PGA Tour: Golf in La La Land: Notes from the Ballwasher

First topic message reminder :

1).Genesis? Conjures up images of Charterhouse lads selling England by the pound and lambs lying down on Broadway.
Or ancient fiction.
But, no, let there be light.
We're talking about LA'S historic "Open" being sponsored by a South Korean motor company - pity they couldn't have called it the Genesis LA Open though. Instead, it just sounds like a revival of the old Genny Open. RIP.

2).Whatever they call it, the quality of the course and field cannot be doubted, as good a field as we're likely to find this "regular" season on one of the Tour's elite courses, George Thomas's Par 71 Riviera CC. Southern California, and Los Angeles in particular, is scheduled for some of golf's premier events these next few years; apart from the Tour stops in San Diego and LA, we'll look forward to:
~US Open: 2021: Torrey Pines
~US Open: 2023: Los Angeles CC
~Walker Cup: 2017: Los Angeles CC
~US Amateur: 2017: Rivera

3).With the World Rankings, and especially the OWGR Top Ten, featuring an almost record Number of young players, the focus is increasingly on youth, but perhaps Riviera will demand experience as well. Bill Haas was the last player younger than 30 (and he was in his 30th year) to win here and he was making his 7th visit.
So: Will any upstart yute emulate the feats of Thomas (2), Swafford, Rahm, Matsuyama and Spieth so far this year and earn a 7th successive win this year for a 20-something.

4).Those 6 x young guns are climbing the World Rankings (well, Spieth will be climbing again) but age is no protector of continued status. Once a player starts plummeting down the rankings it usually demands a sustained string of good results to reverse trend and move back up the charts.
Some big plungers who started out 2017 in the top 200 and are headed south in a hurry include:
Senden's ranking has slid 30.9%
Harrington's: 30.4%
Karlberg: 28.7%
Chris Wood: 25.6%
Danny Lee: 25.4%
Honourable Mentions to: Donaldson (down 22.4%), Dubuisson (down 24.1%), both in free fall.
For the Kaufman fan club, he's down 23.5% which is nothing to get smylie about. He withdrew this week, complaining about poa annua greens and looking forward to being back on Bermuda.

5).For all the beauty of the Monterey Peninsula, the final round at Pebble Beach must have been as dreary an 18 holes' TV as we've watched in a long time; in such circumstances I reckon the TV commentators have a responsibility to do more than rhapsodise about the scenery, rabbit on about "celebrities" we've never heard of and offer endless analysis of Konica Minolta BizHub Swing Vision slo-mos. CBS can and should do better. Player interviews would be a good start.

6).Which takes nothing away from Jordan Spieth and the apparently effortless way he strolled to his 9th Tour win. And he's played well (4th, 12th, mc) enough at Riviera to suggest he has the course knowledge to win again.

7).One of the interesting aspects of Riviera are the two holes that open the front and back nines:
1st hole: About the easiest Par-5 on Tour with a scoring average of 4.2
10th hole: The iconic short Par-4 that remains a fine short hole but the green has got firmer, harder and more unforgiving to the extent that it can sometimes seem unfair. I thought there was a move afoot to re-do the green but I can't find anything to shed light on that. Well overdue if they haven't.

8).So: Who's here?
Top Tenners: Day, Dustin, Hideki, Spieth, Scott Thomas (not Kristin), Sergio, Reed.
Among course specialists are: Phil (2 wins), Bubba (2 wins) whilst Adam Scott has a win and 2 runners up, Dustin has runnered up twice and I like his chances this week after playing well at Pebble.

9).Europeans include:
Casey and Donald, both past runners up - but no European win since Faldo 20 years ago (and, yes, you can be sure we'll hear all about it) - Sergio, Harrington, Rose, Molinari, Lowry, McDowell and Kjeldsen (Soren needs some good results, and quick. Otherwise he might as well head back to Europe).
And Thomas Pieters who won the 2012 NCAA individual championship beating Cantlay, Rodgers and Justin Thomas, among others.
Albert Hammond was hashtagging "alternative facts" when he sang It Never Rains In Southern California, and we could be in for a dousing on Friday, perhaps showers other days; which will help approach shots to #10 at least.

