| |
Main
Date: 28 Aug 2006 11:41:04
From: multi
Subject: All you need to know about dominance
|
Tiger just wrapped up his eighth Player of the Year award in ten
years. Jack won five in a very long career. You can stop reading
here if you want.
I've always said that it's dumb to use a single number to decide who
the greatest golfer of all time is. How would that work for baseball?
Do you use home runs, batting average, ERA, stolen bases, Golden
Gloves, or World Series rings?
The Golf Almanac website
http://golf.about.com/od/historyofgolf/l/blgolfalmanac.htm
has a pretty good list of pro golf records:
Career Victories
Major Wins
Yearly Win Leaders
Yearly Money Leaders
Yearly Scoring Leaders (Vardons)
Players of the Year
I think that taking a composite of those six categories would give a
much better measure of the GOAT, than any one of them alone.
So I put them in a spreadsheet for the top candidates. I am weighting
the numbers as follows; if anyone wants to tell me why their way of
weighting them is better, I'll read it.
Career Victories - one point each
Major Wins - two point bonus, plus a point as a career victory
(note that this is the same ratio the PGA uses in its Player of the
Year points, i.e. a major is worth three times as much as a non-major)
All yearly titles, five points each
So winning the POY, Vardon, or money title is like winning five
regular events, but not quite as good as winning two majors
And here are the results. For Tiger, I am counting victories and
majors up to the present, but I am not counting the four yearly awards
that it appears he will win for 2006. Also note that the old-timers
are cheated by not having many of these stats go back to their primes
--- hence my post about you guys nominating POYs from before 1948.
1. Tiger 206
2. Jack 204
3. Hogan 167
4. Snead 156
5. Watson 155
6. Palmer 151
7. Casper 122
8. Hagen 106
9. Nelson 87
10. Trevino 81
Some comments:
a) Tiger just passed Jack with his PGA win two weeks ago
b) I ran the numbers for Singh, Phil, and Ernie, and they are way
down, like in the 40's. So unless they start winning some more, it
looks like I'm providing ammo to the guys who say Jack had tougher
competition.
c) I was pleasantly surprised at how well Watson and Casper came out.
IMO they are way underrated in most discussions of all-time greats.
d) Tiger already leads three all-time categories: Yearly Wins,
Vardons, and POY, which is not bad for ten years (but note that these
records were not listed for Hagen's era). Jack leads in majors and
money titles. Of course, the remaining category, career victories, is
led by Sammy.
e) Hogan and Snead were really shafted in this. Aside from the fact
that they had no majors to play during WWII, and missed some years of
their prime, there were no POYs before 1948, no Vardons before 1937
and from 1942-46, and no money stats for 1943. Still, they show up as
two of the very best, and a cut above Nelson. IMO it is very likely
that without the war and his accident, Hogan would be the undisputed
GOAT.
f) The obvious omission in this list is Bobby Jones. He was
brilliant, but a guy who only played a few years, only played a few
events a year, didn't play for money, and played before they kept good
records, is not going to do well in any of these categories, except
major victories. I didn't bother listing him because his point total
would grossly misrepresent his stature in the game.
g) Jack claims that he won 8 scoring titles, although he has no
Vardons. I've never seen any data to support his claim, but OK, let's
give them to him. In that case, he would have 40 more points, and
would lead Tiger by 244 to 206. Tiger should make up at least half of
that this year, since he appears to be a lock for the POY, earnings,
and wins, and is leading in the Vardon. One more good year, and he
would lead again.
Comments welcome from anybody but the racist loon.
|
|
| |
Date: 28 Aug 2006 21:12:18
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: All you need to know about dominance
|
multi wrote:
> Tiger just wrapped up his eighth Player of the Year award in ten
> years. Jack won five in a very long career. You can stop reading
> here if you want.
>
[ Big Snip]
>
> Comments welcome from anybody but the racist loon.
Do you have a job?
|
| | |
Date: 30 Aug 2006 15:06:29
From: multi
Subject: Re: All you need to know about dominance
|
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 21:12:18 -0400, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com >
wrote:
>Do you have a job?
