3W vs Driver off the tee

[bladehunter]

i get that in theory...But i dont recall him hitting any ( or many) drivers all week.... Its like he pulled it to try for eagle on the 15th.... when two birdies coming in is the only realistic play...

id have to go back and see what he hit where..but if my memory is accurate i dont think he hit many.

 

On the 15th he hit driver pw for the second tee ball.... couldnt he have hit 2 iron 7 iron and had a statistically better shot at birdie over all? surely he doesnt hit 2 iron OB more than 1 out of 100 there ....and driver maybe 25% of the time...

[North Butte]

If we had legitimate round-by-round Strokes Gained-Driver stats it would be easier to draw conclusions. Strokes Gained-Off The Tee in today's elite Tour player game is hopelessly confounded by the fact that so many players are hitting non-driver anywhere from 2 or 3 to as many as 14 of the 14 "driver holes" in a typical round.

[bladehunter]

Im also genuinely shocked that he has a positive strokes gained driving overall..... surely that has to do with hitting it far less than others? as in stenson may have that stat too..but if he hit it more often i doubt it could ever be the case

 

If we had legitimate round-by-round Strokes Gained-Driver stats it would be easier to draw conclusions. Strokes Gained-Off The Tee in today's elite Tour player game is hopelessly confounded by the fact that so many players are hitting non-driver anywhere from 2 or 3 to as many as 14 of the 14 "driver holes" in a typical round.

 

 

oh so that 99% acccurate 2 iron is propping this stat up? lol

[North Butte]

We cant know because the club choice data is not available.

 

Someone asked George Carlin what taking Cocaine makes you feel like. He said, "It makes me feel like having some more Cocaine".

 

Doing sports analytics is kind of like that. Analyzing lots of very deep data makes us feel like we need more data!

[bladehunter]

gracious... i honestly did not know that .... makes several things make more sense. Kind of plays in with the modern driver marketing sham doesnt it?!

[Bye]

I don't really fully understand the strokes gained thing, but it's what gained on the field? Doesn't mean much if the guy that wins is significantly better...

 

And how many are better than TW from 5 iron in.

 

Stenson has shown that it is not vital to use a driver.

[pinestreetgolf]

but if my memory is accurate i dont think he hit many.

 

On the 15th he hit driver pw for the second tee ball.... couldnt he have hit 2 iron 7 iron and had a statistically better shot at birdie over all? surely he doesnt hit 2 iron OB more than 1 out of 100 there ....and driver maybe 25% of the time...

 

Yeah, he hits driver OB 25% of the time.

 

Your memory isn't accurate. Nobody's is. That's why golf is so hard.

[North Butte]

I don't really fully understand the strokes gained thing, but it's what gained on the field? Doesn't mean much if the guy that wins is significantly better...

 

And how many are better than TW from 5 iron in.

 

Stenson has shown that it is not vital to use a driver.

 

It means that Tiger's tee shots (from Par 4's and Par 5's) for the entire week were a certain number of strokes better than the average player's tees shots that week. Each tee shot is judged on a plus/minus scale depending on two factors: the length of the hole and where the ball ended up.

 

Ending up closer to the hole is better. Ending up in the fairway is better than in the rough is better than in the trees is better than in the water. And so forth. There's a lookup table that has every combination of distance and "situation" computed based on long-term PGA Tour averages. That table is used to compute the Strokes Gained for each shot, which is then adjusted slightly to account for the average performance of this week's field.

 

A guy named Broadie published an entire book on the subject. About Tiger specifically he goes on at considerable length about what made him SO MUCH better than "the field" back in his prime.

 

I'll give you the short version here. How Tiger hits 5-iron was a huge part of his advantage. In fact, Tiger's long-iron advantage was far, far more pronounced than anyone would have believed before Broadie's analysis came along. That was one of his most publicized findings.

 

Not only Tiger, he was the exemplar but many dominant players over the period of time covered by ShotLink data (basically since the turn of this century) have been prodigiously good at long approach shots, say 175-250 yards. Being one of the best in the world at hitting 175-250 yard approach shots is a more valuable commodity than being the best putter in the world or the best driver in the world (assuming of course that you're at least of aveage putting and driving and short game ability).

