My quick perspective on Stats

Status
Not open for further replies.

Kevin Shields

Super Moderator
If I were a tour player, I would absolutely look at the stats. In fact, in the Tour events I played in, I was so excited just to have stats, I stared at them constantly for awhile. That being said, I just came across a few interesting, to me at least, statistics and how how misleading they can be.

2012 Greens in regulation
9th. 91 rounds hit 817 greens
77th 91 rounds hit 752 greens

If you only looked at the place you were in, it's like "man, I'm 77th, very average". But that's less then one green per round worse than the 9th ranked player. That could mean anything.

Strategy - going after pins that are ill advised.
Poor club selection/ distance control. - flighting it right at pins and going short or long
Distance - a shorter approach has a better chance to hit the green than a longer one.
Scheduling - maybe the 77th ranked player played in more majors or harder course (see Scott Hoch Vardon trophy)
Upgrade in swing mechanics - I'd be dumb if I didn't think this. Of course an upgrade in technique could help
What time are they playing on Sunday??

Point is, the player is examining these things and for us to judge golf swings by these stats is ridiculous. I don't think think this is anything many people know but I get a sense we are using these stats to rank golf swings where there are so many more intangibles that you have to weigh in.
 

Erik_K

New
Yup, the tour is ultra deep. The difference between the top ranked Driver on tour (for distance) and the guy in 50th place is 20 yards. To me, that doesn't seem to be all that much, but I am sure others will beg to differ.

They ALL drive the ball well, hit lots of greens, and make a ton of putts each and every week. But as you said, what the stats can't, and never will, measure are the intangibles. I think that's part of the reason why we watch golf. Sometimes the biggest, badest, and most atheltic guy wins on Sundays and sometimes it's someone who just grinds away round after round and wills his way to victory.

Erik
 
I'd like to see these (The Tour already has the data)...

1. Average weekend tee times (latest to earliest)
2. Average time to play each shot (fastest to slowest)
3. Scoring average within 2 shots of the lead, 4 shots of the lead, 6, and 8.
4. Putts gained, driving distance, driving accuracy, and GIR within 2 shots of the lead, 4 shots of the lead, 6, and 8.
5. Putts gained, driving distance, driving accuracy, and GIR for the majors, then WGC events, then invitationals, then "regular" tour events.
 
If I were a tour player, I would absolutely look at the stats. In fact, in the Tour events I played in, I was so excited just to have stats, I stared at them constantly for awhile. That being said, I just came across a few interesting, to me at least, statistics and how how misleading they can be.

2012 Greens in regulation
9th. 91 rounds hit 817 greens
77th 91 rounds hit 752 greens

If you only looked at the place you were in, it's like "man, I'm 77th, very average". But that's less then one green per round worse than the 9th ranked player. That could mean anything.

Strategy - going after pins that are ill advised.
Poor club selection/ distance control. - flighting it right at pins and going short or long
Distance - a shorter approach has a better chance to hit the green than a longer one.
Scheduling - maybe the 77th ranked player played in more majors or harder course (see Scott Hoch Vardon trophy)
Upgrade in swing mechanics - I'd be dumb if I didn't think this. Of course an upgrade in technique could help
What time are they playing on Sunday??

Point is, the player is examining these things and for us to judge golf swings by these stats is ridiculous. I don't think think this is anything many people know but I get a sense we are using these stats to rank golf swings where there are so many more intangibles that you have to weigh in.

And then there's weather? Seems like every year at The Open there's the usual controversy about who got the morning/afternoon draw on Thursday/Friday.

"Figures don't lie, but liars do a lot of figuring". Stats provide a good starting point but you better know how to use and interpret them.
 

Kevin Shields

Super Moderator
Suppose I thought Dustin Johnson was one of the best ball strikers on tour. What if he went to Harbour Town and it drove him nuts and he played a bunch of stupid shots, slammed the trunk and was gone. That place is a stat killer. So is The Open, Players Championship, US Open, etc. The Masters has 8-10 greens missed that you're ball was once on the green!
 
This is why they run regressions to see what stats are significant. I finished my bachelors degree trying to determine if the regular stats were of any significance. Everybody who researches these knows they aren't. You try to determine if there is any correlation between any of these and scoring average or money list. In the end, there isn't a whole lot. Hell, you can have a great scoring average just because you play all the tournaments where you can go super low. Even that is a questionable stat. That's why Richie comes up with his proprietary formulas and own measures of ball striking ability, such as Danger Zone, etc. He's trying to work with stats that are more telling than FIR, GIR, Sand Saves, etc. The goal of every sports statistician is determining what stats matter and why. Gotta make bets!
 
There is no stat that determines "Fairways hit after someone yelled MASHED POTATOES" or "Greens hit while feeling like throwing up and hearing roars from behind". Those would be more telling stats. Whether or not a swing will WORK under pressure.
 

Kevin Shields

Super Moderator
Tom Lehman never missed a green in Sunday singles in his Ryder Cup career. Didn't have to chip!!! He's right at the top of my ball striker list without looking at any stat.
 

Kevin Shields

Super Moderator
This is why they run regressions to see what stats are significant. I finished my bachelors degree trying to determine if the regular stats were of any significance. Everybody who researches these knows they aren't. You try to determine if there is any correlation between any of these and scoring average or money list. In the end, there isn't a whole lot. Hell, you can have a great scoring average just because you play all the tournaments where you can go super low. Even that is a questionable stat. That's why Richie comes up with his proprietary formulas and own measures of ball striking ability, such as Danger Zone, etc. He's trying to work with stats that are more telling than FIR, GIR, Sand Saves, etc. The goal of every sports statistician is determining what stats matter and why. Gotta make bets!

I will certainly give him credit for that
 
Wow. The stats don't blow up anything. They just don't do a great job of explaining why people win on tour. They are REFERENCE. Nothing more, nothing less. You're really clouded over there.
 
The only stat people should care about is level of happiness with their game. Everybody knows their weaknesses. It's not rocket science. I thought this place was about making a golfer better not just on paper.
 
The only stat people should care about is level of happiness with their game. Everybody knows their weaknesses. It's not rocket science. I thought this place was about making a golfer better not just on paper.

I mostly agree, but... some people, and you know who I'm talking about here, do not know their weaknesses. That's the problem. The Greeks called it hubris.
 
Suppose I thought Dustin Johnson was one of the best ball strikers on tour. What if he went to Harbour Town and it drove him nuts and he played a bunch of stupid shots, slammed the trunk and was gone. That place is a stat killer. So is The Open, Players Championship, US Open, etc. The Masters has 8-10 greens missed that you're ball was once on the green!

Yes, this has been discussed, you have to come up with a formula when doing the stats that weighs this. Looking at the PGA site is only so good for stats.
 
in general terms, you could probably devise some sort of weighted stats based upon avg difficulty of each course relative to others. To be really precise you would have to come up with relative #s as to how hard to hit each fairway, each green, etc. based upon comparison with all other holes played. Probably no way to come up with weighted weather conditions.
 
Not exactly sure how to read it, but IMO the outcome of any sport usually comes down to this stat...

images
 

ej20

New
Stats will never take into account what a player is trying to do.Is he playing safe or aggresive?

The guy who is shaping his shots left and right on almost every hole to try and attack the pin is going to miss more fairways and greens than the player who just goes with his natural shot shape,even if it means he has a longer approach or he has to aim away from the pin..Got nothing to do with who has the better mechanics.
 
Several years ago I found a close correlation between the top players and % of par 5 birdies.
Not sure how it looks now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top