WEBVTT - The Strategy of Team Match Play 0:00:00.200 --> 0:00:03.000 Hello, and welcome to the Fried Egg Podcast. I'm Garrett 0:00:03.000 --> 0:00:06.240 Morrison and this episode is brought to you by Zero Restriction. 0:00:07.560 --> 0:00:10.960 Zero Restriction is not only a sponsor of the Fried Egg, 0:00:11.440 --> 0:00:14.800 they're also the official outerwear provider for Team USA at 0:00:14.800 --> 0:00:17.840 the Solheim Cup, and right now at zero restriction dot 0:00:17.880 --> 0:00:21.120 com there is a selection of official Solheim Cup gear 0:00:21.200 --> 0:00:25.079 available for a limited time. We're told that at the moment, 0:00:25.280 --> 0:00:28.840 zero Restriction's best selling item is the Champ Hoodie. And 0:00:28.880 --> 0:00:31.880 it's not hard to see why this is a fantastic item. 0:00:32.240 --> 0:00:34.560 It's so good for so many different purposes and different 0:00:34.640 --> 0:00:37.680 kinds of weather. Not only is the Champ Hoodie windproof, 0:00:37.840 --> 0:00:40.000 but it's also a big help in the rain with 0:00:40.080 --> 0:00:43.080 its water resistant shell. And on top of all that, 0:00:43.320 --> 0:00:46.240 it's comfortable. It's got soft sleeves, it's got a soft 0:00:46.280 --> 0:00:49.199 liner on the inside, and just works really well as 0:00:49.240 --> 0:00:53.239 a go to layer. So follows approaching layering season is 0:00:53.360 --> 0:00:56.360 almost here. Don't get caught off guard. Go to zero 0:00:56.440 --> 0:00:59.960 restriction dot com and use the code USA thirty three 0:01:00.000 --> 0:01:06.080 thirty percent off. It is September twenty twenty one, and 0:01:06.360 --> 0:01:08.840 this is the month of team match play in golf. 0:01:09.160 --> 0:01:12.280 We've got American women versus European women at the Solheim 0:01:12.319 --> 0:01:15.640 Cup starting on Saturday, September fourth. If you're listening to 0:01:15.680 --> 0:01:18.039 this episode on the day it comes out, that's tomorrow, 0:01:18.640 --> 0:01:20.720 And then a couple of weeks from now, starting on 0:01:20.760 --> 0:01:24.240 September twenty fourth, we've got the Ryder Cup at Whistling Straits. 0:01:24.840 --> 0:01:26.960 Usually we don't get these events in the same year, 0:01:27.040 --> 0:01:30.240 but obviously COVID bumped the twenty twenty Ryder Cup to 0:01:30.280 --> 0:01:33.360 this month. So the format of the Ryder Cup in 0:01:33.360 --> 0:01:37.200 the Solheim Cup team match play, where you have two 0:01:37.240 --> 0:01:40.240 days of pairs matches, foursomes and four ball, followed by 0:01:40.240 --> 0:01:44.319 a final day of singles matches, it's just undefeated. It's 0:01:44.360 --> 0:01:48.240 the best format in golf, so exciting, so dramatic, very 0:01:48.280 --> 0:01:52.000 often absurd. It's the pinnacle of golf entertainment, I think. 0:01:52.480 --> 0:01:54.840 But I also think we don't understand it very well, 0:01:55.280 --> 0:01:58.840 and by we I mean mostly fans and media. I 0:01:58.840 --> 0:02:01.560 think when we talk about this of team match play, 0:02:02.000 --> 0:02:05.440 we tend to rely on assumptions, whether it's the assumption 0:02:05.480 --> 0:02:07.760 that a team needs to get along personally in order 0:02:07.800 --> 0:02:10.840 to do well, or the assumption that a player's past 0:02:10.960 --> 0:02:14.760 match play record can predict future performance in a team event. 0:02:15.720 --> 0:02:18.760 But according to Joseph Lamannia, a lot of those ideas 0:02:18.919 --> 0:02:22.600 either are incorrect or just sort of miss the point. 0:02:23.120 --> 0:02:25.280 And he believes we can learn much more about the 0:02:25.280 --> 0:02:28.560 strategic aspects of the Ryder Cup in the Solheim Cup 0:02:28.960 --> 0:02:32.000 if we just pay attention to the data. Joseph is 0:02:32.040 --> 0:02:34.400 a great resource for this kind of thinking. He's the 0:02:34.400 --> 0:02:37.240 founder of Optimal Approach Golf, a company that consults with 0:02:37.280 --> 0:02:40.120 PGA Tour players. He's also the writer of an excellent 0:02:40.160 --> 0:02:44.280 newsletter called finding the Edge on Substack. So, without further ado, 0:02:44.520 --> 0:02:48.400 here is Joseph Lamannia on the strategy of team match play. 0:02:48.760 --> 0:02:51.239 I miss a green, for example, I'm already upset. 0:02:51.400 --> 0:02:53.680 When I find my ball in the bunker, I'm really upset. 0:02:53.760 --> 0:02:56.480 And when I find my ball in a egg Frida egg, 0:02:56.560 --> 0:03:00.679 the dreaded Frida egg Frida egg frigg frid egg egg lie, 0:03:00.680 --> 0:03:01.520 I'm about ready. 0:03:01.400 --> 0:03:02.399 To run off of the hump. 0:03:24.680 --> 0:03:27.480 So, Joseph, I asked you to come up with three 0:03:27.680 --> 0:03:32.239 common misconceptions that you often see in the media about 0:03:32.320 --> 0:03:35.000 team match play strategy. So why don't we just dig 0:03:35.080 --> 0:03:38.720 right into those off the top here, what's your first 0:03:38.880 --> 0:03:39.360 big one? 0:03:39.880 --> 0:03:44.640 Sure? So. One popular misconception that I've seen in the media, 0:03:44.720 --> 0:03:48.040 especially about what is indicative of success in the Ryder Cup, 0:03:48.680 --> 0:03:52.640 is looking at past records in the Ryder Cup, you know, 0:03:53.000 --> 0:03:55.560 picking a player because he or she has done well 0:03:55.600 --> 0:03:59.000 in the past. I think there are a couple shortcomings 0:03:59.280 --> 0:04:03.080 to that approach, which, for one, the golf course always changes, 0:04:03.640 --> 0:04:07.360 So if every Ryder Cup were played at Augusta, that 0:04:07.440 --> 0:04:11.440 might be more meaningful. Especially since it's not and you're 0:04:11.440 --> 0:04:14.800 dealing with a variety of courses, it's not something that 0:04:14.840 --> 0:04:18.440 you really should be looking at. Another corollary to that 0:04:19.080 --> 0:04:22.240 would be that record in and of itself lacks a 0:04:22.279 --> 0:04:26.480 lot of context. So one example that I've looked at 0:04:26.960 --> 0:04:31.640 is the the singles match at the Golf Nationale site 0:04:31.680 --> 0:04:34.640 of the twenty eighteen Ryder Cup. If you were to 0:04:34.680 --> 0:04:38.680 look at who actually performed well on Sunday versus who 0:04:38.720 --> 0:04:42.279 won their matches, you get a little bit of different results. 0:04:43.080 --> 0:04:46.120 The best example is that Ian Poulter beat Dustin Johnson 0:04:46.160 --> 0:04:49.640 that day, while Bryson d Schambeau lost to Alex Norrin. 0:04:49.920 --> 0:04:52.000 But if you look at how they actually played, hold 0:04:52.040 --> 0:04:55.360 a hole Bryson would have beaten Ian Poulter pretty handily. 0:04:55.720 --> 0:04:58.760 So just looking at a record loses a lot of 0:04:58.760 --> 0:05:01.640 that context, which is applicable to both the women's and the 0:05:01.640 --> 0:05:03.120 men's side, right. 0:05:03.279 --> 0:05:06.120 And you figured out that disparity by looking at strokes 0:05:06.160 --> 0:05:10.120 gained data, right, like looking at strokes gained for different players, 0:05:10.120 --> 0:05:13.760 and just seeing that certain players who lost their matches 0:05:14.080 --> 0:05:16.839 played very, very well. They just happened to be playing 0:05:16.839 --> 0:05:21.040 somebody who was playing better that day, whereas some other 0:05:21.080 --> 0:05:24.560 players didn't play as well but won their matches because 0:05:24.600 --> 0:05:27.599 the person they were playing against was not in good 0:05:27.640 --> 0:05:28.600 form exactly. 0:05:28.920 --> 0:05:31.880 And you know, I think somebody could argue, well, it 0:05:31.960 --> 0:05:34.520 was match play, it's not a stroke play event, and 0:05:34.760 --> 0:05:36.480 you can only play the person in front of you. 0:05:37.000 --> 0:05:39.920 But I think when you look at the results, there's 0:05:39.960 --> 0:05:43.200 a lot of information in how those players played that 0:05:43.320 --> 0:05:46.320 week and how it aligned with their skill sets. And 0:05:46.640 --> 0:05:49.520 the point is that record is just a bit reductive. 0:05:49.560 --> 0:05:52.360 It doesn't show you how well somebody played, did they 0:05:52.400 --> 0:05:56.400 win foeign two, or you know, what was the outcome 0:05:56.440 --> 0:05:57.200 of that match? 0:05:58.200 --> 0:06:00.920 And part of the problem here is small sample size, right, 0:06:00.960 --> 0:06:04.400 because any given Ryder Cup produces a pretty small sample 0:06:04.440 --> 0:06:07.120 size of matches played. If we were to have one 0:06:07.160 --> 0:06:09.960 hundred years of matches, I mean, obviously that would be impossible. 0:06:10.000 --> 0:06:11.880 But if you were to have a lot of them 0:06:12.040 --> 0:06:14.080 at a lot of different courses over a great deal 0:06:14.120 --> 0:06:16.680 of time, and the data pool were bigger, then you 0:06:16.680 --> 0:06:20.680 can draw some more you know, significant conclusions from match 0:06:20.680 --> 0:06:21.599 play record. 