The Stats Project, Volume 1: Pinseeker Rating (Updated)
by Ryan Ballengee on Aug 26, 2010 9:48 AM EDT
Email
PrintLast Friday, we introduced tentatively-named The Stats Project as a way of enhancing the conversation around golf stats and how they might be able to explain the game on a higher level. Some of respondents to the introductory post were, well, skeptical at best about what this project could accomplish. Hopefully, this first stat is one that you'll find useful.
Greens in regulation is kind of an odd statistic. Hitting the green is great and all, but when missing the pin by some 50+ feet, it's tough to say that it was a good shot. It's also difficult to compare to any player that goes after a pin but just misses. The player who misses the green may be more dialed in than the rest of the field, but missed the putting surface.
That's why I'm introducing a simple ratio to explain shooting at pins: Pinseeker Rating.
It's an easy function.
UPDATE: A great issue was raised here about Greens in Regulation calculations still being meaningful. So what if we multiplied the above by this quotient:
(# of shots player took to reach green area/number of expected shots to hit green in regulation)
This way, we cover aggressive/lengthy hitters who have an advantage to go for the green in fewer strokes, but may not necessarily be more accurate.
By comparing the distance to the pin of one player relative to the field - whether they hit the green or not - we can see how aggressive and dialed-in a player is when they hit their approach. If the ratio is 1:1, they're even with the field. If they're higher than 1, they're behind the field. And the closer to 0 the ratio is, the more aggressive and dialed-in they are.
It's a simple stat, but can easily reflect how players are approaching the green relative to the field.
There are some flaws: it doesn't account only for shots from the fairway, though a Fairway Pinseeker Rating could just as easily be done. it doesn't account for the score ultimately made by the player - it only reflects how a player gets close to the pin. What they do after that is another stat altogether.
With each stat we introduce, I want your thoughts. Do you like it? Does it mean anything to you? Could this be expressed better? Is there something missing?
Let's get the conversation going.
12 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
The idea is great, however one question...
The GIR statistic is useful because it takes the number of shots on a particular hole into account. For example, on a par 4 the “GIR-eligible shot” is a player’s second shot on the hole. On par 5’s, the third shot (or lower) is eligible. In the Pinseeker Rating, are we to assume the “approach shot” is defined in the same manner?
The only reason I ask is because this would make the Pinseeker Rating a higher-level statistic that can be used as a modifier to the GIR stat. We see similar statistical relationships with On-Base Percentages and Slugging Percentages in baseball, for example.
Adam Fonseca
I think there is already a similar stat...
called, “proximity to the hole”.
Fight for your opinions, but do not believe that they contain the whole truth, or the only truth.
Charles A. Dana
I like the idea of a simple ratio, but it IS a bit more complicated than that...
There are circumstances where “getting close to the pin” may not be the smart shot. Which would you rather have — a relatively long but simple 25-footer or an 8-foot chip from 4-inch rough? In the latter case you’ve clearly short-sided yourself, and it wasn’t a smart shot.
I think you need to take the nature of the shot into the equation somehow. You need to include something that tells you whether you left yourself a good chance to capitalize on it or not. On the green is best, on the short fringe is acceptable. Perhaps you could incorporate a penalty if you ended up in the tall stuff. After all, Pinseeker Rating should represent desirable shots, not shots that are impossible simply because are so close to the pin.
Mike Southern
www.ruthlessgolf.com
excellent points, Mike – but even ShotLink doesn’t store enough information on a particular shot to factor in all the variables. They give you distance and fairway or not. You’ll never look at at ShotLink book and find out which way the grass was growing, or exact wind conditions, or elevation changes, yada yada yada.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
MODIFIED CALCULATION
Mike, you raise a good point – heard about it on Twitter, too.
So what if we add an extra quotient to it? Say we take the original rating, then multiply it by:
(# of shots player took to reach green area/number of expected shots to hit green in regulation)?
Would reward players with length who can go for holes in less strokes.
Find me! Email: ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com, Twitter: http://twitter.com/waggleroom, or Facebook: http://facebook.com/waggleroom.
Your idea is good, Ryan, but...
I think the ratio you have in mind ends up dragging in the effects of the other shots. For example, a poor drive that causes you to have a long 3rd shot to a par-4 shouldn’t downgrade an excellent approach shot.
Instead, maybe you should concentrate more on the length of the approach shot. Given Court’s observation about ShotLink data (which never even occurred to me — thanks, Court), suppose you tried this as a multiplier:
( length of player’s approach shot / length of player’s average drive )
Suppose Dustin Johnson and Brian Gay play a par-5 and both hit it an identical distance from the pin. Dustin hit the green in two, Brian took three; however, Dustin’s second shot was a 9-iron and Brian used a 5-iron. If Brian’s approach shot was 65% of his max length (his average drive) and Dustin’s was only 45% of his max, then Brian clearly hit the better shot even though it was his 3rd shot.
