Rocket Mortgage Classic - does anyone care?

[RareSight]

I agree that if a player is exceptional Tee to Green and also gets hot with a putter, of course that is going to help extra sealing the win or as you say, provide them with that “little extra” to win - that’s obvious. 

But the distinction I, Broadie and the 2016-2019 winners performance results clearly show is that the heavy majority of scoring (“the answer”) for *winners* is actually due to superior Tee to Green, not Putting… yet you originally claimed the reverse stating:

“The answer to winning has always been putting.” - smashdn

But as myself, Broadie & the objective performance results prove, that’s just not true. Hot Putting helps, of course, but the “answer to winning” is clearly Tee to Green the heavy majority of the time. The proof can be seen from the 91 wins due to superior Tee to Green vs only 21 wins due to superior Putting over 4 seasons of winners (2016-2019).

Some other insight, Broadie in a previous tweet asked the question:

“Q) Which would win, long driver / average putter or short driver / good putter?”

The answer was emphatically “long driver / average putter”.

Again, not 100% of the time but for the heavy majority of the time it is the “answer to winning”.

Here’s some other notable sources talking about the key to winning & scoring being Tee to Green / Ballstriking.LowestScoreWins.com: “Ballstriking matters. Hit the ball well, and putt a little better than average, and you win (or have a great round).”David Duval: “You can’t count on being a great putter, it’s not going to last. When people say it’s a putting contest it’s just not the case, you’ve got to hit the ball well if you want to win golf tournaments.”John Cook: “David Duval said it earlier in the telecast, this tour is about ballstriking, you have to golf your ball, you have to strike your ball to win golf tournaments.Jason Day: “I putted really well today but if I could have got myself closer to the pin, I may have had a chance to win.”Lee Westwood: “I scored poorly because I hit the ball poorly”

[mahonie]

You are mistaking long, wayward driving for ‘ball-striking.’ My argument is that PGA Tour-style courses do not need accuracy off the tee, the balance is firmly in favour of distance, so that skews all of the Strokes Gained stats. If the courses were set up so that the 340 yard drive has to finish in an area to allow an attacking shot to the pin that is proportionately smaller than the area the 300 yard drive needs to land in, we might have some stats we could believe in.

The courses are not set up that way because the OEMs who sponsor the PGA Tour would not be able to sell the story that next week’s driver is longer than last week’s driver. If the long driver can hit the 15 yard wide fairway at 340 yards then fair play to him as that takes real skill. However, if he misses that landing area, the penalty should be commensurate with the risk he’s taken, not an easy shot into the green which is what we have now. There’s no need for courses to be 7500 yards long, that just fuels the distance game. What we actually need is good course design that has the correct balance of risk vs reward.

At the end of the day, the current path of dumbing golf down to make it easier is taking away the very essence of the challenge of the game that has stood it in good stead for hundreds of years...and it is very much poorer for it.

[RareSight]

Where have I said anything about “wayward driving for ball-striking”? You’ve just made that up, the question is why?

The player that wins on tight fairways, thick rough, small tricky greens (like in US Open setups), usually has a great blend on distance & accuracy which equates to the SG-Tee metric that winners usually excel in. Take DJ & Koepka, if they can win on these tough, tight US Open setups then they can 100% win on your described shorter tight course.

You’re under-playing the skillset of todays PGA Tour players and over-playing the short tight course you’re describing. Todays players can adapt to any course and go low, that’s how good they are.

[smashdn]

Then me.

"The answer to winning has always been putting. The problem with putting is that to separate yourself at that level, across four rounds, it is more about luck than skill necessarily. The SG data bears that out. Where the field is ~50% make from 8' you need two more to fall. You need that 30 footer to go in. A sand shot to go in or a chip to trundle in for birdie instead of a tap in par. That stuff is luck but luck is part of it.

And that is not said to take anything away from BD or this win, most every win on tour comes down to putting luck."

Read those together for the full context of my comments. Don't just pull the first sentence out of what I said and try and apply it across the board from the beginning of time to now but apply the context in which it was said.

 

BD is a long driver. DJ, Rory, JT, Cam Champ, et all, are all long drivers. While driving the ball a long way (and accurately) might be how to separate yourself from the field as a whole, you haven't separated yourself from those guys. Same applies for approaches. One of those other categories alone (exactly what I was responding to in the quote) does not win tournaments. And even Broadie says in "Every Shot Counts" (I'll have to pull you the page and exact quote later) that "you aren't just going to walk out on the course and suddenly gain 20 yards driving or gain accuracy with your approaches overnight," (paraphrase) that to win a tournament you need a little extra to get you over the hump, and that extra is often a lights out putting performance, which is often fueled by luck, meaning you have putts fall from distances that so statistically unlikely luck is the only answer.

