Speaker 1: Hello, and welcome to the Fried Egg Podcast. I'm Garrett
Speaker 1: Morrison and this episode is brought to you by Zero Restriction.
Speaker 1: Zero Restriction is not only a sponsor of the Fried Egg,
Speaker 1: they're also the official outerwear provider for Team USA at
Speaker 1: the Solheim Cup, and right now at zero restriction dot
Speaker 1: com there is a selection of official Solheim Cup gear
Speaker 1: available for a limited time. We're told that at the moment,
Speaker 1: zero Restriction's best selling item is the Champ Hoodie. And
Speaker 1: it's not hard to see why this is a fantastic item.
Speaker 1: It's so good for so many different purposes and different
Speaker 1: kinds of weather. Not only is the Champ Hoodie windproof,
Speaker 1: but it's also a big help in the rain with
Speaker 1: its water resistant shell. And on top of all that,
Speaker 1: it's comfortable. It's got soft sleeves, it's got a soft
Speaker 1: liner on the inside, and just works really well as
Speaker 1: a go to layer. So follows approaching layering season is
Speaker 1: almost here. Don't get caught off guard. Go to zero
Speaker 1: restriction dot com and use the code USA thirty three
Speaker 1: thirty percent off. It is September twenty twenty one, and
Speaker 1: this is the month of team match play in golf.
Speaker 1: We've got American women versus European women at the Solheim
Speaker 1: Cup starting on Saturday, September fourth. If you're listening to
Speaker 1: this episode on the day it comes out, that's tomorrow,
Speaker 1: And then a couple of weeks from now, starting on
Speaker 1: September twenty fourth, we've got the Ryder Cup at Whistling Straits.
Speaker 1: Usually we don't get these events in the same year,
Speaker 1: but obviously COVID bumped the twenty twenty Ryder Cup to
Speaker 1: this month. So the format of the Ryder Cup in
Speaker 1: the Solheim Cup team match play, where you have two
Speaker 1: days of pairs matches, foursomes and four ball, followed by
Speaker 1: a final day of singles matches, it's just undefeated. It's
Speaker 1: the best format in golf, so exciting, so dramatic, very
Speaker 1: often absurd. It's the pinnacle of golf entertainment, I think.
Speaker 1: But I also think we don't understand it very well,
Speaker 1: and by we I mean mostly fans and media. I
Speaker 1: think when we talk about this of team match play,
Speaker 1: we tend to rely on assumptions, whether it's the assumption
Speaker 1: that a team needs to get along personally in order
Speaker 1: to do well, or the assumption that a player's past
Speaker 1: match play record can predict future performance in a team event.
Speaker 1: But according to Joseph Lamannia, a lot of those ideas
Speaker 1: either are incorrect or just sort of miss the point.
Speaker 1: And he believes we can learn much more about the
Speaker 1: strategic aspects of the Ryder Cup in the Solheim Cup
Speaker 1: if we just pay attention to the data. Joseph is
Speaker 1: a great resource for this kind of thinking. He's the
Speaker 1: founder of Optimal Approach Golf, a company that consults with
Speaker 1: PGA Tour players. He's also the writer of an excellent
Speaker 1: newsletter called finding the Edge on Substack. So, without further ado,
Speaker 1: here is Joseph Lamannia on the strategy of team match play.
Speaker 1: I miss a green, for example, I'm already upset.
Speaker 2: When I find my ball in the bunker, I'm really upset.
Speaker 1: And when I find my ball in a egg Frida egg,
Speaker 1: the dreaded Frida egg Frida egg frigg frid egg egg lie,
Speaker 1: I'm about ready.
Speaker 2: To run off of the hump.
Speaker 1: So, Joseph, I asked you to come up with three
Speaker 1: common misconceptions that you often see in the media about
Speaker 1: team match play strategy. So why don't we just dig
Speaker 1: right into those off the top here, what's your first
Speaker 1: big one?
Speaker 2: Sure? So. One popular misconception that I've seen in the media,
Speaker 2: especially about what is indicative of success in the Ryder Cup,
Speaker 2: is looking at past records in the Ryder Cup, you know,
Speaker 2: picking a player because he or she has done well
Speaker 2: in the past. I think there are a couple shortcomings
Speaker 2: to that approach, which, for one, the golf course always changes,
Speaker 2: So if every Ryder Cup were played at Augusta, that
Speaker 2: might be more meaningful. Especially since it's not and you're
Speaker 2: dealing with a variety of courses, it's not something that
Speaker 2: you really should be looking at. Another corollary to that
Speaker 2: would be that record in and of itself lacks a
Speaker 2: lot of context. So one example that I've looked at
Speaker 2: is the the singles match at the Golf Nationale site
Speaker 2: of the twenty eighteen Ryder Cup. If you were to
Speaker 2: look at who actually performed well on Sunday versus who
Speaker 2: won their matches, you get a little bit of different results.
Speaker 2: The best example is that Ian Poulter beat Dustin Johnson
Speaker 2: that day, while Bryson d Schambeau lost to Alex Norrin.
Speaker 2: But if you look at how they actually played, hold
Speaker 2: a hole Bryson would have beaten Ian Poulter pretty handily.
Speaker 2: So just looking at a record loses a lot of
Speaker 2: that context, which is applicable to both the women's and the
Speaker 2: men's side, right.
Speaker 1: And you figured out that disparity by looking at strokes
Speaker 1: gained data, right, like looking at strokes gained for different players,
Speaker 1: and just seeing that certain players who lost their matches
Speaker 1: played very, very well. They just happened to be playing
Speaker 1: somebody who was playing better that day, whereas some other
Speaker 1: players didn't play as well but won their matches because
Speaker 1: the person they were playing against was not in good
Speaker 1: form exactly.
Speaker 2: And you know, I think somebody could argue, well, it
Speaker 2: was match play, it's not a stroke play event, and
Speaker 2: you can only play the person in front of you.
Speaker 2: But I think when you look at the results, there's
Speaker 2: a lot of information in how those players played that
Speaker 2: week and how it aligned with their skill sets. And
Speaker 2: the point is that record is just a bit reductive.
Speaker 2: It doesn't show you how well somebody played, did they
Speaker 2: win foeign two, or you know, what was the outcome
Speaker 2: of that match?
Speaker 1: And part of the problem here is small sample size, right,
Speaker 1: because any given Ryder Cup produces a pretty small sample
Speaker 1: size of matches played. If we were to have one
Speaker 1: hundred years of matches, I mean, obviously that would be impossible.
Speaker 1: But if you were to have a lot of them
Speaker 1: at a lot of different courses over a great deal
Speaker 1: of time, and the data pool were bigger, then you
Speaker 1: can draw some more you know, significant conclusions from match
Speaker 1: play record.
