Opinion & Analysis
The stats say Spieth’s collapse at The Masters was no fluke
Before the 2016 Masters, I published my annual column, The 20 Players Who Can Win the Masters, which did not include Jordan Spieth. That drew the ire of a lot of fans, and through 65 holes it looked like I was ready to eat some crow on that prediction.
I originally filtered Spieth out of the top-20 due to his struggles on straight-away par-4s, since there is a correlation between that stat and a player’s performance at Augusta. But just as importantly, his performance from 150-225 yards had dropped, as well. Shots from 150-225 yards are absolutely critical to performance at Augusta, and Spieth’s disastrous 12th hole was due to hitting a 150-yard tee shot into the water.
Spieth didn’t hit the ball particularly well by his standards throughout the 2016 Masters. In fact, Bryson DeChambeau said he felt he outplayed Spieth in Round 1, but Spieth was able to score better than DeChambeau. And throughout the first three rounds, Spieth had quite a few hiccups and was on pace to have the most double bogeys of any eventual Masters winner in the history of the event. But the victory was not to be his.
Here’s a look at Spieth’s current rankings in the key metrics of golf.
Spieth did not drive the ball well at Augusta despite driving it well so far this season. But what we can see this season is a large decline in his iron play. In fact, he ranks 119th in shots from 75-225 yards from the fairway/tee box.
Before I go on, I do need to clear up a couple of the biggest myths in golf.
- Jordan Spieth isn’t great at anything; he’s just not bad at anything.
- Spieth plays so well because of his short game, and his putting bails him out.
Here’s a look at Spieth’s key metrics in his first three seasons on Tour that should dispel both of those myths.
The decline in his Yellow Zone (125-175 yards) performance and his performance on approach shots from the short grass is what stands out the most.
We know that Spieth started making some changes to his swing last year, so here’s a look at his performances from all of last season to today.
To read the charts: 0 percent is the average for the field in the event. Therefore, anything better than 0 percent is better than the average. Anything less than 0 percent is worse than the average. The dotted line is the trend line to show how Jordan’s performance is trending.
Spieth’s Driving Effectiveness has sustained a flat trend over time. However, his iron play from each of the zones is on a significant decline over time. And it appears to have started right around the 2015 John Deere Classic.
I should remind you, however, that we are talking about the No. 2-ranked golfer in the world who has won two of the past five majors with a worst finish of T4 during that timeframe. And he had held the lead in Masters for 137 consecutive holes before he came to hole No. 12 on Sunday at Augusta National.
I would imagine the swing changes he has been working on were done to help out with his driving, which could be sporadic and have the rightward miss. It just appears that those swing changes have come at the expense of his iron play, however, and that is why I did not have Spieth in my 20 Players That Can Win the Masters list. And that will be what he needs to improve in order to get back to his old ball-striking form.
- LIKE153
- LEGIT40
- WOW11
- LOL8
- IDHT4
- FLOP6
- OB5
- SHANK73
Of all the clubs in our bags, wedges are almost always the simplest in construction and, therefore, the easiest to analyze what might make one work differently from another if you know what to look for.
Wedges are a lot less mysterious than drivers, of course, as the major brands are working with a lot of “pixie dust” inside these modern marvels. That’s carrying over more to irons now, with so many new models featuring internal multi-material technologies, and almost all of them having a “badge” or insert in the back to allow more complex graphics while hiding the actual distribution of mass.
But when it comes to wedges, most on the market today are still single pieces of molded steel, either cast or forged into that shape. So, if you look closely at where the mass is distributed, it’s pretty clear how that wedge is going to perform.
To start, because of their wider soles, the majority of the mass of almost any wedge is along the bottom third of the clubhead. So, the best wedge shots are always those hit between the 2nd and 5th grooves so that more mass is directly behind that impact. Elite tour professionals practice incessantly to learn to do that consistently, wearing out a spot about the size of a penny right there. If impact moves higher than that, the face is dramatically thinner, so smash factor is compromised significantly, which reduces the overall distance the ball will fly.
Every one of us, tour players included, knows that maddening shot that we feel a bit high on the face and it doesn’t go anywhere, it’s not your fault.
If your wedges show a wear pattern the size of a silver dollar, and centered above the 3rd or 4th groove, you are not getting anywhere near the same performance from shot to shot. Robot testing proves impact even two to three grooves higher in the face can cause distance loss of up to 35 to 55 feet with modern ‘tour design’ wedges.
In addition, as impact moves above the center of mass, the golf club principle of gear effect causes the ball to fly higher with less spin. Think of modern drivers for a minute. The “holy grail” of driving is high launch and low spin, and the driver engineers are pulling out all stops to get the mass as low in the clubhead as possible to optimize this combination.