 

So in context of this tournament, BD lead SG-Off the Tee, lost strokes to the field with his approaches (-.121), was 26th around the green, was fourth SG-Tee to Green but was more than a half shot back of the leader in that category, My point here is that aside from driving performance he was right along his peers. Oh yeah and SG-Putting where he lead the category and was approximately .3 strokes better than second in that category.

The importance of putting to scoring shifts from 15% of scoring for a season or career to 35% of scoring when a player wins. It is the difference between looking at it from a macro sense to a micro sense. Tendencies have less impact in a shorter sample size and outliers have more impact. The "long data" says absolutely go work on driving the ball farther and hitting your approaches closer. The "short data" says that even if you do those things you won't necessarily win that particular golf tournament. Some guy who is also pretty ok (better than average but not necessarily a ton better) can, and may often, ride a hot putter to a win. That doesn't mean putting is more important. That means it is more important in a win than it normally is to scoring. 15% v 35%.

The beauty is when you are excellent at driving and hitting your approaches close across the season/long haul, you don't have to be as hot with the putter to turn the top fives into wins. That I'll go along with.

 

Again, those numbers may have changed since the publication of ESC but that is what is in the book.

[Leftlove94]

I remember back to the good ol days when this classic got started. Guys like McIlroy, DJ, Thomas, Fowler all in their prime. Tiger was fresh off another major. Bryson weighed 100 lbs less. Great time

[RareSight]

Your opening sentence "The answer to winning has always been putting.” is basically the summation of the remaining points you made. While they hold some small truth in themselves, in total, they still don’t make your opening sentence any more true.

As I proved by providing the impartial breakdown results from individual winners over 4 years and from Broadie’s own mouth too.

The “luck” part you keep applying to only Putting can also be found in Tee, Approach & Around the Green game areas, a bounce here, wind gust there, clipping a tree or mound there… and this “extra” or difference is usually found within one or all 3 of the Tee to Green game areas that provably separates winners from loses.

Many pros have won events Putting below average, about average, and / or above average as long as their Tee to Green game is on-point in superiority to their closet competitors.

Many of an eventual winners closest rivals may lead the eventual winner or be close to leading in the Putting performance for that week, yet they still don’t win… why? Because as the winners results over 4 years prove, it’s heavily Tee to Green performance that separator the winners from the losers.

If the 1st place & 2nd place players both have identical or close to identical Tee to Green game area performance, then yes the increase in superior Putting between them will likely help seal the win. But that’s common sense.

Your reference to BD performance in this particular win is the only time since SG analysis began that a winner has won ranking #1 in both Driving & Putting, so by its own definition is an extreme outlier… and so basically supports my original statement that is verified by the winners performance results over 4 years, that the *heavy majority of the time* Tee to Green (in 1, 2 or all 3 of these game areas) are the actual difference between winning & losing.

FYI, the difference between Bryson & Wolff’s Putting for this Rocket Mortgage event was only 1.7 shots, where as the difference in their Tee games was a significantly bigger 3.9 shots.

Don’t get me wrong, I understand & agree with what you’re pointing out, but even when taken into consideration towards winning, it still isn’t the “answer to winning” as that provably lies with Tee to Green for the heavy majority of wins/winners.

[smashdn]

In the data in the book, and I have to paraphrase and go from memory as I don't have it in front of me, in the 345 or so wins he mentions, 15 had negative SG-Putting.

 

So if this newer data set says otherwise that is a new thing that has changed since ESC was first published. I would be interested to see the data set. Does Broadie put it out there somewhere? Does the 15% v 35% shift exist in this new data set? That's the crux of it. Again it is an examination of the macro data versus the micro data. For some reason there is a drastic shift in the impact of individual aspects of the game on scoring when looked at it from that standpoint. The tee to green sort of normalizes but the putting does not.

Leading SG-Putting alone is not enough as you point out. And as I was responding to in my original post, it is often what the extra bump is that results in a win in addition to the other aspect that the golfer typically is good at.

