As many of you know, I’m a stats guy. I’ve been a little lax in keeping my stat records online, but rest assured, I’m paying attention to all that stuff (well, I was before I hurt my knee anyway). So, it’s no secret that I’m a data mining aficionado.
Recently, reader Nate R. asked me about a trend in vogue during golf broadcasts these days. Lately, they’ve been reporting on the total number of feet of putts. I hadn’t seen this yet at that time, but since then, I saw it as Vijay Singh was wrapping up the Fed Ex Cup a couple of weeks ago.
Before my very eyes, they reported that Singh had holed like 150-some odd feet of putts that week.
When Nate asked the question, his take was, “maybe it’s just me, but this is a completely useless stat the way they cite it.“ I could not possibly agree more. I’ve given this one a lot of thought and I can’t see how this stat can be very useful without having more information to interpret it.
I’m not even sure I fully understand what it means, but I think what they’re counting is only those putts that drop, not the total of all putts. OK, so maybe it’s not totally useless. It can tell you that when the total is higher, a player is dropping longer putts.
But why?
Is the player lagging poorly and leaving a lot of long clean-up? Is his wedge game suffering, causing him to be facing longer distances after approaches? Is he missing greens but making miracle up and downs?
What about if the number is low? Is the player missing greens and chipping close? Is he throwing darts and tapping in birdies? Is he leaving himself far from the hole but lagging well?
Is heroic putting saving him from disaster? Is he putting the lights out and going really low?
The list goes on.
Networks have been trying to innovate golf telecasts for decades. I don’t have a problem with that. Many of the innovations are great. I loved the U.S. Open telecast at Oakmont where they showed a computer generated view of what it would look like if dozens of balls were dropped on a green at once. It really showed the undulations, ridges, and character in the greens.
But, I think this is one of those things that just doesn’t provide a lot of analytical value during a telecast. To get the full picture, you would really need to delve into all the other typical stats: GIR, total putts, putts per hole, etc.
I suppose there are worse things to complain about, but I’m curious – what do you think? Useful or a waste of time?
Loading ...
I’m not sure it would be a useful stat, but it’s certainly a fun stat, and it can be a good measurement tool of who is hitting the longer puts more consistently.
You know, I thought the same thing when they were talking about that. I thought it was worthless information.
Waste of time.
I’m not happy with golf announcing in general, or golf coverage for that matter. I’d like to see more actual golf. While I’m at it, I’d like to see fewer commercials, especially the erectile dysfunction commercials. Watching golf with my young kids has been fun for me and them. Daddy, what’s erectile dysfunction? Do you get it from playing golf?
Sorry for the rant,
-Greg
I do like Maureen Madill’s (sp?) announcing.
No problem, Greg. We all need to vent once in a while.
I’m with you on the commercials. I don’t have kids so it’s not uncomfortable that way, but the number of commercials is ridiculous. I can do without the E.D. ones, though.
I think I’d be a little happier if they’d at least mix them up once in a while. There are some really good golf-themed commercials but after I’ve seen each one 26,000 times, they start to grate on me. I used to love the one where Retief Goosen hopped on the mower and the greenskeeper had to tell him that it was actually Sean’s job.
I’m trying to think of some other good golf telecast rants of mine, but I’m coming up blank right now. I need to think about it some more.
I actually didn’t notice the “holed” qualification before — I always took the number (as it was presented on telecasts) to mean total feet of *all* putts. That makes it a little more meaningful I suppose, but like you say all it really shows is (1) how well a player is getting it up and down and/or (2) how (un)lucky he is on longer putts — since from 6-8 ft even the best in the world only convert ~50%.
I’m a total stat head too, but this example goes to show that unless you’re careful, there really are nothing but lies, damn lies and statistics. =)~
Nate, you could be right. I’m still not completely sure. I’m going to have to try and catch it again for clarification. I imagine it will get thrown around again before the Fed Ex Cup race is over…well, before it’s finished, anyway.
Or is there a correlation to some other stat? For example an inverse correlation when a players “total number of feet of putts” increases by x% their “total putts per round” decrease by y%. Or a direct correlation like when “total number of feet of putts” increases by x% the number of birdies per round increases by y%. I agree what is the significance?
Or how do they calculate the total number of feet? Is it a straight line from A (the ball) to B (the hole) or is it the actual line the ball traveled from A (the ball) through C and D (points the ball traveled over) to B (the hole). Personal I use the straight line method when judging the length of putts I made.
There may be some actual correlation, but they don’t seem to present it that way.
I think they’re probably calculating straight line feet because the Tour uses Shot Link for measuring shot distance. On the greens, I believe it’s done by a laser.
That’s actually an interesting point. I’ve never looked for a “hidden” significance, but if the relation was that complex, it seems they would come up with something that doesn’t involve computing inverses and percentages of holed putts.
I also never considered the actual distance measured — straight line or actual distance traveled. I guess for most putts there’s not *that* much break and you figure you’ll have as many left to right as right to left over time so it all comes out in the wash .. maybe?
I actually think it’s not a bad stat.
A higher figure can indicate a number of good saves if the player has an average scoring round, or some excellent finishing work during a low round.
A lower figure in a low round would indicate some great approach shots, or in an average round may indicate a number of missed putts.
Stats are stats though right – you can take them to mean what you want!
You’re right, Michael, but it would seem to make more sense for someone like me to keep that to analyze my own game. The problem with it being presented on television out of context is that you can’t really attribute the number to a cause.
Even if I’m looking at my own stats, I might be able to say, “well, my total feet of putts was very low, but I missed every green and was chipping close.” The thing is, I already know that. The total feet of putts didn’t tell me that. The 0% GIR and low number of putts already gave me that information.
Statistics is a hallmark of everyday life, be it sports, your work or even your studies. Keeping stats is like tracking your progress. Just let me comment on Vijay Singh and his career.
When Vijay Singh was on the pinnacle of his golfing career, he gave a very useful advise to aspiring golfers in his country of birth, Fiji. His advise was that, to perfect any skills in golf, you need to perfect your tracking skills. Indirectly, he meant that you need to take statistics and always work to improve them.