Charlie,
Thanks for not picking on me.
Probably the most apt phrase that applies here is the admittedly also controversial and debated phrase, "If you can't measure it, you can't manage it (or in a variation, "can't improve it." Obviously, Stagner, Fawcette, Barzeski, et al believe in measuring to manage the course. Personally, I don't see how you can argue a point like that.
Going back to my first post on the other thread, is the idea that the concept of risk/reward never really was measured in any meaningful way, until recently, that is, i.e., there was never any proof that playing the way the gca supposedly designed it really mattered. And it should be no surprise that statistically, the risk is rarely worth it. IMHO, only on short par 5 holes, where you might gain a full stroke, and/or near the end of a competitive round (especially if a par 5) where you don't really care if you lose by more, but only about a chance to win.
If a pro needs to get to 8 feet just to make 50% of his putts, but the average distance to the pin is much larger than that, you can only hope to make a few birdies for that risk, and in reality, the bogeys slightly outweigh any benefit. Think about it, if you wanted to improve from 95 to 79, is it more practical to start eliminating bogeys or add birdies?
Besides, I have no conceptual problem of a tee shot merely being a certain kind of challenge, rather than gaining some minuscule advantage. It sets up the approach. Being in the fw is the biggest differentiator, being long helps by reducing approach length and dispersion pattern, and then, maybe, being on the right side of the fw might help, if successful, in about that order.
Of course, this data is based on the most typical case of a green basically tilted back to front, which architects do because for most, golf is hard enough without building a target that most can't hold, just to create some difficulty. Mike Nuzzo is right in that greens sloping away really do create a bigger need for angles, although I think it is hard to build a fall away green that rewards one side of the other, rather than just reject shots. So, it may be the right way to design for angles, but again, IMHO, the wrong way to design a golf course.
Even with a Redan, there is a way to play from the left, using the backstop, which might be even better than coming in from the right and trying to gauge the reverse slope, as suggested by the 7th at Shinney where the players cut a shot in, given the green speeds. I think those here were in at least a bit of an uproar because they weren't playing the hole "as designed" or in reality, playing it the way we gca geeks think it "should." The Redan may have been played most often to allow for the slope when designed in 1923 or so, and may have been played that way when match play was prevalent, but for how golf is now, it seems it isn't or shouldn't be.
You have to admit, this site typically feels that way, devoted to the idea that any design from the Golden Age is perfect and beyond reproach. But, we all know times have changed. While I have definitely gone all the way to the dark side by siding with team data in this case, it really sounds to me like team angles is striving to make the story fit the preconceived notion, and in some cases, almost desperately so!