It only took 26 years!

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

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

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

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

  

 

Introducing Approach Shots - Now Strokes Gained Analysis for EVERY facet

--> -->

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

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

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

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

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

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

Skip and I look forward to your feedback.

Why do we NOT include Direction of Missed Shots?

-->

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

 How do we know?  Two examples:

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

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

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

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

Total clicks w/o Approach data:  76 clicks

Total clicks with Approach data:  103 clicks

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

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

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

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

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.

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?  

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.

Just how valuable are "Fairways Hit?"

I have often written about how I believe that the age-old, stat "Fairways Hit" is the worst of all of the traditional barometers.  Recently, I recommended instead that players focus more on avoiding ERRORS off the tee.  At the risk of seeming to contradict myself, I feel the need to set the record straight.  My disdain is directed more at the one-dimensional nature of this stat than at the relative importance of having an opportunity to hit a green from the fairway.  More specifically, this stat basically asks for a T/F answer to a multiple-choice question, ignoring the important differences between the relative severity of the "Misses".  It is this myopic view that renders this out-dated test of driving accuracy and effectiveness of limited value.

Every serious golfer recognizes the importance of hitting Greens in Regulation (GIR's).  This is one of the "old stats" that really does matter!  It reflects two positives:  First, the effectiveness of the player's long game; and second, a birdie opportunity.  On the flip side, each missed green speaks poorly of the long game efforts and more often than not results in a bogey or worse.  The players on the PGA Tour average 11.7 GIR's each round (or they would not be there) and I recently calculated that the difference between hitting and missing the GIR, at that level, was worth approximately .8 strokes.

With that in mind, I decided to research the relative importance of the result of the drive and its affect on the golfer's chances of attaining that desirable GIR.  I dug into my database (now 103,000+ rounds) to see exactly how important the "Fairway" has been.  I looked across a wide range of handicap levels at Driving holes (par 4 & 5 holes) where the result was a GIR.  I learned two somewhat surprising facts:

     1.  The percentage breakdowns were markedly consistent across all of the handicap ranges - so close that there was no need to display an array of handicaps.

     2.  The "Fairway" was much more important than I had assumed - over three times as important as even a "Good lie/position" in the rough (see the graph above).

Your first question will no doubt echo mine:  "How could a player with "No shot" (a position so poor that it requires an advancement to return to normal play) hit the GIR?  It took some thought but the answer:  Easy - errant drive on a par 5 into a No shot position, effective advancement shot to return the ball to play, followed by a miraculous recovery shot that hits the green.

Check how your fairways match up to your GIR's over the next several rounds.  I know that this study will make me a bit more focused on keeping it in the short grass.

An 8 Iron Hit 182 Yards to 1 Foot - What Are the Odds?

In a recent post, I wrote about Tiger Woods' blueprint for winning golf tournaments. I referred to one of the key Tiger intangibles as "the shot," or his ability to transcend talent and conjure up magic when he most needs it. This week it was the 182 yard approach shot to the par 5, 16th green at Firestone South.

The stage was set perfectly as Tiger was one down to Padraig Harrington. Both had hit poor drives requiring layups to awkward positions, if not distances. Tiger was in the fairway, but much further back than he would have wanted, especially considering that the pin was cut in the front of the green and very close to the water. Under the circumstances, to hit and hold the green would have been considered a great golf shot. Here are a few niblicks of perspective on exactly how magical his shot to 1 foot should be considered:

1. % Greens Hit in Regulation from 175 to 200 yards: 2009 YTD, Tiger has hit the green from this distance with 61% of his attempts (Rank #16). The average of the PGA Tour is 54%.

2. Proximity to the Pin from 175 - 200 yards. 2009 YTD, Tiger averages 29 feet (Rank #1). PGA Tour average: 34 feet.

Let's step back and analyze this. Tiger is one of the best on tour from this distance range. But even then, he only hits the green 61% of the time and leaves an average putting distance of 29 feet.

How does this compare to the rest of us mortal golfers? Our Shotbyshot.com statistical database tells us that from a distance of 181 to 190 yards, in the fairway, the 10 handicap golfer would hit the green 38% of the time. Imagine what that number would be when faced with a similar challange - 1 down on #16 over water, etc., I'd wager that 38% drops to under 10%!

An 'Approach' to Practice

Here are a few 'niblicks' on Approach Shots:

• An Approach Shot = an attempt to hit a green from 51 yards or more.
• Our statistical database tells us that the average golfer has 20 approach shot opportunities per round. But wait – how can this be right? Wouldn’t there have to be more than 18 holes of golf to make this true? Sadly, NO! The average golfer experiences the frustration at least twice a round of a first approach attempt that leaves them with yet another attempt, still not within 50 yards of the hole.
• The average golfer’s (first) approach distance is about 140 yards from the flag.
• The average golfer's approach shot success rate – the percent of greens they hit – is just 33%.

Better approach shot performance is clearly a great improvement opportunity for the average golfer. Pushing the average number of approach shots per round below 20 into the teens is not a lofty goal – but any progress in this area will translate into lower scores and an improved handicap.

What should you work on?
Spend your time on shorter approach shots. 60% of your total approach opportunities will fall in the 91 – 180 yard range. But our analysis tells us that your approach success rate – shots that hit the green – will fall off markedly outside 150 yards. I recommend spending your limited practice time (and/or lesson time if you are working with a pro) gaining confidence in controlling your distance and accuracy in relatively close range – 91 to 130 yards. As your confidence and success grows, you can expand your distances.

What about longer approach shots? As you work toward shorter approach shot mastery, I have two recommendations for longer approach shots:

1. Adjust your expectations

a. Visualize a large target. This will reduce the pressure you feel and reduce tension.
b. Aim away from trouble. Years ago a top touring professional confessed to me that his “…only goal when faced with a long-iron approach shot was not to make a mistake.”

2. Go hybrid! If you've not already replaced your long irons with hybrids, do it now. These newer generation weapons are designed to make the longer, more difficult approach and advancement shots much easier.

For more specific information about the strengths and weaknesses of your golf game, go to www.ShotByShot.com.