T U M
Working Paper
The ISOPAR Method
Michael Stöckl, Peter F. Lamb, & Martin Lames
Fakultät für Sport- und Gesundheitswissenschaen
Lehrstuhl für Trainingswissenscha und Sportinformatik
Georg-Brauchle-Ring 62
80992, München
[email protected]
First version: June 27, 2011
This version: June 12, 2012
Abstract
The ISOPAR method is a method for characterizing the difficulty of golf holes and allows the performance of shots to be analyzed. The method is based on the ball locations provided by ShotLink™and
the subsequent number of shots required to hole out from each respective location. ISOPAR values
are calculated which represent the number of shots the field would require to hole out. These ISOPAR
values can, a) be visualized on an ISOPAR map and, b) lead to a new performance indicator called
Shot ality, which is the difference between the ISOPAR values of the starting position and finishing
position, respectively. The Shot ality score can also be used to determine how many shots were
saved per shot, or per type of shot, with respect to the performance of the field.
1
Introduction
In performance analysis, characteristics of a process which describe how an outcome was achieved
are used to assess the performance itself (Hughes & Bartle, 2002) and are referred to as performance
indicators. Classical performance analysis techniques in golf have focused on classes of golf shots
(James, 2007), such as driving distance, approach shot accuracy and puing average (James & Rees,
2008). Measures like greens in regulation, average pus per green and driving distance are intended to
describe players’ abilities to perform certain types of shots, yet these abilities are not actually assessed.
For example, the beginning position of a pu is the result of the approach shot to the green. So a
good puing average describes not only puing ability but also all previous shots on the hole – it is a
composite measure. Therefore, if independent measures for different types of golf shots existed then
strengths and weaknesses of a player’s game could be assessed (Ketzscher & Ringrose, 2002). Currently,
golf performance analysis lacks performance indicators which reflect the influence one shot has on the
next. For example, on each hole there is a chain of events which starts on the tee and ends once the ball
is holed. Each shot represents an event and the final position of shot n determines the starting position
for shot n + 1. A model preserving the playing characteristics of the environment (for example, physical
contours, playing conditions, etc.) and the stroke sequence is more suitable than simply an analysis of
frequencies of discrete events.
2
Background
Cochran and Stobbs (1968) had the idea to manually collect shot data (ball locations) and to analyze performance based on these data. They wanted to measure the performance of professional golfers in different parts of the game, figure out which of these parts is most important, and research in which parts
1
of the game the leading golfers are beer than the rest of the field. In the context of this study Cochran
and Stobbs developed a model for calculating probabilities and the average number of remaining shots
for holing out from certain (ranges of) distances. At the time of their study the lack of modern technology prevented them from collecting more data and enhancing their approach. Landsberger (1994)
built on the work of Cochran and Stobbs by refining the approach. Landsberger’s Golf Stroke Value
System (GSVS) provided a starting point for more recent work on establishing independent measures
of performance.
Recent projects have emerged which have looked to further advance the shot value idea (Broadie,
2011; Fearing, Acimovic, & Graves, 2011; Minton, 2011)¹. Broadie (2008, 2011) developed statistical
models to calculate probabilities of holing out and derives benchmarks as average number of remaining
shots from the probabilities. One model provides benchmarks for holing out on the green based on
the distance to the hole and another model computes benchmarks for holing out off the green, which
additionally includes a classification of the ball location. Using these benchmarks Broadie has demonstrated a more valid method for describing the performance of individual shots, called strokes gained.
Strokes gained can be used to explain the contribution of each shot to the total score. Based on the
shot value idea of Broadie (2008), Fearing et al. (2011) came up with a similar approach which is limited
to the green. They applied various regression models to achieve the probability of making a pu and a
prediction of the distance remaining aer a missed pu. In addition to the distance to the hole used by
Broadie, Fearing et al. (2011) consider the strength of the field and the difficulty of the green. From this
they illustrate the use of these benchmarks to assess performance to individual shots using the same
shot value idea as Broadie (2011). The PGA TOUR uses this approach as a measure for individual shots,
which is called Strokes Gained - Puing. Both approaches provide very sophisticated models of puing
performance with respect to the distance from the hole.
In the absence of independent measures of individual shot performance, several studies (Clark III,
2004; James, 2007; James & Rees, 2008; Scheid, 1990) have looked at the temporal variance of consecutive
golf scores – both hole scores and round scores. Analyses of round scores showed very low correlations
between scores of consecutive rounds when considered with respect to external influences on performance (i.e. weather conditions and course setup). Analyses of hole scores also showed low correlations
¹see PGA TOUR Academic Data Program page, available at: http://www.pgatour.com/stats/academicdata/ for detailed explanations of these projects.
2
between successive holes, again considering external influences like hole par and difficulty. Aside from
the obvious fact that good players tend to shoot good scores and poor players tend to shoot poor scores,
these results suggest that performance in golf is not subject to “streakiness”. In other words, the nature
of the performance of individual shots which make up hole and round scores seems not to be well understood. In summary, consecutive round scores do not depend on one another, and consecutive hole
scores do not depend on one another. However, individual shots played on the same hole present a
different scenario; these shots make up a continuous chain of events so that the finishing position of
shot n represents the starting position for shot n + 1. Although shots on the same hole are related, one
would expect the same lack of “streakiness” that has been demonstrated in the literature. This means
that although a well played shot tends to set up an advantage on the ensuing shot compared to a poorly
played one, a well played shot will not likely predict the performance of the ensuing shot.
3
3.1
The ISOPAR method
Framework
The previous described approaches of Broadie (2011) and Fearing et al. (2011), on which first measures
for individual shots are based, are statistical and developed to predict performance and to compare performance to benchmarks of expected performance. Our approach is different from that and is specifically aimed at characterizing the performance of the participating golfers, rather than predicting it. The
framework of the ISOPAR project comes from a systems perspective and has been empirically applied to
many levels of analysis of human movement and performance (e.g. Davids, Glazier, Araujo, & Bartle,
2003; Kelso, 1995; Mayer-Kress, Liu, & Newell, 2006). The central concept is that neurobiological systems behave as complex systems and theories from physical sciences, e.g. dynamical systems theory,
are appropriate for understanding and modeling human performance. Accordingly, golf performance
is an emergent property of self-organizing dynamics and the confluence of constraints influencing the
golfer (Newell, 1986). We have subsequently applied this perspective to golf performance on the PGA
TOUR measured by ShotLink™. The underlying assumption is that each shot a player faces, represents a
new set of constraints and the player must adapt to the constraints associated with the shot, which can
be divided up into three main categories: environment, organism, task (Newell, 1986). The constraints
3
do not necessarily prescribe one particular response (e.g. shot type), instead they guide the response
selection of the golfer by excluding certain responses (Kugler, Kelso, & Turvey, 1980). Stöckl and Lames
(2011) have demonstrated the ISOPAR method for visualizing constraints in puing. A player’s puing
performance is determined by a combination of environmental constraints (e.g. gradients of the green,
distance to the hole, green speed, weather conditions), organism constraints (e.g. psychological influences on the player, player’s green reading ability, player’s ability to perform pus) and task constraints
(hiing a golf ball with a club so that it rolls into the hole). The idea of visualizing the confluence of
constraints off the green, by which the performance of players is determined, can be extended to entire
holes to illustrate difficulty on a hole represented by the number of remaining shots – since each shot is
part of a player’s shot sequence. Off the green, a player’s performance is also guided by the interaction
of environmental, organism, and task constraints, however, their details may differ. For example, environmental constraints are the hole design (straight hole compared to a doglegged fairway),ball lie (e.g.
