What really separates your BEST and WORST rounds?

Do you wonder what changes the most when you're playing your best vs. those rounds you'd like to forget?  I've been providing this perspective to pro tour players for years, but golfers at every level can benefit from this information.  The good news is that it's readily available on ShotByShot.com.  Here are the steps to running what I call a BEST vs. WORST analysis, or specifically the Best vs. Worst of your most recent 20 rounds.

Under Analyze, use the Filter Rounds tab:

1.  Run an analysis of the Most Recent 20 rounds.  It can be more or less rounds and can also be further filtered by type and format (e.g., Tournament, Stroke play... and even by Course).

2.  From the Rounds/Scoring page of the analysis, record:

    a.  Average score

   b. Date of the oldest round analyzed (this will be the anchor date for your BEST and WORST analysis).

3.  BEST - Select:  Score Less than or Equal to:   The average score AND anchor the analysis on the Start Date (2. b. above).  This will produce the BEST analysis.  If it is not exactly 10 rounds (or half of whatever # of rounds you're using), simply adjust the score selected up or down by 1.  Record the Strokes Gained for each facet as I have done in the chart below.

4.  WORST - Select:  Score Greater than or Equal to:  One stroke above the score used in the BEST analysis above.  Again, anchor the analysis with the Start Date.  Record the Strokes Gained for each facet as I have done in the chart below.

5.  Calculate the difference between the Strokes Gained for each facet to determine the greatest differences.  You can then re-run the analysis to determine exactly what is causing the differences.

The case above is an actual study that I did for a Mini Tour player.  Putting came as a surprise as it had long been one of his strengths.  When we looked closer, we found a fairly dramatic drop in his 1-Putt success in the critical ranges 4 to 10 feet while at the same time his 3-Putts nearly doubled.  Clearly good to know, and the information he needed to see where there was work to be done!

ShotByShot.com adds Skills Tests & Practice Applications

Sounds fantastic!  Tell me more about it.

These new features can be used by our instructor/coach Group Leaders to:

• Conduct supervised skills tests to ascertain a player’s skill level & relative handicap.
• Create an ideal first lesson in a specific skill.  How good or bad is the player now and in the case of the latter, identify what areas need the most work.
• Assign practice sessions and monitor the player’s USE and RESULTS.  How do the Practice session results compare to those of the supervised test?  Is improvement carrying over into the Complete Game and scoring?
• Give users serious tools to help them practice properly, with purpose, accountability and accurate feedback/analysis.

How much does it cost?

NOTHING!  We have added these new features to ALL subscribers at no additional cost.  Further, it provides more to offer your students and can be built into your lesson plans to add revenue.

Where do I find it?
Go to the top navigation bar in your account and click on Skills Practice.
    

What does it include?

Putting is a stand-alone module, like our Complete Game Analysis, and with all the important features.  Once entered, Putting test/practice sessions will appear under Putting History and can be analyzed & filtered exactly as Complete Game rounds are.

See the specific instructions for set-up and execution of the Approach and Short Game skills tests, as well as how to differentiate skills tests from practice sessions.  

What if I need help?

Please do not hesitate to contact us:

Peter Sanders,  PSanders@shotbyshot.com Office:  203-968-1608 Cell:  203-912-8734

Skip Williamson, Skip@shotbyshot.com Cell:  203-512-9424

How good is Jordan Spieth's Distance Control?

Read my article in this month's Masters issue of Golf Digest

Were the Copperhead greens really that slow?

It is always more fun to watch an event when I have played the course AND when bogeys are more common than birdies as was the case in this week's Valspar Championship.  I find myself anguishing along with the contenders over the difficult drives, approaches, short game shots - how about those buried lies - and putts.  Speaking of putts, I cannot remember seeing greens as slow in a PGA Tour event.  10.5 was mentioned but they looked more like 9 and Justin Leonard said 9 on the telecast after his round.  So what effect did the slow greens have on the field?  What would you expect?

Fewer 3-Putts?

Since one does not have to worry about their lags getting away from them this would make sense.  YES!  3-Putt Avoidance was 19% better for the Valspar field than the 2016 Tour average (2.2% vs. 2.79%).  This says that the Valspar field 3-Putted on 2.2% of their greens of 1.6 times in 72 holes vs. the Tour avg. 2.0 3-Putts in 72 holes.