Where is all the mass in your wedges? Low. So, disregarding the higher lofts, wedges “want” to launch the ball high with low spin – exactly the opposite of what good wedge play requires penetrating ball flight with high spin.
While almost all major brand wedges have begun putting a tiny bit more thickness in the top portion of the clubhead, conventional and modern ‘tour design’ wedges perform pretty much like they always have. Elite players learn to hit those crisp, spinny penetrating wedge shots by spending lots of practice time learning to consistently make contact low in the face.
So, what about grooves and face texture?
Grooves on any club can only do so much, and no one has any material advantage here. The USGA tightly defines what we manufacturers can do with grooves and face texture, and modern manufacturing techniques allow all of us to push those limits ever closer. And we all do. End of story.
Then there’s the topic of bounce and grinds, the most complex and confusing part of the wedge formula. Many top brands offer a complex array of sole configurations, all of them admittedly specialized to a particular kind of lie or turf conditions, and/or a particular divot pattern.
But if you don’t play the same turf all the time, and make the same size divot on every swing, how would you ever figure this out?
The only way is to take any wedge you are considering and play it a few rounds, hitting all the shots you face and observing the results. There’s simply no other way.
So, hopefully this will inspire a lively conversation in our comments section, and I’ll chime in to answer any questions you might have.
And next week, I’ll dive into the rest of the wedge formula. Yes, shafts, grips and specifications are essential, too.
- LIKE19
- LEGIT6
- WOW1
- LOL1
- IDHT2
- FLOP2
- OB1
- SHANK1
Golf's Perfect Imperfections
Golf’s Perfect Imperfections: Amazing Session with Performance Coach Savannah Meyer-Clement
In this week’s episode, we spent some time with performance coach Savannah Meyer-Clement who provides many useful insights that you’ll be able to implement on the golf course.
- LIKE0
- LEGIT0
- WOW0
- LOL0
- IDHT0
- FLOP0
- OB0
- SHANK0
19th Hole
Vincenzi’s 2024 RBC Heritage betting preview: Patrick Cantlay ready to get back inside winner’s circle
Just a two-hour drive from Augusta National, the PGA TOUR heads to Harbour Town Golf Links in Hilton Head Island, S.C. Hilton Head Island is a golfer’s paradise and Harbour Town is one of the most beautiful and scenic courses on the PGA TOUR.
Harbour Town Golf Links is a par-71 that measures 7,121 yards and features Bermuda grass greens. A Pete Dye design, the course is heavily tree lined and features small greens and many dog legs, protecting it from “bomb-and-gauge” type golfers.
The field is loaded this week with 69 golfers with no cut. Last year was quite possibly the best field in RBC Heritage history and the event this week is yet another designated event, meaning there is a $20 million prize pool.
Most of the big names on the PGA Tour will be in attendance this week with the exceptions of Hideki Matsuyama and Viktor Hovland. Additionally, Webb Simpson, Shane Lowry, Gary Woodland and Kevin Kisner have been granted sponsors exemptions.
Past Winners at Harbour Town
- 2023: Matt Fitzpatrick (-17)
- 2022: Jordan Spieth (-13)
- 2021: Stewart Cink (-19)
- 2020: Webb Simpson (-22)
- 2019: CT Pan (-12)
- 2018: Sotoshi Kodaira (-12)
- 2017: Wesley Bryan (-13)
- 2016: Branden Grace (-9)
- 2015: Jim Furyk (-18)
In this article and going forward, I’ll be using the Rabbit Hole by Betsperts Golf data engine to develop my custom model. If you want to build your own model or check out all of the detailed stats, you can sign up using promo code: MATTVIN for 25% off any subscription package (yearly is best value).
Key Stats For Harbour Town
Let’s take a look at key metrics for Harbour Town Golf Links to determine which golfers boast top marks in each category over their past 24 rounds.
Strokes Gained: Approach
Strokes Gained: Approach is exceedingly important this week. The greens at Harbour Town are about half the size of PGA TOUR average and feature the second-smallest greens on the tour. Typical of a Pete Dye design, golfers will pay the price for missed greens.
Total SG: Approach Over Past 24 Rounds
- Scottie Scheffler (+1.27)
- Tom Hoge (+1.27)
- Corey Conners (+1.16)
- Austin Eckroat (+0.95)
- Cameron Young (+0.93)
Good Drive %
The fairways at Harbour Town are tree lined and feature many dog legs. Bombers tend to struggle at the course because it forces layups and doesn’t allow long drivers to overpower it. Accuracy is far more important than power.
