Fairways+Greens VS. Ball Striking VS. Strokes Gained Driving+Approach Comparisons

[Fairways_and_Greens]

On 11/4/2022 at 2:55 PM, Golferpaul said:

Fairways hit is meaningless.  If you miss the fairway but hit the green, you have a birdie putt.

 

The stat that correlates best with scoring is GIRs (historically) or even better Strokes gained approach the green.  

 

On 11/5/2022 at 1:16 PM, Golferpaul said:

Hitting fairways is important. But it doesn't correlate on its own with scoring while GIRs does.

LOL. Hitting fairways is both meaningless and important. You’ve covered a lot of waterfront Paul!

[smashdn]

On 11/6/2022 at 7:03 AM, North Butte said:

If the only things you're willing to track are counting stats like "GIR", "Fairway" and "Putts" then just don't bother. 

 

What else do you suggest we track?

[North Butte]

15 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

What else do you suggest we track?

Well if you're really serious about it, subscribe to the Golfmetrics app and type in the distance and situation for every shot over something like 30-40 consecutive rounds. Then look at the app's breakdowns of proximity and Strokes Gain by various categories of shots. 

 

If you're not interested in recording or recalling the distance and situation (lie, basically) of every shot you might want to just not bother with collecting data on your game. But there are some in between methods that involve tabulating shots within ranges of distances and so forth, that is better than ignoring distance altogether. 

 

Whatever you do, discard anything that involves the concept "Regulation". A good shot from 120 yards isn't better or worse due to being your second vs. third vs. fourth shot on a Par 4. If you want to know how you're doing from 120 yards you might want to track whether you ended up on green versus fairway/fringe versus rough versus bunker but you don't want to track whether any of those were in "regulation strokes". That is conflating the results of earlier shots with the result of the shot you are recording at the moment. 

 

But more generally, when you categorize things do not get trapped into thinking about dichotomous success/failure counting stats (like GIR, fairways hit, number of 3-putts). Try to incorporate distance (either exact yards or approximate ranges) of the result as first priority and situation/lie as the second priority. The only success/failure that really matters is whether it ended up in the hole but that's kind of already in your score anyway. 

 

And if you absolutely can't let go of the habit of marking things as success/failure dichotomies then come up with yes/no coding of things that matter. Never categorize a foot into the fairway versus a foot into the rough as a success/fail. Categorize it based on being able to hit a reasonably normal shot on your next shot. And don't treat 6" into the fringe as categorically different than 6" onto the green, concentrate on whether the spot you ended up makes the next shot appreciably harder. 

 

Realistically, even though there are conceptual and practical limitations to the Strokes Gained method, unless you are going to do a lot of work creating a bespoke analytic framework it's probably best to use Strokes Gained. All the details have been worked out in a very sensible manner and if you literally used Broadie's method of coding shots you have all sorts of baselines out there you can compare yourself to. 

Edited November 7, 2022 by North Butte

[smashdn]

3 minutes ago, North Butte said:

Well if you're really serious about it, subscribe to the Golfmetrics app and type in the distance and situation for every shot over something like 30-40 consecutive rounds. Then look at the app's breakdowns of proximity and Strokes Gain by various categories of shots. 

 

If you're not interested in recording or recalling the distance and situation (lie, basically) of every shot you might want to just not bother with collecting data on your game. But there are some in between methods that involve tabulating shots within ranges of distances and so forth, that is better than ignoring distance altogether. 

 

Whatever you do, discard anything that involves the concept "Regulation". A good shot from 120 yards isn't better or worse due to being your second vs. third vs. fourth shot on a Par 4. If you want to know how you're doing from 120 yards you might want to track whether you ended up on green versus fairway/fringe versus rough versus bunker but you don't want to track whether any of those were in "regulation strokes". That is conflating the results of earlier shots with the result of the shot you are recording at the moment. 

 

But more generally, when you categorize things do not get trapped into thinking about dichotomous success/failure counting stats (like GIR, fairways hit, number of 3-putts). Try to incorporate distance (either exact yards or approximate ranges) of the result as first priority and situation/lie as the second priority. The only success/failure that really matters is whether it ended up in the hole but that's kind of already in your score anyway. 

