OWGR Biased Against PGA Tour Players

[Silent]

Now that I see that Luiten is placed 40 on that Sagarin ranking, 26 places higher than Bjorn and 33 places higher than Westwood I start to like that system. Kidding offcourse, that Luiten also is 29 places higher than Reed and 13 places higher than Kaymer (!) seems a bit strange...

But let's not talk about individual examples, I try to understand this shit which is not easy for me. That ranking is based on when players play the exact same tournament and how they score compared to each other? That doesn't sound like a fair comparisation since most of the co-sanctioned tournaments are played in the US. So especially fairly new players from Europe will have to deal with things they are not used to on a regular basis, like time difference, different kinds of courses, the travel etc. Three out of four majors are in USA, as are the WGC. If I look at Luiten, he played the EurAsia Cup somewhere in the Middle East, and one week later he had to play the Match Play Championship in the States. I'm not surprised at all that in that case, the chance of him underperforming compared to US players with a similar OWGR ranking is quite high, since in this particular case it's actually more difficult for him. I highly doubt that looking at that Sagarin ranking (I know there were other arguments as well) you can say that apperently the ET is overrated or getting too many points. I believe that if three out of four majors were in Europe, as for the WGC, the Europeans would have an advantage and a higher chance to score good. I realise that is just an assumption which we can never know, but I do believe that up front it's no suprise that for example Ryan Palmer performed better in those co-sanctioned tournaments than Luiten (for the reasons I mentioned), even though their OWGR-ranking is similar. If Palmer would play 6 tournaments in Europe it maybe would be the other way around. (btw, I know Luiten sucked at The Open, in Europe, please don't use that against me ;))

[iacas]

What an interesting definition of 'forum' you guys have here. I did have the last say, Erik. And despite it being relatively polite you deleted it.

A moderator deleted your post with the note "OT/R". That means "off topic, rude."

I agree. Your post wasn't polite. It did nothing but attack me and continue to advance your own bizarre theory that if you apply ONE test to something, and it doesn't render the exact thing as your opinion , it renders the entire thing faulty.

You ignored countless counter-examples, failed to understand SBSE or the overall drive behind Sagarin, harped on irrelevant things that demonstrated a lack of understanding in how things were calculated, showed a poor to nonexistent understanding of statistics, were insulting to a professor who published an academic paper, and couldn't even factor in the fact something as simple as the fact that the PGA Tour uses an adjusted scoring average. And that's not all.

Your case hinges almost entirely on TWO things:

1. That Rory isn't worse than Furyk.
2. That the European Tour shows a greater scoring disparity.

Both such positions are and were easily defeated.

And if you scientists can't see that a formula that puts one golfer above another when that golfer has out performed the first in every single conceivable way is not a single data point, it's a formula that simply isn't fit for purpose, I don't know what to tell you.

@turtleback said it well, so I'm not going to repeat it. See his post about you flipping a coin once and deciding that the probability of it landing on tails 50% of the time is bogus.

And stop using the phrase "intellectual dishonesty" it's not only irritating, it smacks of what academics do to try to make themselves look clever. It annoyed me when I was at Oxford University getting a degree with honours and it's pretty irritating now. Yes, I have studied a bit myself.

You lied and put words in my mouth to attempt to make it sound as though I was calling something a fact. That's intellectually dishonest. Your degree at Oxford was, I imagine, not in math or the sciences.

Call it something else if you want, it's not the "honourable" thing to do.

And (not that it lends much to the discussion) if Broadie is a 4 handicapper over there, no he's not a better golfer than me. How a 4 handicapper could win a Club Championship is beyond me, at my club we have numerous guys playing off plus handicaps. Was practicing with one of our girls who plays off plus 2 on Friday. Maybe his country club is full of academics rather than golfers....

Hey, you're the one who assumed that he didn't even play golf, man.

And btw, enough with the "nice forum you've got here." Guess what? Everyone gets to share their opinions. In my opinion, your posts on this topic show a distinct lack of understanding and thought. Your responses have been shallow and baseless, and full of assumptions.

Everyone gets to have their opinion, and that includes me. That's the purpose of a forum.

---

@Silent , I realize and appreciate your passion for Joost, but again, you can't just look at one data point. These guys fly all over the world, and play good golf time and time again. It's what they do.

