Why isn't there a stronger correlation between fairways hit and GIR?

2

Comments

  • McCann1McCann1 Tour Player Members Posts: 1,723 ✭✭
    edited Nov 25, 2018 #32
    shoot4par wrote:

    McCann1 wrote:


    You don't get it. It has been proven closer in the rough is similar if not better than further away in the fairway.




    On a really difficult golf course id rather be in the fairway, having an idea on how my ball will react on the green then further in the rough (case in point Oakmont, Bethpage, (Tournament conditions, FAST greens)) (IMHO). Also one can't offer an opinion like that without statistical evidence (who are we even talking about- tour players? quality amateurs?).
    the courses you mentioned are US Open courses. That’s an anomaly. we are also talking about tour players. The guys OP was talking about when he noticed fairways hit and GIR aren’t directly correlated. I would go and bring statistical evidence but I’m too lazy to go on pgatour site and look up the evidence again. I already went over it with my coach when we talked about how improving fairways hit was less important than trying to gain 5mph clubhead speed and working on proximity with wedges. I believe Mark Broadie, the creator of the strokes gained statistic, wrote a book explaining in further detail
    Enjoy the chase.
  • jvincentjvincent Members Posts: 494 ✭✭
    edited Nov 25, 2018 #33
    McCann1 wrote:


    I believe Mark Broadie, the creator of the strokes gained statistic, wrote a book explaining in further detail




    Broadie's book, Every Shot Counts, was a pretty thorough analysis of scoring on the PGA Tour and the research was the basis for the Strokes Gained stats.



    In a nutshell, the statistics showed that over the long term being closer was better than being in the fairway. There are a few things that people forget about his analysis;



    1. It's a long term statistical analysis of PGA Tour shotlink data so there will be specific scenarios (6" rough or knee high fescue) where the results aren't valid.



    2. To properly do strokes gained, you need to be comparing a pretty decent set of data to average out effects like weather, different green complexes, etc.
  • Hawkeye77Hawkeye77 Countdown to The Masters! ClubWRX Posts: 17,366 ClubWRX
    jvincent wrote:

    McCann1 wrote:


    I believe Mark Broadie, the creator of the strokes gained statistic, wrote a book explaining in further detail




    Broadie's book, Every Shot Counts, was a pretty thorough analysis of scoring on the PGA Tour and the research was the basis for the Strokes Gained stats.



    In a nutshell, the statistics showed that over the long term being closer was better than being in the fairway. There are a few things that people forget about his analysis;



    1. It's a long term statistical analysis of PGA Tour shotlink data so there will be specific scenarios (6" rough or knee high fescue) where the results aren't valid.



    2. To properly do strokes gained, you need to be comparing a pretty decent set of data to average out effects like weather, different green complexes, etc.




    And the am data was very limited and the results for pros don't necessarily translate into as many meaningful conclusions or recipes for ams for a number of reasons.



    Still, for tour pros, longer generally better off the tee and McCann is correct about GIRs (and he ought to know).
  • lowheellowheel LOWHEEL Members Posts: 5,983 ✭✭
    McCann1 wrote:


    shoot4par wrote:


    Drivers ideally hit slightly on the upswing, irons are normally leaned and hit down on... Just a thought. I'm a good driver of the golf ball who doesn't hit the irons particularly well from a GIR perspective.




    I understand the mechanical differences between a driver and iron swing. For me, the more fairways I hit, the easier it is for me to hit greens. Maybe I should start keeping a better record of my fairway/GIR ratio.
    that doesn't matter. This year my fairways hit would've ranked me around 60th on tour but I was ranked 4th in GIR. Why? Because when I hit it 320 I usually missed the fairway but I was hitting SW into the green when most of my playing partners hit 8i or more. Yes being in the fairway certainly helps, but there's a point where you're so close to the green it doesn't matter. You should keep track of strokes gained vs outdated Fairways, Greens, Putts imo




    Im guessing you also had better angles into the green as well a good majority of the time.You are absolutely right about the short irons.Pelz did that study of pro golfers and theyre better off with a wedge in their hands even out of the rough. The advantage falls in the 25%+ range or gir.Thats a significant advantage on the field.
  • PGAroxPGArox Posts: 10,288 ✭✭
    edited Nov 25, 2018 #36
    As it relates to the PGA TOUR (which is what the OP referenced) the lack of correlation can be explained largely by three factors ... the set up of the courses, the length of the courses, and the distance players are getting off the tee.



