1 00:00:16,160 --> 00:00:18,920 Speaker 1: I mix a green for example, I'm already upset. When 2 00:00:18,960 --> 00:00:21,040 Speaker 1: I find my ball in the bunker, I'm really upset. 3 00:00:21,120 --> 00:00:22,520 Speaker 1: And when I find my ball in a. 4 00:00:22,840 --> 00:00:27,040 Speaker 2: Egg Friday egg Frida egg fridagg Frida Eggrida egg Frida 5 00:00:27,040 --> 00:00:29,320 Speaker 2: egg bride egg Lie, I'm about ready to run off 6 00:00:29,320 --> 00:00:39,320 Speaker 2: the golf course. Ladies and gentlemen, Welcome back to another 7 00:00:39,479 --> 00:00:42,559 Speaker 2: edition of the Friday Egg Podcast. Today, I'm joined by 8 00:00:42,640 --> 00:00:47,760 Speaker 2: podcast regular Kyle Nathan and Columbia Business School professor, creator 9 00:00:47,800 --> 00:00:52,640 Speaker 2: of the Strokes Gain Statistics and author of Every Shot Counts, 10 00:00:53,040 --> 00:00:53,720 Speaker 2: Mark Brody. 11 00:00:54,080 --> 00:00:54,960 Speaker 3: Mark, welcome on. 12 00:00:56,640 --> 00:00:58,880 Speaker 1: Thanks for having me on this Frida Egg podcast. 13 00:00:58,920 --> 00:01:01,200 Speaker 3: Guys, yeah, our pleasure. 14 00:01:01,520 --> 00:01:05,080 Speaker 2: You know we're trying something new here with Kyle Kyle 15 00:01:05,200 --> 00:01:07,960 Speaker 2: doing making a three man pod here. 16 00:01:08,440 --> 00:01:10,480 Speaker 4: Well, Mark, I know you're really busy this time of 17 00:01:10,520 --> 00:01:12,920 Speaker 4: the year, so why don't we just kick it right off? 18 00:01:13,720 --> 00:01:15,800 Speaker 1: Sure, fire away, all right. 19 00:01:16,480 --> 00:01:18,840 Speaker 4: The question Andy gets and I get a lot from 20 00:01:18,840 --> 00:01:21,840 Speaker 4: whether it's someone that's my you know, twenty handicapped friend 21 00:01:21,959 --> 00:01:25,759 Speaker 4: or scratch golfer friend, is how to best explain strokes 22 00:01:25,800 --> 00:01:28,480 Speaker 4: gain putting to a late person? How would you do that? 23 00:01:29,120 --> 00:01:34,039 Speaker 5: Okay, well, strokes gain putting, I think is h it 24 00:01:34,080 --> 00:01:37,600 Speaker 5: is pretty straightforward. The problem with counting putts is it 25 00:01:37,640 --> 00:01:41,040 Speaker 5: doesn't take into account the distance of the putts. So 26 00:01:41,880 --> 00:01:44,120 Speaker 5: a two putt from sixty feet is pretty good and 27 00:01:44,160 --> 00:01:47,720 Speaker 5: a two putt from three feet is pretty poor, so 28 00:01:47,760 --> 00:01:50,720 Speaker 5: they both count as as two putts. And the reason 29 00:01:50,720 --> 00:01:53,680 Speaker 5: that they are very different performances is they start from 30 00:01:54,160 --> 00:01:58,920 Speaker 5: different distances. So if you measure putting instead of by 31 00:01:58,960 --> 00:02:04,320 Speaker 5: counting putts by relative to the tour average, then you 32 00:02:04,360 --> 00:02:07,560 Speaker 5: get a much better measure of a putting performance. So 33 00:02:08,360 --> 00:02:12,679 Speaker 5: from thirty three feet, the average number of putts to 34 00:02:12,880 --> 00:02:15,880 Speaker 5: hole out for a pro is two, So if you 35 00:02:15,960 --> 00:02:19,360 Speaker 5: two putt from thirty three feet, you're neither gaining nor losing. 36 00:02:19,440 --> 00:02:21,680 Speaker 5: But a one putt will gain a stroke and a 37 00:02:21,680 --> 00:02:25,679 Speaker 5: three putt will lose a stroke. So that's pretty pretty straightforward. 38 00:02:25,680 --> 00:02:28,720 Speaker 5: But you can also apply this to all other distances. 39 00:02:28,840 --> 00:02:33,040 Speaker 5: So from eight feet, tour pros one put half the 40 00:02:33,080 --> 00:02:35,160 Speaker 5: time and they two put half the time. They almost 41 00:02:35,200 --> 00:02:38,799 Speaker 5: never three putts, so the average strokes to hold out 42 00:02:38,840 --> 00:02:42,639 Speaker 5: from eight feet is one and a half. So one 43 00:02:42,680 --> 00:02:44,799 Speaker 5: put's going to gain a half stroke and a two 44 00:02:44,840 --> 00:02:47,359 Speaker 5: puts going to lose a half a stroke. So you 45 00:02:47,480 --> 00:02:51,519 Speaker 5: really need to start thinking in terms of fractions of 46 00:02:51,560 --> 00:02:53,640 Speaker 5: a stroke. If you're a little bit better, a little 47 00:02:53,720 --> 00:02:57,040 Speaker 5: shot is a little bit worse than tour average. But 48 00:02:57,160 --> 00:03:00,760 Speaker 5: basically all strokes gain does is it measures putt performance 49 00:03:01,400 --> 00:03:05,840 Speaker 5: relative to the tour average from a given location, and 50 00:03:06,440 --> 00:03:08,600 Speaker 5: it then adds that up over the course of the 51 00:03:08,680 --> 00:03:10,720 Speaker 5: round to see in the case of putting, whether you're 52 00:03:10,720 --> 00:03:14,200 Speaker 5: gaining or losing strokes on the green relative to the field. 53 00:03:14,600 --> 00:03:15,440 Speaker 1: Does that make sense? 54 00:03:16,040 --> 00:03:17,239 Speaker 4: It does, Yeah, it does. 55 00:03:18,600 --> 00:03:22,680 Speaker 2: How does then the driving and approaching the green and 56 00:03:22,720 --> 00:03:24,400 Speaker 2: around the green conversely work? 57 00:03:25,480 --> 00:03:30,840 Speaker 5: It actually works in exactly the same way. So instead 58 00:03:30,880 --> 00:03:33,320 Speaker 5: of thinking about how many yards or how many feet 59 00:03:33,360 --> 00:03:34,920 Speaker 5: am I away from the hole? If you think of 60 00:03:34,960 --> 00:03:37,920 Speaker 5: how many strokes am I away from the hole. So 61 00:03:38,240 --> 00:03:40,680 Speaker 5: let's say you're on a pros playing a typical part 62 00:03:40,840 --> 00:03:43,160 Speaker 5: four and the average strokes to hole out is four, 63 00:03:44,080 --> 00:03:49,080 Speaker 5: So then an average drive will put the player three 64 00:03:49,120 --> 00:03:51,800 Speaker 5: strokes away from the hole after the t shot. So 65 00:03:53,000 --> 00:03:55,080 Speaker 5: if the player hits at three hundred and fifty yards 66 00:03:55,080 --> 00:03:56,840 Speaker 5: into the fairway, that's going to be a better than 67 00:03:56,880 --> 00:04:01,120 Speaker 5: average drive and maybe only has an average strokes the 68 00:04:01,120 --> 00:04:03,600 Speaker 5: hole out of two point seven. So if he's gone 69 00:04:03,640 --> 00:04:06,680 Speaker 5: from four away from the hole to two point seven 70 00:04:06,680 --> 00:04:09,680 Speaker 5: strokes away from the hole, he picked up one point 71 00:04:09,680 --> 00:04:13,560 Speaker 5: three strokes, but he took one t shot to do it, 72 00:04:13,600 --> 00:04:16,640 Speaker 5: so he gained it was point three better than average. 73 00:04:16,800 --> 00:04:18,719 Speaker 5: And if he hit a short shot into the rough, 74 00:04:19,240 --> 00:04:21,640 Speaker 5: then maybe he only went from four strokes away from 75 00:04:21,680 --> 00:04:25,000 Speaker 5: the hole until maybe three point two strokes away from 76 00:04:25,040 --> 00:04:28,880 Speaker 5: the hole, and you know that would have lost two 77 00:04:28,920 --> 00:04:33,960 Speaker 5: tenths of a stroke. So what strokes game does is 78 00:04:34,000 --> 00:04:37,520 Speaker 5: it measure shots not in units of yards or feet, 79 00:04:37,560 --> 00:04:40,599 Speaker 5: but in terms of strokes, which is ultimately what everybody 80 00:04:40,680 --> 00:04:43,720 Speaker 5: cares about. And so it breaks down a score into 81 00:04:44,279 --> 00:04:46,320 Speaker 5: how many strokes did you gain or lose on your 82 00:04:46,400 --> 00:04:49,440 Speaker 5: drive when you're putting on your short game shots, and 83 00:04:50,120 --> 00:04:50,960 Speaker 5: it all adds up. 84 00:04:51,120 --> 00:04:53,599 Speaker 2: You know, how did you start to think that the 85 00:04:53,720 --> 00:04:55,440 Speaker 2: existing golf stats were bad? 86 00:04:55,440 --> 00:04:59,080 Speaker 3: Were you a you know, a golf fan that just thought. 87 00:04:58,839 --> 00:05:02,039 Speaker 2: Hey, this is this is or were you just you know, 88 00:05:02,120 --> 00:05:05,479 Speaker 2: kind of how did you come across this inefficiency? 89 00:05:06,640 --> 00:05:11,040 Speaker 5: So I wasn't looking to come up with a new 90 00:05:11,080 --> 00:05:15,520 Speaker 5: golf stat I'm an academic and my research is applying 91 00:05:15,640 --> 00:05:19,400 Speaker 5: math to solve business problems, and I thought you know, 92 00:05:19,480 --> 00:05:23,239 Speaker 5: the same kind of tools and techniques I could apply 93 00:05:23,400 --> 00:05:25,920 Speaker 5: to you know, a sport that I loved, which was golf. 94 00:05:26,680 --> 00:05:28,680 Speaker 5: And so one of the questions that I wanted to 95 00:05:28,720 --> 00:05:32,560 Speaker 5: answer was where do the ten strokes come from that 96 00:05:32,640 --> 00:05:34,760 Speaker 5: separate a ninety golfer from an eighty golfer? 97 00:05:35,720 --> 00:05:37,279 Speaker 1: And I realized, in order. 