Applying Statistical Golf

Finishing out the statistical analysis, one of the things I’ve been asked the most is ‘how can I apply this stuff to me?’

A lot of the work has really applied to the 4 or less handicapper trying to make their game better. However, I think there are a lot of the same principles apply.

For instance, The Danger Zone.

On the PGA Tour, the Danger Zone is approach shots from 175-225 yards. But since the PGA Tour courses are roughly the same distance in length and the pros don’t hit pop ups, ground balls and duck hooks off the tee, there’s not a major discrepancy between the amount of times in a round of golf a PGA Tour golfer will be in the Danger Zone. Meaning, if Corey Pavin is in the Danger Zone 20 times in a 4-day tournament, Bubba Watson will probably be in the Danger Zone at least 14 times in a 4-day tournament. Still a difference, but it’s not something ridiculous like Pavin being in the Danger Zone 20 times and Bubba being in the Danger Zone 2 times.

But, you may run into that type of ridiculous discrepancy on the amateur level given the course lengths can change and the margin of driving distance from golfer to golfer tends to be greater.


Below is a table I created to help figure out the Danger Zone for a particular course length. First, let me go thru what the table means.

Yards = Length of Course for 18 holes of Golf

Long = If the golfer hits it this distance or longer off the tee somewhat consistently, it would be safe to say that we will consider the golfer in the upper percentile of distance off the tee. You can label this golfer as having ‘bomber length.’ Note, the shorter the course, the less power off the tee is needed to be considered ‘long.’ It’s almost like being called ‘long for the course.’ So if you’re a 7 handicap who hits it 280 yards off the tee and is playing a 5,800 yard course, really the course is too short for you.

Mid1 & Mid2 = These are the distances where you would be ‘middle of the pack.’ For instance, on a 6,700 yard course, middle of the pack would be 260-276 yards off the tee. If you hit it 277 or more yards, you would be considered ‘long’ for the course.

Short1 & Short 2 = These are the distances where the golfer would be considered to be short for the course. I created a range here because I believe one can be ‘too short’ for a course. For instance, if you hit it 245 off the tee, you are too short for a 7,200 yard course and you probably shouldn’t be playing it. Instead, you should probably try to play the course from no more than 6,800 yard.

DZ1 & DZ2 = This is the 50 yard ‘Danger Zone’ range. As you can see, as the course length gets shorter, the Danger Zone gets shorter. This is mostly because golfers won’t get many attempts in the traditional Danger Zone (175-225 yards) because the course is too short. The 175-225 yard Danger Zone is still prevalent on a lot of course lengths because of par-3’s. No matter how long a golfer is off the tee, they can’t avoid the Danger Zone if the course has four par-3’s that are all within the Danger Zone range.


Yards….Long……Mid1…Mid2…Short1….Short2…DZ1……DZ2

7600……315……314……298……297………..277……...185……235

7500……310……309……294……293……..…273…...…175……225

7400……306……305……290……289………..269…...…175……225

7300……302……301……286……285……..…265...……175……225

7200……298……297……281……280……..…260…...…175….…225

7100……294……293……278……277……..…257…...…175….…225

7000……290……289……275……275….....…255...……175….…225

6900……286……285……270……269………..249…….…175……225

6800……281……280……265……264………..244……….175……225

6700……277……276……260……259………..239…….…165……215

6600……273……272……257……256………..236…….…165……215

6500……269……268……253……252………..232…….…165……215

6400……265……264……250……249………..229…….…165……215

6300……261……260……245……244………..224….……150……200

6200……257……256……240……239……..…219…….…150……200

6100……252……251……235……234………..214…….…150……200

6000……248……247……232……231……….211…..……150……200

5900……244……243……228……227……….207……..…150……200

5800……240……239……225……224……….204……….140….…190

5700……236……235……220……219…….…199…….…140…….190

5600……232……231……215……214…….…194…….…140….…190

5500……228……227……212……211……..…191……….140……190







3JACK

Bag Setup Thoughts...

When I got back into the game in 2009 after an eight year layoff, I started to look for some new clubs. The last time I had played the hybrid club was in its infancy stages. Before then, some golfers would carry a 5-wood or the popular for a time Callaway 7-wood.


Then Adams came out with their Tight Lies fairway wood and Orlimar under Jesse Ortiz came out with a similar fairway wood as well. Then Gap Wedges became more popular and golfers started using those.

Getting back into the game at the time, I had little idea what my set should look like.

Eventually I went with the following:

Driver– 10.5*
3-wood – 15*
3-hybrid 20*
4-iron thru PW
GW– 50*
SW – 54*
LW – 60*



The statistical research I’ve done recently has one giant theme, performance in the Danger Zone (175-225) dictates a PGA Tour golfer’s success most of the time.

One of the things I was seeing when I looked at ‘What’s In the Bag’ posts for PGA Tour players was that there were not many golfers who carried a Gap Wedge or had a SW-LW (60*)-Super Lob Wedge (64*) in their bag. All of this time that Dave Pelz was telling us to carry 4 or 5 wedges and the PGA Tour pros simply were not buying into it.

Why?

Because I think the PGA Tour players understood the same concept that has been done in my statistical research. Players lose or gain shots from their performance from the Danger Zone than they do anywhere else. And the closer you get to the green, the discrepancy in losing or gaining shots from that spot is smaller.

So why would you want to add more clubs in the range that makes the least amount of difference? Probably because people think like I did, I may use a long iron or a hybrid once a round. But I could theoretically use my GW, SW and LW each 3 times a round.



But here’s the problem with that theory. That one 3-iron shot is usually much more important than hitting my gap wedge three times.

