Post by Richie3Jack on Mar 24, 2014 10:29:27 GMT -5
An article on the Tour looking to incorporate Strokes Gained from Tee to Green.
online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304256404579453274158781190
Recently, a friend of mine who is an Economics professor with a PhD in Economics from University of Georgia and I decided to go over scenarios for strokes gained. The main thing we came up with is that as the ball is further away from the hole, the more flaws there are in the strokes gained calculation and it gives a more inaccurate understanding of reality.
For instance, if Bubba Watson bombs a drive on a 480 yard par-4 to 100 yards but it well into the rough, his calculation of 'strokes gained' could be badly skewed by a number of factors. Let's say the majority of 100 yard shots from the rough in the event are actually on the par-5's, from shorter hitters that can't reach the par-5's in 2 shots. However, as we know with shorter hitters they tend to mathematically have to be superior wedge players and putters. So they are able to hit their 100 yard shots from the rough on the par-5's and get it into the hole routinely in 2 or 3 shots. However, for the average player or even longer player that is not as good of a wedge player or putter, if they had that 100 yard shot from the rough, they may be more likely to get the ball in the hole in 3 or 4 shots. It also doesn't account for players that are good out of the rough, which usually tends to be the golfers that generate more club head speed. And it still throws into account other parts of the game that have little to do with the shot at hand like putting.
We started to see the flaws in the metric as it gets further away from the cup (strokes gained - driving, strokes gained - iron play) when I noticed that it had Rory McIlroy ranked 5th in Strokes Gained - Driving. Part of statistics is seeing if the results do pass the 'eye test.' If they don't pass the 'eye test', that doesn't mean what you're seeing is 'right.' But, you really need to investigate why what you are seeing is different from what the statistical results are showing. Perhaps what you are seeing is right to a degree and the statistics are incomplete or flawed to a degree and there is a missing piece to the puzzle.
So with Rory, him ranking 5th in 'strokes gained - driving' didn't pass the 'eye test' with me (I had him ranked 29th). And the 'strokes gained' method was basically stating that Rory's problems were almost exclusively putting...which again didn't pass the 'eye test.' Part of the issue with Strokes Gained - Driving is that it treats rough the same. As we know, the further you get away from the fairway, typically the grass gets longer. I saw that first hand at Bay Hill on Wednesday. Furthermore, the angles into the green tend to get worse and you have to deal with trees, etc. that may not force the player into a rescue shot, but may alter where the golfer has to aim.
We then started to see further problems with strokes gained as the ball was further away from the hole when we started to look at average scores based on how far the approach shot was on individual golf holes. Bay Hill is a good example. Some holes clearly favored the golfer getting closer to the hole, regardless of the lie on the approach shot. Others like the first hole made no difference because you have to hit the fairway. And others like #5 were a mix depending on where the ball was precisely struck.
I'm thinking that the Tour's statisticians understand this as well and that is why they came up with Strokes Gained from Tee to Green. Because it will encompass every shot that is not on the green you can get a very accurate idea of precisely the amount of strokes gained or lost. But, if you try to use the strokes gained method for individual areas it is a bit faulty.
They point out Senden in hopes of showing that he won by ballstriking over putting. And in the end he did gain a lot of strokes from tee to green. But, the reality is that he was mediocre off the tee at Tampa, was fantastic from the Danger Zone and from 75-100 yards and putted very well. Historically golfers have not gained much of an advantage off the tee at Tampa and have gained more strokes from the Danger Zone and from either 100-125 yards or 75-100 yards (depending upon where the golfer lays up to on par-5's they can't reach).
I am looking forward to the strokes gained from tee to green. But it still is limited in what it can tell us as in Senden's case, he didn't strike every club in the bag well. He just struck the ones that were most important in accordance to the golf course's design well.
3JACK
online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304256404579453274158781190
Recently, a friend of mine who is an Economics professor with a PhD in Economics from University of Georgia and I decided to go over scenarios for strokes gained. The main thing we came up with is that as the ball is further away from the hole, the more flaws there are in the strokes gained calculation and it gives a more inaccurate understanding of reality.
For instance, if Bubba Watson bombs a drive on a 480 yard par-4 to 100 yards but it well into the rough, his calculation of 'strokes gained' could be badly skewed by a number of factors. Let's say the majority of 100 yard shots from the rough in the event are actually on the par-5's, from shorter hitters that can't reach the par-5's in 2 shots. However, as we know with shorter hitters they tend to mathematically have to be superior wedge players and putters. So they are able to hit their 100 yard shots from the rough on the par-5's and get it into the hole routinely in 2 or 3 shots. However, for the average player or even longer player that is not as good of a wedge player or putter, if they had that 100 yard shot from the rough, they may be more likely to get the ball in the hole in 3 or 4 shots. It also doesn't account for players that are good out of the rough, which usually tends to be the golfers that generate more club head speed. And it still throws into account other parts of the game that have little to do with the shot at hand like putting.
We started to see the flaws in the metric as it gets further away from the cup (strokes gained - driving, strokes gained - iron play) when I noticed that it had Rory McIlroy ranked 5th in Strokes Gained - Driving. Part of statistics is seeing if the results do pass the 'eye test.' If they don't pass the 'eye test', that doesn't mean what you're seeing is 'right.' But, you really need to investigate why what you are seeing is different from what the statistical results are showing. Perhaps what you are seeing is right to a degree and the statistics are incomplete or flawed to a degree and there is a missing piece to the puzzle.
So with Rory, him ranking 5th in 'strokes gained - driving' didn't pass the 'eye test' with me (I had him ranked 29th). And the 'strokes gained' method was basically stating that Rory's problems were almost exclusively putting...which again didn't pass the 'eye test.' Part of the issue with Strokes Gained - Driving is that it treats rough the same. As we know, the further you get away from the fairway, typically the grass gets longer. I saw that first hand at Bay Hill on Wednesday. Furthermore, the angles into the green tend to get worse and you have to deal with trees, etc. that may not force the player into a rescue shot, but may alter where the golfer has to aim.
We then started to see further problems with strokes gained as the ball was further away from the hole when we started to look at average scores based on how far the approach shot was on individual golf holes. Bay Hill is a good example. Some holes clearly favored the golfer getting closer to the hole, regardless of the lie on the approach shot. Others like the first hole made no difference because you have to hit the fairway. And others like #5 were a mix depending on where the ball was precisely struck.
I'm thinking that the Tour's statisticians understand this as well and that is why they came up with Strokes Gained from Tee to Green. Because it will encompass every shot that is not on the green you can get a very accurate idea of precisely the amount of strokes gained or lost. But, if you try to use the strokes gained method for individual areas it is a bit faulty.
They point out Senden in hopes of showing that he won by ballstriking over putting. And in the end he did gain a lot of strokes from tee to green. But, the reality is that he was mediocre off the tee at Tampa, was fantastic from the Danger Zone and from 75-100 yards and putted very well. Historically golfers have not gained much of an advantage off the tee at Tampa and have gained more strokes from the Danger Zone and from either 100-125 yards or 75-100 yards (depending upon where the golfer lays up to on par-5's they can't reach).
I am looking forward to the strokes gained from tee to green. But it still is limited in what it can tell us as in Senden's case, he didn't strike every club in the bag well. He just struck the ones that were most important in accordance to the golf course's design well.
3JACK