10).Tiger Woods first played here 25 years ago (Q: "What do you think of Tiger Woods?" Sandy Lyle: "Dunno, never played it."). And he was going to celebrate with a return this week at a place he's never won as a Pro.
But he's withdrawn from the tournament, and withdrawn also from his twice rescheduled news conference.
Is this the end? No-one knows, but the days are surely numbered when he turns up and confidently(??) says he's only here to win the tournament.
Personal view is that he'd enjoy life a darn sight more if he just got well (perhaps find another doctor, diagnosis(??), this on's not working) and resigned himself to just playing for recreational enjoyment, whether at home or on Tour. He can play almost when and wherever he likes, why does he have to be so damn competitive?
Have fun Tiger; would have thought Arnold Palmer, among others, might have reminded you that it's only a game.

Most weeks on the PGA tour you have at least a couple of the worlds top 10, very rarely do you get that on the euro tour, maybe desert swing, Scottish open and the final series. So you would have to accept that the PGA tour is usually better standard.

I do though think that there is not much between the also rans on both tours in terms of ability, just different people have had different experiences in getting to where they are.

I still think the statistical analysis is not used correctly in a comparison sense. Fine to give you the stats but you cant really compare the two if the stats are so different, and some are massively different, so much so that its a pointless comparison Luke Donald very rarely plays in the UK, so you are using a few events each year over 6 years or so, compared to pretty constant play in the states. Doesn't really tell you anything.

The thing is, GPB, PGA Tour players who are not members of other Tours are not under any compulsion to play a certain number of events just to get their quota in; I imagine that's what drove Kaymer to leave the PGA Tour, and obviously what kept Casey away from Europe.

To look at Kaymer, for instance, and not acknowledge that his 2 x Major wins plus Players is not more relevant than Greensboro or Dallas, is just plain daft; and if you look at Stenson's career you'll see plenty of tournaments he bagged, or w/d'd from, just to get his numbers in. PGA Tour-only players don't have to worry about that, can pick and choose much more selectively.

I would say there are plenty of guys teeing it up this week who are not giving the event the priority that they would a Major; others are just playing to warm up for Mexico, get an event in, or trying to improve their reshuffle ranking.

But as you and I agree that strength in depth on the PGA Tour is greater than the European Tour, I'm outahere. Much more concerned with discussing golf than graphpaper.

Doesn't anybody else think it's a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy?? The PGAT has more money so more guys gravitate to it, the purses are bigger so the owgr points are bigger and that's where the better players will gravitate to. You have to say the European tour is inferior financially but can anyone say with conviction that it produces less talent proportionately?? Just because guys are getting paid more money doesn't make them better (otherwise the RC would be a US whitewash every time - just like the 50s -70s) From that perspective the ET has a lot to be proud of what it has changed.

Btw what/when was that Norman announcement? That's all gone quiet

No doubt, JAS. Plus: Haven't heard anything on Norman either, but he usually times and targets the lobbing of his hand-grenades with precision.

Had not spotted that Tyrrell Hatton is in this week's field - and there's someone who's fared well in limited PGA Tour opportunities.

It all reminds me of the discussion about alternative facts..

Confirmation of the qualifiers established this weekend for next week's WGC-Mexico:

via R2D Top Ten: Fleetwood, Sergio, Brazel, Larrazabal, Lipsky, Zanotti

via owgr Top 50: Sergio (again, what a player), Rose, Fowler, Ben An, Koepka, Zach Johnson, Furyk, Piercy, Pieters, Rahm,

Top Mexican: Diaz

Plus: Paul Lawrie's win in Africa gets him into the Bridgestone later this year.

The Top Ten in FedEx points not otherwise qualified after this week's Honda will get a ticket, as will any new entrants to the owgr Top 50 as at next Monday's updated ranking.


Haven't had any of them since Saturday, pedro; only a matter of time though.

kwinigolfer wrote:More interesting than those two crucially important items is the R&A announcement that The Open in 2020 goes to St.Georges. That surely sends the 2021 Open to St.Andrews and leaves Turnberry on the outside looking in; appropriately enough on US Presidents Day.

