Opinion & Analysis
How to track some of the most important stats in golf
I have been studying the game of golf from a statistical standpoint for 27 years. In 1992, I launched a new form of analysis that I called Strokes Lost and Saved, now known as Strokes Gained. My system was built around encouraging golf instructors and players to move away from the traditional, one-dimensional stats (fairways, GIR’s, sand saves and number of putts) to this much more accurate method. Traditional golf stats can be misleading as they give one-dimensional, yes/no answers to describe a complicated, multi-dimensional game.
The inability of these stats to shed light on performance is what motivated me to create ShotByShot.com, which gives golfers real insight and answers about their strengths and weaknesses with comparative data relevant to their handicap level. It’s a simple, powerful tool, but I’m often pressed for an even simpler solution by golf professionals, who ask:
“What is the most important stat in golf? If I were to get my players to keep ONE stat, what should it be?”
My quick, somewhat sharp-edged, answer to that question is: “If there were such an all-important stat, I would be out of business.” I guess I have mellowed, and can suggest a “starter stat” to provide instructors and golfers something simple that adds value: Have your players track their major ERRORS!
I realized years ago that frequency and severity of errors does more to establish every player’s scoring level than all of the good shots hit. Further, the ability to identify and limit these errors is the most efficient way to improve.
Below, I have defined the most frequent and costly errors in the game, and can provide the average frequency of these errors for the typical 80 and 90 shooters. This data comes from ShotByShot.com’s robust database of more than 250,000 rounds entered and analyzed. See how your game matches up over three to five rounds:
1. Driving errors. There are three types:
- No Shot result: Drive hit out of play requiring an advancement shot to return to normal play.
- Penalty-1 result: Hazard for unplayable lie.
- OB/Lost result: Lost or out of bounds.
2. Short Game errors: Chip/pitch and sand shots (separately) from all positions within 50 yards of the hole that MISS the green.
3. Three-Putts: From within 20 feet of the hole or less.
In your next few rounds, track these four errors on four lines of a separate scorecard. For driving errors and 3-putts (within 20 feet), simply mark the holes where these mistakes occur. For chip/pitch and sand shots, mark the hole where each short game shot is successful (on the green) with a check and those that miss the green with an X. This way you will know the total number of shots in each short game category as well as the relative number of errors.
Compare your results from three to five rounds with the chart below and your major weakness should become clear. Work to mitigate that weakness and you will achieve meaningful improvement. Then repeat the process until you have NO major weakness in your game.
The Averages
As the editor-in-chief of this website and an observer of the GolfWRX forums and other online golf equipment discourse for over a decade, I’m pretty well attuned to the grunts and grumbles of a significant portion of the golf equipment purchasing spectrum. And before you accuse me of lording above all in some digital ivory tower, I’d like to offer that I worked at golf courses (public and private) for years prior to picking up my pen, so I’m well-versed in the non-degenerate golf equipment consumers out there. I touched (green)grass (retail)!
Complaints about the ills of and related to the OEMs usually follow some version of: Product cycles are too short for real innovation, tour equipment isn’t the same as retail (which is largely not true, by the way), too much is invested in marketing and not enough in R&D, top staffer X hasn’t even put the new driver in play, so it’s obviously not superior to the previous generation, prices are too high, and on and on.
Without digging into the merits of any of these claims, which I believe are mostly red herrings, I’d like to bring into view of our rangefinder what I believe to be the two primary difficulties golf equipment companies face.
One: As Terry Koehler, back when he was the CEO of Ben Hogan, told me at the time of the Ft Worth irons launch, if you can’t regularly hit the golf ball in a coin-sized area in the middle of the face, there’s not a ton that iron technology can do for you. Now, this is less true now with respect to irons than when he said it, and is less and less true by degrees as the clubs get larger (utilities, fairways, hybrids, drivers), but there remains a great deal of golf equipment truth in that statement. Think about it — which is to say, in TL;DR fashion, get lessons from a qualified instructor who will teach you about the fundamentals of repeatable impact and how the golf swing works, not just offer band-aid fixes. If you can’t repeatably deliver the golf club to the golf ball in something resembling the manner it was designed for, how can you expect to be getting the most out of the club — put another way, the maximum value from your investment?