Speaker 2: Right exactly. And I'm glad you brought that point up
Speaker 2: because I think there's a good example. Tiger Woods has
Speaker 2: a pretty bad record in the Ryder Cup, and I
Speaker 2: think anyone who wouldn't want him as their partner in
Speaker 2: the early two thousands would be crazy. I mean, do
Speaker 2: you think that that Tiger Wood's bad record is a
Speaker 2: function of him not being great at golf or not
Speaker 2: being able to handle pressure, or is that probably a
Speaker 2: noisier result that you know is only occurring because there
Speaker 2: aren't that many data points.
Speaker 1: So first misconception is a over emphasis on past match
Speaker 1: play record. What is the kind of second false narrative
Speaker 1: that you see a lot?
Speaker 2: A big one that I've seen is that you want
Speaker 2: to pair players with similar skill sets. I disagree with
Speaker 2: that vehemently. You know, I've heard players say the same
Speaker 2: thing that they find it beneficial that, you know, you
Speaker 2: can get yardages from each other and kind of understand
Speaker 2: how the course is playing for your skill set, you're
Speaker 2: hitting shots that you're familiar with. I would push back
Speaker 2: pretty hard on that. For one, when a player is
Speaker 2: proficient in one skill, it's more likely that they're deficient
Speaker 2: in another skill. For example, if a player doesn't hit
Speaker 2: the ball very far, they're probably a good putter, or
Speaker 2: else they wouldn't be on the team. So when you
Speaker 2: stack these skills up together, you want to spread out
Speaker 2: where you expect the overperformance and the underperformance. So if
Speaker 2: I'm you know, thinking about Dustin Johnson and Jordan Spief
Speaker 2: for example, two players with very different strength and distance profiles,
Speaker 2: Dustin Johnson might outperform on the par fives and Jordan
Speaker 2: Speed might be really helpful on a short and narrow
Speaker 2: par four for example. Let's spread those out. Let's not
Speaker 2: overlap their birdies.
Speaker 1: Okay, And then how about the third big misconception that
Speaker 1: you see.
Speaker 2: You often hear somebody say that it's of benefit to
Speaker 2: hit first, especially on an approach shot or your first
Speaker 2: shot on a par three, because it gives you the
Speaker 2: ability to put pressure on the other player. I would
Speaker 2: argue the opposite, and I would encourage people to take
Speaker 2: the other side of that argument. When you hit second,
Speaker 2: you have additional information. You get to see where your
Speaker 2: opponent hit the ball, maybe how the wind reacted. But
Speaker 2: more than that, I mean, if they hit the ball
Speaker 2: in the water, you can adjust your strategy. You can't
Speaker 2: do that when you go first, and I would argue
Speaker 2: that the benefit of having more information is far more
Speaker 2: important than the benefit of getting to apply pressure. I
Speaker 2: think a really good analogy here would be college football
Speaker 2: over time. For those who are unfamiliar, the way those
Speaker 2: rules work is somebody gets the ball first, somebody gets
Speaker 2: the ball second, and you each get a chance to score.
Speaker 2: Every time somebody wins that coin toss, the team elects
Speaker 2: to defend. In other words, they want the ball second
Speaker 2: because they want to know what they have to do. Right,
Speaker 2: Do I need to score a touchdown? Can I settle
Speaker 2: for a field goal to win? That's very valuable information.
Speaker 2: The same applies for golf. Hitting second will always be
Speaker 2: an advantage. I think it's a subtle advantage to being
Speaker 2: a longer hitter in general in match play.
Speaker 1: So let's go back to your second misconception that you
Speaker 1: identified and talk a little more about the strategy of
Speaker 1: pairing up players. This is obviously like a big topic
Speaker 1: in any Ryder Cup, any Solheim Cup, because there is
Speaker 1: an unusual sort of drama in it. Right. You don't
Speaker 1: this kind of stuff very often in golf where there
Speaker 1: are interpersonal relationships being considered. Golf is typically an individual sport.
Speaker 1: This is one case in which we journalists get to
Speaker 1: write about different kinds of stuff, the relationships between players
Speaker 1: and how their games match up and things like that. Obviously,
Speaker 1: the problem is, as you have pointed out in your
Speaker 1: newsletter Finding the Edge, we often misinterpret how those pairings
Speaker 1: are best made. So why don't we talk about pairings
Speaker 1: in general? What do you think is the best approach
Speaker 1: to pairing up players for foursome's and four ball in
Speaker 1: a team matchplay event like the Ryder Cup or Solheim Cup.
Speaker 2: So the first thing that I would do when looking
Speaker 2: at the best way to pair is to figure out
Speaker 2: which holes are going to be most important, and you know, similarly,
Speaker 2: which shots are going to be most important. So to
Speaker 2: do that you have to accept that not all holes
Speaker 2: are equal and not all shots are so in other words,
Speaker 2: there are going to be some holes that almost every
Speaker 2: player makes par, or there might be a seventy five
Speaker 2: eighty percent chance of making par. You don't want to
Speaker 2: prioritize your strategy as much around a hole like that,
Speaker 2: where the range of outcomes is much narrower. So I'd
Speaker 2: look at, you know, what are the holes that I
Speaker 2: should be prioritizing. When I looked at Inverness for the
Speaker 2: Salign Cup and Whistling Straights for the Ryder Cup, you know,
Speaker 2: I was able to identify, Well, it looks like one
Speaker 2: half of the holes, either the odd or the even holes,
Speaker 2: is going to lean one way or the other. And
Speaker 2: there are a couple shots in particular that I want
Speaker 2: to make sure the player with the best skill set
Speaker 2: is hitting that shot.
Speaker 1: You know, this would be especially relevant with foursomes with
Speaker 1: alternate shot where one player in each pairing is either
Speaker 1: teeing off on the odd holes or teeing off on
Speaker 1: the even holes. And what you're saying is, if there's
Speaker 1: a kind of tendency on the odd holes on a core,
Speaker 1: for the t shots to be more important, for there
Speaker 1: to be a greater range of outcomes that end up
Speaker 1: having an impact on you know the score on that hole,
Speaker 1: then you want the player in the pairing with the
Speaker 1: right skill set teeing off on those holes. So what
Speaker 1: do we mean by right skill set? What can that
Speaker 1: look like?
Speaker 2: Right? There are definitely a number of ways you can
Speaker 2: look at it. Almost every time I would say it's
Speaker 2: going to shake out, you're gonna want long players hitting
Speaker 2: T shots on par fives. That is the reality. You
Speaker 2: could argue, well, maybe you'd want the longer player hitting
Speaker 2: the second shot because it's an advantage for them to
Speaker 2: hit the long iron that's coming in high The reality
Speaker 2: is you're better off with Dustin Johnson hitting the drive,
Speaker 2: for example, and Jordan Spiith hitting the second shot. In
Speaker 2: other words, you're better with Jordan Spiith hitting from two
Speaker 2: forty than Dustin Johnson from two sixty or a similar combination. So, again,
Speaker 2: number of ways you can look at who should be
Speaker 2: hitting each tee shot, but it's almost always going to
Speaker 2: shake out that you weren't going to want the long
Speaker 2: drivers hitting the T shots on the par fives or
Speaker 2: potentially like a driveable par four.
