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

[StuM]

7 hours ago, Alfonso said:

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.

What it means is if you are in the group of top ball strikers then putting may become the deciding factor, but first you need to be in the group of better ball strikers. Hence ball striking is more important.

Nobody is saying that putting is not important, just that it is less important than other parts of the game.

Edited April 18, 2023 by StuM

[pganapathy]

On 7/23/2008 at 12:48 AM, pjsnyc said:

Broadie says the amateur would benefit the most from having the PGA player hit the long shots, not the short ones.

Thoughts? I'm not sure I buy it yet, I'd have to read the original text of his argument, but it is interesting nonetheless!

The logic behind this is an amateur has a much better chance of being within say 10 yards of the green (nGIR) when hitting from 100 yards as opposed to 150 or 200 yards for example.  Especially if they are hitting from the fairway from the correct angle.  The pro can get your drive or second shot on a par 5 to that position much better than an amateur.  They are far more accurate and generally longer

[saevel25]

There is this equation that has been around for a long time. It is 95 - GIR will be your predicted score for the round. It isn't something like 120 - number of putts made. Intuitively, people know that GIR (ball striking) is what matters most. 

The golf game is a combination of Long Game, Short Game, and Putting. If you have two golfers, who have the same strokes gained of Long Game + Short Game, then of course a hotter putter will win out. It's the last part of the equation. That really means nothing if the golfer can't even get the Long Game to the level needed.

In the end, hot putting is more luck. It is an outlier statistic. 

Look at Luke Donald. He was world #1, and arguably the best putter in the world for 3 years straight. He was also in the top 50 in strokes gained tee to green, and in 2011 he ranked 2nd in strokes gained tee to green. We forget how good of a ball striking year he had when he was playing out of his mind. By the 2013 season, his tee to green game went to 95th on the PGA Tour, yet his putting was still top 10 (only .3 strokes off his previous strokes gained putting). He went from 14 top 10 finishes to 3 top 10 finishes. 

Tee to green is WAY more important and relevant to a golfer's success than putting. 

[StuM]

9 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

It is 95 - GIR will be your predicted score for the round.

Never hear that before but just thinking about my scoring it sounds pretty close.  I'll check it against my next round.

[iacas]

44 minutes ago, pganapathy said:

The logic behind this is an amateur has a much better chance of being within say 10 yards of the green (nGIR) when hitting from 100 yards as opposed to 150 or 200 yards for example.

The post you replied to is from 15 years ago and the user hasn't logged in to that account in about 11. 😄

12 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

There is this equation that has been around for a long time. It is 95 - GIR will be your predicted score for the round.

It's 95 - (2 x GIR), Matt. 😄

12 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

The golf game is a combination of Long Game, Short Game, and Putting.

I think @Alfonso is quite literally making the mistake of "long game" = "hitting it far." But that's not what "long game" refers to.

12 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

In the end, hot putting is more luck. It is an outlier statistic.

Yep. Variance, luck, randomness. You can raise the baseline, but that's not where you create separation.

12 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Look at Luke Donald. He was world #1, and arguably the best putter in the world for 3 years straight. He was also in the top 50 in strokes gained tee to green, and in 2011 he ranked 2nd in strokes gained tee to green. We forget how good of a ball striking year he had when he was playing out of his mind. By the 2013 season, his tee to green game went to 95th on the PGA Tour, yet his putting was still top 10 (only .3 strokes off his previous strokes gained putting). He went from 14 top 10 finishes to 3 top 10 finishes. 

Tee to green is WAY more important and relevant to a golfer's success than putting. 

Yep. Two things that don't last long: dogs who chase cars and pros who putt for pars.

[StuM]

I mentioned this topic to a friend and he shared the following article.

Fewest Putts for 18 Holes on the PGA Tour: All-Time Record

---

What is the fewest putts any golfer has needed to play a round in a PGA Tour tournament? That PGA Tour record is 18 — just 18 putts to finis...

