Strokes Gained Analysis For Average Golfers

[SCC4380]

Ever since I read Mark Brodie’s Every Shot Counts I have been intrigued by the idea of having access to a stokes gained analysis of my own golf game. As far as I can tell, there are two options at this point where you can do it on the internet.

(1) ShotByShot.com is owned and operated by Peter Sanders who came up with and performed the first strokes gained analysis. He is the stats guy for Zach Johnson and other professional players, the Stanford golf team, and I don’t know who else. (2) StrokesGainedGolf.com is a newcomer website that launched in December 2014 and does strokes gained analysis. I recorded data on printable scorecards my last two rounds and entered the data into the websites. (I don’t have a smart phone, so I can’t comment on the apps.) Below are the pros and cons for the two websites.

http://wwv.shotbyshot.com/

• Pros
  • Very little data is needed and it is easily recorded during your rounds
  • The analysis utilizes over 200,000 rounds of golf that have been entered into it
  • You can enter your handicap and compare yourself to it or to another handicap
  • It gives you a top priority to work on to improve your scoring
  • It reports putting results based on key distances to make (4-5’)
• Cons
  • It costs $59 a year
  • It doesn’t give you as many statistics as StokesGainedGolf.com

http://www.strokesgainedgolf.com/

• Pros
  • It costs $25 a year (at least right now it does)
  • It gives strokes gained values for every shot, by type of shot, by distance, by round, 5 round averages, and per season
• Cons
  • It requires you to record more data during your rounds and to input more data when you enter rounds, though it is not burdensome
  • It is based on PGA performance, so you can’t compare yourself to your own handicap or to an aspirational handicap, though this could be added once enough rounds are entered
  • It doesn’t give you any priority of what to work on, though you can see for yourself where you not doing that great
  • It wants the distance to the flag for every shot. I used my GPS watch and went with the middle of the green distance unless I was greenside or putting, so it was quick for me, but the idea of being behind someone who slows down play to use their rangefinder for every shot during a round isn’t appealing. (It also ignores the fact that most of us, most of the time, should stop aiming at the flag http://thesandtrap.com/t/72445/stop-aiming-at-the-flag ).

You can get one round analyzed for free on ShotbyShot.com (and your money back if you subscribe and are not satisfied). You can use StrokesGainedGolf.com free for two weeks. I am interested to see what some of you think about these websites and the analysis that they provide. If you use Game Golf you probably already have the data you need to enter your rounds.

Also, if you decide to subscribe to StrokesGainedGolf.com, there is a discount when you renew if others join with your code. If you subscribe and would like to help me out, use the following link, www.strokesgainedgolf.com because it would give me credit for you joining.

Steven

[RFKFREAK]

I created an Excel spreadsheet for which I created a formula where the average is calculated for each hole for the courses I normally play. I like the idea of these websites but not sure how I'd effectively apply to my game.

[SCC4380]

It was helpful for me to see exactly where I am giving up the most strokes relative to tour pros and others who score lower than I do. That, in turn, will help me prioritize my practice efforts. It was also fun to see that I had some shots where I actually gained strokes relative to the average tour player.

[Dave2512]

I think a more useful tool is Game Golf or Arccos. For me I just assume my full swing ball striking is poor and work on that most. Being able to track my misses allows me to make adjustments on the course to play as well as possible. Not swing adjustments but attempting to hit to certain spots based on what I know about where the ball usually lands and club performance.

[SCC4380]

I agree that Game Golf is a valuable tool and I have it on my wish list. I also have Lowest Score Wins and think it is great. I buy into the shot zones and decision maps approach. I just think that strokes gained might be of interest to other golfers because it provides additional data to show strengths and weaknesses and it is better data than the regular stats that people use to track their golf game.

[Dave2512]

It is a valuable and interesting stat just that seeing it really doesn't change the answer. As higher handicap amateur golfers we are poor ball strikers. We know what the issue is and likely will spend a lifetime chasing it. A better golfer plays better than I do because they make better contact more often. It really doesn't change the way I practice because improving ball striking is a tedious process. I am still working on the one change my instructor had me make 06/2014.

