Anyone using the “Handicap Review” yet?

[Augster]

Hello,

 

The USGA has recently released the Handicap Review inside the handicap admin tabs. They have it listed as “Phase 1”. Does anyone know if we are supposed to be using it to actually adjust caps? Or is it only a novelty at this time?

 

The reason why I ask is I’ve run a bunch of reviews of the guys at my club. Almost everybody is a zero adjustment. Except for one guy. They want to give him 2 more shots. I can’t figure it out and am reluctant to add the shots. 
 

He’s one of the best players at my club. Currently a 3.6. The algorithm wants to bump him to a 5.6. He has had zero low flags in the 130+ rounds this year, and 11 high flags (8.3%). Most people have some low flags and some high flags and they kind of even out. 
 

Looking at his normal differentials vs. his C-score differentials, he’s an 8.5 on normal scores and 7.8 on C-scores. Those are average differentials. Not 8/20. He’s still almost a shot better, on average, during comps. 
 

I’ll check to see what is 8/20 will be, normal rounds vs. C-score rounds. 
 

By his own admission, he feels he’s having a terrible year, by his standards.  BUT HE’S AT HIS LOWEST INDEX in the rolling year. His cap says he’s a 3.6. It’s his best index in a year, and he already wins tons of money. 
 

I guess I’m lost as to why the algorithm wants to give him 2 more shots. Having no “low flags” is troubling, but he’s still playing great golf. 
 

Any help is appreciated from anyone that’s been experimenting with the new software. Thanks. 

[Augster]

Okay, I just did his 8/20 non C-scores and 8/20 C-scores. 
 

His index of his last 20 non C-scores is 4.2. His index of his last 20 C-scores is 4.4. 
 

So his C-score index is higher than his index made up of casual rounds. Intuitively, that’s to be expected from a legit handicap. 
 

Both of those indexes are higher than his current index of 3.6. Over half a shot higher. The USGA wants to give him 2 shots bringing his index to 5.6. 
 

I’m perplexed. 
 

I get the no “low flags”. And because he has zero low flags he needs “help” to average it out. But I just can’t stomach giving him 2 full shots when his C-score index is 4.4. I could see half a shot which would bring him to 4.1 if he really needs the “help”, but TWO? Yikes. 
 

I suppose I could just hand him my checkbook and ask him to take what he feels is “fair”. 🙂

 

Maybe I’ll wait until they unveil Phase 2. 

[bluedot]

I’m not an admin, so this is way over my head.  But the numbers you’re giving for this guy sure make it seem like a glitch of some sort.  
 

If you said that a player had a current index of 3.6, with an average of 4.2 for his last 20 non-C rounds, and 4.4 for his last 20 C rounds, I would have said, “This is a really good player who not only shoots scores in a very tight range, but is VERY good in competition.”  I’m sure he IS winning a ton of money at your club; he’d always be right around his quota in a points game, and a force in a Stableford, gross or net.  
 

Additionally, if you give him two shots, aren’t other players at the club going to scream bloody murder?

[david.c.w]

Why would any additional review module raise people's indexes?  As @bluedot said, everyone else should go nuts!  Seems to me that new/optional modules should only exist to close loopholes that sandbaggers exploit.  Let the vanity guys do whatever!

 

[nsxguy]

9 hours ago, Augster said:

Okay, I just did his 8/20 non C-scores and 8/20 C-scores. 
 

His index of his last 20 non C-scores is 4.2. His index of his last 20 C-scores is 4.4. 
 

So his C-score index is higher than his index made up of casual rounds. Intuitively, that’s to be expected from a legit handicap. 
 

Both of those indexes are higher than his current index of 3.6. Over half a shot higher. The USGA wants to give him 2 shots bringing his index to 5.6. 
 

I’m perplexed. 
 

I get the no “low flags”. And because he has zero low flags he needs “help” to average it out. But I just can’t stomach giving him 2 full shots when his C-score index is 4.4. I could see half a shot which would bring him to 4.1 if he really needs the “help”, but TWO? Yikes. 
 