I'm pretty sure that it takes me less time to write my posts than it
does for you to read them.
|
| |
Date: 29 Aug 2006 01:50:02
From: Nomen Nescio
Subject: Re: All you need to know about dominance
|
In article <u2a6f21ts85649j4bev586knr4cbv4vmlk@4ax.com >
multi <multi@asm.org > wrote:
It's hard to lose when you have 15 minutes to look for a lost ball.
|
| |
Date: 28 Aug 2006 13:51:05
From: Fairway
Subject: Re: All you need to know about dominance
|
multi wrote:
> But I enjoy finding new ways to look at old
> questions, and I think it's stupid to judge a career by majors and
> ignore everything else.
You certainly found a new way and an interesting too. When I watch
Tiger play I simply can=B4t imagine a player better than he is. He has
it all - long game, short game - and he is an incredible escape artist
too. F
|
| |
Date: 28 Aug 2006 13:12:47
From: Fairway
Subject: Re: All you need to know about dominance
|
multi wrote:
> I've always said that it's dumb to use a single number to decide who
> the greatest golfer of all time is. How would that work for baseball?
> Do you use home runs, batting average, ERA, stolen bases, Golden
> Gloves, or World Series rings?
You are trying to prove that Tiger is the greatest golfer of all time,
right? When Tiger entered the scene the great man himself predicted
that he (Tiger) would outshine him(Jack). You=B4ve done a good work but,
being a sensible man, you know of course that such comparison is flawed
for the obvious reason. F
|
| | |
Date: 28 Aug 2006 13:45:43
From: multi
Subject: Re: All you need to know about dominance
|
On 28 Aug 2006 13:12:47 -0700, "Fairway" <arminsson@yahoo.com > wrote:
>You are trying to prove that Tiger is the greatest golfer of all time,
>right?
No, that can't be proven, and I'm not even sure I believe it. I just
said in my OP I think Hogan might be, and I wouldn't argue very hard
against Vardon, either. But I enjoy finding new ways to look at old
questions, and I think it's stupid to judge a career by majors and
ignore everything else.
|
| |
Date: 28 Aug 2006 20:10:12
From: greenkeeper
Subject: Re: All you need to know about dominance
|
In message <oab+gAJcxz8EFwed@alancampbell.demon.co.uk >, greenkeeper
<greenkeeper@xxxalancampbell.demon.co.uk > writes
>In message <u2a6f21ts85649j4bev586knr4cbv4vmlk@4ax.com>, multi
><multi@asm.org> writes
>>Tiger just wrapped up his eighth Player of the Year award in ten
>>years. Jack won five in a very long career. You can stop reading
>>here if you want.
>>
>>I've always said that it's dumb to use a single number to decide who
>>the greatest golfer of all time is. How would that work for baseball?
>>Do you use home runs, batting average, ERA, stolen bases, Golden
>>Gloves, or World Series rings?
>>
>>The Golf Almanac website
>>http://golf.about.com/od/historyofgolf/l/blgolfalmanac.htm
>>has a pretty good list of pro golf records:
>>
>>Career Victories
>>Major Wins
>>Yearly Win Leaders
>>Yearly Money Leaders
>>Yearly Scoring Leaders (Vardons)
>>Players of the Year
>>
>>I think that taking a composite of those six categories would give a
>>much better measure of the GOAT, than any one of them alone.
>>So I put them in a spreadsheet for the top candidates. I am weighting
>>the numbers as follows; if anyone wants to tell me why their way of
>>weighting them is better, I'll read it.
>>
>>Career Victories - one point each
>>
>>Major Wins - two point bonus, plus a point as a career victory
>>(note that this is the same ratio the PGA uses in its Player of the
>>Year points, i.e. a major is worth three times as much as a non-major)
>>
>>All yearly titles, five points each
>>So winning the POY, Vardon, or money title is like winning five
>>regular events, but not quite as good as winning two majors
>>
>>And here are the results. For Tiger, I am counting victories and
>>majors up to the present, but I am not counting the four yearly awards
>>that it appears he will win for 2006. Also note that the old-timers
>>are cheated by not having many of these stats go back to their primes
>>--- hence my post about you guys nominating POYs from before 1948.
>>
>>1. Tiger 206
>>2. Jack 204
>>3. Hogan 167
>>4. Snead 156
>>5. Watson 155
>>6. Palmer 151
>>7. Casper 122
>>8. Hagen 106
>>9. Nelson 87
>>10. Trevino 81
>>
>>Some comments:
>>
>>a) Tiger just passed Jack with his PGA win two weeks ago
>>
>>b) I ran the numbers for Singh, Phil, and Ernie, and they are way
>>down, like in the 40's. So unless they start winning some more, it
>>looks like I'm providing ammo to the guys who say Jack had tougher
>>competition.
