Jump to content

Welcome. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at GolfWRX such as viewing all the images, interacting with members, access to all forums and eligiblility to win free giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE GolfWRX account here.

- - - - -

I want to challenge Mark Broadie


235 replies to this topic

#121 SkiSchoolPro

SkiSchoolPro

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 142 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 469938
  • Joined: 06/01/2017
  • Location:Colorado
  • Handicap:4
GolfWRX Likes : 63

Posted 31 August 2017 - 12:28 PM

View Postbph7, on 30 August 2017 - 12:43 PM, said:

View PostGamble Gamble, on 30 August 2017 - 12:38 PM, said:

View PostNorth Butte, on 30 August 2017 - 11:58 AM, said:

Just spitballing here but maybe there would be some way of leveraging a social media-connected version of Arccos or Game Golf with some other app/method for golfers to keep a sort of diary of any legitimate, long-term game improvement process they're undertaking. Kind of like a runner might do to use a Fitbit to both track her runs and to combine with another of tracking workouts or nutrition.

Anything like that will be a self-selected sample subject to all sorts of generalizability caveats but it would be a start...

I love the idea.  I think this is where most of our technology is headed.  Creating Neural Nets to improve the pace of improving.

View PostNorth Butte, on 30 August 2017 - 11:46 AM, said:

Yes, I understand that completely.

Not sure if I'm failing to be clear or if you're failing to take my point.

I APPLAUD MARK BROADIE'S WORK AND NOW i WISH THAT SOMEONE, WHETHER BROADIE OR OTHERWISE, WOULD ANSWER THE NEXT, EQUALLY IMPORTANT QUESTIONS.

The problem is that there is a strong contingent of people on this forum still think broadie's research is incorrect yet have not presented data to disprove it.  You just gave them the ESC version of the "CC may be real but it may not be man made" out.

These people need to just be ignored. If they want to refute ESC, they should present rigorous analysis of data like Broedie did to support their conclusions. If they don't, they are just standard keyboard warriors that will give you anecdotes about how one hole, round, or playing partner somehow disproves Broadies analysis. In short, the detractors have thus far provided "no evidence" to refute Broadie. Until they do, their views should not be taken seriously.

Broadie's work is very good, but will be improved up. Specifically, I think you will see more granularity going forward. i.e. are all 8 foot putts on fast greens really equal? I know I am more likely to make a straight or hooking uphill putt than a downhill slider. I might not have the data to back this up, but how many would refute this?

While SG putting is an improvement over total putts in identifying the best putters, there is still some potential bias. i.e. 2 players are 200 yards out. 1 hits it to 8 feet above the hole leaving a slice putt which he two putts. The other misses the green and chips to an uphill 8 footer which he makes. Player 2 is considered 1 shot worse tee to green and 1 shot better on the greens, but the difference is likely a lot less. Assuming it is easier for a good player to leave an easier putt (given the same length) from inside 40 yards than outside 100 yards, then it is likely that SG putting is biased in favor of players who miss more greens.

FWIW,  I am familiar with Broadie's work, but haven't read his book. Does anyone know if Broadie has addressed the issue of same length shots not always being equal (other than the categories currently used).

I would suspect that you will see the following refinements to Broadie's data:

Slope of putt will be factored in. With stats for putt length and slope, we will see refinements to the SG putting and SG approach categories i.e. a guy who hits his approach 8 feet below the hole is shown as hitting a better SG approach shot than a guy who puts it 8 feet above the hole from the same distance and a guy who makes an 8 foot slider gains more than a guy who makes a straight uphill 8 footer.
More Hole by Hole analysiis. i.e. a miss in the right rough is worse on a particular hole than left rough...eventually, with enough data, this could be refined for particular pin positions.
More analysis of objects like trees- i.e. driving it in the right rough 10 yards behind a tree is worse than driving it an equal distance from the hole in the left rough with no tree issues.

Edited by SkiSchoolPro, 31 August 2017 - 12:32 PM.


Remove This Advertisement Viewing As Guest

    GolfWRX Forums

    Advertisement


1

#122 bph7

bph7

    Hall of Fame

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,788 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 135739
  • Joined: 08/08/2011
  • Location:DFW
GolfWRX Likes : 2668

Posted 31 August 2017 - 01:05 PM

View PostSkiSchoolPro, on 31 August 2017 - 12:28 PM, said:

View Postbph7, on 30 August 2017 - 12:43 PM, said:

View PostGamble Gamble, on 30 August 2017 - 12:38 PM, said:

View PostNorth Butte, on 30 August 2017 - 11:58 AM, said:

Just spitballing here but maybe there would be some way of leveraging a social media-connected version of Arccos or Game Golf with some other app/method for golfers to keep a sort of diary of any legitimate, long-term game improvement process they're undertaking. Kind of like a runner might do to use a Fitbit to both track her runs and to combine with another of tracking workouts or nutrition.

Anything like that will be a self-selected sample subject to all sorts of generalizability caveats but it would be a start...

I love the idea.  I think this is where most of our technology is headed.  Creating Neural Nets to improve the pace of improving.

View PostNorth Butte, on 30 August 2017 - 11:46 AM, said:

Yes, I understand that completely.

Not sure if I'm failing to be clear or if you're failing to take my point.

I APPLAUD MARK BROADIE'S WORK AND NOW i WISH THAT SOMEONE, WHETHER BROADIE OR OTHERWISE, WOULD ANSWER THE NEXT, EQUALLY IMPORTANT QUESTIONS.

The problem is that there is a strong contingent of people on this forum still think broadie's research is incorrect yet have not presented data to disprove it.  You just gave them the ESC version of the "CC may be real but it may not be man made" out.

These people need to just be ignored. If they want to refute ESC, they should present rigorous analysis of data like Broedie did to support their conclusions. If they don't, they are just standard keyboard warriors that will give you anecdotes about how one hole, round, or playing partner somehow disproves Broadies analysis. In short, the detractors have thus far provided "no evidence" to refute Broadie. Until they do, their views should not be taken seriously.

Broadie's work is very good, but will be improved up. Specifically, I think you will see more granularity going forward. i.e. are all 8 foot putts on fast greens really equal? I know I am more likely to make a straight or hooking uphill putt than a downhill slider. I might not have the data to back this up, but how many would refute this?

While SG putting is an improvement over total putts in identifying the best putters, there is still some potential bias. i.e. 2 players are 200 yards out. 1 hits it to 8 feet above the hole leaving a slice putt which he two putts. The other misses the green and chips to an uphill 8 footer which he makes. Player 2 is considered 1 shot worse tee to green and 1 shot better on the greens, but the difference is likely a lot less. Assuming it is easier for a good player to leave an easier putt (given the same length) from inside 40 yards than outside 100 yards, then it is likely that SG putting is biased in favor of players who miss more greens.

FWIW,  I am familiar with Broadie's work, but haven't read his book. Does anyone know if Broadie has addressed the issue of same length shots not always being equal (other than the categories currently used).

I would suspect that you will see the following refinements to Broadie's data:

Slope of putt will be factored in. With stats for putt length and slope, we will see refinements to the SG putting and SG approach categories i.e. a guy who hits his approach 8 feet below the hole is shown as hitting a better SG approach shot than a guy who puts it 8 feet above the hole from the same distance and a guy who makes an 8 foot slider gains more than a guy who makes a straight uphill 8 footer.
More Hole by Hole analysiis. i.e. a miss in the right rough is worse on a particular hole than left rough...eventually, with enough data, this could be refined for particular pin positions.
More analysis of objects like trees- i.e. driving it in the right rough 10 yards behind a tree is worse than driving it an equal distance from the hole in the left rough with no tree issues.

