Assigning Credit and Blame in the Cups

[iacas]

23 hours ago, CarlSpackler said:

I didn't see anywhere that the results had to total 100%

Of course they do. It’s a percentage.

Of a fixed quantity of something.

[Moxley]

It's individual to each tournament, sometimes things like the course aren't really a factor. 

In the case of the 2018 Ryder cup though, I think all 3 were important, with the order being Players>Course>Captains. 

[Dry Tortuga]

I think each of these three factors is probably equally responsible for influencing the result; meaning the captain is bearing more individual blame when compared to each player on his own.

That being said- I think in general we have a problem with this lust for assigning blame rather than just viewing it as a sporting event where one team will win and the other will lose.

 

This year especially, people are trying to place blame or find a reason for the American loss as we were the strong favorite going into the event. To me, however, this means that we need not point the finger but investigate why our prediction was wrong. The prediction was wrong, the result was not wrong.

 

I think the prediction of Americans winning was the result of people being excited about the individual players and their success on the PGA tour. American golf fans seemed to think (or want to believe) that this would overpower the 'European course setup' and the better camaraderie of the European squad. Moving forward, I'd hope the 2018 Ryder Cup will be a sobering reminder of the 'other factors', and people will be less apt to put big faith in the US during away years even when we have the biggest hitters.

 

Even as a US fan, it was easy to enjoy the Ryder Cup and the great play by most of the Europeans, and a few of the Americans. The best part of being a fan of professional golf is you don't have to root against half the players on the field. When I watch a normal PGA Tour event, or a major, I'm rooting for everyone, and against (almost) no one. I just want that chip to drop in, irregardless of who chipped it. I think people have trouble bringing this attitude to the Ryder Cup, but at the end of the day it's just golf. It's not good for anyone when fans start cheering for bad shots, or even worse actively trying to distract the players.

 

I didn't vote in this poll, but I might have if one of the options was to blame the fans for having such interest in assigning blame  

[iacas]

4 minutes ago, Dry Tortuga said:

I think each of these three factors is probably equally responsible for influencing the result; meaning the captain is bearing more individual blame when compared to each player on his own.

Really? The captain doesn't hit a single shot, but he shares more of the blame than any of those who do?

[Dry Tortuga]

The original question was how much credit/blame do the players get. How much blame does the captain get. Now how much should they get.

 

I think realistically, the thirds are probably pretty close. Most people who are blame hungry know better than to dump all of it on Jim Furyk, but comparing how much his captaining choices get talked about vs the play of a random single player, say Rickie Fowler or Webb Simpson, the result is pretty clear. I think only if you have a player who absolutely bombs (and maybe this year Reed or Mickelson or Woods came close) and utterly falls short of expectations, will they get thrown under the bus the way the captains do.

Before the event "Furyk's pairings were a touch of genius"

After the event, the same people talking about the same picks and pairings "OMG how could you have possibly put those two people together. Worst captain ever."

 

I'm not saying I think this way, but it certainly happens

[iacas]

14 minutes ago, Dry Tortuga said:

The original question was how much credit/blame do the players get. How much blame does the captain get. Now how much should they get.

How much do you give each of them?

See the poll questions. You can change your votes if you wish. Just "Show Poll Options" again.

[Big C]

I gave the players about 50% of the blame and the course set up somewhere close to 40%.

My reasoning being that if the same 24 guys competed on a layout more favorable to the US strengths, the outcome could have easily been very different. 

Jim Furyk gets about 10% of the blame. I think he might have cost the US a couple of potential points with strategic errors. But in a 17.5 - 10.5 rout, there wasn't anything he could have done singlehandedly to change the result. 

 

[skydog]

The captain unilaterally (in theory at least) picks 1/3rd of the team and 100% of the pairings. That’s a hefty influence. More so than any coach in any professional team setting as usually the coach’s ability to outright pick a large swath of the team is going to be quite limited. 

That said- from a credit/blame standpoint, I would say it’s somewhere around 70/30 players to captain.Both teams are playing the same course so I don’t think it’s rational to assign anything to the course. 

 

[Herkimer]

The course - 0%

The Captain - 0%

Players - 100%

 

[rehmwa]

Coming back to this one.  I do think it's funny how we've mostly added up our totals to 100%......

Seems we are missing a category of just random chance and variation. Sometimes you just have a good day or a bad day, or weather swings, or bounces......or the other guy just happened to play amazing (or horrible) that day even when you are steady Eddie this time.  With the players all so closely matched, I think this plays a HUGE role.  tiny swings of chance can have huge effects.

If one must bunch up variation under any of the 3 categories, I'd put it in with players still - it's their job to minimize that stuff.  The course is set, the coaches make their picks and their leadership style isn't so subject to it...

Edited November 8, 2018 by rehmwa