Relative Importance of Driving/Approach Shots, Short Game, Putting, etc. (LSW, Mark Broadie, Strokes Gained, etc.)

[ChiTown]

On 4/12/2023 at 8:53 PM, Alfonso said:

 

No, no, no, no no.  Putting is still and always will be king.  There's just no question.  A hot putter trumps all...

@Alfonso I really urge you to read Every Shot Counts if you haven’t already. Broadie uses actual data from the PGA ShotLink and explains how Strokes Gained was developed and the impact of each shot. He specifically discusses putting vs driving.

Long story short and a very simple illustration. But would you rather be 100 yards away or 50 yards away on your approach shot? If you are only 50 yards away your ability to place the ball on the green and have a great putt generates more strokes gained than if you’re 100 yards away on the approach. This of course backs into a longer drive generates a better approach shot etc.

[ChiTown]

@Vinsk I didn’t know this thread existed. Just finished reading this book last month. Such a great read and helped me to manage expectations and focus on where I should practice 

[StuM]

Thx to @Vinskfor bumping this thread.  I agree with the view that long game is more important than short/putting but reading this should give me a better understanding.  50+ pages will take a little time but I think if will be worth it to me.

[saevel25]

Last year..

Strokes Gained Tee To Green: +1.77 strokes better than average
Strokes Gained Putting: +0.85

If you took the top 10 in strokes gained putting and strokes gained tee to green, and count the number of top 10 finishes, it isn't even close. Tee to green matters WAY MORE. The strokes gained tee to green group had over 2x as man top 10 finishes. 

I would say that literally tee to green game is 2x as important as putting. If you were an average putter, and a #1 tee to green golfers, you would rank about 3rd in strokes gained total. If you were the best putter, but was an average tee to green player. You would rank 30th in total strokes gained. 

[iacas]

2 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Last year..

Strokes Gained Tee To Green: +1.77 strokes better than average
Strokes Gained Putting: +0.85

If you took the top 10 in strokes gained putting and strokes gained tee to green, and count the number of top 10 finishes, it isn't even close. Tee to green matters WAY MORE. The strokes gained tee to green group had over 2x as man top 10 finishes. 

I would say that literally tee to green game is 2x as important as putting. If you were an average putter, and a #1 tee to green golfers, you would rank about 3rd in strokes gained total. If you were the best putter, but was an average tee to green player. You would rank 30th in total strokes gained. 

It’s more than that at every level. On average.

[boogielicious]

4 hours ago, ChiTown said:

@Alfonso I really urge you to read Every Shot Counts if you haven’t already. Broadie uses actual data from the PGA ShotLink and explains how Strokes Gained was developed and the impact of each shot. He specifically discusses putting vs driving.

Long story short and a very simple illustration. But would you rather be 100 yards away or 50 yards away on your approach shot? If you are only 50 yards away your ability to place the ball on the green and have a great putt generates more strokes gained than if you’re 100 yards away on the approach. This of course backs into a longer drive generates a better approach shot etc.

Check out Lowest Scores Wins if you liked Every Shot Counts.

[StuM]

On 7/23/2008 at 9:36 AM, pjsnyc said:

Hooray for Google!

http://www.columbia.edu/~mnb2/broadi...arch_golf.html

There is a link to a pdf that appears to be the original text of his research...gonna read it tonight.

I know the post above it ancient but the link provides access to a paper by Mark Broadie updated in 2011.  That is quite a long read but analyzes @ 8 million shots via Shot Link & using Strokes Gained methodology.  I know that @Alfonso has been suggested to look at the research, well here it a significant amount of research.  It is a large sample size, 8 million shots, and analyzes different parts of the game.  The conclusion of this study clearly supports that the long-game is more important than the short game or putting.  It even isolates Tiger during a period of his dominance and shows that the long game contributed roughly 65% to his total strokes gained.  It is not saying he was a bad putter, just that putting was of lesser value than his long game.

I still have @ 15 years worth of posts to catch up on but I do not see where I will be changing my mind on this issue.  Yes, I want to be a good putter BUT I need a better off the tee and on approach to really get better.  I understand those who say you take more shots within 100 yards, which is true, but that misses the point.  The margin of difference between "Great" and "Average" putters of any level is simply not enough to make putting more important than off the tee or on approach.   Putting can make a difference on occasion such as sinking a 30 foot putt on #18 to win a match by 1 stroke.  However that is not an everyday occurrence and just because it was important in 1 round does not mean it is important in a majority of rounds.

[ChiTown]

@StuM thanks for the link!  In reading Broadie’s book I picked up a few key takeaways for my game. 
 

