|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Mar 12, 2013 10:20:43 GMT -5
I see that 3jack is considering a modification of his "driving effectiveness" category that places a greater emphasis on accuracy.
These then are the top 10 drivers for this year.
1. Hunter Mahan (3) 2. Bubba Watson (1) 3. Tiger Woods (39) 4. Louis Oosthuizen (14) 5. Charl Schwartzel (59) 6. Rory McIlroy (2) 7. Charlie Beljan (4) 8. John Senden (25) 9. Adam Scott (12) 10. John Huh (11)
I can only see one KM-elite golfer in the list.
The top of the list is Hunter Mahan, who doesn't develop any lateral bend, and who doesn't externally rotate his right humerus in the early-mid downswing, and who doesn't spin-rotate his lead foot through impact. He also doesn't perform many of the micro-moves that are recommended by KM. He also uses a no-roll hand release action, while maintaining an intact LAFW/FLW after impact, and he doesn't flip-bend the left wrist and straighten the right wrist immediately after impact as recommended by BM.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by richie3jack on Mar 13, 2013 8:33:42 GMT -5
I've been deliberating on the metric for quite a while.
I believe what I will end up doing is creating a metric I call 'Tee Shot Effectiveness' while keeping my 'Driving Effectiveness.'
I think Driving Effectiveness is a better representation of the player's ability with the driver. With 'Tee Shot Effectiveness' it represents more of the player's effectiveness off the tee, regardless of the club they use. Thus, they not only have to hit the driver well, but other non-driver clubs off the tee well (if they choose to use them). Thus, there is some skill and some strategy involved.
I altered the formula quite a bit for tee shot effectiveness and I have one that I'm more satisfied with. Here's how the top-25 from 2012 would look like:
1. Bubba Watson 2. Rory McIlroy 3. Dustin Johnson 4. Louis Oosthuizen 5. Adam Scott 6. Hunter Mahan 7. Charlie Beljan 8. John Senden 9. Tiger Woods 10. Keegan Bradley 11. Charl Schwartzel 12. Martin Laird 13. Steve Stricker 14. Boo Weekley 15. Bill Haas 16. Josh Teater 17. Kyle Stanley 18. David Toms 19. Graeme McDowell 20. Roberto Castro 21. Lee Westwood 22. Jeff Overton 23. John Huh 24. Scott Piercy 25. Jason Dufner
With that said, I'm most likely going to put off 'Tee Shot Effectiveness' until 2014. I have some other ideas as to how to more accurately determine a player's effectiveness off the tee. But, I can't do it until the season plays out.
3JACK
|
|
|
Post by Dariusz J on Mar 13, 2013 11:44:48 GMT -5
Gents,
As usually, as a faithful defender of the faith that control is the name of the game I feel I need to comment here.
I believe there is no possibility of establishing anyone's driving effectiveness independently on a "coefficient of pamperedness of a course" (excuse me for my English here). How it is possible that the top list does not contain most accurate drivers, i.er. players who control this club the best ? The answer is we live in sad times of golf when very errant drivers (who would struggle on a non-pampered course with real rough with their crappy consistency) are being promoted.
Anyhow, I am aware that the above issue is an impossible one. Thus, the Tee Shot Effectiveness is a very good idea here since it shows wisdom of players who can give up distance and choose other clubs to start the hole in favour of accuracy. However, the thing missing here (as an addendum to the TSE) are stats that shows who can control driving the best way, say, to divide the number of holes where driver was in use by the number of fairways hit with it. It would make it impossible for errant drivers who often chooses shorter/easier clubs to tee off to top that list.
It is simply insulting to me as a golfer to see golfers who are not able to control their driver shots to be regarded as great in categories that concern tee shots. Very frankly.
