2019 FedExCup Playoffs

[Zekez]

2 hours ago, iacas said:

By definition you can’t really have a mediocre year and be in the top 30.

And to all those who keep saying this format is confusing I have no idea what you’re talking about as this format is far less confusing than any previous year. The leaderboard is the leaderboard.

It is very easy to follow this year.  But frankly, it wasn't that hard to follow in the past.

[jamo]

2 hours ago, ChrisP said:

I personally think they should have a separate prize for the lowest 72-hole aggregate score but continue to use the new format. You can crown the Fed Ex champion and then give a trophy to the player with the lowest 72-hole score. To me, that would make more people happy with the new format.

I don't think that would improve anything. That would just undermine the whole format. 

[iacas]

9 minutes ago, 70sSanO said:

Had Rose not finished with a solo second at East Lake,

Rose was T4.

[krupa]

2 hours ago, iacas said:

And to all those who keep saying this format is confusing I have no idea what you’re talking about as this format is far less confusing than any previous year. The leaderboard is the leaderboard.

The only thing I found confusing was how it was presented on the broadcast last weekend. The commentators kept talking about having to finish in the top 30 and because it was a playoff, I thought they meant top 30 of the tournament they were currently playing.  Apparently not. So that makes calling last week a playoff kind of confusing.

Edited August 21, 2019 by krupa

[rehmwa]

3 hours ago, ChrisP said:

I personally think they should have a separate prize for the lowest 72-hole aggregate score but continue to use the new format. You can crown the Fed Ex champion and then give a trophy to the player with the lowest 72-hole score. To me, that would make more people happy with the new format.

That's essentially the previous format (I had no difficulty understanding that ANY specific single tourney winner (even the last one) and the overall cup champ could be different.)  They just replaced a controved points scoring with the contrived handicapped stroke scoring with stroke offsets.

[Jay28]

On 8/18/2019 at 5:35 AM, Vinsk said:

What a dumb statement. Tiger’s 43, Koepka’s 29. Tiger is beating Koepka by 2 strokes in this tournament. Tiger beat Koepka at The Masters. You wanna compare Tiger’s accomplishments at 29 compared to Koepka’s?

Koepka’s the number 1 ranked golfer right now. Tons of talent out there and Tiger is competing....at 43. You seem to think that unless Tiger dominates again like he did 15-20 years ago he’s failing. WTF? Let it go man. We all know Koepka is the top player right now. The fact that you only discuss Tiger’s  mistakes is trolling. How’s your big hitter Cameron Champ doing?

Erm, that's the point.  I am not talking about Tiger's career or his best level.

I am talking about now. He's not as good as the best - and his bad shots can be REALLY bad.

Edited August 21, 2019 by Jay28

[70sSanO]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

Rose was T4.

That’s right.  Rose needed a birdie on 18 and he barely missed the bunker/rough on his second shot.  I’m not sure where I got 2nd... maybe going into East Lake.

John

[iacas]

1 hour ago, krupa said:

The only thing I found confusing was how it was presented on the broadcast last weekend. The commentators kept talking about having to finish in the top 30 and because it was a playoff, I thought they meant top 30 of the tournament they were currently playing.  Apparently not. So that makes calling last week a playoff kind of confusing.

It’s unchanged in like a decade. Top 30 into the Tour Championship.

6 minutes ago, Jay28 said:

ErmI am talking about now. He's not as good as the best - and his bad shots can be REALLY bad.

You’re wrong. Tiger has not hit a shot this year that ranks in the bottom 10% as measured by SG for those types of shots (not counting putts).

You see more of Tiger’s shots. Good or bad. You don’t see the shots the guy shooting 77 hits.

[ChrisP]

48 minutes ago, rehmwa said:

That's essentially the previous format (I had no difficulty understanding that ANY specific single tourney winner (even the last one) and the overall cup champ could be different.)  They just replaced a controved points scoring with the contrived handicapped stroke scoring with stroke offsets.

Not necessarily. You still use the scoring system they have in place as the main leaderboard. You just give a separate check to whoever has the lowest 72-hole total. Don’t even have to call them the Tour champion. Just give them a prize for best score. I don’t see the harm in that or how it defeats the purpose of the Fed Ex Cup leaderboard and race. That’s still the main focus.

[iacas]

1 minute ago, ChrisP said:

Not necessarily. You still use the scoring system they have in place as the main leaderboard. You just give a separate check to whoever has the lowest 72-hole total. Don’t even have to call them the Tour champion. Just give them a prize for best score. I don’t see the harm in that or how it defeats the purpose of the Fed Ex Cup leaderboard and race. That’s still the main focus.