A bit contrived ANALogy. Don't you think the old farts at R&A are on the same page (whichever it is) as The Donald?

Good to see Rory joining Ernie and Tiger in playing rounds with Trump.

GPB wrote:

kwinigolfer wrote:GPB,
Almost all posters commenting on the report agree that the PGA Tour has more depthness, as you call it.

Where I, at least, have an issue is in the relevance of the data that's compiled to prove the point.
I'm going to have a look at a couple of comparisons which I suspect will offer a different interpretation. Don't hold your breath, it may take a while.

Interesting that you never responded to my point/opinion that different players play tournaments for different reasons, but think we can all agree that they (90% at least) try their very best at Majors and Ryder (except Woods I suppose)/Presidents Cups.

Off to get my green eye shade and abacus . . . . . . .

Of course they play tournaments for different reasons.  I can't believe any elite player would go into a tournament like Honda and intentionally, not try their best.  At least make a habit of it.  And it probably occurs on each tour the same amount.  And IMO, that is just rationalization and excuse making.

I will say that I don't think the analysis went far enough and perhaps there will be a subsequent report.  Its basically a STAT 101 analysis which in most cases is accurate.

A STAT 201 analysis would included a ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) and I would contact the author to see if he is planning to do one.  The author is not listed nor is there any contact information

-GPB Six Sigma Black Belt

Hey guys, couldn't help but notice the debate regarding the article I wrote to my website (datagolf.ca) about PGA vs Euro Tour. Actually went out of my way to create an account just so I could chime in.

Firstly, I'm not sure where the confusion is coming from. It is quite a simple article, and it made a simple point. Of the players who have played a lot on both tours (not including co-sanctioned events), they all played better vs. the field on the Euro Tour.

This is the result...you can draw the conclusions you like. Either for some reason all of these players magically play better on the Euro tour, or they perform similarly on both tours but fields are stronger on the PGA Tour, thus making their relative scores worse in America. We believe it is the latter, but feel free to draw your own conclusions.

As for the statistical significance of this result, I have to admit I was lazy and didn't report the standard errors of these calculations. I simply wanted to display an interesting graph. I will get back with the significance.

Also, you can find our contact information on the About Us page on the site, or follow us on Twitter @DataGolf.

Cheers!

Hey data,
Thanks for chiming in.
For me, it was interesting reading and served to remind us of the strength of the PGA Tour.
I didn't look at all the players, about half a dozen, not many more than that.
Don't have any quibble with the basic finding, but feel there are possibly some reasons for it. All my opinions are a little subjective so won't bore you with them, but I would suggest that, for some players and especially the South Africans, they are often bigger fish in weaker pools than, say, at Wentworth. And I strongly believe that many (what we call) double-dippers, playing on more than one Tour mail it in for some PGA Tour events; while there is also a perverse incentive for some fringe players to play when not fully fit.

I am hoping to prove that guys like McIlroy, Rose, Kaymer, Stenson, Oosthuizen, Grace, Schwartzel, even Westwood etc play better in Majors than at, say, run-of-the-mill Tour events.

Regardless, you've certainly raised a talking point! Whether that is just US posters thinking it proves their common narrative, and Europeans taking umbrage, is difficult to tell!!

Thanks again, Keep in touch.

Kwini:

Do you honestly not think that these players mail it in only PGATournaments?

I know you don't like the results. Its hard to admit that Ricky Barnes and his Bretheren is better than Marcel Siem and his Bretheren.

And again, this analysis is not about indiividual players. The European Tour has several outstanding players that perform well against PGATour membership. It just that those players perform BETTER against EuroTour membership.

Rory performs 1.54 strokes better than the average PGATour pro. But he is 2.56 strokes better than the average EuroTour pro.

Had not spotted that Tyrrell Hatton is in this week's field - and there's someone who's fared well in limited PGA Tour opportunities.

A missed cut at Wyndham, and T17 at Hartford. I would expect something better than was trending towards a OWGR Top 30 ranking.