 

And if you absolutely can't let go of the habit of marking things as success/failure dichotomies then come up with yes/no coding of things that matter. Never categorize a foot into the fairway versus a foot into the rough as a success/fail. Categorize it based on being able to hit a reasonably normal shot on your next shot. And don't treat 6" into the fringe as categorically different than 6" onto the green, concentrate on whether the spot you ended up makes the next shot appreciably harder. 

 

Realistically, even though there are conceptual and practical limitations to the Strokes Gained method, unless you are going to do a lot of work creating a bespoke analytic framework it's probably best to use Strokes Gained. All the details have been worked out in a very sensible manner and if you literally used Broadie's method of coding shots you have all sorts of baselines out there you can compare yourself to. 

 

Did you see where I said, "if you aren't going to go to the extent/trouble of calculating?"

 

There is plenty to be gleaned from the "traditional" stats if you understand the context and use them appropriately.  

 

No, GIR won't tell you how you are doing from 120 yards.

 

I am not discounting the value of SG.  I am advising to track something and understand how that can help you versus not tracking anything.

[North Butte]

3 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

Did you see where I said, "if you aren't going to go to the extent/trouble of calculating?"

 

There is plenty to be gleaned from the "traditional" stats if you understand the context and use them appropriately.  

 

No, GIR won't tell you how you are doing from 120 yards.

 

I am not discounting the value of SG.  I am advising to track something and understand how that can help you versus not tracking anything.

Say it as many different ways as you like. Tracking GIR will indeed correlate with your scoring. But it tells you nothing at all useful about what to work on in your game and I can't think of any reason to do it other than it makes you feel good. But by all means, if it feels good do it. 

 

When you say "context" but then you totally ignore distance, you're ignoring by far the most important "context" there is. A missed green because you are one yard into the fringe is not the same as a missed green because you're lying three in the fairway after jacking your first tee shot OB. Any supposed stat that treats those the same is utter rubbish. Sorry, it just is. 

[North Butte]

Let's say you and I track 20 rounds and analyze our Par 4 results. 

 

I hit an average of 12 GIR per round (min 7, max 15) and my median proximity to the hole after two shots is 40 yards. I average three par 4's per round with a penalty or recovery shot after bad tee shots. 

 

You hit an average of 10 GIR per round (min 6, max 13) and your median proximity to the hole after two shot is 20 yards. You average less than one Par 4 per round hitting bad tee shots. 

 

Who has the better approach shot game? The guy who hits two more GIR per round with worse proximity? Or the guy hitting it closer to the hole on average with two fewer GIR?

 

The question is impossible to answer from the provided data. You'd want to know where those "approach" shots were coming from. And you'd want to eliminate any hole where the golfer is hitting 3 off the tee or pitching out sideways from the woods. The whole "GIR" concept falls apart unless everything else can be considered equal. 

[smashdn]

3 minutes ago, North Butte said:

Say it as many different ways as you like. Tracking GIR will indeed correlate with your scoring. But it tells you nothing at all useful about what to work on in your game and I can't think of any reason to do it other than it makes you feel good. But by all means, if it feels good do it. 

 

When you say "context" but then you totally ignore distance, you're ignoring by far the most important "context" there is. A missed green because you are one yard into the fringe is not the same as a missed green because you're lying three in the fairway after jacking your first tee shot OB. Any supposed stat that treats those the same is utter rubbish. Sorry, it just is. 

 

Bingo.  GIR is a corollary.

 

Do you know what "OEE" is?  (https://www.leanproduction.com/oee/)  GIR is a lot like OEE.  It is an amalgamation of processes and steps.  It is a quick way of showing whether the combination of all those steps is performing to a target.  GIR can be measured to a agreed upon baseline and you can decide whether your game is performing well enough compared to that. And just like OEE, when GIR dips low, say you only hit 4 out of 18 GIR, you need to dig further and decide why. 

 

Same with number of putts.  You can track it and decide for yourself what is a "target number" based upon your game and handicap or whatever.  Not hitting that number doesn't immediately mean you need to go practice putting, it just means you need to dig into that number and see where in your game you may have a short-coming.  It could very well be putting, or it could be approach or poor chipping, etc.

