John Paul Newport: Not the Sharpest Wedge in the Bag II

John Paul Newport is the golf columnist for the Wall Street Journal.  His lack of analytics can often lead him astray as it did in his column of July 2-3, 2011 (“Fighting Back Against Sandbaggers”).  First, he took some tables off the Internet, and assumed they were valid—this is never a good idea or good journalism.  Second, some knave misled him on the interpretation of the tables and the vagaries of the Slope System.  This resulted in multiple errors. Third, Newport pronounced the Tournament Point System (TPS) the Salk vaccine for sandbagging on the basis of two phone calls.  I doubt the efficacy of the TPS, and strongly believe sandbaggers will be eating the few remaining cockroaches when our planet comes to its end.  More detailed comments are made below.   Excerpts from Newport’s column are in italics.   

Among the most fascinating pages of Knuth’s website…is one titled “Odds of Shooting an Exceptional Tournament Score.”    A player in the 13-21 handicap range, for example, will shoot better than his course handicap only one round in every six.

The table Newport cites on Knuth’s website is also Appendix E of the USGA Handicap System.  Part of that table is shown as Table 1 below.  When the probabilities shown in the Table were first developed there was no Slope System and the probabilities were related to handicaps.  When the Slope System was introduced handicap ranges were switched to index ranges.  Such a conversion is not theoretically correct, but intellectual consistency was never the USGA’s strong suit.   Newport should have used an index range of 13 to 21.9 to be in accordance with the USGA

Table 1

Appendix E - Exceptional Tournament Score Probability Table[1]

Net Differential	Handicap Index Ranges
	0-5	6-12	13-21	22-30	>30
0	5	5	6	5	5
-1	10	10	10	8	7
-2	23	22	21	13	10
-3	57	51	43	23	15

The values in the table are the odds of shooting a net differential EQUAL OR BETTER than the number in the left column.

Looking at Table 1, an inconsistency should be obvious.   If a player has an index between 13 and 21, he is 20 percent less likely to score a net differential of zero or better than a player with either a lower or higher index.  This is the only case where the probability of any level of performance (e.g., -2,-3…-10 net differential) does not increase or stay the same as index is increased.  Why is this index range cursed with such poor performance?  I suspect it has to do with poor research technique.  Any difference in probability among groups for scoring a net differential of 0 or better may not be statistically significant.  This hypothesis cannot be confirmed, however, since the USGA does not release its studies for peer review.    When I mentioned this anomaly to the USGA, the probability for the 13.-21.9 index player was changed from 6:1 to 5:1 in the 2012-2015 edition of The USGA Handicap System.  The USGA never admitted a mistake nor cited new research for the change.

The odds of a midrange player shooting eight strokes better than his course handicap are 1 in 1,138.  The odds of him doing that twice in 20 rounds (much less than in a two- or four-round tournament are 1 in 14,912).

There are several errors in this quote.  Table 1 show the probability of shooting a net differential of  -8 or better, not just -8.  Newport also errs in using handicap instead of index.  An example will make this clear.  Assume a player is a 13.0 index.  He plays a course with a course rating of 72.0 and a Slope Rating of 150.  His course handicap is 17.  Assume he shoots eight strokes better than his handicap (i.e., his net score is 64 and his gross score is 81).  The player’s handicap and net differentials are:

Handicap differential = (81-72) x 113/150 = 6.8

Net differential = 6.8 -13.0 = - 6.2 rounded to -6.0

So in this case,  the probability of a player shooting 8 strokes or better than his handicap is 323:1 and not 1,381:1.  The probability of the player doing that twice in 20 rounds is 1 in 3,385, and not 1 in 14,912. (Note: These latter probabilities are taken from a Table shown in Knuth’s website that also has technical problems that are not discussed here.)   In his defense, Newport was just using “handicaps” as instructed by Knuth.  The fact that Newport did not notice the inconsistency between “handicap” and “index” demonstrates Newport’s shortcomings as journalist.

But clubs or associations that run numerous handicapped or net tournaments are using another more effective Knuth invention called the Tournament Point System.

Newport judged the Tournament Point System (TPS) effective based on little evidence.  It appears the TPS has been around for at least 7 years and possibly much longer.  If it was that effective, it should have swept the nation.  It appears Newport only found two clubs using the Point System, one of which may have been Knuth’s home club in California.  The other club that extolled the TPS was Lost Creek Country Club in Austin Texas.  A call to the Lost Creek pro shop in 2014, however, revealed the TPS it is no longer in use.   

A club in Oregon implemented a version of the TPS nine years ago.  It was not a fair test, but it did reveal critical flaws in the system:

Not Effective at Many Clubs – Many clubs do not have a large number of major tournaments necessary for effective implementation of the TPS.  Often, the Member-Guest is the only tournament with significant prize money.  Under the TPS, a player could win the Member-Guest every year and not be penalized.  If minor events are put under the TPS, the strategic player could chose to sit out these tournaments rather than risk a penalty for an up-coming major tournament.  The artful sandbagger could also go unpunished under the TPS.  If the TPS cuts two strokes, he merely submits scores that raise his handicap by two strokes.

Double Whammy – Assume a player with a 15 index had two net tournament differentials of -8.  Under section 10-3 of the USGA handicap system, a player’s index could be reduced to 8.2.  On a course with a 133 slope rating his handicap would come down from 18 to 10.  Under the TPS his handicap would be further reduced by another three strokes making him a 7 handicap.  This is draconian.  Now the tournament committee may think this unfair and not apply the TPS reduction.  But if the objective of the TPS was to remove discretion, it would have failed.

Too Complicated and Time Consuming – The TPS is not as simple as suggested in the Newport’s column.  When the Oregon club used the TPS for weekly and flighted events, just about everyone was getting a penalty.  The latest version of the TPS has now been changed to alter the point distribution and penalties as a function of flight size and number of tournaments played.  And who is going to keep track of all of this?  Pros certainly don’t want to do it.  Volunteers were relied upon at the Oregon club.  This led to haphazard record keeping.  Some tournaments were recorded, others were not.  Members showed their dissatisfaction by declining to participate in tournaments.  The TPS was quietly killed at the end of the season.

In summary, Newport’s main fault appears to be he believes anything that contains a modicum of mathematics or statistics.  This should be a disqualifying fault for being a Wall Street Journal columnist.  Unfortunately, it is not.

---

[1] Note: Appendix E has been abbreviated here.  It actually shows odds up to a -10 net differential.