There's always room for refinement and improvement of any data analysis. But the issue with what broadie is studying is that there likely isn't nuanced enough data available to realize analyze every single possible situation. I agree that you propose legitimate possible improvements, and your type of post was not one that I think should be "ignored". It's more the people that don't even bother understanding what he's saying and just spout off "drive for show putt for dough" without having any analytical framework to support their conclusions besides the fact that the head pro said so and they have a buddy that can't hit it more than 200 yards but gets up and down from inside 100 yards "every time" and that this disproves Broadies conclusions.

2

#123 Bluefan75

Bluefan75

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,089 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 56847
  • Joined: 05/30/2008
  • Location:London, ON
GolfWRX Likes : 755

Posted 31 August 2017 - 01:09 PM

View PostSkiSchoolPro, on 31 August 2017 - 12:28 PM, said:

View Postbph7, on 30 August 2017 - 12:43 PM, said:

View PostGamble Gamble, on 30 August 2017 - 12:38 PM, said:

View PostNorth Butte, on 30 August 2017 - 11:58 AM, said:

Just spitballing here but maybe there would be some way of leveraging a social media-connected version of Arccos or Game Golf with some other app/method for golfers to keep a sort of diary of any legitimate, long-term game improvement process they're undertaking. Kind of like a runner might do to use a Fitbit to both track her runs and to combine with another of tracking workouts or nutrition.

Anything like that will be a self-selected sample subject to all sorts of generalizability caveats but it would be a start...

I love the idea.  I think this is where most of our technology is headed.  Creating Neural Nets to improve the pace of improving.

View PostNorth Butte, on 30 August 2017 - 11:46 AM, said:

Yes, I understand that completely.

Not sure if I'm failing to be clear or if you're failing to take my point.

I APPLAUD MARK BROADIE'S WORK AND NOW i WISH THAT SOMEONE, WHETHER BROADIE OR OTHERWISE, WOULD ANSWER THE NEXT, EQUALLY IMPORTANT QUESTIONS.

The problem is that there is a strong contingent of people on this forum still think broadie's research is incorrect yet have not presented data to disprove it.  You just gave them the ESC version of the "CC may be real but it may not be man made" out.

These people need to just be ignored. If they want to refute ESC, they should present rigorous analysis of data like Broedie did to support their conclusions. If they don't, they are just standard keyboard warriors that will give you anecdotes about how one hole, round, or playing partner somehow disproves Broadies analysis. In short, the detractors have thus far provided "no evidence" to refute Broadie. Until they do, their views should not be taken seriously.

Broadie's work is very good, but will be improved up. Specifically, I think you will see more granularity going forward. i.e. are all 8 foot putts on fast greens really equal? I know I am more likely to make a straight or hooking uphill putt than a downhill slider. I might not have the data to back this up, but how many would refute this?

While SG putting is an improvement over total putts in identifying the best putters, there is still some potential bias. i.e. 2 players are 200 yards out. 1 hits it to 8 feet above the hole leaving a slice putt which he two putts. The other misses the green and chips to an uphill 8 footer which he makes. Player 2 is considered 1 shot worse tee to green and 1 shot better on the greens, but the difference is likely a lot less. Assuming it is easier for a good player to leave an easier putt (given the same length) from inside 40 yards than outside 100 yards, then it is likely that SG putting is biased in favor of players who miss more greens.

FWIW,  I am familiar with Broadie's work, but haven't read his book. Does anyone know if Broadie has addressed the issue of same length shots not always being equal (other than the categories currently used).

I would suspect that you will see the following refinements to Broadie's data:

Slope of putt will be factored in. With stats for putt length and slope, we will see refinements to the SG putting and SG approach categories i.e. a guy who hits his approach 8 feet below the hole is shown as hitting a better SG approach shot than a guy who puts it 8 feet above the hole from the same distance and a guy who makes an 8 foot slider gains more than a guy who makes a straight uphill 8 footer.
More Hole by Hole analysiis. i.e. a miss in the right rough is worse on a particular hole than left rough...eventually, with enough data, this could be refined for particular pin positions.
More analysis of objects like trees- i.e. driving it in the right rough 10 yards behind a tree is worse than driving it an equal distance from the hole in the left rough with no tree issues.

Thing is, when you start talking about the volume of shots Broadie analyzed, the fact this guy's putt was downhill from 8 feet and another guy's putt was uphill cancels out, because that's what a ton of data does.  And keep in mind, he has generalized it  for the general public because he has to.  On tour, it's strokes gained against the field.  If a few guys get 8 feet away on the wrong side vs a bunch who are in the right spot, that will show up in the data.

3

#124 Bluefan75

Bluefan75

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,089 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 56847
  • Joined: 05/30/2008
  • Location:London, ON
GolfWRX Likes : 755

Posted 31 August 2017 - 01:12 PM

View Postmatthewb, on 31 August 2017 - 09:44 AM, said:

View PostObee, on 31 August 2017 - 09:06 AM, said:

I would love to see Broadie get even more granular with his data. Would love to see him truly apply it to mid cappers and high cappers more thoroughly.

I think the variety of data that he would get would be quite interesting to sift through…

Broadie's recent attempts--his own app and what he's currently doing with TaylorMade--don't seem to be working too well, unfortunately.

I'm hoping Scott Fawcett's Decade gets wider adoption among mid and high caps. Fawcett is doing some wonderful stuff.

Can you expand on why you say that?  I'm not challenging, I'm genuinely curious.  I ended up not renewing the app for this season, not because of dissatisfaction with the app, but the app store turning $39.99 into $65 Cdn for 6 months.

4

#125 North Butte

North Butte

    Hall of Fame

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,717 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 424472
  • Joined: 05/09/2016
GolfWRX Likes : 3578

Posted 31 August 2017 - 01:16 PM

View PostBluefan75, on 31 August 2017 - 01:12 PM, said:

View Postmatthewb, on 31 August 2017 - 09:44 AM, said:

View PostObee, on 31 August 2017 - 09:06 AM, said:

I would love to see Broadie get even more granular with his data. Would love to see him truly apply it to mid cappers and high cappers more thoroughly.

I think the variety of data that he would get would be quite interesting to sift through…

Broadie's recent attempts--his own app and what he's currently doing with TaylorMade--don't seem to be working too well, unfortunately.

I'm hoping Scott Fawcett's Decade gets wider adoption among mid and high caps. Fawcett is doing some wonderful stuff.

Can you expand on why you say that?  I'm not challenging, I'm genuinely curious.  I ended up not renewing the app for this season, not because of dissatisfaction with the app, but the app store turning $39.99 into $65 Cdn for 6 months.

https://taylormadego...-release-158216

Engaged in the eternal search for the elusive Swedish meatball cores...

5

#126 matthewb

matthewb

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,603 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 34838
  • Joined: 07/17/2007
GolfWRX Likes : 415

Posted 31 August 2017 - 01:17 PM

View PostBluefan75, on 31 August 2017 - 01:12 PM, said:

View Postmatthewb, on 31 August 2017 - 09:44 AM, said:

View PostObee, on 31 August 2017 - 09:06 AM, said:

I would love to see Broadie get even more granular with his data. Would love to see him truly apply it to mid cappers and high cappers more thoroughly.

I think the variety of data that he would get would be quite interesting to sift through…

Broadie's recent attempts--his own app and what he's currently doing with TaylorMade--don't seem to be working too well, unfortunately.

I'm hoping Scott Fawcett's Decade gets wider adoption among mid and high caps. Fawcett is doing some wonderful stuff.

Can you expand on why you say that?  I'm not challenging, I'm genuinely curious.  I ended up not renewing the app for this season, not because of dissatisfaction with the app, but the app store turning $39.99 into $65 Cdn for 6 months.

Which app didn't you renew?

