Golf Stats Book: Every Shot Counts by Mark Broadie

newport2 · 27-06-2014 11:44AM

GreeBo wrote: »

But driving it 30 yards further than you doesnt automatically translate into a better score on every hole, otherwise long drive guys would be the best golfers.

No, but this is statistics. On average, the guys who hit it further are better golfers that the guys who hit it shorter.

If the guys that were shorter could hit it 30 yards further than they do now, they would score better.

GreeBo · 27-06-2014 11:44AM

mike12 wrote: »

One of the best posts so far. As long as you are a average Putter and chipper there is very little improvment to be gained. I've learned this the hard way i tried to turn myself from a guy who used to chip to the 6 feet and make a % of the putts to totally ruining my short game by trying to improve at it. I had gotten down to 7.6.
Looking back now i used to hit a lot of greens and my misses were just off a lot of the time so i was only really chipping 4/5 times a round, not counting putter from the fringe. Was shooting in the 80's on a regular basis best round was 74.

By deciding to work so hard on my short game my long game suffered so i ended up missing more greens, drills i was doing for my chipping effected my long game swing. The chipping practice was really helping and really only this year i have decided anywhere on the green when i miss and get down in 3 will do even if it means putting thru 6 foot of fringe.
I'm now off 13 now 5 years later deciding that my short game was going to stop me from getting to 5 and trying to fix it.

Trying to get back to 9 and the way i will do it is get down in 3 from inside 100 yards. That will be 4 pars on par 5's. Hit 5/6 greens another 5 pars get down in no worse than 3 when i miss a green. Easy:D.

I firmly agree that as long as you are an average driver and iron player (average meaning you dont get yourself in trouble) then shortgame is where you will see improvements.
At the green is the *only* place on a hole where you have the potential of hitting the ball less times than the par of the hole.
You cannot NOT hit a drive or NOT hit an approach (obv excluding driveable holes) but you can not have to take 2 putts or 3 putts or a chip and 2 more putts etc etc.

As long as your long game isnt costing you more strokes then stop working on it, there is nowhere to go. You are never going to improve your driving to the point where you now dont need to hit an approach shot. Likewise for approach shots, look at the pros, the best of them are not hitting 18 GIR.

ssbob · 27-06-2014 11:48AM

mike12 wrote: »

One of the best posts so far. As long as you are a average Putter and chipper there is very little improvment to be gained..

This is my point, a lot of people are assuming everyone is a decent putter/chipper already which for the most part is not at all through for anyone who plays off 15 or more(No offence to anyone on 15 or more:D)

I would love to work on my long game but don't have the time currently, the little time I do have before a round, I usually try to get the pace of the greens chipping and putting.

I really think that the Broadie approach is that everything is important whereas I think that depending on your handicap and ability some things are more important than others.

Actually a thought just popped into my head, Harrington has worked hard to hit it longer and straighter, and his stats would show that he has done that but he is scoring worse and not ever in contention any more...........

GreeBo · 27-06-2014 11:55AM

moycullen14 wrote: »

The more I think about this, the more sense it makes.

Try this virtual experiment:

Take a typical par 4 on your home course, say it's 400 yds:

Take 4 golfers: a pro of your choice, a low, mid and high handicapper:

Each one gets to play the hole 200 times: 100 times from with a drive that ends up 100 yds from the pin in the centre of the fairway and 100 times from the rough 80 yds further back. Everyone of them will score better, on average, with the better drive. Sure, the pro will do better from the bad drive than the high handicapper from the good one but their score will, on average, be better from the good drive.

The implication is that if you want to improve your score - on average - improve your driving - length and accuracy. Simple as that, isn't it?

Surely the cumulative score is more important to an amateur than the average score?

Average is fine for pro's, they are just trying to win and anything thats not a win is irrelevant.
For handicap golf the final score is very important as it impacts your handicap.

mike12 · 27-06-2014 12:19PM

GreeBo wrote: »

I firmly agree that as long as you are an average driver and iron player (average meaning you dont get yourself in trouble) then shortgame is where you will see improvements.
At the green is the *only* place on a hole where you have the potential of hitting the ball less times than the par of the hole.
You cannot NOT hit a drive or NOT hit an approach (obv excluding driveable holes) but you can not have to take 2 putts or 3 putts or a chip and 2 more putts etc etc.