But Hatton has a 25th and 10th at PGA's, not to mention a 5th at Troon, which helps underline my point that they are more likely to come to play in the US at the biggest events.

And I'm a Ricky Barnes fan, followed him last year in fact, seems to enjoy himself whenever I watch him.

The analysis does not include the co-sanctioned tournaments as their entrants are not 90% PGATour members.

GPB wrote:The analysis does not include the co-sanctioned tournaments as their entrants are not 90% PGATour members.

^^ Yes Majors and WGCs are not included in the analysis, I can confirm this.

And I have to agree with GPB, what possible incentive do predominately Euro players have to mail it in at regular PGA Tour events? I can only think of incentives to try even harder! ($$$, OWGR points, US TV time (Beef!!) ...etc). If anything it would be American players who mail it in at Euro events just to pick up the appearance fee.

Anyways, this analysis was not looking to put down Euro players/Tour. We just came across it while working on something else and decided to write a quick post as we thought it was interesting.

-DG

Datagolf:

Not sure how you found the discussion about your article but I am glad you did.

But that's my point, I firmly believe that the better European players look at regular Tour events as relatively inconsequential compared to Majors. Hatton might not give a monkey's about Greensboro, but he sure as hell would about the PGA.

Anyway, difference of opinion there! Not disputing the merit of DG's research, just that you might be drawing an accurate verdict but using the wrong evidence.

I believe I'm correct in saying that Martin Kaymer has 16 PGA Tour Top Ten finishes, for instance; 14 of them are in WGC's, Majors or The Players. That may be an extreme example, but it is indicative of what I would expect to find with some others, tho' not to the same extent.

Excellent discussion on the data comparison between tour's. It somewhat supports what I thought might be the outcome of such a comparison.

But that said, while I do believe there is still an overall depth gap with the ET vs PGAT, my sense is that gap has been closing significantly over the last few decades.

Datagolf... Would it be possible to run similar studies from say 10 and 20 years ago to test that theory?

FWIW, the frequency of Top 10's in WGCs is lot greater than in full field PGATour events.

16 of the 64 participants in the Matchplay make the Top 10.

IMO, the bottom 78 players of the Greensboro tournament is better field than the bottom 78 players of the US Open and Open Championship field. and Much beter than 79-~100 players of the Masters. and the bottom 25 of the PGA Championship.

GPB..excellent point. We are creating a predictive model and are currently adjusting for field strength in each event and this is an interesting tidbit we found:

The first 2 days of the 2016 PGA Championship had an easier field than an average Tour event (0.2 shots easier), but the weekend was 0.6 shots harder than normal Tour event.

This is a good example of Majors not actually having great fields (whether it be club pros, amateur qualifiers, or past champs at Augusta).

Anyways, I will have more to offer in this conversation once we incorporate Euro Tour data into the model and we get field strength adjustment numbers like the ones shared above.

If you're interested, the toughest field of the year is, not surprisingly, the TOUR Championship, then Playoff events, then weekends at majors (not Thurs/Fri rounds though).

Kwini... I think you know I generally respect your opinions, but with all due respect... It appears to me you're grasping at straws to try to explain away a result you don't approve of as "but Euro players don't really try when they played in the U.S.".

There may be other legitimate factors to explain the results of the study, but I'm not buying for a second it's a general lack of desire and/or effort towards success when playing PGAT events. If that's the case, that IMO would make the Euro players as a group dumber than a box of rocks.... Because if a player possessing any quantity of active brain function were going to slack off in any set of events (which I don't think is the case either way), then he would surely do it in the less enriching ones on the ET, dontcha think?

Datagolf... With all due respect, IMO if your field strength studies are not finding the Players and PGA as among the top or outright best two fields in golf, then there's something way wrong with your methodology or conclusions you're drawing from your results.

To simplify...if you're suggesting the tour championship is the toughest field, then It sounds to me that maybe what is happening with your results are you are concluding a field of the top-30 players is stronger than a field of the top-60 players (the same top-30 + 30 more)  because the average  player strength is greater in the field of 30.

