Do angles not matter?

[Tom_Doak]

GIR Percentage: 75.19% (they miss the green nearly 1/4 of the time, a lot of that's on the fringe, but sometimes it's rough or a bunker)

Just curious, is there an easily-available stat for how often a Tour player hits into a fairway bunker?  I assume "sand saves" are for greenside bunkers?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I'll try to digest and respond to the rest, but my "defensive" term was once you've driven it in the left rough (which is where this example had the guy aim, you are playing defensive because of a mediocre or poor lie half the time. The defense was from 50 yards with a shitty lie, no the driver.

Okay, I get the clarification…

But, Jim, that 50 yards from the rough scoring stat includes those bad lies. Why isn't the guy from 50 yards playing "offense"? Because he's in the rough? The stats say he's playing just as much offense as he is from 120, because they're scoring the same from those places.

The only other possibility might be to hit it to about 85 yards… but usually the two options are pretty clear cut, with just a sliding scale in between them connecting those two "endpoints."f

I suspect most guys would stand on that tee wanting to make birdie, and in developing a strategy, make birdie more often than any other. My issue is that it will absolutely result in more bogies which are more damaging mentally than a birdie is helpful mentally… on a hole like this.

Ah… I don't think you're right about that.

Again the median PGA Tour player misses the green from 120 yards more than you seem to think, and when they hit the green, they hit it to just over 20 feet, from which they have only about a 15% chance of making the putt.

Maybe this will make sense:
- 50-75 yards, rough: https://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.02362.y2019.html - median is about 23'.

It's about three feet farther away, which raises their expected putting from 1.87 to about 1.9. But… the stat is from 50-75 yards away. And you can say "yeah, 25 yards, that's all" but 75 yards is also 50% more, and that's going to have quite an impact.

So, players from 50 yards even in the rough are, IMO, being just as aggressive or conservative as players from 120.

For the average player, the numbers get even more separated: if you can get to 50 over 120, even if 100% of your shots are in the rough versus the fairway, take the 50. Average golfers don't play PGA Tour level rough very often.

I don't believe the statistics (what's actually happened) back up your claims of what is "absolutely" certain to happen. I think they suggest a virtual tie at best, and if we aren't talking about 100% scenarios of 50r vs. 120f, the gap begins to widen and favor the 50 as producing more birdies.


Edit to add this to Tom:

Just curious, is there an easily-available stat for how often a Tour player hits into a fairway bunker?  I assume "sand saves" are for greenside bunkers?

Publicly accessible? This is your best option:
https://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.01008.y2019.html - "The percentage of time a tee shot comes to rest in a fairway bunker (regardless of club) when the distance of the drive was determined by a laser." (The laser bit usually just means, say, a tracked round, so Torrey Pines North probably doesn't count, for example, as they don't always put ShotLink computers and infrastructure out on the alternative courses.

Rory led in hitting it into only 3.0% (with Webb Simpson), or 24 out of 796 times.

Technically sand saves are "The percent of time a player was able to get 'up and down' once in a greenside sand bunker (regardless of score). Note: 'Up and down' indicates it took the player 2 shots or less to put the ball in the hole from that point. (111)"

They have a category for "30+ yards" but the definition still says "greenside."

[JESII]

Erik,


While the averages of 50 yards in rough and 120 in the fairway are the same, the simple fact that you would make more birdies from 50 yards also means you would make more bogies...to end up with the same average.


I just looked for the clip and he name Scott Fawcett came up but I couldn't find the specific video I was thinking of.

[JESII]

https://youtu.be/ziCTTnmGPzU

I think this is it...the first couple minutes are the hole I was thinking of.

Now I have to watch it to see how bad my memory is today...

[Erik J. Barzeski]

While the averages of 50 yards in rough and 120 in the fairway are the same, the simple fact that you would make more birdies from 50 yards also means you would make more bogies...to end up with the same average.

Of course, but you've asserted that you're "absolutely" going to make more bogeys from 50. I don't think that's accurate. I think they're basically almost the same: the scoring average from 50r is the same as 120f, which is the strongest indicator of this, and the proximity numbers also back that up as well. Both plays, 50r and 120f, will result in about the same % of birdies, pars, and bogeys, I believe.

