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? 

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!     

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. 

  

 

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

How Important are Fairways?

One of my college coaches asked my help to provide some perspective for his players - I love when my clients do that - it's a compliment!

Thanks to my genius programmer, I was able to run a query on the last two years of PGA Tour ShotLink data - 28,272 rounds to be exact - a pretty solid sample.  I looked to see how players score from the fairway vs. rough as well as their relative accuracy from various distances from each.  To be clear, the "rough" locations that I reviewed did not include the intermediate rough, fairway bunkers or any of the many "Other" results.

Score

The cost or scoring difference between hitting the fairway vs. rough is:  .315 strokes

• Results from the fairway = -.156 (under par)
• Results from the rough = +.159 (over par)

This means that a golfer who misses half the fairways (7) in a given round loses over 2 shots to par - not counting any Penalty or No shot results driving results that we consider to be errors.

Accuracy

The affect on accuracy is even more dramatic than that on score.  Bottom line, in order to achieve the same accuracy from the rough as the tour enjoys from the fairway at 151 to 175 yards, the players must move as much as 75 yards closer to the target.    

Accuracy from 151 to 175 yards:  

• Hit Green from Fairway: 71%; Hit Green from Rough: 49%
• Average Proximity to Hole from Fairway: 28 feet; from Rough: 45 feet

To attain the same the fairway accuracy cited above from the rough, we need to get to the 76 to 100 yard range:

• Hit Green from Rough: 71%
• Average Proximity to Hole: 27 feet

Mid point to mid point of these ranges is 75 yards.

One might ask, how does this relate to amateur golfers.  I do not have that data, but my slightly educated guess is NOT SO MUCH.  Why?  Because amateurs do not have anywhere near the accuracy from any position and certainly not from the greater distances.  Thus, it can only fall off so much when faced with shots from the rough.

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.    

Is Tiger Back? His Putting certainly is!

As an admitted statistical stalker of Tiger, I have good perspective on the parts of his game that separate him from the rest and punctuate his wins.  Until his two most recent wins, the dominant facet of his game has not been his putting.  An outrageous statement?  Let me explain:

It has been his Long Game Efficiency!  Tiger consistently hit more greens in regulation in fewer long game strokes than anyone in golf.  When I discovered this 2000 and 2001, I created my patented Long Game Efficiency Index to quantify his prowess.  The index also works well for amateurs, and is the foundation of the Long Game analysis contained in ShotByShot.com and fully explained in: A Better Way to Track Long Game Improvement.

This is not to in any way diminish Tiger's putting.  His has been consistently ranked near the top since Strokes Gained Putting has been used to analyze putting by the PGA Tour.  Further, we have all witnessed over and over that Tiger is one of the best clutch putters of all time.  So what is my point?

In my analysis of the Winners on the PGA Tour, putting is more often than not the difference maker and the Winners often record 'Strokes Gained' totals above 2.00 and even 3.00 (meaning that they have "gained" 2+ or 3+ strokes on the field PER ROUND.  Not so with Tiger.

Since 2004, Tiger has recorded 29 wins in which Shotlink captured his putting and Strokes Gained numbers were published.  Here are the Strokes Gained putting highlights of his prior 28 Wins:

• 2013 Bay Hill was the first event with a SG total above 2.00 (an impressive 2.798)
• Tiger's prior high was 1.981 @ 2013 Honda - just 2 weeks ago.
• The average of his 28 prior wins was 1.087 vs. 1.398 and 1.360 for 2012 and 2011 winners respectively.
• Tiger posted a win at the 07 WGC Cadillac Champ. with a -.793 SG Total.  This means that he won despite giving back over 3 strokes to the field in four rounds.  I have seen this once before BUT in a much reduced field.  It was Rory McIlroy's -.21 in the BMW Championship semi-finals of the FEDEX Cup.  

Perhaps Tiger simply putts as well as needed when he feels a win coming.  He needed to putt well this week because he made FIVE driving errors (1-Penalty, 4-No Shots) and only hit 11.5 GIR's.  Not his, or ANYONE's typical winning numbers.

 

Finally, it should be noted that two of his best statistical putting performances EVER came in very close succession in his most recent two wins.  If Tiger has found something and can hold onto it for a couple of weeks, I make him a clear favorite at the Masters.  Ignore this if you are part of my Master's Weekend Pool!      

What effect did the wind have on the 30 champions in Kapalua?

The Plantation course at Kapalua is a bomber's paradise with ample targets and large greens.  The four par 5's as well as three of the par 4's are reachable.  It is no surprise that a player like Dustin Johnson, if on his game, would win.  I found the most interesting aspect of this event to be the severe winds and their impact on performance.

The greatest impact was on putting!