• Putting contributes to 15% of strokes gained. I am striving for 100% within 5 feet where the PGA average is 1.23 putts / 77% probability. I also don’t beat myself up for putts over 8 feet where the one putt probability is 50%
• Driving contributes 28%. So now my practice routine has one day marked out just for driver and 3W off the tee.

As we’ve all seen it’s the minor incremental improvements that hold up over the long run lead to better scores. 

[StuM]

2 hours ago, ChiTown said:

@StuM thanks for the link!  In reading Broadie’s book I picked up a few key takeaways for my game. 
 

• Putting contributes to 15% of strokes gained. I am striving for 100% within 5 feet where the PGA average is 1.23 putts / 77% probability. I also don’t beat myself up for putts over 8 feet where the one putt probability is 50%
• Driving contributes 28%. So now my practice routine has one day marked out just for driver and 3W off the tee.

As we’ve all seen it’s the minor incremental improvements that hold up over the long run lead to better scores. 

I notice you are relatively new to TST, WELCOME.  This may be a little off-topic but below is a thread from @iacaswhere he offers a guide on how to focus practice.  It is worth a read.

 

[ChiTown]

1 hour ago, StuM said:

I notice you are relatively new to TST, WELCOME.  This may be a little off-topic but below is a thread from @iacaswhere he offers a guide on how to focus practice.  It is worth a read.

 

Thanks @StuM 

[Alfonso]

8 hours ago, StuM said:

I know the post above it ancient but the link provides access to a paper by Mark Broadie updated in 2011.  That is quite a long read but analyzes @ 8 million shots via Shot Link & using Strokes Gained methodology.  I know that @Alfonso has been suggested to look at the research, well here it a significant amount of research.  It is a large sample size, 8 million shots, and analyzes different parts of the game.  The conclusion of this study clearly supports that the long-game is more important than the short game or putting.  It even isolates Tiger during a period of his dominance and shows that the long game contributed roughly 65% to his total strokes gained.  It is not saying he was a bad putter, just that putting was of lesser value than his long game.

I still have @ 15 years worth of posts to catch up on but I do not see where I will be changing my mind on this issue.  Yes, I want to be a good putter BUT I need a better off the tee and on approach to really get better.  I understand those who say you take more shots within 100 yards, which is true, but that misses the point.  The margin of difference between "Great" and "Average" putters of any level is simply not enough to make putting more important than off the tee or on approach.   Putting can make a difference on occasion such as sinking a 30 foot putt on #18 to win a match by 1 stroke.  However that is not an everyday occurrence and just because it was important in 1 round does not mean it is important in a majority of rounds.

I don't dispute Broadie's assessment at the pro level.  Also, it's in relation to money earned, which means if you're long off the tee, you're going to have a better chance at outscoring a shorter player over the course of 72 professional holes.  So while your chances improve at winning, you still may not win, but you place higher so more money earned over a season.  Even Broadie conceded a hot putter is what ultimately wins, it's just hard to predict and isn't as consistent as distance off the tee and long irons/woods.

Now take your typical 12-15 cap amateur.  They may already be capped at a certain distance level, often less than 250 yards, due to physical ability, age, etc.  Sure, they may gain some length and accuracy off the tee with practice and technology, but the ability to hit shots from inside 100 yards and to not three putt is where they will truly lower their scores.  Again, if you can't put the ball in the fairway off the tee with driver, you obviously need to work on that, but the majority of par 4's and 5's for amateurs are reachable off the tee in three with less than a driver/wood.  So irons off the tee (ego be damned), play par/bogey golf, with maybe a birdie or two sprinkled in.  Wow, all of a sudden the fifteen is an eight!

As for Tiger, in his heyday he dominated the par 5's.  Period.  I did the research years ago and it was ridiculous, compared to the field, how many strokes he gained in a tournament on par 5's alone.  It was something like 4-5 strokes per 72 hole tournament.  He literally had a minimum 4 stroke advantage before teeing off.  That's beyond "normal" and quite frankly not very useful data that an amateur should be using for any type of assessment of their game.

[StuM]

37 minutes ago, Alfonso said:

don't dispute Broadie's assessment at the pro level.  Also, it's in relation to money earned, which means if you're long off the tee, you're going to have a better chance at outscoring a shorter player over the course of 72 professional holes.  So while your chances improve at winning, you still may not win, but you place higher so more money earned over a season.  Even Broadie conceded a hot putter is what ultimately wins, it's just hard to predict and isn't as consistent as distance off the tee and long irons/woods.

Could you please direct me to where he “conceded a hot putter is what ultimately wins”?