6

#127 North Butte

North Butte

    Hall of Fame

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,717 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 424472
  • Joined: 05/09/2016
GolfWRX Likes : 3578

Posted 31 August 2017 - 01:18 PM

View Postmatthewb, on 31 August 2017 - 01:17 PM, said:

View PostBluefan75, on 31 August 2017 - 01:12 PM, said:

View Postmatthewb, on 31 August 2017 - 09:44 AM, said:

View PostObee, on 31 August 2017 - 09:06 AM, said:

I would love to see Broadie get even more granular with his data. Would love to see him truly apply it to mid cappers and high cappers more thoroughly.

I think the variety of data that he would get would be quite interesting to sift through…

Broadie's recent attempts--his own app and what he's currently doing with TaylorMade--don't seem to be working too well, unfortunately.

I'm hoping Scott Fawcett's Decade gets wider adoption among mid and high caps. Fawcett is doing some wonderful stuff.

Can you expand on why you say that?  I'm not challenging, I'm genuinely curious.  I ended up not renewing the app for this season, not because of dissatisfaction with the app, but the app store turning $39.99 into $65 Cdn for 6 months.

Which app didn't you renew?

https://itunes.apple...1097923575?mt=8
Engaged in the eternal search for the elusive Swedish meatball cores...

7

#128 matthewb

matthewb

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,603 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 34838
  • Joined: 07/17/2007
GolfWRX Likes : 415

Posted 31 August 2017 - 01:21 PM

View PostNorth Butte, on 31 August 2017 - 01:18 PM, said:

View Postmatthewb, on 31 August 2017 - 01:17 PM, said:

View PostBluefan75, on 31 August 2017 - 01:12 PM, said:

View Postmatthewb, on 31 August 2017 - 09:44 AM, said:

View PostObee, on 31 August 2017 - 09:06 AM, said:

I would love to see Broadie get even more granular with his data. Would love to see him truly apply it to mid cappers and high cappers more thoroughly.

I think the variety of data that he would get would be quite interesting to sift through…

Broadie's recent attempts--his own app and what he's currently doing with TaylorMade--don't seem to be working too well, unfortunately.

I'm hoping Scott Fawcett's Decade gets wider adoption among mid and high caps. Fawcett is doing some wonderful stuff.

Can you expand on why you say that?  I'm not challenging, I'm genuinely curious.  I ended up not renewing the app for this season, not because of dissatisfaction with the app, but the app store turning $39.99 into $65 Cdn for 6 months.

Which app didn't you renew?

https://itunes.apple...1097923575?mt=8

Ah, got it.

As far as the question about my statement concerning lack of traction, Golfmetrics doesn't seem to have gotten decent adoption numbers. As far as the Taylormade app, I'd read that Broadie had "partnered" with them on it. Reviews for that app have been pretty negative and Taylormade doesn't seem to be addressing longstanding problems.

8

#129 Obee

Obee

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,057 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 72306
  • Joined: 01/09/2009
  • Location:Riverside, CA, USA
  • Handicap:+1
  • Ebay ID:davidraymondober
GolfWRX Likes : 2778

Posted 31 August 2017 - 01:21 PM

Gamble Gamble: For some reason I can't quote your post.

It's not the data that people argue with. It's the application of the data to specific players' games.

If Broadie says you're better off being closer to the hole, in general, I believe that he is 100% correct for the golf population taken as a whole.

But if you have pitching yips, it is simply not true for you. Have you ever seen someone with the pitching yips? Put them 30 yards in front of a green with a bunker in between them and the hole, and they will make 11. Or worse.

If you're that guy's caddie or coach (or Broadie!) you recommend that that guy to NEVER leave himself a pitch over a bunker if he can help it.

That is an extreme example, but those types of golfers exist. And they are not "one-offs." They are real golfers with real issues, and their games don't fit into a spreadsheet that they could use based upon the average players' game to determine their strategy. Period.

That golfer (likely) needs to do two things: Work on his pitching yips issues before he works on his longer clubs (very "anti- Broadie"!) AND never leave himself a pitch over a bunker or hazard that is a less than full shot (also very anti-Broadie!).

I'm guessing it won't take you long to find a golfer in your group that fits that scenario. I can think of two buddies off the top of my head that fall into that category.

And this from a guy who shares Broadie with everyone!

9

#130 Bluefan75

Bluefan75

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,089 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 56847
  • Joined: 05/30/2008
  • Location:London, ON
GolfWRX Likes : 755

Posted 31 August 2017 - 01:43 PM

View Postmatthewb, on 31 August 2017 - 01:21 PM, said:

View PostNorth Butte, on 31 August 2017 - 01:18 PM, said:

View Postmatthewb, on 31 August 2017 - 01:17 PM, said:

View PostBluefan75, on 31 August 2017 - 01:12 PM, said:

View Postmatthewb, on 31 August 2017 - 09:44 AM, said:



Broadie's recent attempts--his own app and what he's currently doing with TaylorMade--don't seem to be working too well, unfortunately.

I'm hoping Scott Fawcett's Decade gets wider adoption among mid and high caps. Fawcett is doing some wonderful stuff.

Can you expand on why you say that?  I'm not challenging, I'm genuinely curious.  I ended up not renewing the app for this season, not because of dissatisfaction with the app, but the app store turning $39.99 into $65 Cdn for 6 months.

Which app didn't you renew?

https://itunes.apple...1097923575?mt=8

Ah, got it.

As far as the question about my statement concerning lack of traction, Golfmetrics doesn't seem to have gotten decent adoption numbers. As far as the Taylormade app, I'd read that Broadie had "partnered" with them on it. Reviews for that app have been pretty negative and Taylormade doesn't seem to be addressing longstanding problems.

I think part of the issue, and I have discussed with Broadie, (really is a great guy for getting back to you if you email him), is the pricing was a little overshot.  I know he had development costs he wanted to recoup(and I think that was pretty much what he was concerned with), but I told him that $39.99 for six months was likely going to stop a lot of people from buying.  It's a pretty good app if you ask me.  Doesn't have the ooohh and aahhhh of a graphics heavy app, but it is simple to use, and gets you good data.  He's even been adding features for people to use it as a scorecard for a group from what I can see.  The app is fantastic, I just think the pricing was a little high for the market(and he admitted it was a struggle to come up with a good number.)  As I said, the app store is what screwed him out of my renewal, not the app itself.  Not paying a 1.5 exchange rate when the real rate is nowhere near that.


Remove This Advertisement Viewing As Guest

    GolfWRX Forums

    Advertisement


10

#131 North Butte

North Butte

    Hall of Fame

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,717 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 424472
  • Joined: 05/09/2016
GolfWRX Likes : 3578

Posted 31 August 2017 - 01:48 PM

Even at 40 bucks I'm not sure I'll be doing another (third) renewal when it comes due. To be honest, on average the trends in my various SG component scores sort of fluctuate slightly from the same sort of values I was getting 6+ years ago with my own analysis.

Round to round variability is huge of course but basically my pattern is not really changing long-term. As it should not given that I shoot about the same scores as I have for the past several years.
Engaged in the eternal search for the elusive Swedish meatball cores...

11

#132 Gamble Gamble

Gamble Gamble

    Good Luck!

  • ClubWRX Charter Members
  • 2,284 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 198076
  • Joined: 08/14/2012
  • Location:On here too much
GolfWRX Likes : 1807

Posted 31 August 2017 - 01:53 PM

View PostObee, on 31 August 2017 - 01:21 PM, said:

Gamble Gamble: For some reason I can't quote your post.

It's not the data that people argue with. It's the application of the data to specific players' games.

If Broadie says you're better off being closer to the hole, in general, I believe that he is 100% correct for the golf population taken as a whole.

