Good topic R.J.
Seems to me there are a ton of different ways of looking at this year's Masters, what the tournament is producing this week in the way of a leaderboard with some kind of specific meaning as to what the course, its architecture, setup, weather conditions etc are contributing to this weeks leaderboard and also what all those things are doing to other types of players.
And additionally how ANGC might react next year or in the future to that leaderboard and most particularly the scores being shot.
To start with the last point first, I, for one, am hoping that ANGC will react next year and in the future intelligently to the scores being shot and the expected winning score. The expected scores appear to be much lower, and will be, than they expected and obviously hoped for. I believe it will take very intelligent analyses from ANGC (and its architect) to even think to refrain from additional chances simply because the scores are going to be lower than expected.
I think you yourself said that may be largely a factor of the weather and softer than hoped for conditions on the course. And I very much agree with that. It would be poor judgement on ANGC's part, in my opinion, to fail to see why this year's scores will be lower than if the course was much firmer, as you mentioned.
I think a lot of people fail to see exactly what various conditions do to tournament scores at the Tour pro level. Even extremely long courses that are soft "through the green" with relatively receptive greens are a scoring dream to the Tour pros! This is a real indication to me exactly how much longer they are than in the past, both with their drivers and 3 woods and how far they fly them, but particularly the increased distances they can consistently fly every other club in their bag now is what really makes even long and soft courses vulnerable to low scores at the Tour Pro level. I hope ANGC does not fail to truly appreciate the latter fact (increased distance with clubs other than the driver!!).
This fact is interesting because the effect on scoring on every other level of player on long and soft courses is actually the opposite---it always increases expected scores.
So it seems really apparent to me that firm and fast conditions both "through the green" and particularly on the greens and their receptiveness (or lack of it) is by far the best way, and maybe the only way today to control scoring or prevent low scoring at the Tour level! I hope ANGC recognizes this and does not feel the need to get into additional increased lengthening or more architectural changes as a result of this year's scoring alone.
I completely agree with you that if the golf course this year was as firm "through the green" and on the green as was hoped for the scores going into today's last round probably would be just a bit under par for even the leaders.
I'm not a big fan of super micro-managing scoring (or expected scoring) but if a club is going to try to do it, as ANGC is obviously wont to do, it has to be analyzed very carefully and intellengtly, and I hope they will do that.
But back to your point about whether the "new" ANGC will make players who are not bombers stay away in the future--I doubt it!
If the course could have been the ideal firmness both "through the green" and on the greens, I think you would see many more of the shorter, super course managing type of player with good and creative short games coming into contention this week.
The ideal "maintenance meld" did not really happen this week not because of anything ANGC did or didn't do but because Mother Nature just didn't cooperate.
I hope ANGC does not fail to see this and understand what the effects were and why this year.