Tuesday, July 12, 2011

Pre-shot routine revisited

I last wrote about this when Lucas Glover won the US Open [16 Seconds to Victory] but Ian Baker-Finch smartly brought it up in his 2nd round commentary of the John Deere Classic when he remarked about the consistency of Steve Stricker's routine.  Some years ago I had the great pleasure of spending a few days at the Kohler resort (Whistling Straits +) in the excellent company of Ian - I guess I once did get invited somewhere...  At dinner one night we got Ian talking about his British Open win and I specifically asked how he handled the tremendous pressure of playing the back 9 with a slim lead.  He acknowledged the intense pressure and said that he dealt with it by relying totally on his routine.  I remember vividly how he went into a mini-trance recalling exactly what he did as he approached every shot, right down to the "...Ok set, one waggle and GO!" almost knocking over a glass of wine.  We should all learn from this and practice our routines whenever we practice - it's that important.

I put Steve Stricker on the clock this week and he consistently took 15 seconds to strike the ball from the time he stepped forward from his position behind the ball.  When I put Tiger on the clock in the 2007 PGA, his routine was a speedy 10 seconds.  The difference, Steve includes a practice swing EVERY TIME, Tiger did not.   Let me be clear about exactly what I count as the pre-shot routine.  All the decisions have been made, the club and shot selected and visualized.  What I time is when the player stands behind the ball facing the target.  I start the watch when he moves forward from that position to begin his setup and I stop the watch when the shot is struck.  In other words, it is not the thinking or decision making part, it is strictly the execution of the planned shot.

I see so many amateurs that take two and three practice swings before every shot.  There should be a legal limit of ONE.  But bottom line consistency is the key to a winning routine - at every level of play.  Coaches and instructors should be helping their students develop an effective and efficient pre-shot routine.  It should serve to get them set up for a successful shot and occupy their conscious minds with positive, process oriented keys.  Finally, it should be quick - no need for more than 15 seconds but 10 is even better.  Don't hesitate to put your students on the clock.       

Wednesday, July 6, 2011

So Sorry Patrick Cantlay but Blame the Tour - Again!

As Monday was a fairly major holiday, I had other, more important, things to do than capture the  weekend's AT&T data from ShotLink.  I felt secure in putting this off until Tuesday because the data is generally available until Wednesday morning.  Not this week!  It vanished as of Tuesday evening at 7:00 PM.  So sorry Patrick, I cannot add these rounds to the account that I set up for you as promised.  I will also miss Nick Watney's winning rounds and the analysis thereof.  How about a story instead?

I finally got invited somewhere and had the pleasure of partnering with an good friend for the first time in his Member/Guest event at the Townsend Ridge CC in Townsend, MA.  To add to the experience, my thoughtful host had his close friend invite my side-kick and VP Sales, Tommy (AKA "Mini-Pete").  I have been fortunate enough to play in my share of these events but this one was unique in so many ways.  First, the format was Ryder Cup-style where the field was divided into two teams.  For the first 27 holes, my partner and I played three 9-hole matches against 2-man teams from the other squad.  First,  a full scramble, next Pinehurst (both drive, alternate from the best into the hole) and finally, best ball.  The final 18 holes was a straight up, one-on-one match play and, of all people, I had to play against Tommy - NOT FAIR!
    
Other unique features: 
1.  At 5,814 (White tees) the course is a bit shorter than Tom and I are used to, but by no means easy.  It is the most narrow course that I have ever attempted to navigate.  I actually think they could mow the fairways with two or three passes of a hand mower.  

2.  The Head Professional and his 1st Assistant not only ran the event but  THEY ALSO HAD GUESTS AND PLAYED.  I was thoroughly confused to see contestants asking other contestants for explanations of how the rules worked until I finally figured it out - albeit, not until late the first day.  My hat goes off to Derick Fors (GM/Head Pro.) for how smoothly he pulled off this unusual feat.  It was clear that he has earned the respect and admiration of his members to be able to so easily tread on both sides of this line.  

3.  To follow on #2, the members, and their predominantly local guests, all seemed to share the right attitude - a celebration of good competition but better friendship.  Tommy and I were readily accepted and made to feel at home - I think Tom may have joined. 

Great job Townsend Ridge!  If it is up to me, I'LL BE BACK!       

Wednesday, June 29, 2011

Why Don't Americans Win?


My great friend Bruce, and 30+ year Member/Guest partner, had the treat of playing in a ProAm with Padraig Harrington - I never get invited ANYWHERE!  First, Bruce reported that Padraig could not have been more fun, but I have no doubt that Padraig said the same to his friends about Bruce.  When the topic was raised of why there are so few Americans in the Top-20 and why Europe dominates the majors, Padraig's response was interesting.  In short, he blames the overwhelming money on the PGA Tour.  The best US players go directly from college to the PGA Tour, and learn to survive  - but not to WIN - on Tour.  By contrast, on the far less lucrative European Tour (or Asian Tour) players must contend and win in order to make big money.  Padraig also suggests that this explains the lack of success the US is having in the Ryder Cup.  Makes sense to me!

Patrick Cantlay is having a pretty good summer!  
If you watched the US Open and/or the Traveler's, Patrick's travels were frequently discussed.  From the Palmer Cup at The Stanwich Club, Greenwich, CT (my home course!), on to the US Open at Congressional where Patrick not only took the Low Amateur honors but contended (T21).  Next, back to CT and TPC River Highlands where he posted 67/60 to hold the lead after the 2nd round.  This week he is on to Aronimink GC in PA for the AT & T.  WHEW!

Back to Padraig's point, as an amateur Patrick passed up $46,425 for his T24 finish in the Traveler's.  Out of curiosity, I checked the European Tour's BMW Championship in Germany this week and the money is slightly less than half.  24th place paid $27,832 (I did the Euro conversion to $).  The BMW winner made $473,000 vs. $1,080,000 at the Travelers.

