The misperception of the short game.

[Brent Hutto]

Jon,

So your purely speculative It Seems Like This To Me description of Tom Watson's game can not be adequately countered by the actual scores of every Tour player in every event over a period of a decade?

I'd suggest in that case nothing on earth could ever "adequately counter" your cherished belief system.

Why are you even bothering to engage in a discussion of this stuff since your own ideas are completely unshakable and you have no desire to validate them against reality?

[Brent Hutto]

I'd also like to know how well it predicts or analyzes major winners, when they win those majors.  i.e. where did they gain the most, according to this analysis?  

It's an analysis of scoring. The analysis does not purport to predict scores. It describes the actual scores as they occured. It's an inventory of the results of each shot on Tour, more like an accounting system than a predictive modeling approach.

So to the extent that a player having low scores over the course of a season (or multiple seasons) results in wining events, then this analysis would break that down into the facets of putting, long game, etc. But it can't have any special power for predicting major wins given that the ShotLink stats are not even collected in the majors.

Still, to a great extent the guys who lead the Tour in scoring for a given year are the same guys who tend to rack up Tour wins and major wins that year. And this analysis points out the fact that "guys who lead the tour in scoring" have a stronger tendency to hit better long approach shots than their tendency to do other things well.

[Tony_Muldoon]

It seems to me that people are taking up contrary positions more than they need to.


Surely those who believe that golf courses should be designed from the green back can see that the better shot maker will more often end up closer to the pin, and therefore they should show better results with their short game?  Statistics do seem to bear this out but a no of people on this thread don’t seem to have read or tried to understand them. It seems to me that the features that are celebrated for challenging the player’s short game may be at least equally important in challenging the long game.  It’s not either or.

How this relates to non PGA players?
I was a 12 (12.4) and embarked on a radical swing overhaul, went to 13.2 but now I’m seeing some results and I’m a 12 once again (11.7) but happier that I've better potential now.  During this period I’ve actually done less practice than before on my short game.  However now that I am capable of hitting it more consistently I have noticed that I am getting “up and down” more often.  In fact this is the most satisfying part of my game giving me new pleasures I only occasionally knew before (still only once or twice a round). This would seem to tie in with the idea that my better ball striking leaves my misses in better positions, or at least nearer, allowing me more success with my short game.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

For some reason, my scores seem to be lower when I make putts. Go figure.

Not if your drives go OB or in water hazards 

Golf is unique in that it requires proficiency in a number of sub-categories in order to produce better scores and mastering all of those sub-categories on the same day seems to be the overwhelming challenge.

And once you experience one of those good days, your pursuit of more of them is unending.

What a great game.

[BCowan]

''ShotLink stats are not even collected in the majors.''

So this data doesn't include majors?  How did 2 time US Open Champion Lee Janzen pan out the years he won Opens?  As Scott Hoch said 10+ years ago, the week in and week out tour stop rough is shorter than it used to be and set up for lower scoring.  Bomb and Gouge isn't really implemented in 3 of the 4 majors.  

Tony,

    I, like yourself improved my ball striking 14 years ago, and I found that the feeling of more solid shots improved my outlook (mentally), which resulted in more up and downs (even from slightly harder spots).  I used to miss it straight and short and give myself easier up and downs, but mentally I was so pissed at the constant un-solid shot, my short game was worse.  I understand this is prob opposite of others who improved their game, I am interested in solid contact.  Hitting 5 or 6 greens is a grind on the short game.  I think mental outlook is very undervalued, which I think can't be collected in data.  So a big piece of the puzzle is missing IMHO.  

[Jon Wiggett]

Jon,

So your purely speculative It Seems Like This To Me description of Tom Watson's game can not be adequately countered by the actual scores of every Tour player in every event over a period of a decade?

I'd suggest in that case nothing on earth could ever "adequately counter" your cherished belief system.

Why are you even bothering to engage in a discussion of this stuff since your own ideas are completely unshakable and you have no desire to validate them against reality?

Brett,

I do not have an unshakable view but I do have an opinion which I am allowed to air. Please explain how the scores of every tour player counters it.

Jon

[Tony_Muldoon]

''ShotLink stats are not even collected in the majors.''


Tony,

    I, like yourself improved my ball striking 14 years ago, and I found that the feeling of more solid shots improved my outlook (mentally), which resulted in more up and downs (even from slightly harder spots).  I used to miss it straight and short and give myself easier up and downs, but mentally I was so pissed at the constant un-solid shot, my short game was worse.  I understand this is prob opposite of others who improved their game, I am interested in solid contact.  Hitting 5 or 6 greens is a grind on the short game.  I think mental outlook is very undervalued, which I think can't be collected in data.  So a big piece of the puzzle is missing IMHO.  

