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.

  

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.

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.    

153rd Event a Charm for Kevin Streelman

It is a very nice story to see Kevin Streelman win after six years and 152 prior tries.  Further, he did not back into it but instead finished the event in grand style, all the while knowing exactly what he needed to do to beat the score posted before he even teed off.  

As I like to do, I collected and analyzed his Shot By Shot data and was slightly taken back by the fact that he failed to reach either of my Winner's benchmarks.  Something I said or wrote, Kevin?  Why would you go out of your way to make me look bad?  Perhaps he has not read my blog and was simply unaware of what it takes to win on the PGA Tour?  If so, no wonder it took him six years.....

Could there be another reason why my work did not measure up this week?  What if the course were just that much more difficult, thus pulling the "bars" down?  This could be, and having played the course, I can attest to the tight, tree-lined fairways, ample water hazards and severe greens.  But how to quantify the difficulty relative to the other nine courses played on Tour this year?  Let me count the ways:

1.  USGA Course Rating:  [Forget Slope rating as it is geared to the bogey golfer.]  The Copperhead's back tees rank 2nd most difficult @ 76.8 behind Torrey Pines @ 78.2.  The average of all ten courses hosting events this season is 75.7  The easiest: PGA West @ 74 - no wonder Brian Gay won at -25.  OK, I accept this as a fairly good measure.  However, having served on a local golf course rating committee, in order to completely understand the rating process, I learned that there can be regional discrepancies in outcome.

2.  Average Score for the Field:  This number reflects the course's inherent difficulty as well as the playing conditions during the week of the tournament.  Bingo!  The Copperhead field recorded the highest average score @ 72.2.  Further, the weather conditions were not bad.  The Plantation course at Kapalua was 2nd @ 72.1 (High winds caused the 1st round to be cancelled and dramatically influenced play throughout.)   The average for all ten courses was 70.8 and the easiest, again, PGA West @ 68.8.

OK, let's agree that the Copperhead course is and was playing hard enough to lower the proven statistical benchmarks for PGA Tour Winners - WHEW!

Oh, one more thing that Kevin Streelman did to insure his victory - not a single Driving ERROR on a course where these errors were very easy to come by.  No wonder Jim Furyk calls Copperhead "...his favorite course in the Florida swing."  It's driving difficulty not only levels the playing field, it tilts it in his favor.

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?

Why didn't Josh Teater WIN at Torrey Pines?

First - More Blog Posts?

Just returned from the PGA Show in Orlando.  I had the pleasure of connecting with quite a few of my instructor/clients.  I am most gratified that they all: a) read this blog avidly; and b) expressed an interest in more posts.  I discussed this with my great friend, Henry Brunton, (now a bona fide instructor/coach Rock Star) as he echoed this sentiment.  Understanding the work that goes into each blog post, Henry suggested posting weekly, but making three of every four much shorter.  As I do with all of Henry's wise advice, I will take it.  Further, if YOU have a statistical topic that you would like me to explore, please let me know!

What about Josh Teater?  

Tied for 2nd, Josh finished six shots behind Tiger.  Just try to find those six shots in the stats...

Using some of my favorite statistical barometers [Stack-18 (explained) and the 70% Rule (70% Rule explained)], Josh's performance was clearly better than Tiger's.

I can only conclude that Josh sprinkled more than a few of those pesky ERRORS into his game - the ones that cost strokes but disappear in the Tour stats.  As the Tour's Shot Tracker data also disappears from its website at some point each Tuesday night, I cannot answer my own question.  But true to my word, it certainly makes for a much shorter blog....

I really did look for clues:

1.  Missed Fairway Percent - Other:  (The % of missed fairways that result in a location other than the fairway or rough.)

Josh had one of these "Others."  If it were an OB/Lost, it would account for at least 2 of the 6 lost shots but we'll never know.  BTW, this could also have been a par 4 drive that reached the putting surface.
According to the stats, Tiger had NONE of these Others but I don't trust this stat because on the 15th hole in the 4th round, Tiger drove into an "Unknown" location and incurred a penalty (drop).  If that's not an Other, what is?