 

This is where I think the data (and some of Broadie's conclusions) are somewhat at odds, and that leads to the difficulty in rectifying the two things. Absolutely the recipe to winning, long-term, is Tee to Green. It is controllable, it is measurable, it is apparent when you make improvements, it separates you from the field as a whole. It has what is referred to in Lowest Score Wins as "Separation Value" by virtue of the high ceiling, number of opportunities and its application and impact on other aspects of the game. Those things get you to the top part of the leaderboard. Having a 30 foot putt go in instead of finishing close to hole is luck. That event (and similar events) drives the SG-Putting stat.

While I agree that tipping a tree or a good bounce off of a mound are luck, they don't have the positive impact that luck plays in putting. An unlucky approach hits a sprinkler head and bounds away from the green. An unlucky 10 foot putt lips out to tap in range. But what percentage of putts from 10 foot go in? I seem to recall it is less than 50-50. So the unlucky outcome is much more in line with the average than what the unlucky outcome of drive or approach is. The stakes are higher so-to-speak. (A lip out 3 foot putt, is that unlucky or a bad putt? A 3 foot putt that is going to miss and hits a spike mark and goes in, is that lucky or is that a bad putt with an expected result?) The impact of luck putting is heavily slanted to the good. Not sure you can attach data to it other than to say that holing a putt longer than 10' is more the exception than the rule. (As an aside I would argue that a drive that tips a tree or takes a bounce off of mound is not so much unlucky or lucky as it was more likely a bad drive that tipped the tree or came too close to mounds. The mound issues less "bad drive" than hitting a tree limb.)

It is also really hard to tell when a guy putts much better than his average ability with the available stats on the PGA website. So, say a guy is only fifth best in SG-Putting but he wins, do you say well it wasn't his putting, he was only fifth best. Or do you look and see if normally the guy is only a so-so putter and this one tournament had a career putting performance? Maybe he didn't need to be the best putter in the field but just significantly better than he normally is. The answers to that are buried in the data somewhere but, to me anyway, is hard to pull back out with the format it is in.

BD, prior to Detroit averaged .557 SG-Putting for 2020, 23rd on tour. For Detroit he was #1 in SG-Putting and gained 1.958. That's a statistical step change from his "normal."

For SG-OTT BD was #2 for the season at 1.113 and #1 at Detroit at 1.668. (#1 for 2020 is Cameron Champ, #2 at Detroit was Cameron Champ)

[mahonie]

OK you were talking about Broadie, but I’m guessing you meant the same: ‘Here’s also Mark Broadie in his owns words talking about Tee to Green & Ballstriking being the key to winning and scoring.’

BCD has made it clear that you don’t need to be that accurate off the tee. I equate good ball-striking to having control of where the ball is going with good accuracy not outright distance which is where Strokes Gained is pushing golf. It would need a season of tournaments on US Open type courses to show how much effect accuracy has on Tee to Green SG stats but it would be different to the standard fare of TPC vanilla we get.

When the first cut of rough is classified as ‘not fairway’ perhaps I might take notice of the Strokes Gained metric...it just comes across as a sham to make it look like player’s are more accurate than they actually are. Can you explain why the first cut is deemed to be fairway?

Today’s players, albeit up and coming Assistant Pros playing said short, tight course and definitely not adapting and going low a couple of years ago:

Par 71 was the winning score in perfect conditions.

[smashdn]

" I equate good ball-striking to having control of where the ball is going with good accuracy not outright distance which is where Strokes Gained is pushing golf."

 

I don't know that it is accurate to say that strokes gained is pushing golf in any direction. The current conditions (and understanding of the conditions) are pushing golf to where scoring is the easiest and most sure, where it was destined to go. Strokes gained didn't create the paradigm, it elucidated it.

 

Strokes gained is merely the lens through which to look to see the truth of golf most clearly - at the moment.

[ThinkingPlus]

SG: Off the Tee includes first cut as fairway because there is little to no penalty playing from the first cut. More precisely the number of shots probability is the same for the first cut as it is for the fairway.

[mahonie]

So what is the point of having a first cut? Just cut the fairways 70 yards wide and be done with it or make the rough penal if you miss the short stuff. Don’t try and pull the wool over everyone’s eyes by telling us how long and accurate the pros are when they are missing landing areas 70 yards wide.

I’m cynical because if you miss the fairways on the courses I typically play, you are penalised and you may be only 5 yards offline.

[smashdn]

"So what is the point of having a first cut?"