I will direct you to page 27, section 5 of “Assessing Golfer Performance on the PGA Tour” which is his Concluding Remarks where he clearly stated his conclusion that the long game accounts for more than two-thirds of the scoring difference   Nothing there about a hot-putter.

Yes, he was referring to the PGA Tour players because those were his stats.  Where I differ from you is that I feel that same conclusion applies to us high-cappers as well.

I feel that at any level, the difference between a great putter and an average putter is very small.  The big difference in scoring is by getting onto the green in fewer shots (ie good tee shots and more accurate approach shots) leaving more makable putts and ultimately a lower score.
 

The fewer putts of those good off the tee and approach are not because they are better putters, it is because the are on the green in fewer strokes and tend to have shorter putts that are more likely to be sunk.

 

Edited April 18, 2023 by StuM
Fixed typo

[iacas]

9 hours ago, StuM said:

I know the post above it ancient but the link provides access to a paper by Mark Broadie updated in 2011. 

And Every Shot Counts came out in 2014… a month before Lowest Score Wins came out. 😄

9 hours ago, StuM said:

I understand those who say you take more shots within 100 yards, which is true, but that misses the point.

As we wrote in LSW… a Tour player who shoots 72 has about 9 tap-ins per round. It's a bad stat… because they should not spend anywhere near 12.5% of their time practicing tap-ins. There's zero Separation Value® there.

9 hours ago, StuM said:

The margin of difference between "Great" and "Average" putters of any level is simply not enough to make putting more important than off the tee or on approach.

Basically.

8 hours ago, ChiTown said:

@StuM thanks for the link!  In reading Broadie’s book I picked up a few key takeaways for my game. 

• Driving contributes 28%. So now my practice routine has one day marked out just for driver and 3W off the tee.

And approach shots are about 39%. Check out https://lowestscorewins.com too.

2 minutes ago, Alfonso said:

I don't dispute Broadie's assessment at the pro level.  Also, it's in relation to money earned, which means if you're long off the tee, you're going to have a better chance at outscoring a shorter player over the course of 72 professional holes.

No, that's a gross misinterpretation.

Tiger created most of his separation with his approach shots. He was consistently just a little bit closer, and hit just a few % more GIR. Tiger ain't the GOAT because he was "long" (it certainly helped). He was the best approach shot player we may ever see, and was really good in other areas. But his approach shots separated him the most.

And, it's not just about money. It's about scoring averages, too.

2 minutes ago, Alfonso said:

Even Broadie conceded a hot putter is what ultimately wins, it's just hard to predict and isn't as consistent as distance off the tee and long irons/woods.

No, he didn't. Putting contributes, on average, 35% to the winner's strokes gained. And more players have won events losing strokes putting than have won events losing strokes with their approach shots:

Of those two (there may have been another since then) victories, both were in fields of only about 30 players, and both lost less than a third of a shot off the greens with the other basically breaking even (-0.02). There are far more players who lost strokes putting to the fields (all of which were > 30 players), including Vijay losing 1.14 strokes. Heck, seven of the players listed lost more than 1/3 of a stroke putting… but still won the event.

Broadie has said basically what we've also said: the winner is often the best putter of the best ball strikers.

Putting is highly volatile. Patrick Cantlay set the all-time SG:P record with something like +14.6 SG:P in the 2021 BMW… and yet lost something like 4 strokes putting in the third round. He gained a bunch in the other rounds. Bryson tied him for the week… and gained almost all of his strokes off the greens.

Approach shots, driving… are all steadier and more predictable and reliable than putting. And, on average, contribute to more SG and to earning more and to having a lower scoring average.

2 minutes ago, Alfonso said:

Now take your typical 12-15 cap amateur.

Okay. I've shown you this, but you've ignored it previously:

Oh, gee: strokes gained off the tee contributes to about 2.5 or 2.6 strokes between guys who shoot 100-90 or 90-80, and approach shots are 4.0. Putting? Only 1.4. A little over half as much as off the tee, and barely 1/3 as much as approach shots.

2 minutes ago, Alfonso said:

They may already be capped at a certain distance level, often less than 250 yards, due to physical ability, age, etc.

You're misunderstanding this.

2 minutes ago, Alfonso said:

but the ability to hit shots from inside 100 yards and to not three putt is where they will truly lower their scores.

You're misunderstanding this.

They can make some small (but faster) gains improving inside of 100 yards, but those gains will be small.

