"Every Shot Counts" by Mark Broadie

[Stretch]

Kindle copy "arrived" today!

[mchepp]

FWIW, 100 pages in, and I've yet to find anything that you can't really get in the various published articles. It's been somewhat disappointing in that sense. There's more depth, and particularly for $20 or so, it's still worth it, but I'm hoping the last 150 or so pages contain new information.

So what is the final conclusion? I am on the fence about buying this. Would you recommend it?

[iacas]

So what is the final conclusion? I am on the fence about buying this. Would you recommend it?

Uhm, well, that depends a bit. Honestly, for $12.99 Kindle pricing, I don't think there are too many things I wouldn't buy. Even if I learn one thing from the book, it's worth it to me. But I teach others, and have this site, so my value propositions are a bit different than some people.

I will say that there is a bit more focus on PGA Tour stats than I'd have preferred (or in other ways I prefer it quite a bit since we have a similar book but one that's focused a lot more on average golfers). There's a bit too much talk about putting which, because it's so little, should have been given less.

Mark Broadie is a stats guy, not an instructor, so he's limited in how much he can tell you to "do" with the stats.

But again, anything under $20 is worth it to me even if you learn one thing. I'm not positive I did, but I've been looking at these kinds of stats for a few years now, so a lot of what's in the book is online already, or things you can compile yourself. The book could save you some time.

[Matt Mangold]

Eric, We know from Aimpoint that the best capture speed results from aiming about 6" past the hole, and I completely agree.  Is it the optimal strategy however to do this?  One could argue that if you only aim 6" past the hole, then you will leave more putts short than if you aim 1 to 2 feet past the hole, and a putt left short has no chance of going in.  In the long run is it possible that you could make more putts by rolling them faster even though it effectively reduces the size of the cup?  In other words does do fewer putts left short offset the smaller cup and over time lead to more putts made?

[14ledo81]

Eric, We know from Aimpoint that the best capture speed results from aiming about 6" past the hole, and I completely agree.  Is it the optimal strategy however to do this?  One could argue that if you only aim 6" past the hole, then you will leave more putts short than if you aim 1 to 2 feet past the hole, and a putt left short has no chance of going in.  In the long run is it possible that you could make more putts by rolling them faster even though it effectively reduces the size of the cup?  In other words does do fewer putts left short offset the smaller cup and over time lead to more putts made?

What about the putts that (while trying to hit it 1-2 feet past) go 3'-4' long?  This in turn would increase the amount of missed second putts.

[iacas]

What about the putts that (while trying to hit it 1-2 feet past) go 3'-4' long?  This in turn would increase the amount of missed second putts.

That's a big part of it too. From short range you probably won't be worrying about leaving putts short and from 30 feet you won't make many bit you want to avoid 3-putts. I'll write more about this later, but maybe in the Capture Speed thread. FWIW it is 9 inches and that is only on stimp 8 greens. On 11 that's closer to two feet to have the same speed.

[newtogolf]

Bought it last night and started to read it, about 30 pages in.  It's a fun read but not sure it's going to help my golf game much.

[treebound]

Golf Channel School of Golf (chapter 9) had an interview with Mark Broadie. Interesting stuff. I'll have to see if the library has a copy of the book.

[treebound]

Picked up the book via an inter-library loan and started skimming and bouncing around in it. The author is a statistics guy, no hiding that. What I have gotten out of it so far basically reinforces what I've learned and read in the past. One thing that I have to re-read was a comment about a 6,500(?) yard course and the potential best score of a particular level of player. I am a little surprised about the emphasis of needing a longer drive length. I do like the breakdown of breaking play aspects down into approach shots, short game, length (and accuracy) of drives, and putting skills. I also like his mention of the mental side and course/green reading skills as a factor apart from pure swing mechanics and abilities (my interpretation so far). Anyway, not sure if I will give the book a full actual reading or if I'll just continue to skim and bounce around in it. I can see where some will get good benefit from this book, and can also see where some will get lost or put off by the statistics and math and ratios.

[SCC4380]

Uhm, well, that depends a bit. Honestly, for $12.99 Kindle pricing, I don't think there are too many things I wouldn't buy. Even if I learn one thing from the book, it's worth it to me. But I teach others, and have this site, so my value propositions are a bit different than some people.

I will say that there is a bit more focus on PGA Tour stats than I'd have preferred (or in other ways I prefer it quite a bit since we have a similar book but one that's focused a lot more on average golfers). There's a bit too much talk about putting which, because it's so little, should have been given less.

Mark Broadie is a stats guy, not an instructor, so he's limited in how much he can tell you to "do" with the stats.

But again, anything under $20 is worth it to me even if you learn one thing. I'm not positive I did, but I've been looking at these kinds of stats for a few years now, so a lot of what's in the book is online already, or things you can compile yourself. The book could save you some time.

I just finished the chapter on tee to green strategy, and must admit that I was hoping for more information that would be useful than what it gave me. I am looking forward to Lowest Score Wins. How is the writing coming?

[Cody Book]

I picked this book up, and have gone through all but 2 ending chapters. I've enjoyed reading about the Strokes Gained method of keeping track of your score. I did have a question and maybe a member here could point me in the right direction.

In the book it had a table with Average number of putts from a distance in feet for a tour pro, scratch golfer, and a 90-golfer.

Example:

Average number of putts
Distance(Feet)	Tour Pro	Scratch Golfer	90-golfer
2	1.01	1.01	1.06
3	1.04	1.07	1.17
4	1.13	1.20	1.36
5	1.23	1.34	1.51

It also had a table for Average number of strokes for a tour player.

