|
|
Post by CuseHokie on Oct 19, 2018 7:28:34 GMT -5
I have a suggestion to add an enhanced / advanced PPH statistic.
As we all know, PPH can be misleading, especially for someone that misses a lot of greens and either chips in or gets up and down (one putts / taps in).
Necessary components:
A. Holes played
B. Missed GIR% (1 minus GIR%)
C. Missed Greens = A*B
D. Total Putts
Advanced Metric = (C+D)/A
The numbers will be close to PPH but obviously a little higher... It will reward people that are truly putting well and not so much people who miss greens and scramble well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2018 7:51:59 GMT -5
Despite my comment on the other this is the most accurate we can realistically get. Adding proximity makes it 1.76 million times more complicated.
In short, +1
|
|
|
|
Post by ErixonStone on Oct 19, 2018 12:24:13 GMT -5
Why is "missed greens" H * (1-(GIR/H))? This can be simplified as H-GIR.
But, I get your point.
This metric considers all missed greens as if they were putts, but doesn't account for recovery shots after hitting into a hazard. Example: on a par 4, player drives OOB and hits his 3rd from the tee. Hits his 4th to 15 feet and makes the bogey putt. His advanced PPH is 2.0 (1 missed green, 1 putt).
Another example: player A misses the green and makes a terrible chip, leaving 12 feet for par. He makes his par and has an advanced PPH of 2.0. Player B knocks his approach stiff and misses the 3 footer for birdie. Also APPH of 2.0.
I would disqualify all missed GIR and care about putts/GIR but even that is flawed.
|
|
TinCup
Caddy
Posts: 46
Tour: Challenge Circuit
|
Post by TinCup on Oct 21, 2018 4:21:19 GMT -5
I think gathering the necessary data and developing baseline numbers for each tour/flight to start providing the four Strokes Gained stats would be be awesome. If not all four, then definitely Strokes Gained: Putting because that tells a better story in regards to a player's putting performance than PPH does.
|
|
|
|
Post by mcbogga on Oct 21, 2018 4:47:58 GMT -5
I think gathering the necessary data and developing baseline numbers for each tour/flight to start providing the four Strokes Gained stats would be be awesome. If not all four, then definitely Strokes Gained: Putting because that tells a better story in regards to a player's putting performance than PPH does. If it’s the same or similar data-set as in TGC2 - putts gained could be done. Just need to know if on the green, distance to hole and how many shots until the ball is in the hole. Could be done full scope tee to green as well... Would require some coding work, but there is not much to it, really. |
|
TinCup
Caddy
Posts: 46
Tour: Challenge Circuit
|
Post by TinCup on Oct 21, 2018 5:03:59 GMT -5
If it’s the same or similar data-set as in TGC2 - putts gained could be done. Just need to know if on the green, distance to hole and how many shots until the ball is in the hole. Could be done full scope tee to green as well... Would require some coding work, but there is not much to it, really. Yeah, I figured since TGC Tours puts the longest putt for each round on each player's in-tournament scorecard page that they'd be able to pull a lot of other distance info. I'd volunteer to develop it if I was provided or given access to the raw data but I'd have to do it in Excel because I don't know enough about coding and working with APIs. |
|
|
|
Post by CuseHokie on Oct 22, 2018 7:37:45 GMT -5
Why is "missed greens" H * (1-(GIR/H))? This can be simplified as H-GIR. But, I get your point. This metric considers all missed greens as if they were putts, but doesn't account for recovery shots after hitting into a hazard. Example: on a par 4, player drives OOB and hits his 3rd from the tee. Hits his 4th to 15 feet and makes the bogey putt. His advanced PPH is 2.0 (1 missed green, 1 putt). Another example: player A misses the green and makes a terrible chip, leaving 12 feet for par. He makes his par and has an advanced PPH of 2.0. Player B knocks his approach stiff and misses the 3 footer for birdie. Also APPH of 2.0. I would disqualify all missed GIR and care about putts/GIR but even that is flawed. Holes is an integer. GIR is a %. To find total missed greens (integer) you'd have to do that conversion, right? edit: Also something to remember is the best APPH you would have would be 1.0. It's not so much the number that matters but how it relates to others APPH. Sort of like strokes gained, if I say someone has 0.5 strokes gained putting, does that mean anything? Not really... but if the next guy is 0.2 and everyone else is below 0, maybe that does mean something? |
