We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Putts Per Round - Overrated Number?

TripleBogieTim said:
Three things I really work on....more GIR, less putts per GIR and eliminate 3 putts.
Click to expand...

Yep, I also focus on fairways hit off of the tee (for par 3 that requires tee shot on the green), penalty strokes, and "down in twos" from around the green. For me, those are the 6 stats. I can look at those and tell how my round went. I don't need anything else.

As someone who stinks, GIR is kind of hard. If on a par 4 or 5, I'm on in +1 though and two putt, or am next to the green in +1 and get down in two, then I'm happy. On any par 3, my goal is par. Really, my goal at this point is to break into the 80s.
 
I still think about this from time to time. It's an important number to me, though I understand it's not perfect. I think you have to look at the whole story, but that's easy enough. I know what a good number of putts is for me with my average GIR performance and what stinks.
 
I use Golfshot to record all my rounds and it produces stats for putting: average for GIR and average for total. At the moment I have 2.1 in GIR and 1.9 in total.
For each score you have to enter number of putts (along with some other things). I calculate a putt on green as a putt. When I am putting from fringe or other I don't record it as a putt. This gives a little lower stat but a more correct GIR (because GolfShot calculates GIR from no of putts, score and par on hole).

PPR is not included in Golfshots stats.

Sometimes I compare number of shot on and close to the green against all long shots (approach and drivers) to see in which part I ****ed up that day. In my case it's usually the long game that fails.
 
SharkHat said:
Strokes gained putting is completely irrelevant.
Click to expand...
For us yes, in a legitimate tournament it could hold more water.



Thainer21 said:
I dont think so to be honest.
Click to expand...
Depending on the situation it is used in. On an everyday basis, it means nothing to most because the stat is designed for Tour pros. How are you going to use it in today's round on your course? You could compare your stats to the people you play with but what is that really going to show you? Not much.

Strokes Gained-Putting, however, takes into account putting proficiency from various distances and computes the difference between a player's performance on every green – the number of strokes needed to hole out – against the performance of the other players for each round. This ultimately shows how many strokes are gained or lost due to putting for a particular round, for a tournament and over the course of a year.

The statistic is computed by calculating the average number of putts a PGA TOUR player is expected to take from every distance, based on ShotLink data from the previous season. The actual number of putts taken by a player is subtracted from this average value to determine strokes gained or lost. For example, the average number of putts used to hole out from 7 feet 10 inches is 1.5. If a player one-putts from this distance, he gains 0.5 strokes. If he two-putts, he loses 0.5 strokes. If he three-putts, he loses 1.5 strokes.

A player's strokes gained or lost are then compared to the field. For example, if a player gained a total of three strokes over the course of a round and the field gained an average of one stroke, the player's "Strokes Gained Against the Field" would be two.
Click to expand...
 
Thainer21 said:
I dont think so to be honest.
Click to expand...

It is for the context of this thread, which is amateurs tracking their own stats to improve.

I think that it's a great stat for use on Tour, but who am I supposed to be gaining strokes on and who is tracking me with ShotLink?
 
But in a sense of which amateurs can compare their stats to the tour, and try and get on a level of which tour players putt, it can be helpful.
 
Thainer21 said:
But in a sense of which amateurs can compare their stats to the tour, and try and get on a level of which tour players putt, it can be helpful.
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm not understanding the statistic very well, but since I'm neither playing against a field nor on the same greens....
 
SharkHat said:
Maybe I'm not understanding the statistic very well, but since I'm neither playing against a field nor on the same greens....
Click to expand...

But guys pick and choose tournaments they play in. So a strokes gained putting leader could have missed all 4 majors, didn't compete in The Players, etc.


The concept of an amateur using this stat is the fact that he is going to put himself against a field. The professional field. As a benchmark for his own success.
 
putt is an okay stat, I keep up with it, but it could use some sort of modifier to make it more accurate. I can't think of a great way to do so, but if you're chipping every hole, you should have less putts than someone that gets a GIR, because logically chipping should (more often than not) put you closer to the hole.
 
