Some Stats Lie

[Kevin Shields]

But as others have said, dead last in putts gained leaves you toiling. And Joe Durant was 3rd last.

Interestingly (to me) - it doesn't matter whether you look at the "Putts gained" stat or the blunt putts per round - Luke Donald, Steve Stricker and Greg Chalmers were still in the top 5 either way, and Boo, Joe D and Justin Hicks were bottom 5.

Statistics are a joke. I hate the comparison, but my beloved Steelers have been ranked near #1 in total defense for the last several years but anybody with a pair of eyeballs and a decent sports IQ could clearly see they weren't. Stats were skewed because the poor kick coverage gave other teams short fields, nobody tried to run on them and their ball control offense kept the other teams offense off the field.

So, for those who just look at stats like GIRs, consider this. First off, every player on Tour can hit it, that's a fact (of course some better than others). If you have a Phil Mickelson, who can get up and down from anywhere, he'll take more chances off the tee as well as into the green. Statistically that will mean less greens in regulation. But he has balls of steel, so it's interesting how many times he stones it when it matters. Next are your run of the mill players like Joe Durant, who for a Tour player, is a lousy chipper and putter. He also doesn't have much versatility in the long game by most accounts. He is practically locked into the mode of hitting stock shots to the center of greens, making him a stats geek darling.

Now, what about the superior putter and course manager who understands a 30 footer below the hole is better than a 12 footer above often. Loses out in proximity to the hole stats but rolls in the uphill birdie putt. There are many players over the years that are poor putters statistically because they consistently leave themselves the hardest putt on the green. People who can't play (not naming names) don't understand because a green hit is a green hit in their minds.

You also have to look at the players schedule and how many top tier courses they play. Are these players playing Phoenix, the Hope, Milwaukee, John Deere or all the WGCs, Majors, Bay Hills, Players Championships, and big pressure events. And if both, how many greens do they hit in each event? Also, if you're Durant, how many times are you playing late on Sunday, where pressure is most likely to alter your play. Take it from me, it's easy to hit those greens when you're sweeping the dew.

I hope this adds something to think about when all you go on is stats.

 

[drewyallop]

Statistics are a joke. I hate the comparison, but my beloved Steelers have been ranked near #1 in total defense for the last several years but anybody with a pair of eyeballs and a decent sports IQ could clearly see they weren't. Stats were skewed because the poor kick coverage gave other teams short fields, nobody tried to run on them and their ball control offense kept the other teams offense off the field.

So, for those who just look at stats like GIRs, consider this. First off, every player on Tour can hit it, that's a fact (of course some better than others). If you have a Phil Mickelson, who can get up and down from anywhere, he'll take more chances off the tee as well as into the green. Statistically that will mean less greens in regulation. But he has balls of steel, so it's interesting how many times he stones it when it matters. Next are your run of the mill players like Joe Durant, who for a Tour player, is a lousy chipper and putter. He also doesn't have much versatility in the long game by most accounts. He is practically locked into the mode of hitting stock shots to the center of greens, making him a stats geek darling.

Now, what about the superior putter and course manager who understands a 30 footer below the hole is better than a 12 footer above often. Loses out in proximity to the hole stats but rolls in the uphill birdie putt. There are many players over the years that are poor putters statistically because they consistently leave themselves the hardest putt on the green. People who can't play (not naming names) don't understand because a green hit is a green hit in their minds.

You also have to look at the players schedule and how many top tier courses they play. Are these players playing Phoenix, the Hope, Milwaukee, John Deere or all the WGCs, Majors, Bay Hills, Players Championships, and big pressure events. And if both, how many greens do they hit in each event? Also, if you're Durant, how many times are you playing late on Sunday, where pressure is most likely to alter your play. Take it from me, it's easy to hit those greens when you're sweeping the dew.

I hope this adds something to think about when all you go on is stats.

I agree that some statistics are a joke Kevin. GIR is the biggest joke of all and tour players know it. But strokes gained-putts is not a joke. It takes into account exact position on green, difficulty of the green and putting skill of the field among other things. And birly a much better putt count is average putts which includes only putts when a green is reached in regulation thus excluding short putts after a chip from the fringe. And there are a lot of examples when a player ranked high in average putts has a very low rank in strokes gained-putts.

Of course missing are good stats for the rest of a players game but this will come and will be based on shot values. The stuff now available for driving, approach etc is pretty well useless and can prove any point one is trying to make.

Other interesting facts:

There is no significant difference in putting results downhill vs uphill from the same distance.

Scratch men club players would get crushed on the LPGA tour.

Statistics don't lie, bad statistics lie.

 

[birly-shirly]

Agreed Drew - that putts gained is the better stat. Or at least, I'm happy to take that much on trust.

But I did think that it was interesting how closely the top and bottom 5 match up in both Putts Gained and Putts per Round. I haven't looked at how closely the 2 categories correlate overall - but every stat has its cost of collection, so it would be reasonable to look at cost-benefit too.

After all, putts-gained is of limited use if you're not on tour with an army of observers and a peer group playing under comparable conditions.