    Most of these guys have nothing more than an 8 iron into the majority of par 4 greens, and coming out of very manageable rough, hitting a green in regulation just isn't a stiff challenge these days.



    If the courses on TOUR averaged 7,800-8,000 yards long, and the rough grown to four or five inches high, you would most certainly see a greater correlation.



    Not saying that I'm advocating such things. image/wink.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=';)' />
  • GIR is one thing but $$$ is made from the proximity stats.... for various reasons it's easier to hit the approach closer from the fairway than the rough....
  • 80sFredriksson80sFredriksson Posts: 457 ✭✭
    2018 Stenson nr 1 on both lists but I dont think there is really any point to look for corrolation between the two lists it just leaves way to many factors out
  • pinhigh27pinhigh27 Members Posts: 9,573 ✭✭
    bucky316 wrote:


    GIR is one thing but $$$ is made from the proximity stats.... for various reasons it's easier to hit the approach closer from the fairway than the rough....




    depends on how close you are from the rough vs fairway. obviously all things the same the fairway is easier.
    How to be in better shape for golf?
    Become a better athlete.
    Don't worry about golf specific.
    Compound lifts w/ linear progress
    Don't forget the mobility work.
    More results, more functional

    Spin is not your enemy, everything is a trade-off.
    17 * 1700 goes really far, but doesn't go very straight or consistent
    8* 3500 goes really straight, but doesn't go very far
    Answer for most is somewhere in the middle.
    Pga tour driver avg launch conditions: 11* 2700
  • McCann1McCann1 Tour Player Members Posts: 1,723 ✭✭
    edited Nov 25, 2018 #40
    pinhigh27 wrote:

    bucky316 wrote:


    GIR is one thing but $$$ is made from the proximity stats.... for various reasons it's easier to hit the approach closer from the fairway than the rough....




    depends on how close you are from the rough vs fairway. obviously all things the same the fairway is easier.
    exactly. Even if we’re talking proximity I would take my chances hitting it inside of your ball if I had 120 in rough vs you 175 in the fairway.



    When I play I’m more concerned with getting he best angle to the pin then I am being in the fairway. That’s what I spend most of my practice rounds doing. Finding what club to hit off the tee, where you can miss approaches etc are the easy parts. But where do I want to come into the green for certain pins? Sometimes that answer is in the rough. If the rough isn’t too bad sometimes I’ll aim towards it to a back pin so it will release towards the hole if I end up missing the fairway
    Post edited by Unknown User on
    Enjoy the chase.
  • rafalrafal Members Posts: 5,761 ✭✭
    No matter what the Commissioner tells you, there's no rough on the PGA Tour...
    TM M4 10.5* Matrix Ozik HD6 S
    TM M3 3W Matrix Ozik HD6 S
    TM M4 Rescue 3&4
    Titleist AP2 5-P PXi 5.5
    PING Glide 52*SS 58*WS 60*TS
    TM DLL+ 34.5"
  • OutBackHackOutBackHack Members Posts: 902 ✭✭
    shoot4par wrote:

    McCann1 wrote:


    You don't get it. It has been proven closer in the rough is similar if not better than further away in the fairway.




    On a really difficult golf course id rather be in the fairway, having an idea on how my ball will react on the green then further in the rough (case in point Oakmont, Bethpage, (Tournament conditions, FAST greens)) (IMHO). Also one can't offer an opinion like that without statistical evidence (who are we even talking about- tour players? quality amateurs?).




