Wednesday, September 1, 2010

How hard is it to WIN on the PGA Tour?

Just ask Martin Laird!  While he did not have a great round on Sunday of the Barclays, he did everything required to secure the win until the unfortunate 3-putt on the final hole.  How unfortunate?  Here is some perspective on the relative difficulty of "just 2-putt" from a mere 23 feet.

Distance control
A few years ago I conducted a study of some of the top players on the PGA Tour  (Tiger, Phil, VJ, +) to learn that on average they lag to approximately 7% of their starting distance.  This means that a 40 foot putt would be lagged on average to just inside 3 feet.  If Martin had performed to their level, his 23 foot putt would have finished inside 2 feet.  Not so!  Martin's lag effort, and we all know that it was intended to be a lag, flew 7' 1" past the hole - 30% of his starting distance - OPPPS!  No worries, he had made four putts of seven feet+ already, including a 7' 6" putt for birdie on the prior hole to carry the one shot lead into the 18th.  

I have written previously that I recommend a 10% lag rule for amateurs.   First, there is the obvious skill difference and second, the math is way easier.  What would Martin Laird give to have achieved this result of just outside 2 feet?

More on the 20 to 25 foot range
After 75 rounds this year, Martin is slightly better than the Tour average from this distance.  He averages 1.87 putts, so 1-putts with a greater frequency than he 3-putts.  The Tour avg. is 1.90.  By contract, the 18 handicap will 3-putt over four times as often as 1-putt to avg. 2.12 putts from this range - 3-Putting 17% of their opportunities.

The Tour average for 3-Putts from this range is 2.4% - just over 2 out of every 100 opportunities.  Martin Laird was slightly better than this average PRIOR to the Barclays but is now 2.9% or 3/101.

We have heard it said hundreds of times: "The hardest thing to do is just 2-putt" - How true it is! 

Thursday, August 26, 2010

Scholarship recipient makes good!

Meet Turner Southey-Gordon - A 17 year old, accomplished golfer from Ontario, Canada.

When the RCGA asked me to provide the tournament statistics for the Canadian Future Links, 17 and under Junior Championship this May, I jumped at the chance.  I knew it would be an ambitious, but worthwhile undertaking to capture the data, post-round for 99 top juniors.  After all, many of them would be playing in their most important event of their young lives.  I wrote about this in my June 2nd entry:  "Jr. Golf is Alive and Well in Canada." 

In order to help the participants become familiar with the program, we created an account for each player and gave them access a full month prior to the event.  Further, we encouraged them to use it as much as they wanted.  While I did not publish it, I decided to award the player that took the best advantage of the offer (entered the most rounds) with a lifetime scholarship to the program.

On site, and the day of the practice round, I made a brief presentation to the golfers and their parents on ShotByShot.com and what we expected them to record during their rounds or at least be thinking about in preparation for their post-round data entry.  At the end of my presentation, I asked if Mr. Southey-Gordon would please stop by to see me.  Up walked a shy young man obviously nervous as to why he had been singled out.  I informed Turner that the seven rounds that he had entered had won him the "scholarship" and he beamed with pride.  It proved particularly appropriate because Turner was not one of the 30+ players that were being provided the program through the RCGA or their local coach, at no cost.  For the next three days whenever I saw Turner I gave him a hearty greeting as "My Scholarship Player!" and he would give me a giant smile and blush.  Turner finished 18th out of the 72 boys in the event - not bad.

Fast forward to the recent Ontario Summer Games - Ontario's version of the Junior Championships - where I was fortunate to provide the tournament stats again.  Who should be in the field and greet me with his giant smile but my "Scholarship Player," Turner Southey-Gordon.  It was like seeing an old friend.

To make matters even better, Turner shot a terrific 68 in the first round and had a 4 shot lead.  I could not show my enthusiasm, nor could I go out on the course and watch the 2nd round - I had more than enough to keep me busy.  However, the OGA has set up a live leader board on a big screen TV not far from where we were set up for data entry.  It enabled me to keep an eye on his progress and pull for him in silence.

Not only did Turner record another 68 to win the event by seven shots, in his brief acceptance speech he thanked me and ShotByShot.com.  Congratulations Turner!  You are a very good player and a delightful young man.  I will be watching your progress both in the headlines and through ShotByShot.com.           

Thursday, August 5, 2010

Perspective on Appleby's 59 and Overton's 4-foot Miss

I was able to watch last weekend's PGA Tour event as it happened and was glued to Stuart Appleby's every move.  I have long found him to be a compelling, classy player and was rooting hard for both the 59 and the win.  Jeff Overton made it interesting but I felt showed his immaturity (and not-yet-ready-to-win attitude) with his mini-tantrum after missing the 4-foot birdie putt on the 17th hole.  Ian Baker-Finch was generous in agreeing that the ball hit something because I watched the replay a couple of times and saw no bump or change of direction.  It looked like a nervous "get this over with" pull.  We all know that stroke.  Jeff's "not my fault" reaction was way over the top and he clearly never recovered until his desperation putt on 18 - which was impressive.   More on the unfortunate 3-putt later.

The Old White Course
As I analyzed the performance data, I was reminded of a great friend's story:  While on a joint family vacation with another close friend, the two Dads snuck out for an early round while their families slept in.  They had a great match and both played exceptionally well, recording 68 and 69 respectively on a really tough golf course.  Back in the hotel, Dad #1 enthusiastically relayed the story of the two sub-par scores to his family.  His son, a young athlete and golfer, barely looked up from his TV show to say:  "It must be an easy course!"  

I do not want to detract from Appleby's great performance BUT the scoring and data could lead one to say: "It must be an easy course!"  Appleby blew away my 70% Rule with a combined average of 80%, but the field's 65% came closer than I have ever seen to the magic 70% Rule for Winners on the PGA Tour.  For more on this see my June 10th post - Last Time on 70% Rule.  The major difference was in the important GIR %.  Appleby hit 79% but the field was close behind at 77%.  This is considerably above the Tour Avg. of 65%.  The relative length of the golf course (only 7,020), and damp, windless conditions made the greens both accessible and receptive.  I hope that next year the weather and course conditions will better protect this great old design.

The 3-Putt    
Jeff Overton was on track to tie for the lead when he hit the par-5, 17th hole in two.  A 2-putt for 49' 4" was all he needed to go to the short par 3, 18th tied with Appleby.  His lag was appropriately described as "a difficult 2-putt" by David Feherty.  More than the length, it was down-hill, side-hill to the hole.  Jeff's lag was a good one to leave the ball 3' 8".  Why?  Because my study of Top-10 performers on the PGA Tour revealed that they tend to lag within 7%* of the original distance.  In this case anything inside 4 feet qualifies - well done on the first part Jeff.  Here's the problem, and why I don't accept that Jeff was blameless in the subsequent miss.  He had already missed a 3' 6" putt in the 3rd round.  Could that have been a nagging, negative memory as he stood over a putt that he needed to  have a chance for his first win on Tour?

