Who is better right now (April 2012): Phil or Tiger?

[k-troop]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

I'd agree Phil is playing better NOW, but not sure that means you write off the entire year for Tiger or hand Rory the golfer of the year award just yet.

You're right, and fair point.  When assessing who is better now, one necessarily considers things that have already happened, but not things which have not yet happened.  So, my post meant to convey that Rory is obviously better SO FAR this year.  No one knows what the rest of the year will bring.

[brocks]

my post meant to convey that Rory is obviously better SO FAR this year.

Sorry, all clarifications will be disregarded. It doesn't matter what you meant, or how you clarified it. All that matters is how I (mis)interpreted your original post. And I think it's very misleading for you to say that there is no possible way that Tiger will finish higher than Rory in a single event this year.

[brocks]

I'd agree Phil is playing better NOW, but not sure that means you write off the entire year for Tiger or hand Rory the golfer of the year award just yet.

Of course that's true, but I was really shocked that Tiger missed the cut. I thought his T40 at the Masters was bad enough, and obviously that was against a stronger field. He's had plenty of setbacks in the last two years, but they were always pretty easy to explain --- injuries, lack of practice, etc. It seemed like he had put all that behind him, and he had several high finishes earlier this year, culminating with a very strong win at Bay Hill. The trend was steady improvement, so it's very hard to explain his last two events -- except to say he's now playing like a normal human.

[x129]

Right now the golf they are playing is the same. A 1 stroke difference over 36 holes is just variance.

Originally Posted by newtogolf

I'd agree Phil is playing better NOW, but not sure that means you write off the entire year for Tiger or hand Rory the golfer of the year award just yet.

[Harmonious]

All Woods needs is a million more reps, then he will be just fine.  And, with his weekends free, he should have plenty of time to do it.

[MEfree]

I posted this today in the Wells Fargo thread

Originally Posted by MEfree

Looking at Tiger`s stats for 2012 coming into this week, his right and left tendency were both 50%- a possible indication that he doesn`t know which way he is going to miss it.

Luke Donald saw a big improvement in his play when he mostly eliminated one side of the golf course going from 48.8/51.5 (low 90s in both categories) in 2009 to 55.6/44.4 (168th and 18th) in 2011.  The reverse for Tiger- in 2009, when he won $10 M with 6 wins and 14 top 10s in 17 events, he was 37.2% left (6th) and 62.8% right (179th).  So it seems he has gone from missing mostly to the right and playing well to missing both ways and not playing as good.

Although likely to drop after this week, the rest of Tigers stats are numbers that most pros would be happy with- #1 in scoring, 2 in total driving, 3rd all around, 12th in $

FWIW, both Tiger and Phil putted below average for the first 36 holes according to the strokes gained putting stat where Tiger lost a shot and Phil a half shot.  Both have been much better than that this year and Tiger has been in the top 5 a majority of years that they have the stat available for, gaining about 3/4 a shot a round on the field from 2004-09.

[Chas]

Originally Posted by Harmonious

All Woods needs is a million more reps, then he will be just fine.  And, with his weekends free, he should have plenty of time to do it.

lol

[Chas]

Originally Posted by brocks

Of course that's true, but I was really shocked that Tiger missed the cut. I thought his T40 at the Masters was bad enough, and obviously that was against a stronger field.

Well, I wasn't.  It was disappointing, yes, but far from "shocking".  In fact, given Tiger's current re-working of his game and given his various other known issues (personal and clinical)  I think that many of his avid supporters are understimating the challenges he faces in coming back to top form or something close to it.  I would say that Sir Nick has a pretty good handle on it (much more than many of Tiger's "supporters"), which is ironic because some T-lovers think he's overdoing the negativity, that he's even a bit of a "hater".  Au contraire, he's being realistic, but he acknowledges fully who TW is as a golfer and understands what the guy is faced with in his attempt to climb the heights again.  Amusing really.

I'm not implying that all of this applies to you brocks old chap and I agree with much of your earlier post here describing improvements that Tiger has made; I just thought I'd bring it up in the context of your great surprise at the missed cut.  TW is in an unstable, unpredictable state right now as a competitive golfer, imo mainly because of his attempted change in fundamentals; let's hope he gets it all sorted out and regains his former stature/glory.  It isn't going to be easy tho'.

