News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Batting averages vs. home runs
« Reply #25 on: November 27, 2010, 09:33:52 AM »
I am reading Adam Gopnik's piece on Mark Twain in the current New Yorker. (Recommended, btw.)

He has a wonderful line there that goes: "We judge an artist in his lifetime by his batting average; afterward only by his home runs."

Is the same true of golf architects? Do we tend to discount Donald Ross' mediocre courses in favor of his home runs, but do the opposite with living architects?  Do we hold the living more accountable for their lesser courses than we do the ODG's?

A corollary to the above would be that, ultimately, reputations are made with a few great courses, even if the same architect goes 'hitless' on a lot of his other courses.

Bob

Bob
Who are some examples of home run hitters? Who are some examples of architects with a high batting average.

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Batting averages vs. home runs
« Reply #26 on: November 27, 2010, 10:42:09 AM »
MikeY -

I actually met Ty Cobb. It's a long story, but my father's partner took his son and me to Cobb's home in Eatonton (as I recall). I must have been seven or eight years old. Cobb was ill and in bed. I had the bad taste to ask him if the stories were true about him sliding with his cleats high to cut people. He grumbled something about all that was bunk. I have two pictures he autographed for me. Cobb died about a month later.

Cobb was not a very nice guy. Bob Jones, for one, tried to avoid him. I've never seen it verified, but I've heard Cobb was booted from ANGC for bad behavior. He took his bad temper intact from the baseball diamond to the golf course. Even in an era when racism was openly expressed, his brand of it was especially virulent.

Tom Mac -

The Gopnik line would only apply to architects who`have done enough courses to have a batting average. Ross came immediately to mind. His batting average over 400 or so courses is probably not particularly high, but his seven or eight home runs are very good indeed. They are what make his reputation today.

Contrast Ross with others who have built lots of courses. Different eras and all, but Bendelow's (or maybe Stiles or Harris?) overall batting average might have not been much lower than Ross'. But whatever his b/a, Bendelow is not ranked very high today mainly because of his lack of home runs. In other words, if you are dead, merely being prolific, even if your courses were all pretty good, will not establish a reputation.

Following Gopnik's thought process further, we tend not to be so forgiving about bad courses done by living architects, even if they have designed some home runs. We will begin to overlook those less good courses only after the archtiect has trundled off this mortal coil.

I think that is a pretty accurate observation by Gopnik about how we judge an artist's work (though Gopnik didn't have golf architects in mind).

Bob

  
« Last Edit: November 27, 2010, 10:47:46 AM by BCrosby »

Jim Nugent

Re: Batting averages vs. home runs
« Reply #27 on: November 27, 2010, 12:41:30 PM »
I go for the home runs.  But I also suspect the two are usually correlated.  i.e. architects who hit home runs also probably have a good average.  Ross may be an exception to that, because of his mail-in designs. 

Matt_Ward

Re: Batting averages vs. home runs
« Reply #28 on: November 27, 2010, 12:46:28 PM »
Let me just say this -- would the archies who only take on a few projects have the same impact if they had to juggle multiple projects ? Can they really provide the TLC they do now by having that many more projects ?

It's sort of like the guy who has ten at bats and gets five hits. Would he have the same impact with 100 at bats ?

Ditto the flip side -- if a guy has 100 at-bats and only gets 25-hits -- would he bat better with less appearances at the plate ? And provide the kind of TLC that is likely missing with the many juggled projects they have underway.

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Batting averages vs. home runs
« Reply #29 on: November 27, 2010, 01:01:37 PM »
Cobb would be Mozart to Ruth's Beethoven.Cobb did just about everything in baseball better than anyone else--Ruth changed the rules of the game.

Just wondering if you could explain the composer side of this a bit more, for those like me that lack the knowledge.

----

It's human nature to remember the best AND the worst, and generally forget the average. It's a helluva lot easier to remember the tiny ends of the bell curve... :)
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Batting averages vs. home runs
« Reply #30 on: November 27, 2010, 01:10:59 PM »
The context of Gopnik's line is helpful. He was discussing Twain's reputation just after his death and his reputation today.

Twain wrote two truly great books. Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer. But he also wrote a number of not so good books. During his lifetime and for a while thereafter, those not so good books affected his reputation.

