Brandel Chamblee is in my backyard this week for Golf Channel’s coverage of the BMW Championship at Conway Farms in Lake Forest, Ill.

From my Golf World story on analysts:

Chamblee, 51, has emerged as the Golf Channel’s most important player. After a 15-year career which included one PGA Tour title, he made the transition to the Golf Channel in 2004. He separated himself from the pack, elevating his broadcast game in the process, by voicing blunt opinions backed by an endless stream of facts, virtually all of which he researched himself.

Then Chamblee digs in and dares someone to take him on. He has a strong, almost bulldog mentality when it comes to making a point, all of which makes for good television. Chamblee’s content and presentation are unique for a sport where many analysts tread lightly.

“He probably should have been a trial attorney,” said Golf Channel president Mike McCarley.

Earlier this summer, I had a chance to chat with Chamblee at the Golf Channel’s studios in Orlando.

When I walked into the viewing room, Chamblee’s eyes were intensely locked into his computer. It provided a good snapshot of how he does what he does.

My Q/A.

What are you working on?

Chamblee: I was up until 4:30 last night. I was writing on the oft-repeated argument that it is harder to win on the tour these days and how players are better today than they’ve ever been. It makes me insane when people say that.

It’s just not the case. Statistically, if the scoring averages were more congested, then you could make that argument. Coincidentally, the disparity between scoring averages almost is to the hundredth of a point as it was in 1980. Between first and 30, between 30th and 50th, between 50th and 125th, the disparity of scoring average actually almost is identical.

Where do you get those numbers?

I dig them up. I do the research.

Do you look at golf from more of an analytic approach?

Yeah, I suppose. When we’re analyzing golf, we’re looking at golf swings. Some of it, though, you have to tediously look up the information and try to connect dots. It takes time.

Do you feel naked out there if you’re not prepared? What is it about you and your preparation?

I just think the audience deserves to at least have an opinion on something that’s not obvious. That’s my job. I watch every shot. I chart every shot. I look at trends. I look for evidence to support those trends, to contradict those trends. I’ll find a half-dozen things a day that are very interesting.

How do you view your job as an analyst?

You have to realize you’re not speaking to the golf professionals. There’s 2,000 of them. It’s a small audience. There are 50 million golfers. You’re trying to explain to them why something happened. From a context point of view, you need to understand who did it like that in the past. You need to understand the context with which it happened. You have to know the situation. Maybe a guy is hitting to the right. Well, he’s working on a new move with his hips. What does that cause you to do with your golf swing? Who did it in the past? And how did they overcome that?

You just try to add layer upon layer?

I told Rich Beem when you say why something happened, it’s your opinion of why it happened. You need to support your opinions with as many facts as you can so that the (viewers) know that you’ve done your homework.

You mention Beem, what advice to you have for players making the transition to television?

They have to treat this job just like they treat their golf. When they played golf, they practiced all day. Not only is this a job, it’s a responsibility. It’s a responsibility to not state the obvious. It’s to enlighten the viewer.

You have to do it in a team-oriented way. Golf is a very selfish endeavor. In TV, it’s the team game. I can have an idea to do something. But if (the production people) can’t very quickly find the video to support the idea, I can’t run with it. All those pieces of the puzzle are amazing to me.

As a golfer, isn’t it unusual to be thrown into a world where you depend so heavily on other people?

You have to dive in. You have to work it. You have to come up with a completely different way of saying the same thing. Every single day. Writers do that, and I always had a great respect for writers when I was a golfer. When I went to the media center, here’s 300 people who all have the same information. It’s their job to come up with a different way to write about it.

That’s kind of like TV is. We all have same information, but you have to come up with a different way of presenting that information. You’ve got to do it in a memorable way, an insightful way, and a concise way.

How do you view your critics, especially those among PGA Tour players who take issue with some of the things you say?

I’m a huge fan of watching Rory McIlroy. I have to talk about shots he hits, because he’s on TV all the time. He’s the next closest thing to Tiger in that way. So you have to talk about why he misses a shot; why he doesn’t make as many putts as Tiger Woods does, because people are unfairly comparing him to Tiger. Then you have to talk about why those comparisons are unfair. In the process of doing that, you’re saying he’s not as good as Tiger. I understand if I’m Rory McIlroy, you could be upset. But if you listen to the entire show, you’ll hear us say he is extraordinary in almost every facet of the game.

But I understand that most people only hear criticism. And they hear it via their friends. So they don’t always get the whole story.

Later today: Chamblee on why Tiger Woods should be at 25 majors by now.