Charity? Tough pill to swallow to have essentially no penalty (not the literal golf term) and roll through mere inches and potentially be looking at a loss of a shot due to the rough.

[ThinkingPlus]

It helps slow down the ball so it doesn't go into the primary rough. ;-)

[mahonie]

I fail to see how the underlying ethos of ‘closer to the hole means lower scores’ as pushed by Strokes Gained applies to a short, tight course where being 50 yards from the green but 10 yards in the woods will never regularly beat the tee shot that ends up 100 yards from the green but in the fairway.

[smashdn]

There's no part of strokes gained ethos that advocates for hitting it ten yards in the woods.

 

Have you read Lowest Score Wins? If not, and even if you don't agree with strokes gained, it is worth a read just for the portions about how to lower your score tomorrow and the practice plans. Decision making is a big part of the equation. That is where understanding strokes gained and the risk you run by hitting it ten yards into the woods comes into play.Every Shot Counts tells you why, LSW tells you how to apply it.

[mahonie]

I will admit that I haven’t read Every Shot Counts but just looking at a couple of the reviews (and these are from people who seemed to love the book) I have started to struggle with taking it further after reading things like:

‘After digging through the numbers, and using his strokes gained analysis, the author declares that hitting the ball farther with your driver is more important than keeping it in the fairway. He wants us to be Bubba long!’

‘Additionally, every golf course is different. Certain parts of the game might be rewarded more based on their setup, which is also something his findings cannot account for.’

As a skeptic to start with, comments like the above don’t encourage me to spend the cost of a dozen balls on the book.

[smashdn]

This warrants a new thread.

You have to keep in mind that the strokes gained stuff is based upon a huge data set so it is a generality if you will. When you come upon a special circumstance (water or other hazards, severe penalties for misses, etc) then the generalities don't always fit. (Lowest Score Wins does a very good job of parsing this out.)

If you want to boil it down to the very lowest gravy, and don't want to get hung up on the driver business, this holds true for every shot - "The variable with the largest impact on whether or not you get your next shot in the hole, is the proximity to the hole of that shot." That is a generic way of saying you up your odds of getting it in or close to the hole by having a shorter shot to the hole to begin with. So yeah, distance is king, especially off the tee, even to the point of trumping accuracy in most cases. (And honestly I don't like that line of thinking when it comes to the product it produces on tv for me to watch, thus I am for an equipment rollback.)

 

If you don't want to buy ESC I really doubt I can sway you into buying Lowest Score Wins. But, this is my opinion, you need both books. ESC gives you the background and the information to explain why the principles are what they are. LSW tells you how to put those priniciples into practice on the golf course to make them have an impact on your scores.

[RareSight]

The seasonal average SG numbers you quote against an individual 4 round event’s SG numbers are misleading as not all individual events & seasonal averages have the same quoter or correlation of SG numbers. That’s why quoting / looking at the 1st & 2nd finishing players SG numbers from the same course the same year (even at the same time of day), is a far more accurate measure of their actual performance on that course and relative to each other.

As I said, the difference between Bryson & 2nd place Wolff’s Putting for the Rocket Mortgage event was only 1.7 shots, where as the difference in their Tee games was a significantly bigger 3.9 shots. Basically this means they Putted closer to the same level as each other but not so much Off the Tee.

And if you wanted to drill down even further on a micro level of SG hole by hole, you could look at the finishing 18 holes or even the 18th hole to see how Putting vs Tee to Green impacted the win between Bryson & Wolff. For example, the winner for the event was still in play even on the 18th hole, if Bryson had hit a drive into the water (which is easily done on that hole), then a 5 or 6 is in play, and if Wolff had hit an even better Drive &/or Approach like Bryson finishing even closer than his already good 11ft Birdie Op Putt (ie as close as Bryson hit his Drive & Approach leaving an amazing tap-in 2ft for Birdie Putt), then Wolff would have won or at least gone into a play-off… or you could also look at the difference of their opening holes (Birdie for Bryson & Bogey for Wolff, so a 2 shot swing) which was caused by a big difference in quality of their Tee to Green play on that hole. Bryson was significantly closer to the hole and on the correct side vs Wolff 50 yards further back than Bryson and on the wrong side of the hole.

And you could also add in the “luck” aspect to their Tee ball on that 1st hole (and many many others) as both players missed the fairway, so was it because Bryson had full control of his poor shot (in accuracy) leaving him to miss on the correct side (not likely) or was it just a poor shot and he got “lucky” on the side it missed, then apply that to Wolff?