[Parker0065]

I don't know who's better right now but it sure seems like their games have become eerily similar: Spray the ball, Get out of trouble, Catch fire for a week and win, Spray the ball some more, Get out of trouble some more, Contend here and there, Miss a cut,,,,,,, Rinse and Repeat! They've become twin brothers,,lol!

[k-troop]

Originally Posted by Chas

Well, I wasn't.  It was disappointing, yes, but far from "shocking".  In fact, given Tiger's current re-working of his game and given his various other known issues (personal and clinical)  I think that many of his avid supporters are understimating the challenges he faces in coming back to top form or something close to it.  I would say that Sir Nick has a pretty good handle on it (much more than many of Tiger's "supporters"), which is ironic because some T-lovers think he's overdoing the negativity, that he's even a bit of a "hater".  Au contraire, he's being realistic, but he acknowledges fully who TW is as a golfer and understands what the guy is faced with in his attempt to climb the heights again.  Amusing really.

I'm not implying that all of this applies to you brocks old chap and I agree with much of your earlier post here describing improvements that Tiger has made; I just thought I'd bring it up in the context of your great surprise at the missed cut.  TW is in an unstable, unpredictable state right now as a competitive golfer, imo mainly because of his attempted change in fundamentals; let's hope he gets it all sorted out and regains his former stature/glory.  It isn't going to be easy tho'.

Agree.  People need to stop looking at Tiger through 2007 glasses, where it is assumed he will win or be in contention every week.  He is still a great golfer, even by tour standards.  But he's far from the guy who could win with his "B" game.  Mostly I think this is due to his putting and short game--and I think the stats bear this out.  But, whatever it is, he's much closer right now to an average PGA Tour pro than he is to the GOAT.  It is certainly not shocking when an average pro has a bad week and misses the cut, and Tiger is no different.

Going into the Players, it's best to manage expectations early.  Tiger hasn't finished this event since 2009.

And for those who are comparing Tiger and Phil this week, saying they're basically the same because Phil was only one shot ahead of Tiger on Friday, I say check again.  That shot is the difference between playing the weekend and not, and Phil is now tied for 30.  T30 is much better than MC; for their last two events, Phil has played much better than Tiger.

[brocks]

It is certainly not shocking when an average pro has a bad week and misses the cut, and Tiger is no different.

Well, maybe a little different. Going into this week, even after a very bad week at Augusta, he was second in total driving, 7th in ball striking, 19th in GIR, eighth in proximity to the hole, ninth in scrambling, and ninth in strokes gained putting. All that added up to third in all-around, and first in scoring average. Oh yeah, and he was ranked 7th in the world, and if he hadn't played fewer events than the minimum, his actual performance would have him ranked 4th in the world, based almost entirely on his last few months of good play overcoming his horrendous 2010 and most of 2011. That is not an average pro, that is one of the best players in the world on an upward trend. It has nothing to do with how good he was in 2007. Nobody expects him to win or contend every week, but missing the cut at an event he likes, let alone for the second time in a row, is pretty surprising, at least to me. I would have been much less surprised if he got a T25 at Quail Hollow and MC'd at TPC-Sawgrass, which is a course he doesn't seem to like. But it's always easier to predict the past than the future. You guys remind me of the commentators on the business channels, who can tell you exactly why the market went up or down yesterday, but might as well be flipping a coin when they talk about what it will do tomorrow.

[MEfree]

Originally Posted by brocks

Well, maybe a little different. Going into this week, even after a very bad week at Augusta, he was second in total driving, 7th in ball striking, 19th in GIR, eighth in proximity to the hole, ninth in scrambling, and ninth in strokes gained putting. All that added up to third in all-around, and first in scoring average. Oh yeah, and he was ranked 7th in the world, and if he hadn't played fewer events than the minimum, his actual performance would have him ranked 4th in the world, based almost entirely on his last few months of good play overcoming his horrendous 2010 and most of 2011.

That is not an average pro, that is one of the best players in the world on an upward trend. It has nothing to do with how good he was in 2007. Nobody expects him to win or contend every week, but missing the cut at an event he likes, let alone for the second time in a row, is pretty surprising, at least to me. I would have been much less surprised if he got a T25 at Quail Hollow and MC'd at TPC-Sawgrass, which is a course he doesn't seem to like.

But it's always easier to predict the past than the future. You guys remind me of the commentators on the business channels, who can tell you exactly why the market went up or down yesterday, but might as well be flipping a coin when they talk about what it will do tomorrow.

