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.

  

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...

Muirfield brings out the worst in most - not Matt Kuchar

I have said for years that the frequency and severity of our mistakes in golf have a far greater influence on our score and handicap level than do our good shots.  Jack's event this weekend proved to be a great example of my point.  The table below displays the errors (mistakes) made by Matt Kuchar in his four rounds on Muirfield Village as compared to the average of the field.  For perspective, I added the average number of errors made by the PGA Tour in 2012 for an equivalent four rounds.

Muirfield Village is, without question, one of the most difficult courses visited by the Tour.  It is ranked the 3rd most difficult this year, based upon score over par, just behind PGA National - Champion (#2) and Augusta National (#1).  While I have yet to be invited to play Muirfield, I did walk (actually run) the course some years ago to record Shot By Shot data for Jack and his three pro am partners.  Not quite as much fun as playing but I did not lose a single ball.  

What did I learn?

• Playing is more difficult than walking.  The three amateurs, not bad golfers, picked up almost as often as they finished holes.
• Muirfield has lots of water that comes into play around the greens.  (Note the approach shot penalties are more than 2x the 2012 Tour average.)
• The greens and green complexes are very severe and present difficult short game shots. 

 In my study of the event this week, I was surprised to see that aside from the difficulty of the approach shots to the greens, it was the greens and their surroundings, especially the bunkers, that presented the greatest relative difficulty.  (Note the average number of short game errors were more than 50% higher than the 2012 Tour averages.) The Muirfield field made an error from the greenside sand 19.5% of the time - one in every five attempts.  This compares to 12%, or one in every nine attempts in all of 2012.

Matt Kuchar obviously had his sand game ready for Muirfield's test.  In seven attempts, his average putting distance was 6.7 feet (1.3 ft. closer than the field).  And he saved all seven (100% vs. 49% for the field), obviously with ZERO errors.  Well done, Matt!

How do your errors match up?  

What's so hard about Harbour Town?

I spent much of this weekend camped out in front of my TV multi-tasking - watching the golf (RBC Heritage Classic), while happily collecting data on my players.  It is a special event because it is a special course.  Short by today's standards at 7,101 yards (Par 71), and tight by any standards.  The greens are the smallest on tour and well protected by the thin fairways, towering pine trees, water and SAND.

Accordingly, it plays like a mini-major and tends to bring the very best players to the top.  Tom Watson and Hale Irwin are multiple winners and Davis Love, III has won FIVE times.  The King won the first in 1969 taking home $20,000.  I found it interesting that only 44 years later Graeme McDowell multiplied Arnie's cash by just over 50 times to earn $1,044,000.  My Dad said I should focus on golf NOT football - what did he know?

While the telecast was focused on the leaders, I noticed some uncharacteristic short game errors by some players not quite on camera.  When the event was over, I looked closer and noticed that the frequency of errors from the sand at Harbour Town was unusually high.  I compared the  Tour average YTD, just prior to Harbour Town, to the  average for the field in this event.  The errors from the sand were UP by 55%!  The chart above displays the percentage of Sand shots hit to within 8 feet (a good shot by ShotByShot.com standards) as well as the % Errors (shots that miss the green).  Note, the Harbour Town field would no doubt be proud to fall in the 6 to 9 handicap group based upon the frequency of their faux pas in the sand.   

Why so many mistakes?  My somewhat educated guess is that it was due to the small greens and the severe, collection areas adjacent to most of the greens.  First, given the small greens, the normal miss in the sand tends to be further into the sand - leaving more sand to cover and less green.  Second, the poor (or safe) sand shot that would come to rest on a larger green tends to run off into the collection areas. 

One might say:  "It was the wind on Sunday!"  My thought exactly, so I compared the first 3 rounds to the wind-blown 4th - NOT so.  In fact, the sand errors in the 4th round dropped slightly to only 15% (3 to 5 Handicap).

So, whatever your handicap, when you plan to tee it up at Harbour Town, bring your A sand game.    

Good players don't make mistakes in the short game! Or do they?

