Like it. If you can be brutallly honest with the result of each shot, it will identify where you can improve for sure. Sometimes it can be difficult to apportion dropped shots to one particular shot on a given hole, but it looks like you're pretty realistic with your assessment.

Par 4s off the tee, if I'm not left with an approach shot to the green then I consider that dropping shots. 

Its difficult to consider a missed approach as a dropped shot due to the difficulty of hitting greens even with short irons. A bit of judgement needed here. Missing from 100 yards with the flag in the middle is losing shots, but missing the by a few feet from 180 certainly isn't dropping shots.

With putting I only think of a missed 2 footer or a 3 putt as dropping shots. 

I've always been one for analysing my rounds to see where I can improve and it really works for me.

51 minutes ago, Pete said:

Like it. If you can be brutallly honest with the result of each shot, it will identify where you can improve for sure. Sometimes it can be difficult to apportion dropped shots to one particular shot on a given hole, but it looks like you're pretty realistic with your assessment.

Par 4s off the tee, if I'm not left with an approach shot to the green then I consider that dropping shots. 

Its difficult to consider a missed approach as a dropped shot due to the difficulty of hitting greens even with short irons. A bit of judgement needed here. Missing from 100 yards with the flag in the middle is losing shots, but missing the by a few feet from 180 certainly isn't dropping shots.

With putting I only think of a missed 2 footer or a 3 putt as dropping shots. 

I've always been one for analysing my rounds to see where I can improve and it really works for me.

Thanks for the feedback. I understand what you are saying about the DS with approaches. This is where I really had to consider what was going on and make the call based on the shot. For instance, I hit my drive short on #3, but it was still in the fairway so I deducted a half shot. 30 more yards and I probably wouldn't have charged anything, but I am usually 70-80 yards closer. My iron shot was pushed seriously to the right into the trees which is why I took a full stroke off. I credited a half shot back by hitting the best recovery shot I could that helped me save a 2 putt bogey. If I had missed the green just a little right, I probably would have only charged myself a half stroke for the approach. If I had hit the green, my approach shot would have gained back the half stroke I charged my drive. It's really a judgement call, but you are right that I had to be honest with myself. Some of these were tough decisions. 14 for instance could have been a half shot for the approach and a half shot for putting since it was a "makeable putt", but I felt that it was the mainly the pulled approach that put me in recovery mode. it wasn't my best putt, but it was a good deal outside of the gimme range. I think this just got me in the ballpark. It's definitely not perfect, but it's pretty close I think.

I know we're chatting by PM about this, but just wanted to throw out my thoughts on this sort of thing:

1. I think so many of us craft our way to measure our progress. I know I tinker with this stuff a lot. Overall, we each have our own way, and that's cool. Here's another related thread from @alleztom: 
2. The apps out there seem to be getting better and better at this. They still fall short in different ways, but I do think there's improvement year over year.
3. The trick is obviously to keep it simple but sufficiently useful. The problem I see is in capturing all of those shots that are partial strokes lost. Where you hit a decent shot for yourself, but it might be 0.13 shots worse than a scratch golfer, or whatever. @iacas mentioned that.
4. Also like he says, each hole could average anything- not just the par value. Again, it's fractional. Like 3.8, rather than a par 4. Over the course of 18 holes, those fractions per shot and fractions per hole could add up.

On the other hand, I sent you a draft spreadsheet via PM that showed the fractional strokes gained/lost against PGA data, and the overall values were VERY similar to what you came up with! So your method seems to have worked just fine (roughly). So if your system works for you with all those caveats, I say it's a pretty decent model.

But I have another question on holes like #15. You had a 100yd-ish approach that you pulled into the trees. Then because you were stuck on a root, you bladed it across the green. Then on the come-back short game shot, you thinned it to the far end of the green and 2-putted from there. You gave yourself 1 shot dropped from approaches and 2 shots dropped from short game.

I have discussed this with others (and tried to understand Broadie's methodology), and I still can't get out of my head that the shot you hit from the tree root should be "billed" to the original approach shot. That's kind of a recover shot from the tree root (to me) and not your standard short game shot.  And rather than track strokes lost for recovery shots, I think it makes sense to blame the prior shot's category: in this case, approaches.

If I'm nuts, let me know. I worked with others on the Strokes Gained spreadsheet I sent you, but nobody else sees it that way, frankly. Even Broadie tracks recovery shots as a separate category (where I see no use in that). As I see it, you could've saved 2 shots by hitting a better approach from 100yds. Period.

