Those little trees left of the 10th green at Riviera

[Matt_Cohn]

Are they egregious in person? I have not been there, and I'm going by how everything looks on TV. On one hand, I get the value in not allowing players to simply get away with a wild drive to the left. But it's so odd to see players hitting it into those trees more or less on purpose, knowing that at worst they'll probably be able to bumble something onto the green and make par.

[Jeff Bergeron]

Take em!

[Bill_McBride]

They didn't bother me at all, I was having too much fun watching PGA pros making bogey on a 300 yard hole!  Couldn't believe how many hit tee shots to the right of the axis of that steeply inclined angled green.

[Thomas Dai]

A bit OT from the little trees.


I wonder what the winning score would be if a full field of tour pro's played the 10th at Riviera 36 times, then there was the usual cut and the remaining players played the hole 36 more times?


Okay it might be a bit boring and congested but would the winning score after 72 holes be greater than or less than level-par (288)?


Atb

[JESII]

The winning score would be 20 to 30 under par because they would figure out that over that many plays, safely hitting 4 iron - sand wedge pretty much eliminates bogey and they'll hit enough wedges close to make a good number of birdies.


As it is, knowing you only have 4 shots at a 300 yard hole on an otherwise difficult course, the temptation to drive it on or around the green is too great.


This is the epitome of why par matters. The concept of par places pressure on the player to take advantage of any opportunity...real or perceived.

[BCrosby]

"This is the epitome of why par matters. The concept of par places pressure on the player to take advantage of any opportunity...real or perceived."

Well said. And that "pressure" comes from how you think the field will play the hole given its par. Par sets scoring expectations. You ignore them at your peril.

Bob

[JESII]

To another point you, and Tom, occasionally discuss...I believe the cut would be over par and last place would be worse than 20 over par...an extremely wide scoring spectrum.

[BCrosby]

Yep. I would love to see the scoring spreads on the 10th in particular. My guess is that, as in past years, the spreads will be shaped like a barbell. A relatively high number of low scores and high scores as compared with holes that have similar overall scoring averages.


Bob

[John Connolly]

The play I don't see being made much, at least when compared with a lay up or the blast left, is the one just over the furthest fore bunker but short of the trees. All I can imagine is that many try for that spot but pull it a bit long into the trees. Otherwise, it looks like the perfect spot.

[BCowan]

Take em!

Berge,

Agree

[Kalen Braley]

I think a little pond in that spot would be much more interesting!!

[DMoriarty]

Yep. I would love to see the scoring spreads on the 10th in particular. My guess is that, as in past years, the spreads will be shaped like a barbell. A relatively high number of low scores and high scores as compared with holes that have similar overall scoring averages.


Bob

I looked at this in detail a number of years ago, and what you are suggesting was decidedly not the case. Rather, the scores were tightly bunched, with very few high or low scores.   I don't know whether or not it is different this year.


My past examination is probably somewhere in the archives.

[BCowan]

Yep. I would love to see the scoring spreads on the 10th in particular. My guess is that, as in past years, the spreads will be shaped like a barbell. A relatively high number of low scores and high scores as compared with holes that have similar overall scoring averages.


Bob

Bob,

   I think the firmness and green speeds are very important in doing this exercise.  Last year was very firm but greens looked too fast to make pulling out the driver and keeping the ball on the green a smart play imo. For the record I haven't played the course. I'd love to see how scoring spreads compared by summer vs winter season.  As in 95 pga vs LA open in 95. 

[DMoriarty]

Today is the only day I can access on the ipad pgatour app. According to the app, today there were 2 eagles, 34 birdies, 37 pars, and 4 bogeys. No scores above bogey.

This is most definitely not a barbell spread.

[JESII]

David,

Are you expecting 1's through 9's?

I didn't see any of the golf, but assume the pin was up front...I saw a couple doubles yesterday in 30 minutes watching.

I think the eagle through double numbers on this hole would be as high as anywhere. The manner in which players make those scores also speaks to this value.

