I am saying the stats I gave in the first post back up that the better FedEx finishers more consistently come from the higher finishers in the GIR category. And I am obviously assuming the higher FedEx finishers are the better players.

I would think that the closer to the hole you get the ball on a consistent basis, the less putting comes into play.

Very good sh*t there pelican. I wish we could get all the data in a spreadsheet and really see if there is a leading indicator. I have a feeling it might just be that everyone out there does something really well and that is what they base their game off of.

I wanted to look into the scrambling stat also but it is very broad since it is purely based on whether or not a player saved par on any GIR missed. It doesn’t take into account whether that missed green was a result of an errant drive that forced the player to simply chip out. My thinking is a poor driver of the ball is going to put it in worse spots to save par from than a guy who can drive it well but is poor with irons. The latter is going to be greenside more often and should have a better scrambling percentage than the guy who is a bad driver incurring penalties or having to get up and down from a pitch out to 100 yards. That is why I was thinking that scrambling isn’t really much more than just another scoring average stat. Leading scrambling means making fewer bogeys and thus should obviously mean higher FedEx ranking….which your numbers prove to be the case.

I really like your analysis on the specific distances and there has to be a way to extrapolate some good info. But again, the leading stats per your ending stats are both the ballstriking stats. The reason I didn’t do total ballstriking was because I wanted to remove the driving stat as I felt like that stat is somewhat built into the GIR stat already.

There were a bunch of articles I read a while back about these types of things. I can't dig them all up at work right now but this Broadie guy did a bunch of studies with shotlink data a while back and found the most important differentiator for top pro's was long iron play (I think it was proximity to the hole from 175-250 or something).

Makes sense as that is one of the areas where Tiger, Vijay, Ernie and Phil all intersected.

This year seems much different than previous years as a normal year in the last decade the 4 of Tiger, Ernie, Phil, and Vijay probably average 6 victories as a group or so by this point in the year and now it's different guys getting it done who may not have the same strengths as those guys.

One thing all those players you listed above do well, is that they can hit their long irons super high at will. That's a huge advantage on the firmer greens that they play on and definitely a contributor to their Proximity to Hole statistic.

The stats you posted do support your theory, and they surprise me a little.
Maybe I just can't get past my own experience and observation.
But the best putters I've ever seen have all played Ryder Cups and won millions, most of the best drivers (and overall ballstrikers) have not.

I also think the mental aspect is huge, but have no way to quantify that in stats.
I think a conservative approach is the best approach in many situations, Qschool being one of the most obvious.
But I don't think it's what wins on tour week after week.

I do think for the majority of golfers it is a better approach.
It's hard to hit enough bombs down the middle and 6 irons for gimmee to make up for one o.b. or the wedge over the green.

But those stats have me questioning some of my beliefs, so I'll ponder.....


edit:
I looked at the putts gained list- cool stat.
There are some freaks of nature in the bottom half- Dustin, Bubba, etc.
One surprise to see at the bottom is Heath Slocum. He's obviously slumping, because I've seen him flat out roll the rock.

I'm fairly consistent (read: short), but as I think of past successes and failures,
I've had some very good ball-striking weeks and missed the cut or finished out of top 20.
I can't remember a time that I putted very well and didn't have a good week.

What is your experience with that?

That was another of that Broadie guy's observations. I don't remember how he quantified it, but he had some statistic that showed PGA tour players were far too risk averse.

Very interesting tradeoff...I actually think the fact that tour quality players are so good around the greens, you actually lose some of the variance on ball striking. How penalizing is missing the green if you get up and down such a large percentage?

Compare Total Putts to Greens in Regulation

GIR:

Best: Bubba Watson 73.85%

Worst: Kevin Kisner 54. 29% (Left out Weir due to sample size)


Total Putts:

Best: Kevin Na 27.18

Worst: Heath Slocum 31.03


So on average, the best putter is gaining roughly 4 strokes per round on the worst putter.

