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

[StuM]

5 minutes ago, ChetlovesMer said:

@StuM

[iacas]

3 hours ago, Carl3 said:

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.

Eh. You're over-stating how often they get nGIR.

Hdcp	2-4	5-9	10-14	15-19	20-24
GIR+F	10.8	8.9	6.5	4.9	3.5
GIR+nGIR	17	14	11	8	6
Putts/GIR	1.90	1.97	2.03	2.12	2.14
3-5' Putts	1.3 (71%)	1.3 (70%)	1.3 (70%)	1.3 (65%)	1.4 (59%)

They're failing at that task 2/3 of the time (getting an nGIR), often because of the penalty strokes, the topped balls, the slices into the trees… etc.

[Carl3]

7 hours ago, iacas said:

You're over-stating how often they get nGIR.

What would you say counts as a nGIR? 3 paces from the fringe?I scanned through Lowest Score wins and did not see a definition of nGIR. I also looked at Brodie's Every Shot Counts and only saw a definition of GIR and also Green or Fringe in Regulation, which is what I am assuming is your GIR + F. Those (GIR and GIR +F) have clear meaning.

I guess I am picturing about 10 to 15 yards from the edge of green in my narrative as being in the "vicinity", which is not exactly what I was thinking nGIR might be defined as. 

[billchao]

18 minutes ago, Carl3 said:

What would you say counts as a nGIR? 3 paces from the fringe?I scanned through Lowest Score wins and did not see a definition of nGIR. I also looked at Brodie's Every Shot Counts and only saw a definition of GIR and also Green or Fringe in Regulation, which is what I am assuming is your GIR + F. Those (GIR and GIR +F) have clear meaning.

I guess I am picturing about 10 to 15 yards from the edge of green in my narrative as being in the "vicinity", which is not exactly what I was thinking nGIR might be defined as. 

My friend, it’s on page 4 😃

[iacas]

19 minutes ago, billchao said:

My friend, it’s on page 4 😃

We believe that this concept is so important that, for the purposes of this book (and lowering your scores), we’re defining a near-GIR (or nGIR) as getting your ball within the relatively safe areas around the green up to about 20 yards from the green surface. It does not, as you’ll read later, include bunkers.

[Carl3]

11 hours ago, billchao said:

My friend, it’s on page 4

Thanks! As I was skimming through it, I was thinking I need to read it again. I had also done a search on Bing and could not find anything.

nGIR: "relatively safe areas around the green up to about 20 yards from the green surface." does not include bunkers.

@iacas what is the origin of this term? Did you coin it? An internet search does not seem to bring it up for me. It is a great concept for sure.

[iacas]

2 minutes ago, Carl3 said:

nGIR: "relatively safe areas around the green up to about 20 yards from the green surface." does not include bunkers.

Did you also miss it just above where I pasted the paragraph? 😀

3 minutes ago, Carl3 said:

@iacas what is the origin of this term? Did you coin it? An internet search does not seem to bring it up for me. It is a great concept for sure.

We created it, yes. It provides another step between a GIR and complete failure on the hole.

[StuM]

1 hour ago, Carl3 said:

I had also done a search on Bing and could not find anything.

Not to pile on, but search Google for "nGIR in Golf" and the first link is to a website called TheSandtrap.com.
 

[Alfonso]

The mob mentality around here is fascinating.  First of all, a comment I made in another thread was cut and pasted into this thread, a four year old thread, as some sort of red meat for the membership. 

My original comment in this thread began with "I don't dispute Broadies work at the professional level".  StuM disagrees that it applies at the amateur level as well, I'm not so sure.  When asked to provide evidence about Broadie conceding a hot putter is the the one who typically wins, which I did, it was immediately foo-fooed.  Broadie literally said "Winners are the best putters, out of the best ballstikers (not always true, but a great summary of the main formula for winning)".  That means that in the end, the best putter tends tends to be the winner. 