    It's not really about how difficult the course is, it's about how firm the greens are. If you are playing on firm, fast greens you had better be in the short grass... Reality is you can count on 1 hand how often the tour is played in those conditions.... Therefore, it's bombs away.
  • lowheellowheel LOWHEEL Members Posts: 5,983 ✭✭
    McCann1 wrote:

    pinhigh27 wrote:

    bucky316 wrote:


    GIR is one thing but $$$ is made from the proximity stats.... for various reasons it's easier to hit the approach closer from the fairway than the rough....




    depends on how close you are from the rough vs fairway. obviously all things the same the fairway is easier.
    exactly. Even if we're talking proximity I would take my chances hitting it inside of your ball if I had 120 in rough vs you 175 in the fairway.



    When I play I'm more concerned with getting he best angle to the pin then I am being in the fairway. That's what I spend most of my practice rounds doing. Finding what club to hit off the tee, where you can miss approaches etc are the easy parts. But where do I want to come into the green for certain pins? Sometimes that answer is in the rough. If the rough isn't too bad sometimes I'll aim towards it to a back pin so it will release towards the hole if I end up missing the fairway




    Yup its the only way i play in tournaments.I admire guys who grind it out and consistently leave themselves 165-175 in the fairway but i just cant score consistently that way. i feel like i leave 4-5 birdie chances out there if i dont do that.Practice rounds are used for that, where you can miss and whats the best angle coming in. If the green is concrete sure fairways are a premium but how often does that happen all year? very few jumpers and flyers today out of the rough. even without square grooves its almost a sure bet youre catching the green and having a putt at it. Hope the offseason is treating you well!! best of luck next year, keep up the great play
  • RichieHuntRichieHunt Members Posts: 3,606 ✭✭
    Because distance to the hole is majorly important.



    You can hit a mediocre shot from 130 yards and it is likely to end up closer to the hole than a better than average shot from 170 yards. That's a laying up scenario.



    But, when you take something like one player just being far longer than the other player, not only would the longer play be hitting from 130 yards, they could be hitting something like a SW due to their speed versus the shorter hitter may be hitting a 7-iron due to their lack of speed and it's just more difficult to find greens with a 7-iron than it is a SW.



    I run into this issue occasionally with Tour clients that are struggling with their short game around the green. They start to lay-up more often off the tee because they think they will find more fairways and that will translate into more GIR's and less short game shots around the green. Then I show them the math where that is actually false...that by laying up more often they will have more short game shots around the green because they will hit fewer greens.















    RH
  • SNIPERBBBSNIPERBBB Hit Ball Hard Members Posts: 2,068 ✭✭
    SurfDuffer wrote:


    The rough simply isn't deep or thick enough.




    As strong as many of the long ballers are...you'd need to make the rough about knee height.
    2016 M1 9.5 tuned to 7.5
    TM r15 3 wood
    Adams Idea Pro 2h/4h
    Mizuno JPX 900 HM 5-GW
    Vokey SM7 48* F Grind
    Vokey SM7 54* F Grind
    Vokey SM7 58* M Grind
  • Dave230Dave230 Posts: 3,748 ✭✭
    edited Nov 27, 2018 #46
    SNIPERBBB wrote:

    SurfDuffer wrote:


    The rough simply isn't deep or thick enough.




    As strong as many of the long ballers are...you'd need to make the rough about knee height.




    Depends on the course, some courses nowadays there's barely any rough, even less than for the average player, makes me think that they want the scores to be -20 to show 'these guys are good'. Then often the rough gets trampled by spectators. So you can get a situation where there's first cut, a very small patch of reasonable rough and then big patches of essentially first cut again when you go way off target.



    For me, there should be a greater reward for hitting fairways, that should be a fundamental aim of the game. You don't see it often enough these days.
  • fowlerscousinfowlerscousin Members Posts: 791 ✭✭
    People who hit a lot of fairways may not be aggressive enough on approach shots. I think par 3s might be the culprit here. The dudes who are short off the tee and hitting a lot of fairways may be suffering with 4 iron up thru the bag
  • farmerfarmer Members Posts: 7,778 ✭✭
    As you get to senior status, you will tend to value fairways more than you did as a youngster.
  • SNIPERBBBSNIPERBBB Hit Ball Hard Members Posts: 2,068 ✭✭
    edited Nov 27, 2018 #49
    farmer wrote:


    As you get to senior status, you will tend to value fairways more than you did as a youngster.




