Hey Strokes Gained guys... driver vs putter

[Hawkeye77]

Correct.

[wagolfer7]

I suppose you can look at it that way.
I do not believe I ever refuted anything. Nor did I say he was wrong or anything in that sense.
I was simply discussing a topic on a public forum. And @bluedot actually got me to see it differently.
I like to think for myself and discuss my own thoughts. I never said I was right or anyone was wrong. I thought the whole point of this place is to have discussions and debates on golf subjects.

[Krt22]

How else are we supposed to interpret this statement "I don't count on whatever data he is using for amateurs"? This is absolutely the place for debate. But SG is a data based methodology, so when you are debating against something you have yet to read/understand, it becomes a bit contrived. Which is exactly what the book is about, using a data based approach vs opinion/hunch/anecdotal approach. My one answer to most replies in any of the threads that get into SG, is simply read the book yourself. As @bluedot said, it is wildly misinterpreted/misunderstood, largely by those who have not actually read it.

[WhatWouldPhilDo]

My disaster rounds typically dont come from awful putting. It typically comes from not being able to get off the box. Now if you want to score low, you are going to need both. Easier to make excuses with putts than drives ;)

[wagolfer7]

Your right. Bad statement by me.

[bluedot]

Ok, with all due respect, I'm going to dispute this, at least a little bit.

Broadie says VERY early in the book (Chapter Two, in fact) that winners on Tour tend to do EVERYTHING better than the field that week, including putting. But he takes the difference between winners and the rest of the field and breaks down the contributions of the various aspects of the game as far as what each contributed to winning on a percentage basis; putting on average accounts for 35% of the difference between the winner and the rest of the field. Which means, of course, that 65% of the difference is off green shots.

Broadie points out that there are guys that win on Tour because of their putting, but he also shows that there are guys who win IN SPITE of their putting.

In fact, it isn't all that uncommon for the winner of a Tour event to putt WORSE than the field average; Singh is the poster child for this, which just means that from tee to green he was spectacular in those weeks, but there are others like Bubba Watson and Sergio Garcia, too.

The book uses a particular period of time for the analysis, and the two biggest winners during the period, not surprisingly, were Tiger Woods and Phil Mickelson, with Vijay Singh third. All three of those guys ranked in the bottom quartile of putting performance relative to other tournament winners; all three putted well enough to win, but what separated them was what they did tee to green.

[SNIPERBBB]

Case in point, Duffner nearly won a tournament last year if his yips didn't get him in the end.

[Barfolomew]

Lots of great responses.... The data Broadie presents makes sense. Shorter putts are way better then longer ones so hit good approach shots which are dependent on good drives..... and the biggest difference between Scratch golfers and Pros isnt putting..... and dont have unrealistic putting ideals like 1 putting from distance so you're putting skills are almost good enough at some point and a 2 putt is just fine.

 

I get that BUT lol..... I never practice driver even though it is one of my strengths lol and I love bombing the ball out there... its fun as heII. I might hit a few warm up shots once and a while but prefer to work on 120 yards and in...

 

Broadie might JUST be presenting data but that is not the full story about golf!! It's up to us to use that info correctly as we are all different. Golf is primarily a mental sport once you reach a certain physical level. When I say miss a drive I dont mean OB I mean on the wrong part of the fairway or in rough. There is a lot of room to miss driver and be sloppy with it and still get it out there 280-330 and be balling..... it does not have to be pin point accurate as the putter needs to be. Many people think that when they miss a putt under the hole they only missed by an inch when infact they missed a high side putt by 5 inches so it was way worse then they think.... catching the bottom of the cup is not a good putt. To me putting is the foundation of my game and it MAKES ME FEEL WAY MORE CONFIDENT stepping on the first tee with it tuned up vs driver cause if I miss the power fade and comes out straight and Im on the wrong side of the fairway I still got a good chance at birdy or tap in par but if I miss that 6 footer it's way worse cause mentally the foundation of sealing the deal is weak, like a closer in baseball. I just wasted all that good play. But it takes me much more practice to feel great about my putting then driver. Its like putting is a high maintenace Ferrari that needs attention vs an old muscle car that doesnt cause sloppy still works....