But a couple of decades on those books were largely forgotten as the reputations of Huck and Tom Sawyer soared. Those two books made Twain the iconic figure he is today, at least in America. (Our British/Canadian/Australian contingent may beg to differ about Twain's standing abroad.)

Seems to me there are interesting parallels here with the vicissitudes of the reputations of golf architects.

Bob

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
Re: Batting averages vs. home runs
« Reply #31 on: November 27, 2010, 01:16:41 PM »
Let me just say this -- would the archies who only take on a few projects have the same impact if they had to juggle multiple projects ? Can they really provide the TLC they do now by having that many more projects ?

It's sort of like the guy who has ten at bats and gets five hits. Would he have the same impact with 100 at bats ?

Ditto the flip side -- if a guy has 100 at-bats and only gets 25-hits -- would he bat better with less appearances at the plate ? And provide the kind of TLC that is likely missing with the many juggled projects they have underway.

Matt,

I agree with you on this, to a point, but I have a VERY different perspective on it.

I choose to take on fewer jobs, partly because I want to keep a more balanced life, but also partly because I am sure my "batting average" WOULD go down if I tried to build ten jobs a year.  I wouldn't be able to staff them all with sufficient depth, and I wouldn't have enough time at each of them to get them all to turn out the way I want.

However, I am also happy to let those other seven jobs a year get away to other people.  And I would much prefer that they got away to 4-7 young architects who put their heart and soul into each of them, instead of seeing them all designed by a talented architect who is just cashing in on his success and who KNOWS he can't keep up the same level of quality if he builds them all.

Maybe those latter architects really ARE more talented than me, and their talent is only being compromised because they are overextended.  If so, maybe I should thank them for making me look so good.  But I don't know why anyone would want to CONGRATULATE them for making such a trade-off.  To make it, they really have to believe that they are way better than the rest of us, or else they are just in it for the money.

JMEvensky

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Batting averages vs. home runs
« Reply #32 on: November 27, 2010, 01:31:08 PM »
Cobb would be Mozart to Ruth's Beethoven.Cobb did just about everything in baseball better than anyone else--Ruth changed the rules of the game.

Just wondering if you could explain the composer side of this a bit more, for those like me that lack the knowledge.

----

It's human nature to remember the best AND the worst, and generally forget the average. It's a helluva lot easier to remember the tiny ends of the bell curve... :)

My "expertise" in music is solely as a listener.Maybe Peter P or someone else with a music background will help me flesh this out--or just tell me I'm clueless.

My understanding has always been that Mozart didn't really radically change music composition--he just composed everything as well as/better than anyone else.Symphonies,opera,chamber music--he was great at everything.Mozart was a plus,plus 5 tool player.

Beethoven,to my admittedly amateur understanding,literally changed the way symphonies were written.

Again,my comparison stems from a lot of baseball reading with pretty good technical understanding and a lot of classical music listening with absolutely zero technical understanding.

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Batting averages vs. home runs
« Reply #33 on: November 27, 2010, 01:59:31 PM »
JME -

Totally OT, but you might have it upside down. Haydn, followed by Mozart, followed by Beethoven were quite revolutionary, each taking things from their predecessor to new places. All three were about using harmony in longer pieces that broke with the way it was used by Bach or Handel. They set the frame for music for the next hundred years or so. I'm not an expert, but if you are interestd in digging deeper and can read music a little, see Charles Rosen's books The Classical Style or The Sonata Form.

As Peter P. frequently points out, there are broad and deep parallels between the history of music and gca.

Bob

Matt_Ward

Re: Batting averages vs. home runs
« Reply #34 on: November 27, 2010, 03:20:33 PM »
Tom:

To answer your last comments briefly for now -- those who take on more work are striving for the name recognition and the $$ that it brings to them.

Would such folks really do that much better work if they didn't extend themselves in the manner that they do now ? That's hard to say. In some cases yes -- in others probably not.

But I do believe that clearly people make choices on the nature of their career paths and what their overall objectives are.

My point was that if those who do few work had to do as much as others -- the overall product level would not be the same. I believe your answer affirms that.

