Short Game vs Long Game - new research

It has often been debated, which is more important, short game or long game.

This study has some interesting revelation.

An excerpt:

"Mark Broadie, the Columbia Business School professor who came up with the strokes-gained-putting statistic now used by the PGA Tour, has devised a way to quantify the relative contribution to scoring of the long game and the short game, and his conclusion is probably not what you think. He is expanding this and other interesting new golf statistical research into a book for publication next year, but here's the take-away: Shots that originate more than 100 yards from the hole have twice the impact on score of shots from inside 100 yards—including putting. Long-game results account for about two-thirds of the variability in scores among golfers on the PGA Tour (the short game is one-third)."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303753904577454662959172648.html

Hmm... I knew there must be a reason why I love working on the driver much more than my 60 degree wedge. Now I have statistics to justify it as well!

Jez kidding, don't neglect short game. But bear in mind according to this study at least, when the players are quite evenly matched, then the long game has twice the impact of the short game.

I'm sure Broadie's research wont give any relief to John Senden

pushslice wrote:

I'm sure Broadie's research wont give any relief to John Senden

Ha ha true.

There are always outliers in any statistical distribution. John Senden would be one example.

In my recent past life, was in the business intelligence and data mining industry. In preparing the data for analysis, the first thing my consultant would do is to remove the outliers, leaving the main clusters for the processing to find insights and relationships, basically patterns that tell us something.

One Senden is a dot. A dot that is very far from the main clusters is an outlier. If there were many other dots around Senden, then that would be a cluster of its own worth studying.

Some quick takeaways:

One reason the long game affects score more than the short game is that the closer you get to the green, the less ground there is to make up. From 25 feet, for example, the average Tour pro makes only 10% of his putts. A single, sunk 25-footer for a win on the 72nd hole is a huge deal, but over the course of a season the strokes-gained difference between the best and the rest from that distance is small, since everyone is missing the vast majority of the time. The best putters gain most of their advantage on putts in the 5-to-15-foot range, Broadie calculates. Advantage: pros who can stick it close with their irons.

=======================================
My personal take for my own training (a step is approx 3 feet):
1. No point practicing putts beyond 8 steps for accuracy, only lag speed
2. Focus on training to hole putts between 2 to 5 steps.
3. Iron accuracy goal: within 10 steps of dispersion
=======================================

"The long game sets up the short game," Broadie said.

In 2011, the best putter on Tour was Luke Donald, who gained 0.84 strokes on the field per round on the greens. The sixth-worst putter, sadly, was Ernie Els, who lost 0.7 strokes to the field. That's a 1.6 strokes per round difference.

In the long game, the difference was much more marked. The best in 2011, big-hitting Bubba Watson, gained 1.5 strokes per round on the field, of which 1.1 strokes came from his driving alone. The worst long-game players lost about 1.3 strokes to the field, for a 2.8-stroke difference compared with Watson.

=======================================
I think here I need to be a bit more circumspect for the long game and ask this question.

Given the amount of time I can put it, how much more improvement (distance w accuracy) in the long game can I gain, compared with short game?

The answer would depend on where the individual's level is currently at, the physical conditioning, available time to put in, among others.

Regardless of age and physical condition, correct swing mechanics can yield tremendous improvement in length and accuracy. But changing a swing takes A LOT OF TIME. Meanwhile, your scores will suck and your buddies will thank your swing change as they take your money. The longer the old swing has been in action, the longer it will take to change. Serious commitment is needed, but it certainly can be done if the time and work can be put in.

On the other hand, the newer the current swing, the younger the person and the more athletic, the higher the level that can be achieved in the long game with the right techniques and coaching. So, greater room for improvement in the long game, esp if the player is currently hitting it short and/or spraying it.

yeah I remember taking out the outliers too in my stats class, that's why stats model didnt predict the black swans

Other dots in the mould of John Senden, I suspect.

Steve Marino
Heath Slocum (except that he got hot or lucky one year)
Joe Durant (Anyone knows who Joe Durant is? )
Chad Campbell
Davis Love (in the last 5 yrs)

on the other side of 2.5% population we have pros like these guys who kept on showing up on the top 10 scrambling stats but rarely on the WIN column

Brian Gay (got really hot in one Verizon Heritage)
Woody Austin
Greg Chalmers
Kevin Na

the guys who are perennially top ranked in both GIR and Scrambling/Putting are.....to no surprise. Donald and Stricker.

Well put.

Stats need sufficient data points to predict anything.

When Dufner got hot, he won. But hard for him to repeat it. Probability is not on his side.

Which is why I scratch my head at Tiger's prodigious and consistent output, esp over such a long stretch of time. His win rate (percentage of tournaments won to tournaments entered) is actually higher than Jack's.

The more I study the stats, the more he stands out.

Excerpt from the report:

The stats that explain Woods's dominance are similar. From 2003 through 2010, he bested the field by an average of 3.2 strokes per round. Of that, 2.08 strokes came from the long game, 0.42 from the short game (excluding putting) and 0.7 from putting. His best long-game year was 2006, when he gained 2.83 strokes on the field, more than a third of that advantage coming on iron shots between 150 yards and 200 yards. His best putting year was 2009, when he ranked second on the Tour but gained only 0.99 strokes on the field.

====================================
2003 - 2010 Tiger's advantage is 3.2 strokes per round over the field.

The 3.2 strokes per round advantage comprises,
Long game = 2.08 strokes (65.0%)
Short game = 0.42 strokes (13.1%)
Putting = 0.7 strokes (21.9%)

Interesting to see that as good as Tiger's short game was in that period, it only made up 13.1% of his advantage. And combined with putting, only 35%. 65% comes from long game.

No wonder the tour guys are hitting the gym and getting personal trainers.

I think Luke Donald's breakdown will look totally different.

Hi Lee,

I am sure the statistic had correct data and also Jack Nicklaus said. "I never practiced my short game because I felt like if I can hit 15 greens a round and hit a couple of par-fives in two and if I can make all my putts inside 10 feet, who cares where I chip it?

Just to share my view : I cannot hit 15 greens a round and hit couple of par five in two ? due to the fact that I do not hit far enough. So I guess, I need to depend to have a stronger short games to save my rounds. I "think" most weekend player fall into this group level ...

I am sure it is great for one to have a stronger long games and it will be much easier for their games .. I guess that is why "most" lower HCP player drove further ?

Slicer51 wrote:

Hi Lee,

I am sure the statistic had correct data and also Jack Nicklaus said. "I never practiced my short game because I felt like if I can hit 15 greens a round and hit a couple of par-fives in two and if I can make all my putts inside 10 feet, who cares where I chip it?

Just to share my view : I cannot hit 15 greens a round and hit couple of par five in two ? due to the fact that I do not hit far enough. So I guess, I need to depend to have a stronger short games to save my rounds. I "think" most weekend player fall into this group level ...

I am sure it is great for one to have a stronger long games and it will be much easier for their games .. I guess that is why "most" lower HCP player drove further ?

No problem. I got some new power sources to share w you next time we play. I want your 9 iron to also carry... lets just say, very far.

That takes care of distance.

As for accuracy, I found in my case the solution lied in my pivot. I have pretty much thrown away my previous swing which had some key weaknesses and a tendency to fail under fatigue and instead built a new one from scratch.

Keeping the tush line, planing the shaft, and many other elements are not easy to do, but if done correctly, the effort is justified. Now, carefully test driving it in on the course to see how it holds up....