Mike Southern
www.ruthlessgolf.com
The best stat would be some kind of adjusted distance to the hole for birdie putt. So a five foot putt is would count as five feet, but a five foot chip from the rough would have whatever distance needs to be added on so that it has the equal expectation of shots to be taken as a putt. I’m not sure what this is, but, for example, maybe a five-foot chip from is equivalent to a ten-foot putt in terms of expected shots taken. I think this stat would be the most telling on the PGA Tour and it’s not too far off from what you started with above, just a few minor adjustments.
On a random note, I’m pretty sure it’s an easier process to clean up all the oil in the Gulf then register to comment on here.
by rexfordbuzzsaw on Aug 27, 2010 12:35 AM EDT reply actions
Yeah, it’s one of the things I wish were a little easier about here. Commenting that is.
That’s a clever idea on creating a shot value. How about the idea of adding a comparison multiple at the end for that shot value equivalency?
Find me! Email: ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com, Twitter: http://twitter.com/waggleroom, or Facebook: http://facebook.com/waggleroom.
by Ryan Ballengee on Aug 27, 2010 2:55 PM EDT up reply actions
Doesn't that go back to the same problem Court mentioned...
that ShotLink doesn’t give enough info to make that comparison? Isn’t a 5-foot chip from 2-inch rough easier than a 5-foot chip nestled down in 6-inch rough? Any “comparison multiple” would be no more than a guess without taking the lie into account… and ShotLink isn’t going to give you that kind of info.
There have been a lot of ideas bounced around, and we’re all defining “pinseeking” in different ways. What’s more important here?
1) Is it whether you hit the green or not?
2) Is it the distance from the hole, whether you hit the green or not?
3) Is it whether it was a smart shot or not? (That’s an inference from Court’s idea that the result of the next shot has something to do with this stat.)
4) Is it about reaching the hole in less shots than regulation? (I admit I think that biases the stat against shorter hitters.)
5) Is it about the length of club required to make the shot? (7-irons are easier to get close than 3-woods.)
6) Or is it something else?
Maybe “pinseeking” isn’t the best name for this stat. Pinseeking sounds like how close you got your approach shot to the hole, but it sounds more like we’re going after Court’s idea — namely, does the shot result in a birdie? Or maybe an eagle or albatross? (I love that term!) If that’s the case, we need to include the following in the calculation as a minimum:
1) Did the player reach the green in regulation (normal value), in fewer strokes(bonus value), or in more strokes (penalty)? This would automatically take care of whether the shot is a putt or a chip, as a chip missed the green.
2) Did you make the shot?
But now you have to make some serious decisions about what makes this stat valuable. Does the length of the shot left after your approach really matter if you make it? Did the player who reached the par 5 in two and then two-putted really play better than the guy who took three to reach the green but sunk the putt? If I hit the green and sink the putt for birdie, did I really make a better play than the guy who missed the green and chipped in for birdie?
I think you need to decide exactly what this stat is supposed to measure, Ryan. Your original pinseeker stat simply compared a player’s proximity to the hole with that of the field, but we’re way past that now. As you said in the original post, those are different stats entirely. What exactly do YOU want this stat to measure?
Mike Southern
www.ruthlessgolf.com
by Ruthless Mike on Aug 27, 2010 4:55 PM EDT up reply actions
Give the Canadian a cee-gar !!
Great line from the Canadian guy sitting in the booth with Judy Rankin. They were talking about the birdie leaders on the LPGA Tour, then pointed out that Ai Miyazato isn’t leading in any statistical category…except the points.
He said “statistics are like bikini’s – they reveal a lot of things, but not everything.” I love it.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
A full complement of statistics reveal everything. Taking one in isolation does nothing.
Find me! Email: ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com, Twitter: http://twitter.com/waggleroom, or Facebook: http://facebook.com/waggleroom.
by Ryan Ballengee on Aug 30, 2010 8:54 AM EDT up reply actions
Ruthless Mike,
No need to compare the lies, most of the PGA Courses are more similar than you would think in terms of conditions and over a large sample size something like your lie(which is random) is going to even out.
In a week, someone might get better lies than the rest of the field and that could have a huge impact(while being basically impossible to measure) but over 1000 chips everyone essentially has the same lie. Also, I’d think you’d be surprised that even the worst possible lie from 20 or 30 feet is probably better than laying up to 100 yards in the fairway.
As far as any multipliers and stuff go, I’m always hesitant to do that because it adds a correlation to something that might not be there. If you set a guidline like approaches from 150 yards, whatever advantage longer players get from hitting shorter clubs is already included in the date. Over a large sample, it wouldn’t be hard to figure out how much harder an average 20-foot chip from the rough is than a 20-foot putt and adjust the distance accordingly. Again, someone might get a horrendous lie in one occasion, but it’s not like getting a horrendous lie is something a player causes so if you judge this over a season or two sample size it would definitely be the most correlated stat to success on the PGA Tour.(Though, it does not me it would be the be all end all either, just the most important one.)
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Have a golf story tip? Contact editor Charles Boyer and he will follow the story! Thanks!
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
