Batting averages vs. home runs

[Anthony Gray]

The All-Time Homerun Leaders

Tillinghast      7
Mackenzie      6
Ross      6
Dye      6
Tom Morris      4
Maxwell      3
Colt      3
Doak      3
Nicklaus      3
MacDonald      2
Seth Raynor   2
Thomas      2
RT Jones      2
Simpson      2
Fernie      2
Lowe      2
Fowler      2
Alison      2
Thompson      2
Vardon      2
Hunter      1
Ruddy      1
Emmet      1
Crump      1
Flynn      1
Park      1
Coore/Crenshaw   1
Kidd      1
Wilson      1
Fownes      1
Neville/Grant   1
Bendelow      1
Whiting      1
Campbell      1
Strath      1
G. Morris      1
Weiskopf/Moorish   1
Murphy      1
Soutar      1
Park      1
Purves      1
Philips      1
Ohanti      1
Waters      1
Waterman      1
Fream      1
G. Ross      1
Pikeman      1
Harmon      1
Robertson      1
Hackett      1
Mother Nature      1

FYI...this is from my "Unanimous Gems" lists.  They will change with every release a Golfweek, Golf Mag., and Golf Digest Top 100 list.  If you guys have a better way to identify homeruns, I am all ears.  I am not saying this is the end all, be all...simply getting the ball rolling.  Also, you architectural attribution experts might disagree with some of the designers named (for instance, Crump gets sole credit for Pine Valley and Nicklaus shares with Dye on Harbour Town while Muirhead gets nothing for Muirfield) but the names are taken directly from the respective Top 100 lists.

   Some courses are Grand Slams and should have more numerical value...in my opinion.Sounnds like a thread.What courses are Home Runs and what courss are Grand Slams?Cruden Bay would be the Bobby Thompson of all Golf Course Home Runs.Out of no where and surrounded by champions it steals the show.

    Anthony

[Jud_T]

Ted Williams had a Career On-Base Percentage of .482.  Babe Ruth had a Career Slugging Percentage of .690 (both insane numbers).  I guess Batting Average is the better comparison as Home Runs implies a lot of strike-outs.  Most great GCA's who were capable of hitting a home run rarely if ever completely whiffed...In fact, I wonder what the biggest spread on the Doak scale ever achieved by a GCA was?  Probably Nicklaus or Fazio... 

[Andy Troeger]

Jud,
Pretty sure that ASU Karsten (Pete Dye) is one of the 0's from the Confidential Guide, and I'm guessing he probably has a 9 from one of his courses (The Golf Club perhaps?), so that might be a reasonable guess.

From my personal list, I found that most of the architects that are fairly prolific all have similar spreads.  In some ways, I actually think Fazio is one of the more consistent architects out there--like him or not. I wouldn't say the spread between his best and worst is any larger than between Doak's Rock Creek Cattle Company and Charlotte Golf Links, for example. Nicklaus, in my mind, is relatively consistent as well.  I would guess many here would prefer CGL to Fazio's Ventana Canyon's Canyon Course which has a fair amount of good individual holes, but a very awkward routing.

Of what I've seen, Coore/Crenshaw might be the most consistent. I know you like TSN, but I have it as their weakest course of the five I've seen, but its still pretty good and is more a function of a lousy site than any lack of effort. Being honest, I don't really try to seek out anyone's worst efforts, so its hard to say what might be out there on the lower end unless I stumbled across it!

[jim_lewis]

Hall of Fame pitcher Hoyt Wilhelm hit a home run in his first at bat and never hit another although he played 21 years and retired only 16 days short of his 50th birthday. To be fair, since he was a relief pitcher for much of his career, he only had 432 at bats but a career batting average of only .088. Can anyone name an architect who hit a home run with his first course and never again after many tries?

[Matt_Ward]

Jim L:

What do you count as "many tries?"

Gents:

Here's the deal folks -- if C&C were to need to do the amt of overall project work that a TF or JN do -- the likelihood is that their overall "batting average" would be far lower. The amt of time they spend on a given site speaks volumes to them sweating out the smallest of details. Have a roster of projects that are all ongoing and the wherewithal to get all the details right would be considerably smaller. Before someone barks at me and says that's the way they work -- I agree -- that's what they do.

On the flip side -- TF and JN get regularly beat up for producing facsimile type courses. Reduce them to the same business approach that C&C follow and likely the result would be far different.

No doubt -- the more times one comes to the plate the overall impact on the batting average will suffer. Many Donald Ross courses are now parking lots and malls because of that.

