The one thing I learned from Mr. Dye about great players that really stuck with me was how conservative they are. If you give them a safe side, they'll usually hedge over that way. I think that was probably more true for Jack Nicklaus' generation [and Jack himself] than Rory McIlroy and his ilk, but I still think it happens ... and, realistically, I'm not building courses for Rory anyway, only for guys who dream they are anywhere near that good.
Tom, basically, this is what Broadie's stats (all taken in the last dozen years, so applicable to Rory as well, in fact, he includes him specifically even though he hasn't played as many US events)
If OB is on the right, (S&D) over time, you are statistically better off to aim way left (pros left third of fw, ams left rough). Your score over 100 rounds or whatever will be better that way, regardless of what you do on the approach, as those results are all factored over time.
If you have lateral water (one stroke) right both sides aim close to center, ams left third. The idea is pros have a 4 degree dispersion, ams about 6.5, so you aim just outside those norms to avoid penalty.
If a sand bunker, you challenge it a bit more, because your recovery over time adds up to a better score, even if you go in the bunker more often. And rough on the other side diminishes your approach shot success, too. So, you might aim right third of FW, ams might aim at center.
He makes no distinction on how it might improve the approach, the job of the tee shot is to avoid the big number you can't recover from, then make reasonable effort to avoid hazards, and lastly, perhaps try for an optimum angle. Again, statistically, it makes sense. Or, as I say, why challenge a hazard with a driver when you can challenge it with a 5 iron on the next shot? Seems like better chances overall, unless you have what Jim Urbina describes - FW falling right, putting many shots over there, and a green falling left, making it near impossible to hold from that side.
I think the difference might be golfers don't like a hole designed to make bogey real easy to make. Instead of costing a stroke with a safe tee shot, current thoughts are to cost no more than a half a stroke, or maybe none at all. When you decide the advantage has to narrow, then hazard avoidance becomes more important than angle, in Broadie, and many others minds.
He uses strokes gained over average as his measure, which is neat in the effect that it works as a definition for all talent levels. You just have to know your talent level, keep track of some shots, know some general degrees of deflection for your handicap group, etc.
But the point for this group is, all the Golden Age Masters wrote about challenging the line to gain an advantage, but did so without the benefit of statistical analysis. The theory was never tested........but it was widely accepted. So, was it right? Did golfers ever take the most challenging route, or the real safe one (think of Macs contest hole?)
Maybe not Broadie, but perhaps stats analysis will change the way architects think about strategy. If not, I think it should!