Key statement from early in the article "None of the golfers who share this record, however, won the tournament in which they tied the mark. In fact, one golfer on the list didn't even make the cut."

These were 12 golfers with record setting putting, and none won their tournament.  Per the last note in the article, Cam Smith finished his tournament where he had the 18 putt round with a notable 2nd fewest putts for 72 holes on the PGA Tour and he still only placed 5th in the tournament.  His record setting putting did not result in a "W". Their "Hot Putter" may have given most of them one good round but it was not enough to win the tournament.  A "Hot Putter" is simply an outlier and does not trump the long-game. 

 

[billchao]

13 hours 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!

Fairways are overrated. What really matters is staying in play and out of trouble. Avoiding trouble is generally the only reason to take an iron off the tee over the driver because the advantage of being 40+ yards closer to the hole is significant.

If golf was as easy as hit irons = single digits, lots of people would be doing it. Teeing off with an iron doesn’t guarantee it’s not going to be mishit. A topped driver goes farther than a topped iron.

[boogielicious]

30 minutes ago, billchao said:

Fairways are overrated

What about adjacent fairways? 😜 Good points.

[coachjimsc]

2 hours ago, billchao said:

Fairways are overrated.

I take offense to this....as it's all I have left in my old arsenal. 😉

[Alfonso]

11 hours ago, StuM said:

I mentioned this topic to a friend and he shared the following article.

Fewest Putts for 18 Holes on the PGA Tour: All-Time Record

---

What is the fewest putts any golfer has needed to play a round in a PGA Tour tournament? That PGA Tour record is 18 — just 18 putts to finis...

Key statement from early in the article "None of the golfers who share this record, however, won the tournament in which they tied the mark. In fact, one golfer on the list didn't even make the cut."

These were 12 golfers with record setting putting, and none won their tournament.  Per the last note in the article, Cam Smith finished his tournament where he had the 18 putt round with a notable 2nd fewest putts for 72 holes on the PGA Tour and he still only placed 5th in the tournament.  His record setting putting did not result in a "W". Their "Hot Putter" may have given most of them one good round but it was not enough to win the tournament.  A "Hot Putter" is simply an outlier and does not trump the long-game. 

 

Which is why I clarified in another thread that my "hot putter" comment was in the context of match play.  You're talking about a four day professional medal play tournament.  Two/Four players of equal ball striking skill, in matchplay, and the hot putter is king.  I don't know why that freaks out so many around here.

What's perplexing is I get bashed for not having evidence and then I'm asked to provide it and there it is, Broadie"s words, in black and white.  Nope, we'll tell you what he's saying, even when he literally says "the best putter".

Golf on the course for the average am isn't a game of Strat-O-Matic using professional statistics.  Stats are nice, but go ahead, have your fifteen 15 cap spend the majority of their time on long irons and woods.  Their ball striking will eventually reach it's peak, including distance, and very rarely would it be close to "scratch" worthy.  The average USGA handicap index for ams at 14.1 completely supports this.  The 15 cap who spends the majority of their time on 100 yards and in and putting is more likely to save more strokes and beat them more often than not.

15 hours ago, pganapathy said:

The logic behind this is an amateur has a much better chance of being within say 10 yards of the green (nGIR) when hitting from 100 yards as opposed to 150 or 200 yards for example.  Especially if they are hitting from the fairway from the correct angle.  The pro can get your drive or second shot on a par 5 to that position much better than an amateur.  They are far more accurate and generally longer

Exactly.  Of course any knowledgeable golfer would want a pro to hit the longer shot over the shorter shot.

No one wants the 15 cap to chunk the 10 yard green side chip/pitch either.

[iacas]

Cool. Another post where you ignore all the points made by others. Dude, we see this. You're not fooling anyone (except yourself).

4 minutes ago, Alfonso said:

Which is why I clarified in another thread that my "hot putter" comment was in the context of match play.

Uh huh.

4 minutes ago, Alfonso said:

You're talking about a four day professional medal play tournament.  Two/Four players of equal ball striking skill, in matchplay, and the hot putter is king. I don't know why that freaks out so many around here.

