During the modern age of comparative data & analytics in-sports, golf isn’t alone in the sense that it’s fallen in-line with the prevailing norm.
On Golf Channel, analysts like Brandel Chamblee, Arron Oberholser, and Mark Rolfing can barely go two minutes without mentioning some variation of the strokes-gained (comparative-) statistic (-al metric) to convey further meaning. By-design, the strokes-gained metric represents one player’s performance in one specific-area of the game, such as putting, (and) compared-to the performance of another single-player and the performance of the entire field; both in terms of that one specified-area.
For instance, if an entire-field of 156 players completes 18 holes and records a scoring-average of 73.0 strokes (156 * 73.0 = 11,388 or total number of strokes taken by all 156 players), and one-player records a score of 70 strokes, then that one-player’s Strokes-gained total is equal to 3.0 strokes (better-than-the-field for that round).
In lament’s terms, the (entire) strokes-gained metric only accounts for one player’s distance and lie; both in terms of the hole. For example, the PGA Tour Average for “Strokes-Gained Putting: 15 ft” is equal-to 1.77 strokes; according to golf’s “Godfather of Golf Analytics”, Mark Broadie. When 1.77 is expressed in a different form, the average PGA Tour player one-putts from a distance of 15 feet approximately 23 percent of the time.
Embed from Getty Images
As part of (or within) the above-statistic’s calculation, it’s important to note that one slippery, down-hill, double-breaking 15-footer is (measured-) the same as another (straight, up-hill) 15-footer. Said another way, the strokes-gained statistical metric as a whole does not account for all of golf’s unique and several (such) idiosyncrasies; including but not-limited to abnormally tough lies, a fried-egg in a bunker, hard-breaking putts, changing/tough weather-conditions, swirling winds, and being snookered behind-a-tree.
The strokes gained metric couldn’t care less in the event that your Ball is in a divot in-the-fairway or if your ball is (/-appears to be) sitting on-a-tee in deep-rough. Again, the strokes-gained statistic only accounts for the ball’s position with respect to its distance/lie relative to the hole.
For professional golfers (of whom are) playing on professional tours with several of their peers, strokes-gained exists as the most comprehensive comparative-statistic. For amateur-golfers merely competing against themselves and/or a couple of their buddies, the strokes-gained metric is much-less effective than it is for tour pros. In order for the strokes-gained concept to pay-dividends (to-you) within the context of your own game and improving it, you would have to record the precise-distance (to the hole) of every shot you had-to-play on the course that day along with every shot’s lie; (of) which includes the rough/fairway/green/tee/penalty-area.
Unless you’re fully prepared to utilize the strokes-gained method of analysis to its full-extent by (/-via) morphing into Matthew Fitzpatrick and logging every single-shot you hit on-the-golf-course while (also) including practice/tournament rounds and never forgetting distance & lie; and, then, converting these numbers into helpful information, you’re better off sticking to traditional statistics such-as fairways-hit, greens hit-in-regulation, number-of-putts and/or total-feet-of-putts-made, birdies, and double-bogeys (or worse). Here’s why:
In attempting to adequately identify the presence of any prevalent statistical-correlations that have occurred during the strokes-gained era of data & analytics or in the past two decades, the recorded-data suggests that finding-fairways at a high-rate off-the-tee is less important than it once was. More specifically, possessing power rather than accuracy (off-the-tee) on the PGA Tour is a larger advantage than it once was.
From the outside looking in, we don’t really see shorter-hitter’s excelling at the same high-level that short-hitters used to. In previous generations, the world’s top-tier of talent according to the OWGR was littered with “grinders” or short-hitters like Zach Johnson, Corey Pavin, Fred Funk, and Jim Furyk (amongst others) who didn’t necessarily move-the-ball very-far but were able to excel at the highest level of the sport by relying on their superior short-game(-s).
Embed from Getty Images
Although today’s young crop of (talented-) major-winners includes shorter-hitters like Jordan Spieth and Collin Morikawa, neither one of the two Americans can be aptly characterized as a “short-hitter” to the same degree that the Zach Johnson’s or the Jim Furyk’s of the world once were (compared to their respective competitors).
Today, bombers like the former SMU golfer, Bryson DeChambeau, who also happens to-be the winner of multiple PGA Tour events including the 2020 U.S. Open, utilizes a bomb-and-go-find-it (kind of) tactic en route to-missing loads of fairways and still winning by six strokes. Bombers provide the typical-golfer with a false perception of what it means to “play golf” and/or to have sound-strategy.
A couple years ago, Bryson justified his Happy Gilmore (long-ball) approach to the game by citing his superior “Strokes-Gained: Total Driving” statistic. Although his version of the bomber’s-approach was extreme/radical, it worked for him. But, the average golfer is not equipped with the skill, drive, time, or talent (that Bryson has/-) that’s required in order to successfully overhaul their swing/body and/or in a fashion which yields positive-results.
Embed from Getty Images
To clarify, I’m not saying that too-many people are trying to copy what the Mad Scientist in Bryson is doing. What I am saying (however) is (that) people swing too-hard and are too-invested in pounding the golf ball farther than they should be and building the “perfect swing”. Similarly, golf-podcasts and golf media-platforms are constantly focusing on distance and how players go-about achieving it. Here, in the northeast part of the country, we don’t need to move the ball a country-mile in order to go-low; like the pros often do.
Although Jordan Spieth’s ability to-hit the driver is often (-times) ridiculed for being the part of his game that’s holding him back from winning more due-to it’s lacking-accuracy/distance, Jordan moves-it longer-distances and straighter than too many people give him credit for. Unlike tour players facing trampled-down grasses (by galleries) in-the-rough and the proposition of never losing a ball that’s in-bounds thanks-to tournament-galleries (providing their assistance), your average-amateur doesn’t possess the luxuries (listed-above) that tour players have and therefore, can’t be expected to let-it-rip whenever they feel like it.
