KPMG Women's PGA Championship showcases cutting-edge platform KPMG Performance Insights
Relative to other sports leagues, the LPGA was late to the analytics party, but has made up for lost time, thanks to the 2021 introduction of KPMG Performance Insights, which generates the sort of advanced analytics and performance data that had been missing from the women's game for years. LPGA athletes suddenly had a wealth of information to help them make small adjustments in their practice routines or tournament play that would translate into significant performance gains.
Hole 17at Sahalee CC - KPMG Performance Insights Branding – 2024 KPMG Women's PGA Championship.
Since its inception, KPMG has been relentless in scaling up the platform. In 2022, for example, KPMG Performance Insights added a player dashboard (an example can be found here) with personalized portals that provide access to data and insights. In 2023, in support of KPMG ambassador and U.S. Solheim Cup captain Stacy Lewis, the company provided KPMG Performance Insights tools, such as analyzing 20,000 simulations to identify the optimal pairings for the matches. Those simulations went so far as to identify how players perform under pressure or on certain types of grass.
Example of Player Dashboard.
Last year KPMG Performance Insights went next level through the incorporation of AI-empowered predictive analytics that provided leading-edge insights for LPGA tournaments. Additionally, to enhance the KPMG Women's PGA Championship, KPMG partnered with T-Mobile to introduce KPMG CHAMPCAST presented by T-Mobile, which leverages ShotLink Pro 2.0 cutting-edge technology to create an immersive experience for fans watching at home or onsite. (An example of KPMG CHAMPCAST can be found here.)
Advertisement
'The KPMG Women's PGA Championship is the most tech-forward event on the LPGA,' said Shawn Quill, National Sports Industry Leader at KPMG. 'Through KPMG Performance Insights and KPMG CHAMPCAST presented by T-Mobile, we're providing the players with real-time, shot-level data and analytics. With features like win probabilities, winning score projections, a dedicated player portal, 3D imagery, shot trails and individual shot highlights, players, fans and the media are able to get closer to the action than ever before.'
KPMG CHAMPCAST presented by T-Mobile.
As has been the case from the outset, KPMG continues to ramp up its platform by adding more features and benefits for players and fans.
For the 2025 KPMG Women's PGA Championship, KPMG is providing new, enhanced features through an AI-generated daily recap. Hole-by-hole AI course analytics that will help players decide how best to attack the difficult Fields Ranch East layout at PGA Frisco. This feature will provide players with information on the best way to play each hole and the trouble spots to avoid on the course.
Advertisement
Based on the KPMG Performance Insights Daily Recap (an example can be found here) from Thursday's first round, there is a 92% chance the cutline falls between +2 and +4. Players will be able to use this data to help them decide how aggressively they will need to play in the second round. As an example, KPMG ambassador Leona Maguire currently sits at even par through 18 holes. Based on insights from the report, a round of 75 Friday gives her a 95% chance to make the weekend.
Additional insights from the recap show the relative difficulty of each hole from the first round. For example, hole 6 (a 446-yard par 4 with bunkers protecting the green) currently has a birdie or better percentage of 2% and a bogey or worse percentage of nearly 50%. As players head into their second round, they will know that a score of par on the sixth hole is actually helping them gain strokes on the field.
Daily recap graphic.
These are all great tools for LPGA fans and media, but they're invaluable to the LPGA players.
Advertisement
'As part of our strategy, we are focused on setting the standard for excellence in women's golf,' Quill said. 'We are excited about our new KPMG Performance Insights Daily Recaps that include AI-powered course analysis, which provides players data on how each hole is playing, and AI-generated scoring targets, so the players can see the predicted cut line and winning scores. These powerful insights will equip the players so they can adjust their approach as they prepare for the next round.'