fairway, rough, sand), line to the green (e.g. are there trees/bushes/other objects blocking the line to the
green), or weather conditions (e.g. wind, rain); organism constraints can be psychological influences on
the player, player’s decision making of the tactics for holing out with as few shots as possible, picking
the ‘right’ club, or player’s ability to performing a planned stroke; task constraints are similar to those
for puing, in that the player hits the ball with a club with the intention of the ball finishing close to
the hole. However, the degrees of freedom involved with the swings used from off the green introduce
a wider range of task specific constraints (e.g. achieving clean contact, club path into the ball, etc.). The
coordination paern of the swing must be more adaptable for off-green shots because of the increased
degrees of freedom involved with the movement itself as well as the increased variability in the results
of the swing.
3.2
The concept
Here we present two analogies to help explain the following methods. In meteorology, lines of equal
barometric pressure are ploed on geographical maps. These maps are called isobar maps and the lines
are isobar lines. The term isobar (iso - meaning equal and bar - meaning pressure) is used appropriately
as the isobar map shows lines of equal pressure. Small diameter, closed lines represent minima and
maxima by which, areas of low-pressure and high-pressure can be identified. Densely packed isobar
4
lines indicate a steep gradient of air pressure. Meteorologists can therefore make weather predictions
using isobar maps. Our second analogy is to contour maps used in geography to show elevation. Similar
to isobar lines, lines of equal elevation are ploed on geographical maps. Here, densely packed lines
represent steep ascents and descents. In both analogies, lines that are relatively close together represent
steep changes in pressure or elevation, respectively. Likewise, lines that are relatively widely spaced
represent areas of lile change in pressure or elevation.
For golf, we have developed the ISOPAR method for calculating a gradient of difficulty for a golf
hole. The output can then be ploed on a map of the golf hole to visualize the difficulty of certain areas.
We call these maps ISOPAR maps and a detailed explanation of how they are calculated is provided
below.
3.3
Development and testing
The ISOPAR method was originally developed for visualizing difficulty on the green based on the performance of the field on the green. Since we have the opportunity to use the ShotLink™database we
can also calculate ISOPAR values and maps for entire holes. The calculation of ISOPAR values for entire
holes is based on the same algorithm which will be described for greens in this section. To reduce computational complexity ISOPAR values are only calculated in a non-convex area in which ball locations
were. In this section the development and testing of the method is described for this application.
The three-dimensional spatial coordinates (x, y, z) of the green gives the first of three sets of triplets,
(xg , yg , zg ), where g represents the number of measuring points. When available, this set of triplets can
be used for ploing the physical contour of the green.
For each ball position, (x, y), the corresponding number of strokes, z, required for the player to hole
out are used in the calculation. This gives our second of three sets of triplets (x p , y p , z p ). For example,
if a player took four shots on a hole, that player contributed four data points to our dataset: the x, y
coordinates from the location of the first shot with a corresponding z value of 4 and the x, y coordinates
from the second shot and a corresponding z value of 3 and so on.
5
3.3.1
Computing ISOPAR values and maps
Before explaining the details of the algorithm for computing the ISOPAR values and maps, a rough
overview of the steps involved in calculating an ISOPAR map for a green is given (see Stöckl, Lamb, &
Lames, 2011):
1. Assign a grid to the green (Figure 1).
2. Calculate the ISOPAR value of every grid point subject to all measuring points with a modified
application of the exponential smoothing algorithm.
3. Compute a surface out of the ISOPAR values of the grid points using a smoothing spline interpolation (Fahrmeir, Kneib, & Lang, 2009) to finely remove rough edges.
4. Calculate the ISOPAR map which consists of ISOPAR lines.
The following explains the steps for computing ISOPAR values and maps of greens in detail which
we use for the calculation of entire holes as well. All computations were performed in MATLAB (The
Mathworks, Inc.).
Assign grid to green: A grid with a specified mesh size is assigned to the green (Figure 1). The ISOPAR
values are computed at the grid nodes. For positions which lie between grid nodes the ISOPAR values
must be estimated. Therefore, a grid with an extremely small mesh size represents the data very well,
while a very large mesh size does not. However, there is a trade-off between representational power
and computational intensity. A mesh size which optimizes this trade-off should be used.
Exponential smoothing algorithm: From Step 1, coordinates (xi j , yi j ) were assigned to the grid nodes.
The corresponding zi j values which represent the ISOPAR values were then calculated; this gives the
final set of triplets, (xi j , yi j , zi j ), i = 1, . . . , m, j = 1, . . . , n.
The algorithm used here is a well known smoothing algorithm; however, our application of the
algorithm differs slightly from most applications. Typical applications of the exponential smoothing
algorithm are in time-series analyses and based on pairs (xk , yk ), k = 1, . . . ,t, from which the value yt+1
at time xt+1 is computed. The modified application of this algorithm for calculating ISOPAR values is
6
j
(xij,yij)
Ball Location
Hole
Grid Node
Line Grid Node−Hole
60° Line
Used Data
i
Figure 1: The mesh grid shown on the green. Green line represents the edge of the green. (xi j , yi j )
represents coordinates for a grid point, blue dots represent ball positions, and red dots represent ball
positions which are used for calculating the ISOPAR value at (xi j , yi j ). The black, solid lines form a 60◦
angle which marks the boundary within which ball locations are used in the calculation.
based on the measuring points (x p , y p , z p ), p = 1, . . . , q (q = number of sample points). The ISOPAR
values zi j are computed based on these triplets.
To use the exponential smoothing algorithm, which is based on pairs, we transformed the triplets
into two-dimensional pairs, respectively. Since it does not make sense to include ball locations which
are on the opposite side of the hole from the viewpoint of golf, we introduced a constraint for the usage
of ball locations in order to calculate the ISOPAR value at a grid node. We empirically decided that
ball locations which are considered for computing an ISOPAR value need to be in an area of 60 degrees
le and 60 degrees right from the straight line between the pin location and the respective grid node
(the red data points in Figure 1). The transformation for every grid node was achieved by ordering the
7
(a) 6th hole
(b) 18th hole
Figure 2: The ISOPAR maps for (a) the 6th hole at Bay Hill in the fourth round of the 2009 tournament
and (b) the 18th hole in the fourth round of the 2008 tournament. The green line represents the edge of
the green, the flag position is shown as a black dot. iso2.0 is shown in magenta.
measuring points in ascending order (the nearest point first) with respect to the Euclidean distance
√
di j p
=
(xi j − x p )2 + (yi j − y p )2
(1)
to the measured ball positions. This allowed the triplets from above to be wrien as pairs (di jp , z p ).