Ok, I'll get off my soapbox.

40 minutes ago, RandallT said:

I have discussed this with others (and tried to understand Broadie's methodology), and I still can't get out of my head that the shot you hit from the tree root should be "billed" to the original approach shot. That's kind of a recover shot from the tree root (to me) and not your standard short game shot.  And rather than track strokes lost for recovery shots, I think it makes sense to blame the prior shot's category: in this case, approaches.

If I'm nuts, let me know. I worked with others on the Strokes Gained spreadsheet I sent you, but nobody else sees it that way, frankly. Even Broadie tracks recovery shots as a separate category (where I see no use in that). As I see it, you could've saved 2 shots by hitting a better approach from 100yds. Period.

That's a good point. Sure there was some error in his choice of shot off the root. He could have been a bit more conservative to avoid the blading, but because a 'recovery lie' has a higher expected shot value / strokes to go a conservative shot from that lie would be judged less harshly vs a fairway lie if he came up well short, but still on the green.

Are you just saying you don't personally see value in tracking recovery lies for your own game or you don't see value in it period?

Just now, natureboy said:

Are you just saying you don't personally see value in tracking recovery lies for your own game or you don't see value in it period?

I prefer to lump everything into the 4 categories: drive/approach/short/putt. If I have a recovery shot, I just don't see the value in knowing how many strokes I gain or lose from those. But I do see value in penalizing the prior shot. Not sure that answers your question.

17 minutes ago, RandallT said:

I have discussed this with others (and tried to understand Broadie's methodology), and I still can't get out of my head that the shot you hit from the tree root should be "billed" to the original approach shot. That's kind of a recover shot from the tree root (to me) and not your standard short game shot.  And rather than track strokes lost for recovery shots, I think it makes sense to blame the prior shot's category: in this case, approaches.

If I'm nuts, let me know. I worked with others on the Strokes Gained spreadsheet I sent you, but nobody else sees it that way, frankly. Even Broadie tracks recovery shots as a separate category (where I see no use in that). As I see it, you could've saved 2 shots by hitting a better approach from 100yds. Period.

In my head, I was thinking I hit 2 bad chips, which I actually did. Then again, I hit 2 bad approach shots given that I call par 3 tee shots approaches. I could go halfsies on the 3rd shot since I could actually get a club on it but chickened out and pulled up at the last minute perhaps. That's an odd one that deserves to get dinged from both sides since I shouldn't have been there, BUT I should have been able to put that on the green. I definitely see where you are coming from though.

Playing an easy 3W was really bad game planning from an LSW perspective. I usually play a regular 4i to the front or just short of the green to avoid death on the left and left/long. Since I hit a really nice 3w on 12 earlier... well, you get the picture. 

The spreadsheet you sent me is pretty awesome. I am certainly going to give that a try and see how well I like it. Thanks @RandallT! I will also check out the thread you referenced.

10 minutes ago, RandallT said:

I prefer to lump everything into the 4 categories: drive/approach/short/putt. If I have a recovery shot, I just don't see the value in knowing how many strokes I gain or lose from those. But I do see value in penalizing the prior shot. Not sure that answers your question.

  Hide contents

I am digesting your PM now, BTW. Very interesting.

 

So you still calculate the SG based on lie, you just don't put 'Recovery Shots' in the reporting stats? That makes sense.

56 minutes ago, natureboy said:

So you still calculate the SG based on lie, you just don't put 'Recovery Shots' in the reporting stats? That makes sense.

As I think about it, I consider a "recovery" shot EXACTLY like I consider a penalty- mathematically anyway.

Say you hit a tee shot into the water on a par 3. Take your penalty, then take your drop. To calculate that, you look at the starting point (tee) and the ending point (drop), and consider that it took you 2 shots to get there (your shot and the penalty).

Then you do the math to make that work from strokes gained perspective. I won't bore everyone with that. But there's no debate the penalty was a result of the original shot.

Likewise for recovery shots. In Shane's case above. He started at 100yds or so on an approach.  2 shots later, he was greenside. So look at the values of those two locations, do that math, and lump that difference under approaches.

It's all a matter of how you think it's appropriate to assess which area needs work. In his original spreadsheet above, he chose to dock himself 1 approach, 2 short game. I'm just humbly suggesting 2 approach, 1 short game. Or split the difference. Whatever.

But the key to me is that "recovery" shots could be considered very much like we consider penalties- assess the shot that did the damage. Then when you review where you need to practice, the ultimate cause has a better chance of coming out "on top."

