Just off the top of my head, I think it’s the opposite. I tend to think Pelz showed what putting was all about 30 years ago. And quite frankly, in the short term there’s a ton of luck involved.

Pelz showed that putting on even the best of greens is nothing like putting on a pool table where you can easily make 9 foot putts over and over. On a green you can hit a perfect 9 foot putt that doesn’t touch the hole. Or you can hit a great approach shot to 9 feet where the putt is brutal.

I think it’s next to impossible to win a tournament while below average in ball striking because you can’t make up that many strokes on the greens. But there have been some great ball strikers over the years and now Scottie that can putt average and still win.

I'm guessing it's happened in PGA Tour history where someone has been negative strokes gained Tee to Green and still won, but I agree it's exceedingly hard.

First one that came to mind was last year's Memorial. Denny McCarthy was +0.47 SG T2G per round and lost in a playoff.

That was the week where Scottie finished solo 3rd by one shot. If he putted average for the week he would have won by 7 and if he had Denny McCarthy's putting week he would have won by 19.

We can agree to disagree on this. Pelz claimed the 50/50 putt was 6 feet (backed by his evidence), now it is about 8.5 feet. So obviously there has been a pretty significant improvement since Pelz' time. How much it can continue to improve is anybody's guess, but with the rollback of the ball I see even more ugency in improving putting, in particular the highly leveraged range of 8-10 feet.

Based on the research I've done on the subject, the top SG putting player for an event is around +8. SG off the tee is around +5.

Supergrunch. Id guess driving well is now controllable and putting well is more random walk.

It would be very difficult to win on Tour while being negative simply because you are now looking at two of the four Strokes Gained categories. The typical winner on Tour is 12-14 shots clear of the field average. The week you are referring to with Denny he gained 11.279 vs the field. He obviously could have gained a bit more around the greens (he lost .002) in order to get to the 12-14 number, but if you lose ANY from tee to green you probably won't win.

Scottie losing 8.5 putting and finishing one shot back has to be a record that will stand for eternity (I'm assuming it's a record now, the Trivial Pursuit type stats aren't my specialty to figure out quickly).

OR, Pelz' data was wrong. OR, spike marks going away. OR, the fact the average player on Tour is lightyears better than when Pelz did his study. Point being, yes there has been a significant improvement in putting, but it's not really because of what saying "there has been a significant improvement in putting" somewhat implies if that makes sense.

The ball rollback shouldn't have any impact on Putting because it's uniform across the field. I do think putting numbers are improving but that is largely based on players truly committing to speed being the most important component of putting, green reading improvements via Aimpoint and now Tour Read, and improved agronomy.

I don't mean to be condescending, but I'm failing at understanding the point of your post

It seems like you are acknowledging that putting has improved quite a bit in the last 20+ years, for multiple reasons. And relying on Pelz' data is probably not wise. Seems fair.

IRT the new ball, perhaps with more dispersion on approaches players will put more work in putting to compensate, and that will implicitly improve putting in general.

I'm not sure what you don't understand. I don't think Pelz' data was accurate and since every inch from 3-8' is 1% in your make rate measurement accuracy is very important. I also think that agronomy, spike mark rules, and equipment has improved. These are all confounding variables to your point that there has been a significant improvement in putting because that implies (IMO) that players are the main reason for the improved stats. I do think players are vastly better now than when Pelz did his "study", but the other variables make that impossible to discern.

As for the idea that players will put more work in putting to compensate for increased shot pattern sizes, they already max out work in all phases of the game. Time is a zero sum game and players should spend most of that time on long-game work (obviously this is a generic statement).

I don't think putting rates will change much in the future from where they are right now, if any. On the other hand, tee shot and approach shot data will continue to improve for the foreseeable future.

Cliff notes: putting at some point becomes all about luck on a week to week basis. Yes the best putters have to get less lucky, but the weeks they gain 8 is nothing more than variance. AKA the best drivers have a smaller standard deviation than the best putters.