Speaker 1: Can shot shape and whole shape have something to do
Speaker 1: with this?
Speaker 2: It can, absolutely It is less impactful than a player's
Speaker 2: overall distance and dispersion profile, but it is something to consider.
Speaker 2: A great example would be whole eleven at Whistling Straits.
Speaker 2: Whole eleven is one of those holes that's about half
Speaker 2: the field will find the fair way and it does
Speaker 2: dog leg quite a bit to the right, so it'd
Speaker 2: be an advantage if you could hit a cut if
Speaker 2: you're ready. But you know, those impacts aren't as significant
Speaker 2: in magnitude as something like distance on a really long
Speaker 2: par five.
Speaker 1: So the big factor would be if one of the
Speaker 1: players in the pairing is longer than obviously you want
Speaker 1: that player teeing off on the longer holes as much
Speaker 1: as possible. Just a basic thing like that. But my
Speaker 1: feeling is that Tmosa sometimes misses the stuff. Yeah.
Speaker 2: One example that I've highlighted was in the President's Cup
Speaker 2: in twenty nineteen, the US paired Dustin Johnson with Gary
Speaker 2: Woodland and they paired Patrick Reid with Webb Simpson. And
Speaker 2: this is just a classic example of where the skill
Speaker 2: sets are very similar of each of those players. Both
Speaker 2: Web and Patrick at that time hit a draw. Neither
Speaker 2: one of those players was very long. You know, they
Speaker 2: both have really good short games. Dustin Johnson and Gary
Speaker 2: Woodland are very different. They both hit the ball really long,
Speaker 2: they hit a cut. And if you if you actually
Speaker 2: look at how those pairings did the Gary Woodland and
Speaker 2: the Dustin Johnson plus the Simpson Reed pairings combined for
Speaker 2: one in four record, it's not great and I think
Speaker 2: you'd get different results if you had those reconfigured.
Speaker 1: What do you make of what seems like a common
Speaker 1: sensical argument that an an alternate shot you should pair
Speaker 1: a great driver of the ball with a great putter.
Speaker 2: So, in general, focusing on putting is going to be
Speaker 2: a challenge, and the reason for that is that it's
Speaker 2: very difficult to predict where important putts are going to come.
Speaker 2: So if you build your strategy around wanting a good
Speaker 2: putter to hit important putts, being able to predict that
Speaker 2: is very difficult. So, for example, if you have a
Speaker 2: par three and you decide, I want the really good
Speaker 2: ball striker on the tee, the really good putter to
Speaker 2: hit the putt, Well, what happens when the really good
Speaker 2: ball striker misses the green? Or what happens when the
Speaker 2: really good ball striker hits the ball to thirty five
Speaker 2: feet from thirty five feet. An elite putter isn't really
Speaker 2: able to differentiate herself or himself. That's a putt that
Speaker 2: almost every player is going to two putt, So that
Speaker 2: isn't the way I would look at the problem.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it seems like in general, when you're pairing up players,
Speaker 1: what you're saying is that you want to optimize on
Speaker 1: the T shots. You want to look at what the
Speaker 1: course is giving you. You know, whether there are differences
Speaker 1: between the even holes on a course and the odd holes,
Speaker 1: and then consider which players in each pairing have the
Speaker 1: skill sets for those holes off the tee. Whereas things
Speaker 1: like putting, you know that that's just going to shake
Speaker 1: out how it shakes out. But you can control the
Speaker 1: T shot who hits the T shots at least exactly.
Speaker 2: That's a huge point is that you you know going
Speaker 2: into the round who's going to hit every T shot.
Speaker 2: And there are some subtle benefits of doing what I'm describing. So,
Speaker 2: for example, on a par five, if you have the
Speaker 2: longer hitter hit first, most likely the way we shake
Speaker 2: our pairings out, the player who's hitting second is going
Speaker 2: to be the shorter hitter. That also tends to mean
Speaker 2: that he or she is going to be the better putter,
Speaker 2: because otherwise, again, how would they be on the team. Right,
Speaker 2: If they're a short hitter, it's more likely they're a
Speaker 2: good putter, And on a par five, it's pretty common
Speaker 2: that the fourth shot is going to be a put
Speaker 2: between five and ten feet. It's more likely than almost
Speaker 2: any other whole shape or length. So you kind of
Speaker 2: stumble into getting to have the most valuable put or
Speaker 2: putt in the most valuable situation by configuring your team
Speaker 2: that way.
Speaker 1: So you know, the general argument that you're making, the
Speaker 1: kind of philosophical argument that you're making, is that things
Speaker 1: that you can learn from data are going to serve
Speaker 1: you better as a captain of one of these teams
Speaker 1: than the stuff that the media often talks about. And
Speaker 1: I'm including myself in the media in this sense. I
Speaker 1: love talking about intangibles when the Ryder Cup comes around,
Speaker 1: when the Solheim Cup comes around, I love talking about
Speaker 1: the relationships between players. I love talking about team chemistry
Speaker 1: because these are things that golf writers don't often get
Speaker 1: to talk about. You can understand the excitement when these
Speaker 1: events come up that there is a different dynamic in play,
Speaker 1: but it seems like your general contention is that we
Speaker 1: over emphasize those intangible factors and don't think enough about
Speaker 1: kind of data driven strategies.
Speaker 2: I don't want to be entirely dismissive of the roles
Speaker 2: of team chemistry and pressure, But when I'm thinking about
Speaker 2: who's going to hit a good shot from two hundred
Speaker 2: and twenty five yards with a wind coming from left
Speaker 2: to right, I want the player who's good at hitting
Speaker 2: two hundred and twenty five yard shots with the wind
Speaker 2: coming from left to right. I'm less concerned about how
Speaker 2: much experience that player has, how they've handled pressure in
Speaker 2: the past, because a lot of those narratives just end
Speaker 2: up not being true. We've seen so many young players
Speaker 2: win majors when previously we thought that you needed a
Speaker 2: ton of experience. So I'd be really careful making too
Speaker 2: many inferences from a narrative.
Speaker 1: You know. I mean. The thing that I think journalists
Speaker 1: are looking at when they see the Ryder Cup is
Speaker 1: that they see one team, the US team, with all
Speaker 1: the highly ranked players, and not all the highly ranked players,
Speaker 1: but but with higher ranked players. They're the favorites usually
Speaker 1: going into each Ryder Cup, and then they look at
Speaker 1: Europe the underdogs, and in recent years, obviously Team Europe
Speaker 1: has kind of dominated the Ryder Cup. And the explanation
Speaker 1: that is often given for that is that while the
Speaker 1: European players just seem to get along a little bit
Speaker 1: better than the US players do, there have been legitimate
Speaker 1: beefs between US players and going into this Ryder Cup,
Speaker 1: it's obviously no exception with the brooks Kepka Bryson to
Speaker 1: Shambau drama ongoing. And so I think the journalists look at,
Speaker 1: you know, the disparity in how talented the teams are
Speaker 1: and the results that they've gotten over the years, and
Speaker 1: then they look at the disparity between how well the
Speaker 1: team seem to get along, and they conclude Team Europe
Speaker 1: just has better team chemistry and has players that get
Speaker 1: along better and that's why they're successful. Do you see
Speaker 1: a problem with that narrative or are we missing some
Speaker 1: things when we buy into that.