As long as your long game isnt costing you more strokes then stop working on it, there is nowhere to go. You are never going to improve your driving to the point where you now dont need to hit an approach shot. Likewise for approach shots, look at the pros, the best of them are not hitting 18 GIR.

I think we are going around in circles. The closer you are to the hole on every shot the better your chances are. Over time if you are hitting Driver PW you will score way better than if you are hitting Driver 7 iron. That is the point i'm not going bact to read the OP but that is the point of looking at stats from a compleatly different way.

How can i gain shots on the rest of the field we all chip and putt much the same but if i improve my long game, drive it longer and hit it closer this is where i will leave then behind.

Loire · 27-06-2014 12:25PM

This is a super thread!

Someone posted earlier about focusing on your weak spot and I think this is the key. As an example I would refer to my father. Last year he joined the short game academy in Fota. He's there every week practising his chipping and putting and loves it. Around the green now he is very tidy and rarely if ever 3 putts. But his handicap has fallen from 22 to 19. His driving is on the short to medium side but accurate and good enough to see him play off 14-16. He simply isn't good enough with his 2nd shot. .His irons are a disaster...they're straight enough but no distance....his 5 iron only goes 130 yards. He rarely goes to the range and when he does hits his 5 wood and driver all the time, afraid of making a show of himself with the irons. He simply cannot lower his hnadicap without focusing on his "middle" game - his irons.

For someone else it could be different. Look at how good Sergio is off the tee and with his irons and yet he can't putt when it counts. Look at Dustin Johnson with all the length he has and yet not much to show for it. Conversely look at all the success Luke Donald has with an average drive.

Improve your weakness and you'll get better I think.

Loire.

m r c · 27-06-2014 12:29PM

The idea is relatively simple: for example, if a pro shoots three over par on a day where par is the norm, and he loses a stroke to the field putting, where is he losing the other three strokes? The only other place he or she can lose them is from tee to green.

"The long game is the best separator between the best tour pros and average tour pros," Broadie said. "The long game explains about two-thirds of scoring."

When you condense Mark's theory you end up with this and really seems to me to be a sound argument.

GreeBo · 27-06-2014 01:01PM

m r c wrote: »

The idea is relatively simple: for example, if a pro shoots three over par on a day where par is the norm, and he loses a stroke to the field putting, where is he losing the other three strokes? The only other place he or she can lose them is from tee to green.

"The long game is the best separator between the best tour pros and average tour pros," Broadie said. "The long game explains about two-thirds of scoring."

When you condense Mark's theory you end up with this and really seems to me to be a sound argument.

Are there any pros on here who that theory applies to though?

Can you really compare strokes lost to the field that easily? Unless they are all playing the same shots there are too many variables imo and too small a sample size.

The goal of a pro and the goal of the amateur are totally different.

They are trying all out to win, to be first.
We are trying to lower our handicap.

There is no downside to them having a bad day/week, it just means that they dont win. They probably werent going to win anyway, only one guy does.
In amateur golf "winning" is getting cut. I havent worked out the exact maths, but based on CSS calculation, a large percentage of the field can beat par and "win".
Also, for the pro, you come dead last one week, it has no bearing on next week, for the amateur it does, your handicap is now different.

I just dont think the two games are comparable. Individual skill levels are, but not scores and how they were achieved.

newport2 · 27-06-2014 01:21PM

I think this thread may have got a few more copies of this book sold......:)

newport2 · 27-06-2014 01:33PM

m r c wrote: »

The idea is relatively simple: for example, if a pro shoots three over par on a day where par is the norm, and he loses a stroke to the field putting, where is he losing the other three strokes? The only other place he or she can lose them is from tee to green.

"The long game is the best separator between the best tour pros and average tour pros," Broadie said. "The long game explains about two-thirds of scoring."

When you condense Mark's theory you end up with this and really seems to me to be a sound argument.