Finally, the Tour average for holing 4 foot putts is 91%.  Jeff's YTD average is slightly better at 94% but, tragically for him, a dismal 60% for this event.  For perspective, the average 10 handicap makes 75% of their 4 footers.  

*On distance control expectations, I recommend that we amateurs think in terms of 10% lag distances for two reasons:  First, we are a long way from the Tour level and second, the math is considerably easier.

Thursday, July 15, 2010

Why Golf is a SeeSaw

I was recently asked by my friend Tony Ruggiero, host of the Dewsweepers Golf Talk Radio show, "What is the most important stat that good players have and the average 15 handicap doesn't?"  In one form or another, I get this question a lot.  My quick and irritating answer is:  "There isn't ONE key stat because golfers are like snowflakes and each finds his or her unique way to reach their number."  That said, when I look into my database (now 111,000 rounds), and review hundreds of golfers combined, the averages do produce clear trends. 

The secret to scoring at every level is much more than the ability to hit good golf shots but  also the skill to manage one's game and limit the frequency and severity of bad shots - ERRORS.  I discovered this major deficiency in golf statistics over 20 years ago when I started ShotByShot.  In addition to recording the good results, I developed a way for players to rationally categorize and record their inevitable bad results.  Once brought to light, players can focus their improvement efforts to work to limit the specific errors that are the most frequent and costly in their game. 

I recently researched my database to confirm the relationship between Good Shots or Results and Errors.  It came as no surprise that up and down the handicap scale there is a direct and predictable relationship between the UP and DOWN sides of the game.  I call it Golf's SeeSaw Effect  - you can see from the graph above why.

Here's what makes up the two sides of the SeeSaw:

Good Shots/Results:
  • Greens Hit in Regulation.
  • Chip/Pitch shots to within 5 feet.
  • Sand shots to within 8 feet.
  • 1-Putts from 4 to 10 feet.
Errors:
  • Tee shots hit out of play (requiring an advancement) or that result in a penalty.
  • Chip/Pitch shots that miss the green.
  • Sand shots that miss the green.
  • 3-Putts from 30 feet and closer. 
This is what the SeeSaw graph above is telling you:  The 0 Handicap golfer will create 18 positive results and incur only 1 error in his average "scratch" round (0 differential from Slope Adjusted Course Rating).

Good Shots/Results = 18
  • 12 GIR's
  •  2.5 Chip/Pitch Shots to 5 feet.
  •    .5 Sand Shots to 8 feet.
  •  3 1-Putts from 4 to 10 feet.
    Errors = 1
    •  .4 Tee shots hit out of play
    •  .2 Chip/Pitch Shots miss green*
    •  .1 Sand Shots miss green
    •  .3 3-Putts from 30 feet or closer
    *How can a golfer miss the green with .2 Chip/Pitch shots?  Easy, the 0 handicap golfer averages 5 Chip/Pitch shots per round and will make an error (miss the green) once every 5 rounds.

    Check your UP's and DOWN'S over the next few rounds to see where you are on the SeeSaw and WHY.

    Thursday, July 8, 2010

    Canadian National Junior Championships - Analysis Results

    In mid-June I was engaged by the RCGA to provide statistical analysis for their Future Links National Junior Championship.  The field was comprised of the best 99 players in Canada in the ages from 14 to 18 (66 boys and 33 girls).  I had the pleasure of working very closely with Doug Roxburgh, Director, High Performance for Golf Canada and Henry Brunton, RCGA Men's National Team Coach.

    After the players signed their scorecards each day, Doug and I helped them with the entry of their ShotByShot.com data.  Meanwhile, Henry tested each player's vitals on Trackman.  These  efforts produced an unusual combination of technical and performance data.

    After the event, I created a new, Player Ranking report that revealed in ShotByShot.com proprietary terms where players in the field ranked in each important skill, and why.  Finally, with some collaboration from Doug Roxburgh and me, Henry compiled an excellent Summary of our findings and included the ShotByShot.com Top-20 ranked players in each facet.  For a copy of this complete report, please contact me directly (psanders@shotbyshot.com).

    Conclusion
    From my point of view, it was very gratifying to see that in every part of the game the levels of play were clearly delineated by the important balance of good shots/results and ERRORS.  I realize that I harp on this point, and how "traditional" stats ignore errors, but our analysis of this event dramatically demonstrated my point.  As we progressed up the scoring ranks, invariably the see-saw effect revealed fewer good results and a greater number of errors.  These results were clear in every facet and vividly illustrated in the Short Game results displayed below.  Bear in mind that this is an elite field of the best 66 boys in Canada.  Finally, we determined that the short game played a relatively greater role in the scoring differences than any other facet.

    The six points on the graphs represent:
    1.  Winner - Richard Jung
    2.  Nat. Team - The 7 National Team members
    3. - 6.  The 4 scoring quartiles - 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Q

     

    Thursday, June 10, 2010

    Last time with the 70% Rule - Promise!


    At the risk of beating this to death, allow me to crow momentarily over the success of my 70% Rule - a simple formula for what it takes to win on the PGA Tour (originally explained here). Since the beginning of tournament golf and "stats" the experts have been searching for basic summary answers for how to describe performance that matters the most - that which wins tournaments. The old standards have been displayed and discussed FOREVER:  Fairways Hit, GIR's and Putts/GIR.  While their shortcomings are many, GIR's totally trumps Fairways Hit, and Putts/GIR leaves out all the holes where there was no GIR - consider only the Winners and this ignores a third of the holes played.  No wonder they did not work.

    Over the past two months I have demonstrated that my 70% Rule, when applied to the three summary stats above, clearly works.  It is not perfect because nothing simple, or summary in nature,  could ever accurately describe the complex, multi-dimensional game of golf.  That said, it is the best I have seen.  For the last time, here it is:

    The 70% Rule
    The overall average of the stats listed in the graphic above should be 70%.  I give each of the three equal weight despite the fact that they do not represent equally weighted parts of the game.  To the extent that one falls below the 70% mark, the other two need to exceed the 70% mark by enough to offset the deficit.

    At the same time, ERRORS must be kept to three or less in a four round event.  The Errors tend to be mistakes that result in a stroke lost:

    Long Game Errors:  Balls hit out of play (requiring unusual advancements to return to play), or  any penalty situation.

    Short Game Errors:  Shots that miss the green AND where the total strokes needed to hole out from the original short game shot exceed three.  The "exceed 3" is a slight modification from my earlier definition.  Why? Because further study revealed that to penalize a player for simply missing the green, if they ultimately get down in three strokes is double jeopardy - the Scrambling stat already covers it by capturing it as a failed save.  An error needs to be a shot that results in a stroke lost NOT the failure to save.