As for Putting and luck, this “luck” part is too hard to measure as it could be a poor read combined with missing his intended line so it actually went in, or a combination of all those factors - who knows, so it’s not worth delving into it, but what we do know for sure (having measured Pros & Amateurs on all types of courses / grasses / seasons / conditions overs 10s millions of different Putts above, below, breaking, straight) is that the *distance* a player putts from, heavily determines their results. Putting from 11ft for birdie like Wolff did vs 2ft for Birdie that Bryson did on the 18th hole, we know the percentages of success from those distances. Yes you might be able to cheat the norm (ie get “lucky”) on a single or few instances, but over 18, 36, 54 or 72 holes, reality tends to kick in.

As I keep saying and the performance analysis of individual winners keeps proving, to use your own words / phrase, while getting hot with a Putter helps “The answer to winning has always been *Tee to Green*.”

[RareSight]

From your comments I’m not sure you fully understand what & how SG works.

For example your comment: 

“BCD has made it clear that you don’t need to be that accurate off the tee. I equate good ball-striking to having control of where the ball is going with good accuracy not outright distance which is where Strokes Gained is pushing golf. - mahonie

Firstly, BCD comments are his own and misleading. The comment part “that accurate” is such a big grey area as you can’t be Phil “accurate”, but Bryson has created the right blend of accuracy for his massive distance. In fact, Bryson’s accuracy is actually incredible given the huge distances he’s hitting.

FYI, Strokes Gained essentially measures position, combining distance & accuracy. And ultimately it’s provides us with easy & clear insight using simple communication through numbers (instead of the previous thoughts, ideas, experience) to say how many shots x golfer should be able to get the ball in the hole from whatever position / hole / course they’re on.  

The Strokes Gained analysis of 10s of millions of measured shots across all types of players & courses (including tight, tree lined, long rough, small greens etc) have all been measured and quantified - and the results speak for themselves. Strokes Gained isn’t “pushing golf” anywhere, players who can understand data and see opportunities in this data to gain an advantage are the ones “pushing golf” in the direction of the reality that this unique insight & measuring tool offers. For some it’s improving Distance, some it’s improving accuracy of their Approach play or specifically Wedges, others it’s Chipping or their Putting. For those Players/Pros that don’t understand it, or don’t want to understand it & use it, they’re leaving a huge advantage to earn money & achieve success at the door. 

So it’s not accurate or honest to say “outright distance” as the world’s longest drivers would also be winning events, no? But in reality, few if any of these world’s longest drivers can even make it as a pro on the lesser tours. So clearly there’s far far more to advantage & success than “outright distance”.

As for why “the first cut is deemed to be fairway?” it’s because it’s not deemed to be rough. Moreover it’s simply a ‘label’ and it doesn’t really matter because SG analysis can even tell you the measurable disadvantage of hitting from the 1st Cut vs 2nd Cut vs Rough vs Fairway.

I highly recommend you read Mark Broadie’s book called ‘Every Shot Counts’. It’ll open your eyes to the game like never before.

[smashdn]

So 1.958 compared to a season average of .557 is not of significance?

I can't help the stats, they are coming off the PGA Tour website. It won't let you combine this season with last to get a bigger data set to help normalize it.

 

The winner at The Greenbrier was also number one in SG-Putting. 2.197 vs. his season 2020 average -.114

Sanderson farms -1.562 vs. season average .248

Safeway Open - .506 vs. .009 (This is Cameron Champ. He wins with his driving. He was also statistically better than SG-TTG in this event compared to season average (2.879 v .993). He was just "on" in general.)

Shriners (#1 SG-Putting) - 3.544 vs. .795

Houston - 1.458 vs. .399

Then after that you start getting into WGC and other non-shot link events so there isn't data nor am I going to list them all.

 

I am just echoing what Broadie found, the Tee to Green play puts you in a position to win week in and week out, catching lightning in a bottle with the putter that one week is what pushes you to the top. And I admit that is not palatable because it sort of goes against the other SG findings. It goes against the other data that says the biggest gaps between pros and ams are those strokes tee to green and not putting. That ams are statistically closer to the performance of PGA players putting than any other golf aspect. It is the one piece of data that sort of goes against the grain but you can't ignore it. Over the course of a season the true cream rises to the top but in one round or a handful anomalies happen. This anomaly just happens to cause lower scores. Its also why strange things happen in match play competitions. Why they use a 36 hole match play for big match play finals. Why the 12 seed often beats the 5 seed in the first round of the NCAA tournament.

