The Masters: Statistics and Comparisons

[Dunlop_White]

How did the changes affect scoring at The Masters? Below are tables of statistics which may shed some light on the issue. Please note that these are the holes with additional yardage.

Holes      Scoring Ave. 2001   Scoring Ave. 2002(Differential)
Hole1             4.20                          4.15                    -.05
Hole 7            3.98                          4.20                    +.22
Hole 8            4.86                          4.93                    +.07
Hole 9            4.05                          4.23                    +.18
Hole 10          4.23                          4.24                    +.01
Hole 11          4.15                          4.15                     N/C
Hole 13          4.74                          4.87                    +.13
Hole 14          4.01                          4.20                    +.19
Hole 18          4.01                          4.32                    +.31

Notice that the two (2) holes containing the most additional yardage, Hole 18 and Hole 7, were the holes that the scoring averages rose the most in 2002.

Despite the additional length on Hole 10 and Hole 11, notice that the scoring averages did not rise as a result. Rationale on Hole 10? The additional length on Hole 10 is basically scorecard length and does not affect playability. Due to the severe downhill nature of the hole with the collection area on the left, the approaches into the green were from the same general location despite the extra yardage. Rationale on Hole 11? It became apparent that the professionals are prone to bail out to the right of this green regardless of the length of their approach as I watched group after group spray shots away from the water. These numbers basically convey that their chipping games have remained exceptional and consistent over the past year.

Despite the additional yardage on Hole 1, notice that the scoring average actually dropped. Rationale on Hole 1? Fazio also graded the knoll and dished out the landing area on Hole 1 which presented the professionals with preferred stances and lies to launch their approaches toward the green this year. Fazio also squeezed the landing area by extending the bunker on the right. Typically, when landing zones are squeezed, professionals are prone to play more conservatively. Conservative play has historically produced lower scoring averages. Hole 15 at Augusta should have served notice. When the group of pines was planted to the right of the fairway in 1999, the professionals were forced to play this par 5 more conservatively. As a result, scoring averages have marginally dropped on this hole as well.

Next year, the scoring averages should better reflect the difficulties of the additional yardage and narrowed landing areas at Augusta. This year was unusual. Augusta did not have its usual bite with typical April breezes and consistently firm greens. The soft, humid conditions effectively counterbalanced the difficulties of the increased yardages and squeezed landing areas. Likely, scoring averages will be magnified on these holes next year.

Below is another table which reflects the scoring at Augusta over the past two years.


                          2001                    2002
Eagles                  21                        14
Birdies                 919                      772
Double Bogeys     126                      104

Notice that the eagles, birdies and double bogeys diminished in 2002. Because of the additional yardage and narrowed approaches, conservative play, especially on the par 4's and par 5's, effectively reduced the potential for both low numbers and high numbers carded per hole. On the par 5's, there were fewer attempts to reach these historic par 4 and 1/2's in two. On the par 4's, as the profesionals have had to change from a short iron to a mid or long iron, they consequently started firing to the middle of greens this year or started thinking of where they could miss it. In years past, when they had short irons in their hands, they consequently  fired directly at pins. Although the potential for birdies used to be high, there was also the potential of short-siding the pin which brings higher scores into the equation. These statistical comparisons expose such a conservative effort in response to the length changes.

Below is yet another table which reveals how the Top three (3) finishers scored on the back 9 of the last round of the Masters the last three (3) years:

             2000         2001        2002
Birdies :     7             7             4

Birdies :1995 Crenshaw - 3 birdies, Love - 4 birdies
            1996 Faldo - 3 birdies.
            1997 Woods - 3 birdies.
            1998 O'Meara - 4 birdies, Duval - 4 birdies
            1999 Olazabal - 3 birdies
            2000 Singh - 3 birdies  
            2001 Woods - 3 birdies
            2002 Woods - 1 birdie

The additional length contributed in reducing the drama on the back nine of the final round of the Masters. Notice that the birdies of the top three (3) players were almost cut in half from the prior two years. And who had an eagle putt on Hole 13 or 15 this year? Also, notice the many birdies that the winners traditionally have carded coming home in the prior eight years.

Crenshaw's evaluation and foresight of the length changes at Augusta hold true today. In August, Crenshaw stated:

"Adding 300 yards, 60 of them on the last hole, that's quite a response to technology. I'm uneasy because the Masters is unique. It's about drama and great theater every year. You always hear that the Masters doesn't start until the back nine on Sunday, and there's a reason for that. The way the holes flow, the risk-reward equation, the likelihood that something dramatic will happen. It's uncanny, and that's what worries me. Augusta National is so tempting, so seductive and so special because something amazing always unfolds.