Oh brother. "If all else is equal, the better putter will win." Well no shit, right? You're constraining the "all else equal" part of it. That goes without saying… I could just as easily say "Two/Four players of equal putting, equal approach shots, and equal short game… the better driver will win." Or change it to any one of the four keeping the other three constant.

4 minutes ago, Alfonso said:

What's perplexing is I get bashed for not having evidence and then I'm asked to provide it and there it is, Broadie"s words, in black and white.  Nope, we'll tell you what he's saying, even when he literally says "the best putter".

… of the best ball strikers. You're not reading it properly. The hottest putter at the RBC Heritage finished T41.

4 minutes ago, Alfonso said:

Golf on the course for the average am isn't a game of Strat-O-Matic using professional statistics.

I wrote a book on this, and Broadie included amateur stats as well. Including this, which I've shown you several times:

You continue to ignore these types of things.

4 minutes ago, Alfonso said:

Stats are nice, but go ahead, have your fifteen 15 cap spend the majority of their time on long irons and woods.

They should.

4 minutes ago, Alfonso said:

Their ball striking will eventually reach it's peak, including distance, and very rarely would it be close to "scratch" worthy.

Then… how would they get to scratch? I'm a +2.x right now. I was once a 15. How did I get to where I am?

4 minutes ago, Alfonso said:

The average USGA handicap index for ams at 14.1 completely supports this.

That doesn't make any sense at all. It "completely supports" what?

4 minutes ago, Alfonso said:

The 15 cap who spends the majority of their time on 100 yards and in and putting is more likely to save more strokes and beat them more often than not.

Not if they're still a 15. And… beat WHO exactly?

---

Since you seem to like to just make things up… let's take two identical 15 handicappers. Basically, in this thought experiment, we clone an average 15 handicapper. Clone A gets to spend 80% of his time working on the full swing and only 20% of the time working on shots inside about 60 yards (or 100 yards if you insist, even though shots from 95 yards are basically a full swing motion or a 3/4 full swing motion or something) for a year. Clone B gets to do the inverse: spend 80% of his time on short game/putting and only 20% of the time on the stuff outside of short game range for the same year. They spend the same amount of time, in total, practicing, and their coaches or instructors are equally as good. Facilities, etc. are all equally as good. The only difference is where they spend the time.

They play 1000 matches.

Clone A is going to win the vast majority of those 1000 matches. Why? Because Clone A will shave more strokes working on his full swing than Clone B can shave working mostly on his short game/putting.

22 minutes ago, Alfonso said:

No one wants the 15 cap to chunk the 10 yard green side chip/pitch either.

The 15 handicapper much closer to Tour level in putting, then the short game, than they are off the tee and even more so than they are in approach shots.

Here's a quiz for you:

[billchao]

8 minutes ago, Alfonso said:

Which is why I clarified in another thread that my "hot putter" comment was in the context of match play.  You're talking about a four day professional medal play tournament.  Two/Four players of equal ball striking skill, in matchplay, and the hot putter is king.  I don't know why that freaks out so many around here.

Either you’re moving the goalposts or you’re failing to articulate your position well and instead of clarifying things further you’re ignoring rebuttals from others and cherry picking things out of comments to respond to and ignoring other parts. Either way there’s a failure of communication going on and it’s on your end.

18 minutes ago, Alfonso said:

What's perplexing is I get bashed for not having evidence and then I'm asked to provide it and there it is, Broadie"s words, in black and white.  Nope, we'll tell you what he's saying, even when he literally says "the best putter".

That’s literally not what he said. The best putter out of the best ball strikers is a single point inside a small circle inside a larger circle. I don’t understand how you don’t understand that unless you think all PGA Tour pros have equal ballstriking skill.

