What’s with Crossfield and “strokes gained” subject lately?

[oikos1]

> @LeftDaddy said:

> So many misconceptions in here about Strokes Gained etc.

>

> The first misconception is that SG is only for pros or scratch amateurs. It isn’t. It is for any golfer. It just so happens that they have Shotlink data for pros to be able to make the comparisons. But even that data is useful. It could tell me where my gaps are relative to a tour pros scores, and at least I would know the priority of things for me to improve even if I was losing 20 strokes per round to a pro.

>

> Second, 50% of shots are putts, therefore it must be really important. Well, of course it is important, but the reason putting isn’t the stroke drain everyone thinks it is was explained above...big improvements in putting still don’t translate to making more than a fraction of 20 footers etc per round. There are strokes to be gained with 3-7 footers though.

>

> SG just says to hit it as far as you can, and for tour pros that works because they hit it 300. But not for amateurs. No, that isn’t what it says either. It does say that 25 extra yards is worth more than what conventional wisdom says. So it is saying that instead of laying back with an iron for safety, you should always hit driver or 3 wood if you can still avoid hazards. And you should aim away from those hazards.

>

> Anyway, I could go on. The conventional wisdom folks will never believe any of it so I’ve stopped trying. And besides, I’m a 9 handicap. What could I possibly know about golf.

>

> Oh, and Broadie didn’t invent Shotlink. He sure as heck uses it though. And FYI that my thesis advisor was one of the original inventors of the SG concept, and he sent me a copy of the original paper they sent to the PGA. They had to dumb it down a lot for the PGA, etc. That paper will put you to sleep. Broadie’s book is at least somewhat readable.

 

" SG just says to hit it as far as you can, and for tour pros that works because they hit it 300. But not for amateurs. No, that isn’t what it says either. It does say that 25 extra yards is worth more than what conventional wisdom says. So it is saying that instead of laying back with an iron for safety, you should always hit driver or 3 wood if you can still avoid hazards. And you should aim away from those hazards."

 

That's fantastic. No way the players in suits with beards 100+ years ago and players thru today ever said "Hit it a few yards further, avoid hazards and you should aim away from those hazards". ******* Brilliant!

[Krt22]

I used to think you were a respectable poster but now seem very trollish. I guess some old dogs can't learn new tricks.

 

 

[smashdn]

> @BB28403 said:

> > @iHititStraightSometimes said:

> > The only problem I have with it is that people might start realizing strokes gained matters and will take away the slight advantage I have. It's kind of crazy to me that not everyone is a believer in SG. The stats don't lie. Any golfer, on average, is going to hit it closer from the rough at 120 yards than the fairway at 160 yards. You ask non-SG people what the most important part of the game is, and 50% will say putting, 50% will say short game. It's pretty clear and evident this is not the case. If you haven't read Broadie's book, I would highly suggest it. I may be in the minority (and I haven't seen all of Crossfield's videos on SG), but I enjoy hearing as much as possible about it. Maybe it's because I'm just a numbers geek, but I'm a big believer in SGs.

>

>

> **I think it just applies to pros.** It’s like they are using this system to argue over a 1/32nd size slice of cake. **When amateurs have a million different ways to improve. ** While the pros only have that small sliver of cake between their winning and their losing, and Strokes Gained was created based on their (the pros) data.

> So I feel it does not apply to amateurs who can shave 10 strokes off their game by improving , instead of chasing the “numbers”

 

No. Because an amateur has a million different ways to improve but most of us don't have the luxury of playing golf for a living we don't have unlimited practice time to get our games in order. It makes sense to prioritize the shortcomings in our games where we can make the most ground up and step-change our scores. You basically pareto where you suck. After you read _Every Shot Counts_ you need to read _Lowest Score Wins._ It is the next progression of taking Broadie's work and creating a practice plan and a methodology to applying the Strokes Gained lessons out on the course. ESC is pretty clear the largest difference between a pro and amateur is our abilities to hit long irons where we want them. How do you work on that? Go beat 3 irons all day at the range? I would say no. That is pretty simplistic. To make real change up and down the bag, long irons included, is to improve ball striking. Kind of a duh sort of moment here. If you struggle at most everything you are probably consistent at not much of anything. Putting the club on the back of the ball accurately and consistently would be a big jump in the right direction.

 

Cutting distance to the hole for your next shot trumps nearly every other potential variable when it comes to the likelihood of the next shot going into the hole. That is how I have rectified it in my mind. eg A shot from 100 yards from the rough is maybe 5 to 10% more likely to go in than a shot 140 from the fairway. So if the choice is, "Do I hit driver and chance hitting in the rough or do I take a hybrid and hit it 40 yards shorter but more than likely in the fairway?" A mountain of stats says let the big dog eat provided there are not other circumstances (lake, woods, ob) that need to come into play. _Lowest Score Wins_ has the methodology for taking those other circumstances into account.

 

> @Krt22 said:

> So Is there anything in the book that eludes to it only applying to professionals?

Not that I recall. Broadie has his amateur data as well. While not a mountain of data like Shot Link data it is significant and it correlates to the pro data.

 

[LeftDaddy]

> @oikos1 said:

> > @LeftDaddy said:

> > So many misconceptions in here about Strokes Gained etc.

> >

> > The first misconception is that SG is only for pros or scratch amateurs. It isn’t. It is for any golfer. It just so happens that they have Shotlink data for pros to be able to make the comparisons. But even that data is useful. It could tell me where my gaps are relative to a tour pros scores, and at least I would know the priority of things for me to improve even if I was losing 20 strokes per round to a pro.

> >

> > Second, 50% of shots are putts, therefore it must be really important. Well, of course it is important, but the reason putting isn’t the stroke drain everyone thinks it is was explained above...big improvements in putting still don’t translate to making more than a fraction of 20 footers etc per round. There are strokes to be gained with 3-7 footers though.

> >

> > SG just says to hit it as far as you can, and for tour pros that works because they hit it 300. But not for amateurs. No, that isn’t what it says either. It does say that 25 extra yards is worth more than what conventional wisdom says. So it is saying that instead of laying back with an iron for safety, you should always hit driver or 3 wood if you can still avoid hazards. And you should aim away from those hazards.

> >

> > Anyway, I could go on. The conventional wisdom folks will never believe any of it so I’ve stopped trying. And besides, I’m a 9 handicap. What could I possibly know about golf.

> >

> > Oh, and Broadie didn’t invent Shotlink. He sure as heck uses it though. And FYI that my thesis advisor was one of the original inventors of the SG concept, and he sent me a copy of the original paper they sent to the PGA. They had to dumb it down a lot for the PGA, etc. That paper will put you to sleep. Broadie’s book is at least somewhat readable.

>

> " SG just says to hit it as far as you can, and for tour pros that works because they hit it 300. But not for amateurs. No, that isn’t what it says either. It does say that 25 extra yards is worth more than what conventional wisdom says. So it is saying that instead of laying back with an iron for safety, you should always hit driver or 3 wood if you can still avoid hazards. And you should aim away from those hazards."

>

> That's fantastic. No way the players in suits with beards 100+ years ago and players thru today ever said "Hit it a few yards further, avoid hazards and you should aim away from those hazards". ******* Brilliant!

