I think the ultimate goal of the PGA Tour should be to have a balance of players in the top 30 or so. But given the stat I posted earlier on this thread, they sure aren't getting it...
Kalen,I have two questions about the article you linked.
First, do you think the overall conclusion of the article is in line with the quote you provided?
And secondly, is there anything different in 2018 than there was in 1998 or 1978 or 1958 in this regard? Haven't long hitters ALWAYS enjoyed an advantage? More to the point, why shouldn't they? Bobby Jones was one of the really long hitters of his day. Palmer was known, in his heyday, as a great driver. Nicklaus and Woods are the case studies for distance winning. This has never NOT been true.
Mark Broadie's research shows pretty conclusively the long drivers on Tour are also, for the most part, relatively straight as well; "long but wild" is largely a myth. (It's important to note that he distinguishes between missing the fairway a little and missing by a lot.) You never show up on Tour, or at least don't stay for long, if you aren't long enough AND accurate enough; distance alone doesn't get it done.
Actually, the stat that correlates most closely to money won on Tour, as well as excellence at all levels of golf, is proximity of approach, and it is stating the obvious to say that a long hitter who is reasonably accurate is going to be hitting shorter clubs into greens and likely hitting it closer. So the correlation between distance and money is MUCH greater than the correlation between accuracy and money.