305 replies to this topic

[NHauss]

hangubber, on 30 October 2012 - 02:05 PM, said:

hoganfan924, on 30 October 2012 - 12:55 PM, said:

Without a lot more in-depth analysis, this is the typical "correlation = causation" fallacy.

For example, note that about 1/2 of the top DZ players are known a long hitters, and several of the bottom 10 are short hitters.

Absolutely correct.  All we have here is a correlation between Danger Zone accuracy and money earned.
Here is the argument against causality:

1.  Approach shots from this distance do not occur frequently.  A quick look at PGA stats shows that an approach from 200-225 yards occurs approximately 1.2 times per round and an approach from 175 to 200 yards occurs about 2.3 times per round.  This means that an average player only has about 3.5 opportunities from this distance.

2. Improving from average to best at hitting approaches from 175 to 200 yards moves you 5 feet closer to the hole, from 34 feet to 29 feet.
Improving from average to best at hitting approaches from 200 to 225 yards moves you 7 feet closer to the hole from 40 feet to 33 feet.

3.  Looking at putting data: From 30 to 35 feet, the average pro makes 0.63% of putts.  From more than 35 feet, the average pro makes 0.34% of putts.  From 25 to 30 feet the average pro makes 0.81% of putts.

4.  So improving your DZ approach shots from 40 feet to the hole down to 29 feet means that the golfer will make about 0.47% more putts.  Multiply this by the 3.5 opportunities per round and the golfer saves about 0.017 strokes per round or about 0.068 strokes per tournament.

5.  So, going from average DZ player to best DZ player improves scoring by less than 1 tenth of 1 stroke per tournament.  One should conclude that the article's writer has not proven his hypothesis.  There is no justification statistically for a PGA player to place his practice emphasis on Danger Zone approaches.

The only problem I see with this analysis is that improving your average distance by 5-7 feet is often the difference between putting and chipping when we are talking about 30-40 feet, while it rarely will be when it is 15-20 feet

[rhh7]

Every morning at 5:00 a.m., I drink coffee, and I read Richie Hunt's golf blog.  Then I come to golfwrx.com, pour more coffee, and continue reading.  I find Richie's analysis compelling, and convincing.  So much so, that I have based my entire game plan for the 2013 season on Richie's findings.  

I am 66 years old, and my lowest round last season was 90.  I intend to shoot 79 this coming season.  My logic is not sophisticated, but here it is.  My local municipal course has four par-5's.  It took me an average of 6 strokes last season to reach these greens!  Now I figure if I can reach these holes in an average of 3 strokes, I could gain 12 strokes right there!  Hmmm.....

Here are my specific steps to reach this goal.  I purchased Cobra Baffler T-Rail women's fairway woods...an 18-degree 3 Wood, and a 22-degree 7 Wood.  It just so happens that I can reliably hit the 3 Wood 200 yards, and the 7 Wood 175 yards.  Then I reshafted my 12-degree Ping G20 driver with an L-Flex Aldila graphite shaft...now I can drive 225 yards.  

Finally, I am devoting 75% of my practice time to these 3 clubs.  For the past several years, I have devoted 75% of my practice time to the wedges.  Oh by the way, I also bought Richie's ebook.

[H34D SH01]

very interesting...

[greens hit]

Stretch, on 30 October 2012 - 01:32 PM, said:

gators78, on 30 October 2012 - 01:21 PM, said:

hoganfan924, on 30 October 2012 - 12:55 PM, said:

Without a lot more in-depth analysis, this is the typical "correlation = causation" fallacy.

For example, note that about 1/2 of the top DZ players are known a long hitters, and several of the bottom 10 are short hitters.

Not totally sure why player distance means this study is invalid?

It doesn't. In fact, one of the primary advantages of being conspicuously long off the tee is that you get to hit fewer shots from Danger Zone distances in an average round. This is why Phil, for example, can be so wild and still win things. The simple answer for why long drivers also tend to be superior long iron players is that there are common mechanics that favor both -- mainly, lots of lag.

PS: Only on GolfWRX can you rely on someone to pop up pretty much immediately to tell a professional statistician that he doesn't know the difference between correlation and causation. Classic.

I don't think you really understand the main point of the article. Go back and reread and try to flesh out the proposed logic of the OP. The argument he is making clearly begs the question. Players that are good in the DZ are also the top money earners. Therefore, we should all learn from this and practice our DZ game. The assumed premise in this is that one's DZ game has a direct relation to his success on tour. HoganFan is right. Long hitters have a distinct advantage over short hitters in more ways than just in the DZ. A short hitter can practice his hybrid from 200 out til the cows come home but at the end of the day, he's still hitting hybid while the long hitters are hitting 6-7 irons.  This is akin to saying people that drive a Bently make more money than people that drive a Toyota. Drive a Bently and you'll make more money.