98 00:05:37,200 --> 00:05:40,880 Speaker 5: To answer that question that just knowing fairways, greens and 99 00:05:40,880 --> 00:05:44,719 Speaker 5: potts wasn't wasn't going to be enough, and there wasn't 100 00:05:44,760 --> 00:05:48,119 Speaker 5: good amateur data to analyze this. But what you really 101 00:05:48,160 --> 00:05:51,080 Speaker 5: needed is shot by shot data. Where do shots start 102 00:05:51,120 --> 00:05:54,000 Speaker 5: and where do they end? And so I developed a 103 00:05:54,040 --> 00:05:59,120 Speaker 5: system to collect shot data from amateurs and then later 104 00:05:59,760 --> 00:06:03,960 Speaker 5: got access to the PGA Tours shot linked data, And 105 00:06:04,720 --> 00:06:07,159 Speaker 5: in order to answer that question where are the shots 106 00:06:07,240 --> 00:06:10,359 Speaker 5: that separate two amateurs or where are the shots that 107 00:06:10,400 --> 00:06:13,880 Speaker 5: separate an amateur from a pro? I came up with 108 00:06:13,880 --> 00:06:17,000 Speaker 5: with strokes gained and that allowed sort of a unified 109 00:06:17,040 --> 00:06:22,240 Speaker 5: way to measure the quality of a shot and where 110 00:06:22,279 --> 00:06:25,640 Speaker 5: are these you know, which parts of the game separate 111 00:06:25,920 --> 00:06:29,880 Speaker 5: players the most. And so it wasn't so much that 112 00:06:29,920 --> 00:06:33,080 Speaker 5: I was looking to create a new stat was I 113 00:06:33,120 --> 00:06:35,159 Speaker 5: wanted to, you know, answer a question like, if you 114 00:06:35,240 --> 00:06:38,440 Speaker 5: hit a drive twenty yards further you have this magic 115 00:06:38,480 --> 00:06:41,920 Speaker 5: club and you can be twenty yards longer off the tee. 116 00:06:42,000 --> 00:06:43,440 Speaker 5: How much do you think your score is going to 117 00:06:43,480 --> 00:06:46,200 Speaker 5: go down? And again, there's no way to answer that 118 00:06:46,240 --> 00:06:52,960 Speaker 5: with traditional stats, but with shot shot level data and 119 00:06:53,120 --> 00:06:57,120 Speaker 5: strokes gain analysis, you can Is there a. 120 00:06:57,040 --> 00:07:01,680 Speaker 2: Way for like the regular weekend war to use strokes 121 00:07:01,720 --> 00:07:04,400 Speaker 2: gained and like figure out a way to use it 122 00:07:04,440 --> 00:07:05,200 Speaker 2: in their own game? 123 00:07:06,360 --> 00:07:07,160 Speaker 1: Oh? Absolutely. 124 00:07:07,279 --> 00:07:11,640 Speaker 5: So there's a number of apps out there, but I'll 125 00:07:11,680 --> 00:07:16,240 Speaker 5: mention mine because I developed this one. It's called golf Metrics, 126 00:07:16,400 --> 00:07:22,200 Speaker 5: and it's on for iPhone and androids, Android phones. And 127 00:07:22,920 --> 00:07:25,800 Speaker 5: what you do is you record record your shots and 128 00:07:26,040 --> 00:07:29,200 Speaker 5: it's very easy to use. It's not GPS based, so 129 00:07:31,480 --> 00:07:34,280 Speaker 5: you don't have It works for putting and it works 130 00:07:34,280 --> 00:07:35,320 Speaker 5: for off green shots. 131 00:07:35,360 --> 00:07:39,600 Speaker 1: You just record how far away you are. 132 00:07:39,480 --> 00:07:41,760 Speaker 5: From the hole and whether you're on you know, the 133 00:07:41,760 --> 00:07:45,200 Speaker 5: fair way, the rough, the sand, whether you're putting, and 134 00:07:46,360 --> 00:07:47,760 Speaker 5: at the end of the round, it'll give you a 135 00:07:47,800 --> 00:07:51,320 Speaker 5: strokes gained analysis not only in these four main categories, 136 00:07:51,360 --> 00:07:55,720 Speaker 5: but in subcategories, so you get strokes gained on how 137 00:07:55,720 --> 00:07:58,280 Speaker 5: well you're doing on short puts, medium puts, long putts 138 00:07:58,560 --> 00:08:04,520 Speaker 5: on different distance categories of approach shots, and you know, 139 00:08:04,640 --> 00:08:07,200 Speaker 5: quite a few amateurs are using it, college teams are 140 00:08:07,400 --> 00:08:10,920 Speaker 5: are using it, and you basically get the same strokes 141 00:08:10,920 --> 00:08:14,440 Speaker 5: gained analysis that PGA Tour pros have access to. 142 00:08:15,240 --> 00:08:19,440 Speaker 4: That's really cool. Do you find that there's a would 143 00:08:19,440 --> 00:08:22,000 Speaker 4: you say the difference between the stats on the PGA 144 00:08:22,080 --> 00:08:25,120 Speaker 4: Tour that guys need to pay attention to and the 145 00:08:25,160 --> 00:08:28,040 Speaker 4: stats that you know, me or anybody that just plays 146 00:08:28,080 --> 00:08:30,800 Speaker 4: casually would need to pay attention to are different. 147 00:08:31,680 --> 00:08:33,439 Speaker 5: No, I think I think they're the same, And I 148 00:08:33,480 --> 00:08:38,160 Speaker 5: think one of the advantages of amateurs recording their own 149 00:08:38,160 --> 00:08:42,520 Speaker 5: strokes gained status as many amateurs really don't have a 150 00:08:42,559 --> 00:08:45,640 Speaker 5: good sense of, you know, where they stack up to 151 00:08:46,360 --> 00:08:50,640 Speaker 5: other players or where is their biggest weakness. So if 152 00:08:50,679 --> 00:08:54,320 Speaker 5: you end up playing with the same group of players 153 00:08:54,320 --> 00:08:57,319 Speaker 5: every weekend, it's it's hard to measure yourself against you know, 154 00:08:57,400 --> 00:08:59,960 Speaker 5: a player that's you know, five or ten strokes better 155 00:09:00,040 --> 00:09:02,360 Speaker 5: and trying to figure out, you know, where. 156 00:09:01,960 --> 00:09:02,880 Speaker 1: Your strengths and weakness. 157 00:09:03,200 --> 00:09:05,000 Speaker 5: I've had a bunch of people that said, oh, my 158 00:09:05,080 --> 00:09:08,840 Speaker 5: putting is horrible, and they think it's horrible because you know, 159 00:09:08,880 --> 00:09:13,600 Speaker 5: they took thirty four putts, but they're counting to two 160 00:09:13,720 --> 00:09:16,199 Speaker 5: times that they putted from ten yards off the green. 161 00:09:16,480 --> 00:09:18,360 Speaker 5: And a putt is not when you have your putter 162 00:09:18,360 --> 00:09:21,320 Speaker 5: in the hand, it's a stroke on the green. And 163 00:09:21,400 --> 00:09:24,760 Speaker 5: so people have thought that they're worse putters than they 164 00:09:24,760 --> 00:09:27,800 Speaker 5: really are, and then conversely, there's people that think they're 165 00:09:27,840 --> 00:09:31,320 Speaker 5: better in certain areas than they really are because it's 166 00:09:31,760 --> 00:09:35,000 Speaker 5: hard to remember all your shots and it's hard to 167 00:09:35,040 --> 00:09:37,800 Speaker 5: add up fractional gains gains or losses. 168 00:09:38,320 --> 00:09:41,160 Speaker 4: What is there anything that shocked you? I know, whenever 169 00:09:41,200 --> 00:09:45,079 Speaker 4: I go I go through my trading stats at work, 170 00:09:45,120 --> 00:09:46,960 Speaker 4: I'm always shocked by one thing, like why am I 171 00:09:46,960 --> 00:09:49,240 Speaker 4: trading this thing? I'man lose money every time or something. 172 00:09:49,280 --> 00:09:51,000 Speaker 4: But is there anything that shocked you? 173 00:09:52,440 --> 00:09:52,640 Speaker 1: Well? 174 00:09:52,679 --> 00:09:58,360 Speaker 5: I think that the importance of approach shots was quite 175 00:09:58,400 --> 00:10:00,800 Speaker 5: a surprise, and in hindsight, maybe it shouldn't have been 176 00:10:00,800 --> 00:10:04,559 Speaker 5: a surprise because that's the hardest thing for traditional stats 177 00:10:04,559 --> 00:10:11,520 Speaker 5: to measure, and what probably came closest was greens and regulation. 178 00:10:11,640 --> 00:10:16,200 Speaker 5: But greens and regulation is a mix of driving an 179 00:10:16,200 --> 00:10:22,160 Speaker 5: approach play performance, and it doesn't differentiate when you miss 180 00:10:22,240 --> 00:10:24,400 Speaker 5: the green on the fringe versus missing the green and 181 00:10:24,440 --> 00:10:26,360 Speaker 5: the sand or missing the green in the water. It 182 00:10:26,400 --> 00:10:29,640 Speaker 5: doesn't give you extra credit if you hit a par 183 00:10:29,800 --> 00:10:35,800 Speaker 5: five in two. So greens and regulation is quite flawed, 184 00:10:35,800 --> 00:10:38,040 Speaker 5: and so there was not really a good measure of 185 00:10:38,080 --> 00:10:42,000 Speaker 5: approach play. And then what was really surprising was, you 186 00:10:42,040 --> 00:10:45,360 Speaker 5: know how dominant Tiger Woods was in his approach shots. 187 00:10:45,600 --> 00:10:49,240 Speaker 5: And he was so good that if he had been 188 00:10:49,280 --> 00:10:52,640 Speaker 5: an average driver the ball, average short game, and average putter, 189 00:10:52,920 --> 00:10:56,280 Speaker 5: just with his approach shots, he would have been inside 190 00:10:56,320 --> 00:10:58,720 Speaker 5: the top ten on the PGA Tour a year after year. 191 00:10:58,840 --> 00:11:01,080 Speaker 5: He was that dominant with his approach shots. 