And this is the value the book adds, it allows you to drill down further.

The problem with stats is how do you compare driving distance with driving accuracy with putts? You can't, they are different things.

You can however compare strokes gained putting with strokes gained driving, etc.

A point made in the book was that McIlroy won a major, 3 PGA event and PGA Tour Player of the year in one season. Yet the stats didn't have him in the top 50 of Overall Driving, GIR or putting. When the Stroke Gained method was applied, he was in the top 5 of all 3 equivalents.

PARlance · 27-06-2014 01:38PM

newport2 wrote: »

I think this thread may have got a few more copies of this book sold......:)

I think it'll sell better than:
How to hit more fringes, a guide to getting your putting stats down.

GreeBo · 27-06-2014 02:01PM

PARlance wrote: »

I think it'll sell better than:
How to hit more fringes, a guide to getting your putting stats down.

Fringe Benefits: - A Guide To Lowering Your Scores By GreeBo

You didn't even try to market it!

newport2 · 27-06-2014 02:07PM

GreeBo wrote: »

Fringe Benefits: - A Guide To Lowering Your Scores

It sounds like a book on how to fix your hair before a night on the pull !!

ssbob · 27-06-2014 02:08PM

To sum up:

We need to take Mike's long game and Greebo's short game and hit the Open Championship qualifiers.

m r c · 27-06-2014 02:12PM

(Are there any pros on here who that theory applies to though?)

Not relevant to the the discussion in fairness there could be loads or none.

(The goal of a pro and the goal of the amateur are totally different.)

Again not true the lower the score the better.

(They are trying all out to win, to be first.)

No they are trying their best to score as low as possible and keep ahead of their peers in the money list to keep their playing rights etc at the end of the day every single stroke is vital to this end. Only a few people per year win more than once anyway and for the vast number of players on tour winning is far less important than you would think.
Winning is a very welcome bonus, the more the better.

(There is no downside to them having a bad day/week, it just means that they dont win. They probably werent going to win anyway, only one guy does.)

No downside apart from making money and getting paid :-)

(In amateur golf "winning" is getting cut. I havent worked out the exact maths, but based on CSS calculation, a large percentage of the field can beat par and "win".)

Agreed.

(Also, for the pro, you come dead last one week, it has no bearing on next week, for the amateur it does, your handicap is now different.)

Ya and this is where the conversation begun, they are trying to maximise where they can get any small advantage over the field to squeeze a made cut out of a missed cut and maybe improve their position over the weekend ie the back door top ten McIlroy has been doing this season. Makes cut on the bubble and goes low over sat and Sunday.
Same for the h/c golfer this year I've almost more pride when making the buffer on days I felt like I couldn't hit the ball out of my way and made the buffer. On a side not the worst thing about me going down a category recently is that the buffers are a stroke harder to reach when playing badly and also my cuts are smaller. I miss cat 4 when I'm playing well(big cuts) and when I'm playing poor( 4 shot buffer)

(I just dont think the two games are comparable. Individual skill levels are, but not scores and how they were achieved.)

The scoring is identical I don't get your meaning here at all.

PARlance · 27-06-2014 02:43PM

GreeBo wrote: »

Fringe Benefits: - A Guide To Lowering Your Scores By GreeBo

You didn't even try to market it!

Some may say it has been marketed to death already

GreeBo · 27-06-2014 02:48PM

m r c wrote: »

(Are there any pros on here who that theory applies to though?)

Not relevant to the the discussion in fairness there could be loads or none.

It is very relevant, using the stats of pros to determine what aspect of their game an amateur should focus their practice on is potentially meaningless.

m r c wrote: »

(The goal of a pro and the goal of the amateur are totally different.)

Again not true the lower the score the better.

For a pro its the lowest score over 4 rounds. Each set of 4 are unrelated to each other. For an amateur every round is important as it impacts your handicap.

m r c wrote: »

(They are trying all out to win, to be first.)

No they are trying their best to score as low as possible and keep ahead of their peers in the money list to keep their playing rights etc at the end of the day every single stroke is vital to this end. Only a few people per year win more than once anyway and for the vast number of players on tour winning is far less important than you would think.
Winning is a very welcome bonus, the more the better.

