THE BEST FAIRWAY BALL STRIKER ON TOUR!

Fairway Ball Striking/Long Approach Shot Play, Short Approach, and Short Game

(Non-Putting) Accuracy:

Development of Measures to Rank Players in Fairway Ball Striking Play, Short Approach Shot

and Non-Putting Short Game Skills

Lucius Riccio Ph.D.

Columbia Business School

Data analysis assistance provided by:

Udee Narayan

Columbia University Medical Center

October, 2012

Introduction

With the implementation of the ShotLink system, a vast amount of wonderful data has become

available to data-starved analysts who have waited decades to test theories about who is best at

all facets of play. The rich data provides the raw material to produce statistics useful for ranking

players and identifying differences in performance.

The ranking statistics generated from those data are strongest for driving and putting. Well-

developed measures have been created to determine the longest driver, the most accurate

driver and (now with the creation of strokes gained/strokes lost) the best putter. We also have

very good overall tee to green stats such as Greens in Regulation (which really is a measure of

everything from tee to green) and average score per par category. Shotlink also has some good

measures for scrambling from trouble and for other short game skills.

As for fairway ball striking, the Tour publishes measures of shot-making accuracy for ranges of

distances (e.g. 125 to 150, 150 to 175 etc.) and there are some good if not perfect measures of

near green play. It groups the data for approach shots this way because it is obvious that

comparing a 150 yard shot to 225 yard shot simply would not be fair. The Tour also has a

statistical category it calls Ball Striking which is the sum of the driving rank and the GIR rank.

This is a good but not very specific measure of how well a player strikes the ball for accuracy.

This paper sets out to produce a single, comprehensive measure of long approach shot ball

striking to supplement the driving and putting statistics. In this paper I propose a straightforward

and comprehensive measure to rank all players and identify the best players in long approach

shot accuracy. For this analysis I chose to use par 4 fairway approaches between 150 to 225

yards, the yardages for which most pros are playing full iron shots, not wedge or wood shots. In

addition I propose improved measures for short approach shot and near-green play. The long

approach measure is tested using ShotLink data and a ranking of players for this category of play

is provided.

Accuracy Measures

ShotLink provides a wonderful amount of data for each stroke. The system provides each

stroke’s starting location and the location where the ball came to rest. With that data, a wide

variety of analyses can be done to see how accurate (as measured by percent greens hit or

average distance from the hole after the stroke) a player is from a given distance range, say from

150 to 175 yards out, as the Tour does now.

Although these calculations and rankings are important (particularly to the player looking to find

weaknesses), they are limited by the categories or ranges specified. The fans and the media do

not have a clear, overall measure of who is the best fairway ball-striker for approach shots or the

best short approach shot player. I propose a comprehensive measure of long approach shot play

and short approach shot accuracy which will give a clear and unambiguous assessment of player

skills. I propose several measures since the data is so rich, it would be foolish not to analyze

them in several ways.

There are several ways in which non-tee ball striking can be measured. I chose to measure it for

fairway strokes on par 4s. These are clearly strokes intended to hit the green. Par 3 tees and par 5

approach strokes could be included, but for simplicity, I did not include them. On Par 3s, the ball

is teed and on Par 5s, the green may not be reachable.

Secondly, although it would be good to use only strokes with an iron club, unfortunately

ShotLink does not contain club-used data. As such my measures use the length of the attempted

fairway shot as the basis for comparison. If iron club data became available, the entire analysis

for long approach strokes could be duplicated using club used rather than distance.

To measure ball striking for long approach shots, I propose all fairway shots from 150 yards up

to 225, the range for which the vast majority of pros use iron clubs with full swings. Those

distances were picked arbitrarily by me, and of course could be adjusted if a better range was

deemed appropriate. For now I am assuming that is a reasonable range. Obviously for long

hitters, a 250 yard shot is an iron approach shot, but for short hitters, a 225 yard shot may require

a “wood” club. At this point, I could not account for those differences and accepted the notion

that 150 to 225 was for better or worse the distance range for long approach shots.

For short approach shots I propose to use all fairway shots from 50 yards to 150 yards. For long

pitches, I propose fairway shots from 25 yards to 50 yards. Short pitches are fairway shots from

10 feet from the green up to 25 yards. For chips I propose any non-bunker stroke within 10 feet

of the green. Lastly for bunker play, all shots from near green bunkers.

All of the measures are similar in structure. The concept is to normalize for the distance of the

shot taken. (Normalizing by club type would be good if club-used was available.)

Thus, the inputs to the measures for fairway long approach play will be the approach shot

distance. The output measure will be either (1) whether the green was hit or (2) the distance

from the hole after the stroke was made. The following will explain the structure of the

development of this measure. The similarity to the development of other measures will become

obvious.

Long Approach Shots

Since there is a significant variation from player to player in driving distance and iron shot

distance, there is a significant variation in the length of approach shots from the fairway or the

club used. Typically, hitting the green from 215 yards is considerably more challenging than

hitting it from 155 yards, or stated another way more difficult using a 3 iron than an 8 iron. Two

pro golfers playing the same course could conceivably have significantly different “approach

shot distance profiles” and/or “iron use” profiles for the same holes. A long driver is hitting short

irons. A short driver long irons. Over the course of a tournament, these differences are likely to

be quite significant. The pro who drives it long likely has a better chance of “hitting it close” not

because he is a better iron player. Rather he does so just by virtue of being a longer driver. The

short driver may hit a lower percentage of greens due more so to the longer approach shots taken

rather than a lower ability to hit good iron shots. The following explains and demonstrates a

method for adjusting for the distances of the fairway approach shots taken and providing a more

accurate ranking of ball striking accuracy.

1. A Measure Ranking Players on Long Approach Play Accuracy by Percent Greens Hit

A. Creating the Measure:

The first step to creating this measure is to develop a standard for (an average of) percent greens

hit (not necessarily GIR, just the shot held the green even if it was not in regulation) for par 4

shots from the fairway for each yardage from 150 to 225 yards. (Lay-ups are excluded. Par 3 tee

shots are not included because the ball is teed. They could be included or kept as a separate

measure.)

Using data from ShotLink, Figure 1 displays the average of all shots for the top 125 players over

all courses in 2012 from data available as of October 12. This is the expectation for the average

PGA Tour pro over the course of play for many rounds on many courses. A standard can be

developed for each event after the event is played. But for this paper, I am proposing a standard

for annual play. (See areas for future study.)

Standard % Greens

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

150.00 170.00 190.00 210.00

Yards For Shot

Pe

rce

nt

Gre

en

s H

it

Series1

Figure 1

Green Hitting Percentage by Yards of Shot Taken

Par 4 Fairway Strokes

The relationship is quite linear for virtually all of the data, with the possible exception at the high

yardage end. A fit of the data to a linear model was quite strong. The relationship was found to

be:

Eq. (1) Percent Greens Hit = 159 – 0.52 (yardage of shot taken)

This equation provides a viable standard for the average pro. Given the lengths of the shots

(many shots) taken by any pro, his green hitting percentage can now be compared to what the

“standard” or “average” pro would have done given the lengths of the shots taken. The standard

is used in the following way:

For each player, for each par 4 fairway shot between 150 to 225 yards, it is recorded if the shot

hit or did not hit the green. When all of that player’s long approach shots are recorded, his green

hitting percentage is calculated by simply dividing the greens hit by all attempts. At the same

time each shot is being recorded, the standard percentage is “recorded” for the distance of the

shot. The average of all of those percentages would be the expected percentage for an average

pro given the fairway long approach distance profile of this particular pro. The difference in the

percentages would serve as the ranking measure to determine the best overall Fairway Long

Approach Player and the ranking of all pros.

