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

[9wood]

Whenever I compliment good drives and good short game with good putting I can birdie almost every hole. Problem is, getting all of them firing at the same time.

[Shooting29]

I read through this  thread a few days ago. The questions that came to my mind was this: Would i shoot a lower score if I dropped a ball at the location of my best drive ever on each hole and played out or would I shoot a lower score by taking a one putt once I was inside 25'? I don't know but I'm going to find out the next time I'm solo.

[No Mulligans]

8 minutes ago, Shooting29 said:

I read through this  thread a few days ago. The questions that came to my mind was this: Would i shoot a lower score if I dropped a ball at the location of my best drive ever on each hole and played out or would I shoot a lower score by taking a one putt once I was inside 25'? I don't know but I'm going to find out the next time I'm solo.

Certainly one putting everything inside 25 feet is better.  But that's impossible.

PGA players only make 31% of their putts from 10 - 15 feet.  Expecting to always one putt from inside 25', you'd be putting way, way, way, way better than the best PGA tour putter.

I think what you are missing here is separation value as described in the book Lowest Score Wins.

[Aflighter]

46 minutes ago, Shooting29 said:

I read through this  thread a few days ago. The questions that came to my mind was this: Would i shoot a lower score if I dropped a ball at the location of my best drive ever on each hole and played out or would I shoot a lower score by taking a one putt once I was inside 25'? I don't know but I'm going to find out the next time I'm solo.

Wow.If I could one putt from even 10 feet each time id be better off than having my best drive each hole.Im king of 2 putts.

[iacas]

2 hours ago, Shooting29 said:

I read through this  thread a few days ago. The questions that came to my mind was this: Would i shoot a lower score if I dropped a ball at the location of my best drive ever on each hole and played out or would I shoot a lower score by taking a one putt once I was inside 25'? I don't know but I'm going to find out the next time I'm solo.

The "long game" also means the approach shots.

And as others said, you'll never make every putt inside 25'. Heck, you'll never make every putt inside 6' for any more than a round or so. And not even that most of the time.

6 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

I'm not sure his particular experience isn't consistent with the statistical analyses.  He probably had less to gain by hitting it a bit longer, with the potential to lose more when he became less accurate.  From a strokes gained perspective (and I'm certainly no expert) it seems like he may gain a tenth or even less when he hits a drive 20 yards longer.  If the changes he's made to gain that distance mean that he's erratic enough to be in the trees or other severe trouble a couple times a round, and he loses a half or even a full stroke each time, he may be worse off.

According to Mark Broadie, 20 yards saves about 0.8 strokes IIRC at the PGA Tour level. The same is saved by improving their driving accuracy by 1°, despite the fact that 20 yards is about a 7.5% improvement, while 1° is about a 25-33% improvement.

So he'd have had to have gotten quite a bit worse accuracy wise to lose more than he gained with 20 yards. And maybe that's just what happened - maybe he's at about his max distance without swinging "uncontrollably."

[DaveP043]

12 hours ago, iacas said:

According to Mark Broadie, 20 yards saves about 0.8 strokes IIRC at the PGA Tour level. The same is saved by improving their driving accuracy by 1°, despite the fact that 20 yards is about a 7.5% improvement, while 1° is about a 25-33% improvement.

So he'd have had to have gotten quite a bit worse accuracy wise to lose more than he gained with 20 yards. And maybe that's just what happened - maybe he's at about his max distance without swinging "uncontrollably."

As I said, I know others (particularly you) know the strokes gained statistics better than I do, and I don't think we're really disagreeing.  If he gains about a stroke by hitting it longer, but loses a stroke or more by having more wayward tee shots, its could be an overall loss.  Presumably, he's done the analysis and made the choice that's best for him.  Not guaranteed he's done the math, but that's my guess.  

[saevel25]

I played in a 9 hole shamble on Monday. A shamble is were everyone tees off, you take the best drive, and then everyone plays in from there and records their score. 

This friend and I both hit the ball a long way. Between the two of us we were in play with good drives on all the par 5's and par 4's. The other two golfers, shoot routinely in the low 40's. 

On this day they ended up shooting 36 and 37. 

Taking into account that they both missed the green on the par 3's.  I would say they saved about 3-4 strokes each just from using our drives and being closer on their approach shots.  

