Opinion & Analysis
What factors are most important in Strokes Gained Putting?
As a golf statistician, I’m often asked what statistics golfers can keep to track their skills on the golf course.
For the tour players I work with, it’s easy. The PGA Tour uses a laser-measuring system called “Shot Tracker” that gives me the raw data I need to help them with their game. For amateurs, it’s much more difficult. They don’t have Shot Tracker, and many golfers who create their own metrics find that it can be a time-consuming process riddled with inaccuracies.
I am constantly looking to create new types of scoring games that are based on sound statistical information. For instance, there was a fad of people using the total distance of putts made metric. The idea was this — the longer the distance of total putts a player made, the better they putted. It does not consider, however, the golfer who putts poorly and happens to make a 60-footer. Nor does it consider the golfer who putts well and leaves himself first putts that are shorter in distance.
I started to look at some other metrics that I thought would be less cumbersome to record when it came to putting. I ran this against the past history of Strokes Gained Putting on Tour and found some interesting results.
When using putting distance metrics, the average length of all two-putts has the strongest correlation to Strokes Gained Putting on Tour.
For instance, if Brandt Snedeker two putts from 30 feet, it is recorded as a two putt from 30 feet. So, if he gets on the next hole and two putts from 50 feet, then he has an average of two putting from 40 feet.
This finding surprised me. I would have thought that the average length of a one-putt or the average length of a three-putt would have had a larger correlation to Strokes Gained Putting.
In fact, here are the mathematical correlations over the years since Strokes Gained Putting has been used by the PGA Tour:
For those who don’t understand what the numbers mean, it is based on a mathematical formula used to tell the strength of a relationship between two variables. The correlation number ranges from +1 to -1. The closer the number is to +1, the stronger the direct relationship is between the two variables.
Let’s say I own a store and I want to see the relationship between lemonade sold and temperature. After I record the data, I find the correlation to be +0.9. That means that as the temperature increases so does the likelihood that I will sell more lemonade. A number closer to 0 means that there is no real relationship, and a number closer to -1 indicates a stronger, indirect relationship.
Say I owned the same store and wanted to look at hot soup sold and temperature. I may get a correlation of -0.85, which means that as the temperature falls it would be likely that I would sell more soup. But if I look at the correlation between temperature and bread sold and come up with a correlation of +0.003, then that shows that temperature has no real impact on how many loafs of bread will be sold.
The reason why I bring up these correlations is that we see that after the two-putt distance correlations, the one-putt distance correlations are right behind. There is a significant decline, however, in the correlation between three-putt distances and Strokes Gained Putting.
My conclusion as to why the two-putting distance metrics have a stronger correlation is that it is simply too difficult to putt great from course to course. I label putting “great” any time a Tour player averages +1 or more strokes gained per round for a tournament. Even the best putters on Tour tend to only putt great in roughly 30-to-40 percent of their events.
These were three of the best putters in 2014 and they putted great in 33-to-40 percent of their events.
By looking at the graphs, we can see that great putting tends to occur at roughly the same time. Aaron Baddeley hit a stretch of great putting from The McGladreys through Riviera, as he putted great in 4 of those 6 events (notice the tall red bars, which indicate strokes gained on the field).
Freddie Jacobson hit his hot streak by putting great in 6 out of 8 events from Pebble Beach to the Zurich Classic. And Greg Chalmers started the year on fire by putting great in four events in a from The McGladreys to TPC Scottsdale.
Great putters also tend to cool off in streaks, however. They usually tend to putt better than the average (better than 0 strokes gained), but they can no longer rely on great putting for them to do well in a tournament. And that is where I believe why the average length of a player’s two-putts correlates strongest to Strokes Gained Putting.
But, I didn’t want to stop there. I wanted to look at a combination of metrics to help decide if there is more than one way to correlate to Strokes Gained Putting. And what I found was that if you combine the length of the average two putt along with the length of the average birdie putt made, you get the strongest correlation to Strokes Gained Putting in the end.