This article originally appeared on Golfweek: KPMG Women's PGA Championship showcase advanced analytics platform
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
32 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Diamondbacks ban season ticket holder for rest of season after interference during game vs. Giants
PHOENIX (AP) — The Arizona Diamondbacks have banned a season-ticket holder from Chase Field for the rest of the season because of 'multiple offenses' during games, including fan interference on a fly ball to the wall during Monday night's game against the San Francisco Giants. The D-backs were leading 3-2 in the eighth inning on Monday when San Francisco's Christian Koss hit a long fly ball to left field. Arizona left fielder Tim Tawa tried to make a leaping grab, but the fan made the catch with his own glove, appearing to reach over the fence. The umpires initially ruled that Koss was out, but the call was overturned after review and Koss was awarded second base. The D-backs went on to win the game 4-2. The fan — who said his name is Dave McCaskill — was ejected after the incident. McCaskill went on Arizona Sports 98.7 FM on Tuesday, saying he's been ejected three times and reviewed '9 or 10' times over the years. 'While our policy is to not publicly disclose information about our season ticket holders, the Arizona Diamondbacks are making this statement due to public speculations and multiple media inquiries regarding the fan interference incident during last night's game,' a statement from the team said. 'This particular fan has been involved in multiple offenses at Chase Field. Consequently, we have terminated his Advantage Member account and he is prohibited from returning to Chase Field for the remainder of 2025. 'This fan will have the opportunity to return to Chase Field in 2026 so long as he meets certain terms and abides by our Fan Code of Conduct.' ___ AP MLB:
New York Times
36 minutes ago
- New York Times
NHL free agency best and worst deals: On Ivan Provorov, Mitch Marner and many more
The wackiest day on the NHL calendar has come to a close. Now it's time to look at the best and worst from the start of free agency. As usual, it's a lot easier to find deals that fit the 'worst' list compared to the 'best' list. That's the nature of the open market, where the highest bidder is usually the one left holding onto a very expensive mistake. Still, it's not all bad. Getting a great player without giving up assets is still a win, and there are some under-the-radar adds that should provide some positive value, too. Here are the five best and five worst signings from the start of the offseason. The big fish Now that the NHL is exiting the flat-cap era and entering a cap-growth era, talent acquisition has arguably become just as important as spending discipline. With so much cap space available, just getting the guy is a big deal. That's within reason, and we'll get to that on the other side, but it's hard not to love the Golden Knights and Rangers landing the biggest fish on the market in Mitch Marner and Vladislav Gavrikov. Vegas fills a massive need, adding to its core with a two-way superstar winger, while the Rangers fill their own with a defensively stout partner for Adam Fox. Two teams with lofty ambitions got their guys and that's a win in and of itself. Advertisement What sets these deals apart is that, on paper, they were also pretty damn good. Especially compared to what was rumored for both Marner (over $13 million) and Gavrikov (over $8 million). Both ended up signing for almost their exact worth. These were more than fair prices and on July 1, for the best players, it's hard not to say anything but 'bravo' for both signings. The hometown discount With how little actually happened on July 1, we're going to make several exceptions for this list. One of them is Aaron Ekblad's new deal, which will pay him just $6.1 million for the next eight years. Ekblad could've easily commanded $8 million on the open market and he probably would've been worth it too. This is, without a doubt, a massive win for the Panthers, who get to keep the band together for several more runs. A lot of people will clamor about the 'no state tax' advantage here and there's a kernel of truth to that. But this goes beyond that because Ekblad left money on the table even with that considered. The Panthers have several advantages that they're able to stack on top of each other, making the Ekblad deal possible only for them. That starts with knowing how to price players. They know how to negotiate because of that, they know how to create a winning roster because of that, and they can keep building on top of that in an endless cycle of good deals. Players want to win, players are willing to take less to win, and Florida provides the best opportunity. Sprinkle the no state tax discount on top of that and it becomes an easy decision where the discounts become obnoxiously large. That's where Ekblad's deal lands. Florida is home for Ekblad and