|
|
Post by CuseHokie on Feb 6, 2019 10:40:51 GMT -5
A while back (thread in this forum), I was trying to find a way to make a new stat that was better than PPH.
As you know, if you miss a lot of greens, your PPH can be much lower than someone that hits more GIR.
The feedback was mixed so I'm hoping this suggestion has more validity.
If we take the total putts you have per round (or PPH x 18), and subtract the total greens you have (GIR% x 18), we come to "Putts minus Greens" or PMG.
This number by itself isn't that meaningful - however - neither is driving distance.
Compared to our peers, it starts to become more interesting.
I ran some numbers against several in the top WGR...
Chris Rawesy 6.714
Mitch Barnett 7.362
Justin Smedley 7.38
Scott Fulton 7.578
Bradley Garcia 8.01
Dave Preece 8.262
Ryan Hammond 8.622
Bob Balzhiser 8.82
Bob Loblaw 8.928
Nathan Bedell 9.018
Fred Tilmant 9.072
Mike Smith 9.36
Jeff Day 9.432
Albert Fargo 9.774
Keith Putman 9.774
Larry Malone 9.792
John Glenwood 9.99
Bobby Anderson 10.062
In a way, the statistic seems to wash out the GIR misses and come to a better putting metric. If you 1 putt every hole but miss half the greens, you'd finish with a PMG of 9 (18 putts minus 9 greens). If you hit every green, one putt 9 holes, and two putt 9 holes - your PMG is also 9. Missing greens shouldn't help to improve (lower) your PPH with this statistic.
Thoughts?
|
|
wmr5277
Amateur Golfer
Posts: 226
TGCT Name: Vitaly Potapenko
Tour: PGA
|
Post by wmr5277 on Feb 6, 2019 11:02:22 GMT -5
Interesting.
I think most agree putts per hole is kind of meaningless.
Some rounds I hit 17/18 greens and have 23 putts and putt well...and sometimes I hit 13/18 greens and have 21 putts with average-ish putting...PPH stat says I putted better in example B. But assuming I had 100% scrambling on both rounds...obviously the round with 23 putts was a better putting performance.
Edit: How about a "total feet of putts made per round" stat...makes me think coding is possible since there is a "longest putt made each round" stat...
Would have to divide it by some other stat I suppose...since someone could have 14 birdies in a round (and 12 of those are 6 feet and in by stuffing approach shots)...
Idk what I'm trying to say...other then the PPH stat is dumb. Lol.
|
|
|
|
Post by CuseHokie on Feb 6, 2019 13:31:15 GMT -5
Yea the data for putt length is there... they know the max length already... They would just need to account for holes with 0 putts.
Either total length of putts made or average length of putts made... either way more advanced stats on putting is an improvement!
|
|
|
|
Post by ErixonStone on Feb 6, 2019 14:14:22 GMT -5
It still penalizes bad approach play that lands on the green or a bad short game. And I don't think it gets us closer to figuring out who is the best putter.
I find the number of putts to be a function of approaches AND putting, but find it difficult to figure out which contributes more for any particular round.
Who's a better putter? A guy that sinks a 10-footer or a guy that lags a 35-footer to 3 inches? How do you tell?
|
|
|
|
Post by CuseHokie on Feb 6, 2019 14:25:52 GMT -5
It still penalizes bad approach play that lands on the green or a bad short game. And I don't think it gets us closer to figuring out who is the best putter. I find the number of putts to be a function of approaches AND putting, but find it difficult to figure out which contributes more for any particular round. Who's a better putter? A guy that sinks a 10-footer or a guy that lags a 35-footer to 3 inches? How do you tell? 1. Bad Approach Play but GIR - higher likelihood to 2 putt. Yes, tis true. 2. Bad Short Game? So someone that flops poorly or has a bad chip that two putts - okay they have more putts AND missed the green. Yes, tis true. However, it's sort of a putting / short game statistic all in one. It's probably not a coincidence Mr. Rawesy is #1 in Scrambling and I'm not far behind... I just think PPH is sort of bogus especially in the middle of the pack where you have good ball strikers with poor PPH because they hit more greens. If your 35 foot putter happens to make a fair amount beyond 15 feet, then the stat WMR was referencing (total length of putts made) would help to accommodate that aspect. I don't think we'll ever get a SGP but these are just some suggestions for data that exists in the table today... it's literally a simple excel formula to make a new stat. |
|
wmr5277
Amateur Golfer
Posts: 226
TGCT Name: Vitaly Potapenko
Tour: PGA
|
Post by wmr5277 on Feb 6, 2019 15:13:42 GMT -5
It still penalizes bad approach play that lands on the green or a bad short game. And I don't think it gets us closer to figuring out who is the best putter. I find the number of putts to be a function of approaches AND putting, but find it difficult to figure out which contributes more for any particular round. Who's a better putter? A guy that sinks a 10-footer or a guy that lags a 35-footer to 3 inches? How do you tell? The guy who makes the 10 footer in my opinion. I think everyone on this tour makes probably on average 91-97% of their putts 9 feet and in. I understand your point for sure...but I think everyone on this tour 2 putts from 35 feet rather easily no matter the speed or break of the green...whether it's lagging it to 5 inches or 5 feet. It doesn't matter. With hitting fairways being easy in this game...what's average...83-85%?...Idk... I bet if there was some way to find out % of putts made from 10 to 20 feet...the top 20 on that list...I reckon at least 15-17 of them are in the top 20 on $ list, fedex, etc. this season. Which makes total sense to me. |
|
|
|
Post by ErixonStone on Feb 6, 2019 15:31:07 GMT -5
Who's a better putter? A guy that sinks a 10-footer or a guy that lags a 35-footer to 3 inches? How do you tell? The guy who makes the 10 footer in my opinion. I think the best we can say is, "I don't know." What I do know is that the guy who sinks a 10-foot putt is better than the guy who lags a 10-foot putt to 3 inches. I can also argue that a guy who lags a 35-foot putt to 3 inches is better than the guy who runs it 8 feet past. That seems intuitive, but it might not actually be the case. So, two metrics are players' make-percentages and a ratio that compares the average miss to the length of the original putt. To figure that out, we need proximity-to-hole. Without it, the statistics we have can only get us a metric plagued by other mitigating factors. |
|
|
|
Post by CuseHokie on Feb 6, 2019 16:11:25 GMT -5
So are you opposed to a new statistic that is easily available to begin using that improves the existing PPH?
I don't think we'll ever have the full resources or data to do what your perfect vision is but perhaps these suggestions are in the right direction?
|
|
|
|
Post by donkeypuncherben on Feb 9, 2019 7:40:14 GMT -5
I guess it is more accurate measure of good putting but the GIR number is so close between top players it's not really changing much. I think the first seven guys on the list are the same order they as just sorting by putts per hole.
If we have the distance data, it should be possible to do strokes gained for each tournament with some programming. In my opinion, anything simpler doesn't really make enough difference to be worth adjusting the stats page
|
|