192 00:11:03,640 --> 00:11:06,199 Speaker 3: That's is that your best Tiger stat? 193 00:11:07,400 --> 00:11:09,959 Speaker 5: Oh no, no, not by a long shot. I think 194 00:11:10,040 --> 00:11:15,319 Speaker 5: I think the best one is is this notion of 195 00:11:15,600 --> 00:11:18,360 Speaker 5: a streak. And most people know tigers, you know, one 196 00:11:18,440 --> 00:11:22,400 Speaker 5: hundred and forty two make the cut streak. But I 197 00:11:22,400 --> 00:11:28,400 Speaker 5: think it's even more impressive the streak of consecutive rounds 198 00:11:28,400 --> 00:11:30,720 Speaker 5: beating the field. And so what I mean by beating 199 00:11:30,720 --> 00:11:34,080 Speaker 5: the field is if a player shoots sixty nine and 200 00:11:34,120 --> 00:11:37,760 Speaker 5: the field averages seventy one point four, the player beat 201 00:11:37,800 --> 00:11:40,720 Speaker 5: the field. And so an average player will beat the 202 00:11:40,720 --> 00:11:44,000 Speaker 5: field half the time, and so you can ask how 203 00:11:44,000 --> 00:11:47,440 Speaker 5: many times in a row does a player has a 204 00:11:47,440 --> 00:11:51,200 Speaker 5: player beat the field? And who owns the record for 205 00:11:51,240 --> 00:11:54,360 Speaker 5: the longest beat the field streak? And when I asked 206 00:11:54,360 --> 00:11:57,640 Speaker 5: a whole bunch of people how long do they think 207 00:11:57,679 --> 00:12:01,160 Speaker 5: the longest beat the field streak was? I would get 208 00:12:01,240 --> 00:12:05,400 Speaker 5: numbers of fifteen, twenty, twenty five, thirty, and maybe the 209 00:12:05,520 --> 00:12:09,440 Speaker 5: largest I ever heard was, you know, thirty five or forty. 210 00:12:11,000 --> 00:12:14,360 Speaker 5: But in fact, you know, Tiger Tiger Woods beat the 211 00:12:14,360 --> 00:12:19,360 Speaker 5: field eighty nine times in a row in the nineteen 212 00:12:19,440 --> 00:12:21,920 Speaker 5: ninety nine two thousand time frame, which is just. 213 00:12:22,120 --> 00:12:23,600 Speaker 1: Oh my gosh, just just. 214 00:12:23,720 --> 00:12:28,640 Speaker 5: Mind boggling and astounding and whatever superlatives you can you 215 00:12:28,640 --> 00:12:32,800 Speaker 5: can add there. I think it's better than Joe Demaje. 216 00:12:32,880 --> 00:12:35,040 Speaker 5: Joe's fifty six game hitting streak. 217 00:12:36,520 --> 00:12:37,640 Speaker 4: What's the second best? 218 00:12:39,440 --> 00:12:44,560 Speaker 5: The second best, I believe is Marcomera at thirty two 219 00:12:44,640 --> 00:12:49,560 Speaker 5: or thirty three. So yeah, the difference between number one 220 00:12:49,600 --> 00:12:52,520 Speaker 5: and number two is also kind of a measure for 221 00:12:53,360 --> 00:12:56,560 Speaker 5: how impressive a streak was. So Joe Demajo right at 222 00:12:56,600 --> 00:12:59,120 Speaker 5: fifty six, Well, Pete Rose or somebody else had like 223 00:12:59,200 --> 00:12:59,800 Speaker 5: forty two. 224 00:13:00,400 --> 00:13:00,960 Speaker 3: Yeah, that's. 225 00:13:03,240 --> 00:13:05,160 Speaker 5: Yeah, something like that. So there's a little bit of room, 226 00:13:05,200 --> 00:13:10,040 Speaker 5: but the difference between thirty three and eighty nine is 227 00:13:10,320 --> 00:13:14,120 Speaker 5: just you know, it's almost three times longer than the 228 00:13:14,520 --> 00:13:17,400 Speaker 5: second longest streak, which is just otherworldly. 229 00:13:18,920 --> 00:13:19,680 Speaker 4: That's insane. 230 00:13:20,000 --> 00:13:23,200 Speaker 2: It's crazy that the amount of tiger stats and the 231 00:13:23,240 --> 00:13:29,400 Speaker 2: dominance is just unbelievable. And I'm curious since you created, 232 00:13:30,240 --> 00:13:34,319 Speaker 2: you know, this innovation, and I imagine and I think 233 00:13:34,360 --> 00:13:37,960 Speaker 2: there were a lot of people that doubted these statistics 234 00:13:37,960 --> 00:13:42,560 Speaker 2: because you were calling you know, the conventional wisdom into question, 235 00:13:43,800 --> 00:13:46,360 Speaker 2: is there do you have any great stories about, you know, 236 00:13:46,480 --> 00:13:49,760 Speaker 2: someone who just didn't get it and wouldn't believe that 237 00:13:49,880 --> 00:13:51,840 Speaker 2: strokes gained was a real thing. 238 00:13:55,520 --> 00:13:59,000 Speaker 5: I don't have stories like that, but I know there's 239 00:13:59,160 --> 00:14:03,840 Speaker 5: there's probably of players that just don't care about their stats. 240 00:14:05,840 --> 00:14:09,400 Speaker 5: So it's not so much that they disbelieve strokes gained 241 00:14:09,400 --> 00:14:13,920 Speaker 5: as much as they don't pay attention to stats at all. 242 00:14:15,040 --> 00:14:19,600 Speaker 5: And I think part of that stems from the fact 243 00:14:19,640 --> 00:14:22,240 Speaker 5: that traditional stats just were not informative. And if you 244 00:14:22,320 --> 00:14:25,280 Speaker 5: grew up on fairways, greens, and putts, which are not 245 00:14:25,480 --> 00:14:28,720 Speaker 5: very informative, then you can start discounting. 246 00:14:28,200 --> 00:14:29,360 Speaker 1: Golf stats forever. 247 00:14:30,640 --> 00:14:36,080 Speaker 5: Whereas I think the younger generation of players have really 248 00:14:36,080 --> 00:14:39,440 Speaker 5: embraced it, and not just the younger players, but but 249 00:14:39,440 --> 00:14:43,680 Speaker 5: but more so the younger players coaches have really embraced 250 00:14:43,680 --> 00:14:47,720 Speaker 5: and I think fans and writers. So I wish I 251 00:14:47,760 --> 00:14:49,560 Speaker 5: had a good story, but I think those those people 252 00:14:49,640 --> 00:14:52,160 Speaker 5: don't come to me to complain, So that's probably why 253 00:14:52,200 --> 00:14:53,360 Speaker 5: I don't hear those stories. 254 00:14:55,520 --> 00:14:55,880 Speaker 1: All right. 255 00:14:56,000 --> 00:14:58,760 Speaker 4: So I saw a tweet of yours from back in 256 00:14:58,800 --> 00:15:01,480 Speaker 4: April where you talk about who you expected to have 257 00:15:01,520 --> 00:15:05,760 Speaker 4: a good rookie season on the tour. So how do 258 00:15:05,800 --> 00:15:09,360 Speaker 4: you use your stats to kind of predict outcomes? 259 00:15:10,960 --> 00:15:15,920 Speaker 5: Well, the easiest thing to do is take a look 260 00:15:15,960 --> 00:15:19,120 Speaker 5: at score, because I mean you can look at putting 261 00:15:19,240 --> 00:15:22,040 Speaker 5: and approach shots and other things. But the first thing 262 00:15:22,040 --> 00:15:23,880 Speaker 5: I think you want to look at is score, but 263 00:15:24,440 --> 00:15:28,160 Speaker 5: properly adjusted. And by properly adjusted, I mean you've got 264 00:15:28,160 --> 00:15:33,040 Speaker 5: to not use raw scoring average. When pros are playing 265 00:15:33,120 --> 00:15:36,560 Speaker 5: at some easy course in the desert where the winning 266 00:15:36,600 --> 00:15:39,520 Speaker 5: score is twenty nine under par, and compare that to 267 00:15:40,520 --> 00:15:42,880 Speaker 5: players at the US Open, where the winning score might 268 00:15:42,920 --> 00:15:46,280 Speaker 5: be three under par. So you can't just look at score. 269 00:15:46,320 --> 00:15:49,280 Speaker 5: You have to adjust for you know, how difficult is 270 00:15:49,280 --> 00:15:52,400 Speaker 5: the course and then even better is taking into account 271 00:15:52,760 --> 00:15:56,760 Speaker 5: the strength of the field. So there's a number of 272 00:15:56,760 --> 00:15:59,840 Speaker 5: ways to do it. But when I talk about total strokes, 273 00:16:00,040 --> 00:16:04,920 Speaker 5: and it's basically scoring average relative to the field, adjusting 274 00:16:04,960 --> 00:16:06,920 Speaker 5: for the difficulty of the course. And that's the first 275 00:16:06,920 --> 00:16:11,200 Speaker 5: thing that I'd want to look at is total strokes gained. 276 00:16:11,960 --> 00:16:12,720 Speaker 1: And when you. 277 00:16:14,520 --> 00:16:16,880 Speaker 5: When you look at totals total stroke strokes gained for 278 00:16:16,880 --> 00:16:20,080 Speaker 5: the season, you can see that the players that you 279 00:16:20,080 --> 00:16:22,840 Speaker 5: know average one, one and a half, two or two 280 00:16:22,840 --> 00:16:25,040 Speaker 5: and a half strokes better in the field, they win more. 281 00:16:25,520 --> 00:16:28,840 Speaker 5: The better your total strokes gain, the more you win, 282 00:16:29,480 --> 00:16:32,560 Speaker 5: the more top tens, the more money, the more world 283 00:16:32,640 --> 00:16:36,200 Speaker 5: ranking points. And so that's sort of the the easiest 284 00:16:36,200 --> 00:16:39,280 Speaker 5: way to predict who's going to have a good rookie season. 