But if you have pitching yips, it is simply not true for you. Have you ever seen someone with the pitching yips? Put them 30 yards in front of a green with a bunker in between them and the hole, and they will make 11. Or worse.

If you're that guy's caddie or coach (or Broadie!) you recommend that that guy to NEVER leave himself a pitch over a bunker if he can help it.

That is an extreme example, but those types of golfers exist. And they are not "one-offs." They are real golfers with real issues, and their games don't fit into a spreadsheet that they could use based upon the average players' game to determine their strategy. Period.

That golfer (likely) needs to do two things: Work on his pitching yips issues before he works on his longer clubs (very "anti- Broadie"!) AND never leave himself a pitch over a bunker or hazard that is a less than full shot (also very anti-Broadie!).

I'm guessing it won't take you long to find a golfer in your group that fits that scenario. I can think of two buddies off the top of my head that fall into that category.

And this from a guy who shares Broadie with everyone!

Obee, i am not saying that there are not exceptions to his findings, especially with amateurs.  Those people you are mentioning could still have excellent strokes gained off the tee and strokes gained approach however have an abysmal strokes gained around the green.

ESC does not state that people should only focus on long game, it just mentioned that putting was not as much as a contribution as the general layman thought it was towards winning golf tournaments.  
  • Ex. If you are hitting 14 greens a round, putting 30 putts a round and still shooting mid 80s then i can safely come up with a few scenarios that allow for that to happen.  A likely scenario would be that when you miss a green you have a very bad game around the greens.

My main point was that the majority of the detractors to Broadie either do not fully understand what he was claiming or they are clinging to old maxims so much that they throw every contradicting anecdote into the conversation as what they believe to be equally valid counter-evidence.  It is a fallacy of logic primarily, one that is very tough to overcome because it is based in deep seeded beliefs.

For the record, i am willing to believe someone when they say he is wrong, but until they have some factual evidence and data, their point will not change my vantage point.  In the end I just want to know what is the truth, especially if it disproves what i think is true.  I do not want my thinking to be incorrect for a second longer than i need to be.  

When it comes to my education my primary allegiance is with objective truth.
Ping G400 DR 9* Diamana Ahina 70X
Ping G400 3W 15* Diamana Ahina 70S
Cobra F6 Baffler 5W 19* Tour AD-DI 6S
Taylormade P-790 (4i-AW) Modus 120S
Titleist SM6 54.08 M-Grind Modus 120S
Titleist SM6 60.04 L-Grind Modus 120S
Ping Cadence TR Ketsch Heavy Putter
Taylormade TP5X Ball | Arccos 360

12

#133 matthewb

matthewb

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,603 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 34838
  • Joined: 07/17/2007
GolfWRX Likes : 415

Posted 31 August 2017 - 01:56 PM

I'd like to see Broadie develop a centralized repository for Strokes Gained data. He could then charge connecting apps to access and utilize his amateur Strokes Gained benchmarks and analytics.

That way he can get out of the front end app business and also develop a more robust amateur data set. Wouldn't be that difficult--architect cloud infrastructure, define data model, Restful APIs for data exchange, etc.

13

#134 SkiSchoolPro

SkiSchoolPro

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 142 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 469938
  • Joined: 06/01/2017
  • Location:Colorado
  • Handicap:4
GolfWRX Likes : 63

Posted 31 August 2017 - 04:24 PM

View Postbph7, on 31 August 2017 - 01:05 PM, said:

There's always room for refinement and improvement of any data analysis. But the issue with what broadie is studying is that there likely isn't nuanced enough data available to realize analyze every single possible situation. I agree that you propose legitimate possible improvements, and your type of post was not one that I think should be "ignored". It's more the people that don't even bother understanding what he's saying and just spout off "drive for show putt for dough" without having any analytical framework to support their conclusions besides the fact that the head pro said so and they have a buddy that can't hit it more than 200 yards but gets up and down from inside 100 yards "every time" and that this disproves Broadies conclusions.

I generally agree with you Bph7. However, I do think that slope of green data exists (and is found in many PGA Tour player course books), but has yet to be merged with SG putting. IIRC, Broadie/PGA Tour first came out with SG putting and was able to almost immediately show this stat retroactively for player going back to the start of shot link. Then, SG tee to green was added by looking at everyone's total scores relative to each other and subtracting SG putting. Then they went back and did more refinements with shot link. While shot link does not record slope of the green, I do believe it records and stores position on the green and position of the pin. From this, it would not be impossible to take the green mapping data and figure out additional info about each putt. Yes, you might have to make some general categories using slope % and putts with multiple slopes might not fit in so nicely, but it would be possible.

View PostBluefan75, on 31 August 2017 - 01:09 PM, said:

Thing is, when you start talking about the volume of shots Broadie analyzed, the fact this guy's putt was downhill from 8 feet and another guy's putt was uphill cancels out, because that's what a ton of data does.  And keep in mind, he has generalized it  for the general public because he has to.  On tour, it's strokes gained against the field.  If a few guys get 8 feet away on the wrong side vs a bunch who are in the right spot, that will show up in the data.

Bluefan75, not exactly sure what your point is?? Yes, lumping different type of shots together that are roughly the same length does have cancelling out properties, but I don't think this is a good thing as far as analysis goes. i.e. Broadie could have lumped in all 50 foot shots regardless of whether it was on the green, fringe, rough or bunker, but he chose not to. Why? Because there is a statistical difference in the difficulty of these shots. When you have enough data, for different sub-categories, you can analyze them each separately and still have statistical significance. This gives a more accurate picture of what is going on than when you lump everything together and let dissimilar things cancel themselves out.

Relating back to the OP, I think it is possible that factoring in the slope of the green might actually show a bit less gain for shots that end up close (say 4 to 15 feet) from distance and a bit more gain from short game shots that end up close. I believe this because I think with PGA pros, close shots from distance more frequently leave harder putts than close shots from around the green. Maybe I am splitting hairs, but I would rather have a 9 footer straight up to the hole than a 7 footer with a foot of break. Broadie's currently analysis says the 7 footer is a better leave and easier putt.

Edited by SkiSchoolPro, 31 August 2017 - 04:30 PM.


14

#135 royourboat

royourboat

    Advanced

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 424 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 85293
  • Joined: 06/11/2009
GolfWRX Likes : 136

Posted 31 August 2017 - 05:08 PM

As Gamble Gamble said, I think people are misconstruing what Broadie has said (or meant). Although I can't quote Broadie directly, I believe he is famous for saying that long approach shots are worth more than putts and to this the layman has trouble relating in a few ways.

1. I think what Broadie has done wrong is that statement applies to people whose SG metrics match a tour pro's in a relative manner, meaning if average tour pro is 0.0 SG for all categories/distances and I am -2.0 SG for all of these, then for me improving my long irons approach shot SG by X will improve my average score more than improving my putting SG by X will improve my average score.

2. As has been said by others here, it's a great statement once you understand it, but it doesn't mean it is fitting to a mid handicapper who is bleeding 3.0SG in long approach and 3.0SG in putting to spend 100% of his time improving his full swing. I'm not saying it has to be either way, just reiterating Broadie didn't study this.

3. Brodie saying distance matters, the closer to the hole, despite being in the rough results in fewer average strokes is tested true (rigorous and controlled study validated by a large dataset indicates an idea). If you have a shortcoming in your game, similar to point 1, where your SG is poor in a certain distance range/category or situation, then of course that situation is an outlier!
- It is true you might score worse when you put yourself in that zone.
- It is true that having to hit over a bunker repeatedly might ruin your average score.
- It is true that if the hole calls for a draw and you suck at this, then 3W might be a better option to avoid a hazard.
But this does not negate Broadie's findings.

TLDR; Broadie's statements apply best to players who don't have weaknesses, regardless if your game is 0.0 SG across all categories or -5.0 SG, but they do apply to all in most situations.

