What's coming next from the USGA and R&A...

[smashdn]

50 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

 

Really? I thought that,

 

 

“Strokes Gained: Around-the-Green
Strokes gained: around-the-green measures player performance on any shot within 30 yards of the edge of the green. This statistic does not include any shots taken on the putting green.“

 

As far as Rory and AS, they favor less forgiving clubs and more of a premium on having to shape tee shots regarding course set ups.

 

Both seem to target the goal of a higher value placed on actual ball striking skills. I agree with them. 

 

Within the definition is one example of how it is not indicative of scoring.  SG is just a comparison to the field average in that category.  You may be the top SG Around the green guy but bottom of the list in driving, putting, etc. and can't score to save your life.

[smashdn]

53 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

Here is SG around the green for Na and the components I think (scrambling, sand saves)

 

 

 

He is 137 in scoring though. 

 

I know enough about statistical analysis to be dangerous.  You can compare your various sets of rankings (SG-Scrambling, driving, long iron, putting whatever) to another list (scoring or SG-Total, money list, etc.) and determine the correlation strength.  I can't recall which type of test that is or how to do it but someone can.  I think it is called regression analysis.

 

When it is all said and done you end up with an equation in Y=mX+B format.  You drop the B cause you don't need it and you end up with Y = mX  where X is the variable you are evaluating and m is the measure of the impact, how much that X causes your Y to move.  You can then compare your various X's to determine which one moves the Y the most or how the X's compare to one another.  (ie, Does scrambling have more impact on scoring or does driving distance?)

[caniac6]

I would like to see the USGA ban 3 putts.

[bladehunter]

7 minutes ago, caniac6 said:

I would like to see the USGA ban 3 putts.

And 4 putts while we’re at it.  Yes ! 

Edited November 5, 2020 by bladehunter

[bscinstnct]

44 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

Within the definition is one example of how it is not indicative of scoring.  SG is just a comparison to the field average in that category.  You may be the top SG Around the green guy but bottom of the list in driving, putting, etc. and can't score to save your life.

 

Yes, Na is at the bottom in driving but has made over 33MM on tour.

 

So, I understand that SG only factors relative performance. But, the guy with the most SG total scores best and usually wins most.

 

As far as the performance around the green, I remember a story by some European pro. An amatuer asked him what the biggest difference between a pro and an amateur is.

 

So they went out on the course and the pro missed every green on purpose. But he got up and down from all over the place and beat the am.

 

[bscinstnct]

40 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

He is 137 in scoring though. 

 

I know enough about statistical analysis to be dangerous.  You can compare your various sets of rankings (SG-Scrambling, driving, long iron, putting whatever) to another list (scoring or SG-Total, money list, etc.) and determine the correlation strength.  I can't recall which type of test that is or how to do it but someone can.  I think it is called regression analysis.

 

When it is all said and done you end up with an equation in Y=mX+B format.  You drop the B cause you don't need it and you end up with Y = mX  where X is the variable you are evaluating and m is the measure of the impact, how much that X causes your Y to move.  You can then compare your various X's to determine which one moves the Y the most or how the X's compare to one another.  (ie, Does scrambling have more impact on scoring or does driving distance?)

 

Being at the bottom in driving stats 

 

Imagine how bad his scoring would be if he wasn’t a top performer around the green

[smashdn]

45 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

 

Yes, Na is at the bottom in driving but has made over 33MM on tour.

 

So, I understand that SG only factors relative performance. But, the guy with the most SG total scores best and usually wins most.

 

As far as the performance around the green, I remember a story by some European pro. An amatuer asked him what the biggest difference between a pro and an amateur is.

 

So they went out on the course and the pro missed every green on purpose. But he got up and down from all over the place and beat the am.

 

 

SG-Total for any given tournament is the winner (unless there is a playoff).

 

Pros don't compete against amateurs, they play against other pros.  Who cares if you lead in SG-Around the Green if you were demolished in SG-Something else and especially SG-Total?

 

If you are trying to somehow make the case that SG-Around the Green is as import as driving you need to go read Every Shot Counts.  Sanity check, who scores lower, the player who hits the green with his approach and two putts most often and one putts some of the time or the guy who scrambles well and gets up and down for par most of the time?

[smashdn]

43 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

 

Being at the bottom in driving stats 

 

Imagine how bad his scoring would be if he wasn’t a top performer around the green

 

So you bring up a good point.  If you can't drive the ball on the PGA tour you are going to have to be top-notch at a few other aspects to make up the difference.  The absolute best (and for most ams easiest way) to score better is to drive the ball better.  Driving is the building block that makes all the other things easier.  It gets you into position to have an easier approach shot.  Easier approach shots mean more hit greens.  More hit greens are more birdie putts.  More birdies putts are more opportunities to reduce your score.

