Strokes Gained Putting Calculator
Track your strokes gained putting with our free sports calculator. Get personalized stats, rankings, and performance comparisons.
Reviewed by Sher, Sports Science & Nutrition Specialist
Formula
SG Putting = Expected Putts (Tour Avg) - Actual Putts Taken
Where Expected Putts is the PGA Tour average from the given distance, and Actual Putts Taken is how many putts the golfer used. Positive means better than tour average, negative means worse.
Worked Examples
Example 1: Tour-Level Putting Performance
Problem:A golfer faces a 15-foot putt and makes it in one putt. What is the strokes gained on this putt?
Solution:PGA Tour average from 15 feet = 1.70 putts\nActual putts taken = 1\nStrokes Gained = 1.70 - 1 = +0.70\nThe golfer gained 0.70 strokes versus the tour average on this single putt.
Result:Strokes Gained: +0.700 (Excellent performance)
Example 2: Three-Putt Analysis
Problem:A golfer three-putts from 25 feet. How many strokes did they lose?
Solution:PGA Tour average from 25 feet = 1.85 putts\nActual putts taken = 3\nStrokes Gained = 1.85 - 3 = -1.15\nThe golfer lost 1.15 strokes to the field on this hole from putting alone.
Result:Strokes Gained: -1.150 (Poor - lost over a full stroke)
Frequently Asked Questions
What is strokes gained putting and how is it calculated?
Strokes gained putting is a statistical measure developed by Professor Mark Broadie of Columbia Business School that quantifies how well a golfer putts relative to the PGA Tour average. It compares the actual number of putts taken to the expected number of putts a tour professional would take from the same distance. If you take fewer putts than the tour average from a given distance, you gain strokes. If you take more, you lose strokes. The formula is simply: SG Putting = Expected Putts (tour average) minus Actual Putts Taken. This metric revolutionized golf statistics by providing context that raw putt counts cannot.
Why is strokes gained better than traditional putting statistics?
Traditional putting statistics like putts per round or putts per green in regulation fail to account for the distance of putts attempted. A golfer who faces mostly long lag putts will naturally take more putts than one who hits approach shots close to the pin, even if the first golfer is the better putter. Strokes gained solves this problem by benchmarking each putt against the tour average from that specific distance. This means a two-putt from 40 feet can actually be a positive result, while a two-putt from 5 feet is clearly negative. It provides the most accurate assessment of putting skill available to golfers today.
What is a good strokes gained putting number for amateur golfers?
For amateur golfers, strokes gained putting values are measured against PGA Tour averages, so most amateurs will have negative numbers. A scratch golfer typically has an SG putting around negative 0.5 to 0 per round compared to tour pros. A 10-handicap golfer might see values around negative 1.5 to negative 2.0 per round. A 20-handicap golfer could be at negative 3.0 or worse. However, the real value for amateurs is tracking improvement over time rather than comparing directly to tour players. If your SG putting improves from negative 2.0 to negative 1.0 per round, that represents significant improvement regardless of how it compares to professionals.
How do PGA Tour averages for putting distances work in Strokes Gained Putting Calculator?
Strokes Gained Putting Calculator uses benchmark data derived from thousands of PGA Tour rounds analyzed using the strokes gained methodology. From 3 feet the tour average is approximately 1.045 putts. From 8 feet it rises to about 1.47 putts. From 20 feet the average is roughly 1.79 putts and from 40 feet it is approximately 1.92 putts. These averages represent the baseline against which your performance is measured. The data shows that even tour pros rarely one-putt from beyond 20 feet, making distance the single most important factor in putting statistics. Understanding these benchmarks helps golfers set realistic expectations for their performance.
References
Reviewed by Sher, Sports Science & Nutrition Specialist · Editorial policy