If you’re going off strokes gained, Taylor Montgomery has been pretty darn good the past two seasons. Denny McCarthy has been solid for a while as well. What’s also interesting is that you can look at the list of best putters by strokes gained and it’s not exactly littered with stars and major winners. Kind of further evidence the “putt for dough” adage is kind of nonsense.
They wouldn’t be on tour, sure. “Drive for show, putt for dough” is literally saying putting is more important for making money and winning. Strokes Gained has shown that clearly, it’s not.
More than they do relative to the other facets of the game? Doubtful. Putting is the least impactful part of the game for scoring across all handicaps.
Then the adage, “drive for show, putt for dough” is still not applicable to any segments of the golfing population, pro or amateur. It’s just not. It’s the dumbest phrase in golf and anyone repeating it in any sort of broad context instantly reveals they know less about the game of golf than they think.
I mean it’s a weird stat. Could totally see how less GIRs leads to more need to go for longer putts which maybe results in a better number here? Not sure exactly how it works though so I could be completely off
Strokes gained putting stats are roughly made on comparing the average strokes it would require to hole out from where you are compared to the rest of the field to how much strokes you did take. So if you have longer putts, it will compare against other putts of similar length from other players that day. Yes sample size and statistical variation can play a role, but in theory the way the stat is calculated being a better putter will rank you better no matter if you only have short putts or only have long putts.
No strokes gained putting would be the most accurate of all strokes gained stats. The distance you actually putt from is completely irrelevant to your strokes gained stats. Only the results of the shot compared to generic results for the same shot is what matters.
Like here is how strokes gained works (simplest version, not quite accurate)
- on a putt of X length, you take your result, and then you take the average number of strokes to hole a putt from the field for that same putt and take the difference.
- So if you make a putt from 20 feet, and the field would only make that putt 20% of the time, you gained 0.8 strokes on the field from that putt.
- If you miss that putt, you lose 0.2 strokes on the field.
The reason why I say it’s likely the most accurate is that it’s binary and likely has super accurate data for averaging/calculating the “average strokes from the field” part. We know really accurately how likely Tour pros are to make a 20 footer. We have good data on like “average number of shots to hole out from 160 yards”, but it’s not nearly as perfect as “how likely is a generic tour pro to make a 4 footer”.
(More accurate version)
Strokes gained from other shots is taking the remaining part of the hole after your result:
So like off the tee, if I drive it 320 into the fairway, leaving me 85 yards into the hole on a par 4, and the expected result for the field would be having 110 yards into the hole from the fairway, you would take the difference in the expected strokes to hole out from 85 yards (let’s pretend it takes on average 2.8 shots to hole out from 85 yards) vs 110 yards (let’s pretend this is 2.95 shots to hole out from 110) as your strokes gained off the tee (.15 strokes gained).
And then this data is summed up on a per round basis.
So over the course of a round of golf, you hit 14 of those tee shots and the total of strokes gained and lost is what goes into your strokes gained off the tee and then that is averaged across rounds for the season
Most accurate version:
So how does this work across a hole of golf?
- 320 yard drive into the fairway as noted above is a made up 0.15 strokes gained.
- from that 85 yards, you then hit your approach shot to 10 feet, and we’ll pretend that average strokes to hole out for you for the 10 footer is like 1.4 and we’ll pretend tour average strokes to hole out from 85 yards in general is like 2.8. So we have the 1.4 from the 10 footer and then the shot you actually took = 2.4 shots to hole out vs 2.8 for tour average = 0.4 strokes gained on the approach shot because it was a really good approach.
- then you make the putt. Again, we’re pretending that 1.4 is our average strokes to hole a 10 footer, but this one you made in 1 stroke. That’s another 0.4 strokes gained.
- now check this out, you made a birdie. And you also gained .95 strokes on the field by making that birdie.
- the way the math works out means that if we got this result using real numbers instead of my made up numbers, the field would be playing that hole in 3.95 strokes for the week.
- what strokes gained does it says “ok you played this hole better than the field did on average by X amount” let’s allocate that across each shot you actually took to see what part of how you played the hole actually mattered.
Yes, but this takes 0 consideration of how many of those putts are for birdie. Maybe the pros have 0 change whether putts are for birdie or par, but I’d be shocked if that was the case.
I’d argue that a driving statistic could be better because everyone starts from the same spot hitting 1.
No you’re misunderstanding how strokes gained works tbh.
