Tiger is 20th in total driving on the Tour, and his average drive is the same as it's been the past 15 years. I don't know where these wild assertions are coming from - let's start using the actual data if possible since we do have it.
[Reply]

Didn't see anyone say he doesn't hit it as far as he used to or always has.

But now nearly everyone hits it as long as he does, or there isn't that monster distance between him and everyone, like there once was.

Distance was a differing factor for him, it isn't anymore.
[Reply]

That is correct. I'm referring to the fact he's still 20th in total driving. If you're top-20 in driving you're going to be just fine on Tour.
[Reply]

You're a moron.

The average driving distance on the PGA Tour is 287 yards.

In 2000, that would have put you at 7th in driving distance.

Phil Mickelson averaged 289 yards from the tee when he was 30. When he was 40 he averaged 299.

Tiger averaged 298 off the tee in 2000. He averages 291.8 this year.

So, despite 13 years of massive increases in equipment technology that made the average drive on tour in 2013 a top 10 drive in 2000, and the fact that Tiger went from #2 in driving distance to #63, he has no issues with driving the golf ball.

Oh, and how's this for you: he hits 10% fewer fairways than he did in 2000 too.

So, he's lost ten yards off the tee when everyone else has picked up 15, and he hits the fairway 1/6 less often, but these are wild assertions.

Just don't post. Ever. You are wrong about everything.
[Reply]

Now you know how we feel in the Royals and KU threads
[Reply]

None of your bluster changes the Tour stat that shows he's 20th in total driving. Just like your bluster about his "putting woes" was also completely shredded by the actual putting data. You're just pissed I'm calling out your nonsense.


You're not stupid. You've shown you do understand baseball sabermetrics. So please do us a favor and stop tossing out your incorrect "scout's opinion" on what's wrong with Tiger because you dont' know your ass from a hole in a ground. The stats prove both of your takes were dead ass wrong.
[Reply]

It's not a scout's opinion. He hits the ball shorter and he hits the fairway less often. I don't know how more simple it could be.

Your problem is that you don't understand the statistics that you use. You assume that Total Driving is a useful metric. Someone like Tiger can be outside of the Top 50 in both categories yet rank in the top 20. It's a stat that rewards mediocrity rather than identifying excellence. There is nothing sabermetric or analytic about Total Driving. It adds his total rank in the two categories and assumes that they are equal. They aren't. Distance is more important than accuracy on the tour. Moreover, the stat can be easily gamed.

Let's say that someone wanted to hit a hybrid off of every tee. Most pros would hit the fairway 90% of the time. That would rank you #1 in driving accuracy. You'd be last in distance.

Your total rank would be 191. That would make you 97th in total driving, essentially right in the middle. That's the very definition of a flawed stat.

You're using RBI when you think you're using wOBA.
[Reply]

I think I will get 18 in today.
[Reply]

Distance and accuracy are about equal in terms of importance for driving effectivness. And driving is not as important as GIR or putting:
http://www.thesportjournal.org/artic...hampions-tours



I've listed a comparison between PGA Tour ranks for Tiger 07 (dominant) and Tiger 13 (still very good). This is very interesting:



Driving2007 2013
Distance 12 63
Accuracy 152 58
Total 45 20

Approach
50-125 4 37
150-200 1 75
>200 2 26

Putting
Gained 3 4
Overall 14 1


Scrambling 20 118
[Reply]

Distance and accuracy, on tour, aren't the same. The length they play makes distance more important, especially with technology that allows you to play out of the rough these days (groove technology, ball design, etc).

Thats not to say that accuracy isnt' important, it is. But the tour has become much more "bomb and gouge" than it ever has been.

Like Hamas said as well, theres an obvious reason for Tigers numbers in regard to distance and accuracy, in that he hits way more 3 woods and hybrids than he does drivers, thus loosing distance but gaining accuracy.

It also shows in his approach in that he's having to hit more shots from farther away with longer clubs, making him less accurate.
[Reply]

The fallacy there is that distance off the tee makes you closer to the hole. It may or may not. Tigers290 drive that's more accurate than Player X from 300 will leave him the same distance (or better) from the hole.
[Reply]

If these stats are 100% accurate, his approach distances are alarming, considering Mickelson has increased his driving distance over this time span.

Also, in 2000 according to TW's website, he was #1 is GIR and Total Driving. In 2005 his avg. driving distance was 315, this is where I'd expect him to be at now with the driver.

I understand that Tiger is still "very good," but this is Tiger freaking Woods. Very good on tour is not going to cut it for him. 291 driving distance is horrible, imagine where he'd be at 310+. The stack and tilt is powerless.
[Reply]

The law of averages comes into play there. More times than not, it puts you closer to the hole.

Most times when it doesn't are/could be more situations of hitting it thru a dogleg etc when distance isn't exactly a key there, but more positioning.
[Reply]

Tiger also can't take full advantage of the new technological advances in driver, shaft etc because he can't hit driver accurately enough.
[Reply]

I guess 291 would be alright if he was straight down the fairway the far majority of the time, but TW isn't. He is all over the place all the while hitting it 25 yards shorter on average from his peak driving averages.
[Reply]