More 1-Putts? 

Players can be more bold?  Also YES but not by as much as one might think.  The Valspar field

1-Putted 40.1% of their greens vs. the 2016 Tour average 38.5%.

There was ONE major difference in Distance control:  

Lag Putts (20+ ft.) holed or hit past the hole.   The 2015 Tour average for this distance control stat was 67% of lag putts had a chance to go in and, on average, 7% found the hole.  The Valspar field only got 47% of their 20+ ft. lag putts to the hole and only 5% went in.  That is a major difference.

With the majority of lag putts left short, the % 3-Putts from 20+ ft. was exactly the same as the 2015 Tour average - 8%. 

Finally, the dramatically slower greens did not produce a single 4 or 5-Putt.

How difficult were the poa greens at Riviera

I recently did a detailed Putting - Distance Control study comparing Jordan Spieth's 2015 year to the most recent five, year-end, Strokes Gained leaders and the 2015 Tour average (please look for my article in the next issue of Golf Digest).  Something jumped out in that there were 88 4-Putts and five 5-Putts on Tour in 2015.  We obviously don't see these on TV.  I typically have one 4-Putt every season so like to get it out of the way early in the year.  Have never recorded 5 putts yet - WHEW!  In 27 years of Shot By Shot data, we see very few 4-Putts.  Why?  The vast majority of our rounds are match play format and players tend to very appropriately pick up that 3rd putt.

Not only did the fairly large number of 4+ putts stand out but two courses owned more of them than any of the others:

• CC of Jackson had the most with EIGHT 4-Putts in 2015.  
• Riviera was 2nd with SEVEN 4-Putts and, even more surprising, was that FIVE of the seven fell on the 1st hole - a very reachable Par 5.  

There was quite a bit of discussion during the Norther Trust telecast about the difficulty of the poa greens so I decided to see HOW difficult and WHY; as well as, see if the 4-Putts were repeated. 

The greater difficulty is not a surprise and was specifically pointed out by Nick Faldo - specifically the ability, or lack thereof, to make the 4-5 ft. putts.  Good get Sir Nick!  To support your point, the biggest difference between the 2015 Tour average and Riviera performance was the 4-5 ft. range (see graphic above).  This key distance led to the highest rate of 3-Putts that I have seen in a PGA Tour event.  Riviera = .72/round vs. 2015 Tour avg. = .51/round. 

Was it the Lag difficulty?

No!  The average start distances and leaves/results were close enough to be a wash but the average leave distances for 3-Putts was telling.  In 2015 the Tour's average leave  on 3+ Putts was 6.1 ft. (the distance for their 2nd putt).  At Riviera the average 3+ Putt leave distance was 5.7 ft.  In short, the Riviera field 3-Putted with far greater frequency by missing shorter 2nd putts - on average 5 inches closer to the hole. 

What about the 4-Putts? 

There were TEN in 2016 - up from the SEVEN in 2015.  They were obviously caused by unusually difficult pin placements:

• Round 1, THREE 4-Putts, on three different holes.
• Round 2, FOUR 4-Putts, 9th hole.
• Round 4, THREE 4-Putts, 6th hole.

I wonder if the Tour officials review their numbers to identify, and avoid, these overly difficult placements? 

Putting: Two important but different skills

Putting is 40% of the game at virtually every handicap level.  The higher the scoring level, the more putts are needed, but the ratio of # Putts/Score holds steady.  That is, up until the 20+ handicaps when the pickup holes, with no putts recorded, slightly lower the percentage.

So what are the two skills?

1.  Short putts:  Line and accuracy are crucial inside 10 feet.  Practicing a solid setup and alignment routine will help insure consistent accuracy.

2.  Distance control:  In longer, lag putts, the most important skill to develop is feel because distance is more important than line.

How much to practice each skill

A study of putting distances faced by the average golfer (15-19 handicap) reveals that practice time should be split 80% short putts / 20% distance control.  That's because 83% of total putts during an average round occur inside 10 feet (this is all putts:  1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd …).  When looking at just first-putt opportunities outside 10 feet, 88% fall between 11 and 40 feet; only 12% at 41+ feet.  