It’s also important to contextualize these distance-gains that are being realized in terms of its direct-connection to the strokes-gained metric. On the PGA Tour, even the most (seemingly-) trivial-gains are substantial/tangible (and) to the point that they’re worth-chasing in today’s game (of) which is deeper than its ever been.
Also, the strokes-gained metric as-is expressed inherently points to a player’s performance ; in said-area of the game , in (its own) relation-to the field. Unless you and 6-or-7 of your closest golfing-buddies all play-to the same (or very similar) handicap(s), the strokes-gained metric as its expressed/calculated on PGATour.com isn’t going to leave you with the easily-translated data that’s more commonly found within the following-statistics: fairways-hit, greens-in-regulation (GIR), total putts, scrambling, double-bogeys (or worse), and birdies (all do).
About a week ago, someone approached me when I was working in the club’s pro-shop and proceeded-to rattle-off his front-nine statistics to-me as follows: “I shot 45 (9-over), hit 5 (of 7 total) fairways, hit 4 (of 9 total) greens (in-regulation), made 2 double-bogey’s, and had 21 (total-) putts.” Then, and in a fashion that was much to my own surprise, he managed-to arrive at the following-conclusion regarding his own golf game: “I gotta hit more greens and (/-which will) take the pressure-off (of) my putting.
Instead of offering words-of constructive-criticism to-him and of his personal-critique of his own-game (and) in a fashion which could’ve been perceived-as me being too-direct or harsh, I confronted him by asking one-question: “How many putts per-hole should a golfer have?” In a fashion which indicated (that) he understood my point, he replied with, “2. So, 18 for 9.” Immediately thereafter, I remember thinking to-myself, “Well, at-least that’s a (good-) start.”
Amongst other-players, the above-golfer is not alone for failing to pinpoint the cause of his high-score. If you can break 50 for 9 holes, you can certainly play 9-holes with less-than 20 putts. If you’re in the 10-20 handicap range, there’s no excuse to-play 18-holes with more than 36 putts.
Too often, players go to the range trying-to gain distance when distance isn’t their (main) problem. If you’re a male-golfer playing to a 10-handicap with an average-drive of-240 yards, you hit the ball 10 yards farther-than the average 10-handicap does. Chances are, your best-bet in securing game-improvement is to focus-on your game on/near the putting-surface.
Instead of trying to walk-off every long-putt (that you have) while attempting to-record your strokes-gained stats, try to-focus on not-three-putting and (also; to-) remind yourself of the number-of-putts that you’ve taken within any round. Also, be sure to use common sense when recording your (all-) statistics. If your ball comes to-rest located a foot-or-two off-of-the-green (or in-the-fringe/right-off-the-green), and it takes you three-putts to hole-the-ball from-there, don’t cheat-yourself by recording 2-putts on your stat-sheet.
Ultimately, you’re going to benefit by recording your personal-statistics in an honest-manner that’s (also) not-absent of common-sense. Sometimes, recording objective-data poses as a convenient-disguise for those of us who don’t want to assess our games in an honest-fashion. In simplest terms, recording strokes-gained statistics exists-as a tedious task; and especially when compared-to the ease with which we (for example) record the number of fairways/greens-hit, putts-hit, doubles-or-worse, birdies, and any other-relevant scrambling-stat.
If your ball comes to rest 20-30 yards from the hole, an up-and-down (/-2 shots) would be recorded as 1-for-1 in your scrambling-percentage (-stats). In another example of stats-recording made-easier, always know how many balls you played-with in an entire-round. If you finished 9 or 18 using the same ball, you’d record 1-ball (for that round). Typically, using more than 1-or-2 balls is too-many. Every time you reach for another ball, your score takes a severe-hit. Keeping the ball in-play is of the utmost importance.
Obviously speaking, three-putts are going to happen from time to time. But, if you’re three-putting more often than (you’re) one-putting, then it’s time to work on your putting. If you’re regularly recording scores (that fall) in the range of 88-92 while (also) taking 36-putts (or more), chances-are you’re not holing enough putts. On any golf-course that measures less-than 6700 yards, male-players moving-the-ball roughly 225-230 yards ought to-be good-enough to-break 80; provided that their short-game/putting is up-to-par.
Despite the fact that most of us cannot swing the golf club like Viktor Hovland and Cameron Young (both) do, we have the physical capabilities/gifts to-learn copious amounts from players who get the absolute-most out-of their (perceived) talent (level; compared-to their peers’ talent) , like (a) Jim Furyk. At the professional-level, (having plenty of) distance may not be as optional as it once was. For the standard-player, however, shooting-par on reasonable-layouts (in-length) is more about precision/accuracy .
At the end of the day, the phrase, “there are no pictures on the scorecard” applies in a situational context. Simply, it’s true that ugly-pictures leading-to solid-scores can be readily applied to all-golfers depending on their viewpoint. For the most part, the best-players are typically the ones painting the best-pictures. However, (and) outside of the professional-golf scene, you can paint ugly pictures in-the-air and still go-low with far more regularity.
Let’s be honest; the old-saying that reads “there are no pictures on the scorecard” is grounded in-the-belief that players with superior short-games paint less-attractive pictures than the solid ball-strikers do. Personally, I am of the belief that players with superior short-games are the (same) guys that paint the best pictures. If you’re opting to record your stats while placing a heavy-emphasis on the short-game/putting , you’re destined to experience a sustained-level of marked-improvement to your own golf-game.
Cover Photo via Twitter
