Playing TPC Sawgrass

I played the TPC Sawgrass Stadium Course – where they play the Players Championship – over Memorial Day weekend, and the weather was beautiful. I live in Houston, and it was my first time on the course. I had a blast. Having watched so many exciting Players finishes on TV, walking around those finishing holes was a real thrill. My tee time was 2 p.m. on Sunday, so I was playing those finishing holes at about the same time as every champion before played them en route to victory. I saw the same shadows and even some of the same pin positions. On 16, I hit my second shot in the closely mown area just left of the green, where so many players aim to set up the easy up and down birdie. It was a special feeling hitting that shot, and so many others that I was already so familiar with, and that had so much exciting history.

There were some things I already knew, but that didn't sink in until I got there. One is that the new clubhouse really is pretty nice. Big paintings of memorable Players moments. Signed scorecards of the winners. Other interesting art and trophies and memorabilia. And the course itself had some surprises. I hadn’t realized just how deep all the greenside bunkers were. Every single one of them. You see them on TV and it doesn’t register how difficult they are to normal people. The pros, after all, have no problems out of the bunkers. But things can get very tricky in TPC Sawgrass sand when you’re a low ball hitter and your rental set of clubs doesn’t have a 60 degree wedge. To make things worse, the allegedly 56 degree wedge in my bag seemed very strong, so I couldn't hit high, soft shots out of the bunkers. Every iron and wedge in my bag seemed delofted. I was hitting the ball astonishingly far with my irons and wedges. Ponte Vedra Beach isn’t exactly in the thin mountain air, so that kind of power surge shouldn’t happen. The sand wedge said 56 degrees on it, but I was hitting it 130 yards or more. (My normal 56 degree sand wedge at home goes 120.) On the 17^th hole, from 145 yards, with a slight right to left breeze, I hit the front edge of the green with sand wedge. I wanted to see if I could do it. I swung hard and hit a little draw. The ball hit the front third of the green, then spun back and to the left, ending up half an inch from going into the water. It left me one of those putts where you have one foot on the edge of the wood and you’re trying not to fall off the island.

Confession: Prior to hitting the sand wedge on 17, I hit a pitching wedge and flew the green. After hitting the island with sand wedge, I chipped and two putted for a 6.

Well, it was a perfect day of golf, and I can't wait to watch the tournament next year, having had the experience of playing the course on a beautiful Sunday afternoon in May.

Thoughts on Sugarloaf

Scattershooting on Sugarloaf:

--Another good win for Zach Johnson. Not a terrific field, but it's good for our young players to taste victory as much as possible. Playoff win wasn't spectacular, but he did a good job capitalizing on Imada's finding the rough by hitting a perfect drive--so good, in fact, that it caused Imada to try a silly shot that wound up in the drink. Not calling Zach America's great hope yet, but his work coming from behind, keeping the pressure on in the playoff, and staying calm under pressure bodes well for ZJ as a Ryder cupper down the road.

--Imada's nice performance shouldn't be eclipsed by his playoff blooper. Great performance in front of a sympathetic crowd:

Sick 171-yard low running nine iron from the fairway bunker on 17 was fantastic.

The chip on the 72nd hole to force the playoff was great stuff.

His comeback shot after soaking his second in the playoff was pretty nice, too.

That said, he yanked the birdie putt on 17, and, of course, lost it in the playoff with his second shot. It appeared that he felt he needed to try for the green based on ZJ's terrific tee shot--but if he did, that was sort of silly. Whether he knew that there were only 2 eagles on the hole all day or not, he should've known that eagle wasn't necessary to win. Birdie would've done just fine--especially given the pin position. What's more, it was clear that Imada never committed to the shot. Not sure what was going on there, but maybe his caddy should have put the brakes on?

--One of the things I really like about these events where the top guys don't play is that it gives a chance to some other guys to play well, make some bucks, and perhaps get their games going again. In this case, nice work by Billy Andrade, Lee Janzen, and Olin Browne after a trunk-slammer 81-75 at Sawgrass. But Kevin Sutherland has to feel bad about not breaking 70 again after opening up with a terrific 65.

Sean O'Hair and "playing to win"

Did Sean O’Hair have the right strategy on the 17^th on Sunday when he fired at the pin? O’Hair said he was playing to win, and he hit a good shot, and it just went a bit long due to adrenaline. In the end, maybe his decision to go for the pin doesn’t matter, as he hit it long enough that it might have flown the green no matter where he aimed it. But let’s forget that part of it. Should he have gone for the pin on 17?

It bugs me when players justify extremely risky moves by saying they were “playing to win.” You see this a lot. You’ll see a player in second place try to fly a water hazard from a bad lie and crash and burn into a 10^th place finish, or you’ll see a player who needs to make a 50 footer to get into a playoff whack it 10 feet by the hole and miss the comebacker. In each case, he’ll say in the interview afterwards that he was playing to win. Were they really maximizing their chance of winning?

The ideal speed to hole a putt is such that it would go 17 inches by the hole if it missed. If you’re playing to win, you should try to hit the ball at this optimal speed. Or maybe slightly harder if you’re feeling gutsy, but don’t get carried away with this get-the-ball-to-the-hole idea. Your odds of making a putt fall sharply if you hit it too hard (as do your odds of making the comebacker, obviously). A player trying to hole a 50 footer to get into a playoff shouldn’t be afraid of leaving the ball on the front lip. Sometimes that’s going to happen if you’re trying to hit the ball optimal speed to go in the hole.

