That Groove Thing: What's all the Fuss About?

I've been reading with interest the speculation about what effect the new, less spin-producing grooves would have on the PGA Tour golfers' performance. Maybe I missed something and the Jan. 1, 2010 requirement for the new grooves was ignored? If not, and the recent Sony Open at Waialia CC in Hawaii is representative, so far the predicted changes in performance are ...not so much, if not at all.

By way of background, in 1984 Ping reinterpreted the USGA's golf club requirements and introduced wider, U-shaped grooves to replace the former V-shaped standard. A firestorm resulted and millions were spent on lawsuits before the USGA backed down and the new grooves became standard. These wider, deeper grooves enabled skilled players to impart spin from even the worst rough and changed the game at the top levels. In a nutshell, Tour players could hit it as far as possible because the major downside of playing from the rough had been greatly mitigated.

Combine this with the introduction of the Pro-VX golf ball (another story) that enabled golfers with 100 mph+ clubhead speed to gain 30+ yards off the tee, and traditional golf course designs were fast becoming obsolete. All this prompted the USGA to legislate a return to V grooves and the PGA Tour agreed to start the process effective Jan. 1, 2010.

Here is what was predicted and hoped for vs. what happened in Hawaii:

1. Driving distance will go down. This is based on the theory that accuracy (hitting fairways) will become more important. Not exactly! The Sony field averaged 294 yards, six yards longer than the 2009 Tour average.

2. Driving Accuracy will go up. See #1 above. Again NO! The Sony field sprayed the ball with abandon averaging only 47% of tee shots in the fairway. This is down considerably from 2009 's Tour average of 63%.

3. Greens Hit in Regulation will go down. Shorter drives should result in longer approach shots with reduced spin - accuracy should be off. NOPE! GIR's were level with 2009 at 64%.

4. Scores up, birdies down. This one is not so easily measured as specific weather conditions have such an impact on scoring year over year. That said, the winners in 2009 and 2010 both posted -15 but the cut was 1 stroke higher in 2010 (+1).

From my limited perspective, there has been no meaningful impact on the game at the Tour level but I will keep watching.

How will the change in grooves affect the rest of us?
Unless you are trying to qualify for one of the USGA Majors, hardly at all. The new groove rules will be in place in 2010 for: US Opens (Men, Women and Sr.'s) and for the USGA's National Team Championships - whatever those are?

For the rest of us, the USGA website states that our current "cheater" clubs will be deemed to be "...conforming through at least 2024." WHEW! We have some time to gear up our club head speed and games to meet the challenge.

Grayhawk's Raptor Must Be an Easy Course

The "Fall Series" is clearly a chance for remainder of the PGA Tour golfers to record a win - and one of them did last weekend. Troy Matteson - a new one on me?!

The title of this article takes a snipe at Grayhawk. Underlying this is the fact that I saw something that I have yet to see in years of studying the PGA Tour's golf statistics - not one but two nearly perfect long game rounds. Rickie Fowler (one of the three golfers tied at -18 after 72 holes) kicked off the event by hitting all 18 greens in regulation. It follows that he made no errors off the tee. His one blemish was a 3-putt-bogey from 44 feet on the 13th hole. Rickie's Long Game Efficiency Index* (LGEI; go here for an explanation) was 1.66, much better than our 2.00 standard for hitting all 18 GIR's (assuming 36 long game shots). For perspective, the ShotByShot.com 2009 Winner's Profile LGEI is 2.28, averaging 13.6 GIR's and 32.8 long game shots.

Troy Matteson, the winner at Grayhawk, also managed to hit all 18 greens in his impressive 61 (2nd round). This round is the closest to a perfect round of golf that I have seen as it featured no mistakes off the tee, or in the two short game shots he faced. He had no 3-putts and made all of his short putt opportunities - those inside 10 feet. For good measure, Troy tossed in two longish putts of 18 and 27 feet respectively. He recorded 1 eagle, 7 birdies and 10 pars. Troy's LGEI was slightly better than Rickie's at 1.61 - no wonder he won.

Finally, I saw something else that I have yet to see from a player that plays well enough to tie for the lead after 72 holes. Jamie Lovemark, the 3rd almost-winner began his quest on the first hole with a most inauspicious missed par-putt from inside 2 feet - 1' 6" to be painfully exact - Ouch! I bet he sees that one in his sleep.

*Patent Pending

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.

Fairways Missed Y.E. Yang's Problem? NOT!

Did anyone hear Johnny Miller comment several times during the recent President's Cup telecast that the reason for Y.E. Yang's lack of visibility lately has been his inability to hit fairways? I did. In fact, I heard him say it several times. The ability to hit fairways is the hallowed traditional measure of golf driving accuracy. But it is also the most one-dimensional and potentially the most misleading of the traditional golf statistics.

Johnny Miller bemoaned the fact that Yang was only hitting 60% of his fairways, and that a tour golfer cannot win tournaments with that kind of performance. What Johnny needs to know is that the PGA Tour average for Fairways Hit is less than 63%, and that Tiger Woods hits just over 64%!

What is the matter with this statistic? Hitting the fairway is, after all, the goal when we stand on the tee of a par 4 or par 5 hole. The problem is that it asks for a simple Yes/No answer to a question that forces us to focus mainly on the Yes. Why? Because conventional wisdom has us believing that ‘Yes, I hit the fairway!’ is the most positive outcome. But think about it – is that really the case? Isn't what happens when we don't hit the fairway so much more impactful on our golf score?

Over the past 18 years ShotByShot.com has analyzed golf performance at every level – including PGA Tour players – and has concluded that hitting or missing fairways is a statistic of limited relevance. Of far greater importance is the character and severity of the miss. Did the ball land just in the light rough, in a bunker, behind a tree (with or without a shot?), disappear in a pond, or worst of all – go lost or OB?

The higher the level of the player’s golf game, the less relevant is the number of fairways hit to improvement or performance. A recent study of performance on the PGA Tour conducted by two professors at Northeastern University in Boston cited the declining importance of driving accuracy due primarily to increasing driving distances. To support this, during his 2007 seven-event winning streak, Tiger Woods hit only 61% of the fairways. In the final event of that streak at Torrey Pines, Tiger hit only 46% of the fairways en route to victory. Of far greater importance was the fact that Tiger’s tee shots resulted in an ERROR in only 2% of his total attempts. (ShotByShot’s definition of ERROR = a penalty, or a shot from which the golfer does not have a normal advancement opportunity.)

In no way do I want to pick on Johnny Miller. I enjoy his insightful and honest commentary - he is arguably the best there is at his job. Further, I had the good fortune of spending some time with him at an LPGA event in the early days of ShotByShot and found him very thoughtful and gracious. I am a fan. That said, his comment exemplifies the pervasive misconceptions that are created by "traditional" golf statistics and why I created something much better in shotbyshot.com. In a future blog, I will delve into some niblicks of truth about what really is to blame for Y. E. Yang's lack of success at the highest level.

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!)