Brian I wasn’t really thinking along those lines but I do agree on mental outlook. I’ve long felt that when I’m confident about my putting, I play better and look forward to the next game more eagerly. Naturally this corresponds with periods where I score better but it’s equally possible the greater confidence in putting comes about as a result of hitting it closer to the hole. Because I don’t log that I would naturally feel that it was my putting that improved.

 Yes confidence is important but because it’s intangible it would be hard to figure it to a discussion of this kind.

[A.G._Crockett]

Jon,

So your purely speculative It Seems Like This To Me description of Tom Watson's game can not be adequately countered by the actual scores of every Tour player in every event over a period of a decade?

I'd suggest in that case nothing on earth could ever "adequately counter" your cherished belief system.

Why are you even bothering to engage in a discussion of this stuff since your own ideas are completely unshakable and you have no desire to validate them against reality?

Brett,

I do not have an unshakable view but I do have an opinion which I am allowed to air. Please explain how the scores of every tour player counters it.

Jon

Jon,
There isn't any way to "counter" the example of Tom Watson, because he is one player.  The stats would be misused by anyone who tried to use them to predict or explain what has happened in the career of one player.  I think we all understand that for one player, the aging process, personal issues, changes in practice habits, and a host of other variables can change that players results.

What the data shows, and pretty conclusively, is that there is a much, much higher correlation between ball-striking/long game performance and scoring than there is for short game and putting stats.  That won't tell you who will win the US Open next month, and it won't tell you what will happen to Jordan Speith's career over the next 20 years.

But it WILL tell you that statistically the best way to play good golf, day in and day out, year in and year out, is to get the ball from the tee to somewhere on or near the green in as few strokes as possible, and when you miss greens to miss them in the correct places, rather than relying on a magical wedge game and a hot putter. 

While this seems to be stating the obvious, the amount of misunderstanding and refusal to accept it as true (especially in light of the mountain of statistical data that supports it) is pretty amazing. 

[BCowan]

''While this seems to be stating the obvious, the amount of misunderstanding and refusal to accept it as true (especially in light of the mountain of statistical data that supports it) is pretty amazing.''

  Jon, thanks for using a Constant (Tom Watson).  The mountain of statistical data doesn't include majors, which are set up totally different (bomb and gauge isn't rewarded)  Do the all pro's play the same courses, no.  Tiger, plays usually the toughest ones.  When you have soft greens week in and week out there is no reward for playing wise golf.  Also no data for mental game, but it is enjoyable to listen to the ''obvious''. 

[A.G._Crockett]

Wow, this thread has really run along. I have only skimmed most posts due to quantity but still do not agree that it is the long game that is decisive. The Watson example still has not been adequately countered. Trying to prove which part (long/short game) is the most important is like trying to decide which arm is the important one. It really takes both. All tour players have great long games but when you look at players of the past it is ALWAYS the short game that goes leading to their demise (well except maybe IBF who just lost it all). You get the yips with the putter (Peter Senior with the wedge) and players often lose their chipping but I am struggling to find a player who just lost their long game after a long period (5 years or longer) of being consistently good with it.

The long game is more automated therefore less mental so once learned is easier to maintain where as the short game is more feel and therefore mental and tends to desert us all in the end.

I will revise my earlier statement and say that both long and short game are equally important in deciding how well a top player preforms but it is the short game failing that leads to a players demise. Ergo, the short game is decisive in whether a player will perform well.

Jon

Jon,
The first sentence in your last paragraph is spot on; at the Tour level, the margin between success and failure is razor-thin, and ALL parts of the game play in to which happens to ONE player.  (I'll ignore the "ergo" part of the paragraph.)

But I think you are looking at what happens to putting for some players as they age and ignoring the fact that simultaneously things are happening to their long game, too.  The yips are obvious; losing some distance and having to hit longer clubs into greens is not so obvious.  Neither is a loss of accuracy.  Neither is getting tired more easily on the third or fourth hot day in a row.  Neither is the loss of confidence that comes with those other long game losses...

Baker-Finch is much, much too dramatic an example.  Almost everybody gets shorter off the tee as they age; at my club and yours, we move up a set of tees.  On the PGA Tour, they stop scoring as well because they can't carry hazards and have to lay up on par 5's, or they can't hit the ball high enough anymore, or they can't generate the same amount of spin they used to.

Since Watson has been mentioned so much, think about why he says he can't play Augusta well anymore, despite hitting the ball as cleanly as he ever did, while he is still competitive at the British Open.