    See that in our men's league. I think there are only 2 or three guys 60 or older that are good enough to play as an A or B player as we play the ball down. Only reason one of those 3 plays AB is at 65+ he gets to play from the senior tees. Most of the rest of the seniors play as C and D players as that group plays preferred lies.



    Our course's rough is brutal and especially so this year as we had record rainfall and the mowers couldn't keep up and often the rough was 4-7 inches.
    2016 M1 9.5 tuned to 7.5
    TM r15 3 wood
    Adams Idea Pro 2h/4h
    Mizuno JPX 900 HM 5-GW
    Vokey SM7 48* F Grind
    Vokey SM7 54* F Grind
    Vokey SM7 58* M Grind
  • bladehunterbladehunter Today was a good day.... Members Posts: 25,007 ✭✭
    Dave230 wrote:

    SNIPERBBB wrote:

    SurfDuffer wrote:


    The rough simply isn't deep or thick enough.




    As strong as many of the long ballers are...you'd need to make the rough about knee height.




    Depends on the course, some courses nowadays there's barely any rough, even less than for the average player, makes me think that they want the scores to be -20 to show 'these guys are good'. Then often the rough gets trampled by spectators. So you can get a situation where there's first cut, a very small patch of reasonable rough and then big patches of essentially first cut again when you go way off target.



    For me, there should be a greater reward for hitting fairways, that should be a fundamental aim of the game. You don't see it often enough these days.




    It will never happen until they shrink the driver.
    TM Tour M6 11.2 * KK Tini XTS 70X
    TM Tour 17 M1 14.5* Graphite Design ADDI 8x
    Titleist Tour Proto MB 3-pw Modus 130X
    Ping Glide Forged   54 60 S400
    Cameron GSS 009 1.5 tungsten sole weights, sound slot
  • Smash FactorsSmash Factors Members Posts: 3,668 ✭✭
    It's because the guys who hit the most fairways aren't among the longest drivers on tour. Yeah, they hit a lot of fairways, but they're also a long way from the green compared to the guys who bomb it. So, they're going to miss more greens.



    There comes a point where a drive is so long that it doesn't matter that it missed the fairway. It's too easy to hit greens from there.
    Whatever driver happens to be working at the time
    Some random 3 wood
    My same, old irons
    A few wedges...
    Scotty Cameron Fastback
  • playaplaya Members Posts: 8,714 ✭✭
    SurfDuffer wrote:


    The rough simply isn't deep or thick enough.


    Yep, I'd bet you would see a correlation between a FIR and GIR at US Opens.
  • Ty_WebbTy_Webb Members Posts: 2,914 ✭✭
    I think what people are missing here is that the players who don't hit many fairways still hit quite a lot and they tend to be hitting it a long way too. The guys who hit a lot of fairways still miss a few and they tend to be shorter. In 2018 on the PGA Tour, first in driving accuracy was 75%. 55% was 174th. So that means on average 80% of the time those two people are hitting from the fairway or not the fairway. If the person hitting it 55% of the time hits it 30 yards longer, that's a huge advantage (1st and 174th in driving distance was 33 yards difference). 20% of the time he's hitting it from the rough while the other guy is in the fairway, but he's 30 yards closer, so he might be losing a fraction of a shot, but not a lot. The 80% of the time they are either both in the fairway or both in the rough, he's making up large fractions of a shot.



    If someone hits it 30 yards longer, but misses every fairway while the other guy hits every fairway, then yeah, hitting the fairway is better, but it doesn't work like that.
    Ping G30 9° Diamana white 63x
    Ping G30 3 wood Accra
    Titleist 714CB 2, 3, 4
    Titleist 714MB 5-PW
    Vokey 52 and 56
    Scotty Cameron Newport 2
  • McCann1McCann1 Tour Player Members Posts: 1,723 ✭✭
    playa wrote:

    SurfDuffer wrote:


    The rough simply isn't deep or thick enough.