 

[Kevin Shields]

I agree that some statistics are a joke Kevin. GIR is the biggest joke of all and tour players know it. But strokes gained-putts is not a joke. It takes into account exact position on green, difficulty of the green and putting skill of the field among other things. And birly a much better putt count is average putts which includes only putts when a green is reached in regulation thus excluding short putts after a chip from the fringe. And there are a lot of examples when a player ranked high in average putts has a very low rank in strokes gained-putts.

Of course missing are good stats for the rest of a players game but this will come and will be based on shot values. The stuff now available for driving, approach etc is pretty well useless and can prove any point one is trying to make.

Other interesting facts:

There is no significant difference in putting results downhill vs uphill from the same distance.

Scratch men club players would get crushed on the LPGA tour.

Statistics don't lie, bad statistics lie.

I'll go with this. Thanks

 

[siksta]

Scratch men club players would get crushed on the LPGA tour.


Not 100% sure on that one alot of those guys play as markers when a PGA player withdraws the final rd. I no of one who shot 67 and remember back tees and Mens PGA course. In general i understand the point.

 

[conkanen]

Statistics are a joke. I hate the comparison, but my beloved Steelers have been ranked near #1 in total defense for the last several years but anybody with a pair of eyeballs and a decent sports IQ could clearly see they weren't. Stats were skewed because the poor kick coverage gave other teams short fields, nobody tried to run on them and their ball control offense kept the other teams offense off the field.

Couldn't agree more. Brady made a habit of carving up our Steelers up with the 5 reciever set. Drove me nuts. But I love what we did against them this year. Ben carved them up 9 for a change) and the young corners stepped up big time in the press coverage we played on D. Kills me we had those injuries cause I believe we were the best team in the AFC and would have made it back to the SB.

 

[DCgolf]

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics".

 

[mgranato]

Couldn't agree more. Brady made a habit of carving up our Steelers up with the 5 reciever set. Drove me nuts. But I love what we did against them this year. Ben carved them up 9 for a change) and the young corners stepped up big time in the press coverage we played on D. Kills me we had those injuries cause I believe we were the best team in the AFC and would have made it back to the SB.

Only one small problem with that alternate ending...

 

[mgranato]

As far as golf stats go...

I've managed to find and streamline a staticular system over the years that really works. But more importantly, it really tells me in the cruelest way possible about the state of my game. I apologize in advance if my system is a bit crude or elementary in its complexity. However, I still think it tells an accurate story and I stand behind its validity 100%

Very simply, on your scorecard place a box beside a number “6” and a box beside a number “7”. Whichever number your score begins with, place a check beside that number. Sixes are better than sevens. If you see a trend in the wrong direction, you can seek instruction and address the cause(s). But, and this is the really cool thing about this system, you never want to seek or listen to instruction from someone who doesn’t get to check either box.

The description above is for the full version of the system. If you want to use the basic version, just omit writing the boxes, checks, 6,and 7.

 

[Matt Bryda]

too funny

 

[dschultz6072]

As far as golf stats go...

I've managed to find and streamline a staticular system over the years that really works. But more importantly, it really tells me in the cruelest way possible about the state of my game. I apologize in advance if my system is a bit crude or elementary in its complexity. However, I still think it tells an accurate story and I stand behind its validity 100%

Very simply, on your scorecard place a box beside a number “6” and a box beside a number “7”. Whichever number your score begins with, place a check beside that number. Sixes are better than sevens. If you see a trend in the wrong direction, you can seek instruction and address the cause(s). But, and this is the really cool thing about this system, you never want to seek or listen to instruction from someone who doesn’t get to check either box.

The description above is for the full version of the system. If you want to use the basic version, just omit writing the boxes, checks, 6,and 7.

In my experience, most of the people who really think they have something of substance to share and subsequently know the golf swing would be checking 8 or 9. Most of the time 9. They're also afraid of yardages beginning with 4 on par 4s.

 

[mgranato]

They're also afraid of yardages beginning with 4 on par 4s.

 

[magicmarker]

C'mon, Steelers were there for the greatest play of the year, too bad they were getting Tebowed for every second of it.

 

[Todd Dugan]

Yes, stats are very misleading. Like.........any stat that doesn't identify Tiger Woods as the best putter on Tour every year in the 00's is bullsh*t.

 

[drewyallop]

As far as golf stats go...

I've managed to find and streamline a staticular system over the years that really works. But more importantly, it really tells me in the cruelest way possible about the state of my game. I apologize in advance if my system is a bit crude or elementary in its complexity. However, I still think it tells an accurate story and I stand behind its validity 100%

Very simply, on your scorecard place a box beside a number “6” and a box beside a number “7”. Whichever number your score begins with, place a check beside that number. Sixes are better than sevens. If you see a trend in the wrong direction, you can seek instruction and address the cause(s). But, and this is the really cool thing about this system, you never want to seek or listen to instruction from someone who doesn’t get to check either box.

The description above is for the full version of the system. If you want to use the basic version, just omit writing the boxes, checks, 6,and 7.

I am confused by the staticular particulars of the advanced system. I will stick with the basic version. Thanks for sharing Mike and please table this at Anti-summit III.