"That's just silly" - 17 at TPC Scottsdale

[rjsimper]

Ian Baker Finch is practically beside himself talking about how silly the 17th played today and how a ball that's rolling and hits the fringe ought to stay on the green. Kostis says the setup team needs to take a look at it.

They're saying, after Webb Simpson chipped into the water "He wasn't even trying to be aggressive, he was being conservative and thought he hit a good shot"

Well, he "thought" he hit a good shot...certainly thinking your shot is good entitles you to an outcome, doesn't it? Ugh.

And "he played conservative - he deserves not to go in the water" - how bout the fact that Simpson played too aggressively off the tee and hit it too far up the right, thus giving himself a bad angle and forcing him to play at the water? Hit a 3i off the tee and give yourself a better angle. It's a 330 yard par 4 for god's sake.

I think it's a brilliant hole, a brilliant pin position, and everything a short par 4 should be (i.e. something more than a bomb and gouge)

And these are their 2nd shots to hit the green in regulation from 10 yards off the green. It's not like this is a 490 yard par 4 that guys are missing the green in regulation and then chipping their 3rd into the water.

Hell, IBF just said before Levin hit that "a 4i short of the fairway bunker might even be the good play, and then hit a SW straight at the pin" - Holy crap - strategy! What a concept!

Yet he still talks like a crime has been committed on the 17th hole today.

More like this in tournament golf, please.

[jeffwarne]

Ian Baker Finch is practically beside himself talking about how silly the 17th played today and how a ball that's rolling and hits the fringe ought to stay on the green. Kostis says the setup team needs to take a look at it.

They're saying, after Webb Simpson chipped into the water "He wasn't even trying to be aggressive, he was being conservative and thought he hit a good shot"

Well, he "thought" he hit a good shot...certainly thinking your shot is good entitles you to an outcome, doesn't it? Ugh.

And "he played conservative - he deserves not to go in the water" - how bout the fact that Simpson played too aggressively off the tee and hit it too far up the right, thus giving himself a bad angle and forcing him to play at the water? Hit a 3i off the tee and give yourself a better angle. It's a 330 yard par 4 for god's sake.

I think it's a brilliant hole, a brilliant pin position, and everything a short par 4 should be (i.e. something more than a bomb and gouge)

And these are their 2nd shots to hit the green in regulation from 10 yards off the green. It's not like this is a 490 yard par 4 that guys are missing the green in regulation and then chipping their 3rd into the water.

Hell, IBF just said before Levin hit that "a 4i short of the fairway bunker might even be the good play, and then hit a SW straight at the pin" - Holy crap - strategy! What a concept!

Yet he still talks like a crime has been committed on the 17th hole today.

More like this in tournament golf, please.

Most of IBF'c commentary is about as good as his competitive golf post 1995

[JNC Lyon]

One of the great things about Firestone is that so many of the holes are dead straight, so you have to hit the fairway.
-Ian Baker-Finch

[Mark Pearce]

I'm going to disagree.  Simpson's chip wasn't aggressive, it was simply an attempt to get the ball to stay on the green and it failed.  I'm not sure it could have been played better.  With that pin position and virtually no fringe any shot with a sand wedge becomes a real challenge just to avoid it spinning off left, into the water, or right, from where you'lll chip into the water.  IBF may be a muppet but Faldo wasn't impressed, either, and he's normally much more sensible. 

[Tom Yost]

Isn't that what we commonly refer to as a Sucker Pin?

[Ronald Montesano]

From the official trany:

Q.  Can you walk us through what happened on 17?
WEBB SIMPSON:  Yeah, I hit my 3‑wood exactly where I was trying to hit it.  It actually went a little further than I thought it would go, and I went up, and I knew how fast that chip was.  I watched Ryan do the same thing in front of me, but I thought if I just land it on top, it'll be perfect, and as soon as I hit it, I thought it was perfect.  I never even thought it might go in the water, and it kept going and kept going and kept going and went in the water.  It's just a bummer.

AND

Q.  The pin placement at 17, I don't want to call it unfair, but was it marginal?
WEBB SIMPSON:  No, a drivable par‑4, it's fair for them to have a tough pin.  I just think late in the day, it's going to get a lot quicker back there.  Where the pin was is kind of crowned so it runs off on every side.  Did I learn something?  Not really.  Maybe it's 20 feet quicker than I thought, but I had seen that pin.  I hit that chip and I thought I knew it, but it was extra quick today.

