OWGR - Week #20

Spasibo, Bulgaria!

Busy with other things, so I'll keep it very brief this week...Congrats to all the winners, etc...

- ByronNelson: winner Bae Sang-Moon, moves up to #64, Bradley to #11, etc.
- VolvoMP/Bulgaria: winner GMac, up to #7, Jaidee to #49
- Madeira: winner Peter Uihlein (US), up to ~#150
- Japan: winner Hyung-Sung Kim (Kor), up to #108, Matsuyama to #80
- Web.com: winner Mark Anderson (US), up to ~#340
- Zambia/Sunshine: winner Adison da Silva (Bra), up to ~#240
- OneAsia/Korea: winner Matthew Griffin (Aus) up to ~#340
- LatinoAmerica/Mexico: winner Jorge Fernandez-Valdes (Arg), up to ~#475

The OWGR table after week #20 should look as follows:

1 Tiger Woods
2 Rory McIlroy
3 Adam Scott
4 Justin Rose
5 Brandt Snedeker
6 Luke Donald
7 Graeme McDowell
8 Louis Oosthuizen
9 Phil Mickelson
10 Steve Stricker
-------------------------------
11 Keegan Bradley
12 Lee Westwood
13 Matt Kuchar
14 Sergio Garcia
15 Charl Schwartzel
16 Webb Simpson
17 Ian Poulter
18 Bubba Watson
19 Dustin Johnson
20 Jason Dufner
21 Hunter Mahan
22 Peter Hanson
23 Ernie Els
24 Nick Watney
25 Jason Day
26 Bo Van Pelt
27 Jim Furyk
28 Branden Grace
29 Zach Johnson
30 Rickie Fowler
31 Bill Haas
32 Martin Kaymer
33 Henrik Stenson
34 Thorbjorn Olesen
35 Gonzalo Fdez-Castano
36 Kevin Streelman
37 Scott Piercy
38 Jamie Donaldson
39 Robert Garrigus
40 Carl Pettersson
41 Francesco Molinari
42 Paul Lawrie
43 David Lynn
44 Nicolas Colsaerts
45 D.A. Points
46 Ryan Moore
47 Fredrik Jacobson
48 Michael Thompson
49 Thongchai Jaidee
50 Richard Sterne
-----------------------------
51 Billy Horschel
52 George Coetzee
53 Tim Clark
53 Martin Laird
55 Russell Henley
56 Marcel Siem
57 Matteo Manassero
58 Marc Leishman
59 John Senden
60 Chris Wood
-------------------------
61 Angel Cabrera
62 Hiroyuki Fujita
63 Jimmy Walker
64 Bae Sang-moon
65 Marcus Fraser
66 Padraig Harrington
67 Charles Howell-III
68 Luke Guthrie
69 Alexander Noren
70 Geoff Ogilvy
71 Brendon de Jonge
72 Stephen Gallacher
73 Bernd Wiesberger
74 Brett Rumford
75 Charlie Beljan
76 Greg Chalmers
77 Chris Kirk
78 Jaco Van Zyl
79 Shane Lowry
80 Hideki Matsuyama
81 Kiradech Aphibarnrat
82 Scott Jamieson
83 Darren Fichardt
84 Kyle Stanley
85 John Merrick
86 Thomas Bjorn
87 Rafael Cabrera Bello
88 Anders Hansen
89 Ryan Palmer
90 Thomas Aiken
91 David Toms
92 K.J. Choi
93 Richie Ramsay
94 David Lingmerth
95 John Huh
96 Ben Crane
97 Miguel A Jimenez
98 Thaworn Wiratchant
99 Mark Wilson
100 Danny Willett
----------------------------
101 Brendan Jones
102 Graham Delaet
103 Gaganjeet Bhullar
...

Another disappointing week for "GPB", but changes are a-coming!

The top 30-ish are slowly coming back to the pack, but the 40-, 50-, 60-somethings need to step up.

Colonial and, especially Wentworth will shake things up a bit, whether the upper echelons as well as the lower ranks, only time will tell.

Thanks pd, a highlight of the week.

Thanks, kwini.

Early projection for this week:

- Wentworth @ 64 points
- Colonial @ ~48 points (down from 50 points last year)

- Top 3 will remain the same (Rose can't reach Scott with a win)
- Luke,GMac can move as high as #4 with a win;
- Lee as high as #6 with win
- Garcia,Poulter as high as #7 with win.

Oosthuizen, Driscoll and Harman give Colonial the elbow . . . . . .
King Louis' abdication might reduce owgr's available?

Yep, make that 46 ponts then...

