Distance, wins and the Tour, am I way off?

[ThinkingPlus]

1 minute ago, Titleist99 said:

Then tell me how my post is Flawed.....

Your post indicates you doubt the veracity of conclusions based on strokes gained analysis and metrics.  That would be your flaw.

[Titleist99]

8 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

Except that I didn't (really) correct your spelling OR your punctuation. But then you're not becoming know for your accuracy. 

 

When a poster has nothing he'll reply to the non-important parts of a post, like YOU just did.

 

You know, the old "Look at the pretty bunny over there" trick. 

 

I refuted your post by showing how you move the goalposts - by going to "rough vs. fairway" in an attempt to "save" yourself.

 

I'd say "Nice try" but,,,,,,,, well,,,,,,, it really wasn't. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I never moved the gold post ,,,,,you came in on the back end and had no idea what the conversation was about as usual////

[Titleist99]

15 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

Except that I didn't (really) correct your spelling OR your punctuation. But then you're not becoming know for your accuracy. 

 

When a poster has nothing he'll reply to the non-important parts of a post, like YOU just did.

 

You know, the old "Look at the pretty bunny over there" trick. 

 

I refuted your post by showing how you move the goalposts - by going to "rough vs. fairway" in an attempt to "save" yourself.

 

I'd say "Nice try" but,,,,,,,, well,,,,,,, it really wasn't. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I never moved the gold post ,,,,,you came in on the back end and had no idea what the conversation was about as usual////

[Titleist99]

Oops I said gold post.....

[Titleist99]

9 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Your post indicates you doubt the veracity of conclusions based on strokes gained analysis and metrics.  That would be your flaw.

Your right Strokes gained anything is Mumble Jumble to me....and I reject its conclusion.

[BNGL]

13 minutes ago, Titleist99 said:

I never moved the gold post ,,,,,you came in on the back end and had no idea what the conversation was about as usual////

You mean goal posts?

[ThinkingPlus]

6 minutes ago, Titleist99 said:

Your right Strokes gained anything is Mumble Jumble to me....and I reject its conclusion.

Well you would be wrong, but are, of course, entitled to your disbelief.

[nsxguy]

Just now, ThinkingPlus said:

Well you would be wrong, but are, of course, entitled to your disbelief.

 

Well TP, I think it's about time to stop feeding the troll.

 

[llewol007]

Length is great but it still has to be controlled. Ask any of the players on the Long drive and I’m betting not many transfer that to the tour. Good for Bryson for hitting it long but to consistently hit the ball that long when on some holes, it is not needed and almost puts you too close is going to be the argument moving forward. Bryson will win his share but, he won’t win as many as some posters on here already penciled him in to win. There is still an advantage to hitting it in the fairway. 

[bladehunter]

1 hour ago, nsxguy said:

 

But the thread is (primarily) about distance being an advantage.

 

Don't you see that where *I* would have to hit driver to get near that pond in the middle of the fairway that YOU might only need to hit a 3 iron to get to the same stop ? Who hits a driver straighter than a 3 iron ? Nobody I know.

 

And that's not including that once we're both there, in roughly the same spot, YOU have an 8 iron in where I have a 6 or a 5.

 

Isn't length STILL a big advantage ? Even WITH obstacles dead in front of you or even with tree lined fairways ?

Sure. And I agree with all that.   But that’s what I’ve screamed on all of these distance threads.  That a rollback will not hurt the long guy. It will only help that advantage.  For some reason when I say it it’s crazy talk.  Lol. 
 
 

[bladehunter]

1 hour ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Yes and you are right about driver vs. 3W.  If clubs fit you well, then your side to side dispersion should be the same.  It would only be further offline because you hit the ball further.

I’ll go to bed now and stop ranting.  I think this once a week play and elbow injury causing club changes is getting to me.  
sometimes I wish I hadn’t found this game.  It’s completely maddening to me. 

