Share your New Strokes Gained Data from GAME Golf!

[Abu3baid]

7 hours ago, iacas said:

I am seeing, in these early stages, that the strokes lost off the tee is pretty stunning. It's very, very low for a lot of people. Too low, I think.

Agree.. how am I only losing 2.5 strokes off the tee??  Then the funny thing is they tell me to work on my 250 yard shots from the rough?  huh.. silly.. I wouldn't have a 250 shot from the rough if it wasn't for the ugly duck hook that just went into the rough 100 yards away.. :)

[ZappyAd]

I think mine is telling me that I need to get my short game and putting up to an acceptable level (as an example I missed 5 putts for par from 4ft or less in my last round of 9 holes).  I've only played 15 rounds since taking up playing again and I've definitely noticed that in and around the greens I am pretty poor!

 

 

[Slowcelica]

Here is mine, looks like I need to work on chipping the most which I already new from my last few rounds.

[billchao]

On 11/14/2015, 1:39:02, RandallT said:

For example, if you are 160yds in the rough behind a tree after a drive, does Game Golf think you are aiming for the green for an approach shot from that 160yds when you actually just chip it out to 120yds in the fairway? I'd prefer to charge that chip-out against the drive and say that it took you 2 shots from the tee to get to 120yds away. Then you only count the 120yd shot as an approach 

I agree with you completely. I don't have any evidence to support it, but my guess is that Game Golf simply calculates your second shot as your approach shot, no matter where it is made from. Tee shot calculations are probably based mostly on average distance and whether or not you lost strokes due to penalties.

I don't see how they could have factored in hitting your drives in poor places, and judging by my numbers, I don't think they did. 

[DrvFrShow]

Why are some people getting reasonable results for approach shots and others getting results for >250 yds? I'm getting results for >250 yds. I can't hit that with a driver. lol. The statistic doesn't make any sense.

Basically it's telling me that by practicing:

* putts under 10 feet I can save 3 strokes per round. - I know this needs work.

* short game accuracy from shots out of the rough under 25 yds I can save 1.5 strokes per round.

* improving tee shots on holes 300 - 350 yds I can save 1.3 strokes per round.

* improving approach shots out of the rough from >250 yds can save 1.1 strokes per round - lol - I can't hit my driver this far, so totally disregard this statistic. I couldn't get the analysis to change to where I selected it.

That only amounts to 6 strokes and an average score of 88.

Any fool can look at my game golf stats and see that the most important part is accuracy of shots with my 8 iron, 9 iron, PW and GW. 100 - 150 yds. If I can put more than 4 of those on the green in an average round, I'm not scrambling. This is exactly where I'm focusing this winter.

Typically my longest approach shot is about 175 and that's on a par 5 if I get a really good drive where I can hit a 6 iron onto the green.

[DrvFrShow]

51 minutes ago, billchao said:

I agree with you completely. I don't have any evidence to support it, but my guess is that Game Golf simply calculates your second shot as your approach shot, no matter where it is made from. Tee shot calculations are probably based mostly on average distance and whether or not you lost strokes due to penalties.

I don't see how they could have factored in hitting your drives in poor places, and judging by my numbers, I don't think they did. 

I guess in my case it might be looking at some third shots that were hit from the tee with my driver that didn't reach the green. You know - provisional balls, or S&D. Those shots. It counted them as approach shots. And since there were a number of them and none of them reached the green, hence, off target, Game Golf saw a need for improvement (i.e. PEDs + accuracy) in the >250 yd category.

[sjduffers]

11 minutes ago, DrvFrShow said:

I guess in my case it might be looking at some third shots that were hit from the tee with my driver that didn't reach the green. You know - provisional balls, or S&D. Those shots. It counted them as approach shots. And since there were a number of them and none of them reached the green, hence, off target, Game Golf saw a need for improvement (i.e. PEDs + accuracy) in the >250 yd category.

Or maybe it also counts bad tee shots, not necessarily hitting 3 from the tee, eg. in the trees and maybe in hazards too, where you next shot (i.e. the approach) is taken still more than 250 yards away from the hole

[DrvFrShow]

@sjduffers Still it said I could improve my stats 1 stroke per round by improving that. That drops it only to 87. That's it? That's the best I can play?

I have to zone in on the play between 100 - 150 yds where I'm only 38% within 15 yds. That needs to improve.

[sjduffers]

Just now, DrvFrShow said:

@sjduffers Still it said I could improve my stats 1 stroke per round by improving that. That drops it only to 87. That's it? That's the best I can play?

I have to zone in on the play between 100 - 150 yds where I'm only 38% within 15 yds. That needs to improve.

It's probably somewhat misleading. It really means improve your tee shots and put them in play more.  Perhaps you have one or two drives per round (with or without penalty) that leave you out of range of the green and they cost you 1 stroke each (or 2 if there is a penalty associated with it). As your game is compared to scratch players and not Tour players, it may mean 1 more bad drive than scratch players, but it could really 1.5 bad drives per round (or more?) as those guys are in the woods with duck hooks and whatnot sometimes too...

