|
EVENTS
Sportsman of the Year
Heisman Trophy
Swimsuit 2001
CENTERS
Fantasy Central
Inside Game
Video Plus
Statitudes
Your Turn
Message Boards
Email Newsletters
Golf Guide
Cities
CNNSI.com GROUP
Sports Illustrated
Life of Reilly
SI Women
SI for Kids
Press Room
TBS/TNT Sports
CNN Languages
COMMERCE
SI Customer Service
SI Media Kits
Get into College
Sports Memorabilia
TeamStore
|  |
The game should embrace ShotLink
Posted: Wednesday March 14, 2001 12:52 PM
You're probably a little confused about the ongoing uproar on the PGA Tour over something called ShotLink.
For those of you who don't know, ShotLink is a new, yet-to-be-installed system designed to provide key information about every shot hit by every player in every tournament on the PGA Tour. Through a combination of lasers, global-positioning satellites, hand-held Palm computers and on-the-ground volunteers, the tour will be able to record the distance, lie, club used and result of any shot. For example: "188 yards, clean lie in fairway, 5-iron, to 26 feet to the right of the hole." Or: "26 yards, ball sitting down in rough, lob wedge, to six feet below the hole." The data will be used to feed instantaneous information to television and the Internet, and to compile the most comprehensive and accurate statistics the tour has ever had.
| |
| MAIL CALL
|
|
Having just started this column, I couldn't believe the number of responses last week's offering on Tiger Woods' slump generated. As a writer at Sports Illustrated, we get feedback from our editors about as often as Curtis Strange picks up a check. So thanks ... I think.
A very insightful column on Tiger Woods. I suspect he'll privately confide to you that you were generally on the mark with his feelings and objectives.
—William Dumbauld, Worthington, Ohio
You've got to be a smart person to have gotten through life with that last name. Actually, Tiger always calls to offer a thoughtful assessment of my work ... NOT!!!
I couldn't agree more with your comments about Tiger Woods. Now tell that to Alan Shipnuck, will you please?
—Greg Skinner, Vacaville, Calif.
Nobody can tell Shipnuck anything.
How can you say that Tiger Woods is not playing well? He opened with 64-64 at Dubai and has shot one over-par round all year. I think that you are forgetting that golf is hard! So please lay off him and recognize that other players out there can play; we've already had two major scoring records fall this year at the hands of Mark Calcavecchia and Joe Durant. Tiger shoots 13- and 20-under at tournaments and people say he is playing poorly! Obviously those people don't have a clue about the difficulty of golf.
—Ty Weber, Lafayette, La.
I'm glad you reminded people that golf is hard. It really can't be said enough, especially to so-called experts with license to criticize. But even though Tiger is playing wonderful golf for a middling-to-good tour pro, he isn't (yet) playing good golf for him. My take on Tiger is based on the belief that he is the most gifted golfer who has ever lived.
Do you think Steve Lavin should continue as UCLA basketball coach, or has he dodged another bullet because of his team's recent great play?
—Steve Vickery, Santa Barbara, Calif.
I think UCLA plays sloppy ball, win or lose, and that falls on the coach. I say he goes. [Burp] ... excuse me.
You got it wrong. Tiger Woods is not in a slump. Your opinion that he cannot be primed for every tournament is wrong, too. The reason elite players schedule 20-25 tournaments per year is to be primed every time out, particularly during the majors. Woods is playing excellent golf by putting himself into contention repeatedly. Give the competition credit for denying him victories and putting him in your so-called "slump." I don't fault you for your ignorance. Most sportswriters who attempt to write about golf along the same lines as football or baseball end up looking foolish.
—Mark Elzey, Maitland, Fla.
Thank you for understanding.
Sorry, but I think you missed the boat on Tiger Woods' slump. You can't just turn your golf game on or off for the majors, even if you're Tiger. You can't "try harder" in golf, and if you do it just means that you'll be more tense, which leads to bad results. I think Alan Shipnuck hit on a key point recently when he wrote that the rest of the field has caught up to Tiger a little bit now that others have access to the new Titleist ball.
—Steve Forsberg, Minneapolis
You make a good point about golf being so difficult to turn on and off, although the greatest -- Bobby Jones and Ben Hogan, in particular -- managed to do so for short periods of time. But throwing Shipnuck in my face is very, very hurtful.
You've given a very insightful, articulate and beautifully crafted analysis for us. Well written. Thanks for the great piece!
—Chan Mapes, Tampa, Fla.
