Tacking, laying-up and course management

[Jason Thurman]

Literally every Zach Johnson win ever required more of an outlier performance than a Tiger win. Tiger was better.


How often does anyone win without a better-than-usual performance in at least one category?


Zach Johnson played to his strengths and won while slapping tee shots 30 yards short of the big boys. Sure, getting a jacket required a week of extraordinary wedge play and putting. Better than he could realistically have expected. That should be acknowledged. But it's hard to buy that it wasn't still the right strategy. It's hard to think of a guy who's overachieved more significantly in the last 20 years. Put some respect on that man's name and strategic judgment.

[Kalen Braley]

As difficult as it is just to make it to the PGATour, much less win, I guess Zach got lucky an awful lot to win 12 events and 2 Majors.  Most guys on Tour would kill for that kind of career result.

Sad he's being diminished for doing it his way...

[Rob Marshall]

As difficult as it is just to make it to the PGATour, much less win, I guess Zach got lucky an awful lot to win 12 events and 2 Majors.  Most guys on Tour would kill for that kind of career result.

Sad he's being diminished for doing it his way...

+1


And I would like to know how many guys win each week on tour that don’t out perform their average stats. I’m guessing not many.

[Mike Worth]

Great illustration of course management was Zach Johnson at the Masters in 07, where he laid up on all the par 5's. I think he had only around 210-220 on hole 13, but still stuck to his game plan.  Played them brilliantly with probably -10 or so for the week. Of course he knows he has a great wedge game and back then he was one of the best on tour.
The opposite is John Van de Velde on 18 OMG, I almost get sick for him. Paul Lawrie should put Van de Velde's kids in his will for that was a gift for whoever ended up winning after his collapse.

I disagree with almost all of that.

Zach was lucky to have performed that well that week. Jean was unlucky to have gotten that bounce off the railing. Zach may have shot a lower score had he been a bit more aggressive, or maybe it was a once-every-15-years type of wedge/putting performance for him that week. He out-performed even his own wedge game that week.

I don't even think Jean made an error off the tee. Even if he hits it in the burn, he drops in two, lays up in three, pitches on in four, and two-putts to win.

Jean was unlucky, perhaps.


But it’s difficult to feel bad for the pros when, on aggregate, they get vastly more good breaks then bad breaks.


How many hundreds of times has a pro hit it in the rough where a member would be facing a lost ball. But the tour pro gets a break because the gallery trampled down the rough — And the pro likely got a decent lie on top of everything. 


So yes, bad break, but I don’t feel bad because of the hundreds of other times where pros got a break that they wouldn’t have if not for the gallery.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Sad he's being diminished for doing it his way...

He's not being diminished. You don't know me very well if you're taking it that way.

I'm simply pointing out that it was not necessarily a "great illustration of course management." It was more a matter of getting super-hot with one or two parts of your game.

[Garland Bayley]

Sad he's being diminished for doing it his way...

He's not being diminished. You don't know me very well if you're taking it that way.

I'm simply pointing out that it was not necessarily a "great illustration of course management." It was more a matter of getting super-hot with one or two parts of your game.

Since it is unlikely Zach can reach #2 & #8 in two, and water fronts #13 & #15, it would seem you don't have much credibility criticizing his wedge approach choices.

[Ken Moum]

Since it is unlikely Zach can reach #2 & #8 in two, and water fronts #13 & #15, it would seem you don't have much credibility criticizing his wedge approach choices.

I don't think he's criticizing Zach's choices. He's saying that people who use that as an example of great course management are giving him too much credit for choosing to layup.


Heck you just made his point by suggesting that going for the green on those holes would have been foolhardy given his length.


He chose to layup because it was the right thing to do.  He won because his wedge game that week was otherworldly.

[Ken Moum]

BTW, this tacking, laying up strategy for us mortals is IMHO a mixed bag.


I play a game on M-W-F with a bunch of other old farts whose course handicaps are mostly 10-19. None of us are long hitters (like <200 yards). Me especially.


We play Red Mtn. Ranch CC in Mesa at ~5400 yards, and there are PLENTY of opportunities to accept our limitations.


