WEBVTT - How a Hole’s Par Changes a Player’s Strategy 0:00:00.160 --> 0:00:03.600 Welcome back to another edition of the Fried Egg Podcast. 0:00:04.280 --> 0:00:08.680 Today's episode is powered by Tdmmeritrade. Every stroke counts on 0:00:08.720 --> 0:00:12.160 the scorecard and every penny counts in the market. That's 0:00:12.160 --> 0:00:16.160 why Tedammeritrade is committed to straightforward pricing with no surprises, 0:00:16.239 --> 0:00:20.360 so you're free to swing with confidence. Visit tdomritrade dot 0:00:20.360 --> 0:00:25.239 com backslash Fried Egg member SBIC. Today I'm joined by 0:00:25.440 --> 0:00:29.960 Professor Andrew Urbacewski and Ryan Elmore from the University of 0:00:30.000 --> 0:00:35.200 Denver's Department of Business Information and Analytics. Andrew and Ryan 0:00:35.240 --> 0:00:38.400 put together a study on loss aversion and professional golf, 0:00:38.600 --> 0:00:41.480 specifically looking at how changing the power of a hole 0:00:41.640 --> 0:00:45.560 in the US Open affects scoring. I won't spoil the podcast, 0:00:45.720 --> 0:00:49.599 but this study has some implications for professional golfer and 0:00:49.800 --> 0:00:53.760 the way golfers think overall. So without further ado, here's 0:00:53.840 --> 0:00:55.760 Andrew and Ryan I miss the green. 0:00:55.640 --> 0:00:58.279 For example, I'm already upset when I find my ball 0:00:58.320 --> 0:00:58.800 in the bunker. 0:00:58.840 --> 0:01:01.160 I'm really upset when I find my ball. 0:01:00.960 --> 0:01:03.800 In a bride egg, Frida egg, the dreaded Frida egg, 0:01:03.880 --> 0:01:06.200 fridagg Bright Egg, Brian Egg, bride Egg. 0:01:06.000 --> 0:01:06.720 Bride egg Lie. 0:01:06.760 --> 0:01:08.880 I'm about ready to run off of the hub course. 0:01:31.920 --> 0:01:34.280 So you guys are both at the University of Denver 0:01:34.480 --> 0:01:39.600 in business analytics. How did this paper that you wrote 0:01:39.640 --> 0:01:43.319 about loss of version and professional golf come about? 0:01:43.520 --> 0:01:46.840 I think it was really as we were working on 0:01:47.040 --> 0:01:51.200 another paper that was looking at streaks in golf and 0:01:51.360 --> 0:01:53.160 that we had been working on for a while, and 0:01:53.600 --> 0:01:55.800 can I have had a graduate assistant compile a bunch 0:01:55.840 --> 0:02:00.280 of the data that was looking at our is there 0:02:00.360 --> 0:02:02.600 really a such thing as the hot hand? And we've 0:02:02.640 --> 0:02:05.600 seen plenty of research on the hot hand in basketball, 0:02:06.640 --> 0:02:12.280 in baseball, lots of different domains, And then we started 0:02:12.320 --> 0:02:14.440 thinking about it in golf, that is there really a 0:02:14.520 --> 0:02:17.800 such thing as the birdie barrage or the bogie train? 0:02:18.639 --> 0:02:22.919 And we wound up going through a set of data 0:02:23.000 --> 0:02:25.640 from twenty thirteen to twenty fourteen looking at all the 0:02:25.639 --> 0:02:29.720 PGA tours, and it was a lot of data massaging 0:02:29.760 --> 0:02:34.480 we had to go through to figure out which you 0:02:34.480 --> 0:02:36.639 would normally think that people just play holes one through 0:02:36.639 --> 0:02:38.480 eighteen and we could just look and see are they 0:02:38.840 --> 0:02:41.480 making strings of birdies or strings of bogies? But you 0:02:41.480 --> 0:02:43.880 have to figure out from this did they start on 0:02:43.880 --> 0:02:45.720 the front or did they start on the back. Was 0:02:45.760 --> 0:02:48.760 it a split course tournament. Was there a rain delay 0:02:48.800 --> 0:02:52.360 that got involved and you're completing rounds on different days. 0:02:53.960 --> 0:02:56.600 A lot of different data analysis that we did, and 0:02:57.240 --> 0:03:00.680 what we found in that paper was that when you 0:03:00.720 --> 0:03:04.959 control for everything like difficulties of the whole individual skill, 0:03:05.880 --> 0:03:09.480 that there's really no such thing as a hot hand effect. 