    Putting Errors
    3 Putts or worse from 40 feet and closer. 

    Unfortunately, the PGA Tour does not provide us with the ability to gauge the errors mentioned - or any errors, for that matter.  I believe that at some point they will recognize the importance of the downside of the game as every other sport has.  Imagine the analysis of baseball without  Fielding Errors and Strike Outs or football without Fumbles and Interceptions.  Mistakes have long been recognized as the difference in the outcome of the game as are the errors in golf.  For more on the importance of avoiding Errors in your game, see my article in the July 2010 issue of Golf Digest (p. 101) REDUCE ERRORS.  The article allows readers to measure the impact of their mistakes on their handicaps.

    On that note, both Justin Rose and Tiger had two errors - both in the long game.  

    Wednesday, June 2, 2010

    Junior Golf is Alive and Well in Canada!

    With my sincere apologies to Mike Bender, I regret that I saw nothing of Zach Johnson's victory at Colonial last weekend and even worse, did not collect his rounds for analysis and to add to my Winner's Profile - Sorry Mike!  I was not simply goofing off, I was north of the border at the Canadian National Junior Championships  - and not just a spectator.  My good friends at the RCGA paid me the great compliment of asking me to provide the performance statistic for the field of 99 players.  33 girls and 66 boys, between the ages of 14 and 18 - the best juniors from all over Canada.

    The project was an extremely ambitious one and the idea of Doug Roxburgh, the Director of High Performance for the RCGA.  Incidently, who better to put in charge of fostering high performance than a proven, world class high performer.  Doug won't talk about it but I googled him to learn that he has only captured 4 Canadian Amateur, and 13 BC Amateur titles - and I was bragging about my member-guest...opps!

    Doug's goal is to use the data collected for the field to set a benchmark for exactly where the best players are currently and let the analysis guide the RCGA's improvement initiatives over time.  While Doug and I were coaching players through the data entry process, Henry Brunton (Men's National Team Coach) was testing each player's club and ball speed, spin rates and attack and launch angles on TrackMan.  The combination of the on-course performance data and the sophisticated TrackMan data should set a new standard in performance analysis and I hope to team with Doug and Henry to publish our findings fairly soon - stay tuned.

    It was an intense but exhilarating four days!  The players were polite and enthusiastic and seemed to really enjoy ShotByShot.  It warmed my heart to hear their good-natured banter:  "Dude, what is your Putting handicap?  Mine is a...."  The experience made the part of my heart that is "Canadian" grow 4 sizes larger.
     

    Tuesday, May 25, 2010

    Good Show, Young Mr. Spieth!


    As I was enjoying the Sunday coverage of the Byron Nelson Championship, my bride came in to join me and the first words out of her mouth were: "My lord, that player looks like he is about 16 years old!"  And thank goodness that Jordan Spieth was able to avoid the truant office and participate, as he was the life and excitement of an otherwise bland event. 

    I suppose one could consider the final few holes interesting.  I found them painful.  Jason Day not only tried to lose on the 18th hole but worse tried to spoil my 70% Rule for Winners on the PGA Tour (read more here). His crime was less about the sub-70% levels of his "Key Winner's Stats,"  and much more about the unbelievable number of ERRORS (7) that he committed and survived.  This anomaly  is likely attributable to the strength, or lack thereof, of the field.  Accordingly, I will say no more about the errors.

    Instead, I was very impressed by the game and the obvious poise and self confidence of young Jordan Spieth.  He handled the glaring spotlight and the pressure like a winner.  I was so impressed that I decided to capture his ShotByShot data from ShotLink and run his analysis against our Winner's profile as well as that of Jason Day.  As you can see from the Key stats above, Jordan was very close.  Here's where the data tells me he needs work in order to attain his first win:

    1.  Putting - His distance control was excellent, but Jordan can improve his % 1-Putts in the 4 to 10 foot range.  (Tour Winners - 69% vs. Jordan - 57%.)
    2.  Short Game: Chip/Pitch Shots - Unbelievable for a 16 year old under that kind of pressure, but the Tour Winners make almost no mistakes and hit the ball even closer.  (Average Putting Distances:  Tour Winners - 5.8 ft. vs. Jordan - 7.5 ft.)  Incidentally, a sure way to improve short putting is to hit it closer on average.

    Finally Jordan, keep up the great play, but don't forget to enjoy the rest of high school and especially college.  The PGA Tour will be waiting and I will look forward to recording your stats as one of its very popular winners.
     

    Wednesday, May 19, 2010

    Just how valuable are "Fairways Hit?"

    I have often written about how I believe that the age-old, stat "Fairways Hit" is the worst of all of the traditional barometers.  Recently, I recommended instead that players focus more on avoiding ERRORS off the tee.  At the risk of seeming to contradict myself, I feel the need to set the record straight.  My disdain is directed more at the one-dimensional nature of this stat than at the relative importance of having an opportunity to hit a green from the fairway.  More specifically, this stat basically asks for a T/F answer to a multiple-choice question, ignoring the important differences between the relative severity of the "Misses".  It is this myopic view that renders this out-dated test of driving accuracy and effectiveness of limited value.
    Every serious golfer recognizes the importance of hitting Greens in Regulation (GIR's).  This is one of the "old stats" that really does matter!  It reflects two positives:  First, the effectiveness of the player's long game; and second, a birdie opportunity.  On the flip side, each missed green speaks poorly of the long game efforts and more often than not results in a bogey or worse.  The players on the PGA Tour average 11.7 GIR's each round (or they would not be there) and I recently calculated that the difference between hitting and missing the GIR, at that level, was worth approximately .8 strokes.

    With that in mind, I decided to research the relative importance of the result of the drive and its affect on the golfer's chances of attaining that desirable GIR.  I dug into my database (now 103,000+ rounds) to see exactly how important the "Fairway" has been.  I looked across a wide range of handicap levels at Driving holes (par 4 & 5 holes) where the result was a GIR.  I learned two somewhat surprising facts:

         1.  The percentage breakdowns were markedly consistent across all of the handicap ranges - so close that there was no need to display an array of handicaps.
         2.  The "Fairway" was much more important than I had assumed - over three times as important as even a "Good lie/position" in the rough (see the graph above).

    Your first question will no doubt echo mine:  "How could a player with "No shot" (a position so poor that it requires an advancement to return to normal play) hit the GIR?  It took some thought but the answer:  Easy - errant drive on a par 5 into a No shot position, effective advancement shot to return the ball to play, followed by a miraculous recovery shot that hits the green.

    Check how your fairways match up to your GIR's over the next several rounds.  I know that this study will make me a bit more focused on keeping it in the short grass.