 

If you struggle off the tee it makes everything else harder.  I know.  I am that guy most of the time.

[bscinstnct]

6 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

SG-Total for any given tournament is the winner (unless there is a playoff).

 

Pros don't compete against amateurs, they play against other pros.  Who cares if you lead in SG-Around the Green if you were demolished in SG-Something else and especially SG-Total?

 

If you are trying to somehow make the case that SG-Around the Green is as import as driving you need to go read Every Shot Counts.  Sanity check, who scores lower, the player who hits the green with his approach and two putts most often and one putts some of the time or the guy who scrambles well and gets up and down for par most of the time?

 

The only point I’m making is that Kevin Na is a horrible driver but

 

Due to his short game per his SG around the green

 

He is #28 on the all time money list with 33MM in earnings.

 

But, I agree the SG tee to green is more importantl. Tony Finau is a perfect example. 

 

 

[bladehunter]

1 hour ago, bscinstnct said:

 

Being at the bottom in driving stats 

 

Imagine how bad his scoring would be if he wasn’t a top performer around the green

Imagine how bad scoring might be if he were rolled back off the tee 20 %. 

[Shilgy]

3 hours ago, bladehunter said:

Hell I’d root for the guy.  I absolutely like him.  But I’m not playing against him.  
 

this  is the quote I’m speaking of.  Can’t is a powerful word.  A word not allowed by my kid in my house.  It’s confining.  And in my opinion tells a tale. 
 

 

https://www.golfwrx.com/604852/kevin-na-i-dont-see-a-reason-why-youd-want-to-play-a-blade-golfwrxers-have-their-say/

You must not have read any of the replies.....they are quite good really. Can’t is the wrong word. But on a tour where every shot counts so dramatically at his level of play he is better with the cavity backs so he plays them with no regrets. Just like about 80% of the tour. 
As for your driver...play the one that gives you the best scores.if that is the long toaster play it. If not play the other.  Are your Blueprints really blades? True blade snobs would probably say No.

Personally I don’t let it bother me.  A regular playing partner is a 1.1 index. Plays M6 irons. And hits them wonderfully AND can actually shape them quite well. Should I tell him he’s cheating? 
 

As you know I suffered a badly broken elbow last spring. Guess what?I will be getting fit for, gasp, graphite shafts in my irons. Something I thought I would never ever do. Probably in a TM MC/p770 combo set. And I won’t shed a tear over not playing the MB’s if they work as expected. I know I could...but they would probably cost me a stroke or two a round. Not a lot but something. And I will not feel like I missed out on something by choosing what works best for me.

[hammersia]

5 hours ago, bladehunter said:

You’re not wrong oh the human aspect. I e admitted my selfish mind many many times here.  And it seems to fall on deaf ears ( not reallly you ) and somehow it’s used to “ gotcha “ me anyway.  Lol. 
 

 

Their strokes gained may remain the same as a whole. Or an average.  But when week to week you see a player up there contending or beating you that you know couldn’t do it with lesser equipment, it sticks out in your mind.  
 

take Kevin Na.  I absolutely love him as a person. So this isn’t a jab.  But he himself claims he couldn’t survive without a helping iron.   And I think we both can agree that his driving would suffer greatly if he had to loose launch and gain spin.  Does he keep a job ???  Maybe. Does he win anymore  ?  Doubtful . 
 

there are several examples of players right now.  Who’ve won in the last 4/5 years who are in that same boat.  It contributes greatly to the parity we see.  In my opinion.  That’s what Rory and Adam are covertly pointing out.  Their jobs are secure if we played with hickory and badger testicles.  But a lot of guys aren’t that secure.  And yet. Those guys win in today’s game. 
 

 

True on the putter.  I wonder if he’d trade -  give up the broom for a forced ball and driver size rollback ?  I bet he would.  

Re Kevin Na, if we went back to sensible size drivers, the pros wouldn’t need such silly stretched courses to differentiate the best, and we’d go back to a game more like peak Corey Pavin era where shotmaking skill came first.

 

And if Kevin wanted to drink a few more protein shakes to gain ten yards, as many did in the nineties (Charles Howell, Mike Weir), he could do so and maybe get a small boost to his performance on a few holes, it wouldn’t wreck the sport. 
 

Unlike what is happening now.

[Shilgy]

2 hours ago, smashdn said:

 

He is 137 in scoring though. 

 

I know enough about statistical analysis to be dangerous.  You can compare your various sets of rankings (SG-Scrambling, driving, long iron, putting whatever) to another list (scoring or SG-Total, money list, etc.) and determine the correlation strength.  I can't recall which type of test that is or how to do it but someone can.  I think it is called regression analysis.