Kapalua's greens are always near the top by my measure of difficulty, but were even more so this week due to extreme winds.  [For more on my measure of relative green difficulty, see my last entry:  Were the Barclays Greens Unfair?]  I look at two stats as a measure of putting difficulty:

1.  3-Putt Avoidance - the higher the number or frequency of 3-Putts, the more difficult the greens;

2.  # of Players in the field with ZERO 3-Putts - the lower the number, the more difficult...

3-Putt Avoidance

Last year the field at Kapalua was 5.04% - the highest of all the courses that I checked in my 2012 study.  5.04% means that the entire field (only 30 player/champions) averaged 3.6 3-Putts in 72 holes.  For perspective, in a typical tournament, an average field would 3-Putt twice in 72 holes.  This year the average for the Hyundai field at Kapalua was 7.47%.  The 30 champions averaged FOUR 3-Putts in just 54 holes.  Further, Dustin Johnson (the winner) had three 3-Putts.  Most PGA Tour winners have NONE, but some sneak by with only one putting blemish.

Players with zero 3-Putts

The average for the 25 courses in my 2012 study was 12 players.  In the 2012 Hyundai, only ONE player in the field escaped without a 3-Jack.  (Guess who?*)  This year's field not only had NO such lucky players, the best were seven players that had only two 3-Putts.  None of the events in last year's study had NO players in this category.

The long game was the least affected

Greens-hit in-regulation achieved by the field were almost identical from 2012 to 2013:  14.6 vs. 14.5.  Even these numbers are high as the Tour average in 2012 was 11.3 GIR's.

Finally, I thought that approach shot accuracy would certainly be affected by the high winds - I know mine is.  Not so much!  Proximity to the hole following approach shots was also very close from 2012 to 2013:  40' 7" vs. 41' 1".  Literally only six inches or less than 1% difference in accuracy in 30 to 40 MPH gusting winds.  THESE GUYS REALLY ARE GOOD!

*Bubba Watson!

Were the Barclays greens unfair?

First, the Barclays felt a lot like a Major.  I give credit to Bethpage Black - with an assist from the FedEx Cup - for helping to insure that the top players remain engaged as the season winds down.  This course is hard.  With the rough long and thick and the greens fast and severe, it is every bit of its 78.1 course rating, and more.  My "A" group had the thrill of playing there just before it was closed down for the first Open.  We found it almost too hard to enjoy.

There was some whining about the greens being unfair this time, so I decided to dig into this a bit.  First, I have never seen a winner on the PGA Tour 3-putt SIX times as Nick Watney did.  Typically, a winner will have zero or one 3-putts.  Ricky Fowler survived FOUR 3-putts to win in a play-off at Quail Hollow - extremely unusual.  

I thought, "If the winner had six 3-putts, how did the rest of the field fare?  Were the greens unfair?"  For the answer, I re-read my recent blog, written after the 2012 Memorial, in which I discussed a reasonable measure of green difficulty - the age-old Tour stat:  3-Putt Avoidance:  The % of time 3 or more putts were taken for a hole (total 3 and 4-putts divided by the total holes played.)  To read this blog, click here.

According to my 3-Putt Avoidance barometer, Bethpage Black ranks right up there @ 3.51.  This says that the field averaged just over 2.5 3-Putts in 72 holes.  For perspective, the four Majors in 2012 averaged 3.91, with the Masters the most difficult @ 4.88; the British Open the most benign @ 2.53. 

Not quite satisfied, I dug deeper.  What about the number of players in any event that had ZERO 3-putts?  Surely this might provide a strong indicator as to the difficulty of the greens.  I looked at this stat for the 35 events in the books YTD:

# Players with ZERO 3-Putts by event

Fewest (Most Difficult Greens)

• 3 players (Augusta, TPC Sawgrass, Bay Hill)
• 5 players (Riviera, Quail Hollow)
• 6 players (Torry Pines, TPC San Antonio)
• 9 players (TPC Four Seasons, Colonial, Olympic, Congressional, Bethpage Black)

Average for all 35 events - 13 players had zero 3-putts

Most (Easiest Greens)

• 79 players (Trump Puerto Rico)
• 27 players (TPC Louisiana)
• 21 players (Waialea, Copperhead)

Two Points:

1.   Bethpage clearly did not stand out as unfair but stood up nicely with other Major venues as challanging.

2.  Wouldn't The Donald be horrified by this analysis.  To twist the blade, the field at the Trump Puerto Rico event was smaller than the average tour field at only 132 players.  So 60% of the field did not have a 3-Putt!  And dare I say that it was not the strongest field? 

  

Where has Ted Potter, Jr. been?

