Who are the strategists that the Tour guys use?

[phizzy30]

Analytics have ruined pro baseball IMO.  I may be old and set in my ways, but go out and play the game like it was meant to be played.  Ty Cobb, Mickey Mantle, Babe Ruth would all be rolling  over in their graves right now.  I get that there's something to analytics and that it works to some degree, but it just over complicates things.  I guess people/analytics experts feel the need to take their slice of the pie. 

[smashdn]

48 minutes ago, phizzy30 said:

Analytics have ruined pro baseball IMO.  I may be old and set in my ways, but go out and play the game like it was meant to be played.  Ty Cobb, Mickey Mantle, Babe Ruth would all be rolling  over in their graves right now.  I get that there's something to analytics and that it works to some degree, but it just over complicates things.  I guess people/analytics experts feel the need to take their slice of the pie. 

 

I don't want to take this thread off track since there is a specific baseball thread in the 19th hole section, but I agree.  What I find most frustrating is that batters continue to hit right into the teeth of a shift and not bunt or adjust.

 

Ted Williams experienced this in his career.  He adjusted and beat the shift before it was a thing.  These guys can do it too if inclined to.  But my guess is someone has figured out that grounding out 9/10 times is worth it for the 1/10 the ball is hit out of the park.

 

Swallow your pride and push bunt it to a hole.  Get on base and put some pressure on the pitcher.  Being on base also limits the defense's ability to shift to an extent.

[Shilgy]

13 hours ago, bladehunter said:

So do you believe they’re aiming it on average 22 ft away from the pin with a wedge or aiming it at the pin and missing enough to make the average dispersion that much ? 

I already stated that in my post you replied to. They are often aiming a bit away from the pin. BUT…..if they truly could hit in in a 3’ circle……they wouldn’t need to aim 22’ away would they?  Think about it.  A 3’ circle means the only miss their precise spot by a foot and a half.  How many shots do you see hit on tour that precisely from 125 plus?  You can tell by their reactions they are not.

[smashdn]

16 hours ago, Shilgy said:

But they are mostly brilliant game managers.

 

^This.  I'd say "unwavering" game managers. 

 

With seemingly the exception of Phil, they don't take un-needed risks.

 

Tom Doak found this out when he worked with Brooks Koepka on a course design.  Doak wanted to know what he could build that would encourage Tour players to take risks.  Doak found out from Kopeka that these guys are so methodical that they just aren't often tempted by architectural features to go against "the numbers."  They have a superior ability to analyze each situation objectively and not get lured into what we would call mental mistakes.  They block the one in one hundred shots they pull off and play for the 99/100 reality.

 

That hole cut just beyond a fronting bunker.  The one we all know is a sucker pin but we just can't help ourselves or just don't process  that we shouldn't aim at the pin, those guys do.  They aim for the middle or safe spot and take their par.

 

There is no doubt in my mind that these guys have all set down and reviewed Quail Hollow prior to today.  They've figured out which holes and which hole locations on which holes yield which average scores.  They know where par keeps pace or betters the field and they know where they should make birdie.  They already know where to land the ball on the green to get it to finish where and they know where in the fairway they want to be to be able to hit that shot into the green.  You start at the hole and green and work back towards the tee strategically speaking.  It's scientific and not artistic at this point and that level.

 

Makes it easy to figure out why those guys love TPC- Vanilla Acres type courses where "it's all right out in front of you."  They can take a brain holiday if they are inclined.

[bladehunter]

1 hour ago, Shilgy said:

I already stated that in my post you replied to. They are often aiming a bit away from the pin. BUT…..if they truly could hit in in a 3’ circle……they wouldn’t need to aim 22’ away would they?  Think about it.  A 3’ circle means the only miss their precise spot by a foot and a half.  How many shots do you see hit on tour that precisely from 125 plus?  You can tell by their reactions they are not.

I think the truth lies in the middle.  Sure a zinger is hyperbolic at his best.  As am I I guess.  But.  You guys make it seem as if they can’t hit a wedge tight to a target  a large portion of the time.  
 

