Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Rolex Rankings Movers of the Year

1 post in this topic

Now that we have completed about 1/3 of the LPGA season, I would like to look at the players that have made the biggest leaps, and taken the biggest falls in the Rolex Rankings this year.

The Rolex Rankings system awards points to players based on an accumulated 104-week "rolling" period, with the points awarded in the most recent 13-week period carrying a stronger value.
A player is then ranked according to her average points per tournament, as determined by dividing her total number of points by the number of eligible tournaments played during the 104-week period. A minimum divisor (35) is also used.

I have gone back to the first Rolex Rankings of the year and compared them to the current rankings. The only requirements for my list is: (1) A player must have been ranked in the top 100 at the start of the year, or be in the top 100 now. (2) A player must have started the year 2014 with a minimum rating of 0.50 (or else this chart would be filled with unknown names.)

The Year's Biggest Gainers:

1- Michelle Wie - 1.77 to 4.48 = Gain of 2.71 (moved from #61-#12)
2- Karrie Webb - 5.06 to 7.15 = Gain of 2.09 (move 8 to 5)
3- Lydia Ko - 7.38 to 9.31 = Gain of 1.93 (move 4 to 3)
4- Lexi Thompson - 4.86 to 6.71 = Gain of 1.85 (move 9 to 6)
5- Anna Nordqvist - 3.04 to 4.56 = Gain of 1.62 (move 26 to 11)
6- Stacy Lewis -  8.98 to 9.78 = Gain of 0.80 (move 3 to 2)
7- Charley Hull - 1.13 to 1.87 = Gain of 0.76 (move 103 to 48)
8- Azahara Munoz - 2.73 to 3.48 = Gain of 0.75 (move 31 to 20)
9- Jenny Shin - 1.51 to 2.17 = Gain of 0.66 (move 73 to 39)
10- Se Ri Pak - 2.75 to 3.28 = Gain of 0.53 (move 30 to 22)
11- Kyu-Jung Baek - 0.53 to 1.03 = Gain of 0.50 (move 205 to 100)

The Year's Biggest Decliners:
1- Suzann Pettersen - 10.25 to 8.71 = Loss of 1.54 (move 2 to 4)
2- Ai Miyazato - 3.56 to 2.22 = Loss of 1.34 (move from 21 to 38)
3- Mika Miyazato - 3.54 to 2.43 = Loss of 1.11 (move 22 to 34)
4- Na Yeon Choi - 5.36 to 4.31 = Loss of 1.05 (move from 7 to 13)
5- I.K. Kim - 4.55 to 3.57 = Loss of 0.98 (move 10 to 18)
6- So Yeon Ryu - 6.56 to 5.62 = Loss of 0.94 (move 5 to 7)
7- Beatriz Recari - 3.72 to 2.79 = Loss of 0.93 (move 19 to 29)
8- Shanshan Feng - 6.36 to 5.49 = Loss of 0.87 (move 6 to 8)
9- Yani Tseng - 2.62 to 1.79 = Loss of 0.83 (move 35 to 54)
10- Carlotta Ciganda - 2.51 to 1.75 = Loss of  0.76 (move 39 to 56)
11- Inbee Park - 10.72 to 9.99 = Loss of 0.73 (move 1 to 1)
12- Chie Arimura - 1.65 to 0.95 = Loss of 0.70 (move 66 to 110)
12- Jiyai Shin - 3.96 to 3.26 = Loss of 0.70 (move 16 to 23)
14- Ihlee Lee - 2.69 to 2.02 = Loss of 0.67 (move 32 to 44)
15- Miki Saiki - 2.32 to 1.67 = Loss of 0.65 (move 44 to 62)

Note : It is interesting to point out that there is not one American player on the above list. Brittany Lincicome is currently #18 on the list.

I will revisit this again at the 2/3 mark of the season, and again at season's end.

Priority List Reshuffle :
The first of two LPGA Priority List reshuffles were done today.
The Priority List is what is used to fill the required amount of spots for any given tournament. Without me getting into the categories, which is potentially confusing, here is a brief explanation. Most full field events have a field of 144 players. Usually 140 of the players come from the Priority List ranking. Two players are Monday qualifiers, and 2 more are sponsor exemptions. So to keep it simple, if your Priority Rating is #150, you have to hope that 10 players decide not to play, or you are probably not getting into the field.

The biggest gainers were:
Mirim Lee 118- 84
Line Vedel 127-86
Hara Nomura 137-87
Mi Hyang Lee 108-88
Tiffany Joh 119-89
Amy Anderson 120-92
Brooke Pancake 114-94
Katie Burnett 115-95
Ashleigh Simon 138-102

Although the above gains are quite impressive, it does not change those players' playing status all that much. Those players were already playing in full field events.

The most important gainers were :
These players should be playing regularly now.
Kim Kaufman 164 - 93
Amelia Lewis 146 - 91
Dori Carter - 142 - 90
Jenny Suh - 160 -100
Laura Davies 154 - 143
Stacey Keating - 175 - 145
Lori Kane - 155- 146
Megan McChrystal 159 - 147
Alejandra Llaneza 162-149
Lee-Anne Pace - 169 - 152

The players that got hurt the most :
These players will find it much harder to qualify for tournaments now.
Kris Tamulis - 144 -159
Karen Stupples - 147- 158
Maude-Aimee Leblanc - 148 - 161 (chose to play Symetra Tour this year)
Mi Hyun Kim - was #58 is now off list.
Amanda Blumenherst - Was #140, is now off list.