How many penalties per round do you average? I think that they may not be included in the breakdown of where you can save strokes, but as you know, they count as strokes just the same and are probably the easiest ones to save.

[DrvFrShow]

@sjduffers I usually get one penalty of some sort per round. I may take an optional penalty stroke to gain a better approach angle once in a while - you know where you have a choice of hitting a high risk shot that could hit a tree branch, hit a chip shot out onto the fairway that you might shank, or take an optional "unplayable lie" and drop that puts you in a perfect position because really the perfect angle was only about a yard away - and you're on the green in 3 putting a 5 footer for par.

Sometimes penalties are really not penalties.

[sjduffers]

29 minutes ago, DrvFrShow said:

@sjduffers I usually get one penalty of some sort per round. I may take an optional penalty stroke to gain a better approach angle once in a while - you know where you have a choice of hitting a high risk shot that could hit a tree branch, hit a chip shot out onto the fairway that you might shank, or take an optional "unplayable lie" and drop that puts you in a perfect position because really the perfect angle was only about a yard away - and you're on the green in 3 putting a 5 footer for par.

Sometimes penalties are really not penalties.

I understand that sometimes it is best to take your medicine, including additional optional penalties such as unplayables, but they still cost a stroke that could/should have been avoided with a better previous shot.  In that sense they are still penalties and are best avoided (by having a better previous shot, not by ignoring the tough situation one faces now).  So, you can improve your overall game/score by focusing on how to not get in those situations where you elect to take an optional penalty.

I don't use Game Golf yet, but I am generally intrigued by the possibilities, including the new strokes gained feature, which can only get better. I just suspect that they don't deal correctly with recovery shots and/or penalties when it comes to that analysis, so their recommendations and even amounts of strokes gained/lost may be off base somewhat.  I am sure this will all get better.

[iacas]

2 hours ago, billchao said:

I agree with you completely. I don't have any evidence to support it, but my guess is that Game Golf simply calculates your second shot as your approach shot, no matter where it is made from. Tee shot calculations are probably based mostly on average distance and whether or not you lost strokes due to penalties.

I don't see how they could have factored in hitting your drives in poor places, and judging by my numbers, I don't think they did. 

I have a sneaking suspicion they're not really doing this the right way.

Let's say you have a 365-yard par four without much trouble. Some little trees on one side, some rough on the other. Some bunkers by the green.

Standing on the tee, your average scratch golfer is going to average 3.85 on that hole (I'm making these up, because the scratch golfer they're using may vary slightly from the scratch golfer that Mark Broadie uses, and the scratch golfer Dave and I used).

So you're at 3.85 strokes expected 365 yards away from the hole in a good lie (teed up). A scratch golfer would hit his tee shot about 250 yards away, so that's 115 yards from the hole somewhere in or near the fairway. From there, having spent 1 shot already, the golfer would clearly average about 2.85.

But you hit your tee shot 215 yards and behind a tree.

The proper way to look at that is to say you're now 150 yards from the hole behind a tree. Your average scratch player is going to average (again, making this up but the point still stands…) 3.15 from there. Yet he's already taken a stroke, so 3.85 - 3.15 means that his tee shot, which cost 1 stroke, only shaved 0.7 strokes from his expected score. That means he lost 0.3 strokes on the tee shot.

But okay, let's say GG can't determine that you're behind a tree. Let's say from the right rough 150 yards away the average scratch golfer makes a 3. That's still 0.15 strokes lost just from the tee shot… and they could probably do some basic analysis of your strokes taken from 150 yards (particularly those in the fairway where obstructions are far less likely) and compare the results to the individual shots: if you average 3.1 strokes from 150 yards in the fairway, and you don't even hit the green from this particular shot… assign more of the "blame" to the tee shot because clearly it didn't put you in a spot equivalent to your typical "150 yards from the fairway" type of result.

---

@GAME Golf is very busy right now getting the product out the door, launching, and all manner of other things, but when stuff settles down (it may be just after Thanksgiving), I'm going to see if we can't have a little time to see some examples and explore in some detail how they're calculating these things.

Because, as I have said at least twice now, the driving and approach shots stats seem to be resulting in far fewer strokes lost than "the eye test" (as well as the research Dave and I, as well as Mark Broadie, have done).

[billchao]

2 hours ago, iacas said:

@GAME Golf is very busy right now getting the product out the door, launching, and all manner of other things, but when stuff settles down (it may be just after Thanksgiving), I'm going to see if we can't have a little time to see some examples and explore in some detail how they're calculating these things.

Yea, this is all pretty new and I'm sure with feedback and time, they can correct their algorithms and yield more accurate stats. It's good that they're doing the strokes gained analysis because it's something a lot of people asked for (more stats produced from the data collected), which gives me a lot of confidence that they will work to make this right. I won't give them any flak for it, I completely understand the circumstances. 