Good Drive % Over Past 24 Rounds
- Brice Garnett (88.8%)
- Shane Lowry (+87.2%)
- Akshay Bhatia (+86.0%)
- Si Woo Kim (+85.8%)
- Sepp Straka (+85.1%)
Strokes Gained: Total at Pete Dye Designs
Pete Dye specialists tend to play very well at Harbour Town. Si Woo Kim, Matt Kuchar, Jim Furyk and Webb Simpson are all Pete Dye specialists who have had great success here. It is likely we see some more specialists near the top of the leaderboard this week.
SG: TOT Pete Dye per round over past 36 rounds:
- Xander Schauffele (+2.27)
- Scottie Scheffler (+2.24)
- Ludvig Aberg (+2.11)
- Brian Harman (+1.89)
- Sungjae Im (+1.58)
4. Strokes Gained: Short Game (Bermuda)
Strokes Gained: Short Game factors in both around the green and putting. With many green-side bunkers and tricky green complexes, both statistics will be important. Past winners — such as Jim Furyk, Wes Bryan and Webb Simpson — highlight how crucial the short game skill set is around Harbour Town.
SG: SG Over Past 24 Rounds
- Jordan Spieth (+1.11)
- Taylor Moore (+1.02)
- Wyndham Clark (+0.98)
- Mackenzie Hughes (+0.86)
- Andrew Putnam (+0.83)
5. Greens in Regulation %
The recipe for success at Harbour Town Golf Links is hitting fairways and greens. Missing either will prove to be consequential — golfers must be in total control of the ball to win.
Greens in Regulation % over past 24 rounds:
- Brice Garnett (+75.0%)
- Scottie Scheffler (+69.9%)
- Corey Conners (+69.0%)
- Shane Lowry (+68.3%)
- Patrick Rodgers (+67.6%)
6. Course History
Harbour Town is a course where players who have strong past results at the course always tend to pop up.
Course History over past 24 rounds:
- Patrick Cantlay (+2.34)
- Cam Davis (+2.05)
- J.T. Poston (+1.69)
- Justin Rose (+1.68)
- Tommy Fleetwood (+1.59)
The RBC Heritage Model Rankings
Below, I’ve compiled overall model rankings using a combination of the five key statistical categories previously discussed — SG: Approach (24%), Good Drives (20%), SG: SG (14%), SG: Pete Dye (14%), GIR (14%), and Course History (14%)
- Shane Lowry
- Russell Henley
- Scottie Scheffler
- Xander Schauffele
- Corey Conners
- Wyndham Clark
- Christiaan Bezuidenhout
- Matt Fitzpatrick
- Cameron Young
- Ludvig Aberg
2024 RBC Heritage Picks
Patrick Cantlay +2000 (FanDuel)
With the exception of Scottie Scheffler, the PGA Tour has yet to have any of their star players show peak form during the 2024 season. Last week, Patrick Cantlay, who I believe is a top-5 players on the PGA Tour, took one step closer to regaining the form that’s helped him win eight events on Tour since 2017.
Cantlay limped into the Masters in poor form, but figured it out at Augusta National, finishing in a tie for 20th and ranking 17th for the week in Strokes Gained: Ball Striking. The former FedEx Cup champion will now head to one of his favorite golf courses in Harbour Town, where he’s had immaculate results over the years. In his six trips to the course, he’s only finished worse than 7th one time. The other finishes include three third places (2017, 2019, 2023) and one runner-up finish (2022). In his past 36 rounds at Harbour Town, Cantlay ranks 1st in Strokes Gained: Total per round at the course by a wide margin (+2.36).
Cantlay is winless since the 2022 BMW Championship, which is far too long for a player of his caliber. With signs pointing to the 32-year-old returning to form, a “signature event” at Harbour Town is just what he needs to get back on the winning track.
Tommy Fleetwood +3000 (FanDuel)
I truly believe Tommy Fleetwood will figure out a way to win on American soil in 2024. It’s certainly been a bugaboo for him throughout his career, but he is simply too talented to go another season without winning a PGA Tour event.
At last week’s Masters Tournament, Fleetwood made a Sunday charge and ended up finishing T3 in the event, which was his best ever finish at The Masters. For the week, the Englishman ranked 8th in the field in Strokes Gained: Approach, 10th in Strokes Gained: Ball Striking and 16th in Strokes Gained: Putting.
Harbour Town is a perfect layout for Fleetwood, and he’s had relative success at this Pete Dye design in the past. In his four trips to the course, he’s finished inside of the top 25 three times, with his best finish, T10, coming in 2022. The course is pretty short and can’t be overpowered, which gives an advantage to more accurate players such as Fleetwood. Tommy ranks 8th in the field in Good Drive % and should be able to plot his way along this golf course.
The win is coming for Tommy lad. I believe there’s a chance this treasure of a golf course may be the perfect one for him to finally break through on Tour.