With the pairs sorted as described, we could use the exponential smoothing algorithm to calculate
the ISOPAR values. In these pairings, (di jr , zr ) represents the ball position with the shortest distance to
the respective grid node and (di j1 , z1 ) represents the ball position with the largest distance to the grid
node. The exponential smoothing is calculated by
zi j = α
r−2
∑ (1 − α )k zr−k + (1 − α )r−1 z1 ,
(2)
k=0
where 0 ≤ α ≤ 1 is the smoothing parameter (Hamilton, 1994).
The ISOPAR lines are calculated from the ISOPAR values (Figure 2). The ISOPAR lines, similar to
the isobar lines used in our meteorological analogy, are the lines of intersection between planes which
are parallel to the x, y plane in certain intervals and the surface which is calculated with the triplets
(xi j , yi j , zi j ). The result is a contour map which empirically characterizes how many strokes “the field”
8
(a)
(b)
Figure 3: Example of a portion of the grid surface (a) without smoothing and (b) with smoothing spline
interpolation.
took from each position on the green. Each line on the contour map is one of these lines of intersection,
thus we argue that the ISOPAR lines give a visual representation of the difficulty of any shot on the
green.
Smoothing spline interpolation:
Because of the space between the grid nodes, the grid surface must
be smoothed. Figure 3 shows the difference between the raw surface and the smoothed surface using
a cubic smoothing spline interpolation (Fahrmeir et al., 2009).
n
min
f
m
β ∑ ∑ (zi j − f (vi j )) + (1 − β )λ
2
∫∫
(D2 f (x, y))2 dxdy
(3)
i=1 j=1
where
D2 =
vi j denotes the vector with entries
∂2
∂2
∂2
+
2
,
+
∂ 2x
∂ x∂ y ∂ 2 y
(x )
ij
yi j , λ = 1 in our case and β is the smoothing parameter. When
β = 1, f is a natural spline interpolant – the cubic spline interpolant; when β = 0, f is a least square
fit surface and as β → 1, the data remain relatively similar to the input.
Calculating the ISOPAR map:
The ISOPAR lines were calculated in MATLAB. The ISOPAR lines are
lines of intersection between the smoothed surface (calculated in the previous subsection) and planes
which are parallel to the x, y-plane in certain intervals. For implementing the ISOPAR method we used
intervals of 0.2, however, this value is not critical. The value for the interval should depend on the
9
objectives of and resources available to the user.
3.3.2
The performance indicator: Shot ality
Shot ality (SQ) is a post-hoc assessment of a shot taken. Similar to the shot value concept of Broadie
(2008), Shot ality is determined as the difference in ISOPAR value at the starting position (IPVbe f ore )
and the ISOPAR value at the finishing position (IPVa f ter ) of the shot is calculated.
SQ = IPVbe f ore − IPVa f ter
(4)
Shot ality, as its name implies, represents the quality of a shot played. A shot of average performance,
with respect to the data set (in this case the ShotLink™database), receives, by definition, a Shot ality
score of 1 (proof shown below). A shot with a Shot ality higher than 1 is considered a well played
shot and likewise, a shot with a Shot ality score of less than 1 is a poorly played shot.
Like the additivity property of the model of Broadie (2011), a unique property of Shot ality allows
consecutive shots, which are performed in sequence (1, . . . , n p ) ending with the ball being holed, by a
given player p to be weighted so that the sum of their Shot ality scores (SQ j ) equals the ISOPAR
value of the beginning position (IPV1 ) of the sequence:
np
∑ SQ j
(4)
=
j=1
n p −1
∑ (IPV j − IPV j+1 ) + IPVn p − 0
j=1
=
IPV1 − IPV2 + IPV2 − IPV3 + . . . + IPVn p−1 − IPVn p + IPVn p − 0
=
IPV1 .
(5)
We have included 0 in the the final term IPVn p − 0 to make clear that it represents the Shot ality of
the final shot played on the hole (zero shots are required once the ball is holed).
Consider a hypothetical sequence of two pus on a green which starts from a position with an
ISOPAR value of 2.1. If the first pu missed, leaving a pu with an ISOPAR value of 1.1, the Shot
ality scores must be 1.0 for the first pu and 1.1 for the second, which adds up to the beginning
ISOPAR value of the sequence. If the first pu had been much worse, the holed second pu would
necessarily have a higher value, the first lower, and then still add up to 2.1. If the second pu were
missed, we now have a three shot sequence and these three Shot ality scores then add up to 2.1. This
10
concept applies to a sequence of shots of any length including the sequence of all shots played on a hole,
as long as the final shot in the sequence results in the ball being holed. To follow this example, no maer
the player’s score on the hole, the values of the Shot ality scores will add up to the ISOPAR value
of the starting point of the sequence: the ISOPAR value at the tee (IPVTee ). This leads us to another
interesting property of Shot ality. In the ShotLink™database all tee shots recorded on the same hole
(and the same round) are assigned the same x, y coordinates – a single point. For this reason, we use
the average score (Save ) for the hole as the ISOPAR value at the tee
p
∑ Sj
IPVTee = Save =
j=1
p
(6)
,
where S j are the hole scores for all p different players on the hole. Therefore, the sequence of all Shot
ality scores for each player must add up to the average score for the hole. For example, another
hypothetical golfer might score a birdie on a par 4 which has an average score of 3.92 which might
involve a series of shots as follows: a good drive (SQ = 1.20), an slightly beer than average approach
from that position (SQ = 1.05) and a very good pu (SQ = 1.67).
As mentioned above, the average Shot ality of all shots played on a hole (SQave ) must be 1 and
can now be shown by
SQaveTotal
=
1
p
∑ Sj
p
nj
· ∑ ∑ SQi
j=1 i=1
j=1
1
(5)
=
p
∑ Sj
p
· ∑ IPVTee
j=1
j=1
=
1
p
∑ Sj
· p · IPVTee
j=1
p
1
(6)
=
p
∑ Sj
∑ Sj
· p·
j=1
p
j=1
=
1,
11
(7)
where p is the number of different players on the hole and n j is the number of shots played on the hole
by each player.
Additionally, a new concept can be derived from Shot ality. Similar to strokes gained (Broadie,
2011; Fearing et al., 2011), already in use by the PGA TOUR, we assess the advantage gained relative
to the average by a well played shot (or vice versa). Terminologically, we prefer Shots Saved instead of
shots gained because a long pu made, saves instead of gains the player shots. Similar to the strokes
gained concept (Broadie, 2008, 2011), Shots Saved is defined as
Shots Saved = SQ − SQave ,
(8)
where SQave denotes the average Shot ality of certain shot types (SQaveType ), e.g. drives, or the
average Shot ality of all shots (SQaveTotal ).
4
Applying the ISOPAR method to ShotLink™data
While the methods of Fearing et al. (2011), Broadie (2011) and Minton (2011) can be used to make very
good generalizations about the expected outcome of a shot based on its distance, the ISOPAR method
is useful for answering a slightly different question. Given the factors which directly contribute to the
performance of the field, how were certain shots performed with respect to the performance of the
field?
