What is the correlation between the number of birdies and your handicap.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by David in FL

...  On the whole, it is better to hit greens in regulation than to miss them.   The green was missed, and if we're not counting it as such, then we're missing the opportunity to accurately identify the real opportunity.  In this case, the opportunity would lie in the approach shots, while the stats will be showing it to be in putting.

I'll also argue that green size is not completely arbitrary.  The green, which is specifically defined by the rules, was specifically designed in that shape and size by the architect for a reason.  Nothing arbitrary at all.......

The size and shape of the green is certainly not defined by the rules. It is defined by the architect *originally*, but the sizes and shapes change over the years for many reasons. Greenskeepers or superintendents might decide to shape it differently for various reasons (a tree gets too big say, and provides too much shade in one area which allows fungus to grow - or, they want to make the greens harder for a tournament by narrowing them, or expanding them to make them closer to a hazard). And the guys who ride the mower don't go over the exact same line day after day, year after year - that would be impossible.

More to the point though, they're arbitrary in the sense that no green is exactly the same size and shape as another. If you hit 3 small greens, is your iron play better than if you hit 3 large greens from the same distance? Yes, but either way your stats show 3 greens hit, so how much did the size of the green really matter? If you hit 5 greens with second shots that were the result of really good drives so you were really close, is your iron play better than if you hit the same 5 greens from shots further out? No, but either way your stats show 5 greens hit, so again, how much did the size of the green really matter?

You can also think about it this way: Two golfers have the exact same skills. Golfer A plays all his rounds at courses that have generally large greens. Golfer B plays all his rounds at courses with tiny greens.  Whose stats are going to be more accurate? Neither, of course. Golfer A might have better GIRs and higher total putts, but it doesn't matter because he's using the stats to track whether he's getting better or worse in any given area.

When someone counts the fringe as the green, what they're doing is equivalent to playing a different course that's the same in every respect except the greens are a little bigger. Yes, that hypothetical second course might be rated a little differently, but ratings and slope don't enter into stat keeping. You don't adjust your fairways hit for example on a course that has really tight fairways.You'll simply have fewer fairways hit than otherwise, but that doesn't make your stats wrong.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by David in FL

I'm gonna disagree a little bit.....

The purpose of tracking stats is to be able to identify those areas that are weak and therefore opportunities for improvement.  To argue that there are some times that you can miss the green and be closer to the hole than other times when you hit the green doesn't matter.  Statistically, an individual, unique circumstance is completely irrelevant.  There are times that you make a longer putt and times you miss a shorter putt.  That doesn't mean that it's not better to be closer to the hole when putting.  On the whole, it is better to hit greens in regulation than to miss them.   The green was missed, and if we're not counting it as such, then we're missing the opportunity to accurately identify the real opportunity.  In this case, the opportunity would lie in the approach shots, while the stats will be showing it to be in putting.

I'll also argue that green size is not completely arbitrary.  The green, which is specifically defined by the rules, was specifically designed in that shape and size by the architect for a reason.  Nothing arbitrary at all.......

Look, all I'm saying is this:

If I am counting my fringes as GIR and I'm counting my putts from the fringes as putts, I KNOW THAT I AM DOING IT.  If I was to compare myself to somebody else who has the exact same amount of GIR and putts, I still know that I count my fringes as GIR and my putts from there as putts.

Think of it another way ... I keep my stats "by the rules" like all of you, however, I feel like I am kind of cheating myself because I'm giving myself an easy excuse to 3 putt from the fringe.  Is there really an excuse for that?  For that reason, counting fringes as GIR makes sense.  I need to work on my putting.  But, here's the thing, even counting the stats "the right way" I still know in my head that my putting stats don't really accurately reflect how much I need to work on my putting.

Now, if I kept stats "the wrong way" wouldn't I still be able to use my brain to read between the lines and qualify my stats then too?

Which is why I say 6/half dozen.  :)

[David in FL]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Look, all I'm saying is this:

If I am counting my fringes as GIR and I'm counting my putts from the fringes as putts, I KNOW THAT I AM DOING IT.  If I was to compare myself to somebody else who has the exact same amount of GIR and putts, I still know that I count my fringes as GIR and my putts from there as putts.

That's all, nothing more, nothing less.  Ya'll are reading way too much into this.

You NEVER pitch or chip from the fringe?  There are certainly times when it makes good sense to do so.....

