I hate to sound dense, but what exactly are the 5 numbers at each distance signifying? If you said in your post, I must have missed it. It seems like the center of the has the highest values in general. Thanks.
Strokes gained (or lost). If you want to find significance in a few hundredths of a stroke, be my guest: nobody's accurate enough to play for 1/3 of the fairway.
Erik,
Thanks, and I agree your stats sort of prove my working theory on this post, i.e., the gca mantra of risking hazards to gain a better angle on the approach has never been as good a play as those golden age books made it out to be. And, while many here lament the passing of so called "Golden Age Design Principles" in fact, they probably morphed out of style for a reason, i.e., players and architects in the 1950's weren't dumb as stumps as some here presume......
It seems that being in the rough vs being in the fw adds about a quarter shot per hole(-0.12 vs + 0.12 =0.25 shots per attempted risk that misses the target and finds rough) With 14 tee shots, that is up to 3.5 shots per round lost per round by taking risks, assuming all go bad. If 1/3 to 1/2 tee shots went bad, it is still 1-2 shots per round statistically lost on average, indicating the risk generally isn't worth it. For that matter, as you say, for the minimal gains of coming in from the "correct side" of the fw are so nominal playing for the middle (as most pros and top ams tell me) is obviously the best play.
Obviously, in specific situations, i.e., down 2 with 3 to play or whatever, the value of playing with more risk does go up. And, just as obviously, there isn't any correlation in my mind between statistically playing to the middle of fw and the idea of "18 repetitive holes/aerial challenges.) That is why designers have designed to favor shot patterns (i.e., fade, draw, high, low, spin, low spin) over actual hazard placement.
It may also explain why the current in vogue "mile wide fairways" design mantra had gone out of style (if it was ever in, as I see most wide fw back in the day were sized to fit sprinkler coverage) means the last generation of designers may have had that right, as well. Of course, your stats seem to be based on traditional design of 30-40 yard wide fw, and I guess time will tell how the ultra wide fw concept works into the future. Hey, it might have worked 100-200 years ago....it's just that we are only assuming it will work well for the next 10-20 years in current conditions.
Lastly, I believe "strategy" is more nuanced than just hitting the left or right side of the fw, at least on the typical American course. I agree angles matter more on fast and firm, and anticipating future water restrictions, think we all ought to design for the angle to the green since that is likely to come back (unless we want to build in some business for our future architect selves, LOL
[size=78%])[/size][/size]As an example, I once asked Lanny Wadkins if the frontal opening meant much to him. Not much he said....If he had it, and was between clubs for the approach it generally let him use the lesser club to putt uphill. If he had to come over a bunker, he took the longer club and hit for more backspin from the back of the green, noting that it was possible for the architect to build up the back slopes a bit too much. He would also look for any side slopes from middle to back where he could work the ball to the hole.
I also recall a 1980's Byron Nelson classic here in DFW. For some reason, I was with Larry Mize and he watched Larry Nelson chip close on 18. It didn't seem like much at the time, but Mize marveled at Nelson's shot, which got him into a playoff. Mize said he didn't really have that shot in his bag, i.e., short swing with high spin) and would have had to play out further right.
Short version, strategy is more complex for good players than playing for the angle. If they don't have it, they start thinking of alternate shots types (again, spin, height, etc.) that accomplish the goal of getting near the pin. Of course, they have the option of playing to a safer area (statistically, I bet that actually works out okay overall until the result is on the line) vs going at the pin, although many Tour Players tell me they have to go at nearly every pin for any chance to win. And, as a result, the players with the best repertoire of shots tend to get the best results.
In a sense, those who "Have to" play for angles are using it as a coping mechanism, which does make them valuable, in keeping it close in a match, as it allows one more way to play a hole. But, statistically, I see the value isn't much, but then again, one stroke can make a difference in any match, so it if happens to be at the right time, that 0.25 shot value can go up to 1 full shot, and maybe millions of dollars.
But again, we reach to the pros as a design mantra? I tend to think of club matches, slightly lesser skilled top ams, etc. in forming design theory.