4.1
Reading ISOPAR maps
In Stöckl et al. (2011) the concept of ISOPAR maps was originally described for on-green performance
of amateur golfers. In this section we applied the ISOPAR method to on-green performance of PGA
TOUR golfers and extended the idea of calculating and visualizing difficulty to off-green performance
of PGA TOUR golfers.
According to Stöckl and Lames (2011) ISOPAR maps are suitable for identifying unique areas on
the green. The iso-lines represent different levels of difficulty according to the number of remaining
shots required to hole out. For example, if iso-lines were spread out evenly and circularly, we could
conclude that all the constraints which influence performance were evenly distributed. Yet, we know
12
that many factors (e.g. distance to the hole, angle of approach, distance of the hole from the front of
the green, speed and hardness of greens, etc.) directly influence performance, but they also indirectly
influence performance. In other words, having a tree blocking the line to the pin constrains the kind of
shot a player can play. This is an example of that factor directly affecting performance. An example of
a factor indirectly affecting performance is a situation in which a player tries to play strategically, by
aiming away from a hazardous area. The shot might result in a long remaining pu but has essentially
eliminated the possibility of going in the hazard. The strength of the ISOPAR method is its capability
of accounting for all the factors which influence performance. To illustrate this idea further, imagine
all the players on a hole aim at a certain area of the green rather than the pin because the pin is close
to a penalizing hazard. This would affect the distance-based statistical benchmarks and would make it
look like everyone performed worse than expected. Accordingly, the benchmark could then be adjusted
so that it is only representative of shots played on that specific hole. To take this example one step
further though, imagine a situation in which long hiers give themselves such an advantage off the tee
that they can play to the pin whereas the rest of the field still feel wise to play more conservatively.
This situation represents a non-linear relationship between players’ strategies. The same example is
easy to think of on risk reward holes such as drivable par-4s and tricky par-5s. The ISOPAR method
is capable of modeling these non-linearities in the data because it is a measure of performance rather
than a predictor. The ISOPAR maps are capable of identifying how advantageous shots were (e.g. a
drive that provides a good angle for the approach shot) as well as how hazardous hazards (e.g. rough,
bunkers, trees, etc.) were.
In the folllowing subsections we will explain ISOPAR maps and how they can be interpreted. To
read the ISOPAR maps we use the naming convention isoN to represent the ISOPAR line with value N.
4.1.1
On-green
The iso2.0 line is of importance, beyond iso2.0 , 3-pus exist. Figure 4 shows the distribution of 1-, 2and 3-pus on the 18th green at Bay Hill in 2008. The iso2.0 line is a result of the 3-pus shown in the
figure.
Lorensen and Yamrom (1992), and later Penner (2002), modeled the difficulty of puing with different amounts of break and elevation change and from different distances. The authors showed that, not
surprisingly, much more precision was required by the player as puing distance, break and elevation
13
Figure 4: The distribution of iso-lines, 1-, 2- and 3-pus on the 18th green in the 4th round of the Arnold
Palmer Invitational in 2008.
change increased. The ISOPAR maps visualize these factors as well as many other subtle factors which
affect puing performance.
Since puing distance obviously increases outward from the hole, linearly and equally in all directions, the iso-lines should be circular on a flat green. However, since slopes are not symmetrically
distributed across the green, the shape of the iso-lines can be useful in identifying easy or more difficult
areas from which to pu. Useful characteristics of iso-lines are their a) circularity, b) density and c)
their distance from the hole. If the map consists of circularly paerned iso-lines one can conclude that
shot difficulty does not depend on the direction from which the stroke is taken. As the iso-lines become
more elliptical certain areas of the green must be considered more favorable to pu from. The spread,
or density, of iso-lines can be used to identify the severity of the gradient of difficulty on the green. A
14
Figure 5: The distribution of iso-lines on the 18th hole in the 4th round of the AT&T Pebble Beach in
2011.
steep gradient is expected to coincide with undulated areas of the green but has not been empirically
shown with ShotLink™data yet. The distance of the iso-lines from the hole can of course also be used
to indicate difficulty of a pu. Reference values could be used as a comparison to provide context to
the value of the iso-lines (e.g. Broadie, 2008; Cochran & Stobbs, 1968; Fearing et al., 2011; Tierney &
Coop, 1998).
4.1.2
Off-green
Figure 5 shows an ISOPAR map of the 18th hole in round four of the AT&T Pebble Beach in 2011.
The 18th hole at Pebble Beach is a unique par-5 because there is a tree in the middle of the fairway
potentially blocking shots to the green. Furthermore, this hole is located directly on the coastline,
15
Figure 6: Zoomed in view of the ISOPAR map of the landing area in the fairway of 18th hole in round
four at AT&T Pebble Beach in 2011. Red lines represent iso-lines
which is the border on the le side.
Figure 6 is a zoomed in view of the ISOPAR map for the landing area of the drives. In the middle of
the fairway is the tree, on the le side of the fairway is just a small strip of rough before the coastline
starts, and on the right hand side of the fairway is a bunker. Looking at the iso-lines we notice that it
was advantageous for the field to hit their drives on the fairway le of the tree where there was a local
minimum of difficulty represented by the small, closed iso3.6 line. In contrast, the area behind the tree
(the tree was blocking players’ line to the green) and close to or even in the bunker on the right hand
side was much more difficult shown by the iso4.0 and iso4.2 lines. Hence, players whose drives ended
up behind the tree or in the bunker had to take about half a shot more on this hole than players who
were able to pass the tree with their drives or were able to keep their drives on the fairway to the le
16
of the tree. Among other constraints that influenced the players, this tree constrained the field’s play
significantly.
4.2
Performance analysis
In this section we will show different applications of the performance indicators Shot ality and Shots
Saved in order to analyze performance.
4.2.1
Performance analysis based on ISOPAR maps on greens: Bay Hill in 2008 and 2009
To demonstrate the ISOPAR method the first time, we have used the ShotLink™data from the Arnold
Palmer Invitational presented by MasterCard in 2008 and 2009. In both years the tournament was won
by Tiger Woods sinking dramatic pus on the final hole. These tournaments give us an opportunity to
demonstrate performance analysis of the field using the ISOPAR method, as well as an analysis of the
performance of Woods in both years.
In this section Shot ality and Shots Saved are used as performance indicators. The analyses in
this section are based on ISOPAR values calculated for greens only. In order to analyze shots based
on all shots, Shots Saved represents the difference between the Shot ality of any shot and Shot
ality of the average shot, which represents the field and has been shown to be exactly 1, and is called
Shots Savedtotal
Shots Savedtotal = SQ − 1.
(9)
The Shots Savedtotal definition matches the definition of the strokes gained concept (Broadie, 2011;
Fearing et al., 2011). Shots Savedtotal represents the contribution of one shot by a player to that player’s
total score with respect to the field’s performance².