    Wednesday, May 5, 2010

    Dr. Jekyll and Mr. McIlroy

     
    With apologies to Robert Louis... and Charles... the Quail Hollow Championship really was the Tale of Two golfers.  I was rooting for my new favorite golfer (Phil) but could not avoid getting caught up in Rory's great charge.  His -10 course record on Sunday was magical and fun to watch.  I naturally thought it would be interesting to see exactly what he did differently in the last two rounds to account for the 16 stroke difference from the first two. 

    First, let's look at his all-important ERRORS:
                             1-2          3-4
    Driving:             3             0
    Short Game:      3             0
    Putting:              3             1 (Began the 3rd round with a 3-putt from 27 feet)
    Total:                 9             1
    Two points:
    1.  The difference of 8 Errors, could be viewed as half of the 16 stroke margin.
    2.  Rory McIlroy will be the first Winner I have seen to overcome 10 Errors.

    Now, the good things:

    Long Game Efficiency Index*:  Rounds 1-2 = 2.78  vs.  3-4 = 1.96.  While not a full 4 rounds, the latter is the first I have seen that betters my hypothetical "Perfect" round of 2.00.   Perfect would be 36 long strokes and all 18 greens hit in regulation (36/18 = 2.00).  Rory needed only 30.5 long strokes to achieve 15.5 GIR's.  How?  He took full advantage of the two reachable par 4's and four par 5's. - 12 opportunities!  Rory was on, or close (50 yards), to 11 of these 12 reachable greens - shaving 11 long game strokes or 5.5 per round.  Bottom line, I calculate that he saved 9 of the 16 stroke difference with his long game accuracy and efficiency.

    *This is our patent pending method of measuring the overall efficiency of a player's long game. For a better explanation, log onto http://www.shotbyshot.com/. 

    Putting
    For those of us that watched, it will come as no surprise that the vast majority of the other seven strokes were the result of a hot putter.  With only the one 3-putt, Rory made all the short ones that he should AND holed six putts from outside 20 feet, capped off by the 43 foot birdie on the final hole.

    Wednesday, April 28, 2010

    Tour Winners - 70% Rule

    I have been noticing this for some time and finally decided it worth mentioning.  As you know, I have been tracking the Winner's on the PGA Tour for quite some time and developed what I believe to be a credible profile.  Three key barometers stand out as displayed in the graph above.  They are all related and inter-twined but emerge week after week.  Simply stated, the winner generally displays a pure mathematical average of 70% across these three indicators.  To the extent that one falls short, the others tend to exceed the 70% mark by enough to bring the overall average to at least 70%.

    I am not even talking about the weighted average - just the pure average as if each of these barometers carried exactly the same weight.  It works because they are so closely related.  If the GIR% were to fall below 70%, the Short game and Short putts (4-10 feet) automatically increase in number and importance.  Obviously, the inverse is also true.  As the number of GIR's goes up so does the number and importance of Short game shots and Short putts decrease.  It is a See-Saw of sorts with Greens (the long game) on one side and everything else on the other.

    There is also the unseen, ugly under-belly - ERRORS.  Winners make them BUT very, very few.  As my readers know, I view an error to be:
        Tee shot (Drive) -  Hit out of play or into a penalty situation.  Generally no more than 1 in 4 rounds and the vast majority are of the "No Shot" variety.
       Short Game - A shot that misses the green.  Again, no more than 1 in 4 rounds and in the vast majority of these, Winners recover and get down in 3 total shots.
       Putting - A 3-putt or worse from 40 feet and in - no more than 1 per event.

    As the graph above shows, Jason Bohn did everything well and with only one Error.  Jason missed the green with a Chip/Pitch but did get down in 3.  His putting was not just exceptional in the 4-10 foot range, his luck extended out to the 16-20 footer where he made 3 of 7 (43%), almost twice our Winners (26%).  He carded a 3-putt but from 70 feet - no mistake there.

    Finally for perspective, the average 10 handicap would be playing by a 40% Rule.  More importantly, he would be desparately trying to keep the Error rate to 10% or less.  Put another way, to play to his 10 handicap, usually a Winner, he would not only have to equal the 40% mark on the positive stats  (above) while limiting his errors to 3 or less per round.  See if you can do it and, oh by the way, consider the Putting Error to be a 3-Putt or worse from 30 feet and in.

    Friday, April 23, 2010

    More Color on the Harbor Town Rules Infraction

    Thank goodness the infraction that Brian Davis called on himself in the playoff did not apparently change the outcome.  I was surprised that he noticed the "ticked" straw in the heat of the playoff - it was barely perceptible in close-up, slow motion, in HD (What's better than golf in HD?) My guess is that the players are conditioned to the reality that possible infractions will ALWAYS be caught and REPORTED by zealous, arm chair officials.  Anyway, good for Brian because he did not even pause to think about it - he called it immediately.  I believe he will gain some fans and hopefully win soon.  He certainly has the game.

    Did you understand the rule?  
    Rule 13-3.  Ball in Hazard:  Prohibited Actions
       a.  Test the condition...
       b.  Touch the ground in the hazard... 
       c.  Touch or move a loose impediment lying in or touching the hazard.
    If the straw had been alive (growing), touching it in the take-away or downswing is allowed.

    Speaking of Arm Chair Officials
    It does help to know the rules.  Years ago, I signed up for a USGA Rules Seminar.  I was competing at more than just the club level (state and local Amateur) and thought it prudent to have a solid foundation.  I was even considering serving as a local rules official.

    As a preface to the seminar, I received a copy of the most recent USGA Rules of Golf and a rather substantial rules test.  The test was to be taken "open book" and brought to the seminar to be graded and discussed.  Open Book!?!  Who would miss even a single question, I thought...  and I saved the test to serve as my in-flight entertainment during a five hour return from a west coast business trip (I had a real job in those days).  After a couple of hours on the first 2 questions, it dawned on me why the "Open..." AND that I would never finish in only 5 hours.  I decided a better approach was to relax, close the book, order a drink and rely on my common sense - GUESS - thankfully, it was multiple choice.

    The seminar was enlightening, in that I quickly became aware that I was totally out of my league.  It seemed that my fellow participants were all retired lawyers and accountants that lived for the opportunity to debate these rules challenges.  Suffice it to say, I did not pursue the rules official gig; but, I did not give up on my goal of expanding my knowledge of the rules.  Further, I am proud to say that I am one of the guys to whom rulings on the course are referred.  First, I do have a good general knowledge and  second, I am there quite a bit - conducting "field tests."  Here is how I learned the rules.   

    Whenever I am confronted by a rule or rules situation where I am in doubt,  I jot it down on my scorecard and look it up when I get home.  The USGA website is an excellent resource and has made the rules quite easy to search.  When appropriate, I will email the results of my search to my playing companions (geek!!!) but, they usually appreciate knowing the right answer.