I just think that by arbitrarily redefining both the green and a putt, your stats could mislead you when it comes to identifying the greater opportunity to improve.

the only reason I mentioned the rules was to show that the green is defined specifically.

[sacm3bill]

Actually, I'll bring this back on topic (well, the topic is generally "stats" so not sure how OT we are anyway, but...) The original question is "What is the correlation between the number of birdies and your handicap."  It's a great question, but once you start comparing stats between people (instead of just using them to track your own progress) you immediately run into apples to oranges comparisons.  Just as in the case I gave of someone who plays large greens having a higher GIR than someone else with the same game but who plays courses with small greens, two people with the same handicap and the same exact game may have different birdie stats if one of them plays shorter tees than the other.

I.e., if you play the tips for 20 rounds, them play the forward tees for 20 rounds, and you skill level doesn't change during that time,  you're going to have lower scores and more birdies playing the forwards. But your handicap stays the same (since the different rating/slope for the different tee boxes account for that).

Just saying that comparing your stats to others, including looking for a birdie/handicap correlation, is going to be apples-to-oranges to some extent. And if you only compare your stats to your own stats, then it doesn't matter what system you use as long as you are consistent.

Originally Posted by David in FL

I just think that by arbitrarily redefining both the green and a putt, your stats could mislead you when it comes to identifying the greater opportunity to improve.

Total putts is a pretty useless stat anyway - if you have low total putts, are you a good putter or do you just chip from off the green a lot? The putting stats alone don't tell you that. Length of putts holed is a better stat to use for that.

Originally Posted by David in FL

the only reason I mentioned the rules was to show that the green is defined specifically.

Again, yes the nature of the green is defined by the rules but not how big or small it can be, which is the point I'm making.

I'm not a stats nazi, I just find stats interesting which is why I'm so opinionated about them.

[David in FL]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

The size and shape of the green is certainly not defined by the rules. It is defined by the architect *originally*, but the sizes and shapes change over the years for many reasons. Greenskeepers or superintendents might decide to shape it differently for various reasons (a tree gets too big say, and provides too much shade in one area which allows fungus to grow - or, they want to make the greens harder for a tournament by narrowing them, or expanding them to make them closer to a hazard). And the guys who ride the mower don't go over the exact same line day after day, year after year - that would be impossible.

More to the point though, they're arbitrary in the sense that no green is exactly the same size and shape as another. If you hit 3 small greens, is your iron play better than if you hit 3 large greens from the same distance? Yes, but either way your stats show 3 greens hit, so how much did the size of the green really matter? If you hit 5 greens with second shots that were the result of really good drives so you were really close, is your iron play better than if you hit the same 5 greens from shots further out? No, but either way your stats show 5 greens hit, so again, how much did the size of the green really matter?

You can also think about it this way: Two golfers have the exact same skills. Golfer A plays all his rounds at courses that have generally large greens. Golfer B plays all his rounds at courses with tiny greens.  Whose stats are going to be more accurate? Neither, of course. Golfer A might have better GIRs and higher total putts, but it doesn't matter because he's using the stats to track whether he's getting better or worse in any given area.

When someone counts the fringe as the green, what they're doing is equivalent to playing a different course that's the same in every respect except the greens are a little bigger. Yes, that hypothetical second course might be rated a little differently, but ratings and slope don't enter into stat keeping. You don't adjust your fairways hit for example on a course that has really tight fairways.You'll simply have fewer fairways hit than otherwise, but that doesn't make your stats wrong.

ar·bi·trar·y

/ˈärbiˌtrerē/

Adjective

Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

Do you think an architect has a reason for choosing the size and shape of the green for each hole?  Of course he does.  The fact that greens are not identical does NOT mean that their size or shape is arbitrary.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by David in FL

ar·bi·trar·y

/ˈärbiˌtrerē/

Adjective

Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

Do you think an architect has a reason for choosing the size and shape of the green for each hole?  Of course he does.  The fact that greens are not identical does NOT mean that their size or shape is arbitrary.

Heh, ok Webster, maybe they're not "arbitrary" but they are certainly "of varied size and shape", and GIR stats vary as a result of that.  That's my point.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by David in FL

I just think that by arbitrarily redefining both the green and a putt, your stats could mislead you when it comes to identifying the greater opportunity to improve.

The point is this (and I think I've said this before)...