Let’s remember how Strokes Gained Putting is designed. If the field makes 40 percent of their putts from 10 feet, that will equate to roughly 1.6 strokes to the hole from 10 feet. If a player one-putts from 10 feet, then they are determined to have gained +0.6 strokes on the field. If they two-putt from 10 feet, then they have lost -0.4 strokes to the field.
The reason why birdie putts contribute to Strokes Gained Putting more is that they are by and large more difficult for players to make. In fact, only two PGA Tour players had a higher make percentage of birdie putts than par putts from 5-to-15 feet: Kevin Streelman and Luke Donald.
Anytime the make percentage goes down, there is more potential for a player to gain more strokes. If the make percentage from 10 feet went down to 20 percent and that roughly equates to 1.8 strokes from 10 feet, a player that makes the 10-foot putt now gains 0.8 strokes on the field.
Essentially, what this tells me is that even the best putters are not going to be able to take great putting from course to course, so they need to be two-putting when putts are not dropping for them. And when you combine the length of the two-putts along with the length of birdie putts made, it provides a measurement of ability to avoid three-putts and ability to make putts.
The average Tour player’s two-putt distance is roughly 22.5 feet, and their average birdie putt make distance is 10.5 feet. That comes to a combined 33 feet. I also wanted to test this with another metric that is fairly easy to measure: Greens in Regulation (GIR).
When combining GIR with the “Average All Two-Putts Distance” and the “Average Birdie Make Putt Distance,” it has an incredibly strong correlation to Adjusted Scoring Average.
Normally, I’m not a big fan of the greens in regulation metric due to its flaws and ambiguous nature, but considering that it is an easy metric to calculate and the correlation between greens hit and the two-putt and one-putt average distance is so high, I think it is a helpful way for a player to measure their skills.
And that’s how I came up with the “98 Score.”
Here are the Tour averages for each of the metrics:
- Average All 2-Putts Distance: 22.5 feet
- Average Birdie Putts Made Distance: 10.5 feet
- Average Greens In Regulation: 65 percent
22.5 + 10.5 + 65 = 98
If you can score 98 or better, than you are playing quite well. If not, keep trying to improve your score so you can get the ball on the green more often and putt better when you’re on the greens.
- LIKE69
- LEGIT10
- WOW8
- LOL2
- IDHT1
- FLOP11
- OB2
- SHANK7
Of all the clubs in our bags, wedges are almost always the simplest in construction and, therefore, the easiest to analyze what might make one work differently from another if you know what to look for.
Wedges are a lot less mysterious than drivers, of course, as the major brands are working with a lot of “pixie dust” inside these modern marvels. That’s carrying over more to irons now, with so many new models featuring internal multi-material technologies, and almost all of them having a “badge” or insert in the back to allow more complex graphics while hiding the actual distribution of mass.
But when it comes to wedges, most on the market today are still single pieces of molded steel, either cast or forged into that shape. So, if you look closely at where the mass is distributed, it’s pretty clear how that wedge is going to perform.
To start, because of their wider soles, the majority of the mass of almost any wedge is along the bottom third of the clubhead. So, the best wedge shots are always those hit between the 2nd and 5th grooves so that more mass is directly behind that impact. Elite tour professionals practice incessantly to learn to do that consistently, wearing out a spot about the size of a penny right there. If impact moves higher than that, the face is dramatically thinner, so smash factor is compromised significantly, which reduces the overall distance the ball will fly.
Every one of us, tour players included, knows that maddening shot that we feel a bit high on the face and it doesn’t go anywhere, it’s not your fault.
If your wedges show a wear pattern the size of a silver dollar, and centered above the 3rd or 4th groove, you are not getting anywhere near the same performance from shot to shot. Robot testing proves impact even two to three grooves higher in the face can cause distance loss of up to 35 to 55 feet with modern ‘tour design’ wedges.
In addition, as impact moves above the center of mass, the golf club principle of gear effect causes the ball to fly higher with less spin. Think of modern drivers for a minute. The “holy grail” of driving is high launch and low spin, and the driver engineers are pulling out all stops to get the mass as low in the clubhead as possible to optimize this combination.