[Nosevi]

Erik, in post #718 on the Ryder Cup thread you said (and this is a direct quote) "The European Tour is over-rated in terms of OWGR." You stated it as truth. Not an opinion, not your take on it. Not what some other study shows. It was a closing remark to a post and you stated it. I said you said it was a fact. You did not use the word "fact" but you stated it as being the case. You've since launched into a total attack on me for putting words in your mouth, calling me a liar, when I did nothing but say you stated it as fact. Stating something as being true and stating it as fact are (last time I checked) the same thing. Yes I "attacked" Broadie. Equally you could say Broadie 'attacked' those that work out the OWGR by saying they are biased in favour of other tours. I questioned his motives a bit but more his method - the fact remains he got all his data from the one institution that could gain from his study and backed it up with data he couldn't verify from an institution in the country the institution that stood to gain is in. I could've pointed out he was then 'hired' by the PGA Tour afterwards but I gave him the benefit of the doubt - I'm guessing he's just a very good statistician. And I'm sure his motives have been questioned before now. Whether I think the Sagarin from golfweek is a load of nonsense and whether I think the whole pretence behind Broadie's work is basically flawed (I've never said he calculates it incorrectly, just what he's calculating isn't in line with the aims of the OWGR) I think (and this is not an attack, it's the way I feel, sorry), that people like Broadie are trying to turn golf into a maths experiment, a list of stats and in doing so are killing the 'sport' in the game of golf. I think the science is ruining the sport and people like Broadie are in some way responsible. I'm not talking cameras or launch monitors and such like. I'm talking the endless pursuit of stats and maths equations to try to spin things one way or another. I, like most people in Europe play it as a sport not a stats experiment. I trust the same it true over there. Coming down the stretch guys are firing at (often dumb :) ) flags and taking chances, they are not trying to improve their strokes gained, adjusted stroke average, GIR or anything else. How much they are trying to win vs happy to make a hugely good living coming top 10 but never winning alters their play and alters their scoring (it's likely to be more erratic with some big scores when it goes wrong). Does Broadie take that into consideration? Nope. In fact he doesn't take anything about the situations in which the scores are shot into consideration. That's not a criticism, he can't. I believe his maths is undoubtedly good (obviously). What he thinks it indicates (a basically linear measure of player skill world wide) isn't. Using it to prove / demonstrate as fact / state / however you want to say it, that the OWGR are biased is flawed....... in my opinion, obviously.

[Silent]

@Silent, I realize and appreciate your passion for Joost, but again, you can't just look at one data point. These guys fly all over the world, and play good golf time and time again. It's what they do.

I understand that, I didn't mean to swift the discussion towards him. It's just I know a little bit more about him than I know about other players, and was actually surprised to see him 40 (today 45 when I look again) since his 'USA-season' was not that good (13 at Doral and 26 at both Masters and PGA Champ. is also not that bad obviously..). The OWGR might have some flaws, but I have a hard time understanding this Sagarin standing as well. Kaymer winning the US Open and The Players and we find him at 59 now. Poulter with not an impressive year at all but still we find him at 36, but Patrick Reed with 2 wins is stuck at place 70. And so I see more things like this. Probably you can do the same with OWGR I guess...

Does this Sagarin ranking take 'peeks' into considiration? What I mean is, that if I were a professional golf player, I would rather win 1 tournament en than suck completely in one other tournament as compared to play both medior and finish around place 25. But for this ranking the second scenario might be better for your 'average' so also for how high or low you're ranked on it. Is that correct?

[iacas]

Does this Sagarin ranking take 'peeks' into considiration? What I mean is, that if I were a professional golf player, I would rather win 1 tournament en than suck completely in one other tournament as compared to play both medior and finish around place 25. But for this ranking the second scenario might be better for your 'average' so also for how high or low you're ranked on it. Is that correct?

I don't know.

I can only guess that it doesn't, really - it doesn't really weight tournaments, I don't think. Just wins, losses, and ties, and a web of interconnections. But I don't know, and you could write to them, but I doubt you'd get a response.

---

@Nosevi , FWIW I (me, not anyone else) removed any completely OT stuff from your post above. I'm not interested in hearing about your theories on Mark Broadie's "intentions" or motivations. That's not the topic here. Debate the study, the numbers, the data, etc. Not the fringe stuff, and especially not the ultra-fringe stuff.

Erik, in post #718 on the Ryder Cup thread you said (and this is a direct quote) "The European Tour is over-rated in terms of OWGR." You stated it as truth. Not an opinion, not your take on it. Not what some other study shows. It was a closing remark to a post and you stated it. I said you said it was a fact. You did not use the word "fact" but you stated it as being the case. You've since launched into a total attack on me for putting words in your mouth, calling me a liar, when I did nothing but say you stated it as fact. Stating something as being true and stating it as fact are (last time I checked) the same thing.