|
|
|
Post by ErixonStone on Oct 22, 2018 8:54:29 GMT -5
Why is "missed greens" H * (1-(GIR/H))? This can be simplified as H-GIR. But, I get your point. This metric considers all missed greens as if they were putts, but doesn't account for recovery shots after hitting into a hazard. Example: on a par 4, player drives OOB and hits his 3rd from the tee. Hits his 4th to 15 feet and makes the bogey putt. His advanced PPH is 2.0 (1 missed green, 1 putt). Another example: player A misses the green and makes a terrible chip, leaving 12 feet for par. He makes his par and has an advanced PPH of 2.0. Player B knocks his approach stiff and misses the 3 footer for birdie. Also APPH of 2.0. I would disqualify all missed GIR and care about putts/GIR but even that is flawed. Holes is an integer. GIR is a %. To find total missed greens (integer) you'd have to do that conversion, right? edit: Also something to remember is the best APPH you would have would be 1.0. It's not so much the number that matters but how it relates to others APPH. Sort of like strokes gained, if I say someone has 0.5 strokes gained putting, does that mean anything? Not really... but if the next guy is 0.2 and everyone else is below 0, maybe that does mean something? GIR is an integer. GIR/H is a ratio. GIR% is a percentage (GIR/H * 100%). Missed GIR is simply the number of holes you played minus the number of greens hit in regulation. But that's neither here nor there. Strokes Gained, for example, is a relative metric. If you've made a 4 and the scoring average is 3.9, then you've lost 0.1 strokes. Putts per hole - or in this case APPH, is an absolute metric and you have to compare players manually using this metric. It also doesn't take into account any additional factors like proximity to the hole. It assumes proximity to the hole is more or less equivalent across the field. Lastly, your APPH counts chips as putts, unless it takes more than one chip to find the green. I think your metric skews the data even more than basic PPH does. I think your metric tells us less about putting because it includes chips and doesn't account for proximity to the hole. I don't think it helps us determine who is the best putter. |
|
|
|
Post by rob4590 on Oct 22, 2018 9:20:29 GMT -5
Putts per GIR is a better statistic.......
And even better again is total distance of putts made (in feet or metres)
So why not (sort of) combine both of them - total footage of putts made per GIR?
If you are very low - then it tells you (most likely) that you hit your approaches miles away - so don't hole the birdie putts very often (and therefore have lots of 2 foot tap ins). Alternatively - you hit it VERY close a lot.
If you are high on this stat - then you are holing good putts for birdie (or holing long ones for par!) - so that will prove you are a good putter IMO.....
In real life - over 100 foot of total putts made in a round is pretty damn good - working on probably 12-13 GIR per round, that means an average of 8ft on this stat. There is your target then.....
Discuss
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2018 9:29:16 GMT -5
Putts per GIR is a better statistic....... And even better again is total distance of putts made (in feet or metres)
So why not (sort of) combine both of them - total footage of putts made per GIR?If you are very low - then it tells you (most likely) that you hit your approaches miles away - so don't hole the birdie putts very often (and therefore have lots of 2 foot tap ins). Alternatively - you hit it VERY close a lot. If you are high on this stat - then you are holing good putts for birdie (or holing long ones for par!) - so that will prove you are a good putter IMO..... In real life - over 100 foot of total putts made in a round is pretty damn good - working on probably 12-13 GIR per round, that means an average of 8ft on this stat. There is your target then..... Discuss I agree with the top two statements, and by and large the bolded would work. It would, however, be a better stat for tracking long term than for one round or even one tournament as making a lucky bomb putt would skew this stat. Over a few tournaments (10+ rounds minimum) is where this stat would start to work accurately to compare golfers to one another.