I suppose I could just hand him my checkbook and ask him to take what he feels is “fair”. 🙂

 

Maybe I’ll wait until they unveil Phase 2. 

 

What is the guidance on USING this software and applying it to your members' caps ? "Phase 1" seems to indicate a work in progress.

 

I mean Holy Schmoly, if "people" are getting their panties in a bunch over the 9-hole differential being extended to 18 with a relatively simple formula, I can't imagine how BSC they're going to get having their index altered by a much more complex process than simply calculating an index. Sheesh

 

I've read (very briefly) Appendix D before but I don't recall seeing any of this new(?) software procedure there before - it almost looks as though I'd never read it before. 

[davep043]

1 hour ago, david.c.w said:

Why would any additional review module raise people's indexes?  As @bluedot said, everyone else should go nuts!  Seems to me that new/optional modules should only exist to close loopholes that sandbaggers exploit.  Let the vanity guys do whatever!

 

The interest should be in getting the Handicap Index right, no matter which way the movement needed to do that.  Its up to the Handicap Committee whether to act on the recommendation of the handicap review tool, and I imagine most will adjust handicaps downward much more readily than adjusting upward. 

 

But WHY would we adjust upward?  Well, I spent about 10 weeks unable to play due to back issues, and since my return my lowest Net score (in 6 rounds) is about 2 over par, average is closer to 5 over.  Both of those are more typical of someone with a handicap index 2 to 3 strokes higher.  It might be appropriate to adjust my handicap upwards, with a new review relatively quickly to re-adjust if I can return to my previous form.  Since its near the end of the season, I believe my handicap will adjust appropriately on its own before I need to play competitions, so I don't plan to make a request to the Committee.

[davep043]

2 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

I can't imagine how BSC they're going to get having their index altered by a much more complex process than simply calculating an index

If they're going to have their HI modified, it will be by the Committee.  The new review tool essentially automates some of the processes that a manual review should entail.

[Augster]

Thanks for the help. 
 

By his own admission, he’s having a “terrible” year. (It’s all relative). The absolute lack of “low flags” with the crazy amount of high flags (8.3% of his rounds are high flags) does show that he simply hasn’t produced the golf he’s “usually” capable of. 
 

I only have one other player with zero low flags. But he only has ONE high flag. (1.4%). So the algorithm doesn’t suggest a modification because almost all of his rounds are within normal deviations. 

Here is the info for the first player:

 

 

You can see he started the year as a 4.8, and he’s now a 3.6. And the algorithm wants to give him 2 more. He WAS in the soft cap for 57 rounds, only because he got down to 2.something in 2023 and it must have rolled off recently. 
 

Is it suggesting the 2 stroke adjustment because of all the time spent in the soft cap? Plus the lack of low flags? 
 

I play with him all the time and I’ve talked to the other committee members and they say there’s no way we are bumping him up. Which I kind of agree with. But if we are going to start cutting the sandbaggers that the review finds, I think we should really think about bumping up players that need it. 
 

I just don’t see him as needing a +2 bump. I guess I don’t know. 
 

Thanks!

 

 

[davep043]

50 minutes ago, Augster said:

Is it suggesting the 2 stroke adjustment because of all the time spent in the soft cap? Plus the lack of low flags? 

Have you tried sending your question to the USGA directly?  I see this at the end of the User Guide for the review tool:

https://usgasupport.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/requests/new

[nsxguy]

1 hour ago, davep043 said:

If they're going to have their HI modified, it will be by the Committee.  The new review tool essentially automates some of the processes that a manual review should entail.

 

I understand that but I think you may have missed my point.

 

You've no doubt seen the kerfuffle about 9-hole scores being extended to 18, including suggestions by many that because the 18-hole formula extended round can give a diff higher than their current index, for a "good 9-hole score", their handicaps must go up. Which, as I believe I proved before the thread was locked, wasn't necessarily the case.

 

But that didn't stop some from "proving" the 2nd 9 adjustment was wrong.