[Vindog]

greens hit, on 05 March 2013 - 03:24 AM, said:

I don't think you really understand the main point of the article. Go back and reread and try to flesh out the proposed logic of the OP. The argument he is making clearly begs the question. Players that are good in the DZ are also the top money earners. Therefore, we should all learn from this and practice our DZ game. The assumed premise in this is that one's DZ game has a direct relation to his success on tour. HoganFan is right. Long hitters have a distinct advantage over short hitters in more ways than just in the DZ. A short hitter can practice his hybrid from 200 out til the cows come home but at the end of the day, he's still hitting hybid while the long hitters are hitting 6-7 irons.  This is akin to saying people that drive a Bently make more money than people that drive a Toyota. Drive a Bently and you'll make more money.

So, what does this mean?  That a longer hitter could be better from the DZ due to the fact that he is hitting a more forgiving club?  Seems plausible, but also bear in mind that 5* off line from 200 is still 5* off line from 200, whether its a hybrid, a 5 iron, or a pw.

What it tells me is that no matter the club, if you can hit more greens from farther out (no matter the club) then you will be better off.  Seems pretty easy to understand.  Who wouldn't want to be better from farther out?

Edited by Vindog, 05 March 2013 - 09:36 AM.

[RichieHunt]

greens hit, on 05 March 2013 - 03:24 AM, said:

Stretch, on 30 October 2012 - 01:32 PM, said:

gators78, on 30 October 2012 - 01:21 PM, said:

hoganfan924, on 30 October 2012 - 12:55 PM, said:

Without a lot more in-depth analysis, this is the typical "correlation = causation" fallacy.

For example, note that about 1/2 of the top DZ players are known a long hitters, and several of the bottom 10 are short hitters.

Not totally sure why player distance means this study is invalid?

It doesn't. In fact, one of the primary advantages of being conspicuously long off the tee is that you get to hit fewer shots from Danger Zone distances in an average round. This is why Phil, for example, can be so wild and still win things. The simple answer for why long drivers also tend to be superior long iron players is that there are common mechanics that favor both -- mainly, lots of lag.

PS: Only on GolfWRX can you rely on someone to pop up pretty much immediately to tell a professional statistician that he doesn't know the difference between correlation and causation. Classic.

I don't think you really understand the main point of the article. Go back and reread and try to flesh out the proposed logic of the OP. The argument he is making clearly begs the question. Players that are good in the DZ are also the top money earners. Therefore, we should all learn from this and practice our DZ game. The assumed premise in this is that one's DZ game has a direct relation to his success on tour. HoganFan is right. Long hitters have a distinct advantage over short hitters in more ways than just in the DZ. A short hitter can practice his hybrid from 200 out til the cows come home but at the end of the day, he's still hitting hybid while the long hitters are hitting 6-7 irons.  This is akin to saying people that drive a Bently make more money than people that drive a Toyota. Drive a Bently and you'll make more money.

I didn't know this thread was still continuing, so I haven't been following up with it.

As I mentioned in this thread, there is no substantial mathematical correlation on Tour between power and DZ play.

You can look at driving distance averages, radar measured driving distance averages and clubhead speed.

There is no substantial mathematical correlation on Tour between power and DZ play.

I've looked up the data from 2002-2012 and mathematically, the correlation is a weak one between all of those variables.  I've even tried different formulas combining 2 or all 3 of those variables and DZ play....again, weak mathematical correlation to DZ play.



Now, the correlation between Adjusted Scoring Average and DZ play is fairly strong.  Again, this is based on math and statistical data from 2002-2012 instead of anecdotal evidence.

This is why golfers like Furyk, Zach Johnson, and David Toms can have successful years on Tour even when they are not putting well.  They don't hit the ball long, but they are consistently excellent Danger Zone players and on the holes where DZ shots are common, they are able to gain strokes on the field instead of losing them to the field like high clubhead speed, long players but poor DZ players such as Martin Flores, Jhonattan Vegas and Henrik Stenson.

Where distance gives players an advantage on Tour is it makes up for putting.  All of the data I've accumulated shows that the longer players can 'get away with' performing worse in Putts Gained because they are able to go for par-5's in two shots much more often and in the end, that typically gets them shorter birdie putt opportunities on par-5's.  There is an inherent advantage that distance gives driving effectiveness as well, but if the player lacks precision off the tee then it will likely cancel out that advantage.





RH