But why?

It complicates a thing they specifically simplified.

[rehmwa]

30 minutes ago, ChrisP said:

Not necessarily. You still use the scoring system they have in place as the main leaderboard. You just give a separate check to whoever has the lowest 72-hole total. Don’t even have to call them the Tour champion. Just give them a prize for best score. I don’t see the harm in that or how it defeats the purpose of the Fed Ex Cup leaderboard and race. That’s still the main focus.

Oh - you were just talking about how it's presented........meh, either way.

That 72 hole score will be tracked and talked about.  I can't see how that would be ignored.  Especially with how golf broadcasting has to try and contrive conflicts to increase interest in the game.  Since they are going down this path, I would say your recommendation is analogous to claiming that in a regular tournament, that the guy with the best last 2 rounds should get a check.....

Regardless, we have the new format.  One benefit is that it will feel a lot like when someone has a 36 hole lead and has to defend it for two days.  Now it'll be 4 days.  There are many scenarios where that adds tension and excitement to the broadcast.  And strokes are easier for the simple masses to follow than a points system - I assume that's pretty much the main driving point for the unneeded change.

Edited August 21, 2019 by rehmwa

[Wally Fairway]

34 minutes ago, ChrisP said:

Not necessarily. You still use the scoring system they have in place as the main leaderboard. You just give a separate check to whoever has the lowest 72-hole total. Don’t even have to call them the Tour champion. Just give them a prize for best score. I don’t see the harm in that or how it defeats the purpose of the Fed Ex Cup leaderboard and race. That’s still the main focus.

I don't think anyone playing this week is going to be complaining about the money involved (even if it is deferred); the loser (aka last place) gets $365,000 (which is more that T5 earned last week). If you manage to get the low score for playing 72 holes (gross) then I'm going to presume that you move up the list; so even if you are #30 I'd think that you'd get to at least #10 and that's $830,000 (short of $1.5M, but a decent payday) and it is likely if you play well but not well enough to catch JT you are still likely to get $2.5M or more for finishing in the top 5

So I'm not worried about the cash end of this format (except for poor 'ol Kuch, he's already been edged out of $300,000 by Rory, so if he "loses" another say $1M for this format...well nobody will even feel sorry for him).

FWIW - JT still has a 2 stroke lead over 2nd place and he is 6 shots ahead of Kuch

[p1n9183]

I guess that someone did this job before but in case not... here is what would have been happen if the current rules of the fedexCup would have been applied to the 2018 FedEx Cup.

Pos 18	Player	Total 18	Handicap	Total 19	Pos 19
1	Justin Rose	-6	-8	-14	1
4	Dustin Johnson	-7	-6	-13	2
5	Billy Horschel	-9	-4	-13	2
2	Tiger Woods	-11	-2	-13	2
3	Bryson Dechambeau	-1	-10	-11	5
6	Tony Finau	-3	-7	-10	6
7	Justin Thomas	-5	-5	-10	6
11	Webb Simpson	-6	-3	-9	8
13	Rory McilRoy	-5	-2	-7	9
15	Xander Schauffele	-5	-2	-7	9
19	Tommy Fleetwood	-4	-2	-6	11
17	Rickie Fawler	-5	-1	-6	11
13	Hideki Matsuyama	-6	0	-6	11
16	Jason Day	-2	-3	-5	14
23	Jon Rahm	-4	-1	-5	14
25	Paul Casey	-4	-1	-5	14
12	Cameron Smith	0	-4	-4	17
24	Aaron Wise	-3	-1	-4	17
26	Gary Woodland	-4	0	-4	17
27	Kyle Stanley	-3	0	-3	20
17	Francesco Molinari	1	-3	-2	21
20	Patrick Cantlay	1	-2	-1	22
8	Keegan Bradley	4	-4	0	23
9	Brooks Koepka	4	-4	0	23
29	Marc Leishman	1	0	1	25
30	Patton Kizziere	1	0	1	25
28	Kevin Na	3	-1	2	27
10	Bubba Watson	10	-4	6	28
22	Patrick Reed	9	-3	6	28
21	Phil Mickelson	13	-3	10	30

Thoughts?

 

[HJJ003]

1 hour ago, p1n9183 said:

I guess that someone did this job before but in case not... here is what would have been happen if the current rules of the fedexCup would have been applied to the 2018 FedEx Cup.