What does Patrick need to do to win?  
Simply stated, he must avoid errors off the tee and improve his putting.  While Patrick's long game was excellent (13.5 GIR's), he incurred two penalties off the tee.  Our winner's profile incurs one of these tee shot penalties only once in every 10 rounds.

As the ShotByShot.com %1-Putt graphic above shows, Patrick needs to increase these numbers, especially in the important ranges inside 10 feet.  The Tour's new Strokes Gained stat supports this as Patrick ranked 33rd with .46 strokes gained on the field.  The five winners that I have tracked since this stat was launched have averaged 1.27 strokes gained and Fredrik Jacobson blew the Traveler's field away by gaining 2.25 strokes.

Finally, Patrick, if you see this I have set up an account for you on ShotByShot.com and will try to add your AT&T rounds to get you started.  If you contact me, you may continue to use the program with my compliments.        

Tuesday, June 14, 2011

Is Harrison Frazar simply a "Blind Squirrel?"

There was not much star power to this week's FedEx St. Jude Classic.  No doubt THEY were all getting better acquainted with the rough at Congressional.  That said, I found Harrison Frazar's story compelling, and was delighted to see him prevail.  Until this week, he had competed in 381 professional events (27 Nationwide/Nike, 354 PGA Tour) with only one Nike Tour win to show for it.  But how bad was it?  Since earning his Tour card in 1996, Harrison had earned over 9 million dollars - over $650,000 per year - for playing golf!  Sign me up - I'll take that job!  Oh, and add $1,142,053 for this week's work.

What happened this week?
Harrison's key stats jumped dramatically this week to vault him into the winner's circle.  To illustrate, I will cite his YTD Average and (Ranking) vs. his performance This week % (Ranking):
GIR's:  60% (178)  vs.  69% (8)

Scrambling:  57% (140)  vs.  82% (1).  [He saved 18 of 22 opportunities.]

Putting - Strokes Gained:  .18 (111)  vs.  1.39 (7)  

In my opinion, the rankings suffer from serious inflation as one retreats from the top level players; however, they do illustrate that Harrison had well over 100 players on Tour that were doing these important things better than he has been - that is, UNTIL THIS WEEK.  Golf is such a confidence game that, having put it all together and finally won, his new confidence may carry him to great heights.  Or, he may have finally stumbled upon that all-elusive acorn.  It will be interesting to see which way he goes.  

Wednesday, June 8, 2011

Muirfield's Front 9 Must be EASY?

In four rounds, Steve Stricker was 24 strokes lower on the front 9 than he was on the back!  If the opening track is not much easier, perhaps he needs an energy bar or a beer at the turn?

A brief story about my tour around Muirfield Village
Actually, the 9's are not anywhere near that different.  I have walked, no ran them.  Years ago, I was asked to provide our unique ShotByShot.com analysis for the marquee group in the Wednesday, Pro Am prior to the Memorial.  The Group: Jack, the CEO of the named sponsor, and two prominent clients.  Realizing that it would be inappropriate to expect this group to learn our system and record data during what could be the most pressure-packed round of three of their golfing lives, I agreed to walk with the group and record the data myself.  What could be more fun -  walk 18 holes with Jack Nicklaus???  NOT EXACTLY, as the gods or the PGA Tour was not on my side - they would not allow me inside the ropes.  Believing that a commitment is a commitment, I agreed to accomplish my task from the OUTSIDE looking in.  It proved to be one of the most difficult feats I have ever undertaken.

During Saturday's telecast Ian Baker-Finch mentioned that the course featured water hazards on 13 holes.  I can confirm this because I jumped over or trudged through all 13.  Further, most meander along the entire hole, crossing the fairway multiple times.  A good friend, and member of Muirfield Village, refers to it affectionately as a 6 to 10 ball round for the average 15 handicap golfer.  I looked it up and the USGA's "Bogey rating" is 105.3.  That says that the average 18 handicap golfer is expected to shoot 33 strokes over par here.  Incidentally, the Course ratings for the front and back 9's are less than one stroke different:  Front 38.1 vs. Back 38.8. 
  
What else was remarkable?
Just before the Masters, I listed a few things that I have noticed that the Winners of PGA Tour events have in common.  One is Off Shore Holeouts - or that most winners will hole out from off the green once in their four rounds.  But Stricker's FOUR holeouts is outrageous!  OK, two were short game opportunities - not that uncommon.  The other two were special:  
  • 2nd Round, Par 3, 8th hole:  Ace from 185 yards.
  • 3rd Round, Par 4, 2nd hole:  116 yard approach shot - holed - Eagle.
I can't explain it but, like the two above, most of Steve's fireworks happened on the front 9 and, given these thunderbolts, NO WONDER HE WON!  

Friday, June 3, 2011

More clarity in PGA Tour stats

I am quite excited about the Tour's recent implementation of the Strokes Gained putting statistic.  Since 1999, Shot By Shot's putting analysis has featured this method of evaluating putting which we call 'Strokes Lost or Saved.'  As I have been saying for these many years:  "It is the only accurate means of evaluating putting because it includes every putting opportunity and its distance."  For more on exactly what Strokes Gained is all about, see my recent post:  At Last, Putting Analysis we can trust from the Tour 

In terms of accurately evaluating relative performance and being able to point to exactly what separates the winners from the others, the Tour now has an accurate summary stat for Putting, a facet that represents 40% of the game.  My research shows that the remaining 60% can ALMOST be covered by two other Tour stats:  GIR's and Scrambling.  

Greens Hit in Regulation (GIR's) - It's simple - the age-old long game barometer.  Its flaw:  It does not tell what happened, and how bad was it, on greens not hit in regulation. 