 

The answer to being in a position consistently to win is tee to green play. The answer to who wins is putting performance. And the better you are tee to green the less "hot" you have to get. The less lucky you need to be.

This is from 2012 so the data may have changed this but I found it interesting and of note.https://www.espn.com/golf/story/_/id/7421352/what-turns-tables-produce-pga-tour-victory

[RareSight]

“So what is the point of having a first cut?” - mahonie

The answer to this question is actually interesting as the PGA Tour, Course Designers, Green Keepers never previously knew the quantifiable impact of having a 1st, or 2nd cut on scoring before Strokes Gained came about providing this unique insight. They likely thought, hoped it would have some impact on scoring and so it’s a continued handed down action birthed out of hope & ignorance, and perhaps with a bit of course vanity thrown in.

[RareSight]

I’m just pointing out that Bryson’s win where he gained roughly 3.9 shots from his SG-TEE & roughly 1.7 shots in SGP over the 2nd place finisher Wolff & then Bryson’s 7.8 shots T2G & 7.2 shots SGP over the field - who Bryson had to beat to *win*… is more insightful to the answer of “winning” than looking how these shots increased his seasonal average which is a mixed uncorrelated bag to start with.

I agree that in match play over 18 holes Putting can have more of a impact on the winner than over 72 holes where Tee to Green is heavily the biggest “answer to winning”.

“The answer to who wins is putting performance”… relative to your & your opponents level of Tee to Green. Think of 2 sliding scales, both impact the other but one side of the scale is always bigger (T2G) and thus it takes more from the smaller scale (Putting) to overcome the larger scale.

I’l repeat this as you know who they are:LowestScoreWins.com: “Ballstriking matters. Hit the ball well, and putt a little better than average, and you win (or have a great round).”

And the winners performance results on the PGA Tour over 4 seasons (2016-2019) confirm this.

[smashdn]

Certainly in regard to BD's win. I'm not trying to discount the tee to green aspect at all. It's true. It's factual. And even more important you can readily improve your performance.

It's also an inconvenient truth (I hate I had to use that phrase) that a winner often has a crazy good putting performance. That in a season's worth of rounds putting is only 15% of the scoring but in a win it is 35%. Like I said it is not palatable because it runs somewhat counter to what the books are saying. The books aren't wrong. In fact they tell you what I am saying. They also tell you not to focus on putting because the gains are not their to be had for most of us with practicing and ceiling. And I agree with that line of thinking too.

If the ratios/percentages are 85% tee to green and 15% putting, you break down that 85% portion into say driving, approaches, chips and pitches as the big buckets. I'm just taking a stab at this but lets say of the three it breaks down 40-40-20 in importance to scoring. (Of the whole percentage you get this > 100% = 15% for putting + 34% for driving (85*.4) + 34% approaches + 17% chips and pitches)

When you look at the winning round and the 85% becomes 65% how do you then parse out those three things of the 65%? Is it still the same ratio and the importance of each relatively the same but overall they go down or is it divy'ed out another way? Which aspect becomes "less important" or weighted to winning? Or do they all become less evenly?

[mahonie]

It probably does warrant a new thread!

I am obviously influenced by the course I play. It is the epitome of a tight, short course. I posted the stats from a minor tour event a page or two back.

My eclectic best round is -20, my worst eclectic round is +77!! The course is renowned for being really, really hard even though it tips out at 6,100 yards and some players class it as a ‘Mickey Mouse course’ because there are par 5s where you can’t take driver off the tee (dog-leg hole where 220 yards off the tee is the maximum distance before hitting trouble). There is a par 4 at 294 yards that can be driven but miss the green and you are looking at triple.

I know that being closer to the hole, but offline, will never result in a lower score on this course...period. However, there is a course that I play a couple of times a year that is set up as a ‘PGA Tour-style’ course and length off the tee is an obvious advantage. My scoring average at this course is 5 shots a round better than at my ‘home’ course. I take driver on 14 holes and there is no need to worry about accuracy as being on the adjacent fairway often gives you the best line in for your second shot. Playing off a 10 handicap a few years back I shot +3 and didn’t have a good putting round (34 putts).