Cameron Young +3300 (FanDuel)
Cameron Young had a solid Masters Tournament last week, which is exactly what I’m looking for in players who I anticipate playing well this week at the RBC Heritage. He finished in a tie for 9th, but never felt the pressure of contending in the event. For the week, Young ranked 6th in Strokes Gained: Off the Tee and 6th in Strokes Gained: Ball Striking.
Despite being one of the longest players off the tee on the PGA Tour, Young has actually played some really good golf on shorter tracks. He finished T3 at Harbour Town in 2023 and ranks 20th in the field in Good Drive% and 16th in Greens in Regulation in his past 24 rounds. He also has strong finishes at other shorter courses that can take driver out of a players hand such as Copperhead and PGA National.
Young is simply one of the best players on the PGA Tour in 2024, and I strongly believe has what it takes to win a PGA Tour event in the very near future.
Corey Conners +5500 (FanDuel)
Corey Conners has had a disappointing year thus far on the PGA Tour, but absolutely loves Harbour Town.
At last week’s Masters Tournament, the Canadian finished T30 but ranked 20th in the field in Strokes Gained: Approach. In his past 24 rounds, Conners ranks 3rd in the field in Strokes Gained: Approach, 3rd in Greens in Regulation % and 24th in Good Drive %.
In Conners’ last four trips to Harbour Town, his worst finish was T31, last season. He finished T4 in 2021, T12 in 2022 and ranks 8th in Strokes Gained: Total at the course over his past 36 rounds.
Conners hasn’t been contending, but his recent finishes have been encouraging as he has finished in the top-25 in each of his past three starts prior to The Masters, including an impressive T13 at The PLAYERS. His recent improvement in ball striking as well as his suitability for Harbour Town makes Conners a high upside bet this week.
Shane Lowry (+7500) (FanDuel)
When these odds were posted after Lowry was announced in the field, I have to admit I was pretty stunned. Despite not offering much win equity on the PGA Tour over the last handful of years, Shane Lowry is still a top caliber player who has the ability to rise to the top of a signature event.
Lowry struggled to score at The Masters last week, but he actually hit the ball really well. The Irishman ranked 1st for Strokes Gained: Approach on the week and 7th in Strokes Gained: Ball Striking. As usual, it was the putter that let him down, as he ranked 60th in the field in Strokes Gained: Putting.
Harbour Town is most definitely one of Lowry’s favorite courses on the PGA Tour. In his six starts there, he’s finished in the top 10 three times, including third twice. Lowry is sensational at Pete Dye designs and ranks 7th in Strokes Gained: Total in his past 36 rounds on Dye tracks.
Lowry is perfect for Harbour Town. In his past 24 rounds, he ranks 5th in Strokes Gained: Approach, 2nd in Good Drive% and 5th in Green in Regulation %. If he figures it out on the greens, Shane could have his first win in America since 2015.
Lucas Glover +12000 (FanDuel)
This is one of my weekly “bet the number” plays as I strongly believe the odds are just too long for a player of Glover’s caliber. The odds have been too long on Glover for a few weeks now, but this is the first event that I can get behind the veteran being able to actually contend at.
Glover is quietly playing good golf and returning to the form he had after the understandable regression after his two massive victories at the end of 2023. He finished T20 at The Masters, which was his best ever finish at Augusta National. For the week, Lucas ranked 18th for Strokes Gained: Approach and 20th in Strokes Gained: Ball Striking.
Over his past 24 rounds, Glover ranks 9th in Strokes Gained: Approach and 13th in Good Drive %. Harbour Town is a short course that the 44-year-old will be able to keep up with the top players on Tour off the tee. He’s played the course more than 20 times, with mixed results. His best finishes at Harbour Town include a T7 in 2008, but recently has a finish of T21 in 2020.
Glover has proven he can contend with the stars of the Tour on any given week, and this number is flat out disrespectful.
- LIKE30
- LEGIT5
- WOW2
- LOL1
- IDHT1
- FLOP2
- OB0
- SHANK2
Dave Portnoy places monstrous outright bet for the 2024 Masters
John Daly stuns fans into silence with brutal opening tee shot on PGA Tour Champions
Things got heated at the Houston Open between Tony Finau and Alejandro Tosti. Here’s why
Tiger Woods arrives at 2024 Masters equipped with a putter that may surprise you
Report: Tiger Woods has ‘eliminated sex’ in preparation for the 2024 Masters
Two star names reportedly blanked Jon Rahm all week at the Masters
2-time major champ announces shock retirement from the sport at age of 33
Neal Shipley presser ends in awkward fashion after reporter claims Tiger handed him note on 8th fairway
Paulina Gretzky opens up on receiving death threats following DJ’s move to LIV Golf
Report: LIV Golf identifies latest star name they hope to sign to breakaway tour
Collin Morikawa WITB 2024 (April)
Collin Morikawa what’s in the bag accurate as of the RBC Heritage. More photos from the event here. Driver: TaylorMade...