Scrambling = The percentage of holes where the green was not hit in regulation but par or better was achieved.  At least at the Tour level, this stat fills in most of the puzzle; however, it still leaves out what happened, and how bad was it, on those OTHER holes (Greens NOT Hit in Regulation where bogey or worse was the result).

I say "At least at the Tour level,..." because Scrambling is a fairly useless stat for the majority of amateur golfers.  First, it is widely misunderstood. Golfers believe it to be saving par from green-side opportunities NOT every green missed in regulation, regardless of how and why.  Second, they hit so few GIR's and "Save" so few of the opportunities, it becomes meaningless.

What would work?        
If the Tour were to adopt my patented Long Game Efficiency Index, almost all of the gaps in the analysis of the entire game would be filled in.  It would then have highly accurate summary stats for evaluating the Long Game and Putting.  Scrambling would cover most of the short game.  The one small missing piece would be ERRORS in the Short game, such as sand shots left in or sculled out of green-side bunkers, and similar errors from chip/pitch situations.  I would say, close enough for now so let's try it.

Once the Tour makes this leap, it will only need to reform its current method of ranking players in each skill.  More on this soon... 

Wednesday, May 11, 2011

At last, Putting analysis we can trust from the PGA Tour!

When I analyzed Lucas Glover's rounds from last weekend's Wells Fargo Championship, his putting clearly stood out as the difference maker.  More importantly, for the first time EVER the PGA Tour stats and ShotByShot.com agree.  Why?  The Tour debuted its new putting statistic this week: "Strokes Gained - Putting" and has posted several articles explaining it on their website @ PGATour.com/Putting.  I wrote about this last year when it was first discussed in an article in the Wall Street Journal.  To see what I said then see then:   "Just a minute MIT..." 

What is Strokes Gained?
In brief, the Tour has used the distance-specific, putting data collected by ShotLink over the last several years to create a computer model of what I call "down-in strokes" or the average strokes needed to hole out from every distance from 1 to 100 feet.   Each player's putting opportunity, and the number of putts needed, is then compared to the "down-in" value of that distance (the model) and strokes gained or lost are calculated.  The example cited:  "...the average number of putts used to hole out from 7 feet, 10 inches is 1.5.  If a player one-putts from this distance, he gains .5 strokes.  If he two-putts, he loses .5 strokes.  If he 3-putts, he loses 1.5 strokes."  The total strokes gained or lost for a given round, event or period of time can then be compared to that of the field to determine the best putter.  BRAVO!  I COULD NOT HAVE DONE IT BETTER MYSELF!  But wait - I did, and 20 years ago.

I have been killing the Tour for their myopic, misleading stats,  especially putting, for 20+ years.  To my delight, in their new material they point out the precise flaws in their old putting stats - all they had to do is search my blog - but I guess even they figured it out. 

My creative story?
Shortly after I launched Shot By Shot in 1989 (a paper and US mail-based, analysis program),  I realized that the old "#-of-putts" paradigm was dramatically flawed and that I needed to create something better.  I decided to allow my subscribers to record the distance of their 1st putt on each green in order to create a putting model.   Remember, computer modeling was a big part of my business background and why I established ShotByShot to begin with.  By the time I had collected 4,000 rounds, I was able to create an effective model of what putting looked like, from every distance, for the 0-handicap golfer - I called it "Mr. Scratch."  At  7,000 rounds, I not only had a Mr. Scratch model for putting but for the rest of the game as well and it became the foundation of my entire analysis program.  While my model has been refined and updated over the years, the method that I created in 1990 has not changed and is exactly what the PGA Tour just released. 

In 2004 I invested in a web-based delivery system for my analysis program, and launched ShotByShot.com - initially only the Putting Analysis, but the Complete Game followed in 2006.  The difference between what I have done and what the PGA Tour just released is minor and strictly has to do with the data that we each collect and our clientele. The Tour's data is limited to their players and those events covered by ShotLink.  I have Tour data but more importantly amateur data on men and women at every level of the game (now 27,000+ rounds and growing at 1,000/month). The Tour model is based upon the average of their performance while I was able to create my "Scratch" model by segregating out only the appropriate rounds.  Further, while the Tour analysis only compares their members, I must analyze players at all skill levels playing all over the world.  To do this, I used our database to determine the average Putting "Strokes Lost or Saved" at each handicap level for comparison.  This enables ShotByShot.com to accurately assign a Putting Handicap for rounds analyzed. 

Bottom line, I am delighted to see the Tour admit the flaws in their prior analysis and adopt something smart - no - BRILLIANT, if I do say so myself (right Trill?).  I intend to speak with my friends at the Tour about possible collaboration as well as find ways to promote the fact that non-PGA Tour players all over the world can enjoy the same brilliant putting analysis at ShotByShot.com and NOWHERE ELSE! 

Wednesday, May 4, 2011

Nice Short Game Bubba - NOT!

To say that Bubba's strength is his long game is a gross understatement.  While a bit sloppy on Sunday, Bubba overpowered the 7,341 yard  TPC Louisana (par 72).  He led the field in the all-important GIR stat - even with one minor driving error and an approach shot penalty that resulted in a double-bogey.  Good thing for him because as good as his long game was, his short game was about the level of your average club, 10 handicap. 

THE GOOD NEWS
Driving Distance
While leading the field in Driving Distance (331 yds.), Bubba averaged 10 of 14 fairways.  This accuracy tied for 13th and exceeds our Winner's Profile by just under one fairway per round (9.3).  Bear in mind that the prodigious 331 only represents two drives per round.  However, thanks to ShotLink,  I was able to determine that Bubba averaged 311 on all of his "measured drives."  This  includes holes where he hit irons and compares to 278 for the field and 279 for the Tour average to date.  Hugely long and accurate - I'm impressed! 