 

^That is what I mean by applying context.

 

Most amateur golfers don't have the time or care to track their shots to the extent they get meaningful SG data.  And I would venture that most don't know how to apply what the data is telling them either.  I am not saying it isn't good or valuable, it is just the deep end of the golf stats pool.  It is much easier to track the binary stats on the scorecard as a "jumping off point."  Even tracking "approach result longer than 150 yards" and "approach result inside 150 yards" (and or/100 yards if you had rather) is a step in that direction without breaking out MiniTab.

[bladehunter]

2 hours ago, Golferpaul said:

Tracking GIRs is very important. If you increase your GIR count you will lower your scores.

In theory 😂.     
 

i can show you a stat sheet that says I upped my 3 putts.  And the biggest percentage up ?  It’s 15-20 feet.  Lol.  

Edited November 7, 2022 by bladehunter

[North Butte]

That's what I mean by a feel good stat (I would use a different term but it would not be appropriate language for this forum). You can't actually do anything with that number except look at it and go "Hmmmm, sounds about right". It does not admit any actionable interpretation but lots of guys get off on having hundreds of scorecards carefully annotated with check and X's for GIR and Fairway and Putts. Then they can look back and say "Wow, when I was a 15 hcp I was only hitting 6 greens and 8 fairways. Now I'm a 9 and hitting 10 greens and 9 fairways. Makes a lot of sense". 

 

If you actually want INSIGHT into what works and doesn't work in your game, not only does GIR not provide that, the thinking that goes into it (dichotomania) actually misleads in so many ways. 

[North Butte]

Just now, bladehunter said:

In theory 😂.   

If you play at a course with reasonably interesting greens, the kind of course sometimes described as "the greens are its only defense", it's entirely possible to make a habit of doing everything possible to avoid "missing a green" and end up miles from the hole putting across ridges and oblique dropoffs constantly or have half a dozen unstoppable downhill putts per round. 

 

When you can choose one club that's likely to leave you below the hole, within 25 feet and in the fringe or fairway versus another club that's likely to leave you on the green but 40-60 feet from the hole with a downhill double-breaker, any player with a lick of sense will opt for the safe shot that might miss the green but leave a bog-simple chip or putt from the fringe. 

 

You don't want to be tracking stats that make that sensible shot look like a "failure" but the idiotic shot to the far side of the green code out as "success". Not only does it screw your approach shot stats, it obscures the real reason you 3-jacked after the stupid shot versus having a "chip" and a putt after the smart one. 

[smashdn]

Can't you say the same thing about your actual score?  We still track it though.  It is a metric we try to improve. 

 

GIR is a sub-metric we try to improve with actions.  Putts per round is a sub-metric we try to improve with actions.  You can set goals for those and track them real time while you are playing.  You can't really do that with SG.  That isn't a knock on SG it is just by virtue of how the metric is calculated.

 

I am not improving GIR for the sake of getting better at GIR.  I am trying to improve GIR so I get better at scoring.  I also wouldn't look at GIR in a vacuum or without taking into consideration putting as well.

 

GIR is just an approximation of the quality of your tee shot and approach together.  

Edited November 7, 2022 by smashdn

[North Butte]

Just now, smashdn said:

Can't you say the same thing about your actual score?  We still track it though.  It is a metric we try to improve. 

 

GIR is a sub-metric we try to improve with actions.  Putts per round is a sub-metric we try to improve with actions.  You can set goals for those and track them real time while you are playing.  You can't really do that with SG.  That isn't a knock on SG it is just by virtue of how the metric is calculated.

 

I am not improving GIR for the sake of getting better at GIR.  I am trying to improve GIR so I get better at scoring.  

OK, golf analytics from first principles. Specifically approach shot analytics. 

 

1) When doing analytics on approach shots, you are trying to identify or track possible improvements in where approach shots end up relative to the ease or difficulty of the next shot.

 

2) Therefore, after each approach shot (whether it is in "regulation" or one less than "regulation" or it's the fourth or fifth shot after an earlier disaster) you want to come up with some way of coding the favorability of where the ball ended up w.r.t. the next shot.

