Strokes gained data

[Medson]

51 minutes ago, larrybud said:

"drive for show putt for dough" is a myth.

 "drive for show, putt for dough" is not a myth. However, there should be a second part of the sentence. "If you are not even in the show, how are you supposed to make dough?"

[nvr3putt]

1 hour ago, larrybud said:

More recent data/analysis concurs:
https://www.golfdigest.com/story/golf-stats-that-matter-most-which-skills-correlate-to-success-on-the-pga-tour

"drive for show putt for dough" is a myth.
 

 

Are you questioning a 4-time Open champion and gentleman who coined the phrase? 😀

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Locke

 

Edited July 18, 2022 by nvr3putt

[DLiver]

6 hours ago, khalespace said:

Deep rough and shallow rough. If you drive into deep rough (6 inches grass) vs driving into rough with 2 inches of grass. I think they don't account for the difference. You get penalized the same. This affect Driving stats and Approach to Green Stats.

 

Or uphill vs downhill putts. Plugged in bunker vs nice lie.

The data is normalized for the specific site on the day played. Strokes gained are based on the average for the field for that day. So if the greens are fast or firm or slow or whatever, or the rough is long or short or whatever, or the pins or brutal or easy, that is taken into account because it is based on how all the players played the course that day. That is the beauty of the SG calculations, IMO.

[Krt22]

10 minutes ago, DLiver said:

The data is normalized for the specific site on the day played. Strokes gained are based on the average for the field for that day. So if the greens are fast or firm or slow or whatever, or the rough is long or short or whatever, or the pins or brutal or easy, that is taken into account because it is based on how all the players played the course that day. That is the beauty of the SG calculations, IMO.

Oddly poor lies in the rough seem to correlate more with barely missing the fairway vs being more off-line. The thought being just off the fairway the rough gets more water so it's more lush while more offline gets trampled down by patrons

[DLiver]

Sure there are going to be some outliers, but in general the methodology and the data are very solid.

[larrybud]

1 hour ago, DLiver said:

The data is normalized for the specific site on the day played. Strokes gained are based on the average for the field for that day. So if the greens are fast or firm or slow or whatever, or the rough is long or short or whatever, or the pins or brutal or easy, that is taken into account because it is based on how all the players played the course that day. That is the beauty of the SG calculations, IMO.

 

There is year-long strokes gained data however.  Yes, SG for a round is within that round, SG for a tournament is just for that tournament, and SG for the season is for that season.

[OrangeGravy]

13 hours ago, khalespace said:

Deep rough and shallow rough. If you drive into deep rough (6 inches grass) vs driving into rough with 2 inches of grass. I think they don't account for the difference. You get penalized the same. This affect Driving stats and Approach to Green Stats.

 

Or uphill vs downhill putts. Plugged in bunker vs nice lie.

All shots for the field from all rough, deep or shallow from distance 'x' are what make up that SG value, so they are accounted for, yes? From the sound for example,  if nobody draws a fried egg for 4 days it will be tougher to gain strokes on the field in that event? 

 

I'm asking,  not trying to be a jerk!

[PorkChopExpress]

Unpopular opinion is these stats were to try and catch the baseball stat fanatic types

But no one cares about these stats

 

stats don’t win golf tournaments

 

[khalespace]

28 minutes ago, PorkChopExpress said:

stats don’t win golf tournaments

 

Stats do tell you who are more likely to win.

[DLiver]

And more importantly (IMO), these stats will show you why/how someone won.

[larrybud]

15 hours ago, nvr3putt said:

 

Are you questioning a 4-time Open champion and gentleman who coined the phrase? 😀

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Locke

 

I'm not, the data is, however!

[JDCON]

17 hours ago, Medson said:

 "drive for show, putt for dough" is not a myth. However, there should be a second part of the sentence. "If you are not even in the show, how are you supposed to make dough?"

That’s brilliant! I’m stealing it and claiming I invented it.

[TLUBulldogGolf]

6 hours ago, PorkChopExpress said:

Unpopular opinion is these stats were to try and catch the baseball stat fanatic types

But no one cares about these stats

 

stats don’t win golf tournaments

 

 

It can be pretty revealing as far as which areas need to improve. 

[MUNIGRIT]

6 hours ago, PorkChopExpress said:

Unpopular opinion is these stats were to try and catch the baseball stat fanatic types

But no one cares about these stats

 

stats don’t win golf tournaments

 

It showed you who win this tournament and how they did it. 