>>
>>c) I was pleasantly surprised at how well Watson and Casper came out.
>>IMO they are way underrated in most discussions of all-time greats.
>>
>>d) Tiger already leads three all-time categories: Yearly Wins,
>>Vardons, and POY, which is not bad for ten years (but note that these
>>records were not listed for Hagen's era). Jack leads in majors and
>>money titles. Of course, the remaining category, career victories, is
>>led by Sammy.
>>
>>e) Hogan and Snead were really shafted in this. Aside from the fact
>>that they had no majors to play during WWII, and missed some years of
>>their prime, there were no POYs before 1948, no Vardons before 1937
>>and from 1942-46, and no money stats for 1943. Still, they show up as
>>two of the very best, and a cut above Nelson. IMO it is very likely
>>that without the war and his accident, Hogan would be the undisputed
>>GOAT.
>>
>>f) The obvious omission in this list is Bobby Jones. He was
>>brilliant, but a guy who only played a few years, only played a few
>>events a year, didn't play for money, and played before they kept good
>>records, is not going to do well in any of these categories, except
>>major victories. I didn't bother listing him because his point total
>>would grossly misrepresent his stature in the game.
>>
>>g) Jack claims that he won 8 scoring titles, although he has no
>>Vardons. I've never seen any data to support his claim, but OK, let's
>>give them to him. In that case, he would have 40 more points, and
>>would lead Tiger by 244 to 206. Tiger should make up at least half of
>>that this year, since he appears to be a lock for the POY, earnings,
>>and wins, and is leading in the Vardon. One more good year, and he
>>would lead again.
>>
>>Comments welcome from anybody but the racist loon.
>
>
>Very interesting that there are non USA players represented, I assume
>by wins you mean USPGA tour wins?
>
>
>
>http://www.pbase.com/alancampbell/image/65212741
Sorry, that should read no non-USA.
--
alan
|
| | |
Date: 28 Aug 2006 12:25:56
From: multi
Subject: Re: All you need to know about dominance
|
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 20:10:12 +0100, greenkeeper
<greenkeeper@xxxalancampbell.demon.co.uk > wrote:
>>Very interesting that there are non USA players represented, I assume
>>by wins you mean USPGA tour wins?
FYI Gary Player got 47 points by this scheme. I didn't run it for
Norman because he didn't appear to have any chance of showing well.
|
| |
Date: 28 Aug 2006 19:56:28
From: greenkeeper
Subject: Re: All you need to know about dominance
|
In message <u2a6f21ts85649j4bev586knr4cbv4vmlk@4ax.com >, multi
<multi@asm.org > writes
>Tiger just wrapped up his eighth Player of the Year award in ten
>years. Jack won five in a very long career. You can stop reading
>here if you want.
>
>I've always said that it's dumb to use a single number to decide who
>the greatest golfer of all time is. How would that work for baseball?
>Do you use home runs, batting average, ERA, stolen bases, Golden
>Gloves, or World Series rings?
>
>The Golf Almanac website
>http://golf.about.com/od/historyofgolf/l/blgolfalmanac.htm
>has a pretty good list of pro golf records:
>
>Career Victories
>Major Wins
>Yearly Win Leaders
>Yearly Money Leaders
>Yearly Scoring Leaders (Vardons)
>Players of the Year
>
>I think that taking a composite of those six categories would give a
>much better measure of the GOAT, than any one of them alone.
>So I put them in a spreadsheet for the top candidates. I am weighting
>the numbers as follows; if anyone wants to tell me why their way of
>weighting them is better, I'll read it.
>
>Career Victories - one point each
>
>Major Wins - two point bonus, plus a point as a career victory
>(note that this is the same ratio the PGA uses in its Player of the
>Year points, i.e. a major is worth three times as much as a non-major)
>
>All yearly titles, five points each
>So winning the POY, Vardon, or money title is like winning five
>regular events, but not quite as good as winning two majors
>
>And here are the results. For Tiger, I am counting victories and
>majors up to the present, but I am not counting the four yearly awards
>that it appears he will win for 2006. Also note that the old-timers
>are cheated by not having many of these stats go back to their primes
>--- hence my post about you guys nominating POYs from before 1948.