But if the winner this year, or in future years, comes home in a hard-fought 35 or 36 for the last nine holes, I'm afraid the Masters will lose some of its flavor. Augusta National has always challenged us to take chances. You can create your own shots there and live or die by them. It has encouraged golfers to be aggressive, and that's why there are always fireworks--all week and then, almost like clockwork, boom, on the back nine Sunday".

Finally, most experts thought the additional yardage would create a gap between the long knockers and the short. Instead, it simply bunched the entire field. Granted, a long hitter, such as Tiger or V J, will likely have a better chance to win. But the difference between their total and the last few in the field will likely diminish as it did this year. Risky shots are currently too penal for its reward, and conservative play is demanded more than ever before. Consequently, eagles, birdies, double bogeys and others were and will be reduced. In essence, Augusta has been molded into a stage for the less-dramatic. Certainly great drama and theatre will exist in the future. However, with the ongoing changes at Augusta, particularly those related to length and width, viewers can no longer count on such excitement year after year. The 2002 Masters serves as evidence.

See post below for the statistics on the "unchanged" holes. They are revealing as well!

[Lynn_Shackelford]

;)Oh my goodness.  Someone backs up their post with facts.  What's going to happen to the Discussion Group?  Very interesting numbers.  I am getting tired of all the talk.  It is nice to see some facts.
This isn't brain surgery.  Changing the game changes players and their strategy.
One time Coach Wooden was asked should the baskets be raised to 12 feet?  He said this would mean that there might be more missed shots.  Who gets rebounds, tall players.  It would also mean players would work the ball inside for shorter, higher percentage shots; taken by the taller players.  Thus, a rule change which would hope to reduce the tall players presence, would actually make the tall players even more important.  This I am afraid might be happening at Augusta.  It is interesting that Hootie and Co. listen more to Fazio than to Crenshaw.  I think Fazio is pretty bright, I think he will be recommending some alterations after yesterday.  Doubt that he will consult the games' brighter minds though.  They may wait until there is a Masters played on a fast dry surface, then the scores will really go up!

[Mike_Cirba]

Dunlop;

Thanks for the statistics and subsequent pointed analysis.  

Factor in the soft conditions and lack of wind, and it's a pretty startling comparison.  The numbers speak for themselves, and your logical arguments are supported by the facts.

[TEPaul]

Thanks for the post and the backup facts Dunlop. It helps to explain the lack of drama and fireworks. The reduction of the high hole scores is an interesting one too--very interesting!

I've always maintained that when the scoring band on any hole starts to shrink and narrow that is not a good sign! It can only mean that various options are not being used or used as much and that interesting temptations are not so interesting and tempting to the players--never a good direction to go in and certainly a bad one for a course like ANGC, particularly the back nine.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Dunlop,
Hole #   all time avg. / low year /  high year/    2002    
  1    -       4.18        4.008(74)    4.414(98)     4.15
  7    -       4.10        3.985(01)    4.402(72)     4.20
  8    -       4.80        4.635(74)    4.991(56)     4.93
  9    -       4.11        4.020(68)    4.401(55)     4.23
 10   -       4.29         4.121(95)    4.691(56)    4.24  
 11   -       4.23         4.061(95)    4.644(56)    4.15
 13   -       4.74         4.557(74)    5.042(76)    4.87
 14   -       4.16         4.004(91)    4.413(49)    4.20
 18   -       4.18         4.014(01)    4.461(54)    4.32

When looking at the numbers from the all time avg. the course played 1/10th of a stroke harder on five holes this year than the avg. but less than toughest years, save for the 8th and that by 2/1,000ths of a stroke. What do you make of that?  
                    

[Mike_Cirba]

Jim Kennedy;

Weather and conditioning, I'd assume.

The "high year" would almost assume some headwinds and probably extremely firm greens, I would think.

[Dan Kelly]

Dunlop --

Don't know what they might show, but the Wannabe Scientist in me wants to ask:

Would you please post last year's scores and this year's on the UNCHANGED holes? Wouldn't those be what the actual scientists call the Control Group?

Thanks.

[D. Kilfara]

I think it's possible, although I'd hesitate to say probable, that the statistics could point to the players' unfamiliarity with the new holes, rather than the difficulty of the holes themselves. After a couple of years - assuming the new holes remain unaltered - you would expect people to become more comfortable with them and therefore more willing to attack them, wouldn't you?

And as Dan rightly point out, the statistics of the "control group" are needed if we want to start making scientific conclusions about anything. Statistics which present only part of any given picture are often less truthful than no statistics at all. That "birdies" table for the top 3 finishers is particularly misleading - Tiger was in a position where all he had to do was make pars, so he did, whereas last year there was a much more pressing need to make birdies, and in any event the likely standard deviation of any three golfers' birdie totals in any two given rounds is so high as to be almost irrelevant for analytical purposes.