    Recommendations
    I do not recommend carrying a rules book in your bag.  If you don't know the rule, chances are you won't find it when under the gun.  Here are two typical types of events:
    USGA Amateur competitions - There are always retired lawyers (officials) to interpret the rules for you and they love their job.  
    Club competitions - Try to work it out within your group or ask a nearby group.  If you can't reach an agreement, play 2 balls and have the pro settle it after the match.

    Wednesday, April 21, 2010

    Harbour Town - A Great Short Golf Course!

    Jim Nantz and Nick Faldo mentioned several times how, at only 6,973 yards, Harbour Town Golf Links is short by today's standards. It would be all but extinct if it were not  for its exceptionally narrow, pine tree-lined fairways and tiny, well protected greens. It has been 15 years since I played it and I believe I recognized many of the featured trees - but they are taller, more robust and even more in play.  It is one of the few top golf courses that I have played in which hitting the fairway in no way guaranties an unimpeded shot at the green. 

    If there were a course designed for Jim Furyk, this is it.  Furyk is a consistently straight  - not long - driver, an accurate iron player, has a great short game and is a competitive - if not streaky - putter.  Jim was all of that this week, but on the good side of the putting streak - a bounce back of sorts from Augusta.  He averaged only 11 GIR's, well below the ShotByShot Winner's Profile of 13+, but this is due to the extremely small targets.  How small?  Jim's average putting distance when on the GIR was 17 feet.  This is 3 feet less than our Winner's Profile, and a significant difference cumulatively over his total 44 GIR's.

    Jim secured his victory on and around the greens.  Around them, he averaged 4.6 feet from the hole with 32 Chip/Pitch shots.  I was surprised to note that this is not as close on average as our Winner Profile, but this was due to a couple of difficult shots that could not be hit close.  What is important is that he had 32 chances (almost twice the average for a Winner @ 17 shots) and Saved 27 (84% vs. 71% for other Winners).

    Another skill that Jim Furyk showed was his distance control on the greens.  A few years  ago I did a putting distance control study for which I collected the following data from ShotLink on theTop 5 PGA Tour players for all putts starting at 15 feet or greater:

    Average Lag Distance:  Total feet of all finishing distances divided by # of attempts.
    Average Lag %:   Total of finish distances divided by total of all start distances.
    % Distance Errors:  Lag putts that did not finish with 10% of the start distance or 3 feet.  

                                      2006 Top-5    Jim Furyk, Harbour Town
    Avg. Lag Distance:      2.3 feet                  1.4 feet
    Average Lag %:             7%                        6.6%  (smaller greens = shorter start distances)
    % Distance Errors:         9%                        3%

    I recommend that amateurs strive to lag putts within a 10% zone (50 feet to 5, etc.) mainly because the math is considerably easier.  The last thing we need when faced with a difficult lag opportunity is to be distracted by an even more difficult math problem.  You might try recording your finish distances for a few rounds to see how you match up.

    Monday, April 12, 2010

    Congratulations to Phil - and Me!

    Why did I pick Phil to win the Masters?
    For the past couple of years I have been the auctioneer of an annual Masters Auction run by a group of friends. I always do some research so that I can toss out niblicks of wisdom on key golfers as they come on the "block" to add some spice to the bidding. This year my research confirmed what I have always believed - that the Masters is by far the toughest of the majors to win. What I mean is that before the first tee shot flies, the list of potential winners is already relatively small.

    Why? Because in the past 20 years only one player has won that did not already have at least one victory on the PGA Tour or had already won a major. That player was Ian Woosnam in 1991. Woosie had no US wins but a strong winning record on the European Tour. By contrast, the British Open was won in 2003 by Ben Curtis with only 1 Top 25 finish to his name and in 2004 by Todd Hamilton, with no other wins before or after.

    Next, I noticed that 10 of the last 20 Masters have been won by a prior winner or by Tiger (4 wins) or Phil (2). So the odds are 50/50 that the winner will already own a green jacket - a very exclusive club. If I narrowed my pick to prior winners but ruled Tiger out, the winner was fairly evident. Phil is by far the best of those that are still active and have the game that could win.

    It was a fun Masters to watch, but then they all are. I forgot to mention that just before the auction started I took a share of the host's action and strongly urged him to buy Phil. Since he took my advice, I will have a nice dinner on Phil, my bit of research and some good luck!

    Tuesday, April 6, 2010

    So Much for Hitting Fairways!

    I enjoyed watching Anthony Kim win in a playoff this weekend at the Shell Houston Open. Ironically, he won the playoff hole by hitting both the fairway and the green in regulation and a 2-putt par. The irony being the "fairway" because AK hit fewer fairways, by far, than I have seen from other winners on the PGA Tour - only 41% - or just over 5 of 14 fairways each round. What makes this stat even more remarkable is that Anthony started the event by hitting his first 7 fairways. After that, no so much!

    AK's win dramatizes the uselessness of this ancient stat - and when will Johnny Miller get with the program because he continues to refer to it along with the other outdated measures of performance. That said, Johnny has become a fan of the Tour's newish Total Feet of Putts Made stat. While this stat is way better than the hated (mostly by me) Putts/GIR stat, Total Feet still lacks the important perspective of starting distances. It also does not account for 3-putts, or worse. I can't wait for the Tour to implement the "new" MIT approach (go to "Just a Minute MIT..." for an explanation) to see if/how the announcers explain it.

    But back to Anthony Kim. Despite his apparent lack of driving accuracy, he still managed to hit over 12 Greens-in-regulation each round. So while he missed fairways, he did not miss so badly that he could not recover. In fact, he made only four Errors off the tee - two Penalties and two "No Shot" situations. (No Shot = a ball driven into a position from which one cannot proceed normally toward their next goal, requiring some sort of advancement shot to put the ball back in play.) This is still uncharacteristic as our PGA Tour Winner's Profile only records a mistake off the tee once in every two rounds, with the vast majority being the No Shot type. A Penalty off the tee creeps into our Winner's game only once every 14 rounds. For perspective, the average 10 handicap golfer drives the ball into trouble more than three times EACH round: No Shot = 2.8 per round; Penalty = .5 per round.

    I submit that AK was able to survive these Errors because EVERYONE was making them. The Redstone, Tournament course has more water than my basement (Northeast joke). Taylor Vaughn tied for the lead with an identical number of tee shot errors (2 Penalties, 2 No Shots) and Phil Mickelson made light of the number of tee shots he dunked. I would like to see the averages for the field but the Tour has no such stat - yet.

    On the other hand, it must be noted that the rough was cut unusually low, in part to emulate the playing conditions of next week's Masters. This helps account for how AK could hit so many greens from the rough.