One of the guys was able to hit both par 5's in two when he wouldn't otherwise if he was using his tee shot. 

[natureboy]

On 5/24/2016 at 7:40 PM, iacas said:

According to Mark Broadie, 20 yards saves about 0.8 strokes IIRC at the PGA Tour level. The same is saved by improving their driving accuracy by 1°, despite the fact that 20 yards is about a 7.5% improvement, while 1° is about a 25-33% improvement.

So he'd have had to have gotten quite a bit worse accuracy wise to lose more than he gained with 20 yards. And maybe that's just what happened - maybe he's at about his max distance without swinging "uncontrollably."

I think that percent improvement comparison may be intuitively misleading. Extra distance off the tee appears not to be gained at the same rate as accuracy in degrees offline as HCPs improve. Just look at the continuum of Broadie's averages separating HCP levels.

I expect your second sentence goes a long way to explaining the why. It also dovetails with the advice Palmer and Nicklaus both got early in their development to work first on the skill of hitting far with the understanding that accuracy would come or could be polished more quickly later.

On 5/25/2016 at 8:27 AM, DaveP043 said:

As I said, I know others (particularly you) know the strokes gained statistics better than I do, and I don't think we're really disagreeing.  If he gains about a stroke by hitting it longer, but loses a stroke or more by having more wayward tee shots, its could be an overall loss.

Ay, there's the rub. See above.

Edited June 21, 2016 by natureboy

[Yukari]

Unless you have a consistent swing with your longer clubs, you will lose more strokes due to your longer shots than shorter shots. For example, one bad swing with a longer swing can cost you 2 or 3 strokes off the bat. Where as one bad swing with short game only costs one stroke. 

Seems very obvious to me. Unless you have a repeatable long game, you will be better off practicing more on your long game. 

[xcott]

I think it shifts based generally on handicap unless you're particularly terrible at a specific thing compared to your peers.

 

High handicaps could probably get the most improvement by improving driving and full swing shots.

 

Lower handicaps could probably get the most improvement by improving wedges and in.

 

Not applicable in all cases, but likely in aggregate.  When you play with different handicaps generally the high handicaps don't look tremendously worse on short game and putts than the low handicaps, but getting from tee to green is a nightmare. Trust me I live that nightmare.

[iacas]

9 hours ago, xcott said:

I think it shifts based generally on handicap unless you're particularly terrible at a specific thing compared to your peers.

It doesn't, really. The relative differences are pretty consistent across any range of player.

Check out Mark Broadie's work, or ours.

(And none of this discussion is ever really possible when talking about one particular golfer, who may or may not fit the general mold of "18 handicappers" or whatever level of player you're considering.)

[pumaAttack]

Golf Channel talking stats and the importance of scrambling:

 

[iacas]

1 hour ago, pumaAttack said:

Golf Channel talking stats and the importance of scrambling:

 

Dude, the video doesn't even support the claim.

The winner last year, the video says, missed a very low 14 greens in regulation the entire tournament. That's 80.6% GIR. That's a result of good ball-striking. The video also points out how someone like Dustin Johnson did poorly in scrambling, but made up for it with great driving.

http://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.130.html

Wow, some real world-beaters there.

I'll take this list over the "scrambling" list.

---

Look, I'm going to say this one last time, Tony. You'll either listen and you can put your previous crap attitude behind you, or you'll continue down the path you've gone down thus far and continue to make an ass of yourself until you're just banned outright.

By and large, on the PGA Tour, players gain more strokes and consistently have better tournament finishes, win more money, etc. when they're better at the full swing skills (driving, approach shots) than short game and putting. This is true even though "short game" as far as Broadie cares extends out to 100 yards, though for even PGA Tour players a 95-yard wedge is still a full swing skill.

There have been countless studies on this, and whether you want to believe it or not, I am included in a fairly small list of experts on this topic. I've spoken in front of an audience of thousands at the PGA Show, I've done PGA section seminars, I've trained 50+ instructors who are giving the LSW clinic, we've sold over 10,000 books, many of whom are to top players. I'm not a big fan of name dropping, because people are just people, but if you care at all Jordan Spieth's coach, Tiger Woods' coach, and the coaches/instructors of many other players have tweeted or shared with us how much they like what we've written in LSW. We teach top college players, tour players, and rising junior players, as well as every-day golfers like you.