 

And THIS recommendation to adjust caps on the fly for no apparent reason when there seems to be credible evidence the cap should NOT be adjusted upwards seems, on the surface, to be FAR more obtuse than the 9-hole kerfuffle.

 

The situation presented by Auggie may be a one-off(?), possibly a mistake in "Phase 1", but you can certainly understand the feelings of the field when the guy winning so often gets 2 strokes MORE advantage. That is my point.

 

If I were on that committee and saw that USGA recommendation I'd be just a perplexed than Auggie. Given the info he presented, it seems to be a ridiculous recommendation.

 

"2 cents"

[davep043]

18 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

And THIS recommendation to adjust caps on the fly for no apparent reason when there seems to be credible evidence the cap should NOT be adjusted upwards seems, on the surface, to be FAR more obtuse than the 9-hole kerfuffle.

And this is a great reason to ask the USGA to clarify the reasoning behind the suggested modification.  And this is why the Handicapping Rules require that the player be informed of a potential modification, and have a chance to respond to the Committee before the modification becomes effective.  There's no reason why any of this should happen "in the dark".

[nsxguy]

4 minutes ago, davep043 said:

And this is a great reason to ask the USGA to clarify the reasoning behind the suggested modification.  And this is why the Handicapping Rules require that the player be informed of a potential modification, and have a chance to respond to the Committee before the modification becomes effective.  There's no reason why any of this should happen "in the dark".

 

I'm sure Auggie will follow up.

[Newby]

12 hours ago, Augster said:

Hello,

 

The USGA has recently released the Handicap Review inside the handicap admin tabs. They have it listed as “Phase 1”. Does anyone know if we are supposed to be using it to actually adjust caps? Or is it only a novelty at this time?

 

 

Is this something different to Rule 7.1 and Appendix D ?

[davep043]

1 hour ago, Newby said:

Is this something different to Rule 7.1 and Appendix D ?

This is a tool provided within the USGA's data collection system, to conduct some computerized review of the scoring data for individual players.  It doesn't replace any of the other requirements, it only does some of the number-crunching which a Committee would otherwise need to do manually.  The system does provide a recommendation about handicap modification when the data indicates it would be appropriate, but that must be approved by the Committee.

[Newby]

2 minutes ago, davep043 said:

This is a tool provided within the USGA's data collection system, to conduct some computerized review of the scoring data for individual players.  It doesn't replace any of the other requirements, it only does some of the number-crunching which a Committee would otherwise need to do manually.  The system does provide a recommendation about handicap modification when the data indicates it would be appropriate, but that must be approved by the Committee.

How does it differ from Appendix D?

[davep043]

2 minutes ago, Newby said:

How does it differ from Appendix D?

As I read Appendix D, the WHS has developed "software specifications set out a range of recommended reports, analyses and notifications which can be developed within the handicapping software".  The current topic is the relatively newly released feature of the USGA handicap data system to implement these recommendations.  Based on @Augster's posts, the system is working within that framework.  

[mark m]

Augster,

 

Thanks for starting this thread. I haven’t heard of this new “phase 1” review, so I looked it up and found a couple of links. The Q&A is especially helpful:

 

https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/handicapping/world-handicap-system/world-handicap-system--education-resources-for-club-administrators/handicap-review-toolkit.html

 

I assume the “comparison to other software” is primarily looking at Cap Patrol(?) And perhaps a Knuth Points type system.
 

Anyway, the system is dumb in that it cannot adequately distinguish between scores in a scoring record. I believe it would just use the three common identifiers; home, away, and C (for Competition). Along with trend and frequency of play. But anyone can post a C score, and that score may not be indicative of anything meaningful as the format may be less than ideal, or whatever. And some guys may play for significant money in a round posted as H or A, and only a handful of people may know it. For instance, I would consider individual stroke play ‘H’ rounds for big money more significant than a best ball ‘C’ score. But the committee would need to be able to distinguish those scores (with date) from the other scores.