Yeah, I should have clarified. By "toughest" I mean where is it most impressive to beat the field by a shot, or two, or whatever. Not where is it toughest to win (I agree the easiest tournament to win is TOUR or TOC).

To be clear...it is more impressive to beat the field by 1 shot at the TOUR Championship than it is Thursday at the PGA Champ.

We are trying to adjust round scores by field strength, so we are really only talking about relative scores, not how easy it is to win/top5/make the cut.

datagolf wrote:If you're interested, the toughest field of the year is, not surprisingly, the TOUR Championship, then Playoff events, then weekends at majors (not Thurs/Fri rounds though).

If you think the "toughest field of the year" is the Tour Championship, then IMO, you have a very flawed measurement system. Lets assume for a minute that the TC gets OWGR #1-#30. A possible, but unlikely scenario I guess your assumption is the avg rank of the players is 15.5

Lets also assume the Masters gets players OWGR ranked #1-#30 (a probable scenario). But it also gets players ranked #31-#50, and #52 #53, #56 #58, ##61, #65 plus some random players ranked from #66 to #1800.

I don't know how anyone can say that a 30 player field with players ranked #1-#30 is better than a field with ~100 players with 50 out of 50 players ranked in the top 50 including the Top 30 out of 30.

You are basically the Masters field is losing "toughness" because the average ranking of the entrants is decreasing.

IMO, every players adds to the "toughness" (However trivally) to the field not detract from it, even if that player is #949 Bernhard Langer

GPB wrote:

datagolf wrote:If you're interested, the toughest field of the year is, not surprisingly, the TOUR Championship, then Playoff events, then weekends at majors (not Thurs/Fri rounds though).

If you think the "toughest field of the year" is the Tour Championship, then IMO, you have a very flawed measurement system.  Lets assume for a minute that the TC gets OWGR #1-#30.  A possible, but unlikely scenario  I guess your assumption is the avg rank of the players is 15.5

Lets also assume the Masters gets players OWGR ranked #1-#30 (a probable scenario).  But it also gets players ranked #31-#50, and #52 #53, #56 #58, ##61, #65 plus some random players ranked from #66 to #1800.

I don't know how anyone can say that a 30 player field with players ranked #1-#30 is better than a field with ~100 players with 50 out of 50 players ranked in the top 50 including the Top 30 out of 30.

You are basically the Masters field is losing "toughness" because the average ranking of the entrants is decreasing.

IMO, every players adds to the "toughness" (However trivally) to the field not detract from it, even if that player is #949 Bernhard Langer

Yeah, in hindsight, I should have been extremely careful and defined what I meant by toughness. In my case, toughness is in terms of relative score, not winning or anything.

All I am saying is that shooting the same score as field average is harder at Tour championship than it is at PGA Championship.

I would never claim that winning the Tour Championship is even as hard as winning the Deere or Sanderson, sorry for confusion.

datagolf wrote:To be clear...it is more impressive to beat the field by 1 shot at the TOUR Championship than it is Thursday at the PGA Champ..

You're still losing me. I would be much more impressed by beating all the guys in the Tour Championship PLUS 100 more good players in the PGA by 1 shot than I would be just beating the 30 in the tour championship.

By "the field," I mean the field average. So if the field averaged 71.0, and you shot 70, you beat the field by a shot that day.

My bad, will be clearer in the future.

robopz wrote:

datagolf wrote:To be clear...it is more impressive to beat the field by 1 shot at the TOUR Championship than it is Thursday at the PGA Champ..

You're still losing me.  I would be much more impressed by beating all the guys in the Tour Championship PLUS 100 more good players in the PGA by 1 shot than I would be just beating the 30 in the tour championship.

Agreeing with Robo

Beating 30 players is not as impressive as beating the same 30 players plus a 100 additional players.

datagolf wrote:

All I am saying is that shooting the same score as field average is harder at Tour championship than it is at PGA Championship.

OK... Field AVERAGE... Now I get where you are coming from and we're on the same page.

But yes... If we've learned anything tonight.... Then wording is EVERYTHING.  One little slip of the wrong word or phrase in discussing your analysis,can make all your hard work come across as nonsense. I've been watching your work for a while...And I appreciate your efforts. Keep it up.

