Zurich Classic, NFL Draft Trades, Wimbledon
Zurich Classic
A week ago, the PGA Tour’s Zurich Classic concluded in New Orleans. The Zurich Classic is a partner event, featuring two days of best ball and two days of alternate shot. The format is similar to the first two days of the Presidents Cup and the Ryder Cup.
Zurich isn’t the most highly-watched tournament of the year, but it is an important event. Important enough to distribute full FedEx Cup points, which are evenly split by each golfer on the two-man teams. A standard PGA Tour event doles out 500 points to the tournament winner and 300 points to the runner-up, so at the Zurich Classic, each member of the winning two-man team earns 400 points.
Many elite players elect to skip the Zurich, but it is a prime opportunity for players to rack up points, especially when compared to other tournaments. For example, each player on the runner-up team, Sam Burns and Billy Horschel, earned 162.5 points this year. A solo fifth finish at a major earns fewer points: Collin Morikawa earned 120 FedEx Cup points for his solo fifth at the Masters. That’s a bit of an indictment on the current system and how it fails to reward strong-fielded tournaments, but I want to focus on something else.
Players should be tilting the odds more into their favor at the Zurich Classic. Stones are being left unturned.
There are two main ways players can optimize their expectations at Zurich:
Choose a partner with a complementary skill set
Strategically decide who will tee off on the even-numbered holes versus who will tee off on the odd-numbered holes in alternate shot format
Let’s focus on Number 2. How should the tee shot decision be made?
A crucial element of this decision-making framework is understanding where distance is most valuable. Following the Ryder Cup last September, I wrote about this concept and included a great visual from Data Golf:
The key insight from the graphic is that the value of distance is not linear:
Distance is most valuable as shots get within 50 yards of the green
Incremental distance is more valuable between 200 and 250 yards than between like 150 and 200 yards
Basically, the rationale behind these two bullets is that scoring is mostly dictated by when you’re able to hit the green and/or when you’re able to hit an approach shot within 10 feet of the hole.
Once you get within 50 yards of the hole, you’re able to chip shots inside 10 feet and score, which reinforces the first bullet. With respect to the second bullet, having a 220 yard shot gives you a much better chance of hitting the green than having a 235 yard shot, so distance is quite valuable between 200 and 250 yards. One could argue, “Well isn’t a 150 yard shot also much easier than a 165 yard shot?” In reality, players on Tour rarely hit shots from 150 yards or from 165 yards inside 10 feet and they hit the green at a high rate from both distances, so little separation occurs:
Using the above chart and table, you can see why Par 5s and short Par 4s are most correlated with players’ Driving Distance. You are hitting tee shots into ranges (either inside 50 yards or outside 200 yards) where incremental distance is at its most valuable.
Apologies for the chart/data overload, but if you followed along with the above explanation, you now understand some of the most important concepts in golf analytics.
So let’s determine high-level optimal strategy at TPC New Orleans, host of the Zurich Classic. For reference, here’s the leaderboard which includes hole information. The course has four Par 5s: two are even-numbered holes and two are odd-numbered holes. There are four long-ish Par 3s: one is an even-numbered hole and three are odd-numbered holes. Importantly, there are also two short Par 4s where players can hit tee shots within 50 yards of the green: Holes #8 and #16. Even-numbered holes.
The recipe for success is fairly straight-forward: a strong pairing includes a proficient, long driver paired with an elite long iron player. The long driver tees off on the even-numbered holes in alternate shot. Under this setup, the long driver utilizes his length on the most distance-important shots on the golf course, the drives on Holes 8 and 16 plus two drives on Par 5s. The elite long iron player hits the approach shot into two Par 5s and three of the Par 3s.
A Devil’s Advocate might say, “Well, what about the other holes we didn’t even mention? Don’t they matter?” Yes, but not as much. These holes will have more approach shots from 150-200 yards, which has a narrower range of outcomes. Phrased differently, players will tie on these holes a high percentage of the time. We’re focusing our strategy on the holes with the widest ranges of outcomes.
Some players understand this or hire people who understand this… One of the most data-driven players on the PGA Tour, Billy Horschel, understands the importance of these concepts. He partnered with Sam Burns, a player who his the ball much farther than PGA Tour average and much farther than Billy. During alternate shot, Burns teed off on the even-numbered holes and got aggressive on the short Par 4s:
Sure, they missed a four-footer for birdie on the above hole, but having a four-footer for birdie is good!
On the other hand, Branden Grace partnered with fellow South African Garrick Higgo. Higgo is a long driver of the golf ball, much longer off the tee than Branden Grace.