0:03:09.600 --> 0:03:12.840 That somebody making a birdie on one hole is not 0:03:13.000 --> 0:03:15.640 really more likely to make a birdie on the next hole, 0:03:16.400 --> 0:03:20.680 But there is a huge cold hand effect that somebody 0:03:20.720 --> 0:03:23.280 can get on the making a bogie and then they're 0:03:23.680 --> 0:03:26.079 much likely to do much worse on the next hole 0:03:26.120 --> 0:03:29.200 or holes following. So it's a lot tougher to get 0:03:29.200 --> 0:03:32.840 off of that bogie train. So we published that paper 0:03:32.840 --> 0:03:36.120 in the journal Sports Analytics, and then we were just 0:03:36.200 --> 0:03:40.760 continuing to talk about golf, and for whatever reason, there was. 0:03:40.760 --> 0:03:44.360 Also the Continance book you know, came out about that 0:03:45.560 --> 0:03:48.240 similar time. I would say, I, or at least sorry 0:03:48.280 --> 0:03:51.640 not Continents book, Michael Lewis's book. I had read that 0:03:52.280 --> 0:03:57.800 and you were talking about something related to either prospect 0:03:57.800 --> 0:04:01.960 theory or something along those lines. The idea is all Andrews. 0:04:02.880 --> 0:04:05.800 Well, it was one of those chance conversations. We're just 0:04:05.800 --> 0:04:09.200 sitting around one day and it's like, you know it 0:04:09.320 --> 0:04:11.880 the us GA, and you know, everybody's got their opinions 0:04:11.880 --> 0:04:14.080 about the us GA, but we're just sitting around I 0:04:14.120 --> 0:04:15.960 think it was one somewhere around the open and we're 0:04:16.000 --> 0:04:18.760 just talking about this idea of protecting par It's like, 0:04:18.880 --> 0:04:21.720 why did these people call holes par five's or par four's? 0:04:21.839 --> 0:04:24.359 And then we just started getting into some of the research. 0:04:24.960 --> 0:04:29.520 So what what's the paper called that's about the hot hand. 0:04:31.279 --> 0:04:32.599 On the hot ending golf? 0:04:32.960 --> 0:04:35.400 Well, hot end cold hands because we found the cold hands, 0:04:35.480 --> 0:04:37.080 we had to add colde hand in there as well. 0:04:37.200 --> 0:04:40.039 I can send you a copy of You're I'm extremely 0:04:40.400 --> 0:04:43.680 there might be a podcast number two of this. We 0:04:43.800 --> 0:04:47.040 might just roll right into it after this. But uh, 0:04:47.200 --> 0:04:50.200 with uh with with regards to the loss of version, 0:04:50.320 --> 0:04:53.600 I have to event I've been, uh, I've been misrepresenting 0:04:53.600 --> 0:04:54.120 your paper. 0:04:54.760 --> 0:04:57.760 I'm very embarrassed. I skimmed it. 0:04:57.880 --> 0:05:00.400 I had, you know, I was talking to the that 0:05:00.480 --> 0:05:02.760 sent me it and I kind of flipped it wrong. 0:05:02.839 --> 0:05:05.320 And I've mentioned it on a couple podcasts and I've 0:05:05.720 --> 0:05:08.839 been I've been misrepresenting this paper, and I have to 0:05:08.880 --> 0:05:12.719 apologize to the listeners, but also you guys as people 0:05:12.720 --> 0:05:15.640 that put it together. So the paper is is called 0:05:15.839 --> 0:05:19.400 loss a version and professional Golf. Your theory that you 0:05:19.480 --> 0:05:24.960 started out with was that players spend more energy and 0:05:25.000 --> 0:05:27.080 concentrate more on playing a hole in. 0:05:27.120 --> 0:05:31.040 Four strokes four a part four than a par five. 0:05:31.120 --> 0:05:35.120 So if a hole becomes less par players will score 0:05:35.720 --> 0:05:39.760 less on it. And so you started with this, and 0:05:39.920 --> 0:05:42.920 you know, the paper came about from a conversation. How 0:05:42.920 --> 0:05:45.680 did you go about tackling this this project? 