 

When I yam a drive out there and its not perfect I still jump in the cart with my partner saying lets get that bird but when I miss a putt under 10 foot there's no jumping in the cart lol ...maybe I should really practice the heII out of driving and see what's the difference to my game

[Krt22]

He doesnt just present the data, he presents the data such that you can formulate your approach to practice and play in general to improve in a measurable manner. Read the book yourself, get a SG app, and start collecting data on your game. Putting is absolutely my strength as well, I started collecting the data which largely confirmed my beliefs, in turn I spend very little time practicing putting. You also may largely be under-estimating your driving ability if you are routinely cranking it out there 280-330 and your big "miss" just ends up in the rough, making it easy to turn your eye to putting. But that is the entire point of the book, using the data to quantitatively identify your strengths and weaknesses, instead of using subjective reasoning.

[OrangeGravy]

The only caveat to getting better at putting within a certain range is that you are only realistically going to improve to a level similar to a scratch or tour player, which isn't far off from most golfers as it is and it's all dependent on having a lot of putts in that improved range. What if that improved player only has 2 putts in that range during the round? Small sample size and he could still miss both depending on where those putts are, above the hole with break? I agree improvement is easier and quicker, but I think the improvement ceiling is capped way lower than improving in just about any other area. Truly horrible putters, like blowing 12 ft putts 7-10ft past the hole consistently, is a separate category that requires immediate attention.

[OrangeGravy]

Maybe you have unreal expectations with respect to make % on putts in the 7-10ft range? Are you at present holing the same % as a tour pro or scratch golfer? If so, you need to work on your mental game and not let that missed putt weigh on you so much, considering you already make as many as you should?

[SNIPERBBB]

The thing I mainly take from the SG stuff is the course management implications.

 

The what you should practice really shouldn't take a genius to figure out what you need to work in for YOUR GAME after a round or two.

 

If you only hit the green from 120 in two out of 8 times, you might want to work on your short approaches as that cost you at least six strokes.

 

If you 3 putt or worse multiple times a round or your putting in general doesn't give your self chances to make any putt outside gimme length, spend some time on the putting green.

And so on and so forth.

[LeftDaddy]

I’ll ask you guys to do a thought exercise.

Scenario 1: you and a tour pro play a course and you guys always take his drive and his approach into the greens. After that, it becomes a putt-off. You each putt from the same spot initially, but your score for the round is the tour pros driving and approaches plus your putts. His is his driving and approach shots plus his putts. How different do you think the scores would be?

Scenario 2: you and a tour pro play another 18 holes, except this time neither of you putts. You just take an expected value of putts from the distance you are on once you reach the green. But your score is the number of strokes it took you to reach the green plus the mathematically calculated # of putts, and his score is strokes it took him to reach the green plus mathematically calculated putts. Remember, there is no difference in this scenario in putting skill, but there may be a difference in number of putts due to proximity. Also remember that most of you are only hitting a handful of GIRs a round and the tour pro is hitting most of them. And he likely has no OBs off the tee, whereas I know I’m good for 1 or 2 or more of those per round.

And just to make it more fun, imagine this at 6500 yards, then at 7500 yards.

[Hawkeye77]

Fair enough and my response was too generalized, haven't looked at that book for years. So what the heck, I looked at it.

A couple of interesting quotes for me:

This one from the overall pro tourney results he used . . .

"The 1.5 fewer putts taken by winners compared to the field accounts for 40% of the 3.7 fewer overall strokes that separate winners from the field."

You are referring to "PCV", which doesn't seem all that much different to me.

This one pretty much sums it up when taking about winning on Tour . . .

"Putting contributes more to the elevated play of winners than it contributes to the top golfers performance in all of their tournament play."

Now if putting is 40% of the "explanation", yes that leaves 60% for strokes gained off the green, which is driving (some say overvalued by Broadie but no need to get into that), iron play and wedge play, so yes all of those things combined are "more important" in a way, but that's the totality of each of those areas. So yes, vs. "everything else" putting explains less, no surprise there.

 

How do ams get better? Like someone said, just figure out what you need to improve. Stats are fun, some people love them, some obsess over them, but I don't need to plug in data and have something come up with some SG calculation to know what I need to work on - others may have some kind of revelation I guess.

The idea that ams don't need to worry about putting as much (some would say) is silly for most mid to high handicappers - don't look at the pro numbers, they don't cross compare at all. They are WAY better putters than ams and ams who can improve their putting will see improvement. Can they? It depends, just like it depends whether certain ams can improve their driving or long game. Totally agree that you have to improve ballstriking and other areas of play overall to make long term and significant gains, and Broadie agrees with that and even he says it isn't one size fits all.