I would argue that if you find issue with Broadie's findings and you analysed your SG across the board, you would find that you do not meet my first point, that your total game is not relative to a tour pro's across all categories. Like most amateurs, you have a weakness. If you are -10.0 in short approach shots, then clearly you need to apply Broadie's thoughts and fix that gap, not argue that hitting into that zone by using a longer club is the issue.

Edited by royourboat, 31 August 2017 - 05:24 PM.

I like to tee the ball up.. using man sized clubs.

View PostMonteScheinblum, on 09 June 2017 - 12:16 AM, said:

View Postmothman65, on 09 June 2017 - 12:09 AM, said:

Is Melbourne getting any closer to happening Momte?

Still need some more, but it's pretty likely I'll come.  Just don't know when yet.

15

#136 Obee

Obee

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,057 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 72306
  • Joined: 01/09/2009
  • Location:Riverside, CA, USA
  • Handicap:+1
  • Ebay ID:davidraymondober
GolfWRX Likes : 2778

Posted 31 August 2017 - 05:21 PM

View Postroyourboat, on 31 August 2017 - 05:08 PM, said:

View PostGamble Gamble, on 31 August 2017 - 01:53 PM, said:

View PostObee, on 31 August 2017 - 01:21 PM, said:

Gamble Gamble: For some reason I can't quote your post.

It's not the data that people argue with. It's the application of the data to specific players' games.

If Broadie says you're better off being closer to the hole, in general, I believe that he is 100% correct for the golf population taken as a whole.

But if you have pitching yips, it is simply not true for you. Have you ever seen someone with the pitching yips? Put them 30 yards in front of a green with a bunker in between them and the hole, and they will make 11. Or worse.

If you're that guy's caddie or coach (or Broadie!) you recommend that that guy to NEVER leave himself a pitch over a bunker if he can help it.

That is an extreme example, but those types of golfers exist. And they are not "one-offs." They are real golfers with real issues, and their games don't fit into a spreadsheet that they could use based upon the average players' game to determine their strategy. Period.

That golfer (likely) needs to do two things: Work on his pitching yips issues before he works on his longer clubs (very "anti- Broadie"!) AND never leave himself a pitch over a bunker or hazard that is a less than full shot (also very anti-Broadie!).

I'm guessing it won't take you long to find a golfer in your group that fits that scenario. I can think of two buddies off the top of my head that fall into that category.

And this from a guy who shares Broadie with everyone!

Obee, i am not saying that there are not exceptions to his findings, especially with amateurs.  Those people you are mentioning could still have excellent strokes gained off the tee and strokes gained approach however have an abysmal strokes gained around the green.

ESC does not state that people should only focus on long game, it just mentioned that putting was not as much as a contribution as the general layman thought it was towards winning golf tournaments.  
  • Ex. If you are hitting 14 greens a round, putting 30 putts a round and still shooting mid 80s then i can safely come up with a few scenarios that allow for that to happen.  A likely scenario would be that when you miss a green you have a very bad game around the greens.
My main point was that the majority of the detractors to Broadie either do not fully understand what he was claiming or they are clinging to old maxims so much that they throw every contradicting anecdote into the conversation as what they believe to be equally valid counter-evidence.  It is a fallacy of logic primarily, one that is very tough to overcome because it is based in deep seeded beliefs.

For the record, i am willing to believe someone when they say he is wrong, but until they have some factual evidence and data, their point will not change my vantage point.  In the end I just want to know what is the truth, especially if it disproves what i think is true.  I do not want my thinking to be incorrect for a second longer than i need to be.  

When it comes to my education my primary allegiance is with objective truth.

As Gamble Gamble said, I think people are misconstruing what Broadie has said (or meant). Although I can't quote Broadie directly, I believe he is famous for saying that long approach shots are worth more than putts and to this the layman has trouble relating in a few ways.

1. I think what Broadie has done wrong is that statement applies to people whose SG metrics match a tour pro's in a relative manner, meaning if average tour pro is 0.0 SG for all categories/distances and I am -2.0 SG for all of these, then for me improving my long irons approach shot SG will improve my average score more than improving my putting will improve my average score.

2. As has been said by others here, it's a great statement once you understand it, but it doesn't mean it is fitting to a mid handicapper who is bleeding 3.0SG in long approach and 3.0SG in putting to spend 100% of his time improving his full swing. I'm not saying it has to be either way, just reiterating Broadie didn't study this.

3. Brodie saying distance matters, the closer to the hole, despite being in the rough results in fewer average strokes is tested true (rigorous and controlled study validated by a large dataset indicates an idea). If you have a shortcoming in your game, similar to point 1, where your SG is poor in a certain distance range/category or situation, then of course that situation is an outlier!
- It is true you might score worse when you put yourself in that zone.
- It is true that having to hit over a bunker repeatedly might ruin your average score.
- It is true that if the hole calls for a draw and you suck at this that 3W might be a better option to avoid a hazard.
It does not negate Broadies statements.

TLDR; Broadie's statements apply best to players who don't have weaknesses, regardless if your game is 0.0 SG across all categories or 5.0 SG, but they do apply to all in most situations.

Now we're getting somewhere!!

Progress!!

16

#137 Rusty1885

Rusty1885

    Advanced

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 311515
  • Joined: 04/27/2014
  • Location:SoCal
  • Handicap:2.1
GolfWRX Likes : 126

Posted 01 September 2017 - 01:15 AM

It seems like people here are afraid to offend high handicappers like we are all equals. Nope!  

I said before, the book is great especially for better players who has all the range covered, may be not all the shots but range is good enough. Mo...ok Many low handicappers have more discipline than high handicappers and more golf common sense as well, much of that came from "a few" fail attempts and bad judgements like a wise fool once said good judgement comes from experience and good experience comes from bad judgements.

Like Royourboat said, Broadie is famous for and from saying long shots worth more than short shots, which is absolutely true in every sense of his finding.  His method also been coined the "money ball" system.  Unfortunately not everyone gets to read his book or finish his book. I started and went about half then didn't get to finish the second half for another 6 months.  The main message stuck with me.  The book is just like many game improvement book, use your common sense, if you "can" get closer to the hole choose that option.  

High handicappers don't benefit more from a book filled with data supporting longer shots save more strokes.  They need books on course management for their handicap, mental game, and short game to improve their immediate game.  They should read "little red book".   There's nothing wrong with ESC, it's just not for high handicappers that's all.  Same way you can't really use the money ball system on your company's soft ball league. Too many factual data from real life rounds to support my finding playing with high handicappers. All of which supports the improvement of short game not long game.

My game is no where near touring pros yet the comparisons show different data. It's almost encouraging.

Attached Thumbnails

  • IMG_1949.PNG
  • IMG_1948.PNG
  • IMG_1950.PNG
  • IMG_1951.PNG
  • IMG_1952.PNG
  • IMG_1953.PNG
  • IMG_1710.PNG
  • IMG_1711.PNG

Take Dead Aim

17

#138 dornstar

dornstar

    Go Buckeyes!

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,765 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 118294
  • Joined: 11/30/2010
  • Location:Tampa
  • Handicap:+2.1
GolfWRX Likes : 1213

Posted 02 September 2017 - 07:02 PM

View PostThinkingPlus, on 30 August 2017 - 05:04 PM, said:

View PostRi_Redneck, on 30 August 2017 - 03:11 PM, said:

View PostNorth Butte, on 30 August 2017 - 02:38 PM, said:

There are certainly plenty of courses where the thickest rough is as penal as a water hazard, even moreso than a lateral hazard because you can't take a one stroke penalty drop back in play nearby.