Where is all the mass in your wedges? Low. So, disregarding the higher lofts, wedges “want” to launch the ball high with low spin – exactly the opposite of what good wedge play requires penetrating ball flight with high spin.
While almost all major brand wedges have begun putting a tiny bit more thickness in the top portion of the clubhead, conventional and modern ‘tour design’ wedges perform pretty much like they always have. Elite players learn to hit those crisp, spinny penetrating wedge shots by spending lots of practice time learning to consistently make contact low in the face.
So, what about grooves and face texture?
Grooves on any club can only do so much, and no one has any material advantage here. The USGA tightly defines what we manufacturers can do with grooves and face texture, and modern manufacturing techniques allow all of us to push those limits ever closer. And we all do. End of story.
Then there’s the topic of bounce and grinds, the most complex and confusing part of the wedge formula. Many top brands offer a complex array of sole configurations, all of them admittedly specialized to a particular kind of lie or turf conditions, and/or a particular divot pattern.
But if you don’t play the same turf all the time, and make the same size divot on every swing, how would you ever figure this out?
The only way is to take any wedge you are considering and play it a few rounds, hitting all the shots you face and observing the results. There’s simply no other way.
So, hopefully this will inspire a lively conversation in our comments section, and I’ll chime in to answer any questions you might have.
And next week, I’ll dive into the rest of the wedge formula. Yes, shafts, grips and specifications are essential, too.
- LIKE15
- LEGIT5
- WOW1
- LOL1
- IDHT2
- FLOP2
- OB1
- SHANK1
Golf's Perfect Imperfections
Golf’s Perfect Imperfections: Amazing Session with Performance Coach Savannah Meyer-Clement
In this week’s episode, we spent some time with performance coach Savannah Meyer-Clement who provides many useful insights that you’ll be able to implement on the golf course.
- LIKE0
- LEGIT0
- WOW0
- LOL0
- IDHT0
- FLOP0
- OB0
- SHANK0
19th Hole
Vincenzi’s 2024 RBC Heritage betting preview: Patrick Cantlay ready to get back inside winner’s circle
Just a two-hour drive from Augusta National, the PGA TOUR heads to Harbour Town Golf Links in Hilton Head Island, S.C. Hilton Head Island is a golfer’s paradise and Harbour Town is one of the most beautiful and scenic courses on the PGA TOUR.
Harbour Town Golf Links is a par-71 that measures 7,121 yards and features Bermuda grass greens. A Pete Dye design, the course is heavily tree lined and features small greens and many dog legs, protecting it from “bomb-and-gauge” type golfers.
The field is loaded this week with 69 golfers with no cut. Last year was quite possibly the best field in RBC Heritage history and the event this week is yet another designated event, meaning there is a $20 million prize pool.
Most of the big names on the PGA Tour will be in attendance this week with the exceptions of Hideki Matsuyama and Viktor Hovland. Additionally, Webb Simpson, Shane Lowry, Gary Woodland and Kevin Kisner have been granted sponsors exemptions.
Past Winners at Harbour Town
- 2023: Matt Fitzpatrick (-17)
- 2022: Jordan Spieth (-13)
- 2021: Stewart Cink (-19)
- 2020: Webb Simpson (-22)
- 2019: CT Pan (-12)
- 2018: Sotoshi Kodaira (-12)
- 2017: Wesley Bryan (-13)
- 2016: Branden Grace (-9)
- 2015: Jim Furyk (-18)
In this article and going forward, I’ll be using the Rabbit Hole by Betsperts Golf data engine to develop my custom model. If you want to build your own model or check out all of the detailed stats, you can sign up using promo code: MATTVIN for 25% off any subscription package (yearly is best value).
Key Stats For Harbour Town
Let’s take a look at key metrics for Harbour Town Golf Links to determine which golfers boast top marks in each category over their past 24 rounds.
Strokes Gained: Approach
Strokes Gained: Approach is exceedingly important this week. The greens at Harbour Town are about half the size of PGA TOUR average and feature the second-smallest greens on the tour. Typical of a Pete Dye design, golfers will pay the price for missed greens.
