Ricky Bobby (Driver) vs. Shivas (Irons) - Who Wins in a Year?

[Ross_Albatross]

30 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

I'm going to echo @Trippels here and go into a stats discussion, but I'm going to use it to come to the opposite conclusion. 

 

SG:OTT is a blended distance/accuracy stat. SG:Approach is an almost purely accuracy stat. 

 

The only way that I can see you having these sorts of differences is that you've got a long-but-wild guy and a short-but-accurate guy. 

 

I.e. you've got the equivalent of a 9-handicap Cameron Champ (Ricky Bobby) vs a 9-handicap Tom Hoge (Shivas). 

 

I personally think the 9-handicap Shivas has a better swing overall, and is probably much closer to their ceiling of swing mechanics if they're that good with the irons, and got to their 9 handicap by being deadly with longer irons. Whereas the 9-handicap Ricky Bobby is getting to his 9 by hitting it long and having short irons in, even though he doesn't hit them well. 

 

I'd think the 9-handicap Ricky Bobby has more low-hanging fruit to improve their mechanics. Whereas the 9-handicap Shivas already has solid mechanics and now has to figure out a way to gain speed, something that player may or may not be easily able to do physically, and may or may not be easily able to do without screwing up their swing. 

You went at it the same way I did (if I get your point SG wise) - if well coached, Ricky Bobby's potential for improvment is way higher than Shivas... isn't that what a coach should be looking for, and how they can effectively 'transfer' their knowledge for players to get to their ceiling - Shivas seems pretty much capped out

[betarhoalphadelta]

5 minutes ago, PracticeSwinger said:

You went at it the same way I did (if I get your point SG wise) - if well coached, Ricky Bobby's potential for improvment is way higher than Shivas... isn't that what a coach should be looking for, and how they can effectively 'transfer' their knowledge for players to get to their ceiling - Shivas seems pretty much capped out

 

Yep. And from a stats perspective, it can get even worse. Let's say Ricky hits it 270 but can barely keep it in bounds, and Shivas hits it 220 off the tee but finds LOTS of fairways.

 

You think "well Shivas has an approach score of 80 to Ricky's 50, so Shivas must be hitting a bunch more greens!"

 

 

Problem is that Shivas' approach shots will be consistently 50 yards farther out than Ricky. And given their distance differences, that might be a 6-7 club difference. If it's a 400 yard par 4, Shivas might be hitting a hybrid from 180 in the fairway while Ricky has to hit a pitching wedge from 130 out of the rough over a tree--but I'll bet ol' Ricky has that shot. Probably gets a lot of practice at it lol 😉

 

You drop a ball at the same point in the fairway and have them both play from the same spot, and Chivas will smoke Ricky. But you spot Ricky 50 yards per hole on approach, and they might be pretty similar in their GIR stats even if Ricky is less accurate. 

 

[Ross_Albatross]

1 minute ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

Yep. And from a stats perspective, it can get even worse. Let's say Ricky hits it 270 but can barely keep it in bounds, and Shivas hits it 220 off the tee but finds LOTS of fairways.

 

You think "well Shivas has an approach score of 80 to Ricky's 50, so Shivas must be hitting a bunch more greens!"

 

 

Problem is that Shivas' approach shots will be consistently 50 yards farther out than Ricky. And given their distance differences, that might be a 6-7 club difference. If it's a 400 yard par 4, Shivas might be hitting a hybrid from 180 in the fairway while Ricky has to hit a pitching wedge from 130 out of the rough over a tree--but I'll bet ol' Ricky has that shot. Probably gets a lot of practice at it lol 😉

 

You drop a ball at the same point in the fairway and have them both play from the same spot, and Chivas will smoke Ricky. But you spot Ricky 50 yards per hole on approach, and they might be pretty similar in their GIR stats even if Ricky is less accurate. 

 

Correct - also get Ricky a good coach for a year, as SG approach has shown, and he's got potential to drop that index a lot faster than Shivas with longer courses and/or just better iron play from shorter distances - thus (if the handicap system is any good) lead him to winning his share of the 10 end of the year matches

[iacas]

2 hours ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

I personally think the 9-handicap Shivas has a better swing overall, and is probably much closer to their ceiling of swing mechanics if they're that good with the irons,

You made a lot of assumptions including this bit about being anywhere near their swing potential. These are nine handicappers, not Tour players. Most of the nines who are relatively better with the irons than the driver hit it far enough, they just don’t know what curve they’re going to get or they spin it a ton or something. It’s not a matter of short versus long.