[DMoriarty]

Jim, 
A few posts above, Bob Crosby had predicted "spreads will be shaped like a barbell. A relatively high number of low scores and high scores as compared with holes that have similar overall scoring averages."  In contrast, I would expect numbers closely bunched at par and birdie, with relatively few bogeys and fewer eagles, which is consistent with what i have found when I have looked at the hole in the past (probably over ten years ago.)

The numbers from today were about what I would have expected especially if the pin was where you suggest.  (Even I am somewhat surprised there weren't a few more bogeys.  I assume there must have been more yesterday.)

I wouldn't expect that the eagle numbers are ever very high for a hole measuring not much over 300 yards. And I doubt there are ever too many doubles, because there is no severe hazard driving up the scores. I haven't studied the scores every year, but I'd guess the number of bogeys is always fairly low.  In other words, more like a bell curve than a barbell.

It is a great strategic hole, and it cuts against the notion that great strategic holes have "barbell" scoring distributions. It is great without relying on a water, OB, impossible rough, or some other severely penal feature. It is subtle.

[DMoriarty]

According to the pgatour app, through Thursday at Riviera No. 10 there have been less than 1% Eagles, 30.5% Birdies, 53.6% Pars, 13.5% Bogeys, 1.6% Doubles, and nothing higher.

[Ally Mcintosh]

I'm not a statistician but would we not expect the probability theory of normal distribution on every golf hole? In other words, a Bell Curve?

Why would there ever be a Bar Bell? I'd love to hear of an example.

[Matt_Cohn]

I'm not a statistician but would we not expect the probability theory of normal distribution on every golf hole? In other words, a Bell Curve?

Why would there ever be a Bar Bell? I'd love to hear of an example.

Totally agree Ally. I was wondering about 17 at Sawgrass — lots of 3's, a good number of 5's, relatively few 4's, maybe? But no — last year was 16% birdies, 69% pars, 9% bogeys, 6% doubles+. Not even close.


I doubt a barbell distribution actually exists for any golf hole.

[BCrosby]

Ally -

Unless I am misreading you, why you would think all holes should have the same scoring distribution? I think most people believe the design of a hole affects the distribution of scoring on it one way or another.

David M. and I have argued before about what Sullie calls the "barbell" theory. The idea turns on what I think are a couple of uncontroversial notions. Golfers tend to play hard, penal holes more conservatively. They play down the middle of the fw, try to hit the green and are happy to get their par and move on.

Players tend to play strategic holes more aggressively. Low scores are possible if you are willing to take certain risks. Some players will manage those risks and be rewarded; others won't manage them and will pay a price.

Which is to say that we should expect differently designed holes to yield different scoring patterns. I'm not sure why that is a problematical idea.

The barbell theory says that if a hole is strategic, we should expect to see a wider spread of scores relative to scoring on other, less strategic holes on the course. Again, because strategic holes induce players to take more risks and play more aggressively. With the result that some will pull off those risks, others won't.

The 10th at Riviera is a pretty good example of that. Except for the 1st (which plays in effect as a par 4 for the pros) the 10th has the fewest number of par scores of any hole on the course. That ratio of non-pars to pars is .87. Which means there are almost as many non-par scores and par scores. That's the barbell. Of the non-par scores at the 10th there is a roughly 2:1 ratio of under par to over par scores.

(Ideally, that ratio of under to over par scores should be 1:1. That is the perfect barbell. But the scores at Riviera this week are for pros and they are very, very good golfers. I'd guess for single digit amateurs, the over and under scores on the 10th would be closer to 1:1.)   

The only other hole at Riv. that comes close to having as few par scores is the 12th with an .80 ratio or pars to non-pars. The difference, however, is that almost all of the non-par scores at the 12th skew toward bogeys and doubles. The same is true of the 2nd, with a .75 ratio, but again the non par scores skew towards above par scores. (For single digit ams, I'd guess the 12th and 2nd would have fewer pars and far more above par scores, increasing that skew.)

No other hole at Riv can match the 10th's (a) number of non-par scores (with the exception of the 1st as noted) and (b) the mix of under and over par scores (roughly 2:1). Other par 4's that have relatively few par scores have non-par scores weighted heavily in one direction. (There are few par scores on the 1st because virtually everyone birdies it, for example).