As such a long hitter may have a high percentage of greens hit from the fairway because he is

hitting from shorter distances to the green. But when compared to the standard, he may actually

be hitting less than the average player would have hit given the distances the long hitter was

playing from. Similarly the short driver may have a low actual percentage but is actually good

when compared to the standard. This measure normalizes the effect of different shot length

profiles for different players and puts them on the same standard for comparison. It takes out the

affect of driving distance when comparing ball striking from the fairway. A plus number would

indicate the percentage better a pro is at hitting greens from the fairway and a negative number

would indicate how much worse than average that player is.

Averaged out over the course of the year or even several tournaments, this measure would give a

clear assessment of fairway long approach play accuracy independent of other aspects of play

such as driving distance and short game skills. In some ways this is a “pure” measure since the

player is aiming at the green and may not be aiming at the hole.

For example long hitter Bubba Watson, using the PGA Tour’s basic measure of ball striking –

Greens Hit in Regulation – is the second best when it comes to hitting greens. Is this because he

is hitting from shorter distances? Short hitter David Toms is ranked 70th

in GIRs. Is that because

he is a worse ball striker from the fairway than Watson? The proposed measure is intended to

give us some insight to that question.

B. Demonstrating the Measure and Interpreting the Results

Table 1 ranks the players in un-adjusted “greens hit percentage” for all par 4 fairway strokes

taken from 150 to 225 yards for the top 125 players for the full year as of September 2012. This

is simply the number of hit greens for each player’s par 4 fairway shots in the 150 to 225 range

divided by the total amount of attempts.

Not surprisingly, Rose, who is also the overall Tour GIR leader, is on top. Watson (number 2 in

GIRs) is near the top at 12th

and Toms is ranked 71st, close to his GIR ranking of 70. The long

hitter has a higher percentage (73.6%) than the short hitter (65.9%.) Does that stand up when

adjusted for distance? Note: Watson has a small number of shots in this category indicating that

he either misses the fairway often or, more likely, has many approach shots less than 150 yards.

There are also examples of players whose score on this measure is far worse than their GIRs.

Curtis is ranked 74th

on this measure although he is 12th

in Tour GIRs. Apparently he hits a lot of

par 3 and par 5 greens, or hits them from the rough. But is his low ranking due to poor ball

striking or is it he is a relatively short hitter (184th

in driving distance, tied with Toms!)

Table 2 ranks the players by determining what would the percentage of greens hit be if the

Standard Pro took the shots from the given the distances from which each player took their shots.

Table 2 then ranks them by their difference from the calculated Standard. The ranking is

according to the Percent Better than Standard, positive being a better ball striker than their actual

“Table 1 percentage” would indicate, and a negative, a worse ball striker. Table 3 displays the

improvement in each player’s ranking as a result of the adjustment. What do we learn?

First as expected about half the players are above the Standard and about half below. Most are

within a few percentage points from the Standard. But there are some startling differences.

First, Rose is still the best ball striker, not just because he has the highest percentage of Greens

Hit (77.90%), but also the highest percentage Better than Standard - 10.74% Better! In other

words, if the average or Standard pro hit shots from the distances Rose hit his fairway par 4 shots

from (in the range of 150 to 225 yards), he (the Standard pro) would have a green hitting

percentage of 67.16%.

Watson, who was 12th

in the unadjusted rankings, drops to down to 28th

. He is better than the

Standard (3.50% better) but not better than many others. Clearly his yardage advantage is a

significant reason he hits more greens. McDowell, who is 139th

in driving, moves up

substantially (from 9th

to 2nd

) due to being 8.34% better than Standard. And the adjusted

percentage for Toms, a short hitter, moves him up to 47th

from 71st. Campbell is 43

rd in GIRs but

6th

in adjusted greens vs. Standard.

There are many ways to look at these results in addition to just considering the new rankings. As

was explained, Table 3 shows the players according to their movement in the rankings. Curtis is

the big “winner” moving up 33 places. Most of the movers up are shorter hitters. Of the players

who dropped down, many are big hitters. Watson as was pointed out dropped 16 positions. But

the big “losers” were two big hitters, Bo Weekly and Dustin Johnson who each dropped 27

positions to finish last in the improvement rankings. All of the top ranked players by the

improvement in ranking measure (Table 3) are short hitters whose driving distance rankings are

extremely poor. Curtis (184th

), Molder (177th

), Toms (184th

), Clark (179th

) and Wagner (153rd

)

are successful on the Tour because, in no small part, their better ball striking from the fairway

compensates for their shorter drives.

This last ranking has one disadvantage which should be mentioned. If you are number 1 on the

original adjusted list, you can only stay number 1 or get worse. The same as in “the most

improved golfer” at a club, going from a 5 handicap to a 2 may be much harder than a 15 going

to a 10. As such an adjustment formula may have to be created to take that obstacle into affect.