Exactly my point. Broadie says to avoid "stroke costing hazards" and yet some here seem to be suggesting that we disregard rough that is considered to be just that. BTW, I wasn't the one that compared the 5i from the fairway to the 9i from the rough. That was from another post and I used it because it was convenient. Typically, I only need to adjust my aimpoint or only drop back  one (two max) clubs to give myself a good chance of avoiding any hazard. My point is that some rough is worth avoiding.

BT

To illustrate.  I have attached a picture of a lie from a recent round of golf.  The picture is from directly above the ball. From 20 feet away you could not see the ball.  Only when looking directly down from above could you easily see the ball.  I had 142 pin to a slightly elevated green.  Normally this would be an 8-iron for me.  I tried to hit 7-iron and the ball was short by 50 yards with me basically making as good a swing as I could.  This was not a missed green left or right or catching a flyer going over the green.  I simply was not strong enough to the reach the green with the chosen club (or likely with any club in the bag from that lie).  Anything in the fairway out to 3W distance (210 yards or so) gives me a chance of hitting the green.  With this lie in the rough I had 0% probability of hitting the green.

Now is this a typical lie in the rough?  Maybe or maybe not.  I sometimes get worse lies.  I sometimes get better lies.  The rough is a little spotty on this particular course right now which is unusual since we are having our rainy season.  Other courses in the area have worse rough.  In October or November the rough will be dramatically reduced and becomes generally playable.  So I get much pickier about hitting fairways during the summer and don't care so much during the rest of the year.  Broadie's and Fawcett's work is illuminating.  The mathematics is sound as are the conclusions as long as you keep in mind they are based on average pro golfers and average pro rough (Shotlink stats) and average amateur golfers and average rough on courses average amateurs typically play for the amateur statistics database.  Once the rough becomes much worse than average or the individual player's ability out of the rough is much worse than average then the conclusions change and we must invoke the hazardous conditions protocol.  Everyone needs to keep these caveats in mind when playing a course.
Strokes gained is not a static system. It's based on how the field would play a certain hole/course based on the conditions. We just extrapolate that info into a general system we can use.

Edited by dornstar, 02 September 2017 - 07:03 PM.

D - Callaway XR Pro 9* (10*) - Kuro Kage Silver TiNi
3W - Callaway X Hot Pro 15* - Aldila NV 85
2H - Cleveland 2009 18* - Aldila NV 85
4-GW - TaylorMade RSi-2 - Project X 6.5
SW/LW - Vokey SM5 M-Grind
P - Ping Cadence TR Anser 2 counter-balanced

18

#139 North Butte

North Butte

    Hall of Fame

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,717 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 424472
  • Joined: 05/09/2016
GolfWRX Likes : 3578

Posted 02 September 2017 - 07:11 PM

Actually, the strokes gained table that gives expected strokes for each distance and situation is the same for every tournament.  After each shot for each player is looked up in the table to compute strokes gained, the resulting plus or minus values for each round or adjusted relative to the field.

But the table does not change, the tournament-specific part is an after-the-fact adjustment to the looked-up values.  So if you compute your Strokes Gained-Putting relative to the tour average it is the same average no matter when you look it up.

The underlying strokes gained framework is indeed a static system based on how tour players in general score from a given distance and situation. The reported summary stats on tour are like an exam graded on a curve. The number of items correct or incorrect is what it is, the percentage grade is there an adjusted later.
Engaged in the eternal search for the elusive Swedish meatball cores...

19

#140 glk

glk

    send it in jerome

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,602 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 336135
  • Joined: 08/25/2014
  • Location:Kodak, Tn/Chucktown, Sc via Chicago & Burgh
GolfWRX Likes : 4170

Posted 02 September 2017 - 07:28 PM

View PostGamble Gamble, on 31 August 2017 - 01:53 PM, said:

View PostObee, on 31 August 2017 - 01:21 PM, said:

Gamble Gamble: For some reason I can't quote your post.

It's not the data that people argue with. It's the application of the data to specific players' games.

If Broadie says you're better off being closer to the hole, in general, I believe that he is 100% correct for the golf population taken as a whole.

But if you have pitching yips, it is simply not true for you. Have you ever seen someone with the pitching yips? Put them 30 yards in front of a green with a bunker in between them and the hole, and they will make 11. Or worse.

If you're that guy's caddie or coach (or Broadie!) you recommend that that guy to NEVER leave himself a pitch over a bunker if he can help it.

That is an extreme example, but those types of golfers exist. And they are not "one-offs." They are real golfers with real issues, and their games don't fit into a spreadsheet that they could use based upon the average players' game to determine their strategy. Period.

That golfer (likely) needs to do two things: Work on his pitching yips issues before he works on his longer clubs (very "anti- Broadie"!) AND never leave himself a pitch over a bunker or hazard that is a less than full shot (also very anti-Broadie!).

I'm guessing it won't take you long to find a golfer in your group that fits that scenario. I can think of two buddies off the top of my head that fall into that category.

And this from a guy who shares Broadie with everyone!

Obee, i am not saying that there are not exceptions to his findings, especially with amateurs.  Those people you are mentioning could still have excellent strokes gained off the tee and strokes gained approach however have an abysmal strokes gained around the green.

ESC does not state that people should only focus on long game, it just mentioned that putting was not as much as a contribution as the general layman thought it was towards winning golf tournaments.  
  • Ex. If you are hitting 14 greens a round, putting 30 putts a round and still shooting mid 80s then i can safely come up with a few scenarios that allow for that to happen.  A likely scenario would be that when you miss a green you have a very bad game around the greens.

My main point was that the majority of the detractors to Broadie either do not fully understand what he was claiming or they are clinging to old maxims so much that they throw every contradicting anecdote into the conversation as what they believe to be equally valid counter-evidence.  It is a fallacy of logic primarily, one that is very tough to overcome because it is based in deep seeded beliefs.

For the record, i am willing to believe someone when they say he is wrong, but until they have some factual evidence and data, their point will not change my vantage point.  In the end I just want to know what is the truth, especially if it disproves what i think is true.  I do not want my thinking to be incorrect for a second longer than i need to be.  

When it comes to my education my primary allegiance is with objective truth.
Truth.  It is deep- seated.    :-)


Remove This Advertisement Viewing As Guest

    GolfWRX Forums

    Advertisement


Wanna get rid of this ugly yellow box? And remove other annoying "stuff" in between posts? Create a FREE GolfWRX account here.

20

#141 stickner

stickner

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 240 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 409286
  • Joined: 01/19/2016
  • Location:NJ
  • Handicap:10
GolfWRX Likes : 135

Posted 03 September 2017 - 11:30 AM

2 things I would live to see in an extension of Broadie's work:

1) "Quantify" the lie/stance. There are times when you have easier lies in the rough compared the fairway.
2) I would love to know exactly where pros are aimed. Broadie's work always assumes the hole for approach shots. On the whole I would say pros face pins that are tougher (more tucked) than we face. On a tucked pin, from 150 out, they may be aiming 10 feet to the "fat" side of the green. Lets say they then hit it 7 feet further away from the hole than their target. Strokes gained would calculate they left themselves 17 feet after their 150 yard shot when they really only missed the target by 7 feet.

21

#142 Gamble Gamble

Gamble Gamble

    Good Luck!

  • ClubWRX Charter Members
  • 2,284 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 198076
  • Joined: 08/14/2012
  • Location:On here too much
GolfWRX Likes : 1807

Posted 04 September 2017 - 05:29 AM

View Poststickner, on 03 September 2017 - 11:30 AM, said:

2 things I would live to see in an extension of Broadie's work:

1) "Quantify" the lie/stance. There are times when you have easier lies in the rough compared the fairway.
2) I would love to know exactly where pros are aimed. Broadie's work always assumes the hole for approach shots. On the whole I would say pros face pins that are tougher (more tucked) than we face. On a tucked pin, from 150 out, they may be aiming 10 feet to the "fat" side of the green. Lets say they then hit it 7 feet further away from the hole than their target. Strokes gained would calculate they left themselves 17 feet after their 150 yard shot when they really only missed the target by 7 feet.

