What is a Scoring Coach?

Chris Petefish-US Open at Pinehurst

I posted about strokes gained and scoring on Linkedin this week. I had a few great follow up comments. I think this helps answer the question, What is a scoring coach?

 Brian Sommer asked -I may not be making my question clearly enough. Yes, SG can tell us where strokes were lost relative to a benchmark, but I’m questioning whether that necessarily tells us what the player should work on.

If I lose strokes putting, that tells me where the scoring difference showed up. It doesn’t necessarily tell me why it happened, whether it reflects a persistent weakness, or whether putting practice is the right response.

That’s the distinction I’m getting at, the leap from observation to explanation to prescription. Each step requires more evidence than the one before it. And if the player improves afterward, how do we know the SG analysis or resulting practice prescription caused the improvement rather than everything else happening in their coaching and experience? I’m not dismissing the data. I’m questioning how much we can reasonably conclude from it. 

My response-

Thanks for clarifying. I actually think we agree on a lot of this.

Strokes Gained by itself does not tell me what a player should practice tomorrow. It’s the starting point. If a player loses two strokes putting over a larger sample size, I don’t automatically say, “You need to practice putting.” I start to ask questions about how they read putts, their mindset over putts, their practice, how often they work on putting with their coach, etc.

The distinction you’re making between observation, explanation and prescription is important. The SG number is the observation. Then I start asking questions. I look at the underlying shots, dispersion, tendencies over multiple rounds, and I talk to the player. How they operate, receive and retain the information they learned in a lesson, their course strategy, attitude, and mindset. Also ask equipment questions; I have helped people have a better set up in the bag or had them check lie angles that happened to be off.

That’s also why I don’t like using one round, or even a few rounds, to make sweeping conclusions about someone’s game. Golf has too much variance. I’m much more interested in patterns that continue to show up.

I also agree with your point about causation when a player improves. I can’t scientifically isolate my work from his swing coach, practice, maturation, tournament experience, fitness, mental work and everything else affecting his golf. But I have a hand in all of them. I help my players operate as efficiently as tour professional would. Helping them get the most out of their work with a swing coach, maximizing practice, making sure they are on top of fitness, I do talk mental game and mindset as well. I also make sure players are truly prepared for tournament golf. Practice rounds, scouting courses, and other nuances. It’s as much or more about how you function to improve performance as it is strokes gained.

The stats give us a baseline. A place to create goals and start asking the right questions. Questions a tour pro would know that others don’t.

Where I probably differ a little from your conclusion is the idea that performance data may tell you more about your game without helping you play golf. I think that’s absolutely possible if all you’re doing is looking at a dashboard. But I don’t think that’s a limitation of the data as much as a limitation of how it’s being used.

The number isn’t the coaching.

My job is to figure out which numbers matter, understand the other factors that cause them, decide whether they’re actually actionable, and then turn that information into something simple enough that the player can do something with it immediately.

Chris Petefish-The Scoring Coach