 

I’ll be honest and say I don’t know what your point is here, but I think it is to say that common advice IS in fact to gain yardage and avoid hazards. That’s certainly true to an extent, but for brevity I didn’t bring out all of the finer points.

 

The point Broadie made in the book is that conventional wisdom is to get the ball in the fairway at most costs. If I had a dollar for everytime I’ve heard “you gotta get in the fairway “ I’d be a rich man. Broadie is saying that you actually don’t need to be in the fairway at all. In fact, if you are a 15 handicap you may be better off not even aiming at the fairway. Plus, laying back with an iron to “get it in the fairway “ is a poor strategy in most cases as well. Finally, the closer you get to the hole the better, and he equated 25 yards more to some improvement in another part of the game that I can’t remember now. The point is that we needn’t sacrifice distance for accuracy in a majority of cases. BUT, what does kill us off the tee is hitting it into a hazard or penalty area, or getting blocked out by something. Most of this sounds like “No duh” but I will say that way before Broadie, I was considering the advice I had been given by better players about finding fairways and putting better, and it always struck me as generally poor advice for most of the reasons listed in the SG methodology. I’m not claiming that I knew it all along. But I am claiming that the conventional wisdom that pretty much every better player gave me just didn’t seem right to me. I even started playing holes toward the rough if I needed to in order to avoid getting blocked out by trees or whatever. I would say to myself that “being in the rough with a clear shot is far better than the fairway but blocked out, or far better than laying way back and having to hit 200 into this green. I don’t care what those guys say. “

[oikos1]

> @Krt22 said:

> I used to think you were a respectable poster but now seem very trollish. I guess some old dogs can't learn new tricks.

>

>

 

"Troll" seems to be the default response around here lately. Whatever happened to sound arguments. I'm not even certain some of you even know what you are arguing for/against anymore. I simply said putting is pretty **** important and that's trolling? You guys treat Broadies statistics like it's the holy grail. They are just numbers to help **you** improve. That's it. LeftDaddy just posted "I was considering the advice I had been given by better players about finding fairways and putting better, and it always struck me as generally poor advice". Seriously?

 

 

[gentles]

> @oikos1 said:

> > @Krt22 said:

> > I used to think you were a respectable poster but now seem very trollish. I guess some old dogs can't learn new tricks.

> >

> >

>

> "Troll" seems to be the default response around here lately. Whatever happened to sound arguments. I'm not even certain some of you even know what you are arguing for/against anymore. I simply said putting is pretty **** important and that's trolling? You guys treat Broadies statistics like it's the holy grail. They are just numbers to help **you** improve. That's it. LeftDaddy just posted "I was considering the advice I had been given by better players about finding fairways and putting better, and it always struck me as generally poor advice". Seriously?

>

>

 

I suspect the trolling comment came because when you responded to people who too the time to articulate their viewpoints with "Lol ok whatever" and "seriously?" and didn't (at least from what I can see) provide any "sound arguments" of your own, at least not any objective information other than posing more questions.

 

Do you think putting matters more for separating good and bad players than the findings in Mark Broadies book suggests? Not trying to antagonise, just want to understand what you disagree with.

 

[Hawkeye77]

Broadie originally said he didn’t do it to monetize it and I’m sure that’s true, but now it’s “standard” stuff in the world of golf stats and more power to him. It’s a different way of looking at numbers but I agree it’s just not that “amazing” and many do take some of the ideas a little too far in terms of whether they are “prescriptions”. Like anything else, if it’s useful for you - use it!

[oikos1]

> @gentles said:

> > @oikos1 said:

> > > @Krt22 said:

> > > I used to think you were a respectable poster but now seem very trollish. I guess some old dogs can't learn new tricks.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > "Troll" seems to be the default response around here lately. Whatever happened to sound arguments. I'm not even certain some of you even know what you are arguing for/against anymore. I simply said putting is pretty **** important and that's trolling? You guys treat Broadies statistics like it's the holy grail. They are just numbers to help **you** improve. That's it. LeftDaddy just posted "I was considering the advice I had been given by better players about finding fairways and putting better, and it always struck me as generally poor advice". Seriously?

> >

> >

>

> I suspect the trolling comment came because when you responded to people who too the time to articulate their viewpoints with "Lol ok whatever" and "seriously?" and didn't (at least from what I can see) provide any "sound arguments" of your own, at least not any objective information other than posing more questions.

>

> Do you think putting matters more for separating good and bad players than the findings in Mark Broadies book suggests? Not trying to antagonise, just want to understand what you disagree with.

>

 

 

"40-50% of strokes in an 18 hole round are putts. Putting is pretty **** important." That's what I said. Do you disagree?

 

Since then the Broadie stats folks got up in a tizzy. And to be clear, it had nothing to do with separating good and bad players from the findings in Broadies book. It was in reference to this statement: "You ask non-SG people what the most important part of the game is, and 50% will say putting, 50% will say short game. It's pretty clear and evident this is not the case." Then the goalposts were moved to suggest it's different for a 90's shooter vs scratch. Fine, but again that is an entirely different discussion and that wasn't the original premise to my comment.

 

I certainly am willing to challenge some of the applications that have been suggested as "the way" for a certain group of handicap golfers before I agree or disagree with Broadies premise. There's a lot to dissect from what's been said here about Broadies work, not just related to putting. And I'm starting to think there's some strange opinions forming because of it. How do you feel about a golfer following this philosophy: "I was considering the advice I had been given by better players about finding fairways and putting better, and it always struck me as generally poor advice"

[Krt22]

> @oikos1 said:

> > @Krt22 said:

> > I used to think you were a respectable poster but now seem very trollish. I guess some old dogs can't learn new tricks.

> >

> >

>

> "Troll" seems to be the default response around here lately. Whatever happened to sound arguments. I'm not even certain some of you even know what you are arguing for/against anymore. I simply said putting is pretty **** important and that's trolling? You guys treat Broadies statistics like it's the holy grail. They are just numbers to help **you** improve. That's it. LeftDaddy just posted "I was considering the advice I had been given by better players about finding fairways and putting better, and it always struck me as generally poor advice". Seriously?

>

>

 

That's because this forum has its share obtuse trolls who are largely stuck on antiquated ideas and like to stick to their guns for no other reason than to feed their own ego and/or to be argumentative, so LOL one liners definitely come across as trollish.

 

And yes, the this forum is here to help amateur golfers improve, why else are we here? The whole point of the SG method is using statistics to identify the weaknesses in one's game such that they know where they should spend their time, such that they see the most ROI. The thread title is about strokes gained, so I'm not sure what else you think was going to be discussed in here. And this applies to ALL golfers. It uses statistics to prove that the notions many golfers like to stick to (im guessing old stubborn ones) are largely out of line with what the data says. So yes, putting is important, but it's not as important as some people think, and that applies to golfers of all skill levels. I think a lot of golfers are disillusioned about their game in general, they think if they just did a few things a little bit better they would be much better, and the SG method tells them otherwise and thus they resist its validity.

