2015 Masters Discussion Thread

[nevets88]

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/jordan-spieth-s-biggest-prize-for-winning-the-masters-%E2%80%93-telling-his-sister-he-won-021655897.html

Quote:

The golf world has marveled all week at Spieth's poise, his perspective, his whole persona, and a lot of that comes from being around Ellie, who is 14. She is a special-needs child, and her journey has served as a touchstone for her older brother's life."

She's the funniest member of our family," Jordan said. "It's humbling to see her and her friends and the struggles they go through each day that we take for granted – their kind of lack of patience or understanding, where it seems easy for us and it's not for them."

When she came to see her brother play in person for the first time last week in Houston, Ellie kept asking Jordan after every round: "Did you win? Did you win?"

And Jordan said, "Not yet." And then, "Not yet." And then finally, "No."

"I can tell her I won now," he said Sunday with a grin.

[skydog]

Tiger also won by 12. The field was not as strong in 1997, but he won by 12… not 4. And the greens weren't as soft then, so looking at the scoring alone is not a great way to judge it.

This was a dominant performance. Probably a notch or two below Tiger's IMO, but it's up there (also IMO).

1997 Masters was a lot cooler than this week and before the sub-air days so I would question this claim. Also Tiger's lowest day that year (shot 65 on Saturday) was after they received a quarter inch of rain that morning.

I agree that it's very hard to compare the two performances given all the changes to the course, field strength, and technology over the last 18 years. Tiger then and Speith now are apples and oranges but both wins are equally impressive in my book.

[iacas]

1997 Masters was a lot cooler than this week and before the sub-air days so I would question this claim. Also Tiger's lowest day that year (shot 65 on Saturday) was after they received a quarter inch of rain that morning.

I'm going from memory, so it could be faulty. Tiger's length aided him in hitting 9I to par fives so the ball stopped relatively quickly, but others hitting 5I or 4I were still seeing bouncing, firm conditions. Particularly in the afternoons when Tiger played.

Regardless… the conditions were soft this year, and they ended up at the same final score, which means margin of victory becomes a relevant piece of information. And on that…

I agree that it's very hard to compare the two performances given all the changes to the course, field strength, and technology over the last 18 years. Tiger then and Speith now are apples and oranges but both wins are equally impressive in my book.

I think the strength of field has not changed so dramatically that you can say a 12-shot margin of victory is less stellar than a 4-shot margin (particularly at the same final score).

[skydog]

I think the strength of field has not changed so dramatically that you can say a 12-shot margin of victory is less stellar than a 4-shot margin (particularly at the same final score).

I don't think Tiger's 12 shot margin was less stellar, I think both wins are equally as impressive but difficult to compare. On the 12 shot vs. 4 shot margin though, I do think the mid-90s field strength was one of the weakest of the last 40 years and the field strengthening over the last 18 years (thanks to Tiger) has been nearly meteoric compared to anything we've seen before.

[Abu3baid]

I don't think Tiger's 12 shot margin was less stellar, I think both wins are equally as impressive but difficult to compare. On the 12 shot vs. 4 shot margin though, I do think the mid-90s field strength was one of the weakest of the last 40 years and the field strengthening over the last 18 years (thanks to Tiger) has been nearly meteoric compared to anything we've seen before.

That makes sense, the guy shoots a masters record and he only wins by 4.. that doesn't speak just about how good he played, but how the rest of the players didn't make it easy on him by being 4 shots closer than they were when Tiger shot the same score.  Easy to conclude that the field was stronger this weekend and that's why the margin was less than before..

[RandallT]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

Quote:

Originally Posted by skydog

1997 Masters was a lot cooler than this week and before the sub-air days so I would question this claim. Also Tiger's lowest day that year (shot 65 on Saturday) was after they received a quarter inch of rain that morning.

I'm going from memory, so it could be faulty. Tiger's length aided him in hitting 9I to par fives so the ball stopped relatively quickly, but others hitting 5I or 4I were still seeing bouncing, firm conditions. Particularly in the afternoons when Tiger played.

Regardless… the conditions were soft this year, and they ended up at the same final score, which means margin of victory becomes a relevant piece of information. And on that…

Quote:

Originally Posted by skydog

I agree that it's very hard to compare the two performances given all the changes to the course, field strength, and technology over the last 18 years. Tiger then and Speith now are apples and oranges but both wins are equally impressive in my book.