0:05:47.360 --> 0:05:49.720 You know, actually we you know, we talked about it 0:05:49.760 --> 0:05:52.000 and we just seen boy, you know, maybe there's an 0:05:52.000 --> 0:05:54.520 effect here, maybe not, I don't really know. And we 0:05:54.600 --> 0:05:58.200 reached out to the Nicies Golf Association and the Victoria 0:05:58.279 --> 0:06:06.160 student as Victoria's didn't in their history group, reached back 0:06:06.200 --> 0:06:09.040 out to us pretty quickly and not only gave us 0:06:09.279 --> 0:06:12.120 data on the two holes that we were interested in 0:06:12.120 --> 0:06:15.120 in the beginning, which was the ninth at Oakmont and 0:06:15.160 --> 0:06:19.080 the second at Pebble, but any US open that had 0:06:19.120 --> 0:06:21.400 ever happened where they had changed the holes from par 0:06:21.480 --> 0:06:26.800 fives to par four's, and most of them were unusable 0:06:26.960 --> 0:06:30.000 for us. As we're looking at the data because they'd 0:06:30.040 --> 0:06:33.279 either linked in the whole by seventy yards or shortened it, 0:06:33.320 --> 0:06:36.239 or it was like Chambers Bay when they're playing eighteen 0:06:36.240 --> 0:06:38.320 as a par four one day a par five another, 0:06:38.440 --> 0:06:42.000 but it's one hundred yards difference. So we looked at 0:06:42.040 --> 0:06:44.600 and we did some real preliminary analysis and we found, boy, 0:06:45.240 --> 0:06:47.160 there's a big effect here. They take the same hole, 0:06:47.200 --> 0:06:48.920 they call it a par four instead of a par five, 0:06:48.960 --> 0:06:52.080 and all of a sudden they're scoring much better. And 0:06:52.120 --> 0:06:55.800 this was then aligned with some other research that we 0:06:55.920 --> 0:06:58.760 had found earlier as we were trying to see who 0:06:58.839 --> 0:07:02.960 else had done this. Couple of economists at the University 0:07:02.960 --> 0:07:08.480 of Chicago back in twenty eleven, Devin Pope and Maurice Schweitzer. 0:07:08.520 --> 0:07:12.480 In fact, Ian Fillmore may have studied under them looking 0:07:12.520 --> 0:07:16.880 at was calling is Tiger Woods loss of verse persistent 0:07:16.920 --> 0:07:20.160 bias in the face of experienced competition and high stakes 0:07:20.800 --> 0:07:23.559 where they had gone through and looked at a whole 0:07:23.560 --> 0:07:26.400 lot of different data on putting and just looking at 0:07:26.400 --> 0:07:30.000 putting on golf courses and laser measurements, and they looked 0:07:30.040 --> 0:07:33.160 at something like two and a half or three million 0:07:33.240 --> 0:07:35.720 putts and then tried to figure They figured out that 0:07:36.400 --> 0:07:39.120 people were more likely to make the same putt if 0:07:39.160 --> 0:07:41.160 the putt was for parr as opposed to if the 0:07:41.200 --> 0:07:44.680 putt was for birding, looking at that as evidence of 0:07:45.400 --> 0:07:49.240 loss of version, like if it's that they're really going 0:07:49.280 --> 0:07:52.560 to try harder when it becomes that And the paper 0:07:52.640 --> 0:07:57.040 was really interesting, But to us it was a little 0:07:57.040 --> 0:08:00.280 bit complicated for the average lay person to understand. By 0:08:00.320 --> 0:08:04.680 the time that they had gone through all of the research. 0:08:05.400 --> 0:08:08.240 It would have been really hard for somebody that wasn't 0:08:08.440 --> 0:08:11.320 trained well in economic and statistics to understand what it 0:08:11.360 --> 0:08:14.360 was that they were really doing. But we thought, boy, 0:08:14.400 --> 0:08:18.800 we've got a real what economists call natural experiment out there. 