 

To put it another way, you created one scenario where that might work but it’s just that — one scenario. 9s can run the gamut and I wasn’t suggesting the good irons player only hits it 220. That’s short for a capable 30 year old, especially since he would be hitting extra clubs in and thus likely have a really really difficult time making up strokes on approach.

 

Edited September 16, 2024 by iacas

[betarhoalphadelta]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

You made a lot of assumptions including this bit about being anywhere near their swing potential. These are nine handicappers, not Tour players. Most of the nines who are relatively better with the irons than the driver hit it far enough, they just don’t know what curve they’re going to get or they spin it a ton or something. It’s not a matter of short versus long.

 

To put it another way, you created one scenario where that might work but it’s just that — one scenario. 9s can run the gamut and I wasn’t suggesting the good irons player only hits it 220. That’s short for a capable 30 year old, especially since he would be hitting extra clubs in and thus likely have a really really difficult time making up strokes on approach.

 

 

This comes down to the nature of the SG:OTT and SG:Approach stats.  If you have these two specific players who have this widespread disparity between their SG:OTT and their SG:Approach metrics, It would align to a long-but-wild and a short-but-accurate player. Because distance is so heavily baked into SG:OTT, and SG:Approach is basically an accuracy stat, for a 50 Approach player to be 80 OTT they'd have to be prodigiously long. And for an 80 Approach player to be 50 OTT they'd have to be woefully short. 

 

And the key about SG:Approach is that it doesn't actually take into account your actual approach distances, just what you do with the distance you're given. So a short player who consistently hits long approach shots with the same dispersion as a long player who consistently hits short approach shots with the same dispersion will hit a similar number of greens, but still have a much better SG:Approach. 

 

So given equal handicap, equal short games and putting, and this wide disparity between SG:OTT and SG:Approach, I can only assume you're dealing with a long-but-wild and a short-but-accurate player. Because if their short games and putting are equal, and their handicaps are equal, then they are probably hitting similar numbers of GIR--which means they have similar dispersion on their approach shots, which only makes sense if the OTT leader is MUCH closer to the green when hitting his approach shots. 

 

So my thought is that a long-but-wild player has more low hanging fruit to get more accurate, but a short-but-accurate player is going to struggle to add prodigious length. There is of course an exception--if the short-but-accurate player has a very flawed swing with a bunch of power leaks but has made that swing consistent, maybe there's a ton of room to grow. 

 

[iacas]

12 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

This comes down to the nature of the SG:OTT and SG:Approach stats. If you have these two specific players who have this widespread disparity between their SG:OTT and their SG:Approach metrics, It would align to a long-but-wild and a short-but-accurate player.

 

It can align to that (though, again, it's really unlikely that the short guy is going to gain a bunch of strokes with his approach shots when he's hitting hybrids in from distances where an average player is hitting 6I and a long hitter is hitting 8I), but no, it's not "the nature of SG:OTT".

 

The simple version is that you're seeing a "wide disparity" here where there is none. I saw the Create a Player numbers as being maybe a 6 handicap for their good skill and a 12 for their bad skill. (It wouldn't quite work out that way since you have more approach shots in a round owing to the par threes than you do tee shots, so they're not quite equally weighted.) You're picturing something I never talked about, and to be honest, I don't think I implied by rating them only 15 points above or below their other skills that make them a 9.

 

In the four skill areas, they're like a 12/6/9/9 or a 6/12/9/9. That's not a huge gap. I looked at a few million shots by amateurs who were an 8-10 handicap, and you can get to these kinds of "handicaps" with a difference of ten to fifteen yards and a bit less angular accuracy. Because it's every shot, it adds up quickly.

 

12 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

Because distance is so heavily baked into SG:OTT

 

It's a measure of accuracy AND distance. A 320-yard tee shot that goes OB loses strokes to a 160-yard tee shot in the fairway. 😛 

 

 

12 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

I can only assume you're dealing with a long-but-wild and a short-but-accurate player. Because if their short games and putting are equal, and their handicaps are equal, then they are probably hitting similar numbers of GIR--which means they have similar dispersion on their approach shots, which only makes sense if the OTT leader is MUCH closer to the green when hitting his approach shots.

 

It doesn't take nearly as much, repeated 14-16 times a round, to add up to a few shots. It's not like the driver is a scratch level driver and an 18 level approach shot player. That'd be fantastical, and way, way beyond the hypothetical. That player almost doesn't exist in the world.