285 00:16:39,360 --> 00:16:42,160 Speaker 5: And part of the reason it's tough for rookies is 286 00:16:42,200 --> 00:16:47,320 Speaker 5: you need to compare play on different tours, and the 287 00:16:47,320 --> 00:16:49,800 Speaker 5: the scoring average leader on the web dot Com Tour, 288 00:16:51,040 --> 00:16:55,080 Speaker 5: you know, the top ten, they shoot about two strokes 289 00:16:55,120 --> 00:16:58,560 Speaker 5: lower than on the PGA Tour, So you just can't 290 00:16:58,600 --> 00:17:02,040 Speaker 5: look at look at scoring average, and it turns out 291 00:17:02,040 --> 00:17:06,159 Speaker 5: that you need to adjust by around two strokes to 292 00:17:06,240 --> 00:17:10,560 Speaker 5: compare fairly compare PGA Tour scores with web dot Com 293 00:17:10,600 --> 00:17:15,800 Speaker 5: tour scores because their courses are easier. But when you 294 00:17:15,840 --> 00:17:18,919 Speaker 5: again with with total strokes gain and this proper comparison 295 00:17:18,960 --> 00:17:23,840 Speaker 5: across tours, you can you can make reasonably good predictions 296 00:17:23,880 --> 00:17:28,439 Speaker 5: about you know, who might have a great rookie season 297 00:17:28,600 --> 00:17:32,120 Speaker 5: or Another article that I wrote was predicting who would 298 00:17:32,160 --> 00:17:36,840 Speaker 5: rise in the official World Golf rankings, And that's a 299 00:17:36,880 --> 00:17:39,560 Speaker 5: little bit different problem, but it has a similarity of people, 300 00:17:40,040 --> 00:17:42,359 Speaker 5: you know, playing on all sorts of different tours and 301 00:17:42,560 --> 00:17:47,520 Speaker 5: different parts of the world and different time periods, different. 302 00:17:47,200 --> 00:17:49,000 Speaker 1: Weeks, and. 303 00:17:50,440 --> 00:17:52,560 Speaker 5: Some of the ones that you know that turned out 304 00:17:52,600 --> 00:17:55,560 Speaker 5: to be good predictions. I thought Pat Perez would would 305 00:17:55,640 --> 00:17:57,560 Speaker 5: rise in the rankings, and when I made the prediction, 306 00:17:57,640 --> 00:18:01,560 Speaker 5: he was sixty seventh in the world, and uh, thirty 307 00:18:01,560 --> 00:18:03,879 Speaker 5: five weeks later, he's nineteenth in the world. 308 00:18:04,920 --> 00:18:07,800 Speaker 4: I saw that his scrambling was unreal, wasn't it wasn't. 309 00:18:07,560 --> 00:18:10,240 Speaker 5: That the yeah he is he was leading leading the 310 00:18:10,280 --> 00:18:14,560 Speaker 5: tour in what I have his strokes gains scrambling, but yeah, 311 00:18:14,600 --> 00:18:17,560 Speaker 5: his wedge play and putting was just superiors. It's like 312 00:18:17,920 --> 00:18:21,360 Speaker 5: a late career resurgence of of Pat Perez and then 313 00:18:22,040 --> 00:18:24,400 Speaker 5: you know somebody that you know had my eye on 314 00:18:24,560 --> 00:18:27,160 Speaker 5: for a long long time. Well, when he was outside 315 00:18:27,200 --> 00:18:33,399 Speaker 5: the top two hundred was John Rahm and uh and Fay. Yeah, 316 00:18:33,440 --> 00:18:36,280 Speaker 5: he I mean he had he had made this incredible rise, 317 00:18:36,320 --> 00:18:38,879 Speaker 5: and then even when he was twenty fifth in the world, 318 00:18:39,119 --> 00:18:42,040 Speaker 5: I did the same analysis and it predicted that he 319 00:18:42,160 --> 00:18:44,120 Speaker 5: was still going to rise and he's now number four 320 00:18:44,160 --> 00:18:49,080 Speaker 5: in the world. So he's just uh had this incredible 321 00:18:49,119 --> 00:18:51,720 Speaker 5: trajectory in the last year or two. 322 00:18:52,040 --> 00:18:54,119 Speaker 2: When you looked at what he did as like a 323 00:18:54,720 --> 00:18:58,439 Speaker 2: you know, when he got his card as a you know, 324 00:18:58,480 --> 00:19:02,040 Speaker 2: playing on sponsors exemption, is like his strokes gained to 325 00:19:02,440 --> 00:19:06,320 Speaker 2: you know, point to your method was like overall was 326 00:19:06,440 --> 00:19:08,960 Speaker 2: second to Jason Day, who was number one in the world. 327 00:19:09,040 --> 00:19:12,040 Speaker 3: So it seemed like it was a no brainer. 328 00:19:12,400 --> 00:19:16,359 Speaker 2: With the world rankings, a lot of people always are 329 00:19:16,400 --> 00:19:19,800 Speaker 2: complaining about the world rankings. What do you think about 330 00:19:19,840 --> 00:19:23,840 Speaker 2: the way they, you know, do their ranking and if 331 00:19:23,880 --> 00:19:28,480 Speaker 2: you how would you implement a system to rank players 332 00:19:28,480 --> 00:19:29,240 Speaker 2: across the world? 333 00:19:30,240 --> 00:19:37,879 Speaker 5: Well, I think it's probably the the word. There's pretty 334 00:19:37,960 --> 00:19:41,920 Speaker 5: universal agreement that the official World Golf rankings are flawed, 335 00:19:42,640 --> 00:19:46,080 Speaker 5: and I don't think they're flawed so much at the 336 00:19:46,119 --> 00:19:48,840 Speaker 5: top end, and you know, the top ten or twenty 337 00:19:49,119 --> 00:19:53,760 Speaker 5: or thirty as much as from forty on on out 338 00:19:53,920 --> 00:19:59,080 Speaker 5: that there's a huge bias against PGA Tour players. And 339 00:19:59,119 --> 00:20:02,320 Speaker 5: I don't think it's necessarily a conscious thing. I think 340 00:20:02,359 --> 00:20:07,439 Speaker 5: it just sort of was this heuristic made up system 341 00:20:07,520 --> 00:20:12,720 Speaker 5: that evolved and there is never any sort of sound 342 00:20:12,800 --> 00:20:16,400 Speaker 5: mathematical analysis of how it's constructed. And it turns out 343 00:20:16,440 --> 00:20:22,760 Speaker 5: that if you play in some NONPGA Tour events, you know, 344 00:20:22,800 --> 00:20:25,760 Speaker 5: you could win or come in the top five and 345 00:20:26,240 --> 00:20:30,399 Speaker 5: in some event that most people haven't heard of, and 346 00:20:30,400 --> 00:20:33,480 Speaker 5: that would give you as many ranking points as coming 347 00:20:33,520 --> 00:20:39,879 Speaker 5: intent in the Masters. It just makes sort of zero sense. 348 00:20:40,960 --> 00:20:42,760 Speaker 5: And like I said, where it sort of matters is 349 00:20:42,760 --> 00:20:46,440 Speaker 5: around top round fifty because that will get you into 350 00:20:46,920 --> 00:20:52,040 Speaker 5: Majors and World Golf Championships, and also top one hundred 351 00:20:52,080 --> 00:20:55,880 Speaker 5: to get into the PGA Championships. So it has sort 352 00:20:55,920 --> 00:20:59,560 Speaker 5: of major, major repercussions. And there's basically a trade off. 353 00:20:59,560 --> 00:21:02,560 Speaker 5: If you play on the best tour, the PGA Tour, 354 00:21:02,600 --> 00:21:06,199 Speaker 5: against the best competition, well there's more money and and 355 00:21:06,320 --> 00:21:09,040 Speaker 5: all sorts of perks that go with that. But world 356 00:21:09,080 --> 00:21:11,280 Speaker 5: ranking points is not one of them. You get penalized 357 00:21:11,320 --> 00:21:14,400 Speaker 5: for playing on the PGA Tour in terms of world 358 00:21:14,480 --> 00:21:15,240 Speaker 5: ranking points. 359 00:21:16,359 --> 00:21:20,160 Speaker 4: So another system that I think could probably be redefined 360 00:21:20,240 --> 00:21:25,280 Speaker 4: with statistics is the handicap system. Do you have any 361 00:21:25,640 --> 00:21:27,680 Speaker 4: that's a question we got from Graham Stevens. Do you 362 00:21:27,760 --> 00:21:30,919 Speaker 4: have any idea how you would use data or stats 363 00:21:30,960 --> 00:21:35,280 Speaker 4: to redefine the system? 364 00:21:35,520 --> 00:21:38,439 Speaker 5: Yeah, I mean, you know, theoretically it's not it's not 365 00:21:38,520 --> 00:21:41,959 Speaker 5: a tough problem, but practically it's it's a lot harder 366 00:21:41,960 --> 00:21:43,359 Speaker 5: than you might imagine. 367 00:21:43,400 --> 00:21:44,040 Speaker 1: And that's. 368 00:21:46,080 --> 00:21:51,159 Speaker 5: That's because just the lack of what we take is 369 00:21:52,040 --> 00:21:57,439 Speaker 5: as obvious technology having having access to computers is just 370 00:21:57,480 --> 00:21:59,800 Speaker 5: not available in all all parts of the world. So 371 00:22:00,119 --> 00:22:03,399 Speaker 5: the USGA is working with the other golf associations to 372 00:22:03,440 --> 00:22:08,720 Speaker 5: come up with a world unified world handicapping system, and 373 00:22:09,040 --> 00:22:12,280 Speaker 5: that's got to be sort of simple enough that it 374 00:22:12,320 --> 00:22:15,679 Speaker 5: can be used, it can be used everywhere. And so 375 00:22:15,800 --> 00:22:18,600 Speaker 5: I think that, you know, there's a difference between coming 376 00:22:18,680 --> 00:22:23,919 Speaker 5: up with a system that's reasonable, reasonably accurate and easy 377 00:22:23,920 --> 00:22:27,280 Speaker 5: to use versus you know, the ideal, which may be 378 00:22:28,440 --> 00:22:31,040 Speaker 5: you know, ten or twenty percent better, but is just 379 00:22:31,200 --> 00:22:33,960 Speaker 5: much harder to understand and much harder to implement. So, 380 00:22:34,560 --> 00:22:39,080 Speaker 5: for example, if you would like if you were playing 381 00:22:39,080 --> 00:22:42,440 Speaker 5: in around that, if it's a thirty mile an hour wind, 382 00:22:43,720 --> 00:22:47,360 Speaker 5: that and your score goes up by five shots, then 383 00:22:47,880 --> 00:22:50,359 Speaker 5: you know over your average and you post that score 384 00:22:50,600 --> 00:22:52,600 Speaker 5: and your handicap goes up, Well, it wasn't because you 385 00:22:52,640 --> 00:22:56,000 Speaker 5: played bad, it's because the conditions were tough. So how 386 00:22:56,040 --> 00:22:59,640 Speaker 5: do you take that into account properly? Well, you either 387 00:22:59,680 --> 00:23:01,560 Speaker 5: need a lot of people playing on the course of 388 00:23:01,560 --> 00:23:04,160 Speaker 5: that day to figure out that the course conditions were tough, 389 00:23:04,160 --> 00:23:07,479 Speaker 5: where you need weather reports or something, or what happens 390 00:23:07,520 --> 00:23:09,399 Speaker 5: if the wind was blowing in the morning but not 391 00:23:09,480 --> 00:23:11,600 Speaker 5: in the afternoon, or vice versa. 