 

3a) Coding the ease/difficulty of the upcoming shot in any dichotomous manner is a severe shortcut and IMHO is so insufficient it is not worth doing. 

 

3b) But GIR takes it one step further, not only summarizing each approach shot into a "success" of "failure" dichotomy but doing that dichotomy in an arbitrary and stupid manner based entirely on the whether the ball is resting on a spot of turf that's within the perimeter of the "putting green". 

 

4) First decide how detailed you want your coding of approach shot results to be. Do you absolutely insist on success/failure (which BTW also suffers from being an emotionally loaded value judgment)? Or can you handle having maybe four or five levels of arbitrary degrees of "success"? Or are you willing to deal with independent dimensions of distance (most important) and lie (also important) a la Strokes Gained? 

 

If you aren't willing to actually record distances for whatever reason, I would suggest giving yourself at least multiple possible codings for the results of an approach shot. An ordinal rubric along these lines would be an example, you could simplify it down by combing adjacent categories if you must:

 

a) "Close enough I have a substantial chance of 1-putting"

b) "Putting but more than 10 feet away"

c) "I have to chip but it's a simple up and down opportunity"

d) "Short game recovery shot beyond a simple chip (bunker, pitch, hack out of rough)

e) "Another full swing approach shot needed from where it ended up"

f) "Penalty stroke"

 

The obvious dichotomy would be categories a, b and c combined into "success" with d, e and f being "failure". So that would be my suggestion for a GIR replacement if you can't deal with any complexity beyond good shot, bad shot. 

[smashdn]

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/challengestats

 

We are talking stats not analytics.  If you have the time and the inclination by all means track everything you are saying.  it will certainly give you more depth of knowledge to your game and shorten the curve on knowing what you need to work on to improve.

 

If you don't play enough, or don't use a gps app (I tried, they destroy phone battery) or don't really care to write down your approach distances (I am more of an eyes and feel player myself) then there is still some info that can be gleaned from quickly jotting down a few bits of info as you play.  Some info is better than none.  You can still trend things with basic information and it still tell a story provided you understand the shortcomings you will have with the limited depth of the data you have collected.

[North Butte]

13 minutes ago, smashdn said:

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/challengestats

 

We are talking stats not analytics.  If you have the time and the inclination by all means track everything you are saying.  it will certainly give you more depth of knowledge to your game and shorten the curve on knowing what you need to work on to improve.

 

If you don't play enough, or don't use a gps app (I tried, they destroy phone battery) or don't really care to write down your approach distances (I am more of an eyes and feel player myself) then there is still some info that can be gleaned from quickly jotting down a few bits of info as you play.  Some info is better than none.  You can still trend things with basic information and it still tell a story provided you understand the shortcomings you will have with the limited depth of the data you have collected.

That’s why I say do it if it feels good. As long as you realize it’s for entertainment value and not game improvement. 
 

Kind of like the guys who sign up for GHIN even though they never compete with anyone. They like to watch the index go up and down to “track their progress”. It is all just telling a story, people love a narrative. 

[smashdn]

The "traditional stats" are not for entertainment value.  They can be used for game improvement as well as anything else.  There is no need  to know your SG-Approach number to know that you may need to improve your wedge play.  You can figure that out just as well intuitively and by objectively measuring your own game's strengths and shortcomings as with SG.  SG just removes [most of] the bias.  If you cannot objectively measure your game without bias then SG is probably needed for you.

 

A good "in-between" is something like The Grint.  I just track the traditional stats on my scorecard and then later put them into the website.  It computes a lot more in-depth analytical stuff (still no SG stats) to use.  You still have to interpret all of this, even SG stats, to know what you need to actually be working on to get better.

[North Butte]

So does The Grint treat "missed GIR" five yards short in the fairway exactly the same as "missed GIR" 170 yards out in the rough? 

 

And does it treat missing a green when your tee shot was in the woods requiring a chip-out the same as a missed green because you fatted a wedge 30 yards short of the green from 100 yards out in the fairway? 

 

If so, no matter how in-depth it claims to be the results are rubbish. 

