Strokes Gained and Angles on the PGA Tour

[Kalen Braley]

Was watching JT layup on 10, and the commentators were saying the problem with laying up on 10 is you have to hit two perfect iron shots, as opposed to just hitting it somewhere down near the green and only having to hit 1 perfect chip/pitch to the pin.

Using Google earth to take measurements, while the layup shot from the tee is beyond my abilities, how hard is it for these guys to hit a iron with a 202 yard carry over the first bunker , but to stay short of the next bunker at 250 yards.  Perhaps its a lot more tricky this week with the amount of runout they're seeing?

The short 80-90 yard wedge shot from there speaks for itself as the green is only 9 yards wide in the rear where todays pin is.

[Kyle Harris]

I think the obvious non-sequitur to this entire argument is, since when are Tour Pros hitting long irons again?

Given the obscene distances they hit it now, most holes are Driver followed by 7 iron or less into the green.  Yes they do hit long irons on occasion for the par 5s, but the long par 3s are disqualified because they all start from the same place.

So angle matters on what...1-2 strokes over a typical 68-75 stroke round?

Well today’s 7iron is as close to an old long iron as it is to an old 7iron, for starters.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Was watching JT layup on 10, and the commentators were saying the problem with laying up on 10 is you have to hit two perfect iron shots, as opposed to just hitting it somewhere down near the green and only having to hit 1 perfect chip/pitch to the pin.

Using Google earth to take measurements, while the layup shot from the tee is beyond my abilities, how hard is it for these guys to hit a iron with a 202 yard carry over the first bunker , but to stay short of the next bunker at 250 yards.  Perhaps its a lot more tricky this week with the amount of runout they're seeing?

The short 80-90 yard wedge shot from there speaks for itself as the green is only 9 yards wide in the rear where todays pin is.

Yes, it's really just a tougher second shot if you lay up. The green slopes away AND it's shallow.

[David_Tepper]

Some tournament info on #10 at Riviera:

https://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2022/2/21/4-of-6-who-lay-back-at-rivieras-10th-make-a-birdie

[Jeff Schley]

Thanks David.  In short, right is BAD and left is better. Something I noticed is that back left bunker seems good, not a surprise probably as the green slopes into that position and a good place for middle back pins.

[Niall C]

Perhaps we could just agree that angles don’t matter very often on the PGA TOUR from week to week, but there are occasional exceptions (certain holes and certain major championship courses).


Perhaps we could also agree that angles matter more to non-Tour players with lower ball flight and less spin.

If we accept all that, and I see no reason not to, then why is Mike Cirba getting his knickers in a twist over the scoring at Riviera ? These guys play a different game so just let them get on with it and leave the course alone.


Niall

[Jeff_Brauer]

I have always wondered if strategy is really worth more than a stroke per round for anyone.  Or is the ball striking component really the biggest determinant of score?  With the corollary of, "Do we really over value strategy in architecture discussions?" 

[Jim Sherma]

Jeff - I think the Broadie-style dynamic programming acolytes would say that the returns to strategy are overwhelmed on any one shot or round. But, over time, playing strategically based on your individual stochastic tendencies will minimize your expected scores across repeated plays.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Jeff - I think the Broadie-style dynamic programming acolytes would say that the returns to strategy are overwhelmed on any one shot or round. But, over time, playing strategically based on your individual stochastic tendencies will minimize your expected scores across repeated plays.

This is true, of course, but…

I have always wondered if strategy is really worth more than a stroke per round for anyone.  Or is the ball striking component really the biggest determinant of score?  With the corollary of, "Do we really over value strategy in architecture discussions?"

At what level? I've helped people shave 2, 3, 5 shots from their scores with strategy. On the Tour it might be a shot per tournament, maybe even less. Maybe a bit more in some outlier cases.

The ballstriking is always going to be the biggest determinant (given a large enough sample size). Nobody would say differently, and the "strategy guys" aren't going to, either. But on the Tour, a shot a tournament can be big.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff - I think the Broadie-style dynamic programming acolytes would say that the returns to strategy are overwhelmed on any one shot or round. But, over time, playing strategically based on your individual stochastic tendencies will minimize your expected scores across repeated plays.