0:06:21.360 --> 0:06:24.400 Right exactly. And I'm glad you brought that point up 0:06:24.560 --> 0:06:28.560 because I think there's a good example. Tiger Woods has 0:06:28.600 --> 0:06:31.520 a pretty bad record in the Ryder Cup, and I 0:06:31.560 --> 0:06:34.839 think anyone who wouldn't want him as their partner in 0:06:34.880 --> 0:06:37.159 the early two thousands would be crazy. I mean, do 0:06:37.200 --> 0:06:40.640 you think that that Tiger Wood's bad record is a 0:06:40.680 --> 0:06:42.960 function of him not being great at golf or not 0:06:43.000 --> 0:06:46.360 being able to handle pressure, or is that probably a 0:06:46.400 --> 0:06:50.360 noisier result that you know is only occurring because there 0:06:50.360 --> 0:06:52.440 aren't that many data points. 0:06:53.960 --> 0:06:59.520 So first misconception is a over emphasis on past match 0:06:59.520 --> 0:07:03.159 play record. What is the kind of second false narrative 0:07:03.200 --> 0:07:03.960 that you see a lot? 0:07:04.480 --> 0:07:06.800 A big one that I've seen is that you want 0:07:06.839 --> 0:07:11.000 to pair players with similar skill sets. I disagree with 0:07:11.040 --> 0:07:14.480 that vehemently. You know, I've heard players say the same 0:07:14.560 --> 0:07:17.120 thing that they find it beneficial that, you know, you 0:07:17.120 --> 0:07:20.080 can get yardages from each other and kind of understand 0:07:21.000 --> 0:07:23.520 how the course is playing for your skill set, you're 0:07:23.560 --> 0:07:27.280 hitting shots that you're familiar with. I would push back 0:07:27.320 --> 0:07:31.040 pretty hard on that. For one, when a player is 0:07:31.280 --> 0:07:35.600 proficient in one skill, it's more likely that they're deficient 0:07:35.640 --> 0:07:38.440 in another skill. For example, if a player doesn't hit 0:07:38.480 --> 0:07:41.320 the ball very far, they're probably a good putter, or 0:07:41.360 --> 0:07:44.120 else they wouldn't be on the team. So when you 0:07:44.200 --> 0:07:48.520 stack these skills up together, you want to spread out 0:07:48.960 --> 0:07:52.840 where you expect the overperformance and the underperformance. So if 0:07:52.880 --> 0:07:56.480 I'm you know, thinking about Dustin Johnson and Jordan Spief 0:07:56.480 --> 0:08:01.960 for example, two players with very different strength and distance profiles, 0:08:02.800 --> 0:08:06.440 Dustin Johnson might outperform on the par fives and Jordan 0:08:06.520 --> 0:08:09.239 Speed might be really helpful on a short and narrow 0:08:09.280 --> 0:08:12.960 par four for example. Let's spread those out. Let's not 0:08:13.040 --> 0:08:14.720 overlap their birdies. 0:08:14.840 --> 0:08:18.240 Okay, And then how about the third big misconception that 0:08:18.280 --> 0:08:18.760 you see. 0:08:19.320 --> 0:08:22.560 You often hear somebody say that it's of benefit to 0:08:22.760 --> 0:08:26.880 hit first, especially on an approach shot or your first 0:08:26.920 --> 0:08:29.360 shot on a par three, because it gives you the 0:08:29.400 --> 0:08:32.360 ability to put pressure on the other player. I would 0:08:32.559 --> 0:08:35.920 argue the opposite, and I would encourage people to take 0:08:35.960 --> 0:08:38.800 the other side of that argument. When you hit second, 0:08:39.320 --> 0:08:42.320 you have additional information. You get to see where your 0:08:42.320 --> 0:08:45.840 opponent hit the ball, maybe how the wind reacted. But 0:08:45.960 --> 0:08:47.280 more than that, I mean, if they hit the ball 0:08:47.320 --> 0:08:50.880 in the water, you can adjust your strategy. You can't 0:08:50.920 --> 0:08:52.880 do that when you go first, and I would argue 0:08:52.880 --> 0:08:55.559 that the benefit of having more information is far more 0:08:55.600 --> 0:09:00.560 important than the benefit of getting to apply pressure. I 0:09:00.600 --> 0:09:04.079 think a really good analogy here would be college football 0:09:04.360 --> 0:09:07.880 over time. For those who are unfamiliar, the way those 0:09:07.960 --> 0:09:10.880 rules work is somebody gets the ball first, somebody gets 0:09:10.920 --> 0:09:14.160 the ball second, and you each get a chance to score. 0:09:15.520 --> 0:09:19.960 Every time somebody wins that coin toss, the team elects 0:09:20.000 --> 0:09:22.680 to defend. In other words, they want the ball second 0:09:23.120 --> 0:09:25.440 because they want to know what they have to do. Right, 0:09:26.200 --> 0:09:28.280 Do I need to score a touchdown? Can I settle 0:09:28.280 --> 0:09:31.080 for a field goal to win? That's very valuable information. 0:09:32.040 --> 0:09:34.560 The same applies for golf. Hitting second will always be 0:09:34.840 --> 0:09:38.000 an advantage. I think it's a subtle advantage to being 0:09:38.040 --> 0:09:39.880 a longer hitter in general in match play. 0:09:41.000 --> 0:09:44.200 So let's go back to your second misconception that you 0:09:44.280 --> 0:09:48.280 identified and talk a little more about the strategy of 0:09:48.360 --> 0:09:52.400 pairing up players. This is obviously like a big topic 0:09:52.720 --> 0:09:56.560 in any Ryder Cup, any Solheim Cup, because there is 0:09:56.600 --> 0:10:00.239 an unusual sort of drama in it. Right. You don't 0:10:00.240 --> 0:10:02.240 this kind of stuff very often in golf where there 0:10:02.280 --> 0:10:07.200 are interpersonal relationships being considered. Golf is typically an individual sport. 0:10:07.320 --> 0:10:10.720 This is one case in which we journalists get to 0:10:10.800 --> 0:10:14.760 write about different kinds of stuff, the relationships between players 0:10:14.880 --> 0:10:18.400 and how their games match up and things like that. Obviously, 0:10:18.480 --> 0:10:20.679 the problem is, as you have pointed out in your 0:10:20.720 --> 0:10:25.920 newsletter Finding the Edge, we often misinterpret how those pairings 0:10:25.960 --> 0:10:28.760 are best made. So why don't we talk about pairings 0:10:28.800 --> 0:10:32.840 in general? What do you think is the best approach 0:10:33.040 --> 0:10:37.160 to pairing up players for foursome's and four ball in 0:10:37.200 --> 0:10:39.680 a team matchplay event like the Ryder Cup or Solheim Cup. 0:10:40.480 --> 0:10:43.480 So the first thing that I would do when looking 0:10:43.520 --> 0:10:46.000 at the best way to pair is to figure out 0:10:46.040 --> 0:10:50.520 which holes are going to be most important, and you know, similarly, 0:10:50.960 --> 0:10:54.040 which shots are going to be most important. So to 0:10:54.080 --> 0:10:57.920 do that you have to accept that not all holes 0:10:57.960 --> 0:11:02.120 are equal and not all shots are so in other words, 0:11:02.320 --> 0:11:04.719 there are going to be some holes that almost every 0:11:04.800 --> 0:11:07.320 player makes par, or there might be a seventy five 0:11:07.440 --> 0:11:10.520 eighty percent chance of making par. You don't want to 0:11:10.720 --> 0:11:13.800 prioritize your strategy as much around a hole like that, 0:11:14.240 --> 0:11:17.760 where the range of outcomes is much narrower. So I'd 0:11:17.800 --> 0:11:20.000 look at, you know, what are the holes that I 0:11:20.040 --> 0:11:24.160 should be prioritizing. When I looked at Inverness for the 0:11:24.200 --> 0:11:27.280 Salign Cup and Whistling Straights for the Ryder Cup, you know, 0:11:27.280 --> 0:11:31.440 I was able to identify, Well, it looks like one 0:11:31.520 --> 0:11:34.280 half of the holes, either the odd or the even holes, 0:11:34.840 --> 0:11:37.240 is going to lean one way or the other. And 0:11:37.280 --> 0:11:39.560 there are a couple shots in particular that I want 0:11:39.559 --> 0:11:42.280 to make sure the player with the best skill set 0:11:42.320 --> 0:11:43.360 is hitting that shot. 0:11:44.400 --> 0:11:46.680 You know, this would be especially relevant with foursomes with 0:11:46.760 --> 0:11:51.480 alternate shot where one player in each pairing is either 0:11:51.600 --> 0:11:54.040 teeing off on the odd holes or teeing off on 0:11:54.120 --> 0:11:56.959 the even holes. And what you're saying is, if there's 0:11:57.080 --> 0:11:59.880 a kind of tendency on the odd holes on a core, 0:12:00.120 --> 0:12:02.720 for the t shots to be more important, for there 0:12:02.760 --> 0:12:05.280 to be a greater range of outcomes that end up 0:12:05.360 --> 0:12:08.559 having an impact on you know the score on that hole, 0:12:09.080 --> 0:12:12.440 then you want the player in the pairing with the 0:12:12.520 --> 0:12:15.880 right skill set teeing off on those holes. So what 0:12:15.920 --> 0:12:19.040 do we mean by right skill set? What can that 0:12:19.120 --> 0:12:19.480 look like? 0:12:20.120 --> 0:12:22.280 Right? There are definitely a number of ways you can 0:12:22.320 --> 0:12:25.640 look at it. Almost every time I would say it's 0:12:25.679 --> 0:12:28.400 going to shake out, you're gonna want long players hitting 0:12:28.520 --> 0:12:32.600 T shots on par fives. That is the reality. You 0:12:32.679 --> 0:12:35.960 could argue, well, maybe you'd want the longer player hitting 0:12:36.000 --> 0:12:39.280 the second shot because it's an advantage for them to 0:12:39.360 --> 0:12:42.640 hit the long iron that's coming in high The reality 0:12:42.720 --> 0:12:46.280 is you're better off with Dustin Johnson hitting the drive, 0:12:46.679 --> 0:12:50.120 for example, and Jordan Spiith hitting the second shot. In 0:12:50.160 --> 0:12:53.080 other words, you're better with Jordan Spiith hitting from two 0:12:53.160 --> 0:12:59.080 forty than Dustin Johnson from two sixty or a similar combination. So, again, 0:12:59.200 --> 0:13:01.600 number of ways you can look at who should be 0:13:01.640 --> 0:13:03.880 hitting each tee shot, but it's almost always going to 0:13:03.960 --> 0:13:06.080 shake out that you weren't going to want the long 0:13:06.200 --> 0:13:09.120 drivers hitting the T shots on the par fives or 0:13:09.440 --> 0:13:11.240 potentially like a driveable par four. 0:13:12.120 --> 0:13:14.840 Can shot shape and whole shape have something to do 0:13:14.960 --> 0:13:15.120 with this? 0:13:15.600 --> 0:13:20.400 It can, absolutely It is less impactful than a player's 0:13:20.480 --> 0:13:25.920 overall distance and dispersion profile, but it is something to consider. 