Who You Calling Hype?

Over the three preliminary days of Masters week, I've seen at least two articles on pgatour.com surface with exactly the same theme: the hype around Tiger Woods at this 76th Masters Tournament is excessive, there are nearly a hundred other players in the field with eyes on a victory of their own, this won't just be some coronation. Maybe Rory McIlroy is included in the hyped category, as in a hyped Woods vs. McIlroy confrontation. Of course the articles themselves are sportswriter-y in the extreme, but that's not even my main problem with them. They're posted on the most prominent website in American championship golf! What are they if not hype? In general I've noticed a tremendous amount of spinning from the golf establishment this year against Tiger Woods, his resurgence, and the idea that he might just start winning tournaments and majors again like he always used to. It's a little funny, then, to see that same golf establishment complaining about how much everyone thinks Tiger's the only person in the field!

Another Year, Another Masters

Today, Wednesday April 4th, is the day before the start of the 76th Masters Tournament, so I just thought I'd take this opportunity for a little bit of statistical analysis. People often say that experience at Augusta National is key at the Masters, and in particular that former champions have a huge advantage. And they're right! Compared to the other two U.S.-based majors, the Masters is vastly more favorable to repeat champions. The numbers are as follows: the 20 multiple winners of the U.S. Open have won just 50 of its 110 playings, or 45%; at the PGA Championship, the 18 multiple winners have 46 of 93 wins to their credit, for 49%; but at the Masters, the 16 multiple-time champions have 45 wins out of just 75 tournaments. That's 60%! At both the Open and the PGA, your average multiple champion has around 2.5 wins. At the Masters, that figure is more like 2.8.

In fact, we can restrict our gaze to just those players with at least three wins, and the pattern remains just as stark. Only 5 players have achieved this level of excellence at the PGA, and just 6 for the US Open. At the PGA, they combine for 20 wins, or 21.5% of the total; at the Open, they have 22 wins, exactly one-fifth of the total. But at the Masters, the eight dominant figures (Nicklaus, Palmer, Woods, Player, Snead, Faldo, Mickelson, and Demaret) have 29 wins. Not only is this more than the figures for the (older) Open and PGA, but it represents nearly 39% of all Masters. So if you're someone who likes Augusta, you probably really like it.

But you'll note I've been talking just about the American majors, and there's an obvious reason for that. At the British Open, the 26 repeat champions of the past 150 years combine for 87 wins out of 140 tournaments. That's 62%, higher than the figure for Augusta. But there are 19 three-time Champion Golfers of the Year, who have a total of 73 Open Championships to their credit. That's more than half. So while it's definitely true that the Masters selects for a certain Augusta-friendly type of player year after year, that's nothing compared to how thoroughly the British Open rewards the same group of links-loving golfers.

Perhaps some more analysis coming later. For now I'll just note that the weather seems to be favoring Tiger: the course will be playing easy, as it has each time he's won it (well, okay, in 1997 he was the only one who thought it was easy, but he's been double-digits under par all four times), and the skies should be nice and clear tomorrow morning while he's playing, and then get nasty for McIlroy and Mickelson's afternoon rounds. Let's hope he can take advantage!

300th Post

The Masters Par-3 Contest is one of the awesomest things ever, specifically because of the tradition of having Jack, Arnie, and Gary play together, all miked up. Meanwhile, THE MASTERS STARTS TOMORROW!!! (I'm a little bit excited.)

Volatility At The Top

Seven players, we are told, have a chance to be World Number One after this week's Masters if they win. But on further investigation, I discover that it's not just that: there would be very little possibility for those ahead of any of these seven players to defend their positions with high finishes. The last-ranked player in our group of potential #1's is, ironically, Tiger Woods (though he's accustomed to being the lowest-ranked player who could be #1 next week, usually because he's the only one!). If Tiger wins the Masters, I project that with the 100 ranking points from the win he'd get to 7.953 average points. If Martin Kaymer, current World #1, misses the cut at the Masters, he'll be at just 7.798 average points. To stay ahead of a victorious Tiger, Kaymer would need to get at least 7.6 points from Augusta. In order to do that, he needs to finish in the top-18. Obviously, that's possible, though he's never made the cut at Augusta. But in order for World #2 Lee Westwood to stay ahead of Masters Champion Tiger, he would need approximately 32 points, which requires a finish in the top-3. And World #3 Phil Mickelson would need 60 points to stay ahead of Tiger, and there's only one way to do that: he would have to finish second. (That would be ironic: Tiger wins the Masters, Phil finishes second, and Phil becomes #1.) So, while Kaymer has a fairly plausible scenario to fend off Tiger, essentially no one else does. Also note that Mickelson can get to #1 if he finishes solo second and Kaymer does no better than 18th, while Westwood can take the top spot with a finish inside the top-4 depending on Kaymer's results. Kaymer, for his part, would need the following results to defend against wins by the other six players: vs. Woods, 18th or better; vs. Casey, nothing? Hmm, that's weird, my numbers suggest that Paul Casey doesn't have this opportunity. It's possible that Steve Stricker is actually the 7th, or there is no 7th. Whatever. vs. McDowell, 54th or better; vs. Donald, top-3; vs. Mickelson, solo 2nd, vs. Westwood, no chance at defending. So there's a huge amount of volatility this week. If any of these guys wins, the odds are overwhelming that they'll be #1 six days from today (especially NOT McDowell, who's worse off than Tiger because he's got a larger denominator). Anyway, that's my analysis of how things will play out in the world rankings if one of the top players is in the mix to win the Masters. Should be exciting.