Similarly, game improvement equipment can only improve your game if you game it. In other words, get fit for the clubs you ought to be playing rather than filling the bag with the ones you wish you could hit or used to be able to hit. Of course, don’t do this if you don’t care about performance and just want to hit a forged blade while playing off an 18 handicap. That’s absolutely fine. There were plenty of members in clubs back in the day playing Hogan Apex or Mizuno MP-32 irons who had no business doing so from a ballstriking standpoint, but they enjoyed their look, feel, and complementary qualities to their Gatsby hats and cashmere sweaters. Do what brings you a measure of joy in this maddening game.
Now, the second issue. This is not a plea for non-conforming equipment; rather, it is a statement of fact. USGA/R&A limits on every facet of golf equipment are detrimental to golf equipment manufacturers. Sure, you know this, but do you think about it as it applies to almost every element of equipment? A 500cc driver would be inherently more forgiving than a 460cc, as one with a COR measurement in excess of 0.83. 50-inch shafts. Box grooves. And on and on.
Would fewer regulations be objectively bad for the game? Would this erode its soul? Fortunately, that’s beside the point of this exercise, which is merely to point out the facts. The fact, in this case, is that equipment restrictions and regulations are the slaughterbench of an abundance of innovation in the golf equipment space. Is this for the best? Well, now I’ve asked the question twice and might as well give a partial response, I guess my answer to that would be, “It depends on what type of golf you’re playing and who you’re playing it with.”
For my part, I don’t mind embarrassing myself with vintage blades and persimmons chasing after the quasi-spiritual elevation of a well-struck shot, but that’s just me. Plenty of folks don’t give a damn if their grooves are conforming. Plenty of folks think the folks in Liberty Corner ought to add a prison to the museum for such offences. And those are just a few of the considerations for the amateur game — which doesn’t get inside the gallery ropes of the pro game…
Different strokes in the game of golf, in my humble opinion.
Anyway, I believe equipment company engineers are genuinely trying to build better equipment year over year. The marketing departments are trying to find ways to make this equipment appeal to the broadest segment of the golf market possible. All of this against (1) the backdrop of — at least for now — firm product cycles. And golfers who, with their ~15 average handicap (men), for the most part, are not striping the golf ball like Tiger in his prime and seem to have less and less time year over year to practice and improve. (2) Regulations that massively restrict what they’re able to do…
That’s the landscape as I see it and the real headwinds for golf equipment companies. No doubt, there’s more I haven’t considered, but I think the previous is a better — and better faith — point of departure when formulating any serious commentary on the golf equipment world than some of the more cynical and conspiratorial takes I hear.
Agree? Disagree? Think I’m worthy of an Adam Hadwin-esque security guard tackle? Let me know in the comments.
@golfoncbs The infamous Adam Hadwin tackle ? #golf #fyp #canada #pgatour #adamhadwin ? Ghibli-style nostalgic waltz – MaSssuguMusic
Episode #16 brings us Cliff McKinney. Cliff is the founder of Old Charlie Golf Club, a new club, and concept, to be built in the Florida panhandle. The model is quite interesting and aims to make great, private golf more affordable. We hope you enjoy the show!
Last week, I came across a reel from BBC Sport on Instagram featuring Scottie Scheffler speaking to the media ahead of The Open at Royal Portrush. In it, he shared that he often wonders what the point is of wanting to win tournaments so badly — especially when he knows, deep down, that it doesn’t lead to a truly fulfilling life.
View this post on Instagram
“Is it great to be able to win tournaments and to accomplish the things I have in the game of golf? Yeah, it brings tears to my eyes just to think about it because I’ve literally worked my entire life to be good at this sport,” Scheffler said. “To have that kind of sense of accomplishment, I think, is a pretty cool feeling. To get to live out your dreams is very special, but at the end of the day, I’m not out here to inspire the next generation of golfers. I’m not out here to inspire someone to be the best player in the world, because what’s the point?”
Ironically — or perhaps perfectly — he went on to win the claret jug.
That question — what’s the point of winning? — cuts straight to the heart of the human journey.
As someone who’s spent over two decades in the trenches of professional golf, and in deep study of the mental, emotional, and spiritual dimensions of the game, I see Scottie’s inner conflict as a sign of soul evolution in motion.
I came to golf late. I wasn’t a junior standout or college All-American. At 27, I left a steady corporate job to see if I could be on the PGA Tour starting as a 14-handicap, average-length hitter. Over the years, my journey has been defined less by trophies and more by the relentless effort to navigate the deeply inequitable and gated system of professional golf — an effort that ultimately turned inward and helped me evolve as both a golfer and a person.
One perspective that helped me make sense of this inner dissonance around competition and our culture’s tendency to overvalue winning is the idea of soul evolution.