Table 1

Ball striking Rankings % Greens Hit

Par 4 Fairways 150 - 225 Yards

Rank Player Greens Hit

# Shots

% Greens Hit

1 Rose 141 181 77.90%

2 Westwood 78 102 76.47%

3 Garrigus 100 131 76.34%

4 McIlroy 58 76 76.32%

5 Senden 142 189 75.13%

6 Campbell 151 202 74.75%

7 Haas 118 158 74.68%

8 Garcia 93 125 74.40%

9 McDowell 121 163 74.23%

10 Woods 109 147 74.15%

11 Stallings 92 125 73.60%

12 Watson 64 87 73.56%

13 Vegas 96 131 73.28%

14 Pettersson 146 200 73.00%

15 Scott 64 88 72.73%

16 Henry 157 216 72.69%

17 Jacobson 90 124 72.58%

18 Oosthuizen 82 113 72.57%

19 Piercy 118 163 72.39%

20 Schwartzel 89 123 72.36%

21 Van Pelt 145 201 72.14%

22 Owen 132 183 72.13%

23 Merrick 156 217 71.89%

24 Herron 127 177 71.75%

25 Watney 134 187 71.66%

26 Moore 183 256 71.48%

27 Dufner 124 174 71.26%

28 Steele 104 146 71.23%

29 Stricker 103 145 71.03%

30 Bradley 122 172 70.93%

31 O'Hair 129 182 70.88%

32 Potter, Jr. 130 184 70.65%

33 DeLaet 142 201 70.65%

34 Wagner 167 237 70.46%

35 Stanley 133 189 70.37%

36 Snedeker 142 202 70.30%

37 Noh 168 239 70.29%

38 Allenby 127 181 70.17%

39 de Jonge 227 324 70.06%

40 Stadler 160 229 69.87%

41 Weekley 94 135 69.63%

42 Every 119 171 69.59%

43 Day 64 92 69.57%

44 Harrington 98 141 69.50%

45 Mickelson 106 153 69.28%

46 Simpson 127 184 69.02%

47 Estes 160 232 68.97%

48 Horschel 73 106 68.87%

49 Pride 117 170 68.82%

50 Barnes 143 209 68.42%

51 Thompson 137 201 68.16%

52 Gillis 134 197 68.02%

53 Perez 155 228 67.98%

54 Mahan 139 206 67.48%

55 Howell III 112 166 67.47%

56 Walker 156 232 67.24%

57 Points 168 250 67.20%

58 Matteson 128 191 67.02%

59 Hoffman 136 204 66.67%

60 Castro 136 204 66.67%

61 Kirk 142 213 66.67%

62 JohnsonD 62 93 66.67%

63 Hearn 167 251 66.53%

64 Furyk 151 227 66.52%

65 Tringale 135 203 66.50%

66 Kuchar 131 197 66.50%

67 Streelman 125 188 66.49%

68 Els 115 173 66.47%

69 Laird 85 128 66.41%

70 Byrd 100 151 66.23%

71 Toms 85 129 65.89%

72 McNeill 156 237 65.82%

73 Stenson 75 114 65.79%

74 Curtis 90 137 65.69%

75 Singh 130 198 65.66%

76 Teater 124 189 65.61%

77 Levin 122 186 65.59%

78 Summerhays 116 177 65.54%

79 McGirt 154 236 65.25%

80 Holmes 92 141 65.25%

81 Baddeley 90 138 65.22%

82 Rollins 105 161 65.22%

83 Blixt 101 155 65.16%

84 Cauley 157 241 65.15%

85 Adams 185 284 65.14%

86 Overton 151 232 65.09%

87 English 134 207 64.73%

88 Love III 69 107 64.49%

89 Fowler 134 208 64.42%

90 Flores 108 168 64.29%

91 Huh 190 297 63.97%

92 Driscoll 106 166 63.86%

93 Harman 144 226 63.72%

94 Maggert 153 241 63.49%

95 Claxton 137 216 63.43%

96 Mallinger 142 224 63.39%

97 Leishman 137 217 63.13%

98 Poulter 77 122 63.11%

99 Duke 162 257 63.04%

100 Knost 136 216 62.96%

101 Kelly 51 81 62.96%

102 Gainey 125 199 62.81%

103 Romero 86 137 62.77%

104 Molder 152 243 62.55%

105 Johnson 156 250 62.40%

106 Stroud 132 212 62.26%

107 Ogilvy 102 164 62.20%

108 Pampling 106 171 61.99%

109 Bohn 118 192 61.46%

110 Donald 98 160 61.25%

111 Clark 115 188 61.17%

112 Palmer 89 146 60.96%

113 Wilson 153 251 60.96%

114 Gay 131 215 60.93%

115 Na 132 217 60.83%

116 Davis 146 241 60.58%

117 Choi 121 201 60.20%

118 Crane 113 188 60.11%

119 Chalmers 154 257 59.92%

120 O'Hern 120 204 58.82%

121 Bae 82 144 56.94%

122 Wi 129 229 56.33%

123 Mathis 96 172 55.81%

124 Frazar 55 99 55.56%

125 Sabbatini 90 163 55.21%

Table 2

Ballstriking Rankings Adjusted

New Old

Ranking Ranking Player % Greens

% Better than Standard

1 1 Rose 77.90% 10.74%

2 9 McDowell 74.23% 8.34%

3 3 Garrigus 76.34% 8.00%

4 2 Westwood 76.47% 7.81%

5 5 Senden 75.13% 7.67%

6 6 Campbell 74.75% 7.37%

7 7 Haas 74.68% 7.13%

8 4 McIlroy 76.32% 6.66%

9 13 Vegas 73.28% 6.22%

10 8 Garcia 74.40% 5.78%

11 10 Woods 74.15% 5.55%

12 22 Owen 72.13% 5.20%

13 15 Scott 72.73% 5.10%

14 16 Henry 72.69% 4.88%

15 18 Oosthuizen 72.57% 4.78%

16 29 Stricker 71.03% 4.68%

17 34 Wagner 70.46% 4.65%

18 20 Schwartzel 72.36% 4.53%

19 32 Potter, Jr. 70.65% 4.41%

20 26 Moore 71.48% 4.39%

21 17 Jacobson 72.58% 4.37%

22 28 Steele 71.23% 4.19%

23 19 Piercy 72.39% 4.17%

24 23 Merrick 71.89% 3.99%

25 14 Pettersson 73.00% 3.97%

26 24 Herron 71.75% 3.78%

27 38 Allenby 70.17% 3.66%

28 12 Watson 73.56% 3.50%

29 21 Van Pelt 72.14% 3.38%

30 25 Watney 71.66% 3.35%

31 47 Estes 68.97% 3.22%

32 27 Dufner 71.26% 3.21%

33 40 Stadler 69.87% 2.98%

34 11 Stallings 73.60% 2.88%

35 48 Horschel 68.87% 2.82%

36 49 Pride 68.82% 2.78%

37 31 O'Hair 70.88% 2.70%

38 30 Bradley 70.93% 2.67%

39 39 de Jonge 70.06% 2.64%

40 44 Harrington 69.50% 2.62%

41 74 Curtis 65.69% 2.39%

42 36 Snedeker 70.30% 2.31%

43 46 Simpson 69.02% 2.20%

44 37 Noh 70.29% 2.18%

45 33 DeLaet 70.65% 2.04%

46 43 Day 69.57% 1.99%

47 71 Toms 65.89% 1.89%

48 35 Stanley 70.37% 1.77%

49 45 Mickelson 69.28% 1.43%

50 42 Every 69.59% 1.09%

51 53 Perez 67.98% 1.07%

52 54 Mahan 67.48% 0.95%

53 52 Gillis 68.02% 0.86%

54 50 Barnes 68.42% 0.78%

55 59 Hoffman 66.67% 0.53%

56 64 Furyk 66.52% 0.35%

57 63 Hearn 66.53% 0.35%

58 57 Points 67.20% 0.20%

59 66 Kuchar 66.50% 0.11%

60 60 Castro 66.67% -0.07%

61 51 Thompson 68.16% -0.16%

62 73 Stenson 65.79% -0.37%

63 72 McNeill 65.82% -0.37%

64 61 Kirk 66.67% -0.42%

65 65 Tringale 66.50% -0.47%

66 68 Els 66.47% -0.52%

67 70 Byrd 66.23% -0.56%

68 41 Weekley 69.63% -0.62%

69 83 Blixt 65.16% -0.74%

70 56 Walker 67.24% -0.83%

71 77 Levin 65.59% -0.84%

72 79 McGirt 65.25% -1.03%

73 78 Summerhays 65.54% -1.04%

74 85 Adams 65.14% -1.14%