2 minutes ago, Alfonso said:

Again, if you can't put the ball in the fairway off the tee with driver, you obviously need to work on that, but the majority of par 4's and 5's for amateurs are reachable off the tee in three with less than a driver/wood.  So irons off the tee (ego be damned), play par/bogey golf, with maybe a birdie or two sprinkled in.  Wow, all of a sudden the fifteen is an eight!

No. That's not how that works.

2 minutes ago, Alfonso said:

As for Tiger, in his heyday he dominated the par 5's. Period. I did the research years ago and it was ridiculous, compared to the field, how many strokes he gained in a tournament on par 5's alone.

What's ridiculous is his SG:App. There are 10 par fours per round, so even if you're 0.1 strokes per hole better on those… that's four shots per tournament. Which is, to say the least… substantial.

2 minutes ago, Alfonso said:

That's beyond "normal" and quite frankly not very useful data that an amateur should be using for any type of assessment of their game.

Thank goodness we have millions of amateur shots to use as well!

If only Mark Broadie wrote a book that covered amateur data, too. And if only someone here also wrote a book that came out a month later that almost exclusively covered amateurs… If only.

---

@Alfonso, you are wrong here. I don't say that word lightly, and I don't say it on matters of opinion.

This isn't a matter of opinion.

P.S. I teach a lot of 12-15 handicappers. I get them to 8 handicappers not by working on shots inside of 100 yards. That might get a 15 to a 13.

Statistically, a 15 will get to a 10 if he improves to a scratch level inside of 100 yards. The other 10 strokes come from the full swing: off the tee and approach shots.

P.P.S.

Tiger and Rory in 2012: they ranked 1st and 2nd in SG:App. They ranked 26th and 74th in SG:P and 51st and 40th in SG:ATG. They were 1 and 2 in SG for the year. And that's not money, that's literally just scoring, @Alfonso.

[Alfonso]

31 minutes ago, StuM said:

Could you please direct me to where he “conceded a hot putter is what ultimately wins”?

I will direct you to page 27, section 5 of “Assessing Golfer Performance on the PGA Tour” which is his Concluding Remarks where he clearly stated his conclusion that the long game accounts for more than two-thirds of the scoring difference   Nothing there about a hot-putter.

Yes, he was referring to the PGA Tour players because those were his stats.  Where I differ from you is that I feel that same conclusion applies to us high-cappers as well.

I feel that at any level, the difference between a great putter and an average putter is very small.  The big difference in scoring is by getting onto the green in fewer shots (ie good tee shots and more accurate approach shots) leaving more makable putts and ultimately a lower score.
 

The fewer putts of those good off the tee and approach are not because they are better putters, it is because the are on the green in fewer strokes and tend to have shorter putts that are more likely to be sunk.

 

26 minutes ago, iacas said:

 

And Every Shot Counts came out in 2014… a month before Lowest Score Wins came out. 😄

 

As we wrote in LSW… a Tour player who shoots 72 has about 9 tap-ins per round. It's a bad stat… because they should not spend anywhere near 12.5% of their time practicing tap-ins. There's zero Separation Value® there.

 

Basically.

 

And approach shots are about 39%. Check out https://lowestscorewins.com too.

 

No, that's a gross misinterpretation.

Tiger created most of his separation with his approach shots. He was consistently just a little bit closer, and hit just a few % more GIR. Tiger ain't the GOAT because he was "long" (it certainly helped). He was the best approach shot player we may ever see, and was really good in other areas. But his approach shots separated him the most.

And, it's not just about money. It's about scoring averages, too.

No, he didn't. Putting contributes, on average, 35% to the winner's strokes gained. And more players have won events losing strokes putting than have won events losing strokes with their approach shots:

Of those two (there may have been another since then) victories, both were in fields of only about 30 players, and both lost less than a third of a shot off the greens with the other basically breaking even (-0.02). There are far more players who lost strokes putting to the fields (all of which were > 30 players), including Vijay losing 1.14 strokes. Heck, seven of the players listed lost more than 1/3 of a stroke putting… but still won the event.

Broadie has said basically what we've also said: the winner is often the best putter of the best ball strikers.

Putting is highly volatile. Patrick Cantlay set the all-time SG:P record with something like +14.6 SG:P in the 2021 BMW… and yet lost something like 4 strokes putting in the third round. He gained a bunch in the other rounds. Bryson tied him for the week… and gained almost all of his strokes off the greens.

Approach shots, driving… are all steadier and more predictable and reliable than putting. And, on average, contribute to more SG and to earning more and to having a lower scoring average.

 

Okay. I've shown you this, but you've ignored it previously:

Oh, gee: strokes gained off the tee contributes to about 2.5 or 2.6 strokes between guys who shoot 100-90 or 90-80, and approach shots are 4.0. Putting? Only 1.4. A little over half as much as off the tee, and barely 1/3 as much as approach shots.