 

 

[gentles]

> @oikos1 said:

> > @gentles said:

> > > @oikos1 said:

> > > > @Krt22 said:

> > > > I used to think you were a respectable poster but now seem very trollish. I guess some old dogs can't learn new tricks.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > "Troll" seems to be the default response around here lately. Whatever happened to sound arguments. I'm not even certain some of you even know what you are arguing for/against anymore. I simply said putting is pretty **** important and that's trolling? You guys treat Broadies statistics like it's the holy grail. They are just numbers to help **you** improve. That's it. LeftDaddy just posted "I was considering the advice I had been given by better players about finding fairways and putting better, and it always struck me as generally poor advice". Seriously?

> > >

> > >

> >

> > I suspect the trolling comment came because when you responded to people who too the time to articulate their viewpoints with "Lol ok whatever" and "seriously?" and didn't (at least from what I can see) provide any "sound arguments" of your own, at least not any objective information other than posing more questions.

> >

> > Do you think putting matters more for separating good and bad players than the findings in Mark Broadies book suggests? Not trying to antagonise, just want to understand what you disagree with.

> >

>

>

> "40-50% of strokes in an 18 hole round are putts. Putting is pretty **** important." That's what I said. Do you disagree?

>

> Since then the Broadie stats folks got up in a tizzy. And to be clear, it had nothing to do with separating good and bad players from the findings in Broadies book. It was in reference to this statement: "You ask non-SG people what the most important part of the game is, and 50% will say putting, 50% will say short game. It's pretty clear and evident this is not the case." Then the goalposts were moved to suggest it's different for a 90's shooter vs scratch. Fine, but again that is an entirely different discussion and that wasn't the original premise to my comment.

>

> I certainly am willing to challenge some of the applications that have been suggested as "the way" for a certain group of handicap golfers before I agree or disagree with Broadies premise. There's a lot to dissect from what's been said here about Broadies work, not just related to putting. And I'm starting to think there's some strange opinions forming because of it. How do you feel about a golfer following this philosophy: "I was considering the advice I had been given by better players about finding fairways and putting better, and it always struck me as generally poor advice"

 

Every part of the game is important obviously, but I disagree with the assertion that because half your shots are putts, it is (as) important as the rest of the game. A third (at least) of all putts will be tapins where skill makes no difference, and for the remainder of putts the difference between world class and terrible might be a fractional increase in make %. If your average proximity is 15 feet, and mine is 30, I could be the best putter in the history of the game and you would still beat be 100% of the time.

 

Can't remember where I saw this, but putting stats have at least 2x the volatility compared to long game, which means that even the very best putters will have bad days purely because the bumps and breaks didn't quite go their way. Conversely, golfers who are very solid tee to green tend to be able to repeat this more often, especially compared to good putters.

 

As for "I was considering the advice I had been given by better players about finding fairways and putting better, and it always struck me as generally poor advice":, a few things to unpick:

* the advice is coming from better players, who probably hit it way further than he does as clubhead speed and distance are very highly correlated with playing ability

* if focusing on hitting fairways means sacrificing distance, this is generally a bad approach as it takes away any chance of making birdies and even makes pars harder. the last thing the average 18 handicap needs to do is hit it shorter

* if this golfer exclusively practiced putting he might make slightly more par putts, but I would argue that improving ballstriking to give more birdie and closer par chances would be a much easier approach.

 

Improving at any part of the game will of course improve scores, but IMO, what the strokes gained research has shown is that it is the long game which explains the majority of the difference between players of different abilities...which I interpret as meaning that if players want to improve their scores, they will see a better return if they improve ball striking vs putting.

 

 

 

[Stanks]

It's comedic that he is talking a lot about strokes gained lately. And Taylormades app mentions it. And Taylormade just sent me a survey asking where I get my golf knowledge top sources and Crossfield is on there even though there might be bad blood.

Comedic.

[oikos1]

> @Krt22 said:

> > @oikos1 said:

> > > @Krt22 said:

> > > I used to think you were a respectable poster but now seem very trollish. I guess some old dogs can't learn new tricks.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > "Troll" seems to be the default response around here lately. Whatever happened to sound arguments. I'm not even certain some of you even know what you are arguing for/against anymore. I simply said putting is pretty **** important and that's trolling? You guys treat Broadies statistics like it's the holy grail. They are just numbers to help **you** improve. That's it. LeftDaddy just posted "I was considering the advice I had been given by better players about finding fairways and putting better, and it always struck me as generally poor advice". Seriously?

> >

> >

>

> That's because this forum has its share obtuse trolls who are largely stuck on antiquated ideas and like to stick to their guns for no other reason than to feed their own ego and/or to be argumentative, so LOL one liners definitely come across as trollish.

>

> And yes, the this forum is here to help amateur golfers improve, why else are we here? The whole point of the SG method is using statistics to identify the weaknesses in one's game such that they know where they should spend their time, such that they see the most ROI. The thread title is about strokes gained, so I'm not sure what else you think was going to be discussed in here. And this applies to ALL golfers. It uses statistics to prove that the notions many golfers like to stick to (im guessing old stubborn ones) are largely out of line with what the data says. So yes, putting is important, but it's not as important as some people think, and that applies to golfers of all skill levels. I think a lot of golfers are disillusioned about their game in general, they think if they just did a few things a little bit better they would be much better, and the SG method tells them otherwise and thus they resist its validity.

>

>

"The whole point of the SG method is using statistics to identify the weaknesses in one's game such that they know where they should spend their time".

 

Krt22,

 

This I don't disagree with and is why I took issue with the statement HititStraghtSometimes made that non-SG people would be wrong if they felt putting was the "most important" part of the game. Golf isn't played in a vacuum and what's "most important" is going to vary from player to player, skill level to skill level and the more one plays it can change month to month, week to week, and day to day.

 

By the way, I still don't know what the knowledgeable SG folks think is the most important specific strokes gained stat. And just for ***** and giggles, If Broadies work is based on shot link data, how does one reconcile a statistic such as proximity to the hole based on this article: (and I'm not saying proximity to the hole isn't an important stat, just looking at how the data is gathered. In fact, call me old school, but I agree with the author that GIR is still the gold standard stat. Getting on in regulation, no matter how you do it, increases scoring opportunities and takes a ton of pressure off of your game. And of course, I'm always working on hitting it closer.)

 

http://www.golfwrx.com/498408/is-tigers-no-1-proximity-to-the-hole-a-meaningless-stat/

 

"Included in Proximity to the Hole are all approach shots, whether they hit the green or not. BUT, if the shot misses, and is not within 30 yards of the edge of the green, it does not count."

 

 

 

 

[LeftDaddy]

> @oikos1 said:

> > @gentles said:

> > > @oikos1 said:

> > > > @Krt22 said:

> > > > I used to think you were a respectable poster but now seem very trollish. I guess some old dogs can't learn new tricks.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > "Troll" seems to be the default response around here lately. Whatever happened to sound arguments. I'm not even certain some of you even know what you are arguing for/against anymore. I simply said putting is pretty **** important and that's trolling? You guys treat Broadies statistics like it's the holy grail. They are just numbers to help **you** improve. That's it. LeftDaddy just posted "I was considering the advice I had been given by better players about finding fairways and putting better, and it always struck me as generally poor advice". Seriously?

> > >

> > >

> >

> > I suspect the trolling comment came because when you responded to people who too the time to articulate their viewpoints with "Lol ok whatever" and "seriously?" and didn't (at least from what I can see) provide any "sound arguments" of your own, at least not any objective information other than posing more questions.