 

In Augster’s case, it looks the the tool is suggesting the player is basically a vanity capper and should be adjusted up 2 strokes. Based on his other input, I wouldn’t do it either. So really, whether it’s this tool, or Cap Patrol, or whatever, the local guys on the committee need to look at it and make a proper judgment. There is no substitute for it. There are just too many variables to consider. This is why handicaps have to be administered at the club level. But this tool could be helpful as it may identify things that could otherwise be overlooked.
 

Questions:

130+ rounds in 2024 is a big number.
Does he have 20 C scores in 2024? Or do those scores go back further?

 

(20 C scores is a lot of C scores. But possible if one is competing on a senior tour or something similar.)

 

Edited September 13, 2024 by mark m

[Augster]

4 hours ago, mark m said:

Augster,

 

Thanks for starting this thread. I haven’t heard of this new “phase 1” review, so I looked it up and found a couple of links. The Q&A is especially helpful:

 

https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/handicapping/world-handicap-system/world-handicap-system--education-resources-for-club-administrators/handicap-review-toolkit.html

 

I assume the “comparison to other software” is primarily looking at Cap Patrol(?) And perhaps a Knuth Points type system.
 

Anyway, the system is dumb in that it cannot adequately distinguish between scores in a scoring record. I believe it would just use the three common identifiers; home, away, and C (for Competition). Along with trend and frequency of play. But anyone can post a C score, and that score may not be indicative of anything meaningful as the format may be less than ideal, or whatever. And some guys may play for significant money in a round posted as H or A, and only a handful of people may know it. For instance, I would consider individual stroke play ‘H’ rounds for big money more significant than a best ball ‘C’ score. But the committee would need to be able to distinguish those scores (with date) from the other scores.

 

In Augster’s case, it looks the the tool is suggesting the player is basically a vanity capper and should be adjusted up 2 strokes. Based on his other input, I wouldn’t do it either. So really, whether it’s this tool, or Cap Patrol, or whatever, the local guys on the committee need to look at it and make a proper judgment. There is no substitute for it. There are just too many variables to consider. This is why handicaps have to be administered at the club level. But this tool could be helpful as it may identify things that could otherwise be overlooked.
 

Questions:

130+ rounds in 2024 is a big number.
Does he have 20 C scores in 2024? Or do those scores go back further?

 

(20 C scores is a lot of C scores. But possible if one is competing on a senior tour or something similar.)

 

He has 20 C-scores this year, yes. Senior tour every Monday. Club events every other, or third, weekend. 2-day championships regular and senior. 8-man team. 12-man team. MPGA and MGA events. 
 

To answer Newby’s question, if it hasn’t been answered already by others, the new “Handicap review” software is, basically, almost all of Appendix D. There are some other things to look at, manually, but for the most part the software does all the Appendix D number crunching and suggested modification for you. 
 

I am guessing the 57 rounds in the soft cap is the reason for the suggestion. That is a lot of time being 3+ shots over your 52-week low. But just guessing. I’ll have to follow up with the USGA when I get some time. 
 

 

 

[Chunkitgood]

“The WHS has included safeguards in the Handicap Index calculation to account for fluctuations in a player’s demonstrated ability. This takes into account the Low Handicap Index and the current scoring record consisting of the most recent 20 scores. A Handicap Review looks at a player’s entire scoring history for the last 365 days. This review may help to reveal scoring abnormalities which may not be evident in the normal Handicap Index calculation.”

 

So, obviously there is something in his entire scoring record over the last year (high scores presumably) that suggested his ability may be overstated by his Handicap Index.

 

The caps tied to the Low Handicap Index seem to be irrelevant to the Handicap Review process.  It seems the guy just posted some high scores in the last year.  He’s been having a terrible year, by his standards.  After all he was a 2.x in 2023.

Perhaps the decision should not be made based on whether you can stomach it or your wallet, but on the factors suggested in the rule.

Perhaps someone with no dog in the hunt should ask him if he wants the bump.

 

My own feeling is you started the review, for reasons known to yourself, and you should live with it.  Or put another way unless you can say with certainty which was the anomaly (his 2.x in 2023, his playing that got him capped, or his recent play), the best data accessible crunched by the folks who crunch such data says he gets a 2 stroke bump.