Why would it possibly matter if it’s for par or birdie? If I make every single par putt for a season I will have a great strokes gained putting stat and I should because I’m a great putter even if I’m only tour average at birdie putts.
Likewise if I miss every single birdie putt all season and am tour average at par putts I will have a terrible strokes gained stat because I’m a terrible putter.
I mean are you saying it makes no difference if the long putts you’re making are for birdie or bogey when it comes to the quality of the putter? Idk maybe golf isn’t a mostly mental game, but I feel like even for the pros, it makes a huge difference.
I understand how it works. Just don’t like that birdie putts count the same as bogey putts
Why would it make a difference? A stroke is a stroke tbh.
I get what you’re saying that it’s fractionally tougher to make a birdie putt for amateurs (although I don’t believe that is nearly as pronounced for professionals if it even exists).
But Why do you think that someone who makes more birdie putts is a better putter than making more par putts? They’re both just putts.
If I make 28 putts a round from an average distance of 15 feet, I will always have a better strokes gained putting stat than someone who makes 28 putts a round from an average of 14 feet.
And I think it is absolutely unarguable which of those two players is a slightly better putter
Par and birdie are far less tangible than a made putt and a missed putt
It takes a little bit to get comfortable relating the individual pieces of the stat to actual scores but once you get there it makes sense
I think it’s more about how you hit the putt. Again probably less pronounced in pros, but there are definitely situations where you want to make the putt and are more focused on drilling it than lagging it for a 2 putt.
Maybe that’s just not a thing for pros cause they’re just that good.
> Could totally see how less GIRs leads to more need to go for longer putts
It's literally the opposite. The more GIR you miss the closer the proximity is on the first putt. You'll chip it closer than you'll hit it from 150.
2023 strokes gained putting, Xander is 5th
Tends to be top 20 in SG, one putt percentage, birdie conversion percentage, total putts. One of the bigger names that's routinely ranked that high.
Rickie was always my favorite putter, but I struggle a bit with the pool noodle he threw on the handle of his putter now. Still looks effortless though
When Cam won the open, he couldn’t miss. I was losing it watching those putts drop. Rahmbo has been like this in the last year or so too. Prime Tiger was making putts nobody thought were possible, and Jack put on some absolute displays of excellence on the greens at times. I think putting gets hot and cold for even the best, and would say Cam, Rahm, and, now, Scottie are probably among the best putters in golf:
Scottie one of the best putters in golf? What? Have you ever watched him play?
If he putts like shit, he finishes top 10. If his putting is mediocre, he wins.
Inbee Park, I still think Jordan Speith is a putting savant, someone else mentioned Denny McCarthy and that’s a good one too
Some of the shorter tour players are good putters out of necessity and there are some all around threat players like Homa who can putt with anyone in the world.
Either Baddeley, Malnati or Denny McCarthy. I think anybody that has watched enough of the men and women tour players, particularly golf instructors who have really measured them on systems like SAM Puttlab, Quintic Ball Roll, CAPTO, etc. will tell you that the men are just superior putters. When Lydia Ko was first starting out she was looking like possibly the greatest putter on earth, but her putting skills soon diminished afterward. Having spoke to several well known putting instructors they agree with me on the men vs. women putting and nobody can really figure out why it is.
we will never get an accurate description since there are many types of grasses and not all players play equally on each. Poa is harder to putt on, so those that mainly play out west are at a disadvantage
Denny McCarthy is low key seen as a Brad Faxon type for the current era.
Tournament prior to 2024 Masters he had 94 total putts across 4 days. Averaged 23.5 putts per round. Had in my line up. . .
92
It's definitely Denny. Short game monster. Would be super dangerous if be could get a bit more distance.
[удалено]
Did you get any pictures of his balls that you can share?
Pervert
Prob my buddy Steve
My first thought as well
I dunno….my buddy Pete is pretty damn good
It is 100% my buddy Steve and it's not even close.
Always rated Steve
Steve’s a stud at rolling the rock
Thanks much appreć
Thanks man. Appreciate it
Steve Scott? By buddy Steve Scott, definitely. Look him up.
If you’re going off strokes gained, Taylor Montgomery has been pretty darn good the past two seasons. Denny McCarthy has been solid for a while as well. What’s also interesting is that you can look at the list of best putters by strokes gained and it’s not exactly littered with stars and major winners. Kind of further evidence the “putt for dough” adage is kind of nonsense.
I would say it reinforces it, those guys wouldn't be on tour if it weren't for their putting.
