TPC Scottsdale #17

[Rob Marshall]

Question for Pat, Jeff, and Matt who I know to be accomplished players. If you need to make eagle on 17. What's the play? I was always taught to work the ball towards the trouble. Should you be starting the ball out over the water and cut it back in?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I said it was a "great" drive once.

And then you continue to argue with anyone who points out that it was not.

Question for Pat, Jeff, and Matt who I know to be accomplished players. If you need to make eagle on 17. What's the play? I was always taught to work the ball towards the trouble. Should you be starting the ball out over the water and cut it back in?

That's easy: don't toe-hook it! And don't miss anywhere left regardless of the shape of the shot. You have to miss a little right there if anything. Brooks didn't have the easiest chip in but he made it.

[Matthew Petersen]

It is certainly a very contrived hole but then it's a very contrived course given the ponds and spectator mounds and bright green grass and everything else one wouldn't find naturally occurring in the desert.


It's a huge green but that serves to disguise how much slope is in the green (as Jordan's tee shot showed on Sunday, for one). I almost wrote "the green makes the hole," but it's really the green complex because the short grass and contour all around is key as well.


That back left peninsula part of the green, which used to be the Sunday pin, was used on Thursday this week. They've switched it up in recent years, which I think is good, since the hole is much more exciting with the other three hole locations (it's barely even a birdie hole to the back left pin). To that location, many players do lay up because going for it and missing too far right leaves no shot at all.


I don't object to a hole like this where virtually everyone goes for it. As you could have seen even just watching on Sunday, there's still the question of which club to hit, what shot shape, how much risk to take on (even when the hole was ~30 yards from the water), etc.


I've played here a number of times. I'm not an especially long hitter but I've gotten it on the front of the green a few times. Not everyone will be able to but from the right tees most will at least have a chance, if they're willing to chance the water. If you can't reach the green or don't want to try, the centerline bunker still makes you think off the tee and then you have what looks like an easy short wedge in but the green tricks a lot of people because there's so much more slope than you think at first. People who pony up the green fee to pay the course are invariably disappointed in 16, which is a nothing par 3 without the stands, and really entertained by 17, which is a fun hole that makes you think no matter how you approach it.

[Jerry Kluger]

I wonder how many 2s were made on 17 on Sunday other than Brooks - I don't imagine that it was very many.  If that is the case then what makes this so special?  Sure, a player can hit their tee shot onto the green and most likely come away with a birdie but is that so much more likely than a player who comes up just short, keeping the water out of play, and chips it close and makes birdie? I say a true risk/reward situation would be where a player who goes for the green has a good shot at making a 2 otherwise, it is just a feel good play.  I will say that from a design standpoint I must give it its due as it is a truly drivable par 4 for many golfers which most of the time is not the case.


What was much cooler to me was watching the European Tour on Sunday and what happened at the 16th hole.  It is a par 3 which I believe is around 180 yards with water down the entire left side and a bunker right which extends about half way up the green and then a back shelf which has closely mowed chipping area around it.  On Sunday the wind was blowing hard left to right and there were quite a few players still in contention when they came to the hole.  I cannot remember any player hitting the green or coming up pin high - everyone one of them, including DJ, missed short right with some in the bunker and some in the grass. DJ did well by getting  up and down.  Now that would have been exciting and imagine if there was crowd around watching it like at 16 in Scottsdale.

[Mark_Fine]

Jerry,
I didn't watch the European tournament, but if everyone plays to the same spot, is that really exciting?  Doesn't sound like the temptation to play back to the hole was worth the risk.  #17 at TPC Scottsdale definitely tempts you.  It is also a much longer shot (330 yards away) so even the pros can't all place their shot exactly where they want it.  Some only hit 3W for that reason (it is a bit like a bailout) to remove a bigger number.  If they go with driver they know that will get them to the hole but also might get them in trouble.  The hole makes them think and that is what great golf holes do - the decision is not always obvious even for these guys who usually have things figured out.  Ask Xander or Jorden if they had it figured out 

[Steve Lang]

 
Kinda like fury green... 20180526173532-3bf8ef9c.gif , but not a road well travelled in desparation...

[Jerry Kluger]

Mark: I thought the potential was there for something really exciting instead it wound up being a dud.  Interesting that DJ essentially put the tournament away by getting up and down somewhat like Brooks getting it done by chipping in which is different from the way most tournaments are won. 

[Mark_Fine]

Jerry,
I know many don’t like water (look at the thread about the pond at Torrey Pines) but it does create interest and drama and impact decision making.  If the 17th at TPC Scottsdale was surrounded by sand instead of water it would be much less interesting.  All the fear is gone.

[Will Lozier]

Spieth hit a great drive when he needed it on 17 and it rolls thru the middle of the green and into the water. Can’t say that’s a great hole to me. Fun to watch but not so much to play in that situation.

It was a 20 yard ropey hook.  Not sure that's a great drive to that green.

Ditto 

[jeffwarne]

Question for Pat, Jeff, and Matt who I know to be accomplished players. If you need to make eagle on 17. What's the play? I was always taught to work the ball towards the trouble. Should you be starting the ball out over the water and cut it back in?