[Bye]

I don't really fully understand the strokes gained thing, but it's what gained on the field? Doesn't mean much if the guy that wins is significantly better...

 

And how many are better than TW from 5 iron in.

 

Stenson has shown that it is not vital to use a driver.

 

It means that Tiger's tee shots (from Par 4's and Par 5's) for the entire week were a certain number of strokes better than the average player's tees shots that week. Each tee shot is judged on a plus/minus scale depending on two factors: the length of the hole and where the ball ended up.

 

Ending up closer to the hole is better. Ending up in the fairway is better than in the rough is better than in the trees is better than in the water. And so forth. There's a lookup table that has every combination of distance and "situation" computed based on long-term PGA Tour averages. That table is used to compute the Strokes Gained for each shot, which is then adjusted slightly to account for the average performance of this week's field.

 

A guy named Broadie published an entire book on the subject. About Tiger specifically he goes on at considerable length about what made him SO MUCH better than "the field" back in his prime.

 

I'll give you the short version here. How Tiger hits 5-iron was a huge part of his advantage. In fact, Tiger's long-iron advantage was far, far more pronounced than anyone would have believed before Broadie's analysis came along. That was one of his most publicized findings.

 

Not only Tiger, he was the exemplar but many dominant players over the period of time covered by ShotLink data (basically since the turn of this century) have been prodigiously good at long approach shots, say 175-250 yards. Being one of the best in the world at hitting 175-250 yard approach shots is a more valuable commodity than being the best putter in the world or the best driver in the world (assuming of course that you're at least of aveage putting and driving and short game ability).

 

Thanks, I will have a look for the table. I have seen some of it but I have not really read up on it fully.

 

This is the point though, he is so good when he is in play that it must have to be a consideration to go to a strong 3 wood. At least for some of the events.

[Bye]

The report was that he has gone to a longer shafted driver as well. I'm not sure that will help.

[pinestreetgolf]

I don't really fully understand the strokes gained thing, but it's what gained on the field? Doesn't mean much if the guy that wins is significantly better...

 

And how many are better than TW from 5 iron in.

 

Stenson has shown that it is not vital to use a driver.

 

No, he hasn't. You have no idea how good Stenson *could be* if he wasn't hamstringing himself with a 3 wood all the time!

 

(You can't reach the conclusion he is helped by his 3 wood because his success in tournaments is about so many things *other than* his 3 wood that it could be hurting him and him succeeding despite using it, not because of using it.)

 

This is the point though, he is so good when he is in play that it must have to be a consideration to go to a strong 3 wood. At least for some of the events.

 

You are assuming that he is in play significantly more often with a strong 3 wood, and that its better to be in play farther away than in crap closer to the hole. Both of those are big assumptions.

[bladehunter]

but if my memory is accurate i dont think he hit many.

 

On the 15th he hit driver pw for the second tee ball.... couldnt he have hit 2 iron 7 iron and had a statistically better shot at birdie over all? surely he doesnt hit 2 iron OB more than 1 out of 100 there ....and driver maybe 25% of the time...

 

Yeah, he hits driver OB 25% of the time.

 

Your memory isn't accurate. Nobody's is. That's why golf is so hard.

 

 

I should have been more clear. I did not mean to say he hits Driver OB 25% of the time. I meant on that particular hole. And I will admit that that was an on purpose exaggeration. But 0B on that whole is extremely close on the left and any doublecrossed shot he hits with Driver is going to go out of bounds on that hole and that is his predominate miss when trying to hit a cut.

[North Butte]

Fact is, nobody here on GolfWRX knows how Tiger fares on average when he hits driver vs. other clubs off the tee. The data (as far as i can ascertain) is not available.

[Bye]

I don't really fully understand the strokes gained thing, but it's what gained on the field? Doesn't mean much if the guy that wins is significantly better...

 

And how many are better than TW from 5 iron in.

 

Stenson has shown that it is not vital to use a driver.

 

No, he hasn't. You have no idea how good Stenson *could be* if he wasn't hamstringing himself with a 3 wood all the time!

 

(You can't reach the conclusion he is helped by his 3 wood because his success in tournaments is about so many things *other than* his 3 wood that it could be hurting him and him succeeding despite using it, not because of using it.)