 

You're misunderstanding this.

 

You're misunderstanding this.

They can make some small (but faster) gains improving inside of 100 yards, but those gains will be small.

 

No. That's not how that works.

 

What's ridiculous is his SG:App. There are 10 par fours per round, so even if you're 0.1 strokes per hole better on those… that's four shots per tournament. Which is, to say the least… substantial.

 

Thank goodness we have millions of amateur shots to use as well!

If only Mark Broadie wrote a book that covered amateur data, too. And if only someone here also wrote a book that came out a month later that almost exclusively covered amateurs… If only.

---

@Alfonso, you are wrong here. I don't say that word lightly, and I don't say it on matters of opinion.

This isn't a matter of opinion.

P.S. I teach a lot of 12-15 handicappers. I get them to 8 handicappers not by working on shots inside of 100 yards. That might get a 15 to a 13.

Statistically, a 15 will get to a 10 if he improves to a scratch level inside of 100 yards. The other 10 strokes come from the full swing: off the tee and approach shots.

P.P.S.

Tiger and Rory in 2012: they ranked 1st and 2nd in SG:App. They ranked 26th and 74th in SG:P and 51st and 40th in SG:ATG. They were 1 and 2 in SG for the year. And that's not money, that's literally just scoring, @Alfonso.

Your stuff is intense, I'll say that.  Going to take a bit for me to process.

[iacas]

5 minutes ago, Alfonso said:

Uhm, that doesn't say what you seem to think it says.

I'll paraphrase it another way: being a great ball striker gets you into the top ten. Being the best putter of those ten will likely get you the win. But you can putt great… and miss the cut or finish T41. Who cares if you make 70% of your 8-footers… if they're for par?

5 minutes ago, Alfonso said:

Your stuff is intense, I'll say that.  Going to take a bit for me to process.

I made it simple for you:

30 minutes ago, iacas said:

@Alfonso, you are wrong here. I don't say that word lightly, and I don't say it on matters of opinion.

This isn't a matter of opinion.

[Alfonso]

55 minutes ago, iacas said:

Uhm, that doesn't say what you seem to think it says.

I'll paraphrase it another way: being a great ball striker gets you into the top ten. Being the best putter of those ten will likely get you the win. But you can putt great… and miss the cut or finish T41. Who cares if you make 70% of your 8-footers… if they're for par?

I made it simple for you:

I know exactly what it says and I know the context.

The best part is, I said the "hot putter", he says the "best putter".  Even you said " the best putter of those ten will likely get you the win"

Best putter of the best ball strikers wins.  What do you think that means to the average am in the Saturday foursome?  I know.

[iacas]

Just now, Alfonso said:

I know exactly what it says and I know the context.

That doesn't seem to be true.

Just now, Alfonso said:

The best part is, I said the "hot putter", he says the "best putter".  Even you said " the best putter of those ten will likely get you the win"

You're ignoring the "of those ten" part.

Just now, Alfonso said:

Best putter of the best ball strikers wins.

It's right there in the bold. The best putter for the week… might finish T41. It's the best putter of the best ballstrikers.

Again… putting is highly volatile. Ballstriking is much less so.

2 minutes ago, Alfonso said:

What do you think that means to the average am in the Saturday foursome?  I know.

I don't think you do.

---

Let me just point out that the same pattern seems to be repeating itself already here: you want data, you're given data, you ignore data that doesn't fit what you seem to think is true. You've already ignored data and points made against your "perspective" here in this topic. Several times.

[boogielicious]

Basically @Alfonso

1. Greens in Regulation, GIR, is THE most important factor in lowering scores. GIR is King. This means approach shots.
2. Near GIR is Queen, this is where approach shots are key and short game helps. This is also where a 15 HC can pick up some strokes right away with a better short game. But getting close to the green is the key part.
3. Driving the ball off the tee as far as you can into a good position for an approach shot is next. You can more easily get a GIR from 140 yards out than 180. That’s a fact for all levels.
4. Putting once you get on the green is next. But if you’re putting for par from 25 feet, you’re not going to score well even if you make a few on a given round. Overall you are still only going make a small percentage of those even if you’re the best putter in your group.

This is all in Lowest Score Wins which covers both professional and amateur players. This book came out around the same time as Broadie’s book. They both state the same importance to each part of the game. LSW goes much deeper into how to improve and where to focus.

Do yourself a favor and get both books and read them. They dispel the myths we’ve been hearing for decades.