College Coaches are Subbing More Often (and it's working)

MikkelGolf.com Newsletter #24

and

Jun 15, 2024

As a former college golf coach, one of the things I pay attention to when keeping up with college tournaments is the use of substitutions. As subbing is one of few ways a college golf coach can directly effect the game, I’m always curious to watch how other coaches use their subs, and the outcomes of those decisions.

Previously on this Substack, we’ve briefly looked into this aspect. Last time, I charted all of the substitutions from the 2023 NCAA Men’s DI post-season (Regionals and Nationals). We saw how there were a total of 27 substitutions made, where 63% of them were “successful” (the subbed-in player shot a lower score than the subbed-out player). The average scores were 77.05 for the subbed-out players and 74.81 for the subbed-in players. Finally, there was in indication of higher “success rates” later in the tournament.

It’s time to take a proper look at this for 2024.

I teamed up with David Tenneson, author of 5 Count 4 and aspiring college golf historian. David is continuously collecting and organizing college golf data. We used one of David’s awesome libraries to look at every substitution made this year. The rest of this article is a collaboration between David and myself. Let’s see what we can find!

MEN’S DI REGIONALS 2024:

This year, men’s coaches used a total 34 substitutions made by 26 teams during Regionals. This is a 62% increase from the 2023 season where there were 21 total subs during Regionals. The Austin and Rancho Santa Fe Regionals had just 3 subs, while the Stanford Regional topped the list with 10 subs made.

Average Subbed Out score = 79.63
Average Subbed In score = 75.32
All of the subbed out players were a drop score for their team except:
- Yale’s rd3 sub-out (was NOT their rd2 drop score)
18/34 = 53% of the subbed in players were a counting score for their team

Below is a fantastic chart made by David showing the scoring differential of the substitutions. The green lines are strokes gained (scoring vs. the field average). A positive number is good. A green line on the right side of the chart is therefore showing a positive impact of the substitution vs. the field. The blue lines show the difference in the actual number of strokes, where a negative number is a good thing.

As we can see from the chart, from a strokes gained perspective, 26 of the 34 subbed in players had improved strokes gained compared to the subbed out player. (This counts Michigan State subbing out a RTD player due to injury). That gives us a 76% “success-rate” for all of the substitutions.

Breaking that down further, we can see that 18 substitutions were made in the 2nd round, 14 of which (78%) - including Michigan State - were successful. Of those 18 subs, 11 (61%) were counting scores for their team in the 2nd round. And finally, 6 of the 10 players who were not subbed back out in the final round (60%) were counting scores for their team in that 3rd round.

There were 16 substitutions in the 3rd and final round, 12 of which (75%) would be deemed successful, but only 7 of those 16 (44%) were counting scores for their team. In all, 13 of the 26 (50%) subs in the field for the final round across all of the men’s regionals were counting scores for their team.

The chart below shows a significant amount of information and is color-coded (green=good, red=bad, none=no change, yellow=no data) to show both the individual subs’ performance as well as the team position changes. This might help give an idea of the impact these substitutions had across each of the rounds. Take note of instances like Augusta where their 2nd round sub was left in the lineup for the 3rd round and was a counting score for the team; likewise, Arkansas’s rd2 sub also played the 3rd round but was not a counting score.

WOMEN’S DI REGIONALS 2024

On the women’s side we saw 22 teams make a total of 28 substitutions during Regional play. The Cle Elum Regional had the fewest number of subs with 2, while the Auburn Regional had the most with 9 subs.

Average Subbed Out score = 81.0
Average Subbed In score = 78.0
4 subbed-out players were NOT their team’s drop score the previous round:
- Albany’s rd3, Cal’s rd2, Colorado St’s rd3, South Carolina’s rd3
- 3 of those 4 were making their SECOND substitution, where the player subbed in had played in rd1 but subbed out in rd2
16/28 = 57% of the subbed in players were a counting score for their team
Success-rate: 21/28 = 75%

The below chart - which is similar to the one used for the men’s regional round-by-round data - shows that 12 of the 16 (75%) substitutions in the 2nd round of the various women’s regionals were successful. Only 10 of the 16 (63%) subs were counting scores for their team, but it’s interesting to note that 2 of those were from subbed-in players who shot the same score as the subbed-out player did in the previous round; both of which lost strokes to the field average.