2.  Proximity ARG - (How close to the hole on average for all shots starting within 30 yards of the edge of the green.)
I generally like this stat as it tends to correlate fairly closely to ShotByShot.com's short game proximity.  Josh ranked 53rd at 8' 2" average proximity.  This compares to Tiger's 7' 1" and the field's 7' 11".  My guess: Josh made some errors in this part of his game - but again, the proof is lost in the Tour stats.

Finally, if I were Josh Teater's coach, and spent the time to go through this exercise, I would be extremely frustrated with not being able to answer the important question:  Why didn't Josh Teater WIN at Torrey Pines?     

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.  

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.      

Valero Texas Open - Not exactly the Masters

It should not have been a surprise that the PGA Tour had another first time winner at the  Valero Texas Open.  Why?  The vast majority of the field qualified for this dubious honor.  Only three of the Top-20 in the FedX race were in the field and the final threesome on Sunday was comprised of total unknowns.  These three came into the event with a combined 240 FedX points, placing them barely in the Top-150.  So it was not just the colorless, arid terrain that was starkly different from last week's Masters; but then, that is what makes the Masters and the Majors so special.  

Ignoring for a moment the lackluster field, the final nine holes were interesting and had some drama.   I was pleased for Brendan Steele when he rolled in the 7 foot putt to achieve his first Tour win.  His  YTD performance from 7 feet is 64%, slightly better than the Tour average of 61%.  Factor in the weight of the circumstances, and that he three-putted from 6 feet in Friday's round, and that final putt showed some character.  

My Winner's 70% Rule?
Briefly, I have found that to win on the PGA Tour a player needs three key stats to average 70%:   GIR's, Scrambling and Putts holed in the 5-10 foot range.  For more see:   Last Time on the 70% Rule... In reviewing Brendan's ShotByShot.com analysis, he barely crept over the 70% Rule bar - actually hit it on the mark.  With GIR's at only 58%, his Scrambling (73%) and Putting in the 5-10 foot range (79%) pulled him up to the 70% mark.  While he passed the 70% test, Brendan failed the important Errors component of my Rule by one.  The 70% Rule calls for three or fewer Errors in a four-round event, and Brendan committed FOUR:

Long Game Error
    1.  Drive result Penalty
    2.  Drive result No Shot, bogey

Short Game Errors
    3.  Chip/Pitch missed green, failed to get down in total of 3 shots.

Putting Error
    4.  3-Putt from 40 feet and closer (6 feet).

Was it the caliber of the field or the severe wind conditions on a demanding course that allowed the winner to overcome the Error component of my 70% Rule?  Most likely both.

Last time with the 70% Rule - Promise!

At the risk of beating this to death, allow me to crow momentarily over the success of my 70% Rule - a simple formula for what it takes to win on the PGA Tour (originally explained here). Since the beginning of tournament golf and "stats" the experts have been searching for basic summary answers for how to describe performance that matters the most - that which wins tournaments. The old standards have been displayed and discussed FOREVER:  Fairways Hit, GIR's and Putts/GIR.  While their shortcomings are many, GIR's totally trumps Fairways Hit, and Putts/GIR leaves out all the holes where there was no GIR - consider only the Winners and this ignores a third of the holes played.  No wonder they did not work.

Over the past two months I have demonstrated that my 70% Rule, when applied to the three summary stats above, clearly works.  It is not perfect because nothing simple, or summary in nature,  could ever accurately describe the complex, multi-dimensional game of golf.  That said, it is the best I have seen.  For the last time, here it is:

The 70% Rule

The overall average of the stats listed in the graphic above should be 70%.  I give each of the three equal weight despite the fact that they do not represent equally weighted parts of the game.  To the extent that one falls below the 70% mark, the other two need to exceed the 70% mark by enough to offset the deficit.

At the same time, ERRORS must be kept to three or less in a four round event.  The Errors tend to be mistakes that result in a stroke lost:

Long Game Errors:  Balls hit out of play (requiring unusual advancements to return to play), or  any penalty situation.