0:08:19.360 --> 0:08:22.840 That the perfect natural experiment would be to tell half 0:08:22.880 --> 0:08:24.440 the people this hole is a part five, the other 0:08:24.480 --> 0:08:26.880 half that it's a part four, and just see what 0:08:26.920 --> 0:08:31.640 they do. We're trying were racking our brains trying to 0:08:31.640 --> 0:08:33.640 figure out how we might be able to do something 0:08:33.760 --> 0:08:35.680 like that. The other day, I was even talking about 0:08:35.720 --> 0:08:38.439 going to the mini golf course and just handing out 0:08:38.480 --> 0:08:41.600 scorecards to your average gel and saying, you know, this 0:08:41.640 --> 0:08:43.079 hole is a part three or this hole is a 0:08:43.160 --> 0:08:46.600 part four, and seeing how people do on that. We 0:08:46.640 --> 0:08:48.920 figured out pretty quickly. It's probably not a great idea, 0:08:50.520 --> 0:08:51.760 but that's where we came to it. 0:08:52.240 --> 0:08:57.920 As a background just for listeners, what is loss of version? 0:08:59.080 --> 0:09:03.520 Sure? Loss of version came from a paper in nineteen 0:09:03.559 --> 0:09:08.400 seventy nine by Amos Tiski and Daniel Konnoman. Amos Tiski 0:09:08.559 --> 0:09:11.640 is now to cease, but people may have heard of 0:09:12.200 --> 0:09:15.800 Danny Konnoman. He won the Nobel Prize in two thousand 0:09:15.840 --> 0:09:18.280 and two for much of his work there, and then 0:09:18.320 --> 0:09:22.760 he had a twenty twelve or thirteen text called Thinking 0:09:22.800 --> 0:09:25.360 Fast and Slow that became a New York Times bestseller 0:09:25.840 --> 0:09:29.960 that explained a lot of the behavioral economics concepts, one 0:09:30.000 --> 0:09:34.120 of which was this idea of loss a version, and 0:09:34.160 --> 0:09:39.360 in loss of version, it's most simply states that people 0:09:39.559 --> 0:09:44.160 value something that they already have greater than what other 0:09:44.200 --> 0:09:50.640 people would value it for, and that individuals, if you're 0:09:50.679 --> 0:09:56.319 looking at a choice between gains and losses, that they 0:09:56.360 --> 0:10:00.719 the pain of the loss hurts much more than the 0:10:00.720 --> 0:10:02.760 the reward of the game. 0:10:03.800 --> 0:10:08.240 With golf, as you mentioned, with putting, people make more 0:10:08.320 --> 0:10:12.720 par putts because they fear the bogie putt. Then they 0:10:13.320 --> 0:10:15.960 want the gain of a Birdie Putt. What would be 0:10:16.000 --> 0:10:18.520 some other examples in other sport, In. 0:10:18.720 --> 0:10:27.000 Other sports, I mean that there's you know, it's kind 0:10:27.000 --> 0:10:30.040 of closely related to some extent risk aversion. 0:10:32.120 --> 0:10:36.760 So there's you know, fourth down opportunities in the NFL 0:10:36.920 --> 0:10:38.240 or coaches tend to. 0:10:38.320 --> 0:10:38.880 Not go for. 0:10:40.360 --> 0:10:45.000 You know, go for it because they're worried about more 0:10:45.040 --> 0:10:47.079 than they're worried about getting, you know, more than they 0:10:47.240 --> 0:10:49.199 want to get that first down, so they just putt it, 0:10:49.240 --> 0:10:52.280 you know, where they shouldn't probably be going more fourth downs. 0:10:52.320 --> 0:10:54.800 But that's a you know, not the same problem. 0:10:54.920 --> 0:10:57.640 It's it's very similar though, because there are Yeah, I 0:10:57.920 --> 0:10:58.760 get what you're saying. 0:10:59.120 --> 0:11:02.640 So for the paper, you zeroed. 0:11:02.320 --> 0:11:07.560 In on two of the most historic venues for the 0:11:07.640 --> 0:11:08.160 US Open. 0:11:08.200 --> 0:11:09.880 You've got Pebble Beach and. 0:11:11.720 --> 0:11:15.600 Oakmont, So each of them have hosted a number of times, 0:11:15.640 --> 0:11:18.439 which I imagine is very important for the study. So you 0:11:19.080 --> 0:11:22.080 want to look at whole number two, which changed to 0:11:22.120 --> 0:11:26.280 a par four at Pebble Beach in two thousand and 0:11:26.320 --> 0:11:28.960 then you did the same thing with Oakmont's ninth hole, 0:11:29.200 --> 0:11:31.520 which went from a five to four for the two 0:11:31.559 --> 0:11:34.720 thousand and four championship and since has continued on. So 0:11:34.880 --> 0:11:37.599 Pebble Beach's second hole this year will be for the 0:11:37.640 --> 0:11:41.000 twenty nineteen US Open will be a part four again, How. 0:11:40.880 --> 0:11:42.800 Did you start with this study? What did you what 0:11:42.880 --> 0:11:44.480 did you compile the data? 0:11:44.559 --> 0:11:48.240 And what did were the early findings and the early 0:11:48.679 --> 0:11:52.040 kind of steps towards getting to this this working towards 0:11:52.080 --> 0:11:53.319 this hypothesis. 