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.
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.
The first time I played a round my host told me he was going to focus on his # of putts that day. I said "but if you miss the greens by a little won't you naturally have more putts"?
ReplyDeleteThen he explained the Putts/GIR stat and I said "but what if you shoot at the pins that are tucked and when you miss you are off the green, whereas a more conservative player will aim for the fat of the green and typically have a longer putt if he should hit the green?"
I always knew putting stats were bogus, nice to see you and MIT also had it figured out.
Thanks Nick! Yes Putts/GIR is terrible but telling that to the Tour was like saying the world is not flat. They were stuck on the way it has always been done.
ReplyDeletePeter