 

This is the point though, he is so good when he is in play that it must have to be a consideration to go to a strong 3 wood. At least for some of the events.

 

You are assuming that he is in play significantly more often with a strong 3 wood, and that its better to be in play farther away than in crap closer to the hole. Both of those are big assumptions.

 

 

It is clearly a mental thing with Stenson probably going back to the time when he couldn't keep driver on the course. Yes I am assuming, but so are you in saying that he would be even better if he hit his driver more often.

 

I personally think that 3 woods suits TW's swing/action more than driver so yes I am assuming that he will be in play more often, or even on the correct side of the hole. I think (assume) both would make it easier for him to score.

[bladehunter]

Fact is, nobody here on GolfWRX knows how Tiger fares on average when he hits driver vs. other clubs off the tee. The data (as far as i can ascertain) is not available.

 

 

Right. And I’ll add I’m not at all trying to compare “ skills”. I just see a mirror image ( relatively if course ) to my experience with the big stick. It giveth sometimes. But it taketh away more often. Or at least it taketh away at the most inoppertune times. As in under pressure. And I just wonder how many years must one stumble over Driver before it either clicks or you become the definition of insanity?

[ThinkingPlus]

so what say you guys on Tigers driver OB yesterday? Isnt it time he went Full Stenson and stopped fighting driver ? Not that he would have beaten rory in the end.. But just that Driver seems to cost more than it gains....

 

this is being discussed i the Tour talk section... i just wondered what Pine street and others thought here

 

Tiger broke the cardinal rule. Never aim somewhere a straight shot will hurt you. He was pushing too hard. Aiming at OB with any club and trying to work away from it is dicey under the most calm situations. Under the pressure of trying to win for the first time in forever you have to have complete control of your ball and game. He just isn't there yet.

[North Butte]

Fact is, nobody here on GolfWRX knows how Tiger fares on average when he hits driver vs. other clubs off the tee. The data (as far as i can ascertain) is not available.

 

 

Right. And I'll add I'm not at all trying to compare " skills". I just see a mirror image ( relatively if course ) to my experience with the big stick. It giveth sometimes. But it taketh away more often. Or at least it taketh away at the most inoppertune times. As in under pressure. And I just wonder how many years must one stumble over Driver before it either clicks or you become the definition of insanity?

 

Maybe 20-25 years ago I was watching some sort of weightlifting world championship or whatever you call it on ESPN. The guy who was favored to win it all walked up to the weights early in the preliminary. At this point it wasn't even close to the amount of weight he should be able to lift.

 

He stood there for a minute, acted like he was going to bend over and lift it, backed off, hesitated and then finally walked off without trying. He said he just looked at it and knew he couldn't lift it. Just a total failure of confidence for no reason.

 

I think driver is like that for some players.

[pinestreetgolf]

We just see it very differently.

 

Robert Streb putted almost an entire final round using his sand wedge after breaking his putter. He ended up in the first playoff of his career, putting superbly down the stretch.

 

Dustin Johnson has three putted and two putted away two majors.

 

Do you think Dustin should start putting with a sand wedge because Robert Streb has "proven" that you can win on tour putting with a wedge?

 

That makes about as much sense as the Stenson/Tiger 3 wood/driver argument.

[deadsolid...shank]

As I've said in here numerous times, the stat area is well above my knowledge level.

 

But how do they determine what strokes were gained or lost against the field driving? Isn't it all dependent on the final score?

 

And the fact that he was 100% putting inside 9' feet for the week, couldn't that skew everything else? Even though it goes against the stat stuff, we all know that a made putt can make up for multiple shakey shots or swings on a hole.

[North Butte]

As I've said in here numerous times, the stat area is well above my knowledge level.

 

But how do they determine what strokes were gained or lost against the field driving? Isn't it all dependent on the final score?

 

And the fact that he was 100% putting inside 9' feet for the week, couldn't that skew everything else? Even though it goes against the stat stuff, we all know that a made putt can make up for multiple shakey shots or swings on a hole.

 

No, a shot is good or bad depending on how it turns out. A 30-foot putt going in the hole saves one entire stroke over the field, whether it is an eagle putt or a putt for triple bogey. That putt accomplished in one stroke what would normally be expected to take two strokes on average.