Short Game,  SCORING Opportunites
His combination of length and accuracy generated an unusual number of short approach shots for GIR's - 16 in four rounds.  To be clear, these are opportunities to hit the Green in Regulation on Par 4 and 5 holes, from 50 yards to the hole and closer.  These opportunities are generally associated with reachable par 5 holes and the occasional short par 4.  For perspective, I looked at the last seven Winners for which I have captured and analyzed their ShotByShot.com data.  This illustrious group averaged six (1.5 per round) with a high of 10 (Mickelson, on the 7,422 (72) Redstone GC) and a low of only ONE (Rory Sabbatini, PGA National 7,158 (70).   So, what did Bubba do with this plethora of scoring opportunities?  See THE BAD NEWS below.

THE BAD NEWS 
The 16 short game opportunities were comprised of 15 Chip/Pitch and 1 Sand.  As my readers know, I evaluate the short game based upon a proprietary balance of three important RESULTS:
1.  Putting Distance - How close on average to the hole.
2.  % Hit Close - % to 5 ft. Chip/Pitch and % to 8 ft. Sand
3.  % Errors - Shots that miss the green.

Based upon ShotByShot.com's analysis (graphic above), Bubba's Chip/Pitch game was that of an 8 handicap and a 15 handicap from the Sand.  I will give him a break from the sand as he only had two opportunities:  one hit to 4 ft. - very good.  The other missed the green - No so...

Below, I will offer three perspectives on Bubba's prowess in those 15 opportunities when his great drives were rewarded with chipping or pitching opportunities for EAGLE:

Category:                  Watson   Tour Winnners  10 - 14 Handicap
Avg. Putt Distance:     13 ft.            4.6 ft.                13 ft.
% to 5 feet:                3 (20%)        (57%)               (22%)
% Errors:                   4 (27%)         ( 4%)               (13%)
% Saved:                   5 (33%)        (72%)               (30%)

On a final note, it was refreshing to see the camraderie and friendship between Bubba and Webb Simpson throughout their final round.  That is a great example of how we should all compete, at every level.  Bubba seemed to be genuinely upset for Webb during the critical penalty situation - a very difficult one but perfectly handled by Webb.  More than anyone, Peter Kostis must really be enjoying the upbeat and positive post-round interviews where he need not wear a flack jacket and helmet.  More good role models - very nice to see.      

Wednesday, April 27, 2011

Finally a course where FAIRWAYS matter!

Fairways hit?
As my frequent readers know, I consider this age-old measure of driving accuracy to be the worst of all the traditional golf stats.  I improved upon it by having players categorize the relative severity of their missed fairways.  For more on this see:  Just How Important are "Fairways Hit"?  However, NOT SO at Harbour Town Golf Links!  It is no coincidence that the winner for the last five years has needed to hit them in bunches in order to prevail.  The last five winners have all beaten the Harbour Town field and far surpassed the PGA Tour average (2011 YTD = 61%) in this stat:
  1. 2011 Brandt Snedeker - 76.8%,  Field 67%
  2. 2010 Jim Furyk - 76.8%, Field 63%
  3. 2009 Brian Gay - 83.9%, Field 62%
  4. 2008 Boo Weekley - 71.4%, Field 64%
  5. 2008 Boo Weekley - 75%, Field 62%
For perspective on how unimportant this stat tends to be, below are a five events this year, on very good golf courses, in which the winner got away with fairways at or just above the 50% range:
  1. Redstone GC - 53%
  2. Innisbrook - 58%
  3. Doral - 58%
  4. Riviera - 50%
  5. Torrey Pines - 50%
What is it about Harbour Town?
Short by today's standards - at 6,973 yards (Par 71) - its fairways are closely bracketed by forests of towering pine trees.  As if the trunks of these massive trees aren't imposing enough, their canopies loom out over the fairways in the space usually reserved for ball flight.  I have played the course many times, and it is not at all uncommon to be in the fairway and either be blocked or face a shot that must be curved  around tree limbs in order to hit your target green.  Annoying when it happens to you but a big part of the charm of this Pete Dye classic.  This and Dye's famous railroad tie buttressed greens.  Also annoying or charming depending on their influence on YOUR shots.     

That said, it would be a shame to see this 43 year old event dropped for lack of a sponsor.  I was interested to hear Jim Nantz and Sir Nick "begging" for a new sponsor.  While not my area of expertise, I would wager that The Heritage Classic is not alone and that the PGA Tour must be totally re-thinking the terms, cost structure and benefits needed to entice new sponsors.  I don't believe it has anything to do with Tiger fallout but simply the economy and increased scrutiny of client entertainment.  Two important dynamics have changed:  1.  Fewer corporations can justify the outrageous expense and  2.  Even if they can, most of their clients can't be seen accepting the favor of an extravagant golf boondoggle, or justify the time out of the office.  I will be interested to talk to my friends in that end of the business to see where this is going.  As I learn anything worth reporting, I will do so. 

Tuesday, April 19, 2011

Valero Texas Open - Not exactly the Masters

It should not have been a surprise that the PGA Tour had another first time winner at the  Valero Texas Open.  Why?  The vast majority of the field qualified for this dubious honor.  Only three of the Top-20 in the FedX race were in the field and the final threesome on Sunday was comprised of total unknowns.  These three came into the event with a combined 240 FedX points, placing them barely in the Top-150.  So it was not just the colorless, arid terrain that was starkly different from last week's Masters; but then, that is what makes the Masters and the Majors so special.  

Ignoring for a moment the lackluster field, the final nine holes were interesting and had some drama.   I was pleased for Brendan Steele when he rolled in the 7 foot putt to achieve his first Tour win.  His  YTD performance from 7 feet is 64%, slightly better than the Tour average of 61%.  Factor in the weight of the circumstances, and that he three-putted from 6 feet in Friday's round, and that final putt showed some character.  