> >

> > Do you think putting matters more for separating good and bad players than the findings in Mark Broadies book suggests? Not trying to antagonise, just want to understand what you disagree with.

> >

>

>

> "40-50% of strokes in an 18 hole round are putts. Putting is pretty **** important." That's what I said. Do you disagree?

>

> Since then the Broadie stats folks got up in a tizzy. And to be clear, it had nothing to do with separating good and bad players from the findings in Broadies book. It was in reference to this statement: "You ask non-SG people what the most important part of the game is, and 50% will say putting, 50% will say short game. It's pretty clear and evident this is not the case." Then the goalposts were moved to suggest it's different for a 90's shooter vs scratch. Fine, but again that is an entirely different discussion and that wasn't the original premise to my comment.

>

> I certainly am willing to challenge some of the applications that have been suggested as "the way" for a certain group of handicap golfers before I agree or disagree with Broadies premise. There's a lot to dissect from what's been said here about Broadies work, not just related to putting. And I'm starting to think there's some strange opinions forming because of it. How do you feel about a golfer following this philosophy: "I was considering the advice I had been given by better players about finding fairways and putting better, and it always struck me as generally poor advice"

 

And I stand by my comment. If I were only focused on fairways I’d hit 7 irons off of tees. And if putting was the main skill I worked on improving, I’d go from say 34 strokes per round to say 32. Yay me! I’d still miss the vast majority outside of 15 feet but might make more 7 footers. Awesome. 2 or 3 strokes. Meanwhile, I’m missing 14 greens in regulation because I hit 7 iron off the tee and instead of shooting 85, I’d be shooting 97 or so (+14-2=12). But those fairways though! And those 2 putts man! I’m getting better!

 

I took some time to explain the point in my post but it obviously sailed right over your head.

 

Iron play is far and away the biggest stroke gain opportunity in my game and most every player, even tour pros. Distance off the tee combined with avoiding penalties is next. I don’t see how people can’t see this.

 

It isn’t that saying “fairways “ in itself is bad. It’s what that translates to for the decisions off the tee. If that advice leads you to lay back all of the time, then it is bad advice. And it isn’t saying that being a better putter in and of itself is bad. Of course it isn’t. But if it causes you to focus on putting at the expense of your irons or your driver, then it is bad advice. Period.

 

 

[ironcat]

The SG statistics are all well and good, the problem is people taking a massive pool of data, averaging it out then declaring that's where every golfer should focus on.

Golf isn't binary; every player has areas of strength and areas of weakness.

Someone like Denis Pugh can shout until he is blue in the face about how driving is far more important than putting, but tell that to a handicap golfer who's hitting all his fairways and then chunking his 10 yard chips and missing 5 footers.

 

Different strokes for different folks.

 

 

 

[LeftDaddy]

> @ironcat said:

> The SG statistics are all well and good, the problem is people taking a massive pool of data, averaging it out then declaring that's where every golfer should focus on.

> Golf isn't binary; every player has areas of strength and areas of weakness.

> Someone like Denis Pugh can shout until he is blue in the face about how driving is far more important than putting, but tell that to a handicap golfer who's hitting all his fairways and then chunking his 10 yard chips and missing 5 footers.

>

> Different strokes for different folks.

>

>

>

I agree with this, and SG is technically agnostic to what area of the game you need to improve. Meaning, the data says what it says, and so if it says I could gain a lot more strokes by being a better putter then that would be where I should focus.

 

But, some general conclusions made by the book were that iron play and driving were far more important than the conventional wisdom of “short game” based on the aggregate sample of golfers used in the study (which included tour pros and amateurs).

 

I attended a presentation by the original research team on this strokes gained concept way before the book came out or before the tour started using SGP as a stat. Broadie wasn’t part of that presentation...there were groups of researchers from two universities, and this presentation was to a handful of alums of my university (not U Chicago). As I mentioned, my thesis advisor was one of the original researchers on this concept and I also have a copy of their original paper.

 

Anyway, this was back in 2008 or so, and their presentation was largely centered on what made Tiger Woods so great (while also introducing the SG concept). They didn’t set out to show why Tiger was so great. But the data showed him as such an outlier that they had to make it part of their presentation. And the main reason he was so great? Iron play. Not putting or driving like everyone said at the time. It was iron play. He’s been top 5 (actually I think top 3) in SG Approach for basically every year they’ve done the studies (except of course in the 2014-2017 range). Back then, though, he was also top 10ish in putting and driving and short game as well. Now you’d say his driver is a liability, even though he’s starting to find fairways again. His SG off the tee is middle of the pack due to loss of distance and some accuracy issues. His putting is streaky. Interestingly, he didn’t putt that well at the Masters, at least not in the first two rounds. But his approach game was, as usual, at or near the top.

 

I did my own regression analysis of my game once a few years back. With the stats I was measuring, GIR came out as the #1 factor. Drives in fairway had zero effect on my score. Literally. The correlation coefficient was essentially zero. I then saw a magazine article a year or so later that came up with almost the same formula that I did for score based on “traditional” golf stats. This was all before SG concept.

 

So you all can believe SG or not. I don’t care. I’ve just seen that too many people don’t understand it, and therefore conclude that it is stupid. And then myths arise like “it is only for tour pros”, or “all it says is hit it as far as you can”, or “it says putting isn’t important therefore it can’t be right”. It doesn’t say any of those things. Putting contributes 18% to a typical tour pros scoring, for example. So it isn’t unimportant. It is just that Iron play and driving contribute each over 20%. And to a typical amateur, the difference is typically even bigger. But I do need to become a better putter, and so does virtually everyone else. But not at the expense of my iron play.

 

[ironcat]

> @LeftDaddy said:

> did my own regression analysis of my game once a few years back. With the stats I was measuring, GIR came out as the #1 factor. Drives in fairway had zero effect on my score. Literally. The correlation coefficient was essentially zero.

>

That's interesting. Would this depend on course layout? At my club, due to many trees, if I miss the fairway I am often having to chip out sideways and that effectively adds +1 onto my score for that hole; or even take a lost ball penalty and add +2.

 

I would think it very unlikely that driving the fairway didn't have a strong correlation with my scoring ability. It would certainly impact my GIR stats positively which in turn would influence the interpretation of GIR's importance?

 

If GIR is more important than driving, isn't accurate driving increasing the GIR % in the first place?

 

At some clubs where the layout is more open I can spray it on most holes, go find it and have a shot at getting on the green; in that case and on those courses I would agree.

 

 

 

 

[elthrill]

> @RichieHunt said:

> Understanding Strokes Gained mostly helps with prioritizing what to work on and understanding how strong or weak you are in certain areas of the game and what to work on from there.

>

> I actually counted this...the first 7 Tour players that I worked with all came to me with a similar statement that they wanted to be the best wedge player in the game. My normal response is that there are more strokes to be gained elsewhere. But, I also looked at their wedge game and a few of them were some of the premier wedge players in the game and one of them was a top-3 wedge player over the previous 5 years and didn't know it. He thought he was middle of the pack.