Maybe the decision to give Wentworth a miss early on wasn't too good after all. Or is this more related to his family situation at the moment than with a real injury...?

Seems his neck is giving him grief - haven't heard any suggestion something else is holding him back, until the Young Prince(ss) arrives anyway.

Points is replaced by Trahan - imagine D.A. has had a butcher's at the owgr and realised that a no-show this week pretty much assures him of Muirfield qualification, especially as he's never made a cut at Colonial.

kwinigolfer wrote:Points is replaced by Trahan ...

...in other words (or letters), A is replaced by J...
Actually in this case, play or no play, it won't have any effect on his average, still projected at #45 before this week results are counted...

Talking of which, here's the projected critical top 60 +/- 15 for this week after the weekly amortisation is applied:

45 D.A. Points
46 Ryan Moore
47 Michael Thompson
48 Thongchai Jaidee
49 Richard Sterne
50 Fredrik Jacobson
------------------------------
51 Billy Horschel
52 Tim Clark
53 Martin Laird
54 George Coetzee
55 Russell Henley
56 Matteo Manassero
57 Marcel Siem
58 Mark Leishman
59 Angel Cabrera
60 John Senden
-------------------------
61 Jimmy Walker
62 Hiroyuki Fujita
63 Chris Wood
64 Bae Sang-Moon
65 Luke Guthrie
66 Marcus Fraser
67 Charles Howell III
68 Padraig Harrington
69 Geoff Ogilvy
70 Alexander Noren
71 Brendan de Jonge
72 Stephen Gallacher
73 Bernd Wiesberger
74 Brett Rumford
75 Chris Kirk
...

What is the actual OWGR points for Wentworth if the 64 minimum were not in place?

Without the 64 minimum it looks like the BMW PGA would be a 54 level event. So it's getting a 10 point premium or about 18.5%.

The BMW could have been a 60 this year if not for the absence of Oosthuizen, Hanson, Schwartzel, Stenson & Harrington. The BMW rated out at 60 in 2011, and 58 last year.

For contrast, the 2013 PLAYERS Championship had a minimum of 80. It would have rated a 78 on it's own. So it got a 2 point premium or about 2.6%. The PLAYERS would have rated 76 in 2011-12

robo, why do you like to twist the knife inside our wound...? Just kidding

It's true, as I was saying on the other thread in reply to Rory's optimistic views yesterday, it's the weakest Wentworth field I can remember in a while...

But hey, you can look at it from another angle as well... where are the top US players to boost it's owgr? How many owgr points/strength the top Europeans are bringing to the table on the PGA Tour. It's all about the MONEY as we all know at the end of the day, and you have more than us, that's for sure...
Or let me put it in a diferent way, if you take the internationals out of the Players field this year, that would've been worth then...56!
And then if the winner's prize there would've been 'only' ~$900,000, probably would've been worth...26!

Anyway, final count for this week:

- BMWPGA @ 64 points
- Colonial @ 46 points

Not sure I still see any justification for subsidised owgr points, perhaps above a minimum which should probably be reviewed. Except for the Four Majors.

Time for Tours to rise and fall on their own two feet I would say.

But there's an interesting point: The European Tour can't expect most of the Ryder Cuppers (except Molinari and Lawrie) to play most of their events - which leaves little likelihood of owgr points values much above 32-ish for the bulk of the calendar. Not good.

For as long as v2 and the old 606 have existed I dont think the BMW PGA has reached the 64 minimum.

Do other tours like the asian and japanese get the chance to boost one of their events?

kwinigolfer wrote:Not sure I still see any justification for subsidised owgr points, perhaps above a minimum which should probably be reviewed. Except for the Four Majors.

Time for Tours to rise and fall on their own two feet I would say.

But there's an interesting point: The European Tour can't expect most of the Ryder Cuppers (except Molinari and Lawrie) to play most of their events - which leaves little likelihood of owgr points values much above 32-ish for the bulk of the calendar. Not good.

I "think" I'm to the point I agree with you on subsidized points, and am positively in favor of a review on minimum points. But my problem is we might be looking at fixes for an existing system that I think is becoming more and more broken with each passing year.

IMO the MAJOR issue is the event field strength ranking system. Allowing values for only 200 players is simply NOT sufficient considering all the Tours being ranked these days. But keeping it at 200 requires "artificial" propping up of events and tours through minimum point floors, and home values.

Consider the following... Make TWO major changes to the OWGR.