>
>1. Tiger 206
>2. Jack 204
>3. Hogan 167
>4. Snead 156
>5. Watson 155
>6. Palmer 151
>7. Casper 122
>8. Hagen 106
>9. Nelson 87
>10. Trevino 81
>
>Some comments:
>
>a) Tiger just passed Jack with his PGA win two weeks ago
>
>b) I ran the numbers for Singh, Phil, and Ernie, and they are way
>down, like in the 40's. So unless they start winning some more, it
>looks like I'm providing ammo to the guys who say Jack had tougher
>competition.
>
>c) I was pleasantly surprised at how well Watson and Casper came out.
>IMO they are way underrated in most discussions of all-time greats.
>
>d) Tiger already leads three all-time categories: Yearly Wins,
>Vardons, and POY, which is not bad for ten years (but note that these
>records were not listed for Hagen's era). Jack leads in majors and
>money titles. Of course, the remaining category, career victories, is
>led by Sammy.
>
>e) Hogan and Snead were really shafted in this. Aside from the fact
>that they had no majors to play during WWII, and missed some years of
>their prime, there were no POYs before 1948, no Vardons before 1937
>and from 1942-46, and no money stats for 1943. Still, they show up as
>two of the very best, and a cut above Nelson. IMO it is very likely
>that without the war and his accident, Hogan would be the undisputed
>GOAT.
>
>f) The obvious omission in this list is Bobby Jones. He was
>brilliant, but a guy who only played a few years, only played a few
>events a year, didn't play for money, and played before they kept good
>records, is not going to do well in any of these categories, except
>major victories. I didn't bother listing him because his point total
>would grossly misrepresent his stature in the game.
>
>g) Jack claims that he won 8 scoring titles, although he has no
>Vardons. I've never seen any data to support his claim, but OK, let's
>give them to him. In that case, he would have 40 more points, and
>would lead Tiger by 244 to 206. Tiger should make up at least half of
>that this year, since he appears to be a lock for the POY, earnings,
>and wins, and is leading in the Vardon. One more good year, and he
>would lead again.
>
>Comments welcome from anybody but the racist loon.
Very interesting that there are non USA players represented, I assume
by wins you mean USPGA tour wins?
http://www.pbase.com/alancampbell/image/65212741
--
alan
|
| | |
Date: 28 Aug 2006 12:21:12
From: multi
Subject: Re: All you need to know about dominance
|
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 19:56:28 +0100, greenkeeper
<greenkeeper@xxxalancampbell.demon.co.uk > wrote:
>Very interesting that there are non USA players represented, I assume
>by wins you mean USPGA tour wins?
I'm using the data from the URL I gave. As far as I know, it got
everything from the USPGA. Certainly the career victories are only
PGA wins, retroactively including the British Open, and it's the PGA
that awards the Vardons, money titles, etc.
|
| |
Date: 30 Aug 2006 20:24:12
From: Laura Bush murdered her boy friend
Subject: Re: All you need to know about dominance
|
multi wrote:
You never mentioned Greg Norman. Your system is geared to PGA players
and that's not fair to the international stars. I notice you checked on
Els and he did poorly but what do you expect.?
Norman is one of the five greatest golfers ever. Next question.
|
| | |
Date: 31 Aug 2006 02:05:20
From: multi
Subject: Re: All you need to know about dominance
|
On 30 Aug 2006 20:24:12 -0700, "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend"
<xeton2001@yahoo.com > wrote:
>Norman is one of the five greatest golfers ever. Next question.
The next question is, which of the golfers in my top five (heck, make
it six) does he replace? Here they are again: Tiger, Jack, Hogan,
Snead, Watson, Palmer. Tell me which of them moves down to make room
for Norman, whose greatest achievement was the 1986 "Saturday Slam"
(holding the third-round lead in all four majors, but blowing it in
three of them).
And don't give me any Greater Dingo Open crap. Norman lived in the US
for much of his prime. If you want to talk about someone who was
penalized for not being American, try Gary Player.
|
| | | |
Date: 31 Aug 2006 12:06:28
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: All you need to know about dominance
|
On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 02:05:20 -0700, multi <multi@asm.org > wrote:
>And don't give me any Greater Dingo Open crap. Norman lived in the US
>for much of his prime. If you want to talk about someone who was
>penalized for not being American, try Gary Player.