Once again with the words… I didn't use the word "liar" either. I said it was intellectually dishonest - because it is - to say that I'd said something I did not say.

I'll say it again: "The European Tour players are over-rated in the OWGR." I thought it went without saying that such a statement is basically the same as "according to the study about which we are talking, and about which my post was entirely discussing, the European Tour players are over-rated in the OWGR." I thought it was obvious that such a statement was based on the evidence available and being actively and solely discussed . That statement is a statement of fact; it's simply stating something based on the current "best available information." If you disagree, it's up to you to refute it and present better evidence. You failed to do so.

This forum has the ability to quote. If you had quoted me and asked me to explain that sentence, I'd have been able to clear that up for you more quickly. Instead, you wasted posts and time telling me I'd said things I never said.

Yes I "attacked" Broadie. Equally you could say Broadie 'attacked' those that work out the OWGR by saying they are biased in favour of other tours.

It has been made rather clear that you do not seem to understand the purpose, point, and perspective of a scientific/mathematical type paper. Characterizing it as an "attack" further demonstrates this. The paper is an investigation. It's a study. It's an illumination. An intellectual exercise.

Seriously, man.

And I'm sure his motives have been questioned before now.

You make a lot of weird assumptions.

Whether I think the Sagarin from golfweek is a load of nonsense and whether I think the whole pretence behind Broadie's work is basically flawed (I've never said he calculates it incorrectly, just what he's calculating isn't in line with the aims of the OWGR) I think (and this is not an attack, it's the way I feel, sorry), that people like Broadie are trying to turn golf into a maths experiment, a list of stats and in doing so are killing the 'sport' in the game of golf.

Then start a new thread on that, because that's not the topic being discussed here. FWIW, I disagree with you. Math and stats are just tools. You can use them, over-use them, or under-use them. But you've still gotta get the ball in the hole.

This isn't the thread for that. It's for the discussion of the paper and the topics in the paper.

I'm not talking cameras or launch monitors and such like. I'm talking the endless pursuit of stats and maths equations to try to spin things one way or another. I, like most people in Europe play it as a sport not a stats experiment.

Again, this is off topic. You get a smiley.

And seriously, just stop with the jingoistic nonsense assumptions. They can't help you.

---

That is all. If you cannot discuss the paper, the OWGR versus other means of rating and ranking skill, etc., then do not. If you want to start a "technology is ruining golf" thread, be my guest.

If you have anything personal to share, send me a PM. I may not read it, and I likely won't respond, but if you want to get anything off your chest, feel free. We keep threads on topic here, and that's what I'm doing now.

[Silent]

I don't know.

I can only guess that it doesn't, really - it doesn't really weight tournaments, I don't think. Just wins, losses, and ties, and a web of interconnections. But I don't know, and you could write to them, but I doubt you'd get a response.

Yeah... I'm not going to do that ;)

It's just... I don't know or understand how important this ranking is in the conclusion of the study. Is it important? Because I see many things that make a little explosion in my head. Winners like Reed and Kaymer are relatively low, you mentioned Gallacher earlier but if his ranking is an argument to me it seems like he's also an example 'against' this Sagarin ranking. Winning the Omega Dubai classic leaving McIlory, Tiger Woods, Stenson, Luiten, both Molinar's, Wiesberger, Bjorn, Donaldson and Jimenez behind him. T6 at WGC-Cadilac, T15 at The Open and T5 at the the BMW PGA Championship (big tournament). That's all just quite impressive.

Maybe I'm just wasting my time and these ratings are not that important at all in his conclusion (I will try read the pdf again), but if they are a (big) part in the conclusion that the OWGR is biased (which is possible ofcourse) then I'm not sure if using this ranking is such a strong argument.

I might be biased myself also, and possibly not the best discussion partner because of the language barrier as well, but it just doesn't make sence to me. I see players winning dick (much) higher on the ranking than this year's big winners. So if this ranking partly leads to the conclusion that player x is better than player y I don't think I agree at all.

PS: Robert-Jan Derksen in top 100 in this ranking!

[iacas]

It's just... I don't know or understand how important this ranking is in the conclusion of the study. Is it important? Because I see many things that make a little explosion in my head. Winners like Reed and Kaymer are relatively low, you mentioned Gallacher earlier but if his ranking is an argument to me it seems like he's also an example 'against' this Sagarin ranking.