    Speaking of the Masters, Phil Mickelson is my pick to win. Not a great stretch as he has proved he can do it more than once. Why this year? I was very impressed with his attitude and sense of humor in his post event interview. He seems more relaxed and comfortable than I have seen in the past.

    Monday, March 29, 2010

    What's with all the HOLE OUTS at Bay Hill?

    As I turned on the The Arnold Palmer Golf Invitational on Sunday, the network ran an interesting highlight of shots holed out from off the greens by various players, including two for back-to-back eagles on the same par 5. It was further noted that there had been an unusually high number of such hole outs by the field - 46 to that point.

    As I was doing some "homework" anyway, I jotted down the number. which did seem high. And the fireworks continued: Davis Love III holed out his fifth shot of the week, Sam Saunders chipped in on #17, and Ernie Els holed a wedge from 53 yards for birdie on the 10th. What on earth was going on? Had Arnie made the hole larger?

    With the final count at 49 shots holed out from off the green, I decided to see if I could gauge exactly how fantastic it was. Using ShotLink, I discovered that the holes at Bay Hill are no larger than those at every other course, nor were the players in this field more talented or more lucky than should be expected. Ever-reliable ShotLink reported that the average PGA Tour player will hole out approximately once in every eight rounds. When I divided the rounds completed by the Bay Hill field by eight, I got 48 (actually the exact number reported by ShotLink for Bay Hill).

    Well, I learned something. I hope you did as well. Why the fuss by the commentators? I can only surmise that a producer noticed Davis Love's robust number and ambitiously compiled the highlight package.

    A few more points of interest:

    1. ShotLink's definition of "Hole Outs" = shots holed out when the player is not on the green or fringe.

    2. Steve Stricker leads the Tour in Hole Outs thus far in 2010 with 9 in only 25 rounds. That is one in every 2.7 rounds or almost 2 per event. No wonder his name keeps coming up?

    3. The 0 to 2 Handicap golfer in my database will hole out 1 in every 9 rounds. 77% of these will occur in the Chip/Pitch area, 16% full shots (51+ yards) and 7% Greenside Sand.

    Thursday, March 25, 2010

    Furyk's Short Game Tames Copperhead

    Certainly not the most difficult golf course played on the PGA Tour, the Copperhead at Innisbrook is at least in the top third. I have had the pleasure, but not quite from 7,340. I found it difficult overall and the greenside complexes and short game shots interesting, to say the least. Mr. Furyk may have benefited slightly from the soaking that the course took during the event but I am still impressed with his short game performance which, by my analysis, was the difference between winning and NOT.

    I compared every facet of Jim Furyk's game to my PGA Winner's Profile and he was comparable across the board but four strokes better around the greens. No, it was not better putting. He simply hit the ball consistently closer to the hole. With 18 Chip/Pitch and 5 Sand shots, here are Jim's average putting distances and % saved vs. my 2009 Winners Profile:
    • Chip/Pitch Shots - Avg. putting distance 4.6 feet vs. Winners @ 5.6 feet. That is a very important foot! Furyk saved: 15 (83%) vs. Winners: 71% (call it 13).
    • Sand Shots - Avg. putting distance 5.2 feet vs. Winners 9.6 feet. Jim saved 4 (80%) vs. Winners: 56% (call it 3).
    That is where I came up with the 4 shot difference. For perspective, here is how the average 15 - 19 handicap golfer would have fared, and forget about the relative difficulty of the course or the pressure of an event:

    Chip/Pitch Shots:
    • Avg. putting distance: 14 feet
    • % Saved: 25%
    • % Errors: 19%
    Sand Shots:
    • Avg. putting distance: 14 feet
    • % Saved: 13%
    • % Errors: 33%

    Tuesday, March 16, 2010

    It is in the Dirt or Sand for Charl Schwartzel


    It was nice to see Ernie Els prevail on the Blue Monster and the final round was exciting until the two shot swing on the 17th hole. Ernie made a five foot putt for birdie while Charl missed a four foot, par putt. Game, set, ... as Ernie went to the very difficult 18th with a four shot lead.

    Based upon what I saw down the stretch, I would have laid the blame for Schwartzel's demise on, no not his name, his putting. He came so close and seemed to play so well that I decided to compare the two players on ShotByShot.com. It turns out that the real culprit was Charl's poor sand play.

    Most importantly, Charl made two ERRORS from the sand that resulted in a double and a bogey. Both were bladed over the green - three shots lost right there. Further, three of the remaining 8 attempts did not breach the 8 foot circle: (29, 13 and 13 feet from the hole respectively). Charl holed one of the 13 foot putts but missed the other two. That raises the total lost from the sand to five strokes.

    Finally, it is interesting to note that the Winner's on the PGA Tour do make ERRORS from the sand. Surprisingly, this elite group missed the green in 2009 with 9% of their sand shots. I know it makes me feel better...

    Saturday, March 13, 2010

    Just a minute MIT - your Putting Stat is not so new!

    On March 12th, the Wall Street Journal published an article trumpeting the creation of a "New Way to Measure Putting." It stated that "Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, working with the PGA Tour, have come up with a way to solve one of golf's biggest conundrums: how to determine who are the truly great putters in the game."

    The author, John Paul Newport, appropriately pointed out the major flaws in the Tour's current way of measuring putting performance. He did his homework. As readers of my work know only too well, I refer to these flaws on almost a weekly basis. As I read Mr. Newport's words, I beamed. It was almost as if he has been a follower...

    He went on to describe MIT's "discovery," which turns out to be exactly what I discovered almost 20 years ago. My discovery has been the foundation of Shot By Shot analysis and is the precise method of putting analysis contained in ShotByShot.com. In brief, MIT and the PGA Tour have used the extensive ShotLink data to create a "...baseline performance model for putts of every distance up to 100 feet." I did it up to 99 feet, thus keeping the data entry for my subscribers to two digits. "The team calls this baseline "putts to go." I called it "Mr. Scratch" because it represented the precise number of putts taken by the theoretical par shooter from each distance.

    Mr. Newport went on to detail a few value points on the model. Well done, MIT - they are consistent with my Mr. Scratch. From 10 feet they got 1.63 putts-to-go, and my Mr. Scratch is 1.7. At around 30 feet, the putts-to-go average starts to exceed two. Mr. Scratch goes over 2.0 at 27 feet. From 40 feet they are at 2.15 while Mr. Scratch is at 2.12. Well, you get the point... their model and ours is virtually the same.

    Let me be clear, I am in no way suggesting that the smart researchers at MIT or the PGA Tour stole my invention. Rather, I believe that they dedicated themselves to studying the problem, as I did, and merely arrived at the same brilliant conclusion. And how smart does it make me look to have done it on my own with very limited resources, using ShotByShot subscriber data, AND I did it almost 20 years ago. I am extremely gratified to have MIT and the Tour's ratification of my hard work - this has to be good for my business!