Cheers
|
|
|
Post by richie3jack on Mar 13, 2013 12:40:37 GMT -5
The reason why I started my research is that there is a wealth of data on the PGATour.com Web site and with my statistical background I felt that I could use the data to help me better understand the game and improve my own game. I had no agenda or anything to prove. As far as the numbers behind the game I never quite agreed with a lot of metrics, but I never felt confident in my knowledge of the numbers and strategy behind the game. I had heard the term ‘good scoring day’ quite often. I even used it myself. But, I could not reconcile the fact that my lowest tournament round ever, 64, came with a 4-putt (cost me the course record) and I didn’t do anything all that great that day outside of hitting some random terrific shots.
One of the things I discovered is that Tour players hit their approach shots about 30-35% closer from the fairway than they do the rough. However, fairway percentage had a weak correlation to success on Tour. This drove me back the debates I would have with myself like ‘is a 310 yard drive that ends up in the 2nd cut of the rough better or worse than the 260 yard drive that splits the fairway?’
In that scenario, what I generally found was the 310 yard drive was usually better off even though it’s in the 2nd cut rough. The difference in distance is just too much. I also started to find that the player’s projected score on the hole starts to noticeably change once there’s a 25-yard difference in approach shot. For example, if Keegan Bradley is playing 2-balls in a casual round by himself and hits his first drive 300 yards and his second drive 275 yards, when all is said and done, his projected score on the hole will be noticeably better on the 300 yard drive. Even if he’s more likely to miss the fairway. The 25-yard difference is too much. And for higher handicaps…less distance makes a bigger difference because for a 17 handicapper, a 10 yard difference is something they would struggle to make up.
So hitting it far does provide an advantage. But, I think it’s overstated by some and understated by others.
As I looked more into data, I noticed that the game had changed in more ways than one from a driving perspective.
Driving skill was much more important to a player’s success from 1980-1984 than it has been the past 5 years (2008-2012). From 80-84, players who drove the ball well were almost guaranteed to make the top-30 on the Money List. The only player that consistently struggled despite driving it well was an Australian pro named Gaven Levenson.
But in the past 5 years driving it well has had a much smaller correlation to success on Tour. After doing some additional research, I believe I have come up with some reasons as to why.
A. Par-5’s are easier today than from 1980-1984 B. The rough on par-5’s is much shorter today. C. Par-5’s are much more reachable today. D. The greens are in better condition today, allowing poor drivers to make up for it with good putting.
The problem is that we have to accept that the game has changed.
It reminds me a lot of American style football where some fans erroneously compare modern Quarterback statistics to greats of the past. They will point out that the completion percentages, passing yards and passing TD’s are higher and the interceptions are lower and assume that the modern QB’s are better.
However, past QB’s like Johnny Unitas and Roger Staubach played in an era when teams passed the ball less and when they did, they threw deeper passes. So it’s not that the modern QB is better, they are in a different era where the passing offense has changed to enhance some of those key numbers.
For me, the best way to gauge the past players vs. the present players in any sport is to establish a baseline such as the average for key metrics at the time the player played. Then, determine how the player performed versus that baseline.
It’s obvious that missing the fairway is not anywhere near as penalizing as it was 30 years ago. However, it would be foolish for a player to keep playing the game off the tee like they were playing in 1980’s style of rough, water, O.B., etc. Like any player in any era, they have to play the hand they are dealt with the best they can.
If in 20 years from now courses have a change of heart and make rough extremely penalizing, then players would be foolish to ignore trying to hit the fairway for extra distance.
3JACK
|
|
|
Post by Dariusz J on Mar 13, 2013 13:31:48 GMT -5
Richie,
If I may -- despite it is extremely tough to find some holes in your reasoning I would like to add the following verses:
We do not have to. We, golfers and fans, should say a definitive NO to media and OEM mafia controlling everything and imposing idiotic changes that not only make it difficult for the best ballstrikers to win tournaments but also to destroy historic courses. We (generally, course owners, the very pros, fans, etc.) are stupid enough to let it happen before even if USGA and R&A decidents are idiots. I do not accept it personally. I know I am nobody to be able to change the state of things, but my protest is clear -- I am not buying new equipment, I am not watching golf much anymore and I am denying to pray good scoring achieved without great ballstriking. There are quirte a few people I know from fora who share this point of view, I am not alone.
