Post mortem

[chan]

The Ryder Cup has long been over and probably been over analyzed. But
in having a chance as a sports fan to cool off, here are my amateur theories
on how the US might improve their chance of being competitive.

Qualification system
1 way is to have a more inclusive system whereby a finish among the top
10 American players in a tournament would earn points. Intuitively to me it
doesn’t make sense. This issue most often comes into play during the majors & TPC Sawgrass. If an American can outperform an international player in the top fields & under the greatest pressure, why would I want him competing at the Ryder Cup?
My hypothetical system was to be more exclusive. Players who finish in the top 5 earn points. Majors & TPC would be weighted > than regular
tournaments. The issue of, “Is the best possible team being fielded?” is often
about the last 4 players on the team. I said let there be 4 captain’s picks.
I choose the 1996-97 qualification period (Woods’ 1st team) to analyze.
My 8 players on points all made the actual 1997 team. Of my 4 captain’s picks, 2 clearly had > pts than the rest: Maggert & Furyk. They also made the actual 1997 team.
For the last 2 picks there were 5 candidates: Couples, Duval, Janzen, Tolles & Watson. I would’ve selected Duval for his consistent play over that period and Watson (20th in 1997 world golf rankings) for his experience.
Couples and Janzen were selected. It’s only 1 qualification period but my system “makes” no difference.

New Blood
An experience core of 4-6 players in their 30s usually wins the Cup. Not surprising, since golfers typically reach their prime in that age range. 2 notable examples of teams with young talent are: the 1983 EU team (Ballesteros, Langer, Faldo, Lyle, Woosnam) & the 1997 US team (Woods, Mickleson, Leonard, Furyk). These 2 teams with young core players both
barely lost. Coincidentally, these players were part of winning teams at the next competition. While it would be great for the US team to add a core player under 30, veteran teams generally win.

Rookies
In team matches, rookies often hold their own, but struggle in singles. I
wouldn’t hesitate to play rookies on the Day 1, or even pair rooks together. We saw this in Ireland. If you look at the debut records of EU’s big 4 in the 1980s (Ballesteros, Faldo, Langer & Olazabal) they were a combined 8-7-1 in team matches but 1-2-1 in singles.
As for a rookie making the team as a captain’s pick however, I’m wary. For me, a rookie would need 1 win & a top 5 finish during the 2-year
qualification period to merit serious consideration.

Home course advantage
You could setup the course to have 40-yard wide fairways & short par 5s (500-515 yards) to suit the big drivers on the American team. Wide fairways might mean US players having consistently shorter approach shots then their opponent. Having make-able eagle opportunities for both teams could be wildly exciting. European players have succeeded on such a course however; it’s called Augusta.
The other approach is a US Open style setup. You could have a Par 70 course w/hourglass fairways and cornstalk high rough that protects par.
Players & fans alike would hate it. But to give the American team a true home course advantage, this seems to be the way to go.
Since 1960 only 1 EU player has won a US Open (1970 Jacklin, Hazeltine). From 1983 – 1997 (this 15-year period chosen as it marks Ballesteros & Woods respective rises as top 5 players in the world) only 4 EU players have been in contention at the US Open. Contention defined as finishing within 2 shots of the lead:
Faldo 1988/1990; Montgomerie 1994/1997; Ballesteros 1985, Woosnam 1989.
Only 1 other EU player during that span finished within the top 5 (Langer 1987)
I wouldn’t want to watch a Ryder Cup under that latter setup. However, isn’t it about just winning baby?

Future post: Pairing alchemy.

[chan]

Statistical analysis of 2002 EU pairings

Pairings Stat-line (Scoring Avg., GIR, Putt Avg., Sand Saves) by rank
Clarke 70.02 (10), 71.0% (30), 1.742 (7), 45.0% (164)
Bjorn 70.19 (19), 66.9% (98), 1.731 (2), 53.6% (91)

Comment: Clarke Ball-striking/scoring paired w/Bjorn (putting).


Garcia 69.53 (3), 77.1% (T1), 1.847 (185), 47.1% (T148)
Westwood 71.69 (108), 65.1% (127), 1.760 (27), 47.1% (T148)

Comment: Garcia Ball-striking/scoring paired w/Westwood (putting).