Sadly, Grace hit the tee shots on the even-numbered holes:
While Burns had a four-foot putt for birdie in our first example, Grace had a 30 foot chip for birdie. Flip it around, mates! Higgo should hit the even-numbered tee shots; use his length to your maximum advantage.
Players could be much more thoughtful about partner selection and tee shot selection at the Zurich Classic. The stakes are high. You won’t see these kinds of mistakes at the Presidents Cup or Ryder Cup. But you will see these concepts!
NFL Draft Trades
The 2022 NFL Draft wrapped up this past weekend. I don’t really have an opinion on any of the players drafted because I am not a scout, but it’s fun to consider macro-dynamics of the league and evaluate teams’ approaches to the draft.
I’d written last September about “The Chart”, a flawed framework for assigning trade value to NFL draft picks:
You can read my previous post for a clearer explanation, but basically “The Chart” overvalues top picks in the NFL Draft, yet NFL front offices still use the system in trade negotiations. Sample interpretation of the visual: “The Chart” suggests that the 32nd pick in the draft is worth 20% of the value of the 1st overall pick while better methodologies suggest the 32nd pick value is closer to 35%-45% of the 1st overall pick. In practice, this means that almost any time a team trades multiple draft picks to obtain a top draft pick, they’re losing the trade. “The Chart” will say the trade was fine; sharper methodologies will deem the trade a loser.
If you agree with this research and align with the overall philosophy, you lean into the idea that it’s hard to predict talent. You’re leveraging uncertainty. You’re prioritizing volume and hoping a few of your draft selections pan out. Since “The Chart” is widely-adopted and sets market prices for draft picks, you’re not going to trade up into the early part of the first round… Unless you need a Quarterback.
Quarterbacks are an exception because QBs are so much more valuable than any other position in football. You could make a compelling case that while “The Chart” overvalues top draft picks as a whole, it’s not overvaluing top Quarterback prospects nearly as much as it overvalues other positions.
In 2022, very few (maybe zero?) elite Quarterback prospects were available in the NFL Draft. There were nine trades in the first round of the draft, which is exceptionally high, but zero of those trades involved a Top 10 pick. Concepts fly around the league, and front offices understand that trading up into the early part of the first round for a non-QB is usually dumb, given the historical price tag. So yeah, leading up to the draft, this tweet wasn’t surprising:
However, next year’s draft is reported to be full of elite Quarterback prospects, meaning teams who need a Quarterback will likely “overspend” to move up into top draft spots next year. The fifth overall pick, for instance, will be way more valuable next year than it was this year. Nobody wanted it this year; next year, teams will exchange multiple late first/second round picks for it.
I’d like to see a front office trade now for a bad team’s first round pick next year. Pursue a trade with a team like the Jacksonville Jaguars. The Jaguars have their Quarterback of the future, but they’re still bad and will likely have a top 10 pick next year. If you can steal their pick now, you’ll have a strong chance of trading it again leading up to the QB-rich draft next year for multiple draft picks, which is valuable.
Sure, the Jaguars might have the same thought and understand the value of their first round pick, but GMs desperate to save their jobs make rash decisions.
It’ll be interesting to observe the difference in teams’ approaches to the 2023 NFL Draft compared to the 2022 NFL Draft. The teams who start planning for it now should reap a significant reward in twelve months.
Wimbledon
Similar to a decision made by the R&A, Wimbledon is banning Russian tennis players from competing in this year’s competition due to the invasion of Ukraine:
There’s always outrage in both directions following a decision like this, and it can be difficult to decipher what people actually think about such a decision.
I was curious what my Twitter followers thought of the ban, so I put it to a vote:
Of those who responded either “Yes” or “No” to supporting the ban, “No” outvoted “Yes” by a ratio of about 1.75/1.
Here’s how Rafael Nadal feels about it:
It’s an interesting issue!
Thank you to those who cast a vote in my poll. I’ll probably do more polls in the future. We all promote democracy in different ways.
Feedback/Contact
Twitter: @JosephLaMagna
Email: Joseph.LaMagnaGolf@gmail.com
Other Recent Content
The NBA Playoffs are incredible. If you like Playoff basketball, Haralabos Voulgaris is a must follow on Twitter. His most recent pod appearance is insightful as well. He provides interesting in-game tidbits that have enabled me to appreciate the importance of NBA coaching tactics and rotations:
This was awesome:
In my last newsletter, I’d mentioned that Jose Alvarado has found an edge. He tried it against Chris Paul and it…did not work lol:
Until it did :)