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.