it's also where he's gone back-to-back with a chance to build a dynasty. That's worth all the millions (and more) he could've gotten somewhere else. Advertisement Great RFA bets This may be cheating, but the best deals in this league are almost never for UFAs — they're for RFAs. We got proof of that with three massive signings over the last two days for Evan Bouchard, Matthew Knies and Logan Stankoven. Bouchard is one of the absolute best offensive defensemen in the world, serving as rocket fuel for Connor McDavid and Leon Draisaitl. He helps make them better with his dynamic puck play from the back-end and he only elevates his game further in the playoffs. In a world where Noah Dobson gets $9.5 million and Jakob Chychrun gets $9 million, having Bouchard for just $10.5 million is a steal. And that's true even if it's only for four years and even if he'll make some Big Mistakes along the way. In Knies and Stankoven, the Maple Leafs and Hurricanes made big bets on potential — both of which have a strong shot of panning out. Knies looks like he may become one of the NHL's premier power forwards and having him locked up for the next six years at a reasonable price is terrific. The Leafs finally get good value on a core forward's second contract. As for Stankoven, the Hurricanes are paying him second-line money on an eight-year extension that kicks off in 2026-27. With the cap set to explode and Stankoven's legitimate star upside, it's a savvy bet that has the potential to provide a massive return. If he can become a top-line talent, it could become one of the league's best deals, period. These deals don't come without risk. But that risk is well worth the potential reward in a growing cap world. In this league, it's almost always better to bet on what a player will likely become than what a player was. While other teams spend big on the back half of a player's career, these deals take on the player's prime. Pay for their best, not their worst. Cheap depth defensemen While many teams spend July 1 shelling out tons of money for defensemen who aren't very effective, the best bet is usually to scour the bargain bin. That's how Florida got Oliver Ekman-Larsson two years ago and Nate Schmidt last year. Advertisement It should come as no shock that the two-time defending champs decided to employ the same strategy this offseason with Jeff Petry. While he may no longer be top-four caliber, he should be more than fine in a sheltered role. At league minimum, Petry is a valuable add. A few others that fit that bill: Mike Reilly signing for $1.1 million in Carolina, Pittsburgh nabbing Parker Wotherspoon for $1 million and Detroit adding Jacob Bernard-Docker at $875,000. None are big needle-movers, but they can be fine in a third-pair role. For the price, it's a lot more sensible than what some of the more desperate teams are doing, paying $3 million or more for comparable on-ice performance. The question marks Not being sure how actually good a player is can often be a market inefficiency that can be exploited this time of year. The brand-name guys get overpaid based on reputation. These guys? They usually get underpaid due to an air of uncertainty about whether they're legit or not. Now, that obviously adds some risk where maybe the target really isn't that good, but it does leave some room for error. The other bonus: the term is usually short too, leaving some flexibility if it doesn't work out. This year, the best candidates for that are Andrei Kuzmenko, Jonathan Drouin and Dante Fabbro. All three look like they can be top-of-the-lineup contributors, with Kuzmenko and Drouin offering second-line ability and Fabbro establishing himself as a top-four guy. Their numbers are good, they've looked good, but some caveats create question marks. Can Kuzmenko be a consistent producer? Is Drouin just a byproduct of Nathan MacKinnon and Cale Makar? Can Fabbro drive a pair? Those are all reasonable questions to ask, but at the prices paid — right around $4 million, there's very little actual risk to the deals. At worst, they're modestly expensive third liners or third-pair guys. In a growing cap world where Miles Wood's salary can be cleared with ease, that's no longer an issue. With Kuzmenko and Fabbro, we know the fit is there, too, which helps. As for Drouin, there's a potentially great fit next to Bo Horvat with his name on it. The other big fish I don't want to harp anymore on Ivan Provorov than I already did with his contract grade. Good player, bad deal — don't need to beat a dead horse. On the other hand, that was before seeing Gavrikov's deal, which comes in $1.5 million cheaper for the same length. Ouch. There's no doubt who the more valuable defensemen is between the two, right? That comparison puts Provorov's deal further into perspective and not in a good way. The Blue Jackets were able to keep their big fish fed and happy enough to stay, but at a truly exorbitant cost. Advertisement The opposite of a hometown discount I don't know what the word