I'm 61 now, and I don't putt like I did when I was 31, including a pretty serious battle with the yips.  But I don't hit the ball as far as I did when I was 31, either, and I can't draw the ball like I did then or hit it as high as I used to.  I almost never have to decide whether or not to go for it in two on a par 5, and there are an increasing number of par 4s that I have to play as if they were 5s.  And believe me, if I could have one or the other back, I'd take the length and the control of the ball flight and live with the current putting results in a heartbeat.

[David Ober]

''While this seems to be stating the obvious, the amount of misunderstanding and refusal to accept it as true (especially in light of the mountain of statistical data that supports it) is pretty amazing.''

  Jon, thanks for using a Constant (Tom Watson).  The mountain of statistical data doesn't include majors, which are set up totally different (bomb and gauge isn't rewarded)  Do the all pro's play the same courses, no.  Tiger, plays usually the toughest ones.  When you have soft greens week in and week out there is no reward for playing wise golf.  Also no data for mental game, but it is enjoyable to listen to the ''obvious''. 

So years ago I would agree with you, but the number of PGA Tour stops nowadays that have firm and fast greens is quite high. I'd say approaching 65 to 75%. Gone are the days when a regular Tour stop played easy. Just look at the scores of the Bob Hope to see what they shoot on "easy" courses (and even those courses aren't easy anymore!).

[Michael Felton]

One further thought to add. I think another reason for the misconception here comes about because the short game is the last bit that affects your score. Let's take a player who does this:

Hole is a 480 yard par 4
He hits his drive 300 yards down the middle of the fairway
He hits his approach from 180 yards 20 yards short and right of the flag, in the rough
He plays his chip to 8 feet
He misses his putt and makes 5

So the question is where did he mess up? Lots of people would suggest that he should work on his short game. Here is the strokes gained approach:

Tee shot should take 4.28 shots
Second shot should take 3.08 shots (so he gained 0.2 strokes with his drive)
Third shot should take 2.59 shots (so he lost 0.51 strokes with his approach)
Fourth shot should take 1.515 shots (so he gained 0.075 strokes with his chip) and he actually took 2 (so he lost 0.485 strokes putting)

So that's +0.2 with the drive
-0.51 with the approach
+0.075 with the chip
-0.485 with the putt

Let's suppose that on the next hole he plays it similarly, but this time makes the putt.

Now he's +0.2 with the drive
-0.51 with the approach
+0.075 with the chip
+0.515 with the putt

So his game, combined for the two holes is:

+0.4 with the drive
-1.02 with the approach
+0.15 with the chipping
+0.03 with the putting

He only got up and down 50% of the time. No doubt some people would therefore suggest that he work on his short game, but his short game is better than PGA Tour average from those two holes. The real problem was with his approach shots, which cost him over a stroke.

[Sam Morrow]

Talked to a tour winner yesterday and told him about this thread. He made a negative comment about it and said the only stat that matters is the one on the scorecard.

[Brent Hutto]

Talked to a tour winner yesterday and told him about this thread. He made a negative comment about it and said the only stat that matters is the one on the scorecard.

You could counter that scorecard means nothing. It's money list position.

Of course I could then counter that money list means nothing and it's major championship victories.

Then someone else could counter that majors mean nothing compared to be a good husband, a good father and a leader by example to young people everywhere.

All of which is a total non-sequitur in the current discussion.

[Brent Hutto]

Michael,

That's a good example of how the "analysis" works. As I said earlier it's not so much a predictive model as just a scale for counting up which parts of the game account for the scores in Tour players score. My own speculation is that the short game conventional wisdom fails to account for two things that are obvious is you examine the ShotLink scoring data...

1) The CW may not properly recognize how much variation there is in long approach shot skill among Tour players. Reading through the Broadie book it's pretty amazing (to me) just how much better a Tiger Woods is at hitting those shots than some other guys who have been on Tour for a similar amount of time. We see the good shots hit by the players who are in contention and we tend to remember only the really spectacularly good ones (which are more frequent among those in contention) and the really spectacularly bad ones (which tend to be under represented among those in contention). The full range of long approach shot results varies a lot, hole after hole, round after round, year after year.

2) More crucially the CW may not realize just how much difference in scoring entails from that variation in long approach shot results. I think the short-game true believers think if your short game is magical enough then it almost doesn't matter whether you hit a great 175 yard shot to ten feet or you hit a mediocre one that's in the rough 25 yards from the hole. A good short game ought to still get the ball up and down, or so goes the belief. In fact, for real-world short games among real-world Tour players you are pissing away a sizable fraction of a stroke with every bad 175-yard approach (or conversely you can save a sizable fraction of a stroke with a great 175-yard apporoach).