In Sean O’Hair’s case, he was two shots behind with two holes left. If he had made it to 18 down by two shots, I would have given him a pretty decent chance of winning. Phil had commented in an interview earlier in the week about how intimidating the tee shot on 18 was, and was three feet from putting his tee ball in the water on Saturday. Given Phil’s misses to the right on his tee shots at the 18^th holes at Winged Foot and Riviera in the past year to lose tournaments, if I were O’Hair, I would’ve loved to have put the pressure on Phil on 18 to see what he would do.

What O’Hair needed on 17 was a par. This is especially true if you consider how much there was to gain from a second place finish for O’Hair. The media liked to report how O’Hair’s collapse on 17 and 18 cost him over $750,000. But it also cost him the confidence and reputation that he could hang with the best on a Sunday of a big event. It cost him Ryder Cup points, President Cup points, FedEx Cup points, money for the money list rankings, and World Ranking points. It cost him momentum going into his next tournament and for the rest of the year.

I don’t really blame O’Hair here. From close range, it’s never too foolish to go for a pin. I guess, like everyone else who watched, I just felt bad about what happened to him and his “playing to win” comment got me thinking. Whether or not he made a strategic mistake (his club choice could be the subject of another blog post), the strategies certain players take when they’re “playing to win” can seem foolish to me. Playing to win should sometimes mean making a par and seeing if the other guy stumbles. Besides, there’s so much to gain from a second or third place finish – and it’s not just money.

Some quick thoughts on the Players

Here are some quick thoughts on the Players. Obviously, our blog is in the beginning stages, but we hope to have commentary about the Tour every week.

--Great win for Phil-bert. It's hard to argue with his results this year, especially recently with the three top-3's in a row--and his performances on at very high-quality events. But he never really had a chance to win at the last two, and in this one he actually faced a series of competitors charging from behind and ample opportunities to get wet ahead. Good performance all around, and hopefully will boost him to Oakmont.

But, as always with Phil, and despite his stellar record, questions remain:
1. Whither Tiger--yes Phil actually won an event with Tiger in the field for the first time in seven tries. But Tiger was never in the mix. Phil still needs that one-on-one showdown with Tiger on Sunday to silence his critics.

2. Is the Harmon relationship really paying dividends, or is this just a temporary breath of fresh air? Phil didn't seem much more accurate on Sunday, and he still had to depend on his short game to bail him out in the tough moments (as he always has and will). Butch does seem to have Phil playing a little less aggressively...for now... and there was a lovefest after the 72nd hole (wonder if Phil signed any flags for Rick Smith?).

But what about when there's a rough stretch. Will Phil throw Butch out of the inner circle? Will Phil revert back to his gambling ways? Remember, old gambling Phil was supposed to have died once before--when he won Augusta for the first time... Good to monitor going forward...

Tracking Tradesports odds

Some thoughts on the Players Championship at the end of day one. I followed the tournament today on my computer, watching both the leaderboard and a website called Tradesports (plus, for about an hour, the television). Tradesports is a website that allows you to bet on sports, politics, and other events, and, as its prices are the product of people putting their money on the line by trading contracts with each other (basically, placing bets), it provides a pretty accurate snapshot of what the odds are of certain events happening. (It’s very helpful in figuring out how strong various presidential candidates are, for example.)

Before the beginning of the Players Championship, the market had Tiger’s odds of winning around 26% and Mickelson’s around 6%. (These odds are implied from the fact that a contract that would pay 100 if Tiger won cost 26 and a contract that would pay 100 if Phil won cost 6.) I thought 26% was an accurate estimate of Tiger’s chance of winning, even though I didn’t feel Tiger was going to win this week. (I know, it’s easy to “remember” predictions like this after Tiger shoots 75 in round 1.) Maybe that feeling came from a combination of Tiger’s mediocre record here, the windy forecast, the huge field, and the fact that Tiger didn’t seem to have his “A” game in last week’s win. I thought Phil’s 6% odds were about right too (maybe a percent or two low?), realistically balancing his strong finishes in the past two weeks against his horrible track record on the TPC’s 17^th hole and his difficulty closing the deal since Winged Foot.

What surprised me as the day went along was that, as accurate as the odds were at the outset (in my opinion), I didn’t think the odds adjusted properly as new information came in. With Tiger especially, there seemed to be some “stickiness” in the price of his contract. When Tiger was +1 through 14 holes, he was still at nearly 20% odds to win on Tradesports. Meanwhile, Mickelson was at 10% when he was -2 through 10 holes. The market was saying that Tiger can spot Phil 3 shots over 3 ½ rounds and Tiger is still twice as likely to win. This sounds even more wrong when you factor in that Phil was clearly playing well and Tiger not so well. It’s true that you can never count Tiger out, but the fact is that when he starts off not playing well, his odds of winning fall sharply – and probably more sharply than 26% to 20%. I think Tradesports generally provides good information, but sometimes it's a little off. It’s fun to try to figure out when those times are.