 

think about it. Aiming 5 paces off the pin is roughly 15 ft. Right ?   The average dispersion is 19 ft with a wedge .  If both those are true aren’t they hitting it close to their target often ?  ( let’s drop the 3 ft circle straw man ). 
 

 

edit -  I see that the leaders in this stat are around 15 ft ( throwing out #1 who’s at 12 ).   Pair that with creedos observation from being inside the ropes and that’s hitting your target pretty often.  

 

Folks spout this  idea of wide proximity to validate their own misses.  When in reality , I think they’re aiming away from the pin  , and therefore closer to accurate than not.  If they aren’t aiming at the pin the stat is really useless with the exception that it shows us where we should aim.  

 

Edited May 6, 2021 by bladehunter

[JDCON]

8 hours ago, Krt22 said:

This is prevalent everywhere, the only difference is people get paid to dismiss data in the corporate world lol. 

I kid you not, I was in a meeting once where a new site design was getting horrible feedback and performance. It was plain as day that it just wasn't working. However, an exec who wanted it to work dismissed all the info (both quantitative and qualitative from text analytics) by saying "Yes but, it's important to focus on what they are not saying...". I mean, what can you say? lol

[Soloman1]

never mind

Edited May 6, 2021 by Soloman1

[smashdn]

34 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

think about it. Aiming 5 paces off the pin is roughly 15 ft. Right ?   The average dispersion is 22 ft with a wedge .  If both those are true aren’t they hitting it close to their target often ?  ( let’s drop the 3 ft circle straw man ). 

 

Tour average dispersion would be a round circle 22ft radius.  An individual player's average dispersion is not a circle.  It is most often an oval on a tilted axis.

 

Target and aim point are different too.  My target might be the flag or a spot near the flag where the ball will take the slope towards the hole.  I may need to aim at a location elsewhere on the green to get that.  You don't "take dead aim" at the target, you have to factor in your "personal windage" tendencies.  You take dead aim at your aim point and where the ball ends up is most often in a spot that is "satisfactory."  Game of misses and all that.

 

The decade system and others ask you to factor in your "personal windage" for where your aim point is.  How likely am I with my natural shot tendency to hit this into that front right greenside bunker if I aim at the flag?  What if I aimed instead 20 foot past and to the left?  Did I take the bunker out of play?  Am I better off chipping from short left of the green to attempt getting up and down than I am the risk of going long left (depends on the trouble back there I guess and how far you run off the back of the green).  Those types of evaluations are what the statistical point of view allow you.

 

You can make those decisions without the stats certainly.  But for some they need to see the numbers to trust their intuition - or go against their intuition.

 

The anecdote in ESC regarding Luke Donald comes to mind.  From memory, I want to say Broadie related that Luke Donald felt like he needed to become a better putter to take the next step to winning on Tour.  Broadie showed not only where Donald ranked in the tour players but that even if he closed the small gap it would not justify the time he would have to devote to do that.  Basically, why not spend your limited practice time working on this skill where you have more to gain and the gains will come easier?

 

The data keeps you from going down rabbit-holes with no reward at the bottom.

Edited May 6, 2021 by smashdn

[bladehunter]

5 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

Tour average dispersion would be a round circle 22ft radius.  An individual player's average dispersion is not a circle.  It is most often an oval on a tilted axis.

 

Target and aim point are different too.  My target might be the flag or a spot near the flag where the ball will take the slope towards the hole.  I may need to aim at a location elsewhere on the green to get that.  You don't "take dead aim" at the target, you have to factor in your "personal windage" tendencies.  You take dead aim at your aim point and where the ball ends up is most often in a spot that is "satisfactory."  Game of misses and all that.