Speaker 2: The biggest issue I see with that narrative is that
Speaker 2: I think for a lot of people are paradigms of
Speaker 2: golf our PGA tour centric, and when we think about
Speaker 2: who the best players in the world are, a lot
Speaker 2: of the times that's testing a particular skill set that
Speaker 2: works on the PGA Tour, and a lot of those
Speaker 2: golf courses look similar, test similar skills. So then when
Speaker 2: you go to Paris and the United States gets destroyed,
Speaker 2: that's not a very very different golf course. Then you
Speaker 2: see week to week on the PGA Tour, right, Phil
Speaker 2: Mickelson wasn't going to be valuable that week and he
Speaker 2: wasn't right, and so you could attribute that to a
Speaker 2: lack of chemistry or to dysfunction within the locker room. Sure,
Speaker 2: but I'd also be looking really hard at the skill
Speaker 2: sets of each of those teams and realize that the
Speaker 2: golf Nationale has played perfectly into the hands of the
Speaker 2: European team. It's not going to be the same thing
Speaker 2: whistling straits. These are very different golf courses.
Speaker 1: Do you think in general that Team Europe has done
Speaker 1: a better job at making data driven decisions than Team
Speaker 1: USA has?
Speaker 2: I would say yes. I think there's clearly room for
Speaker 2: improvement on both sides. It doesn't seem to be a
Speaker 2: huge focus on the United States team, but maybe there's
Speaker 2: more going on there than I'm aware of. I'm skeptical
Speaker 2: based on some of the decisions that I've seen in
Speaker 2: the past. But what I would tell you, Garrett, there's
Speaker 2: no excuse for the United States team to not perform
Speaker 2: very well at Whistling Straits, So I think that will
Speaker 2: be very telling if they maximize their advantages.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's what I'm saying too. And we'll talk about
Speaker 1: Whistling Straits more in depth a little bit later, But
Speaker 1: as you say, it is going to be a very
Speaker 1: different kind of test than the Golf NASCU now. But
Speaker 1: first to dig into the Solheim Cup. Obviously, the Solheim
Speaker 1: Cup is going to start tomorrow and it's going to
Speaker 1: be an Inverness Club, which is a wonderful course that
Speaker 1: we at the front written about and done some videos
Speaker 1: about and things like that, and love the architecture of
Speaker 1: this course. But I'm keen to kind of get a
Speaker 1: different perspective on Inverness Club. I know you've looked at
Speaker 1: it a little bit. What are some things that you
Speaker 1: can say about Inverness Club as it's going to play
Speaker 1: in a team match play scenario.
Speaker 2: Sure, and yeah, admittedly less familiar with Inverness Club and
Speaker 2: with some of the skill sets on the women's side,
Speaker 2: But my takeaways from looking into Inverness. A lot of
Speaker 2: the holes are similar in their profile, but I do
Speaker 2: think that it will be advantageous for the longer players
Speaker 2: to be teeing off on the odd holes. The reason
Speaker 2: I say that is, for one, whole thirteen is a
Speaker 2: reachable par five, it may end up being the most
Speaker 2: important shot that people hit all week. That drive could
Speaker 2: determine whether you're making birdy or par and then just
Speaker 2: generally the other benefit of having the longer player on
Speaker 2: the odd hole is that as you get later in
Speaker 2: the round, you're less and less likely to play each
Speaker 2: hole right. A lot of matches are going to end
Speaker 2: before Hoole eighteen, So if it's a toss up between
Speaker 2: odds or evens, you'd want to give the better drive
Speaker 2: or the odd holes because it's expected they're going to
Speaker 2: hit more of them. So that's what I see from Inverness.
Speaker 2: It depends on how they set it up. Whole three
Speaker 2: could be a long par three. Again beneficial to have
Speaker 2: a longer player hitting that t shot. But overall that
Speaker 2: those are my takeaways from looking at Inverness.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and one factor having been on the grounds there
Speaker 1: is that some of those odd holes three obviously a
Speaker 1: long par three. If it plays as a long part three,
Speaker 1: that is a significant hit, you know, and I think
Speaker 1: that they probably will set it up as a long
Speaker 1: part three. That's how it was intended to be played.
Speaker 1: Whole seven is a long par four with a heavily
Speaker 1: elevated green, and having a nice long drive on that
Speaker 1: hole is very advantageous. And as you mentioned, whole thirteen
Speaker 1: par five again, this is obviously as part five, so
Speaker 1: it's going to be an advantage to a longer player
Speaker 1: to be farther up the fairway. But in addition to that,
Speaker 1: you have a big carry on that second shot. If
Speaker 1: you want to reach the green, you're trying to carry
Speaker 1: the ball over this gully to a green that is
Speaker 1: elevated on the other side of the gully. And so
Speaker 1: obviously I guess the closer you can be to the
Speaker 1: green after your drive, you're just going to have such
Speaker 1: a significant advantage because the lay up there is not
Speaker 1: appealing at all. So the narrative right now going into
Speaker 1: the Solheim Cup is that the Europeans are the significant
Speaker 1: underdogs because of an obvious difference in the average world
Speaker 1: ranking on that team. I wonder if you buy into
Speaker 1: that and whether there are some other factors, more sophisticated
Speaker 1: things that we should be looking at when we're comparing
Speaker 1: these two teams as they're going to match up in
Speaker 1: a team matchplay situation.
Speaker 2: Sure, and again full disclosure, less familiar with the women's side. Right,
Speaker 2: But if it is true that the United States team
Speaker 2: is a lot deeper, and maybe Team Europe has a
Speaker 2: couple really good players, but then the world ranking falls off,
Speaker 2: one thing the captain has to be willing to do
Speaker 2: is sit some of those lower ranked players for many
Speaker 2: of the sessions. The goal is to win, and in
Speaker 2: the NBA Finals, Jannis plays forty two minutes. Right, This
Speaker 2: idea that you need to work people into the lineup
Speaker 2: so that they're ready for the singles matches, I don't
Speaker 2: buy into that. It's not worth sacrificing a point up front,
Speaker 2: So I don't have a strong take on who should
Speaker 2: be favored and by how much. But if lack of
Speaker 2: depth is an issue for Team Europe, then you need
Speaker 2: to strongly consider keeping those best players in the rotation
Speaker 2: for every match.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there is a one of those common narratives once
Speaker 1: again that if a player is saved for singles, if
Speaker 1: they kind of make their debut in the tournament and
Speaker 1: single we immediately assume that they're not going to do
Speaker 1: very well, and therefore that it would be better captaining
Speaker 1: better leadership to get that player in a foursomes or
Speaker 1: four ball match earlier. But you think that that's not
Speaker 1: a great idea.
