Probably the biggest reason I don't enjoy scrambles (besides the obvious cheating that often goes on) is because golfers seem to struggle with the concept of picking the best shot that gives the highest percentage of success for every player involved. But for whatever reason - that 250-yard tee shot, dead-center of the fairway and in perfect position to get a ball reasonably close to the hole isn't considered over the 275-yard tee shot in the rough with an uneven lie. Why is it always about playing the longest tee shot, circumstances be damned?
Or how about this one... 325 yard par4, definitely a birdie hole with two good shots. The longest hitter takes a rip at it... hits it good, his usual 275 yards. Front pin, wind helping. Not much room between the front of the green and the pin, and the green slopes front-to-back.
That ball in the middle of the fairway about 50 yards further back is a full-swing for most people, usually a wedge, maybe a 9-iron for some players. Fairly simple shot, don't have to think about how hard you have to swing, don't have to think so much in terms of where you want the ball to land. It's a full swing, lots of loft, ball gets up in the air and lands softly on the green, somewhere within 10-15 feet of the hole ideally. Pretty simple shot really.
But it never fails - gotta play the shortest shot, even if two guys in the group suck at those 3/4 swings or long-range pitch shots. Even if the odds of nipping the ball perfectly and hitting it the exact distance needed still are very much dependent on the right bounce, the right amount of check on the ball, and the right amount of rollout.
Too many variables there.