When I started my business (a long, long time ago), I had the great fortune of working with the Golf Digest Schools and the top instructors in the world that ran them.  I was struggling with exactly how to define the short game for my subscribers (what distances from the hole?) and how to handle ERRORS (shots that miss the green).  Several of these icons of the instruction world took an interest in the new approach that I was taking with golf statistics and were incredibly helpful.  In particular:  Chuck Cook, Jack Lumpkin and Hank Johnson.  

On the latter question (ERRORS) the comment was made:  "Good players don't make errors in the short game." To this day, if one works with PGA Tour players and relies solely on their Tour stats for information, this would seem to be true.  But I have been tracking Tour performance for years and know that even the winners on the PGA Tour make errors in the short game.  

Recently, Pat, my genius programmer dug into the ShotLink data to see exactly HOW GOOD THESE GUYS ARE around the greens (within 50 yards of the hole).  Pat uncovered the following percent ERRORS thru the first five PGA Tour events this season:

Chip/Pitch errors:   6%;  Avg. cost:  .68 strokes

Sand errors:            9%;  Avg. cost:  .66 strokes

One might ask:  Why is the Chip/Pitch cost slightly higher?  Isn't this counter-intuitive?  It is BUT, when players hit the green with their Chip/Pitch shots, their average score is lower than when they hit the green from the sand.  Thus a mistake has a higher cost.

The sand game is a challenge, especially for the club golfer.  Note that the 10 handicap golfer in the Greenside Sand Performance chart above is just as likely to make an error as they are to get it up and down.  My theory is that for these golfers, sand shots customarily only occur 1 or 2 times per round.  As such, the skill is seldom practiced and generally misunderstood.  Further, most public courses, and many private facilities, do not have practice bunkers.  I recommend that instructors/coaches check out their players' sand games.  If necessary, go out on the course for this purpose.  First, verify that they have the right club for the type of sand and shots required for their course.  Next, do they have the basic OUT shot that can reliably get them on the green.  Only after these basics are covered should the array of other sand shots be addressed.

Finally, I was surprised that the Tour error rate for sand shots was as high as 9%.  My theory as to why is that they really are that good and try to get it close from everywhere.  Or could it be that because the Tour stats don't include them, they forget that their errors ever happen?

My Preferred Tour Short Game Stat

(Tour Averages in RED are educated estimates as these specific numbers are not available)

Dustin Johnson did more than a few things right to squeak out a 1-stroke victory at the FedEx St. Jude Classic.  Not the least of which was his fortuitous birdie - birdie - par finish while other notable contenders stumbled home.

Dustin's long game was solid.  He hit 12.5 GIR's with only two long game errors.  When he missed the GIR, his Scrambling percentage was excellent at 77%.  While I view this to be a very important stat, I see it as a scoring stat much more than the short game measure that I believe it was intended to be long ago.  Why?  It concerns only instances when the GIR was not achieved.  This omits a significant number of short game opportunities and includes holes that don't involve a short game shot.  The following situations are not considered in this stat:

1. Short game shots to save birdie on par 5 holes.  50 years ago, it was the exception for players to hit on or around par 5 holes in two.  Today, it is more the rule.  The Tour average for Going for Par 5 holes in two is 50%.  Longer players, like Dustin Johnson, go for it 65% or more.
2. Short game shots to save birdie on short par 4 holes.  Today, most courses have one of these potentially reachable par 4's.
3. Missed GIR's due to long game errors which do not involve short game shots. 

To support my point, here is a breakdown of Dustin's 25 short game shots at TPC Southwind:

1. To save birdie:  6 (not included in Scrambling)
2. To save par:  18 (included in the Scrambling)
3. To save bogey: 1 (not included in Scrambling)

I find that Proximity to Hole (ARG) affords a much more reliable picture of the short game.  Definition:  The average distance to the hole (in feet) after hitting the ball onto the putting surface from around the green.  (Note:  'Around the green' indicates the player is withing 30 yards of the edge of the green.)

I have two minor issues with this stat:

1. It does not include shots that miss the green.  These ERRORS HAPPEN (see chart above), and they impact scoring but are totally lost in the Tour's stats.
2. 30 yards from the edge of the green can be as much as 60 - 70 yards from the hole.  I would prefer the distance range be measured from the hole.