Individual pus
The ISOPAR method, because it is based on shot locations, can give Shot ality
scores to individual shots. Table 1 shows the top-ten pus for the Arnold Palmer Invitational in 2008
and 2009, respectively. Notably, the pus with the highest Shot ality scores are not necessarily the
longest pus. For example, in 2009 Daniel Chopra made a 31.2 foot pu on the 15th hole in the first
round which had the highest Shot ality score of all pus in that year’s tournament, despite pus of
²In section 4.2.2 a slightly different application of Shots Saved will be introduced based only on shot types
17
more than double the length being holed by other players.
Table 1: Top-ten pus measured by Shot ality for the Arnold Palmer Invitational in 2008 and 2009.
2008
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
42.
Davis Love III
Bill Haas
D.A. Points
Charley Hoffman
Shaun Micheel
Mark Wilson
Tom Pernice Jr.
Brian Davis
Billy Mayfair
Kenneth Ferrie
Tiger Woods
SQ
Hole
Round
Distance ()
1.99
1.99
1.98
1.98
1.97
1.97
1.95
1.95
1.92
1.91
1.83
7
2
15
3
1
15
11
6
12
2
18
1
1
2
1
2
1
4
2
1
1
4
43.6
61.1
33.0
36.8
36.3
29.8
22.4
23.0
27.1
41.0
24.2
SQ
Hole
Round
Distance ()
2.12
2.11
2.11
2.09
2.03
2.01
2.00
2.00
1.99
1.95
1.84
1.69
15
8
1
7
9
11
11
10
9
18
13
18
1
1
2
3
2
2
3
3
3
4
1
4
31.2
55.7
33.7
35.9
45.0
37.9
29.8
25.3
73.3
38.1
16.4
15.9
n = 11, 107
2009
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
40.
203.
Daniel Chopra
J. J. Henry
D. J. Trahan
Zach Johnson
Ben Curtis
Fred Couples
Brian Gay
Aaron Baddeley
Heath Slocum
Jerry Kelly
Tiger Woods
Tiger Woods
n = 11, 116
Tiger Woods’ winning pus in each year are shown in Table 1 in bold face (see also Figure 7 in
Appendix A). In 2008, the winning pu was the best pu by Woods of the week and the 42nd best pu
out of over 11,000 pus in the entire tournament. In 2009, Woods’ winning pu was not his best of
the week, his best was on the 13th hole in the first round,which was the 40th best pu of the week.
His winning pu was the 203rd best pu of the week, again, out of just over 11,000 pus. This reveals
exactly how well Tiger Woods performed on his final pu of the tournament, with the tournament
on the line, two years in a row. One can, of course, argue that the winning pu was just one of 270
shots played in the tournament, and they all contributed equally to the outcome. However, we must
18
acknowledge, first that the preceding shots in the tournament were played sufficiently well so that
Woods had a chance to make a winning pu on the last hole; and second, the final pu is not like the
rest because the consequences are known. In this sense we must appreciate the performance of Woods
on these specific shots.
Shots Saved on and off the green
Table 2 shows the top puing performers of the tournament and
their off-green performance. On-green performance is calculated as above, however, calculating Shot
ality scores off the green is still under development (as of version from June 27, 2011; developments
are introduced in the next section). Therefore, the off-green Shots Savedtotal can be calculated based
on the average score of the field (hole, round or tournament) and the on-green score, which is already
calculated. For example, in 2008, Tiger Woods’ score of 270 was 13.73 strokes beer than the average
score of 283.73. Of the 13.73 stroke margin between his score and the field we calculated that he gained
1.13 on the green and, as a result, the remaining 12.60 strokes must have been from off the green.
In Table 2, the Shots Savedtotal performance indicator is introduced and shows a large discrepancy
between Shots Savedtotal on the green and Shots Savedtotal off the green. At first glance it appears as
though puing, because of the few Shots Savedtotal , is much less important than shots played off the
green: this may in fact be the case but the topic requires some discussion first.
Shot ality and consequently, Shots Savedtotal , are independent measures of performance because
the same metric is used for all shots. This means that any shot played can be directly compared to any
other shot played. With that in mind, a speculative explanation for the discrepancy between on-green
and off-green performance involves two factors: 1) There is a greater range of possible Shot ality
scores for off-green shots compared to on-green shots. 2) a PGA TOUR player will typically take more
off-green shots than on-green shots, so the number of elements in the off-green sum is greater than
the elements in the on-green sum. Combined, these two factors may explain the discrepancy between
Shots Savedtotal on and off the green.
Anecdotally, one might notice in Table 2 that Brad Faxon is at the top of the Shots Savedtotal on the
green list in 2009 (he was not in the field in the 2008 tournament). Each year on the PGA TOUR, no matter how it is measured (number of pus, pus per GIR, or just how smooth the stroke looks to an expert
eye), Brad Faxon is always among the best puers. In the 2009 tournament Faxon was the best puer
and ranked fourth worst off the green. Clearly, Faxon was only able to make the cut in this particular
19
Table 2: Top-ten puers in the Arnold Palmer Invitational in 2008 and 2009.
2008
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Shots Savedtotal
on the green
Shots Savedtotal
off the green
1.48
1.13
0.79
0.47
0.06
-0.46
-0.47
-0.66
-0.92
-1.08
8.24
12.60
8.94
-0.74
7.67
6.19
1.20
5.39
6.65
4.81
Shots Savedtotal
on the green
Shots Savedtotal
off the green
1.32
1.19
1.06
0.58
0.54
0.48
-0.03
-0.06
-0.34
-0.40
-1.46
5.67
6.80
8.28
7.32
10.38
13.89
7.92
3.20
4.26
Ken Duke
Tiger Woods
Hunter Mahan
Mark Wilson
Carl Peersson
Woody Austin
Ian Poulter
Nick Watney
Frank Lickliter II
Joe Ogilvie
n = 71
2009
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Brad Faxon
Lee Janzen
Lucas Glover
Daniel Chopra
Padraig Harrington
Zach Johnson
Tiger Woods
Ben Crane
Paul Goydos
Cliff Kresge
n = 73
tournament because of superior puing. As mentioned, Faxon is usually one of the best puers on the
PGA TOUR according to conventional statistics. These conventional statistics (i.e. pus per GIR) as we
have already mentioned are a composite of previous shots played on the hole. If independent measures
of performance, such as the ISOPAR method, had been available we may have noticed that Faxon was
an even beer puer than previously thought.
In Table 3, the leaders’ on- and off-green performance is shown. In both years, Woods performed,
as the winner should, well on and off the green. He ranked 2nd in puing in 2008 and 7th in 2009. Off
the green he ranked 9th in 2008 and in 2009, 5th. Combined, these performances on and off the green
were good enough for him to win.
20
Table 3: Top-ten finishers in the Arnold Palmer Invitational in 2008 and 2009.
2008
1.
2.
T3.
T3.
T3.
T6.
T6.
T8.
T8.
T8.
T8.
T8.
T8.
Tiger Woods
Bart Bryant
Cliff Kresge
Vijay Singh
Sean O’Hair
Ken Duke
Hunter Mahan
Niclas Fasth
Alex Cejka
Carl Peersson
Tom Pernice Jr.