John Kirk

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Batting averages vs. home runs
« Reply #35 on: November 27, 2010, 04:05:39 PM »
I'm enjoying the various comments about Ty Cobb.  You may know that his mother shot and killed his father, under dubious circumstances.  This is often cited as contributing to his manaical intensity as a player.  My impression is that Barry Bonds was better liked than Ty Cobb.  Cobb was the most hated and most admired player of his time.

One last thing about Cobb.  He was a large man, perhaps six-one and about 190-200 pounds in his prime.

Bill Seitz

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Batting averages vs. home runs
« Reply #36 on: November 27, 2010, 04:20:15 PM »
Unfortunately for Mark Twain, OPS+ and WaR (ballpark adjusted, of course) had yet to be developed. 

John Kirk

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Batting averages vs. home runs
« Reply #37 on: November 27, 2010, 04:21:58 PM »
Ooooo, I see I snagged the coveted 35th response...top of the page!

Many of us are friends with Tom Doak here.  Aren't we kind of beating around the bush, and not giving Tom credit for having one of the finest "hitting" records of all time?  Same goes for the Coore/Crenshaw team.  That's why we like following their projects so much.  In each case, these architects are in mid-career, but neither is very prolific in terms of the number of projects they take.

Tom Doak is the Ralph Kiner of golf architects.

"Home run hitters drive Cadillacs and singles hitters drive Fords."

--Ralph Kiner


You could have fun with a question in the form, "Who is the [fill in blank] of golf architects?"




Peter Pallotta

Re: Batting averages vs. home runs
« Reply #38 on: November 27, 2010, 04:26:09 PM »
Has anyone who could hit home runs ever chosen to hit singles instead?

We don't get to be Lou Gerhig.

Peter

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Batting averages vs. home runs
« Reply #39 on: November 27, 2010, 04:38:38 PM »
You could have fun with a question in the form, "Who is the [fill in blank] of golf architects?"

OK, I'll bite.

Joe Lee is the Rod Carew of golf architects.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
Re: Batting averages vs. home runs
« Reply #40 on: November 27, 2010, 04:51:16 PM »
John K,

I used to hear Ralph Kiner all the time on Mets telecasts.

But I am not sure I love the comparison ... he was indeed a great home run hitter, led the league in HRs his first seven years in the majors, but a pretty one dimensional player I think.

In fact, he is one of the exceptions to the general rule that a good home run hitter is first and foremost a great HITTER.  You have to hit the ball solid before you need to worry about hitting it out of the park.  Home run power generally develops later, just not for everybody.  And it's the same in our business, too.  
« Last Edit: November 27, 2010, 05:51:54 PM by Tom_Doak »

John Kirk

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Batting averages vs. home runs
« Reply #41 on: November 27, 2010, 05:07:44 PM »
Well, Rafael Palmeiro mysteriously developed 40 home run power later in his career.

Okay, okay, we'll go with the quintessential example of a line drive hitter who gradually developed great home run power later in his career.  That would be Stan Musial.

Actually, the guys who learn how to hit a lot of homers in their mid-thirties may be the guys who figure out how to pull the ball sharply, where 345 foot fly balls get out.   I believe that's how Hank Aaron did it.

Willie Mays had a totally different problem.  Candlestick Park was tough on right handed hitters; the cold wind blew in fiercely from left field.  Mays learned how to drive the ball to center and right center field, and led the league in homers in 1962 (49), 1964 (47) and 1965 (52).  A remarkable fact about the great center fielder.

Who is the Dave (Kong) Kingman of golf architects?
« Last Edit: November 27, 2010, 07:19:31 PM by John Kirk »

Peter Pallotta

Re: Batting averages vs. home runs
« Reply #42 on: November 27, 2010, 05:46:18 PM »
Is Bill Lee Tom Simpson, or is Steve Carlton?  Each in their way artists, though Carlton was never 'batty'.

I know - we're talking about hitters...but they get kind of boring for being homogenous.

Peter

Bill Seitz

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Batting averages vs. home runs
« Reply #43 on: November 27, 2010, 06:26:10 PM »
Argument removed due to Jeff Bagwell excision from prior comment.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2010, 07:26:07 PM by Bill Seitz »

Bill Seitz

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Batting averages vs. home runs
« Reply #44 on: November 27, 2010, 06:37:25 PM »
Has anyone who could hit home runs ever chosen to hit singles instead?