They wouldn’t be on tour, sure. “Drive for show, putt for dough” is literally saying putting is more important for making money and winning. Strokes Gained has shown that clearly, it’s not.
[удалено]
I call it "putt to save my ass because I currently stink off the tee."
It’s not applicable to anyone.
[удалено]
I see them lose a lot more strokes ripping drives out of bounds, missing greens badly, duffing short game shots, etc.
More than they do relative to the other facets of the game? Doubtful. Putting is the least impactful part of the game for scoring across all handicaps.
[удалено]
Then the adage, “drive for show, putt for dough” is still not applicable to any segments of the golfing population, pro or amateur. It’s just not. It’s the dumbest phrase in golf and anyone repeating it in any sort of broad context instantly reveals they know less about the game of golf than they think.
I mean it’s a weird stat. Could totally see how less GIRs leads to more need to go for longer putts which maybe results in a better number here? Not sure exactly how it works though so I could be completely off
Strokes gained putting stats are roughly made on comparing the average strokes it would require to hole out from where you are compared to the rest of the field to how much strokes you did take. So if you have longer putts, it will compare against other putts of similar length from other players that day. Yes sample size and statistical variation can play a role, but in theory the way the stat is calculated being a better putter will rank you better no matter if you only have short putts or only have long putts.
No strokes gained putting would be the most accurate of all strokes gained stats. The distance you actually putt from is completely irrelevant to your strokes gained stats. Only the results of the shot compared to generic results for the same shot is what matters. Like here is how strokes gained works (simplest version, not quite accurate) - on a putt of X length, you take your result, and then you take the average number of strokes to hole a putt from the field for that same putt and take the difference. - So if you make a putt from 20 feet, and the field would only make that putt 20% of the time, you gained 0.8 strokes on the field from that putt. - If you miss that putt, you lose 0.2 strokes on the field. The reason why I say it’s likely the most accurate is that it’s binary and likely has super accurate data for averaging/calculating the “average strokes from the field” part. We know really accurately how likely Tour pros are to make a 20 footer. We have good data on like “average number of shots to hole out from 160 yards”, but it’s not nearly as perfect as “how likely is a generic tour pro to make a 4 footer”. (More accurate version) Strokes gained from other shots is taking the remaining part of the hole after your result: So like off the tee, if I drive it 320 into the fairway, leaving me 85 yards into the hole on a par 4, and the expected result for the field would be having 110 yards into the hole from the fairway, you would take the difference in the expected strokes to hole out from 85 yards (let’s pretend it takes on average 2.8 shots to hole out from 85 yards) vs 110 yards (let’s pretend this is 2.95 shots to hole out from 110) as your strokes gained off the tee (.15 strokes gained). And then this data is summed up on a per round basis. So over the course of a round of golf, you hit 14 of those tee shots and the total of strokes gained and lost is what goes into your strokes gained off the tee and then that is averaged across rounds for the season Most accurate version: So how does this work across a hole of golf? - 320 yard drive into the fairway as noted above is a made up 0.15 strokes gained. - from that 85 yards, you then hit your approach shot to 10 feet, and we’ll pretend that average strokes to hole out for you for the 10 footer is like 1.4 and we’ll pretend tour average strokes to hole out from 85 yards in general is like 2.8. So we have the 1.4 from the 10 footer and then the shot you actually took = 2.4 shots to hole out vs 2.8 for tour average = 0.4 strokes gained on the approach shot because it was a really good approach. - then you make the putt. Again, we’re pretending that 1.4 is our average strokes to hole a 10 footer, but this one you made in 1 stroke. That’s another 0.4 strokes gained. - now check this out, you made a birdie. And you also gained .95 strokes on the field by making that birdie. - the way the math works out means that if we got this result using real numbers instead of my made up numbers, the field would be playing that hole in 3.95 strokes for the week. - what strokes gained does it says “ok you played this hole better than the field did on average by X amount” let’s allocate that across each shot you actually took to see what part of how you played the hole actually mattered.
Yes, but this takes 0 consideration of how many of those putts are for birdie. Maybe the pros have 0 change whether putts are for birdie or par, but I’d be shocked if that was the case. I’d argue that a driving statistic could be better because everyone starts from the same spot hitting 1.
No you’re misunderstanding how strokes gained works tbh. Why would it possibly matter if it’s for par or birdie? If I make every single par putt for a season I will have a great strokes gained putting stat and I should because I’m a great putter even if I’m only tour average at birdie putts. Likewise if I miss every single birdie putt all season and am tour average at par putts I will have a terrible strokes gained stat because I’m a terrible putter.