 

The exact same principle applies to driving. If you hit a drive 370 yards and dead straight down the middle of the fairway, that is a better than average drive. Doesn't matter if you hole out your next shot for eagle or hit your next shot into the water and make double. The drive was good because the drive was good, not because of what score you made due to other shots on the hole.

 

The entire reason for doing stats is to find out what's going on in more detail than final score. If you average 310 and hit every fairway but shoot 78 you have serious problems in your game...but the problem ain't your driver. Or if miss every fairway, only hit 4 GIR and shoot 69...you probably don't need to go practice your putting. Strokes Gained puts the results of every shot with every club on the same scale and lets you compare how good or bad you did in each element of the game more or less indepenently.

[rawdog]

Shared this many a time before. Estimates from 2015 have Stenson leaving about .25 strokes per round on the table by not hitting a driver.

 

He wins despite this strategy, not because of it.

 

"So if Stenson is hitting a lot of fairway woods because he prioritizes hitting fairways, is he making the right play? In short, no. Using a fairway wood only increases his odds of hitting the fairway by 17%. Multiply that 17% by the 0.08 strokes better he performs on approach shots from the fairway and he gains only 0.01 strokes worth of value per hole from hitting more fairways off of lay-ups. Contrast that with the value he loses because he is hitting fairway wood shorter than driver. He loses 0.07 strokes for each fairway wood he hits, all because he is losing an average of 28 yards of distance when using the shorter club. He hits about four more fairway woods than the average bomber each round, meaning he is losing a quarter of a stroke just because of his club selection."

 

https://golfanalytic...-wood-too-much/

[garf0404]

People are playing driver lengths that are fit for distance not accuracy. And most people dont use enough loft.

 

Makes sense that they use a 3 wood, that flies shorter, so theur miss is going to be slightly less serve

 

Alot ams would benefit from using 12* drivers and 43.5 inches long

 

So true.. going to cut the driver down an inch this week to try and find a little more consistency.. I know I won’t lose enough distance to not justify it!

[North Butte]

Well 0.25 strokes per round is one stroke over an entire tournament. That's meaningful (lots of guys would be multiple major winners if they had only been one stroke better in a few tournaments...paging Greg Norman) but not a total killer. When a guy like Stenson is "on" he can win in spite of that one-stroke conceded to the field.

[Bye]

We just see it very differently.

 

Robert Streb putted almost an entire final round using his sand wedge after breaking his putter. He ended up in the first playoff of his career, putting superbly down the stretch.

 

Dustin Johnson has three putted and two putted away two majors.

 

Do you think Dustin should start putting with a sand wedge because Robert Streb has "proven" that you can win on tour putting with a wedge?

 

That makes about as much sense as the Stenson/Tiger 3 wood/driver argument.

 

Lol, a bit like digital vs analogue?

 

If he putter with a wedge every week and won once or twice a year I expect others may give it a go. Stenson has been doing this for a long time, and it may have saved his career.

[rawdog]

Well 0.25 strokes per round is one stroke over an entire tournament. That's meaningful (lots of guys would be multiple major winners if they had only been one stroke better in a few tournaments...paging Greg Norman) but not a total killer. When a guy like Stenson is "on" he can win in spite of that one-stroke conceded to the field.

 

Is there an echo in here?

[deadsolid...shank]

Well 0.25 strokes per round is one stroke over an entire tournament. That's meaningful (lots of guys would be multiple major winners if they had only been one stroke better in a few tournaments...paging Greg Norman) but not a total killer. When a guy like Stenson is "on" he can win in spite of that one-stroke conceded to the field.

 

The intangible, to me anyway, is not measureable by numbers. His confidence in his 3 wood over his driver.

 

The pure numbers may say he's giving up .25 strokes per round. But he may actually be saving himself much more than that because he's putting a much better and confident swing on his 3 wood. But that's not measurable.

[Bye]

Shared this many a time before. Estimates from 2015 have Stenson leaving about .25 strokes per round on the table by not hitting a driver.

 

He wins despite this strategy, not because of it.