The majority of them are not worrying about their cards...do you believe that they are all worried about their cards? Really?

m r c wrote: »

(There is no downside to them having a bad day/week, it just means that they dont win. They probably werent going to win anyway, only one guy does.)

No downside apart from making money and getting paid :-)

Which is no downside at all for most of them, one top 10 and they are set.

(In amateur golf "winning" is getting cut. I havent worked out the exact maths, but based on CSS calculation, a large percentage of the field can beat par and "win".)

m r c wrote: »

(Also, for the pro, you come dead last one week, it has no bearing on next week, for the amateur it does, your handicap is now different.)

Ya and this is where the conversation begun, they are trying to maximise where they can get any small advantage over the field to squeeze a made cut out of a missed cut and maybe improve their position over the weekend ie the back door top ten McIlroy has been doing this season. Makes cut on the bubble and goes low over sat and Sunday.
Same for the h/c golfer this year I've almost more pride when making the buffer on days I felt like I couldn't hit the ball out of my way and made the buffer. On a side not the worst thing about me going down a category recently is that the buffers are a stroke harder to reach when playing badly and also my cuts are smaller. I miss cat 4 when I'm playing well(big cuts) and when I'm playing poor( 4 shot buffer)

Difference being that McIlroys poor rounds have no relation to the next tournament. Your poor rounds at the start of the year have negatively impact your handicap.

m r c wrote: »

(I just dont think the two games are comparable. Individual skill levels are, but not scores and how they were achieved.)

The scoring is identical I don't get your meaning here at all.

Its the difference between playing a cup game and playing the league.

ShivasIrons · 27-06-2014 03:03PM

Here's one for the putting is most important brigade. A tweet from Mark Broadie.

@MarkBroadie: Greg Chalmers says winners do a lot more than putt "I'm a great story for that. I led SG putting last year but finished 122 in FedExCup."

Loire · 27-06-2014 03:33PM

GreeBo wrote: »

Fringe Benefits: - A Guide To Lowering Your Scores By GreeBo

You didn't even try to market it!

How to lose golf balls and alienate golfers

mike12 · 27-06-2014 03:47PM

ssbob wrote: »

To sum up:

We need to take Mike's long game and Greebo's short game and hit the Open Championship qualifiers.

Think if we could play it as a scramble we would have a decent chance.

FixdePitchmark · 27-06-2014 09:01PM

Lads we prove nothing with one round. But for the laugh

Today I had 10 GIRs - on these holes I as 1 under
On the other 8 non GIR - I was 8 over
Putts - 33
Up and down - 1/6. (I'm only counting shots from inside 50 yards here) on others, shots were lost due to long game.

So for me I love being GIR (lol).

PARlance · 27-06-2014 09:12PM

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Lads we prove nothing with one round. But for the laugh

Today I had 10 GIRs - on these holes I as 1 under
On the other 8 non GIR - I was 8 over
Putts - 33
Up and down - 1/6. (I'm only counting shots from inside 50 yards here) on others, shots were lost due to long game.

So for me I love being GIR (lol).

Look at me... I'm GIR8 (great)

FixdePitchmark · 27-06-2014 09:14PM

PARlance wrote: »

Look at me... I'm GIR8 (great)

More like I'm Sh8te at up and downs.

:D

FixdePitchmark · 27-06-2014 09:17PM

So for me - GreeBo is right.

I could get to .5 on up and downs - I'd gain 2 shots.
I should be 2 putts lower.

So rest lost on long.

4 lost on short
3 lost on long.

FixdePitchmark · 27-06-2014 09:28PM

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

So for me - GreeBo is right.

I could get to .5 on up and downs - I'd gain 2 shots.
I should be 2 putts lower.

So rest lost on long.

4 lost on short
3 lost on long.

I'm getting confused - if I only lost shots - how come I came first in cat 1.

I'm taking up tennis - this game is too confusing.

Golf Stats Book: Every Shot Counts by Mark Broadie

Comments