0:13:26.720 --> 0:13:29.560 A great example would be whole eleven at Whistling Straits. 0:13:30.080 --> 0:13:32.840 Whole eleven is one of those holes that's about half 0:13:32.840 --> 0:13:35.320 the field will find the fair way and it does 0:13:35.440 --> 0:13:37.280 dog leg quite a bit to the right, so it'd 0:13:37.320 --> 0:13:39.560 be an advantage if you could hit a cut if 0:13:39.600 --> 0:13:43.679 you're ready. But you know, those impacts aren't as significant 0:13:43.679 --> 0:13:47.040 in magnitude as something like distance on a really long 0:13:47.120 --> 0:13:47.600 par five. 0:13:48.280 --> 0:13:50.720 So the big factor would be if one of the 0:13:50.720 --> 0:13:54.720 players in the pairing is longer than obviously you want 0:13:54.760 --> 0:13:58.000 that player teeing off on the longer holes as much 0:13:58.080 --> 0:14:00.800 as possible. Just a basic thing like that. But my 0:14:00.840 --> 0:14:04.800 feeling is that Tmosa sometimes misses the stuff. Yeah. 0:14:05.040 --> 0:14:08.280 One example that I've highlighted was in the President's Cup 0:14:08.280 --> 0:14:12.120 in twenty nineteen, the US paired Dustin Johnson with Gary 0:14:12.160 --> 0:14:16.480 Woodland and they paired Patrick Reid with Webb Simpson. And 0:14:17.040 --> 0:14:20.000 this is just a classic example of where the skill 0:14:20.080 --> 0:14:24.160 sets are very similar of each of those players. Both 0:14:24.200 --> 0:14:28.280 Web and Patrick at that time hit a draw. Neither 0:14:28.360 --> 0:14:30.880 one of those players was very long. You know, they 0:14:30.920 --> 0:14:34.080 both have really good short games. Dustin Johnson and Gary 0:14:34.080 --> 0:14:36.840 Woodland are very different. They both hit the ball really long, 0:14:37.240 --> 0:14:39.960 they hit a cut. And if you if you actually 0:14:39.960 --> 0:14:43.240 look at how those pairings did the Gary Woodland and 0:14:43.320 --> 0:14:47.960 the Dustin Johnson plus the Simpson Reed pairings combined for 0:14:48.080 --> 0:14:51.920 one in four record, it's not great and I think 0:14:52.080 --> 0:14:54.920 you'd get different results if you had those reconfigured. 0:14:55.640 --> 0:14:58.640 What do you make of what seems like a common 0:14:58.680 --> 0:15:01.760 sensical argument that an an alternate shot you should pair 0:15:02.160 --> 0:15:05.720 a great driver of the ball with a great putter. 0:15:06.680 --> 0:15:10.760 So, in general, focusing on putting is going to be 0:15:11.160 --> 0:15:13.760 a challenge, and the reason for that is that it's 0:15:13.840 --> 0:15:18.200 very difficult to predict where important putts are going to come. 0:15:18.280 --> 0:15:21.520 So if you build your strategy around wanting a good 0:15:21.560 --> 0:15:25.240 putter to hit important putts, being able to predict that 0:15:25.400 --> 0:15:27.920 is very difficult. So, for example, if you have a 0:15:27.920 --> 0:15:31.280 par three and you decide, I want the really good 0:15:31.280 --> 0:15:33.840 ball striker on the tee, the really good putter to 0:15:33.920 --> 0:15:36.520 hit the putt, Well, what happens when the really good 0:15:36.520 --> 0:15:40.120 ball striker misses the green? Or what happens when the 0:15:40.160 --> 0:15:42.720 really good ball striker hits the ball to thirty five 0:15:42.760 --> 0:15:46.680 feet from thirty five feet. An elite putter isn't really 0:15:46.680 --> 0:15:50.480 able to differentiate herself or himself. That's a putt that 0:15:50.600 --> 0:15:53.960 almost every player is going to two putt, So that 0:15:54.000 --> 0:15:55.760 isn't the way I would look at the problem. 0:15:56.080 --> 0:15:59.120 Yeah, it seems like in general, when you're pairing up players, 0:15:59.160 --> 0:16:02.320 what you're saying is that you want to optimize on 0:16:02.360 --> 0:16:04.160 the T shots. You want to look at what the 0:16:04.200 --> 0:16:06.760 course is giving you. You know, whether there are differences 0:16:06.800 --> 0:16:09.320 between the even holes on a course and the odd holes, 0:16:09.880 --> 0:16:13.280 and then consider which players in each pairing have the 0:16:13.320 --> 0:16:16.840 skill sets for those holes off the tee. Whereas things 0:16:16.880 --> 0:16:18.920 like putting, you know that that's just going to shake 0:16:18.960 --> 0:16:21.920 out how it shakes out. But you can control the 0:16:22.280 --> 0:16:24.600 T shot who hits the T shots at least exactly. 0:16:24.680 --> 0:16:27.040 That's a huge point is that you you know going 0:16:27.040 --> 0:16:29.120 into the round who's going to hit every T shot. 0:16:29.600 --> 0:16:34.200 And there are some subtle benefits of doing what I'm describing. So, 0:16:34.840 --> 0:16:37.240 for example, on a par five, if you have the 0:16:37.320 --> 0:16:41.720 longer hitter hit first, most likely the way we shake 0:16:41.760 --> 0:16:44.760 our pairings out, the player who's hitting second is going 0:16:44.840 --> 0:16:48.080 to be the shorter hitter. That also tends to mean 0:16:48.400 --> 0:16:50.400 that he or she is going to be the better putter, 0:16:50.920 --> 0:16:54.240 because otherwise, again, how would they be on the team. Right, 0:16:54.480 --> 0:16:56.560 If they're a short hitter, it's more likely they're a 0:16:56.560 --> 0:17:00.400 good putter, And on a par five, it's pretty common 0:17:00.600 --> 0:17:03.280 that the fourth shot is going to be a put 0:17:03.320 --> 0:17:06.399 between five and ten feet. It's more likely than almost 0:17:06.440 --> 0:17:10.600 any other whole shape or length. So you kind of 0:17:10.680 --> 0:17:14.719 stumble into getting to have the most valuable put or 0:17:14.840 --> 0:17:19.240 putt in the most valuable situation by configuring your team 0:17:19.240 --> 0:17:19.600 that way. 0:17:21.000 --> 0:17:24.240 So you know, the general argument that you're making, the 0:17:24.320 --> 0:17:28.440 kind of philosophical argument that you're making, is that things 0:17:28.440 --> 0:17:31.560 that you can learn from data are going to serve 0:17:31.640 --> 0:17:34.360 you better as a captain of one of these teams 0:17:35.040 --> 0:17:38.200 than the stuff that the media often talks about. And 0:17:38.280 --> 0:17:42.359 I'm including myself in the media in this sense. I 0:17:42.440 --> 0:17:45.800 love talking about intangibles when the Ryder Cup comes around, 0:17:45.800 --> 0:17:48.400 when the Solheim Cup comes around, I love talking about 0:17:48.400 --> 0:17:51.520 the relationships between players. I love talking about team chemistry 0:17:51.560 --> 0:17:54.520 because these are things that golf writers don't often get 0:17:54.520 --> 0:17:57.000 to talk about. You can understand the excitement when these 0:17:57.000 --> 0:18:00.679 events come up that there is a different dynamic in play, 0:18:01.400 --> 0:18:04.760 but it seems like your general contention is that we 0:18:04.920 --> 0:18:10.119 over emphasize those intangible factors and don't think enough about 0:18:10.240 --> 0:18:11.679 kind of data driven strategies. 0:18:12.240 --> 0:18:15.280 I don't want to be entirely dismissive of the roles 0:18:15.320 --> 0:18:19.399 of team chemistry and pressure, But when I'm thinking about 0:18:19.600 --> 0:18:21.760 who's going to hit a good shot from two hundred 0:18:21.760 --> 0:18:25.000 and twenty five yards with a wind coming from left 0:18:25.040 --> 0:18:28.200 to right, I want the player who's good at hitting 0:18:28.200 --> 0:18:30.359 two hundred and twenty five yard shots with the wind 0:18:30.480 --> 0:18:33.920 coming from left to right. I'm less concerned about how 0:18:34.040 --> 0:18:37.720 much experience that player has, how they've handled pressure in 0:18:37.760 --> 0:18:40.720 the past, because a lot of those narratives just end 0:18:40.800 --> 0:18:43.400 up not being true. We've seen so many young players 0:18:43.440 --> 0:18:46.720 win majors when previously we thought that you needed a 0:18:46.760 --> 0:18:50.640 ton of experience. So I'd be really careful making too 0:18:50.720 --> 0:18:53.480 many inferences from a narrative. 