[bladehunter]

21 hours ago, Krt22 said:

I guess we should all practice putting much more!

True story.  Played a dogfight a couple months ago on greens that were just punched.  They played a auto 2 putt rule.  So hit a green. Auto 2 putt.  But of course one putts count if you make. It’s a stableford points book kept over many years.     Every singe person in that dogfight was positive points for the day. I counted up and averageD + 6 for all. I was +4 myself.  It’s a blind draw two man team scoring.  We had a team that won at +19.  so plenty of guys around +7-10.  
 

 I can only conclude from that that yes. We all need to become better putters.  I can’t imagine any other subset of stats being a given and making an average of +6 points.    

[bladehunter]

14 hours ago, DLiver said:

The data is normalized for the specific site on the day played. Strokes gained are based on the average for the field for that day. So if the greens are fast or firm or slow or whatever, or the rough is long or short or whatever, or the pins or brutal or easy, that is taken into account because it is based on how all the players played the course that day. That is the beauty of the SG calculations, IMO.

True. 
 

but it’s always made me wonder about strokes gained for the rest of us.  It lacks any of that daily data you just mentioned.  I’m not being judged against other players on the same course. I’m being judged based on a theory of how a pro player would have done from that spot.  But there’s no account taken for conditions , etc.  

Edited July 19, 2022 by bladehunter

[PorkChopExpress]

Xander had one of the worst rounds per SGA on the final day and still won the Scottish open

 

[PorkChopExpress]

Cam Young should have won, his stats were off the charts

other than putting hahaha

 

There’s something said about the guys that can get the ball in the hole on Sundays under pressure.

[Dutch1008]

1 hour ago, PorkChopExpress said:

Cam Young should have won, his stats were off the charts

other than putting hahaha

 

There’s something said about the guys that can get the ball in the hole on Sundays under pressure.

You frame that like Cam Young got smoked. He lost by a single stroke. 

 

That's why strokes gained is interesting. It helps explain the difference. If Young or Rory had putted a little better, they would have won. If Cam Smith drove the ball like Young and Rory, he would have lapped the field. 

[nvr3putt]

7 minutes ago, Dutch1008 said:

That's why strokes gained is interesting. It helps explain the difference. If Young or Rory had putted a little better, they would have won. If Cam Smith drove the ball like Young and Rory, he would have lapped the field. 

 

I don't think anyone needs SG stats to know that Young or Rory would have won if they putted even marginally better. Just sayin...

[nvr3putt]

3 hours ago, bladehunter said:

True. 
 

but it’s always made me wonder about strokes gained for the rest of us.  It lacks any of that daily data you just mentioned.  I’m not being judged against other players on the same course. I’m being judged based on a theory of how a pro player would have done from that spot.  But there’s no account taken for conditions , etc.  

 

Exactly. Perhaps SG stats are not meant to be accurate for us amateurs as it is for PGA pros. Much like how the pros don't buy equipment from Golf Galaxy or PGA Superstore.  

[Krt22]

3 hours ago, bladehunter said:

True story.  Played a dogfight a couple months ago on greens that were just punched.  They played a auto 2 putt rule.  So hit a green. Auto 2 putt.  But of course one putts count if you make. It’s a stableford points book kept over many years.     Every singe person in that dogfight was positive points for the day. I counted up and averageD + 6 for all. I was +4 myself.  It’s a blind draw two man team scoring.  We had a team that won at +19.  so plenty of guys around +7-10.  
 

 I can only conclude from that that yes. We all need to become better putters.  I can’t imagine any other subset of stats being a given and making an average of +6 points.    

I really don't think you can draw conclusions from a single event on punched greens. It's literally random chance/luck playing plinko, so the guys who got to +19 were either very lucky or flagging it where they could take a lot of the chance out of play.

 

3 hours ago, bladehunter said:

True. 
 

but it’s always made me wonder about strokes gained for the rest of us.  It lacks any of that daily data you just mentioned.  I’m not being judged against other players on the same course. I’m being judged based on a theory of how a pro player would have done from that spot.  But there’s no account taken for conditions , etc.  

If you use one of the many stat tracking apps, you can get baseline data for various handicaps. The method itself created using data-sets from golfers of various skill levels, not pros. Realistically speaking the normalization that occurs is going to be less significant than the over-all trends, but it is a hand-waiving point if you really must dote on something.