    Yep, I'd bet you would see a correlation between a FIR and GIR at US Opens.
    you definitely would. But that’s an anomaly. OP was talking about averages for tour players over a season
    Enjoy the chase.
  • cxxcxx Members Posts: 3,059 ✭✭
    Ty_Webb wrote:


    I think what people are missing here is that the players who don't hit many fairways still hit quite a lot and they tend to be hitting it a long way too. The guys who hit a lot of fairways still miss a few and they tend to be shorter. In 2018 on the PGA Tour, first in driving accuracy was 75%. 55% was 174th. So that means on average 80% of the time those two people are hitting from the fairway or not the fairway. If the person hitting it 55% of the time hits it 30 yards longer, that's a huge advantage (1st and 174th in driving distance was 33 yards difference). 20% of the time he's hitting it from the rough while the other guy is in the fairway, but he's 30 yards closer, so he might be losing a fraction of a shot, but not a lot. The 80% of the time they are either both in the fairway or both in the rough, he's making up large fractions of a shot.



    If someone hits it 30 yards longer, but misses every fairway while the other guy hits every fairway, then yeah, hitting the fairway is better, but it doesn't work like that.




    Not sure I'm getting your percentages. Assuming independence (probably wrong as both are playing the same hole).



    Both in the fairway .75 *.55 = .41

    Both missed .25 * .45 = .11

    one hit other missed .75 * .45 = .34

    one missed other hit .25 * .55 = .14



    both either missed or both hit = .52 (80%?)

    one missed and one hit = .48
  • Ty_WebbTy_Webb Members Posts: 2,914 ✭✭
    cxx wrote:

    Ty_Webb wrote:


    I think what people are missing here is that the players who don't hit many fairways still hit quite a lot and they tend to be hitting it a long way too. The guys who hit a lot of fairways still miss a few and they tend to be shorter. In 2018 on the PGA Tour, first in driving accuracy was 75%. 55% was 174th. So that means on average 80% of the time those two people are hitting from the fairway or not the fairway. If the person hitting it 55% of the time hits it 30 yards longer, that's a huge advantage (1st and 174th in driving distance was 33 yards difference). 20% of the time he's hitting it from the rough while the other guy is in the fairway, but he's 30 yards closer, so he might be losing a fraction of a shot, but not a lot. The 80% of the time they are either both in the fairway or both in the rough, he's making up large fractions of a shot.



    If someone hits it 30 yards longer, but misses every fairway while the other guy hits every fairway, then yeah, hitting the fairway is better, but it doesn't work like that.




    Not sure I'm getting your percentages. Assuming independence (probably wrong as both are playing the same hole).



    Both in the fairway .75 *.55 = .41

    Both missed .25 * .45 = .11

    one hit other missed .75 * .45 = .34

    one missed other hit .25 * .55 = .14



    both either missed or both hit = .52 (80%?)

    one missed and one hit = .48




    Right, but the one missed and one hit will skew in favor of the longer hitter sometimes. Let's say it's 0.12 of a shot advantage to be in the fairway and 0.1 of a shot advantage to be 30 yards longer.



    A hits it longer and hits the fairway 55% of the time. B hits it shorter and hits the fairway 75% of the time.



    A hits fairway and B hits fairway 0.55 x 0.75 = 0.4125, giving A an advantage of 0.1

    A hits fairway and B misses fairway 0.55 x 0.25 = 0.1375, giving A an advantage of 0.22

    A misses fairway and B hits fairway 0.45 x 0.75 = 0.3375, giving B an advantage of 0.02

    A misses fairway and B misses fairway 0.45 x 0.25 = 0.1125, giving A an advantage of 0.1



    Average advantage to A is therefore: 0.4125 x 0.1 + 0.1375 x 0.22 - 0.3375 x 0.02 + 0.1125 x 0.1 = 0.076 of a shot per hole



