For the next few weeks, we”re going to explore the world of golf analytics. To put the term golf analytics in layman”s terms, it”s the study of how golfers win ? from a statistical vantage point. I have always been interested in the solely number-oriented strain of golf analytics simply from a competitive golfer”s standpoint. If I have a concise knowledge of what are the strengths and weaknesses of my game coupled with which aspects of the game are of prime import, then I can develop a rigorous practice schedule around this knowledge in my never-ending quest to improve. In other words, should I practice my putting more than I practice my chipping, or should I emphasize ball striking and really try to become world class with my fairway woods, hybrids, and long irons?
One paragraph into this, I realize that two relatively well-known quotes are racing through my head. The first is a golfing staple that is agreeable to seasoned professionals and triple-bogey golfers alike. In trying to emphasize the importance of putting over power, the phrase that pays is “Drive for show and putt for dough.” We all know of golfers, especially on the amateur circuit, who bust the ball just as far as Rory McIlroy. They also have no idea where it”s going. Sometimes it”s a 300-yard rip up the middle but more often it”s a 330-yard rocket that”s 50 yards off line and finds the pond in the adjacent fairway. We also know amateurs who are singles hitters, keep the ball in play, get on the green in three, and make that 10-footer for a par. Yes, if you want to win or take home the dough, then you need to be a great putter. That phrase was probably around when Harry Vardon began to overlap his grip.
The other quote that immediately comes to mind is from the pen of Mark Twain. Twain gets credit for stating “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” From the golfing perspective, statistics can inform as well as misinform. In the olden days of golf statistics, the PGA Tour used to award its regulars who were the statistical leaders for the season. The tour recognized such categories as lowest stroke average (Vardon Trophy), most wins in a season (Byron Nelson Award), longest driver, most accurate driver, most greens in regulation, and total putts. The winners were recognized at a banquet hosted by the PGA Tour.
In the early 1980s, journeyman Gary McCord, better known as a television commentator as well as the bane of the members of Augusta National, was the tour leader in total putts. No one averaged fewer putts per round on the PGA Tour than Gary McCord. At the time of his recognition, McCord made light of the fact that he averaged the fewest putts per round on tour. McCord, who spent his entire career on the PGA Tour as a bubble boy, historically on one side or the other of the exempt 125 list, laughingly joked that the reason he took the fewest number of putts was the result of hitting the fewest number of greens in regulation. McCord would miss the green, chip it close, and one-putt. Others were hitting it to 20 feet, missing the birdie putt, and tapping in for par. Statistically, McCord was taking fewer putts. Realistically, he wasn”t the best putter on a tour that featured Ben Crenshaw, Tom Kite, Tom Watson, Seve Ballesteros and Greg Norman.
I could easily say the best way for a 100 golfer to get better would be to put in practice time on putting and chipping. I think a lot of us would also believe the same holds true for the top professionals of the game. In his recently released book Every Shot Counts: Using the Revolutionary Strokes Gained Approach to Improve Your Golf Performance and Strategy (Penguin Group, $35), Columbia Business School professor Mark Brodie would tend to strongly disagree. And he has the statistics to back it up.
You can tell where Brodie is going from the very start of his book. Chapter One is titled “Putting is Overrated.” Brodie”s 253-page book is packed with charts, graphs, scatter sheets and topographical examples to prove his strong contentions that the best golfers rely upon the power clubs to excel over their competition. After all, he”s on record as stating that putting is overrated.
Because I”m somewhat of a numbers geek and have always applied my own formula for when to be conservative and when to be aggressive on the golf course during the heat of competition, I found myself impressed with the preponderance of statistical evidence that Broadie presents in his book.
Dr. Broadie was conceiving his version of PGA Tour stats with his program called Golfmetrics prior to the turn of the century. He kept statistics on golfers from ages 8-80, ability level from novice hack to LPGA Tour professional, with recorded scores in the low 60s all the way to the 140s. It was a most cumbersome and time-consuming process.
Then ShotLink came along. Starting in 2003, the tour used approximately 350 volunteers at each of their tournament sites to record length of drives, accuracy of drives, accuracy of iron shots into greens, and distance of putts made and missed. Suddenly it was posted on the electronic scoreboard behind the green that Davis Love III had hit his tee shot 291 yards, had hit his 9-iron from 141 yards out to 20 feet, and that he had a 15-percent chance to make the putt and a 2-percent chance to three-putt from there.
Now Broadie had access to ShotLink data. The best golfers in the world on the best tour in the world were going to have every single one of their shots recorded. The ability to analyze all sorts of data made for endless computation. After all, if PGA Tour pros only made 15 percent of their putts from 20 feet, then was it worth the practice time for a tour professional to focus on 20-footers when he personally already made 18 percent of them? If it statistically takes 2.8 strokes to get into the cup from 100 yards in the center of the fairway and it takes 3.0 shots to do the same from the rough, then what exactly is the overall advantage, if any, to hitting your tee shot in the fairway? Is it better to bomb a drive 310 yards into the right rough and then hit a wedge onto the green or is it better to hit a deadly accurate tee shot into the heart of the fairway and then hit an 8-iron into the green?
And what exactly do the statistics say about types of courses. The Masters is contested every spring at Augusta National, a long, power course that is relatively wide open with lightning-fast greens that are downright diabolical. Does that mean power players from Arnold Palmer to Freddie Couples are favored to win the Masters? What about the great putters such as Ben Crenshaw and Zach Johnson who couldn”t overpower the course but could truly master the greens? To totally confuse you, Bernhard Langer has won two Masters. He is neither a power player nor is he known for being a great putter.
Even statistics see the value in the golf games of Jack Nicklaus and Tiger Woods. Yet how do you distinguish the golfing nuances of a control player such as Luke Donald and a power linkster such as Lee Westwood? Who is more likely to meet major success? Who will have the career that will last longer? In the end, does all of this make any sense at all or are we simply dealing with lies, damned lies, and statistics?
Next week we will continue to explore the world of golf statistics and what makes a great champion.