I think I see what you mean. I should charge my 2nd approach to the first and then 3rd chip shot gets charged the the 2nd pulled approach giving me +2 in approaches. The fourth shot is charged to the first bladed chip shot then. I think were I screwed up is that I feel that I should charge my 4th shot since it was bladed, but it did make it onto the green. Something like that @RandallT?

 Tell ya what, I'll buy the beers when I'm next in FL. Knock a few of those down, and my idea will then make more sense. 

I think we're on the same page, but I didn't mean to derail your original topic! 

48 minutes ago, RandallT said:

 Tell ya what, I'll buy the beers when I'm next in FL. Knock a few of those down, and my idea will then make more sense. 

I think we're on the same page, but I didn't mean to derail your original topic! 

You didn't derail it at all. You've been very helpful. 

I would be happy to buy YOU a beer if you make it down this way. I've been thinking about organizing a winter TST event here in central FL for the locals and anyone wanting to head down.

As I review your spreadsheet tracker above, @Carl Spackler, I see that when you go hole-by-hole, you assign yourself 4.5 shots blown for short game. GAME GOLF, on the other hand, says that the typical 10HCP player is 3.7 shots better than you in short game shots. Effectively, they are saying that where you blew 4.5 shots, for you to be on level footing with a typical 10HCP player in their system, you should have only blown 0.8 of those opportunities.

Does that pass the common sense test? 

Your gut assessment and the comparison against PGA numbers both showed that your approach shots were clearly the area where you lost the most strokes. By a significant margin.

Maybe the comparison to a 10HCP is messing me up, and perhaps you could post the GAME GOLF comparison to a scratch golfer? Brings up an interesting question, do you prefer to see where you vary in skill areas compared to people who score similarly to you- or do you want to see how many strokes you are losing compared to some gold standard (to par as you did, to scratch as GG does or to PGA as I do?).  Those 2 analyses could yield different areas where you could improve, and both be right. Right?

I don't compare myself to a scratch golfer because I am not even close. I switch it to a 10 handicap to see where I am deficient for range so I can clean that up and advance. Here is the comparison to scratch.

I am encouraged that my driving is less the 2 strokes from a scratch player other than I know my distance is not even close. If I switch to All Rounds, it is less than 3. My drive on 5 was nice, so I have it hidden somewhere deep inside me, and it is coming out more as I work on my full swing. But this also confirms that some short game work is in order. 

1 hour ago, iacas said:

I might write up something about this, but remember that it's often about 25%, 40%, 20%, 15%… so it's important that the ratios are about the same, too, or it indicates a deficiency.

Makes sense. I probably get caught up in the absolute numbers too much, but we have to consider the typical skew.

When comparing to a gold standard, a likely area for improvement is where you are significantly worse than that skew- even if the absolute number is not as high. 

3 hours ago, CarlSpackler said:

I switch it to a 10 handicap to see where I am deficient for range so I can clean that up and advance.

That seems like a good iterative approach. Just clean up where you compare worst to your peers, as GAME GOLF's reports for each HCP level already factor in the skew mentioned above.

What's clear is that your putting is fine though! All 3 analyses agreed with that.

Lastly, how do you personally handle "oddball" courses like this? Obviously it was a short course. You had 11 driving opportunities, and I believe a few of those were layups.  Naturally, your strokes lost in driving would be lower than if you played a 7000yd course. 

So does your "dissecting a round" philosophy have any adjustment for a short course, or do we just let it all average out over time across a variety of courses? 

1 hour ago, iacas said:

I might write up something about this, but remember that it's often about 25%, 40%, 20%, 15%… so it's important that the ratios are about the same, too, or it indicates a deficiency.

If you're (making this up), losing 3 strokes with your short game and 3 strokes with your approach shots, they're not equal: you're proportionally a worse short game player.

Would definitely be interested in reading that. I'm not sure what you mean by 25%, 40%... It seems like I should know, but it's not ringing a bell at the moment.

6 minutes ago, RandallT said:

Makes sense. I probably get caught up in the absolute numbers too much, but we have to consider the typical skew.

When comparing to a gold standard, a likely area for improvement is where you are significantly worse than that skew- even if the absolute number is not as high. 

That seems like a good iterative approach. Just clean up where you compare worst to your peers, as GAME GOLF's reports for each HCP level already factor in the skew mentioned above.

What's clear is that your putting is fine though! All 3 analyses agreed with that.