That's what I'm talkin' 'bout!
| | What's not to like? Yet there is plenty of opposition to ShotLink, so much that the $13 million program, which was scheduled to launch at Doral, has been delayed indefinitely. The caddies don't like it because they contend having to signal what club was hit to a volunteer could interfere with attending to their player. Some players don't like it because they believe being able to get online to learn what club other players are selecting on, say, a tricky par-3 will give an unfair advantage on that hole to those on the course later, and is thus against the spirit (although not the rules) of the game. And the most important player of all, Tiger Woods, doesn't like it because he thinks fans shouldn't be privy to "everything" about how a tour pro plays.
I understand where the caddies are coming from, and it's all about payback. After years of getting no respect from the tour, they finally have a lever, and most of them want $75 a day for their role in making ShotLink work. I'm fine with whatever they can get. However, I don't understand the other dissenters, and I really disagree with Woods. Better statistics, which will help fans understand the game better, are something that golf really needs.
Golf has always been the hardest sport to analyze statistically because there are so many different ways to make a score. Trying to break down why a player did or didn't win by using the existing numbers -- things like driving distance, fairways hit, greens hit in regulation, total putts and up-and-downs -- is like eating soup with a fork. Pro golf's numbers only give you a general idea of how a player played. They are nowhere near as illuminating as a basketball box score, or all the myriad stats available from Major League Baseball or the NFL.
Ironically, last year was statistically the most definitive ever on the PGA Tour. Woods led in 23 of 34 categories and was second in five more -- truly amazing numbers -- which confirmed his superiority. But still, I wanted to know more.
Let me give you some examples of why existing golf statistics leave you hungry.
Driving distance: The average is based on only two measured drives (out of a possible 14) per round. What if a player chooses to hit a fairway wood or a long iron on these holes, or his ball hits a tree and bounces backward 50 yards? We don't know how long these guys really are, or who is truly the longest hitter. My sense is that Woods, because of his consistency, would be even longer statistically.
Greens in regulation: The players who lead or rank high in greens in regulation often do so because they tend to play their approaches more toward the center of the greens. Other players who try to hit more skilled shots at the pin might hit the ball closer to the hole on average, but miss more greens because their margin for error is less. The point is, a guy hitting a lot of greens, like Chris Perry, doesn't necessarily have the edge over a pinhunter, like Phil Mickelson.
Putting: Right now, the tour putting stat measures only the average number of putts on greens hit in regulation. This, in general, makes it harder for the great putter who hits a lot of greens, like Loren Roberts, to rank high in putting, while it makes it easier for the player who misses more greens by shooting at pins, like Sergio Garcia, to be up the list.
Sand saves: A sand save requires a player to make the putt after a sand shot. It doesn't measure who is hitting sand shots closest to the hole. A player could be a wonderful sand player yet rank statistically low because he's a poor putter, for example, Chi Chi Rodriguez.
It goes on and on. The upshot is that fans of the sport don't really know precisely how it is played, or if or why one player is better or more skilled than another.
But ShotLink will fill the hole in the statistical doughnut. For example, instead of simply recording greens hit in regulation, it could tell a player's average distance from the pin in regulation; the same with sand shots. ShotLink also would measure the distance of every drive. It could give a player's conversion percentage on any length putt, be it a three-footer or a 15-footer, so we would know who is a weak or strong short putter, who makes bombs, who is great at lagging. If a guy has a 6-iron into a green, it could tell us how close to the hole he hits the 6-iron on average.
Maybe this is more than a lot of people will want to know, but they are the ones who will ignore ShotLink. Personally, as a close observer of golf, it's stuff that I crave. And the fact is, the players crave it themselves. I'd say that to a man, they want to know more about their own games and the games of their peers. They want to know, based on definitive, empirical data, where they are weak or strong and what they need to do to improve.
I'm anxious to see if ShotLink debunks some old canards. For example, a lot of pros believe that on par-5s they can't reach, or on short par-4s, they are better off leaving themselves a full shot with a sand wedge of 80-to-100 yards than trying to get close to the green and leaving a supposedly awkward "in-between" shot. But we are learning from preliminary ShotLink data that, on average, the closer players get to a green, the better they score. Or how about the adage that you should not miss a green on the "short side." Maybe it doesn't hold up. Better data will tell both the players and us.
The bottom line is that ShotLink will help everyone understand a very mystifying game that much better. And everyone will appreciate greatness that much more. That's why Woods, who often takes the condescending view that fans and sportswriters just don't know the game, should be all for it.
Sports Illustrated senior writer Jaime Diaz is a regular contributor to the magazine's Golf Plus edition. Click here to send him a question or comment.
|
Copyright © 2001
CNN/Sports Illustrated
An AOL Time Warner Company.
All Rights Reserved.
|
Terms under which this service is provided to you.
Read our privacy guidelines.
|
|