If the player KNOWS what his stats are - how they're measured, etc. - then they aren't losing anything except the ability to compare them to averages obtained in a different (perhaps more conventional) manner. They may feel they gain enough to offset this downside.

I think I said in the manual that a poor player may want to define an up-and-down their own way: any time they are near the green and are able to get it up and down, regardless of score. It may give them a better idea, otherwise they're going to have a lot of failed up-and-down attempts because they're hitting their third shots (on par fours) from 173 yards away after they drive it in the trees and chip out sideways.

So, I don't understand why you're being so hard on the guy. So what if he's counting the fringes as a green and his shots from there as putts (I don't remember the last time I didn't putt from the fringe, btw)?

[David in FL]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Heh, ok Webster, maybe they're not "arbitrary" but they are certainly "of varied size and shape", and GIR stats vary as a result of that.  That's my point.

Stats are what the stats are.  In order to give value to the stats though, we need a large enough sample size to provide statistical relevancy, and we need to ensure consistency in how we define that which we're measuring.  By arbitrarily (used correctly ) redefining the green itself as well as what constitutes a putt, you're running the risk of skewing your stats in a manner that will mislead you in your analysis of your opportunities.

Fairways aren't identical either.  I bet I can increase my driving stats if I just redefine hitting a fairway as anytime I'm not in the woods.....

.....hmmmmm.  Maybe there is something to this!

[iacas]

Originally Posted by David in FL

Stats are what the stats are.  In order to give value to the stats though, we need a large enough sample size to provide statistical relevancy, and we need to ensure consistency in how we define that which we're measuring.  By arbitrarily (used correctly ) redefining the green itself as well as what constitutes a putt, you're running the risk of skewing your stats in a manner that will mislead you in your analysis of your opportunities.

And my point is that he clearly feels it's worth the tradeoffs, and he's not going to run the risk of "skewing" his stats (for his own personal use/knowledge) if he's aware of the choices he's made.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by David in FL

By arbitrarily (used correctly ) redefining the green itself as well as what constitutes a putt, you're running the risk of skewing your stats in a manner that will mislead you in your analysis of your opportunities.

Fairways aren't identical either.  I bet I can increase my driving stats if I just redefine hitting a fairway as anytime I'm not in the woods.....

.....hmmmmm.  Maybe there is something to this!

If you do just one or the other, then of course your stats will be skewed. But no one is talking about doing that.  By defining the fringe as the green, the extra GIRs are offset by the extra putts you are making.

Yes, you can increase your fairway stats by redefining the fairway. As long as you aren't comparing your stats to others, why not do that? And if you *are* comparing your stats to others, then you have to remember that those others aren't playing the same fairways as you, just as they wouldn't be even if you hadn't redefined the fairway. And just as they wouldn't be playing the same greens as you even if you don't redefine the green.

[tuffluck]

I hit two fringes yesterday and then 3 putted for bogeys. I was very disappointed with the bogeys because of the 3 putt. The reality is that the putting strokes were flat out poor. Had I not counted the fringe as a GIR and not counted the first putt from off the fringe a putt, then where would I place the blame (from a statistics perspective) on the bogey finish? I think it has to be the putter and not the approach shot, but maybe others disagree. The truth is in both of those scenarios the first putt from off the fringe was the poorest shot on each hole, and that is why I would call it a putt.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by tuffluck

I hit two fringes yesterday and then 3 putted for bogeys. I was very disappointed with the bogeys because of the 3 putt. The reality is that the putting strokes were flat out poor. Had I not counted the fringe as a GIR and not counted the first putt from off the fringe a putt, then where would I place the blame (from a statistics perspective) on the bogey finish? I think it has to be the putter and not the approach shot, but maybe others disagree. The truth is in both of those scenarios the first putt from off the fringe was the poorest shot on each hole, and that is why I would call it a putt.

Great example. Your question may be rhetorical, but of course the answer is: The blame for your bogey would be placed on your missed GIR. Which, as you say, in this case would not really be the cause of your bogey - poor putting was. That's why, whether you redefine the green or not, many of us like the length-of-putts-holed stat for putting, or at least putts per GIR. (Which in your case is 3, since you're redefining the green - which accurately reflects your subpar putting in this example.)

[David in FL]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

If you do just one or the other, then of course your stats will be skewed. But no one is talking about doing that.  By defining the fringe as the green, the extra GIRs are offset by the extra putts you are making.