The University of Virginia’s Division of Perceptual Studies has done extensive research on reincarnation, and Netflix’s Surviving Death (Episode 6) explores the topic, too. Whether you take it literally or metaphorically, the idea that we’re on a long arc of growth — from beginner to sage elder — offers a profound perspective.
If you accept the premise literally, then terms like “young soul” and “old soul” start to hold meaning. However, even if we set the word “soul” aside, it’s easy to see that different levels of life experience produce different worldviews.
Newer souls — or people in earlier stages of their development — may be curious and kind but still lack discernment or depth. There is a naivety, and they don’t yet question as deeply, tending to see things in black and white, partly because certainty feels safer than confronting the unknown.
As we gain more experience, we begin to experiment. We test limits. We chase extreme external goals — sometimes at the expense of health, relationships, or inner peace — still operating from hunger, ambition, and the fragility of the ego.
It’s a necessary stage, but often a turbulent and unfulfilling one.
David Duval fell off the map after reaching World No. 1. Bubba Watson had his own “Is this it?” moment with his caddie, Ted Scott, after winning the Masters.
In Aaron Rodgers: Enigma, reflecting on his 2011 Super Bowl win, Rodgers said:
“Now I’ve accomplished the only thing that I really, really wanted to do in my life. Now what? I was like, ‘Did I aim at the wrong thing? Did I spend too much time thinking about stuff that ultimately doesn’t give you true happiness?’”
Jim Carrey once said, “I think everybody should get rich and famous and do everything they ever dreamed of so they can see that it’s not the answer.”
Eventually, though, something shifts.
We begin to see in shades of gray. Winning, dominating, accumulating—these pursuits lose their shine. The rewards feel more fleeting. Living in a constant state of fight-or-flight makes us feel alive, yes, but not happy and joyful.
Compassion begins to replace ambition. Love, presence, and gratitude become more fulfilling than status, profits, or trophies. We crave balance over burnout. Collaboration over competition. Meaning over metrics.
Interestingly, if we zoom out, we can apply this same model to nations and cultures. Countries, like people, have a collective “soul stage” made up of the individuals within them.
Take the United States, for example. I’d place it as a mid-level soul: highly competitive and deeply driven, but still learning emotional maturity. Still uncomfortable with nuance. Still believing that more is always better. Despite its global wins, the U.S. currently ranks just 23rd in happiness (as of 2025). You might liken it to a gifted teenager—bold, eager, and ambitious, but angsty and still figuring out how to live well and in balance. As much as a parent wants to protect their child, sometimes the child has to make their own mistakes to truly grow.
So when Scottie Scheffler wonders what the point of winning is, I don’t see someone losing strength.
I see someone evolving.
He’s beginning to look beyond the leaderboard. Beyond metrics of success that carry a lower vibration. And yet, in a poetic twist, Scheffler did go on to win The Open. But that only reinforces the point: even at the pinnacle, the question remains. And if more of us in the golf and sports world — and in U.S. culture at large — started asking similar questions, we might discover that the more meaningful trophy isn’t about accumulating or beating others at all costs.
It’s about awakening and evolving to something more than winning could ever promise.
‘Why would anybody want to change that swing?’ – Brandel Chamblee says PGA Tour star was wrong to change his swing
‘The stupidest freaking thing I’ve ever heard’ – Billy Horschel slams Open idea suggested by Padraig Harrington
WITB Time Machine: Brandt Snedeker’s winning WITB, 2018 Wyndham Championship
Golfer proudly posts photo of ball mark on iron, receives immediate roasting
WITB Time Machine: Matthew Wolff’s winning WITB, 2019 3M Open
Oakmont Country Club bans Wyndham Clark over locker incident; Reveals specific conditions to earn reinstatement
Adam Scott puts Callaway blades in the bag at Wyndham Championship
Report: LIV star fires caddie and coach in shock shake up
Rickie Fowler makes equipment change to ‘something that’s a little easier on the body’
The championship formula: How 3 key stats separate winners from the field
Peter Malnati WITB 2025 (August)
Peter Malnati what’s in the bag accurate as of the Wyndham Championship. More photos from the event here. Driver: Titleist...
Cameron Young’s winning WITB: 2025 Wyndham Championship
Driver: Titleist GT2 (9 degrees, A1 SureFit setting) Buy here. Shaft: Mitsubishi Tensei 1K Pro Orange 70 TX 3-wood: Titleist...