This is true, of course, but…

I have always wondered if strategy is really worth more than a stroke per round for anyone.  Or is the ball striking component really the biggest determinant of score?  With the corollary of, "Do we really over value strategy in architecture discussions?"

At what level? I've helped people shave 2, 3, 5 shots from their scores with strategy. On the Tour it might be a shot per tournament, maybe even less. Maybe a bit more in some outlier cases.

The ballstriking is always going to be the biggest determinant (given a large enough sample size). Nobody would say differently, and the "strategy guys" aren't going to, either. But on the Tour, a shot a tournament can be big.

Erik,


At what level do you save 2-5 strokes?  A player, B, C etc.? Honestly, I used to design for the A level player, who probably would hit shots successfully 66% of the time to 89% on tour level players, and believed, as Jim said, that over the course of a season, yes, strategy (and shot pattern types) would make a difference.  Any one round is too small a sample size.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

At what level do you save 2-5 strokes?

I've helped a mid-80s guy shave five strokes with strategy. (84-86 were his rounds counted for handicap before, and after his counting rounds averaged just over 80 from the same tees), but yeah, it's not going to be a good player. Nor can you do like Nicklaus said and take a guy who can't break 100 and have him shooting in the 80s regularly just via strategy.

Honestly, I used to design for the A level player, who probably would hit shots successfully 66% of the time to 89% on tour level players, and believed, as Jim said, that over the course of a season, yes, strategy (and shot pattern types) would make a difference.  Any one round is too small a sample size.

Yes, one round is WAY too small.

And the proper strategy is very elastic, because conditions and situations and so on are fluid. I saw discussion elsewhere that "the strategy guys don't ever change" but that's bull. It's just that you have to understand the strategy and expectations so you know when and how to be fluid or elastic.

[JESII]

What are you guys defining as strategy in this conversation?


Picking one side of the fairway over the other?


I think at the Tour level strategy bears out much better on their bad days...and on those days, it can save multiple shots as opposed to fractions of a shot.

[Peter Pallotta]

Has it really ever progressed much beyond/deeper than Nicklaus' primary philosophy-strategic goal of "eliminating one side [in his case, the left side] of the golf course"? And should it / does it need to progress any further than that, given that the strategy was sound enough to help secure 18 major championships?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Has it really ever progressed much beyond/deeper than Nicklaus' primary philosophy-strategic goal of "eliminating one side [in his case, the left side] of the golf course"? And should it / does it need to progress any further than that, given that the strategy was sound enough to help secure 18 major championships?

Uhhhh, yes.

And "eliminating one side" is bogus anyway.

[BHoover]

Has it really ever progressed much beyond/deeper than Nicklaus' primary philosophy-strategic goal of "eliminating one side [in his case, the left side] of the golf course"? And should it / does it need to progress any further than that, given that the strategy was sound enough to help secure 18 major championships?

Uhhhh, yes.

And "eliminating one side" is bogus anyway.

I always thought you had at least 19-20 majors in you. If only…

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I always thought you had at least 19-20 majors in you. If only…

You seem to have misread that. Or you're relying on a logical fallacy that because Jack won 18 majors, he's right about everything golf-related.

[BHoover]

I always thought you had at least 19-20 majors in you. If only…

You seem to have misread that. Or you're relying on a logical fallacy that because Jack won 18 majors, he's right about everything golf-related.

No, you seem to have misread me. What I am suggesting is that, in my humble opinion, you know the game well enough to have won more majors than Jack or Tiger. You may be far too humble to admit it…but I will.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

No, you seem to have misread me. What I am suggesting is that, in my humble opinion, you know the game well enough to have won more majors than Jack or Tiger. You may be far too humble to admit it…but I will.

Yeah, cuz… "knowing" the game and "playing" the game are exactly the same thing. Errrrr, wait.