That said, it still provides valuable perspective.  Dustin found the putting surface with 24 of his 25 attempts and his average putting distance was a precious 2' 9" closer than the average of the field.  The average 1-Putt percentages from these distances are significant - just under 5 strokes on Dustin's 24 opportunities:

• Dustin - 4' 7" (call it 5 feet) = 73%
• Field   - 7' 4" (call it 7 feet) = 53%

Bottom line, here is why I prefer this short game stat.  First, it includes most, if not all, of the players actual short game opportunities.  Second, it measures pure short game skill, and is not influenced by the player's putting as "Saves" are.  

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.      

Good Show, Young Mr. Spieth!

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

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

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

1.  Putting - His distance control was excellent, but Jordan can improve his % 1-Putts in the 4 to 10 foot range.  (Tour Winners - 69% vs. Jordan - 57%.)

2.  Short Game: Chip/Pitch Shots - Unbelievable for a 16 year old under that kind of pressure, but the Tour Winners make almost no mistakes and hit the ball even closer.  (Average Putting Distances:  Tour Winners - 5.8 ft. vs. Jordan - 7.5 ft.)  Incidentally, a sure way to improve short putting is to hit it closer on average.

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

 

Furyk's Short Game Tames Copperhead

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

I compared every facet of Jim Furyk's game to my PGA Winner's Profile and he was comparable across the board but four strokes better around the greens. No, it was not better putting. He simply hit the ball consistently closer to the hole. With 18 Chip/Pitch and 5 Sand shots, here are Jim's average putting distances and % saved vs. my 2009 Winners Profile:

• Chip/Pitch Shots - Avg. putting distance 4.6 feet vs. Winners @ 5.6 feet. That is a very important foot! Furyk saved: 15 (83%) vs. Winners: 71% (call it 13).
• Sand Shots - Avg. putting distance 5.2 feet vs. Winners 9.6 feet. Jim saved 4 (80%) vs. Winners: 56% (call it 3).

That is where I came up with the 4 shot difference. For perspective, here is how the average 15 - 19 handicap golfer would have fared, and forget about the relative difficulty of the course or the pressure of an event:

Chip/Pitch Shots:

• Avg. putting distance: 14 feet
• % Saved: 25%
• % Errors: 19%

Sand Shots:

• Avg. putting distance: 14 feet
• % Saved: 13%
• % Errors: 33%
  

Stricker Wins - Tour Stats Strike Out Again

If you look to the PGA Golf Tour Stats to see what Steve Stricker did last weekend to win, you'd conclude that it was his PUTTING, aided by great SAND PLAY. Here are Steve's stats and rankings for the Northern Trust Open:

- Driving Accuracy = T10
- Driving Distance = T37
- Putts Per Round = 1
- Putts Per GIR = 3
- Greens In Reg = T10
- Sand Saves = T 1

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

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

Putting

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

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

How then, did Steve Win?

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

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

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

OK, Know-it-all: What IS Yang's Problem?

I hope you read my last entry. In it I pointed out what I believed to be Johnny Miller's mistaken assessment as to why Y.A. Yang does not measure up to the top level on the PGA Tour. I took exception to Johnny's blaming Yang's post-PGA invisibility on missed fairways. I pointed out that while Y.A. does hit the fairway just over 60% (60.56) of the time, Tiger hits only 64%. I left out a more dramatic example of just how irrelevant the "Fairways" stat is - Phil Mickelson, the #2 player in the world, hit only 52% of his fairways in 2009.

But I could not call out Johnny Miller without offering a better explanation for why we aren't hearing more about Yang. The real answer to the question was not easy to find because, unlike Tiger, whose data I retrieve and analyze after every event, I do not have Y.A.'s ShotByShot.com data. As a result, I had to dive into the massive statistical storehouse of the Tour's ShotLink database. If one is fortunate enough to have access to this robust research tool, one can retrieve more bits of data than one can possibly process, and the pieces of the puzzle are in there somewhere....

I started with the old faithful long game measure - Greens-Hit-in-Regulation - the most pertinent of all of the traditional stats, especially at the Tour level. This stat consistently maintains the strongest direct correlation to scoring and winning of all the stats on Tour. Why? Because it signals a lack of errors in the long game and also corresponds to birdie opportunities. Y.A. hit 66% of his greens, just behind Tiger at 68%, and Tiger is ranked 12th on Tour. This only confirmed that Y.A.'s long game was not his major issue.