Let's assume a field size of 101. Two players play five tournaments each.

Both players are 150-350. They have a losing record, and not by a little.

Player A finished 1st, 50th, and dead last three times.

Player B finished 70th every time.

OWGR would put Player A quite a bit higher than Player B. Yet their records are the same.

I'm thinking that the Sagarin is more like looking at "150-350" and ranking players based on that primarily (perhaps weights are assigned to their records against other top 10 players, top 50, etc.), while OWGR is known to award points non-linearly: winners get a disproportionate share of the points.

I think that, too often, people succumb to their emotions and opinions in stuff like this. Sagarin and SBSE seek to remove the emotions/opinions. They seek to apply a more linear system than OWGR. They may not succeed in every case, naturally (see also: Furyk/McIlroy), but on the whole they tend to be more accurate than something which applies a non-linear rewards scale.

For example, who is a better golfer. Someone who finishes first half the time and MCs the other half, or someone who finishes second every time? OWGR would rank the first guy - the guy who MCs 50% of the time - ahead of the guy who finishes second every time.

Wins stick out in our minds. Top finishes stick out. The weeks where a player MCs - unless he's Tiger Woods - go unnoticed. This creates, IMO, a bias in our opinions. We know Jimmy Walker won three times in the last year or 13 months or so… but what did he do the other weeks? For all we know he MCed a few times. (I looked. He MCed four times out of 27 starts.)

Maybe I'm just wasting my time and these ratings are not that important at all in his conclusion (I will try read the pdf again), but if they are a (big) part in the conclusion that the OWGR is biased (which is possible ofcourse) then I'm not sure if using this ranking is such a strong argument.

I'm not sure I know what you mean.

The rankings are important. He views Sagarin and SBSE as non-biased (and more linear) systems. So in comparing them both to each other and to the OWGR, he reaches the conclusion that he reaches.

I might be biased myself also, and possibly not the best discussion partner because of the language barrier as well, but it just doesn't make sence to me. I see players winning dick (much) higher on the ranking than this year's big winners. So if this ranking partly leads to the conclusion that player x is better than player y I don't think I agree at all.

Like the OWGR, you probably disproportionately favor wins without caring (because you don't notice it) about consistency.

Imagine a guy who finishes tenth every week. You might never hear his name on the broadcast, he never wins, and yet he should clearly be one of the top twenty players or so in the world, should he not?

[Silent]

Thanks for explaining. About the last part: I agree with you. When the example would be someone always around 25th vs a guy with a couple of wins and the rest MC I dont't think I would agree. I think with winning a tournament you need that little bit extra to be able to do so, and someone who can do that I find a better golfer than someone who can't. Like in soccer, Cristiano Ronaldo probably doesn't have the best shot goal ratio, yet he's considered the best player in the world. Perhaps I overvalue that winning in emotion, that's true. I guess both rankings tell you partly something else, and might make comparing them and conclude something out of it difficult. Thanks.

[iacas]

Like in soccer, Cristiano Ronaldo probably doesn't have the best shot goal ratio, yet he's considered the best player in the world.

Some Messi fans are gonna argue with that one…

[Golfingdad]

Some Messi fans are gonna argue with that one…

LOL ... Been watching me some BPL this season and I'm starting to lean in the direction of Diego Costa on this one.

[Silent]

Some Messi fans are gonna argue with that one…

Haha I know. But CR7 suited my example better ;-)

[iacas]

Continued evidence:

Ferguson: PGA Tour study shows disparity in ranking points | The Masters | 2019 Masters

---

PONTE VEDRA BEACH, Fla. — Two tournaments on different continents illustrate why PGA Tour players are increasingly skeptical about the world ranking.

Against a field as strong as some majors, Tommy Fleetwood shared the lead after 18 and 36 holes, played in the final group and was still in the mix at The Players Championship until a tee shot into the water on the 17th hole. His three-way tie for fifth was worth 16.53 ranking points.

Earlier that day, Guido Migliozzi won his first European Tour title at the Kenya Open, which until this year was a Challenge Tour event. The strength of its field was slightly weaker than the Boonchu Ruangkit Championship on the Asian Development Tour in January.

Migliozzi received 24 ranking points, the minimum for the European Tour.

I would actually say "stronger than most majors."

"The world ranking has the first 35 to 40 correct," said Charles Howell III, who in February returned to the top 50 in the world for the first time in 11 years. "I'm not saying I should have been there, or that any other player should have been there. I'm saying that the world ranking is so darn important that No. 40 through 100 ... you've got to get that right.