WITB Time Machine: Jordan Spieth’s winning WITB, 2022 RBC Heritage
At the 2022 RBC Heritage Jordan Spieth defeated Patrick Cantlay on the first playoff hole after nearly holing his greenside...
Jason Day WITB 2024 (April)
Jason Day what’s in the bag accurate as of the RBC Heritage. Driver: Ping G430 LST (9 degrees @10) Shaft: TPT...
Ludvig Åberg WITB 2024 (April)
Ludvig Åberg what’s in the bag accurate as of the RBC Heritage. Driver: Titleist TSR2 (9 degrees, D4 SureFit setting)...
-
19th Hole1 week agoDave Portnoy places monstrous outright bet for the 2024 Masters
-
19th Hole3 weeks agoThings got heated at the Houston Open between Tony Finau and Alejandro Tosti. Here’s why
-
19th Hole1 week agoTiger Woods arrives at 2024 Masters equipped with a putter that may surprise you
-
19th Hole2 weeks agoReport: Tiger Woods has ‘eliminated sex’ in preparation for the 2024 Masters
-
19th Hole5 days agoTwo star names reportedly blanked Jon Rahm all week at the Masters
-
19th Hole4 days agoNeal Shipley presser ends in awkward fashion after reporter claims Tiger handed him note on 8th fairway
-
19th Hole3 days agoReport: LIV Golf identifies latest star name they hope to sign to breakaway tour
-
19th Hole2 weeks agoAddiction, spinal fusion, and scam artists – Everything Anthony Kim revealed in candid interview with David Feherty
Freddy
Apr 22, 2016 at 1:27 pm
Your point would be more convincing if Spieth had never gotten into contention due to his iron play.
Brendan
Apr 21, 2016 at 6:27 pm
In my opinion, (which doesn’t carry much weight), Rich did a great job of analyzing Spieth’s issues over the past three years from a statistical standpoint. However golf isn’t a game played between numbers, it is a game played between human players. I think the reason Spieth has been so successful so far is simply due to his mental strength and attitude and the style of his play. He can poke his drives out there relatively consistently and when his irons can do him more good than harm, he really stands out. In reality, his short game is what keeps him relevant, while his mental ability and attitude sets him apart in big spots when others seem to let the moment get to the best of them. He’s a grinder in the fullest sense of the term and I feel that sometimes viewers forget that. Rory, Jason, and other big names are most likely statistically better in most of the areas listed above, but that isn’t what wins tournaments sometimes. Nobody (maybe Rory) comes close to outplaying other great players on Sundays.
Nick Coleman
Apr 21, 2016 at 9:16 am
Richie, do you have stats on scrambling or recovery? Jordan recovered from so many terrible situations during the Masters. And are there any stats available on where shots took place (right rough, left rough, etc)? I’m guessing that information isn’t recorded. Although it seems like it wouldn’t be too hard for the PGA to do it, given you can track shots live in the iPad app. I noticed that feature wasn’t available during the Masters, and I missed being able to see just how far offline a shot had gone. My gut is that the “missing” stats to explain Jordan’s inexplicable second place finish is related to A) play in the wind (he’s from Texas, where there’s a lot), B) recovery shots from bad lies, C) mental toughness. He’s great at all three of those. A lot of players start playing badly and never recover. Jordan bounces back quickly from a bad hole.
A golfer
Apr 21, 2016 at 1:05 am
Only one stat matters in majors and that is what goes on between the ears. In the last two years Jordan has been the best at it and is the only golfer I have seen since Tiger that can keep it for many years to come. He lost it on one hole, and it remains to be seen how he does from here on out, but I would not be surprised if he wins another major this year …..and more in the coming years.
Brendan
Apr 21, 2016 at 6:25 pm
Couldn’t possibly agree more. After reading this article I immediatly thought that to myself even before reading one user comment. In my opinion, (which doesn’t carry much weight), Rich did a great job of analyzing Spieth’s issues over the past three years from a statistical standpoint. However golf isn’t a game played between numbers, it is a game played between human players. I think the reason Spieth has been so successful so far is simply due to his mental strength and attitude and the style of his play. He can poke his drives out there relatively consistently and when his irons can do him more good than harm, he really stands out. In reality, his short game is what keeps him relevant, while his mental ability and attitude sets him apart in big spots when others seem to let the moment get to the best of them. He’s a grinder in the fullest sense of the term and I feel that sometimes viewers forget that. Rory, Jason, and other big names are most likely statistically better in most of the areas listed above, but that isn’t what wins tournaments sometimes. Nobody (maybe Rory) comes close to outplaying other great players on Sundays.
theaveragepunter
Apr 20, 2016 at 4:01 pm
Nice work Rich. Your top 20 for the masters made me some $$. Other posters are right – most readers don’t understand your info and think Sugar Diabetes is a Greek boxer.
mlecuni
Apr 21, 2016 at 1:59 pm
: )
Patrick
Apr 20, 2016 at 1:35 pm
Rich every time you write an article I sincerely believe that 90% of the posters either don’t comprehend statistics or haven’t read the article.
