I had no sooner hit the Publish icon on this post than I opened the current issue of Golf Digest to find excerpt from Every Shot Counts, Mark Broadie's forthcoming book. The piece is not available on the Internet, so I'll have to describe, then react to, the hypothetical situations that Broadie discusses.
Broadie's basic analytic technique is Strokes Saved, with which most of us have by now become familiar with at least in terms of putting. As discussed in my Moneyball post, Broadie applies this metric to every shot on the golf course from tee through holing out, and he uses it to analyze the games of all levels of players, from Tour professional to Paul Brenner (inside joke for Willow Ridge members). Let's see what Professor Broadie has in mind for us.
Example No. 1: On 400 yard Par 4 with out-of-bounds down the entire right side of the hole, where should a golfer that averages an 80 aim his tee shot? How about a 100 shooter?
Analysis: Broadie asserts that an 80 shooter will average 4.7 shots on this hole, because aiming for the center of the fairway will result in 7% of this players' tee shots ballooning OB. Using thousands of simulations, Broadie concludes that the optimal aim point is the left edge of the fairway, which reduces the average score to 4.6 shots.
The difference for the less talented golfer is more substantial, as that players' shots disperse wider and end closer to the tee. In this case the optimal aim point is in the left rough, and reduces the avergae scroe of this player from 5.9 to 5.7.
Neither of these differentials may seem large, but we're talking about simply changing a target on one shot.
My Reaction: It makes perfect sense to me, and I think we all make accommodations though perhaps in a less effective manner. The 12th hole at the Ridge is a long Par 5 with OB right, and as a result I've told the lads I play with that my memorial plaque should be placed in the left tree line on this hole. The question it's posing to me in the moment, is whether committing to a target at the left edge of the fairway would allow a player (specifically this player) to make a better swing, as opposed to over-cooking it into the trees which is more typical.
In general though, I think this is a very important discussion for the higher handicapper, a player that rarely has the luxury of course management advice.
Example No. 2: Is length or accuracy more important off the tee?
Analysis: Not a fair fight, as length leads directly to lower scores. Broadie estimates that an extra 20 yards off the tee is worth .75 strokes per round to a Tour player, but is magnified to 1.6 strokes for the short-hitting boger golfer and 2.3 strokes for the guy shooting 100. Now even Broadie acknowledges that on tight, tree-lined courses or where OB and other trouble lurks, the calculus might change. But length curse a lot of ills.
My Reaction: Broadie doesn't explicitly go into his calculations in this short excerpt, but hitting two clubs less into greens is humongous, so I'm not surprised. And certainly the Bomb and Gouge Cadre on Tour puts this philosophy into play each and every day. Now, where do we go to pick up our extra 20 yards?
Example No. 3: Would you rather have a six-foot sidehill or an eight-foot uphill putt?
Analysis: On the vast majority of greens, i.e., those with slope at the cup of between 1 and 2 degrees, 66 percent of six-foot sidehill putts are made as compared to 54% of eight-foot uphill putts. His conclusion is to not be overly concerned with keeping pitches and chips short of the hole, just get it close.
My Reaction: I think this is probably true, and he doesn't even deal with the added benefit that some of those chips that get to the hole might drop (or that you'll benefit from seeing the line on the come backer). I guess I'll have to read the book to see if it matters whether the sidehill putt is the dreaded left-to-right breaker...
Other insights from the sshort excerpts:
Putting: Is it better to consistently miss putts on the pro (high) side? Absolutely not, per Broadie. In fact, if you're missing significantly more than 50% of your putts on either the high or low side, that aiming adjustment has an opportunity to improve one's putting. Additionally, on breaking putts Broadie maintains that aiming for the apex of the putt, as most are taught to do, will result in misses on the low side. The proper aim point is above the apex.
What is the best statistic to measure a golfer's ability? Median leave, according to Broadie. he gives two examples, the first being Camillo Villegas, a three-time winner who from 2006-2012 hit half his approach shots within 5.8% of the initial distance (that's 30 feet on a shot of 175 yards), ranking him 120th in this stat.
He then intorduces us to a second unnamed golfer, who on the same hypothetical 175 yards hits it to within 27 feet half of the time, a seemingly minor 3 foot difference. And he asks what rank we would estimate this hypothetical golfer would hold in proximity.
The reader will no doubt feel the tug on his leg, as that second golfer is Tiger Woods, and he ranked first in the category. While Broadie points out that the pick-up in decreasing the putt from 30' to 27' is only .025 strokes, that 3' difference results in more greens hit (Tiger's GIR's was 75% vs. the Tour average of 67%) , turns 8-footers into 5-footers, 5-footers into 2-footers and, per Broadie, is worth a meaningful 1.3 strokes per 18 holes or 5 shots per tourney.
That's all for his tease, but I suspect we'll see lots of folks piling onto the bus in the near future. Most of what we learn will likely confirm our understanding of the game, but like our Bill James example from baseball, the fun will be in the surprises. Even at this early juncture, the "Dirve for show, putt for dough" myth seems headed for the scrap heap.
No comments:
Post a Comment