Let’s say I take out my gap wedge and instead use my SW to hit those shots. And let’s just assume that I hit worse shots with the SW. The total discrepancy on those 3 shots may only be about 20 feet in total. Whereas if I didn’t have the proper club for me from 220 yards away, that may cause a 30+ feet discrepancy.

Here’s another kicker. I’m still likely to wind up on the green if I have to use a SW instead of a GW. And if I miss the green, the miss is likely to wind up okay. But from 220 yards out, I could likely miss the green badly. Possibly go in the water or go O.B.

So that helps explain why most pros on Tour do not carry more than 3 wedges (PW, SW and LW)

I decided to take this a bit further and look at the top players statistically from the Danger Zone over the past 5 years

Tiger Woods
Sergio Garcia
D.J. Trahan
Sean O'Hair
Davis Love III
Robert Garrigus
Alex Cejka
Robert Allenby
Ernie Els
Heath Slocum
Kenny Perry
Boo Weekley
Tim Clark
Jim Furyk
Chad Campbell
David Toms
Joe Durant
Zach Johnson
Vijay Singh

It’s a good group of players because we have some golfers who outright bomb the ball and some who are reliant on their precision and accuracy. We have upright swings, flat swings and even a Stack and Tilt player (Cejka).

Here’s some figures:

- All but 3 (Z. Johnson, Weekley and Clark) carry a 3-iron regularly in their bag.
- Only Furyk does not carry a 4-iron.
- Only Els and Tiger consistently carry a 2-iron.
- Every golfer either has a 2-hybrid or a 5-wood or a 2-iron

I also split the group into golfers with 113.1 mph or more clubhead speed (bombers) vs. the ones with 113.0 or less clubhead speed (normal).

There were 12 ‘normal’ clubhead speed golfers. 9 of the 12 carried a hybrid (75%). 3 of the 12 carried a hybrid and a 5-wood (25%).

There were 7 ‘bomber’ clubhead speed golfers. 3 of the 7 (43%) carried a hybrid. 4 of the 7 (57%) carried a 5-wood (or in Tiger’s case a 2-iron or 5-wood depending on the course). 0 of the 7 (0%) carried a hybrid and a 5-wood.


CONCLUSION

It’s obvious now to see the flaw in the theory behind carrying more than your ‘standard’ three wedges (PW, SW and LW) because the shots that wind up costing the most strokes are in the range where long irons, 5-woods and hybrids are used.

For the better player, the typical setup should probably look like this:

Driver
3-wood
2-hybrid (we’ll say 18* of loft)
3-PW
SW (we’ll say 54*)
LW (we’ll say 60*)

And if you’re a golfer who generates a lot of clubhead speed, you probably want to look at a 5-wood over a 2-hybrid as the higher speed golfers seem to prefer the 5-wood over the hybrid.





3JACK

Top Danger Zone Players Last 5 Seasons

I will try to finish out the blog posts this week discussing statistical findings.

Today I’m taking a look at the players who have qualified for these stats in each of the last 5 seasons (2006-2010). So, Tiger will not be included in here. In all, only 89 players actually qualified for these stats in each of the last five seasons.

The first thing I did was got the stats of who was the closest to the pin on average for the past five seasons. In these rankings, you will see their total 2006-2010 Danger Zone ranking and their 2009 Putts Gained Per Round ranking. Since Putts Gained Per Round was only listed in 2009, that’s all I can use for now. But I think it would give the idea as to *why* many of these guys are able to keep their PGA Tour Card for the last 5 seasons…and it’s not because they putt lights out.





Player…………………………DZ Rnk……PGPR Rnk
Heath Slocum………………………1……….164
Kenny Perry…………………….……2……….50
Tim Clark……………………………..3……….40
D.J. Trahan……………………….…4……….161
Alex Cejka………………………..…5……….154
Joe Durant………………………..…6……….181
Jim Furyk……………………………….7……….6
Charles Warren…………..………8……….143
Robert Allenby…………….………9……….175
Chad Campbell…………..………10……….88
Vijay Singh…………………….…11……….178
Ernie Els…………………………...12……….153
Billy Mayfair………………….…13……….186
Zach Johnson……………….……14……….26
Sergio Garcia……………...……15……….118
Sean O'Hair…………………...…16……….121
Davis Love III……………...……17……….138
Robert Garrigus………..………18……….156
Scott Verplank…………...………19……….98
David Toms……………………..…20……….82
Vaughn Taylor……………...……21……….42
John Senden………………….……22……….93
Padraig Harrington……………23……….30
Hunter Mahan……………….……24……….32
Woody Austin………………..……25……….95
Lucas Glover…………………..……26……….68
Adam Scott……………………….…27……….185
Charley Hoffman…………..………28……….78
Bo Van Pelt………………………...…29……….54
Steve Stricker…………………...……30……….63
Camilo Villegas…………..………31……….136
Ryan Moore………………………..…32……….38
Phil Mickelson…………….………33……….133
Ted Purdy…………………………...…34……….70
Will MacKenzie…………….………35……….188
Ryan Palmer…………………..………36……….66
Jonathan Byrd………………..………37……….165
Mark Calcavecchia…….…………38……….145
K.J. Choi………………………………….39……….116
Bubba Watson…………………..……40……….81
Chris DiMarco………………….……41……….130
Briny Baird………………………….…42……….150
Paul Goydos……………………...……43……….72
Bob Estes……………………………...…44……….46
Jeff Maggert………………………..…45……….149
Troy Matteson…………………..……46……….89
Bill Haas………………………………..47……….99
Geoff Ogilvy………………………..…48……….18
Pat Perez………………………………..49……….21
Steve Flesch…………………….……50……….137
Retief Goosen…………………….……51……….37
Carl Pettersson……………….………52……….44
Steve Lowery……………………….……53……….77
Jerry Kelly……………………………..…54……….43
Stewart Cink……………………….……55……….33
Brian Gay………………………………….56……….8
Mathew Goggin……………...………57……….146
Nick Watney……………………….……58……….56
Fredrik Jacobson……………..………59……….16
Tom Pernice, Jr.……………...………60……….113
Brian Davis………………………...…61……….108
John Rollins………………………...…62……….109
Dean Wilson……………………...……63……….51
Rod Pampling…………………….……64……….69
Rory Sabbatini………………….……65……….148
Stephen Ames……………………..……66……….27
Ian Poulter…………………………...…67……….84
Justin Leonard…………………...……68……….79
Brett Quigley……………………..……69……….131
Mike Weir……………………………...70……….25
J.J. Henry………………………………...71……….75
Steve Elkington……………….………72……….122
Kevin Sutherland……………..………73……….58
Mark Wilson………………………...…74……….39
Lee Janzen……………………………..…75……….60
Richard S. Johnson………..…………76……….41
Charles Howell III…………..………77……….117
Tim Petrovic………………………….…78……….49
Stuart Appleby…………………..……79……….179
Tim Herron…………………………...…80……….124
Joe Ogilvie…………………………….…81……….14
Jeff Overton………………………….…82……….65
Daniel Chopra…………………...……83……….55
Ben Curtis………………………………..84……….3
J.B. Holmes………………………...…85……….182
Nathan Green…………………...……86……….35
Chris Riley…………………………...…87……….45
Aaron Baddeley……………...………88……….10
Ryuji Imada………………………….…89……….34