24 minutes ago, Alfonso said:

Golf on the course for the average am isn't a game of Strat-O-Matic using professional statistics.  Stats are nice, but go ahead, have your fifteen 15 cap spend the majority of their time on long irons and woods.  Their ball striking will eventually reach it's peak, including distance, and very rarely would it be close to "scratch" worthy.  The average USGA handicap index for ams at 14.1 completely supports this.  The 15 cap who spends the majority of their time on 100 yards and in and putting is more likely to save more strokes and beat them more often than not.

No man, different skills have different floors and ceilings. There’s only so many strokes you can save by being the best player in the world around the greens. You’re not going to one putt every hole no matter how good you get, get up and down on every missed green, etc.

On the other hand, there are also fewer strokes to be lost on and around the greens than other areas on the course. When’s the last time you took a stroke and distance penalty while putting?

[Vinsk]

@Alfonso You’re a classic example of this statement:  ‘You cannot reason people out of positions they didn't reason themselves into.’

It appears you’re the one freaking out as you desperately hold onto the old philosophy of putting being king.

Do you honestly believe that these highly intelligent statisticians are all wrong after years of research and studying? You still think the old guys with their cigars talking about the balls breaking toward the water are more accountable?

Today’s technology and availability of data is a positive thing. It’s new discovery. I’m not sure why you’re so reluctant to understand this and  want to learn more. 

Greatest Ball Strikers.

Greatest Putters.

None of the winners came from the putter group. Zero.

However, of the winners ( ALL FROM THE BALL STRIKERS GROUP) the best putters won first place. 
 

So, remove the Ball Strikers group….and you have zero winners.

Remove the Putters group, you have the winners but of this group, the best putters we’re at the top.

 

[pganapathy]

@Alfonso - You need to take all the data on the golfers who putted well into account.  If they hit 18 GIR and putted 18 time they would be 18 under.  On the other hand you hit all 18 in GIR +1 and with 18 putts you are level par.  Hit it in GIR +2 and with 18 putts you are 18 over.  Therefore, only counting the putts taken is cherry picking data.  You need overall data to see how somebody plays.

What you will find with most of the guys who take 18 to 20 putts is that they have invariably missed most greens in regulation and chipped it close to help them putt that low.  If you look at their stats you will find most were short putts made.

[Carl3]

It was not that long ago that I would often be paired with golfers who would rack up scores in excess or 90 and even 100 strokes per round on fairly easy courses. These would be people like myself who would get out for a dozen rounds per year after work in the company league, play in a scramble or two, and perhaps play a few rounds with friends and family before putting their clubs away for the winter. These golfers would normally get off the tee and leave themselves in a decent position for the next shot, which would then be put somewhere in the vicinity (30 yards from the center) of the green on a par 4. Sure, there were a number of thin and fat shots, but more often than not they would somehow miraculously find themselves near the green in regulation.

The most unbalanced part of this cohort's game seemed to be from 30 yards and in where a pitch shot would fly the green, which would then be followed by a chip shot to 30 feet and then 2 to 4 putts. So, a successful "up and down" effort gets them par and getting on with the first pitch and a two putt gets them bogey. But that rarely happened because they neglected what I consider the easier to master short game. You don't need a lot of time to practice pitching, chipping and putting and you should be able to find a place to do this at no cost. So, the excuses of lack of time or funds are just that: excuses.

I think a lot of these discussions center on those who we assume have maximized their short game or who are at least fairly competent at that aspect. When I got better at the short game, I found the game to be much more enjoyable due achieving much better scores and not feeling like I gave away strokes needlessly. It was at that time I felt that a single-digit index was in reach. This belief then inspired me to examine my game and explore ways to improve further. I was a bogey golfer (and worse) for years and actually quit mid-summer about a dozen years ago. I then resolved to break 80 within 3 years or quit. 

I believe there is some merit for poor ball strikers to work on pitch and chip shots to understand what good contact it like. Plus, if you are 30 yards out and can't control the club face to get the ball on a line that is within one yard either side of the flag, then how will you consistently hit a green from 150 yards? I think that skipping this step in older player development could lead to frustration and demoralization that ultimately leads to them giving up the game prematurely.