If you say Bubba Watson hits 25% more greens than Kevin Kisner, which would equate to 4.5 more greens per round. Is Bubba gaining a stroke on every hole that he hits the green, that Kisner misses?

That Bubba is leading the tour in GIR tells me that the stats don't always reflect what you believe them to.

He is undoubtably one of the most talented golfers I've ever seen, but he isn't near the top of the list in best ball strikers.
I guarantee you he isn't one of the more conservative players.
Never has been, never will be.

Gotcha. That was just me over-analyzing

I took this picture a week or two ago. It shows the data on putting expectation. I have a bit more to think through on this before posting what I am thinking but this is what it will be based on.

http://yfrog.com/h0x6hbpj

Grunch

Putting is just full of ****ing variance. You can be top 10 in the world and go through cold stretches.

I'd much rather be the leader in GIR. The weeks your putter gets hot you'll be winning and the weeks you're cold you'll still be making the cut because you'll rarely be getting a bogey.

I'd rather be good at something with less variance. You'll end up with steadier results. I mean there are probably some rounds where I'm putting just as good as the best putter in the world on their worst day. I can never, ever say that about the best ball strikers.

short-term you want to be the best putter. long-term you want to be the best ballstriker.

With regards to best putters in Ryders Cups etc. is that maybe because it is easier to recognize great putting strokes than great ball strikers swings? I am thinking that there is a ton of perception involved in thinking who is a great putter purely because of the pureness of stroke and rhythm. Where as great ball strikers can look ugly but get it done. Like 2 Gloves...I am not going to say he is a great ballstriker just yet, but he is 23rd in total driving and 39th in GIR. That is pretty damn good, but perception based on how it looks would be that he is scrappy, which just isn't the case. However, slowed down his action through the ball is INCREDIBLE.

Obviously the wins I have had and stages of Q School etc that have been successful have either been good weeks of putting or weeks that I was lucky and bombed the driver dead straight on all par 5s. That is what happend at 1st stage last year when I played the par 5s 12 under and everything else only 3 even though the rest of that course if fairly easy also. Good drives don't leave much most of the time....which brings me to.....
I would think his leading the GIR is as much a product of his length as much as anything else. He hits it so far it is pretty tough to miss the green assuming he is in play at all.

The obvious answer as to why Total Putts is irrelevant in finding the best putters is....Kevin Na is 165th in GIR and Slocum is 5th. That GIR stat explains 100% why their putting stats are so different. It isn't that Kevin is better putter than Heath, it is just that quite a few more of his putts come after chips than Heath's.

How likely is someone to improve on green reading? Obviously the more reps you get, the better you will get at estimating breaks but I'm assuming there is a very likely ceiling for many players out there (in terms of being able to read the green) that they would never be able to break through. Some people are more spatially cognitive than others and I would imagine it's difficult to make up for that through reps.

The course I grew up on had very flat greens and I really didn't start playing tournament golf until I was a sophmore or so in H.S. After that I only played about 2 and a half years in college due to transfer issues and a broken ankle and not much summer golf due to lack of $$$. So I really don't have that much (compared to Tour standards) experience. I am enjoying the Aimpoint stuff because it is a way for me to quantify break a little differently than just through visual experience.

Ah, right. The better stat would be strokes gained?

I grew up across from a park I could only hit wedges in and spent hours and hours putting at the course while waiting for rides. I wasn't a 6 handicap because I hit the ball well (well long irons/woods anyway). I've never had a lesson and swing was all self taught. I was great with short irons, weak with long irons and woods but I was insane around and on the green.

It's about the same today w/out the great short game, so basically terrible lol. Having to work and being injured w/broken bones 2 times in last 10 years has really hindered my ability to play and/or practice. Been out more this year than last 3 already I think.

Good point, I hadn't taken that into account. Oddly enough, the approach shot stats do take into account whether a player was going for the green or not--if a shot doesn't end up within 30 yards of the green, it isn't counted, so if a player punches out sideways after an errant drive, then hits his 3rd shot to the green, the 3rd shot is what counts as an approach. But they don't do the same for scrambling. Fortunately, they do have scrambling stats broken down in a number of other ways: inside 10 yards, 10-20 yards, 20-30, scrambling from fringe, sand saves, and a few others. (Side note: I had no idea that so many guys are 90%+ saving par from the fringe or from less than 10 yards. Wow.)