I agree that Tiger is not an average pro, but neither is Phil.  Even good pros miss cuts every now and then.  Phil has missed at least one cut every year since 1990 when he was 2 for 2 as an Am.  Some criticize Phil for being inconsistent, but who has been as consistently good as Phil for as long as he has?  Sure, guys like Donald last year and Kuchar a few year ago (to name a few) seemed to be in the top 10 every week, but then they come back to earth with some bad weeks.

Steve Stricker has made 49 cuts in a row, but he missed 10 cuts in 2007-8 (not to mention 46 from 2002 to 2005).  There are only 14 guys who have made 10 or more cuts in a row currently, so even the good players miss cuts.  Making cuts is kinda like shooting free throws (but harder)- very few guys are consistently over 90%

[brocks]

I agree that Tiger is not an average pro, but neither is Phil.

Well, exactly. I wasn't saying I expected Tiger to have another 142 events in a row without an MC, or even that nobody could have predicted he'd miss one this particular week (although I don't recall anyone doing that before Thursday's round, or even Friday's). I'm just saying that if you think he's no different than the average pro, then you're, um, mistaken. And although I agree with you in general, I think Phil isn't a great example. He's certainly one of the best players in the world, but he's also one of the most erratic. Even if you disregard everything that happened before 2010, it's been a lot easier to predict how Tiger is going to play this week, based on his recent results, than it has been for Phil. Stricker, on the other hand, is an excellent example. Obviously, I should have said I was "surprised," rather than "shocked," in my OP. But I post these things while I'm watching TV and grading papers, and you only have about 20 minutes to edit them before they are cast in cement.

[MEfree]

Originally Posted by brocks

...I think Phil isn't a great example. He's certainly one of the best players in the world, but he's also one of the most erratic.

I think Phil`s reputation for being erratic is way overdone.  Sure, a lot less consistent than Tiger in his prime, but there are not a lot of pros who have done consistently better than Phil.  He has missed 7 cuts in the last 5 seasons (2008-2012).  In the last 20 years he has been in the top 15 on the money list 17 times and his 3 off years were something like 22nd to 38th.  Quite a few of his missed cuts came in his first few years on tour (and some as an Am) but he has still made more than 83% of his cuts for his entire career placing top 3 in almost 1 in 5 events and top 10 in over a third.

	PGA TOUR Wins	2nd Pl Finishes	3rd Pl Finishes	Top 10 Finishes	Top 25 Finishes	Events Played	Cuts Made	Cuts Missed	Playoff Record	Money
CAREER	40	26	22	162	249	452	378	--	--	$65,956,358
	8.85%	5.75%	4.87%	35.84%	55.09%		83.63%

How many players can you name that have been more consistent than Phil for careers that have lasted 10+ years?

In half the events, Sergio is fractionally better for made cuts, but lower for everything else

CAREER	7	9	7	67	121	233	196	--	--	$28,695,284
	3.00%	3.86%	3.00%	28.76%	51.93%		84.12%

Same for Luke Donald, but lower across the board

CAREER	5	12	9	60	114	224	174	--	--	$27,163,316
	2.23%	5.36%	4.02%	26.79%	50.89%		77.68%

With a somewhat higher cut made and top 25 % and lower win/top 3 %, it would be fair to say that Vijay has been a bit more consistent than Phil event to event, but not year to year

CAREER	34	26	17	175	296	483	420	--	--	$66,050,804
	7.04%	5.38%	3.52%	36.23%	61.28%		86.96%

So if Phil is one of the most erratic, who are some of the most consistent?

[brocks]

I think Phil`s reputation for being erratic is way overdone.  Sure, a lot less consistent than Tiger in his prime, but there are not a lot of pros who have done consistently better than Phil.

First of all, great job in compiling those stats. But I think we are using different definitions of "consistent." I don't mean a consistent player is necessarily better; I mean that his results tend to fall in a fairly narrow range, rather than having a lot of variation. Somebody who missed the cut every time he played would be 100% consistent, but not very good. I heartily agree that Phil has been second only to Tiger since 1996 (which is when golf history began :-) ), and I would fully expect him to be at or near the top in top 3's, 5's, 10's, 25's, or whatever. But my perception is that he also has a lot more low finishes than you would expect for a player of his caliber. I admit I've never researched it to see how he actually compares in that respect with other top players, so it could just be a matter of holding him to a higher standard, kind of like when people used to say Tiger was in a slump if he went five or six events without winning. But one thing that *is* objective is that although he's IMO the second best player of the last 20 years, he's never won an award that requires sustained excellence. No scoring titles, no money titles, no POYs, no FedEx Cup, and never #1 in the world. I realize Tiger made it tough, but a dozen or so lesser players, the likes of Furyk, Westwood, Haas, and Kuchar, have won some combination of the above since Tiger first became #1. And all of those awards require consistency in the sense that you seem to be using it. So yeah, it wasn't fair of me to say Phil is one of the most erratic players, but I meant it in a good way. I meant that for a guy who's about to enter the Hall of Fame, he has more bad weeks than you would expect.

