Mastering Golf Analytics: Insights from Two-Way ANOVA Analysis Using Excel

Embark on a journey into the world of golf analytics with our in-depth exploration of Two-Way ANOVA analysis, powered by Excel. Uncover the statistical intricacies of golf performance as we meticulously examine the impact of putter, nose, and stance on yield outcomes. This immersive dive into Excel-driven insights promises to equip you with the skills to analyze and interpret golf data like never before. Whether you're a data enthusiast or a golf aficionado, this exploration invites you to harness the power of Excel for a deeper understanding of the statistical dimensions of golf experimentation. Elevate your analytical prowess and unravel the secrets behind golfing success with this insightful Excel-driven analysis.

Problem Description:

The ANOVA analysis using Excel assignment aimed to analyze the yields from different outcomes in a golf simulation experiment involving factors such as putter, nose, and stance. The objective was to explore whether there are significant mean differences in yields between good and worst outcomes, as well as between different combinations of putter, nose, and stance.

Solution Presentation:

Hypotheses

Null Hypotheses:

• H1: There is no mean difference in yields between good and worst outcomes.
• H2: There is no mean difference in yields between the putter, nose, and stance.
• H3: There is no mean difference in interaction factors (putter, nose, and stance) on the yield outcomes.

ANOVA

Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value
Sample 27.92593 68 0.410675 2.179739 1.71162E-06
Columns 0.428341 2 0.214171 1.136752 0.321858829
Interaction 48.68277 136 0.357962 1.89995 6.58416E-07
Within 78 414 0.188406
Total 155.037 620

Table 1: Two-Way ANOVA with Replication

Comparison Post Test Mean difference Critical Value for Turkey
IN to Mezz 1.333333 1.3423
IN to Behind 1.55555 1.3423
IN to Open 0.22222 1.3423
Most Out to Mezz -0.391304347 1.3423
Most Out to Ahead 1.303140096 1.3423
Most Out to Open 0.164251207 1.3423
Most Out to Mezz 0.275362318 1.3423

Table 2: Turkey Post Hoc Test

Analysis and Interpretation:

Sample Analysis:

• The F-value and P-value for the sample are 2.1797 and 1.3321, respectively.
• Since the p-value is less than 0.05, we reject the null hypothesis (H1).
• There is significant evidence supporting a mean difference in yields between good and worst outcomes.

Columns Analysis:

• The F-value and P-value for Columns are 1.1368 and 3.0175, respectively.
• Since the p-value is greater than 0.05, we fail to reject the null hypothesis (H2).
• No sufficient evidence for a significant mean difference in yield outcomes between putter, nose, and stance.

Interaction Analysis:

• The F-value and P-value for Interaction are 1.8999 and 6.58416E-07, respectively.
• Since the p-value is less than 0.05, we reject the null hypothesis (H3).
• There is evidence supporting significant differences in combinations of putter, nose, and stance.

Turkey Post Hoc Test:

• Significant mean differences observed in various combinations.
• For example, the combination of IN outcome and behind is superior compared to others, with the highest mean difference.