I also did my ‘Adjusted Danger Zone’ ranking. This formula adds a weight to the percentage of the total shots that they hit from either the 175-200 or the 200-225 increment.






Player…………………....Adj. DZ Rnk……PGPR Rnk
Kenny Perry……………….………..1……….50
Heath Slocum…………...………..2……….164
Tim Clark………………………..…..3……….40
Alex Cejka…………………...……..4……….154
D.J. Trahan…………………..……..5……….161
Robert Allenby………..…………..6……….175
Charles Warren……..…………..7……….143
Jim Furyk……………………...……..8……….6
Ernie Els………………………..…..9……….153
Sergio Garcia……………...…..10……….118
Joe Durant……………………....11……….181
Vijay Singh……………………...12……….178
Zach Johnson……………….…..13……….26
Chad Campbell………….……..14……….88
Davis Love III……………...…..15……….138
Sean O'Hair………………….....16……….121
Billy Mayfair…………………...17……….186
Robert Garrigus………..……..18……….156
Padraig Harrington…………..19……….30
Hunter Mahan…………………..20……….32
Vaughn Taylor……….…………..21……….42
John Senden……………..………..22……….93
Phil Mickelson……..…………..23……….133
Camilo Villegas…….…………..24……….136
Adam Scott………………...……..25……….185
Lucas Glover…………….………..26……….68
Steve Stricker……………………..27……….63
Woody Austin…………..………..28……….95
David Toms………………….……..29……….82
Bo Van Pelt………………..………..30……….54
Scott Verplank………...…………..31……….98
Charley Hoffman…….…………..32……….78
Bubba Watson……….…………..33……….81
Will MacKenzie……...…………..34……….188
Jonathan Byrd………..…………..35……….165
Chris DiMarco………….………..36……….130
Jeff Maggert……………..………..37……….149
K.J. Choi……………………...……..38……….116
Paul Goydos……………...………..39……….72
Retief Goosen………….…………..40……….37
Geoff Ogilvy……………….………..41……….18
Ryan Palmer……………….………..42……….66
Ryan Moore………………..………..43……….38
Mark Calcavecchia…...………..44……….145
Troy Matteson………………….…..45……….89
Nick Watney………………….……..46……….56
Pat Perez……………………………...47……….21
Bill Haas…………………………….....48……….99
Tom Pernice, Jr.………….………..49……….113
Briny Baird……………………….…..50……….150
Ted Purdy……………………………....51……….70
Brian Gay……………………………..52……….8
Jerry Kelly………………………...…..53……….43
Mathew Goggin…………………..54……….146
Stewart Cink………………….……..55……….33
Steve Flesch………………….……..56……….137
Steve Lowery…………………..……..57……….77
Bob Estes………………………….…..58……….46
Brian Davis……………………...…..59……….108
Carl Pettersson…………...………..60……….44
Fredrik Jacobson……….…………..61……….16
Dean Wilson…………………..……..62……….51
John Rollins…………………….…..63……….109
Rod Pampling………………..……..64……….69
Kevin Sutherland………..………..65……….58
Rory Sabbatini……………..……..66……….148
Mark Wilson………………...……..67……….39
Ian Poulter……………………...…..68……….84
Brett Quigley………………..……..69……….131
J.J. Henry……………………………....70……….75
Justin Leonard……………...……..71……….79
Stephen Ames……………..………..72……….27
Mike Weir……………………..……..73……….25
Steve Elkington………….…………..74……….122
Charles Howell III…….…………..75……….117
Richard S. Johnson………….……..76……….41
Lee Janzen………………………….…..77……….60
J.B. Holmes…………………….……..78……….182
Stuart Appleby……………………..79……….179
Jeff Overton……………………...…..80……….65
Joe Ogilvie…………………………...81……….14
Tim Petrovic…………………….…..82……….49
Tim Herron………………………....83……….124
Daniel Chopra……………...……..84……….55
Ben Curtis………………………….....85……….3
Nathan Green………………..……..86……….35
Aaron Baddeley………….………..87……….10
Ryuji Imada…………………….…..88……….34
Chris Riley……………………….....89……….45



3JACK

Revised 2010 Statistical Ballstriking Rankings

Since the inception of the blog, I have done some 'ballstriking statistical rankings' on the PGA Tour based off of 'total driving', GIR and Proximity to the Cup.