[clevited]

56 minutes ago, llewol007 said:

Length is great but it still has to be controlled. Ask any of the players on the Long drive and I’m betting not many transfer that to the tour. Good for Bryson for hitting it long but to consistently hit the ball that long when on some holes, it is not needed and almost puts you too close is going to be the argument moving forward. Bryson will win his share but, he won’t win as many as some posters on here already penciled him in to win. There is still an advantage to hitting it in the fairway. 

 

If he has the ability to perform his version of bomb and gouge, but then also dial it back to use more finesse on the course that require it and excel at that, then he could put together quite a season or more.  He would have the ability to exploit open courses, and the finesse to attack a more tight penal course.  I am interested to see what he does over time.

[llewol007]

1 hour ago, clevited said:

 

If he has the ability to perform his version of bomb and gouge, but then also dial it back to use more finesse on the course that require it and excel at that, then he could put together quite a season or more.  He would have the ability to exploit open courses, and the finesse to attack a more tight penal course.  I am interested to see what he does over time.

Believe me, I’m not a Bryson hater and the guys who jump on his take on how to approach the game, that is what makes the game so great. He started thinking outside the box yet inside what’s allowed in the rules. I too am always watching when he plays. The guys on tour are so good, you put a wedge in their hand from a 100 yards out, dont really matter if Bryson is 60 yards out. One way or the other, they still have to execute the next shot and make the putt. Until he starts dominating every tournament and he hasn’t, I don’t think he is really scaring any one on tour like Tiger did back in his prime. 

Edited October 26, 2020 by llewol007

[NRJyzr]

10 hours ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Well you would be wrong, but are, of course, entitled to your disbelief.

 

Kind of reminds me of some of the baseball discussions I've seen, the old guard discounting the "new statistics."  
 

[bladehunter]

19 minutes ago, NRJyzr said:

 

Kind of reminds me of some of the baseball discussions I've seen, the old guard discounting the "new statistics."  
 

I think my biggest gripe is the idea that it’s a universal truth.  I don’t believe in many universal truths about anything.  
 

I think the stats say that if you use length to be closer everytime , you’ll be more consistent.   Which is likely true over a long period. But -  it can’t accurately tell you if it means you’ll win more.  As in the risk taking may take you out of a win or two , but at the same time cause more top 10s.  There’s no real way to say one way or another.  Take Phil Mickelson for example.  If he plays a safer tee  game , does he win more ?  I personally say yes.  Even if it’s just one or two .  And that’s the idea. Winning.  Not being a journeyman cash register.  They all make enough $ to live.  So it’s really a moot point if you’re  comparing them to the populace . 
 

 

I just don’t believe that there’s a measurable difference from 130-50 yards.  

[Titleist99]

Ah yes, GOLFWRX the only golf board that trolls calls you a troll because you don't agree with them.

Just bring the meat......

[Titleist99]

7 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

I think my biggest gripe is the idea that it’s a universal truth.  I don’t believe in many universal truths about anything.  
 

I think the stats say that if you use length to be closer everytime , you’ll be more consistent.   Which is likely true over a long period. But -  it can’t accurately tell you if it means you’ll win more.  As in the risk taking may take you out of a win or two , but at the same time cause more top 10s.  There’s no real way to say one way or another.  Take Phil Mickelson for example.  If he plays a safer tee  game , does he win more ?  I personally say yes.  Even if it’s just one or two .  And that’s the idea. Winning.  Not being a journeyman cash register.  They all make enough $ to live.  So it’s really a moot point if you’re  comparing them to the populace . 
 

 

I just don’t believe that there’s a measurable difference from 130-50 yards.  

I don't believe that closer to the hole is better (as an absolute) either and that was never the case in golf until Bryson DeChambeau said that he was going to start playing like that.....this concept is nothing new... Now you have people using Strokes gained as gospel when those stats can be manipulate to advance any argument.

[NRJyzr]

46 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

I think my biggest gripe is the idea that it’s a universal truth.  I don’t believe in many universal truths about anything.  
 

