[Brent Hutto]

Phil,

On the US PGA Tour they have the ShotLink data which is excellent. For approach shots and putting in particular they get pretty close to the ideal IMO. Admittedly, I believe they only have the distance from which an approach shot is hit (or maybe with some rudimentary fairway/rough/bunker categorization of lie) but other than that limitation I think you can answer most any question.

Things like a player's average and median distance from the hole from any given distance is a pretty solid measure, especially inside of 175 yards or so where they're presumably aiming pretty nearly at the hole on average, is a great measure of accuracy of irons and wedges. And knowing the length of putts to the inch is great not only for putting analysis but also for decomposing an "up and down" stat into its components of "how close" and "how long a putt".

And of course ShotLink gives actual driving distances (carry plus roll) on every hole instead of the old two-hole-per-round stuff. So there's a lot of interesting analysis possible with the ShotLink data. But the two-hole-per-round distances along with GIR and Putts/GIR and "Scrambling" are pretty lame (of those GIR is the most valid IMO).

[George Pazin]

Phil, most of the things I've read felt the strongest indicator stat-wise of how well someone is playing is Greens in Regulation.

But the two-hole-per-round distances along with GIR and Putts/GIR and "Scrambling" are pretty lame (of those GIR is the most valid IMO).

D'oh - I think I just got seconded and corrected both in the same sentence.

[Phil McDade]

Brent:

Thanks -- I knew about the shot-link data, but just haven't had the time to peruse it carefully.

One stat I'd be curious to dig into is what I might call "lag putting" -- the ability to consistently two-putt from a long distance, e.g., 35-40+ feet. I've always thought lag putting is a somewhat underrated skill, and one not discussed frequently. (People cite Faxon, for instance, as a great putter, because he seems to make lots of 8-10 footers. You don't often hear folks discuss golfers who rarely three-putt from 45-feet away, a skill it seems is weighed more heavily in majors, with presumably tough greens and tough pins to shoot at.)

[Brent Hutto]

George,

GIR is a perfectly cromulent stat in that it correlates well with scoring and does a good job of measuring what it claims to measure. As yes/no stats go it's a fine one. The only real shortcoming is the existence of that yes/no line, IMO especially as pertains to the "no" side covering everything from requiring a putt from inches into the fringe to requiring a heroic recovery shot. But sometimes you want a simple, dichotomous summary measure and GIR is both obvious and correct.

Phil,

In your example of lag putting, the ShotLink style data is good both for comparing players and for the players themselves to use. Let's say Sergio Garcia believes he's three-putting too often and so he thinks it must be because he misses too many 4-footers. He could look at the ShotLink putting data and compare the distribution of his lag putts from, say, 40-60 feet to that of the rest of the Tour. He might find that he actually lags only half as many long putts to inside 4 feet as the guys who don't three-putt and find out that he needs to work on lagging, not on making 100 short ones in a row.

Or something like that. Detailed measurement is a great thing. Especially in the case of the PGA Tour who has more money than God and gets their measurement labor for free from volunteers in any case.

[Paul_Turner]

You get enough data and the patterns and trends will appear.  The  measurement "errors", such as "what defines a fairway hit" will average out.

[Garland Bayley]

Two thoughts:

I think Ogilvy is all wet when he suggests Oakmont's set-up was improper ("...there is something wrong with the course...") because Tiger could only extract a 69 out of his 17/18 GIR round on Saturday. Tiger putted, by his standards, very poorly that day, and admitted so afterward. And I'd argue it wasn't the greens or pin placements; other folks had decent rounds that day and putted much better, and Sat. was Tiger's worst putting round.
...

Phil,

I suspect you got this wrong! Geoff was talking about TOC width as being more of the ideal. Now suppose Oakmont had TOC width. Don't you suppose Tiger playing at the top of his game could have found places to hit it that would have allowed him to knock it stiff and make the birdies inevitable?

[Doug Siebert]

Brent:

Thanks -- I knew about the shot-link data, but just haven't had the time to peruse it carefully.

One stat I'd be curious to dig into is what I might call "lag putting" -- the ability to consistently two-putt from a long distance, e.g., 35-40+ feet. I've always thought lag putting is a somewhat underrated skill, and one not discussed frequently. (People cite Faxon, for instance, as a great putter, because he seems to make lots of 8-10 footers. You don't often hear folks discuss golfers who rarely three-putt from 45-feet away, a skill it seems is weighed more heavily in majors, with presumably tough greens and tough pins to shoot at.)

Well, if you make a lot of 8 to 10 footers, you can hit some pretty crappy first putts and still not to have to worry about three putting...

I do think the tour keeps some stats for three putts, but again Shotlink would be the place to look to figure out how long those putts are since a guy who ends up with a lot of three putts because he's leaving himself a bunch of 60 footers may be a better putter than a guy who has slightly fewer three putts but is doing those from 40 feet.

But even if you get that data, then you have to get into how difficult the putt is.  A putt with a big break, or multiple breaks, is tougher than one that's flat.  A slick downhiller you just breath on to get started is tougher than one that's flat or uphill.