100% depends on your preferred shot, and what's working that day.
If I need to make eagle on 17, I'm going to have to hole a pitch . I'd guess that centerline bunker would confound me.

[Jeff Schley]

Charlie Rymer has a couple of good youtube videos from the golf channel talking about strategies for playing the 17th. I enjoy his every man commentary.

[Paul Rudovsky]

Two points:


1.  if my memory is correct, didn't it really start the trend in terms of short/drivable par 4's (par 3.5's)?


2.  my sense is that the best measure of fun exciting holes on the PGA Tour (or even professional/top amateur golf) is those holes that have the highest standard deviation in terms of scoring...or better yet a separate category for par 3's, par 4's and par 5's.  My guess is that #13 at ANGA is fairly high up for Par 5's and #17 at TPC Scottsdale is high up among par 4's.


Anyone here have access to shot link data to test this?

[Derek_Duncan]

Two points:


2.  my sense is that the best measure of fun exciting holes on the PGA Tour (or even professional/top amateur golf) is those holes that have the highest standard deviation in terms of scoring...or better yet a separate category for par 3's, par 4's and par 5's.  My guess is that #13 at ANGA is fairly high up for Par 5's and #17 at TPC Scottsdale is high up among par 4's.


Anyone here have access to shot link data to test this?

Paul,


Not really. Just eyeballing and not calculating the scores the last five years, the 17th at TPC Scottsdale averages about 160 birdies a year to just 45 bogeys. It consistently plays a quarter-shot under par, which typically puts it as one of the 10 easiest par 4s on tour.

[Tom_Doak]

Two points:


1.  if my memory is correct, didn't it really start the trend in terms of short/drivable par 4's (par 3.5's)?


2.  my sense is that the best measure of fun exciting holes on the PGA Tour (or even professional/top amateur golf) is those holes that have the highest standard deviation in terms of scoring...or better yet a separate category for par 3's, par 4's and par 5's.  My guess is that #13 at ANGA is fairly high up for Par 5's and #17 at TPC Scottsdale is high up among par 4's.


Anyone here have access to shot link data to test this?

1.  It was Tom Weiskopf's work that helped popularize the driveable par-4 generally - he always included one on his courses, and sometimes two.  But I don't recall this hole ever attracting special attention.


2.  You don't really need the positional data from ShotLink to calculate standard deviation, just the scoring data, right?  The TOUR keeps the former fairly tightly held, but I would think the scoring data would be easier to find.  But you'd need it for a lot of holes on Tour to determine whether the standard deviation of the standard deviation is significant 😉

[Paul Rudovsky]

2.  You don't really need the positional data from ShotLink to calculate standard deviation, just the scoring data, right?  The TOUR keeps the former fairly tightly held, but I would think the scoring data would be easier to find.  But you'd need it for a lot of holes on Tour to determine whether the standard deviation of the standard deviation is significant 😉

Tom--

correct...do not need positional data, just scoring data.  absolutely need scoring data...no needed by name (who had what score)...just need for every hole played (separate data for each hole) on PGA Tour total number of 1's, 2's, 3's,...7's, 8's etc.  So assuming a field of 144 last week and a cut leaving 60 players for the weekend, data required for say holes #15, #16 and #17 would be (following are purely made up by me as an example...not actuals):

#15: 0; 0; 18; 163; 205; 19; 3; 0; 0; 0; (meaning 18 eagles, 163 birds, 205 pars, 19 bogies, and 3 dbms)
#16: 0; 125; 207; 68, 6; 2;0;0;0;0;
#17: 0; 4; 155; 199; 38; 10; 2; 0; 0; 0;
 
need same data for every hole played...note that with field of 144 and 60 (and assuming no DQ or WD) making cut the scores for each of the holes cited above total 408 (144+144+60+60). does not matter who made the eagles or who made the db's...just the number of them.

[JESII]

I think the variance you'll find is in how they got there. The balls in the water result in par a great deal of time on 17 simply because you're still chipping from close to the green...especially the left and back left pins, which also seem to result in 4's when the drive bails out right.


I'd think this would be the most fun hole to watch...maybe even worthy of a stadium.

[Tom_Doak]

I think the variance you'll find is in how they got there. The balls in the water result in par a great deal of time on 17 simply because you're still chipping from close to the green...especially the left and back left pins, which also seem to result in 4's when the drive bails out right.


I'd think this would be the most fun hole to watch...maybe even worthy of a stadium.

Two down sides there:


1.  I think the stadium is well suited to an easy straightforward par-3.  On this hole there would be lots of tricky chips etc., not exactly the kind of spots you'd want to encourage crowd noise during the shot.


2.  Like with all of modern golf, it's tougher to spectate on holes where if you're on the tee, you can't see what's happening up by the green, or by the green, who's hitting from the tee, because everyone hits it so goddamn far now.  If shot tracer hadn't come along, most of golf would be pretty unwatchable.