  

To practice your distance control, I recommend spending time gaining confidence in your 30 foot lag.  You can then make all other lag putts a function of that stroke.  It is very important when playing away from home to set up 30 foot tees and putt back and forth (I use two balls) until that distance becomes almost automatic.  When you hit the first green, you will be ready to stroke the first putt with confidence.

Work with your instructor on the specific practice drills for each skill, but your goals should be:

Short putts:  Increase your 50% Make distance – the distance from which you hole 50% of your putts.  See where you are on the graph below.

Distance control:  Work to expand your 2.00 Putt distance – the distance from which you two-Putt the vast majority, but one and three-putt with the same frequency on the rest.  Again, see where you fit on the graph below and work to extend your 2.00 distance.

You will need a way of accurately recording and analyzing your putting distances.  I recommend ShotByShot.com.  Self-serving?  Perhaps, but it's the only place I know where you can easily and accurately get the information you need to determine your exact strengths and weaknesses, and why. 

Determining your putting distances? I recommend that you build this into your pre-shot putting routine.  When you reach the green, you need to mark your ball and walk to the flag.  Simply count your steps.  For the longer putts, get to the midpoint - check the break - and count your steps back to your ball.  Then double the number.  Finally, know the distance of your average stride – heel to heel.  I am 6’ 1” and my average, walking stride is 28 inches.  I have to stride out a bit to average 3 feet, something that I actually practiced in my living room until it became automatic.

Strokes Gained Putting - Why is Jordan Spieth NOT #1?

How many times have we heard the TV announcer proclaim that Jordan is the best putter in the game?  Jordan is a GREAT putter, ranked #8 for the year in Strokes Gained and is clearly a PHENOMENAL clutch putter.  For the record, I believe Jordan is the best putter in the game and that he would be appropriately ranked #1 if the Majors were included in the ShotLink stats.  

[It is often overlooked that ShotLink stats are not captured for non-PGA Tour events, notably the Masters, US Open and British Open.  If Jordan's putting performance in these Majors were included, it would add 12 rounds (18%) of superior putting to the his 67 ShotLink rounds for 2015.  In case anyone forgot, Jordan's finishes in the three missing majors were:  Masters - #1, US Open - #1, British Open - #2.]

All that said, using the stats at my disposal:  Why is he not #1?  The simple answer turns out to be consistency.  When compared to the #1's that I have studied over the last four years, Jordan's WORST putting events (those with negative Strokes Gained totals) are slightly more frequent than these other players' (@ 5 of 20 (25%), but more importantly, his are more negative.  Jordan's five negative Strokes Gained events averaged -.99/round while the four most recent Strokes Gained #1's averaged only -.44/round on their negative Strokes Gained events.

The follow-up question is:  What changes about Jordan's putting to produce these negative SG events?   To answer this, I ran my BEST vs. WORST analysis on Jordan's 2015 ShotLink rounds.  [The BEST being the 15 events where Jordan recorded positive SG totals, and the WORST - the five events with negative SG totals.] 

The answer?  It is NOT an uncharacteristic flood of 3-Putts.  In fact, Jordan's 3-Putt numbers are good across the board and slightly better in his WORST putting events.  Jordan ranked 37th in 3-Putt Avoidance - only 3-Putting 2.4% of holes played.  The Tour average is 3.15%, and Aaron Baddeley (#1 Strokes Gained 2015) ranked 22nd @ 2.25.  Further, one of Jordan's strengths is his impressive distance control - but that is a topic for another day.    

The major difference was logically a drop off in 1-Putts almost across the board but specifically in the always critical 6 - 10 foot range.  As you can see from the chart above, this important range involves more 1st Putt opportunities than any other range - just under one in every four.  In his WORST putting events, Jordan fell significantly below his BEST performance AND the PGA Tour average in this range.  Not just coincidently, Jordan missed only four cuts this year.  Three of the four were also included in the WORST putting events.

Congratulations on a spectacular year, Jordan!  Tighten up that 6 - 10 foot range a bit and I look forward to studying you as the #1 ranked putter next year.     