Total SG: Approach Over Past 24 Rounds
- Scottie Scheffler (+1.27)
- Tom Hoge (+1.27)
- Corey Conners (+1.16)
- Austin Eckroat (+0.95)
- Cameron Young (+0.93)
Good Drive %
The fairways at Harbour Town are tree lined and feature many dog legs. Bombers tend to struggle at the course because it forces layups and doesn’t allow long drivers to overpower it. Accuracy is far more important than power.
Good Drive % Over Past 24 Rounds
- Brice Garnett (88.8%)
- Shane Lowry (+87.2%)
- Akshay Bhatia (+86.0%)
- Si Woo Kim (+85.8%)
- Sepp Straka (+85.1%)
Strokes Gained: Total at Pete Dye Designs
Pete Dye specialists tend to play very well at Harbour Town. Si Woo Kim, Matt Kuchar, Jim Furyk and Webb Simpson are all Pete Dye specialists who have had great success here. It is likely we see some more specialists near the top of the leaderboard this week.
SG: TOT Pete Dye per round over past 36 rounds:
- Xander Schauffele (+2.27)
- Scottie Scheffler (+2.24)
- Ludvig Aberg (+2.11)
- Brian Harman (+1.89)
- Sungjae Im (+1.58)
4. Strokes Gained: Short Game (Bermuda)
Strokes Gained: Short Game factors in both around the green and putting. With many green-side bunkers and tricky green complexes, both statistics will be important. Past winners — such as Jim Furyk, Wes Bryan and Webb Simpson — highlight how crucial the short game skill set is around Harbour Town.
SG: SG Over Past 24 Rounds
- Jordan Spieth (+1.11)
- Taylor Moore (+1.02)
- Wyndham Clark (+0.98)
- Mackenzie Hughes (+0.86)
- Andrew Putnam (+0.83)
5. Greens in Regulation %
The recipe for success at Harbour Town Golf Links is hitting fairways and greens. Missing either will prove to be consequential — golfers must be in total control of the ball to win.
Greens in Regulation % over past 24 rounds:
- Brice Garnett (+75.0%)
- Scottie Scheffler (+69.9%)
- Corey Conners (+69.0%)
- Shane Lowry (+68.3%)
- Patrick Rodgers (+67.6%)
6. Course History
Harbour Town is a course where players who have strong past results at the course always tend to pop up.
Course History over past 24 rounds:
- Patrick Cantlay (+2.34)
- Cam Davis (+2.05)
- J.T. Poston (+1.69)
- Justin Rose (+1.68)
- Tommy Fleetwood (+1.59)
The RBC Heritage Model Rankings
Below, I’ve compiled overall model rankings using a combination of the five key statistical categories previously discussed — SG: Approach (24%), Good Drives (20%), SG: SG (14%), SG: Pete Dye (14%), GIR (14%), and Course History (14%)
- Shane Lowry
- Russell Henley
- Scottie Scheffler
- Xander Schauffele
- Corey Conners
- Wyndham Clark
- Christiaan Bezuidenhout
- Matt Fitzpatrick
- Cameron Young
- Ludvig Aberg
2024 RBC Heritage Picks
Patrick Cantlay +2000 (FanDuel)
With the exception of Scottie Scheffler, the PGA Tour has yet to have any of their star players show peak form during the 2024 season. Last week, Patrick Cantlay, who I believe is a top-5 players on the PGA Tour, took one step closer to regaining the form that’s helped him win eight events on Tour since 2017.
Cantlay limped into the Masters in poor form, but figured it out at Augusta National, finishing in a tie for 20th and ranking 17th for the week in Strokes Gained: Ball Striking. The former FedEx Cup champion will now head to one of his favorite golf courses in Harbour Town, where he’s had immaculate results over the years. In his six trips to the course, he’s only finished worse than 7th one time. The other finishes include three third places (2017, 2019, 2023) and one runner-up finish (2022). In his past 36 rounds at Harbour Town, Cantlay ranks 1st in Strokes Gained: Total per round at the course by a wide margin (+2.36).