1. Give field strength credit deeper into the field - This can be accomplished by either "summing the existing OWGR average" of all players in a given field to arrive at a field strength. Or perhaps kept something similar to the existing ERV's for the top 100 ranked players... but instead of dropping to 1 ERV point for #101... step it down to 1.75 for #101-200, 1.50 for #201-300, continue at .25 point reduction per 100 players. (that gives at least some value down to #800)

2. Significantly adjust small field events. - Make a 60 player field the smallest field to get full allocation of its ERV value. Step down by percentage on a scale... maybe something like this: 50-59 player field gets only 90% of value... 42-49 = 80%, 34-41 = 70%, 26-33 = 60%, 20-24 = 50%. Any field below 20 players is not eligible for OWGR points. And this is ALL events... not just "unofficial" World Challenges and Nedbanks... Include the Hyundai, Volvo Match Play, Tour championship... etc.

IMO some combination of the two have the following positive effects.

A. Eliminate the need for Home points.

B. "Fixes" the overvalued small event issue. (But note... If you do #1 above, then #2 might not be as relevant or perhaps the percentage decrease wouldn't need to be quite as "draconian". REASON: The "gap" between those small fields vs full fields would be lessened if not eliminated as "decent quality" but FULL fields would benefit.)

C. We would still probably need a "floor" minimum value and a tour by tour basis, but I'm thinking it could be a much lower floor for many of the tours than today.

McLaren wrote:For as long as v2 and the old 606 have existed I dont think the BMW PGA has reached the 64 minimum.

Do other tours like the asian and japanese get the chance to boost one of their events?

Yes... at least most of them do. They are called "Flagship" events and are as follows...

Challenge - 16 (compared to 12 as the usual minimum)
Asia - Web.com 20 (compared to 14)
Australasia - Japan - SAF = 32 (compared to 16)

princedracula wrote:robo, why do you like to twist the knife inside our wound...? Just kidding

But hey, you can look at it from another angle as well... where are the top US players to boost it's owgr? How many owgr points/strength the top Europeans are bringing to the table on the PGA Tour. It's all about the MONEY as we all know at the end of the day, and you have more than us, that's for sure...
Or let me put it in a diferent way, if you take the internationals out of the Players field this year, that would've been worth then...56!
And then if the winner's prize there would've been 'only' ~$900,000, probably would've been worth...26!

Not trying to twist knife PD... just the reality. And as for the "what if" game on the PLAYERS... well... If if's and butt's were candy and nuts.... you get the idea....

Bottom line on BMW PGA.... Maybe the Euro Tour needs to fight fire with fire. Yeah, this chances of the BMW becoming a truly international event including full time PGAT guys got screwed when the PGAT move the PLAYERS into May. That basically killed the chance of significant participation of the full time PGAT guys. Fix? Why not move the Scottish and the OPEN one week earlier, then move the BMW PGA the week AFTER the Open Championship? That gives the PGAT guys a chance at a 2-3 week stretch to make their Euro trip more "effective" in their schedules. I'd bet the BMW the week after the OPEN would get at least half, if not up to 80% or so of the top ranked PGAT guys. I could see it getting in to mid to high WGC territory in terms of OWGR field strength. Or even better... get the event WGC status, thus potentially "fully official" on the PGA Tour... then EVERYBODY plays.

kwinigolfer wrote:Not sure I still see any justification for subsidised owgr points, perhaps above a minimum which should probably be reviewed. Except for the Four Majors.

Easier said than done, of course... But if we really want to be fairer, then why exclude the majors...? (some more than others, of course)

I think we all agree that some subsidies (as well as other things) are worth reviewing... but personally, I really think we should be careful not to allow the OWGR, as imperfect as it is, to simply follow the same directions/trends that are set by big money culture that rules the game today. Then we may as well throw the owgr away and go back to the old ways when you just count the cash earnings... In any natural system you need some kind of feed-back mechanism to ponder it, otherwise it'll run out of control sooner or later... a bit like the housing bubbles and that sort of thing...

robo - that's an interesting juxtaposition: you'd like this and that changed in the OWGR to be 'fairer', but then when it comes to trying to counterbalance the big-money influence, it's... "ifs and buts were candy and nuts"... I seeeeee....

Mac - at the moment OWGR subsidies are given on many of the tours for their flagship events (Wentworth is one of them, of course...). Much more disproportionate subsidies in fact on the JP, Sunshine and Australian tours, where they get 32 points for fields that normally hardly go over 20-22 points...

princedracula wrote:
robo - that's an interesting juxtaposition: you'd like this and that changed in the OWGR to be 'fairer', but then when it comes to trying to counterbalance the big-money influence, it's... "ifs and buts were candy and nuts"... I seeeeee....