Next, I looked at the Tour's Scrambling stat. This is the percent of "saves" (par or better) when the player has failed to hit the green in regulation. Not perfect, but a fairly good overall short game barometer. Y.A. saved 58% of these short game opportunities, ranking 91st on Tour - barely better than the Tour average (57.5%). Tiger ranks #1 on Tour at 68% - this is a significant difference.

Finally, I looked at what I believe to be the Tour's best putting stat yet: Total Putting. This stat considers the weighted average (based upon number of opportunities) of six putting stats. The first five are the % 1-putt in each of the following critical ranges: (3-5 feet, 5-10 feet, 10-15 feet, 15-20 feet, 20-25 feet). The sixth is 3-putt avoidance. This is a simple percentage of holes on which a player has 3 or more putts. Again, not perfect, but by far the most representative of overall putting skill that I have seen from the Tour. Y.A. Yang's PGA Tour ranking is 113. This is worse than the PGA Tour average in these categories. By contrast, Tiger, whose putting never looks great based upon the old and useless Putts per GIR, is ranked #8 in this stat.

Bottom line, Johnny - and I'd love the opportunity to discuss this with you - I believe that Y.A Yang has not been as visible among the winners on Tour this year because his short game and putting just don't measure up. Not only does "Average" NOT win on the PGA Tour, these players are rarely ever seen on TV. What I view to be meaningful short game and putting indicators for Y.A. Yang (approximately 50% of the game) are at best average.

Stricker Unveils New Winning Formula

Steve Stricker's one-stroke win in the Deutsche Bank Golf Championship was most impressive for his ability to avoid drama. No part of his long game really stood out except for the fact that he did not make a single error. Steve is long enough (294 yards - ranked 38th), and fairly accurate (10 Fairways Hit - tied for 15th). But what I believe Stricker did the best this week does not show up in the Tour golf stats: none of his 16 missed fairways resulted in errors. I consider an error to be any penalty situation (OB, Lost, Hazard, Unplayable lie, etc.), or any 'No Shot' position from which the golfer cannot proceed normally toward the hole. As good as these players are, a 'No Shot' tends to result in less than a half shot penalty, but is a penalty nonetheless.

TPC Boston does not rival the single-file feel of Liberty National, and for the most part provides room to drive the ball. At the same time, it has a number of hazards and every hole is bordered by dense forest waiting to punish errant drives. Ask Tiger, who had four errors from the tee - two penalty situations and two 'No Shot' results. Add to these uncharacteristic errors, Tiger put a 9-iron approach in the water on #16 (3rd round), and had a 3-putt from 33 feet on #17 in the final round. That just about accounts for Tiger's five shot deficit in this tournament. Any way you look at it, Steve Stricker's error-free driving performance was a key to his victory.

The rest of Stricker's long game was solid. He hit 12.5 greens per round - one less than our ShotByShot.com 2009 PGA Tour Winner's profile. His putting was good by traditional standards (3rd in Putts per GIR), but again not quite as good as our 2009 Winner's profile. What Stricker did very well was save strokes around the greens. Between chipping, pitching and sand shots, Steve averaged just over seven short game opportunities each round. Without a single error (a shot that misses the green - and yes, this does happen on Tour!), Steve holed out from off the green twice, and "Saved" 75% of his short game opportunities. Our Winner's profile saves 70% and the winner will toss in an error 4 of every 100 shot attempts.

Niblicks of Truth's New Formula for Winning:

Long Game - Keep the ball in play off the tee, avoid mistakes and hit 12+ GIR's.
Short Game - Avoid mistakes, and get 75% of opportunites up and down.
Putting - Limit 3-putts to one (Steve had one) and see short game above.

(Focus on this formula - which can be adjusted for different pay grades of golf proficiency - for improvement at any level. Avoiding errors is the key!)

Make the Sand Your Friend!

