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.

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.

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.

The Long Game in Golf: How Good is Good Enough?

OK, enough about Henrik Stenson’s long game. Let’s talk about Average Joe’s (or Josephine’s) long game. They stand up on every tee with a (wo)manly driver in hand, heads filled with thoughts of hitting the golf ball farther and straighter than ever before. This can make the tee shot much more difficult and stressful than it needs to be. Think about it – the tee shot in golf should be the easiest shot on the course. First, the lie is always perfect. And second, the target (fairway) is very unspecific and much less tied to distance and direction than any other shot.

How many times per round do you hit your driver? Or more to the point, how many times do you choose something other than a driver off the tee on a par 4 or 5 hole? Here’s a niblick of truth: Did you know that less than 10% of golfers consistently hit their driver farther in the fairway than their 3-wood? (And trust me, there is an inverse correlation between driver success % and handicap.)

If you really want to improve your golf score, perhaps it is time to re-think your driving club selection. If tee shots are a problem for you then your card is probably showing more than its share of double and triple bogeys. (DUH?) Here are a few statistical niblicks about the game played by the single-digit handicappers that Mr. or Ms. Average Golfer should be emulating:

• They record double bogey or worse in 1 out of 10 holes
• Over 70% of their double bogeys or worse start with a problem tee shot
• Their odds of recording a double bogey or worse plummet to 1 out of 35 holes when the tee shot is successful!

The point is that simply getting a tee shot in play not only creates the opportunity for good things to happen, it dramatically reduces the likelihood of disaster. The bottom line is that if you are setting realistic goals, the golf tee shot should not need to be great in order to be "good enough" to achieve your goal.