I think the stats say that if you use length to be closer everytime , you’ll be more consistent.   Which is likely true over a long period. But -  it can’t accurately tell you if it means you’ll win more.  As in the risk taking may take you out of a win or two , but at the same time cause more top 10s.  There’s no real way to say one way or another.  Take Phil Mickelson for example.  If he plays a safer tee  game , does he win more ?  I personally say yes.  Even if it’s just one or two .  And that’s the idea. Winning.  Not being a journeyman cash register.  They all make enough $ to live.  So it’s really a moot point if you’re  comparing them to the populace . 
 

 

I just don’t believe that there’s a measurable difference from 130-50 yards.  

 

The question of "if it means you’ll win more" is too multi-threaded to be able to answer with a simple distance or even proximity question.  Shouldn't be included in the discussion of approach distance and its effect on scoring.  🙂  Which is really all Strokes Gained is about.

 

I would counter your final sentence with a "I can't believe you can't see the measurable difference between 130 and 50 yards."  🙂   At its base level, it's nothing more than vectors and math.  The closer you get, the greater margin for error you have to produce the same result, and the same level of error on any given shot will result in tighter result pattern.

 

It's just math and vectors.  And stat theory.  <shrug>

 

Edited October 26, 2020 by NRJyzr

[bladehunter]

12 minutes ago, NRJyzr said:

 

The question of "if it means you’ll win more" is too multi-threaded to be able to answer with a simple distance or even proximity question.  Shouldn't be included in the discussion of approach distance and its effect on scoring.  🙂  Which is really all Strokes Gained is about.

 

I would counter your final sentence with a "I can't believe you can't see the measurable difference between 130 and 50 yards."  🙂   At its base level, it's nothing more than vectors and math.  The closer you get, the greater margin for error you have to produce the same result, and the same level of error on any given shot will result in tighter result pattern.

 

It's just math and vectors.  And stat theory.  <shrug>

 

But to not include it in the idea of better best etc doesn’t make sense to me.  The people worshipping at Brodie’s feet certainly are insinuating at the least that closer equals more wins.  Right ?  I’m just saying that there’s no way to claim that.  
 

I have to agree with titleist99 at least in spirit.  The idea of the game turning one dimensional , and going away from the “ more than one way to skin a cat “ Mantra that’s sustained it’s diversity for eons is a relatively new thing.  And not a good thing at all.  It can only lead to a self fulfilling prophecy.  If yo I tell kids only long players can win , only long kids will play.  And essentially  you’ve made the untrue. True. Right ? 
 

same thing has happened in baseball.  Stats say a pitcher can’t go or shouldn’t go 9 innings. They now use 7-10 pitchers a game it seems like.  And at this point they’ve made that true.  But it’s not because there aren’t any guys being born that CAN effectively go the distance. It’s just that  they’ve talked them all out of it.  With stats. 

Edited October 26, 2020 by bladehunter

[jvincent]

39 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

But to not include it in the idea of better best etc doesn’t make sense to me.  The people worshipping at Brodie’s feet certainly are insinuating at the least that closer equals more wins.  Right ?  I’m just saying that there’s no way to claim that.  
 

I have to agree with titleist99 at least in spirit.  The idea of the game turning one dimensional , and going away from the “ more than one way to skin a cat “ Mantra that’s sustained it’s diversity for eons is a relatively new thing.  And not a good thing at all.  It can only lead to a self fulfilling prophecy.  If yo I tell kids only long players can win , only long kids will play.  And essentially  you’ve made the untrue. True. Right ? 
 

same thing has happened in baseball.  Stats say a pitcher can’t go or shouldn’t go 9 innings. They now use 7-10 pitchers a game it seems like.  And at this point they’ve made that true.  But it’s not because there aren’t any guys being born that CAN effectively go the distance. It’s just that  they’ve talked them all out of it.  With stats. 

 

Have you read Broadie's book?

 

His general premise is that closer = better scoring. But he also talks about the very few exceptions where some other aspect of a player's game, putting or iron play, is able to put them over the hump.

 

The point is that the overwhelming statistical data shows that the closer you are to the green in regulation the better you will score. He debunks the old guard mantra of "short game is all that matters".