Since I've been doing some statistical research, I've decided to fine tune this research as well. Here's what I've decided to do thus far.

'Advanced Total Driving'

This is a formula that factors in driving distance, Fairway % and proximity to the edge of the fairway when the drive is not in the fairway. There's a formula I've concocted for this, but the main idea is that while total driving is a decent idea, it still doesn't factor in golfers who when they miss...miss badly. To me, ballstriking is partly about precision. Nobody's perfect. We understand that. But I'm trying to figure out those who have accurate misses as well. Don't worry, I weighted distance and fairways % more than proximity to the edge of the fairway.


APPROACH PROXIMITY

Recently I've discussed the Danger Zone (approaches from 175-225 yards) extensively. However, I believe that alone does not mean the golfer is a great ballstriker. For instance, in 2010 neither Dustin Johnson, Phil Mickelson or Paul Casey finished well in my ballstriking statistics. I think it's safe to say that people who follow the PGA Tour closely would agree that they don't think of these three golfers as great ballstrikers. But when it comes to the Danger Zone, Johnson finished 11th, Mickelson finished 17th and Casey finished 9th in proximity to the cup.

Great in the Danger Zone, but not great at pure ballstriking.

What I did for iron shots is I concocted a formula that would look at proximity to the cup from 100-250 yard approach shots. I figured that anything less than 100 yards really isn't 'ballstriking' and is more or less short game stuff.

My formula also takes into account the percentage of shots hit from certain distances. For example, if I just did proximity to the cup without factoring in the percentage of shots from certain distances, somebody like Robert Garrigus may beat out Jim Furyk because Garrigus hits it so much longer and if he's hitting a PW in the rough from 140 yards out, he's more likely to get it close than Furyk hitting a shot out of the fairway from 190 yards out. That's not to say that power isn't a part of ballstriking, but if we were to factor power too much into 'pure ballstriking', John Daly would've been the greatest ballstriker throughout the 90's.

I will be looking for ways to better tweak the formula, but here's my revised rankings for the 2010 season. My old 2010 rankings are here http://richie3jack.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=blog&action=display&thread=1493

1…..Tom Gillis
2…..Boo Weekley
3…..Jay Williamson
4…..Chad Campbell
5…..David Toms
6…..Josh Teater
7…..John Senden
8…..Aron Price
9…..Bo Van Pelt
10…..John Merrick
11…..Zach Johnson
12…..Hunter Mahan
13…..Tim Clark
14…..Charley Hoffman
15…..Joe Durant
16…..Pat Perez
17…..Brian Gay
18…..Charles Warren
19…..Kris Blanks
20…..Jason Dufner
21…..Davis Love III
22…..Brendon de Jonge
23…..Ryan Moore
24…..Heath Slocum
25…..James Nitties
26…..Ben Crane
27…..Bill Haas
28…..Rickie Fowler
29…..Brian Davis
30…..John Mallinger
31…..Nick Watney
32…..Spencer Levin
33…..Kevin Streelman
34…..D.J. Trahan
35…..Vaughn Taylor
36…..Michael Letzig
37…..K.J. Choi
38…..Kenny Perry
39…..Jerry Kelly
40…..Jeff Quinney
41…..Scott McCarron
42…..Kevin Sutherland
43…..Robert Allenby
44…..Steve Stricker
45…..Jim Furyk
46…..Alex Cejka
47…..Dean Wilson
48…..Graham DeLaet
49…..John Rollins
50…..Omar Uresti
51…..Woody Austin
52…..Rocco Mediate
53…..Briny Baird
54…..Billy Mayfair
55…..Kevin Stadler
56…..Troy Matteson
57…..Jason Bohn
58…..Matt Kuchar
59…..J.J. Henry
60…..Cameron Percy
61…..Jonathan Byrd
62…..Chris DiMarco
63…..Mathew Goggin
64…..Lucas Glover
65…..Adam Scott
66…..Will MacKenzie
67…..Martin Laird
68…..Cliff Kresge
69…..Tim Petrovic
70…..Y.E. Yang
71…..Richard S. Johnson
72…..Garrett Willis
73…..Tom Pernice, Jr.
74…..Chris Riley
75…..Chris Couch
76…..Jeff Maggert
77…..Paul Goydos
78…..Kevin Na
79…..Ryan Palmer
80…..Charlie Wi
81…..Stephen Ames
82…..Blake Adams
83…..Chris Stroud
84…..Mark Wilson
85…..Brandt Snedeker
86…..D.A. Points
87…..Justin Leonard
88…..Scott Verplank
89…..Ben Curtis
90…..Rory McIlroy
91…..Justin Rose
92…..Jarrod Lyle
93…..Retief Goosen
94…..Carl Pettersson
95…..Nicholas Thompson
96…..Mathias Gronberg
97…..Steve Elkington
98…..Brent Delahoussaye
99…..Brian Stuard
100…..Sean O'Hair
101…..Paul Stankowski
102…..Brett Wetterich
103…..Camilo Villegas
104…..Bill Lunde
105…..Andres Romero
106…..Ricky Barnes
107…..Cameron Beckman
108…..Michael Connell
109…..Marc Leishman
110…..Johnson Wagner
111…..Webb Simpson
112…..Craig Bowden
113…..Greg Chalmers
114…..Brett Quigley
115…..Garth Mulroy
116…..Vijay Singh
117…..Robert Garrigus
118…..Skip Kendall
119…..Paul Casey
120…..Rod Pampling
121…..Steve Flesch
122…..Stewart Cink
123…..Chris Tidland
124…..Phil Mickelson
125…..Alex Prugh
126…..Bob Estes
127…..Roger Tambellini
128…..Dustin Johnson
129…..Henrik Bjornstad
130…..Jason Day
131…..Matt Jones
132…..Andrew McLardy
133…..Stuart Appleby
134…..Troy Merritt
135…..Fredrik Jacobson
136…..Rory Sabbatini
137…..Matt Every
138…..Steve Wheatcroft
139…..Jeff Gove
140…..Joe Ogilvie
141…..Geoff Ogilvy
142…..J.P. Hayes
143…..Bubba Watson
144…..J.B. Holmes
145…..Luke Donald
146…..Greg Owen
147…..Lee Janzen
148…..Ted Purdy
149…..Cameron Tringale
150…..Scott Piercy
151…..John Daly
152…..Aaron Baddeley
153…..Charles Howell III
154…..Jeff Overton
155…..David Duval
156…..Roland Thatcher
157…..Steve Marino
158…..Jimmy Walker
159…..Sergio Garcia
160…..Nathan Green
161…..Jeev Milkha Singh
162…..James Driscoll
163…..Bryce Molder
164…..Chris Wilson
165…..Justin Bolli
166…..Shaun Micheel
167…..Padraig Harrington
168…..Ryuji Imada
169…..Ernie Els
170…..Tim Herron
171…..Matt Bettencourt
172…..Trevor Immelman
173…..Michael Bradley
174…..George McNeill
175…..Steve Lowery
176…..Michael Sim
177…..Rich Barcelo
178…..Brenden Pappas
179…..Martin Flores
180…..Chad Collins
181…..Angel Cabrera
182…..Ian Poulter
183…..David Lutterus
184…..Daniel Chopra
185…..Derek Lamely
186…..Mark Calcavecchia
187…..Jerod Turner
188…..Kevin Johnson
189…..Mike Weir
190…..Brad Faxon
191…..Vance Veazey
192…..Greg Kraft