>

> As far as making decisions using solely strokes gained...I think it gives you the basic understanding that being closer to the hole is generally better most of the time. The issue for amateurs on say a par-5 is that they may be miserable 3-wood players. But, if they can improve their 3-wood play and start hitting it closer to the hole instead of laying up to a 'money yardage', they'll start playing par-5's better (assuming the rest of their game continues to be at the same rate). I had one Tour player that outside of their putting and short game (he knew he needed to work on it without my consultation), I showed how his laying up on par-5's was killing his par-5 scores. The next season he performed roughly the same with his putting and short game around the green (which wasn't good), was slightly worse with his ballstriking (which was very good) and by simply going for more Par-5's in two or hitting the 3-wood and trying to get it up as close to the green as he could...he had his best year ever on the par-5's, his best year on Tour and got his only Tour victory.

>

> For more of an approach in terms of strategy and targets, I would take a look at Scott Fawcett's work or what I wrote about in _2018 Pro Golf Synopsis_. Scott's work does have some strokes gained principles tethered to it, but it's more about understanding shot patterns and probabilities. For example...why firing at the Sunday Flag on #12 at Augusta is a bad idea. The observations of shot dispersion shows that if that flag is your target...hitting the GIR becomes equal parts luck as it does skill as a Tour player could flush one at the flag and still end up in the water due to the wind or maybe catching a little more spin or lower launch angle, etc. than needed for the shot.

>

>

>

>

> RH

 

Thank you. Its a metric to help you. Its not an iron clad metric to play by. You have to know your own game. If an amateur was a good player hed hit 3 wood or 2 iron into every par 5. Because good players can hit those clubs. But when you are a hack you have to lay up. Because no hack can consistently rip a 3 wood from the deck. If they can. They aint a hack. They have a better chance of making solid contact with a 6 iron.

 

For bad players, driver off a tee is the safest shot in golf. Its easy to make solid contact and advance toward hole. So i always advise driver on every hole for really poor players. Yes. Even many longer par 3s. Choke down and rip it. Especially older players. Dont think ive seen one yet fly over a green.....

 

 

 

[RichieHunt]

> @elthrill said:

> Thank you. Its a metric to help you. Its not an iron clad metric to play by. You have to know your own game. If an amateur was a good player hed hit 3 wood or 2 iron into every par 5. Because good players can hit those clubs. But when you are a hack you have to lay up. Because no hack can consistently rip a 3 wood from the deck. If they can. They aint a hack. They have a better chance of making solid contact with a 6 iron.

>

> For bad players, driver off a tee is the safest shot in golf. Its easy to make solid contact and advance toward hole. So i always advise driver on every hole for really poor players. Yes. Even many longer par 3s. Choke down and rip it. Especially older players. Dont think ive seen one yet fly over a green.....

>

>

>

 

The research we conducted showed that for even double digit handicappers...in the end they were better off banging a 3-wood up as far as they could towards the green than laying up on a par-5.

 

The players and situations where 3-wood hurts high handicappers is if OB is in play (unfortunately, we tested this when the old OB rules were in play) or if the player simply cannot a 3-wood airborne.

 

The problem with laying up, regardless of skill level is that not only do you leave yourself with a longer shot, but trying to lay-up to a specific 'money yardage' is very difficult. In fact, when testing Tour players we found that they almost inevitably lay-up too far back. Now imagine that for a 12 handicap.

 

I also believe if you're serious about getting better, no amount of statistical strategy will help you with poor golf shots. You need to have some sort of standard of level of golf shot to hit on each shot and then play for the variance in results of those shots. In other words...if a golfer is a horrendous 3-wood player and is playing a tournament and trying to shoot their lowest possible score I would then advise them to consider hitting a different club. But if they are playing 'non-consequential' rounds of golf and trying to get better...I would suggest hitting the 3-wood because they have to learn sometime and the benefits to improved 3-wood play are worth it.

 

But in the end, most regular golfers...even higher handicaps...probably don't hit 3-woods as bad as you think. It's more about it being their worst club in the bag that skews the perception of their performance as well as higher handicaps tend to hit it from lies they have no business hitting a 3-wood from.

 

 

 

 

RH

[Celeras]

Regarding the putting conversation: Broadies app allows you to switch between "Pro" and "Scratch" Strokes Gained. This is obviously a drastic adjustment because you are changing the baseline for who you are being compared to. Know what happens to the Strokes Gained: Putting when you do this? Not a heckuva lot.

 

Crossfield goes into this ALOT in his Strokes Gained videos. Yeah, maybe you're -2 strokes gained on putting when the baseline is "Pro". But if you change that baseline to "Scratch", now you're only -1.8. Meaning the two fields are only 0.2 apart on their baseline (these are made up numbers for the purpose of the example). The others will often differ by multiple strokes.

 

See where this is going? Putting is a MUCH more even field than all of the other categories. Strokes Gained people aren't saying putting doesn't matter, they're saying that at a certain point the headroom simply isn't there for additional improvement. If you're a scratch putter, grinding to a professional level is the least effective route for improving.

[LeftDaddy]

> @ironcat said:

> > @LeftDaddy said:

> > did my own regression analysis of my game once a few years back. With the stats I was measuring, GIR came out as the #1 factor. Drives in fairway had zero effect on my score. Literally. The correlation coefficient was essentially zero.

> >

> That's interesting. Would this depend on course layout? At my club, due to many trees, if I miss the fairway I am often having to chip out sideways and that effectively adds +1 onto my score for that hole; or even take a lost ball penalty and add +2.

>

> I would think it very unlikely that driving the fairway didn't have a strong correlation with my scoring ability. It would certainly impact my GIR stats positively which in turn would influence the interpretation of GIR's importance?

>

> If GIR is more important than driving, isn't accurate driving increasing the GIR % in the first place?

>

> At some clubs where the layout is more open I can spray it on most holes, go find it and have a shot at getting on the green; in that case and on those courses I would agree.

>

>

>

>

 

The problem lies in the definition of DIF. You pop up your driver straight down the middle and get a DIF, but you left yourself 250 to the hole. That is a far worse outcome than a 250 yard drive in the right rough that leaves you 125 to the hole, assuming you aren’t blocked out by something.

 

The data I performed my analysis on was agnostic to the course, and I tended to play a lot of parkland courses with plenty of trees. That said, yes, it is a bad outcome to drive your ball into trees if you have to chip out sideways. But again, I play a lot of parkland courses and I often find an alley where I can chip out and up, so it isn’t exactly +1...it’s maybe +0.7. There is one hole on my home course where I could lay up with an iron, but I play driver to the trees on the right (it doglegs slightly right). I hope to miss just left of the trees or to clear them or squirt through them. The gain from being within 100 yards of the hole outweighs the risk of being blocked out by trees, I’ve found. I can either go at the green even though I’m in the trees, or at worst punch out to within 30-40 yards and hope to get up and down from there.

 

I also found minimal correlation between DIF and GIR, for all of the reasons above. But I did this analysis before SG. I might do it differently now. But I always found that DIF and GIR and #of Putts were somewhat funny ways of measuring my game. For example, as I played better and hit more GIR, my putts went up. Or I found that a drive that was free and clear of any trouble yet wasn’t in the fairway was still a desirable outcome. Or a shot on the fringe or just near the green was still a good shot. I had a 3 hcp buddy tell me that wedge play was the key to better scoring, yet I found that I only hit a handful of these shots a round, and when I did I was pretty decent with them. Anyway, I had some intuition about the SG concept before I had ever heard of it. When I first saw it, it confirmed many of my hypotheses. And I tried to explain them to low cap buddies and they pretty much all disagreed with me. But whatever...I know what the math says.