[Ross_Albatross]

2 hours ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

This comes down to the nature of the SG:OTT and SG:Approach stats.  If you have these two specific players who have this widespread disparity between their SG:OTT and their SG:Approach metrics, It would align to a long-but-wild and a short-but-accurate player. Because distance is so heavily baked into SG:OTT, and SG:Approach is basically an accuracy stat, for a 50 Approach player to be 80 OTT they'd have to be prodigiously long. And for an 80 Approach player to be 50 OTT they'd have to be woefully short. 

 

And the key about SG:Approach is that it doesn't actually take into account your actual approach distances, just what you do with the distance you're given. So a short player who consistently hits long approach shots with the same dispersion as a long player who consistently hits short approach shots with the same dispersion will hit a similar number of greens, but still have a much better SG:Approach. 

 

So given equal handicap, equal short games and putting, and this wide disparity between SG:OTT and SG:Approach, I can only assume you're dealing with a long-but-wild and a short-but-accurate player. Because if their short games and putting are equal, and their handicaps are equal, then they are probably hitting similar numbers of GIR--which means they have similar dispersion on their approach shots, which only makes sense if the OTT leader is MUCH closer to the green when hitting his approach shots. 

 

So my thought is that a long-but-wild player has more low hanging fruit to get more accurate, but a short-but-accurate player is going to struggle to add prodigious length. There is of course an exception--if the short-but-accurate player has a very flawed swing with a bunch of power leaks but has made that swing consistent, maybe there's a ton of room to grow. 

 

That post is 100% correct and represents the only plausible scenario for a 80-50 vs 50-80 OTT-App gap, with Atg and Ptt being equal resulting in identical handicap.

 

Which brings back the point that Ricky’s ceiling is way higher than Shivas - and with equal dedicated time, I’d think that any apt instructor would jump on that opportunity to teach Ricky better swing mechanics (low point control, face and path, others) rather than opting for a ‘driver fitting’ with Shivas and just cheer him on (obvious exaggeration to make the point) for the upcoming end of the year 10 matches

[betarhoalphadelta]

15 hours ago, iacas said:

 

It can align to that (though, again, it's really unlikely that the short guy is going to gain a bunch of strokes with his approach shots when he's hitting hybrids in from distances where an average player is hitting 6I and a long hitter is hitting 8I), but no, it's not "the nature of SG:OTT".

 

The simple version is that you're seeing a "wide disparity" here where there is none. I saw the Create a Player numbers as being maybe a 6 handicap for their good skill and a 12 for their bad skill. (It wouldn't quite work out that way since you have more approach shots in a round owing to the par threes than you do tee shots, so they're not quite equally weighted.) You're picturing something I never talked about, and to be honest, I don't think I implied by rating them only 15 points above or below their other skills that make them a 9.

 

In the four skill areas, they're like a 12/6/9/9 or a 6/12/9/9. That's not a huge gap. I looked at a few million shots by amateurs who were an 8-10 handicap, and you can get to these kinds of "handicaps" with a difference of ten to fifteen yards and a bit less angular accuracy. Because it's every shot, it adds up quickly.

 

 

Okay. I'm not going to belabor it. When you posted the original, you used the four stats that comprise SG. Because of the way those two stats work I made the assumption that it would be difficult to have those gaps without it being a longer-but-wilder player and a shorter-but-straighter player, given that they have the same other skills and the same handicap.

 

So that's what I based my analysis on. Shivas has a fundamentally better mechanical swing which is why he's better on approach. Ricky can hit it farther but has less control over where it's going. With other skills being equal, that's why they're at the same handicap--Shivas consistently has longer approaches than Ricky, whether that distance difference is 15 yards or whatever. My theory--and I'm not an instructor like you are, so take my opinion for the little it's worth--is that it's easier to improve Ricky's mechanics over the course of a year than it is to train Shivas to hit it farther and stay straight. And if you improve Ricky's mechanics, he might even gain more yards due to inefficiencies / power leaks that are corrected in his swing, so he could be at even more of an advantage as he works out the swing issues.  

 

But they live up there in that fantasy land of single digit caps... That is a world with which I am unfortunately unfamiliar 😂

[iacas]

5 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

Okay. I'm not going to belabor it. When you posted the original, you used the four stats that comprise SG. Because of the way those two stats work I made the assumption that it would be difficult to have those gaps without it being a longer-but-wilder player and a shorter-but-straighter player, given that they have the same other skills and the same handicap.

 

That is one way that you can have those skill gaps, but it's a) nowhere near 270 vs. 220 like you were suggesting, and b) far more often, the players hit it about the same length but one is a bit less accurate. The latter one is why I and others have mentioned even driver fitting as playing a role.