Speaker 2: You have to weigh the trade off of how much
Speaker 2: are you reducing your expectation on that first match and
Speaker 2: how much is it increasing the players win probability on
Speaker 2: the singles match. From my experience, it's probably very little
Speaker 2: and not worth sacrificing that point up front. Put the
Speaker 2: best players in and they're going to give you the
Speaker 2: best opportunity to win. Again. This is such an important
Speaker 2: point in looking at golf and analyzing golf in general.
Speaker 2: Somebody might look back and say, well, when you leave
Speaker 2: somebody to only play their first match as singles, they
Speaker 2: lose seventy five percent of the time. I'm making up
Speaker 2: a number that could be true, but they're probably going
Speaker 2: to lose anyway. Like the reason they're sitting the first
Speaker 2: four round is because they're one of the weakest members
Speaker 2: of the team. So you just always have to consider that, yes,
Speaker 2: they're probably going to lose the singles match, probably, but
Speaker 2: are you really increasing their win percentage by giving them
Speaker 2: around on Saturday?
Speaker 1: Right? So getting into the Ryder Cup, the big topic
Speaker 1: right now is captain's picks. So let's start with the
Speaker 1: US team. I think there's an interesting scenario here. Obviously,
Speaker 1: six automatic qualifiers have already been determined. We have Colin Morikawa,
Speaker 1: Dustin Johnson, Bryson Deshambeau Brooks, Koepka, Justin Thomas, and Patrick Cantley,
Speaker 1: and then Steve Stricker is going to get six captain's picks.
Speaker 1: The ones that seem pretty locked right now are Tony Finow,
Speaker 1: Xander Schaffle, a, Jordan Speith and Harris English. That leaves
Speaker 1: two captain's picks between Patrick Reed, Daniel Berger, Web Simpson,
Speaker 1: Scotti Scheffler Jason Kokrach. There are a lot of options
Speaker 1: for what I understand to be the two picks that
Speaker 1: are up in the air. Maybe there's something I don't
Speaker 1: know about those other four. I feel like Fein now, schofle, Afe,
Speaker 1: Speed and English are going to be on the team.
Speaker 1: When you're looking at that list of players who could
Speaker 1: take those final two captain's picks, who are you looking
Speaker 1: at as the best candidates.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I do have Harris English on the team.
Speaker 2: He's probably less of a lock for me than maybe
Speaker 2: as being discussed, I would put him on the team. Okay,
Speaker 2: and then I agree with the other everything else that
Speaker 2: you said. The other two names that I would pick,
Speaker 2: I think are pretty common. Nothing crazy here, but I
Speaker 2: would pick Patrick Reid and Daniel Berger. Each of those
Speaker 2: players is bringing a distinct skill set that's extremely valuable
Speaker 2: to the team. It is absolutely worth calling out that
Speaker 2: whistling Straits is going to favor a long hitter, and
Speaker 2: neither of those players is particularly long. There's a lot
Speaker 2: of length on the United States team, and if you
Speaker 2: can figure those teams properly, you'll be in a position
Speaker 2: where you have a balanced team that has all of
Speaker 2: those important shots on the golf course covered. Patrick Reid
Speaker 2: brings a very distinct skill set in his short game.
Speaker 2: He also hits the ball a lot straighter off the
Speaker 2: tee than I think people may realize. A very very
Speaker 2: accurate driver of the golf ball. So if you pair
Speaker 2: him with somebody like a Dustin Johnson or a Brooks Koepka,
Speaker 2: that team is very difficult to beat. And Daniel Berger
Speaker 2: is a similar story. Not the longest hitter, but he
Speaker 2: does hit it very straight, really good long iron player,
Speaker 2: which is going to be important, and he has a
Speaker 2: really good short game as well. But it's a tough call, right,
Speaker 2: I mean, Sam Burns has a good argument to be made.
Speaker 2: I think Web Simpson has an argument to be made.
Speaker 2: But clearly length is going to be a relevant factor.
Speaker 1: What's the argument for web Simpson Because it seems like
Speaker 1: the course fit wouldn't really be there for web Simpson
Speaker 1: if this course is going to strongly prefer driving distance.
Speaker 1: Web Simpson is kind of the ultimate example of a
Speaker 1: player who might think Atlagolf not seen now as well
Speaker 1: as the other courses that are kind of like that
Speaker 1: on the PGA Tour, the sedge Fields and the Harbor Towns,
Speaker 1: et cetera. But maybe wouldn't do so well at Lo Golf.
Speaker 1: But you still think he's a good candidate.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And anytime you're talking about leaning distance or leaning accuracy,
Speaker 2: it is all still relative and the other skills are
Speaker 2: relevant as well. You know, it doesn't mean that we
Speaker 2: just tilt all the way in the direction of distance
Speaker 2: and put Cameron Champ on the team, right, So you know,
Speaker 2: Web Simpson is a very skilled player. He has unbelievable
Speaker 2: short game, and particularly in the alternate shot format, he
Speaker 2: would provide a lot of benefit.
Speaker 1: If you're going the course fit direction. Sam Burns might
Speaker 1: be a compelling pick, right.
Speaker 2: I think Sam Burns is a compelling pick. It's tough
Speaker 2: to leave anybody of these few names off. I just
Speaker 2: feel the most confident that, given their skill sets, Reed
Speaker 2: and Berger would provide a lot of value, particularly in
Speaker 2: the all shot format.
Speaker 1: Right. One player we haven't discussed so far who would
Speaker 1: be I think a great candidate because he's just been
Speaker 1: one of the best players in the world for the
Speaker 1: past year or so but doesn't get much attention is
Speaker 1: Scotty Scheffler. Is Scotty Scheffler someone who should be on
Speaker 1: Steve Stricker's radar.
Speaker 2: It's tough. I mean, we're talking about some really good players.
Speaker 2: Should he be on Steve Stricker's radar? Absolutely he did.
Speaker 2: He wouldn't make Mike cutover, Burger and Reid. But Scotty
Speaker 2: Scheffler's extremely talented, hits the ball far, hits the ball
Speaker 2: straight as well. Not an excellent putter, and he is
Speaker 2: lacking there. But he's a really good player. It's hard
Speaker 2: to take some of these names and throw them off.
Speaker 1: All right, So sticking with the US team, we'll get
Speaker 1: to the European team in a second. Do any pairings
Speaker 1: of players among those who are likely to be part
Speaker 1: of the US team. Do any pairings of players jump
Speaker 1: out at you as like this is an obvious one?
Speaker 1: Stricker should roll with this in those initial matches.
