[Richard Choi]

Here is the today's article - Dead Solid Lucky (the role of luck in a tournament)

http://www.slate.com/id/2263085/


Philip,

Statistics is a weapon against "old adage" or "common sense" or any other belief that has been passed from generation to generation without any evidence. It is nothing more than a tool for seeking out the truth. While it can be misused or abused, in general, statistics help us gain greater knowledge about our world.

A funny thing about human brains is that during our evolution out of the plains of Africa, it was vital for our ancestors to quickly be aware of predators hiding in the bushes. To survive in that environment, our brains developed amazing ability for pattern matching. This is what allows us to see people's face in the clouds, recognize stock chart patterns, and feel deja-vu.

Unfortunately, it is not perfect and our brain perceives many false positives. We also have tendency to remember positive enforcements of our belief/observation while quickly forgetting false ones. This leads to many common sense or beliefs that are wrong, but is generally assumed to be correct or true.

A great sports example is clutch hitting. Most baseball fans swear by certain player's ability come through big in high pressure situations. It is a very common term thrown around in baseball. However, it is just an illusion.

Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia on Clutch Hitting:

"Various baseball analysts, including Bill James, Pete Palmer, Dick Cramer, and the Baseball Prospectus editors, have found so-called "clutch hitting" ability to be a myth. This is not to say that clutch hits, like those listed above, do not exist, but rather that some kind of innate ability for a player to perform above his true talent level in high-pressure situations is nothing but an illusion.

Most studies on the matter involved comparing performance in the "clutch" category of statistics (production with runners in scoring position, performance late in close games, etc.) between seasons; if clutch hitting were an actual skill, it would follow that the same players would do well in the clutch statistics year in and year out (the correlation coefficient between players' performances over multiple seasons would be high). Cramer's study was the first of its kind, and it found that clutch hitting numbers between seasons for the same player varied wildly; in fact, the variance was the kind one would expect if the numbers had been selected randomly. Since Cramer published his results, many others have tried to find some evidence that clutch hitting is a skill, but almost every study has confirmed Cramer's initial findings: that "clutch hitting," in terms of certain players being able to "rise to the occasion" under pressure, is an illusion."

Statistics helped us find the truth in this case and I believe statistics can also help us verify or disprove some old adages in golf as well (i.e Drive for Show Putt for Dough, putting is what matters on PGA Tour, risk/reward hole design, etc.)

We should embrace seeking the truth not shirk away from it.

[Phil_the_Author]

Richard & Jim,

I completely agree with both of your last posts. It was my point that statistics are a tool and, like a hammer, can do more harm than good if wielded either incorrectly or by a person who isn't qualified to use it.

[Richard Choi]

And an article on "Why You are Not a Pro Golfer"

http://www.slate.com/id/2263077/

This is definitely one article that did not require statistical analysis (at least in my own case).

[Richard Choi]

Very interesting "findings" on this article.

• Great putting will never make up for not being able to consistently crush the ball into the horizon.
• Broadie found, are long-distance tee shots, shots from 200-250 yards, and shots from 150-200 yards. It's these locations on the course—not the greens—where golfers are most able to distinguish themselves from the pack.
• A team of researchers has found that triumphing on tour almost always comes down to luck.
• On average, tournament winners are the beneficiaries of 9.6 strokes of good luck.

Fascinating stuff. I just wish I had the original papers to read.

My question to folks here is, if it is true that putting doesn't matter as much, is there something the architect can do to increase the importance of putting more? Obviously the flatter greens with very high stimp isn't doing it on PGA Tour. Perhaps slower greens with much more undulation may benefit better putters?

[Scott Warren]

George and Richard: How did you guys go mapping the shot placements?

[George Pazin]

Haven't had a chance to go through it yet, Scott. Probably be a week or two at the earliest for me.

If anyone can point me to a site that has good size hole diagrams for all 18 holes at WS, it would be much appreciated.

[Phil McDade]

Haven't had a chance to go through it yet, Scott. Probably be a week or two at the earliest for me.

If anyone can point me to a site that has good size hole diagrams for all 18 holes at WS, it would be much appreciated.

George:

This might be helpful; under every hole is a "view yardage guide" link that provides some distances from various points on each hole. If you need more detail, I think I have an old 2004 PGA tourney guide around the house that might provide more detail; IM with specific questions -- I'd be happy to help.

http://www.destinationkohler.com/golf/ws/straits_detail.html

This is really interesting stuff on Slate -- I still think putting's under-rated.

[BCrosby]

This stuff reminds me of a thread from years ago, the gist of which was that the great irony of Pelz's findings is that what matters most is the ability to go long.

