|
|
Post by Richie3Jack on Oct 21, 2013 13:40:02 GMT -5
 It is a common practice in statistical analysis to seek out commonalities for successful or unsuccessful relationships in order to more accurately forecast future events. For example, if I own a store known for selling lemonade, I may want to find out certain commonalities between the days I tend to sell more lemonade versus the days I sell less lemonade. Those commonalities may be the temperature, tourist events that are in town, holidays and weekends versus weekdays. Generally, the fewer the commonalities the more likely it will lead to a more accurate forecast. If I know that my store is largely dependent on the weather in order to sell lemonade and the other factors are negligible, then it becomes easier to plan around the weather variable. If I know that the warmer the temperature the more lemonade I can sell, I can then stock up on lemonade and perhaps up the price during the summer versus stocking less lemonade and discounting the lemonade during the winter. With golf, I find many golfers attempt to break down the game in the same fashion. The old drive for show and putt for dough adage is quite common. There is also the various groups of people that believe that wedge play is everything, or hitting it long is everything, or hitting fairways is everything or even the doing everything well is everything. What I have found in my research on the PGA Tour is common sense, but not entirely obvious. In essence, in order to be VERY successful on the PGA Tour, a golfer does not have to be great at everything. In fact, they do not even have be great at anything. Instead, if they are at least at the average in four different parts of the game, they are extremely likely to be very successful on Tour Read More: www.golfwrx.com/145065/four-key-factors-to-success-on-the-pga-tour/ |
|
|
|
Post by fransatfrance on Oct 27, 2013 5:41:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Richie3Jack on Oct 27, 2013 8:01:01 GMT -5
Yes.
Much of it is what I have been preaching...that overall ballstriking means more than putting and short shots.
However, I think Molinari is speaking in a way that is possibly 'dangerous' to golfer's games.
The reason being is that according to a WSJ article, Broadie considers the 'long game' as any shot over 100 yards long.
And thus the 'short game' is anything inside 100 yards.
First, it's not really an apples-to-apples comparison. For all intents and purposes, the longest hole on Tour is about 600 yards (par-5). Thus, using this 'long game' (100+ yards) vs. short game (<100 yards) is creating to very different distance ranges. It's comparing roughly 500 yards (600 - 100) versus 100 yards. So using that segmentation of short vs. long game is inherently going to favor the long game. It's almost like stating that a city with 500,000 people is going to have a higher cumulative crime rate than a city with 100,000 people. That doesn't accurately depict how dangerous the city is from a crime perspective. And that's why we would use per capita metrics.
The other issue here is that when you further segment the game you start to see that Putts Gained and really shots from 10-20 yards get weighted down in terms of importance because while they are important...shots from 20-100 yards are very unimportant.
And shots from 100-150 yards and 225-300 yards (not tee shots on par-4's) are unimportant, but now they are becoming more important because shots from 150-225 yards and driving is very important.
I just simply would not recommend to stop practicing putting. Putts Gained and shots from 10-20 yards have a much stronger correlation on Tour than shots from 100-150 yards and 225-300 yards.
For amateurs, the scale is smaller, so I would not recommend them to stop working on putting while working on wedge and short iron shots.
And if you're a golfer that is struggling with your long game...the only way you're going to make it up is by playing well with your Short Game and putter.
It's one of those things where I understand that they are trying to get rid of this myth that 'putting is everything' and 'that's what separates the Tour players from the rest.' But it still doesn't provide as accurate of a depiction of the game as it should.
3JACK
|
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Oct 27, 2013 16:58:53 GMT -5
Rich -
What's the birdie percentage made from 50-100 yards out on average for tour players? 1 out of 4?
What about for a winner or top 10 player during a week? 1 out of 3?
It would be interesting to see stats of players when they're hot vs. players on average. I suspect players go low when they have a wedge in their hand 8-10 times for their second (or third shot on a par 5).
|
|
|
|
Post by Richie3Jack on Oct 27, 2013 18:02:09 GMT -5
Average is about 20-25%.
I don't have any winner data, but it really doesn't matter.
1. These guys don't get wedges in their hands that often on par-4's
2. The long hitters do in part because they can hit their wedges so long. The entire 'why would I want to hit my Sand Wedge 140 yards is a myth.' However, hitting your irons further only provides a minimal benefit. Between the geometry involved in direction control and margin for error and having to travel thru the air mass the real benefit to being able to hit your irons legitimately long is that the spin rate is higher and the angle of descent of the ball is steeper. So if you miss, the ball won't bounce off the green as violently and end up in a bad position.
The winner's on Tour almost all putt *great* that week. The problem is that you cannot rely on great putting. The best putters on Tour don't putt great on Tour each week. Instead, they manage to avoid sub-standard putting performances that would kill their putts gained.
Somebody like Brandt Snedeker will go thru most tournaments ranking above average to pretty good in putts gained. Then a couple of sub-standard performances and then a 4-5 events where they putt fantastic.
From a ballstriking perspective, typically the winner will strike it well from one of my key performance metrics. And usually it's the one or two or three areas of the game where the course setup favors these metrics.
The new thing that the Tour likes to throw out is how 22 of the 32 winners were in the top-10 in Putts Gained for that tournament. But none of them led the tournament in fairway percentage or driving distance.
Again...the context is poor and misleading on this one.
Simply because you could work on your putting every moment of your life and not finish in the top-10 in Putts Gained in the majority of your tournaments.
Furthermore, hitting fairways or hitting it the furthest doesn't mean you drive it effectively. And it also doesn't consider shots from different areas.
For instance, at the Frys.com....Jimmy Walker struck it terribly for the most part. He did put incredibly well, gaining 12 strokes against the field with the putter alone. But the one place he did strike it well at the Frys.com was one place that was very important...shots from 225-250 yards. He did struggle hitting fairways at the Frys.com....but he was able to find the fairway in the par-5's. And at that course (CordeValle), 2 of the par-5's were 'critical holes.'
But at TPC Summerlin....once again Webb Simpson lead the tournament in Putts Gained. He didn't lead the field in any other metrics, but unlike Walker he hit it well from everywhere, particularly in the Danger Zone which was the most important area for success at Summerlin.
3JACK
|
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Oct 27, 2013 19:26:52 GMT -5
Rich -
Which one would you take and why? Great driving or great iron play from 150 - 200?
|
|
|
|
Post by Richie3Jack on Oct 27, 2013 21:16:20 GMT -5
Depends on the course.
From an overall standpoint, I would take great driving. It's typically the largest difference between almost all amateurs and Tour players.
But 'great driving' is more than being accurate (fairway percentage) and precise (avg. distance to edge of fairway, fairway bunker %, missed fairway -other %). It's also about having distance.
Guys like Zach Johnson and Jim Furyk, both great drivers...are longer than most low handicap amateurs. Particularly when it comes to consistently long. For myself, I can hit drives anywhere from 250-300 yards long. Those guys are much more consistent with their distance.
It's huge because consistency makes for more predictable shots. Predictability is a good thing in golf (unless you are predictably bad.)
But, if I were good enough to be the average Tour player...I would take shots from 150-200 yards. I'd rather have Danger Zone shots if I could get it...but if I had to choose for an average Tour player...I'd take 150-200 yards.
3JACK
|
|