0:11:53.559 --> 0:11:58.120 Okay, Well, initially Andrew got the data for Pebble and 0:11:58.160 --> 0:12:00.360 he just did a quick look, just look at the 0:12:00.400 --> 0:12:03.680 average score across the difference across hole number two, you know, 0:12:03.760 --> 0:12:06.440 through the through the years, and it was like, there's 0:12:06.520 --> 0:12:08.880 clearly a difference here, you know, just looking at your 0:12:08.960 --> 0:12:13.400 raw averages, you know, how many strokes were actually scored 0:12:13.440 --> 0:12:17.480 on a particular hole. And so then we got Outmont 0:12:17.760 --> 0:12:22.439 a little while later and decided to control for various 0:12:22.520 --> 0:12:28.360 variables including you know, the year that I was played. Jeez, 0:12:28.360 --> 0:12:30.880 I guess it just the. 0:12:31.160 --> 0:12:37.120 Whole difficulty rating looking at not just those holes, but 0:12:37.240 --> 0:12:40.240 other holes, because one hypothesis might be the entire courses 0:12:40.280 --> 0:12:42.920 getting easier. And so then you could just say that 0:12:43.600 --> 0:12:46.480 technology is caught up and everybody now is just you know, 0:12:46.600 --> 0:12:50.160 berating these or beating these golf courses into submission, and 0:12:50.200 --> 0:12:53.440 so we had what we found was that really was 0:12:53.520 --> 0:12:56.120 not the case. And particularly when you look at Pebble 0:12:56.160 --> 0:12:58.000 and you look at the other part fives, there was 0:12:59.000 --> 0:13:04.000 certainly not this increase that came during the two thousand 0:13:04.120 --> 0:13:05.960 Open or the twenty ten Open. 0:13:06.000 --> 0:13:08.280 And then when we looked at twenty two and seven 0:13:08.280 --> 0:13:12.880 and twenty sixteen at Oakmont, we even controlled for the 0:13:13.240 --> 0:13:15.439 round numbers as we're looking at them, because some of 0:13:15.480 --> 0:13:16.880 the guys aren't going to be playing as well that 0:13:16.960 --> 0:13:17.480 first round. 0:13:17.559 --> 0:13:18.920 You know, if you're going to go and shoot eighty, 0:13:18.960 --> 0:13:20.760 maybe you're not trying as hard in the second round 0:13:20.840 --> 0:13:23.440 knowing that you're going to be trunk slamon on Friday. 0:13:24.480 --> 0:13:26.360 So we looked at people that played two rounds and 0:13:26.400 --> 0:13:30.720 people that played four rounds, looking across those things, and 0:13:30.760 --> 0:13:33.800 we still found every variable that we tried to control 0:13:33.840 --> 0:13:36.960 for that might be an alternate explanation as to why 0:13:37.960 --> 0:13:41.520 we're seeing this precipitous drop on these two holes, we 0:13:41.520 --> 0:13:42.679 were able to explain away. 0:13:43.000 --> 0:13:46.559 Yeah, And I think I think it's particularly notable when 0:13:46.600 --> 0:13:49.360 you just zero in on the other part fives, because 0:13:49.400 --> 0:13:52.040 you see, you know, you don't see the same behavior 0:13:52.080 --> 0:13:54.600 on the other part fives, whereas you might expect that, 0:13:54.760 --> 0:13:59.000 you know, driver technology is getting better, so of course 0:13:59.040 --> 0:14:01.560 they're going to play the five par fives in a 0:14:01.559 --> 0:14:04.800 different way. But you don't see that drop in scores 0:14:04.840 --> 0:14:06.079 across those part fives. 