[Jud_T]

Matt,

I don't disagree that if JN or TF spent the time and effort that TD or C&C do on each project that they are capable of producing very good results.  The point is that they generally don't (does Jack really need the money?) and they should pay the piper in terms of architectural criticism for their deal with the devil...That's like saying that if I spent as much time practicing guitar as I do on this website, I'd be Jimi Hendrix.  Well, the fact is I don't, and I'm only a middling guitarist as a result....

[Matt_Ward]

Jud:

I simply wrote what many people don't realize here. C&C, Tom Doak, Gil Hanse prefer a certain business approach -- very hands-on and quite detailed. More power to them.

My only point was that if they increased the workload to the level TF and JN are doing -- the home runs would not happen with each swing of the bat.

I have no issue with the "devil" beating up on TF and JN when deserved. Just think of the flipside -- those who fawn over all that C&C, Doak, Hanse do -- would need to see the holes that would invariably happen. Ross had plenty of projects everywhere -- the bad ones are now parking lots and mall areas.

[Scott Warren]

Matt,

Do you really think "many people here don't realise" the quality/quantity trade-off?

[Richard Choi]

Has anyone who could hit home runs ever chosen to hit singles instead?

We don't get to be Lou Gerhig.

Peter

Ichiro Suzuki. Has a very nice power, if you watch him during batting practice. If he wanted to be a power hitter, he could probably hit about 20 to 25 home runs a year. But he would never trade 30 points on his batting average for that.

[Matt_Ward]

Scott:

In a word -- no they don't.

Fan clubs see their respective archies as being nearly invincible -- almost at the deity level.

They also see JN and TF as being close to the anti-Christ and unable to do the really top tier stuff.

Don't even mention the likes of Rees Jones.

[Scott Warren]

Matt,

"No they don't" is actually three words, but I digress...

The reason the "fan clubs" love particular architects' work is partially because they realise those craftsmen put more time, attention and care into their work.

Likewise, they deride Nicklaus and Fazio at times because they do more work than they can realistically run Nth degree quality control on or spend quality time on-site before and during construction.

In short, a huge foundation of the preferences they have is exactly what you're accusing them of not realising.

You may be right that if Fazio built as few courses and spent as much time on-site as C&C or Doak they would be in the same ballpark of critical acclaim, but the simple fact is that he doesn't and like any other field of endeavour on this planet, golf architects are judged on their results - not what they hypothetically could achieve in a parallel universe if they approached their work from an entirely different perspective.

[John Kirk]

Has anyone who could hit home runs ever chosen to hit singles instead?

We don't get to be Lou Gerhig.

Peter

Ichiro Suzuki. Has a very nice power, if you watch him during batting practice. If he wanted to be a power hitter, he could probably hit about 20 to 25 home runs a year. But he would never trade 30 points on his batting average for that.

If all it took was 30 points of his average, he should have taken the trade.  He would have been a more productive player.  Curiously, if he changed to that style, he might not be a first ballot hall of famer, which I believe he will be.

[John Kirk]

Scott:

In a word -- no they don't.

Fan clubs see their respective archies as being nearly invincible -- almost at the deity level.

They also see JN and TF as being close to the anti-Christ and unable to do the really top tier stuff.

Don't even mention the likes of Rees Jones.

Matt,

This sounds like you have a chip on your shoulder.  Your opinions are highly appreciated.  You see more courses than most, maybe all of us.  I disagree with you that "architect bias" plays a significant role here at GolfClubAtlas.  When a consensus begins to form among a large number of participants, it becomes difficult to suggest architect bias is a significant factor.  Some guys build more attractive stuff that's more fun to play.

We spend time answering the questions "Why I like it" and "Why I don't like it", and then compare notes.  Everybody's opinion counts; some are more thoughtful and educated than others.  When you say you like or dislike something, I'm paying attention to your reasoning and rationale.

Perhaps some members are more biased than you are; perhaps not.  But we're all subject to our own influences.

[John Kirk]

Oh, and I changed my mind.  Tom Fazio is not the Ozzie Smith of architects, because he hits too many doubles and triples.  He should be in the Hall of Fame, like Ozzie, but with more power.  Tris Speaker is the all-time leader in doubles, great fielder, great player.

Tom Fazio is the Tris Speaker of architects.

[SL_Solow]

The topic id terrific but hte baseball analogy doesn't work.  The real question presented is whether an architect is judged by his most outstanding work or by consistency of effort.  The problem with the baseball analogy is that there are so many at bats in a given season that statistically it is hard to compare.  The fact is those who are considered truly great home run hitters did not hit home runs for only a year or two but did so over a lengthy period.  Thus they combined consistency with outstanding achievements.  Brady Anderson hit over 50 home runs once and did little else.  We could say he built his one great course.  Nobody remembers that season.  But because most golf course architects build fewer courses and because the courses last longer (like paintings and musical compositions) the effect of one great effort tends to inflate their reputation.  Everyone remebers Don Larson's perfect game but nobody considers him a great pitcher.  Is the same true for the architect who builds a great course and not much else or does he get more credit.  I submit he should because one course is a far greater portin of his work than one game.  But ot may mot be more important than one baseball season.