The thought process goes like this:

Nobody, pros or anyone else, sinks many putts longer than 15 feet, iirc.

Almost nobody hits approach shots inside 15 feet regularly unless they are using a lofted club.

It follows that what matters most in scoring is whether you can leave yourself short iron approaches.

Which means, further, that what matters is being able to drive the ball far enough to leave short iron approaches.

Which is a pretty devastating conclusion for someone like Pelz trying to sell the idea that nothing is more important than taking lessons to improve your short game.

Bob

[George Pazin]

This stuff reminds me of a thread from years ago, the gist of which was that the great irony of Pelz's findings is that what matters most is the ability to go long.

The thought process goes like this:

Nobody, pros or anyone else, sinks many putts longer than 15 feet, iirc.

Almost nobody hits approach shots inside 15 feet regularly unless they are using a lofted club.

It follows that what matters most in scoring is whether you can leave yourself short iron approaches.

Which means, further, that what matters is being able to drive the ball far enough to leave short iron approaches.

Which is a pretty devastating conclusion for someone like Pelz trying to sell the idea that nothing is more important than taking lessons to improve your short game.

Bob

The only problem with that line of thinking is that you have plenty of guys like Zach Johnson and Justin Leonard - not especially long - who are successful and you have guys like Hank Kuehne, who aren't. These are certainly too small of a sample size, but it doesn't seem like the bombers have taken over.

Yet.

 

[BCrosby]

George -

We are playing the odds here. People have good weeks. Many short players have very nice careers these days. OTOH, length alone isn't enough. H. Kuehne is a poster boy for the idea that length is negated if you can't keep it in the ballpark.

I think about Pelz's findings this way. If you could build a golfer but you had to choose between building a golfer who is among the better putters on Tour with average length or one who is among the longest hitters with average putting skills, Pelz's own numbers tell you to build the longer hitter.

Put differently, if you want to one putt more greens, work on hitting your drives farther not on becoming a better putter.

I see lots of junior/college golfers today who seem to have figured that out intuitively. They all have built bomber swings and they let everything else take care of itself.

Bob

[Jason Topp]

I think the Pelz findings and these statistics are consistent. 

I think of it this way - If you want to have more potential - you need to improve your full swing.  If you want to get the most out of what you have - you need to work on your short game.  It is much easier to improve 1 shot through improved short game than it is to make your full swing 1 shot better.   

[Jud_T]

I think the Pelz findings and these statistics are consistent. 

I think of it this way - If you want to have more potential - you need to improve your full swing.  If you want to get the most out of what you have - you need to work on your short game.  It is much easier to improve 1 shot through improved short game than it is to make your full swing 1 shot better.   

Jason,

This is right on the money IMHO

[Doug Siebert]

"Keep it below the hole" - the putting stats appear to debunk that theory.

Jason,

Where are the stats that debunk this theory?  Your link pointed to a series of PDFs but it wasn't clear which one this would be in (or how easy it would be to find that data within)

I'm fully in agreement with the myth about laying up to a particular distance, but I'm kinda skeptical about this below the hole thing.  If it is using tour data, this is probably reasonable because most tour greens are quite flat.  Not only that, they given so much TLC before the tournament they are in near perfect shape, so having to slow roll a ball on a quick green doesn't risk it being bumped offline by imperfections in the green nearly so much as on the courses most of us play (the exception being those who play private courses with very limited play)

I actually think the issue is more "leave yourself as near as possible DIRECTLY below the hole, rather than with a sidehill four footer that breaks two cups if hit firm and six cups if you die it into the hole".  I really don't mind a nearly straight in downhill putt.  I just definitely don't want one of those sidehill from just a bit above the hole putts, where you have a choice between charging the putt to limit it to a reasonable amount of break but risk leaving yourself a longer (and still somewhat sidehill) putt, or being cautious but playing a real guessing game with a crazy amount of break.  (You've played my course, you know what I mean )

[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

I would LOVE to see the shot value diagram of all of the top courses. I think that would be truly fascinating and helpful to understanding golf course architecture.

Richard,

This would be great so see. You could have specific colours ranging from red to green (a bit like the change of colour on maps with elevation levels),  indicating the variation in shot value.

But there's one big snag! The shot value is dependent on pin position - sometimes it's better to hit the drive down the left for the pin located on the right, and vice versa - so you'd need a shot value diagram for each possible pin position.

Maybe in the future, clubs will issue shot value diagrams for the day's hole locations along with course guides. Maybe there's money to be made with this?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()