Tom Lehman
Bubba Watson
Puing
rank
Shots Savedtotal
on the green
Off-green
rank
Shots Savedtotal
off the green
2
11
43
54
16
1
3
57
51
5
55
30
34
1.13
-1.10
-4.70
-6.26
-1.66
1.48
0.79
-6.82
-5.33
0.06
-6.59
-3.59
-3.68
9
5
2
1
10
30
26
3
7
34
4
16
15
12.60
13.83
15.42
16.98
12.39
8.24
8.94
14.55
13.06
7.67
14.32
11.32
11.41
Puing
rank
Shots Savedtotal
on the green
Off-green
rank
Shots Savedtotal
off the green
7
32
6
15
22
25
27
4
55
28
-0.03
-2.58
0.48
-0.91
-1.76
-2.04
-2.20
0.58
-6.24
-2.35
5
1
21
20
11
10
9
30
2
15
13.89
15.44
10.38
10.77
11.62
11.90
12.06
8.28
15.10
11.21
n = 71
2009
1.
2.
3.
T4.
T4.
T4.
T4.
T8.
T8.
T8.
Tiger Woods
Sean O’Hair
Zach Johnson
Pat Perez
John Senden
Sco Verplank
Nick Watney
Daniel Chopra
Jason Gore
Kenny Perry
n = 73
As exemplified by Vijay Singh, Niclas Fasth, Alex Cejka and Tom Pernice Jr. in 2008 and by Jason
Gore in 2009, it is possible to finish high in the tournament standings with relatively poor puing, if
off-green performance is exceptional. The converse situation, in which poor off-green performance is
balanced by excellent puing seems less profitable (for further context, see Table 9 in Appendix B which
shows the boom ten players each year).
Using Shots Savedtotal , we were able to rank all the players in the field according to their on-green
and off-green performance. The correlation (Spearman’s rank) between tournament rank and puing
rank was ρ = .28 in 2008 and ρ = .44 in 2009. The correlation between tournament rank and off-green
21
rank in 2008 was ρ = .79 and ρ = .70 in 2009. These correlations are compelling evidence that offgreen performance contributes to overall performance more than on-green performance. We should
not discount the importance of puing, since it also is strongly correlated with overall performance.
We mentioned in the Shots Savedtotal on and off the green section that there is a discrepancy between
the sum of Shots Savedtotal on the green and the sum of Shots Savedtotal off the green; and here show
that off-green performance contributed more to overall performance than on-green performance. It
should be noted that the discrepancy between on- and off-green Shots Savedtotal is not what implies
the importance of off-green performance, rather the rankings in off-green performance. Those who were
among the best off-green performance stood a beer chance of doing well in the tournament. Indeed,
good off-green performance must be accompanied by on-green performance if one is to beat the best
players in the world. These findings simply suggest that off-green performance is likely more important
than previously thought.
4.2.2
Performance analysis based on ISOPAR maps of entire holes from 2011
In this subsection we use the performance indicator Shots Saved to analyze players’ performances with
respect to different shot types during tournaments of the PGA TOUR in 2011. We calculated ISOPAR
values and maps for 2,754 holes played in 153 rounds from the 38 PGA TOUR tournaments measured
by ShotLink™.
A variation of Shots Saved, called Shots Savedtype , is introduced here to compare shots of the same
type.
Shots Savedtype = SQ − SQaveType .
(10)
Since shots are extracted from their original shot sequence in order to make this comparison, SQaveType
does not necessarily equal 1. Shots Savedtype represents the quality of a shot in context of a certain
shot type with respect to the field’s performance. We defined five different shot types: Drives, long
approach shots, short approach shots, around the green shots, and pus. In the following, lists of
the top ten golfers for each shot type are presented and compared to the most similar performance
indicators currently used by the PGA TOUR.
22
Table 4: Top-ten puers in 2011 ranked by Shots Savedtype per round. Last column contains rank in
PGA performance indicator Strokes Gained - Puing.
Rank
Name
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Bryce Molder
Luke Donald
Charlie Wi
Steve Stricker
Kevin Na
Fredrik Jacobson
Brandt Snedeker
Greg Chalmers
Hunter Mahan
Jason Day
Rounds
measured
Shots Savedtype
per Round
Shots Savedtype
total
Strokes Gained
Rank (PGA)
71
52
77
53
68
70
67
79
76
59
0.773
0.751
0.734
0.716
0.591
0.573
0.555
0.553
0.551
0.534
54.863
39.043
56.506
37.972
40.159
40.090
37.174
43.668
41.869
31.497
3
1
4
2
8
6
10
5
13
7
n = 202
Puing
In table 4 the top ten golfers with respect to puing in 2011 are ranked by their Shots Savedtype
values per round. In the last column of this table the golfers’ ranks in the PGA TOUR performance
indicator Strokes Gained - Puing are listed. We calculated the Spearman rank correlation between the
two puing rankings (ρ = .94), which shows a striking similarity in rankings. Comparing the ranks
of the Shots Savedtype ranking and the Strokes Gained - Puing ranking of the top ten puing golfers
in table 4 we can see that these players are also identified as the best puers by the Strokes Gained Puing performance indicator. The small differences can be explained by the fact that the strokes gained
method is based on benchmarks considering the distance to the hole, an indicator for the difficulty of
the green, and the field strength in puing (Fearing et al., 2011) whereas the ISOPAR method implicitly
considers all constraints which affect performance.
Driving
Table 5 shows the top ten drivers in 2011 ranked by their Shots Savedtype values per round.
We considered drives to be all tee shots taken on par-4s and par-5s. The players in table 5, we argue
are popularly and anecdotally known as good drivers. We compared the Shots Savedtype ranking to
the Total Driving performance indicator of the PGA TOUR which is intended to best account for a
player’s driving ability. Many of the good drivers with respect to Shots Savedtype , like J.B. Holmes or
Robert Garrigus, are not ranked well in the Total Driving performance indicator. The Spearman’s rank
correlation between the Shots Savedtype ranking and the Total Driving ranking (ρ = .60) shows that
23
Table 5: Top-ten drivers in 2011 ranked by Shots Savedtype per round. Last two column contain ranks
in PGA performance indicator Total Driving and Driving Distance.
Rank
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Name
J. B. Holmes
Dustin Johnson
Gary Woodland
Robert Garrigus
Bubba Watson
Adam Sco
Jhonaan Vegas
Martin Laird
Bill Haas
Kyle Stanley
Rounds
measured
Shots Savedtype
per Round
Shots Savedtype
total
Total Driving
Rank (PGA)
Driving Distance
Rank (PGA)
47
54
70
69
59
45
70
62
72
80
0.991
0.904
0.834
0.787
0.780
0.710
0.595
0.572
0.566
0.558
46.588
48.827
58.382
54.317
46.003
31.972
41.644
35.435
40.745
44.653
90
30
23
94
35
5
84
26
76
18
1
3
5
4
2
24
8
13
48
9
n = 202
these two rankings are not coupled tightly. Total Driving is a combination of two performance indicators
for driving, the Driving Distance and the Driving Accuracy. The correlation between the Shots Savedtype
ranks of the golfers and their Driving Distance rank (ρ = .74) is much stronger than the correlation
between Shots Savedtype and Total Driving. Hence, Driving Accuracy, which is a binary measure of
whether a drive ends up in the fairway, seems to over-influence the Total Driving performance indicator.