is for the opposite of a hometown discount, but the Canucks got one in Thatcher Demko. Yes, he looked franchise-calibre two years ago, but that's sandwiched by two years where injuries took a serious toll on his game. After an .889 save percentage where Demko was only able to play 23 games, was an $8.5 million AAV really warranted? The Canucks did well to keep the term short given the unpredictable nature of goalies in general and with Demko in particular. But it does feel like they should've gotten a much better deal on the cap hit, considering the season Demko is coming off of. Combine that with the deal they recently signed for Kevin Lankinen, and there's a lot that doesn't make sense about Vancouver's approach here. Paying $13 million for potentially mid goaltending starting in 2026-27 doesn't sound ideal. Tough RFA bets Not every RFA bet is made equal. Even with team control, there's still room for error if a team misevaluates what they have. That's easier on defense, where a lust for size can lead to ignoring actual on-ice quality. Kevin Bahl and Nicolas Hague are two prime examples of that. How either player is getting over $5 million is beyond me. Even with the cap growing, a $5 million cap hit should still be reserved for defensemen who can actually play in the top four. It's fair to be skeptical that either Bahl or Hague can do that to an effective enough degree to be worth it. While Bahl was in that role for the Flames last season, that was out of necessity more than merit. Bahl's presence there was part of the reason the Flames weren't a very good hockey team. As for Hague, he struggled in third-pair minutes with Vegas last season, making him a difficult bet to move up the lineup on a worse team. To Hague's credit, he's at least been close to the calibre of a No. 4 defenseman in the past, but the Predators should be paying for what he is now — a fine third-pair guy — not what he used to be. Expensive depth defensemen Oh, Ken Holland, you couldn't resist, could you? The veteran GM put his stamp on the Kings with two high-risk bets on the back end in Cody Ceci and Brian Dumoulin at the combined cost of $8.5 million. At that price, it would've been better to just overpay Gavrikov — at least you know he's a rock-solid top-four defenseman. These guys? Not so much. Maybe they were at one point, just not anymore. Ceci's underlying numbers have been rough for years, but in Edmonton, he at least had the tough minutes excuse. For the Oilers, he offered mostly fair value with that in mind, but it was evident during the 2024 Stanley Cup Final run that Ceci's game didn't have much left. During the 2024-25 season, he struggled mightily with the Sharks and was just as poor with the Stars. It's possible that Ceci does better in the Kings' defensive system and bounces back, but at his age and this price, it's a bad bet. Advertisement The same thing goes for Dumoulin, whose inability to play in the top four has been made exceptionally clear over the last few years. In a sheltered role with the Kraken, Dumoulin thrived. But that wasn't the case in Pittsburgh or Anaheim, where he was tasked with a much larger burden. If Ceci and Dumoulin end up as the Kings' third pair, they can probably work just fine. Given the price paid, it looks likely they'll be asked to do a lot more and it wouldn't be a shock to see this duo as the Kings' opening night second pair. Woof. Between these two and Joel Edmundson, Los Angeles' blue line is in dire straits with guys who can't do a lot with the puck. That probably won't cut it in the playoffs. Just because guys used to play top-four minutes doesn't mean they can still play that role. Or that they should still be paid to that level. In Ceci and Dumoulin, Holland made a difficult bet that looks very unlikely to pay off. Shocking money for a replacement-level player I am not sure how the Tanner Jeannot deal happens in the year 2025. Did the Bruins learn nothing from Barclay Goodrow or Miles Wood and the perils of paying too much and too long for a depth guy? Did they learn nothing from the Lightning trading a whole draft class for Jeannot a few years ago? Have they witnessed Jeannot's own play over the last few years? At this stage of his career, Jeannot is a replacement-level guy who moves the needle way too far in the wrong direction. It's absolutely indefensible to pay him third-line money for the next five years, especially mere months after the team reportedly nickel-and-dimed their captain into going elsewhere. It's been a long time since Jeannot has been a top-nine player, and while there's a small chance he gets back to that level, the Bruins made way too rich of a bet to find out. (Top photos of Ivan Provorov and Mitch Marner: Joseph Maiorana and John E. Sokolowski / Imagn Images)
CNN
38 minutes ago
- CNN
Carveouts for Alaska and tax breaks for whalers: How Lisa Murkowski got to yes on Trump's agenda bill