I would love to weigh in on the Cobb, Ruth, Ichiro conversations but I have gone on long enough.  The important thing to remember is the impact of technology (sound familiar?)  Cobb spent most of his career and all of his prime in the dead ball era where the equipment required small ball.  Doubles and triples were a measure of power.  Ruth became a full time hitter at about the time of the conversion to the lively(not Haskell) ball after the Black Sox scandal.  He was by far the outstanding player of his day and the first to take full advantage of the new ball.  But he also hit 342 lifetime.  In 1927, if my memory serves me, he had 90 singles and of course he was an outstanding pitcher during the latter portion of the dead ball era.  So the comparison is not as easy as has been suggested.

[Mac Plumart]

Okay...my data isn't 100% spot on.  I am sure of it, but it is worthy enough to share and potentially discuss.  And I thus far have only used, Golfweek Modern, Residential, and Resort lists, Golf Mag Top 100 World/US, Golf Digest Top 100 Int'l/US.

Tom Fazio batting average .254
Tom Doak batting average .379

Fazio...38 years in the business, 173 courses designed, 44 courses rated
Doak...21 years in the business, 29 courses designed, 11 rated

But here is the deal, since 2000 Fazio is batting .433.  And really, 44 rated courses is really solid for Fazio.  Really solid!! 

Also, if you use my "Unanimous Gems" list as the proxy for home runs, Fazio currently has zero and Doak has 3.  BUT, if you review past Top 100 lists...Fazio was the hot architect in the early 90's when everything he touched turned out to be gold.  Black Diamond Ranch Quarry Top 100 World, Wade Hampton, Shadow Creek, and World Woods.  But all have dropped off of Golf Mag's lists. 

Interesting stuff, I think.

If I get bored enough over the next few days, I might do Nicklaus and C&C.  It might be cool to see.

 

[Peter Pallotta]

Mac - neat stuff. But if your researches end up showing anyone below the Mendoza Line, probably best not to let us know.

SL - good post, friend.

Peter

[Scott Warren]

Mac,

A course on any of those lists - but only those lists - counts as a hit?

The reason I ask, Doak has St Andrews Beach in Aus and Ren Club in Scotland that may well be good enough to get on those lists (from memory StAB is top 15 in Aus and Ren is #73 in GB&I).

Surely international lists have their place in your stats bank?

[Mac Plumart]

Scott...

ABSOLUTELY!!!  I agree with you whole-heartedly.  That is why I said my data is not 100%.  There are simply too many lists for me to go over...and they change virtually every year.

I guess the point of my last post was that many people don't think Fazio is a total hack...rather it appears that many people like his courses.  And what I find beyond fascinating is how in the early 1990's Fazio was the shiznit!!  His courses were popping up all over the Top 100 world list put out by Golf Magazine.

But they have faded a bit over time.  So, will these current hot courses stand the test of time or not?  That will be neat to watch.  

And I suppose seeing these lists morph over time gives me so much more respect for The Old Course, Pine Valley, Cypress Point, Merion, and Royal Melbourne.  Every single list I have seen has these courses ranked in the Top 10, including Tom MacWood's list from 1939.  Think about that.  That is greatness as proven by how they stand the test of time.  

[Tim Bert]

Wrong sport, but I would strive to be the Chris Carter of architects.  As they used to say, all he really did was catch touchdown passes.

As for Ichiro, he might have been ok sacrificing 30 points on his batting average (though I doubt he'd really sustain a 25 to 30 HR performance over a long period of time) but he doesn't have 30 points to trim off of his OBP.  That BA to OBP ratio is dangerously slim.  He could stand to take a pitch now and again! 

[Sean_A]

One problem with this sort of discussion is that the home runs aren't necessarily home runs for all time.  Attitudes and tastes change and this means courses are then turned into doubles or triples.  I suggest that this sort of thing using rankings can only really work for ODGs.  Nowhere near the final word concerning home runs can be written on guys still working.  Perhaps this means that at least for the living the batting average is more important.

Ciao

[Matt_Ward]

John K:

No chip here at all -- just a statement of what I believe and have read via this site for a number of years.

Architect bias (preference) plays a huge role on this site. With all due respect, to say otherwise is a clear sign of denial. Nothing wrong with people preferring certain design styles. However, it's tough for those folks to really apply a fair analysis to others. Someone who is a Mets fans will not really be able to see clearly (let alone think) when the subject of the NY Yankees is discussed -- the same applies in the reverse.