 

Let's call driving a 30% contribution to the scoring between two players (approach shots are closer to 40%). So, actually, let's simplify and pretend they're both 33%.

 

If you have a 12/6/9/9 and a 6/12/9/9, then the one is about 3 shots worse than the average 9 handicap, and 6 shots worse than the other fictitious kind of golfer in this scenario… for that one particular skill. In other words, that 6 shots becomes 6 * 0.33 ~= 2. It's not too difficult to lose two shots over 14 tee shots, and that's versus the other guy who is relatively "good" at that skill. It's only 1 stroke if they were a 9 across the board.

 

You took an assumption and then multiplied it to a hyperbolic level.

 

5 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

Ricky can hit it farther but has less control over where it's going.

 

I think you'd be surprised at what you'd find. SG:OTT is BOTH levers: distance and accuracy. Your assumptions were faulty. Long and wild can often lose strokes compared to short/accurate.

 

5 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

My theory--and I'm not an instructor like you are, so take my opinion for the little it's worth--is that it's easier to improve Ricky's mechanics over the course of a year than it is to train Shivas to hit it farther and stay straight.

 

I gave my opinion up above. It's the opposite of yours, which is fine. Your opinion, as I've said (and not to beat a dead horse) was based on a… less than accurate starting point or assumptions. Shivas might be just as long as Ricky, and is likely within a club or so of him already. He's not a peashooter.

[betarhoalphadelta]

16 minutes ago, iacas said:

 

I gave my opinion up above. It's the opposite of yours, which is fine. Your opinion, as I've said (and not to beat a dead horse) was based on a… less than accurate starting point or assumptions. Shivas might be just as long as Ricky, and is likely within a club or so of him already. He's not a peashooter.

 

Fair enough. I'm not afraid to admit that in this case, there's a MUCH higher likelihood that you're right, and I'm wrong 😉 

 

[iacas]

Just now, betarhoalphadelta said:

Fair enough. I'm not afraid to admit that in this case, there's a MUCH higher likelihood that you're right, and I'm wrong 😉 

 

About how the SG stuff shakes out? Yeah. Been a big part of my life the last 11 years, with consulting work, partnerships, etc.

 

About much else? It's opinion, so, no right/wrong. Just agree/disagree, well-founded, un-founded…  that type of thing.

 

Edited September 17, 2024 by iacas
typo

[Ty_Webb]

52 minutes ago, iacas said:

If you have a 12/6/9/9 and a 6/12/9/9, then the one is about 3 shots worse than the average 9 handicap, and 6 shots worse than the other fictitious kind of golfer in this scenario… for that one particular skill. In other words, that 6 shots becomes 6 * 0.33 ~= 2. It's not too difficult to lose two shots over 14 tee shots, and that's versus the other guy who is relatively "good" at that skill. It's only 1 stroke if they were a 9 across the board.

 

That's true the other way too. These two players shoot the same scores and have the same short game/putting, so whatever Shivas gains with his irons over Ricky is exactly what Ricky gains over Shivas with his driving. 2 shots difference over 14 tee shots means 2 shots difference over 18 approach shots. The margins are pretty small per shot on both sides. It's not like Shivas is 6 shots better with his irons. It's marginal differences. 

[iacas]

47 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

That's true the other way too. These two players shoot the same scores and have the same short game/putting, so whatever Shivas gains with his irons over Ricky is exactly what Ricky gains over Shivas with his driving. 2 shots difference over 14 tee shots means 2 shots difference over 18 approach shots. The margins are pretty small per shot on both sides. It's not like Shivas is 6 shots better with his irons. It's marginal differences. 

 

Typically closer to 16 approach shots (short par fours, quasi-reachable par fives), but yes.

[Ross_Albatross]

1 hour ago, Ty_Webb said:

 

That's true the other way too. These two players shoot the same scores and have the same short game/putting, so whatever Shivas gains with his irons over Ricky is exactly what Ricky gains over Shivas with his driving. 2 shots difference over 14 tee shots means 2 shots difference over 18 approach shots. The margins are pretty small per shot on both sides. It's not like Shivas is 6 shots better with his irons. It's marginal differences. 