The Sand Shot requires more confidence that any other shot in golf, and can be the most intimidating. You must use a reasonably full swing to propel your golf ball a relatively short distance – all the while making sure to MISS the ball. Is it any wonder that the tendency to decelerate on impact is only rivaled by the desperate urge to help the golf ball up and out of the sand with the club and/or your entire body?

Before you can get creative about shot making and target visualization, you must develop confidence in your basic sand technique. If either your technique or your self-esteem needs help, consult with your local teaching pro to develop a simple “confidence shot.” This should be a shot that you can trust to get out of any sand trap and onto the green - from any reasonable lie – every time.

A good practice drill to develop this confidence is to set a goal of executing a consecutive number of acceptable sand shots from different distance and lies before quitting. When you reach your goal, stop for the day, or move on to another facet of your golf game.

How do you set a realistic goal? Here are some statistics: In a recent study of US Open qualifiers facing sand shots 50 feet from the cup, the best 50% of these shots ended up 7½ feet from the hole, or within 15% of the original distance. The average 10 handicap golfer should certainly be satisfied with getting the ball on the green within 30% of the original distance. This creates a very large and forgiving bull’s eye.

Strive to get the ball up and down, but keep in mind that PGA Tour leaders in this category get up and down only 60% of the time. So what you really want to focus on is avoiding the “up, up and down, down” or the up, down, down and down.” By visualizing the target as the middle of a very large circle, you will minimize self-imposed pressure, make fewer mistakes, and see measurable improvement in your golf scoring.

For more specific analysis of your sand game performance, go to www.ShotByShot.com.

Short Game: How Close is Close?

My last article highlighted the importance of eliminating short game errors from our golf rounds. Building on that, here’s more diagnostics on short game performance. Traditional golf stat programs have you evaluate your short game by counting “Saves,” or the percentage of opportunities that you get up and down. Certainly getting up and down is always the goal, but as a statistic it can be misleading. This is because it mixes two important parts of the golf game – short game shots and putting. If you are just tracking Saves, you could be masking issues (or excellence!) in either your chip/pitch or putting skill.

At ShotByShot, we believe the proper way to evaluate short game ability is to measure the average putting distance after the short game shot, and calculate the % of opportunities that are successfully hit to within 5 feet.

Chip/Pitch Shots - How Important?
The answer for any golfer depends on the number of opportunities faced in each round. Long game performance directly affects the number of chip/pitch opportunities because more greens-hit-in-regulation means fewer short game shots – but that’s a topic for another day.

Here are some basic statistics from the ShotByShot database to help put your short game skill in perspective:


These stats will tell you whether or not your Short Game represents an improvement opportunity, or if your precious practice and lesson time (and $$$) should be spent elsewhere.


For a Complete Analysis of Your Game, go to: http://www.shotbyshot.com/

Don't Forget the Short Game

I have commented previously about how frequency and severity of errors separates golfers at every level. Everyone hits good shots, but it is the bad shots that tend to be the player's signature and the determining factor in scoring. Mistakes are particularly problematic in the short game because they tend to leave an impression that carries over to the next tee.

How can you determine whether your own Short Game error performance is in or out of line with your handicap? Take a look at where you fall on the chart below by keeping track of your Chip/Pitch and Sand opportunities for the next 3 to 5 rounds. On your scorecard make a note of the total number of opportunities, and the number of those opportunites that result in an error. (Any shot that does not finish on the putting surface is considered an error.) Divide the # of errors by the total of attempts to calculate your % of Errors, and see how your stats stack up:

OK, so now what do you do if your short game error ratio is out of whack? Shot selection is one of the most common judgment errors made by amateurs. Discipline yourself to evaluate the position of your ball, the lie, its relation to the hole and the amount of green with which you have to work. Try to categorize each opportunity as a Green, Yellow or Red light.

Green = A good lie and position; one you should try to get close, if not hole out.
Yellow = Not a great lie but one that you can get to within 10 to 12 feet or closer with an average, low risk shot.
Red = A difficult lie and position. Choose a shot that will get you safely on the green in a position where you can expect to 2-putt.

Work at this when you practice and play and you will dramatically reduce your short game errors and improve your score.

(For more detailed comparative analysis on how the pieces of your game compare to your target handicap, go to http://www.shotbyshot.com/)