3JACK

Thoughts On Better Danger Zone Performance...

A few blog readers over the weekend asked me more about ‘The Danger Zone’ (175-225 yard approach shots) and how to get better at it.

As you may recall, The Danger Zone is a term I coined for the part of the game that typically has the biggest influence on a PGA Tour golfer’s success. Now, don’t get it wrong…some things like driving, putting, short game, etc. have an impact on a golfer’s success. But, the Danger Zone is statistically the biggest influence on a PGA Tour golfer’s success and it’s my assertion that many of the fringe PGA Tour players are typically not mainstays on the PGA Tour because of their performance in The Danger Zone.

First, let’s further breakdown the Danger Zone into two 25 yard increments, 175-200 yards and 200-225 yards.



200-225 YARDS

I’ll breakdown the larger increment of the two, first.

I believe this increment has the largest impact per shot of any yardage increment on the PGA Tour.

In other words, let’s say that a group of 150 golfers each hits 100 shots from this range. The player who finishes first in proximity to the cup and the player who finished 75th will have the largest discrepancy. If I were to do the same test from 100-125 yards, the discrepancy wouldn’t be nearly as much.


175-200 YARDS

Despite the 200-225 yard increment having the largest impact per shot, from the grand scheme of things, it has about an equal correlation to a PGA Tour player’s success.

The reason being is that 175-200 yard range has a slightly lesser impact per shot than the 200-225 yard range. But, there are a lot more shots hit from 175-200 yards in a round of golf than from 200-225 yards.

What I have been finding is that the average PGA Tour golfer hits about 1.5 to 1.7 shots per round from the 200-225 yard range and about 2.7-3.0 shots per round from the 175-200 yard range.

Thus, we are seeing PGA Tour pros having to hit about 6 shots per tournament from 200-225 yards and 11-12 shots per tournament from 175-200 yards.

But think about that for a second. These are all approach shots into the green. Technically, the golfer is supposed to get the ball into the cup in 3 shots from that distance. Let’s say Kevin Streelman has 18 total shots from the Danger Zone, if he hits 3 of them mediocre, he could easily lose 3 shots or 6 shots or even 9 shots if he hits them badly enough and he gets some bad bounces.


A LOOK AT THE LEADERS FROM 175-200

Here’s a list of the leaders in proximity to the cup from 175-200 yards over the past 5 seasons.

2010 – Joe Durant (30.9 feet average)
2009 – Patrick Sheehan (31.7 feet average)
2008 – Chez Reavie (31.6 feet average)
2007 – Tiger Woods (28.8 feet average)
2006 – Tiger Woods (28.5 feet average)


LEADERS FROM 200-225

2010 – Kenny Perry (35.2 feet average)
2009 – Sergio Garcia (35.6 feet average)
2008 – Heath Slocum (37.7 feet average)
2007 – Ernie Els (36.7 feet average)
2006 – Padraig Harrington (33.9 feet average)


LEADERS FROM THE DANGER ZONE (175-225)

2010 – Rory McIlroy (34.4 feet average)
2009 – Jason Bohn (34.8 feet average)
2008 – Heath Slocum (34.2 feet average)
2007 – Ernie Els (34.7 feet average)
2006 – Tiger Woods (31.6 feet average)


As you can see, the *leader* in proximity to the cup from 175-200 yards away still averaged about 30 feet away from the cup per shot. From 200-225, it was more like 36 feet. And in total from the Danger Zone it was about 35 feet for the *leader*. The Tour average from the Danger Zone over the years was about 40 feet or so.