The round 3 subs had the same success rate (9/12 if you go by SG value gain), but only 6 (50%) were counting scores and one of those came from a player who lost strokes to both the field and the player they replaced. Of the 10 players who were subbed in the 2nd round and remained in the lineup for the 3rd round, 7 (70%) were counting scores for their team. In all, 13 of the 22 (59%) subs in the field for the final round across all of the men’s regionals were counting scores for their team.

NCAA DI NATIONALS NUMBERS

Men NCAA = 12 substitutions (made by 9 teams)
- Average Subbed Out score = 81.0
- Average Subbed In score = 78.0
- 3 players that were subbed out were NOT their team’s drop score the previous round: Texas Tech Rd3, Georgia Tech Rd2, Oklahoma Rd3
  - Georgia Tech’s Christo Lamprecht was subbed out due to injury
- 7/12 = 58% of the subbed in players were a counting score for their team
- Success-rate (Scoring vs. the field): 8/12 = 66%

Of the 6 players who were subbed-in for the 2nd round, 4 (66.6%) were successful in improving their score over their teammate from the previous round - both in strokes and strokes gained over the field average. That same percentage of players were counting scores for their team, although only 3 of them were better scores.

Round 3 subs almost exactly matched the performance of the round 2 subs. The only exception was that only 3 of the 6 players (50%) were counting scores for their team. One of the 3 (33%) round 2 subs who remained in the lineup for round 3 was a counting score, although none of the 3 teams finished the round in a worse position than they started.

There were no subs in the final round of the men’s NCAA championship, but 2 of the 3 subs (66.6%) remaining in the lineup from previous rounds were counting scores for their team. One of those was Georgia Tech’s Aidan Tran who we highlight below in our “Super Sub” section.

Women NCAA = 10 substitutions (made by 8 teams)
- Average Subbed Out score = 81.0
- Average Subbed In score = 79.0
- ALL subbed out players were their team’s drop score the previous round
- 5/10 = 50% of the subbed in players were a counting score for their team
- Success-rate (Scoring vs. the field): 7/10 = 70%

There were 5 substitutions in the 2nd round of the women’s NCAA championship, 3 of which (60%) were deemed successful. Interestingly, one of those came from a player who actually lost a stroke to her subbed-out teammate but gained an extremely small amount according to Strokes Gained compared to the field. Just two players (40%) were counting scores for their team.

Of the 4 subs in the third round, 3 were successful (75%) and only 2 (50%) were counting scores for their team. Particularly notable is the fact that all 4 (100%) of the subs who remained in the lineup from the previous round were counting scores for their team, and 3 of those teams saw an improvement in their position.

Southern California was the only team to make a substitution in the final round of the NCAA championship, bringing back in a player who played the first two rounds. Although throwing out her score would not have resulted in a change in their final position - they were more than 3 stokes ahead of 5th place - the fact that she did sub back in and actually improved her score over her first two rounds is a testament to the success of the move. The lone other subbed-in player still in the lineup from a previous round (Miss St) was also a counting score for her team. Overall, subbed-in players had a significant (and mostly positive) impact on their team’s performance even beyond just the first round they played.

SUPER-SUBS

We wanted to highlight some of the “super subs” who had a tangible impact in helping their team make the cut in either the Regional or NCAA championship.

Shannon Kennedy - Michigan State - East Lansing Regional

Shannon was brought in for the second round at the East Lansing Regional. Her team, the Michigan State Spartans, were tied for sixth after the first round, prompting Head Coach Stacy Slobodnik-Stoll to make the substitution. Shannon's initial round post-substitution concluded with a score of 74, aligning with the field average. Although the Spartans had an excellent second round and did not count Shannon's 74, her final round score of 72 was more than two strokes better than the field average, contributing to another successful round for the Spartans. Michigan State secured third place, comfortably qualifying for the Nationals.

