't use the shot he re-hit. He HAS to play the worst of his two shots...So say he misses his first 8 foot putt. Will he likely have a better chance to make the next one because he's going to get a read from the first? Yes. But guess what, it doesn't matter, because he can't use that putt! He has to take the one he's already missed. The opposite applies for the 90 golfer...he CAN use the better shot, so he can use the information gained from the first shot to adjust on the second shot. As for the putting statistics, the 55% for a 7 footer may not be right on, because I don't have them in front of me at the moment, but for 8 foot putts, the average is right at 50%. Anything less than 3 feet, they are almost automatic. They do miss 4 and 5 footers though.