Fred McGriff and Tony Gwynn used to joke about this all the time.  Gwynn would say he could hit 35 homers if he tried to hit homers, and McGriff would respond that he could hit .350 if all he tried to do was hit singles. 

I'd bet that Ichiro could have hit 20+ per year if he'd swung for power instead of that weak little swing where he tries to hit the ball while halfway down the base line (sorry, but as an Angels fan, I'm predisposed to dislike Ichiro).

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Batting averages vs. home runs
« Reply #45 on: November 27, 2010, 06:45:07 PM »
I think we need someone to calculate some statistics on this to get some solid data to back opinions.  And of course, we need some guidelines.  For instance, what is a home run?  Golf Mag Top 100 World?  Golfweek Top 100 Modern?  What is a single?  Golf Digest Top in State?  Golfweek Top Residential, Resort?

Off the top of my head, I keep track of "unanimous gems", that is Top 100 on Golf Magazine Top 100 World, Top 100 US, Golf Digest Top 100 US, and Golfweek Top 100 Modern or Classic, and I think Tilly leads that list with 7, Ross has 6, Pete Dye has 6, and Mackenize has 6.  Home runs?  Most likely.

« Last Edit: November 27, 2010, 06:46:44 PM by Mac Plumart »
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
Re: Batting averages vs. home runs
« Reply #46 on: November 27, 2010, 08:08:56 PM »
Mac,

Your "unanimous gems" completely discount overseas courses, since they can't make the GOLF DIGEST list.

Anthony Gray

Re: Batting averages vs. home runs
« Reply #47 on: November 27, 2010, 08:30:49 PM »

  The guys that hit 500 HRs are better remembered than the ones that had 3000 hits.Mickey Mantle when asked what he thought of Pete Rose breaking Ty Cobb's hit record said "If all I did was hit singles I would wear a dress".The HRs make history more.

   Anthony


Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Batting averages vs. home runs
« Reply #48 on: November 27, 2010, 08:42:33 PM »
Tom D...

My bad on my last post.  I have an international unanimous gems and a US one as well.  The international one uses different lists, Golf Digest Intl and Golf Mag World (off the top of my head).  The architect and the corresponding number of unanimous gems is a composite of their domestic and int'l gems.  For instance, Mackenzie's 6 are Augusta, Cypress Point, Crystal Downs, Royal Melbourne, New South Wales, and Royal Adelaide.  

As an FYI, you've got 3 right now.  Cape Kidnappers, Barnbougle, and Pacific Dunes.  

Sorry for my previous hasty post.  
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Batting averages vs. home runs
« Reply #49 on: November 27, 2010, 09:57:21 PM »
The All-Time Homerun Leaders

Tillinghast      7
Mackenzie      6
Ross      6
Dye      6
Tom Morris      4
Maxwell      3
Colt      3
Doak      3
Nicklaus      3
MacDonald      2
Seth Raynor   2
Thomas      2
RT Jones      2
Simpson      2
Fernie      2
Lowe      2
Fowler      2
Alison      2
Thompson      2
Vardon      2
Hunter      1
Ruddy      1
Emmet      1
Crump      1
Flynn      1
Park      1
Coore/Crenshaw   1
Kidd      1
Wilson      1
Fownes      1
Neville/Grant   1
Bendelow      1
Whiting      1
Campbell      1
Strath      1
G. Morris      1
Weiskopf/Moorish   1
Murphy      1
Soutar      1
Park      1
Purves      1
Philips      1
Ohanti      1
Waters      1
Waterman      1
Fream      1
G. Ross      1
Pikeman      1
Harmon      1
Robertson      1
Hackett      1
Mother Nature      1

FYI...this is from my "Unanimous Gems" lists.  They will change with every release a Golfweek, Golf Mag., and Golf Digest Top 100 list.  If you guys have a better way to identify homeruns, I am all ears.  I am not saying this is the end all, be all...simply getting the ball rolling.  Also, you architectural attribution experts might disagree with some of the designers named (for instance, Crump gets sole credit for Pine Valley and Nicklaus shares with Dye on Harbour Town while Muirhead gets nothing for Muirfield) but the names are taken directly from the respective Top 100 lists.


Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back