A way of keeping stats - thoughts

[RandallT]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RandallT

I used a mixture of following the trend, and adjusting to what I thought made sense. To me, his numbers at 20yards look so high, but who am I to argue with him? For 10yds, I used numbers much closer to 2.0 for the fairway, since it seems pros could get up and down fairly easily from 10yds.

I'll also take a look at GIRP and the other stuff you mentioned. It's been busy here with family stuff, but it's always fun to revisit the golf stats stuff when I have a specific probably to dive into. The short game numbers have definitely revealed a possible issue after logging in my 5 rounds this year!

Lets say you are at 25 yards.

PGA Tour players from 20-30 yards, proximity to the hole = 9'2"

PGA Tour players putting from 10' = 40%

Strokes gained putting from 10' = 1.61

Lets say PGA Tour players don't duff the shot or what not. You add one stroke to that and you get 2.61 on average from 25 yards. Nice how that works out like that ;)

If you are 2.0 from the fairway, 20 yards out. That means you get up and down 100% of the time?

2.0 - 1 stroke from the fairway = 1.0 strokes on putting. You must hit it on average inside of 3 FT from the pin.

Not to sound harsh, I highly doubt it. I think your perception is off on what you are doing.

PGA Tour players end up 6-7 FT from 20 yards from the fairway.

To be clear, I'm not saying "I am 2.0 from 20yds out." Not sure if I implied that or said that.  I said that for interpolating down to 10yd shots (Broadie doesn't give us those), I used a number closer to 2.0, since that would be closer to 100% up and down, like you said.  From the fringe, 30ft away, for example. That would be a 10yd "fairway" shot, according to Broadie.  He doesn't give us those numbers, so I interpolated that way down to like 2.1 or something.

But the rest of your analysis is correct. It makes me feel better I'm using the right numbers.

So now I need to figure out why for my 5 rounds, I've only lost 1 shot per round in this category. Either I'm misjudging my distances for recording (I just eyeball it), my calculations are bogus (but they use the simple calculations you just went through), or something else.  I know my short game is not as good as the calculations have said thus far.

[saevel25]

But the rest of your analysis is correct. It makes me feel better I'm using the right numbers.

So now I need to figure out why for my 5 rounds, I've only lost 1 shot per round in this category. Either I'm misjudging my distances for recording (I just eyeball it), my calculations are bogus (but they use the simple calculations you just went through), or something else.  I know my short game is not as good as the calculations have said thus far.

Ok that makes more sense now. When you said your short game numbers were coming out very good, I thought you were stating your strokes from that distance was averaging around 2.0.

PGA Tour players average 3'6" from 10 yards and in on short game shots. http://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.382.html

Expected strokes should be about 2.05 (1.05 putting + 1 short game shot made)  ;)

[RandallT]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RandallT

But the rest of your analysis is correct. It makes me feel better I'm using the right numbers.

So now I need to figure out why for my 5 rounds, I've only lost 1 shot per round in this category. Either I'm misjudging my distances for recording (I just eyeball it), my calculations are bogus (but they use the simple calculations you just went through), or something else.  I know my short game is not as good as the calculations have said thus far.

Ok that makes more sense now. When you said your short game numbers were coming out very good, I thought you were stating your strokes from that distance was averaging around 2.0.

PGA Tour players average 3'6" from 10 yards and in on short game shots. http://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.382.html

Expected strokes should be about 2.05 (1.05 putting + 1 short game shot made)  ;)

Ah, thanks. I hadn't looked at using pro proximity from that close. I forgot they had stats for that. 2.05 is probably pretty good.  I see they putt at 1.98 from 30 ft, so it's definitely above 1.98.

I'm working with Pete (of Pete's Programme fame) on helping him analyze his overall game using some of these strokes gained numbers, so I hope I am not leading him astray! If I lead myself astray, that's fine, because it's just me. I definitely should look more into how I interpolated around the greens, because from my 5 rounds, approximately 1/3 of my short game shots came from inside the range that he has numbers for (20yds).

[natureboy]

To be clear, I'm not saying "I am 2.0 from 20yds out." Not sure if I implied that or said that.  I said that for interpolating down to 10yd shots (Broadie doesn't give us those), I used a number closer to 2.0, since that would be closer to 100% up and down, like you said.  From the fringe, 30ft away, for example. That would be a 10yd "fairway" shot, according to Broadie.  He doesn't give us those numbers, so I interpolated that way down to like 2.1 or something.