Now, can you establish a baseline and track relative improvement without worrying about whether you hit "x" number in any category using strokes gained? Sure. Maybe that's its more useful application for ams.

 

 

 

[trilerian]

Best rounds of golf that I have had have come from exceptional iron play, and great wedge play, combined with not getting in trouble off the tee. Not getting in trouble, just meant no blocked approach shots. Tee shots didn't need to be long, but I don't play long courses either. Great wedge play for missed greens gets the ball within 5' of the cup, and exceptional iron play just means lots of GIRs. I did have 1 round with 27 putts, my wedge was on fire that day! This is a fact for me, put me on a course that plays 6500 yds, and It will add 10 strokes to my scorecard over 6000 yds. I'm horrible off the tee. I play with my father a bit, he hits his 7i 150 yds total distance, I carry my 7i 170 yds. He consistently out drives me.

[xmanhockey7]

It’s a numbers game. The closer a player gets to the hole the less number of shots it takes them to get the ball in the hole and the closer they get it to the hole. The closer the putt the less often they 3 putt and the more often they 1 putt.

The problem with your example is we’re looking at one single event. Anything can happen on one random hole. A player can hole out from 100y and effectively be down in 1 from 100y but that’s an anomaly. Now, if we look at what did 100 players do over 100 rounds we can start to get a good idea of what happens on average from there.

Said another way hit 100 “bad” drives. Then hit 100 “good” drives. Play out the stroke average for both. I bet the average score for the good drives is better than the bad. You’ll have good drive holes where bogey or double is made, but likely fewer than the bad. The bad drives you’ll make birdies and pars, but not as often as the good drives.

[smashdn]

"When I yam a drive out there and its not perfect I still jump in the cart with my partner saying lets get that bird but when I miss a putt under 10 foot there's no jumping in the cart lol ...maybe I should really practice the heII out of driving and see what's the difference to my game"

 

If you are bummed out by missing most ten footers then you have unrealistic expectations on your putting performance. That is a key takeaway from the book. Analyze your game relative to what the very best players in the world are performing at. If you are only missing half of the ten footers you attempt you are putting at better than world class.

[wagolfer7]

Ok I found the stats I was looking for in his book. This is the area I think there is a slight argument with putting.

Also to note, I don't think it's fair to compare putting stats from PGA tour players to 90 players. The course is different. My handicap doesn't translate to the courses they play. I would not be a + handicap on those golf courses. And yes the putting is a total different ball game. It is much more difficult to putt on 12-13 speed greens. Not to mention the pin locations and slope of the greens they play on.

3 Ft - PGA 96% - 90's - 87%

4 Ft - PGA 86% - 90's - 67%

5 Ft - PGA 77% - 90's - 51%

6ft - PGA - 67% - 90s - 41%

Just looking at that. You'll miss 20% more putts from 4FT than a PGA player. How many times do you have a 4FT putt in a round? I think it shows that most likely a player loses 3-4 strokes a round in the 3, 4 and 5 FT range. I also believe that if the stats from PGA players were from normal courses like we play on, then the gap would be even bigger.

And just because the numbers are smaller - I don't think that means that a PGA player putting isn't that much better than amateur golfers. They are much better putters than amateurs.

 

[Krt22]

I not sure the gap would be bigger if the pros were putting on muni greens. Yes there are certainly some PGA tour stops were the greens are crazy fast and undulating, but they are also incredibly smooth, consistent, and roll true. If they were always putting on bumpy/slow muni greens I think their make percentage would actually go down, since a lot of those short to mid-range putts are just as much skill as they are luck, not to mention the speed variation from green to green that is all too common at many public courses. I know for sure I putt better on my clubs fast greens than I do at the public courses around here (one of the reasons I joined)

[DLev45]

This was the topic of conversation in another thread yesterday re: Dahmen’s 58 at a regular joe course.

You put a group of 10 tour pros on a 6,500 71/131 course that us mortals play, and they are all likely to shoot in the 60s, but that doesn’t mean you’re going to see a bunch of 65s or below because the putting is so different compared to what they are used to.

Absolutely perfect line/speed putts don’t always go in on these courses. And their normal stroke for a 30 footer on your might leave them 10 feet short on the local track.

 

[wagolfer7]

I respectfully just disagree. I think since putting seems so simple, people will knock down the skill necessary to be a good one.