Pos 18	Player	Total 18	Handicap	Total 19	Pos 19
1	Justin Rose	-6	-8	-14	1
4	Dustin Johnson	-7	-6	-13	2
5	Billy Horschel	-9	-4	-13	2
2	Tiger Woods	-11	-2	-13	2
3	Bryson Dechambeau	-1	-10	-11	5
6	Tony Finau	-3	-7	-10	6
7	Justin Thomas	-5	-5	-10	6
11	Webb Simpson	-6	-3	-9	8
13	Rory McilRoy	-5	-2	-7	9
15	Xander Schauffele	-5	-2	-7	9
19	Tommy Fleetwood	-4	-2	-6	11
17	Rickie Fawler	-5	-1	-6	11
13	Hideki Matsuyama	-6	0	-6	11
16	Jason Day	-2	-3	-5	14
23	Jon Rahm	-4	-1	-5	14
25	Paul Casey	-4	-1	-5	14
12	Cameron Smith	0	-4	-4	17
24	Aaron Wise	-3	-1	-4	17
26	Gary Woodland	-4	0	-4	17
27	Kyle Stanley	-3	0	-3	20
17	Francesco Molinari	1	-3	-2	21
20	Patrick Cantlay	1	-2	-1	22
8	Keegan Bradley	4	-4	0	23
9	Brooks Koepka	4	-4	0	23
29	Marc Leishman	1	0	1	25
30	Patton Kizziere	1	0	1	25
28	Kevin Na	3	-1	2	27
10	Bubba Watson	10	-4	6	28
22	Patrick Reed	9	-3	6	28
21	Phil Mickelson	13	-3	10	30

Thoughts?

 

Yeah this was done in last years thread about the changes to the fed ex cup. My position remains the same. I think this format is fine for determining the Fedex cup champion, however, counting the Tour Championship as an official tour win is ridiculous IMO. To be honest, I would be happy to go back to the prior format or change the points reset to if anyone in the top 10 wins they win the cup. Oh well...this is the format and it will be interesting to see how it plays out. 

[iacas]

28 minutes ago, HJJ003 said:

Yeah this was done in last years thread about the changes to the fed ex cup. My position remains the same. I think this format is fine for determining the Fedex cup champion, however, counting the Tour Championship as an official tour win is ridiculous IMO. To be honest, I would be happy to go back to the prior format or change the points reset to if anyone in the top 10 wins they win the cup. Oh well...this is the format and it will be interesting to see how it plays out. 

We give official tournament wins to players who don't necessarily shoot the lowest score in a match play event.

This is the format. The winner is the winner, and everyone knew the rules going in.

[Shindig]

13 hours ago, boogielicious said:

I know some may disagree (this is the internet after all), but I like this format. It gives players who didn't win majors and even tournaments a chance to win. I think some folks are seeing this like the finals in other sports, which is only partially true. Most sports other than tennis don't have major championships in the middle of the season, golf does.

NASCAR starts with one.  Only other example I could think of.  You're absolutely right.

10 hours ago, eaglesandbirdies123 said:

It's crazy that a player who has had a mediocre year, yet one good tournament can be leading a season long race for the FedEx Cup. I don't see how this format can have longevity as it just seems to be confusing and unfair to players who have been consistent and also won bigger titles. eg. Shane Lowry and Tiger Woods don't even make the field.

How many times in the NFL has the #1 seed been bounced in the divisional round?  Sometimes the team that had the best record in their conference isn't in the conference championship.  On the other hand, four times in the Super Bowl era, we've seen a team make the playoffs despite a losing record for the season.  Two of those four got in by virtue of winning their division and went on to win a playoff game (the other two were bounced first round).  In principle, any of those four could have won the Super Bowl that year.

[Buckeyebowman]

28 minutes ago, Shindig said:

NASCAR starts with one.  Only other example I could think of.  You're absolutely right.

How many times in the NFL has the #1 seed been bounced in the divisional round?  Sometimes the team that had the best record in their conference isn't in the conference championship.  On the other hand, four times in the Super Bowl era, we've seen a team make the playoffs despite a losing record for the season.  Two of those four got in by virtue of winning their division and went on to win a playoff game (the other two were bounced first round).  In principle, any of those four could have won the Super Bowl that year.

Yes, they could have, but they didn't! However, I will not try to argue a position that they should not have been afforded that possibility. Cinderella stories are attractive. This year's may be Jason Kokrak. Has  made a nice living on the Tour, but hasn't really come close to winning anything. He just makes cuts, and finishes in the upper half of the weekend players, making a nice check and a nice living! I'm interested to see what he does this week.

[ChrisP]

 It’s almost like when Koepka wants to win, he wins. And if he doesn’t win, he’s damn close. When was the last time he played a tournament where he probably wanted to win really bad and laid an egg? I guess the ‘18 Open but even then he rebounded after an awful start. 15 million reasons to motivate him this week so yoI know he’s all in.