[k-troop]

Originally Posted by brocks

First of all, great job in compiling those stats.

But I think we are using different definitions of "consistent." I don't mean a consistent player is necessarily better; I mean that his results tend to fall in a fairly narrow range, rather than having a lot of variation. Somebody who missed the cut every time he played would be 100% consistent, but not very good.

I heartily agree that Phil has been second only to Tiger since 1996 (which is when golf history began ), and I would fully expect him to be at or near the top in top 3's, 5's, 10's, 25's, or whatever. But my perception is that he also has a lot more low finishes than you would expect for a player of his caliber. I admit I've never researched it to see how he actually compares in that respect with other top players, so it could just be a matter of holding him to a higher standard, kind of like when people used to say Tiger was in a slump if he went five or six events without winning.

But one thing that *is* objective is that although he's IMO the second best player of the last 20 years, he's never won an award that requires sustained excellence. No scoring titles, no money titles, no POYs, no FedEx Cup, and never #1 in the world. I realize Tiger made it tough, but a dozen or so lesser players, the likes of Furyk, Westwood, Haas, and Kuchar, have won some combination of the above since Tiger first became #1. And all of those awards require consistency in the sense that you seem to be using it.

So yeah, it wasn't fair of me to say Phil is one of the most erratic players, but I meant it in a good way. I meant that for a guy who's about to enter the Hall of Fame, he has more bad weeks than you would expect.

Classic.  By your "clarification", you were speaking of a stat (consistency) which would only be achieved by a rookie tour pro who gets his card for one year, makes 5/30 cuts, and disappears.

I'll give your post its more likely interpretation:  "Thanks for going to such great lengths to compile facts, but I'm just going to keep thinking whatever it was I already thought, and make up some technical babble to explain away the apparent inconsistency between my opinion and the facts."

[Chas]

So yeah, it wasn't fair of me to say Phil is one of the most erratic players, but I meant it in a good way. I meant that for a guy who's about to enter the Hall of Fame, he has more bad weeks than you would expect.

Classic indeed. Why not just give up and go with the data ..... No, Phil isn't the most consistent on tour - but he does just fine in that dept as MEfree shows and he's even won a tourney or two IIRC .... :-) Is Phil one of the bigger risk-takers, even when the situation doesn't really demand it? Well, YES. That ridiculous 8 (or was it a 9?) on the par 5 13th at Torrey a few years ago was a real doozy .... Phil: you're a whizz with a wedge but forpetesake don't mess with a short pin and a false front like that.

[MEfree]

Originally Posted by brocks

he's never

never is consistent isn`t it?  In all seriousness, there are certainly guys who have been more consistent than Phil for a season or two, but not many for 5+ seasons.  I understand what you are saying about variance between your results and in that regard he is a bit less consistent event to event than the only other player in the last 20 years that is of his caliber (Vijay).

I haven`t analyzed the stats either, but my guess is that the only thing that might cause Phil to have a higher variance of results over 5+ years than many of the other good players is the fact that he has won more.  In terms of bad results (i.e. missed cuts), I would be surprised to find more than half a dozen players who have missed fewer % cuts in any 5 year period than Phil.

Currently, Phil has the longest active yearly winning streak (9) on tour.

Originally Posted by k-troop

Classic.  By your "clarification", you were speaking of a stat (consistency) which would only be achieved by a rookie tour pro who gets his card for one year, makes 5/30 cuts, and disappears.

I'll give your post its more likely interpretation:  "Thanks for going to such great lengths to compile facts, but I'm just going to keep thinking whatever it was I already thought, and make up some technical babble to explain away the apparent inconsistency between my opinion and the facts."

LOL (I couldn`t find the rolling over laughing smiley face that I have seen on other sites)  A bit harsh on Brocks but very funny!