I guess I need some clarification on the OP. Is the claim really that angles don’t matter for any player in any situation on any course? Or just that it doesn’t happen often enough to be statistically relevant?
Angles don't matter (much at all) when the ball isn't rolling.
From the PGA Tour right up to 20 handicappers, players on the "optimal" side of the hole actually score slightly worse than players on the "wrong" side of the fairway. Ditto for being in the rough on the "wrong" side versus the "correct" side. We're talking tenths or hundredths of a shot.
Why? Often… b ecause when you're on the "wrong" side you play more conservatively, and when you're on the "correct" side you play more aggressively. Ideally, players would play to almost the same places regardless of their "angle" if they were interested in scoring the best.
I have looked over the ShotLink data for two older courses - Waialae and Cherry Hills - and I couldn’t find any pattern of players aiming for one side of the fairway over another, or of guys making more birdies from drives on one side.
Right. I've shared the graphic from before for PGA Tour player data, and… it's basically the same. They score about the same from the fairway, on either side. For the same reasons as above. The data is fairly consistent across a large range of players.
But are we just talking about Tour players (who rarely have an approach shot over 150 yards), or everyone?
Unless you define "rarely" in a weird way… that's not correct. I may dig up the stat, but Tour players are approaching from farther out than y'all seem to think.
Heck, look at the number of approaches from
125-150 and
150-175. From 2021-22:
- The leader in 125-150 had 113 attempts, and the same player (Justin Rose) had 142 from 150-175.
- The last guy (Danny Lee) from 125-150 had 123 attempts and 139 from 150-175.
- The median guy (David Lipsky) from 125-150 had 204 attempts, but 282 from 150-175.
- The total number on that chart from 125-150 is 35,127 and from 150-175 is 42,633.
No, this quick look doesn't show 100-125, but it also doesn't show 175-200, which happens more than y'all might think. But I think it clearly shows that saying "rarely" is incorrect.
If the conditions or level of player is such that pin positions matter, then so do angles.
Sure. Mostly, as I keep noting, when the ball is rolling… either because they don't hit it far/high enough to get it in the air and stop a little, or the ground is firm (i.e. Melbourne during the Presidents Cup).
Am I the only one who remembers that we've had this discussion about ten times already in the last four or five years?
Isn't it --angles don't matter as much as distance?
Yes, but more because angles don't really matter much (except when rolling), so almost everything else matters more. Distance, fairway vs. rough vs. hazards… etc.
The way I understand the Stagner/Fawcett/Barzeski/Strokes Gained approach (I'm sure there are nuances between them). You can't reliably get the best angle unless you sacrifice distance (and dispersion) and being closer outweighs almost any angle.
Not quite. You can hit driver and "try" to be on the left side of the fairway, or "try" to be on the right side of the fairway. But it's generally dumb to do so.
Imagine a fairway that's symmetrical. Maybe it's just rough on both sides, or an equal fairway bunker on each side, whatever. In this case, you're generally best to aim at the middle of the fairway, so the highest percentage of your shots are in the fairway, regardless of the angle. Fairway > rough and angles don't matter.
Now imagine a fairway where there's a penalty of some kind on one side (a creek, a deep bunker, etc.). It's the better "angle" but it's the dumber play by far - your pattern should be centered around the other side of the fairway, sometimes even into the rough slightly depending on the severity of the hazard (like OB/lost ball). In this way the "angle" matters… but it's the angle you take off the tee, not the angle into the green. In this case, fairway > rough > penalty/obstruction/hazard.
Hit your drive as far as you can where you take hazards out of play by aiming between any hazards at your carry distance and live with the dispersion and possible bad angle. If you bring a hazard into play (within your drive dispersion) by chasing the angle the math doesn't work over the long term.
Yes. Pretty much that.
There are all sorts of variables in a single round that can - and should - cause a player to play a more conservative or aggressive shot than the Stagners and Fawcetts of the world might suggest in a vacuum.
There are always going to be outliers.
As I understand them, their models would have counseled against Max Homa taking dead aim at the pin, hitting a fade that started over the front-left bunker, on the 16th at Torrey Pines a couple of weeks ago. But Homa took it on, and it arguably won him the golf tournament. They probably would have advised Bubba Watson to just pitch out of the trees at the 2012 Masters, too.
They would have, but Max also won by more than one shot, and it could have cost him the tournament, too. You're looking at one event and one outcome and comparing it to the way to shoot the lowest average score. As we wrote in LSW, for example… the way to play the hole for the lowest average score may be different than the way to have the best chance of making birdie when you don't care about also increasing the chances of making double or higher.
I don't see a lot of acknowledgment of that fact in their almighty models.
You do realize that when talking to the general "golfer" base, whether it's me with LSW, or Lou, or Scott… we kinda have to talk about general things. But in working with the players with whom I've worked… for example… there are some holes that just suit a player's eye, and even though the "math" says "do X" they're better off doing Y, or Z. Or there are times when they're just feeling it, and they're counseled to diverge.
The models we all have are baselines. You can't apply them in a total paint-by-numbers way, nor do we tell people - individual people - to do that. When talking to the masses, though, you have to give the generalized info.