Partly because of this thread I played the last couple of rounds with a "be smart, lay up when necessary" mentality.  The results so far sort of confirm my earlier comment.  When I take the "tacking" approach, I still have to hit every shot well to succeed.


The killer is that when you try to hit the second shots on par fours to put yourself in position to make an easy third shot, you can pretty much guarantee that someone like me (16.5 index) is going to hit one or two, or three a round that leave you with no chance to make a par, and damned little chance to make a bogey.


Now, part of this is due to the way the green surrounds at RMRCC set up, and the fact that it's a desert course.


I have actually scored reasonably well, made a few more pars than I would expect at this point in the season, but I have also had some horrible holes.  As in making triple and quadruple bogeys.


I'm not giving up though, I think I can do better.


Typical golfer, eh?

[Kalen Braley]

Since it is unlikely Zach can reach #2 & #8 in two, and water fronts #13 & #15, it would seem you don't have much credibility criticizing his wedge approach choices.

I don't think he's criticizing Zach's choices. He's saying that people who use that as an example of great course management are giving him too much credit for choosing to layup.

Ken,

That's one way to look at it.

Another is to say Zach had likely critically analyzed his game and came to the realization he couldn't compete with them via distance, so he made a deliberate choice to focus on his wedge/approach game and become truly elite in that area.

So as I see it, people didn't give him enough credit for both implementing his game plan and keeping his ego in check in being Ok with being 30-40 yards behind his competitors off the tee and finding other ways to beat them.

[Tim Martin]

Since it is unlikely Zach can reach #2 & #8 in two, and water fronts #13 & #15, it would seem you don't have much credibility criticizing his wedge approach choices.

I don't think he's criticizing Zach's choices. He's saying that people who use that as an example of great course management are giving him too much credit for choosing to layup.

Ken,

That's one way to look at it.

Another is to say Zach had likely critically analyzed his game and came to the realization he couldn't compete with them via distance, so he made a deliberate choice to focus on his wedge/approach game and become truly elite in that area.

So as I see it, people didn't give him enough credit for both implementing his game plan and keeping his ego in check in being Ok with being 30-40 yards behind his competitors off the tee and finding other ways to beat them.

Corey Pavin was another player who excelled in the same fashion.

[Jeff Schley]

Since it is unlikely Zach can reach #2 & #8 in two, and water fronts #13 & #15, it would seem you don't have much credibility criticizing his wedge approach choices.

I don't think he's criticizing Zach's choices. He's saying that people who use that as an example of great course management are giving him too much credit for choosing to layup.

Ken,

That's one way to look at it.

Another is to say Zach had likely critically analyzed his game and came to the realization he couldn't compete with them via distance, so he made a deliberate choice to focus on his wedge/approach game and become truly elite in that area.

So as I see it, people didn't give him enough credit for both implementing his game plan and keeping his ego in check in being Ok with being 30-40 yards behind his competitors off the tee and finding other ways to beat them.

Agree with this. It wasn't like Johnson couldn't go for some of those greens, watch the tournament again and even fast forward til you get to the par 5's. He choose not too, because he had such great confidence in his LUCKY short game. It was like watching John Paxson nail three points instead of driving to the hoop for a dunk (could he dunk?). He kept with his strength and ability. He certainly played well that week with his wedges, but he could have went for several greens and choose not to. Many in the field did go for them in 2, particularly 13/15 remember the course was shorter back then as well. Although for the tournament the weather was cold and played longer.
Also David Toms lays up on the par 4 18th at AAC to get up and down. Is that luck as well?

[Michael Felton]

One thing I'd add to this - just because something worked out doesn't mean it was optimal strategically and conversely just because something didn't work out doesn't mean it was not optimal strategically. Sometimes you play the "right" shot and it doesn't work out and sometimes you play the "wrong" shot and it does work out.


Zach, for example, just because he won the tournament doing it doesn't mean that laying up was his optimal strategy. He did lay up and he did get them up and down, so it worked out. His average score over a large number of rounds may be higher laying up than going for it (or laying up closer to the hole). I'm also not saying that it wasn't optimal for him. It may well have been. It's quite plausible that he knew going into the week that his wedge play from that range was way above average at that time and he played to his strength. If it wasn't optimal, it certainly wouldn't be the first time that a pro played with not the optimal strategy.

