Help settle a scramble debate, Is a 3 person team an advantage? Options

[Atler]

I recently played in an office scramble where our 4th had to bail at the last minute. Because we had a 3 person team, we were allowed hit a 4th shot each time, but we had to rotate it among all 3 players (including me).

I was by far the "A" player, even though I only shoot in the mid-80s. The other two guys had played very little, if at all, before. They could not even get 100 yards off of the tee, and were completely useless on many of the holes requiring forced carries, and also on approach shots.

The 4th that had to bail was also probably a mid-80s shooter. The other three teams in the scramble were similarly situated (2 decent players, 2 that hadn't played much before).

We ended up shooting -1 and winning, but I maintain that it was in spite of the fact that we only had 3 players, not because of it. I had a really good day. Of our 71 total strokes, we probably used 65 of mine.

The debate
The other teams say that we had an advantage because a player's second shots are almost always much better than his first. Thus, my second shots would be better on average than our other missing "A" player's shots would have been.

I concede this, but maintain that this is greatly outweighed by having to rotate the 4th shot, since it wouldn't have mattered if the other two players had hit 100 shots in most cases. We would still end up using mine. For example, the only two bogeys we made were holes where I only had one drive and ended up hitting in a hazard. We had to take a stroke because the other two guys also hit in a hazard (forced carry). They could have hit 100 balls and still not carried the hazard. If I had the other guy to help, there's a good chance we could have used his shot.

Were we at a competitive advantage or disadvantage in this situation (assuming that the teams were otherwise fairly balanced)?

[Grogger31]

I think it depends on the makeup of the 3some. In your 3some, I don't think it was an advantage. It would have been if each of you were low handicaps and your 4th was a hack.

[kylemacca01]

You lost one of your top 2 players therefore you are at a disadvantage. If you had both the better players and lost one of the hacks then it would have been an advantage imo.

[joshinsky]

I feel like it's an advantage in most cases. Someone getting an extra look at a putt is huge. Getting extra swings as well.

[IMAGOLFER]

-1 won?!

I just played in a scramble last weekend and we won shooting 57...

[Atler]

-1 won?!

I just played in a scramble last weekend and we won shooting 57...

I hear ya. I have played in other scrambles and lost at -15. But did you play with a bunch of hacks on a difficult course?

I feel like I have a decent excuse for my team's performance, but I can't explain why the two other teams with two decent players each couldn't beat it. Bad day all around I guess.

This post has been edited by Atler: Jul 3 2009, 12:50 PM

[kylemacca01]

Lol good point on -1 winning. Were you playing against 6 year olds?

[wolfpackblack]

I had a tournament like this last year, and it was a huge advantage for us. We had a sub for our regular 4th who was on vacation that bailed that was a 25+ handicap, so I got to take every shot twice for our squad; I don't think I've ever had so much fun on the golf course in my life. It was so much fun to have one shot to go for the conservative, game-management shot, and then having another free rip at it. If you blow your first shot, you get another try to make the shot happen. If you make the conservative shot, you get a free pass at whatever you want. The normal 10-15 shots you would lose trying to bang out 300 yard drives, hit difficult par 5's in 2, going for sucker par 3 pin locations, and trying to throw darts with an open wedge instead of chipping are completely unpunished. I personally think it was an advantage for me, but if your 4th was as good as or better than you, I could definitely see it being a disadvantage.

EDIT: saw that you had to rotate the shot. That is definitely a disadvantage. Good work pulling off the win!

This post has been edited by adtucker: Jul 3 2009, 12:55 PM

[kylemacca01]

I had a tournament like this last year, and it was a huge advantage for us. We had a sub for our regular 4th who was on vacation that bailed that was a 25+ handicap, so I got to take every shot twice for our squad; I don't think I've ever had so much fun on the golf course in my life. It was so much fun to have one shot to go for the conservative, game-management shot, and then having another free rip at it. If you blow your first shot, you get another try to make the shot happen. If you make the conservative shot, you get a free pass at whatever you want. The normal 10-15 shots you would lose trying to bang out 300 yard drives, hit difficult par 5's in 2, going for sucker par 3 pin locations, and trying to throw darts with an open wedge instead of chipping are completely unpunished. I personally think it was an advantage for me, but if your 4th was as good as or better than you, I could definitely see it being a disadvantage.

He said the shots we alternated, therefore 2/3 of the time there was a hacker chopping away. Kind of makes up for the extra shot the OP was able to play.

[Atler]

so I got to take every shot twice for our squad;

Yeah, this is the key. I lobbied for this rule but was denied. That would have been huge and, I agree, a real advantage. But I only got to hit every 3rd shot twice.

[Skaffa77]

No advantage here since your loss was another good player. To be quite honest, I'm surprised they let you do that...in scrambles I've played in...if your 4th is not available...you lose that shot.

[Bones01gt]

-1 won?!

I just played in a scramble last weekend and we won shooting 57...

I hear ya. I have played in other scrambles and lost at -15. But did you play with a bunch of hacks on a difficult course?

I feel like I have a decent excuse for my team's performance, but I can't explain why the two other teams with two decent players each couldn't beat it. Bad day all around I guess.

He said two players per team were "mid 80's" type players and two per team were hacks. You can't expect double digits under par on any track with that kind of team. It sounds like it was set up so that the field would be evenly matched. Unlike most scrambles with no handicap limit where you get a group of scratch players who shoot 18 or 20 under. And all the average groups are single digits under wondering "WTF?"