Or maybe Bobby Locke.
|
| | | |
Date: 31 Aug 2006 19:16:33
From: multi
Subject: Re: All you need to know about dominance
|
On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 02:05:20 -0700, multi <multi@asm.org > wrote:
>On 30 Aug 2006 20:24:12 -0700, "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend"
><xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>Norman is one of the five greatest golfers ever. Next question.
>
>The next question is, which of the golfers in my top five (heck, make
>it six) does he replace? Here they are again: Tiger, Jack, Hogan,
>Snead, Watson, Palmer. Tell me which of them moves down to make room
>for Norman, whose greatest achievement was the 1986 "Saturday Slam"
>(holding the third-round lead in all four majors, but blowing it in
>three of them).
Crickets.
|
| |
Date: 30 Aug 2006 14:51:05
From: multi
Subject: Re: All you need to know about dominance
|
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 11:41:04 -0700, multi <multi@asm.org > wrote:
>1. Tiger 206
>2. Jack 204
>3. Hogan 167
>4. Snead 156
>5. Watson 155
>6. Palmer 151
>7. Casper 122
>8. Hagen 106
>9. Nelson 87
>10. Trevino 81
>
>Some comments:
>...
>b) I ran the numbers for Singh, Phil, and Ernie, and they are way
>down, like in the 40's. So unless they start winning some more, it
>looks like I'm providing ammo to the guys who say Jack had tougher
>competition.
On second thought, this is unfair to Tiger's peers. About the very
best a modern era golfer can do in one season is win 10 events, all
four majors, and the yearly titles for most wins, most money, lowest
scoring average, and POY. On my list, that is a total of 10+8+5+5+5+5
= 38 points available per year. In ten years, Tiger has averaged over
20 points a year, leaving 18 points a year for his competitors.
Calling Jack's career the 25-year span in which he won majors, he
averaged about 8 points a year, leaving 30 points a year for his
competitors. So the pie that Phil, Ernie, and Vijay have to divide up
is 10 years * 18 points = 180 points, while the Jack era pie is 25
years * 30 points = 750 points. (I'm assuming that the wins that
Palmer and Casper got before Jack turned pro balance out the wins that
Tiger's peers got before he turned pro.)
With over four times as many points available to them, it's not
surprising that the best golfers of Jack's era have not quite four
times as many points as Tiger's best peers.
|
| |
Date: 30 Aug 2006 16:19:31
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: All you need to know about dominance
|
"multi" <multi@asm.org > wrote ...
> Tiger just wrapped up his eighth Player of the Year award in ten
> years. Jack won five in a very long career. You can stop reading
> here if you want.
>
> I've always said that it's dumb to use a single number to decide who
> the greatest golfer of all time is. How would that work for baseball?
> Do you use home runs, batting average, ERA, stolen bases, Golden
> Gloves, or World Series rings?
>
> The Golf Almanac website
> http://golf.about.com/od/historyofgolf/l/blgolfalmanac.htm
> has a pretty good list of pro golf records:
>
> Career Victories
> Major Wins
> Yearly Win Leaders
> Yearly Money Leaders
> Yearly Scoring Leaders (Vardons)
> Players of the Year
>
> I think that taking a composite of those six categories would give a
> much better measure of the GOAT, than any one of them alone.
> So I put them in a spreadsheet for the top candidates. I am weighting
> the numbers as follows; if anyone wants to tell me why their way of
> weighting them is better, I'll read it.
>
> Career Victories - one point each
>
> Major Wins - two point bonus, plus a point as a career victory
> (note that this is the same ratio the PGA uses in its Player of the
> Year points, i.e. a major is worth three times as much as a non-major)
>
> All yearly titles, five points each
> So winning the POY, Vardon, or money title is like winning five
> regular events, but not quite as good as winning two majors
>
> And here are the results. For Tiger, I am counting victories and
> majors up to the present, but I am not counting the four yearly awards
> that it appears he will win for 2006. Also note that the old-timers
> are cheated by not having many of these stats go back to their primes
> --- hence my post about you guys nominating POYs from before 1948.
>
> 1. Tiger 206
> 2. Jack 204
> 3. Hogan 167
> 4. Snead 156
> 5. Watson 155
> 6. Palmer 151
> 7. Casper 122
> 8. Hagen 106
> 9. Nelson 87
> 10. Trevino 81
>
> Some comments:
>
> a) Tiger just passed Jack with his PGA win two weeks ago
>
> b) I ran the numbers for Singh, Phil, and Ernie, and they are way
> down, like in the 40's. So unless they start winning some more, it
> looks like I'm providing ammo to the guys who say Jack had tougher
> competition.