Cantlay is winless since the 2022 BMW Championship, which is far too long for a player of his caliber. With signs pointing to the 32-year-old returning to form, a “signature event” at Harbour Town is just what he needs to get back on the winning track.
Tommy Fleetwood +3000 (FanDuel)
I truly believe Tommy Fleetwood will figure out a way to win on American soil in 2024. It’s certainly been a bugaboo for him throughout his career, but he is simply too talented to go another season without winning a PGA Tour event.
At last week’s Masters Tournament, Fleetwood made a Sunday charge and ended up finishing T3 in the event, which was his best ever finish at The Masters. For the week, the Englishman ranked 8th in the field in Strokes Gained: Approach, 10th in Strokes Gained: Ball Striking and 16th in Strokes Gained: Putting.
Harbour Town is a perfect layout for Fleetwood, and he’s had relative success at this Pete Dye design in the past. In his four trips to the course, he’s finished inside of the top 25 three times, with his best finish, T10, coming in 2022. The course is pretty short and can’t be overpowered, which gives an advantage to more accurate players such as Fleetwood. Tommy ranks 8th in the field in Good Drive % and should be able to plot his way along this golf course.
The win is coming for Tommy lad. I believe there’s a chance this treasure of a golf course may be the perfect one for him to finally break through on Tour.
Cameron Young +3300 (FanDuel)
Cameron Young had a solid Masters Tournament last week, which is exactly what I’m looking for in players who I anticipate playing well this week at the RBC Heritage. He finished in a tie for 9th, but never felt the pressure of contending in the event. For the week, Young ranked 6th in Strokes Gained: Off the Tee and 6th in Strokes Gained: Ball Striking.
Despite being one of the longest players off the tee on the PGA Tour, Young has actually played some really good golf on shorter tracks. He finished T3 at Harbour Town in 2023 and ranks 20th in the field in Good Drive% and 16th in Greens in Regulation in his past 24 rounds. He also has strong finishes at other shorter courses that can take driver out of a players hand such as Copperhead and PGA National.
Young is simply one of the best players on the PGA Tour in 2024, and I strongly believe has what it takes to win a PGA Tour event in the very near future.
Corey Conners +5500 (FanDuel)
Corey Conners has had a disappointing year thus far on the PGA Tour, but absolutely loves Harbour Town.
At last week’s Masters Tournament, the Canadian finished T30 but ranked 20th in the field in Strokes Gained: Approach. In his past 24 rounds, Conners ranks 3rd in the field in Strokes Gained: Approach, 3rd in Greens in Regulation % and 24th in Good Drive %.
In Conners’ last four trips to Harbour Town, his worst finish was T31, last season. He finished T4 in 2021, T12 in 2022 and ranks 8th in Strokes Gained: Total at the course over his past 36 rounds.
Conners hasn’t been contending, but his recent finishes have been encouraging as he has finished in the top-25 in each of his past three starts prior to The Masters, including an impressive T13 at The PLAYERS. His recent improvement in ball striking as well as his suitability for Harbour Town makes Conners a high upside bet this week.
Shane Lowry (+7500) (FanDuel)
When these odds were posted after Lowry was announced in the field, I have to admit I was pretty stunned. Despite not offering much win equity on the PGA Tour over the last handful of years, Shane Lowry is still a top caliber player who has the ability to rise to the top of a signature event.
Lowry struggled to score at The Masters last week, but he actually hit the ball really well. The Irishman ranked 1st for Strokes Gained: Approach on the week and 7th in Strokes Gained: Ball Striking. As usual, it was the putter that let him down, as he ranked 60th in the field in Strokes Gained: Putting.
Harbour Town is most definitely one of Lowry’s favorite courses on the PGA Tour. In his six starts there, he’s finished in the top 10 three times, including third twice. Lowry is sensational at Pete Dye designs and ranks 7th in Strokes Gained: Total in his past 36 rounds on Dye tracks.
Lowry is perfect for Harbour Town. In his past 24 rounds, he ranks 5th in Strokes Gained: Approach, 2nd in Good Drive% and 5th in Green in Regulation %. If he figures it out on the greens, Shane could have his first win in America since 2015.
