Course Profile

TPC Summerlin:
what wins here.

Shriners Children's Open, Shriners Children's Open #2, Shriners Hospitals for Children Open · 6 editions, 2019–2024 · 2,521 rounds analyzed

Course-fit weights

OTT 24% · less decisive

APP 25% · neutral

ARG 24% · less decisive

PUTT 27% · rewarded

Derived by regressing finishing position on strokes gained at this course, measured against the tour-wide baseline, then tested on seasons the model had never seen. Based on 520 player-events.

How it plays

Not what the scorecard says — what this course does to the same players, measured against everywhere else they play. Built from 2,521 rounds across 6 editions, and ranked against every course in the archive.

Measure	Versus elsewhere	Which means	Across the archive
Driving distance	+10.5 yds	longer off the tee here	5th longest of 89
Fairways hit	+4.4 pp	easier to find	25th easiest to find of 89
Greens in regulation	+7.6 pp	easier to hit	4th easiest to hit of 88
Scrambling	−2.0 pp	harder to save par	21st hardest to save from of 81

Scoring. These players average 2.02 shots fewer per round here than they do elsewhere.

Plays most like. Plantation Course at Kapalua, Detroit, TPC Deere Run — the closest courses in the archive on those four measures together.

A record of what happened, not a forecast. Estimates are shrunk toward the tour mean by how much evidence each course has, and every baseline leaves the course itself out, so a venue cannot define the average it is measured against. Split-half reliability 0.888. Weather is not controlled for.

What it has taken

The numbers the week has actually demanded, edition by edition, counted from the scores rather than from anyone’s summary of them. The cut line is the worst halfway score that still saw a Saturday.

-23

typical winning score

Range -24 to -20 across 6 editions.

-17

to reach the top ten

The tenth-place score, median of 6 editions.

-4

to see the weekend

Where the cut fell, median of 6 editions.

Year	Field	Cut	Top 10	Won with
2024	130	-3	-16	-22
2023	129	-3	-17	-20
2022	143	-4	-17	-24
2021	141	-5	-17	-24
2020	144	-7	-18	-23
2019	144	-5	-18	-23

The week, round by round

Scoring average for each round of the tournament, drawn against this course’s own four-round average. Round 1 has played 1.36 of a shot easier than round 4, the widest gap in the week.

hardereasier

ROUND 1

-3.53 avg

ROUND 2

-3.48 avg

ROUND 3

-2.68 avg

ROUND 4

-2.17 avg

Longer to the right is easier scoring than a typical round here; longer to the left is harder. Built from 1,700 rounds — every player who completed an edition at this course, counted in all 4 of his rounds. Only finishers are in it, because Thursday is played by the whole field and Sunday by the half of it that survived the cut: compare those as they fall and every course on tour looks like it eases off for the weekend. Weather is not controlled for, so a single storm-hit afternoon is in these numbers along with everything else.

Who has played above themselves here

Strokes gained per round at this course against the same player’s own average everywhere else. Being a good player is not enough to appear on this list — the comparison is with himself, so what is left is the part that belongs to the course.

Player	Rounds here	Here	Elsewhere	Gap
Matthew Wolff	12	+2.59	-0.05	+0.88
Adam Hadwin	22	+1.69	+0.20	+0.71
Matthew NeSmith	22	+1.46	+0.05	+0.68
Sungjae Im	12	+2.75	+0.83	+0.64
Adam Schenk	22	+1.27	-0.02	+0.61
Sung Kang	12	+0.92	-0.80	+0.57

The gap is pulled toward zero by how few rounds sit behind it, so a player seen four times here does not outrank one seen twenty. Read it as a record, not a projection: players who keep coming back to a course are partly the ones it has already suited, and that selection is inside these numbers.

What the data says

Across 6 editions (2019–2024), putting is the category that most separates players who contend here from those who do not — 27% of the model's weighting, against 24% for around the green.

The spread is narrow, which is itself the finding: this course does not strongly favour one kind of player. Weights this close to even mean the field sorts mostly on overall quality, and any course-fit edge here is small.

The winners tell a partly separate story: in 3 of the last 5, the champion's best category for the week was putting. That matches what the model weights, which is the cleaner case: the same skill that separates the field also tends to decide the tournament.

How the winners won

Strokes gained per round for every champion here since 2019. The highlighted figure is that winner's best category for the week. A dash means the category split is not published for that event — only the total is.

Year	Winner	To Par	OTT	APP	ARG	PUTT	Total
2024	J.T. Poston	-22	+0.73	+0.72	+0.99	+1.38	+3.82
2023	Tom Kim	-20	+0.08	+1.85	-0.31	+1.44	+3.06
2022	Tom Kim	-24	+0.32	+1.46	+0.46	+1.51	+3.75
2021	Sungjae Im	-24	+0.64	+1.36	+0.62	+1.38	+4.00
2020	Martin Laird	-23	+0.32	+1.62	+0.48	+0.81	+3.24

Method. Weights come from regressing top-20 finishes on players' strokes gained in each category, using only rounds played before each event, and comparing each course against the tour-wide baseline — so a weight measures what this course rewards more than golf generally does, not simply which skills help. Weights are kept only where they predicted results out of sample; where they did not, we say so. We tested our previous method, found it did not predict, and published that too: how the model works.

The field, ranked before they play.

Every tournament week we score the field on course fit and player quality. Lab Notes lands every Tuesday with what the numbers say, free.

Free every week. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

More: all course profiles · live tournament stats · the research series

TPC Summerlin:what wins here.