BTW GG does some of this. You can compare yourself to other golfers and look at everything from driving averages to the usual stats. Strokes gained is obviously very detailed but I only need to see one thing to know why I am playing worse than a better golfer. I just compared myself to golfers scoring 72-75 and guys scoring 72 (scratch or better). Looked like this my GIR 32%, 72-75 62% and scratch guys 69%.

[RandallT]

I'm a big fan of tracking strokes gained, but I haven't fully finished some ideas in spreadsheet form that I'm working on (I'm on vacation at the moment, but I hope to get back to what I'm working on soon).  I hint at some ideas here-->

http://thesandtrap.com/t/79680/return-to-competitive-golf/18#post_1114776

My thought is that for scorekeeping, you must simply enter your distance and lie for every shot. That is not onerous. I prefer a scorecard interface that you see there on that thread. If you read that post, I took that "Average Golfer" round narrative, and turned it into a guess about his distance and lie for every shot (and recorded it in that "scorecard"-looking thing there.  The spreadsheet calculated the rest of the analysis that you see.

The key is to not be a slave to the data- just get an overview of where you are losing the most to the gold standard. In that case in the link, the player lost 21 shots to pros in the "full swing" (>60yds). Only 8 or 9 lost for putting. Even fewer than that for short game.

I find that level useful: that player needs big time work on his full swing. Putting could use work too, and could probably shave a few strokes relatively quickly. Short game- possibly not worth really practicing for a while, until the other areas improve.

Of course, he probably knew that intuitively, but I have a hunch that some people may not have the correct intuition.

FYI- the spreadsheet calculates FIR/GIR (all the basics we all track anyway) and tons of other stuff (proximity to the hole from approaches of various distances, e.g.). Lots of analyze if you simply track the distance and lie for every shot. It seems simple enough to me, but many are not comfortable tracking that for every shot- I understand that.

FWIW, for me, ballpark estimate is fine. Is it 140 or 135? Who cares, use your best guess and move on. It only gives you a general number for strokes gained anyway, so no need to be precise.

I've looked at those sites you mention in the OP. I like how you lay out the pros and cons. Can't disagree with anything you've written. I did the 2-week trial for strokesgainedgolf. Not bad, and they seem to be improving as they go. The interface improved while I was on my trial, so there is continued work going on. I hope they succeed. There are many developing their own tools, and people geeky enough to want to track strokes gained tend to have their own tools, so I'm not sure if the market is big enough for them to be financially successful.

Personally, I think once you have all your data on distance and lie for every stroke you play, the analysis is more than enough to figure out where different aspects of your game stand. For just that little bit extra effort, the value gained is quite large. I find it very worthwhile, but it's definitely not for everyone.

[Dave2512]

If you want to play better golf you need to hit the ball better. Dissecting the stats isn't going to change that. There is a great thread here about how to spend your time practicing. Not surprising the suggestion is full swing practice should take most of your time. I am a stat nerd but not because I think there is something I am missing it's just fun to do. But it's tough to judge if I am improving by stats alone. I sort by YTD last 20 last 5 etc. and it bounces around. GIR is really the only indicator of how well I play.

[SCC4380]

I agree with the replies to my original post.

• Improvement comes from practicing the right things with someone instructing you who knows what they are doing.
• Strokes gained analysis isn't for everyone and it isn't a substitute for being strategic in how you play a course (shot zones, decision maps, etc.).
• Average golfers typically loose the most strokes on full swing shots.
• Some, but not all golfers know where their weakness is and what to practice (Think separation values, which aren't obvious to everyone).

In my two rounds I was wild off the tee (about a 9 hdcp), putted like it was my first time golfing (about a 26 hdcp), and played my mid to long irons like a 2 hdcp. I thought it was interesting to know. I am signing up for an Aimpoint clinic this summer and expect to see my handicap drop.