But the rest of your analysis is correct. It makes me feel better I'm using the right numbers.

So now I need to figure out why for my 5 rounds, I've only lost 1 shot per round in this category. Either I'm misjudging my distances for recording (I just eyeball it), my calculations are bogus (but they use the simple calculations you just went through), or something else.  I know my short game is not as good as the calculations have said thus far.

This would be my guess. I would personally not use the numbers unless I was pacing it out. Eyeballing is highly variable. Maybe you could come up with a simple sight-measure for the height of the flagstick like they do with trees using clinometers if time to pace off is an issue. You record the number in the field and then calculate the distance at home.

A range finder would be much simpler and quicker, though, and about the same cost as a professional clinometer. I think that pacing is nearly as quick and useful info for making the shot anyway.

A hole by hole map of the course that you could mark ball locations per round could also be a time saver on shot locations and distances.

Just noticed an issue with @saevel25 proximity numbers. They are averages for broad data buckets. Broadie's expected strokes are calculated to a specific distance. A proximity inside 10' could include a lot of much closer shots with a big spread of expected strokes remaining within the range of 10' to 1'.

I almost think the putting numbers would actually be safer inside 10 yards, though a pitch at least is a much less accurate shot than a putt on average.

There may be some short game proximity numbers for pros in the back of Broadie's book that you could use with his putting numbers to construct an expected strokes chart to fill in the shorter distances.

[saevel25]

Just noticed an issue with @saevel25 proximity numbers. They are averages for broad data buckets. Broadie's expected strokes are calculated to a specific distance. A proximity inside 10' could include a lot of much closer shots with a big spread of expected strokes remaining within the range of 10' to 1'.

I am not sure there is much difference between 10 yards and 5 yards when it comes to short game shots. I think it depends more on the lie. I am sure the proximity from a 5 yard shot from the rough isn't significantly more than a 10 yard shot from the rough.

The numbers do match up with what Broadie has stated in that chart with the expected strokes at different distances and lie types.

[natureboy]

I am not sure there is much difference between 10 yards and 5 yards when it comes to short game shots. I think it depends more on the lie. I am sure the proximity from a 5 yard shot from the rough isn't significantly more than a 10 yard shot from the rough.

The numbers do match up with what Broadie has stated in that chart with the expected strokes at different distances and lie types.

Yeah they are pros, but I don't know that means the shots are equivalent. Notable difference between 15' and 30' putt which is mechanically an easier stroke. I would expect a chip or pitch from each putting distance in Broadie's table to be higher than the putt.

Even if you are right, there is an issue with assigning an average proximity inside 10 yards to an expected putt at 10 yards. The average distance to the pin prior to the shot is more likely be around 5-7 feet and thereabouts would be the putting number to use. But I would be wary of mixing this with Broadie's expected strokes to go at specific distances because what his system is about capturing is the cumulative gains and losses of small differences. A wide distance bin makes that less accurate.

Your 2.16 was very close, though. I don't know if I found a table with 10 yards or had already interpoated a value, but I had 2.18 expected strokes from the fairway and the interpolated curve drops .11 at 5 yards. Not huge but potentially significant across multiple strokes.

[natureboy]

Ah, thanks. I hadn't looked at using pro proximity from that close. I forgot they had stats for that.    2.05 is probably pretty good.  I see they putt at 1.98 from 30 ft, so it's definitely above 1.98.

I'm working with Pete (of Pete's Programme fame) on helping him analyze his overall game using some of these strokes gained numbers, so I hope I am not leading him astray! If I lead myself astray, that's fine, because it's just me. I definitely should look more into how I interpolated around the greens, because from my 5 rounds, approximately 1/3 of my short game shots came from inside the range that he has numbers for (20yds).

I thought of some ways you could play with your strokes gained numbers. One is to figure out the average differential between your average score on the course and the expected average score for an average (field) PGA player (plus 3-4?) on that course. I think if you did this than a really stellar round would actually get you into some positive strokes gained numbers (relative to your HCP peer 'field') that would reflect your lower than average score.