Short Game Errors:  Shots that miss the green AND where the total strokes needed to hole out from the original short game shot exceed three.  The "exceed 3" is a slight modification from my earlier definition.  Why? Because further study revealed that to penalize a player for simply missing the green, if they ultimately get down in three strokes is double jeopardy - the Scrambling stat already covers it by capturing it as a failed save.  An error needs to be a shot that results in a stroke lost NOT the failure to save.

Putting Errors

3 Putts or worse from 40 feet and closer. 

Unfortunately, the PGA Tour does not provide us with the ability to gauge the errors mentioned - or any errors, for that matter.  I believe that at some point they will recognize the importance of the downside of the game as every other sport has.  Imagine the analysis of baseball without  Fielding Errors and Strike Outs or football without Fumbles and Interceptions.  Mistakes have long been recognized as the difference in the outcome of the game as are the errors in golf.  For more on the importance of avoiding Errors in your game, see my article in the July 2010 issue of Golf Digest (p. 101) REDUCE ERRORS.  The article allows readers to measure the impact of their mistakes on their handicaps.

On that note, both Justin Rose and Tiger had two errors - both in the long game.  

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. McIlroy

 

With apologies to Robert Louis... and Charles... the Quail Hollow Championship really was the Tale of Two golfers.  I was rooting for my new favorite golfer (Phil) but could not avoid getting caught up in Rory's great charge.  His -10 course record on Sunday was magical and fun to watch.  I naturally thought it would be interesting to see exactly what he did differently in the last two rounds to account for the 16 stroke difference from the first two. 

First, let's look at his all-important ERRORS:

                         1-2          3-4

Driving:             3             0

Short Game:      3             0

Putting:              3             1 (Began the 3rd round with a 3-putt from 27 feet)

Total:                 9             1

Two points:
1.  The difference of 8 Errors, could be viewed as half of the 16 stroke margin.
2.  Rory McIlroy will be the first Winner I have seen to overcome 10 Errors.

Now, the good things:

Long Game Efficiency Index*:  Rounds 1-2 = 2.78  vs.  3-4 = 1.96.  While not a full 4 rounds, the latter is the first I have seen that betters my hypothetical "Perfect" round of 2.00.   Perfect would be 36 long strokes and all 18 greens hit in regulation (36/18 = 2.00).  Rory needed only 30.5 long strokes to achieve 15.5 GIR's.  How?  He took full advantage of the two reachable par 4's and four par 5's. - 12 opportunities!  Rory was on, or close (50 yards), to 11 of these 12 reachable greens - shaving 11 long game strokes or 5.5 per round.  Bottom line, I calculate that he saved 9 of the 16 stroke difference with his long game accuracy and efficiency.

*This is our patent pending method of measuring the overall efficiency of a player's long game. For a better explanation, log onto http://www.shotbyshot.com/. 

Putting

For those of us that watched, it will come as no surprise that the vast majority of the other seven strokes were the result of a hot putter.  With only the one 3-putt, Rory made all the short ones that he should AND holed six putts from outside 20 feet, capped off by the 43 foot birdie on the final hole.

So Much for Hitting Fairways!

I enjoyed watching Anthony Kim win in a playoff this weekend at the Shell Houston Open. Ironically, he won the playoff hole by hitting both the fairway and the green in regulation and a 2-putt par. The irony being the "fairway" because AK hit fewer fairways, by far, than I have seen from other winners on the PGA Tour - only 41% - or just over 5 of 14 fairways each round. What makes this stat even more remarkable is that Anthony started the event by hitting his first 7 fairways. After that, no so much!

AK's win dramatizes the uselessness of this ancient stat - and when will Johnny Miller get with the program because he continues to refer to it along with the other outdated measures of performance. That said, Johnny has become a fan of the Tour's newish Total Feet of Putts Made stat. While this stat is way better than the hated (mostly by me) Putts/GIR stat, Total Feet still lacks the important perspective of starting distances. It also does not account for 3-putts, or worse. I can't wait for the Tour to implement the "new" MIT approach (go to "Just a Minute MIT..." for an explanation) to see if/how the announcers explain it.