Said another way, "The difference between earning a top-10 and winning is complementing that great ball striking with a hot putting week."  Broadie knows the hot putter is a real thing, he just hasn't developed a good metric yet.  He uses PCV and arrives at 35%. of scoring comes from putting.  The other  65% comes from tee shots, approach shots and short game shots.  So, 35% of your score comes once you are on the green.  When you look at it that way, according to Broadie, the single category of putting (35%) is responsible for more than any other one single area of the game percentage wise, as the other 65% includes every other aspect of your game.

I've never said being a great ball striker isn't the most important skill and I also said, in the context of the amateur, "the ability to hit shots from inside 100 yards and to not three putt is where they will truly lower their scores" .  While I believe you have to be a great ball striker to make it to the big show, in fact, I've never actually identified the most important skill as it obviously is individual dependent.  I did say "putting is king" in reference to encountering a hot putter, or being the hot putter, in the context that is typically who wins the match or the round that day.  I wasn't talking about a season or a career.

I could care less who defines what as the most important skill.  To those of you who think a hot putter is only an outlier, I wish you well in your games.

[boogielicious]

46 minutes ago, Alfonso said:

The mob mentality around here is fascinating.

I find it fascinating when someone comes to a forum and states something that is not factually correct.  Then when a number of people dispute the claim in a calm, intellectual manner, with data and facts, we suddenly are a mob. It really reflects on your state not ours. You feel persecuted because we all didn’t fall down and agree with your outdated myths. 

The trouble is, we want to improve and score better. You want to be seen as a wise old sage. So we rely on the experts. @iacas presented you with the data from amateurs but you dismissed it because it didn’t fall into your flat-earth beliefs. He is literally an expert on it.

It’s really fine by us if you want to cling to that. You continue and work on your putting and pretend you’re getting better. We “could NOT care less” whether you learn or remain ignorant. See what I did there. 😉

[iacas]

58 minutes ago, Alfonso said:

The mob mentality around here is fascinating.

Right out of the victim-playing handbook.

@Alfonso, this site has been around for nearly 20 years. My book has been around for half as long.

What you see as a "mob mentality" is really just a bunch of people who know more than you do telling you that you are, on this particular matter, wrong.

We can't make you learn. We led you to the water. It's up to you to drink.

58 minutes ago, Alfonso said:

First of all, a comment I made in another thread was cut and pasted into this thread, a four year old thread, as some sort of red meat for the membership.

No. You made several off-topic posts, and were encouraged to post them in the correct place. Some members took it upon themselves to make it more obvious to you where that place was, and invited you here to this topic (thread).

On 4/15/2023 at 8:37 AM, Vinsk said:

Hey @Alfonso ! Come on over! I’ve always enjoyed the discussion regarding the importance of putting vs the long game. Is there any non-anecdotal data showing putting is king? 

You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

58 minutes ago, Alfonso said:

My original comment in this thread began with "I don't dispute Broadies work at the professional level".  StuM disagrees that it applies at the amateur level as well, I'm not so sure.

You're not sure, but you've done seemingly little actual study or research into this. You're relying on anecdata, while you have multiple people and sources disagreeing with you, including:

Mark Broadie, who wrote a whole book about it, and while it mainly focused on the professional data, it has info like this, which I have shown to you multiple times:

And me, who also wrote a book about it, nine years ago, which focuses mostly on amateur data. Since then, I've worked with several shot-tracking (statistics) companies, and… the data is still pretty much the same as it was nine years ago.

If you wonder why people say that you're ignoring things that don't fit your narrative, the stuff just above is the tip of the iceberg.

58 minutes ago, Alfonso said:

When asked to provide evidence about Broadie conceding a hot putter is the the one who typically wins, which I did, it was immediately foo-fooed.

You did no such thing. Broadie's statement is that the "best" putter from a very small subset of the field (the best ball strikers that week) often wins. The hottest putter at the Heritage finished T41, buddy.

The putting doesn't lead to wins. The ballstriking puts them in the random bingo ball drawing of about 10 or 12 balls to see if their number comes up that week and they get the win.

