Spieth has two missed cuts, but moved back to #1? How do you interpret the OWGR?

[krupa]

As a relatively new golfer and golf fan, I am finding that the OWGR doesn't make a lot of sense at first, second, and third glance.

How is it that Jordan Spieth can miss two consecutive cuts but somehow get back into first place.    Especially when, after the second MC, the former #1 (McIlroy) played on the weekend?

Does the OWGR reward winning more than it penalizes losing?

[Ernest Jones]

I have never fully understood the mechanics of OWGR. Look forward to a comprehensive explanation. I've read a few online explanations but they just give me a headache. Lol.

[Lihu]

I have never fully understood the mechanics of OWGR. Look forward to a comprehensive explanation. I've read a few online explanations but they just give me a headache. Lol.

I wondered about this, and if someone knowledgeable answers I wouldn't be surprised if it is a 2 page essay that could also give you a headache.

[Hardspoon]

If you want a comprehensive description, Wikipedia has a good one.  It's very clear.

In my view, there are three basic reasons why rankings may change in ways that seem counterintuitive :

1. The rankings are based on a 2-year period of performance (even though they are weighted towards recent events).  Over the 2-year period, earned points slowly lose value until after 2 years they are worth nothing.
2. Events are not all worth the same, which may offset the value lost over time.  A win in the US Open one year ago may be worth the same as a win a week ago in a lesser event (just an example, I didn't do the math)
3. There is a minimum finish required to earn points.  A missed cut is worth zero points, but (depending on the importance of the event), a T-25 finish might also be worth zero.

Without looking into the Spieth-McIlroy situation in detail, this could easily happen if:

• Rory's finish was worth no more (or very little more) than Jordan's missed cut
• The % reduction in points for past events hurt Rory more than it hurt Jordan

[Patch]

I have never liked the OWGR because they put too much emphasis on past play, and not on current play. Plus, the fedex points, and money list works on a 30 (?) week basis, and show who is really playing well during the current year, and/or season. I also think the OWGR has been a problem with Ryder Cup picks since it is used for automatic team  membership. A guy could have been playing poorly for a few weeks/months prior to the event, but still get the automatic pick because of his ranking. The only thing I use the OWGR for is fantasy golf because there is info in the rankings prudent to fantasy picks,on a weekly basis.

The fact that Spieth will be #1  for only a week, is based on his, and others'  previous play.

[Hardspoon]

Does the OWGR reward winning more than it penalizes losing?

I realized I didn't really answer the OP's question.  In short, yes.  There is no real "penalty" for losing, other than earning 0 points that week.  It's an average of points earned .  The only points "lost" are those that lose value because they occurred further in the past.

[Hardspoon]

I have never liked the OWGR because they put too much emphasis on past play, and not on current play.

I would disagree - I think the 2-year "reduction" system works pretty well.  A win 22 months ago in the US Open is worth 1% of the value of a win in this year's Open.

If you had to choose between two players who have the exact same performance record over the past 30 weeks (money list), but one of them won the US Open two years ago, it would make sense to give that golfer a (very slight) edge.

[krupa]

Quote:

Originally Posted by krupa

Does the OWGR reward winning more than it penalizes losing?

I realized I didn't really answer the OP's question.  In short, yes.  There is no real "penalty" for losing, other than earning 0 points that week.  It's an average of points earned.  The only points "lost" are those that lose value because they occurred further in the past.

I understand how a T-10 finish could be worth more points than a 5th place between different tournaments.    But going into the Deutsche Bank tournament,  Rory was #1 and Jordan was #2.  Jordan earned 0 points for his MC and Rory earned at least some points (3.21?).  So how did Rory go down?

Rory:

Event	Tour	Week	Year	Finish	Rank Points	Weight	Adj. Points	Rank After
Deutsche Bank Championship	USA	36	2015	T29	3.21	1	3.21	2nd

Jordan:

Event	Tour	Week	Year	Finish	Rank Points	Weight	Adj. Points	Rank After
Deutsche Bank Championship	USA	36	2015	MC	-	1	-	1st

[RandallT]

Quote:

Originally Posted by krupa

Does the OWGR reward winning more than it penalizes losing?

I realized I didn't really answer the OP's question.  In short, yes.  There is no real "penalty" for losing, other than earning 0 points that week.  It's an average of points earned.  The only points "lost" are those that lose value because they occurred further in the past.

I think one key is that it takes the total points earned (over two years with a sliding scale of older tourneys are less important) and DIVIDES by events played.

Last week it was:

Spieth 635 pts over 52 events (12.22 average)

McIlroy 543pts over 44 events (12.36 average)  RORY #1. Woohoo, that math in his favor.

This week it is:

Spieth 628pts over 52 events (12.08 average)

McIlroy 537pts over 45 events (11.93 average)  Darn, Rory added an event, so divided by one more!

They both lost 6 or 7 points this week in total. BUT Rory did not have a past event DROP off the 2 year scale.  Bummer. That means his average dropped by a lot more. Sucks.

It's all stupid math, I agree. But I guess we need some objective measure.  These guys are basically tied at the moment in average points per event.