 

When it is all said and done you end up with an equation in Y=mX+B format.  You drop the B cause you don't need it and you end up with Y = mX  where X is the variable you are evaluating and m is the measure of the impact, how much that X causes your Y to move.  You can then compare your various X's to determine which one moves the Y the most or how the X's compare to one another.  (ie, Does scrambling have more impact on scoring or does driving distance?)

Actually 126th. What is this season so far? 5 events? 
In the last ten years he has been out of the top 50 in scoring 3 times. One of those he was 67th and one he only played ten events and was not ranked. Three times in the top 25.

He is the type of player we at home should be watching with awe and saying “how does he do that?” Not a very good driver by tour standards but gets it in the hole. 
But then, what should I expect? Webb gets a lot of comments as well and he is #8 in the world rankings.

[Shilgy]

18 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

Imagine how bad scoring might be if he were rolled back off the tee 20 %. 

Sure if you rolled back just him! If you played the courses the same and rolled it back? I bet he would do even better.  EVERYONE would be missing more greens so his short game would be more valuable.

[Shilgy]

2 hours ago, smashdn said:

 

He is 137 in scoring though. 

 

I know enough about statistical analysis to be dangerous.  You can compare your various sets of rankings (SG-Scrambling, driving, long iron, putting whatever) to another list (scoring or SG-Total, money list, etc.) and determine the correlation strength.  I can't recall which type of test that is or how to do it but someone can.  I think it is called regression analysis.

 

When it is all said and done you end up with an equation in Y=mX+B format.  You drop the B cause you don't need it and you end up with Y = mX  where X is the variable you are evaluating and m is the measure of the impact, how much that X causes your Y to move.  You can then compare your various X's to determine which one moves the Y the most or how the X's compare to one another.  (ie, Does scrambling have more impact on scoring or does driving distance?)

As a whole distance impacts more. But Na is still better than Champ.

[smashdn]

19 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

Actually 126th. What is this season so far? 5 events? 

 

You are right.  I looked real quick at the stats before I went to another meeting.  I got the 137 from SG-Total for 2021.  I kept it to SG since we were discussing SG.

 

He was 103 SG-Total in 2019.

[smashdn]

I don't have the time but let's pick whatever list from the the stats page to determine what best encompasses "winning" at golf.  I'd offer up SG-Total as a place to start.  It isn't dependant upon course played and it relates back to the whole pga tour performance compared to itself.

 

Take the ranking on that list and then determine which of the other SG lists best matches SG-Total.  Voila, you just picked which metric best predicts SG-Total.  And so on and so forth.

 

You could just assign values of disparity between the lists.  Kevin Na is 137 in SG-Total but 26 in SG-Scrambling.  That is a 111 place difference.  The lower the total when all of those differences is added up you have which one, of the stuff measured, is most predictive to the list you compare it to.

[Shilgy]

16 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

You are right.  I looked real quick at the stats before I went to another meeting.  I got the 137 from SG-Total for 2021.  I kept it to SG since we were discussing SG.

 

He was 103 SG-Total in 2019.

And that was one of the three seasons I mentioned with scoring average. They pretty much have to go hand in hand I would think.

 

His last ten years scoring rank....
46 119 37 41 23 17 16 — 67 45

 

Not a superstar but very solid pro.

[bladehunter]

39 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

Sure if you rolled back just him! If you played the courses the same and rolled it back? I bet he would do even better.  EVERYONE would be missing more greens so his short game would be more valuable.

I don’t agree there. He’d be scrambling from 200 instead of 160.  That’s huge .  
 

 

[bladehunter]

59 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

You must not have read any of the replies.....they are quite good really. Can’t is the wrong word. But on a tour where every shot counts so dramatically at his level of play he is better with the cavity backs so he plays them with no regrets. Just like about 80% of the tour. 
As for your driver...play the one that gives you the best scores.if that is the long toaster play it. If not play the other.  Are your Blueprints really blades? True blade snobs would probably say No.

Personally I don’t let it bother me.  A regular playing partner is a 1.1 index. Plays M6 irons. And hits them wonderfully AND can actually shape them quite well. Should I tell him he’s cheating? 
 

As you know I suffered a badly broken elbow last spring. Guess what?I will be getting fit for, gasp, graphite shafts in my irons. Something I thought I would never ever do. Probably in a TM MC/p770 combo set. And I won’t shed a tear over not playing the MB’s if they work as expected. I know I could...but they would probably cost me a stroke or two a round. Not a lot but something. And I will not feel like I missed out on something by choosing what works best for me.

Don’t do it man !  It’s made me question existence in totality.  As in “ do I want to even play past the ability to actually play what I love “.   It’s as if I could feel lord Vader’s grip tighten when I put those graphite shafts in the bag.  First one arm , then a leg , next they’ll fit me for a helmet to breathe.  And then.  Man is gone.  And machine is born.  
 