You can take or leave the above as you wish. I think it is a useful way of thinking about how strategic a hole is. That is not a revelation about the 10th at Riviera. We already know that. I found, however, that the barbell theory can be helpful in confirming intuitions. For example, the 12th at TOC comes out quite well after applying the theory to scoring at recent Opens. I confirmed to me how really good the hole is.

In any event, a geeky, fun exercise.

Bob 

[DMoriarty]

I don't think using par is a very good baseline in this instance.  The hole is just a bit over three hundred yards.  Almost by definition a half par hole, especially for the long hitting pros. So the scores cluster at birdie or par.  This doesn't make it a barbell distribution.  If it resembled barbell distribution we'd see more distribution away from the mean, not only at eagle, but also at bogey, double bogey, etc.

By Bob's past descriptions, those taking the "risk" and succeeding ought to be rewarded with a low score. That is hard to see here, because there are very few eagles and because birdie is definite possibility even with the conservative play (maybe even a greater possibility, depending upon the pin.)

Perhaps more importantly, the player taking the "risk" and failing ought to "pay the price" away from the mean.  That doesn't really seem to be the case here.   There just aren't that many high scores significantly away from the mean.   Yesterday, for example, the vast majority  of the players hit a wood at or near the green, and there were only 4 bogeys all day.

Bob apparently recognizes that this is a great strategic hole, so he is trying jam it into his definition, but it doesn't fit.

[Thomas Dai]

Are there any holes on other courses that attempt to mimic the 10th at Riviera and if so which ones?
Atb

[Pete Lavallee]

Are there any holes on other courses that attempt to mimic the 10th at Riviera and if so which ones?
Atb

ATB,

The 12th at Rustic Canyon was meant to incorporate some of the concepts used on Riviera's 10th hole. The direct line to the pin is only a smart play if you are attempting to drive the green; its around 300 yards on a straight line from tee to green. Playing away from the green and out to the right allows the golfers a better angle into the green which slopes from left to right ands away at the back. It is a mirror image but definitely has the same considerations.

[Joe Bausch]

Are there any holes on other courses that attempt to mimic the 10th at Riviera and if so which ones?
Atb

ATB,

The 12th at Rustic Canyon was meant to incorporate some of the concepts used on Riviera's 10th hole. The direct line to the pin is only a smart play if you are attempting to drive the green; its around 300 yards on a straight line from tee to green. Playing away from the green and out to the right allows the golfers a better angle into the green which slopes from left to right ands away at the back. It is a mirror image but definitely has the same considerations.

From The Lurker:

Pete Lavallee: I spent two days on the raw Rustic Canyon site in March 2001 with Wagner and Shackelford, mostly on discussing what that hole would be; at the time, ironically and somewhat spookily to me, a tractor was in the process of initially mowing down natural material on/from the center lines of the entire paper designed routing. I can confirm what you said (above) is true. I went out from the east at that time for Doak's Archipalooza at Bandon and from there I went down to L.A. My primary reason for going to L.A. was basically to completely analyze Riv's #10. However, I got to Riviera at day-break and spent the entire day walking and analyzing the course in conjunction with the super who would stop by to talk with me and answer my questions, from time to time. But my primary purpose and interest was #10. I spent some hours on it basically measuring and analyzing everything on it and about it. In the last month or so, Ran Morrissett asked me to do perhaps a 3,000 word In My Opinion (IMO) piece about the architectural heritage of Riviera's #10. He said he firmly believes its primary architectural heritage is Pine Valley's #12. I agree to some extent, perhaps to a very good extent, even if I believe that particular heritage story is quite complex (which hopefully my IMO piece will cover). I got waylaid on writing that piece but perhaps I will produce it soon; when he asked me to do it over a month ago I actually forgot that the Northern Trust Riviera championship was right around the corner, and that may have been the reason he asked me to do that particular piece at that particular time.

PS: As I was typing the first two sentences, coincidentally Jim Wagner called me (which made me feel even more like Forest Gump than I already do) and I read them to him. He completely confirms what you said and I said.

[Bill_McBride]

Okay, I give, who is "The Lurker?"