(All of that said, kudos to Dunlop for doing all of that work! There's a lot of good analysis there.)

Cheers,
Darren

[JohnV]

In looking at the scores of the top 8 players this year, I noticed that 4 of them did break par on the back 9 on Sunday (Goosen, Lefty, Ollie and Harrington.)  Also between them they shot par or better on 50 of 64 9s for the week (44 of them under par.)  These included 32s on back by Tiger and Ollie, 31 by Ernie and a 30 by Vijay (one off the all time best back 9.)

I don't think that the other players choked.  I think they know that Tiger won't choke so if he has the lead they have to go low so they have to take more risks.  In doing that, they can make big numbers.

I was there on Thursday and anyone who says the conditions were easy are crazy.  Thursday morning was cool, wet and breezy.  Also, according to my friend who has gone every year since the early '60s, the wind was coming from an unusual direction.  Tiger's 70 that morning along with any other good scores were excellent.  While there wasn't much wind in the afternoon the conditions were still not easy.

One thing I found interesting was that Tiger was only -7 on the par 5s for the week.  He had 7 birdies (4 on 15) and 9 pars.  He never birdied 8 and had only one on 13 all week.

[Dunlop_White]

Below are the statistics for comparison of the "unchanged" holes at Augusta, those which were not lengthened or squeezed for 2002.

Holes  Scoring Ave.2001/Scoring Ave.2002(Differential)
Hole 2            4.82                   4.79           -.03
Hole 3            4.04                   4.03           -.01
Hole 4            3.12                   3.13           +.01
Hole 5            4.07                   4.15           +.08
Hole 6            3.12                   3.15           +.03
Hole 12          3.11                   3.03           -.08
Hole 15          4.72                   4.56           -.16
Hole 16          3.07                   3.05           -.02
Hole 17          4.15                   4.20           +.05

My original post displayed the scoring averages of the 9 holes which were altered for this years' Masters. The table above displays the scoring averages for the 9 holes which remained unaltered for this year's tournament. The results lend support and confirm my conclusion:

The altered holes played on average 1.06 strokes more difficult per player in the field, while the unaltered holes played on average a mere .1/10 of a stroke easier per player in the field.

Of the 9 holes which were altered, the scoring average marginally dropped on merely one (1) hole, while the scoring averages significantly climbed on seven (7) of the others. The length changes reveal their impact here! In contrast, of the 9 holes which were unaltered, the scoring average marginally dropped on five holes and marginally rose on four (4) holes, revealing good balance with minimal extrinsic impact.

To my disbelief, apparently the soft, tranquil conditions for the majority of the rounds did not make the course play any easier in 2002. This conclusion is supported by the fact that the scoring averages marginally fluctuated on the "unchanged" holes from the scoring averages of the prior year.

While the number of birdies and eagles were significantly influenced by the length changes on the back 9, the number of birdies and eagles deviated only so slightly on the holes without additional yardage.

Hole 10: In 2001, there were 29 birdies.
            In 2002, there were 20 birdies.
Hole 13: In 2001, there were 10 eagles and 109 birdies.
            In 2002, there were 4 eagles and  83 birdies.
Hole 14: In 2001, there were 44 birdies.
            In 2002, there were 35 birdies.
Hole 18: In 2001, there were 55 birdies.
            In 2002, there were 15 birdies.
Hole 17: In 1998, there were 39 birdies.
            In 1999, there were 18 birdies.(lengthened)
            In 2002, there were 26 birdies.

These figures indicate that a massive amount of birdies and some eagles have been absorbed through the length changes. A further study would reveal that a marginal amount of higher scores, such as double bogeys+, have also been reduced. It is apparent that additional length demands a more conservative approach. The professionals simply were not tempted to go for par 5's in two as often or fire at the pins on par 4's, as they have been accustomed. Does this affect the drama, the suspense, and the thrill of the tournament? Of course it does!! Where were the annual roars which typically echo through the premises one after another? Patrons uncharacteristically walked about in search of something of interest whereas they always scampered back and forth between the roars. The television ratings were high because of Tiger, as they likely will always be when he is at the top. Even if Tiger was not in contention, the ratings would still be high because of the aura, beauty, intrigue, mystique, and preoccupation which most viewers have with Augusta. In the future great drama will continue to unfold at the Masters; however, because of the length changes, viewers simply cannot count on it year after year. 2002 should serve notice!

Jim Kennedy asked me to look at the years of the high and low record scoring averages per hole. I thought it would be interesting to go back through the architectural history and  determine if any hole changes were the result of any low record scoring averages the prior tournament year? Similarly, I endeavored to determine if any high record scoring averages were caused by any significant hole changes the prior year?