0:14:06.280 --> 0:14:08.839 Yeah, I think that would be like the immedia thing 0:14:08.880 --> 0:14:10.880 I would think is like, well, they're hitting the ball 0:14:10.920 --> 0:14:13.360 further than ever, how you know, how is this? But 0:14:13.840 --> 0:14:17.000 you know, you guys obviously factor that in by looking 0:14:17.040 --> 0:14:19.600 at other holes. I imagine did you look at holes 0:14:19.600 --> 0:14:22.240 that stayed the exact same yardage that might not have 0:14:22.320 --> 0:14:24.600 changed part Yeah. 0:14:24.600 --> 0:14:29.520 Certainly looking at fourteen, which can at Pebble, which continues 0:14:29.560 --> 0:14:32.640 to be one of the hardest par fives on the 0:14:32.760 --> 0:14:38.280 entire tour each year, and eighteen as well, fourteen length 0:14:38.280 --> 0:14:41.080 and a little bit eighteen has stayed that same length, 0:14:41.120 --> 0:14:45.240 that same iconic group there, and there's just no change 0:14:45.360 --> 0:14:46.480 when you look at eighteen. 0:14:47.280 --> 0:14:49.760 I don't think there's anywhere they could move that te to. 0:14:51.920 --> 0:14:55.960 Bulli An Island, and I think there'd be outrage if 0:14:55.960 --> 0:14:57.320 they did anything to that all. 0:14:57.720 --> 0:14:59.680 Remember the outrage when they built the sea wall. 0:15:00.720 --> 0:15:05.960 Yeah, that's you do anything to to that course, then 0:15:06.240 --> 0:15:08.480 there's going to be people on either side of the fence. 0:15:08.880 --> 0:15:12.560 You do this with the ninth out of Oakmont and Pebble, 0:15:12.800 --> 0:15:14.040 and what do you find? 0:15:15.960 --> 0:15:21.840 Basically that the scores post change are are better relative 0:15:21.880 --> 0:15:24.600 to you know, you're you're scoring higher relative to par. 0:15:24.760 --> 0:15:27.320 But that's just you know, that doesn't really matter. That 0:15:27.480 --> 0:15:31.120 the result is that your average strokes for a given 0:15:31.440 --> 0:15:35.080 for those two holes decreased once you changed the par 0:15:35.200 --> 0:15:36.320 from five to four. 0:15:36.960 --> 0:15:39.840 And so over we found that it's really the effect 0:15:39.880 --> 0:15:42.200 was somewhere between a quarter and a third of a stroke, 0:15:42.760 --> 0:15:46.240 which over four rounds is a stroke a stroke plus, 0:15:46.280 --> 0:15:49.280 which is you know, last year was the difference between 0:15:49.600 --> 0:15:52.400 finishing second and getting into a playoff. 0:15:53.320 --> 0:15:57.240 If we took par and made it say, I always say, 0:15:57.560 --> 0:16:02.040 if we if we're playing like Lili for example, sure 0:16:02.040 --> 0:16:06.040 the par fives are so short, they're in actuality par fours. 0:16:06.920 --> 0:16:09.200 If we made that a par sixty eight instead of 0:16:09.240 --> 0:16:14.280 a par seventy, you'd expect average scoring to drop two 0:16:14.320 --> 0:16:21.600 shots average absolute scoring on the four round tournament, so 0:16:22.280 --> 0:16:25.640 essentially a quarter of a shot per par five that 0:16:25.680 --> 0:16:29.040 you switched to par four you would expect to you know, 0:16:29.240 --> 0:16:31.960 roughly and over a four round tournament that of costs 0:16:32.520 --> 0:16:33.120 a shot. 0:16:33.320 --> 0:16:37.440 So with this in terms of. 0:16:39.000 --> 0:16:43.320 US Open setup and par par was a constitute that 0:16:43.440 --> 0:16:45.640 was just started for viewers. 0:16:46.560 --> 0:16:49.320 Right, what would you expect to see if we just 0:16:49.360 --> 0:16:50.200 went no par. 0:16:52.600 --> 0:16:55.480 You know, it's really crazy. And we went back and 0:16:55.600 --> 0:16:59.760 looked at some of the articles that were being published 0:16:59.760 --> 0:17:03.320 when they decided to make Pebble's number two a par 0:17:03.440 --> 0:17:09.000 four back in two thousand and saw guys like Tom Watson, 0:17:09.040 --> 0:17:13.120 for example, that came out that said that absolutely, there's 0:17:13.160 --> 0:17:16.040 no reason to make this whole a par For a 0:17:16.040 --> 0:17:21.040 guy who had won the US Open at Pebble, David 0:17:21.080 --> 0:17:23.159 Duval was the only one that came out that we 0:17:23.200 --> 0:17:25.640 could find that said that it should be a par four. 0:17:26.640 --> 0:17:29.400 And the only guy we could find that actually said 0:17:29.440 --> 0:17:32.040 the same course for everybody, doesn't matter what you call 0:17:32.080 --> 0:17:34.119 it was Colin Montgomery. 