2017 SBS Tournament of Champions Discussion

[iacas]

4 minutes ago, Buckeyebowman said:

Well, it was. From 4PM to 6PM on Saturday, and from 4PM to 5PM Sunday, How do I know? My TV was tuned to WKYC, channel 21 on my TV, which is the local NBC affiliate. Plus, I heard the voices of Frank Nobilo and David Feherty, who work for NBC.

Okay. I wasn't home yesterday, I'm just sharing what I found.

4 minutes ago, Buckeyebowman said:

In case you missed it, my entire complaint about the NBC network was cutting away from a professional golf telecast early to air a skin cream commercial!

I saw it. Read it. Understood it. Everything.

Here, NBC cut to Pawn Stars after the coverage ended.

I don't see the point of your complaint. NBC committed to covering two hours, 3pm - 5pm, today. Perhaps other markets had other things to air, so coverage shifted across the nation to Golf Channel at the time and some markets had to air Pawn Stars or a skin cream commercial.

They didn't "cut away" from a professional tournament to air something else. They aired it during the negotiated times. You're acting like they did something out of the ordinary, or pre-empted live golf which wasn't already planned to air elsewhere in order to air an infomercial.

4 minutes ago, Buckeyebowman said:

And, in case you're wondering why I'm complaining so vehemently, I will not suffer being misrepresented, nor any attempt to make a fool of me on false pretenses!

And, in case you missed it previously, I DON'T GET THE GOLF CHANNEL!

No, I didn't miss that part.

Maybe you misunderstood my post about how it really wouldn't have made much of a difference if the coverage was on NBC until 5 or 6 because you still wouldn't have seen the end of the tournament - there was still plenty of golf to be played. So you were still gonna get cut off before the tournament was over.

[mvmac]

There is a lot of PGA Tour golf now on TGC, especially final rounds, so if someone likes watching PGA Tour golf they should probably consider getting TGC.

 

[Chilli Dipper]

If Hideki Matsuyama has a big year, Justin Thomas would be well-advised to stay on his coattails; he's the only player who has finished a tournament ahead of Hideki in the last three months.

[mvmac]

Toldja 

 

[Piz]

Good going Justin Thomas.  

[Golfingdad]

7 hours ago, iacas said:

That's what the announcers will tell you.

They're wrong. As usual?

Yeah, don't put much stock in what the announcers tell you.  They (Mark Rolfing specifically) have spent a lot of time this week trying to explain how putts here don't break towards the ocean, but rather away from the mountain.  That's dumb for a couple of reasons.  First, it's just a slight rewording of the same stupid idiom - that somehow geological features in the nearby vicinity of the golf course have the ability to affect golf balls like the moon affects the tides.  And, secondly, it's not even right.  News flash, Mr. Rolfing: Putts. Break. Downhill.  End of story.  Sure, in general, greens are going to slope with the natural terrain and on coastal courses that is going to be towards the water, but if the ground slopes a different direction, so too will the ball break.

Oh, and then there is this:

While the leaders were playing number 6 today, Rolfing spent several minutes trying to convince the viewers that it just doesn't make sense to hit driver over the crest of the hill and let your ball funnel to the collection area next to the green when the smart play is to lay up to 100 yards.  That a 100 yard wedge from a fairway elevated 50 feet above the green is somehow better than this:

If you think that any person with a golf club, tour pro or 40 handicapper, is going to be better from 100 yards than from here, then I don't know what to tell you.

[Golfingdad]

Here are some actual clips:

You heard him.  He believes that a 20 yard pitch shot with a bunch of green to work with is a harder shot than from 100 yards away.

[natureboy]

3 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

While the leaders were playing number 6 today, Rolfing spent several minutes trying to convince the viewers that it just doesn't make sense to hit driver over the crest of the hill and let your ball funnel to the collection area next to the green when the smart play is to lay up to 100 yards.  That a 100 yard wedge from a fairway elevated 50 feet above the green is somehow better than this:

If you think that any person with a golf club, tour pro or 40 handicapper, is going to be better from 100 yards than from here, then I don't know what to tell you.

Did you see anyone who hit driver go well down the slope into the trees or deep weeds? Is it possible that the course plays differently with the tournament setup than during the year and more drives bounce hard off the slope into the junk? Otherwise, if the ball regularly holds up in the rough near that spot, I'd agree it's silly when it's obvious Matsuyama has a backstop there.

His projection of scores from the top position doesn't seem unreasonable. He doesn't mention what he thinks the scoring edge from being closer would be, though. May not value it at all and sees only the 'risk'. His scenarios are:

top of hill: 2 birdies, 2 pars

bottom of hill: 1 bogey and ?