Bingo - and to gain a full shot on every 7 drives, knowing how the SG:OTT is heavily skewed toward distance compared to lie (see the whole shift toward that mindset, analytics teams, based on Broadie’s work and others), Ricky can only be about 45yds longer off the tee compared to Shivas to net the shots he’s giving on approaches (or otherwise be the most accurate short driver the world has ever seen, as a 9cap)

[GoGoErky]

27 minutes ago, PracticeSwinger said:

Bingo - and to gain a full shot on every 7 drives, knowing how the SG:OTT is heavily skewed toward distance compared to lie (see the whole shift toward that mindset, analytics teams, based on Broadie’s work and others), Ricky can only be about 45yds longer off the tee compared to Shivas to net the shots he’s giving on approaches (or otherwise be the most accurate short driver the world has ever seen, as a 9cap)

This has already been addressed above 

 

SG:OTT isn’t as skewed towards distance as is being made out nor does real world numbers come out to the 270 and 220 that were mentioned 

I’m pretty sure that @iacashas a lot more knowledge and expertise on the subject compared to most if not all on this forum based on his work with Mark Broadie, course architects and tour players, etc

[Ross_Albatross]

27 minutes ago, GoGoErky said:

This has already been addressed above 

 

SG:OTT isn’t as skewed towards distance as is being made out nor does real world numbers come out to the 270 and 220 that were mentioned 

I’m pretty sure that @iacashas a lot more knowledge and expertise on the subject compared to most if not all on this forum based on his work with Mark Broadie, course architects and tour players, etc

Well, let’s close this one out then (even though I talked a while back with Broadie about SG Putting decomposition or do I need to show my Golf Canada course rating and slope card also?) glad you helped - on to the next, to talk about Mike Austin...

Edited September 17, 2024 by PracticeSwinger

[Ty_Webb]

40 minutes ago, PracticeSwinger said:

Bingo - and to gain a full shot on every 7 drives, knowing how the SG:OTT is heavily skewed toward distance compared to lie (see the whole shift toward that mindset, analytics teams, based on Broadie’s work and others), Ricky can only be about 45yds longer off the tee compared to Shivas to net the shots he’s giving on approaches (or otherwise be the most accurate short driver the world has ever seen, as a 9cap)

 

To gain 2 strokes in a round for a pro, you have to gain about 0.14 strokes per tee shot on average. An extra 20 yards is worth roughly 0.08 shots (again for a tour pro). Fairway vs rough is about a quarter of a shot. I'm not sure how that breaks down for a 9 handicap, but my guess is an extra 20 yards is worth more for a 9 handicap than a tour player since the drop off in ability as you go to longer clubs is going to be more significant for a worse player. Let's say it's roughly double, call it 0.14 of a shot for 20 yards for simplicity. So if they hit the same number of fairways, Ricky Bobby would have to be 20 yards longer. If Ricky Bobby hits two more fairways a round, he could be 15 yards longer. Possibly less if Shivas drives it into recovery positions from time to time. One drive OB is the full 2 shots after all. 

 

Then Shivas would need to be roughly equal in skill from 20 yards further away than Ricky Bobby. They basically have to hit roughly the same number of GIRs, so if RB is 20 yards longer then Shivas has to be 20 yards better. Maybe 15 yards better since you'll tend to have more approach shots than tee shots in a given round.

[Ty_Webb]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

 

Typically closer to 16 approach shots (short par fours, quasi-reachable par fives), but yes.

 

Fair - must admit I don't know where a par 5 lay up falls in the strokes gained categories. I would have assumed it was approach, but sounds like it might not be.

[Ross_Albatross]

4 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

 

To gain 2 strokes in a round for a pro, you have to gain about 0.14 strokes per tee shot on average. An extra 20 yards is worth roughly 0.08 shots (again for a tour pro). Fairway vs rough is about a quarter of a shot. I'm not sure how that breaks down for a 9 handicap, but my guess is an extra 20 yards is worth more for a 9 handicap than a tour player since the drop off in ability as you go to longer clubs is going to be more significant for a worse player. Let's say it's roughly double, call it 0.14 of a shot for 20 yards for simplicity. So if they hit the same number of fairways, Ricky Bobby would have to be 20 yards longer. If Ricky Bobby hits two more fairways a round, he could be 15 yards longer. Possibly less if Shivas drives it into recovery positions from time to time. One drive OB is the full 2 shots after all. 

 

Then Shivas would need to be roughly equal in skill from 20 yards further away than Ricky Bobby. They basically have to hit roughly the same number of GIRs, so if RB is 20 yards longer then Shivas has to be 20 yards better. Maybe 15 yards better since you'll tend to have more approach shots than tee shots in a given round.

Agree - and all of this is obviously hypothetical, as iacas was looking for opinions, just food for thoughts, discussion - mentioned right off the bat that I was playing devil's advocate... don't want to get entangled in the ensuing keyboard back and forth, I'll just go work on my pronation