For the Statistic guys....What single PGA stat is most correlated with PGA tour wins?

[golfho50]

Lots of stats collected on PGA players (other than the obvious wins..lol) what single metric (scoring average?) is most correlated to wins on tour?

[SNIPERBBB]

Most likely it's SG Approach. Most of the winners in the current season are T50 or better there.

[Hawkeye77]

No idea, but even in Broadie's book I thought he conceded that best putter that week was often the winner.

[Christosterone]

Score

[toc]

I’m gonna go with dollars made

[Steele47]

> @Christosterone said:

> Score

 

LOL

[mjen43]

 

> @Hawkeye77 said:

> No idea, but even in Broadie's book I thought he conceded that best putter that week was often the winner.

 

The best putter of the group of players who are hitting it best. It’s virtually impossible to win losing strokes tee to green but players win with a neutral SG:putting all the time.

[jvincent]

> @golfho50 said:

> Lots of stats collected on PGA players (other than the obvious wins..lol) what single metric (scoring average?) is most correlated to wins on tour?

 

Scoring average would be the obvious one.

 

Way back before the SG stats were invented I ran a correlation exercise on the old time stats vs money. Not surprisingly the most positively correlated were GIR and total putts. Using the SG stats that probably map to SG approach and SG putting. Maybe SG tee-to-green which is the net effect of driving and approach.

[North Butte]

Are you talking about trying to find week-to-week correlations across the field?

 

Or correlations between, say, season average stats and season-ending money list (or FedEx points)?

 

The former is going to be cluttered by the noisiness of all stats derived from one player over just four rounds and especially by the randomness and high leverage of putting in a small sample of holes or rounds.

 

Even if you use Strokes Gained or some of Richie Hunt's favorite rank-based measures, it's hard to totally separate out the independent contribution of each element of the game. But to the extent you can, Broadie seems to generally think approach shot proximity (in Strokes Gained terms that's SG: Approach) will distinguish well between Tour golfers over the course of a season.

 

I tend to find that conclusion plausible. It's very hard to be a great enough putter (again, over a full season) to overcome being a mediocre approach-shot player (in Tour terms). But on a round-for-round basis it's almost a circular definition to observe that the guy who happened to get hot and 5-6 strokes better than the field in putting will shoot a low score for that round.

[Krt22]

SG Total

 

lol

 

[golfortennis]

Yeah in a given week, a guy will likely have a very high ranking in SG putting, but for the season, success is typically correlated to the approach shot. The closer to the hole you are, the better golf you play. Fairly common sense IFAM.

But I guess it also depends whether or not you want 1 win or 15 top 5s.

 

[Roadking2003]

> @jvincent said:

> > @golfho50 said:

> > Lots of stats collected on PGA players (other than the obvious wins..lol) what single metric (scoring average?) is most correlated to wins on tour?

>

> Scoring average would be the obvious one.

>

> Way back before the SG stats were invented I ran a correlation exercise on the old time stats vs money. Not surprisingly the most positively correlated were GIR and total putts. Using the SG stats that probably map to SG approach and SG putting. Maybe SG tee-to-green which is the net effect of driving and approach.

 

Total putts is the most useless stat in golf and often is highly misleading.

 

More GIRs almost always translates to more putts.

Fewer GIRs almost always means fewer putts.

The guys on the low end of the total putts chart frequently are just not playing well tee to green.

[jvincent]

> @Roadking2003 said:

> > @jvincent said:

> > > @golfho50 said:

> > > Lots of stats collected on PGA players (other than the obvious wins..lol) what single metric (scoring average?) is most correlated to wins on tour?

> >

> > Scoring average would be the obvious one.

> >

> > Way back before the SG stats were invented I ran a correlation exercise on the old time stats vs money. Not surprisingly the most positively correlated were GIR and total putts. Using the SG stats that probably map to SG approach and SG putting. Maybe SG tee-to-green which is the net effect of driving and approach.

>

> Total putts is the most useless stat in golf and often is highly misleading.

>

> More GIRs almost always translates to more putts.

> Fewer GIRs almost always means fewer putts.

> The guys on the low end of the total putts chart frequently are just not playing well tee to green.

 

I'm just reporting what the correlation analysis said.

 

At the PGA tour level low total putts is really a combination of putting and chipping ability.

 

When I did the analysis they didn't have nearly as many stats available as they do now and this was well before the strokes gained stats existed and they broke the stats down with finer granularity.

[Shilgy]

> @jvincent said:

> > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > @jvincent said:

> > > > @golfho50 said:

> > > > Lots of stats collected on PGA players (other than the obvious wins..lol) what single metric (scoring average?) is most correlated to wins on tour?

> > >

> > > Scoring average would be the obvious one.

> > >

> > > Way back before the SG stats were invented I ran a correlation exercise on the old time stats vs money. Not surprisingly the most positively correlated were GIR and total putts. Using the SG stats that probably map to SG approach and SG putting. Maybe SG tee-to-green which is the net effect of driving and approach.

> >

> > Total putts is the most useless stat in golf and often is highly misleading.

> >

> > More GIRs almost always translates to more putts.

> > Fewer GIRs almost always means fewer putts.

> > The guys on the low end of the total putts chart frequently are just not playing well tee to green.

>

> I'm just reporting what the correlation analysis said.

>

> At the PGA tour level low total putts is really a combination of putting and chipping ability.

>

> When I did the analysis they didn't have nearly as many stats available as they do now and this was well before the strokes gained stats existed and they broke the stats down with finer granularity.