Lastly, how do you personally handle "oddball" courses like this? Obviously it was a short course. You had 11 driving opportunities, and I believe a few of those were layups.  Naturally, your strokes lost in driving would be lower than if you played a 7000yd course. 

So does your "dissecting a round" philosophy have any adjustment for a short course, or do we just let it all average out over time across a variety of courses? 

I think that is a very nice feature of GG. If I compare myself to scratch, it seems really off, but if I compare myself to the next level of achievement, it seems very attainable. I'm close enough to single digits that I can smell it. 

This was a really good putting day for me, but overall I am a solid putter. Since taking the Aimpoint Express class, I don't stress over my reads anymore. I line up and only have to worry about length (speed) and making a good stroke. I thought I was a good putter before, but now I feel that I can be downright deadly. Some days are better than others though and I'm still getting used to putting on bermuda greens.

I don't have any sort of adjustment for different courses in mind, and I think that is what Erik was originally saying. I am simply rating my performance against par. This blog entry started out to be just me blogging through a round looking for insights. Being a data guy, that transformed into plotting things against par to validate what I was feeling about how I played. Here is my overall strokes gained from GG compared to a 10 HCP. 

Looking at this, it's all about my approach shots and that is definitely my long term focus. I think all of this confirms what I've been thinking. I need some practice in the short game area to freshen up since it has gone downhill. There is a 5SK guy down here in Orlando that I hope to go see. Money is very tight until our house sells back in Ohio though. 

Karl Spackerl i´ve been doiing the same analisis for my rounds for the last half a year. I made a reference table to analyse each shot similar than the stroke gained system. The only difference is that i divide 1 stroke by 4 so i can assing a 0,25 value for a stroke and the values are according to my putting and chipping abilities.

Reference table:

Putting:
1 less than 3 feet
1,25 around 4 feet
1,5 around 7 feet
1,75 around 10 feet
2 from 12 to 45 feet (after 20 rounds long and short putts in the scale average to 28 feet)
2,25 more than 45 feet
Example: Sink a putt from 10 feet it´s a 0,75 stroke gained, so in that hole Putting it´s: -0,75

Up and down.
2,25 easy chip shot close to the hole, less than 10 yards
2,5 normal chip/pitch shot, 15 yards
2,75 long chip/pitch shot more than 20 yards, short bunker or short lob shot.
3 long bunker shot or long lob shot, more than 20 yards
Then depending of the result of the shot, the score applied.
Example: Short bunker shot to 4 feet. 2,75 strokes spected - 1 stroke - 1,25 putt spected = 0,5 stroke gained, then up and down = -0,5

Approach to green:
This could take the same approach:
3 around 75 yards
3,25 around 125 yards
3,5 around 175 yards
3,75 around 225 yards
In this case a prefer like you to play against par an not my habilities so every shot to green i spect to shoot 3 strokes.
Example: 150 yards to green ended in bunker close to the ping. Spected strokes 3 - 1 stroke - 2,75 espected strokes from bunker = -0,75 stroke gained so +0,75 strokes lost with that related to par.

Long Game
The value depends on the rest of the ball. 
0 Fairway or good lie in rougth
+0,25 bad lie in rough or a small tree problem
+0,5 really bad lie or tree problem
+0,75 hard to hit the green but have a chance
+1 have to lay up
+2 hit OB, plus the value of the second ball
+1 hit water hazard
Par 5 or short par 4.
-1 if you hit green in 2 on par 5 or 1 in par 4 and the ball rest around 28 feet. (-1,25 if it rest 10 feet from the hole. and so..)

Actually i record the last 20 rounds with this stats:
My score average it´s +4, long game i´m +1, approach to green i´m +4,5, up and down i´m -1,5 and putting i´m at 0.

So tee to green I lost 5,5 strokes related to par and i recover 1,5 strokes because of my short game.

Analyse 30 rounds of tour pro with this system just to see their relation according long game and short game.. the result where the following:

Tour Championship at East Lake - 1st Round (Won by Rory)
Score average = +1, Long game +4 and short game -3.

 
   

Played a quick 9 after work just for a little practice. I rushed through a lot of putts, but interesting contrast to the other day. Here is the round in GG. 

I like the system you came up with.

Earlier in the season, I was constantly looking at GameGolf to compare three and four round periods to analyze. While there are some definite patterns, there are so many times when my weaknesses and strengths from one round will flip-flop with the next.

Maybe it's because I'm a higher HC, but there are shots that cost me a stroke that I don't feel that bad about. For example, a tree on the right side of the fairway that only comes into play when I really get ahold of the tee shot.