 

"So if Stenson is hitting a lot of fairway woods because he prioritizes hitting fairways, is he making the right play? In short, no. Using a fairway wood only increases his odds of hitting the fairway by 17%. Multiply that 17% by the 0.08 strokes better he performs on approach shots from the fairway and he gains only 0.01 strokes worth of value per hole from hitting more fairways off of lay-ups. Contrast that with the value he loses because he is hitting fairway wood shorter than driver. He loses 0.07 strokes for each fairway wood he hits, all because he is losing an average of 28 yards of distance when using the shorter club. He hits about four more fairway woods than the average bomber each round, meaning he is losing a quarter of a stroke just because of his club selection."

 

https://golfanalytic...-wood-too-much/

 

Is this based on when he hits driver? And assuming that if he hit it more often he would be as effective with it each time?

[rawdog]

Well 0.25 strokes per round is one stroke over an entire tournament. That's meaningful (lots of guys would be multiple major winners if they had only been one stroke better in a few tournaments...paging Greg Norman) but not a total killer. When a guy like Stenson is "on" he can win in spite of that one-stroke conceded to the field.

 

We also talk a lot about variability. So that .25 would probably be an average. But it also introduces the ability for him to bump that up to say .33 or even .5 strokes on the field if he catches fire. That would be another full stroke. Now, these would obviously be somewhat outlier rounds, but more of them would be possible.

 

As PSG often notes, this is how you win. Not by shooting consistent scores, but by introducing the ability to go super low when it all comes together. Not that I need to explain that to you. You get it.

[North Butte]

Shared this many a time before. Estimates from 2015 have Stenson leaving about .25 strokes per round on the table by not hitting a driver.

 

He wins despite this strategy, not because of it.

 

"So if Stenson is hitting a lot of fairway woods because he prioritizes hitting fairways, is he making the right play? In short, no. Using a fairway wood only increases his odds of hitting the fairway by 17%. Multiply that 17% by the 0.08 strokes better he performs on approach shots from the fairway and he gains only 0.01 strokes worth of value per hole from hitting more fairways off of lay-ups. Contrast that with the value he loses because he is hitting fairway wood shorter than driver. He loses 0.07 strokes for each fairway wood he hits, all because he is losing an average of 28 yards of distance when using the shorter club. He hits about four more fairway woods than the average bomber each round, meaning he is losing a quarter of a stroke just because of his club selection."

 

https://golfanalytic...-wood-too-much/

 

Is this based on when he hits driver? And assuming that if he hit it more often he would be as effective with it each time?

 

I'm pretty sure we know what Henrik thinks the answer to that question is.

 

I think of Stenson's driver as equivalent to Bernhard Langer's use of the long putter. At some point Langer looked down at a 3-foot putt and just knew as sure as anything that there was no way he could get that ball in the hole with a conventional putting stroke. So he found a workaround that saved his career(s). I'd imagine it's much the same with Stenson, he looks at a fairway with a driver in his hands and just knows he's going to be hitting a wild shot.

 

A mental or emotional weakness is just as real as a physical one. Some guys can't physically swing a club anywhere close to as fast as Henrik Stenson. He can't make a confident swing with a driver like Rory can. As the saying goes, "A man't gotta know his limitations".

[rawdog]

Shared this many a time before. Estimates from 2015 have Stenson leaving about .25 strokes per round on the table by not hitting a driver.

 

He wins despite this strategy, not because of it.

 

"So if Stenson is hitting a lot of fairway woods because he prioritizes hitting fairways, is he making the right play? In short, no. Using a fairway wood only increases his odds of hitting the fairway by 17%. Multiply that 17% by the 0.08 strokes better he performs on approach shots from the fairway and he gains only 0.01 strokes worth of value per hole from hitting more fairways off of lay-ups. Contrast that with the value he loses because he is hitting fairway wood shorter than driver. He loses 0.07 strokes for each fairway wood he hits, all because he is losing an average of 28 yards of distance when using the shorter club. He hits about four more fairway woods than the average bomber each round, meaning he is losing a quarter of a stroke just because of his club selection."

 

https://golfanalytic...-wood-too-much/

 

Is this based on when he hits driver? And assuming that if he hit it more often he would be as effective with it each time?

 

It's saying he only hits driver 33% of the time, and on average, he would be more effective hitting driver more often.