Best vs. Worst Analysis on ShotByShot.com

Some of our ShotByShot.com users have had a difficult time finding our Filtering Options located below the Pick Specific Rounds screen on our Analyze tab.  Sorry, we are correcting this.  The Filtering features are robust, and can be used together to produce interesting analysis.  I promised one of our new Group Leader instructors that I would share exactly how I run a BEST vs. WORST analysis. I thought that this was something that everyone should see.  I have been doing these studies for years for the Tour players with whom I work, but every player can  benefit from seeing exactly what changes the most from when they are at their best, playing to their handicap level, versus the OTHER rounds.

 

Use the Filter Rounds:

1.  Run an analysis on the Most Recent 20 rounds.  It can be more or less rounds and can also be further filtered by type and format (e.g., Tournament, Stroke play... and even by Course).

 

2.  From the Rounds/Scoring page of the analysis, record:  Average Score and Date of the oldest round analyzed (this  will be the anchor for the BEST and WORST analysis).

 

3.  BEST - Select:  Score Less then or Equal to:  The average score.  Also, anchor the analysis on the Start Date of the oldest round recorded in #2 above.  This will produce the BEST analysis.  If it is not exactly 10 or half, you may have to adjust the Score selected up or down by 1.

 

4.  Review the BEST analysis and record the numbers listed in the example above.

 

5.  WORST - select:  Score Greater than or Equal to:  One stroke above the score used in the BEST analysis above and anchor the start date of the analysis.  Record the appropriate numbers listed in the example above and compute the differences.

 

The greatest negative difference will be the part of the game that changes the most and is costing the player the most strokes on average when NOT at their BEST.  The case above is an actual study that I did for a mini Tour player.  It was somewhat of a surprise that Putting was the main culprit as it has long been one of his strengths.  When we looked deeper, it was clear as to why.  First, his % 1-Putts in the always critical range of 6-10 ft. dropped from 56% (50% is the PGA Tour Avg.) down to 37%.  This is a significant drop off.  Second, his 3-Putts jumped from a tidy 2% (PGA Tour Avg. is 3%) to 5%.  Clearly, good to know!     

Short Game: When is a missed green NOT an ERROR?

Shot By Shot was the first statistical program to recognize the importance of errors in the short game and enable our users to record them 25 years ago.  When we launched a simplified, web version of the program in 2005, we had users record when their short game shots were successful (hit the green) or missed the green (errors).  The subsequent putting distance recorded revealed the exact level of success but we did not know the exact extent of the mistake.    The percentage of misses (or errors) has been a valuable component in our short game handicap determinations - a proprietary balance of three factors:

1. Average putting distance when the green was hit;
2. % of attempts hit close (to within 5 feet for Chip/Pitch, 8 feet for Sand);
3. % Errors (shots that missed the green).  

The PGA Tour data does not include errors or missed greens in the 409+ ShotLink stats.  I had my my programmer extract these important pieces of data from ShotLink for use in my work with Tour players.  As one can see above, in 2014 the PGA Tour player on average MISSED greens with 7% of their Chip/Pitch shots (within 50 yards of the hole) and 11% for Sand shots from within the same range.  If you think these numbers, when viewed as errors, seem high - I agree. 

A post-round discussion with my genius programmer led us to the solution of this dilemma.  Why not see what percentage of the missed greens actually took the players more than 3 strokes to hole out?  Three strokes from a short game situation is not a SAVE, but it is certainly not a stroke lost. The save %'s are:  Chip/Pitch - 65% and Sand - 50%.  But four or more strokes to hole out is definitely an ERROR.

Once the programming was done, the answer confirmed that "These guys really are good!"  In 75% of their missed greens with Chip/Pitch attempts, and 73% of missed Sand shots, the Tour holes out in 3 strokes or less.

How does your game compare?  Just stay tuned.  Now that we have been collecting score by hole since last October, we will be able to exactly match our new Tour calculations.  I plan to wait until we have a full year of new data but am very anxious to see the results.

  

How bad could Jordan Spieth's putting be in ANY range?

This year's Open at St. Andrews was by far the most exciting that I have watched.  Forgive me for being a big Zach Johnson supporter - I've been the stat advisor to Zach and his team for the past four years.