The fate of President Donald Trump's domestic agenda was in Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski's hands – and she used that leverage to force a series of changes that will deliver more federal dollars to her state. The Senate passed Trump's so-called 'big, beautiful bill' on Tuesday, after a 26-hour marathon of negotiations and amendments during which Murkowski, as she put it later, 'struggled mightily' to soften the biggest funding blows to Alaska before ultimately casting a vote that guaranteed its passage. The changes she won, including some crucial carveouts for Alaska, were a window into how such a massive piece of legislation comes together in Washington. The closely divided Senate means figures like Murkowski – a moderate with a history of defying Trump, elected by a state with an independent streak – wield enormous power. 'This is probably the most difficult and agonizing legislative 24-hour period that I have encountered,' Murkowski told reporters afterward. 'And I've been here quite a while, and you all know I've got a few battle scars underneath me. But I think I held my head up and made sure that the people of Alaska are not forgotten in this.' Murkowski's role as the deciding vote on the bill that extends Trump's 2017 tax cuts, funds his immigration crackdown, imposes work requirements on social safety net programs and more, came fully into view in recent days. Republicans, who control the Senate by a 53-47 margin, believed they'd already lost Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, who objected to the bill's debt ceiling increase, and were doubtful about Maine Sen. Susan Collins, who objected to Medicaid spending cuts and is up for reelection next year in a moderate state. Then, over the weekend, North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis announced he would not seek reelection and delivered a fiery speech lambasting the Medicaid cuts and warning Trump he's been 'misinformed' about their impact. That meant the GOP had no more votes to spare. The bill's only chance at passage was a 50-50 vote, with Vice President JD Vance breaking the tie. Suddenly, much of the party's focus was on Murkowski. For the next 48 hours, the Alaska senator was the subject of frenzied lobbying by some of Washington's most powerful Republicans, including Vance, Senate Majority Leader John Thune and committee chairmen. Behind the scenes, staffers were rewriting key pieces of the bill to win her support – making changes on Medicaid, nutritional assistance and even adding a tax break for whaling captains. South Carolina Sen. Sen. Lindsey Graham, one of Trump's closest Capitol Hill allies, spent hours courting Murkowski's vote, including long huddles on the Senate floor at all hours. That included a tense conversation just ahead of the vote, in which Graham said Murkowski vented her frustrations about the massive scope and complexity of the package but in the end, he said, didn't want it all to fail. 'I just said, in my talk with her, 'Number one, I'm frustrated too,'' Graham recalled of their conversation on the floor. He went on to stress other critical provisions of the bill, including money for the military. Murkowski had praised the added Coast Guard funds. Graham's main message to her, he said, was this: 'Are you good? If you're not good, tell me why and see if we can fix it.' Murkowski has long telegraphed her concerns with the bill. In a town hall last month in Cordova – a port town accessible only by plane or ferry – she praised some elements of the bill but warned against federal funding cuts to social safety net programs like Medicaid and food stamps. Some lawmakers, including Murkowski and Collins, were particularly worried about the blow Medicaid cuts would deliver to rural hospitals – many of which are struggling, with some closing already. 'Many of us are looking at that and saying, it makes no sense to put a greater burden on the most vulnerable in our communities when it comes to health care and access to health care,' Murkowski said at the town hall, The Cordova Times reported. 'I have made clear very early on that we cannot move forward with a bill that makes cuts to Medicaid.' One obstacle for Republicans courting Murkowski's vote was the Senate parliamentarian, who rules on whether provisions of bills violate the chamber's budget rules. Shortly before the final vote, Senate leaders were still trying to secure more funding for Alaska's rural hospitals – after already doubling a fund they'd added for rural hospitals, from $25 billion to $50 billion, to be disbursed over five years. Staffers were still writing in the margins of the bill, trying to find a way to make the rural hospital fund more appealing to Murkowski, two sources familiar with the matter said. Collins also lobbied to beef up the rural hospital fund, but it was not enough to win her vote. It was one of many attempts to shore up more funding for the state's Medicaid recipients or providers that failed to pass muster with the parliamentarian. At first, Republicans devised a provision that increased Medicaid funding