[Hardspoon]

But going into the Deutsche Bank tournament,  Rory was #1 and Jordan was #2.  Jordan earned 0 points for his MC and Rory earned at least some points (3.21?).  So how did Rory go down?

Every week, points from all events that are "older" than 14 weeks are reduced in value by approximately 1%.

This reduction hurt Rory more than Jordan (by more than the 3.21 earned this week).

It makes sense - given his recent play, a very large portion of Jordan's points have been earned in the past 14 weeks, while Rory has more "older" points that are subject to the reduction.

[Hardspoon]

I think one key is that it takes the total points earned (over two years with a sliding scale of older tourneys are less important) and DIVIDES by events played.

AHHH - missed this one.  This should have been a big #4 on my list of reasons for counter-intuitive results.

[RandallT]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RandallT

I think one key is that it takes the total points earned (over two years with a sliding scale of older tourneys are less important) and DIVIDES by events played.

AHHH - missed this one.  This should have been a big #4 on my list of reasons for counter-intuitive results.

Is it fair that Jordan is kicking his butt in points earned, but they are fairly close in average points earned? I guess that does make some sense to do an average.

If I'm reading it correctly, Jordan does not have events dropping off for a while, so his event count will increase until the Jan 2014 events drop off.

Rory has a bunch that drop off from the end of 2013... so his event count may stay close to what it is now (or go down if he doesn't play).

That could swing it back into Rory's favor if they keep missing cuts, and do nothing of note from here until Jan 2015, right?

[krupa]

Thanks guys.  The results make more sense to me now even though, as @Hardspoon says, they can be counter-intuitive.  On one hand, weekly change isn't a huge indicator since they are both tremendous golfers, but on the other hand it makes casual fans question the system when things like this happen.

[Hardspoon]

Is it fair that Jordan is kicking his butt in points earned, but they are fairly close in average points earned? I guess that does make some sense to do an average.

If I'm reading it correctly, Jordan does not have events dropping off for a while, so his event count will increase until the Jan 2014 events drop off.

Rory has a bunch that drop off from the end of 2013... so his event count may stay close to what it is now (or go down if he doesn't play).

That could swing it back into Rory's favor if they keep missing cuts, and do nothing of note from here until Jan 2015, right?

To be clear - there is a minimum (40) and maximum (52) number of events used for the average.  So, if you only play in a single event and win it, your points are still divided by 40.  And if you have played in 70 events over 2 years, your points are divided by 52.  This normalizes - to some extent - the "penalty" for playing in more events, and eliminates "flash-in-the-pan" jumps in the rankings.

[RandallT]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RandallT

Is it fair that Jordan is kicking his butt in points earned, but they are fairly close in average points earned? I guess that does make some sense to do an average.

If I'm reading it correctly, Jordan does not have events dropping off for a while, so his event count will increase until the Jan 2014 events drop off.

Rory has a bunch that drop off from the end of 2013... so his event count may stay close to what it is now (or go down if he doesn't play).

That could swing it back into Rory's favor if they keep missing cuts, and do nothing of note from here until Jan 2015, right?

To be clear - there is a minimum (40) and maximum (52) number of events used for the average.  So, if you only play in a single event and win it, your points are still divided by 40.  And if you have played in 70 events over 2 years, your points are divided by 52.  This normalizes - to some extent - the "penalty" for playing in more events, and eliminates "flash-in-the-pan" jumps in the rankings.

Ahhh! The missing piece I didn't realize. Great catch.

[Rogin]

Yeah, everyone's nailed it above. It is a feature of the system where - in particular - the "number of events" divisor comes into play, 44 to 45 is a 2% swing on the average, and that clearly makes the difference when your top two have an average that's about 0.02 points apart to start with (as with now).

It was the same with Donald and McIlory in the spring of 2012, too, they swapped it back and forward about five times in seven weeks for similar reasons.

[Wally Fairway]

IMO, the swapping back and forth will end after the FedEx playoffs.

As Rory is likely to then skip back to the European tour, the race to Dubai and their final series - so while Jordan may play in the BMW in China, Rory is likely to play more events and retake the #1 for the rest of the year.

It will be interesting to see how 2016 plays out, and with Jordan, Rory & Jason all in the mix for #1

[nevets88]

GD:

An Outside The Box Proposal

Two Ivy League profs say it's time to bring a little science to the Official World Golf Ranking

Quote:

According to two Ivy League professors, the most important classification system in golf -- the criteria for the touring pro's back-stage pass to global competition -- might be a fundamentally biased system. Based on the research of Mark Broadie of Columbia Business School and Richard J. Rendleman of the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth (and North Carolina's Kenan-Flagler Business School), both with expertise in statistics and financial derivatives, the World Ranking is not based on standard statistical models.

Broadie and Rendleman say that the current system employed to rank the world's golfers rests on a foundation of unexplained, built-in biases that award ranking points in a random and sometimes circular fashion. One startling result, according to their research: Among the top 200 players listed in the OWGR, the average PGA Tour player is ranked 36 positions worse than he should be relative to players on other tours.

http://www.golfdigest.com/story/gwar-stachura-world-golf-ranking