 

[saevel25]

5 hours ago, pganapathy said:

Therefore, only counting the putts taken is cherry picking data.  You need overall data to see how somebody plays.

That is why putts made is a horrible stat. 

What if a golfer misses all the greens, chipped everything to 1-FT and shot even par with 18 putts. People would be like, "what a great putting round!". 

This is why Strokes Gained Putting is the best stat out there. It takes into account length of putt, so the difficulty of the putt. This is why that stat has helped golf understand the relative value of each phase of the game. 

1 hour ago, Carl3 said:

I believe there is some merit for poor ball strikers to work on pitch and chip shots to understand what good contact it like. Plus, if you are 30 yards out and can't control the club face to get the ball on a line that is within one yard either side of the flag, then how will you consistently hit a green from 150 yards? I think that skipping this step in older player development could lead to frustration and demoralization that ultimately leads to them giving up the game prematurely.

There is some low hanging fruit here for golfers with high handicaps. 

1) Lag Putting
2) Basic Chipping and Putting
3) Bunker shots

You take a golfer averaging 120 for 18, and get these to single digit handicap level, and they will shave a TON of strokes, they will still average in the 90's probably. They will have a few holes where they take an 7 or 8 because of losing a golf ball, duffing a few shots, hitting balls OB, ect... There are a good chunk of strokes saved by hitting stuff that has a lower entry point of skill required. In the end, long term improvement, the baseline, is the long game. 

[StuM]

@Alfonso seems to be stuck on "Hot Putter".  In my mind a "Hot Putter" is the day a golfer putts significantly better than they normally would.  And, if all other parts of that golfer's game are roughly his/her "Normal" game on that day then the "Hot Putter" would help lower the score for that 1 round, but only for that 1 round and would not lead to long term reduction in average scoring.  But one round IS NOT what this thread is discussing. 

We are discussion what, over time and over many rounds, contributes more to scoring low.  Attached below is yet another article full of stats to consider.  If I were not on the road and had a copy of a book called Lowest Score Wins (Some of you may have heard of it) I could quote from it as well.

What I suggest @Alfonsoconsider is the following drawn from the below article.  In both of the below scenarios I am assuming you are on the green in the same number of shots.

1) A 90 HCP golfer makes @ 6% of putts from 20 feet and @ 20% from 10 feet.  If the golfer can improve proximity to the hole from 20 to 10 feet assuming 18 putts from those distances they would make 14% more putts which is @ 2.52 putts per round on average.

2) A 90 HCP golfer makes @ 6% of putts from 20 feet and a pro makes @ 15% from 20 feet.  If the 90 HCP golfer improves their putting to the "Pro Level" they will make @ 9% more putts on average.  Again, assuming 18 putts from 20 feet that is @ 1.62 putts per round on average.

To point out the obvious: 2.52 is greater than 1.62

The gist of it is that improving proximity to hole would improve average scoring by more than simply improving putting.  Now how do you improve proximity to the hole?  Working "Back form the Green" you first need to have a good approach shot.  The easiest way to have a good approach shot is to be closer to the green on approach, thus on a Par 4 you need a good tee shot.  On a Par 5 you need a good positional shot (unless you are a long hitter going for eagle).  On a Par-3 the tee shot is the approach shot. 

So in conclusion, how do you lower your score with more consistency, by being better off tee and from the fairway so you have more short putts.

What Percentage of Putts Do Pros Make? TV Does Not Tell the Story – Golfing Focus

---

Watch the TV coverage of the PGA Tour for any length of time and you would be forgiven for thinking that the top pros hardly…

---

Addendum to the above:

In addition to improving proximity to the hole if you improve your tee & fairway shots you will also reduce lost shots due to penalties directly lowering your score and if you stay out of the trees you will need fewer recovery shots which also hurt your scoring.  Thus, in addition to have more short/makeable putts being good off the tee/fairway will further lower your scores by eliminating the penalties & "wasted recovery" shots which makes having a better long game worth a lot more than simply improving your putting.

[ChetlovesMer]

@StuM