AN OLD SAYING

Ever hear the old saying that ‘the difference between the PGA Tour players and the rest is in their bad shots.’ Meaning that while a good player who is not on the PGA Tour can hit some good shots that are just as good as anybody on Tour, the main difference is in the quality of their bad shots. PGA Tour players hit bad shots, but their bad shots are still better than the other golfers bad shots.

Recently I read Tom Watson’s answer on how he plays long approach shots. I’m paraphrasing, but Watson’s reply was ‘I just try to make solid contact and put the ball on the green.’

This is probably a good credo to live by when in the Danger Zone. Don’t concentrate so much about flagging a shot. But if you can make solid contact more consistently and not curve the ball too much, even if you’re offline, the shot is still likely to find the green and you’ll have a 30-50 footer for birdie. That sure beats trying to get up and down. Or just as bad, going at the flag, hitting it really well, but just enough off line where you miss the green, but had you aimed more towards the middle of the green, you would be putting


IT’S NOT ALL ABOUT THE GIR

While hitting a GIR in the Danger Zone is nice, one thing that should be noted is that PGATour.com’s ShotLink data measures anything on or around the green. The beauty of that is if a golfer misses the green but is just on the fringe with a 15 foot putt, that actually counts.

But it’s not just about shots on the fringe. The PGATour.com ShotLink data states that shots ‘around the green’ are anything that winds up within 30 yards from the green.

The point being is that it’s not always about hitting the green or even the fringe. I can leave myself with a 40 foot putt and be much worse off than if I had a 60 foot pitch with plenty of green to work with and an uphill slope.

On average, I think you’re better off hitting the green, but I believe it’s ultra important to leave one’s self with makeable up and downs when they do miss the green. And remember, golfers tend to make uphill putts the most.


PRACTICE WHAT YOU NEED TO PRACTICE

I’m just as guilty of this myself, but I don’t practice enough longer irons. Typically I start off with a wedge to warm up, then move to a 7-iron or so for awhile, then maybe a few 5-irons and then to driver and then back to 7-irons.

3Jack Top 50 Instructor, John Erickson (www.advancedballstriking.com), preaches to his students that they should practice with 2-irons quite a bit because ‘if you can you hit a 2-iron, you can certainly hit a 7-iron.’ I find that to be very true. But to take it one step further, if you can hit a 2-iron, you should be able to hit the clubs you need while in the Danger Zone.

I started theorizing on the Danger Zone and its importance about 2 months ago. My typical clubs I used from 175-225 yards are 3-iron thru 6-iron and now I make sure to practice with at least one of those clubs each time I hit the range.


MAKE YOUR PRACTICE LEGITIMATE

I recommend this with any type of practice. I tend to see two types of golfers on the range. First and foremost, the golfer that is just getting up there and hitting the ball with no thought of where they are aiming. The other is the golfer who does make sure to aim at a target, but they are hitting ball after ball at that same target.

While some think that the latter is fine, I believe it doesn’t allow the golfer to get the most out of their practice because it’s an illegitimate way to practice. When you’re on the golf course, you wind up aiming at different targets throughout the round. One shot you may be aiming at a flagstick that is 20* to your left. The next hole you could be aiming at a flat that is 40* to your right.

Once I feel like I’m warmed up, I will aim one shot at a target and then the next shot aim at a different target, then aim at another target and so on and so forth. And what I like to do is eventually use a different club after each shot, using a driver aimed 20* left on one shot, then a 6-iron aimed 30* right on the next shot, Then a PW aimed dead straight ahead on the next shot and so on and so forth.



LEARN TO COMMAND TRAJECTORY FIRST

I find that the times a golfer really needs to work the ball is usually with the driver or the 3-wood. One thing you will notice is that the PGA Tour pros typically do not work the ball a ton. That’s because the architects usually only try to influence the golfer to work the ball off the tee with the driver and the PGA Tour player usually feels more confident that they can find the fairway hitting their stock draw rather than adjust their swing to hit a fade.

In fact, Kenny Perry has said that he considers a 1-yard draw to be a cut for him because he always hits a draw or a hook.

Most architects are typically fair in their designs. This is often call ‘form follows function.’ For instance, you usually see bigger greens on a 200 yard par-3 than you would on a 120 yard par-3. This is because the architect knows that it’s much tougher to hold the green with a 200 yard shot than a 120 yard shot and thus, they need to design something where ‘form follows function.’

So typically on the PGA Tour there’s not a lot of golf holes where the approach will likely be in the danger zone and the design demands the golfer to work the ball. The architect usually understands that hitting a 190 yard approach shot is difficult enough, so there’s no need to force the golfer to hit one with a big bend to it. However, they may reward the golfer who is good enough and daring enough to work the ball. Still though, the risk would be high.

My feeling is that from the Danger Zone, you’re better off learning to control the trajectory on command instead of the curve. Having to work it left to right or right to left probably won’t happen too often and like I mentioned earlier, getting it on the green is more than sufficient.

However, you’re much more likely to have to hit a 4-iron high to get the ball to land softly or even more importantly (IMO), be able to hit something hard and low into the wind so you can control your distance and not have the wind knock the ball offline.





3JACK

The Power Of Power

One of the things I discussed in the ‘Thoughts On Boiling The Game Down…’ blog post was the advantages of power. I felt those were:

1. Can turn par-72’s into par-68’s.
2. Player is less likely to be in the Danger Zone (175-225 yard approach shots)
3. Player takes less club in the Danger Zone, so margin for error is greater.