My Winner's 70% Rule?
Briefly, I have found that to win on the PGA Tour a player needs three key stats to average 70%:   GIR's, Scrambling and Putts holed in the 5-10 foot range.  For more see:   Last Time on the 70% Rule... In reviewing Brendan's ShotByShot.com analysis, he barely crept over the 70% Rule bar - actually hit it on the mark.  With GIR's at only 58%, his Scrambling (73%) and Putting in the 5-10 foot range (79%) pulled him up to the 70% mark.  While he passed the 70% test, Brendan failed the important Errors component of my Rule by one.  The 70% Rule calls for three or fewer Errors in a four-round event, and Brendan committed FOUR:

Long Game Error
    1.  Drive result Penalty
    2.  Drive result No Shot, bogey

Short Game Errors
    3.  Chip/Pitch missed green, failed to get down in total of 3 shots.

Putting Error
    4.  3-Putt from 40 feet and closer (6 feet).

Was it the caliber of the field or the severe wind conditions on a demanding course that allowed the winner to overcome the Error component of my 70% Rule?  Most likely both.

Wednesday, April 13, 2011

How did I do on the Masters?

I am definitely getting old as I look forward to watching the Masters more than Christmas and this year's was a great one.  In one respect my instincts were good as my little syndicate owned the top three finishers in our annual Master's pool AND therefore took almost all of the pot.  Additionally, last week I cited three attributes that the Masters winner would most likely share with our Winner's Profile and three other predictors.  Here is how Charl Schwartzle and I did:

1.  Off Shore Holeouts - Charl had two of these for birdie and eagle on the front 9 of his final round.

2.  Scrambling, extraordinary saves - His Off Shore, chip in on the 1st hole for birdie qualifies - even par would have been a great save.  I am sure that he had others - see #3.

3.  Managing the downside - In round #2 Charl hit only 9 of 18 GIR's but made only two bogeys and finished with a well-managed 71.  For the event, Charl had only 7 bogeys and NO doubles or worse.  That is "Managing...."

I also said:  ...the winner this week at Augusta will almost surely:
  • Be a long hitter:  Charl's certainly long enough - 19th on the European Tour @ 297 yards.
  • Rank relatively high in GIR stats on his respective tourCharl ranks 59th on the European Tour @ 70%.  Again, good enough, especially considering it meets the ShotByShot.com 70% rule for Winners.  
  • Has already won on the PGA Tour or a Major:  I obviously missed this one but I will stand by it in the future, regardless.  Why?  He is only the third player in history to get his first win on the PGA Tour at Augusta.  I could only find two players on the Champion's list that have no history or mention on the PGA Tour:  Ralph Guldahl (1939) and Herman Keiser (1946) - a decidedly different era in golf. 
I give myself 5 out of 6, but I also admitted at the time that I was climbing out on a pretty safe limb. 

    Wednesday, April 6, 2011

    Which Phil will show up for the Masters?

    If Phil Mickelson had continued his first two rounds performance on the weekend, he would have barely made the Top-20 in the Shell Houston Open.  Instead, he caught fire and equaled the course record on Saturday (63) and capped off a three-shot victory with 65 on Sunday.  The major difference in performance was putting, primarily in the critical 6 - 10 foot range.  In the first two rounds he made only 3 of 6, but increased both opportunities and results to 7 of 9 on the weekend.

    Obviously it was not all about putting. Phil also exhibited several other attributes that tend to crop up in PGA Tour Winners AND will come in very handy at Augusta if he can bring them along: 

        1.  Offshore hole-outs - Phil holed three shots from off the green.  Winners more often than not have one of these not-necessarily-lucky outcomes.

        2.  Scrambling, extraordinary saves - Twice on the Par-4, 6th hole, Phil drove into the hazard, incurred a penalty stroke, but was able to save par.

         3.  Manage the downside - Phil obviously did not have his "A" game during his first two rounds but managed to steer the ship in at acceptable numbers of -2 (70) both rounds.  Just close enough to bound into the lead with one great round.  How many times have we seen Tiger do that? 

    In addition to the attributes above, the winner this week at Augusta will almost surely: 
    • Be a long hitter;
    • Rank relatively high in GIR stats on his respective tour;
    • Have already won on the PGA Tour or a Major.
    Not a very long limb but let's see how I do?

    Tuesday, March 29, 2011

    What were the odds of a playoff at Bay Hill?

    Three  things struck me as I enjoyed Arnie's Invitational at Bay Hill.  I will address them in reverse order of importance:

    1.  Where's Waldo & Tiger?
    I cannot remember watching a Tiger-included event in which he was not seen or mentioned in the final round, regardless of where he was in the field.  This week was no different than most others as we saw quite a bit of Tiger on Saturday despite his position 9 or 10 holes ahead of the leaders.  Could his  conspicuous absence on Sunday have anything to do with the driver that he let fly in anger on Saturday?  That's my guess as the King is all about tradition, gracious and gentlemanly conduct and what's good for the game - club throwing - NOT!  Doubt his influence?  NBC recently partnered with the Golf Channel - Arnie helped found and fund the Golf Channel. 

    2.  Worst closing round EVER! 
    Since I have been recording and analyzing the Tour Winners on ShotByShot.com (early 2009), this 280 (-8) is the highest 4-round total that I have seen for a non-major.  Partially due to the course - good job, Arnie - but also just poor play.  Martin Laird's final round +3, 75 should not have been good enough to win but for a major stumble by Steve Marino and the final-hole bogey by Marc Leishman.  In any case, it made for good drama - much more fun to watch than a multiple shot victory.