Hole # all time avg. / low year / high year/ 2002    
 1    -       4.18        4.008(74)    4.414(98    4.15
 7    -       4.10        3.985(01)    4.402(72)     4.20
 8    -       4.80        4.635(74)    4.991(56)     4.93
 9    -       4.11        4.020(68    4.401(55)     4.23
10   -       4.29         4.121(95)    4.691(56)    4.24  
11   -       4.23         4.061(95)    4.644(56)    4.15
13   -       4.74         4.557(74)    5.042(76)    4.87
14   -       4.16         4.004(91)    4.413(49)    4.20
18   -       4.18         4.014(01)    4.461(54)    4.32

From the 1940's to the 1980's, I found no relationship between low or high record scoring averages and course changes, except in 1974. This was the year that low record scoring averages were recorded on four holes, hole 1, hole7, hole 8, and hole 13. Without going into detail, Mr. Roberts described significant changes to the course in the fall of 1973 involving the planting of a new rye grass on the fairways which "could be mowed at lower heights", the planting of a new rye grass on the greens "for a truer roll", and replacing the sand in the bunkers for consistent, "preferable lies". Obviously, the record low scoring averages on four holes in 1974 were a product of these improved surfaces. (Welcome world to the issues of agronomy, super-grasses, green speeds, and pristine bunkers!) As a result, Hole 13 was lengthened and its green was renovated with two tiers in 1975. Consequently, in 1976 the record highest tournament scoring average was recorded on Hole 13.

During the past decade, there exists more of a direct relationship between low record tournament scoring averages on a hole and the modifications to that hole the following year. Like clockwork! Fazio and the Augusta officials appear more cognizant and concerned with these statistics more than ever before! Course alterations appear reactionary. The most recent example involves the low record tournament scoring averages which were created on hole 7 and hole 18 in 2001. Look what ensued…probably the most drastic length additions to two holes in the club's history.

Thus, these statistics do reflect today's emphasis and concern of defending par, and our preoccupation with length as the vehicle to accomplish such, especially on championship venues.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Dunlop,
Very thorough and interesting. Thank You.

[Dunlop_White]

I failed to mention a glaring statistic! In 2002, the scoring average on Hole 15 continued to dip substantially.

Year                Hole 15
2002 -              4.55
2001 -              4.72
2000 -              4.89            
1999 -              5.02
1998 -              5.09
Record Low -    (4.51)

As shown above, this year's scoring average was merely .04 of a stroke from matching the record low. Moreover, the trend  of lower scoring averages is evident.

In what fashion will Fazio and/or the Augusta officials react?
Extending the hole "appears" impossible as Hole 15 tee borders Hole 10 green. There is not any room to extend the green either. Efforts have already been made to defend par on this hole as a cluster of pines were planted to squeeze the landing area in 1999. The result was less eagles and doubles reflecting a more conservative mindset of the professionals.

I hope a par 4 is not in this hole's future?

[Dan Kelly]

Dunlop_White --

Thanks for all the work.

A Competition Ball will solve 15's "problem."

[Walkerman]

Dunlop's evaluations above are fabulous, some of the best I have read on this site.  B. Klein, G. Shackelford etc. must see this!
Also, check out his "Ratings Mania" essay under In My Opinion!

[Dunlop_White]

Thanks, I am glad you enjoyed. This was the first time I have studied the statistics at Augusta. Interesting results!

I was afraid that the "Ratings Mania" essay under the "In My Opinion" section was going to be controversial, but it has received some good reviews, especially from a good friend of mine at Links.

[Brad Klein]

Outstanding analysis by Dunlop - far better to see this substantiated by data than by the kind of venting that some are prone to here.

I dare say he follows for all of the altered holes the preview analysis I wrote in "Golfweek" about one hole, the 15th and the narrowing of the scoring band (to use a TEPaul formulation) that resulted when they made the last round of changes there before 1999. But Dunlop goes considerably farther than I did, and I only wish I had the brains and foresight to have written this into my post-tournament coverage. Instead, I stuck with a narrower version of how the course played "longer, tougher."

One caveat. I relied upon clusters of averages, i.e. three-year averages before and after the 1999 changes to the 15th. One always runs the risk of relying too much on one set of data. While I believe Dunlop's conclusions for the altered holes are accurate, it might turn out that it was a reflection of some very unusual circumstances that complicated how the renovated holes played this year, namely:

-firm, dry weather Mon-Thursday, followed by extremely wet, slow conditions for rounds 2-3-4.

-mud balls, heavy lies, and much variation in fairways on Sunday (some were mowed, others weren't).

-great uneveness in green speeds on Sunday owing to differential drying rates of greens.

-what everyone regarded as the hardest set of Sunday pins they had ever seen at ANGC.

Still, the problem is that we're no longer seeing traditional ANGC. We're seeing the course play as if it were a U.S. Open. That's a loss.


.