[David Ober]

Has it really ever progressed much beyond/deeper than Nicklaus' primary philosophy-strategic goal of "eliminating one side [in his case, the left side] of the golf course"? And should it / does it need to progress any further than that, given that the strategy was sound enough to help secure 18 major championships?

Uhhhh, yes.

And "eliminating one side" is bogus anyway.

Eliminating one side is not really bogus. Good players do it all the time, but they do it by adjusting their aim/shape, rather than by changing their shotgun pattern. Everyone has a shotgun pattern. I've discussed this directly with Fawcett. It's a semantics thing.


In other words, if 100 below scratch golfers / pros play a golf hole with water right off the tee and not a single one hits it in the water all day because there's enough room left to not do so, and then you take 100 random 12-cappers and have them play the same hole, many of them will hit the ball in the water, no matter what they do or where they aim.


Effectively, the solid players/pros have "taken one side out of play" by completely eliminating the water ball off the tee. Some will do it by aiming farther left and hitting a cut/straight ball. Some will take it down the water line with a draw. But none of them will hit it in the water -- or maybe 1% to 2% depending on the hole.


I asked Fawcett, point blank, if he thought that if you took 100 pros and had they aim directly along a water line, could all 100 of them get the ball to miss the water left, and his answer was, "Yes." His further response though, was that they could not do that without expanding their left miss considerably in order to do so. And that's absolutely correct also.


But they did, still, "eliminate the right (water) side."

[David Ober]

"It's also a bad example, IMO, of saying "angles matter" because he's talking about "missing right" of the green versus missing left? Well no crap, but that's just a matter of short-siding yourself versus not"

"Miss left and you have the length of the green, plus fairway, left of the green. "Right" of the green you have nothing, including a lack of green depth (plus the slope is away from you)."

"It's not really about "angles" so much there as it is how much green you have to work with. It's about being short-sided."

"Yes, your tee shot is how you get short-sided (or not), but that's not really about "angles.""

Isn't that exactly about angles? It is in my view. From inside 50 yards, the balls right have a horrible "angle" to many pins on that shallow green. They also have short-sided themselves. And they scored higher. because of it. Being (truly) short-sided is absolutely about "angles," isn't it?


The pros don't care about angles unless they also don't have a reasonable amount of green to work with (and "reasonable" depends greatly on the green conditions). But if they don't have green to work with and the greens are firm, then the angle absolutely matters.


Put it this way: If "short sided" for a pro means he still has 7 - 10 paces of green to work with then they don't care about that either. They aren't really short-sided because they are so good it doesn't matter that they only 10 paces from fringe to pin and 22 paces on the other side even though that's "short-sided." In those cases "angles" don't matter at all to them!


Put yet another way: If the green at 10 Riv was another 5 - 7 paces deeper, then the "angle" wouldn't matter. But it is not 5 - 7 paces deeper, so it does matter.


It's a far more nuanced conversation than many want to make it.

[Tim Martin]

"It's also a bad example, IMO, of saying "angles matter" because he's talking about "missing right" of the green versus missing left? Well no crap, but that's just a matter of short-siding yourself versus not"

"Miss left and you have the length of the green, plus fairway, left of the green. "Right" of the green you have nothing, including a lack of green depth (plus the slope is away from you)."

"It's not really about "angles" so much there as it is how much green you have to work with. It's about being short-sided."

"Yes, your tee shot is how you get short-sided (or not), but that's not really about "angles.""

Isn't that exactly about angles? It is in my view. From inside 50 yards, the balls right have a horrible "angle" to many pins on that shallow green. They also have short-sided themselves. And they scored higher. because of it. Being (truly) short-sided is absolutely about "angles," isn't it?


The pros don't care about angles unless they also don't have a reasonable amount of green to work with (and "reasonable" depends greatly on the green conditions). But if they don't have green to work with and the greens are firm, then the angle absolutely matters.


Put it this way: If "short sided" for a pro means he still has 7 - 10 paces of green to work with then they don't care about that either. They aren't really short-sided because they are so good it doesn't matter that they only 10 paces from fringe to pin and 22 paces on the other side even though that's "short-sided." In those cases "angles" don't matter at all to them!