Lucas Glover +12000 (FanDuel)
This is one of my weekly “bet the number” plays as I strongly believe the odds are just too long for a player of Glover’s caliber. The odds have been too long on Glover for a few weeks now, but this is the first event that I can get behind the veteran being able to actually contend at.
Glover is quietly playing good golf and returning to the form he had after the understandable regression after his two massive victories at the end of 2023. He finished T20 at The Masters, which was his best ever finish at Augusta National. For the week, Lucas ranked 18th for Strokes Gained: Approach and 20th in Strokes Gained: Ball Striking.
Over his past 24 rounds, Glover ranks 9th in Strokes Gained: Approach and 13th in Good Drive %. Harbour Town is a short course that the 44-year-old will be able to keep up with the top players on Tour off the tee. He’s played the course more than 20 times, with mixed results. His best finishes at Harbour Town include a T7 in 2008, but recently has a finish of T21 in 2020.
Glover has proven he can contend with the stars of the Tour on any given week, and this number is flat out disrespectful.
- LIKE30
- LEGIT5
- WOW2
- LOL1
- IDHT1
- FLOP2
- OB0
- SHANK2
Dave Portnoy places monstrous outright bet for the 2024 Masters
John Daly stuns fans into silence with brutal opening tee shot on PGA Tour Champions
Things got heated at the Houston Open between Tony Finau and Alejandro Tosti. Here’s why
Tiger Woods arrives at 2024 Masters equipped with a putter that may surprise you
Scottie Scheffler WITB 2024 (March)
Report: Tiger Woods has ‘eliminated sex’ in preparation for the 2024 Masters
Two star names reportedly blanked Jon Rahm all week at the Masters
2-time major champ announces shock retirement from the sport at age of 33
Neal Shipley presser ends in awkward fashion after reporter claims Tiger handed him note on 8th fairway
Paulina Gretzky opens up on receiving death threats following DJ’s move to LIV Golf
Collin Morikawa WITB 2024 (April)
Collin Morikawa what’s in the bag accurate as of the RBC Heritage. More photos from the event here. Driver: TaylorMade...
WITB Time Machine: Jordan Spieth’s winning WITB, 2022 RBC Heritage
At the 2022 RBC Heritage Jordan Spieth defeated Patrick Cantlay on the first playoff hole after nearly holing his greenside...
Jason Day WITB 2024 (April)
Jason Day what’s in the bag accurate as of the RBC Heritage. Driver: Ping G430 LST (9 degrees @10) Shaft: TPT...
Ludvig Åberg WITB 2024 (April)
Ludvig Åberg what’s in the bag accurate as of the RBC Heritage. Driver: Titleist TSR2 (9 degrees, D4 SureFit setting)...
-
19th Hole1 week agoDave Portnoy places monstrous outright bet for the 2024 Masters
-
19th Hole3 weeks agoThings got heated at the Houston Open between Tony Finau and Alejandro Tosti. Here’s why
-
19th Hole1 week agoTiger Woods arrives at 2024 Masters equipped with a putter that may surprise you
-
19th Hole2 weeks agoReport: Tiger Woods has ‘eliminated sex’ in preparation for the 2024 Masters
-
19th Hole4 days agoTwo star names reportedly blanked Jon Rahm all week at the Masters
-
19th Hole4 days agoNeal Shipley presser ends in awkward fashion after reporter claims Tiger handed him note on 8th fairway
-
19th Hole3 days agoReport: LIV Golf identifies latest star name they hope to sign to breakaway tour
-
19th Hole2 weeks agoAddiction, spinal fusion, and scam artists – Everything Anthony Kim revealed in candid interview with David Feherty
Trae
Feb 12, 2015 at 7:44 pm
This was a good read, and very interesting. And it brings back memories of stats class, and also me spending countless hours entering in data from the pga tour just to see relationships between variables and trying to create a number of statistical models to predict, etc. I’m never doing that again! Never got to a point where I could really apply it to my own game in a really effective way though. Always would end up getting caught up in trying to figure out why someone was an outlier, then later on lost interest in stats altogether. It’s interesting stuff but I think it can be very misleading in some cases. It can be tricky. Anyways, I enjoyed this article and I’m looking forward to your next one. Thanks.