0:18:54.160 --> 0:18:56.520 You know. I mean. The thing that I think journalists 0:18:56.560 --> 0:18:59.359 are looking at when they see the Ryder Cup is 0:18:59.400 --> 0:19:04.120 that they see one team, the US team, with all 0:19:04.119 --> 0:19:07.919 the highly ranked players, and not all the highly ranked players, 0:19:07.920 --> 0:19:10.840 but but with higher ranked players. They're the favorites usually 0:19:10.880 --> 0:19:13.640 going into each Ryder Cup, and then they look at 0:19:13.720 --> 0:19:17.520 Europe the underdogs, and in recent years, obviously Team Europe 0:19:17.560 --> 0:19:22.040 has kind of dominated the Ryder Cup. And the explanation 0:19:22.600 --> 0:19:25.879 that is often given for that is that while the 0:19:25.880 --> 0:19:28.240 European players just seem to get along a little bit 0:19:28.240 --> 0:19:31.080 better than the US players do, there have been legitimate 0:19:31.160 --> 0:19:34.560 beefs between US players and going into this Ryder Cup, 0:19:34.600 --> 0:19:38.320 it's obviously no exception with the brooks Kepka Bryson to 0:19:38.359 --> 0:19:42.760 Shambau drama ongoing. And so I think the journalists look at, 0:19:42.840 --> 0:19:46.240 you know, the disparity in how talented the teams are 0:19:46.280 --> 0:19:48.679 and the results that they've gotten over the years, and 0:19:48.720 --> 0:19:50.879 then they look at the disparity between how well the 0:19:50.920 --> 0:19:55.000 team seem to get along, and they conclude Team Europe 0:19:55.040 --> 0:19:57.840 just has better team chemistry and has players that get 0:19:57.840 --> 0:20:01.040 along better and that's why they're successful. Do you see 0:20:01.040 --> 0:20:03.639 a problem with that narrative or are we missing some 0:20:03.720 --> 0:20:05.040 things when we buy into that. 0:20:05.680 --> 0:20:08.199 The biggest issue I see with that narrative is that 0:20:08.240 --> 0:20:11.000 I think for a lot of people are paradigms of 0:20:11.080 --> 0:20:15.680 golf our PGA tour centric, and when we think about 0:20:15.680 --> 0:20:17.960 who the best players in the world are, a lot 0:20:17.960 --> 0:20:20.840 of the times that's testing a particular skill set that 0:20:20.960 --> 0:20:23.160 works on the PGA Tour, and a lot of those 0:20:23.160 --> 0:20:27.119 golf courses look similar, test similar skills. So then when 0:20:27.200 --> 0:20:31.520 you go to Paris and the United States gets destroyed, 0:20:31.720 --> 0:20:35.199 that's not a very very different golf course. Then you 0:20:35.240 --> 0:20:37.879 see week to week on the PGA Tour, right, Phil 0:20:37.920 --> 0:20:41.199 Mickelson wasn't going to be valuable that week and he 0:20:41.320 --> 0:20:44.840 wasn't right, and so you could attribute that to a 0:20:44.920 --> 0:20:49.200 lack of chemistry or to dysfunction within the locker room. Sure, 0:20:49.640 --> 0:20:52.000 but I'd also be looking really hard at the skill 0:20:52.040 --> 0:20:54.600 sets of each of those teams and realize that the 0:20:54.680 --> 0:20:57.480 golf Nationale has played perfectly into the hands of the 0:20:57.480 --> 0:20:59.960 European team. It's not going to be the same thing 0:21:00.080 --> 0:21:02.360 whistling straits. These are very different golf courses. 0:21:03.200 --> 0:21:05.320 Do you think in general that Team Europe has done 0:21:05.680 --> 0:21:09.760 a better job at making data driven decisions than Team 0:21:09.880 --> 0:21:10.520 USA has? 0:21:11.040 --> 0:21:13.919 I would say yes. I think there's clearly room for 0:21:13.960 --> 0:21:17.080 improvement on both sides. It doesn't seem to be a 0:21:17.160 --> 0:21:20.600 huge focus on the United States team, but maybe there's 0:21:20.600 --> 0:21:23.320 more going on there than I'm aware of. I'm skeptical 0:21:23.440 --> 0:21:26.080 based on some of the decisions that I've seen in 0:21:26.119 --> 0:21:29.480 the past. But what I would tell you, Garrett, there's 0:21:29.600 --> 0:21:32.560 no excuse for the United States team to not perform 0:21:32.720 --> 0:21:35.160 very well at Whistling Straits, So I think that will 0:21:35.200 --> 0:21:38.280 be very telling if they maximize their advantages. 0:21:38.720 --> 0:21:40.840 Yeah, that's what I'm saying too. And we'll talk about 0:21:40.880 --> 0:21:43.040 Whistling Straits more in depth a little bit later, But 0:21:43.160 --> 0:21:45.520 as you say, it is going to be a very 0:21:45.560 --> 0:21:48.760 different kind of test than the Golf NASCU now. But 0:21:48.960 --> 0:21:51.680 first to dig into the Solheim Cup. Obviously, the Solheim 0:21:51.760 --> 0:21:56.159 Cup is going to start tomorrow and it's going to 0:21:56.200 --> 0:21:59.320 be an Inverness Club, which is a wonderful course that 0:21:59.520 --> 0:22:02.840 we at the front written about and done some videos 0:22:02.840 --> 0:22:05.639 about and things like that, and love the architecture of 0:22:05.680 --> 0:22:07.720 this course. But I'm keen to kind of get a 0:22:07.760 --> 0:22:11.320 different perspective on Inverness Club. I know you've looked at 0:22:11.320 --> 0:22:13.760 it a little bit. What are some things that you 0:22:13.800 --> 0:22:17.919 can say about Inverness Club as it's going to play 0:22:18.240 --> 0:22:20.080 in a team match play scenario. 0:22:20.600 --> 0:22:25.120 Sure, and yeah, admittedly less familiar with Inverness Club and 0:22:25.200 --> 0:22:27.359 with some of the skill sets on the women's side, 0:22:27.840 --> 0:22:32.080 But my takeaways from looking into Inverness. A lot of 0:22:32.080 --> 0:22:35.240 the holes are similar in their profile, but I do 0:22:35.280 --> 0:22:38.760 think that it will be advantageous for the longer players 0:22:38.800 --> 0:22:41.680 to be teeing off on the odd holes. The reason 0:22:41.720 --> 0:22:44.359 I say that is, for one, whole thirteen is a 0:22:44.400 --> 0:22:47.520 reachable par five, it may end up being the most 0:22:47.560 --> 0:22:50.800 important shot that people hit all week. That drive could 0:22:50.880 --> 0:22:53.600 determine whether you're making birdy or par and then just 0:22:53.680 --> 0:22:56.199 generally the other benefit of having the longer player on 0:22:56.280 --> 0:22:58.760 the odd hole is that as you get later in 0:22:58.800 --> 0:23:01.600 the round, you're less and less likely to play each 0:23:01.640 --> 0:23:03.720 hole right. A lot of matches are going to end 0:23:04.119 --> 0:23:07.480 before Hoole eighteen, So if it's a toss up between 0:23:07.520 --> 0:23:10.760 odds or evens, you'd want to give the better drive 0:23:10.840 --> 0:23:13.280 or the odd holes because it's expected they're going to 0:23:13.320 --> 0:23:16.640 hit more of them. So that's what I see from Inverness. 0:23:16.960 --> 0:23:19.000 It depends on how they set it up. Whole three 0:23:19.560 --> 0:23:22.560 could be a long par three. Again beneficial to have 0:23:22.600 --> 0:23:26.720 a longer player hitting that t shot. But overall that 0:23:27.000 --> 0:23:29.320 those are my takeaways from looking at Inverness. 0:23:30.119 --> 0:23:33.240 Yeah, and one factor having been on the grounds there 0:23:33.480 --> 0:23:36.800 is that some of those odd holes three obviously a 0:23:36.840 --> 0:23:38.880 long par three. If it plays as a long part three, 0:23:38.960 --> 0:23:42.440 that is a significant hit, you know, and I think 0:23:42.440 --> 0:23:44.200 that they probably will set it up as a long 0:23:44.240 --> 0:23:46.000 part three. That's how it was intended to be played. 0:23:46.600 --> 0:23:50.080 Whole seven is a long par four with a heavily 0:23:50.160 --> 0:23:54.600 elevated green, and having a nice long drive on that 0:23:54.680 --> 0:23:58.400 hole is very advantageous. And as you mentioned, whole thirteen 0:23:58.760 --> 0:24:03.440 par five again, this is obviously as part five, so 0:24:04.160 --> 0:24:06.439 it's going to be an advantage to a longer player 0:24:06.440 --> 0:24:09.040 to be farther up the fairway. But in addition to that, 0:24:09.240 --> 0:24:12.639 you have a big carry on that second shot. If 0:24:12.680 --> 0:24:15.119 you want to reach the green, you're trying to carry 0:24:15.119 --> 0:24:17.760 the ball over this gully to a green that is 0:24:17.760 --> 0:24:20.520 elevated on the other side of the gully. And so 0:24:20.680 --> 0:24:23.600 obviously I guess the closer you can be to the 0:24:23.680 --> 0:24:27.200 green after your drive, you're just going to have such 0:24:27.200 --> 0:24:29.639 a significant advantage because the lay up there is not 0:24:29.800 --> 0:24:33.520 appealing at all. So the narrative right now going into 0:24:33.920 --> 0:24:37.320 the Solheim Cup is that the Europeans are the significant 0:24:37.440 --> 0:24:43.160 underdogs because of an obvious difference in the average world 0:24:43.280 --> 0:24:46.920 ranking on that team. I wonder if you buy into 0:24:46.960 --> 0:24:50.960 that and whether there are some other factors, more sophisticated 0:24:51.000 --> 0:24:53.880 things that we should be looking at when we're comparing 0:24:53.920 --> 0:24:56.199 these two teams as they're going to match up in 0:24:56.240 --> 0:24:57.560 a team matchplay situation. 0:24:58.480 --> 0:25:02.560 Sure, and again full disclosure, less familiar with the women's side. Right, 0:25:02.760 --> 0:25:05.960 But if it is true that the United States team 0:25:06.040 --> 0:25:09.240 is a lot deeper, and maybe Team Europe has a 0:25:09.240 --> 0:25:12.000 couple really good players, but then the world ranking falls off, 0:25:12.640 --> 0:25:14.640 one thing the captain has to be willing to do 0:25:15.119 --> 0:25:18.000 is sit some of those lower ranked players for many 0:25:18.040 --> 0:25:21.840 of the sessions. The goal is to win, and in 0:25:21.880 --> 0:25:26.000 the NBA Finals, Jannis plays forty two minutes. Right, This 0:25:26.119 --> 0:25:29.040 idea that you need to work people into the lineup 0:25:29.160 --> 0:25:32.200 so that they're ready for the singles matches, I don't 0:25:32.200 --> 0:25:35.639 buy into that. It's not worth sacrificing a point up front, 0:25:35.760 --> 0:25:39.040 So I don't have a strong take on who should 0:25:39.080 --> 0:25:42.119 be favored and by how much. But if lack of 0:25:42.200 --> 0:25:45.280 depth is an issue for Team Europe, then you need 0:25:45.320 --> 0:25:48.000 to strongly consider keeping those best players in the rotation 0:25:48.160 --> 0:25:48.919 for every match. 