The biggest takeaway I get from the analysis presented by Broadie is that the world's greatest short game is not sufficient to overcome the strokes that a poor long-approach-shot player (let's say bottom quartile long approach player, by Tour standards) gives up to a Tiger Wood caliber player. I suspect if historical ShotLink type data were available it would have put Jack Nicklaus in that category. His long approach shot ability and putting ability combined to give him an insurmountable advantage over a typical Tour player. The fact some of those typical Tour players might be better chippers or bunker players than Nicklaus were a drop in the bucket by comparison.

Fort those who want everything to be discussed in terms of their childhood heroes, the Broadie book totally agrees with the proposition (as regards today's PGA Tour play) that people have always believed about Jack. When you hit the ball as well as he could from 180+ yards and you putt as well as he did once you were on the green there's just not much way to beat him. That formulation still holds in the Tiger Woods era.

[Sam Morrow]

Talked to a tour winner yesterday and told him about this thread. He made a negative comment about it and said the only stat that matters is the one on the scorecard.

You could counter that scorecard means nothing. It's money list position.

Of course I could then counter that money list means nothing and it's major championship victories.

Then someone else could counter that majors mean nothing compared to be a good husband, a good father and a leader by example to young people everywhere.

All of which is a total non-sequitur in the current discussion.

Or I could take more from a tour winner who has played on the Ryder Cup team. I swear it's like some of you people never leave your house

[Michael Felton]

Brent - I think it would be absolutely fascinating to have the level of detail available now for Jack back in the day and even for Tiger in 1999-2002 when he was so far ahead of everyone else. The final round of the 2000 US Open is on youtube and it's the easiest 67 you'll ever see on a US Open course. Just incredible golf and he holed a few putts, but he also missed a few. I would love to see the strokes gained analysis of that round versus everyone else in the tournament.

[Brent Hutto]

So what exactly is your point here Sam?

That you personally know a Tour winner and have conversations with him? And that makes you the coolest kid in the room by association? Or are you just pisisng on the discussion because you're having a bad day?

By the way, we are TALKING ABOUT THE NUMBER ON THE SCORECARD HERE. Did you even read the thread? Much of the discussion is about the scores that actual Tour players write down on their scorecard after their actual Tour rounds.

[A.G._Crockett]

Talked to a tour winner yesterday and told him about this thread. He made a negative comment about it and said the only stat that matters is the one on the scorecard.

I don't know how you characterized the thread to him, nor what he knows about Dr. Broadie's research.

But if he won on Tour, he has an extraordinary long game and an extraordinary short game by ANY reasonable standard; nobody would argue otherwise.

And, of course, he's right that the number on the scorecard is the bottom line.  The thread, of course, is about what correlates most closely with that number on the PGA Tour over a full season for all players.  And on THAT, the research is clear.

[Sam Morrow]

So what exactly is your point here Sam?

That you personally know a Tour winner and have conversations with him? And that makes you the coolest kid in the room by association? Or are you just pisisng on the discussion because you're having a bad day?

By the way, we are TALKING ABOUT THE NUMBER ON THE SCORECARD HERE. Did you even read the thread? Much of the discussion is about the scores that actual Tour players write down on their scorecard after their actual Tour rounds.

who said I was having a bad day? I picked the brain of an expert on the subject and passed along his thoughts.  What's wrong with that?

[Brent Hutto]

Well OK then.

Thank you for your input.

[A.G._Crockett]

Brent - I think it would be absolutely fascinating to have the level of detail available now for Jack back in the day and even for Tiger in 1999-2002 when he was so far ahead of everyone else. The final round of the 2000 US Open is on youtube and it's the easiest 67 you'll ever see on a US Open course. Just incredible golf and he holed a few putts, but he also missed a few. I would love to see the strokes gained analysis of that round versus everyone else in the tournament.

Similar story for Miller's 63 at Oakmont, which is arguably considered to be the greatest single round of ball striking in golf history.  Miller has said many times that if somebody who could really putt had been putting for him, the number would have been 60 or below.  He had a 3 putt on the front nine and lipped out for birdie on both 17 and 18, and took 29 putts in all.  BTW, he hit all 18 greens on a day when there were three other scores in the 60's in the entire field.

[George Pazin]

Talked to a tour winner yesterday and told him about this thread. He made a negative comment about it and said the only stat that matters is the one on the scorecard.

At the risk of annoying my good friend Brent, who is also a stat man par excellence, definitely better than scratch, I will second this comment.

I haven't read Broadie's book - yet, I will at some point because I'm a geek - but I will speculate that he is using season long or event long compiled stats.

