First, in my experience with Dye courses, Pete gets the angles right. Much the same as Raynor's stuff, Pete's courses play so well, and so interesting, that the fact that some features appear "manufactured" is irrelevant.
And, further to Ben's comments above, I don't get the impression that Pete's ever presumed to "know it all". It's true that he allowed Whitman -- and I presume also others -- to shape and screw around with the land, without any pre-conceived notions, just to see what would happen. In fact, I'd bet some of Pete's best stuff is the result of "happy accidents." And I bet he'd be the first to admit it.
Whitman allows me the same "freedom". "Just build something", he says. So I do, and Rod modifies what he doesn't like architecturally, and what will not work functionally in his learned opinion. It's a fantastic method of building golf courses. Many things are created that could never been conceived accurately on paper.
Pete's unconventional. And history teels us that the best golf courses were built unconventionally.
That is why Pete Dye is Pete Dye, Rod Whitman is Rod Whitman. Bill Coore is Bill Coore, Bobby Weed is Bobby Weed, and Tom Doak is Tom Doak.
God bless Pete Dye