Please don't tell Zach, but I was also pulling for Jordan Spieth.  It bothered me to hear the commentators continually refer to Jordan as a poor putter in the important 5-10 ft. range.  I understand that this was intended to build suspense as Jordan stood over these critical putts.  But let's put the record straight.  First, Jordan is by no measure a "poor" putter.  Second, the rationale cited was  Jordan's Tour ranking of #87 in that range, which is just WRONG.  The ranking number is not wrong, but its use to support the assertion is dead wrong.  I decided to write this blog when a good friend (a very knowledgeable golfer - but not a ShotByShot.com subscriber?!) quoted this stat in the context of "... can you believe how bad Jordan is with these short range putts?" I did some homework to set him straight, and realized it was worth sharing.  I hope you agree.

Compaction

First, the Tour maintains a total of 649 Tour Stats.  With the exception of the two Strokes Gained stats (Putting and Tee-to-Green), the remaining 647 stats are one-dimensional snapshots of a small slice of performance and can be very misleading.  The rankings represent where the player stands relative to his peers.  But at this level - the very top of the game - differences are very slight.  I refer to it as "compaction."  For example, let's examine exactly what Jordan's 87th ranking in the 5-10 ft. putt range really means.

• The #1 ranked player is Troy Merritt (who?) makes 65.15% of his opportunities in this range.
• Jordan's 57.3% is better than the Tour avg. of 56%.
• This stat does not drop below 50% for any player until #190
• The worst player in this range, ranked #196, makes 45% of his opportunities.
• Like most players, Jordan averaged less that three putts (2.7) in this range per round.
• Finally, the range should be 6-10.  There is way too much difference in the average make % between 5' 4" and 8 or 9+ ft. so each player's actual spread of distances will influence the result.

Bottom line, Jordan's 57% is not bad at all - he's better than average in a very small slice of the overall putting pie.

Strokes Gained

Jordan Spieth is ranked #6 in this MOST IMPORTANT putting stat.  I don't recall this stat being mentioned in the telecast.  For those that are unfamiliar, this stat compares the player's performance for the distance of each putt opportunity to a model of the average performance of the entire Tour for that distance.  It is as close to perfect as a golf stat can get.  For a more complete explanation see:
 How Good is Strokes Gained Putting

The graph above displays Jordan's current Tour rankings from each distance range.  For perspective, I added his Strokes Gained Putting ranking (6) in blue.  When I average all the Tour rankings by range, Jordan would rank #48.  This makes no sense as the vast majority of putts fall into the first three ranges.  So I performed a weighted average based upon my educated estimates of the # of putts within each range.  In theory, the weighted average should approximate Jordan's overall skill level.  Instead it bumps Jordan up to #64 - a long way from his real skill level - #6.

In closing, my plea to broadcasters:  If you are going to cite statistics, please understand what they really mean.  If you need help, call me!

It only took 26 years!

In 1989, I left a successful career in the reinsurance business to, of all things, get into the golf business.  Imagine having that discussion with your wife?  My idea was to apply what I had learned about computer modeling to radically improve golf stats and performance analysis.  There was no internet, apps or even cell phones.  It took two years to gather enough rounds to create my first "Scratch" model and another year to launch what I called Strokes Lost/Saved Analysis - now known as Strokes Gained (read the History of Strokes Gained).   

Along the way, I was told by lots of smart people that my system would never catch on - notably, several venture capital specialists and the PGA Tour (but only three times).  But there was also a bright side.  Some noteworthy instructors took an interest and helped me keep rolling the stone up the hill.  Carol Mann was the first and introduced me, and the program, to a host of LPGA players.  A few Golf Digest instructors (Hank Johnson, Chuck Cook and Jack Lumpkin) were very helpful and encouraging.  Tom Patri was an early and influential supporter.  And no one has done more for me and my business than my Canadian brother, Henry Brunton.  Could never thank you enough, Hank!