 

Any of these apps that claim to do in-depth analysis of simple counting stats are basically asking you to believe if you mash together enough bad data and combine it cleverly enough, somehow valid conclusions will emerge. Ain't ever happened, never will. 

Edited November 7, 2022 by North Butte

[North Butte]

So let's say you have it in mind that a player of the level you aspire to ought to generally hit about 11-12 GIR per round. But you've got data that shows you average 8 GIR and almost never have more than 10 GIR in a round. 

 

If you don't know where those missed-GIR shots were hit from and you don't how badly you missed the green, what exactly are you supposed to do with that information? Beyond saying, "I need to work on my tee to green game" there's absolutely no clue as to what your priorities are. 

 

Your missed 8-13 greens could be a mixture of wedges or short irons you either fatted or bladed due to low point control errors, having a two-way miss leading to lost balls and penalties on your tee shots or having average approach shot distances of 170+ yards when your 170 club is a 3-wood. None of that information can be gleaned from a series of checks and X's in the "GIR" field of a form.

 

But each of those causes has a very different implication if you actually want to do something beside tut-tut about it. There's probably not a lot of overlap between swing drills to work on that two-way driver miss and working on the fat/thin wedge shots. 

 

P.S. By the way we haven't even talked about the fact that any golfer is going to hit more GIR at The Old Course than at Pebble Beach. 

[bladehunter]

2 hours ago, North Butte said:

If you play at a course with reasonably interesting greens, the kind of course sometimes described as "the greens are its only defense", it's entirely possible to make a habit of doing everything possible to avoid "missing a green" and end up miles from the hole putting across ridges and oblique dropoffs constantly or have half a dozen unstoppable downhill putts per round. 

 

When you can choose one club that's likely to leave you below the hole, within 25 feet and in the fringe or fairway versus another club that's likely to leave you on the green but 40-60 feet from the hole with a downhill double-breaker, any player with a lick of sense will opt for the safe shot that might miss the green but leave a bog-simple chip or putt from the fringe. 

 

You don't want to be tracking stats that make that sensible shot look like a "failure" but the idiotic shot to the far side of the green code out as "success". Not only does it screw your approach shot stats, it obscures the real reason you 3-jacked after the stupid shot versus having a "chip" and a putt after the smart one. 

Bingo. I play on such a course.  And they’re small.  You're much  better most times missing short if you have a solid shortgame.  Vs hitting the green long or even in certain side to side spots. 
 

i understand the idea.  But its just not universal.    Proximity overall is still king in my mind.  

Edited November 7, 2022 by bladehunter

[golferdude54]

If you’re having a day where you hit 14/14 fairways and 18/18 greens, you’re going to be close to the hole on your first putts no matter what.

Leading up to Jim Furyk’s 58, he hit every GIR and was 15 feet proximity to the hole on average, and he only missed one fairway.

 

Ultimately, we’re all trying to hit every fairway and green in our round and if we do miss one or more, that’s either from bad swings/judgment or bad luck. 

 

You’re going to encounter 14 par 4’s and 5’s every round that you play if you play a normal golf course so answer this: is it more likely to hit all 14 GIR’s from all 14 fairways or hit all 14 GIR’s from rough, trees, and fairway bunkers? 

[golferdude54]

Keep in mind that Jim Furyk was #1 in driving accuracy AND GIR in 2020, one of only 3 players to do so, the other two being Henrik Stenson in 2018 and Calvin Peete from 1981-1983.
 

Furyk’s highest ball speed in 2020 was below 164 MPH, his average was only 158 MPH. Yet he was still #1 in GIR at the age of 50 despite having longer approach shots than everyone else on tour. 
 

Now, is it possible to lead the tour in GIR with 100 MPH ball speed off the tee on par 4’s and 5’s? Heck no, but at least we know the minimum it takes to compete on tour through Furyk’s example, which is 160 MPH apparently. 

[North Butte]

It depends entirely on what distances you are hitting from the fairway, rough, whatever 

[Golferpaul]

9 hours ago, golfortennis said:

 

Player A hits 15 greens, average length first putt of 60 feet.

 

Player B hits 7 greens, average length of first putt 20 feet, and when he misses the greens, he is chipping from 60 feet away.