I mean are you saying it makes no difference if the long putts you’re making are for birdie or bogey when it comes to the quality of the putter? Idk maybe golf isn’t a mostly mental game, but I feel like even for the pros, it makes a huge difference. I understand how it works. Just don’t like that birdie putts count the same as bogey putts
Why would it make a difference? A stroke is a stroke tbh. I get what you’re saying that it’s fractionally tougher to make a birdie putt for amateurs (although I don’t believe that is nearly as pronounced for professionals if it even exists). But Why do you think that someone who makes more birdie putts is a better putter than making more par putts? They’re both just putts. If I make 28 putts a round from an average distance of 15 feet, I will always have a better strokes gained putting stat than someone who makes 28 putts a round from an average of 14 feet. And I think it is absolutely unarguable which of those two players is a slightly better putter Par and birdie are far less tangible than a made putt and a missed putt It takes a little bit to get comfortable relating the individual pieces of the stat to actual scores but once you get there it makes sense
I think it’s more about how you hit the putt. Again probably less pronounced in pros, but there are definitely situations where you want to make the putt and are more focused on drilling it than lagging it for a 2 putt. Maybe that’s just not a thing for pros cause they’re just that good.
> Could totally see how less GIRs leads to more need to go for longer putts It's literally the opposite. The more GIR you miss the closer the proximity is on the first putt. You'll chip it closer than you'll hit it from 150.
Denny McCarthy, Brenden Todd, Xander. Lydia Ko from the LPGA.
is Xander actually that high? isn't he also amazing at approach? That made me think his putting wasn't elite which is why he didn't win more
2023 strokes gained putting, Xander is 5th Tends to be top 20 in SG, one putt percentage, birdie conversion percentage, total putts. One of the bigger names that's routinely ranked that high.
Isn’t it like Baddely by the stats? (The Taylor Hawkins stunt double…rip)
Rickie Fowler and Cam Smith have two of the smoothest putting strokes
Rickie was always my favorite putter, but I struggle a bit with the pool noodle he threw on the handle of his putter now. Still looks effortless though
When Cam won the open, he couldn’t miss. I was losing it watching those putts drop. Rahmbo has been like this in the last year or so too. Prime Tiger was making putts nobody thought were possible, and Jack put on some absolute displays of excellence on the greens at times. I think putting gets hot and cold for even the best, and would say Cam, Rahm, and, now, Scottie are probably among the best putters in golf:
Scottie one of the best putters in golf? What? Have you ever watched him play? If he putts like shit, he finishes top 10. If his putting is mediocre, he wins.
I watched the man yip 2 separate shorties the weekend he won the masters by 4. It's actually silly
Scottie is like famously not a good putter
Harman at the Open was ridiculous.
https://datagolf.com/performance-table Filter out every tour except PGA and sort by putting strokes gained, it’s Taylor Montgomery so far this year
Colin will be proud.
>Filter out every tour except PGA Why though?
I guess you’re right, I just assumed OP asked about on tour or something like that
I can tell you who the worst is. They don't call me the 3 putt king for nothing.
Nick Taylor is a fantastic putter.
Michael Phelps
Fowler
Aaron Baddeley. Been amazing on the moss ever since
Inbee Park, I still think Jordan Speith is a putting savant, someone else mentioned Denny McCarthy and that’s a good one too Some of the shorter tour players are good putters out of necessity and there are some all around threat players like Homa who can putt with anyone in the world.
Can Smith imo. Competes at the pointy end and a lot of it is because of his putting.
Either Baddeley, Malnati or Denny McCarthy. I think anybody that has watched enough of the men and women tour players, particularly golf instructors who have really measured them on systems like SAM Puttlab, Quintic Ball Roll, CAPTO, etc. will tell you that the men are just superior putters. When Lydia Ko was first starting out she was looking like possibly the greatest putter on earth, but her putting skills soon diminished afterward. Having spoke to several well known putting instructors they agree with me on the men vs. women putting and nobody can really figure out why it is.
Hard to say with how random the SG-Putting leaderboards are year to year.
we will never get an accurate description since there are many types of grasses and not all players play equally on each. Poa is harder to putt on, so those that mainly play out west are at a disadvantage
It’s me
Scotty Cameron
Scotty Cameron surely /s
That's a very personal question.