Relatively consistently, across the board, it works out to something like 26% of what separates any two golfers (on average) is driving the golf ball. 40% of what separates them is approach shots. 20% is short game. 14% is putting. On average.

That doesn't mean it's the same for any ONE player. If someone has a bad short game, but excels at the driving and approach shots, then they can benefit from devoting a bit more time to the short game to bring it up to at least PGA Tour average.

You want a sample size of one or two? Fine.

The guy that just won the U.S. Open? Gained a ton of strokes with the full swing and had relatively average short game and putting performances. He gained 2.4 strokes off the tee alone. Next closes was Dufner at 1.5 strokes. He was 11th in approaching the green, and 24th and 30th in short game and putting out of 67 who made the cut.

Here's another sample size of one…

Rory and Tiger averaged 2.9 and 2.8 strokes gained for the season. Of Rory's 2.9, 2.5 came from the full swing. Of Tiger's 2.8, 2.1 came from the full swing. Both had really good years in 2012.

And that stat beats your one-off stats because it's not only two (the top two) players, but it includes the entire season.

If you want to cite a bunch of one-offs, which is stupid, I can come back and do the same, except my one-offs will often include full seasons, not just four round tournaments, or what a player who almost missed the cut and who was never even within about five of the lead has to say he works on.

Your asshole, dismissive, contemptful attitude about all this belies an immaturity that is unbecoming. People have shared links with you, but rather than educate yourself, and read, and discuss actual topics and stats and whatnot put together by smart people, you post a video that doesn't even really support what you say it supports… It shows a guy winning last year by hitting almost 15 GIR per round.

Which makes sense. There's the old saying about dogs who chase cars and pros who putt for par: neither lasts very long. Hitting greens is far and away the most important part of golf. That's ball striking. That's the full swing.

So drop the attitude. Open your mind. Learn something. Read the things people are sharing with you.

Or keep going the way you've been going and get banned. I hope you choose the former, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least if you choose the latter.

[Phil McGleno]

5 hours ago, iacas said:

There's the old saying about dogs who chase cars and pros who putt for par: neither lasts very long. Hitting greens is far and away the most important part of golf. That's ball striking. That's the full swing.

Why people like @pumaAttack refuse to get this I will never know.

It is called scrambling for a reason-YOur game is off. You need to scramble to SAVE PAR. The guys who win each week are not scrambling to save par left and right.

They are the ones hitting greens and making birdie putts.

Getting up and down is not that difficult. Hitting a 6-iron to 20 feet instead of 35 feet is a big deal.

[natureboy]

10 hours ago, pumaAttack said:

Golf Channel talking stats and the importance of scrambling:

 

Sure short game has value for damage control and saving a stroke or two that may come in handy later, but a good round is built on the ballstriking. Being a good scrambler is often an indication that you're a good putter too and that's also a plus with scoring when the long game is firing too. Mike Weir has a phenomenal  game around the green, but when his full swing went south it only helped him barely hang on.

It's a little annoying when talking heads get the stats analysis wrong. DJ didn't rank high in GIR because his iron game is so phenomenal he's constantly attacking the pin / taking dead aim. In 2016 he was 9th in SG Approach, 3rd in fairway proximity, and 2nd in rough proximity. He's consistently giving himself lots of looks at birdie, and is accepting he will sometimes pay a penalty out of the rough. As long as he's about average, (which at .008 SG around the green he is) he's pretty much making pars on his missed greens. He's just closer to the pin a lot when he does hit upping his chances for a made putt.

Edited June 24, 2016 by natureboy

[iacas]

Just another one-off stat (one tournament), but still… this is more typical than leading in short game and putting.

The winner each week is often the best putter OF the really good ball strikers that week.

[cutchemist42]

I've read and loved LSW, but never the Broadie book. I also check out my Strokes Gained on GameGolf. I thin LSW and GameGold differ on short game and where it starts? What does Broadie use for Short Game cutoff, if he ever does?

[iacas]

12 minutes ago, cutchemist42 said:

I've read and loved LSW, but never the Broadie book. I also check out my Strokes Gained on GameGolf. I thin LSW and GameGold differ on short game and where it starts? What does Broadie use for Short Game cutoff, if he ever does?

He uses 100 yards. I don't particularly think a 95-yard shot is "short game," not even for a PGA Tour player.