OK, I get where you are coming from. but still not agreeing with the premise.

Is there something magical about the number 30 in your "toughness" meter"

What happens if the Top 5 average 72 and Player X shoots 69.

Is that more impressive than if the Top 30 average 71.5?

Is that more impressive than if the Top 50 averages 71.25?

I'm not saying there is anything magical about any number. The way it works is as follows:

We can all agree that the PLAYERS has a better field than the Sanderson Farms. So if you shoot the same as the field average in both of these events, we can all agree that you have played better at the PLAYERS, even though your relative score was the same. How much better you played exactly is more complicated and I won't get in to it here (check out Mark Broadie's paper on OWGR bias if you want to read up on it).

This is all I was trying to say, and we have made the calculations to properly quantify the difference in field strength at each event.

datagolf wrote:
This is all I was trying to say, and we have made the calculations to properly quantify the difference in field strength at each event.

I'd be interested in seeing that, have you published it yet or is it still in the works?

Thanks for your input datagolf, and I enjoyed reading the article that sparked this debate. Which I think really shows that double dippers are better vs the field on the European tour, make of that what you will.


As for depth in general I would agree with this point from GPB

"every players adds to the "toughness" (However trivally) to the field not detract from it, even if that player is #949 Bernhard Langer"

when a player is added to a field (assuming this is not at the expense of a superior player) they increase the probability of the field beating any particular player. On the PGAT the probability that the field shoots a better score than you is higher than on the European tour.

I had to look up Genesis motors as I had never heard of it, so I guess the sponsorship had some impact in raising awareness of the brand. But what awful looking cars. Clearly trying to copy bits of BMW, Audi and Jaguar, but when you stick them all together the end product looks a horrible mish mash.

Designed by primary school kids. Reminds me of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHGczDHTDpo

It's some crappy car from Hyundai that the Americans are keen on.

Almost all Korean cars look cheap with rather primitive designs. Imagine Dustin will now be endowed with a fleet of them, but gawd knows what you'd do with 'em. Can't imagine Paulina tooling around in a "Genesis".

I can imagine Paulina 'tooling' about with anything and often do.

robopz wrote:Kwini... I think you know I generally respect your opinions, but with all due respect... It appears to me you're grasping at straws to try to explain away a result you don't approve of  as "but Euro players don't really try when they played in the  U.S.".  

There may be other legitimate factors to explain the results of the study, but I'm not buying for a second it's a general lack of desire and/or effort towards success when playing PGAT events.  If that's the case, that IMO would make the Euro players as a group dumber than a box of rocks.... Because if a player possessing any quantity of active brain function were going to slack off in any set of events (which I don't think is the case either way), then he would surely do it in the less enriching ones on the ET, dontcha think?

robo,
I am merely saying that, in my opinion, European Tour pros look at bog-standard Tour events as less consequential than Majors, The Players and even WGC's. They don't prepare for the Byron Nelson in the same way as they might for the PGA and often use Tour stops as preparation for Majors, as of course Phil does.
I then offered Martin Kaymer's relative success (equal wins in Majors as regular Tour stops, seven times as many top tens in Majors/WGC's/Players) in big events as an extreme example - was actually astonished at that, probably unique.
It's not just Europeans, sure you could apply the same to the top South Africans also.
And it's not about money, there's not one of these galacticos that is short of a few bob, it's about winning important events and sustaining their brand (viz Tour membership); sometimes it doesn't work out so well, and I offered Stenson as an example of one who has come close in the past to blowing it.
Your "box of rocks" comment doesn't hold water either - these guys can sleepwalk through WGC's and other limited-field, no-cut tournaments and earn more for being tailed off last than they might earn with a Top Ten in lesser "Europe" events.
In short, there's little incentive for galacticos to grind out results in regular Tour stops if they're not in contention; the FedEx extravaganza is some incentive, but no longer the biggie (for those outside the final Top Ten anyway) that it might have seemed a few years ago.
If it seems like I'm suggesting some guys take advantage of PGA Tour rules and largesse, you're exactly right. Obviously not the journeymen, but certainly the top guys.