Approach shots
Table 6 and Table 7 show approach shot rankings. We distinguished between long
and short approach shots because we argue that players perform different types of swings for each of
these two shot types. Generally, shots longer than 100 yds require full swings, the specific distances
can be gaged by club selection. For approaches under 100 yds, players are almost always hiing some
kind of wedge and are scaling the distance by adapting their swings. The ability to scale one’s swing
according the shot (more common in short approaches), we argue, is a qualitatively different skill than
performing full swings which rely less on swing modifications. ShotLink™also indicates whether a shot
is a short or long approach. Approach shots were defined by ShotLink™as all shots taken from further
than 30 feet from the edge of the green (except tee shots), which ended up on or around the green (within
30 feet). According to a benchmark used by the PGA TOUR an approach shot is a long approach shot if
it is taken from further away than 100 yards. Alternatively, an approach shot is a short approach shot
if it is taken from closer than 100 yards.
24
Table 6: Top-ten long approach shot players in 2011 ranked by Shots Savedtype per round. Last column
contains rank in PGA performance indicator Approaches from >100 yards.
Rank
1.
2.
3.
4.
T5.
T5.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Name
Phil Mickelson
Rory Sabbatini
Bubba Watson
Luke Donald
Sergio Garcia
Kris Blank
Chris DiMarco
Jonathan Byrd
Robert Garrigus
Alex Cejka
Rounds
measured
Shots Savedtype
per Round
Shots Savedtype
total
>100 yards
Rank (PGA)
58
61
59
52
45
83
82
72
69
47
0.691
0.535
0.443
0.380
0.378
0.378
0.372
0.355
0.338
0.309
40.087
32.641
26.135
19.741
17.031
31.390
30.493
25.589
23.355
14.543
82
73
114
10
93
10
108
114
8
4
n = 202
Table 6 shows the top ten long approach shot players with respect to Shots Savedtype per round in
2011. Most of the players ranked highly are again popularly known for their good long game or ball
striking. We compared our ranking with the PGA TOUR performance indicator Approaches from >100
yards by computing Spearman’s rank correlation (ρ = .53). The two performance indicators are only
correlated moderately. One reason for this is likely because the PGA TOUR performance indicator does
not take into account the difficulty of the starting position of an approach shot - only how close to the
hole the approach shot ends up. For example, an approach shot taken from 105 yards in the middle
of the fairway which ends up 8 feet from the hole is assessed the same quality as an approach shot
taken from 150 yards in the rough which ends up 8 feet from the hole according to the conventional
performance indicator. In contrast, the ISOPAR method considers the difficulty of a shot and assesses
the more difficult shot a higher Shot ality value and consequently a higher Shots Savedtype value.
Because of this we argue that Shots Saved beer assesses the quality of the shot played.
Table 7 shows the top ten short approach shot players with respect to Shots Savedtype per round
in 2011. Once again, we suggest that these golfers are well known as good short game players. We
compared this ranking to the PGA performance indicator Approaches from <100 yards. These two performance indicators are also only correlated moderately (Spearman’s rank correlation ρ = .68), however slightly stronger than Shots Savedtype and Approaches from >100 yards. The difference in these
two rankings can be explained the same way as with the long approaches. The classical performance
25
Table 7: Top-ten short approach shot players in 2011 ranked by Shots Savedtype per round. Last column
contains rank in PGA performance indicator Approaches from <100 yards.
Rank
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Name
Nick Watney
Paul Goydos
Brian Gay
Steve Stricker
Stephen Ames
Camilo Villegas
Justin Rose
Luke Donald
Chris Kirk
Sco Piercy
Rounds
measured
Shots Savedtype
per Round
Shots Savedtype
total
<100 yards
Rank (PGA)
55
72
58
51
51
42
51
41
67
51
0.227
0.218
0.194
0.189
0.184
0.182
0.151
0.149
0.141
0.136
12.495
15.693
13.159
9.617
9.391
7.638
7.693
6.125
9.444
6.955
1
5
22
2
15
28
11
9
19
3
n = 202
indicators do not take into account the difficulty of a shot and only focus on the outcome of the shot,
the remaining distance to the hole, whereas the ISOPAR method accounts for a shot’s difficulty.
Furthermore, we can recognize that the top players’s Shots Savedtype per Round values are much
smaller in this shot category than in all other shot categories which were studied. The Shots Savedtype
per round values are smaller because short approach shots are played less frequently compared to the
other shot types.
Around the green shots
Table 8 shows the top ten around the green players ranked by Shots Savedtype
per round in 2011. Around the green shots are defined as shots taken from an area within 30 feet around
the green, a variable which is collected by ShotLink™. These golfers are also subjectively known for
good short game performance. We compared Shots Savedtype around the green to the PGA TOUR’s
Scrambling performance indicator although we admit it is not a completely valid comparison. The
Scrambling performance indicator represents how oen a player saves par when missing the green in
regulation. So to do well in this statistic players could a) leave themselves easy around the green shots,
b) play their around the green shots very well or c) make a lot of par saving pus. With any combination
of these being possible it is difficult to make a meaningful analysis of performance using Scrambling.
The Shots Savedtype ranking is only moderately correlated (ρ = .54) with the PGA TOUR’s performance
indicator Scrambling because this happens to be a category in which the performance of an individual
26
Table 8: Top-ten around the green shot players in 2011 ranked by Shots Savedtype per round. Last
column contains rank in PGA performance indicator Scrambling.
Rank
1.
2.
3.
4.
T5.
T5.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Name
Chris Riley
Kevin Na
Bio Kim
Charles Howell III
Justin Rose
Brian Gay
Webb Simpson
Marc Leishman
Rod Pampling
Alex Cejka
Rounds
measured
Shots Savedtype
per Round
Shots Savedtype
total
Scrambling
Rank (PGA)
68
68
58
91
63
74
83
80
60
47
0.465
0.422
0.418
0.380
0.337
0.337
0.327
0.311
0.308
0.290
31.639
28.709
24.261
34.577
21.260
24.912
27.150
24.852
18.500
13.625
20
9
142
5
95
7
16
71
10
111
n = 202
shot is lost.
An interesting example to illustrate this point is that of Bio Kim in 2011. Kim was ranked third
according to Shots Savedtype but 142nd in Scrambling. Since Kim performed roughly average in puing
in 2011 (Shots Savedtype rank = 99th ), Kim likely played many good shots around the green but was
unable to make the ensuing par pu. This hurts his Scrambling rank but his ability to play ‘around the
green’ shots is accurately reflected in the Shots Savedtype performance indicator.