75 55 Howell III 67.47% -1.16%

76 67 Streelman 66.49% -1.29%

77 58 Matteson 67.02% -1.30%

78 86 Overton 65.09% -1.45%

79 104 Molder 62.55% -1.92%

80 69 Laird 66.41% -2.02%

81 81 Baddeley 65.22% -2.46%

82 75 Singh 65.66% -2.46%

83 80 Holmes 65.25% -2.68%

84 96 Mallinger 63.39% -2.73%

85 82 Rollins 65.22% -2.75%

86 94 Maggert 63.49% -2.89%

87 76 Teater 65.61% -2.89%

88 88 Love III 64.49% -3.04%

89 62 JohnsonD 66.67% -3.05%

90 100 Knost 62.96% -3.09%

91 91 Huh 63.97% -3.23%

92 87 English 64.73% -3.40%

93 111 Clark 61.17% -3.47%

94 84 Cauley 65.15% -3.54%

95 92 Driscoll 63.86% -3.62%

96 98 Poulter 63.11% -3.67%

97 99 Duke 63.04% -3.75%

98 89 Fowler 64.42% -3.77%

99 108 Pampling 61.99% -3.83%

100 97 Leishman 63.13% -3.84%

101 106 Stroud 62.26% -4.11%

102 93 Harman 63.72% -4.16%

103 103 Romero 62.77% -4.26%

104 115 Na 60.83% -4.27%

105 90 Flores 64.29% -4.46%

106 109 Bohn 61.46% -4.47%

107 116 Davis 60.58% -4.54%

108 105 Johnson 62.40% -4.57%

109 95 Claxton 63.43% -4.63%

110 114 Gay 60.93% -4.79%

111 107 Ogilvy 62.20% -4.79%

112 110 Donald 61.25% -4.84%

113 102 Gainey 62.81% -4.86%

114 113 Wilson 60.96% -4.86%

115 120 O'Hern 58.82% -4.90%

116 101 Kelly 62.96% -4.97%

117 117 Choi 60.20% -5.62%

118 119 Chalmers 59.92% -5.68%

119 118 Crane 60.11% -6.01%

120 112 Palmer 60.96% -6.94%

121 122 Wi 56.33% -9.74%

122 121 Bae 56.94% -9.91%

123 123 Mathis 55.81% -10.05%

124 124 Frazar 55.56% -12.15%

125 125 Sabbatini 55.21% -12.71%

Table 3

Ball striking Rankings by Improvement in Ranking

Player % Green

Rank by %

Adj Rank Improvement

Curtis 65.69% 74 41 -33

Molder 62.55% 104 79 -25

Toms 65.89% 71 47 -24

Clark 61.17% 111 93 -18

Wagner 70.46% 34 17 -17

Estes 68.97% 47 31 -16

Blixt 65.16% 83 69 -14

Stricker 71.03% 29 16 -13

Potter, Jr. 70.65% 32 19 -13

Horschel 68.87% 48 35 -13

Pride 68.82% 49 36 -13

Mallinger 63.39% 96 84 -12

Allenby 70.17% 38 27 -11

Stenson 65.79% 73 62 -11

Adams 65.14% 85 74 -11

Na 60.83% 115 104 -11

Owen 72.13% 22 12 -10

Knost 62.96% 100 90 -10

McNeill 65.82% 72 63 -9

Pampling 61.99% 108 99 -9

Davis 60.58% 116 107 -9

Furyk 66.52% 64 56 -8

Overton 65.09% 86 78 -8

Maggert 63.49% 94 86 -8

McDowell 74.23% 9 2 -7

Stadler 69.87% 40 33 -7

Kuchar 66.50% 66 59 -7

McGirt 65.25% 79 72 -7

Moore 71.48% 26 20 -6

Steele 71.23% 28 22 -6

Hearn 66.53% 63 57 -6

Levin 65.59% 77 71 -6

Summerhays 65.54% 78 73 -5

Stroud 62.26% 106 101 -5

O'Hern 58.82% 120 115 -5

Vegas 73.28% 13 9 -4

Harrington 69.50% 44 40 -4

Hoffman 66.67% 59 55 -4

Gay 60.93% 114 110 -4

Oosthuizen 72.57% 18 15 -3

Simpson 69.02% 46 43 -3

Byrd 66.23% 70 67 -3

Bohn 61.46% 109 106 -3

Scott 72.73% 15 13 -2

Henry 72.69% 16 14 -2

Schwartzel 72.36% 20 18 -2

Perez 67.98% 53 51 -2

Mahan 67.48% 54 52 -2

Els 66.47% 68 66 -2

Poulter 63.11% 98 96 -2

Duke 63.04% 99 97 -2

Chalmers 59.92% 119 118 -1

Wi 56.33% 122 121 -1

Rose 77.90% 1 1 0

Garrigus 76.34% 3 3 0

Senden 75.13% 5 5 0

Campbell 74.75% 6 6 0

Haas 74.68% 7 7 0

de Jonge 70.06% 39 39 0

Castro 66.67% 60 60 0

Tringale 66.50% 65 65 0

Baddeley 65.22% 81 81 0

Love III 64.49% 88 88 0

Huh 63.97% 91 91 0

Romero 62.77% 103 103 0

Choi 60.20% 117 117 0

Mathis 55.81% 123 123 0

Frazar 55.56% 124 124 0

Sabbatini 55.21% 125 125 0

Woods 74.15% 10 11 1

Merrick 71.89% 23 24 1

Gillis 68.02% 52 53 1

Points 67.20% 57 58 1

Wilson 60.96% 113 114 1

Crane 60.11% 118 119 1

Bae 56.94% 121 122 1

Westwood 76.47% 2 4 2

Garcia 74.40% 8 10 2

Herron 71.75% 24 26 2

Donald 61.25% 110 112 2

Day 69.57% 43 46 3

Kirk 66.67% 61 64 3

Holmes 65.25% 80 83 3

Rollins 65.22% 82 85 3

Driscoll 63.86% 92 95 3

Leishman 63.13% 97 100 3

Johnson 62.40% 105 108 3

McIlroy 76.32% 4 8 4

Jacobson 72.58% 17 21 4

Piercy 72.39% 19 23 4

Mickelson 69.28% 45 49 4

Barnes 68.42% 50 54 4

Ogilvy 62.20% 107 111 4

Watney 71.66% 25 30 5

Dufner 71.26% 27 32 5

English 64.73% 87 92 5

O'Hair 70.88% 31 37 6

Snedeker 70.30% 36 42 6

Noh 70.29% 37 44 7

Singh 65.66% 75 82 7

Van Pelt 72.14% 21 29 8

Bradley 70.93% 30 38 8

Every 69.59% 42 50 8

Palmer 60.96% 112 120 8

Streelman 66.49% 67 76 9

Fowler 64.42% 89 98 9

Harman 63.72% 93 102 9

Thompson 68.16% 51 61 10

Cauley 65.15% 84 94 10

Pettersson 73.00% 14 25 11

Laird 66.41% 69 80 11

Teater 65.61% 76 87 11

Gainey 62.81% 102 113 11

DeLaet 70.65% 33 45 12

Stanley 70.37% 35 48 13

Walker 67.24% 56 70 14

Claxton 63.43% 95 109 14

Flores 64.29% 90 105 15

Kelly 62.96% 101 116 15

Watson 73.56% 12 28 16

Matteson 67.02% 58 77 19

Howell III 67.47% 55 75 20

Stallings 73.60% 11 34 23

Weekley 69.63% 41 68 27

JohnsonD 66.67% 62 89 27

Many of the recognized best players, such as Woods, McIlroy and Westwood all show that they

are substantially better at approach shot accuracy than the Standard. The adjustment for distance

is a valid way to compare approach shot accuracy.

An Alternate Measure for Long Approach Accuracy

There are other ways to measure accuracy. An alternate to the above measure would be to use

distance from the hole after the shot is taken instead of greens hit. This may not be as useful of a

measure for a couple of reasons. For long approach shots, the object is to hit the green. Second

the marginal effect of being off line may increase substantially when the green is missed.

However it would be incomplete to not examine the utility of such a measure.

The following is a discussion how such a measure could be developed. Once created, the player

rankings are displayed and a discussion of its use is presented.