The final target is the hole.  Even if the player makes adjustments to where they aim when they approach the hole, it does not change the players end goal.
Ping G400 DR 9* Diamana Ahina 70X
Ping G400 3W 15* Diamana Ahina 70S
Cobra F6 Baffler 5W 19* Tour AD-DI 6S
Taylormade P-790 (4i-AW) Modus 120S
Titleist SM6 54.08 M-Grind Modus 120S
Titleist SM6 60.04 L-Grind Modus 120S
Ping Cadence TR Ketsch Heavy Putter
Taylormade TP5X Ball | Arccos 360

22

#143 royourboat

royourboat

    Advanced

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 424 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 85293
  • Joined: 06/11/2009
GolfWRX Likes : 136

Posted 04 September 2017 - 08:56 AM

View Poststickner, on 03 September 2017 - 11:30 AM, said:

2 things I would live to see in an extension of Broadie's work:

1) "Quantify" the lie/stance. There are times when you have easier lies in the rough compared the fairway.
2) I would love to know exactly where pros are aimed. Broadie's work always assumes the hole for approach shots. On the whole I would say pros face pins that are tougher (more tucked) than we face. On a tucked pin, from 150 out, they may be aiming 10 feet to the "fat" side of the green. Lets say they then hit it 7 feet further away from the hole than their target. Strokes gained would calculate they left themselves 17 feet after their 150 yard shot when they really only missed the target by 7 feet.

Haha, you better be planning on livin' for a long time if you want to see someone quantify the lie/stance!
I like to tee the ball up.. using man sized clubs.

View PostMonteScheinblum, on 09 June 2017 - 12:16 AM, said:

View Postmothman65, on 09 June 2017 - 12:09 AM, said:

Is Melbourne getting any closer to happening Momte?

Still need some more, but it's pretty likely I'll come.  Just don't know when yet.

23

#144 golfer07840

golfer07840

    Tour Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 949 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 433524
  • Joined: 07/21/2016
  • Location:Northwest NJ
  • Handicap:16.4
GolfWRX Likes : 465

Posted 10 September 2017 - 04:30 AM

View PostFade to Black, on 28 August 2017 - 07:50 AM, said:

When did shooting 85 classify someone as a "standard hack"?
I was wondering the same thing.

24

#145 bluedot

bluedot

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,707 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 85265
  • Joined: 06/10/2009
  • Handicap:4.4
GolfWRX Likes : 1018

Posted 10 September 2017 - 06:09 PM

View Postgolfer07840, on 10 September 2017 - 04:30 AM, said:

View PostFade to Black, on 28 August 2017 - 07:50 AM, said:

When did shooting 85 classify someone as a "standard hack"?
I was wondering the same thing.

What was the launch date of golfwrx.com?


25

#146 Ty_Webb

Ty_Webb

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,664 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 7874
  • Joined: 11/16/2005
  • Location:New York
  • Handicap:+1.2
GolfWRX Likes : 495

Posted 13 September 2017 - 09:38 AM

View PostNorth Butte, on 30 August 2017 - 09:16 AM, said:

I actually work in a field (totally unrelated to golf) in which this sort of analytics question arises. There's always the easy part and the hard part of designing any strategy for improving something, whether that something is a product or a golf game, a medical therapy, an investement or a government policy.

The easy part is what Broadie's book comes close to putting to rest. Where are the differences between a Tour player and a wannabe Tour player? Or between a +2 handicapper and a 10 handicapper who wants to be better than scratch. Using the Stroke Gained framework and his various datasets (ShotLink plus whatever amateur golf data he has gathered) we now have pretty convincing answers to that sort of question.

The hard part is the relative difficulty in improving the things that make the biggest difference. As far as I've seen, Broadie or Dave Pelz or anyone else is yet to gather convincing data concerning this part. We all have a sense that working on improving 1-foot putts is a fool's errand. But among elements of the game with similar impacts, it's an open question.

There's no data at all to say whether that 10-handicapper is going to find 30 more yards with the driver easier than he'll find cutting his proximity to the hole in half from 125-150 yards. If Strokes Gained tells him that he loses 2 strokes/round relative to Scratch with his driver and 2 strokes/round relative to scratch with his approach proximity, how does he choose which one to dedicate a few hundred hours of practice towards?

Hi - I know this has been quiet for a while, but here is my thought on the what to work on thing. The problem is take these two people:

Player 1 hits his driver 280 and reasonably well, but occasionally sprays it wild. They hit it OB once and into the trees twice in a typical round, but the rest of the time hit it solidly in the fairway or light rough. They might have a strokes gained driving of -4.

Player 2 hits his driver 200 and very straight. Hits it in or very close to the fairway on every hole. Just doesn't go very far. His strokes gained driving might also be -4.

Player 1 clearly has better potential with his driver than player 2 (assuming player 2 is not 10 years old anyway). Player 1 might well be better off working on his driver. Player 2 has probably maxed out how good he can be with his long game and would be better served working on his short game.

Here is how I would suggest figuring out which one you should work on. I would say you should look at the variability of your strokes gained per shot. Player 1 is going to have a worst case of -2 (from the OB shot). Player 2 is going to be pretty close to -0.4 (let's say - I don't know the actual number) with all of his shots. Throw out the best 10% and the worst 10% and then look at the difference between 10th percentile and 90th percentile. The higher that difference is, the more likely it is that you can improve on that statistic. As with all the other situations, there will be special cases where this isn't the case. For example, player 2 might have a pretty bad power leak somewhere that fixing would improve his distance massively.
Ping G30 9° Diamana white 63x
Ping G30 3 wood Accra
Titleist 714CB 2, 3, 4
Titleist 714MB 5-PW
Vokey 52 and 56
Scotty Cameron Newport 2

26

#147 Ty_Webb

Ty_Webb

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,664 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 7874
  • Joined: 11/16/2005
  • Location:New York
  • Handicap:+1.2
GolfWRX Likes : 495

Posted 13 September 2017 - 09:48 AM

View PostObee, on 31 August 2017 - 01:21 PM, said:

Gamble Gamble: For some reason I can't quote your post.

It's not the data that people argue with. It's the application of the data to specific players' games.

If Broadie says you're better off being closer to the hole, in general, I believe that he is 100% correct for the golf population taken as a whole.

But if you have pitching yips, it is simply not true for you. Have you ever seen someone with the pitching yips? Put them 30 yards in front of a green with a bunker in between them and the hole, and they will make 11. Or worse.

If you're that guy's caddie or coach (or Broadie!) you recommend that that guy to NEVER leave himself a pitch over a bunker if he can help it.

That is an extreme example, but those types of golfers exist. And they are not "one-offs." They are real golfers with real issues, and their games don't fit into a spreadsheet that they could use based upon the average players' game to determine their strategy. Period.

That golfer (likely) needs to do two things: Work on his pitching yips issues before he works on his longer clubs (very "anti- Broadie"!) AND never leave himself a pitch over a bunker or hazard that is a less than full shot (also very anti-Broadie!).

I'm guessing it won't take you long to find a golfer in your group that fits that scenario. I can think of two buddies off the top of my head that fall into that category.

And this from a guy who shares Broadie with everyone!

I would say that that golfer with the pitching yips should treat fairway 30 yards from the green like a hazard. It clearly is.