0:25:49.760 --> 0:25:54.080 Yeah, there is a one of those common narratives once 0:25:54.119 --> 0:25:57.720 again that if a player is saved for singles, if 0:25:57.760 --> 0:25:59.639 they kind of make their debut in the tournament and 0:25:59.720 --> 0:26:02.520 single we immediately assume that they're not going to do 0:26:02.760 --> 0:26:06.720 very well, and therefore that it would be better captaining 0:26:06.800 --> 0:26:10.320 better leadership to get that player in a foursomes or 0:26:10.359 --> 0:26:14.280 four ball match earlier. But you think that that's not 0:26:14.359 --> 0:26:15.040 a great idea. 0:26:15.720 --> 0:26:18.280 You have to weigh the trade off of how much 0:26:18.320 --> 0:26:22.119 are you reducing your expectation on that first match and 0:26:22.160 --> 0:26:25.439 how much is it increasing the players win probability on 0:26:25.480 --> 0:26:29.600 the singles match. From my experience, it's probably very little 0:26:29.800 --> 0:26:33.439 and not worth sacrificing that point up front. Put the 0:26:33.440 --> 0:26:36.600 best players in and they're going to give you the 0:26:36.640 --> 0:26:40.160 best opportunity to win. Again. This is such an important 0:26:40.160 --> 0:26:43.440 point in looking at golf and analyzing golf in general. 0:26:43.960 --> 0:26:46.520 Somebody might look back and say, well, when you leave 0:26:46.560 --> 0:26:49.920 somebody to only play their first match as singles, they 0:26:50.000 --> 0:26:53.480 lose seventy five percent of the time. I'm making up 0:26:53.480 --> 0:26:56.560 a number that could be true, but they're probably going 0:26:56.600 --> 0:26:59.359 to lose anyway. Like the reason they're sitting the first 0:26:59.400 --> 0:27:02.080 four round is because they're one of the weakest members 0:27:02.160 --> 0:27:05.120 of the team. So you just always have to consider that, yes, 0:27:05.160 --> 0:27:08.560 they're probably going to lose the singles match, probably, but 0:27:08.960 --> 0:27:11.760 are you really increasing their win percentage by giving them 0:27:11.760 --> 0:27:13.359 around on Saturday? 0:27:14.240 --> 0:27:18.240 Right? So getting into the Ryder Cup, the big topic 0:27:18.359 --> 0:27:22.919 right now is captain's picks. So let's start with the 0:27:23.000 --> 0:27:26.640 US team. I think there's an interesting scenario here. Obviously, 0:27:26.920 --> 0:27:31.040 six automatic qualifiers have already been determined. We have Colin Morikawa, 0:27:31.160 --> 0:27:36.520 Dustin Johnson, Bryson Deshambeau Brooks, Koepka, Justin Thomas, and Patrick Cantley, 0:27:37.080 --> 0:27:40.159 and then Steve Stricker is going to get six captain's picks. 0:27:40.520 --> 0:27:44.560 The ones that seem pretty locked right now are Tony Finow, 0:27:44.840 --> 0:27:48.560 Xander Schaffle, a, Jordan Speith and Harris English. That leaves 0:27:48.600 --> 0:27:54.200 two captain's picks between Patrick Reed, Daniel Berger, Web Simpson, 0:27:54.280 --> 0:27:58.040 Scotti Scheffler Jason Kokrach. There are a lot of options 0:27:58.080 --> 0:28:00.800 for what I understand to be the two picks that 0:28:00.840 --> 0:28:02.760 are up in the air. Maybe there's something I don't 0:28:02.800 --> 0:28:07.040 know about those other four. I feel like Fein now, schofle, Afe, 0:28:07.080 --> 0:28:09.359 Speed and English are going to be on the team. 0:28:11.000 --> 0:28:13.840 When you're looking at that list of players who could 0:28:13.840 --> 0:28:17.680 take those final two captain's picks, who are you looking 0:28:17.720 --> 0:28:18.960 at as the best candidates. 0:28:20.000 --> 0:28:22.359 Yeah, and I do have Harris English on the team. 0:28:23.400 --> 0:28:26.480 He's probably less of a lock for me than maybe 0:28:26.520 --> 0:28:28.840 as being discussed, I would put him on the team. Okay, 0:28:29.440 --> 0:28:31.560 and then I agree with the other everything else that 0:28:31.600 --> 0:28:35.440 you said. The other two names that I would pick, 0:28:35.600 --> 0:28:39.000 I think are pretty common. Nothing crazy here, but I 0:28:39.000 --> 0:28:42.400 would pick Patrick Reid and Daniel Berger. Each of those 0:28:42.440 --> 0:28:46.160 players is bringing a distinct skill set that's extremely valuable 0:28:46.200 --> 0:28:49.760 to the team. It is absolutely worth calling out that 0:28:49.840 --> 0:28:53.520 whistling Straits is going to favor a long hitter, and 0:28:53.600 --> 0:28:56.880 neither of those players is particularly long. There's a lot 0:28:56.920 --> 0:28:59.480 of length on the United States team, and if you 0:28:59.520 --> 0:29:02.840 can figure those teams properly, you'll be in a position 0:29:02.880 --> 0:29:06.400 where you have a balanced team that has all of 0:29:06.400 --> 0:29:09.440 those important shots on the golf course covered. Patrick Reid 0:29:09.480 --> 0:29:12.480 brings a very distinct skill set in his short game. 0:29:12.920 --> 0:29:14.920 He also hits the ball a lot straighter off the 0:29:14.960 --> 0:29:18.560 tee than I think people may realize. A very very 0:29:18.600 --> 0:29:20.640 accurate driver of the golf ball. So if you pair 0:29:20.720 --> 0:29:24.320 him with somebody like a Dustin Johnson or a Brooks Koepka, 0:29:24.800 --> 0:29:27.800 that team is very difficult to beat. And Daniel Berger 0:29:27.880 --> 0:29:30.760 is a similar story. Not the longest hitter, but he 0:29:30.800 --> 0:29:33.480 does hit it very straight, really good long iron player, 0:29:33.520 --> 0:29:35.520 which is going to be important, and he has a 0:29:35.560 --> 0:29:38.640 really good short game as well. But it's a tough call, right, 0:29:38.680 --> 0:29:41.560 I mean, Sam Burns has a good argument to be made. 0:29:41.560 --> 0:29:44.120 I think Web Simpson has an argument to be made. 0:29:44.840 --> 0:29:47.720 But clearly length is going to be a relevant factor. 0:29:48.400 --> 0:29:50.840 What's the argument for web Simpson Because it seems like 0:29:50.920 --> 0:29:53.720 the course fit wouldn't really be there for web Simpson 0:29:53.800 --> 0:29:56.600 if this course is going to strongly prefer driving distance. 0:29:56.640 --> 0:29:58.640 Web Simpson is kind of the ultimate example of a 0:29:58.680 --> 0:30:01.800 player who might think Atlagolf not seen now as well 0:30:01.800 --> 0:30:03.640 as the other courses that are kind of like that 0:30:03.720 --> 0:30:06.160 on the PGA Tour, the sedge Fields and the Harbor Towns, 0:30:06.160 --> 0:30:09.800 et cetera. But maybe wouldn't do so well at Lo Golf. 0:30:10.320 --> 0:30:12.480 But you still think he's a good candidate. 0:30:12.920 --> 0:30:18.400 Yeah, And anytime you're talking about leaning distance or leaning accuracy, 0:30:18.960 --> 0:30:22.080 it is all still relative and the other skills are 0:30:23.000 --> 0:30:25.360 relevant as well. You know, it doesn't mean that we 0:30:25.480 --> 0:30:27.880 just tilt all the way in the direction of distance 0:30:27.920 --> 0:30:31.240 and put Cameron Champ on the team, right, So you know, 0:30:31.240 --> 0:30:35.040 Web Simpson is a very skilled player. He has unbelievable 0:30:35.080 --> 0:30:39.440 short game, and particularly in the alternate shot format, he 0:30:39.480 --> 0:30:41.680 would provide a lot of benefit. 0:30:41.720 --> 0:30:44.960 If you're going the course fit direction. Sam Burns might 0:30:45.240 --> 0:30:46.920 be a compelling pick, right. 0:30:47.040 --> 0:30:49.720 I think Sam Burns is a compelling pick. It's tough 0:30:49.760 --> 0:30:53.520 to leave anybody of these few names off. I just 0:30:53.560 --> 0:30:57.080 feel the most confident that, given their skill sets, Reed 0:30:57.120 --> 0:30:59.680 and Berger would provide a lot of value, particularly in 0:30:59.720 --> 0:31:01.040 the all shot format. 0:31:01.240 --> 0:31:04.640 Right. One player we haven't discussed so far who would 0:31:04.680 --> 0:31:08.040 be I think a great candidate because he's just been 0:31:08.040 --> 0:31:10.680 one of the best players in the world for the 0:31:10.720 --> 0:31:13.960 past year or so but doesn't get much attention is 0:31:14.000 --> 0:31:17.800 Scotty Scheffler. Is Scotty Scheffler someone who should be on 0:31:17.920 --> 0:31:18.960 Steve Stricker's radar. 0:31:19.640 --> 0:31:22.240 It's tough. I mean, we're talking about some really good players. 0:31:22.680 --> 0:31:26.240 Should he be on Steve Stricker's radar? Absolutely he did. 0:31:26.280 --> 0:31:30.400 He wouldn't make Mike cutover, Burger and Reid. But Scotty 0:31:30.440 --> 0:31:34.000 Scheffler's extremely talented, hits the ball far, hits the ball 0:31:34.040 --> 0:31:39.080 straight as well. Not an excellent putter, and he is 0:31:39.160 --> 0:31:41.760 lacking there. But he's a really good player. It's hard 0:31:41.800 --> 0:31:44.680 to take some of these names and throw them off. 0:31:45.280 --> 0:31:48.239 All right, So sticking with the US team, we'll get 0:31:48.240 --> 0:31:51.560 to the European team in a second. Do any pairings 0:31:51.600 --> 0:31:55.760 of players among those who are likely to be part 0:31:55.800 --> 0:31:58.640 of the US team. Do any pairings of players jump 0:31:58.640 --> 0:32:00.880 out at you as like this is an obvious one? 0:32:01.240 --> 0:32:04.520 Stricker should roll with this in those initial matches. 