[Krt22]

4 minutes ago, nvr3putt said:

 

Exactly. Perhaps SG stats are not meant to be accurate for us amateurs as it is for PGA pros. Much like how the pros don't buy equipment from Golf Galaxy or PGA Superstore.  

100% false. Read the book before making such statements. 

 

https://www.amazon.com/Every-Shot-Counts-Revolutionary-Performance/dp/1592407501/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2W05ZGHQBNQIP&keywords=every+shot+counts&qid=1658250703&sprefix=every+shot+count%2Caps%2C304&sr=8-1

[golfortennis]

3 hours ago, bladehunter said:

True. 
 

but it’s always made me wonder about strokes gained for the rest of us.  It lacks any of that daily data you just mentioned.  I’m not being judged against other players on the same course. I’m being judged based on a theory of how a pro player would have done from that spot.  But there’s no account taken for conditions , etc.  

 

The value of strokes gained for us is to have a table of values, and compare our improvement against it over time.  

 

Ie., if average proximity to the hole is 35' for a tour pro, its not about you getting to 35', but it is about going from 55 to 45.  You just need some standard to measure your progress against.  The pGA Tour pros can use it against each other because they play relatively similar courses/conditions(especially in one round or tournament).  It's a little tougher for us because the "5 handicap" or whomever we think we should be comparing to, might be playing off hardpan in a fairway, non-existent or super-lush rough, putting on greens that are 10 or 13 on the stimp....  too many variables.

 

BUt a standard that you can track your progress against can be very helpful. 

[bladehunter]

53 minutes ago, Krt22 said:

I really don't think you can draw conclusions from a single event on punched greens. It's literally random chance/luck playing plinko, so the guys who got to +19 were either very lucky or flagging it where they could take a lot of the chance out of play.

 

If you use one of the many stat tracking apps, you can get baseline data for various handicaps. The method itself created using data-sets from golfers of various skill levels, not pros. Realistically speaking the normalization that occurs is going to be less significant than the over-all trends, but it is a hand-waiving point if you really must dote on something.

No I’m not doting. He just brought up a part of the pros reality that I’ve noticed or questioned in regards to our reality with those stats.  
 

 

 

for instance .  I feel like I’d value the stat more if it measured me against my competitors , not against professionals or college players such as decade does. The stats for non college and below levels can’t really be based on anything directly relevant.  .  There’s no shot link out there following joe Around in the club championship. It just makes me wonder. If my -2.97 strokes gained putting average really that bad ( yes. It is ) , meaning compared to other players at my handicap level?  Then there’s the question of how much that matters?   Does it matter more or less at am level ?  I don’t know.  

Edited July 19, 2022 by bladehunter

[bladehunter]

27 minutes ago, golfortennis said:

 

The value of strokes gained for us is to have a table of values, and compare our improvement against it over time.  

 

Ie., if average proximity to the hole is 35' for a tour pro, its not about you getting to 35', but it is about going from 55 to 45.  You just need some standard to measure your progress against.  The pGA Tour pros can use it against each other because they play relatively similar courses/conditions(especially in one round or tournament).  It's a little tougher for us because the "5 handicap" or whomever we think we should be comparing to, might be playing off hardpan in a fairway, non-existent or super-lush rough, putting on greens that are 10 or 13 on the stimp....  too many variables.

 

BUt a standard that you can track your progress against can be very helpful. 

Oh no. I agree with that. Which is what I use it for.    I just wished there was a way to then compare to your own peer group.  

[Krt22]

9 minutes ago, golfortennis said:

 

The value of strokes gained for us is to have a table of values, and compare our improvement against it over time.  

 

Ie., if average proximity to the hole is 35' for a tour pro, its not about you getting to 35', but it is about going from 55 to 45.  You just need some standard to measure your progress against.  The pGA Tour pros can use it against each other because they play relatively similar courses/conditions(especially in one round or tournament).  It's a little tougher for us because the "5 handicap" or whomever we think we should be comparing to, might be playing off hardpan in a fairway, non-existent or super-lush rough, putting on greens that are 10 or 13 on the stimp....  too many variables.

 

BUt a standard that you can track your progress against can be very helpful. 

Indeed. There are two key takeaways of using the SG method. One is formulating course strategy  and the other identifying the weak points of your game. There is no harm in an average club golfer using professional baseline data since the whole point is to identify weaknesses in the various parts of your game, such that you can focus your practice and improve the weakest parts of your game. Just as you said, the delta improvement vs the baseline is the goal, the raw numbers not so much. 