But remember, again, we're not talking about 50r versus 120f, because players are going to miss the fairway occasionally at 120 and hit it occasionally at 50. And that just shifts the balance in favor of the 50-yard shot. Ultimately, from 50 yards, the players will make more birdies and fewer bogeys.

https://youtu.be/ziCTTnmGPzU

I'll watch now and make a note if I have to change anything I've said based on your memory of the hole (which I suspect was better than you may have thought).

[JESII]

My assertion is simply that the strategy coaches suggesting driver is the only way to play that hole are only counting birdies because of the value of a top finish on Tour. They discount the mental baggage cause by bogeying an easy hole even if the 100 round scoring average is the same.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

My assertion is simply that the strategy coaches suggesting driver is the only way to play that hole are only counting birdies because of the value of a top finish on Tour. They discount the mental baggage cause by bogeying an easy hole even if the 100 round scoring average is the same.

I understand that, but you're still basing this on the (I believe mistaken) idea that you're "absolutely" going to make more bogeys from 50.

I think that:

• From 50r @ 100% and 120f @ 100%, you make virtually the same number of bogeys and birdies (and pars).
• Every little bit that 100% in either category changes (and it can only go in one direction), you increase the chances of birdie from 50 or bogey from 120, and decrease the chances of bogey from 50 or birdie from 120.

[JESII]

Didn't you post the averages as 2.83 from 50 yards in the rough and 2.85 from 120 in the fairway?

[Jeff_Brauer]

My assertion is simply that the strategy coaches suggesting driver is the only way to play that hole are only counting birdies because of the value of a top finish on Tour. They discount the mental baggage cause by bogeying an easy hole even if the 100 round scoring average is the same.

I'm not sure about that. First, the key to golf is to forget the last hole, especially if its bad.  If you can't do that, you aren't going to be very good anyway.  Bogey a hole, and then 5 more because you're teed off?  It does happen.


In reality, knowing the stats should be a comfort and aid to you playing right after a bad hole.  Instead of saying "I need a birdie, I'll be aggressive" which may be your mindset, but not the way to play the hole will be avoided by being less emotional.  It's sort of like people who sell off during a stock dip in panic, when the long term stats would tell them to stay in the market.


I am off the point I wanted to make.  Basically, it seems like everyone in the world bases their opinions of pros on the top guys they see every week.  And, the reason those top guys are in the lead is because they are on their game.  The rest of the tour guys are missing it much wider, driving it much shorter, etc.  Add the unrealistic opinion of just how good these guys are with a mindset that somehow the design shouldn't just challenge them in reasonable ways would make most of you very bad architects, at least IMHO.


I have had the chance of visualizing it, luckily.  Back in the 1995 Ryder Cup, Seve was benched and I followed him alone around the course (he was obviously avoiding other groups)  He could barely keep it on the golf course that day.  Similarly, Crenshaw was clanking his irons so bad you could hear it, and hit very few greens.  So, even the best are only the best a few weeks a year.  Their stats drop quite a bit outside those weeks.

[Rob Marshall]

I was there also. Seve tee to green was pathetic. He hit a tree about 50 yards off the tee on #5. Could have been one of the worst drives I've ever seen a pro hit in person. But............. he was hanging in matches with some amazing pitches. His short game was magical to watch.

[JESII]

Jeff, are you suggesting good players don’t let their emotions impact play? Or that they try not to...

[Edward Glidewell]

Most regular PGA Tour events put pins in flat spots on greens rather than near the edges of slopes, which may have an effect on this data. That's not to say they do it uniformly for all 72 holes, but typically speaking they set up the pins so that putts inside 5 feet are more or less straight from any side of the hole.

Obviously that's not the case for the majors, and it's probably not the case for some of the marquee events like the Players, the Memorial, etc. but that's the SOP for rank and file PGA events.

[Rob Marshall]

I thought that strokes gained was something new. It was actually created by Peter Sanders in the 1980's. I'm sure shotlink data has taken it to a new level.