After doing some statistical research, it appears that these points have a lot of merit.


First, I wanted to see what the correlation between clubhead speed and driving distance was on the PGA Tour. The correlation coefficient was in the +0.9 range (the highest it can go is +1.0). This means that almost all of the time, the more clubhead speed a golfer on Tour generates, the further they will hit it. Obviously, there are some exceptions like Kenny Perry who maximizes his clubhead speed by hitting up on the driver which carries the ball further and typically reduces the spin rate. And there are some golfers like a Charles Howell III who hit very much down on the ball and lose distance. But by and large, generate more clubhead speed and you will hit the ball further than the guy who generates less clubhead speed. Seems obvious, but I wanted to make sure just how strong of a correlation we are dealing with here.



Can Turn Par-72 Courses into Par-68’s

Obviously, that is true. However, it does have a small correlation to overall stroke average. And when PGA Tour golfers are able to go for par-5 in two shots, regardless if they are successful, it has a strong correlation to their score on that par-5.

So, if a golfer like Camilo Villegas legitimately goes for a par-5 in two, they are likely to do well on that par-5 than if they laid up. Regardless if they miss the green and wind up in the bunker. This also includes shots that end up in the drink. Obviously, if you hit a shot into the drink you’re likely to make a bogey or maybe a par and your score will not be as good had you safely laid up. But *over time*, going for it usually means a better score on those holes that you go for it.

However, this really applies to bomber golfers. One of the things that brings down the correlation between score and going for it is that when the shorter hitters try it, they are typically more successful than not going for it…but, they are not AS SUCCESSFUL as the bomber is when they go for the green.

I am not recommending that everybody start going for par-4’s on their tee shot and par-5’s in two. But if you hit the ball long, you’re likely better off going for it than laying up and if you hit the ball short, you need to really think twice before going for it in two. Again, seems obvious but it’s really not to some because there’s a larger advantage in just going for greens in general.




PLAYER IS MORE LIKELY TO AVOID THE DANGER ZONE

I’ve found a lot of merit to that. What I did was I looked at the top 10 in driving distance versus the bottom 10 in driving distance over the years.

I also looked at number of shots they hit from certain distances. Here is the average percent of shots hit from certain distances by a PGA Tour golfer for the entire year.

50-75 yards: 3-4%
75-100 yards: 7%
100-125 yards: 11-12%
125-150 yards: 18-19%
150-175 yards: 23-24%
175-200 yards: 20-21%
200-225 yards: 12-13%
225-250 yards: 5-6%

What I saw was that the biggest discrepancy between the top 10 in driving distance and the bottom 10 was the percentage of shots hit from 175-225 yards (Danger Zone) and surprisingly enough, the percentage of shots hit from 100-150 yards. There was just a sizeable difference between where these groups of golfers were hitting the majority of their shots from.

What surprised me is that the bombers were not getting in the 150-175 yard range more, but actually getting into the 100-150 yard range much more often.

And on average, the PGA Tour player is going to be about 40% more accurate from 100-150 yards than they are from 175-225 yards. Again, that’s *on average*, meaning that you don’t have to be particularly adept at hitting shots from 100-150 yards and still likely be much more accurate than an adept golfer from 175-225 yards.

That to me is a very important point of The Danger Zone.


Power Player Will Likely Have Greater Margin For Error With Taking Less Club in the Danger Zone

This seems to be true when it comes to the top 10 in driving distance vs. the bottom 10 in driving distance.

Essentially, while the top 10 were getting into the 100-150 yard range much more often, they were usually mediocre to piss poor from that distance. But when they were in the Danger Zone (175-225) yards they actually got better and started to do much better than the bottom 10 players in driving distance.

One of the things I’ve looked at is typically the players in the bottom 10 in driving distance are about 5% more accurate than the players in the top 10 from 100-150 yards.

But from 175-225 yards, the players in the bottom 10 are about -3% less accurate than the players in the top 10.



Power Doesn't Diminish The Importance of the Danger Zone

If putting skill between two players is equal, over time the player who performs best from the Danger Zone will do the best.

Even though the bombers (top 10) hit much more of their shots from 100-150 yards vs. the shorter hitters (bottom 10), the Danger Zone still dictates the greatest amount of a PGA Tour golfer’s results.

Here’s a good example from 2009.

…………………………...........Lehman………..Gary Woodland
Adj. Scoring Avg Rnk…….....82……………………173
Putts Gained Rnk…………….163…………………..168
Driving Distance Rnk………..184…………………...5
100-150 yards Rnk…………...95……………………105
Danger Zone Rnk……………..7…………………….159

So the putting was basically even, Woodland had a major power advantage, they were basically even from 100-150 yards, but Lehman was far superior in the Danger Zone

This brings me back to Tiger and Jack and why they were so great.

Both had tremendous power. In Jack’s case, known as a sub-par wedge player by Tour standards, he could just hit it past the Danger Zone frequently. He was also incredibly accurate off the tee, so he left himself in the fairway the great majority of the time. So even if his wedge game wasn’t that great, it would still knock the ball a lot closer to hole than somebody in the Danger Zone. Of course, back then, the Danger Zone was probably 150-200 yards away and Jack was probably frequently hitting the ball in the 75-125 yard range and putting it in the fairway. But when Jack needed a long iron into the Danger Zone, you had the greatest long iron player ever hitting that shot and he probably dominated every time from there. How good of a putter Nicklaus was is up for debate, but I’m guessing he didn’t finished in the bottom quarter of putting.