    3.  What ARE the odds of Laird's 2-putt on 18 from 87 feet? 
    Johnny Miller gave us his estimate of the odds of a 3-putt/playoff:  40% This would mean 2-putt/Win:  60%.  I was struck by how little credit was given to the great lag putt that followed Johnny's prediction - 3' 7" - especially with the win on the line.  One of the on-course commentators chimed in with the note that Martin had 3-putted from close range (23 FEET) on the final hole of the Barclays only to subsequently lose in a playoff.  Thank goodness Martin could not hear this great comment...  I was thinking it as I wrote about this in my 9/1/2010 entry:  How Hard is it to WIN on the PGA Tour?  

    What are the odds?
    Hard to say because the Tour does not provide detail on putting stats by range outside 35 feet, but here is what I was able to get:
    a.  For all putts greater than 35 feet in 2011 (8 events) the Tour averaged 2.11 putts and Martin Laird was slightly better at 2.02 (ranked T17).  Not very helpful!

    b.  The average distance from which the Tour will experience a 3-putt following a GIR is:  41 feet.  Again, Martin is a bit better - 45 feet.  Again, little help with our 87 foot challenge?

    So much for the Tour, I decided to break it into pieces.  From my study of distance control on the PGA Tour, I learned that the Top-5 players' average lag from 20 feet and more was to within7% of the start distance.  From this study, I determined that 10% was an acceptable lag. Outside that could be considered an ERROR.  Martin Laird had 8 opportunities of 20 feet+ in his final round.  Five were distance control busts (13% to 19%), but three were winners (0% - holed, 2% and the final 4%).  Overall, his distance control for the final round was an acceptable 10%.

    If we assume two lag results for Martin on #18 from 87 feet of 7% and 10%.  He would be left with putts of 6' 1" or 8' 6" respectively.  What are the odds of 1 vs. 2 putts from those distances?  Back to the Tour:

    YTD 2011 - % 1-Putt
    Lag to %     Distance (ft.)     Laird       Tour Avg.
       7%                     6 ft.               54%           70%
      10%                    9 ft.               56%           46%
      
    Good job, Johnny Miller!  Your odds of a playoff (3-putt) of 40% were spot-on.  Given a good or acceptable lag, according to my study, Martin would have had been in a playoff in the 46% to 44% range.  Fortunately for Martin, his lag was OUTSTANDING - 3' 7" or 4% - well done!

    Finally, as I have said before, I recommend that the rest of us use the 10% Rule when evaluating our lag opportunities.  If nothing else, the math is so much easier!

    Tuesday, March 22, 2011

    What is BALL STRIKING anyway?

    Isn't it always a bit more fun to watch an event on a course that you've played?  The Copperhead course at Innisbrook is special and NOT because it is easy.  To emphasize its relative difficulty,  Johnny Miller cited the critical importance of "Ball Striking" - no, not the act of hitting the ball solidly, but the PGA Tour Stat.

    Being familiar with that stat, I was interested to hear Johnny explain or elaborate, but he didn't.  Why the omission?  First, it's complicated, and my guess is that: a) it would take too long; and/or b) he did not want to get it wrong - which would be easy to do.  So I decided to refresh my memory and dig out my list of PGA Tour Stats Definitions.  (In 2009 I killed a small tree and printed the 26 pages of over 400 Tour stats.  I figured that before analyzing and criticizing, I should know the subject matter.) In fact, I counted 18 driving distance stats on the Tour's stat list - far more than one can digest. 

    BALL STRIKING - Categorized as an 'Off the Tee - Other Stats,' is actually a combination of the player rankings in three other stats: 

    "Ball Striking is computed by totaling a player's rank in both Total Driving [computed by totaling a player's rank in both Driving distance and Driving accuracy]  and Greens in Regulation."  This numerical total is compared to other players and the player with the lowest total rank becomes #1 and so on up the ladder. 

    Greens in Regulation and Driving Accuracy are fairly straightforward stats.  They are simply the percentage of Greens and Fairways Hit, respectively.

    Driving Distance, a carryover from the pre-Shotlink era, is based upon distance off the tee as measured on TWO holes per round.  As the definition states, "Care is taken to select two holes which face in opposite directions to counteract the effect of wind."  It is my guess that this stat is still used to maintain some sort of statistical integrity over time because Shotlink now captures the distance on every hole and the stat that includes "...all drives...measured by laser..." does exist.


    So, how important was Gary Woodland's Ball Striking?
    Not very!  According to this stat, 55 players performed better than the winner of the event.   Here is exactly how Gary earned his #56 Ball Striking ranking on Copperhead: 

    Total Driving = Ranked #41
         - Driving distance:  #7 (296.5 yards)
         - Driving accuracy:  T#54 (hit only 57% of the fairways per round)
       The total of 61 found Gary ranked 41st in the field.
      
    Greens in Regulation =  T#29 (12.75 per round, 70.8%)
    _____________________________________________
    Total of the two rankings:   70, placed Gary at #56 in the field.  For perspective the corresponding  average for the field was 192.  Helpful?  Again, not very!


    OK Johnny, I apologize!  It was totally NOT worth the time to explain this stat.  I only did so because I looked it up to reconfirm my impression that it was relatively useless.  It is too complicated, not particularly relevant and almost impossible for your viewers to relate to their own games.  It is the first time that I have heard this stat mentioned during a telecast in years and probably should be the last.

    So, how DID Gary Woodland distinguish himself last weekend?
    In a nutshell, Long Game and Putting.  Gary hit our 70% Rule for GIR's on the button, and had only one minor error - a No Shot result from the tee on the par-5, 11th hole on Sunday that resulted in a bogey.  Putting was the difference.  Gary overcame two 3-putts from fairly close range (27 and 30 feet) with unusual accuracy from 20 feet and in.  Over the four rounds, he 1-putted 51% of his opportunities (Winners profile = 45%) and  holed 47% of putts from 11 - 20 feet (Winners = 35%).  Finally,  it was two clutch putts in this range on the final holes (16 and 11 feet) that secured his 1-shot victory.  Talk about "Putt for dough!"      