 

The decade system and others ask you to factor in your "personal windage" for where your aim point is.  How likely am I with my natural shot tendency to hit this into that front right greenside bunker if I aim at the flag?  What if I aimed instead 20 foot past and to the left?  Did I take the bunker out of play?  Am I better off chipping from short left of the green to attempt getting up and down than I am the risk of going long left (depends on the trouble back there I guess and how far you run off the back of the green).  Those types of evaluations are what the statistical point of view allow you.

 

You can make those decisions without the stats certainly.  But for some they need to see the numbers to trust their intuition - or go against their intuition.

 

The anecdote in ESC regarding Luke Donald comes to mind.  From memory, I want to say Broadie related that Luke Donald felt like he needed to become a better putter to take the next step to winning on Tour.  Broadie showed not only where Donald ranked in the tour players but that even if he closed the small gap it would not justify the time he would have to devote to do that.  Basically, why not spend your limited practice time working on this skill where you have more to gain and the gains will come easier?

 

The data keeps you from going down rabbit-holes with no reward at the bottom.

Right. Please. See my above edit . Posted at same time.  

[Krt22]

2 hours ago, smashdn said:

 

^This.  I'd say "unwavering" game managers. 

 

With seemingly the exception of Phil, they don't take un-needed risks.

 

Tom Doak found this out when he worked with Brooks Koepka on a course design.  Doak wanted to know what he could build that would encourage Tour players to take risks.  Doak found out from Kopeka that these guys are so methodical that they just aren't often tempted by architectural features to go against "the numbers."  They have a superior ability to analyze each situation objectively and not get lured into what we would call mental mistakes.  They block the one in one hundred shots they pull off and play for the 99/100 reality.

 

That hole cut just beyond a fronting bunker.  The one we all know is a sucker pin but we just can't help ourselves or just don't process  that we shouldn't aim at the pin, those guys do.  They aim for the middle or safe spot and take their par.

 

There is no doubt in my mind that these guys have all set down and reviewed Quail Hollow prior to today.  They've figured out which holes and which hole locations on which holes yield which average scores.  They know where par keeps pace or betters the field and they know where they should make birdie.  They already know where to land the ball on the green to get it to finish where and they know where in the fairway they want to be to be able to hit that shot into the green.  You start at the hole and green and work back towards the tee strategically speaking.  It's scientific and not artistic at this point and that level.

 

Makes it easy to figure out why those guys love TPC- Vanilla Acres type courses where "it's all right out in front of you."  They can take a brain holiday if they are inclined.

This is what prime tiger was all about. Even though he had the absolute best iron game at the time (err of all time) and could hit any shot he wanted, his ability to shot make worked hand in hand with his ability to manage the course and manage his misses. I doubt he ever used a statistical analysis tool, but he practiced and played so much he undoubtedly had a very similar system internalized based on his dispersion patterns and tendencies. 

[North Butte]

On 5/5/2021 at 1:26 PM, ThinkingPlus said:

Well some parts might have been less generally known or acknowledged.  Basically before the modern stats based strategies were publicized, fairways were over valued and proximity to the hole was under valued.  That is pretty much the zeroth order basics.  I have never seen anyone acknowledge those value judgements until the last 10 - 15 years.  It was always put the ball in the fairway to make the best score on every hole or put the ball on the green anywhere rather considering a chip or bunker might be a better spot than a much longer putt.

It was even less than 10 years ago that the normative advice switched to something more nuanced than basically:

 

1) Don't hit it in the rough

2) Don't short side yourself

3) Don't three-putt

4) Don't leave yourself less than a full wedge shot into the green

 

It wasn't until Broadie's work got noticed (not saying he was or is the only one who understands) that mainstream beliefs finally started to move toward reality rather than overly simplistic binary success/failure metrics. Still a long way to go but at the highest levels it's pretty common to use a rational data-based strategy rather than just doing your best to avoid bad things like "missed" fairways and partial wedge shots. 