[Garland Bayley]

Since it is unlikely Zach can reach #2 & #8 in two, and water fronts #13 & #15, it would seem you don't have much credibility criticizing his wedge approach choices.

I don't think he's criticizing Zach's choices. He's saying that people who use that as an example of great course management are giving him too much credit for choosing to layup.


Heck you just made his point by suggesting that going for the green on those holes would have been foolhardy given his length.


He chose to layup because it was the right thing to do.  He won because his wedge game that week was otherworldly.

Two parts to Erik's post:

I'm simply pointing out that it was not necessarily a "great illustration of course management." ...

He criticizes the idea that it was course management. Doesn't Zach in general manage courses similarly? Hasn't Zach had a career that few expect from him given how far he falls behind on Erik's God, Mark Broadie's stats? Specifically, he would be well behind on strokes gained off of the tee that he generally has to make up with his short game.

... It was more a matter of getting super-hot with one or two parts of your game.

One has to wonder if Erik has a reference to data that would demonstrate he was "super-hot". Or, was Zach just being Zach inspired to a slightly better performance than average?

[Rob Marshall]

Garland, Zach was just “lucky” that week. Don’t you know that? It amazes me that the lack of respect for the work ethic of guys like Zach. Hard work pays off.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I don't think he's criticizing Zach's choices. He's saying that people who use that as an example of great course management are giving him too much credit for choosing to layup.

Heck you just made his point by suggesting that going for the green on those holes would have been foolhardy given his length.

He chose to layup because it was the right thing to do.  He won because his wedge game that week was otherworldly.

Yep.

One thing I'd add to this - just because something worked out doesn't mean it was optimal strategically and conversely just because something didn't work out doesn't mean it was not optimal strategically. Sometimes you play the "right" shot and it doesn't work out and sometimes you play the "wrong" shot and it does work out. Zach, for example, just because he won the tournament doing it doesn't mean that laying up was his optimal strategy. He did lay up and he did get them up and down, so it worked out. His average score over a large number of rounds may be higher laying up than going for it (or laying up closer to the hole). I'm also not saying that it wasn't optimal for him. It may well have been. It's quite plausible that he knew going into the week that his wedge play from that range was way above average at that time and he played to his strength. If it wasn't optimal, it certainly wouldn't be the first time that a pro played with not the optimal strategy.

Another bingo.

He criticizes the idea that it was course management.

No. I'm saying it's not necessarily a great example of course management, because for all we know Zach may have shot lower scores on average going for it more often than he did that week.


You can't use a small sample size and say "great course management."

One has to wonder if Erik has a reference to data that would demonstrate he was "super-hot". Or, was Zach just being Zach inspired to a slightly better performance than average?

Already answered this: yeah, Zach got super-hot that week. He performed well above his normal standard, and the vast majority of the time, he'd not have done as well with that strategy as he did that week.

Garland, Zach was just “lucky” that week. Don’t you know that? It amazes me that the lack of respect for the work ethic of guys like Zach. Hard work pays off.

Learn to read — and troll better — Rob.

[Garland Bayley]

One has to wonder if Erik has a reference to data that would demonstrate he was "super-hot". Or, was Zach just being Zach inspired to a slightly better performance than average?

Already answered this: yeah, Zach got super-hot that week. He performed well above his normal standard, and the vast majority of the time, he'd not have done as well with that strategy as he did that week.

[/quote]

Just because you said it, doesn't make it true. Either you have the data, or you don't. If you don't have the data, then you are just blowing smoke.

[Michael Felton]

https://www.pgatour.com/players/player.24024.zach-johnson.html


Obnoxiously this won't open on the right year, but if you scroll down to the stats section and click the drop down box with the year in it, you can select 2007, the year in which he won the Masters.