58 minutes ago, Alfonso said:

That means that in the end, the best putter tends tends to be the winner.

It literally doesn't.

58 minutes ago, Alfonso said:

Said another way, "The difference between earning a top-10 and winning is complementing that great ball striking with a hot putting week."

And the difference between a top ten and missing the cut or finishing T41 is the more important areas of the game: ballstriking and, to a much lesser extent, short game. Putting is fourth in importance over the course of a season, and you can't practice luck/randomness.

58 minutes ago, Alfonso said:

He uses PCV and arrives at 35%. of scoring comes from putting.

This exact thing has been addressed, to you, repeatedly.

It's 35% (due to randomness/luck) the week a guy wins. It's ~14% over the course of a season.

58 minutes ago, Alfonso said:

When you look at it that way, according to Broadie, the single category of putting (35%) is responsible for more than any other one single area of the game percentage wise, as the other 65% includes every other aspect of your game.

That doesn't even make sense. What if approach shots were 50%, and short game and off the tee were a combined 15%? It's not, but the 65% is not divided equally.

58 minutes ago, Alfonso said:

I've never said being a great ball striker isn't the most important skill and I also said, in the context of the amateur, "the ability to hit shots from inside 100 yards and to not three putt is where they will truly lower their scores".

And… you're wrong there. A 15 doesn't get to a scratch by improving from 100 yards and in. The majority of those shots - about 10 of the 15 - come from driving and approach shots.

58 minutes ago, Alfonso said:

I did say "putting is king" in reference to encountering a hot putter, or being the hot putter, in the context that is typically who wins the match or the round that day.  I wasn't talking about a season or a career.

That's bullshit.

58 minutes ago, Alfonso said:

I could care less who defines what as the most important skill.  To those of you who think a hot putter is only an outlier, I wish you well in your games.

You also said:

On 4/12/2023 at 9:53 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...

The "hot putter" at the RBC Heritage finished T41. 40 other people "trumped" the hot putter that week.

You don't know what you're talking about @Alfonso.

[StuM]

41 minutes ago, Alfonso said:

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

The most reliable way to reduce 3-Putts is to have more shorter putts.  A 90 HCP could practice and eventually elevate their putting to the Tour Pro level.  That would reduce three-putts from longer distances and also increase 1-putt potential and also lower the average number of putts from a specific distance.  Nobody is arguing that improved putting does not help lower scores.  The debate is over what contributes more to lower scores.

From the Brodie's data, A 90 HCP averages 2.02 putts from 20 feet and a pro average 1.87 putts from 20 feet.  Over 100 putts from 20 feet the Pro-level putter would be expected to have 15 fewer putts.

Also from Brodie's data, A 90 HCP averages 1.82% from 10 feet.  Thus is a 90 HCP can improve proximity to the hole they could have roughly 20 fewer putts over 100 putts.  Also, the 90 HCP averages 8 3-Putts over 100 putts from 20 feet and averages only 2 3-Putts from 10 feet.  

We are not discounting that improved putting or the occasional hot putter does not help lower scores.  We are taking the position that if you really want to lower scores consistently you want to put your self in a position to have more short putts.  

Another way to look at it, the reason for most high scores, in my opinion, is Penalty shots.  Putt your tee shot OB that is +2, take a non -playable that is +1.  How many penalties happen while putting?   By improving the full-swing game you not only put yourself in a position to have more short putts (a good thing) you also reduce the penalty shots.  How good of a putter would you need to be to offset 2 OB tee shots per round?  

 

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…

 

[iacas]

5 minutes ago, StuM said:

Nobody is arguing that improved putting does not help lower scores. The debate is over what contributes more to lower scores.

Correct.

And to the idea of a "hot putting week…"

In that topic, I linked to a comment, and I'll quote myself again. Bold added for emphasis:

On 1/4/2016 at 12:44 PM, iacas said:

Two: When a player WINS on the PGA Tour, he often has a hot putting week, but getting hot is not a reproducible skill. Being good at putting increases your chances of getting "hot" but getting hot alone is not reproducible. What I mean by that is basically that ballstriking gets a player into the top 10 or 15 or so, but from there unless someone just blows everyone away with their ball striking, it becomes about putting.

