Regular readers know that I’m a big supporter of the annual Baseball Prospectus books that provide cutting-edge statistical analysis of Major League Baseball. So, this Bill Pennington/NY Times article about Mark Broadie, a professor at Columbia who conducts research for the PGA Tour, caught my eye.

Broadie is now taking a crack at doing similar statistical analysis for golf as what Baseball Prospectus does for baseball, except that he is analyzing the key differences between Tour players and amateur golfers. Broadie used the PGA Tour ShotLink database to analyze the pros’ performance and he persuaded players at one of his local courses to log all of their shots for a period of time, resulting in a database of 43,000 amateur shots (probably about 500 rounds). He then combined the databases and broke down how scoring varied between pros and amateurs based on the shots involved.

For example, Broadie analyzed at what distance there is a 50% chance of sinking a putt. Tour players break even on 8-foot putts, but somewhat surprisingly to me, the best amateurs (amateurs with between a 0-9 handicap) break even on putts from 6 feet (I’m an 8 handicap, but doubt that I break even from 6 feet). On the other hand, Tour players average almost 280 yards off the tee, while amateurs with a 0-9 handicap average only 248 yards driving the ball. That’s part of why some of Broadie’s conclusions are counter-intuitive to the standard "you drive for show, but putt for dough" advice that golfers regularly receive from golf instructors:

It is the long game that proves to be the biggest factor when examining the difference in scores between pros and amateurs and even between low- and high-handicap amateurs. If, for example, a PGA Tour player were available to hit shots for an amateur from 100 yards and in, or available to hit all the shots leading to the 100-yard mark, Broadie says the amateur would benefit the most from having the PGA player hit the long shots, not the short ones.

Despite the belief that shorter hitters are more accurate off the tee than longer hitters, Broadie discovered the opposite: longer hitters also tend to be straighter hitters. “Better players are more skilled over all,” Broadie said. “They hit it farther and they have more consistent swings, so they’re more accurate, too.”

It is often said that 60 to 65 percent of all shots are struck within 100 yards of the hole. Broadie agreed but noted that if you take out “gimme” putts of two and a half feet, the statistic has less meaning. Remove very short putts that are rarely missed, and shots from 100 yards or less account for only 45 to 50 percent of all shots. Eliminate putts from three and a half feet or less, and the figure drops to 41 to 47 percent. [.  .  .]

Broadie also said that a putting statistic golfers often keep (the number of putts per round) was not as valuable at predicting one’s score as another stat, the percentage of greens hit in regulation, which will more likely tell you how well a golfer is scoring.

Of particular interest is Broadie’s findings regarding shots hit from between 150 to 100 yards from the green. He computed the average distance remaining to the hole after the golfers hit that particular approach shot. Tour players had 5.6% of the distance remaining, while the top amateurs had 8.7% of the distance remaining. As a result, Broadie recommends that a good way to determine whether your short game needs more help than your long game is to compute your own percentage and then compare it to the amateur group you fall into based on your handicap.

For example, inasmuch as my handicap is 8, if the distance remaining to the hole after my shots from 100-150 yards is higher than 8.7% of the distance of the shots, then my short game is probably worse than other golfers of comparable handicaps. On the other hand, that also means that my driving and related long shots are probably a bit better than my peers.

There are other interesting tidbits, so check out the entire article. As Broadie observed: "It’s great cocktail-party conversation."