392 00:23:12,240 --> 00:23:13,960 Speaker 1: So those kind of things make it hard. 393 00:23:14,000 --> 00:23:17,439 Speaker 5: And it's also hard when you turn in a score 394 00:23:17,440 --> 00:23:19,480 Speaker 5: and you say you know your handicap is going to 395 00:23:19,480 --> 00:23:21,440 Speaker 5: go up or down, and then you wait till other 396 00:23:21,480 --> 00:23:24,280 Speaker 5: people play and then you've got to readjust that. So 397 00:23:24,720 --> 00:23:26,720 Speaker 5: there's all sorts of different ways that you can do it. 398 00:23:26,760 --> 00:23:32,359 Speaker 5: And I think actually that the current handicapping system, while 399 00:23:32,400 --> 00:23:37,320 Speaker 5: it certainly is flawed, is reasonable. I think it does 400 00:23:37,560 --> 00:23:41,600 Speaker 5: a reasonably good job. But it's hard to ask a 401 00:23:41,640 --> 00:23:47,680 Speaker 5: single handicapping system to make it fair when two people 402 00:23:47,760 --> 00:23:50,399 Speaker 5: are playing against each other versus you have one hundred 403 00:23:50,440 --> 00:23:53,240 Speaker 5: people playing and you're trying to give out prizes for 404 00:23:53,960 --> 00:23:55,960 Speaker 5: you know, winning or coming in the top ten. So 405 00:23:57,320 --> 00:24:00,439 Speaker 5: large field events versus one on one stroke play versus 406 00:24:00,440 --> 00:24:02,760 Speaker 5: match play, there's all sorts of you know, stable for 407 00:24:02,800 --> 00:24:05,520 Speaker 5: a competition. There's all sorts of different kinds of matches 408 00:24:05,560 --> 00:24:11,119 Speaker 5: that ideally you'd want to have different handicaps for. But 409 00:24:11,160 --> 00:24:13,879 Speaker 5: that adds a whole layer of complexity. 410 00:24:16,320 --> 00:24:19,760 Speaker 2: In terms of So I'm a big architecture fan, and 411 00:24:20,840 --> 00:24:23,399 Speaker 2: I think, you know, fairway with is something I always 412 00:24:23,440 --> 00:24:27,040 Speaker 2: am banging on a drum, and I'm curious with strokes 413 00:24:27,040 --> 00:24:30,960 Speaker 2: gained off, like especially off the t where say you 414 00:24:31,000 --> 00:24:34,439 Speaker 2: have like a ninety yard wide fairway and there's a clear, 415 00:24:34,720 --> 00:24:37,960 Speaker 2: very good angle and a very bad angle where you 416 00:24:38,000 --> 00:24:41,119 Speaker 2: know from that bad angle you're you're essentially penalized like 417 00:24:41,200 --> 00:24:44,560 Speaker 2: you would be in rough How does how does is 418 00:24:44,600 --> 00:24:46,919 Speaker 2: there any way to account for that with the strokes 419 00:24:46,960 --> 00:24:49,280 Speaker 2: gain method in its current form? 420 00:24:49,760 --> 00:24:54,320 Speaker 5: Yeah, so I would sort of differentiate between the, uh, 421 00:24:54,359 --> 00:24:58,560 Speaker 5: the idea behind strokes gained and the implementation. And so 422 00:24:58,600 --> 00:25:01,280 Speaker 5: the idea is from every point on the course. 423 00:25:01,520 --> 00:25:02,359 Speaker 1: You want to know. 424 00:25:03,880 --> 00:25:06,320 Speaker 5: What's the average strokes to hold out. And so you 425 00:25:06,440 --> 00:25:08,480 Speaker 5: just said that if you're on, say, the right side 426 00:25:08,480 --> 00:25:10,920 Speaker 5: of the fairway, you might as well be in the 427 00:25:11,000 --> 00:25:13,439 Speaker 5: rough because you have such a tough angle. Well, what 428 00:25:13,600 --> 00:25:16,640 Speaker 5: that's saying is that not all one hundred eighty yard 429 00:25:16,640 --> 00:25:20,119 Speaker 5: approach shots from the fairway are equally difficult. And so 430 00:25:20,200 --> 00:25:22,239 Speaker 5: what you'd really want to do is say, okay, if 431 00:25:22,280 --> 00:25:25,000 Speaker 5: you've got a really bad angle over there, that the 432 00:25:25,040 --> 00:25:27,240 Speaker 5: average strokes to hold out is a tenth or two 433 00:25:27,280 --> 00:25:31,560 Speaker 5: tenths greater because it's this tougher shot, it's a tougher angle. 434 00:25:32,480 --> 00:25:36,080 Speaker 5: And so the question is can you estimate that from 435 00:25:36,119 --> 00:25:39,600 Speaker 5: the data? And the answer is probably yes, you absolutely could, 436 00:25:40,880 --> 00:25:43,280 Speaker 5: but it just requires a little bit more work and 437 00:25:43,320 --> 00:25:45,720 Speaker 5: it's a little bit more complicated to explain. But the 438 00:25:45,720 --> 00:25:50,160 Speaker 5: strokes gained method could easily handle wide fairways versus narrow 439 00:25:50,200 --> 00:25:54,720 Speaker 5: fairways and uphill putts versus downhill putts, and I think 440 00:25:54,760 --> 00:25:57,520 Speaker 5: what would happen is that you would get a more 441 00:25:57,520 --> 00:26:01,720 Speaker 5: accurate picture, but it would be an improvement on the 442 00:26:01,760 --> 00:26:04,879 Speaker 5: margins that you might get, you know, ten percent better 443 00:26:04,920 --> 00:26:05,879 Speaker 5: results or something. 444 00:26:05,920 --> 00:26:09,560 Speaker 1: But I think it's it is. 445 00:26:10,040 --> 00:26:14,760 Speaker 5: Certainly certainly possible within the framework of strokes gained. 446 00:26:15,440 --> 00:26:17,119 Speaker 3: Does that make sense, Yeah, it does. 447 00:26:17,400 --> 00:26:21,080 Speaker 2: It'll be interesting with this year, like Trinity Forest will 448 00:26:21,080 --> 00:26:24,240 Speaker 2: be if it is, assuming it plays firm and fast, 449 00:26:24,280 --> 00:26:27,520 Speaker 2: which is a big assumption with it being in Dallas 450 00:26:27,520 --> 00:26:30,560 Speaker 2: in May. You know, you'll have a a course where 451 00:26:31,040 --> 00:26:33,959 Speaker 2: you know, the fairways are you know, seventy yards wide 452 00:26:34,520 --> 00:26:38,639 Speaker 2: and a you know, very dictated off of angles versus 453 00:26:38,920 --> 00:26:41,080 Speaker 2: you know, of course that's traditional, like you know, your 454 00:26:41,119 --> 00:26:47,880 Speaker 2: tree lined rough or water lined courses. So an interesting 455 00:26:47,920 --> 00:26:51,359 Speaker 2: thing that one of our listeners pointed out, Greg Adamo said, 456 00:26:51,440 --> 00:26:54,720 Speaker 2: he saw a paper of yours noted the decline and 457 00:26:54,760 --> 00:26:58,560 Speaker 2: the penalty for rough from two thousand and three to 458 00:26:58,600 --> 00:27:04,920 Speaker 2: twenty ten, and you know what might that explain? 459 00:27:05,280 --> 00:27:07,440 Speaker 3: You know, like, you know, what can we draw from that? 460 00:27:08,320 --> 00:27:08,560 Speaker 1: Yeah? 461 00:27:09,119 --> 00:27:12,320 Speaker 5: I wish I had a better story, but because of 462 00:27:12,359 --> 00:27:16,000 Speaker 5: his question, I went back and sort of updated that 463 00:27:16,520 --> 00:27:20,119 Speaker 5: from twenty eleven to twenty seventeen, and I would say 464 00:27:20,480 --> 00:27:24,280 Speaker 5: the net result is there's been no real pattern. So 465 00:27:25,040 --> 00:27:27,560 Speaker 5: while there was a decline, it was significant, it was 466 00:27:27,560 --> 00:27:33,000 Speaker 5: pretty small. So basically the penalty for hitting it into 467 00:27:33,160 --> 00:27:36,760 Speaker 5: the rough missing the fairway in the rough is about 468 00:27:36,760 --> 00:27:40,040 Speaker 5: a quarter of a stroke. It's bigger than that if 469 00:27:40,080 --> 00:27:44,399 Speaker 5: you include any kind of misfairway, which would include hitting 470 00:27:44,400 --> 00:27:46,440 Speaker 5: it into the woods or hitting it into the water, 471 00:27:46,600 --> 00:27:51,040 Speaker 5: out of bounds, whatever, then it's closer to a third 472 00:27:51,040 --> 00:27:53,280 Speaker 5: of a stroke or a little bit more even. But 473 00:27:53,480 --> 00:27:55,920 Speaker 5: if you just missed the fairway in the rough, the 474 00:27:56,160 --> 00:27:58,840 Speaker 5: penalty is about a quarter of a stroke. And that's 475 00:27:58,880 --> 00:28:02,480 Speaker 5: been fairly constant and for fifteen years, and it might 476 00:28:02,600 --> 00:28:05,919 Speaker 5: vary up or down by about three hundreds of a 477 00:28:05,920 --> 00:28:09,200 Speaker 5: stroke from one year to the next, So one year 478 00:28:09,240 --> 00:28:13,160 Speaker 5: to the next can be, you know, statistically significantly different. 479 00:28:13,320 --> 00:28:17,280 Speaker 5: But in terms of any real message or punchline from that, 480 00:28:17,480 --> 00:28:22,000 Speaker 5: I don't have any, because that trend that happened for 481 00:28:22,080 --> 00:28:25,399 Speaker 5: a few years, you know, from two thousand and seven 482 00:28:25,480 --> 00:28:28,680 Speaker 5: to twenty ten, just just hasn't continued. 