 

Who is having the better round when it's all said and done?

That's not how statistics work.  Your sample is way too small to be valid.  But if you measure 100 PGAT pros over a season of golf where they hit thousands of greens, you will see a correlation between GIRs and scoring.

[Golferpaul]

9 hours ago, North Butte said:

Yeah and if you make more putts you will lower your score. And if you chip out of the trees less often. And if you lose fewer balls. And if you hit it closer to the hole. Lots of "stats" you could keep that are correlated with lower scores. 

 

The question is, what actionable insights do you get in return for tracking a certain thing. GIR is a great example of an after-the-fact counting stat that offers minimal insight at best and at worst is totally misleading.

 

If you track your GIRs for a year, then work on your iron game to increase your GIRs, you will improve your scoring.

I'm not talking about GIRs for one day or one week. 

 

Your GIR stats are the best way to evaluate your iron play and correlate with scoring more than any other stat.

 

And every stat is "after the fact".

 

[Golferpaul]

8 hours ago, Fairways_and_Greens said:

 

LOL. Hitting fairways is both meaningless and important. You’ve covered a lot of waterfront Paul!

Hitting fairways is important because it allows you to have an easier iron shot and prevents you from hitting OB or in the woods.  But as a stat, it doesn't correlate to scoring at all.

[Golferpaul]

7 hours ago, North Butte said:

Let's say you and I track 20 rounds and analyze our Par 4 results. 

 

I hit an average of 12 GIR per round (min 7, max 15) and my median proximity to the hole after two shots is 40 yards. I average three par 4's per round with a penalty or recovery shot after bad tee shots. 

 

You hit an average of 10 GIR per round (min 6, max 13) and your median proximity to the hole after two shot is 20 yards. You average less than one Par 4 per round hitting bad tee shots. 

 

Who has the better approach shot game? The guy who hits two more GIR per round with worse proximity? Or the guy hitting it closer to the hole on average with two fewer GIR?

 

The question is impossible to answer from the provided data. You'd want to know where those "approach" shots were coming from. And you'd want to eliminate any hole where the golfer is hitting 3 off the tee or pitching out sideways from the woods. The whole "GIR" concept falls apart unless everything else can be considered equal. 

But that is not a realistic example.  Players who hit more greens will almost always also have a closer average proximity to the hole when tracked for a season.  

 

 Players with higher GIRs will hit, on average, closer to the hole than players with fewer GIRs whether they hit a green or not.  They hit more greens because they are better ball strikers and their proximity to the hole will average closer because they are better ball strikers.  

[North Butte]

31 minutes ago, Golferpaul said:

If you track your GIRs for a year, then work on your iron game to increase your GIRs, you will improve your scoring.

I'm not talking about GIRs for one day or one week. 

 

Your GIR stats are the best way to evaluate your iron play and correlate with scoring more than any other stat.

 

And every stat is "after the fact".

 

Say it however you want but GIR are not the “best way” they are a terrible, confused, muddled and misleading way to evaluate your iron play. 
 

And they correlate more than other even sillier, misleading counting stats. Saying GIR is more closely associated with scoring than fairways or putts per GIR is just saying it is not quite as bad as some even worse stats. A very low bar. 
 

Not that correlation is the goal. The goal is to learn something beyond what the score already tells you. If there were a 1.00 correlation between scoring and GIR then how would that prove that GIR is useful. We dont need to predict scoring, we already know the scores. 

 

Quote

If you track your GIRs for a year, then work on your iron game to increase your GIRs, you will improve your scoring.

 

Nothing special about GIR in the regard. If you practice your driving for a year and improve your tee shots, your scores will improve. If you work on your putting for a year and improve your putting, you'll take fewer putts and your scores will improve. Or wedge game or chipping. 

Edited November 7, 2022 by North Butte

[Titleist_PT23]

Does strokes gained treat the following differently?  A) I hit my tee shot 350 yards to the right rough and the pin is on the left and I have a shot to a spot reasonably close to the hole or B) I hit my tee shot 350 yards to the right rough and the pin is on the right and I have no shot anywhere near the hole (decision is really do I want a long putt or is there a spot around the green that is reasonably likely to get up and down from).  Or, does it treat each tee shot as the same strokes gained (or lost)?  And the approach could either be a big gain, neutral, or a big loss but it is really about where my tee shot put me?

