Rocket Mortgage Classic - does anyone care?

[RareSight]

I agree, great putting is often important to winning, but it’s not essential. Great T2G is essential to winning the vast majority of the time. Again, the winners performance results prove this to be true. 

Broadie repeatedly highlights Approach as usually being the biggest single key to scoring behind a win, closely followed by Putting, Driving & Around the Green last. For the games best players, like Rory, DJ, Brooks this holds even more true with their Driver & Approach being 2/3+ of their entire winning score. Not every time, but most often.

Rory has won with *negative* SG-Putting, but he’s also won with average SG-Putting, above average SG-Putting, and great SG-Putting. But he’s never won with *negative* T2G and great Putting.Rory: “I’ve never relied on my putting to play my best golf”Mark Broadie & Sean Foley: “The data helps separate fact from fiction. Looking at SG, there’s more than one way to be the best in golf, but for the most part the separator is Long Game, specifically Approach shots, and this holds true for Tiger at this best, same with Jack and Annika Sorenstam.”

[smashdn]

It is not essential. It is 20% more important to scoring in a win than it is all other rounds combined in a season. Thus one or more of those other things becomes 20% (in total) less important. Driving, approaches, chips and pitches become less important to winning (as a whole). Putting is elevated. Not essential. But the importance is shifted enough it is more closely aligned with the other SG categories in wins.

 

The numbers (going from memory) were something like of the 345 wins that had the shot link data, 15 winners had negative strokes gained putting numbers. The balance was average or above. The data set you are talking about may be different.

 

I agree as a long term game plan driving and approaches are the way to go. I don't even practice putting any more. I used to spend about an hour a week on the putting green prior to analyzing my game through the SG lens. Driving by far has the biggest impact on my score followed by approaches inside 100 yards. I practice driver, shots at 150, wedges from 110-80, and I will hit a few 3 irons just so I know I have a fairway finder option. On courses I play I can overpower them. I don't hit it 350 like BD but I don't have to either. He is playing 7200-7600 yard courses. The ones I play tip out around 6600-7000. Drive the crap out of the ball, wedge it as close to the hole as you can, putt the ball mediocre and move on with a par or at worse a bogey.

 

Did anyone win the free mortgage payments for a year from this tournament?

[mahonie]

It does make sense - thank you. I always play the most aggressive shot that I think I can get away with that will leave me a shot at getting close so I probably follow the ethos of Broadie in any case. The fact that I play a course that is so penal that you use iron off the tee more often than not clouds it a little. If I had to play a course where I had to use driver on 14 holes I would give the game up.

What I think gets overlooked, if my improved understanding is correct, is that strategy, but based on the data, is still all important. The strategy for wide open courses where there is little trouble is to bomb it but that strategy would change if the data said the percentage play is to lay up. I think the big problem is that the majority of courses on the PGA Tour all play to the bomb it strategy so it appears that there is no strategy if that makes sense.

[mahonie]

It is a continuous fairway now but pinched where the bunkers were filled in so it’s about 15 yards across at that point. You are correct in that left side of the fairway gives you the best line in but the tree 50 yards from the green does impinge if you are too far over.

Before the cross bunkers were installed, there were more holes in one on this par 4 (2) than on the four par 3s (1 each) in one season. Course design to reign in the technology ?

[smashdn]

"Before the cross bunkers were installed, there were more holes in one on this par 4 (2) than on the four par 3s (1 each) in one season. Course design to reign in the technology ?"

If you had the distance with your driver and were confident that you were not going to miss that green by much more than 15 yards either way, do you think you would, over time, have a better outcome being, at worst, 15 yards off the green for your second shot or 100 back in the fairway? I think I know what the strokes gained analysis would say.

But you have temper that aggressiveness with the risk and your ability. I can't hit a shot with that degree of accuracy with my driver. I'd likely lay back in the fairway like you. I'd still try to be as aggressive as I could be without bringing a dropped shot into play. I'd probably try to draw a 3 iron past where those cross bunkers were or hit a high draw with a hybrid depending upon which I had in my bag. I think that would leave me something like 60-45 yards left. I don't think that would bring too much trouble into play aside from the trees.

[bscinstnct]

 

Yeah but

 

[MUNIGRIT]

How does Storkes gained measure a guys ability to handle pressure?

[mahonie]

15 yards off that green left, right or behind is lost ball territory. Skulling a pitch from 100 yards is lost ball territory...I’ve got history with both...ha ha. Hitting the green with wedge is no guarantee of a 2 putt...there are some serious undulations. Remember those new cross bunkers are only 30 yards from the green which slopes away from you. 3 hybrid brings those bunkers into play for me and hitting a 30 yard bunker shot from a downhill lie into a green sloping away often leads to the thinned shot into lost ball country or a fatted shot that finishes short of the green. The average score on that hole in that event I posted a few pages back was 4.41. I am not joking you stand on the tee knowing that birdie is in sight...and walk off the green having scored a 7...it’s that sort of hole. In fact the course is full of holes that give you a chance but could also wreck your card.

[freowho]

I asked this question in another thread. It would be interesting to see strokes gained relative to holes played, position in the field, magnitude of the event etc. Greg Norman was notorious for playing well on Sunday when he was chasing rather than defending a lead. Did he gain this reputation unfairly?

[RareSight]

Not sure if you watched this weeks Workday event, but the performance of the last round between Morikawa & JT typifies where the heavy majority of winners performances are won or lost in rounds / events, and that was again shown being Tee to Green with Putting obviously being an important (but smaller) part behind that win.

Final round, JT putted solid gaining +1.0 shots on the field vs winner Morikawa *losing* -1.0 with his putter… so what was the key difference behind his -6 under winning final round vs JT’s solid -3 under final round?

Superior Tee to Green.

Despite JT gaining 2.0 shots on Morikawa with the putter, Morikawa still scored better due to gaining a whopping 5.0 shots Tee to Green on JT (+5.8 on the field), with JT himself gaining just 0.8 shots on the field Tee to Green.

This trend of exceptional Tee to Green being the biggest scoring key to winning events, aided with Putting often only required below average, average or slightly above average… is another example of the lower levels of putting that’s required to win today for the best hitters. With great putting, it just adds more steam to these runaway Tee to Green trains. 

Ps: If you want to go into even more micro-levels, you can see on individual holes where JT’s scoring suffered (ie 2 poor bogies on the opening holes) due to poor Tee to Green vs Morikawa making birdies due to his superior Tee to Green.

If you haven’t watched it, it was a great battle between 3 very gifted & exciting players. Can't wait for this week too - feels like a Major.