[Adam G]

I realize this is a topic that has been discussed quite a bit, but this new article by Joseph LaMagna at The Fried Egg about 10 at Riviera is the first that I have seen to put statistics on strokes gained by having an advantageous angle into the flag: "On average on the PGA Tour, players with an advantageous angle to the flag outperform players with a poor angle by roughly 0.10-0.15 strokes with long irons from the fairway. With a wedge from the fairway, players with an advantageous angle have almost zero advantage over those with a poor angle."


He makes the point that angles matter a lot more around the green, especially holes like 10 at Riviera where placement of the tee shot rather than just the lie is important. Essentially, his argument is what makes 10 great is that where you place your drive matters, which is rarely the case for the pros.


I had not seen statistics like this before. An interesting corollary is that a distance rollback would make architecture matter more. Again, not novel, but the numbers in terms of shots gained are intriguing.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

"On average on the PGA Tour, players with an advantageous angle to the flag outperform players with a poor angle by roughly 0.10-0.15 strokes with long irons from the fairway. With a wedge from the fairway, players with an advantageous angle have almost zero advantage over those with a poor angle."

I'd be curious as to where/how he got those numbers, or how he's defining "long irons," because they don't seem to jive with, for example, the numbers I've seen (and have posted here before) showing negligible differences from the left side of the fairway to right pins versus right side of the fairway to right pins (or vice versa).

It's also a bad example, IMO, of saying "angles matter" because he's talking about "missing right" of the green versus missing left? Well no crap, but that's just a matter of short-siding yourself versus not:





Miss left and you have the length of the green, plus fairway, left of the green. "Right" of the green you have nothing, including a lack of green depth (plus the slope is away from you).

It's a really extreme example. And we've known that the miss on this hole is left for years. Decades.

He makes the point that angles matter a lot more around the green, especially holes like 10 at Riviera where placement of the tee shot rather than just the lie is important.

It's not really about "angles" so much there as it is how much green you have to work with. It's about being short-sided.

Yes, your tee shot is how you get short-sided (or not), but that's not really about "angles."

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I talked with a friend. In the context of that conversation, I said: "Pros who drive it into the shit AND short-side themselves score worse. Go figure!" The friend was not complimentary of the article.

You can play around with the data yourselves here:

https://www.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiMTUwZDhkZGUtM2Q1My00MGRjLTgwMmYtNDRiOTRlMzM3YjVkIiwidCI6ImJiNjY5NzU2LWM0YTktNDYwMS1hOWYyLWQyNDRlNTQzNzk3MSIsImMiOjJ9

[Brad Steven]

I talked with a friend. In the context of that conversation, I said: "Pros who drive it into the shit AND short-side themselves score worse. Go figure!" The friend was not complimentary of the article.

You can play around with the data yourselves here:

https://www.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiMTUwZDhkZGUtM2Q1My00MGRjLTgwMmYtNDRiOTRlMzM3YjVkIiwidCI6ImJiNjY5NzU2LWM0YTktNDYwMS1hOWYyLWQyNDRlNTQzNzk3MSIsImMiOjJ9

I tend to agree, on the surface the article seems enlightening but the two main takeaways seem to be that the importance of the angle into the green is positively correlated to the distance from the green - which I think is pretty self evident given how balls come into a green with a wedge versus 4 iron for instance.  The other, that "angle" matters so much at Riv 10 really does boil down to giving yourself room greenside versus being short sided - that's not too novel.  Love the data though!

[Peter Flory]

I was interested to see that for a few of the years, the scoring average was lower for the layup crew than the go-for-it guys.  In 2009 and 2013, those hitting it under 255 off the tee scored better than those who hit if further.  In some other years, it was close to a wash: 2018, 2011, 2012, and 2014.

2010 was the only year where this data is kept where more layed up than went for it.  Way back in 2008, 345 went for it vs 86 who layed up, so this isn't a super recent phenomenon. 

One other factor that could complicate the analysis is that players tend to play to their strengths.  So, the guys with less power and better wedge games may pick the layup strategy and the guys with power to spare, pick the go-for-it strategy.  So if all those layup guys decided to go for it, they may actually have a worse outcome.  Over time, the tour is getting filled will more power hitters, so if players play to their strengths, a larger and larger percentage of the field would find that strategy beneficial to them. 

It's interesting looking at a guy like Furyk who has played in this tourney every year except 2016 in the data.  He goes for it on this hole about 40% of the time.  When he lays up, he averages 3.87, which is better than the portion of the field that goes for it.  When he goes for it, he does even better with a 3.67 ave and has eagled it a couple times.  He may very well be intelligently picking when the conditions suit one decision over the other (wind, turf conditions, pin position, etc). 

Another example of an accuracy/ good short game guy is Brian Gay.  He averages 3.86 on layups and 3.80 when he challenges it.

[John Kavanaugh]

Angles mattered less with balata balls. Higher and softer. Sorry but a roll back is exactly what you don’t want if you love the 10th at the Riviera.

[Kalen Braley]

I think the obvious non-sequitur to this entire argument is, since when are Tour Pros hitting long irons again?

Given the obscene distances they hit it now, most holes are Driver followed by 7 iron or less into the green.  Yes they do hit long irons on occasion for the par 5s, but the long par 3s are disqualified because they all start from the same place.

So angle matters on what...1-2 strokes over a typical 68-75 stroke round?

[Thomas Dai]

Someone made par from the cross bunker way back in the fairway!
Hero time!
 
Atb

[John Kavanaugh]

I think the obvious non-sequitur to this entire argument is, since when are Tour Pros hitting long irons again?