    Further, I know Steve Evans, the brains at the PGA Tour behind ShotLink. I made a presentation to him and others in 1995 in which I proposed using this very approach to analyze the new ShotLink (Shot By Shot) data. Bear in mind that I had been using it successfully for 14 years at the time. For somewhat obvious reasons, I did not go into the specifics of my model and as ShotLink was just being launched they were not yet ready to embrace my vision. Believe me, I intend to reconnect with Mr. Evans shortly. If you see this post Steve, please call me!

    Bottom line, this "new" way of measuring putting performance is good for my business and good for golf. I have been leading a lonely crusade to drag golf analysis out of the Dark Ages for almost 20 years. I welcome this latest development as the PGA Tour and MIT cavalry charging to aid my cause.

    Tuesday, March 9, 2010

    So much for 3 footers

    In my last post, I suggested that the short (2'11") missed putt that kept Camilo Villegas out of the finals of the Accenture match play event might haunt him. After Saturday's round of the Honda Golf Classic, I almost posted: "Beware of the 3 footers on Sunday!" I thought better of it because it seemed negative, and I really like Villegas.

    I cringed on Sunday when Camilo missed a short one for par on the 12th hole and ShotLink reported that it was 2' 11". OH NO! Did I jinx him? In fact, it was his second short miss of the event. In Round Two, Camilo missed a putt of 3' 1" on the 16th hole. As discussed in my last post, this is not part of the characteristic performance of a PGA Tour event winner.

    How then did Camilo overcome these short missed putts to win by 5 strokes? Let me count the ways:
    a. No Tiger breathing down...
    b. The rest of his game and his putting was extremely solid. In fact, in spite of the short misses, his overall putting compared favorably to our Winner's profile.

    Driving - On a relatively difficult golf course with ample opportunities for penalties, Camilo had no errors off the tee. And Villegas is long!
    GIR's - He averaged 13.2 per round, comparable to the 13.6 of our Winner's profile.
    Short Game - Camilo's average putting distance following his Chip/Pitch shots was 4" 9", almost a foot closer than our Winner's at 5' 7" and he successfully saved 69%.

    How much more will Villegas win if he masters those pesky 3 footers?


    Sunday, February 21, 2010

    2' Feet 11" will Haunt Villegas

    I am really enjoying watching the PGA Tour players compete in the WGC Accenture Match Play event. It is the format that the majority of us enjoy and we can empathize and think along with the big boys. There is no question in my mind that they play differently. The normal, stroke play events require a much higher degree of control and game management because even if not a winner, every stroke is worth a great deal of money. I also believe that the change in format puts a different type of pressure on the world's best players and cite as an example the short putt missed by Camillo Villegas on the 23rd hole of his match against Paul Casey. Let's call it 3 feet that would have ended the match and placed Camillo in the finals. Instead, the hole was halved, and he went on to lose the match. We have all done it - I know I have.

    Perspective on Villegas, his Putting and 3 Footers

    His World Ranking: 24
    In 2009, Villegas won $1.8 million in 21 events. His best finish was 3rd, with four Top-10 finishes, ten Top-25's and only two missed cuts. Very consistent! If we are to put any stock in the Tour stats, he managed all this despite being a below average putter.
    • His Putting Average (Putts/GIR's) - 2009 Rank 116. Everyone who reads Niblicks of Truth knows I hate this old stand-by tour stat, and why. Please just trust me - ignore it.
    • Total Putting - 2009 Rank 191: While not up to ShotByShot.com's putting analysis standards, this stat is so much better than putts/GIR. It is a weighted average of the player's rank in each of six new ShotLink putting stats. I won't bore you with the details but it is an array of putting ranges from 3 to 25 feet, and 3 Putt Avoidance from 25 feet. It may not be perfect, but Camillo's 191 Tour ranking is definitely not good.
    3 Footers
    One of the Tour stats with which I cannot argue is "Putts from 3 Feet." In 2009, Camillo missed only 7 in 88 rounds. He was successful with 637 of his 644 attempts - 98.9% This seems fairly good but it ranked him #146. Evidently the average of the PGA Tour would have only missed 6 - 99.19%. Further digging revealed that 3 players were perfect from 3 feet last year:
    1. Steve Stricker: 662 of 662 in 81 rounds
    2. Bob Heintz: 557 of 557 in 59 rounds
    3. Ian Poulter: 442 of 442 in 59 rounds (no wonder he is in the finals of the match play)
    How about the rest of us from 3 feet? The percentages below represent 3 feet and closer so not exactly the same as the Tour numbers above. I will run the specific 3 foot # soon, but for now you will get the point:
    • 10 handicap - 94%
    • 18 handicap - 90%
    Consider that we amateurs face at least ten putts in the 3-foot range each time we play. They are worth practicing - just ask Camillo Villegas!

    Tuesday, February 16, 2010

    How Refreshing - A Real Par 5!

    The AT & T Pebble Beach Pro-Am is played on three different courses and ShotLink is only set up on one - Pebble Beach. As a result, Shot By Shot's analysis can only be done on two of the four rounds of this tournament, which makes an in-depth analysis of what won and what didn't impossible. Nevertheless, it was still a very entertaining event on a magnificent golf course.

    It was nice to see an exciting finish and I was stunned by the car wrecks on the par-5, 14th hole, especially by the two final groups. First, a quadruple bogey (+4) is somewhat rare on the PGA Tour and generally follows a major mistake off the tee requiring a re-tee. In this case we saw two contenders for the lead play hockey around the 14th green for back-to-back 9's. Bryce Molder and then Paul Goydos did their best impressions of choppers. It was both hard to watch and interesting to see how well they handled their demise.

    They were not alone as the hole ranked the 5th most difficult of the 54 holes played with an average score of 5.187. Not that anyone really cares about the hole rankings or how they are ranked, but I believe this hole was clearly the most difficult and should have been ranked #1. Instead of ranking based upon the greatest margin over par, the holes should be ranked based upon the greatest margin from the Tour's average scoring on holes of like par. Below are the scoring averages for the entire 2009 PGA Tour season:
    Par 3's = 3.08
    Par 4's = 4.06
    Par 5's = 4.68

    The event score for the 14th hole was a full half stroke higher than the 2009 Tour scoring average on par 5's. According to this week's ranking, the most difficult hole at Pebble was the par 4, 9th with a scoring average of 4.253. OK, it was .25 strokes over par and that is difficult but it was only .19 strokes over the average scores that can be expected on par 4 holes at this level. See my point?

    It is obvious that with today's length, the par 5 holes represent the real scoring opportunities on the PGA Tour. If players can't hit the greens in two, and most can, they can lay up to their favorite wedge distance and attack the flags.