>
> c) I was pleasantly surprised at how well Watson and Casper came out.
> IMO they are way underrated in most discussions of all-time greats.
>
> d) Tiger already leads three all-time categories: Yearly Wins,
> Vardons, and POY, which is not bad for ten years (but note that these
> records were not listed for Hagen's era). Jack leads in majors and
> money titles. Of course, the remaining category, career victories, is
> led by Sammy.
>
> e) Hogan and Snead were really shafted in this. Aside from the fact
> that they had no majors to play during WWII, and missed some years of
> their prime, there were no POYs before 1948, no Vardons before 1937
> and from 1942-46, and no money stats for 1943. Still, they show up as
> two of the very best, and a cut above Nelson. IMO it is very likely
> that without the war and his accident, Hogan would be the undisputed
> GOAT.
>
> f) The obvious omission in this list is Bobby Jones. He was
> brilliant, but a guy who only played a few years, only played a few
> events a year, didn't play for money, and played before they kept good
> records, is not going to do well in any of these categories, except
> major victories. I didn't bother listing him because his point total
> would grossly misrepresent his stature in the game.
>
> g) Jack claims that he won 8 scoring titles, although he has no
> Vardons. I've never seen any data to support his claim, but OK, let's
> give them to him. In that case, he would have 40 more points, and
> would lead Tiger by 244 to 206. Tiger should make up at least half of
> that this year, since he appears to be a lock for the POY, earnings,
> and wins, and is leading in the Vardon. One more good year, and he
> would lead again.
>
> Comments welcome from anybody but the racist loon.
This is actually a very intriguing and well thought-out article. Hat's off
to you, multi.
The one omission, which you acknowledge, is Bobby Jones, and of course your
scoring method would be hard to apply to him. That tends to amplify the
difficulty in comparing players from different eras. Still, I would be
curious what his numbers would look like if you were to "project" certain
numbers for him. For example, even though the "Amateur" titles he won are
not, under today's environment, considered majors, they unmistakably were
back in his day. You could certainly project a few Player of the Year
honors for him, especially in 1930. It would take some imagination, and
would certainly carry an asterisk because much of his data would be mere
projections, but I still think it would be interesting if you were to do
some of that on Jones...just to see where he lands on the list.
Honestly, he seems to be about the only omission here. Unless you count Old
Tom and Young Tom (which I don't).
Randy
|
| | |
Date: 30 Aug 2006 14:17:40
From: multi
Subject: Re: All you need to know about dominance
|
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 16:19:31 -0400, "\"R&B\""
<noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote:
>The one omission, which you acknowledge, is Bobby Jones, and of course your
>scoring method would be hard to apply to him. That tends to amplify the
>difficulty in comparing players from different eras. Still, I would be
>curious what his numbers would look like if you were to "project" certain
>numbers for him. For example, even though the "Amateur" titles he won are
>not, under today's environment, considered majors, they unmistakably were
>back in his day. You could certainly project a few Player of the Year
>honors for him, especially in 1930. It would take some imagination, and
>would certainly carry an asterisk because much of his data would be mere
>projections, but I still think it would be interesting if you were to do
>some of that on Jones...just to see where he lands on the list.
I had the same idea, and I started another thread, called "Players of
the Year Before 1948?" to solicit suggestions along those lines. But
I doubt you could get Jones much above 50 points on this list, which
would put him well out of the top ten. Like Johnny Miller, or David
Duval, he had some great years, but not very many. Projecting POYs
and Vardons would probably help guys like Hagen and Sarazen more than
Jones.
Even giving Jones a couple of POYs, and awarding him the money from
the pro events he won, he would still finish very low in career
victories, yearly wins, and earnings (as Annika pointed out in my
other thread, Sarazen won 8 events in 1930, so Jones wouldn't have won
the money title even in his best year), and he would not have enough
events to win a projected Vardon.
Until someone wins a pro Grand Slam, and maybe even afterward, people
will have a good case that Jones's 1930 was the best season any golfer
ever had, but this list is about careers, not seasons. If the GOAT is
based on a single season, then career stats are irrelevant, and Jack's
not in the conversation. Tiger 2000, Jones 1930, Nelson 1945, and
Hogan 1953 are about the only candidates, and IMO you could really
boil it down to Tiger and Bobby.