[jeffwarne]

From the official trany:

Q.  Can you walk us through what happened on 17?
WEBB SIMPSON:  Yeah, I hit my 3‑wood exactly where I was trying to hit it.  It actually went a little further than I thought it would go, and I went up, and I knew how fast that chip was.  I watched Ryan do the same thing in front of me, but I thought if I just land it on top, it'll be perfect, and as soon as I hit it, I thought it was perfect.  I never even thought it might go in the water, and it kept going and kept going and kept going and went in the water.  It's just a bummer.

AND

Q.  The pin placement at 17, I don't want to call it unfair, but was it marginal?
WEBB SIMPSON:  No, a drivable par‑4, it's fair for them to have a tough pin.  I just think late in the day, it's going to get a lot quicker back there.  Where the pin was is kind of crowned so it runs off on every side.  Did I learn something?  Not really.  Maybe it's 20 feet quicker than I thought, but I had seen that pin.  I hit that chip and I thought I knew it, but it was extra quick today.

That's a very fair commentary by Simpson, perhaps even generous in light of what had happened there 20 minutes before to him........
but his tee shot was FAR from perfect,a 50 yard bail away from the water left. (if that was perfect a rethink may be in order)
How about something shorter and or straighter leaving him a chance to toward the pin, rather than the water?

Mark,
How can you say the chip could not have been played better? (even if it appeared good to Webb)
Of course it could've(just hit it shorter!) although it may've set up quite a difficult 2 putt and he well might've made bogie anyway.
The real mistake was the tee shot way too far right and/or too far.

maybe this and last week's story will begin to show the TOUR the folly of fast greens.

Could've been worse-could've been marked yellow
they made bogies, not 7's.

[JNC Lyon]

Simpson seemed to have a good attitude about the whole thing, and he did admit that his three-wood went farther than he thought it would.  I didn't see the shot on TV, but I can picture the hole and imagine how he could have been out of position off the tee down the right.  To me, this an example of where width and angles worked perfectly.  He drove it in the fairway, but he was in the wrong part of the fairway, and he paid the price.  Here, we see the game transfer over from a physical challenge to mental challenge.  To me, that's great golf architecture!

[rjsimper]

I'm going to disagree.  Simpson's chip wasn't aggressive, it was simply an attempt to get the ball to stay on the green and it failed.  I'm not sure it could have been played better.  With that pin position and virtually no fringe any shot with a sand wedge becomes a real challenge just to avoid it spinning off left, into the water, or right, from where you'lll chip into the water.  IBF may be a muppet but Faldo wasn't impressed, either, and he's normally much more sensible. 

This assumes that he was in ideal position off the tee. I agree that his chip was not aggressive. My original post said his tee shot was too aggressive, thus forcing him to play AT the water rather than along the water.

It was a bad combination of too far and too far right off the tee. Hit it that same distance but more aggressive line and you putt for eagle. Hit it same line but shorter and you have a better angle for the chip.

Here is the exact same issue, but in a more common application.

US Open conditions - severe dogleg. Player has a choice between trying to play on the safe line with a 3 wood where he can hit it 275 and keep it in the fairway, or he can cut the corner with a 310 yard driver. He elects the driver but hits it on the 3 wood line. Ball goes through the fairway and into a bad lie in the rough. 150 yards into a green, pin tucked back right behind a bunker.

Player aims at the middle of the green to be safe, hoping for front portion, and muscles out the next shot, which has no spin. Lands on the green, bounces hard, goes long and into a pond or severe bunker behind the green from which he has no chance of making par.

Was the execution flawed on the second shot, perhaps to some degree yes, but not for lack of trying to be safe. The fault is on the tee shot which forced the second shot in the first place.

Just because the second shot on a par 4 is a chip and not 150 yards doesn't necessarily mean it's more entitled to end up in good shape.

[Niall C]

I've not seen the hole or any of the play but fair play to Simpson on his reaction. I also agree that (it would appear) Simpson troubles began with his tee shot. Isn't it the point with short par 4's that there is mean't to be a compensating element of penalty to make up for the lack of length and with that a bit of strategy called for. The green speed seems to me to be simply part of that penalty. Or have I got it totally wrong ?

Niall 

[noonan]

Someone has to say it.....something is wrong with the way all those shots came out....it was like chipping down the hood of a Cadillac.....at least if the ball ran off into a collection area it would be acceptable...but to incur a penalty off of some of those shots is not correct.

Conservative play should not incur penalties

[Lawrence Largent]

I would like to know if anyone laid up and actually had the guts to hit a sand wedge to that pin.  If they did I highly doubt that they could keep it back there with the green being crowned.  If you play short of the pin and leave it right you have no line to the pin due to the bunker.  If you pull it a foot it spins in the water.  I for one think that they make the courses way to soft most of the time so they can have low scores.  This is one time where they could make it a touch more forgiving.