It’s pretty clear that your a statistician interpreting PGA tour stats.
You then clearly show the numbers and what strengths / weaknesses they identify.
And it’s clear, bias or emotion are not statistically measurable. Except by most of the commenters on this board.
Another substantive, relevant article. No argument here. I love stats and what they represent. I took three units of stats in university. Still don’t think you need that level of knowledge to get your articles. Maybe I’m wrong. Apparently.
N.
Apr 20, 2016 at 7:16 am
A lot of you seem to be missing the point of these stats, calling spieths 12th hole a fluke so it was irrelevant and so on.
If you’re statistically bad from 150yrds and you then dump it in the water on a 150yrd par 3 then this only serves to further prove the statistic.
Had he been statistically good from that distance then maybe he would have been less likely to be nervous or choke on that tee shot. If you’re ranked 1st on tour from say 150-200yrds id say the chances on you dumping it in the water are much slimmer.
CallawayLefty
Apr 20, 2016 at 8:05 am
A lot of you seem to be missing the point that the whole argument is that a guy who was #2 in the OWGR and had finished 2nd and 1st in his prior two trips to Augusta should probably have been in the top 20 picks to win the tournament, as proved by the fact that he almost did as such and finished in 2nd. I get it – statistics are cool. But I could probably find a statistical deficiency with every single person in the top 20 of the OWGR. But they appear to overcome them regularly, and a good list of the top-10 to win the Masters would be #1 through #10 of the OWGR. Omitting #2 from your top-20 is just being a sensationalist, and then acting like it was so easy to see his loss coming and that we’re all just idiots/fanboys after what happened at the Masters is just hilarious. I don’t mind the statistical analysis. I mind the over the top gloating in the face of reality.
N.
Apr 20, 2016 at 11:04 am
In my opinion from a betting stand point, if you are picking a group as large as 20 different people that have a chance of winning you’re just saying that you don’t really have any idea who will. And to be honest with golf, its very hard week in week out to pick winners.
I would agree with you that not picking speith in the 20 was bold, but he wasn’t in my top 3 picks at the start of the week, although i didnt do much better!
birly-shirly
Apr 20, 2016 at 6:27 am
Wow. I think any prediction, including anyone’s top 20 picks for the Masters, needs cut a little slack.
But to try and argue, with the benefit of hindsight, that you were RIGHT to exclude the chances of the guy who finished second (especially in those circumstances) just seems a little reckless with your credibility.
Mlecuni
Apr 20, 2016 at 4:55 am
So Rich, Jordan had one good 2014/15 year with an average yellow zone and good putter. But now is being less efficient in several area (yellow, red and green) and the putter can’t save him anymore / nobody can win only by putting well ?
Richie Hunt
Apr 20, 2016 at 9:23 am
Jordan had great years in 2013, and 2013-2014. He was a great ballstriker in his first 3 seasons. He can still perform well and win with his current metrics, but essentially his Short Game and Putting will have to bail him out because at this rate, he’s going to miss GIR and/or have longer birdie putts. As I wrote in this article, one of the myths of Spieth was that the ‘putter bails him out’, but as you can see in his first 3 seasons he was a great ballstriker who putted well and thus why it is a myth.
mlecuni
Apr 21, 2016 at 1:57 pm
thank you
:-p
Apr 20, 2016 at 2:41 am
Them SM6 wedges suck. Totally over-rated. He never should’ve switched from the SM5.
Desmond
Apr 20, 2016 at 2:05 am
By his own assessment, Jordan played his B- game at Augusta. Watching him play, most had to think that he was on the verge of collapse most of the week. That it took 66 holes is a testament to Spieth.
Richie Hunt
Apr 20, 2016 at 9:27 am
I agree. I thought it was one of the grittiest performances I’ve seen in recent memory. He hit a lot of bad shots and started to have a 2-way miss. And it was one of those things where he would hit some great shots and then an awful shot would show up. A situation where you’re about to go off the rails, but are trying to get the round in before that happens. And even after the 12th hole, he came back fairly strong with birdies at #13, #15 and then stuck it close on #16, but couldn’t convert.
This article isn’t a knock on Spieth. It’s is to show that his ballstriking has regressed from last year and it was trending downward at a pretty good rate leading into the Masters.