Given the obscene distances they hit it now, most holes are Driver followed by 7 iron or less into the green.  Yes they do hit long irons on occasion for the par 5s, but the long par 3s are disqualified because they all start from the same place.

So angle matters on what...1-2 strokes over a typical 68-75 stroke round?

Says the man folding shirts.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

So angle matters on what...1-2 strokes over a typical 68-75 stroke round?

I don't think his stats for "long irons" are accurate at all, if that's what you're talking about, and obviously for even a 0.1-stroke advantage you'd need ten of them to get 1 stroke in total, so getting to 2 is going to be impossible (if they're truly 0.1 stroke) as there are only 18 opportunities to hit any kind of iron, let alone a long iron.

[Kalen Braley]

I think the obvious non-sequitur to this entire argument is, since when are Tour Pros hitting long irons again?

Given the obscene distances they hit it now, most holes are Driver followed by 7 iron or less into the green.  Yes they do hit long irons on occasion for the par 5s, but the long par 3s are disqualified because they all start from the same place.

So angle matters on what...1-2 strokes over a typical 68-75 stroke round?

Says the man folding shirts.

Barney,

My wife does that well enough, but usually hangs them up.  Don't follow....

For anyone who has access to Shotlink or other stats, I'd bet a large chunk of change that the % of all shots taken on tour with 2-5 irons combined is any more than 6-8%.

As opposed to Driver, Putter, and some type of wedge...which is probably what 75%?

[John Kavanaugh]

Kalen,


With apologies, a professional golfer with your understanding of the game will fold more shirts than they/he/she will cash checks.

[Tom_Doak]

Perhaps we could just agree that angles don’t matter very often on the PGA TOUR from week to week, but there are occasional exceptions (certain holes and certain major championship courses).


Perhaps we could also agree that angles matter more to non-Tour players with lower ball flight and less spin.

[John Kavanaugh]

What is the point of good architecture for golfers who can’t choose their angles?

[Carl Johnson]

Perhaps we could just agree that angles don’t matter very often on the PGA TOUR from week to week, but there are occasional exceptions (certain holes and certain major championship courses).


Perhaps we could also agree that angles matter more to non-Tour players with lower ball flight and less spin.

I, for one, agree.

[Tom_Doak]

What is the point of good architecture for golfers who can’t choose their angles?

Anyone can choose their angles.  It's just that some golfers attain the ones they are trying for, more often than others.

[Thomas Dai]

Perhaps we could just agree that angles don’t matter very often on the PGA TOUR from week to week, but there are occasional exceptions (certain holes and certain major championship courses).
Perhaps we could also agree that angles matter more to non-Tour players with lower ball flight and less spin.

+1
Shame in relation to the first sentence though.
Atb

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Perhaps we could just agree that angles don’t matter very often on the PGA TOUR from week to week, but there are occasional exceptions (certain holes and certain major championship courses).

Perhaps we could also agree that angles matter more to non-Tour players with lower ball flight and less spin.

Yes. When golf is an aerial game with no roll, as I've been saying for years, angles don't matter much. When the ball rolls, angles matter. The more it can roll, the more it matters.

Because the "angle" can get larger the closer you get to the green, it often "matters" a little bit in the short game… where once again, the ball starts to roll more. That's all this article tells us. It's about short-siding yourself, not about "angles."

[BHoover]

I am happy to remain blissfully unaware of what strokes gained means.


I wonder if Lee Trevino or Seve Ballesteros ever thought about strokes gained when they played golf? I’d like to return to that version of golf.

[jeffwarne]

Someone made par from the cross bunker way back in the fairway!
Hero time!
 
Atb

All this chart shows me is that the two people who laid up properly(left side of fairway) made birdie.
Not that difficult for touring pros to lay it up there with a mid iron.


I know that the stats say to go for it, but this small sample size doesn't.
I like 10 because it's different, and I think I'm OK that the current generation has chosen "not to make a choice" and hit driver left/long

[Kalen Braley]

Jeff,

I certainly agree with your post in concept, it is indeed lacking more data points.

As evidenced by the guy who laid up only a few yards away from those other two... in the fairway... and still managed a gawd awful score.  3 balls in the "garden layup spot", with an average result of par at best..(we don't know if he converted the double bogey or made worse)

[Tom_Doak]

Perhaps we could just agree that angles don’t matter very often on the PGA TOUR from week to week, but there are occasional exceptions (certain holes and certain major championship courses).

Perhaps we could also agree that angles matter more to non-Tour players with lower ball flight and less spin.

Yes. When golf is an aerial game with no roll, as I've been saying for years, angles don't matter much. When the ball rolls, angles matter. The more it can roll, the more it matters.

Because the "angle" can get larger the closer you get to the green, it often "matters" a little bit in the short game… where once again, the ball starts to roll more. That's all this article tells us. It's about short-siding yourself, not about "angles."

This is also why short par-4's are more interesting to watch now than most "long" par-4's are.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I wonder if Lee Trevino or Seve Ballesteros ever thought about strokes gained when they played golf? I’d like to return to that version of golf.

Toothpaste ain't goin' back in the tube. Sorry.

[BHoover]

I wonder if Lee Trevino or Seve Ballesteros ever thought about strokes gained when they played golf? I’d like to return to that version of golf.

Toothpaste ain't goin' back in the tube. Sorry.

Fortunately there’s always YouTube and other outlets to appreciate how much more enjoyable the professional game used to be.

[James Brown]

I read the point of this article as saying that only when firm and fast do angles matter and that is certainly how I experience golf course architecture, especially on the best courses.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()