🤦‍♂️😜

[bscinstnct]

1 hour ago, bladehunter said:

Imagine how bad scoring might be if he were rolled back off the tee 20 %. 

 

Na was born in 1983 so I imagine he had to play with much less forgiving equipment in his youth but was still good enough at scoring around the green to beat a lot of much bigger hitters and leave them in his wake on his way up the ranks.

 

But, you have a good point on if he could have had the same success if the equipment “revolution” had not happened just as he turned pro. 

[Shilgy]

21 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

 

Na was born in 1983 so I imagine he had to play with much less forgiving equipment in his youth but was still good enough at scoring around the green to beat a lot of much bigger hitters and leave them in his wake on his way up the ranks.

 

But, you have a good point on if he could have had the same success if the equipment “revolution” had not happened just as he turned pro. 

The Tommy Armour 845’s the ones Freddie played, came out in the late 80’s. Cavity back irons are not some newfangled thing. Ping Eye 2’s in 1984. Couple played with Lynx cavity backs starting in ‘95 or so.

[bladehunter]

27 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

 

Na was born in 1983 so I imagine he had to play with much less forgiving equipment in his youth but was still good enough at scoring around the green to beat a lot of much bigger hitters and leave them in his wake on his way up the ranks.

 

But, you have a good point on if he could have had the same success if the equipment “revolution” had not happened just as he turned pro. 

And with older shorter courses his scale then is probably same as today.  Also one of my gripes. Lol. scale.  The pros got longer courses.  But the weekend hack is playing more length on a shorter course. 
 

Anyway.  I’m delirious. 
 

 

[Shilgy]

32 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

Don’t do it man !  It’s made me question existence in totality.  As in “ do I want to even play past the ability to actually play what I love “.   It’s as if I could feel lord Vader’s grip tighten when I put those graphite shafts in the bag.  First one arm , then a leg , next they’ll fit me for a helmet to breathe.  And then.  Man is gone.  And machine is born.  
 

🤦‍♂️😜

Lol! If it comes down to play graphite or don’t play guess what wins?

[Sean2]

2 hours ago, bladehunter said:

Don’t do it man !  It’s made me question existence in totality.  As in “ do I want to even play past the ability to actually play what I love “.   It’s as if I could feel lord Vader’s grip tighten when I put those graphite shafts in the bag.  First one arm , then a leg , next they’ll fit me for a helmet to breathe.  And then.  Man is gone.  And machine is born.  
 

🤦‍♂️😜

I had to switch to graphite due to severe elbow problems. It ended up being more of a Yoda thing than Darth Vader. 🙂

[gvogel]

5 hours ago, caniac6 said:

I would like to see the USGA ban 3 putts.

You and Ben Hogan.

[bladehunter]

5 minutes ago, Sean2 said:

I had to switch to graphite due to severe elbow problems. It ended up being more of a Yoda thing than Darth Vader. 🙂

That’s a great point.   Maybe I’m looking at this backwards ! 

[Bubbtubbs]

7 hours ago, bladehunter said:

I agree. And it’s amazing how that works. We’ve all heaped praise on that post.  
 

pretty much proving that its all down to personal preferences in the choices you or I will pick of those bullet points. 

More likely that it's well-presented, thorough and doesn't contain any subjective nonsense. 

 

That's why I upvoted it, at least.

[gvogel]

What's coming next from the USGA.....

 

Instead of discussing all kinds of hypotheticals, what do you think the USGA will actually do once they issue the final distance Insights report?

 

I am guessing that they will try to evaluate a lot of different hypothetical changes to the game, like ball initial velocity, driver head size, and driver and fairway COR.  I see lots of studies before they recommend any changes.  And, after conducting all kinds of studies, they are going to have to get the PGA Tour's and manufacturer's blessing before they change any equipment rules.

 

A very tough task.  And it will take years to implement.

 

So go ahead and play your toaster on a stick drivers and exponentially developed pills to your heart's content, for at least a few more years. 

[Bubbtubbs]

2 minutes ago, gvogel said:

What's coming next from the USGA.....

 

Instead of discussing all kinds of hypotheticals, what do you think the USGA will actually do once they issue the final distance Insights report?

 

I am guessing that they will try to evaluate a lot of different hypothetical changes to the game, like ball initial velocity, driver head size, and driver and fairway COR.  I see lots of studies before they recommend any changes.  And, after conducting all kinds of studies, they are going to have to get the PGA Tour's and manufacturer's blessing before they change any equipment rules.

 

A very tough task.  And it will take years to implement.

 

So go ahead and play your toaster on a stick drivers and exponentially developed pills to your heart's content, for at least a few more years. 

That's an easy one: something stupid.