0:32:04.720 --> 0:32:07.680 I say the biggest thing would be you have a 0:32:07.800 --> 0:32:10.040 number of guys who hit the ball very long, and 0:32:10.080 --> 0:32:13.400 they should be playing a lot, and that's would likely 0:32:13.440 --> 0:32:15.520 result in pairings where you're gonna have a long player 0:32:15.560 --> 0:32:18.280 with a shorter hitter just because of the way those 0:32:18.320 --> 0:32:21.320 skill sets are gonna shake out. So I think you 0:32:21.360 --> 0:32:24.520 could pull a number of these examples, like a Bryson 0:32:24.600 --> 0:32:28.640 Morikawa team, Like that team is strong. Bryson with anybody 0:32:28.640 --> 0:32:30.560 who's not one of the longest hitters on that team 0:32:30.600 --> 0:32:34.040 is gonna be strong. I think Dustin Johnson will probably 0:32:34.040 --> 0:32:37.280 be a star of this Ryder Cup. He is an 0:32:37.280 --> 0:32:40.840 exceptional long iron player, hits the ball really far. You 0:32:40.920 --> 0:32:43.320 pair him with pretty much any one of these guys 0:32:43.360 --> 0:32:46.360 who isn't the longest, and they're gonna do really well. 0:32:46.920 --> 0:32:49.080 To be clear, if you put a really long hitter 0:32:49.120 --> 0:32:51.640 with Dustin Johnson, they do really well too. I'm not 0:32:51.680 --> 0:32:56.920 suggesting that bomber bomber is worse than bomber shorter hitter. 0:32:57.400 --> 0:32:58.880 It's just a matter off. You got a field, a 0:32:58.920 --> 0:33:02.360 full roster, and so you got to distribute that length somewhere. 0:33:02.840 --> 0:33:06.320 If you have Web Simpson and Patrick Reid on the team, 0:33:06.360 --> 0:33:08.760 if they get those kind of final captain's picks, then 0:33:09.320 --> 0:33:11.560 you wouldn't want to see them pair together again. 0:33:11.360 --> 0:33:14.720 Right, Absolutely not. And I think that's a great, really 0:33:14.720 --> 0:33:17.920 good example of where you have a team like DJ 0:33:18.120 --> 0:33:22.640 and Read or DJ and Simpson, that's a dangerous team. 0:33:22.920 --> 0:33:25.680 And one point that I wanted to bring up that 0:33:25.720 --> 0:33:30.200 I think is interesting related to strategy in general, is 0:33:30.240 --> 0:33:34.040 that chipping as a skill is more important in the 0:33:34.080 --> 0:33:36.959 alternate shot format than in the four ball. I think 0:33:36.960 --> 0:33:39.600 it's a really important point, and the reason behind it 0:33:39.680 --> 0:33:42.800 is that when you are chipping, it is often determining 0:33:42.800 --> 0:33:45.680 if you're going to make par or bogie, which will 0:33:45.680 --> 0:33:49.720 not matter that often in the best ball format it could. 0:33:50.320 --> 0:33:53.320 But if I'm chipping, the only way it matters is 0:33:53.360 --> 0:33:57.160 if both of my opponents make par or worse and 0:33:57.280 --> 0:34:00.720 my partner makes worse than par, which isn't going to happen. 0:34:01.520 --> 0:34:05.440 It'll happen about fifteen percent of the time. So in general, 0:34:05.440 --> 0:34:07.200 when I'm thinking about how do I want to configure 0:34:07.200 --> 0:34:10.239 these teams, if a player is really really good at 0:34:10.320 --> 0:34:14.000 chipping and weaker in some of the other areas, there's 0:34:14.000 --> 0:34:15.600 a good chance that I'm going to have him play 0:34:15.600 --> 0:34:16.319 alternate shot. 0:34:16.840 --> 0:34:21.239 Yeah. Patrick Reid and Jordan Spieth are real assets and 0:34:21.440 --> 0:34:25.520 an alternate shot, And maybe right now, specifically, Bryson de 0:34:25.600 --> 0:34:29.399 Shambeau may be quite a bit more valuable in four 0:34:29.440 --> 0:34:32.560 ball than he is in enforcomes, because he seems to 0:34:32.600 --> 0:34:35.440 be having some struggles chipping. I'm not sure how persistent 0:34:35.440 --> 0:34:37.960 those struggles are going to be, but that certainly seemed 0:34:37.960 --> 0:34:40.200 to be holding him back at the BMW Championship. 0:34:40.840 --> 0:34:43.359 Agreed, and you're thinking about it exactly as I am. 0:34:43.600 --> 0:34:46.520 I'd probably play Bryson a lot, even in alternate shot, yeah, 0:34:46.560 --> 0:34:49.200 because of how well he fits the course. But agreed. 0:34:49.200 --> 0:34:53.239 If a player makes their money with chipping but don't 0:34:53.280 --> 0:34:56.479 make birdies at an extremely high rate, that's a player 0:34:56.480 --> 0:35:00.200 who's much better suited for the alternate shot format. Again, 0:35:00.239 --> 0:35:03.400 when you're chipping, it isn't going to matter that often 0:35:03.800 --> 0:35:08.239 in best ball, except on a par five sometimes, or 0:35:08.280 --> 0:35:09.399 like a driveable par four. 0:35:09.880 --> 0:35:12.239 Right for your third shot on the par five, for 0:35:12.320 --> 0:35:15.279 your second shot on the driveable part four, That's where 0:35:15.280 --> 0:35:16.480 I could really factor in. 0:35:16.680 --> 0:35:18.480 Right, I mean, you could hit you could hit an 0:35:18.520 --> 0:35:22.680 amazing chip on a par four really difficult to three 0:35:22.760 --> 0:35:26.120 feet and your opponent makes birdie. You could have shanked 0:35:26.120 --> 0:35:27.520 the chip and it doesn't make a difference. 0:35:27.920 --> 0:35:31.000 Yeah, yeah, now, come to think of it, I just 0:35:31.040 --> 0:35:34.120 thought of this when I mentioned Jordan Spieth and Patrick Reid. 0:35:34.160 --> 0:35:36.640 But obviously they've been paired together quite a bit in 0:35:36.719 --> 0:35:39.560 past Ryder Cups. They have a reputation as a pairing 0:35:39.640 --> 0:35:42.239 that really works. And the argument that people usually make 0:35:42.280 --> 0:35:44.920 for that pairing is that the kind of personalities mesh 0:35:45.040 --> 0:35:47.239 in a way because they're competitive with each other, they 0:35:47.320 --> 0:35:49.840 kind of fire each other up. But it seems like, 0:35:49.920 --> 0:35:52.600 following the logic of pairings that you've laid out for us, 0:35:52.640 --> 0:35:57.640 that they might not be the best match because, you know, 0:35:57.760 --> 0:36:01.360 matching up speed with somebody like with a longer player, 0:36:01.440 --> 0:36:03.879 matching up a reed with somebody like Dustin Johnson. Again, 0:36:03.920 --> 0:36:06.600 a longer player might be the smarter call. 0:36:07.200 --> 0:36:10.000 That's the route that I would go. Yes, I think, 0:36:10.120 --> 0:36:13.279 especially in past Ryder Cups, when you're talking about the 0:36:13.320 --> 0:36:15.520 Reed speF pairing, those were two of the best players 0:36:15.520 --> 0:36:18.000 in the world. I mean, they still are right at 0:36:18.040 --> 0:36:21.160 the top, but you know, you're talking about some of 0:36:21.200 --> 0:36:24.919 their peaks each as players. So I think that it's 0:36:25.000 --> 0:36:27.240 reasonable to expect that they've had a lot of success 0:36:27.239 --> 0:36:29.840 in past Ryder Cups because they're very, very good players. 0:36:30.360 --> 0:36:33.520 Obviously still are, but now I would be looking a 0:36:33.560 --> 0:36:36.000 little bit more at pairing them a little bit differently. 0:36:36.320 --> 0:36:39.399 Yeah, all right, let's talk about Team Europe a little bit. 0:36:39.680 --> 0:36:41.560 You know, it's it's a little bit harder for me 0:36:41.680 --> 0:36:45.040 to figure out the European points system than it is 0:36:45.080 --> 0:36:48.319 the US point system. Obviously the automatic qualifiers haven't been 0:36:48.360 --> 0:36:52.000 totally determined yet. But there's the European points list, there's 0:36:52.040 --> 0:36:55.640 the world points list. It's looking like obviously John Rams 0:36:55.719 --> 0:36:56.960 is going to you know, he's the best player in 0:36:57.000 --> 0:36:58.399 the world right now, He's going to be on the team. 0:36:58.680 --> 0:37:03.800 Tommy Fleetwood, Terrell and Roy McElroy, Victor Hovland, Paul Casey, 0:37:04.040 --> 0:37:07.360 Matt Fitzpatrick, those guys seem like they're going to be 0:37:07.360 --> 0:37:10.319 on the team. Lee Westwood and Shane Lowry are in 0:37:10.440 --> 0:37:13.600 qualifying spots right now, and I'm not sure how solid 0:37:13.640 --> 0:37:15.880 those spots are. They're both on the World points list. 0:37:16.000 --> 0:37:20.600 But among the captain's picks options, there are going to 0:37:20.640 --> 0:37:23.359 be three captain's picks that Patrick Harrington is going to make. 0:37:23.800 --> 0:37:27.840 You have players like Sergio Garcia, Justin Rose, and Ian Poulter, 0:37:28.000 --> 0:37:32.000 obviously stallwarts of past European teams. But then you also 0:37:32.040 --> 0:37:34.560 have players who have been playing quite well on the 0:37:34.600 --> 0:37:39.480 European tour like Burn Wisberger, Victor Perez, Robert McIntyre, even 0:37:39.520 --> 0:37:43.279 Guidomigliosi who's been very competitive on the European tour but 0:37:43.360 --> 0:37:46.239 maybe isn't well known worldwide. I mean, there are some 0:37:46.560 --> 0:37:51.960 interesting options there between really established, older experienced players who 0:37:52.000 --> 0:37:55.080 have a reputation for being great Ryder Cup players like 0:37:55.080 --> 0:37:58.359 Garciaan Polter, and then you have players who have been 0:37:58.840 --> 0:38:00.719 great on the European two who are for the past 0:38:00.760 --> 0:38:03.120 couple of years. What do you think is the route 0:38:03.120 --> 0:38:05.360 to go with those captain's picks? 