[smashdn]

>An average amateur putter is closer in skill to a pro putter than in any other facet of the game> @Celeras said:

>Strokes Gained people aren't saying putting doesn't matter, they're saying that at a certain point the headroom >simply isn't there for additional improvement. If you're a scratch putter, grinding to a professional level is the least >effective route for improving.

 

Hal-a-loo-yer

 

[oikos1]

SG/stats guys wanted more, so here you go:

 

https://www.pgatour.com/news/2016/05/31/strokes-gained-historical-stats.html

 

Below are the highlights, and pretty much reflects the lack of understanding and application of Broadies SG work and statistical knowledge/application in general:

 

 

 

Strokes gained: putting

In the past 10 seasons, PGA TOUR winners outperform the field by an average of 1.32 strokes per round on the greens. This equates to 5.28 strokes better than the field over the course of a four-round event. Sixty-one percent of PGA TOUR winners rank inside the top 10 for strokes gained: putting during their victory.

 

Strokes gained: approach-the-green

In the past 10 seasons, PGA TOUR winners have outperformed the field by an average of 1.28 strokes per round on approach shots. This works out to +5.12 strokes gained over the course of a four-round event. Fifty-six percent of PGA TOUR winners rank inside the top 10 for strokes gained: approach-the-green during the week of their victory.

 

Strokes gained: off-the-tee

In the past 10 seasons, PGA TOUR winners have outperformed the field by an average of 0.64 strokes per round off the tee. This works out to 2.56 strokes over the course of a four-round event. Forty-two percent of PGA TOUR winners rank inside the top 10 of strokes gained: off-the-tee in the week of their victory.

 

Strokes gained: around-the-green

In the past 10 seasons, PGA TOUR winners have outperformed the field by an average of 0.41 strokes per round around the greens. This equates to 1.64 strokes better than the field over the course of a four-round event. Twenty-eight percent of PGA TOUR winners rank inside the top 10 in strokes gained: around-the-green during the week of their victory.

 

 

 

Ten Years! For Ten Years, strokes gained putting for PGA Tour winners had the highest strokes gained average.

I'll say it again: "40-50% of strokes in an 18 hole round are putts. Putting is pretty **** important."

 

Waiting for the "winning isn't everything" response...

 

[Celeras]

> @oikos1 said:

> SG/stats guys wanted more, so here you go:

>

> https://www.pgatour.com/news/2016/05/31/strokes-gained-historical-stats.html

>

> Below are the highlights, and pretty much reflects the lack of understanding and application of Broadies SG work and statistical knowledge/application in general:

>

>

>

> Strokes gained: putting

> In the past 10 seasons, PGA TOUR winners outperform the field by an average of 1.32 strokes per round on the greens. This equates to 5.28 strokes better than the field over the course of a four-round event. Sixty-one percent of PGA TOUR winners rank inside the top 10 for strokes gained: putting during their victory.

>

> Strokes gained: approach-the-green

> In the past 10 seasons, PGA TOUR winners have outperformed the field by an average of 1.28 strokes per round on approach shots. This works out to +5.12 strokes gained over the course of a four-round event. Fifty-six percent of PGA TOUR winners rank inside the top 10 for strokes gained: approach-the-green during the week of their victory.

>

> Strokes gained: off-the-tee

> In the past 10 seasons, PGA TOUR winners have outperformed the field by an average of 0.64 strokes per round off the tee. This works out to 2.56 strokes over the course of a four-round event. Forty-two percent of PGA TOUR winners rank inside the top 10 of strokes gained: off-the-tee in the week of their victory.

>

> Strokes gained: around-the-green

> In the past 10 seasons, PGA TOUR winners have outperformed the field by an average of 0.41 strokes per round around the greens. This equates to 1.64 strokes better than the field over the course of a four-round event. Twenty-eight percent of PGA TOUR winners rank inside the top 10 in strokes gained: around-the-green during the week of their victory.

>

>

>

> Ten Years! For Ten Years, strokes gained putting for PGA Tour winners had the highest strokes gained average.

> I'll say it again: "40-50% of strokes in an 18 hole round are putts. Putting is pretty **** important."

>

> Waiting for the "winning isn't everything" response...

>

 

Everyone here: The sky is blue.

 

You: Clouds are white!!!

 

I'm not sure if you're failing to comprehend the argument, or simply ignoring it because you have some axe to grind. I'll try one more time to educate your ignorance.

 

Strokes gained: putting for 2019: https://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.02564.html Number one is 1.135. Dead last is -1.390. That is a gap of **2.525.**

Strokes gained: off the tee: https://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.02567.html Number one is 1.308. Dead last is -1.713. That gap is **3.021‬.**

Strokes gained: approach: https://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.02568.html Number one is 1.201. Dead last is -1.714. The gap is **2.915‬**.

 

If you were to go from WORST to FIRST, the least strokes available to be gained is from putting in the PROFESSIONAL field. If you add amateurs into the mix, this same trend is even more exaggerated. Both off-the-tee and approach strokes gained would fall off a cliff, whereas putting would not decrease by anywhere near the same amount.

 

You're comparing professional win rates when people are simply telling you the fields are closest together when putting. Pros to Pros is a modest but still noticeable difference. Pros to Everyone else is the flashing siren trying to be conveyed.

 

Hope this helped...

[smashdn]

> @oikos1 said:

> SG/stats guys wanted more, so here you go:

>

> https://www.pgatour.com/news/2016/05/31/strokes-gained-historical-stats.html

>

> Below are the highlights, and pretty much reflects the lack of understanding and application of Broadies SG work and statistical knowledge/application in general:

>

>

>

> Strokes gained: putting

> In the past 10 seasons, PGA TOUR winners outperform the field by an average of 1.32 strokes per round on the greens. This equates to 5.28 strokes better than the field over the course of a four-round event. Sixty-one percent of PGA TOUR winners rank inside the top 10 for strokes gained: putting during their victory.

>

> Strokes gained: approach-the-green

> In the past 10 seasons, PGA TOUR winners have outperformed the field by an average of 1.28 strokes per round on approach shots. This works out to +5.12 strokes gained over the course of a four-round event. Fifty-six percent of PGA TOUR winners rank inside the top 10 for strokes gained: approach-the-green during the week of their victory.

>

> Strokes gained: off-the-tee

> In the past 10 seasons, PGA TOUR winners have outperformed the field by an average of 0.64 strokes per round off the tee. This works out to 2.56 strokes over the course of a four-round event. Forty-two percent of PGA TOUR winners rank inside the top 10 of strokes gained: off-the-tee in the week of their victory.

>

> Strokes gained: around-the-green

> In the past 10 seasons, PGA TOUR winners have outperformed the field by an average of 0.41 strokes per round around the greens. This equates to 1.64 strokes better than the field over the course of a four-round event. Twenty-eight percent of PGA TOUR winners rank inside the top 10 in strokes gained: around-the-green during the week of their victory.