Jeff Watson
Feb 11, 2015 at 4:32 pm
Rich,
I like it. I already pace off my putts and number of putts for a stats program I subscribe to. Any idea what the “Score” would be based on handicap?
Jeff
david
Feb 11, 2015 at 12:54 pm
Hi Ritch, I had to drop out of gread 11 math, so unfortunately my brain is still bleeding after reading your article. I know the tour putting stats on makeability is, from what I believe, from 6 feet to about 50%. I was a bit under this, so I worked hard on my putting last summer and lowered my cap from aprox 5 to 3.7. I know without keeping stats that not enough of my greenside chips get to inside 4 feet, so that is my focus this summer to knock off another 2 points. But I did find the article interesting, but not necessarily relevant to most amateurs, whatever the index.
Dick Kusleika
Feb 11, 2015 at 11:13 am
I step off every first putt. I don’t know how people putt without stepping it off. They just guess or try to feel it, I suppose.
I think the negative correlation is “inverse relationship”, not “indirect relationship”.
Hudson
Feb 10, 2015 at 2:21 pm
I calculate the strokes gained (lost in my case, lol) and measure one pace (3 feet) to get the distance on the green from the pin. It takes a few seconds and it’s dead easy.
I am going full speed to track/calculate my strokes gained now and I am explaining it there:
http://golf-made-in-us.blogspot.com/2014/04/golf-stats-revolution-gained-strokes.html
I consequently discovered that I was losing 6 strokes between 125 and 200 yards (on a 14 hcp) on average in 2014 and will work on that !
Rich Hunt
Feb 10, 2015 at 2:35 pm
Hudson, I’ve enjoyed your work. The only issue I have with using strokes gained with putting is that the make %’s at a local course are likely different then at a Tour level course, even for Tour players. As we’ve seen time and time again, slower greens mean lower make %’s for players across the board. I’ve not only seen it at Tour courses that I record the data for, but David Orr did a study on this and found the same thing as well. IMO, it is probably best to use strokes gained in comparing it to your own performance over time and see how well you improve or regress.
HIGHfader
Feb 10, 2015 at 4:49 pm
Richie, do you know where I can find that David Orr studdy?
Richie Hunt
Feb 10, 2015 at 8:13 pm
I don’t believe David has made it public. But, if you asked him that is what he would tell you. IIRC, they measured roughly 700 golfers and were on greens from the local muni to Pinehurst.
jeff
Feb 10, 2015 at 1:23 pm
Rich, great writeup, thanks. But without data from our peers (“the field”), how is this different from simply looking at your actual score for the round as a basis for judging our “getting better”? What I mean is, what will achieving a 98 in this fashion tell us about our game that the score cannot? If the result of putting better (fewer putts per round) is a better overall score, isn’t that pretty much the same thing? Without a field to compare against, how much would we actually get out of this? Thanks again!
Rich Hunt
Feb 10, 2015 at 2:18 pm
Jeff,
Very good point. I think we can use the 98 Score to measure how well we are striking the ball and putting. So the other factors that would cause a discrepancy in 98 Score versus Actual Score would be short game shots around the green, penalty shots and general strategy. So if the score is better than 98, but a player shoots 75, then they may have struggled with short game or hit a shot OB or in the drink.
In my next article I will go into simple metrics I keep for my rounds that will better help determine the strengths and weaknesses of our game.
myron miller
Feb 10, 2015 at 12:40 pm
I’m a little sceptical of your usage of the statistical correlation coefficient. Famous statistical anolmaly: Amount of ice cream eaten versus number of polio cases was fantastically high (close to .9 or something like that). Ergo if you eat a lot of Ice cream your chances of polio increased. Just because there’s a correlation doesn’t mean that there is necessarily a relationship. Usually but not necessarily. Other factors could be involved that sway the correlation coefficient.
