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