Lawrence

[jeffwarne]

Someone has to say it.....something is wrong with the way all those shots came out....it was like chipping down the hood of a Cadillac.....at least if the ball ran off into a collection area it would be acceptable...but to incur a penalty off of some of those shots is not correct.

Conservative play should not incur penalties

What?
Conservative would've been a 4 iron down the middle.
a 3 wood isn't exactly conservative when it's hit nearly pin high
Poor choices, no matter how "conservative", should of course incur penalties
I watched the guys who hit down the middle make birdies
the three wood was the kind've aggressive/ kind've conservative(i.e. no committment) play that good short par 4's are designed to punish.
A collection area would've/could've also resulted in a bogie.

There'll be no slopes left in greens if we start listening to commentators

[Carl Rogers]

If one hole can encapsulate the TPC Design problem, this hole is it.  Contrived landscape, over designed, silly pond, easy pins and one impossible Sunday, (but used on Saturday) pin

[Keith OHalloran]

Lawrence,
Mickelson laid back to 89 yards, and played a sand wedge to about 30 feet short. He was just before the start of the "tongue" area he pin was on. When a guy like him hits such a conservative shot from 89, it shows the respect he had for the difficulty of the shot.

Jeff,
Were there a lot of birdies on the hole?

[Lou_Duran]

Quirky.  Little correlation between skill and result.  Would pay money to watch the King Putter crowd play the hole.  The course does look interesting.  

[rjsimper]

Someone has to say it.....something is wrong with the way all those shots came out....it was like chipping down the hood of a Cadillac.....at least if the ball ran off into a collection area it would be acceptable...but to incur a penalty off of some of those shots is not correct.

Conservative play should not incur penalties

Who played conservatively? Webb Simpson sure didn't. He hit a club that could drive the green of a par 4, a hole that you are given 2 shots to arrive on the green in regulation.

[rjsimper]

Lawrence,
Mickelson laid back to 89 yards, and played a sand wedge to about 30 feet short. He was just before the start of the "tongue" area he pin was on. When a guy like him hits such a conservative shot from 89, it shows the respect he had for the difficulty of the shot.

Jeff,
Were there a lot of birdies on the hole?

It was the fourth most difficult hole on the course in 2011 is the stat I think I heard on the day of the tongue pin.

Who says a short par 4 has to be the easiest hole on the course?

Again, how many holes out there is 20 feet from the hole in regulation a decent spot to be? Surely there are plenty.

Did anyone putt from the "safe" spot on the green into the water? If one can hit a slightly-too-hard lag putt that goes into the water, then I'd agree it's a bit much.

John Huh hit an excellent, aggressive chip shot and made birdie. How did he do this? In part it started with the fact that his 3w off the tee was hit at the front of the green, thus challenging the water left off the tee a bit more. He was looking straight down the line at the hole. Simpson played right.

Kyle Stanley hit to a better lay up spot than Webb Simpson did and as a result, had a much better angle to the hole (and a better result with his shot)

[jeffwarne]

Lawrence,
Mickelson laid back to 89 yards, and played a sand wedge to about 30 feet short. He was just before the start of the "tongue" area he pin was on. When a guy like him hits such a conservative shot from 89, it shows the respect he had for the difficulty of the shot.

Jeff,
Were there a lot of birdies on the hole?

It was the fourth most difficult hole on the course in 2011 is the stat I think I heard on the day of the tongue pin.

Who says a short par 4 has to be the easiest hole on the course?

Again, how many holes out there is 20 feet from the hole in regulation a decent spot to be? Surely there are plenty.

Did anyone putt from the "safe" spot on the green into the water? If one can hit a slightly-too-hard lag putt that goes into the water, then I'd agree it's a bit much.

John Huh hit an excellent, aggressive chip shot and made birdie. How did he do this? In part it started with the fact that his 3w off the tee was hit at the front of the green, thus challenging the water left off the tee a bit more. He was looking straight down the line at the hole. Simpson played right.

Kyle Stanley hit to a better lay up spot than Webb Simpson did and as a result, had a much better angle to the hole (and a better result with his shot)

Three of the top 6 on the leaderboard birdied the hole(either through a smart shorter tee shot or a GOOD aggressive tee shot)
nuff said

[BCrosby]

It's a terrific hole.

What matters is not its scoring average (which might be high because of a number of bogey + scores), but the scoring spreads (which I'd guess they are wide on the 17th. Lots of under and over par scores).