In Rolfing's mind the other options filling in the '?' are probably 1 birdie, 2 pars but in reality it's probably closer to 1 bogey, 2 birdies, 1 par. Going to depend on player specific skills. If you spray the driver or don't have the length it might not be the play for you.

Edited January 9, 2017 by natureboy

[RandallT]

Generally speaking (and not specific at all to this hole/green configuration):

The PGA average from 100yds fairway is 2.8 strokes to hole out. The PGA average from 40-45yds in the rough is about 2.8 strokes to hole out.

So Rolfing saying 2 birdies/2pars from 100yds is BS. It's one birdie, three pars. 

And from that spot of Matsuyama, he's looking at an average hole out value of under 2.5 from the looks of it (fairway, inside 30yds-ish?). Even if he were in the rough, he's looking at an average hole out value of 2.6/2.7 from 30yds.

So the PGA numbers don't back up Rolfing- unless there's something specific about this hole that plays different than a typical hole that would account for the stats above. 

[Golfingdad]

4 hours ago, natureboy said:

Did you see anyone who hit driver go well down the slope into the trees or deep weeds? Is it possible that the course plays differently with the tournament setup than during the year and more drives bounce hard off the slope into the junk? Otherwise, if the ball regularly holds up in the rough near that spot, I'd agree it's silly when it's obvious Matsuyama has a backstop there.

His projection of scores from the top position doesn't seem unreasonable. He doesn't mention what he thinks the scoring edge from being closer would be, though. May not value it at all and sees only the 'risk'. His scenarios are:

top of hill: 2 birdies, 2 pars

bottom of hill: 1 bogey and ?

In Rolfing's mind the other options filling in the '?' are probably 1 birdie, 2 pars but in reality it's probably closer to 1 bogey, 2 birdies, 1 par. Going to depend on player specific skills. If you spray the driver or don't have the length it might not be the play for you.

No, that rough is plenty thick enough that at most it bounces a yard or two farther right (where the brown area is) but no farther.  Certainly no risk of reaching the hazard.  And, come on, these guys are not dumb - if there was even the slightest possibility of s we'll hit drive reaching the hazard, nobody would do it.

Rolfing is pulling numbers out of his butt to try and justify his wrong belief.  He saw DJ make a bogey previously, and he projected that into his "see that's why you shouldn't go for it" statement.  (For the record, DJ was about 15 yards back up the hill and misjudged his pitch so it barely got on the green and then 3-putted)

Rolfing is being dumb.

EDIT:  Earlier this week (and I'm pretty sure it was actually Tuesday during a taped showing of last year or 2015) they showed a stat for 14, which is another driveable par with a tricky green and potentially precarious lies nearby.  The field who went for it was collectively -38 for that week and the field who tried to lay up was -3 or something.

[iacas]

9 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

While the leaders were playing number 6 today, Rolfing spent several minutes trying to convince the viewers that it just doesn't make sense to hit driver over the crest of the hill and let your ball funnel to the collection area next to the green when the smart play is to lay up to 100 yards.  That a 100 yard wedge from a fairway elevated 50 feet above the green is somehow better than this:

If you think that any person with a golf club, tour pro or 40 handicapper, is going to be better from 100 yards than from here, then I don't know what to tell you.

That's dumb.

8 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

You heard him.  He believes that a 20 yard pitch shot with a bunch of green to work with is a harder shot than from 100 yards away.

Dumb.

5 hours ago, natureboy said:

His projection of scores from the top position doesn't seem unreasonable. He doesn't mention what he thinks the scoring edge from being closer would be, though. May not value it at all and sees only the 'risk'. His scenarios are:

top of hill: 2 birdies, 2 pars

bottom of hill: 1 bogey and ?

In Rolfing's mind the other options filling in the '?' are probably 1 birdie, 2 pars but in reality it's probably closer to 1 bogey, 2 birdies, 1 par. Going to depend on player specific skills. If you spray the driver or don't have the length it might not be the play for you.

The key words there are "In Rolfing's mind…". Not in reality.

When I heard that it seemed unreasonable to me that you could expect two birdies from up there. I know how close guys hit it from 100 yards. It's not to a range from which they can expect to make 50% of their putts.

2 hours ago, RandallT said:

The PGA average from 100yds fairway is 2.8 strokes to hole out. The PGA average from 40-45yds in the rough is about 2.8 strokes to hole out.

So Rolfing saying 2 birdies/2pars from 100yds is BS. It's one birdie, three pars. 