Golf is a very unique sport, at least among those I follow (apologies if pro squash is like this, Mike Sweeney, I don't follow it ). The very best golfers win an incredibly small amount of the time (except for Tiger, which is why he's the best ever, screw everyone who says Jack!!! And I'll fight Dan Jenkins on Ben Hogan - Jenkins is really old, I can totally kick his butt).

It makes little sense to compare bulk compiled stats (sorry Brent, don't know the technical term) to individual's stats in a sport where it merely takes 4 good days from a hot golfer to win. That's where golf has changed in recent years - there is a financial incentive to go for everything, because someone else is going to, and you only need to win every now and then to be set for life (and that's an understatement). Tiger's famous first swing change was so that he could pursue Jack's record - he knew he'd win every now and then when he got hot (ala Rory), but to have a real shot at Jack's 18, he needed to be in the hunt every major.

If you look at a guy like Rich Beem, his total stats are going to be weak. But for 4 days in Maryland, 4 days in Colorado, and 4 days in Minnesota, he was a Goddamn worldbeater!! What matters about him was his performance in those events, not the many others where he was less than impressive.

I honestly can't think of a comparable sport, where wins by the best are relatively "rare". I suspect there is a gigantic, gaping hole in Mr. Broadie's analysis because of the unique nature of golf, but won't know for sure until I read his book. And make no mistake about it, I think Mr. Broadie's goal is to sell books, not to truly examine the game, even if he truly believes he's correct in his analysis. And also make no mistake about it, I have no problem with that.

[Phil McDade]

George:

You know I couldn't let a post like that go by without a comment .

Two thoughts:

-- It's a good point about the relative scarcity of winning that comes with a sport like golf; maybe it's akin to soccer, where great goal scorers are thought to have good seasons if they put the ball into the net 16 or so times a season; I seen basketball players do that in one game, and the goal is much smaller!

-- But surely two decades of competitive play yields some trends, yes? You and I can argue about Jack and Tiger until the cows come home, but few would disagree they are probably the two best -- and certainly among the five best -- to have ever played the game. Major wins, PGA Tour wins, scoring stats, record scoring at majors, performing under pressure -- both of those guys are without peer in most respects. There is maybe one player I can think of who you might call dominant over a period of several years and yet isn't acclaimed as one of the game's greatest (Norman), and that I'd argue had to do with his inability to hold it together under pressure situations.

-- I would argue the all-exempt Tour, and the huge cash infusion into the game post-Tiger, has made for fewer incentives for golfers to "go for everything," and pursue wins. If the goal is to be financially set for life, making cuts on the Tour week after week will do just fine. Sure, guys like Beem (and Bubba ) get hot for four days and look like world-beaters -- happens in most sports. But I think guys like Trevino and Tom Watson were able to stare down and beat the best golfer of all time in several majors because they came out of a tradition that valued winning more than the money. (Don't get me wrong; the guys on Tour now are on Tour because they are uber-competitive and better golfers than 99.8% of their brethren; I just think the financial incentives dull the senses a bit, and make them in the aggregate less likely to do something like catch Jack's record of 18 major wins. That's what made Tiger so unique -- he didn't care about the money; he mainly just wanted to steamroll everyone.)

Sorry, off track here -- long game still matters most. I'm with A.G.; I'd take back my distance lost any day of the week.

[George Pazin]

-- But surely two decades of competitive play yields some trends, yes? You and I can argue about Jack and Tiger until the cows come home, but few would disagree they are probably the two best -- and certainly among the five best -- to have ever played the game. Major wins, PGA Tour wins, scoring stats, record scoring at majors, performing under pressure -- both of those guys are without peer in most respects. There is maybe one player I can think of who you might call dominant over a period of several years and yet isn't acclaimed as one of the game's greatest (Norman), and that I'd argue had to do with his inability to hold it together under pressure situations.

Indeed it does. I just don't know if Mr. Broadie researched the proper trends. I will look into that.

Someday.

And you're totally wrong about the all exempt tour promoting mediocre play. I think it's much more likely the large dollars following an occasional win encourages guys to go for the win than simply making cuts and getting a paycheck. If you're a guy on the cusp, who do you aspire to emulate? Beem, with a major and a couple other wins, or Pernice? I'm betting most would say Beem. Heck, he was the subject of a book that probably endeared him to the stripper crowd.

Whether or not that strategy gets them there is another question entirely, but one for another day.

-----

I went to a local par 3 with my wife one time. On a course averaging maybe 70 yards a hole for 9 holes, I shot par for 9 holes, and I'm a bogey golfer on my best day. I don't know what that says, other than an easy par 3 is easy.