Speaker 2: I say the biggest thing would be you have a
Speaker 2: number of guys who hit the ball very long, and
Speaker 2: they should be playing a lot, and that's would likely
Speaker 2: result in pairings where you're gonna have a long player
Speaker 2: with a shorter hitter just because of the way those
Speaker 2: skill sets are gonna shake out. So I think you
Speaker 2: could pull a number of these examples, like a Bryson
Speaker 2: Morikawa team, Like that team is strong. Bryson with anybody
Speaker 2: who's not one of the longest hitters on that team
Speaker 2: is gonna be strong. I think Dustin Johnson will probably
Speaker 2: be a star of this Ryder Cup. He is an
Speaker 2: exceptional long iron player, hits the ball really far. You
Speaker 2: pair him with pretty much any one of these guys
Speaker 2: who isn't the longest, and they're gonna do really well.
Speaker 2: To be clear, if you put a really long hitter
Speaker 2: with Dustin Johnson, they do really well too. I'm not
Speaker 2: suggesting that bomber bomber is worse than bomber shorter hitter.
Speaker 2: It's just a matter off. You got a field, a
Speaker 2: full roster, and so you got to distribute that length somewhere.
Speaker 1: If you have Web Simpson and Patrick Reid on the team,
Speaker 1: if they get those kind of final captain's picks, then
Speaker 1: you wouldn't want to see them pair together again.
Speaker 2: Right, Absolutely not. And I think that's a great, really
Speaker 2: good example of where you have a team like DJ
Speaker 2: and Read or DJ and Simpson, that's a dangerous team.
Speaker 2: And one point that I wanted to bring up that
Speaker 2: I think is interesting related to strategy in general, is
Speaker 2: that chipping as a skill is more important in the
Speaker 2: alternate shot format than in the four ball. I think
Speaker 2: it's a really important point, and the reason behind it
Speaker 2: is that when you are chipping, it is often determining
Speaker 2: if you're going to make par or bogie, which will
Speaker 2: not matter that often in the best ball format it could.
Speaker 2: But if I'm chipping, the only way it matters is
Speaker 2: if both of my opponents make par or worse and
Speaker 2: my partner makes worse than par, which isn't going to happen.
Speaker 2: It'll happen about fifteen percent of the time. So in general,
Speaker 2: when I'm thinking about how do I want to configure
Speaker 2: these teams, if a player is really really good at
Speaker 2: chipping and weaker in some of the other areas, there's
Speaker 2: a good chance that I'm going to have him play
Speaker 2: alternate shot.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Patrick Reid and Jordan Spieth are real assets and
Speaker 1: an alternate shot, And maybe right now, specifically, Bryson de
Speaker 1: Shambeau may be quite a bit more valuable in four
Speaker 1: ball than he is in enforcomes, because he seems to
Speaker 1: be having some struggles chipping. I'm not sure how persistent
Speaker 1: those struggles are going to be, but that certainly seemed
Speaker 1: to be holding him back at the BMW Championship.
Speaker 2: Agreed, and you're thinking about it exactly as I am.
Speaker 2: I'd probably play Bryson a lot, even in alternate shot, yeah,
Speaker 2: because of how well he fits the course. But agreed.
Speaker 2: If a player makes their money with chipping but don't
Speaker 2: make birdies at an extremely high rate, that's a player
Speaker 2: who's much better suited for the alternate shot format. Again,
Speaker 2: when you're chipping, it isn't going to matter that often
Speaker 2: in best ball, except on a par five sometimes, or
Speaker 2: like a driveable par four.
Speaker 1: Right for your third shot on the par five, for
Speaker 1: your second shot on the driveable part four, That's where
Speaker 1: I could really factor in.
Speaker 2: Right, I mean, you could hit you could hit an
Speaker 2: amazing chip on a par four really difficult to three
Speaker 2: feet and your opponent makes birdie. You could have shanked
Speaker 2: the chip and it doesn't make a difference.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, now, come to think of it, I just
Speaker 1: thought of this when I mentioned Jordan Spieth and Patrick Reid.
Speaker 1: But obviously they've been paired together quite a bit in
Speaker 1: past Ryder Cups. They have a reputation as a pairing
Speaker 1: that really works. And the argument that people usually make
Speaker 1: for that pairing is that the kind of personalities mesh
Speaker 1: in a way because they're competitive with each other, they
Speaker 1: kind of fire each other up. But it seems like,
Speaker 1: following the logic of pairings that you've laid out for us,
Speaker 1: that they might not be the best match because, you know,
Speaker 1: matching up speed with somebody like with a longer player,
Speaker 1: matching up a reed with somebody like Dustin Johnson. Again,
Speaker 1: a longer player might be the smarter call.
Speaker 2: That's the route that I would go. Yes, I think,
Speaker 2: especially in past Ryder Cups, when you're talking about the
Speaker 2: Reed speF pairing, those were two of the best players
Speaker 2: in the world. I mean, they still are right at
Speaker 2: the top, but you know, you're talking about some of
Speaker 2: their peaks each as players. So I think that it's
Speaker 2: reasonable to expect that they've had a lot of success
Speaker 2: in past Ryder Cups because they're very, very good players.
Speaker 2: Obviously still are, but now I would be looking a
Speaker 2: little bit more at pairing them a little bit differently.
Speaker 1: Yeah, all right, let's talk about Team Europe a little bit.
Speaker 1: You know, it's it's a little bit harder for me
Speaker 1: to figure out the European points system than it is
Speaker 1: the US point system. Obviously the automatic qualifiers haven't been
Speaker 1: totally determined yet. But there's the European points list, there's
Speaker 1: the world points list. It's looking like obviously John Rams
Speaker 1: is going to you know, he's the best player in
Speaker 1: the world right now, He's going to be on the team.
Speaker 1: Tommy Fleetwood, Terrell and Roy McElroy, Victor Hovland, Paul Casey,
Speaker 1: Matt Fitzpatrick, those guys seem like they're going to be
Speaker 1: on the team. Lee Westwood and Shane Lowry are in
Speaker 1: qualifying spots right now, and I'm not sure how solid
Speaker 1: those spots are. They're both on the World points list.
Speaker 1: But among the captain's picks options, there are going to
Speaker 1: be three captain's picks that Patrick Harrington is going to make.
Speaker 1: You have players like Sergio Garcia, Justin Rose, and Ian Poulter,
Speaker 1: obviously stallwarts of past European teams. But then you also
Speaker 1: have players who have been playing quite well on the
Speaker 1: European tour like Burn Wisberger, Victor Perez, Robert McIntyre, even
Speaker 1: Guidomigliosi who's been very competitive on the European tour but
Speaker 1: maybe isn't well known worldwide. I mean, there are some
Speaker 1: interesting options there between really established, older experienced players who
Speaker 1: have a reputation for being great Ryder Cup players like
Speaker 1: Garciaan Polter, and then you have players who have been
Speaker 1: great on the European two who are for the past
Speaker 1: couple of years. What do you think is the route
Speaker 1: to go with those captain's picks?