On Saturday night we launched ShotByShot.com's revised Complete Game Analysis.  This new version added Approach shots - the final piece of the complete Strokes Gained puzzle.  Keeping the program simple enough that golfers will actually use it, while introducing a very sophisticated analysis, proved to be even more of a challenge than expected.  But I believe we have done it!  Great thanks to the many users that contacted me with questions in the beta phase, and to two, long-time Group Leaders who spent their valuable time studying the results and discussing them with me.  Special thanks to Derek Ingram (another Canadian and the National Team Coach) and Jeff Isler, who runs a great academy in Southlake, Texas (www.jeffislergolf.com).

I look forward to your feedback on the program and to continued grow and improvement. 

  

 

Introducing Approach Shots - Now Strokes Gained Analysis for EVERY facet

--> -->

We are proud to announce the addition of the Approach Shot distance and position to ShotByShot.com.  The distance will be entered and analyzed in the same 25 yard ranges used in the PGA Tour stats.  This adds the final piece of the Strokes Gained puzzle and completes our Strokes Gained analysis.  Every major facet will be analyzed and included in the determination of a player's #1 Improvement Priority.  We are so proud of the result that this additional component will not be an option, as anticipated.  The new information easy, usually only one additional click, and who attempts an approach shot without knowing the distance.  Finally, the complete product is far too good not to be used by all of our players.

What does this mean for our current subscribers and Group Leaders?  Everyone currently using the program will simply have the benefit of the new feature at no additional cost.  There may be a price increase at renewal?

The retail price of the program for new subscribers will increase from $59 to $79.  A premium price for a premium product.

When?  Within days.  The app has been submitted for Apple's approval and considering that it is simply an upgrade of an existing app, approval should come quickly.

How will you know?  We will announce it, but when you login you will see the Approach shot feature.  Simply download the App's update. 

What about an Android App?  Soon!  It was nearly complete when we decided to move Approach shots to the top of our list.  Further, it did not makes sense to release it without the Approach feature.

Skip and I look forward to your feedback.

What is your 2.0 Putt Distance?

In studying performance at all levels for more than 25 years, I have found that there are two distinct skills needed to become a good putter:  Alignment and Distance Control.  Proper alignment is especially critical in the 1-Putt range.  Distance control is critical to avoid 3-Putts from longer range.  It is important to practice both skills.  I recommend spending 60% to 70% of your practice time on the former, or putts inside 10 ft., with special emphasis on 3, 4 and 5 footers.  I carry the SeeMore Triangulator in my golf bag, and do not let a week go by during the season without using it to sharpen my short putt alignment. 

I like to measure skill levels in these two important skills in terms of the 50% Make distance - the distance at which a player consistently makes 50% of their putts; and, the 2.0 Distance - the distance from which a player averages 2.0 putts.  Simply stated, from your 2.0 distance, you 2-Putt the vast majority.  But when you don't, you 1-Putt and 3-Putt with the same frequency. 

The graph above displays the 2.0 Putt distances for an array of handicap levels.  The 50% Make distances are:

Tour - 8 ft.,  0 Hcp - 7 ft.,  5 to 15 Hcp - 6 ft.  20 Hcp - 5 ft.

Over your next few rounds try to get a feel for where your skills stand.  If you would like to know precisely, log on to www.ShotByShot.com and register for our FREE Trial.  We have been providing Strokes Gained Analysis to all golfers since 1992. 

Why do we NOT include Direction of Missed Shots?

-->

We get this question all the time.  Years ago, a potentially large "partnership" opportunity was lost  simply because we would not add this to our existing analysis.  The answer is simple:  If it is an option, players will not do it with enough consistency for the data to be of value.  If it is mandatory, it is too much extra work and players will not use the program at all.

 How do we know?  Two examples:

1.  It was an option in my original Shot By Shot program.  Players would simply mark little arrows indicating Left, Right, Long or Short when fairways or greens were missed - SIMPLE?  The results were displayed in the analysis of each facet as % of misses in each direction.  We consistently found that the directions were marked with such inconsistency and infrequency that the resulting analysis was worthless.  

2.  A Group of my LPGA players requested direction of miss on putts along with the distance of the 2nd putt.  There was such enthusiasm that we did the programming and created special scorecards.  By the 2nd month, every single player had stopped recording the new putting data.  Why?  Because determining the distance of the 1st putt becomes an integral part of the pre-shot routine.  The direction of miss and 2nd putt distance are afterthoughts and frankly become annoying when focusing on the positive routine of MAKING that 2nd putt.