Don't know if golfdata is still following this thread, but just wondering if you have data on distribution of scores for PGAT and ET events?

aah 6 sigma....

yeah I could take a look at that, little harder for me to get Euro data. I assume you are looking to see if Euro tour scores are more spread out than PGA scores?

datagolf

I guess I was wondering if the spread of ET scores has a similar shape of distribution to the PGAT but shifted (to higher scores) or whether as you say the scores are more spread out, or whatever the case may be.

McLaren wrote:datagolf

I guess I was wondering if the spread of ET scores has a similar shape of distribution to the PGAT but shifted (to higher scores) or whether as you say the scores are more spread out, or whatever the case may be.

Mac... I'm entirely incapable of doing the depth of analysis Datagolf or GPB are.... but I was once curious as to the distribution of scoring averages on the PGA Tour and how they might have changed over the years as I assumed fields had gotten more competitive. I loaded in all the annual RAW scoring averages from 1980-2012 and did the following.

1) discarded the top 3 averages from each year (in a crude attempt to eliminate outliers)

2) averaged the 4th-8th average (call it AVERAGE A)

3) counted how many players from #9 and below were within 1 stroke of Average A to get what I considered "within a competitive range" of Average A.

The results on the PGA Tour was a strong trend of more players being within that 1 stroke as the years progressed. Every year wasn't up... but it went from 41, 42 & 43 players within that 1-shot range in 1980-82... and was up to 102, 101 and 101 players within that 1-shot range by 2012. That was enough to convince me that yes in fact fields had gotten more competitive and it was measurable.

I have NOT done a similar study on the Euro Tour... but just as a test I just now did the last 3 years for the ET... and here's what I found... 63, 64, 45 players were within that 1-shot average for the years 2014-2016.

What it indicates to me... while 3 years is not enough to draw a firm conclusion... but this crude comparison does seem to be enough to make a strong suggestion the "competitive depth" of the ET is not as high as it is on the PGA Tour... consistent with DataGolf's study.

Kwini... I could agree that players on either tour approach regular events "more casually" than majors. What I can't fathom is why they would approach just the ones on the PGAT more casually than the regular events on the ET.

Bloody hell, I love this site sometimes. Someone always seems to have a very good answer to a question asked.

Thanks robo. :D


What you have to wonder is if the bottom quartile on the ET are a lot worse than the bottom quartile on the PGAT.


robo

What factors do you think have contributed to there being more players on the PGAT able to post more competitive scores?

McLaren wrote:Bloody hell, I love this site sometimes.  Someone always seems to have a very good answer to a question asked.

Thanks robo.


What you have to wonder is if the bottom quartile on the ET are a lot worse than the bottom quartile on the PGAT.


robo

What factors do you think have contributed to there being more players on the PGAT able to post more competitive scores?

The bottom quartile of Euro events often includes a non trivial amount of Asian Tour and Sunshine tour rank/file players. Even last week, the field was filled on by a bunch of Australians who are very low ranked.

robo,
My response would be that the Europeans / South Africans play mainly those Europe events they're invested in, whereas they mostly build their 15 PGA Tournaments around the Majors/WGC's/Players/FedEx Play-Offs - some exceptions of course.

McLaren wrote:robo
What factors do you think have contributed to there being more players on the PGAT able to post more competitive scores?

Mac... to me it's simply a case of the nature of the development of the different talent pools that have historically fed the PGAT vs the ET.

Going back in history... IMO the single biggest factor in the US Tour "taking over" the world of professional golf is the organization of the PGA in 2016 and a "tour" for professionals in that same year.  That was right before WWI and even though the development of "our" fledgling tour was halted by WWI, the resources and the economy of the U.S. weren't devastated by the war near to the extent it was in the UK and Europe. So we recovered quickly and the forerunners of the PGAT tour grew quickly as well.  And so did the growth in development of courses in this county, thus a feeder system to the pro levels.  