Not a word less not a word more. It is not the players who are to be blamed. But players should read very carefully what Trevino said about Winged Foot 1974 setup: "If you don't set up a golf course like that, then a guy can hit it all over the place and still win the golf tournament. So, you didn't identify the best player that week." ...which simply means winners, sometimes and quite often recently, are simply not best players on the field.
Cheers
P.S. I cannot wait to watch US Open at Merion this year. Since the course is not long (not destroyed by a nonsensical rebuilding) the setup is going to be brutal. I will be very much pleased to see whackers dropping one by one behing the cut line.
|
|
|
Post by richie3jack on Mar 14, 2013 9:12:40 GMT -5
The game won't change back to the game of old because that would require banning the titanium driver. I actually think the ball has less of an impact mainly because with persimmon it requires much more precision in the golf swing. Imprecise mechanics with persimmon will lead to very wayward drives. And I don't see them banning titanium, ever. Even the US Open is suceptible to wild driving. Angel Cabrera won at Oakmont and usually he's at the bottom of the list in fairway percentage. I would rather watch old events with persimmon. I was rather dismayed by how many awful shots I saw Louis Oosthuizen and Bubba Watson hit in the Masters. People can watch the 3-hour telecasts of Masters from 1986-2012 on this YouTube channel www.youtube.com/user/cpallosFor me, the difference in the consistency of quality shots is startling. From 86-96, bad shots almost all but eliminated players from contention. Now we see guys recklessly bomb one, go into the trees and come away with birdie. I've been fairly vocal about my disdain as to what ANGC has become...a beautiful course that has turned into part Re-Max Long Driving and part trick shot competition. But my biggest gripe is that it has taken away one of the best facets of the course; the course being winnable for numerous styles of games. I think the only game it didn't favor back in the day was somebody who hit a low trajectory ball that curved from left to right (i.e. Trevino, Montgomerie, Azinger). Look at the past champions and you see a myriad of different styles of games. From Crenshaw (short, poor ballstriker, great putter), Olazabal (short, weak driver, great iron player and putter), Faldo (short control player, great iron play and at times a great putter). I believe that what has happened to the Masters is that people are so in love with the course and the tournament that they have failed to realize that the Masters has bowed to what looks good on TV (long drives, eagles on par-5's, fantastic recovery shots) while ruining the great aspect of the course being setup where the player who played the best would win. Now it's about the best player who hits it long will win. So the ANGC loyalists make up silly excuses as to why it's okay for the winner to hit awful drives that are hit off the grid. But with all of that said, the game does not show any signs of it reverting back to how it was played during the Hogan, Snead and Nicklaus years. And due to that, the players have had to alter their game in order to put themselves in the best position to be successful on Tour. 3JACK
|
|
|
Post by Dariusz J on Mar 14, 2013 11:45:03 GMT -5
It is not a matter of banning titanium clubheads but rather at having good reasonable will to limit CoR of their faces as well as to make necessary changes with the ball itself.
I simply see no reason why not to follow the wise route of light athletics decidents who decided to increase weight of javelin instead building new stadiums. OK, I understand that the lobby of javelin manufacturers are not so powerful as lobby of OEMs ad that javelin throw is not a mass sport discipline, but nothing can justify destroying old historic courses.
Cheers
|
|
|
Post by richie3jack on Mar 14, 2013 12:19:08 GMT -5
I agree with you. But, the USGA and R&A already allowed titanium and the OEM's are too powerful to let it happen without a fight. And I can't blame the OEM's because like the anchor ban, the USGA and R&A have to be smart to what new technology is developing and ban it immediately rather than let it be legal and then decide to change the rules when these companies have invested incredible time, money and resources towards their products.
I don't look at the OEM's as the bad guys. I look at the USGA and R&A as being irresponsible and incompetent on this level while not having the foresight to see what future problems are.
I think it's quite obvious that the USGA and R&A thought titanium would increase popularity of the game. Instead it has had the opposite effect as if anything...play has slowed down due to architects trying to build courses around the titanium driver which means lots of lost balls due to forced carries over water.
3JACK
|
|