Connect with us

Opinion & Analysis

The Tour’s New Strokes Gained Stats: What do they mean and how can you use them?

Published

on

What is Strokes Gained anyway?

Don’t feel stupid if you have to ask this question. I deal with many people who make their living in the golf business and do not really understand this concept – and forget about the TV commentators. Simply stated, Strokes Gained is the best thing to happen to golf analysis since the game was invented. It renders the one-dimensional, traditional golf statistics virtually obsolete as it provides an accurate assessment of every player’s relative skill in each of the four categories of the game.

Strokes Gained evaluates each shot by comparing it to a standard derived from a computer model of performance. The starting position of the shot and its distance from the hole have a value as do the end position and distance. The values are based upon statistical analysis of all of the PGA Tour rounds since the advent of Shotlink data in 2004. The values for every possible distance and position represent the average # of strokes to hole out from each position.

Here’s how the Strokes Gained (or Lost) are calculated:

  • Start value – (End value + # strokes need to get there)

Here’s a quick example:

  • Start: 8-foot putt opportunity. End: Holed (1-putt)
  • Start value: 1.50 – (End value: 0.0 – 1.0 to get there) = .5 Strokes Gained
  • The player gained/saved half a shot. A 2-Putt would have lost half a shot

A bit more background

The PGA Tour launched Strokes Gained Putting in 2011. A second feature, Strokes Gained Tee-to-Green, was added in 2014. This was applauded by most as the long game “analysis,” when in fact it was simply everything else but putting, no analysis at all. If a player enjoyed Strokes Gained Putting of +1.00 but scored at exactly the level of the field, his Strokes Gained Tee-to-Green would be -1.00, simple subtraction.

The new stats and what they mean

In late May 2016, the Tour added three new Strokes Gained (SG) analysis pieces:

  1. SG Off-the-Tee: Considers all drives on par-4 and par-5 holes. Say goodbye to the most useless stat in golf: Fairways Hit. This new off-the-tee stat includes not only fairways hit or missed and the relative distances accomplished, but more importantly, the relative severity of the misses, or what I refer to as driving errors. Including these misses is critical. I have analyzed more than a few events in which the top-5 finishers hit fewer fairways than the field, but their overall driving was heads and shoulders better. Clearly, a new performance yardstick was sorely needed.
  2. SG Approach-the-Green: Considers any approach shot that starts more than 30 yards from the edge of the green. This number also reflects distance and accuracy of the good shots as well as the misses.
  3. SG Around-the-Green: Considers all shots starting from within 30 yards of the edge of the green, the Tour’s measure of the short game. It includes all positions: fairway, rough, and sand. This stat is driven by proximity to the hole of the shots (how close they are hit), but also includes the not-so-rare mistakes, or shots that miss the green. Unfortunately, these often costly missed short game shots have never counted or been visible in any of the 653 stats that the Tour publishes. At least now they are being counted.

Add the SG Putting stat to these three and we now have the entire Strokes Gained puzzle. It provides much more clarity into each player’s true strengths and weaknesses, and they all have them!

How can you apply Strokes Gained to your game?

Unfortunately, without a detailed performance model, one cannot implement the system. However, with the growing popularity of Strokes Gained, a number of applications have been introduced. If you Google “Strokes Gained Websites” you will see quite a few options. I, of course, recommend mine, ShotByShot.com, as I have been doing it longer than anyone and have a better understanding of the process and 250.000+ rounds of comparative “Target data.” This unique database helps players at every level clearly identify the nature of their strengths and weaknesses.

If you are looking for insight into your game where you do not have to buy anything, please see my recent GolfWRX article: How to track some of the most important stats in golf.

In 1989, Peter Sanders founded Golf Research Associates, LP, creating what is now referred to as Strokes Gained Analysis. His goal was to design and market a new standard of statistically based performance analysis programs using proprietary computer models. A departure from “traditional stats,” the program provided analysis with answers, supported by comparative data. In 2006, the company’s website, ShotByShot.com, was launched. It provides interactive, Strokes Gained analysis for individual golfers and more than 150 instructors and coaches that use the program to build and monitor their player groups. Peter has written, or contributed to, more than 60 articles in major golf publications including Golf Digest, Golf Magazine and Golf for Women. From 2007 through 2013, Peter was an exclusive contributor and Professional Advisor to Golf Digest and GolfDigest.com. Peter also works with PGA Tour players and their coaches to interpret the often confusing ShotLink data. Zach Johnson has been a client for nearly five years. More recently, Peter has teamed up with Smylie Kaufman’s swing coach, Tony Ruggiero, to help guide Smylie’s fast-rising career.