I don't think bumpy greens would cause too many misses in the 3ft, 4ft, or 5ft range. As well as inconsistent speeds.

Do you feel you putt better since moving to your club? I did the same thing, specifically for the greens as well. And I feel like my putting has improved since moving there. And when I go to slower greens, I still put well. Straight is straight. And 5ft or less, there is a larger margin of error for speed.

[SNIPERBBB]

I can tell you in the last two weeks s since our greens got punched, a lot of those 3-6ft putts, especially if they are supposed to break, have been missed. My one putt percentage is way off.

[wagolfer7]

LOL well punched greens are a different story. As well as any other extreme of really bad surfaced greens.

I just meant in general standards of a decent public course. Greens may be a little slow and hop a little. But I don't think it causes a ton of misses.

[Krt22]

You are welcome to disagree. 3ft is largely the same and honestly not where most ams are missing strokes, but the 4-10 foot range it def plays a role IMO. I was already a pretty good putter and keep most of my stats. I've dropped ~1.5 putts per round (on avg) and very rarely 3-putt at my home course, while I practice putting very little. When I do 3-putt its typically on a multi-tiered green putting from the wrong level from 40+ft

For the public courses around here the green speed delta can be huge (most are Poa), it varies from day to day and green to green. The ball absolutely rolls more true and holds its line on smooth/fast greens, it must since slow greens by default have longer grass with more inconsistencies in the surface.

[torbill]

This is an easy answer for me.

Any day when I have a number of 30+ foot lag putts is not going to be a great day, and I don’t need a complex analysis to understand it.

The explanation is simple. How did I get to a 30+ foot putt, to begin with? Mostly I got there because I was scrambling. And why was I scrambling? I was scrambling because I was in serious trouble. And why was I in serious trouble? Because I hit a bad drive. Sure there are times when I will hit it long and down the middle, then hit a bad approach shot. But this is the exception.

I could be the next coming of Tiger Woods and I would have very few one putts from 30+ feet. OTOH, I would have to be a pretty terrible putter to mess up a round when I am 10-15 ft with my approach shots.

For me the tee shot is the most important shot in golf, and it isn’t even close. I am old and the tee shot becomes even more important to me as I get older. I need to maintain good distance, or I have no chance to get close to pins, even if I keep it in the fairway. I play with a lot of excellent golfers who are in their 60s and 70s and the notion that you can continue to be a low handicap player with good chipping and putting is nuts. I have never seen it, ever - you lose your tee shot and you are not going to play golf as a 5 or better, I don’t care how good your chipping and putting are.

[LeftDaddy]

Went and played a handful of holes after work today. This situation popped up multiple times for me.

1st hole - GIR - 3 putt bogey. I was mad and thought “what a loser... I just wasted a full stroke with a 3 putt on the 1st green”. EXCEPT, I had a wedge in and missed above the hole. My first putt was a great putt but just kept rolling and rolling. So did my putter cost me a full stroke? Or did my wedge cost me a fraction of a stroke?

3rd hole - tee shot OB. 4th shot to green wide right. Pitch on and make a good 2 putt for a 7. So the OB tee shot cost me essentially two strokes. And the poor 8 iron cost me almost another. The poor pitch cost me a fraction too.

5th hole - perfect drive in fairway. Blade a 7 iron miss green short left. Blade a pitch across green and into OB. Pitch twice from there to get back on the green. Three putt for a 9 (haven’t had one of those in a looong time...fun). So yeah, I 3-putted. But that only cost me a fraction of a stroke. I’d take the bogey there any day of the week. But poor iron shot and short game cost me the other 4 strokes.

It is just really hard for poor putting to cost you several strokes on a hole. But poor driving and poor iron play definitely can. The 3-putts in retrospect weren’t so bad.

Now, I will just summarize all of this and say that I need to focus on a lot of things of course, but iron play is clearly #1 on that list and will always be until I can get more consistent with it. Yes, my putting was poor too...but in the examples I gave only cost between 1 and 2 strokes (vs say 2-3 for poor irons, 2-3 for poor short game, 1-2 for driver).

I settled down a bit after that. No more 3 putts. Driver got mostly better. But irons were still too inconsistent. I’ll focus on my swing with my irons for now, as that is the thing that drives my score more than anything. I’ve broken 80 3 times, and each time my GsIR were much higher than usual.