for states based on poverty rates. It was crafted in a way that would have applied only to Alaska and Hawaii. That, the parliamentarian said, violated Senate rules. Next, Republicans tried to use population density to apply increased Medicaid funding to Alaska and more rural states, including Montana, North and South Dakota and Wyoming, one of the sources said. It was ruled out of order. Ultimately, there might be some wiggle room to help Alaska, after all. A GOP source familiar with the rural hospital fund said that while some of its funding will be doled out based on a formula, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services also has discretion and flexibility to weight other factors that will allow them to steer where the money goes. In addition to the fight on Medicaid, Murkowski won a huge victory on a provision that delays the requirement that states with high payment error rates start contributing to the cost of food stamp benefits. The original measure would make states with error rates of 6% or higher pick up between 5% and 15% of the tab. But the states with the largest error rates would get another year or two to implement the provision, said Ty Jones Cox, vice president for food assistance policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Currently, 10 states, including Alaska, have error rates that would qualify for the delay. Murkowski also won a change in the expansion of the work requirement for food stamps. Alaska, as well as Hawaii, got two other carveouts: One would allow these states to waive all work requirements based on high unemployment rates. For other states, the package limits such waivers. The other carveout would allow either state to request a temporary waiver for residents from the work requirement if the US Agriculture secretary determines the state is making a 'good faith' effort to implement the mandate. She also secured an increase in a special tax deduction for whaling boat captains. Murkowski told reporters she 'struggled mightily' with the impacts of cutting Medicaid and food stamp benefits in her state. 'That weighs very, very heavily, and so what I tried to do was to ensure that my colleagues understood what that means when you live in an area where there are no jobs. It is not a cash economy. And so I needed help and I worked to get that every single day,' she said. Murkowski is a Republican, but one who owes less politically to Trump and the party's establishment than most in her party. After losing the GOP primary during her reelection bid in 2010, she ran as a write-in candidate – and won the general election. A decade later, Trump had said he'd back anyone with 'a pulse' against Murkowski in her primary. Former Alaska Department of Administration commissioner Kelly Tshibaka ran, with endorsements from Trump and the Alaska Republican Party. But Murkowski won again, earning more first-place votes than Tshibaka in both the primary and general election in Alaska's ranked-choice voting system. Murkowski has also mused aloud multiple times about the possibility of leaving the GOP to become an independent, including in a podcast interview released last week. Her hard-nosed negotiating over the bill containing Trump's domestic agenda evoked memories of other carve-outs designed to win over individual lawmakers when congressional leaders had no votes to spare. In 2010, when Senate Democrats held 60 seats and could spare zero votes to break a filibuster and pass the Affordable Care Act into law, they sought to earn Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson's support with the 'Cornhusker Kickback' – a provision that permanently exempted his state from paying for its share of the law's Medicaid expansion. Seven years later, as the GOP sought to repeal Obamacare during Trump's first term in the White House, Senate Republicans tucked into their bill what some called the 'Polar Payoff.' It was a subsidy for the individual health insurance marketplaces that was designed only to benefit Alaska. (Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer derisively used the same phrase to describe the latest deal for Murkowski.) Neither of those earlier carve-outs became law. And it's not yet clear whether the changes Murkowski negotiated will remain in place as Trump's so-called big, beautiful bill returns to the House. Adding to the uncertainty, the Alaska senator stunned some of her own colleagues in both chambers when she told reporters Tuesday, shortly after the bill's passage, that she hopes the House amends it and returns it to the Senate. 'We do not have a perfect bill, by any stretch of the imagination,' she said. 'My hope is that the House is going to look at this and recognize that we're not there yet. And I would hope that we would be able to actually do what we used to do around here, which is work back and forth between the two bodies to get a measure that's going to be better for the people in this country, and more particularly, for the people in Alaska.'