I think the strength of field has not changed so dramatically that you can say a 12-shot margin of victory is less stellar than a 4-shot margin (particularly at the same final score).

Another approach is to look at how each separated themselves from the field using standard deviations from the mean. I remember reading this a while back:

https://harvardsportsanalysis.wordpress.com/2013/04/11/rethinking-the-greatest-performances-in-masters-history/

Quote:

Though Woods’ score of 270 remains a tournament record, his performance was slightly less superior relative to the rest of the field than Jack Nicklaus’ 271 in 1965. Woods defeated second-place Tom Kite by 12 strokes in 1997, three more than Nicklaus bested Arnold Palmer by. But only eight other players were under par in the 1965 tournament, compared to 15 in 1997. Nicklaus’ lower Z-score suggests that his total of 17-under came in a more difficult overall course environment and thus exhibited more dominance than Tiger’s 18-under.

I realize we can play with statistics any way we want, but at least it gives us some ballpark to measure someone's dominance. I'm looking for some analysis about how dominant Spieth was compared to the field. I doubt it ranked at the top of the list above.

Whether or not the fields are far better now than before is a different debate, of course. This is strictly about who performed better relatively to the competition on that day.

Edit: Changed "near the top" to "at the top"

[iacas]

I don't think Tiger's 12 shot margin was less stellar, I think both wins are equally as impressive but difficult to compare. On the 12 shot vs. 4 shot margin though, I do think the mid-90s field strength was one of the weakest of the last 40 years and the field strengthening over the last 18 years (thanks to Tiger) has been nearly meteoric compared to anything we've seen before.

Pure poppycock. 40 years goes back to 1957. Strength of field continually increases. There may be a lull from time to time, but no, absolutely not, was the field in 1997 weaker than the field in 1957, 1967, or even 1977.

And even if you meant 40 years back to 1975… still I vote with a resounding no.

Another approach is to look at how each separated themselves from the field using standard deviations from the mean. I remember reading this a while back:

Plus that doesn't take into account strength of field. It only shows how they dominated relative to the field they had (of course - it couldn't do much else).

[nevets88]

[skydog]

Pure poppycock. 40 years goes back to 1957. Strength of field continually increases. There may be a lull from time to time, but no, absolutely not, was the field in 1997 weaker than the field in 1957, 1967, or even 1977.

And even if you meant 40 years back to 1975… still I vote with a resounding no.

I meant mid 1990s was a weak field compared to the 40 year stretch of 1975-2015 - not going back to the 1950s (give me a little more credit than to think that!)

From the mid 1970s to early 90s you had the likes of Trevino, Floyd,  Watson, Faldo, Seve, and Norman in their prime as well as the latter stages of Jack's career. I would argue that for much of the 90s, up until the explosion that was Tiger in 1997, the competition wasn't great because these guys were past their prime and the real post-Tiger competitors hadn't emerged yet. No way to 'prove' this necessarily, it's just my opinion. Not trying to take anything away from Tiger's 97 win because it was absurd at the time regardless but to think the field now isn't exponentially better than in 97 is also pure poppycock (I have no idea what this word means).

[iacas]

I meant mid 1990s was a weak field compared to the 40 year stretch of 1975-2015 - not going back to the 1950s (give me a little more credit than to think that!)

Which is why I said…

And even if you meant 40 years back to 1975… still I vote with a resounding no.

Anyway…

From the mid 1970s to early 90s you had the likes of Trevino, Floyd,  Watson, Faldo, Seve, and Norman in their prime. I would argue that for much of the 90s, up until the explosion that was Tiger in 1997, the competition wasn't great because these guys were past their prime and the real post-Tiger competitors hadn't emerged yet. No way to 'prove' this necessarily, it's just my opinion. Not trying to take anything away from Tiger's 97 win because it was absurd at the time regardless.

I'm not having this argument again. You can't just name names as those players benefitted from the same weak(er) fields as Nicklaus or Watson or whomever you're trying to put at the top did. Field strength continually improves to a theoretical maximum. We weren't anywhere near that maximum in 1975 (closer to it than 1965, and 1955, and 1945, though). I don't think the field was anywhere near as strong in 1975 as in 1997, and I don't think it was eight shots stronger in 2015 than it was in 1997 (margin of victory - I don't know what the Z-score was).

[skydog]

Pure poppycock. 40 years goes back to 1957. Strength of field continually increases. There may be a lull from time to time, but no, absolutely not, was the field in 1997 weaker than the field in 1957, 1967, or even 1977.