It was fun to see some new faces/personalities in the hunt at the Greenbriar Classic.  I recorded and analyzed Ted Potter, Jr.'s rounds and was impressed with how clean they were.  There were a couple of minor short game misses and only ONE, minor, driving error - a No-Shot result that required an advancement to return to play.  This made me wonder:  What exactly has Ted done in prior events and what suddenly changed?

Ted turned pro in 2002 and thru 2011 played in 74 events on the Web.com tour (formerly Nationwide Tour) but only made 19 cuts.  Ted's two wins in 2011 earned $439,000 and more importantly graduation to the PGA Tour.  Prior to his recent win, Ted played in 15 PGA Tour events but with little success:  9 missed cuts and T13 best finish.  What changed in Ted's game to suddenly produce a win?

Bottom line, lightning struck - he put it all together, and kept it together, for all four rounds. As you can see from the chart above, Ted's Stack-18 elements were slightly better than our 2012 Winner's profile.  For an explanation follow this link to an earlier blog:  Stack-18 Explained

As I looked at each of these key elements in Ted's 15 prior events, they were consistently below his Greenbriar performance:

Putting:   Ted's overall average is at least positive, but just (.18).  There has been a pattern of poor putting holding him back in that 7 of his 9 missed cuts featured negative Strokes Gained putting numbers (worse than the average of the entire field).  Ted had one very positive putting number (3.3) at Pebble Beach, but with only two rounds (MC).

GIR's:  Prior to this week, Ted was right at the Tour average for GIR's (62.8% = 11.3).  In his best finish (T13), Ted hit 71%.  He equaled his 72% at Greenbriar just once at the Wells Fargo, but again for only two rounds (MC).

Scrambling:  Ted's 80% this week was clearly a key factor in his success.  Saving par on 4 of the 5 missed GIR's each round is very good, even when compared to our Winner's profile.  His prior performance @54% is below the Tour avg. (56%) and in his 9 missed cuts Ted's average dropped to 48%.

If I were working with Ted and had collected and analyzed all of his 2012 rounds, I could provide clear indications of what really contributed to his lack of success before this week.  Certainly, putting is important and Strokes Gained nails that piece for us.  However, the 1.83 strokes difference amounts to only 30% of the 6.2 difference in Ted's scoring average.

What is the answer?  I have stated many times that my biggest issue with the Tour's robust "stats" is that they do not include ERRORS.  I have worked hard to find clues that allow me to infer the existence of these mistakes and have deduced that Ted's Driving and Long games have included 2 to 3 errors per round amounting to 60% of his scoring difference. 

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.  

Which course has the most difficult greens?

Jack's Memorial looked like a mini-Major with a winning score of only -9.  A more typical winning score on Tour is -12 to -18.   I have not played Muirfield Village (...never get invited anywhere!) but I have walked/run the course (long story).  In my opinion, it is a very hard golf course - streams meander thru and around almost every hole; the woods loom large, deep and dark; and the green complexes are severe.  Remember when Jack added special rakes that created deep furrows in the sand traps?  How hard is it?  The Course rating/Slope system does a fairly good job of displaying the relative difficulty and Muirfield "Memorial" tees are rated 76.9/153, which is up there - 4.9 strokes above the 72 par for the scratch golfer.  

Watching the event, I wondered "OK, I get the difficulty of the course but what about the greens alone?  There must be a way to judge the most difficult greens on Tour."  As my readers know, I am a big fan of the Tour's new Strokes Gained Putting stat.  I am certain that the answer lies in this data but is not readily available to "outsiders" because the raw data is "normalized" each week so that all we see is how players relate to the average of the entire field for that event.  The average "Strokes Lost" to the Tour's performance model each week would clearly reveal the relative difficulty of the greens at each venue.  Until I can get this data, is there another way?

How about the relative frequency of 3-putts for the field?  For this, I looked at an old, traditional Tour stat - 3-Putt Avoidance:  The percent of time 3 or more putts were taken for a hole (total 3 and 4-putts divided by the total holes played).  I looked at all 2012 Tour events (thru Memorial) and found the following:

• The average of all 22 events:  3.31 (2.38 3-Putts per 72 holes played)
• Easiest greens:  Doral Blue Monster @ 1.95 (1.40 3-Putts per 72 holes played). 
• Most difficult:  Kapalua Plantation @ 5.04 (3.62 3-Putts per 72 holes played)

Other difficult greens:

• Augusta National:  4.88 (3.51 3-Putts per 72 holes)
• Quail Hollow:  4.33
• TPC Sawgrass:  4.32

Other easy greens:

• Harbor Town:  2.04 (1.46 3-Putts per 72 holes)
• Waialea CC:  2.19

To add some perspective on 3-Putt performance, the graph above compares the average # of 3-Putts per round for the PGA Tour Winners (2012) and Tour average to an array of handicap levels.