[North Butte]

12 minutes ago, agolf1 said:

Does strokes gained treat the following differently?  A) I hit my tee shot 350 yards to the right rough and the pin is on the left and I have a shot to a spot reasonably close to the hole or B) I hit my tee shot 350 yards to the right rough and the pin is on the right and I have no shot anywhere near the hole (decision is really do I want a long putt or is there a spot around the green that is reasonably likely to get up and down from).  Or, does it treat each tee shot as the same strokes gained (or lost)?  And the approach could either be a big gain, neutral, or a big loss but it is really about where my tee shot put me?

If I understand the scenarios correctly, both of those would be coded as a shot from the rough at a distance of [however far to the hole] yards. Strokes Gained does not take into account angles or the difficulty of reaching certain hole locations relative to contours or bunkers, etc. 

 

If I misunderstood and you meant that being in the right rough you are blocked out (by tree or other obstruction) from being able to aim toward the part of the green with the hole, then you might code the second scenario as an "obstructed" shot rather than "rough". Strokes Gained does have that as a separate category for recovery or punch-out type shots. 

 

But Strokes Gained is designed to be applied over a large number of rounds. It isn't granular enough (and there's typically no way of getting a good estimate) to reflect how much harder a right pin is from the right rough versus a left pin from the right rough or things like that. It necessarily counts on there being no systematic bias when averaging Strokes Gained over many approach shots. 

Edited November 7, 2022 by North Butte

[bladehunter]

40 minutes ago, Golferpaul said:

If you track your GIRs for a year, then work on your iron game to increase your GIRs, you will improve your scoring.

I'm not talking about GIRs for one day or one week. 

 

Your GIR stats are the best way to evaluate your iron play and correlate with scoring more than any other stat.

 

And every stat is "after the fact".

 

But that brings up a common question that comes into my mind.  
 

is improvement seeing a stat get better- or winning ?  
 

i understand that usually in weeks when you win the stats are good.  I get that. But I have personally seen chasing incremental stats gains turn into zero winning.  I’ve historically been a streaky putter.  Hot or cold. Cold just meaning making none.  I chased consistency and All I got was turning off all the hot.  And making the cold colder.   
 

thets not me down on stats. I pay for their keeping.  But I just don’t know if chasing their improvement is what all good players do or should do.  
 

plenty say “ improve the stats and the winning will follow “.   To me it works “ focus on winning and the stats will improve “. Lol. I wish i knew why 

Edited November 7, 2022 by bladehunter

[Titleist_PT23]

2 minutes ago, North Butte said:

If I understand the scenarios correctly, both of those would be coded as a shot from the rough at a distance of [however far to the hole] yards. Strokes Gained does not take into account angles or the difficulty of reaching certain hole locations relative to contours or bunkers, etc. 

 

If I misunderstood and you meant that being in the right rough you are blocked out (by tree or other obstruction) from being able to aim toward the part of the green with the hole, then you might code the second scenario as an "obstructed" shot rather than "rough". Strokes Gained does have that as a separate category for recovery or punch-out type shots. 

 

But Stroke Gained is designed to be applied over a large number of rounds. It isn't granular enough (and there's typically of getting a good estimate) to reflect how much harder a right pin is from the right rough versus a left pin from the right rough or things like that. It necessarily counts on there being no systematic bias when averaging Strokes Gained over many approach shots. 

I meant the first scenario you listed above.  One wouldn't be physically "obstructed" but practically speaking you have some problems (or at least much different than if you were going to the left pin).

 

I get the over a large number of rounds part.  I guess I was just commenting on the traditional stats that don't reflect the situation (in the fringe 6 inches off the green 20 feet from the hole, etc) and whether the same applied here.  I.e. hit an approach from 175 yards to 15 feet; one time is on the wrong ridge above the hole and literally no chance to stop the ball within a couple of feet whereas the other is a good look at birdie (or double as you've mentioned).

 

Anyways, carry on.  Thank you.