Stats and Golf

[Josh Tarble]

Golf Digest posted a really fascinating article on ShotLink statistics and the PGA Tour.

Here is the article:
http://www.golfdigest.com/golfworld/2014-01/gwar-shotlink-feature-david-barrett-0113

It's a pretty cool article and goes into some detail on strokes gained for all different shot types and the leaders in each of those categories.  I remember a thread recently that discussed course ratings and making it more accurate.  This is the type of statistical analysis that could really make a difference in how courses are rated.

Even more recently, the thread posted on subjectivity vs. objectivity has been a fascinating read.  It's not out of the realm of possibilities that the top courses could be quantifiabley identified using a sort of ShotLink type system.  

I can see this becoming a very useful tool in both course ratings and course design.  

Of course, it also has repercussions of making course design into "paint by numbers" if it's used too heavily...but if/when used as another tool I think there are really cool possibilities.

[Nigel Islam]

That is quite interesting Josh. Maybe we need a "Posts gained category" rather than just tracking the total number of post

[Carl Nichols]

That is quite interesting Josh. Maybe we need a "Posts gained category" rather than just tracking the total number of post

How about "Posts Above Replacement" (PAR)?

[Matthew Petersen]

I really am interested in the statistical "revolution" within golf, as I (like probably anyone else who has ever played the game) fully agree that the standard stats are even less useful than RBIs are in baseball.

That said, I don't love the idea of it being used as a factor in course design. I suppose there are any variety of ways the data could be used by a creative thinker, but my fear is that the easiest application is to say, "These three holes on Tour Course XX are significantly easier than average and should be toughed up by making the fairway harder to hit/green smaller/etc." Which is a concept I dread.

[Nigel Islam]

Apparently I am way in the negative on the Posts gained for the day category.

Regardless, the stat is fascinating because you can tell where a player's real strengths are.

[Brent Hutto]

About time.

Honest to goodness, just a few months after ShotLink debuted on the PGA Tour an internet acquaintance and I had an E-mail back and forth discussing pretty much exactly the stats that they are presenting now. We assumed after a year or two of ShotLink data was available we'd start seeing these stats in everyday use on the TV broadcasts and by the player.

Golf is one slow-moving dog of a business I must say. Once they set up the infrastructure to gather shot-by-shot data, this stuff ain't rocket science. But it took them a decade to get around to putting it out there.

[Josh Tarble]

Nigel,
I'm afraid I would be greatly in the negative with my PAR (posts against replacement)...otherwise I'd be all for it!


Matthew,
That would be my fear as well...but to the contrary maybe the stats could show concepts or shots that challenge pros while being fun for amateurs.

[Nigel Islam]

Nigel,
I'm afraid I would be greatly in the negative with my PAR (posts against replacement)...otherwise I'd be all for it!


Matthew,
That would be my fear as well...but to the contrary maybe the stats could show concepts or shots that challenge pros while being fun for amateurs.

Excellent