Put yet another way: If the green at 10 Riv was another 5 - 7 paces deeper, then the "angle" wouldn't matter. But it is not 5 - 7 paces deeper, so it does matter.


It's a far more nuanced conversation than many want to make it.

David-I agree and you explained it way better than I could have. How could being short sided not be about angles?

[Jeff_Brauer]

What are you guys defining as a strategy in this conversation?


Picking one side of the fairway over the other?


I think at the Tour level strategy bears out much better on their bad days...and on those days, it can save multiple shots as opposed to fractions of a shot.

It can work both ways, i.e., saving shots when aggressive.  I flew with Lanny Wadkins once, and the entire two hour discussion was about how much more aggressively he played Riv (and won) when his game was on, taking advantage of certain features like the speed slot on 5.  When he was off a bit, he just played conservatively and accepted a 70+ score was most likely that day.


I think with increased tee shot distance, it is true that angles matter less.  However, the architectural question is other than a tournament course once or twice in a round, how many courses should have a green 5-7 yards deep that the average Joe can't hit, can't hold, and probably can't hit the correct side of the fw to make sure he has the best angle?

[Michael Felton]

Has it really ever progressed much beyond/deeper than Nicklaus' primary philosophy-strategic goal of "eliminating one side [in his case, the left side] of the golf course"? And should it / does it need to progress any further than that, given that the strategy was sound enough to help secure 18 major championships?

Uhhhh, yes.

And "eliminating one side" is bogus anyway.

Eliminating one side is not really bogus. Good players do it all the time, but they do it by adjusting their aim/shape, rather than by changing their shotgun pattern. Everyone has a shotgun pattern. I've discussed this directly with Fawcett. It's a semantics thing.


In other words, if 100 below scratch golfers / pros play a golf hole with water right off the tee and not a single one hits it in the water all day because there's enough room left to not do so, and then you take 100 random 12-cappers and have them play the same hole, many of them will hit the ball in the water, no matter what they do or where they aim.


Effectively, the solid players/pros have "taken one side out of play" by completely eliminating the water ball off the tee. Some will do it by aiming farther left and hitting a cut/straight ball. Some will take it down the water line with a draw. But none of them will hit it in the water -- or maybe 1% to 2% depending on the hole.


I asked Fawcett, point blank, if he thought that if you took 100 pros and had they aim directly along a water line, could all 100 of them get the ball to miss the water left, and his answer was, "Yes." His further response though, was that they could not do that without expanding their left miss considerably in order to do so. And that's absolutely correct also.


But they did, still, "eliminate the right (water) side."

I 100% agree that this is semantics, but I don't think when people talk about eliminating one side they are talking about eliminating it on a specific hole. I think the issue comes about because people describe it as eliminating one side of the course when what they really mean is eliminating one side of your body lines. If you always hit it straight or fade it, then you can aim at the left edge of the fairway on 18 at TPC Sawgrass and not be concerned about the water. If you fade it and draw it and you don't know which one's coming, then you've got a 2 way miss and that option on 18 at Sawgrass isn't there anymore. What it really comes down to though is it means your shotgun pattern is bigger.


Drives me crazy when people post on Twitter about how DJ isn't eliminating one side because his miss percents are like 20% left rough and 20% right rough. He's not eliminating one side of the course. He's eliminating one side of his pattern, which means he can make it smaller. IMO of course


I feel quite confident that the miss right percentage on 18 at Sawgrass is waaaay higher than the miss left percentage. Just means they're aiming down the right side. Left half of pattern is in the fairway, right half is in the rough/trees.

[David Ober]

Has it really ever progressed much beyond/deeper than Nicklaus' primary philosophy-strategic goal of "eliminating one side [in his case, the left side] of the golf course"? And should it / does it need to progress any further than that, given that the strategy was sound enough to help secure 18 major championships?

Uhhhh, yes.

And "eliminating one side" is bogus anyway.