Take two guys that shoot 85 everyday and two guys that play in the triple digits and have them play a best ball. They would do very well to finish under par and I'd be surprised if they did.

As for the question the OP asked....NO, it was not advantageous for them to have 3 players. Like another poster said, if it was one of the hacks that bailed it would be, but since it was one of the two 80's players, it was a slight disadvantage if anything.

Don't worry about those dudes, it is human nature to look for excuses when you lose. Almost everybody does it and some like to verbalize it and try to ruin your victory party. Let 'em mope and moan and rock on with your winnings!!!

[kylemacca01]

I assume he meant -1 net which when you take into account that the hacks must have added a few shots to the team handicap is pretty poor. Normally net scores around 60 at the highest win these kind of things on a moderately challenging course.

[Atler]

-1 straight up. No adjustments for handicap or anything. I'm not sure how that would work. This wasn't some big scramble tournament. It was just a group of 12 (edit: really 11) guys from the office.

This post has been edited by Atler: Jul 3 2009, 01:07 PM

[psygolf]

No advantage here since your loss was another good player. To be quite honest, I'm surprised they let you do that...in scrambles I've played in...if your 4th is not available...you lose that shot.

+1 * you should've lost the shot.

[Atler]

Ok, I agree if this were a scramble tournament where I organized a group of 4 guys and the 4th couldn't show up.

But this was arranged by someone in the office and meant to be an equitable distribution of players. I didn't choose the teams, nor did anybody else. They were chosen for us. Not our fault the 4th couldn't make it.

[mjtoal]

I think other teams had a right to feel hard done by. The normal way that a missing player is handled is that the other 3 just play 3 shots, and tough luck on you, if that rule was in force.

You didn't field a legal team.

This post has been edited by mjtoal: Jul 3 2009, 01:35 PM

[psygolf]

Ok, I agree if this were a scramble tournament where I organized a group of 4 guys and the 4th couldn't show up.

But this was arranged by someone in the office and meant to be an equitable distribution of players. I didn't choose the teams, nor did anybody else. They were chosen for us. Not our fault the 4th couldn't make it.

Obviously not your fault or decision...I don't think anyone here would've turned down the 4th shot if offered. But no matter the skill level of golfer, it makes a huge difference in pressure if you know you are going to get a 2nd shot.

[rehberg]

Big advantage I think. Every third shot you get to drop another ball and hit again, or putt again, or tee it up and drive again.........big time advantage if you ask me.

[Atler]

Would this be offset by the disadvantage of knowing that for a lot of other shots, yours would pretty much be it (i.e., you weren't going to get any help from a good teammate)?

[gwlee7]

-1 won?!

I just played in a scramble last weekend and we won shooting 57...

I played in one on this past Monday, we shot 57, and lost a tie for third on a card playoff. There can be some really low scores when the teams are comprised of good players.

[larrybud]

How do you rotate each shot when not all players necessarily hit every shot (such as when someone holes out)?

I've played in those where a player plays a 2nd shot for the entire hole, then you rotate to the next player for the next hole.

[mac94]

Big advantage. Most scrambles don't allo it except for putting.

[choeppner]

-1 won?!

I just played in a scramble last weekend and we won shooting 57...

Wow... -1. LOL I played in a Scramble today, shot 18 under, and we were in like 5th place. LOL

Sometimes I do think that having only 3 is a advantage. Alot of times it is not. I've played in a couple where having only 3 helps, especially when all the players are around scratch handicaps. Most of the time though, I don't think it really affects anything though as you still have 3 balls to choose from, and then even if say the A player gets an extra shot on a hole, how much is that really going to affect everything overall.

-Chris

[Atler]

Alright, I know how to take a good ribbing. Agreed that a winner at -1 is pretty sad. I do feel like I did alright to keep my team at -1, though, given that the other two guys' shots were nearly always unusable. Go out on the course and hit every third shot two times, and see what you score. Pretty much what I did.

[xxio]

It is an advantage because a person on your team is essentially getting a mulligan every shot.

Especially on and around the greens where touch shots are needed. A guy getting to hit twice is a huge advantage.

[BiState_Golf]

It is an advantage because a person on your team is essentially getting a mulligan every shot.

Especially on and around the greens where touch shots are needed. A guy getting to hit twice is a huge advantage.

Agreed, I've played several where we only had 3 and we were seriously low! 52,53, etc. It's not hard to do when you can take another putt, and face it, just about anyone can putt if they settle down and have 2 cracks at it.

Someone say mulligan? What's that?

[Greenie]

There are some interesting posts here. I have never been to a scramble that didn't allow a team of three to have an extra shot.I have always thought a team of three has an advantage but depends on the make up of the team.Recently the tourneys we have been playing in teams of three have been winning.We played a tourney on July 4th and our best player had to bail so we played with three and they told us to alternate the fourth shot.I really liked it.I thought it really help us. We shot a 63.Our last four tourneys we shot 63's with four players.Considering our best player and go to guy wasn't there I feel if he was there and our worse player wasn't we would have done better then a 63.We are average hacks that shoot 85 to 95 and our worse player around a 100.I agree most tourneys you have to be around 58 to win.July 4th was a 57 that won and our last one a 51 LOL won it.I don't find a -1 laughable in a type of tourney the op played in.We have a work tourney just like that where you do the A 80's B 90's C 100 and D players to make it fair.The winning score is always around -3 to -1.Having to use all player's drive twice when two of the four usually can't get off the tee is a penalty in itself.It is tuff to go low when basically it is you and one other person making all the shots and neither of you are scratch golfers to begin with....