19 Comments

19 Comments

  1. Scott Carlson

    Jun 30, 2016 at 8:59 pm

    This is great stuff, Peter. This is very similar to metrics used by financial professionals/analysts to compare the performance of securities to others within the same industry. Peer analysis allows the investor to gain an understanding into the unique competitive advantages a company has against its competitors. Now, this may be one individual financial or operational category that far exceeds peer performance (e.g. return on equity) or a comprehensive set of metrics that provide consistent outperformance (e.g. market share growth to earnings growth to debt/equity ratio). Also, in a similar fashioin, MLB scouts have used sabermetrics with great success to determine WAR (wins above replacement) to get more useful and objective performance measures of prospects and current players.

    To the other commenters that seem to have a very basic understanding of mathematics…you don’t buy a company’s stock because you like a their products or they have lots of revenue, rather, you buy their stock because they show a consistent and unique competitive advantage over time relative to their peers. This is the same situation…relative performance analysis!

    I work in junior golf (AJGA) and getting this information to college golf coaches would be HUGE in helping them with their perpetually tightening recruiting budgets…all the way from large D1 programs down to NAIA schools. I understand the tracking will be a significant barrier, but ShotByShot may help (post-round). Offering this analysis to our 6,500+ members would be an enormous benefit in helping them improve their games and/or earn that prized scholarship.

    Another thing that would be cool is to perform a regression analysis to the existing Tour data to determine correlation patterns/trends to the basic stats (like SG Off the Tee to Total Driving and Fairway Hit %) and then apply those patterns/trends to historical data over time to see how a player fares to some of golf’s greatest legends. Surely the basic data exists back to the early to mid 20th century!

    Awesome work!!!

    • Peter

      Jul 5, 2016 at 3:29 pm

      Scott,
      Thanks for your very supportive comment. As to our SG analysis being of help to AJGA and/or college golf programs, most of our 150+ coaches that use our program with their players have active junior programs. Juniors have become such a large part of our business that we added 9-hole data entry and analysis early this year. In addition, we work with several college teams but could always like to see the word get out to more.
      If you have any ideas on how we might collaborate, please contact me at psanders@shotbyshot.com.

  2. Patricknorm

    Jun 22, 2016 at 3:02 pm

    I like when logic gives you data. In this case the numbers don’t lie. For a pro though it’s abundantly clear that your ability to outdrive everyone, hit a shorter iron into the green ( which should be more accurate) and then have shorter putts, you should shoot lower scores.
    Tiger Woods, at his peak was a superb driver of the ball, a better iron player, which meant he holed more putts. The same went for Jack Nicklaus.
    Last weekend Dustin Johnson was fantastic off the tee, excellent on his irons, and a good enough putter to stay in contention and eventually win. In today’s game a consistent 330 drive is necessary to get the ball rolling ( metaphorically) in golf. If your relatively accurate it compensates the player by letting him a shorter iron out of the rough towards the green.
    Good article. Instinctively I know when my approach shots can’t be chipped in off the green I’m really scrambling for par. And conversely if I’m 50 feet from the pin on the green, it’s no guarantee I’ll make par. Nice to be able to quantify this data.

  3. Captain Wedge

    Jun 22, 2016 at 2:35 pm

    In general yeah, you know what parts of your game are weak. But do you know “how many strokes” that part of your game is costing you? Doubt it…

  4. Tony

    Jun 22, 2016 at 1:33 pm

    All comments here, other than the unsupported “useless endeavor” opinion, point to ‘strokes gained’ as a very useful endeavor. I’m down!

    • Captain Wedge

      Jun 22, 2016 at 3:06 pm

      Your comments show how little you know. It’s measured against other non-professionals based on how many rounds they have statistical data for.