Then calculate the percentage of the score differential each of your individual strokes gained categories comprises. If your game is 'balanced' then it should work out that of the total strokes lost relative to the 'field' would break down ~ 28% driving, ~ 40% approach (nearly 10-15% of which I personally think relates to par-5 approaches because of the potential gain or loss from going for it), ~ 17% short game, & ~ 15% putting.

This should be a valid ~ comparison to your HCP peers because Broadie does state that the ratio of where improvement strokes gains lie between HCP levels is pretty stable across the range.

[ZappyAd]

In terms of actually capturing the data for these spreadsheets - what do you use for that?  Are you using some kind of app to record things or Google Maps or just a bit of paper?

I have been using GameGolf recently to track my rounds but you don't seem to be able to get the information out of the app and the reports just don't answer the questions I have about my stats.  I was actually thinking about using a small notebook to keep track of things as I play and then use something like Google Maps post round to figure out the actual yardages.  I do find keeping stats while playing to be a bit of a hassle but I feel like I need to make the effort as the value of being able to see the numbers is quite high.

[alleztom]

Having played 22 rounds (not all 18 hole rounds, some 9, some 14) I have now got what I consider a decent data set. In this time my handicap has reduced from 20 to 16.4.

I have also tweaked the system to include a measure for puts over 45' - I expect to 2 putt these 85% of the time.

---

What I have in terms of 'standard' stats

303 holes, average 19.01 over par/rd, 35.76 putts/rd, 3.15 3 putts/rd, 2.11 putts/GIR, 28.4% GIR (5.1), 41.9%nGIR (8.8), 42% Fwy hit, 25% up and down from nGIR.

---

In terms of my 'collected' stats

Average 12.1 strokes lost/rd tee to green, 2.88 SL/rd chipping, 4.14 SL/rd putting.

The 18ised (ie doubled for 9 hole rounds, multiplied by 1.29 for 14 hole rounds) for tee to green (blue) and putting (green) are below.

---

Key lessons from the stats

I miss the green too often with chips - 12% - reminds me of the lessons from Newport Cup thread

How bad I am 2 putting from long putts - see the red column graph how it falls away outside of 15'

Long game accounts for 2/3 of my shots lost. This is also probably lower than it should following a couple of nightmare putting rounds which a new stroke and some 'maintenance' practice has drastically improved.

---

 

SGP per Dist.tiff

SGSLP.tiff

SLTG.tiff

Edited December 4, 2015 by alleztom
Changed file format from .tiff to .jpg, used wrong colour for tee to green graph

[zero]

Forgive my not reading every word, but this looks like some amazing stat keeping. I'm just wondering how you apply all the data to your game improvement efforts? Is it used as an input to your practice routine, given to a PGA coach, etc.?

[alleztom]

Hi @zero - I just use it to keep track of how I'm going. It basically breaks down into where I'm losing shots in the course of a round, both absolutely (ie against par) and relatively (between aspects of my game). In terms of 'game improvement' - it basically means I'm trying to maintain short game and putting (chipping and pitching seems to need less maintenance than putting for me), while still dedicating most of my practice to developing & improving my long game.

[RandallT]

On 12/3/2015, 9:43:07, alleztom said:

What I have in terms of 'standard' stats

303 holes, average 19.01 over par/rd, 35.76 putts/rd, 3.15 3 putts/rd, 2.11 putts/GIR, 28.4% GIR (5.1), 41.9%nGIR (8.8), 42% Fwy hit, 25% up and down from nGIR.

---

In terms of my 'collected' stats

Average 12.1 strokes lost/rd tee to green, 2.88 SL/rd chipping, 4.14 SL/rd putting.

The 18ised (ie doubled for 9 hole rounds, multiplied by 1.29 for 14 hole rounds) for tee to green (blue) and putting (green) are below.

All of this definitely falls into the range of stats that I'm seeing for similar players (I've got about 15 rounds of people here on TST shooting high 80s-100s input into a similar tracking tool):

FIR and nGIR seem to be remarkably similar for those rounds I've recorded and yours (seemingly near 40%), with GIR trailing behind by 10%. It hurts when 60% of the time you are really scrambling to recover a hole.

It's just a hypothesis right now from some of the averages I'm seeing, but as players get down into the mid-80s, I am seeing similar FIR and GIR numbers as above, but the nGIR is making the big leap- up into the 60+% range. If you can just get near the green a bit more, it's a lot easier to break 90!