    Compare that with just looking at it as if it's 80% of the time they're the same. These give A an advantage of 0.1 and 20% of the time B has an advantage of 0.02, so that's 0.8 x 0.1 - 0.02 x 0.2 = 0.076 of a shot per hole. It's because it doesn't matter if it's the same hole or not. If you miss a fairway and I hit a fairway, but then the next hole I miss a fairway and you hit a fairway, then, at least in my simplistic example, that has no impact on our scoring versus we both miss the first and we both hit the second.
    Ping G30 9° Diamana white 63x
    Ping G30 3 wood Accra
    Titleist 714CB 2, 3, 4
    Titleist 714MB 5-PW
    Vokey 52 and 56
    Scotty Cameron Newport 2
  • NPVWhizNPVWhiz Members Posts: 1,976 ✭✭
    edited Nov 28, 2018 #57
    I don't think this is all that complicated. Correlation is only interesting in this context if it signals or is evidence of a cause and effect relationship. That CE relationship has always been assumed, and was demonstrable without shotlink data from the 20s to the 90s. All you had to do was go watch a PGA Tour event during that time and you could see that players valued hitting fairways, and that players that didn't hit fairways generally scored worse and earned less. A number of factors today have diminished the cause and effect relationship, so the correlation is now lower. The simple translation is that it has become easier for the modern player to attain competitive proximities from the rough with a shorter iron. Strokes gained data should show a discrepancy between the "punishment" factor that should be associated with hitting it in the rough and the missing advantage that should be resident in the data for hitting it in the fairway. Most of it is in setup, but a good bit I'm sure is attributable to players today being more adept at hitting short irons from light rough. It's a skill that can be improved upon like any other skill. The penalty or punishment factor for being in the sand has also diminished over the years, in part due to course setup (the consistency and prep of the hazards...as though that should actually be of high importance), and in part due to an increase in the relative skill level that comes from focusing more on that type of shot. What is clearly lagging behind is a style of course setup that would offset some of these natural, expected changes. If players see an advantage in being better at sand play, they're going to work at it. If the Tour wanted to maintain some historical element of bunkers being penal, then the setup has to adapt and change as well. In reality, it would appear that isn't happening. The type of sand used is more consistent. The depths and prep are much better. Bunkers over time have become easier to play from, and players have become ever better at it. And so the penalty for being in one is diminished.



    Same for driving the ball. If the problem of diminished difficulty from the rough is never identified, then it will never be addressed. Especially if the modern attitude is that driving accuracy shouldn't be all that important as one of the skills that distinguishes good players from great players.
    Post edited by Unknown User on
    Taylormade r11s 9 Penley Stealth 70x 44.5" D-3
    > Taylormade 16 M1 8.5 GD AD TP6x 44.0" D3 PX Hzrdus Black 75 6.0 44.5" D-3
    Nickent 3DX Pro 14 MRC Diamana WB 83s
    Hybrid: Adams Idea Pro 18 Grafalloy CNote ProtoX
    Mizuno MP62 DG x-100 Sensicore D-4 3-pw
    > Ping i200 DG120 S3 D-3 +1/4" Red 4-U.
    Vokey SM6 56-14/60-04M DG x-100 Sensicore 1xss D-5
    > Vokey SM6 56/10 60/4M DG 120 S300 35" D-5
    Scotty Golo
  • imakaveliimakaveli Moli Moli Moli Moli Tommy Tommy Tommy Tommy... Members Posts: 12,543 ✭✭
    More or less the same reason why Europe walked away with the Ryder Cup image/wink.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=';)' />
  • cxxcxx Members Posts: 3,059 ✭✭
    edited Nov 28, 2018 #59
    Ty_Webb wrote:

    cxx wrote:

    Ty_Webb wrote:


    I think what people are missing here is that the players who don't hit many fairways still hit quite a lot and they tend to be hitting it a long way too. The guys who hit a lot of fairways still miss a few and they tend to be shorter. In 2018 on the PGA Tour, first in driving accuracy was 75%. 55% was 174th. So that means on average 80% of the time those two people are hitting from the fairway or not the fairway. If the person hitting it 55% of the time hits it 30 yards longer, that's a huge advantage (1st and 174th in driving distance was 33 yards difference). 20% of the time he's hitting it from the rough while the other guy is in the fairway, but he's 30 yards closer, so he might be losing a fraction of a shot, but not a lot. The 80% of the time they are either both in the fairway or both in the rough, he's making up large fractions of a shot.