 

Scrambling for double because you can't hit driver in play or your irons worth a damn is not a good recipe for improving your scores.

 

I'm a perfect example. I had a bad year with the driver a couple of years ago. Index went from 6-ish to over 11. I was striping my irons and my short game was on fire. But I couldn't keep the ball in play with driver. Fixed the driver and knocked 5 strokes off my index. No amount of short game was going to get me scoring better.

[Titleist99]

1 hour ago, bladehunter said:

I think my biggest gripe is the idea that it’s a universal truth.  I don’t believe in many universal truths about anything.  
 

I think the stats say that if you use length to be closer everytime , you’ll be more consistent.   Which is likely true over a long period. But -  it can’t accurately tell you if it means you’ll win more.  As in the risk taking may take you out of a win or two , but at the same time cause more top 10s.  There’s no real way to say one way or another.  Take Phil Mickelson for example.  If he plays a safer tee  game , does he win more ?  I personally say yes.  Even if it’s just one or two .  And that’s the idea. Winning.  Not being a journeyman cash register.  They all make enough $ to live.  So it’s really a moot point if you’re  comparing them to the populace . 
 

 

I just don’t believe that there’s a measurable difference from 130-50 yards.  

Hey Blade! I think that there's a measurable difference with a gap that large (130-50). you'd have to look at drivable par4s......do you lay up to your favorite wedge or do you get the ball as close to the green as possible or the same on a par 5, do you go for it in two or do you lay up. Neither is absolute like the "closer to the hole is always better" crowd trumpets. Just a matter of risk reward and the PGATOUR has recently taken all the risk out of these hole with made for television setups/

[NRJyzr]

51 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

But to not include it in the idea of better best etc doesn’t make sense to me.  The people worshipping at Brodie’s feet certainly are insinuating at the least that closer equals more wins.  Right ?  I’m just saying that there’s no way to claim that.  

 

It's a means to an end.  Ultimately, it can only mean a better *chance* to win through lower scores.  

 

 

51 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

I have to agree with titleist99 at least in spirit.  The idea of the game turning one dimensional , and going away from the “ more than one way to skin a cat “ Mantra that’s sustained it’s diversity for eons is a relatively new thing.  And not a good thing at all.  It can only lead to a self fulfilling prophecy.  If yo I tell kids only long players can win , only long kids will play.  And essentially  you’ve made the untrue. True. Right ? 

 

It's not Strokes Gained, or even Bomb & Gouge, that has made the game what it is today.  It all started with Tiger Proofing courses, adding length, and more length.  I think you posted about it earlier in this thread, if not the other thread (or both).  Make courses longer, players will have to try to get longer to compensate, at which point courses are made longer....  ad nauseum.

 

Strokes Gained is just an analysis, it's not a cause.

 

 

51 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

same thing has happened in baseball.  Stats say a pitcher can’t go or shouldn’t go 9 innings. They now use 7-10 pitchers a game it seems like.  And at this point they’ve made that true.  But it’s not because there aren’t any guys being born that CAN effectively go the distance. It’s just that  they’ve talked them all out of it.  With stats. 

 

Well, if the third time through the batting order, a pitcher allows batters to hit .315, with more walks, and more power, compared to his first two times through the order, why would you *want* to stick with him?   LOL

 

That said, the biggest reason for pitchers not completing games is money.  Because pitchers are now better paid, and injuries mean you're paying a guy a lot of money to recover from Tommy John surgery.  Pitchers were formerly treated as a fungible resource, and they aren't any longer.  Personally, I think the old way sucked.

 

The road of MLB is littered with the arms of guys who were flamed out by poor management, all in the name of "that's the way we've always done it."

 

[NRJyzr]

1 hour ago, Titleist99 said:

I don't believe that closer to the hole is better (as an absolute) either 

 

 

It doesn't matter if you don't believe in it.   It believes in you.  🙂

 

[bladehunter]

36 minutes ago, NRJyzr said:

 

It's a means to an end.  Ultimately, it can only mean a better *chance* to win through lower scores.  