[Greg Stebbins]

Jeff, are you suggesting good players don’t let their emotions impact play? Or that they try not to...

In reading the work of the work of the analytics guys, the "emotions" seem to manifest themselves in a surprising way.  Namely that situations such as a bad angle for the player or a hole location tucked next to a hazard will result in more conservative approach shots.  The conservative approaches result in smaller numbers of bogies or worse which narrows or even improves the stroke average of a bad angle vs. a good angle.

[Kalen Braley]

Still seems like the thread title is incomplete. Should say:


"Do angles not matter for the top .1% of golfers" ...cause it sure as shit matters for the weekend warrior, even if most of em either don't know it or can't execute well enough to do anything about it.

[Paul Carey]

Still seems like the thread title is incomplete. Should say:


"Do angles not matter for the top .1% of golfers" ...cause it sure as shit matters for the weekend warrior, even if most of em either don't know it or can't execute well enough to do anything about it.

That's pretty much it.

[Jason Topp]

Still seems like the thread title is incomplete. Should say:


"Do angles not matter for the top .1% of golfers" ...cause it sure as shit matters for the weekend warrior, even if most of em either don't know it or can't execute well enough to do anything about it.

That's pretty much it.

I would be interested in data either supporting or refuting this statement.  I do not have it but could argue that staying out of penalty or lost ball situations is so critical to higher handicap players that, in most cases, it makes angles less relevant. 


Imagine a hole with a nasty bunker short right of the green and the pin right. From the left side of the fairway, a higher handicap is still going to hit a bunch of balls in the bunker.  From the right side of the fairway, if that player aims short left of the green I think it is possible that player will score just as well as she would going for the green from the left side.  I am not sure the difference in score would be all that big.  It would be interesting to see what data actually shows.

[Garland Bayley]

Here's some data on Kalen having a bad angle leaving a bunker on his line to be cleared. His approach is 1) on the green 2%, 2) over the green 5%, 3) short of the bunker 13%, 4) well left 18%, 5) well right 27%, 6) in the bunker 35%.

When in the bunker 100% chance it will take 3 to get out, thereby earning the nickname, Sandman.

80% of those that got in the bunker would have bounced on the green had the bunker not been on his line.

[Kalen Braley]

Still seems like the thread title is incomplete. Should say:

"Do angles not matter for the top .1% of golfers" ...cause it sure as shit matters for the weekend warrior, even if most of em either don't know it or can't execute well enough to do anything about it.

That's pretty much it.

I would be interested in data either supporting or refuting this statement.  I do not have it but could argue that staying out of penalty or lost ball situations is so critical to higher handicap players that, in most cases, it makes angles less relevant. 

Imagine a hole with a nasty bunker short right of the green and the pin right. From the left side of the fairway, a higher handicap is still going to hit a bunch of balls in the bunker.  From the right side of the fairway, if that player aims short left of the green I think it is possible that player will score just as well as she would going for the green from the left side.  I am not sure the difference in score would be all that big.  It would be interesting to see what data actually shows.

Jason,


Given the wide variety of skill sets for mid to high cappers, i think finding data on this for those other than tour players may be difficult if not next to impossible.  In general thou, I would think most would want to avoid the bunker even if it meant missing the green in almost any other position (long possibly excepted, but most high cappers rarely go long anyways)


However, I think angles have bigger implications when there is water, OB, or ball-losing tall grass nearby.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

"Do angles not matter for the top .1% of golfers" ...cause it sure as shit matters for the weekend warrior, even if most of em either don't know it or can't execute well enough to do anything about it.

I think the percentage is much higher than that. 1-2% of golfers. Not much higher you say? By goodness, it's 10-20 times as many!   I don't think angles matter much (unless the ball is rolling) for most 5 handicappers and better. So probably upwards of 3-4%? I have no idea, but it's more than just "good pros," which is what I assume the 0.1% represents.