2. A Measure Ranking Players on Fairway Long Approach Play Accuracy by Distance

From Hole

A. Creating the Measure

For this measure, the same procedure is used as above except that the output measure is not

percentage of greens hit. It is the distance the ball ends up from the hole. Again a standard would

have to be created that given the length of the approach, determines the average distance from

the hold the ball lies after the stroke. Using ShotLink data, Figure 2 displays the average distance

from the hole after a fairway long approach shot given the length of the shot is as follows:

Figure 2

The data suggests a linear relationship with the possible exception being at the high end of the

yardage range. The formula from a linear fit of the data is as follows:

Eq (2) Avg Yardage From Hole = 0.13 * Yardage of Shot Taken – 12.9

This formula represents the play of the average or Standard pro against which each pro’s play

can be measured. The Standard can be used in the same way that the Greens Hit formula was

used to compare the ball striking of all the players.

For this performance stat, the average distance from the hole would be calculated using all of a

player’s fairway long approach shots. As each shot is recorded, the standard distance from hole

for a shot from that length is also saved. The average of the standard distances is then averaged.

The difference of the player’s average distance from the hole and the standard distance is the

measure for ranking. Again the long hitter may have a small average distance from the hole but

when compared to what an average player would do given the length of the approach shots he

took, it may be large, and vice versa for the short hitter. A positive number would indicate the

player gets it closer to the hole than other players for his approach shots. A negative number

would indicate a worse performance.

B. Demonstrating the Measure and Interpreting the Results

Table 4 ranks the players according to the average length of the shot following a long approach

shot. Based on this measure, Westwood (who was 2nd

in Greens Hit and 4th

in Adjusted Greens

Hit) ranks first with an average distance of 8.39 yards. Most of the players who ranked high on

the Greens Hit measures ranked high on this measure, including Woods Watson, and Garrigus.

Rose, the best ball striker according to Greens Hit, ranked relatively high (25) but not as high as

expected.

Table 5 ranks the players according to how much better or worse their average distance was

compared to the average distance the Standard player would achieve if the shots taken were from

the distances the player hit from. Based on this adjustment, Westwood remains the best by

hitting his shots 1.65 yards closer than the Standard pro would have hit from the distances

Westwood hit his shots from. McDowell and Stricker move up and Watson moved down as was

observed in the Greens Hit adjusted measure.

Table 6 ranks the players according to their movement in the rankings from before the

adjustment to after it. Again Curtis ranks first moving up 59 places. Other “short” hitters like

Toms, Clark and Wagner also move up substantially. Again in general but not in all cases, the

short hitters move up and the longer hitters move down.