Meanwhile just as Europe's golf was in pretty much full recovery from the 1st war, they were embroiled in another. Again, Europe and it's golf devastated far more than it was here. through the 1950's, Europe's resources were much more directed at rebuilding, but in the U.S. we were booming and had more resources for "leisure" including much more golf. So by 1960 our professional ranks were now making pretty decent money and were salted with a lot of players who could afford to tour full time. Through that competition, they just got better over here. (Oh... and the fact we had Arnie and you didn't sure helped us grow exponentially more in the 60's going forward).

So that was it... the die was cast... Bigger talent pool + better competition = development of better players. We had the courses and overwhelming numbers in the potential talent pool. It wasn't just our total population, but the number of our population that had access to golf.   Plus if there was a good international player (non UK or Euro) he was more likely than not to come HERE if he could get on Tour because of the far bigger purses.

Since then... it's just been a matter of "catch up".  Starting in the 60's and in full bloom since at least 1980, Europe and "the rest of the world" hasn't had any problems producing great players at the very top of the pro ranks... but it hasn't been until recently the "talent pool" for the ET has been growing closer to match ours that you see the filling in of the total depth of ET.  And one of the biggest factors now is BIG money.  The PGAT has had it... the ET not so much.  But if the ET can continue to make strides in catching up on the money front... it will be able to more and more attract better players out of what is now a world wide talent pool.

Bottom line: It's NOT the least bit of a slight of the ET to recognize it doesn't quite stack up to the PGA Tour in terms of total depth. We've had most all the advantages since WWI in growing ours.  You guys are still producing a butt-load of great players at the very top-tier... so what's it really matter?  But for those who think it does... then just wait a little longer... cuz the pendulum is definitely swinging in the ET's favor now...  We're still scraping off a lot of the cream of the world talent... but we can only accommodate so many players.  Meanwhile the ET has more "openings" to accommodate those high quality, but "just below top-tier" players from all over the world than we do... and that alone will serve to grow the ET's depth. It's just a matter of time...

sorry for the long winded reply...

Correction robo,
The war after 2016 will be WWIII, any day now!

Otherwise, not quite so sanguine the pendulum will swing very far; the top Japanese and most S.Korean golfers will gravitate to the PGA Tour (rather than the European Tour at least) as most of the best Aussies have been doing for 50 years.
But I DO agree that European Tour players below the very top level will mostly drift back to Europe and that may benefit ET depth. Slightly.

kwinigolfer wrote:Correction robo,
The war after 2016 will be WWIII, any day now!

Otherwise, not quite so sanguine the pendulum will swing very far; the top Japanese and most S.Korean golfers will gravitate to the PGA Tour (rather than the European Tour at least) as most of the best Aussies have been doing for 50 years.
But I DO agree that European Tour players below the very top level will mostly drift back to Europe and that may benefit ET depth. Slightly.

Actually Kwini I think there's more momentum to building depth on the ET than what you think.

Think of it in terms of replacing the lowest guys on the ET with better ones than are there now. PGAT can't accommodate all those guys you're talking about that are gonna be coming out of Asia, AUS, JPN etc. And for every on we do, we're gonna be displacing another decent player.  And where is that guy gonna go? If he's an international player, it will be the ET first and foremost. Not only that, but think of a guy like Peter Uihlein. Not that he specifically is any great thing, but there will be other Americans who can't get on here that are bound to be headed the ET's way.  I wouldn't be surprised to see a decade from now a solid half to a dozen Americans being counted among your mid range of players.

And that's not even counting the job Pelley is doing. Just keeping a few more of your prime Euros home, displaces the weakest at the bottom. Each one of those cases are incrementally small, but they add up over time.

IMO the biggest roadblock to Pelley having immediate success with his increased purses and all is the American college system. We got Rahm and we're gonna get Pieters because of it. Those guys got a taste of it here, they liked and assuming they're as good as we think they are, they'll play the vast majority of their golf here.

kwinigolfer wrote:Correction robo,
The war after 2016 will be WWIII, any day now.

Well I don't know about a war, but if everyone who said they were gonna leave this country last November kept their promise, then I'd expect the biggest growth in world golf to be on the Canadian tour.... :-)