Speaker 2: So I have penciled in Sergio Garcia, Justin Rose, and
Speaker 2: Ian Bolter, and it's it's not even a you know,
Speaker 2: relying on past ryder cups. Take those three are playing
Speaker 2: better than anybody else that I ran through and looked
Speaker 2: at who could be performing well whistling straits. Admittedly I'm
Speaker 2: looking less at some of those European Tour results. It's
Speaker 2: also worth calling out that oftentimes those European Tour fields
Speaker 2: are significantly weaker, So players who are playing on the
Speaker 2: PGA Tour and playing well like Sergio and Ian Poulter,
Speaker 2: it's often quite a different skill set there. But I
Speaker 2: have the I have Sergio justin Rosenian Poulter. Clearly the
Speaker 2: European team is lacking length, so you can make a
Speaker 2: case for somebody who hits it out there a little
Speaker 2: bit farther. They're in trouble based on how you know
Speaker 2: they're distance. Their lack of distance stacks up with the
Speaker 2: United States team. But having a really hard time finding
Speaker 2: a name that you could replace either one of these
Speaker 2: three guys with.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, I don't know, you'd have to go
Speaker 1: pretty far down the list to find a real bomber.
Speaker 1: Maybe Erasmus Hoyguard. I'm not I'm not exactly sure who
Speaker 1: among these guys hits it really really far. I mean,
Speaker 1: Robert McIntyre gets it out there, but yeah, I mean
Speaker 1: Victor Hovelin obviously is going to be on the team,
Speaker 1: and John Ram is going to be a great fit
Speaker 1: for the course Roy McElroy. But as far as bombers
Speaker 1: are concerned, the US just has a huge advantage there.
Speaker 2: It seems like absolutely and it can be gimmicky, but
Speaker 2: if I were the United States team, I would be
Speaker 2: really praying on that. And as an example that I've prepared,
Speaker 2: you know, a whole four at Whistling Streets is a
Speaker 2: long par four, and we've decided that we want to
Speaker 2: have our longer players hitting on the even holes, so
Speaker 2: this works out. What's interesting about whole four is that
Speaker 2: at the length that a lot of players hit their driver,
Speaker 2: it gets very very narrow, like twenty five yards wide,
Speaker 2: and then it actually gets extremely wide when you get
Speaker 2: ten to fifteen yards past that. Huh, it gets like
Speaker 2: forty five yards wide. I would be putting that tea
Speaker 2: box exactly where my longest players are reaching that really
Speaker 2: wide part. Right, So your Bryson's your DJs.
Speaker 1: Like the like the three fifteen carry range, like the
Speaker 1: DC yeah.
Speaker 2: It depends on wind. It depends on wind exactly where
Speaker 2: that should be set. But that's one of those ways
Speaker 2: in which you can really maximize your advantage. I'd be
Speaker 2: setting the whole six driveable. Part four, Let's be really
Speaker 2: thoughtful about how far that whole plays. Again, we have
Speaker 2: our longer players hitting the even t shots. Let's set
Speaker 2: that yardage exactly where the longest players are in a
Speaker 2: position to maximize their advantage.
Speaker 1: And whistling straits can be stretched out to like seventy
Speaker 1: eight hundred yards.
Speaker 2: Right, you want to play that course again, if you
Speaker 2: really lean into what I'm suggesting, and you put your
Speaker 2: longest players on the even holes, you might have an
Speaker 2: afternoon where you want to set some odd holes shorter. Right,
Speaker 2: you have you have that information of who's going to
Speaker 2: be hitting off each t shot. So if you have
Speaker 2: guys like Spieth or Berger who aren't as long on
Speaker 2: odd holes, maybe you'll elect to set the course up
Speaker 2: a little bit differently. But absolutely you should be taking
Speaker 2: that into account.
Speaker 1: So going back to the twenty eighteen Ryder Cup, the
Speaker 1: US was strongly favored going into that event, and they
Speaker 1: obviously just didn't get anywhere close and going out of
Speaker 1: that Ryder Cup, A lot of the attention was given
Speaker 1: to personal conflicts between Dustin Johnson and Brooks Koepka, conflicts
Speaker 1: between Patrick Reed and basically everybody else. Right, That kind
Speaker 1: of led the storytelling that we did after the event.
Speaker 1: And I don't want to poo poo that because I
Speaker 1: found that incredibly entertaining and relevant and it was just
Speaker 1: a great moment to be in golf media to get
Speaker 1: to kind of dig sink my teeth into into that stuff.
Speaker 1: It was a lot of fun. But that may have
Speaker 1: overwhelmed what really happened in the twenty eighteen Ryder Cup
Speaker 1: at What would be your diagnosis of the way that
Speaker 1: that golf course La Golf Nacional fit with the skill
Speaker 1: sets of Team Europe versus Team USA.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think the golf nasci and l apologies for
Speaker 2: the mispronunciation.
Speaker 1: Earlier, I don't think yeah nacional nasty? Who can it'saf?
Speaker 1: I like the golf just saying lak golf. I think
Speaker 1: that's a that's an attractive.
Speaker 2: Name, perfect so at lea goolf. I think they set
Speaker 2: that golf course up to be about as one dimensional
Speaker 2: of a test as you can. It was who could
Speaker 2: hit the ball the straightest. Those fairways were narrow, and
Speaker 2: the rough was so thick that you know, obviously length
Speaker 2: is always an advantage, but Europe had a serious edge
Speaker 2: and how accurate those players were off the tee, whereas
Speaker 2: the United States was no near it. I think I've
Speaker 2: calculated that of the top one hundred straightest players off
Speaker 2: the tee on tour, Europe had I believe nine of
Speaker 2: them on their team at the Ryder Cup in twenty
Speaker 2: eighteen and the United States had two. So really making
Speaker 2: that course as narrow and with as penal misses as possible.
Speaker 2: I've even heard them talk about they wanted the fans
Speaker 2: as far back as possible so that you weren't trampling
Speaker 2: down rough that the United States was going to end
Speaker 2: up in. So they were asking the question, how straight
Speaker 2: can you hit the ball, and the United States didn't
Speaker 2: hit the ball straight.