Camilo Villegas WITB 2025 (July)
Camilo Villegas WITB accurate as of the Wyndham Championship. Villegas was undecided on a 3-wood when we shot his bag. ...
WITB Time Machine: Brandt Snedeker’s winning WITB, 2018 Wyndham Championship
Brandt Snedeker fired a final-round 65 at the 2018 Wyndham Championship to outlast Webb Simpson and C.T. Pan. His 5-under...
Jason
Jun 6, 2016 at 1:19 pm
Peter, I am interested in how this compares to GIR targets for 80s shooter. I am a mid-high 80s shooter struggling to get into low 80s. I have read other statisticians say GIR is the strongest correlation to score, and their analysis shows 8 GIR per round is general target to break 80. My personal stats also show the most correlation of GIR to score and I rarely hit that magic 8 number. This article has no mention of GIR. I tracked my stats versus these errors and the only shortcoming I see is I am about 5% off in the short game category – which is only about 1 shot per round. Is it viable to track the total errors per round – as one day may be driving, another short game, etc…This is really interesting material.
Peter
Jun 6, 2016 at 3:56 pm
Jason,
GIR’s is the most valuable of the “Traditional”, one-dimensional stats and there generally is a direct correlation between # GIR’s and scoring. Further, you are barking… in the right direction with your goal of 8 GIR’s to break 80. In our database of 250,000+ rounds, the 79 shooter averages 8.3 GIR’s. That said, the game is a puzzle and there are many important pieces that must all fit together. If GIR’s were the tell all stat, I would not be in business. It is why I created ShotByShot.com and what is now called Strokes Gained to remove the mystery from golf stats.
I hope this helps.
ParHunter
Jun 6, 2016 at 9:58 am
” that I called Strokes Lost and Saved, now known as Strokes Gained”
So it was you who invented Strokes Gained not Mark Broadie? Does Mark Broadie know that he didn’t actually invent Stokes Gained ;-)?
Peter Sanders
Jun 6, 2016 at 11:29 am
ParHunter,
Yes, I have spoken with him about it. Further in his book, he was careful to say that “…he implemented Strokes Gained in 2005…”
Other Paul
Jun 5, 2016 at 9:55 pm
My stats for my last round would be useless. I played 9 holes. 6/7 fairways. Gir 7/9. And 1.9 putts per hole. The course didnt maintain a bunker and it had lots of weeds in it and my laser picked up the weeds and not the stick. Laser said 170. I landed right in the middle and made double bogey. A few holes later i landed in a bunker that was full of rocks and wasn’t maintained so i picked up my ball and went backwards away from the hole (i didnt want to scratch my new wedge…) The whole area was bare and i skulled it over for another double bogey. Rest of my round was my best this season with a bogey and a two birdies. Maybe i should play better courses ????
Peter Sanders
Jun 6, 2016 at 9:22 am
I agree Other Paul! Only 9 holes would be a very small sample on any course.
Double Mocha Man
Jun 5, 2016 at 9:41 pm
This analysis is sooooo true! The only thing keeping me from consistently shooting in the low 70’s to high 60’s are the 4-5 bad shots I hit per round. But if I play defensively trying not to hit those bad shots I will hit more of them. Seemingly a contradiction. Your thoughts Peter???
Peter Sanders
Jun 6, 2016 at 9:21 am
I understand, one cannot play defensively. My old pro taught me to look at it differently – to evaluate every shot opportunity as a green light (go for it), yellow light (play conservatively), or red light opportunity (play to avoid the error). Each of these situations simply help determine the target. Once the appropriate target is selected, the shot is executed full out without fear. Make sense?
Double Mocha Man
Jun 6, 2016 at 11:17 am
Yes, it does. Thanks. Wish I could be a teen again when I had no fear.
Robert
Jun 5, 2016 at 2:32 pm
Peter, I loved shotbyshot free trial and saw the videos that it used to be $59. Any chance you’ll be doing a sale for that price anytime soon?
Other Paul
Jun 5, 2016 at 9:47 pm
Lol. Smizzle always cracks me up.
Peter Sanders
Jun 6, 2016 at 9:25 am
Thanks Robert, I will have to fix that. When we added the approach shot feature last May to complete the entire Strokes Gained puzzle we raised the price. I have been at this for 27 year and need to cover my substantial costs at some point. Sorry.
Robert
Jun 6, 2016 at 12:23 pm
Hey Peter,
No problem, just wondering. Thanks for the response.
ooffa
Jun 5, 2016 at 1:16 pm
The only stat that really matters is if there is more money in your wallet after your match then there was before.