John, I learn a good deal from certain people on this site -- the ones that are open to the possibility that courses need to be weighed on what they provide -- not just simply looking through the prism of who designed it.

SL:

Great point -- the sum total matters not -- the issue will be the top designs that are produced. Ross is still revered -- for his top work -- although plenty of the so-so ones are now parking lots and other usages.

SL, enjoyed your baseball observations as well -- your points on the different eras and what made them special are spot on. Curious to know your favorite team and current ballplayers.

Mac:

That's nice stats -- but here's the deal you missed -- place Doak w the same number of TF courses and one has to wonder if he's able to do all the details he does now. Tom said he would not be and that's why he follows the business approach he takes. On the flip side if TF were to limit himself to a fairly small number of designs it's likely the details that are missed or simply replicated to the point of repeat-itis would be different and in certain instances clearly beyond what he does across the board.

Scott:

For what it's worth -- it's utterly simplistic to thing that only a chosen few "get it" and the rest are simply clueless. I have played a fairly wide smattering of courses across the planet and have seen the best, the in-between and the wretched that is there. Too many people see a given name and automatically convey a certain status -- simply because of the name. Each course is a new undertaking -- and therefore each needs to be seen as a new addition. I have read the comments of a good number of people here and while I have no issue with certain people being groupies of certain archies -- I think it's fair to say that other archies who don't get the attention for some of their work -- and that includes some of the bigger names. You are free to see it however you want to. Just as I am.

[George Pazin]

Imho, there is far too much subjectivity with ranking lists (not to mention other problems like international lists, courses that aren't eligible for lists like Wolf Point, etc) to draw an effective analogy to batting average or home runs.

But, I will add, this thread has turned out very interesting, so it doesn't much matter.

[Mac Plumart]

Mac:

That's nice stats -- but here's the deal you missed -- place Doak w the same number of TF courses and one has to wonder if he's able to do all the details he does now. Tom said he would not be and that's why he follows the business approach he takes. On the flip side if TF were to limit himself to a fairly small number of designs it's likely the details that are missed or simply replicated to the point of repeat-itis would be different and in certain instances clearly beyond what he does across the board.

Matt...Your post touches on something I find beyond fascinating.  And that is the business model of each architect.  I'll continue with the Fazio and Doak examples, as that is what I started with.  Fazio has A LOT of courses that he and his firm have done.  Per the stats I put up there, he has been successful at what he does.  Doak has also been very successful with a very different model.  And when I read their books, I am totally blown away by what I read.  Fazio's book talks a lot about his business model and giving clients what they want.  Doak's talk about architecture in general and his thoughts on it, with some nuggets from (or at least the same vibe as) the ODG's.  

I think this is why Fazio courses are so diversified.  You've got ball bustingly hard ones and you've got easy, joy to play resort and member courses.  Although I've only played two of Tom D's courses, I get the sense people hire him to do what he does...not to build them something out of the owner/developers mind.  

Frankly, I respect both approaches...both are successful and appeal to different target markets.


George P...

I will add, this thread has turned out very interesting

I agree with this sentence you posted and, in fact, your entire post.  Simply fun and interesting discussion...nothing will ever be concrete and factual in disussing opinions of golf courses.  To your point about lists and rankings and golf courses...Wolf Point won't register as even a hit using the criteria I used...but I am sure it is actually a home run.  Mike Young's courses are more regional in nature and most likely won't make a World Top 100 list, but if they bring the client/owner what they want, make them money, and allow for enjoyment of golfers...why isn't that a home run?

Anyway, I'll stop yammering and simply say I agree...it is an interesting thread.

[Matt_Ward]

Mac:

The issue w TF is that often times a different design associate is the key person doing all the heavy lifting with that respective site. With so many active courses in the pipeline (at least until recently) TF only made limited visits -- unless the client specified as much. The same applied to JN.

No doubt one has to applaud the business model that Doak, C&C and Hanse have followed. They don't want to "franchise" the biz in which their name becomes more of general brand rather than provide the real hands-on craftsmanship that lies at their success.

Mac, when people apply the baseball connection -- there's no doubt that JN and TF have been successful financially -- clearly they used their skills to sell land / homes for various developers. The key, as SL mentioned, is whether their top tier stuff will last for some time. I do believe that when JN and TF have really concentrated on a given site the results have been there. No doubt when you calculate an overall batting average their score would be lowered -- especially when held against what a Doak or C&C do.

Like I said before -- if Doak and C&C had to handle the myriad of projects you see from JN and TF it's likely the overall detailing one sees with so many of their projects would suffer accordingly. That is what happens when the biz side of things pushes the art dimension to a lower level of consideration.