Tiger OTOH wasn’t nearly as accurate off the tee. But, even in the years where he really lost his driver with Haney as his coach, he was still the best in the Danger Zone. And when he was in the top 5 in driving distance, he actually had something the other bombers didn’t have…a great wedge game. And I’m guessing since he did so well in 2009 in Putts Gained, he would’ve done great in Putts Gained in other years had they kept track of that statistic back then. That’s how you win US Opens by a billion shots. Hit it long and straight off the tee. Have a superior wedge game. When you get into the Danger Zone you just dominate even more. And you are the greatest putter in the game.





3JACK

Some Early Statistical Research Findings...

As some of you may know, recently I’ve been doing some statistical research on the game, using the PGATour.com’s statistics.

I recently wrote a post called ‘Thoughts on Boiling The Game Down…’ where I discussed some of my thoughts on what separates players from one another and used some reading and some of my own experience to draw upon.

I’m still in the beginning stages of my research, but here’s 5 things I’m discovering.

1. The 175+ yard range needs to be tweaked a tad.

I’ve called the 175+ yard range on approach shots, ‘the Danger Zone.’ However, the real big correlation I’ve seen from a statistical standpoint on the PGA Tour is Proximity to the Cup from 175 – 225 yards away. Anything further than 225 yards on an approach shot skews the data a bit because the Tour pros do not have a lot of 225+ yard approach shots. In fact, here’s the average amount of shots attempted per round by the PGA Tour over the years.

Distance…...Shots/Round

50-75…………...0.4
75-100……...….0.9
100-125……….1.5
125-150……….2.4
150-175……….3.1
175-200……….2.8
200-225……….1.6
225-250……….0.8

As you can see, most of their shots on full swings come from 125-200 yards out. But as far as relating to their score against the field, it’s their performance from 175-225 that matters. But once you get 225+ yards, the number of approach shots drops off quite a bit.

Thus, ‘The Danger Zone’ is best depicted as approach shots from 175-225 yards.


2. Putting Is Overrated, To A Degree. But, I Underrated It.


Like I stated in my ‘Thoughts on Boiling the Game Down…’ post, putting is overrated to a degree. My thoughts were that unless you were a legitimate top 20 putter or a bottom 20 putter on Tour, it really didn’t matter.

It looks like I had the right idea, but it’s more like being in the top ¼ and bottom ¼ of putting that matters.

I used the statistic, Putts Gained Per Round, to figure this. I spoke to one of the people who created PGPR to see if they had a 2010 rankings. They told me they did not as the PGA Tour is considering going with a similar statistic that will allow them to use years up to 2001 or so. I then asked the PGATour.com Web site and they told me that they are still working out the kinks.

Based on the data I had, 2009 PGPR, putting makes a difference if you’re in the top or bottom ¼ of the stat. In 2009 there were essentially 189 players on Tour. So putting made a difference if you were ranked approximately 1st thru 47th in PGPR or if you were approximately ranked 143rd thru 189th in PGPR.

Steve Stricker is the perfect example as he finished 2nd in Adjusted Scoring Average that year despite finishing 69th in PGPR. What really separated him from say Dustin Johnson that season (who finished 90th in PGPR) was Stricker’s superior ballstriking, not his putting.

And from what my preliminary research shows, if Heath Slocum (finished 166 out of 189 in PGPR) would’ve been an average PGA Tour putter in 2009, he would’ve made at least $500,000 more than season.

My theory is that a lot of the time, the players who are fringe PGA Tour members, it has little to do with putting because many Tour players are not that great on the green and there are many fringe PGA Tour players who putt well enough to not finish in the bottom ¼ in putting. In fact, many golfers in ’09 were able to keep their card and even win with awful putting. While there were many great putters who barely made any money in 2009. Why? Because their ballstriking stunk.


3. Finding the Fairway is Still Important.

On average, PGA Tour players hit the ball about 30% more accurately from the fairway than they did from the rough. Another interesting thing I found was that if you took the Tour average of proximity to the cup from the rough in the 175-200 yard range and then took the average from the fairway from the 150-175 range, the average Tour player was about 50% more accurate from that shorter distance in the fairway. Obviously, it makes sense, but I didn’t expect it to be to that extent.


4. It’s Not So Much About Finding the Fairway as it is Executing From the Fairway

Without question, if you had to choose between being the best from the rough or being the best from the fairway, I would take being the best from the fairway. This surprised me because I would’ve thought that more strokes are lost from shots from the rough. But on the PGA Tour, more shorts are ‘lost’ from the fairway.

My guess is this. Let’s say I’m 150-175 yards out and in the rough. Let’s say I’m one of the best on Tour from here. I’m still likely to leave myself about 25-30 feet to the cup. Whereas if I’m one of the worst from this position, I’m likely to leave myself about 40 feet to the cup. The chances of making that 25-30 footer are so minimal over making the 40 footer. However, if you’re one of the best from the fairway from this distance, you could wind up with a 15-20 footer whereas if you’re one of the worst, you could wind up with a 30 footer. And thus the discrepancy between the odds of making those putts is greater.


5. Swing Speed and Play Out Of The Rough

There appears to be some correlation between a golfer’s ability to play out of the rough and their swing speed. The golfers with more swing speed, tend to do better from the rough than the golfers with less swing speed. This can be a bit difficult to measure because if you have a player that swings fast but misses fairways by a mile, they really won’t have a shot at the green from that position and their proximity to the cup will be further away. But there is a pretty clear distinction between golfers with similar ballstriking ability and the golfer with more swing speed being better out of the rough.





3JACK