Table 4

Players Ranked by Actual Average Distance from Hole

Player Act AvgDist Difference From

Standard

1 Westwood 8.39 1.65

2 JohnsonD 8.61 1.15

3 Woods 8.67 1.38

4 Garrigus 8.76 1.36

5 Stanley 8.87 1.18

6 Watson 8.90 0.78

7 Garcia 9.21 0.84

8 Stallings 9.21 0.30

9 Van Pelt 9.22 0.79

10 McDowell 9.25 1.49

11 McIlroy 9.28 0.50

12 Stricker 9.36 1.25

13 Campbell 9.40 0.96

14 Allenby 9.46 1.12

15 Every 9.46 0.61

16 Schwartzel 9.47 0.77

17 Simpson 9.48 1.02

18 Pettersson 9.51 0.43

19 Kirk 9.51 0.92

20 Harrington 9.53 0.96

21 Henry 9.55 0.70

22 Senden 9.55 0.78

23 Piercy 9.59 0.55

24 Jacobson 9.66 0.49

25 Rose 9.68 0.73

26 Kuchar 9.68 0.93

27 Dufner 9.76 0.42

28 Merrick 9.77 0.46

29 Claxton 9.77 0.42

30 Scott 9.83 0.46

31 Day 9.84 0.47

32 Cauley 9.85 0.18

33 DeLaet 9.89 0.15

34 Moore 9.93 0.50

35 Weekley 9.94 -0.31

36 Stadler 9.95 0.53

37 Points 10.00 0.45

38 Barnes 10.04 0.26

39 Fowler 10.05 0.10

40 Els 10.05 0.41

41 Love III 10.05 0.27

42 Leishman 10.09 0.37

43 Levin 10.10 0.50

44 de Jonge 10.10 0.24

45 Noh 10.12 0.06

46 Huh 10.16 0.24

47 Snedeker 10.17 0.04

48 Wagner 10.18 0.57

49 Estes 10.22 0.55

50 Poulter 10.25 0.26

51 Furyk 10.27 0.40

52 Bradley 10.28 -0.15

53 Johnson 10.29 0.17

54 Oosthuizen 10.33 -0.07

55 Overton 10.37 0.20

56 Streelman 10.39 -0.14

57 Owen 10.39 0.08

58 Na 10.40 0.54

59 Thompson 10.40 -0.28

60 Choi 10.40 0.35

61 Matteson 10.42 -0.30

62 Gainey 10.43 -0.15

63 Baddeley 10.46 -0.18

64 Horschel 10.46 0.23

65 Byrd 10.47 0.04

66 Watney 10.48 -0.36

67 Summerhays 10.49 0.07

68 Mickelson 10.49 -0.25

69 Steele 10.53 -0.08

70 Frazar 10.53 -0.25

71 O'Hair 10.54 -0.38

72 Duke 10.56 -0.05

73 Mallinger 10.59 0.08

74 Pride 10.59 0.10

75 Curtis 10.60 0.79

76 Harman 10.62 -0.38

77 Blixt 10.63 0.11

78 Perez 10.64 -0.17

79 Rollins 10.66 -0.45

80 Teater 10.66 -0.58

81 Laird 10.66 -0.57

82 McNeill 10.67 -0.02

83 Maggert 10.68 -0.07

84 Palmer 10.68 -0.46

85 Sabbatini 10.68 -0.46

86 Holmes 10.71 -0.49

87 Kelly 10.72 -0.50

88 Gillis 10.72 -0.31

89 Singh 10.75 -0.58

90 Herron 10.75 -0.55

91 Hearn 10.82 -0.16

92 Bohn 10.84 -0.11

93 Haas 10.87 -0.56

94 Chalmers 10.87 -0.07

95 Davis 10.88 0.05

96 Castro 10.89 -0.37

97 Mahan 10.91 -0.34

98 Hoffman 10.95 -0.27

99 Tringale 11.00 -0.54

100 Walker 11.02 -0.83

101 Toms 11.03 0.19

102 Romero 11.03 -0.59

103 Clark 11.05 0.00

104 English 11.06 -0.89

105 McGirt 11.08 -0.44

106 Ogilvy 11.09 -0.63

107 Stroud 11.09 -0.48

108 Molder 11.16 -0.06

109 Wilson 11.21 -0.45

110 O'Hern 11.24 0.04

111 Crane 11.24 -0.57

112 Potter, Jr. 11.27 -0.62

113 Bae 11.27 -0.78

114 Vegas 11.29 -0.85

115 Knost 11.31 -0.61

116 Stenson 11.38 -0.71

117 Pampling 11.42 -0.67

118 Donald 11.49 -0.80

119 Flores 11.56 -1.55

120 Driscoll 11.63 -1.29

121 Howell III 11.64 -1.60

122 Adams 11.67 -1.04

123 Mathis 11.71 -0.97

124 Wi 12.17 -1.48

125 Gay 12.40 -1.62

Table 5

Players Ranked by Difference from Standard

New Rank

Old Rank Player Act Avg Dist Difference From Standard

1 1 Westwood 8.39 1.65

2 10 McDowell 9.25 1.49

3 3 Woods 8.67 1.38

4 4 Garrigus 8.76 1.36

5 12 Stricker 9.36 1.25

6 5 Stanley 8.87 1.18

7 2 JohnsonD 8.61 1.15

8 14 Allenby 9.46 1.12

9 17 Simpson 9.48 1.02

10 13 Campbell 9.40 0.96

11 20 Harrington 9.53 0.96

12 26 Kuchar 9.68 0.93

13 19 Kirk 9.51 0.92

14 7 Garcia 9.21 0.84

15 9 Van Pelt 9.22 0.79

16 75 Curtis 10.60 0.79

17 22 Senden 9.55 0.78

18 6 Watson 8.90 0.78

19 16 Schwartzel 9.47 0.77

20 25 Rose 9.68 0.73

21 21 Henry 9.55 0.70

22 15 Every 9.46 0.61

23 48 Wagner 10.18 0.57

24 23 Piercy 9.59 0.55

25 49 Estes 10.22 0.55

26 58 Na 10.40 0.54

27 36 Stadler 9.95 0.53

28 11 McIlroy 9.28 0.50

29 43 Levin 10.10 0.50

30 34 Moore 9.93 0.50

31 24 Jacobson 9.66 0.49

32 31 Day 9.84 0.47

33 30 Scott 9.83 0.46

34 28 Merrick 9.77 0.46

35 37 Points 10.00 0.45

36 18 Pettersson 9.51 0.43

37 27 Dufner 9.76 0.42

38 29 Claxton 9.77 0.42

39 40 Els 10.05 0.41

40 51 Furyk 10.27 0.40

41 42 Leishman 10.09 0.37

42 60 Choi 10.40 0.35

43 8 Stallings 9.21 0.30

44 41 Love III 10.05 0.27

45 50 Poulter 10.25 0.26

46 38 Barnes 10.04 0.26

47 44 de Jonge 10.10 0.24

48 46 Huh 10.16 0.24

49 64 Horschel 10.46 0.23

50 55 Overton 10.37 0.20

51 101 Toms 11.03 0.19

52 32 Cauley 9.85 0.18

53 53 Johnson 10.29 0.17

54 33 DeLaet 9.89 0.15

55 77 Blixt 10.63 0.11

56 39 Fowler 10.05 0.10

57 74 Pride 10.59 0.10

58 73 Mallinger 10.59 0.08

59 57 Owen 10.39 0.08

60 67 Summerhays 10.49 0.07

61 45 Noh 10.12 0.06

62 95 Davis 10.88 0.05

63 110 O'Hern 11.24 0.04

64 47 Snedeker 10.17 0.04

65 65 Byrd 10.47 0.04

66 103 Clark 11.05 0.00

67 82 McNeill 10.67 -0.02

68 72 Duke 10.56 -0.05

69 108 Molder 11.16 -0.06

70 94 Chalmers 10.87 -0.07

71 83 Maggert 10.68 -0.07

72 54 Oosthuizen 10.33 -0.07

73 69 Steele 10.53 -0.08

74 92 Bohn 10.84 -0.11

75 56 Streelman 10.39 -0.14

76 62 Gainey 10.43 -0.15

77 52 Bradley 10.28 -0.15

78 91 Hearn 10.82 -0.16

79 78 Perez 10.64 -0.17

80 63 Baddeley 10.46 -0.18

81 70 Frazar 10.53 -0.25

82 68 Mickelson 10.49 -0.25

83 98 Hoffman 10.95 -0.27

84 59 Thompson 10.40 -0.28

85 61 Matteson 10.42 -0.30

86 88 Gillis 10.72 -0.31

87 35 Weekley 9.94 -0.31

88 97 Mahan 10.91 -0.34

89 66 Watney 10.48 -0.36

90 96 Castro 10.89 -0.37

91 71 O'Hair 10.54 -0.38

92 76 Harman 10.62 -0.38

93 105 McGirt 11.08 -0.44

94 79 Rollins 10.66 -0.45

95 109 Wilson 11.21 -0.45

96 84 Palmer 10.68 -0.46

97 85 Sabbatini 10.68 -0.46

98 107 Stroud 11.09 -0.48

99 86 Holmes 10.71 -0.49

100 87 Kelly 10.72 -0.50

101 99 Tringale 11.00 -0.54

102 90 Herron 10.75 -0.55

103 93 Haas 10.87 -0.56

104 111 Crane 11.24 -0.57

105 81 Laird 10.66 -0.57

106 89 Singh 10.75 -0.58

107 80 Teater 10.66 -0.58

108 102 Romero 11.03 -0.59

109 115 Knost 11.31 -0.61

110 112 Potter, Jr. 11.27 -0.62

111 106 Ogilvy 11.09 -0.63

112 117 Pampling 11.42 -0.67

113 116 Stenson 11.38 -0.71

114 113 Bae 11.27 -0.78