IMO
|
|
|
|
Post by CuseHokie on Oct 22, 2018 9:35:20 GMT -5
Holes is an integer. GIR is a %. To find total missed greens (integer) you'd have to do that conversion, right? edit: Also something to remember is the best APPH you would have would be 1.0. It's not so much the number that matters but how it relates to others APPH. Sort of like strokes gained, if I say someone has 0.5 strokes gained putting, does that mean anything? Not really... but if the next guy is 0.2 and everyone else is below 0, maybe that does mean something? GIR is an integer. GIR/H is a ratio. GIR% is a percentage (GIR/H * 100%). Missed GIR is simply the number of holes you played minus the number of greens hit in regulation. But that's neither here nor there. Strokes Gained, for example, is a relative metric. If you've made a 4 and the scoring average is 3.9, then you've lost 0.1 strokes. Putts per hole - or in this case APPH, is an absolute metric and you have to compare players manually using this metric. It also doesn't take into account any additional factors like proximity to the hole. It assumes proximity to the hole is more or less equivalent across the field. Lastly, your APPH counts chips as putts, unless it takes more than one chip to find the green. I think your metric skews the data even more than basic PPH does. I think your metric tells us less about putting because it includes chips and doesn't account for proximity to the hole. I don't think it helps us determine who is the best putter. My initial email was simply using numbers from the tables for player stats. Agree, neither here nor there. I was just trying to start simple and ditch PPH because it's worthless. I'm all for using more sophisticated stats but when I've asked for it (i.e. I made a post for scrambling a long time ago), it never really went anywhere. So asking for more advanced requests may not move... so I was trying to start simple! But my all means, if we can add Proximity... yes! |
|
|
|
Post by rob4590 on Oct 22, 2018 9:42:47 GMT -5
Putts per GIR is a better statistic....... And even better again is total distance of putts made (in feet or metres)
So why not (sort of) combine both of them - total footage of putts made per GIR?If you are very low - then it tells you (most likely) that you hit your approaches miles away - so don't hole the birdie putts very often (and therefore have lots of 2 foot tap ins). Alternatively - you hit it VERY close a lot. If you are high on this stat - then you are holing good putts for birdie (or holing long ones for par!) - so that will prove you are a good putter IMO..... In real life - over 100 foot of total putts made in a round is pretty damn good - working on probably 12-13 GIR per round, that means an average of 8ft on this stat. There is your target then..... Discuss I agree with the top two statements, and by and large the bolded would work. It would, however, be a better stat for tracking long term than for one round or even one tournament as making a lucky bomb putt would skew this stat. Over a few tournaments (10+ rounds minimum) is where this stat would start to work accurately to compare golfers to one another.
IMO
True - but it wouldn't skew it that much over a tournament really - if a player hits 50 greens in an event, and holes a 50ft putt in a round - it bumps the stat up by 1ft. However - your point about it being a good stats over several events is another good point - we need ALL the stats to be cumulative over the season, rather than just there for the individual events..... Again - the data for the cumulative is all there - should be relatively simple to have all that as season stats (as Mark does for TST)..... |
|
|
|
Post by mcbogga on Oct 22, 2018 10:04:01 GMT -5
Putts per GIR is a better statistic....... And even better again is total distance of putts made (in feet or metres) So why not (sort of) combine both of them - total footage of putts made per GIR? If you are very low - then it tells you (most likely) that you hit your approaches miles away - so don't hole the birdie putts very often (and therefore have lots of 2 foot tap ins). Alternatively - you hit it VERY close a lot. If you are high on this stat - then you are holing good putts for birdie (or holing long ones for par!) - so that will prove you are a good putter IMO..... In real life - over 100 foot of total putts made in a round is pretty damn good - working on probably 12-13 GIR per round, that means an average of 8ft on this stat. There is your target then..... Discuss Both of these and the aggregate - distance made per GIR - do not isolate the putting, only strokes gained does that in a good way. Total distance of made putts together with total distance of putts also gives an indication of putting skill. Mix with GIR % for a view of approach skill as well. But for approach skill average proximity to hole from different ranges and lies is the best stat. |
|