EXACTLY!

If your only reason for keeping stats is to chart improvement in each, then you can define anything in any way you like.  BUT, if you're using your stats to identify the weaknesses in your game so you can attack those areas that present the greatest opportunities, you have to be careful.  As you said, if you include the fringe in GIR, your GIR is going to go up, as will your putts.  In comparing the 2, you may very well decide that your putting is worse than it is and spend time there when the real culprit is the approach shots.  That's my point.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by David in FL

Quote:

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

If you do just one or the other, then of course your stats will be skewed. But no one is talking about doing that.  By defining the fringe as the green, the extra GIRs are offset by the extra putts you are making.

EXACTLY!

If your only reason for keeping stats is to chart improvement in each, then you can define anything in any way you like.  BUT, if you're using your stats to identify the weaknesses in your game so you can attack those areas that present the greatest opportunities, you have to be careful.  As you said, if you include the fringe in GIR, your GIR is going to go up, as will your putts.  In comparing the 2, you may very well decide that your putting is worse than it is and spend time there when the real culprit is the approach shots.  That's my point.

But the culprit is *not* the approach shots if you're only missing the green by less than the width of the fringe. The culprit is still your short game in that case.

At least, it is for me and for high handicappers like me. A better player like you may consider the fringe a poor approach shot, but I consider it a miracle.  So for me and people like me, it might make more sense to count the fringe than it does for people like you. The bottom line is though, neither method is incorrect, IMO.

[David in FL]

Originally Posted by iacas

And my point is that he clearly feels it's worth the tradeoffs, and he's not going to run the risk of "skewing" his stats (for his own personal use/knowledge) if he's aware of the choices he's made.

But the results are skewed, by comparison to the standard.....whether we want them to be, or not.  GIR will go up, as will putts.

If you only use the stats to chart your own improvement from your own personal baseline, there's no problem at all.  But as soon as you try to compare your performance to a population of people better than you to judge competency, the comparison becomes far less valid because the metrics are defined differently.

I don't care how anyone defines anything.  I'm just concerned that someone will fail to realize that as they compare their stats to any kind of standard, that they realize that the comparison may not be valid and could point them in the wrong direction.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by David in FL

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

And my point is that he clearly feels it's worth the tradeoffs, and he's not going to run the risk of "skewing" his stats (for his own personal use/knowledge) if he's aware of the choices he's made.

But the results are skewed, by comparison to the standard.....whether we want them to be, or not.  GIR will go up, as will putts.

If you only use the stats to chart your own improvement from your own personal baseline, there's no problem at all.  But as soon as you try to compare your performance to a population of people better than you to judge competency, the comparison becomes far less valid because the metrics are defined differently.

I don't care how anyone defines anything.  I'm just concerned that someone will fail to realize that as they compare their stats to any kind of standard, that they realize that the comparison may not be valid and could point them in the wrong direction.

I'll restate once more what I have already said a couple times: Changing the definition of the green size does nothing to effect any comparison to a "standard", because green sizes already vary from course to course, or even from hole to hole on the same course, by more than the width of any fringe.

[MyrtleBeachGolf]

I know this is an unpopular choice, but I actually have to side with sacm3bill on this one. If you hit your approach and it lands just off the green, on the fringe, and then you 3 putt from there for a bogey, it wasn't the missed GIR that caused the bogey, it was your poor putting. Especially if it's the case where you aimed at the short side of the green and landing it on the fringe was closer than hitting the middle of the green. If you are using your own stats to check progress and see what part of your game needs improvement, you don't want to be fooled into thinking your iron play is at fault when it's actually your poor putting that is causing you to make bogey's.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by David in FL

But the results are skewed, by comparison to the standard.....whether we want them to be, or not.  GIR will go up, as will putts.

No kidding.

But if he is aware of that, and decides to keep consistent stats that way anyway, then that's a perfectly valid choice. What's it to you if someone wants to keep his stats that way?

I doubt he's a moron who is unaware of this or is going to start sharing his awesome GIR and poor putting stats with everyone…

Originally Posted by David in FL

If you only use the stats to chart your own improvement from your own personal baseline, there's no problem at all.  But as soon as you try to compare your performance to a population of people better than you to judge competency, the comparison becomes far less valid because the metrics are defined differently.

Is that comparison happening and I'm missing it?