The same is true for hitting "fairways" and "rough", beyond just whether you are in the first cut or not.  If you are in the fairway, do you have a nice flat lie or is it a hanging lie?  Is the ball well above or below your feet, or in a divot?  If you are in the rough, is the ball sitting up well or not?  Are you hitting with or against the grain?  Are there trees in the way, and if so, what type(s) of shots do they permit?

I think you could drive yourself crazy trying to do a statically sound job of analyzing the tour.  Even baseball, which has stats up the wazoo, realizes that sometimes you can go too far and doesn't break down stats in terms of whether for example a fielding error was due to the sun getting in a player's eyes versus a true error that's totally the player's fault with no outside cause.

[Phil McDade]

Doug:

You're correct, of course, about putting too much emphasis on stats, and the parallel to baseball is a good one -- two sports in which the "arena" (the golf course, ballpark particulars) directly impacts statistics (the short left-field porch at Yankee Stadium and Ruth, pitcher's ballparks and ERAs, others...)

I just used the example of lag putting because it's a subject rarely talked about, it seems, in golf conversations (telecasts, books, whatnot), yet great putters like Crenshaw view speed way more than line as the most important factor in putting. Tiger, in detailing putting woes, almost always talks about getting his speed correct. It seems to follow that players who are good lag putters are pretty good about getting speed correct if not the line.

[Phil McDade]

Two thoughts:

I think Ogilvy is all wet when he suggests Oakmont's set-up was improper ("...there is something wrong with the course...") because Tiger could only extract a 69 out of his 17/18 GIR round on Saturday. Tiger putted, by his standards, very poorly that day, and admitted so afterward. And I'd argue it wasn't the greens or pin placements; other folks had decent rounds that day and putted much better, and Sat. was Tiger's worst putting round.
...

Phil,

I suspect you got this wrong! Geoff was talking about TOC width as being more of the ideal. Now suppose Oakmont had TOC width. Don't you suppose Tiger playing at the top of his game could have found places to hit it that would have allowed him to knock it stiff and make the birdies inevitable?

Garland:

I think that's something of an apples-to-oranges argument. TOC's entire strategy is based around width providing options, risks and rewards -- typically the easier approach shot to a green at TOC comes from taking a bolder and riskier line off the tee (16 being a great example, with the best approach coming from a risky drive between the Principal's Nose and OB right). Oakmont strikes me as perhaps the ultimate parkland-style, penal course -- requiring a certain exactitude on shotmaking (tee shots, approaches, and putting) that, failing to do so, results in at least a one-stroke loss. Oakmont's entire strategy, it seems, is NOT to provide many options off the tee (with the exception of a few short par 4s, where the USGA moved some tees up to provide some opportunity for driving the green). Rather, Oakmont fairly loudly says: Put it in the fairway. If you have to resort to an iron off the tee, and that leaves you with a longer approach (and thus less chance of getting it to the pin), so be it -- that's what you have to accept to avoid the stiff penalty of being off the fairway. I like both courses, and the challenge they provide golfers, but they are clearly different courses.

My sense of how Tiger has come to dominate TOC is that he does so largely on the basis of power and his wonderful short game -- it has several drivable par 4s and reachable par 5s, and he attacks those holes to get his birdies (driving OVER the green at 12 downwind, and then chipping back -- a much easier chip than attacking that hole from the front of the green). He also manages his game to avoid the bunkers, again, a testamant to his skills.

[Garland Bayley]

Phil,

I was thinking about how Oakmont has several greens canted either right or left. Instead of coming at them from straight on as required by the narrow fairways, Tiger could have gone way left or right to hit into the slope of the green and have more control over where the ball comes to rest.

[Phil McDade]

Garland,

I'm not sure there is anything that's way left or way right at Oakmont, at least under a USGA set-up, and certainly nothing similar to the way left/right approaches that are a clear part of TOC's strategy. Fownes seemed to have built Oakmont with penal features all over the place -- defined and precise targets off the tee, numerous bunkers on the line of play, and especially severely sloped and/or canted greens. Only in the rarest circumstances, with a player performing at the absolute peak of ability, does it yield multiple birdies without penalty (Miller '73, Tiger could've shot 63 there Saturday with decent putting). TOC, at least in the modern (post-1960) era, has always yielded low rounds in majors when conditions are ripe and players are on their game.

[Garland Bayley]

I am saying if you mowed it all to fairway height as is done at TOC, then Oakmont would provide the opportunities I suggest. I suspect often the best lines would be outside the bunkers protecting those narrow fairways.

[Craig Sweet]

It seems to me that being in the fairway these days is a useless statistic for one big reason....it is not always the best angle to approach the green...

Ogilvy is absolutely correct that set ups like Oakmont say here's the only place you can hit the ball without being penalized by thick rough over your ankles...this reduces your options for being in position to attack the pin with your next shot...the bomb and gouge guys would rather have a more suitable angle of attack...this works on the weekly PGA Tour stop where the rough isn't so bad...

Tiger was hitting the ball execptionally well on Saturday at the US Open, but he didn't have many close birdie putts because he couldn't always get the best angle for an approach shot....thus he missed (barely) several 15-20ft putts...

[RichMacafee]

Phil, most of the things I've read felt the strongest indicator stat-wise of how well someone is playing is Greens in Regulation.

I prefer scoring average myself

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()