I see your points but I'm not sold on the player "taking time away from the opponent's return".
If the ball bounces, its a higher percentage shot to make.
The player still has the ability to choose his shot. In fact the player will have more time to choose his shot as he can analyze the opponent during the fall and bounce of the ball.
In my opinion, letting the ball bounce gives the player more control over the point.
Less risk. Higher % for shot making. More time to analyze the situation.
I agree completely. It's higher percentage play and he is giving himself more time to choose which way to go. Of course if the lob is high and your opponent gets back into a good court position then it's a bit of a moot point and you should probably let the ball bounce unless you're very confident about the outcome.
I was more alluding to a situation whereby hitting it before it bounces, he is able to go for the winner before his opponent has managed to get a good position on the court. Normally this shouldn't be an issue if the ball bounces in a favourable position and the smash is good, but there is always the chance that by allowing your opponent to find good position, you are opening up the possibility that he might return it. If you're particularly unlikely, you may see a 'smash lob' coming back at you. Like Federer did time and again against Roddick in Basel, Djokovic at the US Open, Koellerer at the Australian Open or Davydenko at the World Tour Finals. But of course that particular return in itself is such a low percentage shot in itself, you normally wouldn't have to worry.
So yes, in retrospect I would probably let the ball bounce 9 times out of 10. But it all depends upon the mechanics of the ball's flight path and the relative position of the players on the court. And plus these decisions have to be made in a split second, so retrospective analysis may well show that the pros don't get it right all the time.