His average proximity from 75-100 yards was 17'10". That's pretty average - good enough to rank him 96th for the year. The slightly strange thing about his stats is he hit it closer from 75-100 than he did from 50-75, which might suggest that he was right to lay back to a number. Either way, there's no way he was just slightly better than his average that week. He had a stellar week from that range.


His going for the green stats aren't great either. He only hit the green 19% of the time when going for it. Perhaps not the end of the world on a lot of golf courses, but on 13 and 15 at Augusta, those stats are going to be going swimming with some fair regularity. On the basis of this, it appears he was playing the right strategy. But for the guy ranked 96th in 75-100 yard approach shots to make more birdies on par 5s than virtually anyone ever, I'm going to go ahead and say he was pretty lucky that week.


Note that when I say lucky, I mean that he was lucky that his shots happened to wind up in the area of his variance that was close to the hole a lot. Not that he got lucky bounces or anything like that.

[Jason Thurman]

I'll echo Michael's recommendation that people go look at Zach's 2007 stats. For the most part, his strokes-gained numbers are pretty nondescript across the board aside from awesome putting and solid approach play.

His birdie percentage was pretty weak, but his scoring average was excellent. His approach play, especially on longer approaches, was very strong. Looking through the numbers, I get the impression that Zach did his damage by limiting damage to himself. That's how most good golfers really score, right? And that's really how course management works, right? That all aligns with his Masters strategy that year. His hot wedges that week were indeed an outlier, but backed up by excellent putting that wasn't an outlier at all. I can't really recall whether he was stuffing it tight over and over or whether he was rolling putts in. I would retrospectively predict a little of both, but I don't know.

Let's also note - he ranked very highly in final round performance (whatever that stat is...). I suspect that reflects that he's a guy who was VERY good at performing under pressure, which I think his career undeniably demonstrates when considered in the context of his success as a shorter hitter in an era of power play.

One last thought. When we talk about whether his strategy was "optimal," we can't just consider whether it was the strategy that would have scored the lowest over hundreds of rounds. I don't agree with Erik's take that "You can't take a small sample size and say 'great course management.'" Winning happens in small sample sizes by definition - 72 holes over 4 days allows Shaun Micheel to steal a major sometimes where a larger sample size demonstrates that he's a below-average Tour player. In real life, sometimes a part of your game gets hot. We've all experienced it. It's pretty clear that Zach had a hot putter, or hot wedges, or both that week. And he limited damage when he wasn't making birdies, like he always did. Considering his course management strategy ONLY through the lens of whether it would be the best strategy all year is interesting, but only a different view than examining course management in the context of a single week. Not necessarily a "more correct" one - at least, not if you value winning tournaments.

I guess what I'm saying is, I think most of us have a lot more to learn than to critique when it comes to Zach Johnson's course management approach.

[Kalen Braley]

I think there are more than a few comparisons to elite athletes in other sports.

In Basketball, you spend hour after hour in the gym, hoping you have that one night where it all comes together and you drop 50.
In Baseball, you develop your craft as a pitcher over years... in hopes on that one magical night you pitch that no-no or even a perfect game.
In Running, you push yourself over and over and over again, so in that one race you get in the zone and perhaps set a new National or World Record.
And in golf, you spend all those long hours on the range in hopes it all comes together at the right time.

So perhaps Zach had fortunate timing that it happened for him at the Masters, but its not like he wasn't putting in the work to have that one special performance.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Just because you said it, doesn't make it true. Either you have the data, or you don't. If you don't have the data, then you are just blowing smoke.

I have the data. And as Michael Felton points out, you could have done a minute of research as well and gotten a pretty good idea what the data says, too. Zach fairly sizably out-performed his typical performance from those distances.

So perhaps Zach had fortunate timing that it happened for him at the Masters, but its not like he wasn't putting in the work to have that one special performance.

Who has said anything like that?

[Rob Marshall]

You said he was “lucky”. If you look at the stats of the winner every week don’t they out perform their typical performance in some aspect of their game? I would that would be true. How many guys other than Tiger in his prime could perform at his average and win?

[Michael Felton]

You said he was “lucky”. If you look at the stats of the winner every week don’t they out perform their typical performance in some aspect of their game? I would that would be true. How many guys other than Tiger in his prime could perform at his average and win?

