Player Of The Year 2008

[geezer]

I'm inclined to disagree.

Padraig was almost nowhere except in two majors

(nowhere except #1 on the European Tour Order of Merit)

Well Tiger was nowhere for half the season. Just because he won loads of money in fewer events doesn't mean he had a better season. Just a richer one.

[iacas]

Well Tiger was nowhere for half the season. Just because he won loads of money in fewer events doesn't mean he had a better season. Just a richer one.

The way I see it, it's like someone hitting 60 home runs in baseball before the All-Star break, getting injured and not playing the second half of the season, and STILL winning the home run race by five dingers over a guy that plays the whole season.

Not quite like that because there aren't any "majors" in baseball that equate, but still... Paddy won half the majors he played in, but did almost nothing else. Tiger won half and finished second in half, and won a bunch of other tournaments too. I stand by my opinion. I'm glad you disagree - there wouldn't be much to discuss otherwise.

[geezer]

I won't pretend to understand anything about baseball. But I think I get where you're coming from.

So say then that the guy who hit loads of home runs and then was injured scored his runs in a few inconsequential games and one big game. Like he just has an amazing few months or something. But the other guy has a decent season and then goes on fire for two of the biggest games of the season, the world series or something (the world series is baseball, right?) Who would be your backing for player of the year? Would it be based soley on the number of runs scored,or when they were scored?

[Cizzle]

The way I see it, it's like someone hitting 60 home runs in baseball before the All-Star break, getting injured and not playing the second half of the season, and STILL winning the home run race by five dingers over a guy that plays the whole season.

That analogy makes no sense at all......

Here, this is better. Pretend Cliff Lee plays in the NL. He goes his 10-1, then messes up his elbow and is out for the rest of the year. CC, on the other hand, is having a terrible first half. Starting out 1-5, ends up 6-8 before heading over to the Brewers and having a ridiculous second half. Who gets the Cy Young Award? CC. Paddy should get the award, but he won't. 2 majors > 1 major. If both Tiger and Paddy had 2, then you'd go to PGA wins, etc. Which Tiger would win hands down. And the Fedex Cup Playoffs do not mean anything. Paddy cares more about the Ryder Cup coming up than the Fedex.

[bigoak]

I don't like Tiger Woods but how can you not pick him for player of the year? He leads in money and points and the only reason Paddy and the others are winning is because Tiger Woods is not there.

[geezer]

That remains to be seen.

'How can you not pick Tiger?'
Because he hasn't played for half the year. Player of the year award. Not player of the six month award.

He leads in money. So what. That just means that the PGA has bigger purses for their events.

[iacas]

He leads in money. So what. That just means that the PGA has bigger purses for their events.

Padraig played 14 PGA Tour events. Tiger played 6. I'm comparing the same money list and the same events on the same tour.

And there's something to be said for "Padraig won in Tiger's absense." I'm not one to put a lot of weight there, but it gets a little...

[geezer]

The whole Tiger wasn't there thing doesn't hold water for me. But we'll see whats what when he returns.

OK, so Tiger won more money than Padraig in fewer events on the same tour. Thats fine. I still don't think you can quantify merit in terms of POTY award by the moneylist, though. A major, imo, just counts for something more and two of them consecutively just blows me away.

[bigoak]

DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is not an award show. These are professional golfers. What does that mean? It means they play for MONEY> got it MONEY. They play for money.

[N.V.M.]

what does the Ryder Cup pay?

[bigoak]

good point

[geezer]

So at the end of a football season is your player of the year/tournament always the one who scores the most goals? The one who is payed most?

The official moneylist/order of merit is the measure of who won the most money for the season. The player of the year is something else all together.

[iacas]

The official moneylist/order of merit is the measure of who won the most money for the season. The player of the year is something else all together.

... says the guy from Ireland.

[ScottRempel]

If there were two players that played the entire year, one with Tiger's record and one with Paddy's, who would you pick? Not directing this question at anyone in particular...just curious what your answer would be if we just looked at the stats and forgot about the season length and the player's names.

Player A
- 4 wins (including one major)
- one runner-up
- total of 6 top 10s
- 6/6 cuts made
- OWGR = #1
- $5,775,000 in earnings

Player B
- 2 wins (including 2 majors)
- one 3rd place finish
- total of 6 top 10s
- 11/14 cuts made
- OWGR = #4
- $4,297,731 in earnings

[Alex B]

I'm inclined to agree. Padraig was almost nowhere except in two majors. He won 50% of the ones he played in, and Tiger won 50% and finished second in the other 50%. More PGA Tour wins and heck, more money won despite fewer events - it goes to Tiger.

I see your point, but under further analysis I don't think it holds water.