 

 

 

It's not Strokes Gained, or even Bomb & Gouge, that has made the game what it is today.  It all started with Tiger Proofing courses, adding length, and more length.  I think you posted about it earlier in this thread, if not the other thread (or both).  Make courses longer, players will have to try to get longer to compensate, at which point courses are made longer....  ad nauseum.

 

Strokes Gained is just an analysis, it's not a cause.

 

 

 

Well, if the third time through the batting order, a pitcher allows batters to hit .315, with more walks, and more power, compared to his first two times through the order, why would you *want* to stick with him?   LOL

 

That said, the biggest reason for pitchers not completing games is money.  Because pitchers are now better paid, and injuries mean you're paying a guy a lot of money to recover from Tommy John surgery.  Pitchers were formerly treated as a fungible resource, and they aren't any longer.  Personally, I think the old way sucked.

 

The road of MLB is littered with the arms of guys who were flamed out by poor management, all in the name of "that's the way we've always done it."

 

I suppose. But it helped drive me from that Being a Maddox ( lifelong cubs fan ) type fan , I just can’t watch a game whne I go to the john and come back to a new pitcher , then I go to the fridge and come back to another new pitcher.  All when nothing happened to get the pitcher yanked.  Nothing except stats.  lol.  I havent watched a game in around 8/9 years now I guess.  And I grew up watching wgn and TBS as if it were a religion because of baseball nearly 7 days a week.  

Edited October 26, 2020 by bladehunter

[pinhigh27]

13 hours ago, llewol007 said:

Length is great but it still has to be controlled. Ask any of the players on the Long drive and I’m betting not many transfer that to the tour. Good for Bryson for hitting it long but to consistently hit the ball that long when on some holes, it is not needed and almost puts you too close is going to be the argument moving forward. Bryson will win his share but, he won’t win as many as some posters on here already penciled him in to win. There is still an advantage to hitting it in the fairway. 

There is no such thing as too close for vast majority of holes

[Titleist99]

36 minutes ago, NRJyzr said:

 

 

It doesn't matter if you don't believe in it.   It believes in you.  🙂

 

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..............

[llewol007]

9 minutes ago, pinhigh27 said:

There is no such thing as too close for vast majority of holes

There is if it brings more hazards or obstacles into play. If his length is so good with his driver, I would expect Bryson to be hitting his driver off every tee box that is not a par 3?

[pinhigh27]

5 minutes ago, llewol007 said:

There is if it brings more hazards or obstacles into play. If his length is so good with his driver, I would expect Bryson to be hitting his driver off every tee box that is not a par 3?

Yes and he pretty much does unless it brings in unnecessary risk or isn’t worth it. vast majority of the time it is worth it. Nothing is an absolute , no one is saying he’s going to hit it 14/14 times at every single course 
 

 

[NRJyzr]

14 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

I suppose. But it helped drive me from that Being a Maddox ( lifelong cubs fan ) type fan , I just can’t watch a game whne I go to the john and come back to a new pitcher , then I go to the fridge and come back to another new pitcher.  All when nothing happened to get the pitcher yanked.  Nothing except stats.  lol.  I havent watched a game in around 8/9 years now I guess.  And I grew up watching wgn and TBS as if it were a religion because of baseball nearly 7 days a week.  

 

The reason for what they do now is because most teams don't have anyone like Maddux.  There aren't that many guys who can paint like that.

 

Ironically, it's the Cubs that have someone closest, Hendricks, though he's not at a Maddux ability level.  He's just reasonably good at keeping the pitch count low without getting belted all over the lot.

 

[Titleist99]

8 minutes ago, llewol007 said:

There is if it brings more hazards or obstacles into play. If his length is so good with his driver, I would expect Bryson to be hitting his driver off every tee box that is not a par 3?

The bomb and gouge crowd would disagree  with you. Hit it as far as you can and go find it.....closer is better. Quite illogical to me but each to his own.