8thehardway
Apr 19, 2016 at 11:11 pm
a branch of mathematics dealing with the collection, analysis, interpretation, and presentation of masses of numerical data
Statistics would have missed a 59-year-old Watson leading after 71 holes at the British Open in 2009 and Jack winning the 1986 Masters.
Yes, he was almost wrong so let’s get him. He was SO CLOSE to being wrong I can’t stand it; if only I had bet on Spieth I would have been so happy for so many holes – how could he not pick him?
So here’s the best part of what Richie Hunt gave you, and I know all you ingrates used them – great reasons to trash your buddies’ picks… “You went with Kevin Na? But he hits the low ball… that’s death at Augusta.” Yes, your buddies taunted you for 3+ rounds for going off Spieth but before it started, when they were most vulnerable, you skewered them good and, in the end, Spieth lost and you were right again. Now THAT’s entertainment.
CallawayLefty
Apr 19, 2016 at 9:42 pm
It’s incredible. You have to be the least sincere statistician I’ve ever read. JUST ADMIT IT – YOU WERE COMPLETELY WRONG ABOUT JORDAN SPIETH THIS YEAR AT THE MASTERS. You’re gloating about the fact that you basically picked the field against one guy and it proved to be correct (by the skin of your a$$). Yes, you’re right. The guy you said had no chance to win did not in fact win. He just held the lead for 65 holes and finished in 2nd place due to one fluke hole that a player like him will see about 1 time in his career.
Let me ask you this – is your argument proved because Jordan Spieth finished in 2nd place, or is it disproved by the fact that Rickie Fowler, Marc Leishmann, and Phil Mickelson (all in your top 10) missed the cut? If you’re ok with picking one example to prove your argument is correct, shouldn’t we all be ok with picking one contrary example (or in this case three) to prove your argument is wrong?
Really – you picked a list of people that included a substantial majority of the top players in the world (omitting the guy who is arguably the best of all of them), and then one of them won. That’s awesome, but in no way overrides the fact that you’re just trying to grab headlines by saying Spieth had no chance. If a guy who was such a statistical outlier was ONE bad shot away from winning, what does that say about the statistics?
Nath
Apr 20, 2016 at 4:33 am
Whatever, its all in the numbers, moneyball my friend
CallawayLefty
Apr 20, 2016 at 6:24 am
Check me if I’m wrong, but didn’t the A’s end up losing to the teams that valued the more traditional subject analysis? The point was that they had to use numbers to find diamonds in the rough. But their only goal was to be competitive with the front runners, not to prove that Derrek Jeeter was all smoke and mirrors. In sports there are people who do things that defy objective analysis. Or maybe statisticians overlook the real statistics that determine what makes a winner. But I will stand by that it’s disengenous to say that a guy who has now finished 2, 1, 2 in three tries at Augusta doesn’t statistically show what it takes to win there. There’s always two sides to the story – including in statistics. And if Richie’s statistics show what a poor choice he is, maybe his performance merits another look at what statistics really are most important. So he sucks from the yellow zone – well he’s finished 2, 1, 2, so perhaps yellow zone scoring is less meaningful, statically speaking, than Richie argues.
Richie Hunt
Apr 20, 2016 at 9:36 am
The core of Moneyball was to help the Oakland A’s find undervalued players because they were a team with a very small budget. A team like the Yankees or Red Sox (at that particular time) didn’t use advanced analytics, but most of their players would have looked favorable according to the statistics. If you look at the all-time greats like Ted Williams, Babe Ruth, Sandy Koufax, etc…their stats would line right up with what Moneyball values. The same with many top players from that Moneyball era like Albert Pujols, A-Rod, etc. It’s just that the A’s ownership simply would not pay for those players. So instead they got players for say $250K that were more accurately valued at $2-3 million.
Advanced analytics is becoming a growing trend in almost all sports. Two teams that use it the most out of any teams in any sports leagues are…Golden State Warriors and San Antonio Spurs.
CallawayLefty
Apr 20, 2016 at 10:30 am
I understand and am obviously puffing a little. I actually find the statistical analysis fascinating and instructive for sure. I just think that you have to OVERLOOK facts to rule Jordan out. I haven’t done statistical research on the Masters in particular. But my guess is there is one or more categories that Jordan did very well in that back up his 2nd place finish (and near win) this year. The problem with a statistical analysis, except one that is very objective, is that it tends to start with a desired result and then find statistics that support it rather than objectively investigating those that do not. I question whether you truly picked apart all objective factors, or whether you just settled on Jordan Spieth being omitted because of the road you were already headed down. I don’t mean that to sound accusatory – I’m actually interested…if Jordan is so bad at something that is so important at Augusta, then what makes him so good at Augusta? Really, there must be numbers to support it.