[Paul Rudovsky]

I think the variance you'll find is in how they got there. The balls in the water result in par a great deal of time on 17 simply because you're still chipping from close to the green...especially the left and back left pins, which also seem to result in 4's when the drive bails out right.


I'd think this would be the most fun hole to watch...maybe even worthy of a stadium.



Two down sides there:


1.  I think the stadium is well suited to an easy straightforward par-3.  On this hole there would be lots of tricky chips etc., not exactly the kind of spots you'd want to encourage crowd noise during the shot.


2.  Like with all of modern golf, it's tougher to spectate on holes where if you're on the tee, you can't see what's happening up by the green, or by the green, who's hitting from the tee, because everyone hits it so goddamn far now.  If shot tracer hadn't come along, most of golf would be pretty unwatchable.
[/quote

Tom and Jim--while your points are very valid, I am trying to "test" a theory I have held for a while.  The theory is that great holes tend to have high risk/reward trade-offs.  And since high risk/reward should mean greater score dispersion and standard deviation is the mathematical measure of dispersion, why not take PGA Tour scoring data to see what holes have the highest SD.  Obviously this means the answers are limited to the say 40-50 courses played on the PGA Tour (720-900 different holes) and the impact of different weather conditions each week could be meaningful.  The good news is that the results would reflect a relatively consistent field and the scores would be accurate.  So it would be interesting to see if holes like #13 at ANGC have a high SD...and if courses many who post on GCA consider "boring" have a low SD (e.g. Firestone South).

I absolutely recognize that a hole could have a high risk reward ratio and not be a good hole...the current version of Doral-Blue might be an example.

[Paul Rudovsky]

Paul,


Not really. Just eyeballing and not calculating the scores the last five years, the 17th at TPC Scottsdale averages about 160 birdies a year to just 45 bogeys. It consistently plays a quarter-shot under par, which typically puts it as one of the 10 easiest par 4s on tour.


Derek--

Standard Deviation is a measure of the "dispersion" of the values (in this case scores on a hole)...so for example, if there were two par 4's and the first had 10 birdies, 70 pars, 16 bogies and 4 doubles, and the second had 2 eagles, 25 birdies, 55 pars , 13 bogies, 3 doubles and 2 triples (both totaling 100 scores), the first would have a higher average score (4.14 compared with 3.96 for the second) but the first's SD would be lower (less scoring dispersion).

Your point deals with average score..not standard deviation.

[JESII]

Ok Paul...I'm fully in support of your effort...


Tell me though, how do you account for the two eagles on 17 Sunday being pitch-ins from short right of the green? I agree with Tom that this was a lay up for Koepka. I forget who the other was, but it was on the highlight reel. His ball was within a few yards of Koepka's. So the two eagles were the result of conservative tee shot...kind of flipping the risk/reward equation on it's head.


I think the metric you're looking for is varied decision making as opposed to a wide scoring spectrum. Tough to calculate that though.




Tom, I wasn't actually thinking they should build a stadium around 17 but I think we are approaching full contact golf so the noises around touchy shots will become the norm.

[Thomas Dai]

The famed Andrew McGee’s hole-in-one hole, although he did have a little help from someone still on the green!
Would replacing the water with close but not-too-close grandstands/bleachers and having short grass humps and hollows between the green and the g-s/bleachers be feasible?
Atb

[JohnVDB]

The hole is usually in the back left peninsula once per tournament...I didn't see it this year. Any ideas what the tee club selection dispersion is that day?




Amol, agreed. Is it worth architect and set up guys thinking about how to counter that approach?

Jim, I believe it was there on Thursday.  The announcers commented on how it his usually used on the weekend.

[Jonathan Mallard]

Haven't seen it mentioned yet, but my initial thought was that the hole has many similar playing strategies to 15 at TPC River Highlands with the water left and swale right. I understand there is no centerline bunker at 15. I suspect there was a little less earth moved at the River Highlands version.

[AChao]

Hi Paul,


I think you are on to something.


One thought ... the possibility of large variances in scores itself may reduce the variance in scores.  Couple this with the asymmetry in money, and you might not find variances as large as initially expected. 


But I do think and agree with you that you will find something ... it may be a skew and not necessarily a large standard deviation.  And it may be large in terms of standard deviation vs other standard deviations.

[David Ober]

Its fun to play but I see very little incentive to not go for it. I think it's a good pro golf hole and the green shape is cool, but why not hit driver? I've hit it every time

I'd say Jordan Spieth and Xander Schauffele could provide some insight on that...
Ironically, the guy who made 2 to win drove it out of position, but hit a heck of a shot.

Spieth hit a great drive when he needed it on 17 and it rolls thru the middle of the green and into the water. Can’t say that’s a great hole to me. Fun to watch but not so much to play in that situation.

He most certainly did not hit a great drive there. Re-watch that swing and his reaction to the swing itself. He knew he did not hit the shot he wanted to the moment he hit that ball. Knew it was hooking. The fact that he almost got away with it takes nothing away from that hole.


Just found the video. He hit a crappy tee ball (for a pro) and he was punished on a hole where you simply cannot hit driver and miss left.


https://twitter.com/i/status/1358548957144694786