0:38:05.960 --> 0:38:09.440 So I have penciled in Sergio Garcia, Justin Rose, and 0:38:09.480 --> 0:38:12.200 Ian Bolter, and it's it's not even a you know, 0:38:12.239 --> 0:38:17.200 relying on past ryder cups. Take those three are playing 0:38:17.400 --> 0:38:21.200 better than anybody else that I ran through and looked 0:38:21.200 --> 0:38:24.720 at who could be performing well whistling straits. Admittedly I'm 0:38:24.760 --> 0:38:27.919 looking less at some of those European Tour results. It's 0:38:27.920 --> 0:38:32.200 also worth calling out that oftentimes those European Tour fields 0:38:32.239 --> 0:38:35.239 are significantly weaker, So players who are playing on the 0:38:35.239 --> 0:38:38.440 PGA Tour and playing well like Sergio and Ian Poulter, 0:38:39.280 --> 0:38:42.640 it's often quite a different skill set there. But I 0:38:42.760 --> 0:38:46.279 have the I have Sergio justin Rosenian Poulter. Clearly the 0:38:46.320 --> 0:38:49.279 European team is lacking length, so you can make a 0:38:49.280 --> 0:38:51.799 case for somebody who hits it out there a little 0:38:51.840 --> 0:38:54.840 bit farther. They're in trouble based on how you know 0:38:54.880 --> 0:38:57.239 they're distance. Their lack of distance stacks up with the 0:38:57.360 --> 0:39:01.400 United States team. But having a really hard time finding 0:39:01.480 --> 0:39:03.879 a name that you could replace either one of these 0:39:03.880 --> 0:39:04.760 three guys with. 0:39:05.440 --> 0:39:07.839 Yeah, I mean, I don't know, you'd have to go 0:39:07.880 --> 0:39:10.680 pretty far down the list to find a real bomber. 0:39:10.920 --> 0:39:15.680 Maybe Erasmus Hoyguard. I'm not I'm not exactly sure who 0:39:15.719 --> 0:39:17.839 among these guys hits it really really far. I mean, 0:39:18.120 --> 0:39:21.160 Robert McIntyre gets it out there, but yeah, I mean 0:39:21.880 --> 0:39:24.040 Victor Hovelin obviously is going to be on the team, 0:39:24.080 --> 0:39:25.759 and John Ram is going to be a great fit 0:39:25.800 --> 0:39:29.160 for the course Roy McElroy. But as far as bombers 0:39:29.160 --> 0:39:31.799 are concerned, the US just has a huge advantage there. 0:39:31.800 --> 0:39:35.680 It seems like absolutely and it can be gimmicky, but 0:39:35.880 --> 0:39:38.000 if I were the United States team, I would be 0:39:38.800 --> 0:39:43.240 really praying on that. And as an example that I've prepared, 0:39:43.920 --> 0:39:46.839 you know, a whole four at Whistling Streets is a 0:39:46.920 --> 0:39:50.440 long par four, and we've decided that we want to 0:39:50.480 --> 0:39:52.640 have our longer players hitting on the even holes, so 0:39:53.040 --> 0:39:56.799 this works out. What's interesting about whole four is that 0:39:57.120 --> 0:39:59.120 at the length that a lot of players hit their driver, 0:39:59.280 --> 0:40:02.800 it gets very very narrow, like twenty five yards wide, 0:40:03.600 --> 0:40:07.360 and then it actually gets extremely wide when you get 0:40:07.520 --> 0:40:10.360 ten to fifteen yards past that. Huh, it gets like 0:40:10.400 --> 0:40:13.120 forty five yards wide. I would be putting that tea 0:40:13.160 --> 0:40:19.000 box exactly where my longest players are reaching that really 0:40:19.080 --> 0:40:23.080 wide part. Right, So your Bryson's your DJs. 0:40:23.239 --> 0:40:26.000 Like the like the three fifteen carry range, like the 0:40:26.200 --> 0:40:27.600 DC yeah. 0:40:27.360 --> 0:40:30.200 It depends on wind. It depends on wind exactly where 0:40:30.200 --> 0:40:32.680 that should be set. But that's one of those ways 0:40:32.680 --> 0:40:36.239 in which you can really maximize your advantage. I'd be 0:40:36.280 --> 0:40:40.840 setting the whole six driveable. Part four, Let's be really 0:40:40.880 --> 0:40:43.799 thoughtful about how far that whole plays. Again, we have 0:40:43.880 --> 0:40:46.959 our longer players hitting the even t shots. Let's set 0:40:47.000 --> 0:40:50.640 that yardage exactly where the longest players are in a 0:40:50.680 --> 0:40:53.920 position to maximize their advantage. 0:40:53.840 --> 0:40:56.920 And whistling straits can be stretched out to like seventy 0:40:56.960 --> 0:40:57.840 eight hundred yards. 0:40:57.920 --> 0:41:01.239 Right, you want to play that course again, if you 0:41:01.280 --> 0:41:03.839 really lean into what I'm suggesting, and you put your 0:41:04.000 --> 0:41:07.279 longest players on the even holes, you might have an 0:41:07.320 --> 0:41:11.399 afternoon where you want to set some odd holes shorter. Right, 0:41:11.400 --> 0:41:14.239 you have you have that information of who's going to 0:41:14.239 --> 0:41:16.319 be hitting off each t shot. So if you have 0:41:16.400 --> 0:41:19.360 guys like Spieth or Berger who aren't as long on 0:41:19.440 --> 0:41:22.360 odd holes, maybe you'll elect to set the course up 0:41:22.400 --> 0:41:25.240 a little bit differently. But absolutely you should be taking 0:41:25.239 --> 0:41:26.000 that into account. 0:41:26.920 --> 0:41:30.239 So going back to the twenty eighteen Ryder Cup, the 0:41:30.360 --> 0:41:32.839 US was strongly favored going into that event, and they 0:41:32.880 --> 0:41:37.520 obviously just didn't get anywhere close and going out of 0:41:37.560 --> 0:41:41.320 that Ryder Cup, A lot of the attention was given 0:41:41.400 --> 0:41:46.320 to personal conflicts between Dustin Johnson and Brooks Koepka, conflicts 0:41:46.360 --> 0:41:49.960 between Patrick Reed and basically everybody else. Right, That kind 0:41:50.000 --> 0:41:54.000 of led the storytelling that we did after the event. 0:41:54.040 --> 0:41:55.560 And I don't want to poo poo that because I 0:41:55.600 --> 0:41:58.840 found that incredibly entertaining and relevant and it was just 0:41:58.880 --> 0:42:01.799 a great moment to be in golf media to get 0:42:01.800 --> 0:42:04.760 to kind of dig sink my teeth into into that stuff. 0:42:04.800 --> 0:42:07.279 It was a lot of fun. But that may have 0:42:07.400 --> 0:42:12.239 overwhelmed what really happened in the twenty eighteen Ryder Cup 0:42:12.760 --> 0:42:15.680 at What would be your diagnosis of the way that 0:42:15.680 --> 0:42:19.240 that golf course La Golf Nacional fit with the skill 0:42:19.320 --> 0:42:22.120 sets of Team Europe versus Team USA. 0:42:22.760 --> 0:42:25.920 Yeah, I think the golf nasci and l apologies for 0:42:25.960 --> 0:42:27.640 the mispronunciation. 0:42:26.880 --> 0:42:31.400 Earlier, I don't think yeah nacional nasty? Who can it'saf? 0:42:31.520 --> 0:42:33.520 I like the golf just saying lak golf. I think 0:42:33.560 --> 0:42:35.360 that's a that's an attractive. 0:42:34.960 --> 0:42:38.279 Name, perfect so at lea goolf. I think they set 0:42:38.320 --> 0:42:40.960 that golf course up to be about as one dimensional 0:42:40.960 --> 0:42:44.040 of a test as you can. It was who could 0:42:44.120 --> 0:42:46.640 hit the ball the straightest. Those fairways were narrow, and 0:42:46.680 --> 0:42:49.720 the rough was so thick that you know, obviously length 0:42:50.000 --> 0:42:54.400 is always an advantage, but Europe had a serious edge 0:42:54.920 --> 0:42:57.439 and how accurate those players were off the tee, whereas 0:42:57.480 --> 0:43:02.000 the United States was no near it. I think I've 0:43:02.040 --> 0:43:05.160 calculated that of the top one hundred straightest players off 0:43:05.160 --> 0:43:08.759 the tee on tour, Europe had I believe nine of 0:43:08.800 --> 0:43:11.719 them on their team at the Ryder Cup in twenty 0:43:11.719 --> 0:43:16.440 eighteen and the United States had two. So really making 0:43:16.480 --> 0:43:21.000 that course as narrow and with as penal misses as possible. 0:43:21.440 --> 0:43:24.160 I've even heard them talk about they wanted the fans 0:43:24.160 --> 0:43:26.480 as far back as possible so that you weren't trampling 0:43:26.520 --> 0:43:28.759 down rough that the United States was going to end 0:43:28.840 --> 0:43:32.239 up in. So they were asking the question, how straight 0:43:32.239 --> 0:43:33.799 can you hit the ball, and the United States didn't 0:43:33.840 --> 0:43:34.719 hit the ball straight. 0:43:35.280 --> 0:43:37.919 Well, So I want to press on that a little 0:43:37.920 --> 0:43:41.480 bit because there are courses on the PGA Tour or 0:43:41.480 --> 0:43:44.480 that have been on the PGA Tour, like Beth Page, 0:43:44.760 --> 0:43:48.800 like Tory Pine's PGA National to an extent wing foot 0:43:49.200 --> 0:43:53.319 at that US Open, these courses are narrow. They had 0:43:53.440 --> 0:43:57.560 heavy rough, and the emphasis didn't end up being on 0:43:57.960 --> 0:44:02.200 accuracy necessarily, though accuracy helped, It ended up being on 0:44:02.320 --> 0:44:05.240 length where the courses who thrat the players who thrived 0:44:05.280 --> 0:44:08.399 at those courses tended to be very long, and in fact, 0:44:08.440 --> 0:44:10.799 it seemed like they were the only people who really 0:44:10.840 --> 0:44:13.600 had a chance at those tournaments. Now you go to 0:44:13.880 --> 0:44:17.480 the golf for the twenty eighteen Ryder Cup, and accuracy 0:44:17.560 --> 0:44:21.480 did seem to be heavily prized because the fairways were 0:44:21.600 --> 0:44:24.120 narrow and the rough was high. But you know what 0:44:24.280 --> 0:44:28.360 was really the difference between that venue and like Bethpage Black, 0:44:28.920 --> 0:44:32.400 where the golf was able to give the edge to 0:44:33.239 --> 0:44:35.040 accurate if shorter players. 