    What then was so hard about the 14th at Pebble? It was not the tee shot - 65% of the players hit the fairway (YTD Tour Avg. for Fairways Hit is only 62%). It was the green which presents a very small and unforgiving target. Only 53% of the field hit it in regulation. This compares to the Tour average of 84% for GIR's from 125 yards or less. The approach and short game shots to the small, firm plateau proved unusually difficult. It really did look like hockey as the balls slid past the hole, picking up speed as they ran over the other sides of the green.

    Bottom line, #14 played a meaningful role in determining the winner. In addition to culling the list of hopefuls (Molder & Goydos), the 14th green extracted a critical bogey from David Duval (runner-up by 1). Finally, Dustin Johnson could credit his 1-stroke win to the very intelligent par that he recorded on this hole.

    It will be very interesting to see how the USGA sets up #14, and how the players handle it, in the US Open later this year.

    Tuesday, February 9, 2010

    Stricker Wins - Tour Stats Strike Out Again



    If you look to the PGA Golf Tour Stats to see what Steve Stricker did last weekend to win, you'd conclude that it was his PUTTING, aided by great SAND PLAY. Here are Steve's stats and rankings for the Northern Trust Open:
    - Driving Accuracy = T10
    - Driving Distance = T37
    - Putts Per Round = 1
    - Putts Per GIR = 3
    - Greens In Reg = T10
    - Sand Saves = T 1

    These indicators of performance could not be more misleading. To point out exactly why, I analyzed Steve's performance on ShotByShot.com and compared it to that of the 2009 Winners on the PGA Tour:

    Long Game Efficiency
    Steve's accuracy off the tee was acceptable, albeit slightly below the 2009 Winners. He hit just under 10 fairways vs. 10+ for our 2009 Winners - no big deal. He made one mistake - drove into a fairway bunker on #9 (3rd round), and could only advance the ball 90 yards (half way to the green) BUT did make a 1-putt for par. Most important, Steve averaged only 11 GIR's which is more than 2 fewer than our 2009 Winners' 13.4. Bottom line, Steve's Long Game Efficiency Index (patent pending) came out to 2.96 vs. the 2009 Winners' 2.4.

    Putting
    Here lies the most dramatic discrepancy between PGA Tour stats and meaningful performance measurement. The heart of the issue is, as loyal readers of this blog can now recite by heart, that Putts per Round and Putts per GIR ignore the distance of the putting opportunities. While ranked #1 and #3 respectively in these stats, Steve's putting did not match up well to the 2009 Winners. Notice the ShotByShot.com graphic above showing Steve's 1-Putt percentages by distance range vs. our 2009 Winners. He is consistently below their standard.

    Our analysis further revealed that the greatest difference fell in the 6 to 10 foot range in which he had 18 attempts and only made 9 (50%). Our 2009 Winners made 12 (66%) in this range. This is a large margin in a critical distance range.

    How then, did Steve Win?
    His short game - not necessarily his sand game - was the best I have seen. He had 26 short game opportunities (25 chip/pitch and 1 sand), and saved 20 of 26, or 77%. By way of perspective, Tiger lead the Tour in 2009 in scrambling @ 68%. More importantly, while Steve's putting helped, it was not the key. He simply chipped it really close. His average putting distance after his 25 Chip/Pitch shots was an incredible 3.8 feet. This compares to 5.9 feet by our 2009 Winners, and just outside 10 feet for the average 10 handicap. Further, of his 1-putt "saves," only 3 were outside 4 feet, and his average putting distance 2.5 feet. Even I might have been able to make most of those!

    Included in the above short game numbers are Steve's 4 hole-outs from off the green. It is interesting that the Tour Winners do generally hole out once on their way to victory, but 4 is extraordinary. These were not putts from the fringe either. The closest was from 7 yards and the other three were all 20 yards or more from the hole.

    One final shot at Tour Stats
    Remember that Stricker was tied for #1 in Sand Saves. Exactly how good was his sand game? Hard to be sure as he only had one sand opportunity, but that effort flew the green missing the flag by 7 yards. The ShotByShot.com game analysis would consider that an ERROR. The "Save" came in when he holed out from the intermediate rough. So much for the Sand Save stat being a barometer of performance...

    Thursday, January 21, 2010

    That Groove Thing: What's all the Fuss About?

    I've been reading with interest the speculation about what effect the new, less spin-producing grooves would have on the PGA Tour golfers' performance. Maybe I missed something and the Jan. 1, 2010 requirement for the new grooves was ignored? If not, and the recent Sony Open at Waialia CC in Hawaii is representative, so far the predicted changes in performance are ...not so much, if not at all.

    By way of background, in 1984 Ping reinterpreted the USGA's golf club requirements and introduced wider, U-shaped grooves to replace the former V-shaped standard. A firestorm resulted and millions were spent on lawsuits before the USGA backed down and the new grooves became standard. These wider, deeper grooves enabled skilled players to impart spin from even the worst rough and changed the game at the top levels. In a nutshell, Tour players could hit it as far as possible because the major downside of playing from the rough had been greatly mitigated.

    Combine this with the introduction of the Pro-VX golf ball (another story) that enabled golfers with 100 mph+ clubhead speed to gain 30+ yards off the tee, and traditional golf course designs were fast becoming obsolete. All this prompted the USGA to legislate a return to V grooves and the PGA Tour agreed to start the process effective Jan. 1, 2010.

    Here is what was predicted and hoped for vs. what happened in Hawaii:

    1. Driving distance will go down. This is based on the theory that accuracy (hitting fairways) will become more important. Not exactly! The Sony field averaged 294 yards, six yards longer than the 2009 Tour average.

    2. Driving Accuracy will go up. See #1 above. Again NO! The Sony field sprayed the ball with abandon averaging only 47% of tee shots in the fairway. This is down considerably from 2009 's Tour average of 63%.

    3. Greens Hit in Regulation will go down. Shorter drives should result in longer approach shots with reduced spin - accuracy should be off. NOPE! GIR's were level with 2009 at 64%.

    4. Scores up, birdies down. This one is not so easily measured as specific weather conditions have such an impact on scoring year over year. That said, the winners in 2009 and 2010 both posted -15 but the cut was 1 stroke higher in 2010 (+1).

    From my limited perspective, there has been no meaningful impact on the game at the Tour level but I will keep watching.

    How will the change in grooves affect the rest of us?
    Unless you are trying to qualify for one of the USGA Majors, hardly at all. The new groove rules will be in place in 2010 for: US Opens (Men, Women and Sr.'s) and for the USGA's National Team Championships - whatever those are?

    For the rest of us, the USGA website states that our current "cheater" clubs will be deemed to be "...conforming through at least 2024." WHEW! We have some time to gear up our club head speed and games to meet the challenge.