    Tuesday, March 15, 2011

    Why Nick Watney Won: Is it Tiger's New Swing?

    I warned that I would keep an eye on Tiger's progress.  What I found of interest, in this week's Cadillac WGC Championship, was the  continued talk of Tiger's struggle with his "new" swing.  Shouldn't this translate into a struggle with his Long game?  NOT SO!  Granted, there were a couple of notable, very UN-Tiger-like drives.  One was on the 2nd hole, round 2 - a full, 3-metal that traveled only 122 yards and was featured in an embarrassing graphic that showed Tiger's ball all alone 100+ yards behind the next shortest drive.  OK, Tiger did not drive the ball very well (only 6.5 Fairways a round) BUT he avoided the big mistakes and recovered exceptionally well.  

    Tiger averaged 13 GIR's (tied 4th), and was better tee-to-green (more efficient)  than the winner (Nick Watney).  Their ShotByShot.com Long Game Efficiency Indexes* were 2.57 vs. 2.82 respectivelyThis means that Tiger hit more GIR's and in fewer long game shots than Nick - Efficiency!   (The hypothetical perfect round is 36 Long strokes/18 GIRs = 2.00.  For more on this see:   A Better Way to Track Long Game).  Incidentally Tiger, the Winners average 13 GIR's with no more than one ERROR per 4-round event, as you did here.  So you are close. 
    *US Patent # 7,766,737 

    As the graph above shows, the critical difference, AND why Nick Watney won, was his great short game  and putting performance.  Further, if this event is representative, this is where Tiger needs to return to form.

    How good or bad was it?  Watney vs. Tiger

    Chip and Pitch Shots:
         # Attempts/Avg. distance - 16 /3.9 ft.  vs.  23 /8.7 ft.
                                    % Saved  -  75%                70% (Good, from those distances)      
    Sand Shots:
         # Attempts/Avg. distance - 13/6.4 ft.  vs.  7/11.7 ft.
                                    % Saved  -  69%                43%

    Nick's short game was the best I have seen.  His average putting distances were considerably better than our PGA Tour Winner's Profile.  On average his Chip/Pitch shots were 2 feet closer and 2.5 feet closer from the Sand. 

    Finally, sick of reading about Tiger (like UJ!), let me know.  For that matter, let me know what would be of interest?
    Thanks,
    Peter
    PSanders@shotbyshot.com 

    Monday, March 7, 2011

    Putting: "Distance is the most important part"

    I have been preaching that putting is the most distance-driven part of the game for over 20 years.  The quote in the title comes from Jack Nicklaus during the Sunday telecast of the Honda Classic.  His point, that regardless of the distance of the putting opportunity, the correct distance is the most important factor in success.  Nice to hear from the game's #1 all-time player.  I arrived at this conclusion by studying the data while Jack obviously based it upon his experience (73 Tour wins and 18 Majors) and his meticulous study of the game.  Remember Jack, with caddie Angelo, was the first to pace off the distance of his approach shots.  What golfer today, at any level, would attempt an approach shot without knowing the distance to the yard?  Sergio purportedly demands his distances to the half yard.  But how many golfers, even on Tour, know the distance of their putting opportunities?

    Y.E. Yang does!  Dottie Pepper remarked, during the Honda telecast, that YE paces off his putts and it was evident in his pre-shot routine on the 10th, 11th and 14th holes.  No wonder YE putted so well in last week's Ascenture Match Play and again in the Honda and has climbed to #29 in the World Rankings.  Another prominent player that paces off his putting distances is Phil Mickelson.  Phil also practices distance control diligently from 40, 50 and 60 feet and credits this with his recent Masters win.

    Why is DISTANCE so important?
    The average PGA Tour player will make 50% of their putts at 8 feet and average 2.0 putts or better up to a distance of 40 feet.  Beyond 40 feet they will 3-putt more often than 1-putt.   These numbers fall off fairly dramatically as skills diminish.  Our data tells us that the average 10 handicap -  a much better than average golfer - will make 50% at 5 feet and average more than 2.0 putts once outside 20 feet.  Distance and distance control are extremely important and I recommend that every serious golfer learn to build this function into their on-course and practice routines.  I have included "Hints on Tracking the Distance of your Putts" in the FAQ's and More section of the website but here are the cliff notes:

    1.  Don't wait until it is your turn to play.  Start the process of evaluating your putting opportunity as you approach the green.  Even from as far as 50 yards or more, check the overall slope of the terrain that will influence your putt.

    2.  When you mark your ball, you must either walk past the hole to your ball or walk from your ball to the hole to remove the flag.  Simply count your steps.  For longer putts, get to the mid-point between your ball and the hole, check out the slope and then count your steps back to the ball and double the result.  Your distance calculation will be close enough.

    3.  Check the distance of your stride (from heel to heel).  The standard male stride is about 25 - 27 inches, NOT 36.  You may have to stride out to attain a 3-foot length.  I practice with a yard stick at home (while watching golf).  Next time you watch Tiger on TV, notice how his caddie strides out when pacing off yardage - and Steve is a big man.

    Successfully build the distance function into your putting routine and you will become a better, more confident putter. 