Also, if you're trying to isolate short game (other than putting) you have to get rid of putting. Fortunately, they do have average distance from hole on scrambling attempts. One example: Luke Donald is 3rd in scrambling even though he's T36 in distance from the hole after scrambling. He makes up for it by being #10 in putts gained per round. Interestingly enough, none of the FedEx top 10 are in the Top 10 in the average distance from hole on scrambling attempts stat. So maybe the short game isn't that important?

Also, this paper has a lot of good stuff about the putts gained per round stat: http://www.pgatour.com/stats/academicdata/adp-mit1.pdf . It also looks at how many strokes people gain off the green (though this isn't broken down at all into driving, approach shots, short game, it's just putting vs. non-putting). In their model over the sample they looked at, the 20 best putters gained anywhere from .3 to .7 strokes a round. (I'm guessing that the lower numbers compared to what the current stats show are a result of looking only at certain tournaments or requiring a higher minimum number of rounds or something like that.) On the other hand, the top 20 players overall in terms of strokes gained per round (both putting and otherwise) featured several players who were gaining more than 2 strokes a round off the green, and all of the top 20 overall were gaining more than .7 strokes a round off the green.

Reading tough greens is an art. Usually the only time I play on those is when I play in the bigger tournaments in MN, but it is so damn fun. I feel like I'm one of the better putters out there, I just don't work enough on it. If I practiced more on my stroke I'd probably be really good. I'm just too lazy to even putt 10 minutes a day, though.

I recall seeing a discussion and analysis maybe 10 years ago on TV where the consensus seemed to be that wedge play was the most important area. The very best players tend to also be longer off the tee and their big benefit is by getting to hit more wedge shots into greens than the average pro.

You can be the best putter in the world but if you are facing 10 foot putts while some average PGA Tour putter is getting to putt from 8 feet on average I'll take the average PGA Tour putter in that contest. I also recall seeing stats recently that on the PGA Tour putting being something like 0-3 feet 99%+, 4 feet 96%, 5 feet 90%, and every foot past that out to 10 feet dropping the chance to make by 10%. It makes a big difference to be a foot closer to the hole on putts in the 5-10 foot range.

I'd love to be able to "play" a course where all I do is drive the cart up to the 1st green, and drop 6-12 balls around various parts of the green and just pitch/flop/chip them all onto the green and putt them all out. Then drive to the next green and do the same thing all the way through the entire course. I wish that was possible.

When I go to the driving range it's just not possible to set up dozens of unique course-condition shots that will actually help your muscle memory. Out on the course every hole gives you opportunities to work on flopping one over a greenside bunker with a close pin, chipping from the fringe, pitching from in front (or behind) the green and the subsequent putts. That would be awesome and would help so much more than getting a bucket of 80s balls and ripping drivers and irons which is what most casual amateurs do.

This is a very good post I think.

ship--this maybe I am changing the point of the thread a little, but my intuition is that none of it really matters, the stats reflect the results and not vice versa. It's no surprise the guy that wins the tournament on sunday has really damn good stats for that week, its a logical implication.

It seems like guys that reach PGA tour level will always have a style that works, meaning the shorter guys have amazing short game and ability to hit long irons / hybrids / 3 wood or whatever with very good accuracy. The bombers probably have outstanding wedge play, etc.

From all the stuff I've read by you and about you, you are a world class driver of the golf ball - awesome - so it goes without saying that your score is largely going to be determined by your wedge play and scrambling on par 5s. Maybe I'm oversimplifying to the point that its no longer useful, but I guess I don't see what the debate really is, you aren't going to start hitting the ball shorter on purpose are you?

this is a myth. driving is awesome. it leads to all or nothing golf. drive big - put small. my motto