Jeff,
I'm curious, "what are shot values?"...
The types of shots a sampling of players from varying skill levels may incur?
Well, I'm just one architect, and most of my brethren will probably tell you I'm cuckoo for coca puffs. But, I solidified my thoughts on it when working with various tour pros over the years, who were remarkably consistent on what they thought were good shot values. Average players have a much different set of shot values to consider, as well.
I know not everyone here would agree with the pros and top players! But, the general consensus is:
A target should be attainable with a good shot. It doesn't have to be with their favorite shot pattern, but about half of them should be. A nice balance either rewards a player who can truly hit all the shots, and rewards those with a favored shot pattern about equally to others.
Targets should reflect the physics, i.e., downwind greens longer to account for less spin, headwind greens wider but shallower than they "should be" (according to the USGA rating guide) to account for increased wind deflection, but also more backspin helping to hold greens, etc. No long irons off downhill lies to uphill greens, etc. Perhaps the short version is, there are certain physics in golf, and architects who don't know golf often inadvertently create shots where the physics basically deny the ability to complete it successfully.
A good player will use everything at his/her disposal to minimize disaster increase chances of positive results.
They like all the factors they can use to align to clarify the type of shot to hit. Aligning as many factors as possible on any one shot that suggest a shot pattern. A course with a variety of strongly suggested shot patterns is one that is rewarding "all the shots." As one said, what do you do if you come to an intersection with a stop sign and a green light?
He also said, "There's smarter guys that me, but if the ground slopes right, the wind blows right and the target angles right, I think I'll hit a fade." They dislike it when there are strong fade signals, but the target is set up for a draw (or, to not be discriminatory to any lefties, a right to left shot)
Getting in closer, they believe there should always be a way, even if it takes a perfect shot, to get the ball close to the hole. I have seen a few complain about a pin position near a knob where a short iron fade kicks away and so does a short iron draw, so they can't get a shot near the hole in any case. Some go so far as to walk around greens and ask "what if I hit it here? I've got no chance. I can usually convince them that not every missed side of the green can, or should, provide equally doable recovery shots. Whew!
There's more, but those are the thoughts I gathered most over the years. Or, in another way to say it, use hazards to strongly suggest a favorable shot pattern, not just randomly punish misses. And, if you read Mac, Tillie, and Thomas among others, they kind of say similar things in more stilted old fashion language.
Jack Nicklaus also codified some of the above with a statement that, "The course should never intentionally hurt you." A bad shot deserves bad results, but a good one, that should be rare. (Obviously, like on the Rolling Green/Gary Player thread, the definition of a good shot varies. But, there should be at least one way to hold a green, shouldn't there?)
All, JMO, of course. But, that is what I have learned good players look for, consistently enough to be incorporated in my design philosophy. Special thanks to Jim Colbert and Notah Begay III, both of who could articulate those kind of things. Many pros are more intuitive and can tell when they don't like something, but rarely can clearly explain exactly why, and I have to drag it out of them.