115 118 Donald 11.49 -0.80

116 100 Walker 11.02 -0.83

117 114 Vegas 11.29 -0.85

118 104 English 11.06 -0.89

119 123 Mathis 11.71 -0.97

120 122 Adams 11.67 -1.04

121 120 Driscoll 11.63 -1.29

122 124 Wi 12.17 -1.48

123 119 Flores 11.56 -1.55

124 121 Howell III 11.64 -1.60

125 125 Gay 12.40 -1.62

Table 6

Players Ranked by Position Improvement

New Rank

Old Rank Improvement Player Act AvgDist

Difference From Standard

16 75 -59 Curtis 10.60 0.79

51 101 -50 Toms 11.03 0.19

63 110 -47 O'Hern 11.24 0.04

69 108 -39 Molder 11.16 -0.06

66 103 -37 Clark 11.05 0.00

62 95 -33 Davis 10.88 0.05

26 58 -32 Na 10.40 0.54

23 48 -25 Wagner 10.18 0.57

25 49 -24 Estes 10.22 0.55

70 94 -24 Chalmers 10.87 -0.07

55 77 -22 Blixt 10.63 0.11

42 60 -18 Choi 10.40 0.35

74 92 -18 Bohn 10.84 -0.11

57 74 -17 Pride 10.59 0.10

49 64 -15 Horschel 10.46 0.23

58 73 -15 Mallinger 10.59 0.08

67 82 -15 McNeill 10.67 -0.02

83 98 -15 Hoffman 10.95 -0.27

12 26 -14 Kuchar 9.68 0.93

29 43 -14 Levin 10.10 0.50

95 109 -14 Wilson 11.21 -0.45

78 91 -13 Hearn 10.82 -0.16

71 83 -12 Maggert 10.68 -0.07

93 105 -12 McGirt 11.08 -0.44

40 51 -11 Furyk 10.27 0.40

11 20 -9 Harrington 9.53 0.96

27 36 -9 Stadler 9.95 0.53

88 97 -9 Mahan 10.91 -0.34

98 107 -9 Stroud 11.09 -0.48

2 10 -8 McDowell 9.25 1.49

9 17 -8 Simpson 9.48 1.02

5 12 -7 Stricker 9.36 1.25

60 67 -7 Summerhays 10.49 0.07

104 111 -7 Crane 11.24 -0.57

8 14 -6 Allenby 9.46 1.12

13 19 -6 Kirk 9.51 0.92

90 96 -6 Castro 10.89 -0.37

109 115 -6 Knost 11.31 -0.61

17 22 -5 Senden 9.55 0.78

20 25 -5 Rose 9.68 0.73

45 50 -5 Poulter 10.25 0.26

50 55 -5 Overton 10.37 0.20

112 117 -5 Pampling 11.42 -0.67

30 34 -4 Moore 9.93 0.50

68 72 -4 Duke 10.56 -0.05

119 123 -4 Mathis 11.71 -0.97

10 13 -3 Campbell 9.40 0.96

113 116 -3 Stenson 11.38 -0.71

115 118 -3 Donald 11.49 -0.80

35 37 -2 Points 10.00 0.45

86 88 -2 Gillis 10.72 -0.31

110 112 -2 Potter, Jr. 11.27 -0.62

120 122 -2 Adams 11.67 -1.04

122 124 -2 Wi 12.17 -1.48

39 40 -1 Els 10.05 0.41

41 42 -1 Leishman 10.09 0.37

1 1 0 Westwood 8.39 1.65

3 3 0 Woods 8.67 1.38

4 4 0 Garrigus 8.76 1.36

21 21 0 Henry 9.55 0.70

53 53 0 Johnson 10.29 0.17

65 65 0 Byrd 10.47 0.04

125 125 0 Gay 12.40 -1.62

6 5 1 Stanley 8.87 1.18

24 23 1 Piercy 9.59 0.55

32 31 1 Day 9.84 0.47

79 78 1 Perez 10.64 -0.17

114 113 1 Bae 11.27 -0.78

121 120 1 Driscoll 11.63 -1.29

48 46 2 Huh 10.16 0.24

59 57 2 Owen 10.39 0.08

101 99 2 Tringale 11.00 -0.54

19 16 3 Schwartzel 9.47 0.77

33 30 3 Scott 9.83 0.46

44 41 3 Love III 10.05 0.27

47 44 3 de Jonge 10.10 0.24

117 114 3 Vegas 11.29 -0.85

124 121 3 Howell III 11.64 -1.60

73 69 4 Steele 10.53 -0.08

123 119 4 Flores 11.56 -1.55

7 2 5 JohnsonD 8.61 1.15

111 106 5 Ogilvy 11.09 -0.63

15 9 6 Van Pelt 9.22 0.79

34 28 6 Merrick 9.77 0.46

108 102 6 Romero 11.03 -0.59

14 7 7 Garcia 9.21 0.84

22 15 7 Every 9.46 0.61

31 24 7 Jacobson 9.66 0.49

46 38 8 Barnes 10.04 0.26

38 29 9 Claxton 9.77 0.42

37 27 10 Dufner 9.76 0.42

103 93 10 Haas 10.87 -0.56

81 70 11 Frazar 10.53 -0.25

18 6 12 Watson 8.90 0.78

96 84 12 Palmer 10.68 -0.46

97 85 12 Sabbatini 10.68 -0.46

102 90 12 Herron 10.75 -0.55

99 86 13 Holmes 10.71 -0.49

100 87 13 Kelly 10.72 -0.50

76 62 14 Gainey 10.43 -0.15

82 68 14 Mickelson 10.49 -0.25

118 104 14 English 11.06 -0.89

94 79 15 Rollins 10.66 -0.45

61 45 16 Noh 10.12 0.06

92 76 16 Harman 10.62 -0.38

116 100 16 Walker 11.02 -0.83

28 11 17 McIlroy 9.28 0.50

56 39 17 Fowler 10.05 0.10

64 47 17 Snedeker 10.17 0.04

80 63 17 Baddeley 10.46 -0.18

106 89 17 Singh 10.75 -0.58

36 18 18 Pettersson 9.51 0.43

72 54 18 Oosthuizen 10.33 -0.07

75 56 19 Streelman 10.39 -0.14

52 32 20 Cauley 9.85 0.18

91 71 20 O'Hair 10.54 -0.38

54 33 21 DeLaet 9.89 0.15

89 66 23 Watney 10.48 -0.36

85 61 24 Matteson 10.42 -0.30

105 81 24 Laird 10.66 -0.57

77 52 25 Bradley 10.28 -0.15

84 59 25 Thompson 10.40 -0.28

107 80 27 Teater 10.66 -0.58

43 8 35 Stallings 9.21 0.30

87 35 52 Weekley 9.94 -0.31

One obvious interpretation is, as was pointed out earlier, that to be competitive, short hitters have

to compensate by being better at other parts of the game such as being more accurate with long

approaches. It is hard to be competitive by being a short hitter and an inaccurate approach striker.

Who Is The Best?

One of the purposes of this paper was to determine who the best Fairway Long Approach ball

striker is. The Greens Hit measure crowned Rose as the best. The Distance from Hole measure

anointed Westwood. Both ranked high in both categories. I prefer the Greens Hit measure since

that is a key objective of a long approach shot. However when confronted with this kind of

situation, the Tour often adds rankings from more than one measure to provide some insight.

Table 7 is a ranking based on the sum of the two rankings.

Table 7

Total Greens Hit Rank Plus Distance Rank

Distance Rank

Greens Hit Rank Total Player

2 2 4 McDowell

1 4 5 Westwood

4 3 7 Garrigus

3 11 14 Woods

10 6 16 Campbell

5 16 21 Stricker

20 1 21 Rose

17 5 22 Senden

14 10 24 Garcia

8 27 35 Allenby

21 14 35 Henry

28 8 36 McIlroy

19 18 37 Schwartzel

23 17 40 Wagner

15 29 44 Van Pelt

18 28 46 Watson

33 13 46 Scott

24 23 47 Piercy

30 20 50 Moore

11 40 51 Harrington

9 43 52 Simpson

31 21 52 Jacobson

6 48 54 Stanley

25 31 56 Estes

16 41 57 Curtis

34 24 58 Merrick

27 33 60 Stadler

36 25 61 Pettersson

37 32 69 Dufner

12 59 71 Kuchar

59 12 71 Owen

22 50 72 Every

13 64 77 Kirk

43 34 77 Stallings

32 46 78 Day

49 35 84 Horschel

47 39 86 de Jonge

72 15 87 Oosthuizen

35 58 93 Points

57 36 93 Pride

73 22 95 Steele

7 89 96 JohnsonD

40 56 96 Furyk

51 47 98 Toms

54 45 99 DeLaet

29 71 100 Levin

46 54 100 Barnes

39 66 105 Els

61 44 105 Noh

64 42 106 Snedeker

103 7 110 Haas

77 38 115 Bradley

89 30 119 Watney

55 69 124 Blixt

117 9 126 Vegas

50 78 128 Overton

91 37 128 O'Hair

102 26 128 Herron

110 19 129 Potter, Jr.