483 00:28:31,000 --> 00:28:31,320 Speaker 1: All right. 484 00:28:31,400 --> 00:28:33,560 Speaker 4: Let's do kind of a fun question here. If you 485 00:28:33,680 --> 00:28:37,879 Speaker 4: were playing with a two players great off the tee. 486 00:28:38,440 --> 00:28:41,520 Speaker 4: One was a one was a great putter an average 487 00:28:41,520 --> 00:28:43,520 Speaker 4: wedge player. The other was a great wedge player and 488 00:28:43,560 --> 00:28:45,880 Speaker 4: an average putter. Which would you rather play with? 489 00:28:48,040 --> 00:28:53,120 Speaker 5: I would for amateurs especially, I would take the better 490 00:28:53,160 --> 00:28:57,520 Speaker 5: wedge player. And if you take a look at and 491 00:28:57,680 --> 00:29:04,240 Speaker 5: typical ninety golfer versus a typical eighty golfer, where are 492 00:29:04,280 --> 00:29:07,400 Speaker 5: the strokes where those ten strokes matter, About a little 493 00:29:07,400 --> 00:29:11,440 Speaker 5: more than two come from a better wedge play and 494 00:29:11,520 --> 00:29:14,560 Speaker 5: only about one and a half come from from better putting. 495 00:29:14,720 --> 00:29:16,440 Speaker 5: So I think the edge there has got to go 496 00:29:16,520 --> 00:29:19,640 Speaker 5: to the to the better wedge game. When you get 497 00:29:19,680 --> 00:29:23,800 Speaker 5: to pros, it's a little bit closer because pros have 498 00:29:24,520 --> 00:29:26,760 Speaker 5: less you know, they hit more green, so they have 499 00:29:26,880 --> 00:29:29,720 Speaker 5: less wedge shots, less opportunities to get up and down. 500 00:29:29,800 --> 00:29:30,440 Speaker 1: So there it's. 501 00:29:31,120 --> 00:29:34,200 Speaker 5: It's still maybe a slight advantage to the wedge player, 502 00:29:34,560 --> 00:29:38,840 Speaker 5: but it's close to it's pretty significant edge. I'd pick 503 00:29:38,840 --> 00:29:39,680 Speaker 5: the better wedge player. 504 00:29:41,600 --> 00:29:45,000 Speaker 4: There's a there's a Sam Snead quote from years ago 505 00:29:45,040 --> 00:29:46,480 Speaker 4: where he said, if he had to do it all 506 00:29:46,520 --> 00:29:49,560 Speaker 4: over again, I think it's Sam sneed he would only 507 00:29:49,640 --> 00:29:54,600 Speaker 4: practice drivers and shots inside one hundred yards. So that's 508 00:29:54,720 --> 00:29:57,040 Speaker 4: very anti what you're saying with the pro shots. And 509 00:29:57,240 --> 00:29:58,040 Speaker 4: it's kind of funny. 510 00:29:59,320 --> 00:30:03,640 Speaker 5: Yeah, I think think that, you know, we just don't 511 00:30:03,640 --> 00:30:07,520 Speaker 5: have the data would be interesting fascinating to see how 512 00:30:07,560 --> 00:30:11,280 Speaker 5: did what kind of shots did Sam Snead hit And 513 00:30:11,320 --> 00:30:12,880 Speaker 5: it could be that he was so good with his 514 00:30:12,960 --> 00:30:16,640 Speaker 5: irons that he didn't need to practice that so much. 515 00:30:17,560 --> 00:30:23,840 Speaker 5: But I guarantee because things have been reasonably stable for 516 00:30:23,880 --> 00:30:26,640 Speaker 5: the last fifteen years, it's just hard to imagine that 517 00:30:26,920 --> 00:30:30,800 Speaker 5: if you go back a few decades, that approach shots 518 00:30:30,840 --> 00:30:35,680 Speaker 5: mattered less back then than they do now. So he 519 00:30:35,840 --> 00:30:39,440 Speaker 5: was he was probably you know, better at those shots 520 00:30:39,480 --> 00:30:41,560 Speaker 5: than he thought he was, or maybe he just didn't 521 00:30:41,600 --> 00:30:47,520 Speaker 5: need to practice as much. But yeah, there's I think 522 00:30:48,320 --> 00:30:51,680 Speaker 5: all sorts of misconceptions out there, and so many people 523 00:30:51,720 --> 00:30:54,320 Speaker 5: will say, you know, the only thing you ought to 524 00:30:54,360 --> 00:30:56,600 Speaker 5: practice is. 525 00:30:55,920 --> 00:30:56,760 Speaker 1: Getting up and down. 526 00:30:57,280 --> 00:31:00,600 Speaker 5: Well, yeah, you might need to spend more time because 527 00:31:00,640 --> 00:31:03,000 Speaker 5: you have a lot of different shots off the green. 528 00:31:03,760 --> 00:31:07,160 Speaker 5: You've got to understand different lies and different trajectories and 529 00:31:07,200 --> 00:31:10,760 Speaker 5: different spins and and all that. So you may obviously 530 00:31:10,800 --> 00:31:13,200 Speaker 5: want to put more time into into short game shots. 531 00:31:13,240 --> 00:31:16,120 Speaker 5: But you know, some of the device that that I 532 00:31:16,160 --> 00:31:18,360 Speaker 5: give to players is that you don't want to just 533 00:31:18,440 --> 00:31:21,000 Speaker 5: practice one part of your game. You've got to you've 534 00:31:21,000 --> 00:31:23,480 Speaker 5: got to split your practice time among all parts of 535 00:31:23,480 --> 00:31:26,760 Speaker 5: the game and then sort of weigh things more toward 536 00:31:26,840 --> 00:31:30,480 Speaker 5: your your personal weakness as opposed to just some general advice. 537 00:31:32,000 --> 00:31:35,040 Speaker 2: Do you believe in practicing your strength a lot? I've 538 00:31:35,040 --> 00:31:38,320 Speaker 2: heard some people suggest that, hey, if you're a great 539 00:31:38,400 --> 00:31:40,440 Speaker 2: driver of the golf ball, you have to practice that 540 00:31:40,560 --> 00:31:43,280 Speaker 2: a lot to make yourself, you know, keep that high 541 00:31:43,400 --> 00:31:47,480 Speaker 2: level of that skill. 542 00:31:47,600 --> 00:31:51,440 Speaker 5: So that's one that I would mostly disagree with. I 543 00:31:51,480 --> 00:31:56,280 Speaker 5: think I've looked at PGA Tour players who've improved from 544 00:31:56,280 --> 00:31:59,440 Speaker 5: one year to the next, and I thought it was obvious. 545 00:31:59,480 --> 00:32:00,960 Speaker 5: But you know, ever know what the data is going 546 00:32:01,000 --> 00:32:02,600 Speaker 5: to say until you take a look at the data. 547 00:32:03,040 --> 00:32:04,240 Speaker 1: So I looked at players. 548 00:32:03,920 --> 00:32:06,600 Speaker 5: Who improved and tried to figure out where did their 549 00:32:06,640 --> 00:32:10,520 Speaker 5: improvement come from? And I think, in you know, hindsight, 550 00:32:10,560 --> 00:32:15,400 Speaker 5: it wasn't so surprising that the biggest improvements came from 551 00:32:15,440 --> 00:32:18,800 Speaker 5: where the players were the weakest. So if there were 552 00:32:19,440 --> 00:32:24,080 Speaker 5: a weak driver and they improved, chances are the biggest 553 00:32:24,080 --> 00:32:26,400 Speaker 5: part of that improvement came from better driving. And if 554 00:32:26,440 --> 00:32:29,480 Speaker 5: they are a poor putter, chances are the biggest part 555 00:32:29,520 --> 00:32:32,480 Speaker 5: of the improvement came from better putting. So I think, 556 00:32:34,080 --> 00:32:38,520 Speaker 5: you know, the data shows although not you know, there 557 00:32:38,600 --> 00:32:40,960 Speaker 5: is exceptions to all this, but as a general rule 558 00:32:41,000 --> 00:32:45,720 Speaker 5: that maintaining your strengths and improving your weaknesses is a 559 00:32:46,000 --> 00:32:49,280 Speaker 5: quicker way to lower your score than the other way around. 560 00:32:49,400 --> 00:32:54,480 Speaker 5: It's it's just hard if you're already Roy McElroy or 561 00:32:54,920 --> 00:32:59,480 Speaker 5: Dustin Johnson to improve their driving. They're already sort of 562 00:33:00,240 --> 00:33:03,760 Speaker 5: one on tour two or three and strokes gain driving, Yeah, 563 00:33:03,800 --> 00:33:07,400 Speaker 5: they don't want to lose that, but there's not nearly 564 00:33:07,440 --> 00:33:10,400 Speaker 5: as much upside as other parts of their game. 565 00:33:12,240 --> 00:33:13,200 Speaker 3: That makes sense. 566 00:33:13,640 --> 00:33:18,440 Speaker 2: I usually see improvements when players make jumps. So with 567 00:33:19,160 --> 00:33:23,680 Speaker 2: twenty eighteen right around the corner, Kyle and I always 568 00:33:23,800 --> 00:33:26,960 Speaker 2: joke about, you know, a golf stock market where we 569 00:33:27,040 --> 00:33:29,840 Speaker 2: could buy and sell players, and who would you be 570 00:33:29,920 --> 00:33:31,160 Speaker 2: buying in twenty eighteen. 571 00:33:33,680 --> 00:33:37,880 Speaker 5: Well, I think it's it's too easy to look at 572 00:33:38,240 --> 00:33:39,920 Speaker 5: people that are in the top ten. If you want 573 00:33:39,960 --> 00:33:42,640 Speaker 5: to say, you know who might win a major, you've 574 00:33:42,640 --> 00:33:45,320 Speaker 5: got to look at, you know, the top ten or 575 00:33:45,360 --> 00:33:47,800 Speaker 5: fifteen or twenty twenty in the world. So I think 576 00:33:48,240 --> 00:33:51,920 Speaker 5: it's a little bit more interesting to buy stock and 577 00:33:52,040 --> 00:33:56,880 Speaker 5: overlooked players. So somebody i'd put in that category might 578 00:33:56,920 --> 00:34:02,760 Speaker 5: be Patrick Cantley that you probably know about him, But 579 00:34:02,760 --> 00:34:05,280 Speaker 5: I'm not sure if the the average fan does, and uh, 580 00:34:06,480 --> 00:34:10,080 Speaker 5: I think he's on a on an upward trajectory and 581 00:34:10,080 --> 00:34:13,800 Speaker 5: and would be a goodbye in the you know, Bilo 582 00:34:14,680 --> 00:34:16,880 Speaker 5: in this in your in the golfer stock market. 