If someone can keep track of their distance from the pin and lie they can do this. It isn't hard to use the websites and it can be a do it yourself project like RandallT. I am a bit surprised more people aren't interested in it. I guess I would never turn away from good data if it is available, but perhaps that is why I teach statistics.

[Dave2512]

This is why I hope devices like Game Golf continue to evolve. It wouldn't take much to expand the social platform and stat tracking and editing to be more detailed. SG stats could be interesting participating in challenges. I like the idea of handicapping each part of my game but usually it's pretty consistent with ball striking because of the impact it has. The better I perform on the tee the more am close to or hitting greens and the more efficient I putt and score well.

[SCC4380]

If Game Golf adds strokes gained to its statistics, it would get me off the fence and I would buy it that week.

[Dave2512]

I'd say buy it anyway but the analytics are painfully obvious, amateur golfers are crummy ball strikers. Every time I edit a round how well I score is directly proportional to how I perform on the tee. That shot determines how successful the approach is and the resulting putts. My good round stats and bad round stats look like they were played by two different golfers.

[RFKFREAK]

If Game Golf adds strokes gained to its statistics, it would get me off the fence and I would buy it that week.

You're obviously free to spend your money as you wish but that wouldn't (and didn't) hold me back from getting GG.

[SCC4380]

I am trying to decide whether to pay for an Aimpoint clinic or Game Golf this year. Both will be about $200. Does anyone have any advice on which would be a better option?

[RFKFREAK]

I'd say buy it anyway but the analytics are painfully obvious, amateur golfers are crummy ball strikers. Every time I edit a round how well I score is directly proportional to how I perform on the tee. That shot determines how successful the approach is and the resulting putts. My good round stats and bad round stats look like they were played by two different golfers.

Consistently inconsistent. [quote name="SCC4380" url="/t/81085/strokes-gained-analysis-for-average-golfers/0_100#post_1122613"]I am trying to decide whether to pay for an Aimpoint clinic or Game Golf this year. Both will be about $200. Does anyone have any advice on which would be a better option? [/quote] I think it depends on your game and what you put more of a priority to improve. With GG you'll get a bunch of information about how you hit each club, you'll establish (if you haven't done so already) a shot zone and get a lot of real information about your ball striking and be able to analyze it. However, GG (I don't believe) will help you with your putting. That said, if you're really bad at reading greens (and I was which is one of the reasons I took the class) and it's really hurting your scoring, then it's something to consider.

[Dave2512]

I think GG has the potential to improve someone's game across the board if they are honest with themselves about what they see. For example I am learning due to being an inconsistent ball striker I am about one club shorter than I previously thought. I didn't have pie in the sky delusions about my potential either just didn't realize how many approach shots land short of the intended target. Obviously improving ball striking would help this but it's a long process. As I get rounds posted I can see that my club choices and alignment could be better. It's like groundhog day I hit the same crap shot over and over. I have to get to within about 100 yards of the green before the biggest miss % is something other than short. I am confident it will lead to strokes gained from not being a dunce on the course.

So while it won't change the way you putt it could change how well you get to the green and that can affect how successful you putt. I think perception colors the way amateurs judge how well they putt. Amateurs are decent putters that struggle with putting by hitting the ball to less than ideal spots on the green because they are crummy ball strikers. I would assume most golfers missing a lot of greens are averaging less than 2 putts a green and their PPGIR is abysmal. It's not likely to change until you can hit the ball better.

[SCC4380]

I am leaning toward keeping the subscription to StrokesGainedGolf.com and doing the Aimpoint clinic. The strokes gained analysis will give me a measure of my ball striking and the Aimpoint will help me improve my chances once I get onto the green. Perhaps next year's investment will be Game Golf and by then they might have additional statistics available.

[Dave2512]

Please post updates. I'll be curious to see what can be learned via strokes gained given the broad variances in how a higher handicap amateur scores. Do you have any data you can share now? I signed up for the free trial and will input a few rounds.