0:17:34.800 --> 0:17:36.120 I see. That's I mean. 0:17:36.240 --> 0:17:38.199 And that's an interesting thing when you think about the 0:17:38.240 --> 0:17:42.560 mental side of golf, is that as a player, you're 0:17:42.600 --> 0:17:45.760 always thinking about your score, your par. The best players 0:17:45.760 --> 0:17:47.920 aren't thinking about it, but at the back of their 0:17:47.960 --> 0:17:51.160 mind there's always this par mentality in their mind. 0:17:52.400 --> 0:17:55.359 Yeah, back before there was again, as you mentioned TV 0:17:55.480 --> 0:17:57.640 and viewers and trying to allow the viewer to see 0:17:57.640 --> 0:17:59.919 at any given point, how to compare somebody who's on 0:18:00.440 --> 0:18:03.320 number seventeen with somebody who's on number eleven at a 0:18:03.320 --> 0:18:06.040 given time. They never even thought about it that they've 0:18:06.280 --> 0:18:09.359 just posted the total score over the four rounds. But 0:18:09.480 --> 0:18:12.800 now you've added another variable that people are. They get 0:18:12.840 --> 0:18:14.040 stuck in their head and they get. 0:18:13.920 --> 0:18:16.439 Thinking about it with the change. 0:18:16.560 --> 0:18:18.959 And I don't know if you know this outside of 0:18:19.119 --> 0:18:23.479 just the scoring change. Did you see any behavioral stuff 0:18:23.520 --> 0:18:26.240 with players on those holes. Was it that they were 0:18:26.320 --> 0:18:29.200 going for the green more or that you know, when 0:18:29.240 --> 0:18:32.760 they were out of position they weren't playing as conservatively 0:18:33.080 --> 0:18:35.879 or is there any sort of stuff that you found 0:18:35.880 --> 0:18:36.119 with that. 0:18:36.520 --> 0:18:39.159 The data that we have, we don't have sort of 0:18:39.200 --> 0:18:41.520 the micro level look into the US Open that we 0:18:42.840 --> 0:18:45.359 were talking about before with the shot link data, so 0:18:45.400 --> 0:18:47.560 we don't really have that information. We just have the 0:18:47.640 --> 0:18:51.119 raw scores on the whole. So if they got a 0:18:51.200 --> 0:18:53.760 four from you know, if they started off their t 0:18:53.920 --> 0:18:55.720 shot went in the rough or was in the middle 0:18:55.720 --> 0:18:58.960 of the fairway, we don't know, you know, which scenario 0:19:00.080 --> 0:19:01.680 that they had going into the green. 0:19:03.240 --> 0:19:06.160 So and I imagine that you saw. 0:19:06.760 --> 0:19:09.080 Did you guys look at any other holes like the 0:19:09.560 --> 0:19:12.800 types of holes where we see a really long par 0:19:13.000 --> 0:19:16.920 three that's similar to the distance of a short par four. 0:19:18.560 --> 0:19:20.960 We referenced it in the paper, and of course the 0:19:21.000 --> 0:19:23.840 one we were thinking about was seven or eight. I 0:19:23.880 --> 0:19:26.800 forget at Oakmont that R three that the US opened 0:19:26.840 --> 0:19:29.880 side and made three hundred yards one day back in 0:19:29.960 --> 0:19:33.760 two thousand and seven. But those are really so rare, 0:19:34.560 --> 0:19:38.160 unlike the fours and the fives, that there just wasn't 0:19:38.280 --> 0:19:41.480 enough to actually do any type of meaningful analysis. 0:19:41.280 --> 0:19:45.760 There's another hole another part three? Is it bel three where. 0:19:45.600 --> 0:19:49.840 They had the tenth at the Belfry that goes what 0:19:49.920 --> 0:19:52.600 maybe two seventy five when they're playing the Ryder Cup there. 