583 00:34:16,960 --> 00:34:21,440 Speaker 4: Yet, okay, here's an overrated underrated that made me think 584 00:34:22,960 --> 00:34:26,800 Speaker 4: about Dave pel So it's the question is from Sam Emmons, 585 00:34:26,800 --> 00:34:29,680 Speaker 4: and it's overrated underrated putting inside ten feet. And when 586 00:34:29,719 --> 00:34:31,959 Speaker 4: you were talking about putting earlier, I thought about how 587 00:34:32,920 --> 00:34:35,800 Speaker 4: I think in Pell's a Sure Game Bible, he basically 588 00:34:35,800 --> 00:34:38,000 Speaker 4: says you have to hit it within you have to 589 00:34:38,080 --> 00:34:40,480 Speaker 4: chip it within ten feet, or it doesn't matter because 590 00:34:41,160 --> 00:34:43,319 Speaker 4: you're not. Basically, if you're outside of ten feet, you 591 00:34:43,480 --> 00:34:48,080 Speaker 4: won't make the putt. So overrated underrated inside ten feet? 592 00:34:48,080 --> 00:34:50,280 Speaker 4: And what do you think about Pells' take? 593 00:34:51,680 --> 00:34:56,680 Speaker 5: So I I pretty much agree with that that if 594 00:34:56,760 --> 00:34:58,960 Speaker 5: you take a look at the best putters, where do 595 00:34:59,040 --> 00:35:02,479 Speaker 5: they gain the stroke the most strokes, and the best 596 00:35:02,520 --> 00:35:05,439 Speaker 5: putters tend to gain more on putts inside of ten 597 00:35:05,480 --> 00:35:09,840 Speaker 5: feet than outside of ten feet or ten to twenty 598 00:35:09,840 --> 00:35:14,200 Speaker 5: feet or twenty to thirty So if you had to 599 00:35:14,320 --> 00:35:19,800 Speaker 5: allocate your putting practice time, I would for sure spend 600 00:35:19,840 --> 00:35:22,440 Speaker 5: more time on puts inside of ten feet, and so 601 00:35:22,800 --> 00:35:25,840 Speaker 5: I sort of agree with that. And it's also true 602 00:35:25,840 --> 00:35:28,040 Speaker 5: that when you're chipping from off the green, the make 603 00:35:28,120 --> 00:35:31,839 Speaker 5: percentage goes down so fast outside of ten feet that 604 00:35:33,880 --> 00:35:36,160 Speaker 5: it is really important to get it not only inside 605 00:35:36,160 --> 00:35:39,200 Speaker 5: ten feet, but inside of five feet if you can. 606 00:35:39,320 --> 00:35:43,919 Speaker 5: And there's so little difference between the make percentage from 607 00:35:44,000 --> 00:35:47,399 Speaker 5: fifteen feet and twenty feet and twenty five that those 608 00:35:47,480 --> 00:35:52,040 Speaker 5: ten feet from fifteen to twenty five matter so much 609 00:35:52,120 --> 00:35:57,759 Speaker 5: less than zero to ten feet that right, if you 610 00:35:57,840 --> 00:36:00,279 Speaker 5: get it inside of three feet, it's pretty much automatic. 611 00:36:00,360 --> 00:36:02,600 Speaker 5: You get it inside of ten you know, at ten 612 00:36:02,600 --> 00:36:05,879 Speaker 5: feet it's about forty percent, but once you get out 613 00:36:05,920 --> 00:36:08,640 Speaker 5: to twenty feet, your make percentage is only fifteen percent 614 00:36:08,719 --> 00:36:12,279 Speaker 5: if you're a pro, so you just don't make so 615 00:36:12,360 --> 00:36:16,680 Speaker 5: many of those. So I kind of agree with with 616 00:36:16,840 --> 00:36:20,400 Speaker 5: with those statements and agree with Dave Pelts on that. 617 00:36:21,360 --> 00:36:24,759 Speaker 2: So we're gonna you're gonna go underrated. Putting inside ten feet. 618 00:36:24,680 --> 00:36:27,080 Speaker 1: We get underrated. Yeah, underrated. 619 00:36:28,320 --> 00:36:30,040 Speaker 3: We do this every podcast. 620 00:36:30,120 --> 00:36:36,440 Speaker 2: So Eli Thrasher asks overrated, underrated carrying four wedges. 621 00:36:39,840 --> 00:36:47,719 Speaker 5: Oh, I think I'm neutral on that one, because that's 622 00:36:47,920 --> 00:36:51,680 Speaker 5: that's sort of a personal decision. I look at you know, 623 00:36:51,760 --> 00:36:55,000 Speaker 5: how well do you perform from from different distances and 624 00:36:55,120 --> 00:36:59,360 Speaker 5: if if you've got a gap in your club somewhere 625 00:36:59,360 --> 00:37:02,560 Speaker 5: in the bag, especially in the short shots, And. 626 00:37:05,440 --> 00:37:06,680 Speaker 1: Yeah, it's it's hard to tell. 627 00:37:06,760 --> 00:37:09,480 Speaker 5: I think that that's a really a player specific thing, 628 00:37:09,600 --> 00:37:11,600 Speaker 5: So I'm sort of neutral on that one. 629 00:37:12,680 --> 00:37:15,319 Speaker 2: I imagine that has to do with like, if you're 630 00:37:15,360 --> 00:37:17,920 Speaker 2: a good player at taking some off it too, Like 631 00:37:17,960 --> 00:37:20,520 Speaker 2: if you're really good at like three quarter half wedges, 632 00:37:20,680 --> 00:37:23,840 Speaker 2: you could you could do three wedges easier than somebody 633 00:37:23,920 --> 00:37:25,440 Speaker 2: that might struggle doing that. 634 00:37:27,040 --> 00:37:31,120 Speaker 5: Yeah, it's not only that you want to control your 635 00:37:31,239 --> 00:37:36,040 Speaker 5: distance on you know, twenty forty, sixty eighty whatever, one 636 00:37:36,120 --> 00:37:38,600 Speaker 5: hundred yard shots, but you also need to control your 637 00:37:38,640 --> 00:37:41,840 Speaker 5: spin and so it's not just the loft, but you 638 00:37:41,880 --> 00:37:45,560 Speaker 5: also have to worry about the bounce and other characteristics 639 00:37:45,600 --> 00:37:47,440 Speaker 5: of these clubs. And it very well could be that 640 00:37:49,080 --> 00:37:53,799 Speaker 5: it's helpful to have to have four clubs because you 641 00:37:53,800 --> 00:37:56,799 Speaker 5: can then put the same kind of swing and maybe 642 00:37:56,960 --> 00:37:57,879 Speaker 5: you do better that way. 643 00:37:57,920 --> 00:37:58,560 Speaker 1: So it's not so. 644 00:37:58,560 --> 00:38:02,000 Speaker 5: Much you know, four clubs, four clubs is better than three. 645 00:38:02,040 --> 00:38:04,279 Speaker 5: The question is where you losing it elsewhere in the bag. 646 00:38:04,320 --> 00:38:06,600 Speaker 5: And that's what makes it a little bit harder to answer. 647 00:38:08,560 --> 00:38:12,880 Speaker 4: I really like this overrated underrated from Chad Williamson. Overrated 648 00:38:12,960 --> 00:38:14,520 Speaker 4: underrated being below the hole. 649 00:38:17,280 --> 00:38:21,520 Speaker 1: I think that is rated about right that. 650 00:38:23,560 --> 00:38:28,080 Speaker 5: It it's it's definitely better to be to have an 651 00:38:28,160 --> 00:38:30,360 Speaker 5: uphill putt than a downhill putt. So to give you 652 00:38:30,400 --> 00:38:32,920 Speaker 5: an example, if you were on a steep green, so 653 00:38:33,040 --> 00:38:36,319 Speaker 5: not not a flat but one of the you know, 654 00:38:36,440 --> 00:38:40,480 Speaker 5: steepest five percent of greens, the make percentage of uphill 655 00:38:40,520 --> 00:38:43,000 Speaker 5: versus downhill putts is almost twenty percent different. 656 00:38:43,440 --> 00:38:44,040 Speaker 1: Wow, So. 657 00:38:45,640 --> 00:38:49,040 Speaker 5: That would be like an you know, eight foot uphill putt, 658 00:38:50,320 --> 00:38:53,280 Speaker 5: you might make fifty four percent, a downhill only thirty 659 00:38:53,280 --> 00:38:56,400 Speaker 5: five percent. So that's like a huge difference. 660 00:38:57,200 --> 00:38:57,319 Speaker 3: Uh. 661 00:38:57,880 --> 00:39:02,000 Speaker 5: To put that in perspective, across all greens, the average 662 00:39:02,160 --> 00:39:03,960 Speaker 5: you know, make creative for an eight foot is about 663 00:39:04,000 --> 00:39:06,440 Speaker 5: fifty percent and for a twelve foot putt it's about 664 00:39:06,440 --> 00:39:09,799 Speaker 5: thirty percent. So you get a twenty percent difference when 665 00:39:09,840 --> 00:39:13,840 Speaker 5: you go out four feet. So that's so uphill downhill 666 00:39:13,960 --> 00:39:19,080 Speaker 5: is pretty significant, I would say on steep greens not 667 00:39:19,600 --> 00:39:22,919 Speaker 5: so much. Of course, on level or moderate greens. That's 668 00:39:23,040 --> 00:39:24,200 Speaker 5: kind of an extreme case. 669 00:39:24,600 --> 00:39:26,759 Speaker 4: That's surprising to me. I wouldn't think it would be 670 00:39:26,800 --> 00:39:27,759 Speaker 4: that significant. 671 00:39:28,200 --> 00:39:33,839 Speaker 5: But again, that's on the steepest greens out there, Augusta. 