    Monday, February 28, 2011

    SLOW PLAY is alive and its poster boy is J.B. Holmes

    After some research, I determined that JB’s glacier-like pace in the quarterfinals of the Accenture Match Play Championship was not simply a failed attempt at gamesmanship.  As I looked for material on the Tour’s Slow Play rules online, I found more than a few articles or blogs that singled out JB Holmes as a culprit.  It was mentioned in the telecast that he is know for his “deliberate” pace but I think that he single-handedly forced the change in the format from the usual 36 holes to an 18-hole final.  Bad weather was the stated reason but I believe the decision was made when JB was 5-up on Bubba Watson after 10 holes and the Tour realized that, should he make the finals, 18 holes would require the normal time allotted for 36. 

    If you did not see it, JB Holmes could do nothing wrong and was killing Bubba Watson – 5 up after 10 holes.  Match over right?  Not so fast – Ha Ha.  JB hit an errant drive on the 10th hole and slowed down dramatically.  Peter Jacobson quipped:  “He’s gone into a 4 corner stall.”  In spite of it, JB won the 10th and it only got worse.

    As I watched, thankfully on DVR, I thought that he was purposely stalling in an attempt to alter Bubba’s tempo and charge.  I know I have run into more than my share of opponents that have this strategy in their competitive arsenal – I loath it AND them and have learned how important it is to ignore it and rise above it.  Thankfully, Bubba was undaunted and I believe spurred on by it to win.  Further,  JB’s unusual slow play, and the apparent lack of confidence and focus, had to play a large part in his undoing.

    How slow was he?
    For perspective, the PGA Tour allows 40 seconds per shot and the LPGA Tour has recently stepped that up to 30 seconds per shot.  It is a bit more complicated than that but those numbers set the standard for how long it should take from the time it is determined to be a player’s turn for him/her to hit the shot.  Obviously, it behooves players to have their “homework” done and be ready to play before it actually becomes their turn.  If so, 40 seconds is more than enough time, or is it?

    JB’s abuse of EVERYONE’s time was so much the story that I put a stopwatch on him and Bubba.  Thanks to my DVR, I was able to time eight of JB’s normal shots.  To be fair, I selected only those that were not “trouble” shots but were either tee shots, shots from the fairway following good drives and one approach shot from the rough in a JB-described “good lie.”  I also needed to be able to capture the start time when it was clearly JB’s turn to play, which further limited the number.  For these eight, JB averaged an abysmal 70 seconds including the quickest at 58 and worst 154 seconds.  Remember, these were not the really demanding ones.  I’m not counting the 8:13 it took to take two drops on the 18th hole or the 8:42 to drop on the play-off 10th.  Incidentally, the time to execute his shot following both of these drops exceeded 60 seconds.   
      
    On the other hand, Bubba Watson is anything but a dawdler.  A typical tee shot took 20 seconds from the time he pulled the club from his bag.   One of his slowest times involved a trouble shot through a bush on the play off hole that took 29 seconds from when it was determined to be his turn.

    Finally, to my amazement, on the 19th tee and after Bubba had hit a drive into trouble, JB altered his routine and let fly in only 36 seconds?  Unfortunately, the result was terrible and cost him an unplayable penalty and the match.  JB, please get your routine under control and in much less time!  You, the game and those of us that enjoy it will be better for it.
     

    Wednesday, February 2, 2011

    Where is Tiger's Game Now?

    There has been quite a bit written, and discussed on TV, of late on the state of Tiger's game.  Not to be left out, I decided to compare his most recent three rounds from Torrey Pines to a representative sample that I have of his 2009 performance (33 rounds).  The recent sample is only 3 rounds but it is all we have since ShotLink only captured those rounds on the South course.
    As the graphic above shows, Tiger's game is off everywhere EXCEPT PUTTING!  This goes against the pundits but bottom line Tiger's performance on the greens, when analyzed the ShotByShot.com way, - by DISTANCE - is not bad and equivalent to that of his remarkable 2009 season.  Further, Tiger's putting performance at Torrey Pines was as good as Bubba Watson's.  We all saw Bubba make some heroic putts down the stretch to secure his victory, but his total body of  work was not up to  that of our typical PGA Tour Winner.  Our 2010 Winners averaged a +5 Putting handicap while Bubba was at +2.  Why?  He made three putting ERRORS (3-Putts from inside 40 feet).  Tiger had only two 3-Putts, but both were outside 40 feet (44 and 54 feet).  Further, with all Bubba's much-touted work on the 10 foot and in range, he only made 5 of 9 (56%) in the critical 6 to 10 foot range.  Tiger made 7 of 14 (50%) and our 2010 Winners 62%.

    Driving - Tiger's decline in performance obviously involves missed fairways.  His Fairways Hit was down from 9.6 in 2009 to 6.7.  More important are the ERRORS, or drives hit into NO SHOT positions that require advancements to return to normal play.  Tiger had six such errors in the 3 Torrey Pines rounds.  This compares to less than one driving error per 4-round event in 2009.

    Long Game - From where he drove the ball, Tiger actually recovered fairly well to average 11 GIR's.  This is a far sight from the 12.9 GIR's in 2009.  We have consistently seen that averaging 70% GIR's (12.6), while avoiding driving errors, is a must for Tour Winners.  Witness, this was obviously Bubba's strenght as he averaged 14 GIR's with only one driving error.

    Short Game - Tiger has long been renowned for having one of the best short games ever BUT, not so much at Torrey Pines.  He averaged eight short game shots per round (Chip/Pitch & Sand combined) and his numbers were a long way from his usual high standard:
    • Avg. Putting Distance:  10.5 feet vs. just outside 6 feet in 2009.
    • Errors (shots missing greens):  3 (12%) vs. 5% in 2009.
    • % Saved:  44% (thanks to fairly good putting) vs. 69% in 2009.
    It will be interesting to see how quickly and how far Tiger comes back to his form.  I have no doubt that he will but also find it hard to see him winning six events in a given year as he did in 2009.  No fault of his but there are just too many young stars on Tour and a new crop emerging every year.  further, they don't appear to be intimidated by anyone or anything.