We recently were sent a new, competitor stat program for review.  We try to keep up with the ever-growing competition.  We set up an "average" test round (an 81) and entered the data in our program and the competitor's to see the differences in work needed by the player vs. analysis/feedback.

ShotByShot.com:  We counted every click needed to enter the round with and without our soon to be added Approach shot analysis. 

Total clicks w/o Approach data:  76 clicks

Total clicks with Approach data:  103 clicks

The competition:  451 clicks  - 5 times the work and time to enter the same round.

 It should be noted that their interface required the miss direction for Fairways and Greens. 

In closing, we've learned the hard way that less is more.  It is important to create something that can easily become a part of every player's on-course routine without becoming a distraction.  The best program in the world is useless if players will not do it.

By the way, that potentially big "partner" that dug in their heels about direction of miss, AND started their own stat program, is no longer in business.

A Nice Story!

In the summer of 2012 I was contacted by a young man requesting that I review his stats to help him decide exactly where he needed to improve his golf game.  I am always flattered when ShotByShot.com users reach out to me for my insight so I responded accordingly asking for his User Name and Password.  He responded that he did not use ShotByShot.com but would I look at his GolfStat data.  (GolfStat is a competitor program that offers traditional golf statistics.)

My first thought was to suggest that he contact GolfStat, but softie that I am, I agreed and he emailed me a summary of his 2012 season data.  As I suspected, the limitations of the data resulted in limited insight  - his GIR's were very good but the rest of the one-dimensional stats were just numbers.  I felt bad and offered to give him an explanation of why traditional stats don't tell the story and what ShotByShot.com does differently to provide answers.  I also had to ask:  WHY DID HE REACH OUT TO ME?  He said that he was on the Stanford University golf team and that his coach had the team routinely read my blog and that he was impressed with what he had learned from it.  Again, I was flattered.  But then why wouldn't his coach also use ShotByShot.com?  His response was that his coach is committed to the other program.  I said, Oh well, I understand.

A week later, I received a call from the Stanford coach, Conrad Ray.  His pointed question:  What can I get from ShotbyShot.com that I cannot get elsewhere?  I was prepared and ran down my list.  His next question was how much and when can we start?  Further, when his team had gotten into the program Conrad asked if I would consult periodically to help set improvement goals for the players.  Coach Conrad and his assistant Phil Rowe and I have had some lively and fun conversations during which I reveal what I see as the strengths and weaknesses of each player.  I am also able to throw in the added perspective that I have gained from the PGA Tour's Shotlink data.

Fast forward to yesterday when I had the thrill of watching the aforementioned young man, Cameron Wilson, win the NCAA Division 1 National Championship.  CONGRATULATIONS Cameron!  Keep up your great play thru the match play.

Thanks again for your interest and for contacting me.  I look forward to watching you and perhaps helping you at the next level.     

Kuchar's improbable finish at Harbour Town

A good friend texted me after Matt Kuchar's improbable closing holes to ask:  "Which is more likely, a 3-Putt from 4 ft. or to hole out from a greenside bunker?"  I do not have this stuff on the top of my head but was intrigued, so looked into ShotLink.

The greenside bunker shot holed is not that uncommon on Tour.  In 2013, there were 252 instances in 20,741 attempts or one in every 82 attempts. 

Since 2003, there have been 499 3-Putts from 4 ft. in 143,788 attempts or one in every 288 attempts. 

If my math is correct, the bunker holed is 3.5 times more likely.  I was not able to calculate the odds that one player would do both on consecutive holes.

Nice to see Kuchar close this one out.

It is interesting to note how the tables turn on these two outcomes as we move into the amateur ranks.  Let's take the average 10 handicap - The 3-Putt from 4 ft. becomes 2.4 times more likely than the hole out from the greenside sand.

3-Putt from 4 ft.:  1 in every 170 attempts

Hole out from greenside sand:  1 in every 408 attempts

Shot of the Year?

Rory's 5-wood to last weekend's final hole of regulation from 245 yards in the fairway was remarkable for many reasons.  Had he made the putt and won the Honda Classic, that approach shot would be in the conversation for best all-time clutch shots.