[North Butte]

6 hours ago, Shilgy said:

I already stated that in my post you replied to. They are often aiming a bit away from the pin. BUT…..if they truly could hit in in a 3’ circle……they wouldn’t need to aim 22’ away would they?  Think about it.  A 3’ circle means the only miss their precise spot by a foot and a half.  How many shots do you see hit on tour that precisely from 125 plus?  You can tell by their reactions they are not.

I remember a little YouTube clip or something with one of the guys who was supposed to be among the best wedge players on Tour. He came right out and said that he hits the same shot from 72 yards as he does from 79 yards (or whatever his exact numbers were). He hits his stock 75 yard wedge shot and if he comes up 2 yards short or 4 yards long he figures that's a makeable putt. 

 

Those are not the thoughts of a guy expecting to nail his distances (much less distance+direction) to within a 3' radius. 

[smashdn]

55 minutes ago, North Butte said:

Those are not the thoughts of a guy expecting to nail his distances (much less distance+direction) to within a 3' radius. 

 

Sort of goes against what Tiger said in the famous Masters incorrect drop debacle.

[North Butte]

38 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

Sort of goes against what Tiger said in the famous Masters incorrect drop debacle.

Well Johnny Miller used to have his caddie give him half yard distances with irons in his hand!
 

I suspect no two Tour players think exactly alike. 

[mark m]

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/johnny-miller-he-called-the-shots
 

From the article:

 

Miller asked for the distance—then he proceeded to show Stadler, Norman and the rest of us what serious ball-striking really was about. He hit low, crewcut-high screamers that made a divine noise you don’t hear in golf balls anymore. He hit three low ones like that, each tearing out a deep chunk on the green, skidding to a halt inches from the hole. ‘I can hit it high with this Tour Edition, too,’ he said, and hit a series of high floaters that didn’t spin at all but plopped dead next to the stick. Then he curved shots both ways, hit a couple of thin ones on purpose—they still braked to a halt—and hit some huge, looping, silly shots, as if he were bending them around a tree. He took almost no divot on any shot, shaving only the top of the grass. The crowd, instead of cheering, fell mostly silent, mesmerized as Johnny explained what he was doing.

 

“Two of Miller’s shots hit the flagstick. Another lipped out. After one of the flagstick-rattlers, he turned to Stadler and Norman and said in that super-confident tone we eventually got used to hearing on TV, ‘How would you guys like to do this for money?’

[oikos1]

4 hours ago, North Butte said:

It was even less than 10 years ago that the normative advice switched to something more nuanced than basically:

 

1) Don't hit it in the rough

2) Don't short side yourself

3) Don't three-putt

4) Don't leave yourself less than a full wedge shot into the green

 

It wasn't until Broadie's work got noticed (not saying he was or is the only one who understands) that mainstream beliefs finally started to move toward reality rather than overly simplistic binary success/failure metrics. Still a long way to go but at the highest levels it's pretty common to use a rational data-based strategy rather than just doing your best to avoid bad things like "missed" fairways and partial wedge shots. 

The four things you list are still good advice for most high handicappers.  Once they stop doing those things on a regular basis, well then, they aren't really high handicappers anymore.  That's when Broadie's work becomes viable.  The better player looking to improve the nuances and shortcomings of their game.

[North Butte]

9 hours ago, oikos1 said:

The four things you list are still good advice for most high handicappers.  Once they stop doing those things on a regular basis, well then, they aren't really high handicappers anymore.  That's when Broadie's work becomes viable.  The better player looking to improve the nuances and shortcomings of their game.

The problem is a hacker can't possibly do any of those things with any regularity.

 

Even if he thinks the #1 most important thing in golf is to not hit it in the rough, there's no concrete action he can take that will result in that outcome. I could tee off on every hole with a 7-iron and I'd still miss some fairways. 

 

So yeah, if you're a bad enough golfer you're not really capable of following any plan or strategy or course management.  That doesn't make those "strategies" any less short-sighted and incorrect than they are for better players. 