[Jim Sherma]

There seems to be two different conversations happening here:

• Good to excellent players that can expect to execute a given shot with a reasonable expectation of being relatively close to their intended target
• lesser players that either do not have a high expectation of being able to control distance and/or direction with regularity, or don't have the carry length to play an aerial game

For the first group angles matter when the greens are firm and there is a benefit either to having play along the length of the green to allow for run out, or there is benefit to landing into an upslope to help the ball stop quickly versus having the ball shed off the landing area due to landing on a down or cross slope. This situation is less about carrying any hazards around the greens rather than the greens themselves and their firmness.

For the second group angles matter for the hazards around the green and either tacking around them or trying to play away from and avoiding them. Firmness is less of the deciding factor for this group since their expectation is not to be aiming for a specific landing area on the green as much as for the green or bail out area itself. Also, internal contouring is less of a direct concern for this group as well as far as the approach shots are concerned.

To answer the question I posit:

For group 1 - they matter only when the greens are sufficiently firm and the architecture or the greens allow for the player to be better off by choosing and executing to the beneficial landing area given the day's pin placement.

For group 2 - they always matter up to the point that the player is understanding of their benefits and actually playing to minimize score. This is opposed to just going out, aiming at the flag and seeing what happens.

[Peter Flory]

GIR Percentage: 75.19% (they miss the green nearly 1/4 of the time, a lot of that's on the fringe, but sometimes it's rough or a bunker)

Just curious, is there an easily-available stat for how often a Tour player hits into a fairway bunker?  I assume "sand saves" are for greenside bunkers?

Not sure if this has been answered, but they keep a stat called "fairway bunker tendency"

Here is how last season looked:
https://www.pgatour.com/content/pgatour/stats/stat.01008.y2019.html

The best hit into a fairway bunker on 3% of their drives on holes with fairway bunkers.  The middle of the pack hit into one on 5.7% of the holes, and the end of the pack hit into them on 8% of the holes. 

Once in a fairway bunker, the average player on tour last year hit the green about 48% of the time.

So, if every single par 4 or 5 hole had fairway bunkers, the average PGA pro will end up missing 0.41 greens per round because of them (14 holes x .057).  And that doesn't even factor in that they may have missed the green anyway even if they weren't in the bunker.  So, maybe that goes down to something like .3 greens per round.  On those .3 greens missed, they'll give up and down about half the time say.  So, call it 0.15 bogeys per round caused by fairway bunkers if my reasoning is right. 

[Kalen Braley]

"Do angles not matter for the top .1% of golfers" ...cause it sure as shit matters for the weekend warrior, even if most of em either don't know it or can't execute well enough to do anything about it.

I think the percentage is much higher than that. 1-2% of golfers. Not much higher you say? By goodness, it's 10-20 times as many!   I don't think angles matter much (unless the ball is rolling) for most 5 handicappers and better. So probably upwards of 3-4%? I have no idea, but it's more than just "good pros," which is what I assume the 0.1% represents.

Erik

Even .1% is a pretty wide net.  For example in the US alone there are approx 24 million golfers, so .1% would still be the top 24,000 golfers in the country and include every pro and tens of thousands of the best amateurs.

But perhaps 1% for the top 240,000 is plausible too.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Not sure if this has been answered, but they keep a stat called "fairway bunker tendency"

Yeah I gave him the same stat up above. Post after his.

I appreciate the added numbers in the rest of the post.

And Kalen, yeah, I'm still comfortable with as high as 2%. But not 3-4 at all. That was a stretch.

[Kalen Braley]

Not sure if this has been answered, but they keep a stat called "fairway bunker tendency"

Yeah I gave him the same stat up above. Post after his.

I appreciate the added numbers in the rest of the post.

And Kalen, yeah, I'm still comfortable with as high as 2%. But not 3-4 at all. That was a stretch.

1% sounds like a better estimate, especially after learning there are approx 27,000 PGA Pros...even thou i do wonder how many on the business side keep their game in good shape.   

Either way, for the vast vast majority, its safe to say angles do matter, even if this discussion has mostly focused on the best of the best.

P.S.  I still say angles matter for all on 200+ yard approach shots...