[bladehunter]

48 minutes ago, Krt22 said:

I really don't think you can draw conclusions from a single event on punched greens. It's literally random chance/luck playing plinko, so the guys who got to +19 were either very lucky or flagging it where they could take a lot of the chance out of play.

 

If you use one of the many stat tracking apps, you can get baseline data for various handicaps. The method itself created using data-sets from golfers of various skill levels, not pros. Realistically speaking the normalization that occurs is going to be less significant than the over-all trends, but it is a hand-waiving point if you really must dote on something.

Forgot the first part.  The 2 putt dogfight 

 

I understand I it’s a single point of data.  Anecdotal at best.  But. I suspect if you setup 100 2 putt rule events you’d see remarkably better scoring than same event on good greens with no 2 putt max rule.  It shows the deficiency is pretty large amongst ams for  putting.  If guaranteed  2 putt is worth 6 points on average.  That’s huge.  
 

[Krt22]

7 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

No I’m not doting. He just brought up a part of the pros reality that I’ve noticed or questioned in regards to our reality with those stats.  
 

 

 

for instance .  I feel like I’d value the stat more if it measured me against my competitors , not against professionals or college players such as decade does. The stats for non college and below levels can’t really be based on anything directly relevant.  .  There’s no shot link out there following joe Around in the club championship. It just makes me wonder. If my -2.97 strokes gained putting average really that bad ( yes. It is ) , meaning compared to other players at my handicap level?  Then there’s the question of how much that matters?   Does it matter more or less or more am level ?  I don’t know.  

Not true.. The baseline data that exists for non-professionals is compiled accurately, that is how the method as a whole was derived. It exists now on various platforms that use GPS tracking as well. All you need to know is lie, distance to the hole, and where the shot ended. Once you have a large enough dataset to establish the baseline values you are good to go to use it as a comparative measure, you really don't need daily normalization like the pros. Golf metrics gives you a comparative handicap for each aspect so you can assess where you stand relative to your actual index.

 

7 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

Forgot the first part.  The 2 putt dogfight 

 

I understand I it’s a single point of data.  Anecdotal at best.  But. I suspect if you setup 100 2 putt rule events you’d see remarkably better scoring than same event on good greens with no 2 putt max rule.  It shows the deficiency is pretty large amongst ams for  putting.  If guaranteed  2 putt is worth 6 points on average.  That’s huge.  
 

Auto 2-putt rule would benefit anyone who plays on sufficiently large greens since every time you 2-putt outside of 33ft you are gaining strokes. Teams who benefited the most in that format were those who hit it furthest from the hole. Cam Smith's impressive SG putting performance was just as much about holing long putts as it was 2-putting on the 50+ footers that are common on the huge St. Andrews greens

[bladehunter]

11 minutes ago, Krt22 said:

Not true.. The baseline data that exists for non-professionals is compiled accurately, that is how the method as a whole was derived. It exists now on various platforms that use GPS tracking as well. All you need to know is lie, distance to the hole, and where the shot ended. Once you have a large enough dataset to establish the baseline values you are good to go to use it as a comparative measure, you really don't need daily normalization like the pros. Golf metrics gives you a comparative handicap for each aspect so you can assess where you stand relative to your actual index.

 

Auto 2-putt rule would benefit anyone who plays on sufficiently large greens since every time you 2-putt outside of 33ft you are gaining strokes. Teams who benefited the most in that format were those who hit it furthest from the hole. Cam Smith's impressive SG putting performance was just as much about holing long putts as it was 2-putting on the 50+ footers that are common on the huge St. Andrews greens

On the 2 putt rule. I’m talking stableford points.  Not strokes gained points.  I’m talking score.  Winning.  Not data or stats.  I’m just saying that it shows how often guys 3 putt and or 2 putt while trying to get up and down.  Or more accurately how relatively rare 1 putts are.  
This was on tiny greens. 

 

on the stroked gained For ams.  Sure. 
 

i understand that they gathered enough data for a baseline.   That works I guess as long as the game never changes.  Which we both know it does about every 5 years.  
 

now.  That’s interesting as far as gps tracked data. Are you saying they are adding to the baseline daily with guys who use the gps  tracker methods ?  If so then that is progress I guess.  
 

i understand that we really don’t need normalization like the pros. But need doesn’t really enter into it.  We don’t need the stat at all.   I just think it’s a valid point that the stats would be more valuable if they did have a real comparative aspect to your competition.  

Edited July 19, 2022 by bladehunter