News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.

Pages: [1]   Go Down

Phil McDade

  • Karma: +0/-0
Masters stats -- it's a driver's course
« on: April 09, 2007, 10:32:31 AM »
What statistic stood out for Johnson relative to his top-10 finishing peers? Driving percentage.

He was 45 of 56 fairways in driving accuracy (80 percent) -- far and away the best percentage among the top 10 finishers this year. (Taylor was next at 73 percent; nearly everyone else in the top 10 was 63 percent or lower.)

Johnson putted well -- 112 putts for the tourney -- but not the best among the contenders (Harrington 107, Rose 108, Toms 109). He also hit a a high percentage of greens among the top 10 -- 44 of 72 (tied w/ Sabbatini, Donald and Taylor, and topped only by the 45 greens hit by Goosen and Appleby, and one more than Tiger's 43).

Worst putters: Taylor w/ 123, Kelly at 119, Casey at 118, and Donald and Tiger at 117.

Conclusion: Put it in the fairway and putt well, and you would've done well at this year's Masters. My hunch: Johnson's ability to put it in the fairway gave him easier approach shots (reflected in a high % of greens hit) AND -- critical hunch here -- left him with easier up-and-downs when he did miss a green (the 18th on Sunday being a good example.)
Logged

Ken Moum

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Masters stats -- it's a driver's course
« Reply #1 on: April 09, 2007, 10:35:43 AM »
Quote from: Phil McDade on April 09, 2007, 10:32:31 AM
What statistic stood out for Johnson relative to his top-10 finishing peers? Driving percentage.

Just like the U.S. Open.....

I LOVE the USGA's annual barbecue of player's brains. But I also loved the fact that the first three majors had different personalities.

Now, the first two are looking remarkably similar.

K
« Last Edit: April 09, 2007, 10:36:21 AM by KMoum »
Logged
Over time, the guy in the ideal position derives an advantage, and delivering him further  advantage is not worth making the rest of the players suffer at the expense of fun, variety, and ultimately cost -- Jeff Warne, 12-08-2010

Peter Zarlengo

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Masters stats -- it's a driver's course
« Reply #2 on: April 09, 2007, 02:12:08 PM »
But definately not in the typical sense of a drivers course, in that length was a non-factor. As I mentioned before, ZJ's longest drive for the tournament was a pedestrian 276 yards. Driving the ball well requires both length and distance.  So I would probably say that it wasnt a drivers course as much as a test of driving accuracy as well as mental preparation and execution.
Logged

Doug Siebert

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Masters stats -- it's a driver's course
« Reply #3 on: April 09, 2007, 05:00:23 PM »
KMourn,

Just because driving average helped Johnson's success doesn't mean the Masters is now a US Open clone.

At ANGC you have options around the green, you can putt, chip, bump and run or flop it on the green.  At a typical US Open setup you have one option, LW out of the deep rough.

At ANGC when you miss a fairway you may have something that isn't even deep enough to qualify as a first cut in the US Open, and some munis would consider fairway length, or you are in the trees.  If you are in the trees, you often still have the option to go for the green, or get close to the green for an up and down attempt.  At the US Open, often you just grab your SW and gouge it out of the rough down the fairway where you can attempt to get it up and down from 100 yards with another SW.  With the nifty side effect that guys who miss the fairway by a short amount are punished more than those who go way off track and hit it into the crowd where the grass is trampled and easy to play from.

Had Johnson choked a bit in the end or Tiger not tripped all over himself trying to birdie and eagle every hole from 13 on, Tiger could have been the winner, with probably one of the worst fairway hit percentages.  Where would your argument be then?

It sounds to me like there are some people who don't like the setup and use the conservative way Johnson won it as a way of justifying their position.  There are others who think any major where Tiger is in contention but fails to win exposes a flaw with the setup because since Tiger is clearly the best golfer in the world, anytime he fails to win clearly the course is at fault for not identifying the best player.
Logged
My hovercraft is full of eels.

Doug Siebert

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Masters stats -- it's a driver's course
« Reply #4 on: April 09, 2007, 05:05:45 PM »
Peter,

Clearly Johnson had to be the best iron player of the week to be one away from the leader in GIR when playing from further back than the majority of players.  If he was just hitting it any old place on the green he would have had more putts due to three putting a lot, so he must have had a pretty good game plan as to where he wanted to put himself on the green.
Logged
My hovercraft is full of eels.

Jim Nugent

Re:Masters stats -- it's a driver's course
« Reply #5 on: April 10, 2007, 02:40:26 AM »
Phil, here is a breakdown of how the top ten (which was top 12 due to ties) did, in driving accuracy and putts per green...

Driving accuracy

Better than field average  Average        Below average

Johnson                        Sabbatini       Goosen
Harrington                     Rose             Woods
Toms                            Casey           Kelly
Taylor                                              Appleby
                                                      Donald

Putts per hole

Better than field average        Worse

Johnson                               Taylor
Sabbatini                             Casey
Goosen                                Kelly
Woods
Rose
Harrington
Appleby
Toms
Donald

Most of the top ten were either below average or average in driving accuracy.  Most of them were better than average in putts per green.  (Though this is not as useful a stat as putts per GIR.)

Three players were better than average in both putts and driving accuracy:  Johnson, Harrington and Toms.  The big difference between them is GIR.  Johnson hit 61% GIR, while Harrington only hit 49% and Toms 51%.  

Johnson tied for 10th in putts per green...tied for 4th in GIR...tied for 2nd in driving accuracy.  It was that all-around performance that won for him, not just hitting fairways and making putts.  (Plus some unexpected assists from TW.)  

Driving distance didn't matter much in this Masters because no one hit the ball very far.  Johnson was one of the shortest hitters, but he still only averaged 15 yards less than Tiger.  And as well as Tiger played the par 5's -- he was 9 under on them -- short-hitting Zack was 11 under.  Exactly his winning margin.  
Logged

Phil McDade

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Masters stats -- it's a driver's course
« Reply #6 on: April 10, 2007, 12:14:57 PM »
Jim:

In compiling my stats and making the observation, I deliberately chose the top 10 (and ties) for this reason -- all of those guys (save Casey, probably) had a reasonable chance during the last two days of the tourney to win the thing. I don't have the blow-by-blow, but each of those guys save Casey either at one point Sat. or Sun. either had the lead, tied for it, or was within a stroke or two of the lead.

To my thinking, it almost doesn't matter what someone's stats were relative to the entire field -- it matters what they were relative to those who had a decent shot at winning the thing. Based on that criteria, Johnson's driving accuracy just stands out as much better than anyone else in the top 10(Taylor was next at 73 percent, and then it slipped to 66 percent for Harrington. Johnson hit eight more fairways than Harrington, or two per day. That's a lot. He hit 10 more than Sabbatini, 14 more than Woods, and 15 more than Goosen. That's two to four more fairways per day than the runners-up. That's a ton.)

Sure, Johnson did very well hitting a lot of greens, but so did lots of folks in the top 10 (Woods, Goosen, Sabbatini Appleby, Donald and Taylor all hit between 43 and 45 greens). And Johnson putted well, but others in the top 10 putted better.

I'd agree -- it was a very good all-around performance by Johnson. But I think his success in driving accuracy, compared to the other contenders, is pretty telling.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up