Strokes gained tee to green are typically twice the number of the strokes gained for short game and putting.  That seems to hole for mid-80s players too from what I'm seeing.

Great stuff- love the stats. We should compare notes sometime- looks like we would each be interested to see if we can "steal" ideas on our spreadsheets from each other! 

 

[alleztom]

Thanks @RandallT,

That makes sense in terms of shaving strokes from the game. When I hit a GIR I average 0.12 over par, when I get nGIR I average 1.007 over par, when I miss nGIR it is 1.92 over par. So shifting from a missed nGIR to a nGIR is worth almost a stroke, as is hitting an extra green.

[RandallT]

12 hours ago, alleztom said:

Thanks @RandallT,

That makes sense in terms of shaving strokes from the game. When I hit a GIR I average 0.12 over par, when I get nGIR I average 1.007 over par, when I miss nGIR it is 1.92 over par. So shifting from a missed nGIR to a nGIR is worth almost a stroke, as is hitting an extra green.

Here are my numbers:

Hit GIR 5.3 times per round, and total 0.6 over.  I think that's 0.11, similar to your 0.12.

Hit nGIR only 5.9 times, and total +5. I think that's 1.18, similar to your 1.007.

Miss nGIR 6.9 times, and total +10. I think that's 1.44, a bit lower than your 1.92. So my bad holes aren't quite as damaging as yours.

Saw your PM- I'll be in touch!

[alleztom]

12 minutes ago, RandallT said:

Hit nGIR only 5.9 times, and total +5. I think that's 1.18, similar to your 1.007.
 

I think you're at 0.85, not 1.18, so  slightly better than 1.007

[RandallT]

2 minutes ago, alleztom said:

I think you're at 0.85, not 1.18, so  slightly better than 1.007

Oops 1/x problem. Lol

[alleztom]

On 14/7/2015 at 6:05 PM, iacas said:

I might tweak the driver stats to help you determine whether it was a bad tee shot or a bad approach shot that resulted in a failed GIR or nGIR. You should also consider ranking - if you're going to go into THIS MUCH detail already - ranking the driver stuff too. For example, you can lose strokes on a tee shot (hitting it short and into the rough) but gain them back (and then some) with a great hybrid to ten feet.

Distance of your tee shot and the lie matter too. A 250-yard tee shot into the light rough is not bad (it's likely better than a 230-yard tee shot in the fairway) but often significantly better than a 280-yard tee shot into the weeds.

@iacas thanks for this - I've been thinking about it for a while, and discussing with @RandallT - and have come up with the following. It requires me to check the distance of tee shots, but it is along the following lines. Using the strokes gained metric (not unlike @RandallT's explanation higher in the thread - I plugged in a 405 yard par 4 (expected 4.00 shots) - and worked out strokes gained/lost for each distance (note converted to metres for my metric self) as per the table below, so a 220m (240yd) drive in the fairway is 0 strokes gained/lost off the tee. I then add a penalty based on what is left for the second shot as follows:

Clear shot at green, fairway or rough (0 penalty)

Clear shot at nGIR, ie can't go at the green but a shot at 15yards short right, (0.5 penalty)

Can advance the ball but not enough for nGIR (0.75 penalty)

Knock out sideways/unplayable/lateral drop (1 penalty)

OOB (2 penalty) + results of re-teed ball.

So a 240m drive in the fairway has gained 0.09 shots, a 200m drive in the fairway loses 0.12 shots, a 215m drive in which can be advanced has lost 0.78 shots.

100m	-0.76	190m	-0.18
105	-0.74	195	-0.15
110	-0.72	200	-0.12
115	-0.69	205	-0.09
120	-0.66	210	-0.06
125	-0.63	215	-0.03
130	-0.6	220	0
135	-0.56	225	0.02
140	-0.53	230	0.04
145	-0.49	235	0.07
150	-0.46	240	0.09
155	-0.42	245	0.11
160	-0.39	250	0.12
165	-0.36	255	0.13
170	-0.32	260	0.15
175	-0.28	265	0.17
180	-0.25	270	0.17
185	-0.21	275	0.19

 

I think this ticks most of the boxes - and it will allow me to separate tee shots from approach shots when working out where shots are lost/gained.