The only 2 stats that matter in golf?

[self-mastery]

1) G.I.R.
2) Proximity to the hole

.
.
.
Average putting is good enough to rank in the top 10 on the money list.

 

[greenfree]

1) G.I.R.
2) Proximity to the hole

.
.
.
Average putting is good enough to rank in the top 10 on the money list.

1-Events won.
2- Events won

 

[mjstrong]

Relative

Who's "average" are we talking about? PGA Tour?

Some number crunching:

2009 PGA Tour Leader, Putts per GIR - Steve Stricker - 1.726
2009 PGA Tour 137th, Putts per GIR - Joe Durant - 1.794

A difference of .068, assuming an average of 70% (12.6/18), is still less than a shot a round (.85). But over a 4-round tournament, that's still over 3 shots.

In 2007, Joe Durant was 12th overall in GIR, and 7th in Proximity. 194th in Putts per GIR left him 182nd in money.

Not taking much of a side on the discussion, but it's an interesting perspective.

 

[spktho]

1-Events won.
2- Events won

1) events won
2) scoring average.

 

[greenfree]

1) events won
2) scoring average.

That's good too.

 

[cmartingolf]

1) G.I.R.
2) Proximity to the hole

.
.
.
Average putting is good enough to rank in the top 10 on the money list.

What?

Average putting? Okay if you never miss a green and stuff it (Moe Norman) you can be a rotten putter (Moe Norman) and still win a bunch of events(Moe Norman), but....if he could putt? Wow, we'd be talking about the adulterer chasing down his record for major wins.

 

[Kevin Shields]

Scoring average

 

[Chip Putterman]

Wo! Martin, speaking ill of Cheetah Woods could get you a warning.

 

[dashfan87]

I dont think brian is going to be able to stop this tidal wave...

 

[niblick1]

1) G.I.R.
2) Proximity to the hole

.
.
.
Average putting is good enough to rank in the top 10 on the money list.

Look at the 2009 PGA Tour stats and you'll see those are among the weaker predictors of winning tournaments and money. They might be good predictors for consistently shooting your handicap or keeping your card. But to win, you need more "beta" - ability to spike low scores outside your handicap.

I would argue that separating yourself from the crowd of many talented players and winning means something like:

The ability to hit par fives in two that other players can't hit PLUS scrambling within 80 yards (Tiger kills people here - I think this stat shows ability to take chances without blowing up your score) PLUS the GIR/close to hole (which gives you a consistency measurement) PLUS ability to absolutely putt out of your mind and make almost every putt for four days within 12 feet and also throw in a few bombs. It's rare to excel in more than two of these categories. Being a streaky brilliant putter might be the most valuable of these (well, scrambling like Tiger might be close).

That last putting stat - the ability to be a streaky great putter for most of four rounds is huge -- it gives you the ability to go really low. It makes Tiger, especially because he can hit long par 5s in two and can scramble, dangerous in his ability to separate from the field (when he doesn't do it - US Open this year - he has much less margin for error). It made Brian Gay a lot of money in a few tournaments this year. Kenny Perry and Steve Stricker can be streaky good putters too, although they have a little trouble holding up under major tournament back-9 pressure.

Even among us hacks streak great putting sometimes appears and then disappears. I have played golf on Saturdays with a guy for a decade now who is a 10-11 handicap and has always been a poor putter and a good driver. I mean a bad putter. In the last month he has putted lights out and twice broken 75, which is very low for someone at his handicap (he just switched from a long putter back to his ancient bullseye). Who knows how long his run will last.

Imagine how many more events Trevino would have won if he had Nicklaus' putting ability.

 

[Jim Kobylinski]

Look at the 2009 PGA Tour stats and you'll see those are among the weaker predictors of winning tournaments and money. They might be good predictors for consistently shooting your handicap or keeping your card. But to win, you need more "beta" -ability to spike low scores outside your handicap.

Agreed i looked into the stats and the top 10 in each aren't very high on the money list.

 

[niblick1]

I would say, GIR is a much more effective way to measure a baseline, and maybe better at differentiating potential of a 14 handicap from a 6, and a 6 from a scratch player, than it is in measuring between tour pros.

 

[suns11111]

Some good info for fantasy golf lol. Food for thought almost everyone works on driving and in years past Charles Warren was voted one of the best drivers of the golf ball.......hes 147 on PGATOUR money list. Drive for show putt for dough...ever hear of that!

Anyone want to start a Brain Manzella yahoo fantasy golf team?
JeffS

 

[aaron_lohan]

In Dave Pelz book he calculated that the wedge game had the highest correlation with scores, with putting and GIRs having low correlation to scores.

 

[Richie3Jack]

Statistical Studies have been done on this. Over the last 3 years, here's the stats that statistically correlate to stroke average on the PGA Tour:

1. GIR
2. Putts per GIR
3. Double-bogey (or worse) rate
4. Scrambling
5. Go For Its
6. Putts per round
7. Driving Distance
8. Driving Accuracy

And in reality the correlation coefficient (a statistical formula that can tell how strong one stat correlates to another stat) for the last 3 stats listed above are rather negligible. Aka, they have almost zero correlation to stroke average on the PGA Tour.

'Go For It's' are going for par 5's in two.

If you look at the top 5 stats, each stat relies on ballstriking to some degree. Even Putts/GIR and Scrambling rely on ballstriking to a some degree because it's easier to make putts if you're closer to the hole and it's easier to scramble if you just miss the green.





3JACK

 

[holeout]

I really wish they had a "Short-sided Percentage" statistic and a "Inside 15 ft. Percentage" statistic. I think those two would be eye-opening.

 

[mjstrong]

Statistical Studies have been done on this. Over the last 3 years, here's the stats that statistically correlate to stroke average on the PGA Tour:

1. GIR
2. Putts per GIR
3. Double-bogey (or worse) rate
4. Scrambling
5. Go For Its
6. Putts per round
7. Driving Distance
8. Driving Accuracy

And in reality the correlation coefficient (a statistical formula that can tell how strong one stat correlates to another stat) for the last 3 stats listed above are rather negligible. Aka, they have almost zero correlation to stroke average on the PGA Tour.

3JACK

I wonder how strong a correlation Driving Distance and Driving Accuracy have with GIR, and proximity to the hole...

 

[Richie3Jack]

I wonder how strong a correlation Driving Distance and Driving Accuracy have with GIR, and proximity to the hole...

I'll try to figure that out today.




3JACK

 

[Richie3Jack]

Total driving has a decent correlation to GIR.

When trying to figure out how one stat correlates to another stat (in this case, how total driving correlates to GIR), one can use a 'correlation coefficient.'

Correlation Coefficients range from -1.0 to +1.0.

The closer to +1.0 the stronger the direct correlation is. For instance, if I wanted to see how temperature correlates to water bottles drank and I get a correlation coefficient of +0.8, that means there's a pretty strong correlation between the two and the higher the temperature, the more likely water bottles will be drank.

The closer to -1.0, the stronger the indirect correlation is. So if I wanted to see what the correlation of temperature and hot soup is and came up with -0.7, that means there's a pretty strong indirect correlation...meaning the higher the temp, the less likely people will buy hot soup and the lower the temp, more likely hot soup will be bought.


With total driving and GIR the correlation was at +0.6 which is pretty decent. Not exactly definitive though.





3JACK

 

[mjstrong]

Nicely done. Thank you.