But back to Anthony Kim. Despite his apparent lack of driving accuracy, he still managed to hit over 12 Greens-in-regulation each round. So while he missed fairways, he did not miss so badly that he could not recover. In fact, he made only four Errors off the tee - two Penalties and two "No Shot" situations. (No Shot = a ball driven into a position from which one cannot proceed normally toward their next goal, requiring some sort of advancement shot to put the ball back in play.) This is still uncharacteristic as our PGA Tour Winner's Profile only records a mistake off the tee once in every two rounds, with the vast majority being the No Shot type. A Penalty off the tee creeps into our Winner's game only once every 14 rounds. For perspective, the average 10 handicap golfer drives the ball into trouble more than three times EACH round: No Shot = 2.8 per round; Penalty = .5 per round.

I submit that AK was able to survive these Errors because EVERYONE was making them. The Redstone, Tournament course has more water than my basement (Northeast joke). Taylor Vaughn tied for the lead with an identical number of tee shot errors (2 Penalties, 2 No Shots) and Phil Mickelson made light of the number of tee shots he dunked. I would like to see the averages for the field but the Tour has no such stat - yet.

On the other hand, it must be noted that the rough was cut unusually low, in part to emulate the playing conditions of next week's Masters. This helps account for how AK could hit so many greens from the rough.

Speaking of the Masters, Phil Mickelson is my pick to win. Not a great stretch as he has proved he can do it more than once. Why this year? I was very impressed with his attitude and sense of humor in his post event interview. He seems more relaxed and comfortable than I have seen in the past.

How Refreshing - A Real Par 5!

The AT & T Pebble Beach Pro-Am is played on three different courses and ShotLink is only set up on one - Pebble Beach. As a result, Shot By Shot's analysis can only be done on two of the four rounds of this tournament, which makes an in-depth analysis of what won and what didn't impossible. Nevertheless, it was still a very entertaining event on a magnificent golf course.

It was nice to see an exciting finish and I was stunned by the car wrecks on the par-5, 14th hole, especially by the two final groups. First, a quadruple bogey (+4) is somewhat rare on the PGA Tour and generally follows a major mistake off the tee requiring a re-tee. In this case we saw two contenders for the lead play hockey around the 14th green for back-to-back 9's. Bryce Molder and then Paul Goydos did their best impressions of choppers. It was both hard to watch and interesting to see how well they handled their demise.

They were not alone as the hole ranked the 5th most difficult of the 54 holes played with an average score of 5.187. Not that anyone really cares about the hole rankings or how they are ranked, but I believe this hole was clearly the most difficult and should have been ranked #1. Instead of ranking based upon the greatest margin over par, the holes should be ranked based upon the greatest margin from the Tour's average scoring on holes of like par. Below are the scoring averages for the entire 2009 PGA Tour season:
Par 3's = 3.08
Par 4's = 4.06
Par 5's = 4.68

The event score for the 14th hole was a full half stroke higher than the 2009 Tour scoring average on par 5's. According to this week's ranking, the most difficult hole at Pebble was the par 4, 9th with a scoring average of 4.253. OK, it was .25 strokes over par and that is difficult but it was only .19 strokes over the average scores that can be expected on par 4 holes at this level. See my point?

It is obvious that with today's length, the par 5 holes represent the real scoring opportunities on the PGA Tour. If players can't hit the greens in two, and most can, they can lay up to their favorite wedge distance and attack the flags.

What then was so hard about the 14th at Pebble? It was not the tee shot - 65% of the players hit the fairway (YTD Tour Avg. for Fairways Hit is only 62%). It was the green which presents a very small and unforgiving target. Only 53% of the field hit it in regulation. This compares to the Tour average of 84% for GIR's from 125 yards or less. The approach and short game shots to the small, firm plateau proved unusually difficult. It really did look like hockey as the balls slid past the hole, picking up speed as they ran over the other sides of the green.

Bottom line, #14 played a meaningful role in determining the winner. In addition to culling the list of hopefuls (Molder & Goydos), the 14th green extracted a critical bogey from David Duval (runner-up by 1). Finally, Dustin Johnson could credit his 1-stroke win to the very intelligent par that he recorded on this hole.

It will be very interesting to see how the USGA sets up #14, and how the players handle it, in the US Open later this year.

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/)