If you want to get right down to the nitty gritty, you should keep very detailed stats and figure out how many shots it takes you personally to complete a typical hole from every possible situation. Fairway, rough, sand, trees, hazards etc. In increments of distance. Maybe 20 yards apart. Then you want to figure out what the pattern of your shots looks like based on where you're aiming. Then you look at a map of a hole and note on it in each point what your shots to complete the hole will be. Then drop your shot pattern with each club onto that hole and add up the most likely score. Whichever is lowest is the club you should hit and the point you should aim at. For your pitching yips player, he's taking 11 shots from the fairway 30 yards short of the green. If he looks at his shot patterns he should not be hitting any club that has any chance of leaving him that shot. If he winds up hitting a horror shot that actually goes there, it sounds like he should seriously consider declaring it unplayable and either dropping back to a full shot or replaying his previous shot.

I know all of that would take an enormous amount of time and effort and you certainly can't be doing that every shot, but if you figure it out a few times for a few holes, you'll start to instinctively know what you should be doing. I think it was Scott Fawcett who said that one of the reasons experience used to be such a big deal in pro golf (people typically don't hit their peak until their 30s) is because eventually you'll learn this stuff from trial and error, but it takes years. You can take the time to figure it out for yourself and your game if you want to and I think scores would improve if people did that. Broadie's stuff is great because it gives you a starting point to do that. You know what the PGA Tour averages are from fairway, rough, sand, recovery situations for every yardage. All you need to do is figure out how to adjust those for your game and then figure out where to aim and with what club.
Ping G30 9° Diamana white 63x
Ping G30 3 wood Accra
Titleist 714CB 2, 3, 4
Titleist 714MB 5-PW
Vokey 52 and 56
Scotty Cameron Newport 2

27

#148 DaveLeeNC

DaveLeeNC

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,652 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 54590
  • Joined: 04/27/2008
  • Location:Pinehurst, NC
GolfWRX Likes : 456

Posted 13 September 2017 - 10:57 AM

I am a numbers guy and started out tracking "why did I bogey (or worse) this hole". Drive into the trees on a par 4, pitch out sideways into the fairway, onto the green and 2 putts was 1 stroke assigned to the driver (if that is what I hit). Driver into the fairway, 6i hit a bit left, poor pitch shot to 9', and 2 putts for bogey was 0.5 strokes assigned to the 6i full shot, and 0.5 strokes assigned to the pitch shot. If the pitch shot was 4' or better then 0.5 strokes assigned to the putter (unless it was a gimme, then 1.0 strokes to the putter).  Stuff like that.

I didn't learn anything that I didn't already know after a while, so (back in 2003) I developed my own/personal "Broadie system". Other than the fact that it "compared myself against myself" instead of against "the field", it was fundamentally the same thing. I am a #'s guy so it is what I call interesting. It was most helpful not in identifying my weaknesses, but in identifying "what matters". For example ....

When setting up my bag (what clubs to carry) I could see whether or not I lost much when I was 'between wedges' (and the answer was that I was pretty good when 'between wedges' so no extra wedge).

For me "closer is always better' so I almost never "lay up to a distance".

Stuff like that.

For me golf is the only sport that does necessarily yield to effort. I used to play tennis and you send me somewhere where I was going to be in the tennis court 6 hours per day, I WOULD play better after two weeks. Not obvious WRT golf. So regarding what to work on - I would start with whatever "yields to effort" in your case.

Random thoughts ..

dave

28

#149 Dan Drake

Dan Drake

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,586 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 82506
  • Joined: 05/10/2009
  • Location:Destin, FL
  • Handicap:3.9
GolfWRX Likes : 1040

Posted 13 September 2017 - 12:21 PM

There are some very smart guys in this thread, so I'm quite certain that what I'm about to say has been said previously and probably more clearly and succinctly.  

But, I'll say it anyway.  

View Poststickner, on 03 September 2017 - 11:30 AM, said:

2 things I would live to see in an extension of Broadie's work:

1) "Quantify" the lie/stance. There are times when you have easier lies in the rough compared the fairway.
2) I would love to know exactly where pros are aimed. Broadie's work always assumes the hole for approach shots. On the whole I would say pros face pins that are tougher (more tucked) than we face. On a tucked pin, from 150 out, they may be aiming 10 feet to the "fat" side of the green. Lets say they then hit it 7 feet further away from the hole than their target. Strokes gained would calculate they left themselves 17 feet after their 150 yard shot when they really only missed the target by 7 feet.

1) There is a "Recovery" shot option that can be used, if the lie is severe enough that you simply have to pitch out.  It's the same option that you would use if you were deep in the trees and had to pitch out.  
2) As mentioned, if you aim away from the hole and hit a perfect shot to that spot, the number of expected strokes to hole out from that spot does not change, so the strokes gained or lost on that shot doesn't change either.  

Let's be clear here, strokes gained isn't a strategy guide.  It's a way to quantify your game (with a bunch of data, not a single round) so that you can build a strategy guide/bag setup/practice plan.
Razr Fit w/AD BB
E8 ß 12° w/Rogue
3DX 17° w/Altus
AP2 4-P w/DG
Glide 50° SS, 54° WS, & 60° TS w/CFS
Sophia

29

#150 OrangeGravy

OrangeGravy

    Tour Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 559 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 322661
  • Joined: 06/23/2014
  • Location:Richland, WA
  • Handicap:$$
  • Ebay ID:OrangeGravy
GolfWRX Likes : 202

Posted 14 September 2017 - 02:40 AM

View PostNorth Butte, on 30 August 2017 - 10:04 AM, said:

I'm not talking about ShotLink-like data about ones own game. That is trivially easy to obtain (Arccos, Game Golf, notepad and pencil).

There's no data source for how changeable these things are for a given player. Even if I knew precisely with absolute certainty that over my last 100 rounds my proximity to the hole from 125-150 yards was 4.39265 strokes worse than Dustin Johnson's proximity to the hole from 125-150 yards that only quantifies the potential benefit of improving my short-iron game.

But we have no data for what would required to improve my short iron game by 1.00000 strokes gained in the future. Maybe that would take a handful of lessons and twice a week trips to the driving range for three months. Or maybe it would take every waking hour from now until the heat death of the universe.

Same for driving or bunker play or chipping or long irons. An improvement of 1.0 strokes in Strokes Gained-Putting is either easier or harder for me to obtain than an improvement of 1.0 strokes in 1.0 strokes in Strokes Gained-Off The Tee. Either way the benefit is 1.0 strokes per round but what is the cost? Nobody knows, we just have speculation and conventional wisdom.

"Ars longa, vita brevis, occasio praeceps, experimentum periculosum, iudicium difficile."

You're never going to be able to put a number on difficulty/repetitions/time it takes to improve in one area of the game to another. That's too dependent on the individual. This data to me, shows which areas of the game offer the most potential to gain/save strokes. Nothing more, nothing less. It's then up to the person to apply it to their game in general and if need be  course/hole specific conditions on a particular day. In my mind adding the difficulty of improvement metric to this is just looking for a reason to discount the validity of the data.

I also think you get more bang for your buck fixing the long game vs. the short game. Much less improvement needed in long game to save more strokes. So any argument that it's too difficult potentially to get better at the long game is not true. If it truly would be that difficult to improve even marginally off the tee or approach shots then I would argue that you might just be stuck being a really bad golfer.

Callaway FT Tour 9.5*/ OG Blueboard 73
Sonartec 3.5/YS-6+
Ping EYE 2+ 1-LW BECU/
Cleveland 588 DSG 54*
Cleveland 588 DSG/RTG+ 58*
Odyssey White Hot 6

Remove This Advertisement Viewing As Guest

    GolfWRX Forums

    Advertisement


Wanna get rid of this ugly yellow box? And remove other annoying "stuff" in between posts? Create a FREE GolfWRX account here.

30



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

GolfWRX Sponsors