0:44:35.920 --> 0:44:39.000 Yeah, and I think this is a nuanced point that 0:44:39.040 --> 0:44:43.239 could probably go a while here. So for one irrelevant 0:44:43.280 --> 0:44:45.680 factor is how often you're taking driver out of a 0:44:45.719 --> 0:44:48.600 player's hands. So the golf course like Tory Pines, you're 0:44:48.640 --> 0:44:52.359 hitting driver on every single hole. And so when you 0:44:52.400 --> 0:44:55.160 have a course setup that's as long and narrow as 0:44:55.200 --> 0:44:57.319 some of those courses, the winner is going to be 0:44:57.719 --> 0:45:01.040 a long player who all so hits the ball straight 0:45:01.080 --> 0:45:04.320 that week. When you have a course that's just narrow 0:45:04.360 --> 0:45:08.040 with thick rough and not as long. More similar to 0:45:08.080 --> 0:45:11.359 the golf, it brings some of those shorter, really more 0:45:11.640 --> 0:45:15.800 accurate players into the picture, especially on holes where it 0:45:15.880 --> 0:45:18.319 might get more narrow the farther you hit the ball, 0:45:18.360 --> 0:45:21.920 and you can hit less than driver. So generally speaking, 0:45:22.520 --> 0:45:26.160 there's also a difference between winning a tournament and what 0:45:26.320 --> 0:45:30.560 somebody's expectation should be for the day, Meaning like at 0:45:30.560 --> 0:45:33.440 Tory Pine's, Yes, the winner is going to be somebody 0:45:33.480 --> 0:45:36.399 who bombs it and hits it straight. But in terms 0:45:36.400 --> 0:45:38.520 of just an if they don't hit it as straight, 0:45:38.760 --> 0:45:41.560 that thick rough is still hurting them, right. It's not 0:45:41.680 --> 0:45:45.959 that you know, thick rough rewards a bomber. It does 0:45:46.040 --> 0:45:49.759 still reward somebody who's accurate. It's just that when you 0:45:49.880 --> 0:45:54.600 create a dynamic where it's as long and narrow and 0:45:54.640 --> 0:45:57.920 thick as some of those courses you're mentioning, length is 0:45:57.960 --> 0:46:01.799 going to be a prerequisite or success, especially because you 0:46:01.840 --> 0:46:03.759 have to make birdies to win. It's not about making 0:46:03.760 --> 0:46:07.880 the cut. Yeah, And I think another interesting point on Bryson. 0:46:08.040 --> 0:46:10.880 I know that he's the hot topic of every conversation, 0:46:11.000 --> 0:46:13.240 but you know one thing I've noticed in particular about 0:46:13.520 --> 0:46:16.200 his strategy. If you look at where the pin is. 0:46:16.760 --> 0:46:20.320 Bryson is often favoring a side of the golf course 0:46:20.560 --> 0:46:22.759 that's going to give him the most green to work 0:46:22.800 --> 0:46:26.839 with or the best angle. It's very noticeable. So when 0:46:27.120 --> 0:46:30.440 you have a hazard, Bryson doesn't really have that luxury. 0:46:30.920 --> 0:46:33.360 But when you have a course that's just lined with 0:46:33.480 --> 0:46:37.080 rough on either side, it really enables him to favor 0:46:37.120 --> 0:46:40.600 a side of the fairway. If he finds the fairway, great, 0:46:40.800 --> 0:46:43.440 If not, he's in the rough with an advantageous angle. 0:46:44.200 --> 0:46:47.120 I would recommend people look through some of his shot trails. 0:46:47.360 --> 0:46:49.759 I think it's very evident that that's what his strategy is, 0:46:50.040 --> 0:46:53.000 and particularly at a place like Cave's Valley, that was 0:46:53.040 --> 0:46:55.960 going to work perfectly, and that's exactly what he did. 0:46:56.000 --> 0:46:58.319 You know, there's no hazards. He's that worried about no 0:46:58.360 --> 0:47:02.040 out of bounds. I think that's a relevant part of 0:47:02.080 --> 0:47:05.040 thinking about some of the longest players, especially Bryson. 0:47:05.840 --> 0:47:09.120 So wait, Joseph, are you telling me that Bryson Deshambeau 0:47:09.360 --> 0:47:10.760 is playing the angles? 0:47:13.560 --> 0:47:16.160 Angles is a hot top Look. I don't want to 0:47:16.160 --> 0:47:21.319 suggest that. Yes, I mean, frankly, he is right, So 0:47:22.680 --> 0:47:25.239 it's less though, I think for Bryson about picking a 0:47:25.320 --> 0:47:28.000 target that gives him the best angle and more about 0:47:28.080 --> 0:47:31.200 picking a target that avoids some of those big penalty shots. 0:47:31.360 --> 0:47:35.319 There's some interaction between those two concepts. But yeah, look 0:47:35.360 --> 0:47:38.120 at Bryson's shot trails. I mean he's favoring a side 0:47:38.120 --> 0:47:39.439 of the fairway almost every time. 0:47:39.840 --> 0:47:41.839 Yeah, yeah, I mean I think what he's doing is 0:47:41.880 --> 0:47:45.279 not what most people would imagine as hunting angles, as in, 0:47:45.520 --> 0:47:47.399 you know, like trying to thread the needle to get 0:47:47.400 --> 0:47:50.719 a good angle into the green. He's favoring sides of 0:47:50.760 --> 0:47:53.799 the course where he's going to have, you know, the 0:47:53.800 --> 0:47:56.799 best chance at a successful next shot. And you know, 0:47:56.840 --> 0:47:59.799 maybe he's not super worried about being in the fair way, 0:47:59.840 --> 0:48:01.440 for is not being in the fair way if there 0:48:01.480 --> 0:48:04.360 aren't big hazards, because you know, if he's in the 0:48:04.440 --> 0:48:08.239 rough with a plenty of grain to work with, then 0:48:07.880 --> 0:48:10.600 he can get the ball close. Still, as he proved 0:48:10.600 --> 0:48:13.319 at wing Foot over and over and over again, he's 0:48:13.360 --> 0:48:15.880 hitting wedges out of the rough. Those shots seem to 0:48:15.880 --> 0:48:18.440 work out just fine for him, and he's applying that 0:48:18.480 --> 0:48:21.279 strategy to a lot of places. So getting back to 0:48:21.320 --> 0:48:25.600 the upcoming Ryder Cup, we've got a super stacked US team. 0:48:25.960 --> 0:48:29.440 We've got a course that seems to favor their strengths. 0:48:29.880 --> 0:48:33.800 I'm coming out of this conversation thinking, once again, Team USA, 0:48:34.320 --> 0:48:37.560 they're the heavy favorites, and I feel like I'm getting 0:48:37.880 --> 0:48:42.600 fooled again into assuming that the US team is going 0:48:42.640 --> 0:48:46.120 to be successful here. But that has not worked out 0:48:46.360 --> 0:48:50.600 so often, And so what is the mindset that you're 0:48:50.680 --> 0:48:53.920 taking into this Ryder Cup as to what to expect. 0:48:54.520 --> 0:48:59.600 So, for one, golf is inherently there's a lot of 0:48:59.719 --> 0:49:04.640 very and particularly in the Ryder Cup format, anything can 0:49:04.680 --> 0:49:07.560 happen on one day. It's hard to be a massive, 0:49:07.760 --> 0:49:12.759 massive favorite. I agree the United States are clearly the favorites, 0:49:13.080 --> 0:49:15.560 pretty heavy favorites, but some of the best players in 0:49:15.600 --> 0:49:18.600 the world are playing on the European team. John Rahm 0:49:19.080 --> 0:49:21.640 is playing at a level that nobody else on the 0:49:21.680 --> 0:49:24.879 PGA Tour is playing close to, and you can trot 0:49:24.920 --> 0:49:28.200 him out there for every single session. He's dangerous. So 0:49:28.560 --> 0:49:30.239 it's hard to get to the point where you're like 0:49:30.280 --> 0:49:34.279 a seventy five eighty percent favorite. That's a really big 0:49:34.320 --> 0:49:36.920 burden to place on the favorite. So I am with you. 0:49:37.000 --> 0:49:39.960 I believe the United States should be strongly favored, but 0:49:40.480 --> 0:49:43.800 in a format that's ti variance and anything can happen 0:49:43.840 --> 0:49:46.839 on any given day. I think the markets have us 0:49:46.880 --> 0:49:49.480 around sixty sixty five percent. Seems reasonable to me. 0:49:50.680 --> 0:49:52.960 Joseph, thank you so much for talking to me today. 0:49:53.280 --> 0:49:56.000 Where can people find your writing? 0:49:57.040 --> 0:49:59.239 I mean I'm pretty active on Twitter, so you can 0:49:59.280 --> 0:50:03.239 follow me at Joseph Lamanna. The last name is l 0:50:03.280 --> 0:50:06.960 A M A g Na, or you can reach me 0:50:07.400 --> 0:50:12.560 finding the Edge dot substack dot com. Always welcoming new readers, 0:50:12.560 --> 0:50:15.120 so you can get me either way. All right, thanks 0:50:15.120 --> 0:50:17.560 a lot, Thanks so much, Garrett, thanks for having me. 0:50:28.160 --> 0:50:31.120 If you've been enjoying the Friday Podcast, please consider leaving 0:50:31.200 --> 0:50:34.239 us a rating and review on iTunes. Also make sure 0:50:34.280 --> 0:50:36.400 to give us a follow on Twitter and Instagram. We 0:50:36.440 --> 0:50:39.719 should be easily found both places. We'll be posting a 0:50:39.760 --> 0:50:42.279 lot about Inverness and Whistling Straights in the coming days 0:50:42.280 --> 0:50:44.319 of weeks, and it should be really fun to see 0:50:44.320 --> 0:50:47.520 how these team matchplay events turn out. Thanks for listening.