672 00:39:35,239 --> 00:39:38,080 Speaker 5: People think of those greens as the most difficult to 673 00:39:38,120 --> 00:39:41,120 Speaker 5: putt in the world. Why because they're so fast and 674 00:39:41,160 --> 00:39:46,839 Speaker 5: they have so much undulation. But the answer I think 675 00:39:46,920 --> 00:39:50,120 Speaker 5: is more nuanced than that, that players actually sink more 676 00:39:50,280 --> 00:39:53,719 Speaker 5: short putts at Augusta than at other courses because the 677 00:39:53,800 --> 00:39:57,600 Speaker 5: greens are in such great condition and they roll so true, 678 00:39:57,719 --> 00:40:00,840 Speaker 5: and that they become tougher outside out of ten feet 679 00:40:00,880 --> 00:40:04,400 Speaker 5: because of the speed and the undulations. But inside of 680 00:40:05,320 --> 00:40:08,080 Speaker 5: eight or ten feet, the uh, the make percentage that 681 00:40:08,120 --> 00:40:10,480 Speaker 5: august is actually higher than on a typical course. 682 00:40:11,280 --> 00:40:11,440 Speaker 4: Uh. 683 00:40:13,800 --> 00:40:18,600 Speaker 3: So that I guess that makes sense. I don't know. 684 00:40:18,640 --> 00:40:21,959 Speaker 2: I always struggle with like those tight edge cops though. 685 00:40:22,640 --> 00:40:25,920 Speaker 2: I guess if you're playing well, it's really nice. But 686 00:40:26,360 --> 00:40:32,400 Speaker 2: when you're not so confident, that's where you struggle. So 687 00:40:32,560 --> 00:40:36,520 Speaker 2: the the last overrated underrated we got is from George 688 00:40:36,520 --> 00:40:43,880 Speaker 2: Burns and it's the Decade System, So Scott Fascet's Decade System. 689 00:40:44,200 --> 00:40:45,880 Speaker 1: So I I like, uh. 690 00:40:46,360 --> 00:40:51,040 Speaker 5: I like the Decade System. I think that it's sort 691 00:40:51,080 --> 00:40:56,279 Speaker 5: of based on on ideas in uh uh the Every 692 00:40:56,280 --> 00:40:58,680 Speaker 5: Shot Counts book that you want to you want to 693 00:40:58,719 --> 00:41:01,680 Speaker 5: take a look at shot pattern and put those together 694 00:41:01,760 --> 00:41:03,440 Speaker 5: with the features of the whole. 695 00:41:04,560 --> 00:41:07,279 Speaker 1: So in general, I like it. I think on. 696 00:41:07,320 --> 00:41:11,440 Speaker 5: The overrated side of that is that it's it's basically 697 00:41:11,480 --> 00:41:15,680 Speaker 5: geared toward elite players, meaning tour pros and some of 698 00:41:15,680 --> 00:41:19,040 Speaker 5: the very best college players, and not so much for 699 00:41:19,040 --> 00:41:21,680 Speaker 5: for weekend players. But I think the you know, the 700 00:41:21,760 --> 00:41:26,719 Speaker 5: general idea of practicing better course management and understanding where 701 00:41:26,760 --> 00:41:29,799 Speaker 5: you can take risk and where you should be a 702 00:41:29,800 --> 00:41:33,560 Speaker 5: little bit more conservative and how does the pin location 703 00:41:34,640 --> 00:41:38,080 Speaker 5: uh affect your approach, shot decision and targets. 704 00:41:38,120 --> 00:41:38,719 Speaker 1: I think. 705 00:41:40,080 --> 00:41:43,520 Speaker 5: That that's that's all great, and strategy is sort of 706 00:41:43,520 --> 00:41:48,680 Speaker 5: an underrated part of golf, and I think, you know, 707 00:41:48,760 --> 00:41:50,720 Speaker 5: the decade system is a good step forward. 708 00:41:51,560 --> 00:41:51,840 Speaker 1: Nice. 709 00:41:52,920 --> 00:41:56,360 Speaker 2: So last question, I just kind of talking about like 710 00:41:56,440 --> 00:41:59,920 Speaker 2: the future of golf stats. What do you firesee as 711 00:42:00,040 --> 00:42:03,520 Speaker 2: as the the next thing or you know, what's the 712 00:42:03,520 --> 00:42:05,520 Speaker 2: biggest flaw out there today? 713 00:42:10,320 --> 00:42:12,440 Speaker 5: So I think, you know a couple of things that 714 00:42:13,920 --> 00:42:17,959 Speaker 5: I'm I'm working on as sort of using shot data 715 00:42:18,000 --> 00:42:22,520 Speaker 5: and strokes gained like an analysis to to measure core strategy. 716 00:42:22,600 --> 00:42:26,040 Speaker 5: So we're just talking about strategy. So I think that's uh, 717 00:42:26,120 --> 00:42:28,879 Speaker 5: that's one thing that's that's really exciting. And another thing 718 00:42:30,000 --> 00:42:34,520 Speaker 5: that I've been working on for quite a while is 719 00:42:34,760 --> 00:42:39,479 Speaker 5: measuring performance under pressure, So strokes gain under pressure. I think, 720 00:42:40,440 --> 00:42:44,560 Speaker 5: uh will be you know, uh fun to see how 721 00:42:44,680 --> 00:42:46,960 Speaker 5: how those results come out. 722 00:42:48,000 --> 00:42:49,560 Speaker 3: Yeah, that'll they'll be exciting. 723 00:42:49,640 --> 00:42:53,480 Speaker 2: I think everybody, I bet you could bust a lot 724 00:42:53,520 --> 00:42:54,920 Speaker 2: of myths about who. 725 00:42:54,760 --> 00:42:57,760 Speaker 3: Performs great, you know, coming down the stretch. 726 00:42:58,320 --> 00:43:01,520 Speaker 4: So totally, Oh you know what, I could ask you 727 00:43:01,680 --> 00:43:06,560 Speaker 4: my theory that we've talked about. So myself, I'm kind 728 00:43:06,600 --> 00:43:11,000 Speaker 4: of a I'm a short ish hitter. I wouldn't say short, 729 00:43:11,040 --> 00:43:15,400 Speaker 4: but below average, but I'm a pretty good long iron player. 730 00:43:15,880 --> 00:43:19,480 Speaker 4: So I argue that the longer the golf course is, 731 00:43:19,840 --> 00:43:23,280 Speaker 4: the better it sets up for me, because then everyone's 732 00:43:23,320 --> 00:43:27,120 Speaker 4: hitting long irons in basically versus the short courses, which 733 00:43:27,160 --> 00:43:29,680 Speaker 4: you would think would be my advantage, are not necessarily 734 00:43:29,760 --> 00:43:31,520 Speaker 4: my advantage. Does that make sense to you? 735 00:43:32,320 --> 00:43:33,040 Speaker 1: Yeah? 736 00:43:33,440 --> 00:43:36,680 Speaker 5: I would have to think about it more to come 737 00:43:36,760 --> 00:43:38,759 Speaker 5: up with a more reasoned answer, but off the top 738 00:43:38,800 --> 00:43:42,000 Speaker 5: of my head, I think that's true. And one analogy 739 00:43:42,040 --> 00:43:44,760 Speaker 5: I'd make is somebody like Luke Donald and I remember 740 00:43:44,840 --> 00:43:49,680 Speaker 5: looking at his stuff years ago, and so what I 741 00:43:49,719 --> 00:43:52,600 Speaker 5: did was I just looked at the player scoring average 742 00:43:53,920 --> 00:43:57,840 Speaker 5: versus the field by whole distance. So as you know, 743 00:43:57,880 --> 00:44:01,840 Speaker 5: as the hole gets longer, the strokes go up, and 744 00:44:01,960 --> 00:44:04,399 Speaker 5: you would think, oh, well, maybe Luke Donald is going 745 00:44:04,480 --> 00:44:09,879 Speaker 5: to excel at par three's short par four, so say 746 00:44:10,000 --> 00:44:13,920 Speaker 5: inside of four hundred and twenty yards, but maybe outside 747 00:44:14,280 --> 00:44:17,520 Speaker 5: maybe not so much. And that wasn't the case. He 748 00:44:17,640 --> 00:44:26,360 Speaker 5: actually continued to excel and the spread actually widened the 749 00:44:26,440 --> 00:44:28,680 Speaker 5: longer the hole was. And I think it's the effect 750 00:44:28,719 --> 00:44:31,720 Speaker 5: that you mentioned. You you have a hole that's longer, 751 00:44:31,800 --> 00:44:33,520 Speaker 5: and fewer people are going to hit the green in 752 00:44:33,560 --> 00:44:38,520 Speaker 5: two and so that makes that that puts and then 753 00:44:38,560 --> 00:44:42,600 Speaker 5: he can you know, out wedge and output them. So 754 00:44:42,719 --> 00:44:45,800 Speaker 5: I think he, you know, he had this advantage that 755 00:44:45,800 --> 00:44:49,040 Speaker 5: that that continued even through the longest hole. So I 756 00:44:49,040 --> 00:44:51,799 Speaker 5: think that's consistent with your suspicion. 757 00:44:51,920 --> 00:44:54,040 Speaker 1: So serious about that. 758 00:44:54,080 --> 00:44:57,080 Speaker 4: It seemed like it made sense to me, But Andy 759 00:44:57,120 --> 00:44:58,360 Speaker 4: and I have talked about it before. 760 00:44:59,480 --> 00:45:00,480 Speaker 1: Yep, it's. 761 00:45:01,960 --> 00:45:02,440 Speaker 3: It's uh. 762 00:45:03,000 --> 00:45:06,680 Speaker 2: But hey, Mark, thanks so much for taking the time 763 00:45:06,719 --> 00:45:10,759 Speaker 2: and coming on. I recommend all the all the listeners 764 00:45:10,760 --> 00:45:14,200 Speaker 2: out there to check out every shot counts, and then, uh, 765 00:45:14,280 --> 00:45:17,279 Speaker 2: if you're really interested in getting strokes gained for your game, 766 00:45:18,120 --> 00:45:22,479 Speaker 2: your app Golf Metrics, which is available in the App 767 00:45:22,520 --> 00:45:26,359 Speaker 2: Store and uh Android market whatever they call it. 768 00:45:26,719 --> 00:45:30,160 Speaker 4: So that was a lot of good stuff. 769 00:45:30,360 --> 00:45:33,600 Speaker 3: Yeah, and have a have a great holiday season. 770 00:45:34,760 --> 00:45:36,759 Speaker 1: All right, Thanks guys, thanks for having me on. Andy 771 00:45:36,800 --> 00:45:37,640 Speaker 1: and Kyle take care. 772 00:45:37,920 --> 00:45:43,799 Speaker 3: Thank you you've been listening to podcast. We do the 773 00:45:43,840 --> 00:45:45,080 Speaker 3: digging for you.