 

_At the PGA tour level low total putts is really a combination of putting and chipping ability_. And number of greens hit. As @Roadking2003 stated. The fewer greens hit the more likely a pro is to have fewer putts. And even up and down percentage is tied in to ballstriking. The ability to miss in the right spot. or even more important the ability to not miss in the wrong spot.

[Roadking2003]

> @jvincent said:

> > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > @jvincent said:

> > > > @golfho50 said:

> > > > Lots of stats collected on PGA players (other than the obvious wins..lol) what single metric (scoring average?) is most correlated to wins on tour?

> > >

> > > Scoring average would be the obvious one.

> > >

> > > Way back before the SG stats were invented I ran a correlation exercise on the old time stats vs money. Not surprisingly the most positively correlated were GIR and total putts. Using the SG stats that probably map to SG approach and SG putting. Maybe SG tee-to-green which is the net effect of driving and approach.

> >

> > Total putts is the most useless stat in golf and often is highly misleading.

> >

> > More GIRs almost always translates to more putts.

> > Fewer GIRs almost always means fewer putts.

> > The guys on the low end of the total putts chart frequently are just not playing well tee to green.

>

> I'm just reporting what the correlation analysis said.

>

> At the PGA tour level low total putts is really a combination of putting and chipping ability.

>

> When I did the analysis they didn't have nearly as many stats available as they do now and this was well before the strokes gained stats existed and they broke the stats down with finer granularity.

 

I would like to see the data. When a pro misses a green, he has a better chance of (chipping on and) one putting than he does when he hits a green in regulation.

[dlygrisse]

Where is Richie Hunt, he would know.

If I were to guess I would say proximity to the hole on approach shots. Not that, that would always lead to a win, but week in, week out I'm just guessing that would make you one of the better players, unless you are just a horrible putter.

[Ty_Webb]

If you mean which general stat, then it's hard to get much past either adjusted scoring average or total strokes gained. If you mean specific small stat correlates to success on tour, I think Richie would say it's red zone shots (I think that's 175 to 225 approach shots). Proximity to the hole from that distance is where it's at. That's what Tiger was top notch at for 15 years.

[lowheel]

proximity

[Golfjack]

Yeah, long term it's red zone performance. Winners by week it's usually SG putting unless their strokes gained approach is off the charts.

[BlackDiamondPar5]

Calling @RichieHunt for the answer :)

[Llortamaisey]

I don’t know this for a fact, but other than scoring average, I would say week to week that Birdie to Bogey ratio would be the most correlated. For example, look at Nate Lashley this week in Detroit. 9 birdies to 0 bogies leading the Birdie to Bogey ratio, and the tournament.

[smashdn]

> @Hawkeye77 said:

> No idea, but even in Broadie's book I thought he conceded that best putter that week was often the winner.

 

^ Yep.

 

Something to the effect that SG Approach is indicative of how close you are hitting your shots to the flag, then when the flat stick is hot you capitalize on it and win.

 

I often wonder about that length of putts made stat. Commentators will reference it pretty often but not go into real detail about what it is actually telling us.

[Ty_Webb]

> @smashdn said:

> > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > No idea, but even in Broadie's book I thought he conceded that best putter that week was often the winner.

>

> ^ Yep.

>

> Something to the effect that SG Approach is indicative of how close you are hitting your shots to the flag, then when the flat stick is hot you capitalize on it and win.

>

> I often wonder about that length of putts made stat. Commentators will reference it pretty often but not go into real detail about what it is actually telling us.

 

I'm not sure it tells you all that much. Someone who holes 150 feet worth of putts is obviously having a pretty good day, but not all putts are created equal. If you hole one 37 footer, but miss three ten footers and hole them out from a foot, you have holed 40 feet worth of putts, but you're strokes gained is going to be roughly zero (up 1 and a bit for the 37 footer, but down about 0.4 for each of the ten footers). Compare that with someone who holes four ten footers. They're going to be up about 2.4 for those, but still only 40 feet of putts holed. If your 150 feet of putts holed is 18 putts around 8 feet each, you're having a killer day. If it's two fifty footers and a forty footer and a bunch of tap-ins, it's not so good. Especially if it's because you've missed a bunch. I think that's the issue with length of putts made. It doesn't show any impact for the putts that you miss. If you three putt from three feet, it will be virtually the same as if you hole the first one.

[RichieHunt]

Adjusted Scoring Average or Total Strokes Gained (basically the same type of metric) has the strongest correlation to winning.

 

As far as winning a particular tournament, it's usually a combination of SG - Tee to Green and putting (obviously).

 

Again, that's very obvious. If you want to look at individual events it's course dependent. Some courses have a lot of strokes lost/gained off the tee compared to other courses. Some courses stress long approach shots than others. Some have a combination of long approach shots and short approach shots. Some 3-wood play is important, etc.

 

But usually shots from 150-225 yards have the strongest correlation. A course like Harbour Town is more about 150-175 yards. A course like Augusta is more about shots from 175-200 yards. And of course, you have to putt well. But putting is very unpredictable metric.

 

 

 

 

 

RH

[JAMH03]

> @golfho50 said:

> Lots of stats collected on PGA players (other than the obvious wins..lol) what single metric (scoring average?) is most correlated to wins on tour?

 

Percentage of available $$$ won is a very useful stat.

OWGR's are useful

Adjusted scoring average or scoring average relative to peers might be some telling stats.

 

@"Ashley Schaeffer" Your thoughts?

[DavePelz4]

The fewest number of ex wives.

[KRAMER1997]

Score at the end of a 4 day tournament

[Lagavulin62]

Did anyone mention that stat about having the most popular caddie?

[syders]

male

[smashdn]

Worth bumping.