(This is quite a long a unwieldy argument, so beware...) Consider, for example, Shaun Micheel's performance in the 2003 major championships. He played in only one (the PGA Championship) and won it. Therefore, he won 100% of the majors he played; should he have been player of the year? Of course not. In fact, the award that year went to Tiger, who had won five tournaments but no majors. I think we are blinded by the assumption that, since Tiger is so consistently dominant, his second half of this season (if he could compete) would have been as successful as the first. On the other hand, if a regularly solid Tour player (a Chad Campbell or Justin Leonard type) went on a hot stretch in the beginning of the season, picking off several tour wins and a major, and then stopped in June because of an injury, we would not assume that the second half of his would include more wins and majors. We cannot hold different standards for Tiger and a regular tour player; to be fair and impartial, we must assume that the unplayed half of the season held no further wins of successes. Therefore, I hold that Tiger won 25% of this year's majors, and was runner-up in 25% of them, just as Shaun Micheel won 25% of the majors played in 2003. With the unplayed second half of Tiger season discounted, the question between Tiger and Harrington seems to become one of personal tast: would one rather have a season with more accolades but more failures (Padraig's), or one with fewer accolades but fewer failures (Tiger's)? It is akin to the question of whether one would have a double album with 15 good songs and 15 bad ones, or a regular album with 10 good songs and 5 bad ones. Personally, just as I'd take the shorter album, I would take Tiger's season, but this somewhat contradicts what I said earlier. --------------- The debate between Tiger and Harrington as POY also calls into question the nature of the award: is the award based on consistent play, or on moments of brilliance? IMO, poor performances should not hurt a player in determining the winner of the award. Consider this rather drastic scenario: Player A: 20 events played, 6 wins (including 2 majors), 14 missed cuts. Player B: 18 events played, 4 wins (including 1 major), 2 missed cuts. The award, under my interpretation, should go to Player A. Therefore, if one assumes that Padraig's season had more shining moments than Tiger, he should get the award. Based on the numbers, however, I think the shining moments in Tiger's and Padraig's seasons were about the same. Harrington's one extra major and Tiger's two extra wins seem to cancel each other out. In this situation only, however, when two players have achieved roughly the same amount of accolades, should overall consistency (winning percentage, top-ten percentage, cut percentage, etc.) be taken into account. Under this criterion, Tiger clearly wins, and thus he deserves the award. --------------- To conclude, I'd like to revisit Erik's home run analogy. Although not perfect (no analogy can be), I think it does a fairly good job of paralleling this year's POY race. Consider these seasons (Player B sustained an injury halfway through in each): Season 1 Player A: 60 HR in 450 AB. Player B: 40 HR in 200 AB. Although Player B had a better HR-per-AB percentage, Player A should clearly win the title of HR king (if it were voted upon) because he hit far more dingers than Player B. Total HRs should be more important in determining the title than HR-per-AB (what is someone did a Shaun Micheel and had 2 HR in 3 AB or something?). --------------- Season 2 Player A: 50 HR in 450 AB. Player B: 50 HR in 200 AB. These numbers, I think, accurately represent this year's POY race. Since both Player A (Harrington) and Player B (Tiger) finished with the same number of HRs (wins/majors combo), HR-per-AB (winning percentage, consistency, etc.) should determine who is actually the HR king (Player B, or, in our case, Tiger). --------------- For those who think Harrington's accomplishments this season are slightly greater than those of Tiger, I offer a third season: Season 3 Player A: 54 HR in 450 AB. Player B: 50 HR in 200 AB. Now who gets the mythical title of "home run king"? I would probably give the edge to Player B, because the difference in total HRs is miniscule compared to the HR-to-AB percentage. It's a judgment call, however, one that cannot be based purely on statistics, but also on a small amount of feeling. Not to get overly emotional or bring too much empathy and drama into play, but a win on a broken leg has to add a little something, right? I think that little something, when all the statistics and mathematics even out, pushes Tiger over the top. I guess I just went through that whole rambling, that entire rigamarole, to express my simple opinion (barring no unlikely Harrington heroics in the remainder of the season): Tiger Woods - 2008 PGA Tour Player of the Year. (Whew.)

[NorCalGolfer]

This thread makes me want to throw up. I'm about as big of a Tiger fan as you can get, but I wouldn't give it to either of them. Tiger didn't play the whole year and Padraig ...don't even get me started on this flash in the pan. I honestly don't know who I'd give it to, but I know I wouldn't give it to either of them.


P.S. But I wouldn't care of Tiger snuck it in. HAHAHAHAH

[heather stevenson]

I guess this is 2 answers
1. If tmoney is the big and best show for golfers to be the best I guess ViJay wins player of the year.( as long as he stands up for 4 rounds more)Tiger is not even close after the Fedex.
All the major sports anouncers will tell you that Majors are the defining end to a golfers success and the lack of them means he is doomed to possibly be know as the best golfer never to win a Major.
Padriag is the golfer of the year NO doubt. Unless the rules have changed.

[heather stevenson]

you must be an engineer