For the amateur to actually pace off every putt regardless does help but slows down the game a bit increasing the time for the round. Not a productive way to help the overall pace of play but it does help the individual golfer (assuming his paces are moderately accurate – which is sometimes questionable). So which is more important, pace of play or helping the individual in play? At which time?
Rich Hunt
Feb 10, 2015 at 2:14 pm
Correlation does not imply causality (unless there is a correlation of a perfect +1 or -1). The issue is that people tend to take that the wrong way as correlation is trying to define the symmetry of a relationship.
The problem with the ice cream to polio correlation is that usually those types of analysis are done over a very short period of time so the sample size is not large enough. The other issue is that the variables (polio and ice cream consumption) have virtually nothing to do with each other.
Correlation is not about certainty, it’s about probability. The real issue with the correlations I used is that they are not ‘strong correlations’ (+0.5 or better), so the 1:1 relationship is not exactly a confident one. But, that could be due to a myriad of factors like a golfer’s ballstriking.
However, those correlations were fairly consistent over the seasons and on a comparative basis I think it indicates that all 2-putts length does give a better indication of how a player is putting than say 3-putt length. And given that when we combine all 2-putts and birdie putts lengths does have a strong correlation, it’s a good way to measure our true putting prowess.
Lastly, the main point of the article was to more accurately measure our own putting prowess and do it without the measuring process being too cumbersome and time consuming. Obviously, we don’t know how well we are putting versus other golfers. But we can measure our own improvement over time with a large enough sample by seeing how well we improve compared to our performance in other rounds of golf.
Rich Hunt
Feb 10, 2015 at 2:28 pm
Myron,
Correlation does not imply causality (unless the correlation is +1 or -1). However, many people don’t quite understand that phrase as used in the polio to ice cream consumption case.
Correlation is designed to give a confidence level of the symmetrical relationship between 2 variables. For instance, we may see a correlation between ball speed and distance a ball travels of +0.9. That doesn’t consider launch angle, spin rate, landing angle of the ball, etc. But we have a high degree of confidence that ball speed will be a large determining factor in the distance the ball traveled.
The problem with using the polio to ice cream consumption argument (and the countless other arguments) is that:
1) typically the sample sizes are incredibly small so the data can be easily skewed.
2) the variables have virtually nothing to do with each other.
I feel the sample size of length of putt to putts gained is more than sufficient as it took place over several seasons with roughly 180 golfers per season. I also feel that the variables (length of a putt versus putts gained) are closely tied together.
If there is a an issue with using the correlations is that none of these correlations were ‘strong’ (+0.5 or better). However, if you add all 2-putt length and birdie putt lengths, the correlation is strong.
So, why is the correlation not at a perfect +1?
Likely due to ballstriking. If a player hits a birdie putt to 4-feet and make the birdie putt, there’s not much they can do about it rather than the player that misses their 4-foot birdie putts, but makes a 20-footer. The same goes for 2-putting.
Still, the main purpose of the article was to more easily determine how well you are putting and trying to improve upon your own performance. I think if one records this data over time they can use it to better gauge how well they have putted over a certain amount of time.
Rob Rashell
Feb 10, 2015 at 11:30 am
Rich,
This stuff is fantastic, will be sharing with the players I work with.
Rob
Rich Hunt
Feb 10, 2015 at 10:42 am
Steven,
I would just recommend pacing off the initial putt. I personally pace off all of my putts except for putts inside 5-feet since I know how long they are by eye-balling it.
It doesn’t have to be a perfect measurement because the idea is to improve your score so you can improve your putting. For instance, if you average 30-feet on your 2-putts by pacing it off and in reality it is 32 feet, that’s not as important as actually improving your 2-putt average the next time you play.
steven
Feb 10, 2015 at 10:24 am
rich, how would you recommend us amateurs determine the distance of our 2 putt distances. As well our birdie putt distances. Of course theres no guarantee i make a birdie in a round of golf. but i sure as heck attempt and make a lot of 2 putts. without the use of a simulator, ill simply be estimating the distance i am away from the hole. thus limiting the reliability of an amateurs usage of your ’98’ theory. any tips? as the concept seems very well thought out, but the execution for an average player is really implausible. thanks.