Wide scoring spreads (the old TEP Conjecture) are a sign of a good strategic hole.

Bob

[rjsimper]

Let's also not forget that Mickelson's 89 yard shot was, if I recall correctly, hit from the rough. So it's not as though he's the picture of executing a textbook conservative strategy.

Had he the ability to put turbosuck spin on the ball, I bet he gets a little more aggressive. And if he chooses not to, good for him. 20 feet ain't terrible.

[Lou_Duran]

What matters is not its scoring average (which might be high because of a number of bogey + scores), but the scoring spreads (which I'd guess they are wide on the 17th. Lots of under and over par scores).

Wide scoring spreads (the old TEP Conjecture) are a sign of a good strategic hole.

I'd be curious to know the stats (range, mean, mode, median) by hole for the 3rd round.  I didn't see that they were available on the Tour site, but it would be interesting to test this opinion.

[DMoriarty]

I checked the stats one year using the 10th at Riviera as a presumptively good strategic hole.    Like many of TEPaul's opinions, it didn't test out.  I don't remember the details but the scoring range was surprisingly narrow. It is in the back threads somewhere.   A wide scoring spread would seem more indicative of an extremely penal aspect of a hole, whether or not the hole was actually strategic. 

[BCrosby]

David -

Wide scoring spreads are indicators of good strategic holes because they are a sign of players being tempted to take risks. Some pull them off, others don't. Ergo there tend to be lots of low scores for those who are successful; lots of high scores for those who aren't.

Penal holes tend to be, because they are penal, holes that are played conservatively. Players are disinclined to take risks. Usually because the downside outweighs the upside. Thus there is a narrower range of scoring. More pars and plus par scores. Likewise there are fewer sub par scores.

I ran the spread numbers for the 13th at the Masters for a couple of years and compared them to numbers for other par 5's at ANGC. There are wider spreads on the 13th. Which confirms our intuitions that it is an exceptionally strategic hole. I did the same thing for the 12th at TOC several years ago, a hole I think is terrifically strategic. There were healthy scoring spreads there too, which also seems to confirm our existing intuitions.

The TEP Conjecture is a very interesting way of looking at things. I think it is also very intuitive. Your animus towards TEP notwithstanding.

Bob

 

[DMoriarty]

David -

Wide scoring spreads are indicators of good strategic holes because they are a sign of players being tempted to take risks. Some pull them off, others don't. Ergo there tend to be lots of low scores for those who are successful; lots of high scores for those who aren't.

Penal holes tend to be, because they are penal, holes that are played conservatively. Players are disinclined to take risks. Usually because the downside outweighs the upside. Thus there is a narrower range of scoring. More pars and plus par scores. Likewise there are fewer sub par scores.

I ran the spread numbers for the 13th at the Masters for a couple of years and compared them to numbers for other par 5's at ANGC. There are wider spreads on the 13th. Which confirms our intuitions that it is an exceptionally strategic hole. I did the same thing for the 12th at TOC several years ago, a hole I think is terrifically strategic. There were healthy scoring spreads there too, which also seems to confirm our existing intuitions.

The TEP Conjecture is a very interesting way of looking at things. I think it is also very intuitive. Your animus towards TEP notwithstanding.

Bob

 

Bob

Yes that is the theory but I don't think the logic or numbers play out.  

Holes that take a large penalty for a mistake of execution produce wide scoring ranges, whether strategy is involved or not.  Execute or be punished -- hardly a complete understanding of strategic golf.   The wide range of scoring at ANGC 13 is indicative of a creek that runs in front of the green-- the players have to deal with it one way or another, whether on their second shot, third, higher.   ANGC 13th is definitely strategic in that it gives the golfer a choice of when and how to negotiate the creek, but the wide range of scoring is indicative of a penal feature fronting the green.  Hypothetically, let's take the strategy out of the hole, but leave in the penal feature-- leave the creek yet straighten, flatten and narrow the hole.  In other words, strip the interest out of the hole except for the creek. You'd still have your wide range of scoring.  Or take another hypothetical epitome of a non-strategic slog hole, one extremely long and narrow with extremely penal features on each side (whether deep rough, water, severe traps, OB, or potential for a lost ball) will produce your wide scoring spectrum.  

In short, all you are measuring is the degree of punishment for a miss. Your measure has little or nothing to do with whether the hole is actually strategic.  

As for TEPaul,  you injected him in here, not me.   And like many of his opinions, this one is unfounded, my animus notwithstanding.   But if it makes you feel better, let's leave him out if it.   I have no animus toward you . . . but you are wrong on this one.  

David