In other words, if you have a great putting week, you could finish just about anywhere in the field. You might miss the cut because your ballstriking was bad. But, if you have a great ballstriking week, you are likely going to finish fairly high in the tournament. Exactly high depends a fair amount on your putting, yes, but you're basically going to make a really nice check unless you have the yips or don't make a single putt from farther than two feet away or something.

…

From ESC, I think only two players have won on the PGA Tour while losing strokes to the field with their ballstriking, and they both did so in limited field events. Several players won events losing strokes to the field with their putting, but more than making up for it with their ballstriking.

I've written tens of thousands of words about this topic, and spend hundreds of hours specifically thinking about, studying, looking at data, etc. on this type of stuff.

You don't know what you're talking about.

[klineka]

1 hour ago, Alfonso said:

I could care less who defines what as the most important skill.  To those of you who think a hot putter is only an outlier, I wish you well in your games.

So you're openly stating that even when presented facts (of both professional and amateur golfers), you are going to ignore the facts and continue believing what you believe.

At least you're willing to admit that. 

Now just stop stating things that aren't true as though they are true. 

[ChetlovesMer]

1 hour ago, StuM said:

The most reliable way to reduce 3-Putts is to have more shorter putts.  A 90 HCP could practice and eventually elevate their putting to the Tour Pro level.  That would reduce three-putts from longer distances and also increase 1-putt potential and also lower the average number of putts from a specific distance.  Nobody is arguing that improved putting does not help lower scores.  The debate is over what contributes more to lower scores.

From the Brodie's data, A 90 HCP averages 2.02 putts from 20 feet and a pro average 1.87 putts from 20 feet.  Over 100 putts from 20 feet the Pro-level putter would be expected to have 15 fewer putts.

Also from Brodie's data, A 90 HCP averages 1.82% from 10 feet.  Thus is a 90 HCP can improve proximity to the hole they could have roughly 20 fewer putts over 100 putts.  Also, the 90 HCP averages 8 3-Putts over 100 putts from 20 feet and averages only 2 3-Putts from 10 feet.  

We are not discounting that improved putting or the occasional hot putter does not help lower scores.  We are taking the position that if you really want to lower scores consistently you want to put your self in a position to have more short putts.  

Another way to look at it, the reason for most high scores, in my opinion, is Penalty shots.  Putt your tee shot OB that is +2, take a non -playable that is +1.  How many penalties happen while putting?   By improving the full-swing game you not only put yourself in a position to have more short putts (a good thing) you also reduce the penalty shots.  How good of a putter would you need to be to offset 2 OB tee shots per round?  

 

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…

 

This comes up over and over again. There is tons of evidence to show the importance of approach play and the long game. Some people have trouble with understanding the math. 

Here's another way to think of it, which I know has been stated again and again. But perhaps it will help. 

Imagine a match between two teams: Team one is Scottie Scheffler and yourself. The other team is also Scottie Scheffler and yourself. 

Team 1: Scottie Scheffler hits all the shots and you do all the putting. 
Team 2: You hit all the shots and Scottie Scheffler does all the putting. 

Which team do you think will win. I can tell you if it was me, Team 1 would win 101 out of 100 times (no that's not a type-o.) 

[Darkfrog]

33 minutes ago, ChetlovesMer said:

But perhaps it will help. 

It's not going to help.

I'm happy to eat my words if @Alfonso has an epiphany.

[iacas]

1 hour ago, ChetlovesMer said:

Here's another way to think of it, which I know has been stated again and again. But perhaps it will help. 

[ChiTown]

Okay all. I think this all started during the discussion about “Is there any non anecdotalAimPoint data” and I raised Broadie’s conclusions. 
 

@Alfonso in that thread your answer to me was simply “No, no, no, no no.  Putting is still and always will be king.  There's just no question.  A hot putter trumps all...”