    • Peter

      Jun 23, 2016 at 10:42 am

      ShotByShot.com measures your Strokes Gained against the averages from the thousands of rounds posted by those in your “Target” Handicap group. Briefly, if a player is a 20 handicap, it does not good to be compared to a 5 handicap or the PGA Tour. We have target ranges from +6 to +4 all the way up to 25 to 29 handicaps.

  5. mikee

    Jun 21, 2016 at 10:28 pm

    All said and done, the approach shot or should I say, the quality of the approach shot (distance from the pin) is the most important shot in the game. Most of the rest of the stats are relatively meaningless for us amateurs

    • Captain Wedge

      Jun 22, 2016 at 2:32 pm

      I don’t think they are meaningless. I used to track all my one-dimensional stats (Fairways, GIRs, and Putts). Now those are meaningless bc at the end of the day they told me nothing about my final score as there were no trends to them. Strokes Gained actually pinpoints where your game was strong vs. where it cost you strokes. I’d like to see these stats on my own game. My only issue is having to track and document EVERY shot. Not really something I want to do when I want to relax and play a round of golf. Maybe I’ll try it on a few rounds here and there.

      • Peter

        Jun 23, 2016 at 10:50 am

        Captain Wedge, thanks for your support. I have purposely streamlined the data requirements of ShotByShot.com because I too did not want a lot of work when I was enjoying a round or competing. Try it, you will see it is extremely easy once you understand the system and the apps make it even easier.

    • Peter

      Jun 23, 2016 at 10:47 am

      Not so mikee! I have found that from Tour players up to 20+ handicaps, we are all snowflakes and find our unique way to shoot our number. While there may be trends and certain parts of the game occupy a larger piece of the pie, everyone has distinct Strengths and Weaknesses. The challenge is to discover what and why they are so that they can be properly addressed.

  6. ooffa

    Jun 21, 2016 at 1:24 pm

    Easy to understand. But ultimately a useless endeavor. Hey, I putted badly today I better practice, serves the same purpose.

    • Peter

      Jun 21, 2016 at 2:06 pm

      But how do you know when you putted badly? # of putts? Strokes Gained is accurate. If relying on # of putts, one should also balance their checkbook based upon the # of checks written without regard to the $ amounts.

      • James

        Jun 21, 2016 at 4:35 pm

        To build on your point, ‘I putted badly’ is a complete subjective. I might say I’ve putted badly, but if in fact I putted to my average, then practicing my putting is pointless, because it was probably my irons that let me down

        • Steve

          Jun 21, 2016 at 8:01 pm

          To argue against your point – If you think you “putted badly” but actually putted to your average, your average probably isn’t very good… In that case, putting practice is still very necessary…

    • Shark

      Jun 21, 2016 at 9:34 pm

      You may think you putted ‘badly’ based on number of putts, but actually putted from a greater distance due to decreased accuracy of iron shots. A larger improvement may be gained from practicing iron accuracy, thus leaving shorter putts.

      • J Zilla

        Jun 22, 2016 at 4:37 pm

        Yeah. I vaguely remember some story about Tiger early in his career complaining to Butch about his putting woes at the time. Tiger started toward to the practice green but Butch stopped him and handed him an iron. “Putting’s not your problem, your approach shots are.” (Or something to that effect)

        • Peter

          Jun 23, 2016 at 10:58 am

          My golf professional used my original program years ago while trying to qualify for the senior tour. He completed my scorecards for all rounds and mailed them to me. When he came home we met to go thru his analysis. I started by asking for his assessment of his Strengths and weaknesses. He said: “I hit the ball as well as anyone out there and my short game is strong but I am a terrible putter.” I then shared my Strokes Lost/Saved (Strokes Gained) analysis that showed that he was actually a very good putter but while he was a long driver, he made too many driving errors, missed too many GIR’s and put too much pressure on his short game and putting.
          The game is a roller coaster. Without a way of routinely recording performance, it is very difficult to know where one may need the most work.

Leave a Reply

Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Opinion & Analysis

The 2 primary challenges golf equipment companies face

Published

on

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

Continue Reading

Podcasts

Fore Love of Golf: Introducing a new club concept

Published

on

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!

Continue Reading

Opinion & Analysis

On Scottie Scheffler wondering ‘What’s the point of winning?’

Published

on

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

 

A post shared by BBC SPORT (@bbcsport)

“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.

Continue Reading

WITB

Facebook

Trending