Richie Hunt
Apr 20, 2016 at 12:10 pm
Historically the winners at the Masters have hit 50+ GIR. This year was a little different because of the wind (which I mentioned with Zach Johnson as being able to change the outcome of the event). Willett hit 48 GIR, Westwood hit 51 GIR. Spieth? 43 GIR.
I think Spieth was playing with fire for those first 65 holes of the event and again, would have had the most double bogeys of any Masters winner in the history of the event. I think it’s safe to say that his short game and putting really helped propel him at ANGC for those first 3 rounds. The wind also helped because it took away the bombers ability to easily hit an iron into #13 and #15.
Spieth mentioned during the event that he didn’t feel comfortable with his irons and the metrics show that has been a problem for him going into the Masters.
Calling b.s.
Apr 21, 2016 at 10:21 am
If I understand this argument correctly, Richie is saying he didn’t pick Spieth as having a chance to win the masters because his stats from 125-175 are bad, and his shot from 150 on the 12th hole validates his argument. I’ll call b.s. on that. It wasn’t the tee shot that cost spieth the victory. It was the embarrassingly fat flip wedge he hit after the drop. We all agree that spieth has an amazing short game. But it was the short game that failed him. That was mental. His loss had absolutely nothing to do with his play from 125-175 yards. Stats are fun. But don’t try to make it out like you predicted spieth’s failure to win with your analysis. You didn’t.
ZQ
Apr 19, 2016 at 8:48 pm
Please fire this guy.
Brad
Apr 20, 2016 at 1:19 pm
Amen. Richie, just admit your omission of Spieth was inflammatory. Just because he didn’t win doesn’t mean your failure to include him in the TOP 20 was correct. Stats can make any conclusion you want them to make, which is what you’re doing here IMO…..lies, damn lies, and statistics.
Gubment Cheeze
Apr 19, 2016 at 7:48 pm
Jordan gave a good show and didn’t quit get the winners check. Golfs a tough game and some days you just ain’t got it.
MarkB A
Apr 20, 2016 at 8:33 am
+1
Seems the haters are gonna just hate. Jordan had a few major mistakes and it is Augusta on Sunday on the back 9. Danny Willet played well and it was a nice win. Last year Jordan was pretty astonishing because he had a real good shot at winning all the majors. I am not a fan boy. I enjoy golf and let the best man that week with the lowest score win.
Roger
Apr 19, 2016 at 7:31 pm
Jordan began seriously having issues at the world match play, then in Houston…….he looked good through three rounds but darn he seemed to be jumpy and nervous on Sunday.
Cronos
Apr 19, 2016 at 7:18 pm
I can only assume you’re a troll.
Spieth was T2, 1, and T2 in his three years at the masters. I’m sure it was all because of a “weak” field all 3 years.
/s
Gubment Cheeze
Apr 19, 2016 at 7:50 pm
Not to mention the other 3 majors last year and the FEC.
:-p
Apr 20, 2016 at 2:43 am
Good riddance!
Joe
Apr 19, 2016 at 5:19 pm
I hope Jordan doesn’t read this. Thanks for the article, it is a good read and interesting. But to my thinking all these stats mean very little, Jordan’s failure was the result of 1 hole, not an accumulation of stats over many holes.
Stats are just numbers and don’t always give the correct picture. The story here is that he choked/or made a bad swing, it happens. Get over it and move on.
Richie Hunt
Apr 20, 2016 at 9:42 am
I disagree. In golf, you are what you are. I don’t believe it’s just one hole. Like I said, he was on pace to have the most double bogeys as a winner in the history of the Masters before the 12th hole on Sunday. If he had not doubled all of those holes, he would have had a larger margin going into 12 and could have still won with that 12th hole.
Jordan only hit 59.2% of his GIR for the event. Willett hit 67% and Westwood hit 70%. Traditionally, GIR% plays a large role in who wins the Masters and typically the winner hits at least 50 GIR for the event. This year was a little different due to the winds, but I think Spieth was playing with fire.
RoGar
Apr 19, 2016 at 5:10 pm
Are you serious? Trends, tendencies, and plain old bad luck, are things that just happen. What about weather, stress, and pressure? Really!!! Speith lead almost the whole way, and even after 12 still almost made an epic comeback. If he had won, imagine the headlines then!!! Speith is great for the game, he’s very close to being human…
Johnny
Apr 19, 2016 at 4:41 pm
Jordan’s quadruple bogey on #12 in the 4th round was a total fluke. As was his 4 putt at #5 (forget what round).
Jay
Apr 19, 2016 at 6:29 pm
thats a lot of flukes for the #2 in the world….
CallawayLefty
Apr 20, 2016 at 6:45 am
Doesn’t that turn the statistical analysis on its head? If a guy who has no chance to win at Augusta has finished 2, 1, 2 in three tries, are we sure that the statistics Richie is focusing on are the ones that matter?