0:19:53.880 --> 0:19:57.600 Yeah, yeah, huh, we don't have that. Yeah. 0:19:57.680 --> 0:20:01.640 I was thinking seventeen and eight eight at Oakmont could 0:20:01.680 --> 0:20:05.520 be two examples. 0:20:05.920 --> 0:20:10.240 And seventeen they play at what about three ten, three twenty? 0:20:10.400 --> 0:20:14.520 Yeah, great in that range and that, yeah, it'd be 0:20:14.920 --> 0:20:19.879 It's an interesting, uh thought, is thinking about the yardage 0:20:20.359 --> 0:20:23.280 as opposed to the you know, the par and bucketing 0:20:23.680 --> 0:20:27.160 you know, numbers in the yardage with you know, because 0:20:27.200 --> 0:20:30.199 some holes, some courses it will have four ninety par 0:20:30.359 --> 0:20:32.720 fours versus four ninety par five, and. 0:20:32.600 --> 0:20:36.720 Of course in Colorado, where the balls would fly significantly further, 0:20:36.840 --> 0:20:41.080 So five hundred and twenty yard par fours even for 0:20:41.160 --> 0:20:44.320 the normal back teas as opposed to a championship is 0:20:44.359 --> 0:20:48.600 not that unusual when they're playing at They're gonna have 0:20:48.600 --> 0:20:50.760 a web dot Com tournament this year at the new 0:20:50.800 --> 0:20:55.120 TPC Colorado course up in Berth. Of that that's supposed 0:20:55.119 --> 0:21:01.560 to play out at seventy nine something yards, but again 0:21:01.600 --> 0:21:04.159 that's also at a mile above sea level. Both of 0:21:04.200 --> 0:21:08.359 these courses are effectively couple's at sea level effectively, and 0:21:09.080 --> 0:21:10.879 Oakmont senter eight hundred feet above it. 0:21:11.880 --> 0:21:14.040 I guess one thing I would since they were both 0:21:14.080 --> 0:21:17.560 around like five hundred yards these two holes, say you 0:21:17.560 --> 0:21:20.640 took like a six hundred yard par five and made 0:21:20.680 --> 0:21:23.199 it a part four. Obviously, you guys don't have the 0:21:23.280 --> 0:21:26.080 numbers to do that, but you would. 0:21:25.840 --> 0:21:27.160 You expect would. 0:21:26.960 --> 0:21:29.879 Your hypothesis before setting out be that we'd see the 0:21:29.880 --> 0:21:30.680 same aversion. 0:21:32.320 --> 0:21:34.639 I don't know if I would necessarily extend what we 0:21:34.680 --> 0:21:37.600 did to a six hundred yard hole that's going to 0:21:37.680 --> 0:21:41.120 pushing the limits of I mean, I like to think 0:21:41.160 --> 0:21:43.640 that there might be an effect, but it's I can't 0:21:43.640 --> 0:21:46.080 imagine it would be as strong as like a quarter 0:21:46.119 --> 0:21:48.639 of a stroke or you know, a third of a stroke. 0:21:49.920 --> 0:21:53.000 I think the more interesting part would be actually looking 0:21:53.040 --> 0:21:56.720 at that for amateur golfers. Let's take something like sixteen 0:21:56.760 --> 0:22:00.359 to Cyprus point. But the most of your average amateur 0:22:00.400 --> 0:22:02.520 golfer has no business trying to hit it over the ocean. 0:22:02.520 --> 0:22:06.600 They're knocking it on the green, bailing out left, trying 0:22:06.600 --> 0:22:09.040 to chip on. If you make three, great if not 0:22:09.600 --> 0:22:13.320 make four. But because somebody's labeled this a par three, 0:22:13.720 --> 0:22:15.359 it's like I have to go and try and drive 0:22:15.400 --> 0:22:18.840 this ball on the green over the ocean and wind 0:22:18.920 --> 0:22:21.919 up making you know, six or seven a heck of 0:22:21.920 --> 0:22:22.440 a lot more. 0:22:23.400 --> 0:22:28.080 What you're saying is that for the average golfer, the 0:22:28.440 --> 0:22:32.320 situation might be flipped where if you add par they'd 0:22:32.359 --> 0:22:33.080 score better. 0:22:34.840 --> 0:22:38.840 I think that it's put something in their minds there 0:22:38.880 --> 0:22:41.200 that it very well could be on that amateur golfer. 0:22:41.359 --> 0:22:44.600 As a guy that grew up caddying, I think about 0:22:44.640 --> 0:22:49.040 that all the time because when one of the things 0:22:49.080 --> 0:22:51.480