    If someone hits it 30 yards longer, but misses every fairway while the other guy hits every fairway, then yeah, hitting the fairway is better, but it doesn't work like that.




    Not sure I'm getting your percentages. Assuming independence (probably wrong as both are playing the same hole).



    Both in the fairway .75 *.55 = .41

    Both missed .25 * .45 = .11

    one hit other missed .75 * .45 = .34

    one missed other hit .25 * .55 = .14



    both either missed or both hit = .52 (80%?)

    one missed and one hit = .48




    Right, but the one missed and one hit will skew in favor of the longer hitter sometimes. Let's say it's 0.12 of a shot advantage to be in the fairway and 0.1 of a shot advantage to be 30 yards longer.



    A hits it longer and hits the fairway 55% of the time. B hits it shorter and hits the fairway 75% of the time.



    A hits fairway and B hits fairway 0.55 x 0.75 = 0.4125, giving A an advantage of 0.1

    A hits fairway and B misses fairway 0.55 x 0.25 = 0.1375, giving A an advantage of 0.22

    A misses fairway and B hits fairway 0.45 x 0.75 = 0.3375, giving B an advantage of 0.02

    A misses fairway and B misses fairway 0.45 x 0.25 = 0.1125, giving A an advantage of 0.1



    Average advantage to A is therefore: 0.4125 x 0.1 + 0.1375 x 0.22 - 0.3375 x 0.02 + 0.1125 x 0.1 = 0.076 of a shot per hole



    Compare that with just looking at it as if it's 80% of the time they're the same. These give A an advantage of 0.1 and 20% of the time B has an advantage of 0.02, so that's 0.8 x 0.1 - 0.02 x 0.2 = 0.076 of a shot per hole. It's because it doesn't matter if it's the same hole or not. If you miss a fairway and I hit a fairway, but then the next hole I miss a fairway and you hit a fairway, then, at least in my simplistic example, that has no impact on our scoring versus we both miss the first and we both hit the second.






    Not sure what you are getting at here. But from the original post:



    "So that means on average 80% of the time those two people are hitting from the fairway or not the fairway. "



    doesnt' work.



    It does matter if the results are dependent and probably are, given that the two players are playing the same hole. Some are much easier than others to hit in the fairway. Without independence you can't just multiply probabilities to get the joint probability.
  • NPVWhizNPVWhiz Members Posts: 1,976 ✭✭
    imakaveli wrote:


    More or less the same reason why Europe walked away with the Ryder Cup image/wink.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=';)' />




    Je suis d’accord
    Taylormade r11s 9 Penley Stealth 70x 44.5" D-3
    > Taylormade 16 M1 8.5 GD AD TP6x 44.0" D3 PX Hzrdus Black 75 6.0 44.5" D-3
    Nickent 3DX Pro 14 MRC Diamana WB 83s
    Hybrid: Adams Idea Pro 18 Grafalloy CNote ProtoX
    Mizuno MP62 DG x-100 Sensicore D-4 3-pw
    > Ping i200 DG120 S3 D-3 +1/4" Red 4-U.
    Vokey SM6 56-14/60-04M DG x-100 Sensicore 1xss D-5
    > Vokey SM6 56/10 60/4M DG 120 S300 35" D-5
    Scotty Golo
  • delmerdelmer ClubWRX Posts: 439 ClubWRX


    2018 Stenson nr 1 on both lists but I dont think there is really any point to look for corrolation between the two lists it just leaves way to many factors out




    Stenson is a good example. He's got a 3 wood that he hits 295 and never misses a fairway and he might be the best mid and long iron player in the game. The two aren't relating because some guys are good iron players and some guys are good off the tee. Beyond that there are guys who hit driver at all costs to get closer to the green without worrying about playing from the rough.
2
Sign In or Register to comment.