5
Final remarks
The results presented in this working paper are specific to PGA TOUR tournaments. Especially, the
results in section 4.2.1, which were outcomes of an earlier state of the project, are specific to the Arnold
Palmer Invitational in 2008 and 2009. Furthermore, the application of the ISOPAR method relies on
calculating ISOPAR values and maps for each hole in each round based on all shots (all pus in section
4.2.1) taken by the participating players. Sometimes there are areas on a hole or a green where there
are few isolated ball locations. Since the ISOPAR method models the performance of the participating
players, the performance indicators Shot ality and consequently Shots Saved may not assess the
‘real’ quality of performances of those shots.
Finally, we welcome any feedback from readers to help us improve and find new uses for the ISOPAR
27
method.
References
Broadie, M. (2008). Assessing golfer performance using golfmetrics. In D. Crews & R. Lutz (Eds.), Science
and Golf V: Proceedings of the 2008 World Scientific Congress of Golf (pp. 253–262). Mesa, AZ:
Energy and Motion Inc.
Broadie, M. (2011, February 8). A shot value approach to assessing golfer performance on the PGA Tour
[Working Paper]. Columbia University, New York. Available from http://www.columbia.edu/
~mnb2/broadie/Assets/strokes_gained_pga_broadie_20110208.pdf
Clark III, R. D. (2004). Streakiness among professional golfers: Fact or fiction. International Journal of
Sport Psychology, 34, 63–79.
Cochran, A., & Stobbs, J. (1968). The search for the perfect swing. Grass Valley, CA: The Booklegger.
Davids, K., Glazier, P., Araujo, D., & Bartle, R. (2003). Movement systems as dynamical systems.
Sports Medicine, 33(4), 245–260.
Fahrmeir, L., Kneib, T., & Lang, S. (2009). Regression. Berlin: Springer.
Fearing, D., Acimovic, J., & Graves, S. (2011). How to catch a Tiger: Understanding puing performance
on the PGA Tour. Journal of antitative Analysis in Sport, 7(1), article 5.
Hamilton, J. D. (1994). Time series analysis. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Hughes, M. D., & Bartle, R. M. (2002). The use of performance indicators in performance analysis.
Journal of Sports Sciences, 20, 739–754.
James, N. (2007). The statistical analysis of golf performance. International Journal of Sports Science
and Coaching, 2(suppl. 1), 231–248.
James, N., & Rees, G. D. (2008). Approach shot accuracy as a performance indicator for US PGA Tour
golf professionals. International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching, 3(suppl. 1), 145–160.
Kelso, J. A. S. (1995). Dynamic paerns: The self-organization of brain and behavior. Camebridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Ketzscher, R., & Ringrose, T. J. (2002). Exploratory analysis of European Professional Golf Association
statistics. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series D, 51, 215–228.
Kugler, P. N., Kelso, J. A. S., & Turvey, M. T. (1980). On the concept of coordinative structures as
28
dissipative structures: I. Theorectical line. In G. E. Stelmach & J. Requin (Eds.), Advances in
psychology: Tutorials in motor behavior (pp. 3–48). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Landsberger, L. (1994). A unified golf stroke value scale for quantitative stroke-by-stroke assessment.
In A. J. Cochran & M. R. Farrally (Eds.), Science and Golf II: Proceedings of the World Scientific
Congress of Golf (pp. 216–221). London: E & FN Spon.
Lorensen, W., & Yamrom, B. (1992). Golf green visualization. IEEE Computer Graphics & Applications,
12, 35–44.
Mayer-Kress, G., Liu, Y., & Newell, K. M. (2006). Complex systems and human movement. Complexity,
12(2), 40–51.
Minton, R. (2011, Retrieved May 2). Tigermetrics [Working Paper]. Roanoake College, Salem, Virginia.
Available from http://www.pgatour.com/stats/academicdata/adp-roan1.pdf
Newell, K. (1986). Constraints on the development of coordination. In M. Wade & H. Whiting (Eds.),
Motor development in children: Aspects of coordination and control (pp. 341–361). Amsterdam:
Nijhoff.
Penner, A. R. (2002). The physics of puing. Canadian Journal of Physics, 80(2), 83–96.
Scheid, F. J. (1990). On the normality and independence of golf scores, with various applications. In
A. J. Cochran (Ed.), Science & Golf: Proceedings of the World Congress of Golf (pp. 147–152).
London: E & FN Spon.
Stöckl, M., Lamb, P., & Lames, M. (2011). The ISOPAR method - a new approach to performance analysis
in golf. Journal of antitative Analysis in Sport, 7(1), article 10.
Stöckl, M., & Lames, M. (2011). Modeling constraints in puing: The isopar method. International
Journal of Computer Science in Sport, 10(suppl. 1), 74–81.
Tierney, D. E., & Coop, R. H. (1998). A bivariate probability model for puing proficiency. In M. R. Farrally & A. J. Cochran (Eds.), Science and Golf III: Proceedings of the World Scientific Congress of
Golf (pp. 385–394). London: Human Kinetics.
29
30
Appendices
A
ShotLink™, Google Earth and ISOPAR maps
(a) 2008
Figure 7: ISOPAR map for the 18th hole at Bay Hill during the Arnold Palmer Invitational presented by
MasterCard in 2008. Orange lines are shown at intervals of 0.2 ISOPAR value, ball positions are shown
as yellow dots and the winning pu by Tiger Woods was taken from the red ‘X’, the hole is shown as a
black dot.
31
(b) 2009
Figure 7: ISOPAR map for the 18th hole at Bay Hill during the Arnold Palmer Invitational presented by
MasterCard in 2009. Orange lines are shown at intervals of 0.2 ISOPAR value, ball positions are shown
as yellow dots and the winning pu by Tiger Woods was taken from the red ‘X’, the hole is shown as a
black dot.
32
B
Shots Saved for the lowest finishers
Table 9: Shots Saved on and off the green for the lowest ten finishers of the 2008 and 2009 Arnold Palmer
Invitational.
2008
T62.
T62.
T64.
T64.
T64.
T64.
T68.
T68.
70.
71.
Shots Saved
on the green
Shots Saved
off the green
-4.67
-3.66
-4.47
-3.00
-2.97
-1.77
-7.88
-7.44
-4.27
-9.39
2.40
1.39
1.20
-0.27
-0.30
-1.50
2.61
2.17
-4.00
-0.88
Shots Saved
on the green
Shots Saved
off the green
-11.36
-1.10
-6.20
-4.48
-3.52
-2.99
-8.63
-5.08
-4.81
-4.49
8.22
-2.04
2.06
0.74
-0.62
1.15
2.49
-1.06
-2.33
-5.65
George McNeill
Davis Love III
Paul Goydos
Steve Elkington
Andrew Magee
Fred Couples
Robert Gamez
Marc Turnesa
Steve Lowery
Heath Slocum
n = 71
2009
T64.
T64.
T66.
T66.
T66.
T66.
T70.
T70.
72.
73.
Boo Weekley
Luis Oosthuizen
Skip Kendall
Richard Johnson
Kevin Streelman
Aaron Baddeley
Oliver Wilson
Brian Davis
Woody Austin
Bart Bryant
n = 73
33