BTW everything you stated above that makes perfect sense and is in line with how I analyze my own game. I usually blame the previous shot(s) as the reason I lose strokes.

[Abu3baid]

2 hours ago, billchao said:

Yea, this is all pretty new and I'm sure with feedback and time, they can correct their algorithms and yield more accurate stats. It's good that they're doing the strokes gained analysis because it's something a lot of people asked for (more stats produced from the data collected), which gives me a lot of confidence that they will work to make this right. I won't give them any flak for it, I completely understand the circumstances. 

BTW everything you stated above that makes perfect sense and is in line with how I analyze my own game. I usually blame the previous shot(s) as the reason I lose strokes.

I don't know if I wouldn't give them flack for it though.. For example, because I have been around here I know that putting isn't my biggest issue even though GG says it is, but some poor guy out there now is spending all his practice time on the putting green because GG is telling him he can shave 4 strokes by practicing 3 - 5 footers... LOL

if they had delayed the release of the stat another 6 months would really have mattered that much?  Get a test group together, run it by experts.  Heck, they could have made some of the TST community beta testers to get valuable feedback..  But oh well.. It is what it is as they say.

[saevel25]

36 minutes ago, Abu3baid said:

I don't know if I wouldn't give them flack for it though.. For example, because I have been around here I know that putting isn't my biggest issue even though GG says it is, but some poor guy out there now is spending all his practice time on the putting green because GG is telling him he can shave 4 strokes by practicing 3 - 5 footers... LOL

Given that 3' - 15' are SV 2 skills, they are moderately important. Yes, improving your 3-5' putting from 50% to 80% can save you 3-4 strokes a round. 

[Abu3baid]

1 hour ago, saevel25 said:

Given that 3' - 15' are SV 2 skills, they are moderately important. Yes, improving your 3-5' putting from 50% to 80% can save you 3-4 strokes a round. 

I think you missed the point of my post.. i.e. their numbers are bogus and I would have rather them do beta testing with key or informed users first to get feed back, and then release.  

I wasn't questioning how important or not important 3-5' putts are.  Just how the data can now get someone to work exclusively on putting.. heck if I'm its telling me I'm losing 8 strokes putting and only 2 strokes from driving why would I work on my driving?  (i.e. as someone who doesn't have or know anything about SV skills and values.)

[saevel25]

6 hours ago, Abu3baid said:

heck if I'm its telling me I'm losing 8 strokes putting and only 2 strokes from driving why would I work on my driving?  (i.e. as someone who doesn't have or know anything about SV skills and values.)

Well, clearly your putting is a glaring weakness. Honestly a pretty simple thing to work on as well. 

Will some people try just go off and dedicated a ton of unwanted time working on something, sure. Remember, the idea behind strokes gained is that it takes into account which shots are more important than others.

[billchao]

9 hours ago, Abu3baid said:

I don't know if I wouldn't give them flack for it though.. For example, because I have been around here I know that putting isn't my biggest issue even though GG says it is, but some poor guy out there now is spending all his practice time on the putting green because GG is telling him he can shave 4 strokes by practicing 3 - 5 footers... LOL

I get the impression that Game Golf's smart tips are aimed at the things that can lower your score the fastest. It also seems to break everything down into sections. Even though my numbers indicate that I lose over 6 strokes on approach shots, it's probably broken down into individual areas within that category, so I'm only losing 1 stroke from 150-175 yards, 1 from 125-150 yards, etc., whereas I'm losing 2.55 strokes from putting between 10-30' so it tells me that's the top area to improve upon. They don't just say "work on your long game" as a tip.

7 hours ago, Abu3baid said:

I think you missed the point of my post.. i.e. their numbers are bogus and I would have rather them do beta testing with key or informed users first to get feed back, and then release.

They're not bogus, they're just flawed. The fact that they underemphasize the number of strokes you lose off the tee doesn't mean you can't improve on your putting.

7 hours ago, Abu3baid said:

I wasn't questioning how important or not important 3-5' putts are.  Just how the data can now get someone to work exclusively on putting.. heck if I'm its telling me I'm losing 8 strokes putting and only 2 strokes from driving why would I work on my driving?  (i.e. as someone who doesn't have or know anything about SV skills and values.)

That's not what it says at all. It gives you four different tips and they're not all "improve your putting from 5 feet." If you're losing eight strokes on putting alone, then it's a glaring weakness as @saevel25 said and it should be your main priority. If you're losing eight strokes due to your putting and eight strokes due to your driving, it's significantly easier to shave those strokes by improving your putting.

I don't remember what your numbers look like, @Abu3baid, but even if you told me you lost 12 strokes off the tee and 8 on the greens, I'd probably still tell you to work on your putting more. You should be practicing all your skills anyway, but spending more time on your putting will yield greater returns.