Eliminating one side is not really bogus. Good players do it all the time, but they do it by adjusting their aim/shape, rather than by changing their shotgun pattern. Everyone has a shotgun pattern. I've discussed this directly with Fawcett. It's a semantics thing.


In other words, if 100 below scratch golfers / pros play a golf hole with water right off the tee and not a single one hits it in the water all day because there's enough room left to not do so, and then you take 100 random 12-cappers and have them play the same hole, many of them will hit the ball in the water, no matter what they do or where they aim.


Effectively, the solid players/pros have "taken one side out of play" by completely eliminating the water ball off the tee. Some will do it by aiming farther left and hitting a cut/straight ball. Some will take it down the water line with a draw. But none of them will hit it in the water -- or maybe 1% to 2% depending on the hole.


I asked Fawcett, point blank, if he thought that if you took 100 pros and had they aim directly along a water line, could all 100 of them get the ball to miss the water left, and his answer was, "Yes." His further response though, was that they could not do that without expanding their left miss considerably in order to do so. And that's absolutely correct also.


But they did, still, "eliminate the right (water) side."

I 100% agree that this is semantics, but I don't think when people talk about eliminating one side they are talking about eliminating it on a specific hole. I think the issue comes about because people describe it as eliminating one side of the course when what they really mean is eliminating one side of your body lines. If you always hit it straight or fade it, then you can aim at the left edge of the fairway on 18 at TPC Sawgrass and not be concerned about the water. If you fade it and draw it and you don't know which one's coming, then you've got a 2 way miss and that option on 18 at Sawgrass isn't there anymore. What it really comes down to though is it means your shotgun pattern is bigger.


Drives me crazy when people post on Twitter about how DJ isn't eliminating one side because his miss percents are like 20% left rough and 20% right rough. He's not eliminating one side of the course. He's eliminating one side of his pattern, which means he can make it smaller. IMO of course


I feel quite confident that the miss right percentage on 18 at Sawgrass is waaaay higher than the miss left percentage. Just means they're aiming down the right side. Left half of pattern is in the fairway, right half is in the rough/trees.

THIS^^^^

[David Ober]

Has it really ever progressed much beyond/deeper than Nicklaus' primary philosophy-strategic goal of "eliminating one side [in his case, the left side] of the golf course"? And should it / does it need to progress any further than that, given that the strategy was sound enough to help secure 18 major championships?

Uhhhh, yes.

And "eliminating one side" is bogus anyway.

Eliminating one side is not really bogus. Good players do it all the time, but they do it by adjusting their aim/shape, rather than by changing their shotgun pattern. Everyone has a shotgun pattern. I've discussed this directly with Fawcett. It's a semantics thing.


In other words, if 100 below scratch golfers / pros play a golf hole with water right off the tee and not a single one hits it in the water all day because there's enough room left to not do so, and then you take 100 random 12-cappers and have them play the same hole, many of them will hit the ball in the water, no matter what they do or where they aim.


Effectively, the solid players/pros have "taken one side out of play" by completely eliminating the water ball off the tee. Some will do it by aiming farther left and hitting a cut/straight ball. Some will take it down the water line with a draw. But none of them will hit it in the water -- or maybe 1% to 2% depending on the hole.


I asked Fawcett, point blank, if he thought that if you took 100 pros and had they aim directly along a water line, could all 100 of them get the ball to miss the water left, and his answer was, "Yes." His further response though, was that they could not do that without expanding their left miss considerably in order to do so. And that's absolutely correct also.


But they did, still, "eliminate the right (water) side."

I 100% agree that this is semantics, but I don't think when people talk about eliminating one side they are talking about eliminating it on a specific hole.

If they aren't, they should be! Because golf is a series of individual game/challenges that are played One. Shot. At. A. TIME.


Skilled players miss into trouble (hazard, OB, deep/penal bunker) and short-side themselves far, far, far less often than unskilled players.


To me, this is the essence of "taking one side out of play."


Edited to add:


How one does this is very individual, but part of the equation is learning to understand the "shotgun pattern" that Fawcett is so big on. It's also about learning to calm one's mind and focus when uncomfortable, etc.