[Bruce Hardie]

This thread interests me because an underlying theme to many of my recent thoughts is golf statistics.

I liken the comparison to the assumption made by Sabermetricians in baseball:

It is not the job of Albert Pujols to hit singles, doubles, triples or even homeruns. It is the job of Albert Pujols to generate runs for his team without spending outs.

Sabermetrics are based on the idea that a team spends outs to generate runs. To wit: the out is the currency of the game.

In golf, a stroke is the currency of the game and strokes are spent to overcome distance.

One could then extrapolate that it's not the job of Luke Donald to hit fairways, or greens or even to make putts, but instead to spend strokes to overcome distance in the most efficient manner. Therefore, it really doesn't matter if the player hits the green or not, what matters is that the player finds the areas around the green from which a minimum of subsequent strokes need be played.

Kyle,

Very interesting.  What are the implications for golf stats?  Essentially keeping your ball in play, scrambling, sand saves and putting?  Is there some new stats you can think of that might be more appropriate?  How about percentage of green misses on proper side (i.e. the non-short side stat).  side to side and front to back? Are these stats equally robust at TOC and Sawgrass?  Can't wait to take my son to see Moneyball next week.  

Strokes gained is already being tracked all the way back to the tee box.

http://www.slate.com/id/2263282/landing/1

They've gone to the point where based on a players position on the hole, what is their expected number of shots to hole out and did they do better or worse than the field.

From any point on the hole you can determine the average number of shots a 'standard' player will take to hole out and so we can start to see in some data the effects of design. The standard in this case being a tour pro assessed by Shotlink.

To take a basic example of a bunker on the inside corner of the dogleg. Those that fly the bunker will end up in a spot where the average to hole out (I'll invent the term ATHO) would be 2.7 (ie. a good birdie chance) whereas those that went wide might end up with an ATHO of 3.2 and those that ended up in the bunker with 3.8. In this example there is a whole shot gained by taking on the bunker and succeeding that would apply to the driver stats and a half shot gained on those that went safe. This would seem  a desirable result when choosing the placement of a hazard.

Apply a heat map to the hole and you should be able to see the effects of the design of the hole. I think there is something to be gained from studying this from a GCA point of view. It may also indicate clear target spots, which are less desirable

You can see it creeping into the TV coverage when they show those dots of different colors about who is making birdies/pars/bogies based on where they finished up. A greenside trap may be resulting in a lot of bogies so those that make the sand save will have gained shots on the field with that part of their game. Will players watch and learn about where the wrong areas are to miss?

[JESII]

The pros' averages mostly didn't surprise me:  they make 75% from five feet, 50% from just under 8 feet; 25% from 14 feet and 10% from 25 feet.

The number that did surprise me is that from 60 feet, even Tour pros three-putt 24% of the time!

Tom,

All this really says is that the pros putt it to about 5 feet from the hole from 60 feet. Would you have guessed closer?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Interesting, and I do believe stats have a place in golf design to figure out "what is really happening out there."  Unfortunately, the only stats are kept on the PGA Tour, and not for average Joe Six Packs.

For them, the question is this (IMHO) - what is more fun?  Chipping to a smaller green or putting from 100 feet?

When I broke into the biz in 1977, the talk was all about how RTJ had made the game less fun, not only for the aerial approaches like Phil critiques, but because large greens and long 3 putts were simply not fun for the average golfer.  I think that is true. 

I make the analogy of a reachable par 5.  If you get home in two its a plus.  Ditto for short game.  If you get up and down, its a little victory, but if you don't its what you expected.  If you three putt, even from 100 feet, its still mentally a little bit of a lost stroke for you.

Related question - isn't it actually best for their to be a mix of small, medium and large greens on a course?  Over time, everyone will tend to miss and will find themselves with more variety in the recovery, from long putts, to long chips to short chips, etc.  Add in a variety of fw and rough chipping area at different spots around the green, and it seems that would be the best way to achive golfing variety, no? 

Of course, someone could miss on all the large green holes in one round, but over time, it would even out.

What is most fun for the average golfer?  Big greens, small greens, medium?