Speaker 1: Well, So I want to press on that a little
Speaker 1: bit because there are courses on the PGA Tour or
Speaker 1: that have been on the PGA Tour, like Beth Page,
Speaker 1: like Tory Pine's PGA National to an extent wing foot
Speaker 1: at that US Open, these courses are narrow. They had
Speaker 1: heavy rough, and the emphasis didn't end up being on
Speaker 1: accuracy necessarily, though accuracy helped, It ended up being on
Speaker 1: length where the courses who thrat the players who thrived
Speaker 1: at those courses tended to be very long, and in fact,
Speaker 1: it seemed like they were the only people who really
Speaker 1: had a chance at those tournaments. Now you go to
Speaker 1: the golf for the twenty eighteen Ryder Cup, and accuracy
Speaker 1: did seem to be heavily prized because the fairways were
Speaker 1: narrow and the rough was high. But you know what
Speaker 1: was really the difference between that venue and like Bethpage Black,
Speaker 1: where the golf was able to give the edge to
Speaker 1: accurate if shorter players.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I think this is a nuanced point that
Speaker 2: could probably go a while here. So for one irrelevant
Speaker 2: factor is how often you're taking driver out of a
Speaker 2: player's hands. So the golf course like Tory Pines, you're
Speaker 2: hitting driver on every single hole. And so when you
Speaker 2: have a course setup that's as long and narrow as
Speaker 2: some of those courses, the winner is going to be
Speaker 2: a long player who all so hits the ball straight
Speaker 2: that week. When you have a course that's just narrow
Speaker 2: with thick rough and not as long. More similar to
Speaker 2: the golf, it brings some of those shorter, really more
Speaker 2: accurate players into the picture, especially on holes where it
Speaker 2: might get more narrow the farther you hit the ball,
Speaker 2: and you can hit less than driver. So generally speaking,
Speaker 2: there's also a difference between winning a tournament and what
Speaker 2: somebody's expectation should be for the day, Meaning like at
Speaker 2: Tory Pine's, Yes, the winner is going to be somebody
Speaker 2: who bombs it and hits it straight. But in terms
Speaker 2: of just an if they don't hit it as straight,
Speaker 2: that thick rough is still hurting them, right. It's not
Speaker 2: that you know, thick rough rewards a bomber. It does
Speaker 2: still reward somebody who's accurate. It's just that when you
Speaker 2: create a dynamic where it's as long and narrow and
Speaker 2: thick as some of those courses you're mentioning, length is
Speaker 2: going to be a prerequisite or success, especially because you
Speaker 2: have to make birdies to win. It's not about making
Speaker 2: the cut. Yeah, And I think another interesting point on Bryson.
Speaker 2: I know that he's the hot topic of every conversation,
Speaker 2: but you know one thing I've noticed in particular about
Speaker 2: his strategy. If you look at where the pin is.
Speaker 2: Bryson is often favoring a side of the golf course
Speaker 2: that's going to give him the most green to work
Speaker 2: with or the best angle. It's very noticeable. So when
Speaker 2: you have a hazard, Bryson doesn't really have that luxury.
Speaker 2: But when you have a course that's just lined with
Speaker 2: rough on either side, it really enables him to favor
Speaker 2: a side of the fairway. If he finds the fairway, great,
Speaker 2: If not, he's in the rough with an advantageous angle.
Speaker 2: I would recommend people look through some of his shot trails.
Speaker 2: I think it's very evident that that's what his strategy is,
Speaker 2: and particularly at a place like Cave's Valley, that was
Speaker 2: going to work perfectly, and that's exactly what he did.
Speaker 2: You know, there's no hazards. He's that worried about no
Speaker 2: out of bounds. I think that's a relevant part of
Speaker 2: thinking about some of the longest players, especially Bryson.
Speaker 1: So wait, Joseph, are you telling me that Bryson Deshambeau
Speaker 1: is playing the angles?
Speaker 2: Angles is a hot top Look. I don't want to
Speaker 2: suggest that. Yes, I mean, frankly, he is right, So
Speaker 2: it's less though, I think for Bryson about picking a
Speaker 2: target that gives him the best angle and more about
Speaker 2: picking a target that avoids some of those big penalty shots.
Speaker 2: There's some interaction between those two concepts. But yeah, look
Speaker 2: at Bryson's shot trails. I mean he's favoring a side
Speaker 2: of the fairway almost every time.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, I mean I think what he's doing is
Speaker 1: not what most people would imagine as hunting angles, as in,
Speaker 1: you know, like trying to thread the needle to get
Speaker 1: a good angle into the green. He's favoring sides of
Speaker 1: the course where he's going to have, you know, the
Speaker 1: best chance at a successful next shot. And you know,
Speaker 1: maybe he's not super worried about being in the fair way,
Speaker 1: for is not being in the fair way if there
Speaker 1: aren't big hazards, because you know, if he's in the
Speaker 1: rough with a plenty of grain to work with, then
Speaker 1: he can get the ball close. Still, as he proved
Speaker 1: at wing Foot over and over and over again, he's
Speaker 1: hitting wedges out of the rough. Those shots seem to
Speaker 1: work out just fine for him, and he's applying that
Speaker 1: strategy to a lot of places. So getting back to
Speaker 1: the upcoming Ryder Cup, we've got a super stacked US team.
Speaker 1: We've got a course that seems to favor their strengths.
Speaker 1: I'm coming out of this conversation thinking, once again, Team USA,
Speaker 1: they're the heavy favorites, and I feel like I'm getting
Speaker 1: fooled again into assuming that the US team is going
Speaker 1: to be successful here. But that has not worked out
Speaker 1: so often, And so what is the mindset that you're
Speaker 1: taking into this Ryder Cup as to what to expect.
Speaker 2: So, for one, golf is inherently there's a lot of
Speaker 2: very and particularly in the Ryder Cup format, anything can
Speaker 2: happen on one day. It's hard to be a massive,
Speaker 2: massive favorite. I agree the United States are clearly the favorites,
Speaker 2: pretty heavy favorites, but some of the best players in
Speaker 2: the world are playing on the European team. John Rahm
Speaker 2: is playing at a level that nobody else on the
Speaker 2: PGA Tour is playing close to, and you can trot
Speaker 2: him out there for every single session. He's dangerous. So
Speaker 2: it's hard to get to the point where you're like
Speaker 2: a seventy five eighty percent favorite. That's a really big
Speaker 2: burden to place on the favorite. So I am with you.
Speaker 2: I believe the United States should be strongly favored, but
Speaker 2: in a format that's ti variance and anything can happen
Speaker 2: on any given day. I think the markets have us
Speaker 2: around sixty sixty five percent. Seems reasonable to me.
Speaker 1: Joseph, thank you so much for talking to me today.
Speaker 1: Where can people find your writing?
Speaker 2: I mean I'm pretty active on Twitter, so you can
Speaker 2: follow me at Joseph Lamanna. The last name is l
Speaker 2: A M A g Na, or you can reach me
Speaker 2: finding the Edge dot substack dot com. Always welcoming new readers,
Speaker 2: so you can get me either way. All right, thanks
Speaker 2: a lot, Thanks so much, Garrett, thanks for having me.
Speaker 1: If you've been enjoying the Friday Podcast, please consider leaving
Speaker 1: us a rating and review on iTunes. Also make sure
Speaker 1: to give us a follow on Twitter and Instagram. We
Speaker 1: should be easily found both places. We'll be posting a
Speaker 1: lot about Inverness and Whistling Straights in the coming days
Speaker 1: of weeks, and it should be really fun to see
Speaker 1: how these team matchplay events turn out. Thanks for listening.