Sophia Burnett & Maylis Lamoure - South Carolina - Auburn Regional

Coach Kalen Anderson made a double switch that made a huge difference in sending South Carolina to NCAAs. The talented freshman Maylis Lamoure shot an opening round 77 which was South Carolina’s drop score. Coach Anderson decided to sub in some experience in round 2, making the move to senior Sophia Burnett who shot a team-low 73. Despite this, the team had fallen to 7th place and was on the verge of missing the cut. Coach Anderson brought Lamoure back in for the third round, and both her even-par 72 and Burnett’s 74 (+2) were crucial counting scores that moved South Carolina up to T4. The difference in SC moving on instead of going home was just a single stroke, making these substitutions arguably one best moves in all of the women’s regional play this year.

Jonas Appel - Baylor University - Chapel Hill Regional

Coach McGraw brought Jonas in for the third round of the closely contested Chapel Hill Regional. The Bears were just within the cutline, with several teams chasing closely. Jonas' score of 71 was crucial for the Bears, edging out Tyler Isenhart's 72 to count for the team score. The result of this one stroke? The Baylor Bears secured the last qualifying position, beating Alabama by the very stroke Jonas saved.

Nathan Wang - University of California - Rancho Santa Fe Regional

The Cal Golden Bears were comfortably in the top5 after the first round, but Coach Walter Chun brought in Nathan Wang as a sub for the 5th spot starting with the second round, which turned out to be an excellent move. Wang was a counting score for both the 2nd and 3rd rounds, and in total saved 7 strokes from the drop scores for those rounds. Without those saved strokes, Cal would have been right on the cutline (T4) to advance to NCAAs, but instead they comfortably advanced with a stellar 2nd place finish.

Aidan Tran - Georgia Tech - Men’s NCAA Championship

Georgia Tech was sitting comfortably in 4th place after Round 1 of the men’s NCAA championship when disaster struck. Their star player and the #1 amateur in the world according to WAGR rankings, Christo Lamprecht, experienced back tightness that prevented him from playing in the 2nd round, calling in sophomore Aidan Tran off the bench. Going from Lamprecht’s 70 to Tran’s 77 (tied with eventual individual champ Hiroshi Tai for team drop score) seemed to signal impending doom as Georgia Tech dropped down to T9, outside of the top 8 spots that would move on to match play after 4 rounds. Things didn’t look any better after Tran shot another 77 in the 3rd round, which was Georgia Tech’s drop score for the round as they remain T9 and just a single stroke outside of the cut. The defending runner-up GT was on the ropes late in the 4th round, but Tran shot a one-under-par 35 on his final 9 holes and improved his score to 76. As a counting score (by 2 strokes), Tran’s 1 stroke improvement from his previous scores was the difference between Georgia Tech advancing to stroke play in the final slot over Oklahoma. Tran would also pick up a crucial match play point with his 3&2 victory as Georgia Tech advanced to the Semifinals over the stroke play champion (#1 seed for match play) Illinois.

OUR THOUGHTS

This year has seen a significant rise in the number of substitutions. In Men's Regional play, there was a 62% increase in substitutions compared to the previous year. While annual fluctuations are expected, the growth in the number of subs and their success rates this year may suggest that coaches are becoming more comfortable and strategic with their use of substitutions.

When combining the Men's and Women's Division I Regionals and Nationals, there were a total of 84 substitutions. Out of these, 62 were successful, meaning the substitute player achieved a better score compared to the field than the player they replaced, resulting in a 74% success rate. Furthermore, 46 of those subs (55%) ended up being a counting score for their team in their first round in the lineup.

Obviously, the scores shot by players who are substituted out are high (averaging from 79.6 - 81.0), which might make it seem logical to use a sub. However, the frequency of substitutions and their high rate of success is still surprising, in our opinion.

Perhaps also surprising is subbing in the 2nd round **of the Regionals** generally proved more successful than waiting until later rounds, and more often than not that subbed-in player would provide a counting score for the team in later rounds if not subbed back out. Last year, we saw a different trend in the Men’s Regionals - with higher success-rates in round 3 vs. round 2.

What are your thoughts?