Other Tidbits :
Stacy Lewis is now #1 on the money list, leader for the Vare Trophy, leads the Rolex Player of the Year Award and the CME Race to the Globe.
Several players had their consecutive cuts made streak snapped. Hee Young Park (21), Eun-Hee Ji (19), Morgan Pressel (16),  and Se Ri Pak (15), all missed the cut.

Rolex Movers of the Week :
Stacy Lewis moves from #3 to #2, and is now within a whisker of taking over the #1 position.
Meena Lee leaps up from #70 to #51, while outside the top 100 rookie Kim Kaufman's 4th place finish has vaulted her past 143 players. She soars from #336 to 193.

Race to the CME Globe : (1 million dollars)
Stacy Lewis has taken a commanding lead with 1,979 points. She is followed by Michelle Wie (1,540), and Karrie Webb (1,417).

Who's Hot :
Stacy Lewis has finished in the top 10 in 19 of her last 20 tournaments. Although Cristie Kerr has not won this year, she might be playing some of the finest golf of her career. She has six consecutive top 10 finishes.
Michelle Wie remains the only LPGA player to finish in the top 20 in every start this year. She has not finished out of the top 16.

Who's Not :
Ihlee Lee has not yet finished in the top 20 this year in 9 tries. She has also missed 3 cuts.
Moriya  Jutanugarn has failed to register a top 20 in any of her 10 starts this year. Her best finish was a T28.
Louise Friberg has missed 16 consecutive cuts. Reilly Rankin has missed her last 10.

Consistently Mediocre : Very strangely, Jodi Ewart Shadoff has made the cut in all 8 of her starts this year but has never finished better than 23rd or worse than 45th.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Want to get rid of this advertisement? Sign up (or log in) today! It's free!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • 2016 TST Partners

    GAME Golf
    PING Golf
    Lowest Score Wins
  • Posts

    • I'm good friends with a number of college coaches, particularly women's college coaches, and while I have no doubt that some likely care about height, most will take the player with the good scores so long as their game is commensurate. You're making a big assumption that a 5'5" girl is going to be bumping hybrids all day long. Jamie Sadlowski is only 5'10". Sadena Parks is 5'3". Kim Sei-young is 5'4". Brooke Henderson? 5'4". Randomly chose players from the top 20 on the LPGA's Driving Distance list. Distance is an, absolutely, but there's a big world between "bumped hybrids that roll onto greens" and "spinning the ball with irons." Height correlates to distance, but we're not talking about an R2 value of 0.89 or something. Now, before this gets too far off topic… let's leave it at that. P.S. Off topic because we're talking about how to get noticed by college coaches, not generalities of height and distance and impact on scoring in the vague, non-specific sense.
    • There are two ways he could reasonably respond to this… A) How would he know?
      B) The current rule does just that. I think you're misreading what he wrote. And you have no idea what the "primary cause" is, particularly since you're not even discussing a specific situation right now. I can see how soling your putter near the ball could be more likely to cause a ball to move than walking in and stopping a foot+ away from the ball. A ball overhanging the hole is not deemed at rest until the time has elapsed (or the player taps in). The situations are not alike. You, too, seem to be reading this incorrectly. Re-read 18-2/0.5. There's no presumption of guilt or innocence. The facts are simply weighed, and the most likely cause determined. The player is not guilty until proven innocent. Kindly stop just making stuff up. On that we agree.
    • I have a daughter playing D1 golf.  While the competition isn't as severe, D1 and high D2 coaches do have stereotypes for their golfers.  They want them a certain size and a certain build.  They will take a kid that is 5'9" that averages a 78 over a girl that is 5'5" and averages 75 .  They know that the 5'9" hasn't maxed out their potential and can grow in the distance department just on size alone.  They want girls going into greens with irons and spinning the ball, not a bumped hybrid that rolls onto the green.  Heard this from several coaches in the process.
    • I'm curious if Phil had found a setup edge with putting if he'd share it so openly with his fellow pros? He's rather competitive, but has been open about some of his strategies in the past. It probably depends on the individual stroke tendencies.
    • Did they ever look at just an exception to this rule for obvious external causes like wind and gravity? To a large extent though the hovering of the club was only relevant to actually causing the ball to move off the greens. Just stepping in to the ball and standing there (esp. on fast greens) is likely the primary cause - absent wind. Why is a putt that comes to rest on the edge of the cup and then goes in when a player walks toward it to mark it not treated the same under this rule. It's at rest and then it moves. Treat like situations alike, right? Why make an exception because it's on the green or near the hole? The player walking in is the likely cause and aren't extra heavy footsteps not allowed, because they are likely to tip the balance? Might not be 'opposite', but I do think your idea is a bit like shifting of the burden of proof from the defendant to the plaintiff. If done this way you could stick with the existing 51% threshold to be tighter on latitude. It just seems that way with a few of the rulings as applied. To a large extent though the hovering of the club to avoid a penalty was only relevant to actually causing the ball to move off the greens. Just stepping in to the ball and standing there (esp. on fast greens) is likely the primary cause of movement - absent wind. I personally like that the wind moving the ball regardless of whether or not the club was grounded does not result in a penalty now.
  • TST Blog Entries

  • Images

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. billymo2
      (24 years old)
    2. bostonboy9416
      (16 years old)
    3. kpaulhus
      (29 years old)
  • Blog Entries