And from that spot of Matsuyama, he's looking at an average hole out value of under 2.5 from the looks of it (fairway, inside 30yds-ish?). Even if he were in the rough, he's looking at an average hole out value of 2.6/2.7 from 30yds.

So the PGA numbers don't back up Rolfing- unless there's something specific about this hole that plays different than a typical hole that would account for the stats above. 

Darn facts…

48 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

EDIT:  Earlier this week (and I'm pretty sure it was actually Tuesday during a taped showing of last year or 2015) they showed a stat for 14, which is another driveable par with a tricky green and potentially precarious lies nearby.  The field who went for it was collectively -38 for that week and the field who tried to lay up was -3 or something.

Yep. I caught that part too. It was one of the few parts of the broadcast I heard.

The split in who went for it versus who laid up was probably not perfectly 50/50 either, but it wasn't even close to "38/3" lopsided either.

[DeadMan]

It's really amazing that these announcers are so misinformed about simple decisions like this. Just pick up Broadie's Every Shot Counts (or Lowest Score Wins for that matter), and you'll see that being closer the hole is the most important thing in golf. It'd be an hour or two of effort. But nope.

I think when JT and Hideki were teeing off on 16, the announcers made a comment about how driver doesn't make sense off this tee. I didn't understand the reasoning, but both players hit driver. But it seemed like they thought the default should be hitting 3 wood off the tee on any hole, when it really should be the opposite.

I mean, I guess it gives us an advantage on the golf course. I swear I hear every round about laying up to a full wedge distance or something equally wrong, and they get it from announcers like this.

[Golfingdad]

36 minutes ago, iacas said:

When I heard that it seemed unreasonable to me that you could expect two birdies from up there. I know how close guys hit it from 100 yards. It's not to a range from which they can expect to make 50% of their putts.

Speaking of that (also from this weekend) ...

Hey, that's not bad.  I wonder how often they make putts from 16-18 foot range?

Hmmm ...

[mvmac]

11 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

You heard him.  He believes that a 20 yard pitch shot with a bunch of green to work with is a harder shot than from 100 yards away.

[rehmwa]

I'm going way out on a limb and claim Hideki is going to be a force this year

 

Justin......pretty cool to see a 145 lb guy crushing drives and winning

[RandallT]

Perhaps OT for this tourney thread and I risk turning this into a stats nerd-fest, but since we're discussing Rolfing's comment, here's a general rule of thumb I'm seeing from the data below. (I've never really thought to look at it this way, so thought I'd share, in case it opens anyone's eyes).

For PGA tour players to benefit by hitting further than a layup location (even if you end up in the rough), then it appears that statistically you need to hit it 40-60yd further than the easy layup in order to "guarantee" not losing strokes.

That's just to sorta "guarantee" (not really a guarantee you'll score better of course) not losing any in the hole-out value, because you could end up in the fairway by bombing it past the layup!

Inside 100yds and outside around 180yds, that difference is about 40yds. The top and bottom circles below.

But in the 100-180yd range (roughly!), the distance seems to be closer to 60yds. The middle circle below.

Of course, nobody aims for the rough, so by going longer than the layup, there's still a decent chance you'll get a fairway type lie (as Matsuyama did in the pic earlier in the thread). And if you reach a fairway lie that is 40-60yds further than your layup, you will lower your average hole-out value by a couple tenths of a stroke each time. That's where one would capitalize, I would think. That can add up. Risk-reward. 

It all comes down to shot zones as described in LSW, of course, but this 40-60yd thumb rule might help one assess risk if you need to quickly decide whether or not to bomb it down there:

Can you get 50yds-ish past your layup and not take on too much risk? If so, you've got nothing to lose and a couple tenths of a stroke to gain.

Let's hear the commentators go through this math! 

Oh, and please correct me if I'm off or missing a subtlety from the data above. I've been known to get over-excited when interpreting things from charts like this and go astray.

[DeadMan]

I don't think you're applying it to regular golfers, @RandallT, but I wouldn't extrapolate that data out for us amateurs. I know I wouldn't hesitate at being 120 yards out in the rough vs. 180 yards out in the fairway.

[Golfingdad]

4 minutes ago, DeadMan said:

I don't think you're applying it to regular golfers, @RandallT, but I wouldn't extrapolate that data out for us amateurs. I know I wouldn't hesitate at being 120 yards out in the rough vs. 180 yards out in the fairway.

Pretty sure if they did the same study on amateurs that the only changes to the tee, fairway and rough numbers is that they'd all go up.  But the relationship would probably be similar.

OTOH, I'd guess that the sand and recovery numbers would both probably go up disproportionately because us AMs really stink when we get in trouble. :)