So I can see how Strokes Gained works on PGA Tour-style courses, but throw a short, tight course into the mix and I don’t think the theory holds up. If a long, wayward tee shot always results in a penalty, the philosophy of being closer to the hole off the tee doesn’t hold water.

 

[mahonie]

I may be getting this all wrong. Let me describe a hole I played every week before lockdown and the way I played it and you tell me how Every Shot Counts would tell me how to play it.

Here is a flyover of the hole from some years back and just after this video was made the hole was altered. It is a par 4 measuring 294 yards with a blind tee shot. The two bunkers in the fairway were filled in and 3 new bunkers were constructed 30 yards in front of the green spanning across the fairway. The bunkers adjacent to the green were also filled in and became ‘grass’ bunkers. The new bunkers across the fairway were installed to protect the green from being driven which could easily be done with a long iron if you pitched on the downslope in the right area.

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2ypsgeQNYlYMy usual play is to hit a 4 or 5 iron to the top of the hill leaving a 100 yard or so pitch to the green. Get over the brow of the hill and a downhill lie ensues which makes the pitch into the green difficult as the green slopes away from you. The cross bunkers are 260 yards from the tee meaning that you need to hit 270 yards to carry them. If you do carry them, you’re landing on a downslope which typically takes the ball through the green into the trees behind the green and probably a lost ball. The approach into the green is about 10 yards wide. Miss the green left and a shoulder takes you into the grass bunker. The large tree to the right snaffles any shots misdirected that way but generally missing short and right is the safe option. The cross bunkers have steep faces but they slope towards the green so it is difficult to get the ball up and down without flying the green.

Are you or Mark Broadie telling me that over a season, if I hit driver every time, I will score better than hitting my 5-iron tee shot?

[ThinkingPlus]

No. Once you are close enough to hit a partial wedge as your approach, getting substantially closer doesn't buy much in SG. This is especially true if the likelihood of a penalty starts going up for offline shots.

[mahonie]

So the blanket statement that ‘closer to the hole improves scoring’ doesn’t necessarily hold true?

Btw, 100 yards is a full gap wedge for me ?...and to skew the stats even further, I’m more accurate with an 8-iron from 140 yards than a wedge from 100 yards...only because I grew up with an 8-iron constantly in my hands.

[ThinkingPlus]

Closer is better, but the curve flattens. BTW, 100 yards is a full gap wedge for me also and I love when I get to hit that shot.

[RareSight]

It depends. I’ll answer to you & your highlighted golf hole in a mo, but quickly, the recent short 290 yard par 4 at Travellers (hole 14 or 15 I think it was) with the big water hazard on the left so if you fail to hit a good 3 wood or driver you’ll be playing 3 with a tough up & down remaining & likely bogey.

This is a very similar to your short but punishing par 4 hole, if you don’t hit a good 3 wood/drive, you’re making bogey+. The pros like you/your hole could hit a simple 6 iron and then a simple short 100yd wedge in to try and make birdie… but the SG analysis of the leading pros on that same hole, in different pin positions, over many years show with ‘objective results & facts’, that the pros stand a *significantly greater chance* of making birdie by *going for the green* despite the bogey hazard. And with that knowledge, most pros take that play of going for the green.

And for you on that hole or your highlighted hole, it really depends on *your strengths & weaknesses*. If you have a good long ball, and so so short game, then you’ll be more likely to make birdie going for it. But if you have a so so long game, so so short game but with a good wedge game, then it’ll be wiser for you to lay up and hit wedge. Does that make sense? For a pro like Rory on your hole, he’ll more likely make birdie more often going for the green because of the strength of his Tee ball and short game.

Why SG for pros has become so indispensable, is because many of the top pros now pay for tailored SG analysis of their game relative to the courses they’ll play in a season. In fact, their SG reports even breakdown the best strategic play for each hole, even each shot. Obviously with this insight, once they get over the shot but don’t feel it due to wind, or just confidence levels, they may overide the percentage play.

I hope that makes sense.

[smashdn]

Blanket statements rarely hold true in all circumstances.

The scenario you posited is discussed in Lowest Score Wins. You are assessing it correctly. You play aggressively to a safe target weighing the potential risks and rewards as you have done. Knowing that there is not much difference in reward between 100 yards and 85 yards it won't outweigh the risk of being behind a tree.

 

From the flyover it looks to me like you need to hug the left side of the fairway with your drive. I know you said those two bunkers are filled in but do they still mow it as a split fairway?