26 104 130 Na

67 63 130 McNeill

79 51 130 Perez

82 49 131 Mickelson

44 88 132 Love III

65 67 132 Byrd

60 73 133 Summerhays

78 57 135 Hearn

83 55 138 Hoffman

48 91 139 Huh

86 53 139 Gillis

88 52 140 Mahan

41 100 141 Leishman

45 96 141 Poulter

58 84 142 Mallinger

84 61 145 Thompson

52 94 146 Cauley

38 109 147 Claxton

69 79 148 Molder

90 60 150 Castro

75 76 151 Streelman

56 98 154 Fowler

87 68 155 Weekley

71 86 157 Maggert

42 117 159 Choi

66 93 159 Clark

53 108 161 Johnson

80 81 161 Baddeley

85 77 162 Matteson

68 97 165 Duke

93 72 165 McGirt

101 65 166 Tringale

62 107 169 Davis

113 62 175 Stenson

63 115 178 O'Hern

94 85 179 Rollins

74 106 180 Bohn

99 83 182 Holmes

105 80 185 Laird

116 70 186 Walker

70 118 188 Chalmers

106 82 188 Singh

76 113 189 Gainey

92 102 194 Harman

107 87 194 Teater

120 74 194 Adams

98 101 199 Stroud

109 90 199 Knost

124 75 199 Howell III

81 124 205 Frazar

95 114 209 Wilson

118 92 210 English

108 103 211 Romero

112 99 211 Pampling

96 120 216 Palmer

100 116 216 Kelly

121 95 216 Driscoll

97 125 222 Sabbatini

111 111 222 Ogilvy

104 119 223 Crane

115 112 227 Donald

123 105 228 Flores

125 110 235 Gay

114 122 236 Bae

119 123 242 Mathis

122 121 243 Wi

From this combined ranking, McDowell just beats Westwood. Rose is high (7th

), as is Woods

(4th

) and others. The correlation of the rankings was high (0.52) indicating that those who hit

more greens, hit the ball closer. That is an obvious observation, however there were some

anomalies. Some players hit a low number of greens but had a low average distance (D Johnson

89th

in Greens and 7th

in Distance) and vice versa (Vegas 9th

in Greens and 117th

in Distance).

Measures of Other Parts of Play Using This Approach

If the Tour found this approach helpful, the following are suggested ways of applying it to other

parts of play.

3. Measures of Short Approach Shot Proficiency

Short approach shots are defined for this proposal as shots from the fairway from lengths greater

than 50 yards but less than 150 yards. These are almost always a wedge shot. I propose two

measures similar to the two for Long Approach shots: greens hit and average distance from hole

normalized for the distances of the short approach shots taken. As above a standard has been

created from ShotLink data relating length of short approach shot and the average distance from

the hole after the shot is taken. The same procedure would then be applied to rank the players

given each players short approach shots taken.

4. Measures of Near Green Game Proficiency

I propose that new stats be created for proficiency measurement for the Near Green Game shots

using the same structure as used above. However since virtually all of these shots end up on the

green, the measure proposed here would be the distance from the hole after the stroke. The

categories I propose are Long Pitches – shots from 25 to 50 yards out, Short Pitches – shots from

10 feet to 25 yards, Chipping –shots within 10 feet of putting surface. (The definition for

chipping may be problematic since the data tells the distance to the hole, not necessarily to the

edge of the green.)

Of course the Tour already has Scrambling and Sand Saves, which are good measures. I propose

a refinement since some of those stats combine shot making with putting. I propose to take out

the effect of putting by using a distance adjusted measure (as above) for the length of the pitch,

chip or bunker shot and then finding the average distance from the hole after the shot. The

difference in the player’s average result and the average calculated using the standard would be

the measure by which the player’s proficiency would be ranked.

Definitions: for these measures, a pitch is stroke take from more than 10’ but less than 25 yards

from the green (not the hole.) This maybe a problem since the data currently does not measure

the distance from the edge of the green. A chip is a stroke taken from off the green but within 10’

of the edge. Bunker shot is a stroke taken from a green-side bunker.

Alternate measures could include percentage of each of these shots (adjusted for length) which

end up within a specified distance from the hole. For example, for pitch and bunker shots the

measure when adjusted for distance, could be the percentage of shots of each type that end up

within 6’ of the hole (the 50-50 make point.) For chips the measure might be the percentage

within 3’.

5. Comparison to Current Measures

There is a good correlation between this new measure and GIRs. However we can see some

substantial movement in the rankings particularly to the benefit of shorter hitters. But more

importantly, this is a pure measure of ball striking from the fairway for full swing (likely) iron

shots. GIRs includes all holes: par 3s (where the ball is teed) and par 5s (often can be reached in

two), holes where the tee shot left far less than a full wedge to the green or too long to reach, and

holes hitting from the rough (putting inaccurate drivers perhaps at a disadvantage.)

Probably there is also a good correlation with the Tour’s current Ball Striking measure which

combines Driving Rank with GIR rank. That is a good measure but there are so many factors that

influence that measure it is hard, other than by speculating, to determine what precisely makes

one player better at that measure than another. Although my measure does not cover all factors, it

isolates one in a comprehensive way.

My measure isolates probably the most significant factor regarding shot difficulty, distance to the

green. Of course being on the right side or left side of the fairway may be important fro some

holes. The lie in the fairway is important especially for the longer shots. Those are factors that

upon further analysis could be included if found to be significant and predictable. The plot of

distance vs. green hitting percentage showed how strong that relationship is. If these other factors

could be shown to be as precisely related, the measure could be adjusted for those as well.

6. Areas for Future Study

A. Improvements

In addition to the comments about improving the measure stated just above, the following

improvements could be considered.

The analysis used shots from 150 to 225 yards because it was assumed that all pros would be

taking full swing iron shots with a chance to reach the green for these shots. The pros are hitting

it longer and longer these days. A better range might be suggested and the analysis re-done.

This analysis was done using an “annual standard” based on all play on all courses for (almost)

the entire year. Clearly the small greens at Pebble Beach are harder to hit than the large greens at,

say, Baltusrol. Some course set the greens up firm while others (due to plan or rain) are soft. A

significant improvement would be to create a standard for each tournament and calculate the

adjustments each week. Like “Strokes Gained/Strokes Lost” it could be calculated for the week

and cumulative for the year.

As an additional extension to this concept, a standard could be created for each hole, even for

each hole each day, if the Tour wanted such precision and if there were enough data points to

make the standard statistically sound.

It would be useful to go back and study individual players (such as Woods) to see if there is

consistency in performance as measured by this stat. In addition correlations should be made to

money winnings and to other measures such as putting and driving.

B. Other Measures

A measure could be created for just par 3s. One of the reasons they were excluded from this

analysis was the ball is teed for these shots. However that is an advantage for measuring pure

iron play ball striking. The lie and position is removed from the equation and distance becomes

the exclusive factor, making the proposed measure that much more “pure.”

A measure could be created for longer shots, particularly for par 5s. The Tour currently has

measures for “going for it” on par 5s so this may not be needed.

A parallel measure to the proposed long approach measure could be created for shots from 150 to

225 yards from the rough “open” to the green (not blocked by trees or other concerns.) This

measure would be very course-specific since the rough difficulty varies greatly from venue to

venue.

This approach could also be combined with the Strokes Gained/Strokes Lost methodology

developed by Broadie and Rendleman (1) for non-putting strokes. The distance of the shot taken

approach proposed could be combined with their measure and adjusted by distance for ranking

purpose.

Conclusion

In their classic book, The Search for the Perfect Swing, Cockran and Stobbs (2) studied the

British pros and found that long approach shot accuracy was the discriminating statistic for

separating the best from the also-rans. This paper was an effort to shed light on the skill level of

the best players in the world on this important aspect of the pro game. The measures proposed

have been shown to help identify the best. If implemented as a Tour stat, it will add to the rich

collection of figures the Tour publishes.

References

1. Broadie, Mark, Columbia Graduate School of Business and Richard Rendleman, Jr., UNC and

Dartmouth College, WINNING AND LUCK ON THE PGA TOUR, INFORMS, Charlotte, NC November 2011

2. Cochran, Alastair and John Stobbs, [1968] THE SEARCH FOR THE PERFECT SWING, The

Booklegger, Grass Valley, California