>

>

>

> Ten Years! For Ten Years, strokes gained putting for PGA Tour winners had the highest strokes gained average.

> I'll say it again: "40-50% of strokes in an 18 hole round are putts. Putting is pretty **** important."

>

> Waiting for the "winning isn't everything" response...

>

 

Broadie says on like the second page of his book that winners are the guys who get hot with the putter that week. But that getting hot is just that getting hot for a short period of time, catching lightning in a bottle. For two or three or four rounds when everything falls and a guy goes low. Statistically, they are all pretty similar. The week of hot putting pushes a guy who is not better in other facets of the game to the top.

 

Using data, he shows that you really don't want to build a practice program around something that is not sustainable, ie putting out of your head and to a level that far surpasses the best golfers in the world. Instead go make up ground on your peers where it is easier and there is more ground to be made up, distance in general and long iron game.

 

Putting is important to scoring, but not practical for practicing a ton for improving your game, unless you suck at putting. One of the other first points out of the gate with SG is that most amateurs don't suck as much as they thing they do at putting.

[SNIPERBBB]

The thing with looking at SG putting for the week of the winner is it's so streaky. Over the season, things look different. For the current season, only 2 players in the top 10 SG putting are top ten in FedEx. Heck half of the top 10 SG putting I've never heard of.

 

Kuchar is 82 SG putting, which I can believe as it's been atrocious at times As probably cost him a couple Ws this year. But he's still #1 in FedEx points.

[gentles]

> @oikos1 said:

> SG/stats guys wanted more, so here you go:

>

> https://www.pgatour.com/news/2016/05/31/strokes-gained-historical-stats.html

>

> Below are the highlights, and pretty much reflects the lack of understanding and application of Broadies SG work and statistical knowledge/application in general:

>

>

>

> Strokes gained: putting

> In the past 10 seasons, PGA TOUR winners outperform the field by an average of 1.32 strokes per round on the greens. This equates to 5.28 strokes better than the field over the course of a four-round event. Sixty-one percent of PGA TOUR winners rank inside the top 10 for strokes gained: putting during their victory.

>

> Strokes gained: approach-the-green

> In the past 10 seasons, PGA TOUR winners have outperformed the field by an average of 1.28 strokes per round on approach shots. This works out to +5.12 strokes gained over the course of a four-round event. Fifty-six percent of PGA TOUR winners rank inside the top 10 for strokes gained: approach-the-green during the week of their victory.

>

> Strokes gained: off-the-tee

> In the past 10 seasons, PGA TOUR winners have outperformed the field by an average of 0.64 strokes per round off the tee. This works out to 2.56 strokes over the course of a four-round event. Forty-two percent of PGA TOUR winners rank inside the top 10 of strokes gained: off-the-tee in the week of their victory.

>

> Strokes gained: around-the-green

> In the past 10 seasons, PGA TOUR winners have outperformed the field by an average of 0.41 strokes per round around the greens. This equates to 1.64 strokes better than the field over the course of a four-round event. Twenty-eight percent of PGA TOUR winners rank inside the top 10 in strokes gained: around-the-green during the week of their victory.

>

>

>

> Ten Years! For Ten Years, strokes gained putting for PGA Tour winners had the highest strokes gained average.

> I'll say it again: "40-50% of strokes in an 18 hole round are putts. Putting is pretty **** important."

>

> Waiting for the "winning isn't everything" response...

>

 

We're getting firmly into apples and oranges now...

 

Looking only at the winners each week ignores the random variability from week-to-week with strokes gained putting. The ability of a player to sustain that over the course of a year is much more indicative of ability.

 

Also, DJ isn't number 1 just because of the weeks he wins, its all the other weeks when he finishes in the top 10 despite putting lousy. Why, because he is so amazing with driver and irons. Rory stayed in the top 10 last year with an atrocious short game...why? Because he is one of the best drivers to every play the game, and he is hitting is approaches from 30 yards closer to the hole than the tour average.

 

I posted these a few days ago - top 10 strokes gained tee to green, and strokes gained putting. Which list would you rather be on? If putting is so important to winning, why do the best putters on tour hardly win?

 

Top 10 strokes gained tee to green

Dustin Johnson

Francesco Molinari

Justin Thomas

Justin Rose

Henrik Stenson

Rory McIlroy

Luke List

Tiger Woods

Tommy Fleetwood

Patrick Cantlay

 

Top 10 putters on PGA tour last year

Greg Chalmers

Jason Day

Alex Noren

Daniel Summerhays

Webb Simpson

Beau Hossler

Johnson Wagner

Peter Malnati

Patrick Rodgers

Emiliano Grillo

 

 

 

[oikos1]

> @smashdn said:

> > @oikos1 said:

> > SG/stats guys wanted more, so here you go:

> >

> > https://www.pgatour.com/news/2016/05/31/strokes-gained-historical-stats.html

> >

> > Below are the highlights, and pretty much reflects the lack of understanding and application of Broadies SG work and statistical knowledge/application in general:

> >

> >

> >

> > Strokes gained: putting

> > In the past 10 seasons, PGA TOUR winners outperform the field by an average of 1.32 strokes per round on the greens. This equates to 5.28 strokes better than the field over the course of a four-round event. Sixty-one percent of PGA TOUR winners rank inside the top 10 for strokes gained: putting during their victory.

> >

> > Strokes gained: approach-the-green

> > In the past 10 seasons, PGA TOUR winners have outperformed the field by an average of 1.28 strokes per round on approach shots. This works out to +5.12 strokes gained over the course of a four-round event. Fifty-six percent of PGA TOUR winners rank inside the top 10 for strokes gained: approach-the-green during the week of their victory.

> >

> > Strokes gained: off-the-tee

> > In the past 10 seasons, PGA TOUR winners have outperformed the field by an average of 0.64 strokes per round off the tee. This works out to 2.56 strokes over the course of a four-round event. Forty-two percent of PGA TOUR winners rank inside the top 10 of strokes gained: off-the-tee in the week of their victory.

> >

> > Strokes gained: around-the-green

> > In the past 10 seasons, PGA TOUR winners have outperformed the field by an average of 0.41 strokes per round around the greens. This equates to 1.64 strokes better than the field over the course of a four-round event. Twenty-eight percent of PGA TOUR winners rank inside the top 10 in strokes gained: around-the-green during the week of their victory.

> >

> >

> >

> > Ten Years! For Ten Years, strokes gained putting for PGA Tour winners had the highest strokes gained average.

> > I'll say it again: "40-50% of strokes in an 18 hole round are putts. Putting is pretty **** important."

> >

> > Waiting for the "winning isn't everything" response...

> >

>

> Broadie says on like the second page of his book that winners are the guys who get hot with the putter that week. But that getting hot is just that getting hot for a short period of time, catching lightning in a bottle. For two or three or four rounds when everything falls and a guy goes low. Statistically, they are all pretty similar. The week of hot putting pushes a guy who is not better in other facets of the game to the top.

>

> Using data, he shows that you really don't want to build a practice program around something that is not sustainable, ie putting out of your head and to a level that far surpasses the best golfers in the world. Instead go make up ground on your peers where it is easier and there is more ground to be made up, distance in general and long iron game.