Average number of Strokes
Distance(Yards)	Tee	Fairway	Rough	Sand	Recovery
20		2.40	2.59	2.53
40		2.60	2.78	2.82
60		2.70	2.91	3.15
80		2.75	2.96	3.24
100	2.92	2.80	3.02	3.23	3.80
120	2.99	2.85	3.08	3.21	3.78
140	2.97	2.91	3.15	3.22	3.80
160	2.99	2.98	3.23	3.28	3.81
180	3.05	3.08	3.31	3.40	3.82
200	3.12	3.19	3.42	3.55	3.87

I was wondering if there is data on Average number of strokes (the second chart) for a Scratch golfer, 80-golfer, or 90 golfer.

I like for the putting that I will be able to compare myself (out to 60 feet) to a scratch golfer and a 90 golfer. Wish I could do that for the other strokes.

[iacas]

I was wondering if there is data on Average number of strokes (the second chart) for a Scratch golfer, 80-golfer, or 90 golfer.

I like for the putting that I will be able to compare myself (out to 60 feet) to a scratch golfer and a 90 golfer. Wish I could do that for the other strokes.

We have some of those numbers (they aren't pretty) in Lowest Score Wins , but we did them on one hole, so the numbers are only specific to that hole and those situations. I imagine the following (and other) factors could influence them quite a bit:

• firmness of greens
• location of lie
• thickness of rough/fairway
• speed of green
• slope of green
• size of green
• location and severity of hazards, bumps, swales, etc.
• more

In other words, not every 50 yard shot is the same, and there are so many factors, you could almost never really be too certain that you were in a similar enough position to the "average" to compare yourself meaningfully at all.

[Cody Book]

I knew it would be difficult to get the information, just was wondering if it was done and published. I wasn't sure if data was collected from regional Am events and then published. It would have a field of low handicap golfers all playing the same course to develop and average for at least that course. Then maybe using a math equation with the course rating and slope to adjust the numbers for other courses.

Thanks for the information, the book you mentioned is it out? Is there a digital version of the book?

[mdl]

The only reason Broadie can give those averages for tour pros is because of the tracking data they have on every shot (ShotLINK).  So they know about every shot on every hole at every tour event from, say, 50 yards, from the fairway.  So you can get a true average over all the possible hole layouts and conditions.  Obviously no one has that kind of data on a group of hundreds of amateur 90 players!

[SCC4380]

I was wondering if there is data on Average number of strokes (the second chart) for a Scratch golfer, 80-golfer, or 90 golfer.

I like for the putting that I will be able to compare myself (out to 60 feet) to a scratch golfer and a 90 golfer. Wish I could do that for the other strokes.

On the website for the book (everyshotcounts.com), Mark Broadie says that he has all of that data, but the page limits for the book mean't that he couldn't include it. It sounds like he is looking at putting it online. He also indicates that he is working on an app that will allow you to enter your round and automatically get the strokes gained for your shots.

The only reason Broadie can give those averages for tour pros is because of the tracking data they have on every shot (ShotLINK). So they know about every shot on every hole at every tour event from, say, 50 yards, from the fairway. So you can get a true average over all the possible hole layouts and conditions. Obviously no one has that kind of data on a group of hundreds of amateur 90 players!

The data he has from his Golfmetrics program pales in comparison to ShotLink, but he does have over 100,000 shots from more than 200 golfers with a wide range of abilities. It is not hundreds of amature 90 players, but I am sure he will have that data shortly after people start using his app.

Steven

[mdl]

The data he has from his Golfmetrics program pales in comparison to ShotLink, but he does have over 100,000 shots from more than 200 golfers with a wide range of abilities. It is not hundreds of amature 90 players, but I am sure he will have that data shortly after people start using his app.

I didn't know he was doing that kind of data collection from amateurs.  Cool!  Is that an app they're trying to get the general public to use?  More a specific research thing with 200 selected golfers?

[SCC4380]

I don't have the book in front of me, but I seem to remember that Golfmetrics was software he developed with his graduate students before ShotLink and he asked the people at his home club to enter their rounds. He says that it was cumbersome to use. The idea behid the app is to make what he knows now about strokes gained widely available to anyone who wants to use it to analyze their their own game.

[nilssoa]

I´ve read the book and there were lots of new information to me. I would have liked a few more examples of on course strategy, he had one example and I would have liked more. As a 10hcp with subpar shot consistency every improvement in game strategy and course management is needed, to me the book was definitely a good buy.

My take on the putting speed debate is that there can not be an optimal length past the hole, rather an optimal speed at the hole. As the book points out pros tend to hit downhill putts farther past the hole than uphill putts. But if a recall it correct they leave about the same % short of the hole.

To calculate speed I think you need to compare effective hole size vs % of putts left short. Aimpoint says 9 inches past is optimal on a flat 8stimp green. Player A might leave 30% of putts short with that strategy. If hitting it so the effective cupsize shrinks by 20% it might be a good strategy for Player A if it also means he is leaving less than 10% short. Optimal length to strive for must be individual and depending on the players estimated scatterpattern on that very shot. A player with superb distance control but not so good aim will need a different strategy than one with good accuracy but poor length control. Maybe you are best served with different strategies depending of how much sideslope there is in the putt. That is if you agree with, lot of sideslope = broader scatterpattern vs straigher putt.

A very interesting (and maybe obvious, but not to me) statement was that the higher % you think you have of making the putt the more certain you should be that you are hitting the ball past the hole. For most of us we dont need to be very far away when the best strategy is to try to die it in the hole. When probability of holing the putt is low your main objective should be to maximise probability for holing in 2 shots.