[JESII]

What is most fun for the average golfer?  Big greens, small greens, medium?

Isn't that like asking what's best for the middle class? Who is an average golfer?

[BCrosby]

"What is most fun for the average golfer?  Big greens, small greens, medium?"

I'm surprised there is much question about this. I think Joe Sixpack would almost always rather putt than chip. They have a well grounded fear of misshitting chips that can lead to disastrous results.

A misshit a putt has nothing like the same downside.

Bob

[George Pazin]

A stroke lost is a stroke lost. Anyone that experiences more anguish on a 3 putt versus a missed green chip and 2 putt is missing the point of golf, imho, and likely is missing the beauty of golf course architecture, also imho.

[Kalen Braley]

I think its key to remember there is context to everything.

When I three putt from 70 feet, I don't feel bad because I realize it would have taken some very good putting to two putt it.

However, when I three putt from 15-20 feet, that's when I want to wrap the putter around a tree Woody Austin style.

[Michael George]

One thing about this subject is that when I played Old MacDonald, I was not sure where the green started and the fairway began on many holes.  I probably 3 putted several holes that I thought were 2 putts.

Funny story - I asked the caddie at Old MacDonald where the green started and the fairway ended on a hole ( I wanted to know in order to mark my ball and clean it off).  He replied by saying "where he says it does" and that it changes with every loop he has. 

[Garland Bayley]

It is most unfortunate that tour players have so much influence on the design and playability of golf courses.  Most know very little about golf course architecture or design.  Plus, they have an inherent bias toward certain styles of golf courses.

There is a significant difference between playing a golf course "to make a living" and playing a golf course "as a recreation".  If it was up to most tour professionals, most golf courses would be designed by RTJ.  Straight holes with deep bunkers where good shots are always rewarded and bad shots are irrevocably lost.  The player that hit the ball long and straight and putted well would win.  Imagination would not factor in the least.  This would result in the most boring kind of recreational golf imaginable.

Tom - please do not let tour professionals influence your golf course designs.  Old Mac and Pac Dunes are wonderful places and I don't care if the tour professionals don't find them fair.  If they have problems putting from 100 feet, then their game is not as good as it should be.  The best players in the world should be able to hit every shot that a golf course architect can imagine (as Donald Ross said - there is no unfair bunker).  In my opinion, the more shots that you can make a player hit, the better test a golf course is.     

For instance, after playing Old Mac, I would love to go back and play it solely with a putter.  Really, the only shot that you cannot hit with a putter is the drive on 3.  I actually thought I could have shot under 100 with a putter on that course.

Bottom line - let the tour pros play "our" courses, not the amateur play "their" courses.   

Michael George's way of saying Rees Jones has it all wrong.

[David Kelly]

Related question - isn't it actually best for their to be a mix of small, medium and large greens on a course? 

That seems to call for a cookie-cutter approach to building a golf course.  

I think what is actually best is for owners and golf course architects with vision to build the type of courses that they want.  I think we need more of that and less of the type of formulaic golf design that results in ho-hum, non-descript golf courses.

[Michael George]

Garland - I appreciate your witty remark. 

For what it is worth (which is close to nothing as I am just a normal guy with an interest in golf architecture), I tend to agree with Mickelson's and others comments re: what is being done to some courses so that the Tour players don't beat the course up.  I just don't think you make them publicly while you are at a tournament.

[Steve Lang]

  vision and feel with consideration of options.. how else do you approach a golfing venue and its full shots and short game shots and putts?  

TD reveals a gca theme at OM:  "And certainly, Old Macdonald tries to make it matter where you miss ... those sharp edges of the greens make you play more toward the center, which makes you more likely to three-putt."

.. so, you can learn to counter a theme(s) over repeated plays or given that its a resort or infrequent play.. adopt the "never met a sucker pin I didn't like mentality" and have fun challenging the course and yourself

i have no empathy for players (PRO OR AMATUER) whining of "its not fair" or "i should be able to do XYZ" ...  if a player is better or finer skillled he's going to gain strokes.. putting or otherwise

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()