If a player's average performance was enough to win, they'd presumably win at least half the time. The reason the best players are so consistently at the top (and Tiger is the poster boy for this) is that they allow the variance to help them. When shots end up on the wrong side of their pattern, they make pars and when they end up on the right side, they have a chance at birdie. The poorer players have larger shot patterns and less optimal target strategies and so they need lots of their shots to wind up on the right side of their shot pattern. That happens pretty infrequently, so they win infrequently.


In any case, I think peak Tiger could show up and play at his average and still win. He wasn't guaranteed to win (he was pretty much guaranteed to win when he did outperform himself - think 2000 US Open and Open), but he could win. Just about anyone else needs things to fall their way to win in a given week. "falling their way" is different for different people though. DJ or Rahm need less to go their way than a player ranked in the 50s, but they still need help.


Another way to look at it is in a specific week, to win a player is lucky. Over the course of a season, to win one time is not necessarily lucky. Zach was a good enough player that he could expect to win from time to time. He was lucky that his week that everything went his way was a major week. That's not to detract from him in any way shape or form.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

You said he was “lucky”.

When an unlikely (getting up and down from 100 yards or so) event occurs with that much frequency, that's "lucky."

A Tour player is more likely to get a hole in one than a 9 handicapper, but there's still a large element of luck when a Tour player holes out from 180 yards. It doesn't diminish the "work" that Tour player put in to get to that point.

Another way to look at it is in a specific week, to win a player is lucky. Over the course of a season, to win one time is not necessarily lucky. Zach was a good enough player that he could expect to win from time to time. He was lucky that his week that everything went his way was a major week. That's not to detract from him in any way shape or form.

Yep.

[Jason Thurman]

I don't know if "lucky" is the word I would use. Steph Curry shoots under 50% from 3. If you call it "lucky" every time he overcomes the odds to splash one on you, you sound like a... well, we all knew that kid, right?


But yes, he outperformed his average that week.


Most of the back-and-forth in this thread is more about whether the right word is being chosen here and there. We all agree that Zach Johnson outperformed his average to win the 2007 Masters.


Was he "super-hot" with his wedges and putter? I don't know. He wasn't cold. He is, however, a guy who made almost 90% of putts inside 10' for the year, and over 50% from 9'. He made 30% of putts from 10-15 feet, and ~20% from 15-20.


If his average wedge shot from 50-125 yards was inside 20' already, I don't think it's some incredible statistical outlier that he had a 16 hole stretch on par 5s where he hit a couple extra wedge shots inside 10', made a couple more putts than usual when he did, and rolled one or two in from a longer distance. In fact, statistically, a sample like that is almost inevitable for a player with his statistical profile at some point over the course of a season.


"Lucky" that it occurred during the Masters? Maybe... but we are talking about a guy with a statistically demonstrated track record of performing under pressure and rising to big moments. And, crucially, with a demonstrated track record of avoiding mistakes.


Which brings this all full-circle. He demonstrated excellent course management, statistically, throughout 2007 and his career as a whole. Mistake avoidance skills allowed him to get lucky 13 different times, and twice in majors, on weeks when he made birdies at a statistically unusual but not improbable rate.

[Jeff_Brauer]

As usual, my take is about halfway in between, as I agree with Erik that statistically Zach probably didn't play it "right."  That doesn't mean playing it by the book always results in a win, or that gambling or playing against type guarantees a lesser result. I'm not sure how a few of you don't get that about Erik's position on stats.


We also can't totally discount feel and feelings.  For all we know, Zach was on the range and felt that his putting was great going into the tourney, and his wedge game from 100 was also going above average, so he felt that in this particular case, it was a better play for him, that week.


With the tour pros I know, each one of them, while never predicting a victory, could tell me that they were going to play well that week based on how practice was going and the shape various parts of their game was in.  Not related, but each one could tell me from locker room chatter which opponents were hurt, having some kind of off course troubles, etc.  They seemed to think everyone knew who the top 5-10 players were going to be that week, and of course, whoever among that group that executes best will win, with a little luck thrown in on their side.