[Fairways_and_Greens]

On 5/4/2021 at 8:22 PM, bscinstnct said:

“This was driven home during the recent telecast of the Zozo Championship, when commentator Paul Azinger, a card-carrying member of the Old School, blurted out regarding a player facing a full-swing wedge from the fairway, “The guys can land the ball within a 3-foot circle most of the time.

 

 

Fawcett’s friend and collaborator Lou Stagner, whose Twitter name is Golf Stat Pro, immediately tweeted that, from 100 yards, only 3% of shots, in fact, finish inside of 3 feet — while 43% are outside of 15 feet. The Decade system is built on the unassailable truths in these dispersion patterns. It provides probabilities on where the ball will wind up for every club and yardage, helping players pick targets into the greens that reduce their chance of making a bogey.

“Yes, it would be cool to draw a 6-iron into a back-left pin position, but that’s not the right play,” Fawcett says, noting the steep penalty for missing short, long or left in this hypothetical. “You play to the middle of the green and two-putt and pick up your birdies somewhere else. You gain shots by not losing shots on purpose.”

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/golf.com/news/decade-stats-course-strategy-changing-how-pros-play/amp/

 

 

 

 

First up, I've read Every Shot Counts, and am a paying member of Birdiefire...

 

This anecdote proves exactly why Fawcett is one of the most insufferable Twitter follows...

 

If I could do it all over again I do the lowest teir of Decade, get ShotScope, and read Every Shot Counts.

[Fairways_and_Greens]

On 5/5/2021 at 6:41 PM, ThinkingPlus said:

So this is my speculation.  Take it with a grain of salt.  Fairways began losing value when greens got smoother and faster.  That's because it became easier to make short putts.  Once you can count on making many 3' to 10' putts, bunker play and chips/short pitches became consistent par generators.

 

Proximity doesn't matter so much on stimp 7 bumpy greens because a 15' putt isn't much more makeable than 20' or 30' putt.  Once you have the ability to make more and longer putts, getting close matters more.

 

To me, the change in green speed and ability to make putts is a more important impact on fairway value than pure distance.

I have an alternative hypothesis. Fairways only matter to average and less hitters. If Bryson misses a fairway, he still has short iron in and has the speed to stop the ball with decent angle instead of spin. If an average hitter misses a fairway, he has to hit a long/mid iron in without the height to stop the ball.

 

Unless you're behind a tree, missing a fairway is binary. To make it make it a more linear risk/reward you'd want a continuously thicker rough as you moved out from the fairway center a d close to the hole.

[oikos1]

On 5/7/2021 at 5:35 AM, North Butte said:

The problem is a hacker can't possibly do any of those things with any regularity.

 

Even if he thinks the #1 most important thing in golf is to not hit it in the rough, there's no concrete action he can take that will result in that outcome. I could tee off on every hole with a 7-iron and I'd still miss some fairways. 

 

So yeah, if you're a bad enough golfer you're not really capable of following any plan or strategy or course management.  That doesn't make those "strategies" any less short-sighted and incorrect than they are for better players. 

Perhaps you would.  But the point is that may not be the best play for your game. 

 

The "better" player can gain an advantage by hitting a longer drive in the rough.  The high handicapper who can't drive it more than 210 and is always in the rough off the tee may be better served to not hit in the rough as often, whatever the "strategy" or club selection employed.  Even pros implement different strategies than other pros based on their ability, style of play and the course they are playing so the idea of a strategy being "short-sighted" or "incorrect" is entirely subjective.

 

Using another example you sighted, when a high handicapper realizes how many strokes three-putting costs them in a round, they just don't magically stop three putting.  If they are going to improve, they find out what the cause is.  And it usually is a speed issue.  Sure, you can say "hit the ball closer to the hole from the fairway", or "miss on the proper quadrant or level" and you'll three-putt less often (which again, easier done for the better player than the high handicapper), but the high handicapper can also learn to have better speed control when putting and learn to reduce the number of three-putts per round regardless of the quality of their swing.  So "don't three putt" is time tested advice for the high handicapper to lower scores, even though there are different ways as to how you "don't do it".