Of course, you could assume that Jones would have won more if he had
played more, but then you have to do the same for Hogan, who couldn't
play much after his accident, and Snead, who lost three or four years
of his prime to the war, and Vardon, who effectively was restricted to
only one major a year. In fact, I would give them more projected wins
before I would give Jones any, since he is the only one of the group
who could have played more had he wanted to.
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Aug 2006 23:15:31
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: All you need to know about dominance
|
"multi" <multi@asm.org > wrote in message
news:b2tbf25058e3cckovnobnsfdlk4eorq6r7@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 16:19:31 -0400, "\"R&B\""
> <noneofyourbusiness@all.com> wrote:
>
>>The one omission, which you acknowledge, is Bobby Jones, and of course
>>your
>>scoring method would be hard to apply to him. That tends to amplify the
>>difficulty in comparing players from different eras. Still, I would be
>>curious what his numbers would look like if you were to "project" certain
>>numbers for him. For example, even though the "Amateur" titles he won are
>>not, under today's environment, considered majors, they unmistakably were
>>back in his day. You could certainly project a few Player of the Year
>>honors for him, especially in 1930. It would take some imagination, and
>>would certainly carry an asterisk because much of his data would be mere
>>projections, but I still think it would be interesting if you were to do
>>some of that on Jones...just to see where he lands on the list.
>
> I had the same idea, and I started another thread, called "Players of
> the Year Before 1948?" to solicit suggestions along those lines. But
> I doubt you could get Jones much above 50 points on this list, which
> would put him well out of the top ten. Like Johnny Miller, or David
> Duval, he had some great years, but not very many. Projecting POYs
> and Vardons would probably help guys like Hagen and Sarazen more than
> Jones.
>
> Even giving Jones a couple of POYs, and awarding him the money from
> the pro events he won, he would still finish very low in career
> victories, yearly wins, and earnings (as Annika pointed out in my
> other thread, Sarazen won 8 events in 1930, so Jones wouldn't have won
> the money title even in his best year), and he would not have enough
> events to win a projected Vardon.
>
> Until someone wins a pro Grand Slam, and maybe even afterward, people
> will have a good case that Jones's 1930 was the best season any golfer
> ever had, but this list is about careers, not seasons. If the GOAT is
> based on a single season, then career stats are irrelevant, and Jack's
> not in the conversation. Tiger 2000, Jones 1930, Nelson 1945, and
> Hogan 1953 are about the only candidates, and IMO you could really
> boil it down to Tiger and Bobby.
>
> Of course, you could assume that Jones would have won more if he had
> played more, but then you have to do the same for Hogan, who couldn't
> play much after his accident, and Snead, who lost three or four years
> of his prime to the war, and Vardon, who effectively was restricted to
> only one major a year. In fact, I would give them more projected wins
> before I would give Jones any, since he is the only one of the group
> who could have played more had he wanted to.
I put Jones in a somewhat different category than, say, Miller. Johnny
Miller was unbeatable (or so it seemed at times), but only for about 3
years. Jones' career, while not "long" by today's standards, was long
enough to be considered more than a mere "flash in the pan" as Miller turned
out to be. (Not to take anything away from Johnny Miller, mind you, who was
as good as anybody has ever been, albeit for only a brief period of time.)
Perhaps "flash in the pan" is too harsh a descriptive term for Miller. His
career was more like a meteor -- it burned bright, but only for a short
time, and then quickly burned out. Jones never burned out. He just won
everything he thought he needed to win, and then called it quits feeling as
though he had no more mountains to conquer.
Jones did what Byron Nelson would do several years later -- he went out on
top. Both men surely would have won more if they'd stayed at it longer.
(Another area where you could "project" with Jones -- projected wins he
might have gotten if he'd kept playing. Although it would be nothing more
than a wild guess with no evidence to substantiate it, making it fairly
meaningless, I suppose.)
I do think one other criteria that might be worth including in your
equation -- and one that surely would play to Jones' favor -- is winning
percentage. (It would also play to Tiger's favor, obviously, and perhaps to
Nelson's, as well.) Although I'm not sure where you'd find credible records
of how many tournaments these players from earlier eras actually ENTERED.
With all that said, it's still interesting. Good job, dude. :-)
Randy
|
|