HGoldwin said:
I calculate a putt on green as a putt. When I am putting from fringe or other I don't record it as a putt.
Click to expand...

It is important to track it the same round over round. Classically, I tracked my putts as ever time I pulled out the putter (which made my pure putting numbers higher), but I've gone to a new stat tracking system and will be doing it this way.
 
Thainer21 said:
But guys pick and choose tournaments they play in. So a strokes gained putting leader could have missed all 4 majors, didn't compete in The Players, etc.


The concept of an amateur using this stat is the fact that he is going to put himself against a field. The professional field. As a benchmark for his own success.
Click to expand...

How are you going to compare unless you are playing the same courses you are comparing to? Even better, playing those courses the week before or after the pros play them. You will come up with a number, but I don't see how it will mean anything when you are playing Podunk Pointe Golf Course.
 
First of all we need to realize that this stat is virtually impossible for someone to track. Second of all, I agree that easier courses allow for better stats. But the tour guys dont all play the same courses. Steve Strickers rota is different than Beljan or Spieth or McIlroy. They all dont play the same courses either.
Smallville said:
How are you going to compare unless you are playing the same courses you are comparing to? Even better, playing those courses the week before or after the pros play them. You will come up with a number, but I don't see how it will mean anything when you are playing Podunk Pointe Golf Course.
Click to expand...
 
Thainer21 said:
First of all we need to realize that this stat is virtually impossible for someone to track. Second of all, I agree that easier courses allow for better stats. But the tour guys dont all play the same courses. Steve Strickers rota is different than Beljan or Spieth or McIlroy. They all dont play the same courses either.
Click to expand...
If this is the case, how is it not irrelevant as Shark said which you disputed. (As it relates to us regular people?)

They do play some of the same courses, and for some, a lot of the same courses. They ARE playing the same types of courses, based on difficulty levels (Save for the four majors, which most of the top players all play). The courses we normally play don't compare. And even when we do play the same courses, we aren't playing them with the tournament setups.
 
But neither does our skill level either. It'll never align perfectly, but neither will driving distance measurements, GIR, FIR, Save%, anything.

So why ever compare anything with the tour?
 
Thainer21 said:
First of all we need to realize that this stat is virtually impossible for someone to track. Second of all, I agree that easier courses allow for better stats. But the tour guys dont all play the same courses. Steve Strickers rota is different than Beljan or Spieth or McIlroy. They all dont play the same courses either.
Click to expand...

Steve Stricker's stat is for the events he played in, against the fields he competed against. Which is why it's impossible for me to apply or even track the stat for my game.


I do think that I kind of understand the spirit of what you're getting at though.
 
Every time I see another stats tracking thread, I like to bump this up because so many people (me included) track putts per round.

I do it, even though I know it is not as telling a stat as people want to believe, because it is such an easy stat to track. Now, if you track chips and putts per round as one stat, then it might mean a little more.
 
Putts per round means sweet FA. Putts per GIR is far more telling as it excludes holes where you miss the green then chip it close.
 
I've thought about this a lot. My chipping, while improving a lot lately, has typically been horrible. I also typically hit 0/18 GIR. So poor chipping/pitching combined with missed approach shots account for the majority of my extra strokes over par in a round.

My putting on the other hand, averages less than 36 per round. I don't typically pitch/chip close to the pin so I feel like I'm a pretty decent putter. If I landed approach shots or chipped/pitched closer to the pin I believe I would have less than 30 putts per round (and have a handicap below 20).

I still track PPR though because it's easy to track. I also track pitches and chips. I tracked my putting misses for a while but found that most were 10 feet or longer and were either short or pushed. I stopped tracking the misses for now because I know what to work on for the time being.
 
It's like my chip in for par. There were 0 putts. Putts per hole stat improved significantly but i never even used my putter. How can stats for a club you don't even use get better?
 
I agree Smalls in that I dont care of how many putts I have. I do care and track how many putts and shots within 50 yards I have a round. These two combined tell me how my short game is going.
 
Don't know if this had been proposed or not but maybe it's time for a new metric combining putts per round and GIR. Total Putts / (GIR+1) or some such.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top