>

> Putting is important to scoring, but not practical for practicing a ton for improving your game, unless you suck at putting. One of the other first points out of the gate with SG is that most amateurs don't suck as much as they thing they do at putting.

 

**"You ask non-SG people what the most important part of the game is, and 50% will say putting, 50% will say short game. It's pretty clear and evident this is not the case."**

 

This was never a conversation about how to spend practice time. This is getting ridiculous.

 

Of course, let's not use a statistic when it doesn't benefit one's position, or better yet, let's argue a straw man.

[LeftDaddy]

Oikos apparently doesn’t understand statistics very well. I’m done trying but will put in one last point.

 

Broadie has a whole chapter on exactly the fallacy you are falling under above. It takes too much to explain it, but basically you are looking at it backwards if you look at it the way you do. First of all, it cherry picks stats to a very discrete event (winning), which has a ton of variation associated with it. It ignores all of the other performances where golfers played very well but didn’t win (yet they gained many strokes on the field). Also, the ranking system you use doesn’t compare strokes gained across categories. If you did the same analysis, you’d find that 60% of winners were also top 10 in GIR. The better way to look at it is to compare Putting Contribution to Victory (PCV), or even Putting Contribution to Strokes Gained (PCSG). Putting contributes, on average, 35% to victories, and 15% to strokes gained. So 65% of a victor’s strokes that contributed to his victory weren’t putts, and 85% of a player’s strokes gained come from stuff other than putting. So, in summary, putting is important. Even SG will say that. BUT, when you are trying to find ways to improve your game, putting shouldn’t be the primary place you focus on.

 

One last example and I’m done. I like to use simple analogies sometimes to try to help people understand (although I suspect you don’t care to understand so I’m just having fun with myself at this point). Back when I was a 20+ handicap, my primary thought process going into a round with either new people or friends was whether I would embarrass myself or not. I stunk. I was going to shoot 95-110 or so. I just didn’t want to be totally embarrassed. So, would my time leading up to that round had been better spent trying to find a semblance of a game with my driver, or irons, or putter? As a 20 cap, I missed my share of easy putts and I also 3-putted occasionally. But my driver was likely to end up literally anywhere. And so were my irons. I’ve moved from a 25 or so handicap to a 9 in the last roughly 10 years. I’ve probably gained 3 or 4 of those 16 strokes from better putting. But the vast majority have come from a better swing with driver and irons and wedges. And for my next 9 strokes? I definitely need to become a better putter because I still 3-putt more than I should. I’m pretty solid inside 6 feet but could get better there too. I probably have another 2 or 3 strokes to gain in my putting. But as a 9 handicap who shoots the occasional 79 and the more frequent 87, my iron play and keeping away from trouble off the tee are far and away the areas that cost me the most strokes. Put another way, I don’t shoot my 87s because my putts went all over the planet. I might shoot 87 instead of 84 because of poor putting. But I still lost the other 12 strokes from poor drives or missed greens. Or, when I shoot the occasional 79...it sure as heck wasn’t because I made up 10 strokes with the putter. It is always because for whatever reason that day, my irons and / or driver were solid. It’s quite literally staring me in the face every time I tee it up.

[oikos1]

> @SNIPERBBB said:

> The thing with looking at SG putting for the week of the winner is it's so streaky. Over the season, things look different. For the current season, only 2 players in the top 10 SG putting are top ten in FedEx. Heck half of the top 10 SG putting I've never heard of.

>

> Kuchar is 82 SG putting, which I can believe as it's been atrocious at times As probably cost him a couple Ws this year. But he's still #1 in FedEx points.

 

Yep. Who cares what winners do to win. I've almost been convinced putting isn't pretty **** important.

[Krt22]

> @oikos1 said:

> > @smashdn said:

> > > @oikos1 said:

> > > SG/stats guys wanted more, so here you go:

> > >

> > > https://www.pgatour.com/news/2016/05/31/strokes-gained-historical-stats.html

> > >

> > > Below are the highlights, and pretty much reflects the lack of understanding and application of Broadies SG work and statistical knowledge/application in general:

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Strokes gained: putting

> > > In the past 10 seasons, PGA TOUR winners outperform the field by an average of 1.32 strokes per round on the greens. This equates to 5.28 strokes better than the field over the course of a four-round event. Sixty-one percent of PGA TOUR winners rank inside the top 10 for strokes gained: putting during their victory.

> > >

> > > Strokes gained: approach-the-green

> > > In the past 10 seasons, PGA TOUR winners have outperformed the field by an average of 1.28 strokes per round on approach shots. This works out to +5.12 strokes gained over the course of a four-round event. Fifty-six percent of PGA TOUR winners rank inside the top 10 for strokes gained: approach-the-green during the week of their victory.

> > >

> > > Strokes gained: off-the-tee

> > > In the past 10 seasons, PGA TOUR winners have outperformed the field by an average of 0.64 strokes per round off the tee. This works out to 2.56 strokes over the course of a four-round event. Forty-two percent of PGA TOUR winners rank inside the top 10 of strokes gained: off-the-tee in the week of their victory.

> > >

> > > Strokes gained: around-the-green

> > > In the past 10 seasons, PGA TOUR winners have outperformed the field by an average of 0.41 strokes per round around the greens. This equates to 1.64 strokes better than the field over the course of a four-round event. Twenty-eight percent of PGA TOUR winners rank inside the top 10 in strokes gained: around-the-green during the week of their victory.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Ten Years! For Ten Years, strokes gained putting for PGA Tour winners had the highest strokes gained average.

> > > I'll say it again: "40-50% of strokes in an 18 hole round are putts. Putting is pretty **** important."

> > >

> > > Waiting for the "winning isn't everything" response...

> > >

> >

> > Broadie says on like the second page of his book that winners are the guys who get hot with the putter that week. But that getting hot is just that getting hot for a short period of time, catching lightning in a bottle. For two or three or four rounds when everything falls and a guy goes low. Statistically, they are all pretty similar. The week of hot putting pushes a guy who is not better in other facets of the game to the top.

> >

> > Using data, he shows that you really don't want to build a practice program around something that is not sustainable, ie putting out of your head and to a level that far surpasses the best golfers in the world. Instead go make up ground on your peers where it is easier and there is more ground to be made up, distance in general and long iron game.

> >

> > Putting is important to scoring, but not practical for practicing a ton for improving your game, unless you suck at putting. One of the other first points out of the gate with SG is that most amateurs don't suck as much as they thing they do at putting.

>

> **"You ask non-SG people what the most important part of the game is, and 50% will say putting, 50% will say short game. It's pretty clear and evident this is not the case."**

>

> This was never a conversation about how to spend practice time. This is getting ridiculous.

>

> Of course, let's not use a statistic when it doesn't benefit one's position, or better yet, let's argue a straw man.

 

Smh, you are really dense. This was never about how to spend practice time?

 

The entire point/premise of SG is to use statistics to get better at golf (at all levels). In order to get better at golf, you need to practice. That is exactly what his entire conversation is about. The SG method helps you identify which parts of your game are the weakest and thus focus your practice where it will benefit you the most, bang for the buck. For most golfers (again of all skill levels), putting isn't where one would be investing a majority of their practice time.