Montgomerie 69.75 (4), 75.1% (9), 1.738 (4), 48.8% (136)
Langer 69.82 (T5), 74.6% (10), 1.774 (59), 78.9% (3)

Comment: 2 Ball-strikers/scorers; Montgomerie putter, Langer scrambler
Statistically a no-brainer pairing…


Harrington 69.23 (1), 77.1% (T1), 1.723 (1), 71.1% (10)
Fasth 70.27 (13), 62.2% (175), 1.745 (9), 59.3% (42)

Comment: Harrington had an excellent year golfing his ball. All Fasth had to do was contribute a few putts.


Harrington 69.23 (1), 77.1% (T1), 1.723 (1), 71.1% (10)
McGinley 69.83 (T5), 75.6% (6), 1.766 (36), 53.9% (88)

Comment: Scoring average of Irish duo indicated potential strong 4-ball pairing.


Fulke 71.87 (122), 62.2% (175), 1.739 (6), 57.4% (59)
Price 70.42 (18), 67.2% (90), 1.746 (10), 58.8% (46)

Comment: Thought with this pair was maybe one of them would get putter hot.


Fasth 70.27 (13), 62.2% (175), 1.745 (9), 59.3% (42)
Parnevik* 70.12 [6], 66.9% [T8], 1.769 [10], 54.3% [6]
* PGA tour #’s used, rank based on 1-12 of EU team

Comment: Parnevik Ball-striking/scoring paired w/Fasth putting .

Captain Sam Torrance paired players w/complementary skill sets. In other words, ball-strikers with putters in both Alternate Shot & 4-Ball formats.


Now here’s my hypothetical 1997 Ryder Cup squad (Woods’ first team) in world ranking order:
2) Woods, 5) Love, 7) Mickleson, 8) Lehman, 10) O’Meara, 11) Leonard,
12) Duval, 13) Faxon, 16) Hoch, 20) Watson, 21) Furyk, 29) Maggert.

Order of play: Day 1 Morning Alt Shot, Day 1 Afternoon 4-Ball
Day 2 Morning 4-Ball, Day 2 Alt Shot

Historically of the 3 formats, EU has greatest advantage in 4-Balls, slightly < advantage in Alt Shot and it’s relatively = in singles. US captain should start Day 1 & end Day 2 in format where US teams have fared slightly better, which is Alt Shot.

Based on 1997 stats & world rankings my pairings for Day 1 Alt Shot would've been:
Woods/Faxon, Mickleson/O’Meara, Love/Duval, Lehman/Leonard
#2/13 #7/10 #5/12 #8/11

4 top scorers: Woods, Mickleson, Love. Lehman are paired with 4 of the top 5 players in putting average: Faxon, O’Meara, Duval, Leonard.

None of my hypothetical pairings occurred in actual 1997 competition. Duval/Love would be paired at next 2 tournaments going 0-1-1.

Next Post: Adjustment scenarios after opening Alt Shot matches.

[chan]

Day 1 Morning Alt. Shot: Initial 4 pairings for Alt. Shot should be based on
careful stat analysis of 4 areas: Scoring Avg., GIR, Putt Avg., Scramble.

Day 1 Afternoon 4-Ball: Winning pairs from Alt. Shot stay out for 4-ball. Losing or tying pairs sit out afternoon session. If players who lost in Alt. Shot have to go out for 4-ball session, they're recombined w/new partner. Those
individuals who played best amongst losing player pool would form the new
pairings.


Day 2 Morning 4-Ball: Basically, guidelines same as above. Only exception
would be if pair from Day 1 Afternoon 4-Ball lost 1-up match that was an 8-7
or 9-8 birdie shootout. If that were the case, I would keep such a pair
together.

Day 2 Alternate Shot: By this point hope 2 obvious pairings have emerged,
leaving 2 parings to mix & match.





Summary: After all calculations poured into Day 1 Morning Alt. Shot pairings, US captain must read & react to game situations on course. It's not quantum physics, winning pairs play, losing or trying pairs usually sit. When recombining pairings, ideally ball-strikers/scorers paired with putters.
Everybody plays once before singles. As for playing 5 times, only players 3-0 or won both Day 1 sessions then lost Day 2 morning session play all 5. Barring complete wipeout by EU team, any other permutation means losing player sits. EVEN STAR PLAYERS... Through Nassau games & practices, captain should find for each player 2 Alt. Shot & 2 4-Ball partners. Captain should assign & explain his rationale behind pairings to the players. But he shouldn't ask for their input . It's an executive decision with the goal of winning, not a buddy-fest . US captain shouldn't be afraid to thoroughly shakeup pairings up after losses. Finally, he should strongly emphasize the goal of winning 9 points from team matches.

All pairing adjustment scenarios can be looked at in the attachment file.