The announcers did give the shot appropriate praise, but after Rory missed the 11-foot putt and didn't win, it was virtually forgotten.  Tiger used to WOW us with just that kind of pressure shot, but more often than not finished it by making the putt.

By ShotLink standards Rory's shot was great because of its relative proximity to the hole.  The ShotLink average proximity from 225-250 in the fairway is 53 feet.  OK, 11 feet is worlds closer, but it is actually much more than that.  The problem with the "Proximity" stat is that it includes all shots - whether they successfully hit the green or not.  A ball can be 15 feet short and in the water, or 10 feet away and buried under the lip of a bunker - and still be included in the average proximity.

ShotLink also reveals that tour players will hit the green-in-regulation from 200+ yards in 43% of their tries.  This is nice but it mixes all conditions (fairway, rough, bunkers, etc.).  Further, there is a large distance span of attempts greater than 200 yards.   Players are attempting to hit greens from 260+ these days.

I believe the best way to judge Rory's accomplishment is by comparing apples to apples.  Accordingly, I have looked a bit deeper.  The 2013 tour average for greens hit from 225 - 250 yards in the fairway was 36% (just over 1 of every 3).  When successful, the average putting distance from this range was 33 feet.

So Rory's success in hitting the green was impressive, but 11'4" from the pin was over the top, especially under the circumstances, and the looming downside of water short, right and long.  Missed putt notwithstanding, I think it qualifies for Shot of the Year so far.

Apologies, Bubba, but I could not help but notice...

Background

Going into this weekend's event at Riviera, I noticed that greenside sand was rated 5th most difficult of the 43 PGA Tour courses rated in 2013 based upon % saves.  This made me take a look at the other side of the sand game - Errors (shots that miss the green).  This number was surpisingly high (17%) when compared to the Tour average for 2013 (11%).  I thought it worth pointing out to the tour players with whom I consult.  I also gave it to Damon Hack, host of Morning Drive on the Golf Channel, labeling it as a "Thing one can't find in the Tour stats."  Damon was then good enough to mention it and Shot By Shot.com on the air.

Followup

The errors from the sand for the field at Riviera were down just a bit from last year, to only 16%.   Perhaps some players took my warning to heart.  I found it interesting that the TOP-5 finishers were worse than the field in this relatively unknown and undesirable stat.  The TOP-5 sand errors were 19% (7 of 37 attempts from greenside sand missed the green).  Unbelievable?  I thought so until I looked at the Winner's sand game.

Bubba Watson committed four errors in only nine attempts (44%).   It is unusual for the Winner to have ANY errors let along FOUR.  These errors resulted in the only 3 double bogies that he made this week and a bogey.  To be fair, Bubba also holed out from the sand for birdie in the 4th round. 

When I entered Bubba's sand results into ShotByShot.com, his average putting distance of 13 feet and 44% errors produced a robust 32 handicap.  So the sand is clearly not Bubba's strength.  Thus far this year, Bubba is ranked #170 in saves @ 27.5%.   The Tour Average is 46.7%.  My guess: Bubba's Riviera errors were not a fluke.  Obviously, when one has the power to bring a course to its knees and a hot putter, he can overcome a few errors...

Publicity for ShotByShot.com and me!

About a month ago, I received a phone call from Josh Sens, a writer for GOLF Magazine.   Josh was researching an article on the relatively new trend of PGA Tour players adding stat experts to their support teams.  

Josh had done his homework.  He had spoken to Zach Johnson and gotten my name and number from Dr. Morris Pickens (Zach's Sports Psychologist) - Thanks Mo!  Our discussion was a lively one that lasted approximately an hour with a few follow up calls and questions about points that I had raised.

Josh's article was published on GOLF.com on Monday, July 8.  I think he did a great job and included quite a few of my quotes and was kind enough to plug my website.  By far my favorite quote is from Zach, talking about my work:  "He's able to find holes in the stats and magnify other stats by clearing out the junk,"  Johnson says.  "He chews on it, digests it and then spits out something a lot more practical than 'You've got to hit more fairways.'"

Way to go Zach!  Very high praise and I could not have said it better myself.

I hope you enjoy the article:  GOLF.com - It All Adds Up