And even if you meant 40 years back to 1975… still I vote with a resounding no.

::scratching head::  You assumed I meant 40 years back to 1957. Was clarifying your assumption.

I'm not having this argument again. You can't just name names as those players benefitted from the same weak(er) fields as Nicklaus or Watson or whomever you're trying to put at the top did. Field strength continually improves to a theoretical maximum. We weren't anywhere near that maximum in 1975 (closer to it than 1965, and 1955, and 1945, though). I don't think the field was anywhere near as strong in 1975 as in 1997, and I don't think it was eight shots stronger in 2015 than it was in 1997 (margin of victory - I don't know what the Z-score was).

So by your account of field strength physics, competition increases on a linear basis and the talent pool has increased at the same rate from 1997-2015 as it did from 1979-1997 or from 1957-1975? (or from any other 18 year period). I have a hard time believing that you believe this.

[saevel25]

::scratching head::  You assumed I meant 40 years back to 1957. Was clarifying your assumption.

So by your account of field strength physics, competition increases on a linear basis and the talent pool has increased at the same rate from 1997-2015 as it did from 1979-1997 or from 1957-1975? (or from any other 18 year period). I have a hard time believing that you believe this.

It isn't linear, there is some fluctuation from year to year. If you fit a line you'd see a clear increase in the depth of the field.

Maybe 1996 was better than 1997,  maybe 1997 was better than 1998. 2014 is clearly better than 1997 and 1997 is clearly better than 1984 and before.

[Back 9 Bandit]

I thought Phil's goal was to NOT finish second at the U.S. Open?

Hahaha~ Well this made my afternoon.

[iacas]

::scratching head::  You assumed I meant 40 years back to 1957. Was clarifying your assumption.

Scratch your head all you want… you were unclear, so I responded about both 1957 and 1975. Both are in my post. You omitted one when you quoted me.

So by your account of field strength physics, competition increases on a linear basis and the talent pool has increased at the same rate from 1997-2015 as it did from 1979-1997 or from 1957-1975? (or from any other 18 year period). I have a hard time believing that you believe this.

I never said it increased linearly, so no. Year-to-year you may see slight depressions, but decade to decade, no. We may be nearing the theoretical limit, too. X is approaching 0 (as in the top 0.000000001% of golfers is not very different than the top 0.00000000001% of golfers).

[Valleygolfer]

Now that is a MEGA pixel camera....

[skydog]

I never said it increased linearly, so no. Year-to-year you may see slight depressions, but decade to decade, no. We may be nearing the theoretical limit, too. X is approaching 0 (as in the top 0.000000001% of golfers is not very different than the top 0.00000000001% of golfers).

I'm not going to get into this. Bottom line, the field is a hell of a lot better now than it was in 97.

[iacas]

Bottom line, the field is a hell of a lot better now than it was in 97.

And again, I disagree that it's a "hell of a lot" better.

Better? Yes. As much as you seem to think? No.

Pointless. You have your opinion, an opinion that lead to a massive crow-eating (that we've yet to see), I have mine.

[turtleback]

How was Tiger's more dominant, how could Speith possibly control what the other players shot? Tigers win was dominant because the field was not as deep as this one.

18 under when no one was even 7 under is more dominant that 18 under where 10 players are 8 under or better.  Fields do not change THAT much in 18 years.

Tiget always gave other golfers that beat him credit. And that's not even debatable.

But the claims to the contrary by some does serve to clarify that they were full of it when they said that they weren't haters.

I broke my ring finger swinging a club in some deep rough when i hit a buried rock.  Had to withdraw from the tournament.  It never did heal right.  Now I can't get my wedding ring on and off.  Tiger is lucky he didn't really jack up his hand or wrist!

I agree.  I was feeling really bad for him there when it looked like he might have to drop out.  It was almost seeming like he was snake bit.  Hopefully the wrist turns out to not be a problem.

And again, I disagree that it's a "hell of a lot" better.

Better? Yes. As much as you seem to think? No.

Pointless. You have your opinion, an opinion that lead to a massive crow-eating (that we've yet to see), I have mine.

Amazing, isn't it, how the fields weakened just in time for Tiger to put up his record and then toughened up so much.  If we used the common arguments advanced about how tough Jack's fields were because of all the major winners - but I guess that one doesn't play anymore, since Spieth hasn't had to face anyone in their prime who has more than 4 majors.