Sparty
Jun 5, 2016 at 11:11 am
What is the difference between OB/Lost ball and No Shot Result?
Peter Sanders
Jun 5, 2016 at 12:16 pm
No shot is the least costly of the Driving errors. It is a ball hit to a position that requires some sort of advancement shot to return to normal play. Behind a tree, etc.
OB/Lose is either Out of Bounds or a Lost ball – both stroke and distance penalties.
Eric Granata
Jun 4, 2016 at 8:30 pm
How do you change your definition of each error for a player who shoots low 70s. I assuming driving stays the same, but how do you define an error in the short game area / 3 putts?
Peter Sanders
Jun 5, 2016 at 12:18 pm
Eric,
I don’t change the definitions. If you shoot in the 70’s, a. well done and b. you should experience very few of these errors.
Adam
Jun 4, 2016 at 7:06 pm
2 questions:
Why do 3 putts only matter within 20 feet? Is it normal to 3 putt outside of that range for people who shoot 80 and 90?
Why do you select 50 yards as the short game range rather than looking at a normal GIR?
Is the point just to show where you’re losing strokes that are easier to save?
Jim
Jun 4, 2016 at 8:26 pm
The tour average within 20 feet is 2 putts. Over 20 feet and the tour average begins to tic slowly over 2 putts. For example at 30 feet the average is 2.1 or something like that. So the thought is you should be making all putts within 20 feet in 2 putts or less.
If you miss GIR chances are you are with 50 yards of a hole and you will need to chip and 1 putt to save par. My making a mistake here your shot at par goes away completely. GIR gives you a better chance of making par, but being able to scramble for par is also just as important if not more important. The tour average for GIR is 75%, so that remaining 25% can make or break you.
Peter Sanders
Jun 5, 2016 at 12:31 pm
Jim,
Thanks for your supporting comments. I have to call you to task on the Tour stats that you mention:
1. “Tour average w/i 20 ft. is 2 putts.” – The 2.0 distance on Tour is 34 ft. That means that they average 2 putts from that point and will do better inside that.
2. “The Tour avg. for GIR is 75%” The winners on Tour average only 70% GIR’s. The Tour average in 2015 for GIR’s was 64.5%.
Jim
Jun 6, 2016 at 7:00 am
Yup, I don’t have the latest stats. Your stats seem to help more though now. I’m sure the probability of making 2 putts within 20 feet is higher the lower the handicap. My whole thing was the 20 feet is a must for 2 putts. If you can’t 2 putt within 20 feet, your got work to do.
The 64.5% GIR is a stronger argument for your 50 yard stat. That means 35.5% of shots will be scrambles for par, and missing those will have a huge impact on your score. I’m sure there is also a sliding scale for handicap. The higher the handicap the lower the GIR% is, but even at that, that means the higher the scramble% is. Meaning you have an even greater importance on being able to scramble within 50 yards.
Peter Sanders
Jun 6, 2016 at 9:29 am
You are correct about the sliding scale for GIR’s. It is the most important of all of the “traditional” stats. There is a direct correlation between GIR’s and score – always. A GIR means two good things:
1. Your game has been efficient enough to get there in regulation.
2. It is always a birdie opportunity of some length.
The 90 shooter averages less than 5 GIR’s.
Double Mocha Man
Jun 6, 2016 at 11:27 am
I’ve come up with a stat I call BGIR. (Bigger Green in Regulation”) If I’m a few yards off the green with an easy chip or on the fringe where I can easily putt I count these as BGIR’s… they almost always still result in pars, the occasional birdie. It’s when I miss the green by 10 -15 yards that I am in trouble. My BGIR rate is about 72%. It’s that 28% that kills my score.
Double Mocha Man
Jun 6, 2016 at 11:30 am
Oh, and the occasional smothered duck hook…
Peter Sanders
Jun 5, 2016 at 12:25 pm
Adam,
Q 1: Yes, it is fairly normal for the 80 and 90 shooter to 3-Putt from outside 20 feet. The average 2.00 putt distance for the 90 shooter is inside 20 feet. While 3-Putts outside are not good, I do not consider them to be Errors.
Q 2: Good Q! I had a lot of help and advice from notable instructors like Chuck Cook, Jack Lumpkin and Hank Johnson early on. We all finally agreed that within 50 yards was clearly short game for every handicap level – 75 yard can be a full approach shot for many.