I'm generally positive about capitalism... so I don't necessarily believe "big-money-influence" needs to be countered... instead it needs to be competed against. IMO the Euro Tour is down right now because of a down economy in Europe.... pretty much as simple as that. But economies are cyclical. Not to get into politics too deeply, but going the economic road we're traveling here in the U.S., we're destined for many of the same issues Europe has experienced. So in that regard, the big money influnce may not be here for much longer.

But regardless of how that works, the ET has assets that IMO it can better maximize.. Right now the Open Championship is far and away the biggest asset the ET has... USE IT. Like I said in the prior post... the BMW PGA is just NOT going to attract full time PGAT players with it's current spot on the calendar. MOVE it in conjunction with the Open and they'll play.

Then the new ET playoff system along with the PGAT upcoming split calendar gives the ET some great opportunities. I believe having 4 events in your playoffs (and one of those going to be official on the PGAT)... you have a better chance of attracting a few PGAT players to dual tour on the ET. But IMO the ET needs to make it as EASY as it can to attract them at the start by making that minimum event threshold EASY to get, but NOT by lowering the minimum. IMO moving the BMW would be a step in that direction.

WGC - It's a crime that there isn't a WGC in Europe. MAKE one work. Now it's a complete waste of time to just designate some event a WGC and stick it up against a juggernaut PGA Tour schedule... so if the ET doesn't want to make a move to July with the BMW... then work to get the Scottish Open or something designated as a WGC and play it the week before or after the Open. PGAT players WILL play it if it's convenient to their travel

Food for thought robo,
Though of course I'm much more positive about the US economy than you are . . . . .

Still don't understand why the European economy seems to sustain a very robust Tennis schedule but seemingly has undermined the Golf calendar. There must be other factors as well but no idea (could speculate of course) why this is.

I certainly think the ET calendar needs re-jigging, and I would also level out the prize-funds a little. (They currently reward the capitalists, but not the rank-and-file! John Huggan's analysis on that recently - in GolfWorld? - illuminating/shocking.)

Sponsorship is unnecessarily dissipated at the moment so some consolidation to support a crackerjack WGC would be a welcome boon. But Europe has got to LEAD; O'Grady has proved that following just undermines the brand he's paid to represent.

kwinigolfer wrote:Food for thought robo,
Though of course I'm much more positive about the US economy than you are . . . . .

Still don't understand why the European economy seems to sustain a very robust Tennis schedule but seemingly has undermined the Golf calendar. There must be other factors as well but no idea (could speculate of course) why this is.

I wouldn't have much insight into the job O'Grady is or isn't doing... so I'll let that one go [mostly]. And as for our economy... I'm hopeful, but not terribly optimistic. Sooner or later, one way or the other, deficits and debt if left unaddressed comes home to roost. No partisan finger pointing intended by that statement... it's just a matter of economics.

But I have another question. I generally don't get a chance to watch much Euro coverage. Even when working, it's on in the background, but I rarely get a chance to look up and watch. But as I've been working much less this year... I've been watching more this year. One thing of note.. WHERE are the crowds? I see them this week, and remember them at the Irish and Scottish Opens... and certainly the OPEN. But otherwise, it seems when you get out of GB&I.... fans just don't show up much... or the TV camera's seem to "miss" them. I mention this because you bring up tennis. I can't remember the last time I saw a Euro based tennis event where the stands, stadium court, or whatever... isn't jammed packed. Which I guess begs the question.... is the fan interest in golf in "the rest of Europe" really there? If it's not, then sponsorship is an issue and I don't know what can be done about it. Again... I'm not saying fan interest is an issue... I'm Asking... cuz I really don't know.

And not to beat a dead horse.... but love him or hate him Finchem is doing an incredible job for his constituency. And he, along with the PGAT is incredibly flexible and inventive in what they're willing to try. Examples...

1. Moving the PLAYERS to May

2. FedEx Cup and playoffs... a tremendously FRESH idea many said it wouldn't work... but it's working (and being copied).

3. But FECup created a problem with some Fall events being left in the cold... The PGAT responds with a wrap around schedule to rebuild them while beginning an Asian presence as well.

4. It also created a problem with WGC scheduling... so two WGC's are coupled in Feb-Mar which also fills most of the hole left by the PLAYERS move.

5. NW/Web.com Tour begins to get a bit stale and having sponsorship issues... so a total revamp of Q-school and the path to the tour to strengthen the jr. circuit.

6. The PGAT in effect takes control of golf in all of the America's by taking over the Canadian and TLA Tours. Thus guaranteeing, at minimum a 2 continent feeder system into the PGAT for maybe... well maybe forever.

Now THAT's what I'm talking about... BIG moves... RADICAL moves if necessary. Not all of them have worked out in every respect, but they PGAT's responded to the failed aspects of those big moves not just with band-aids, but a willingness to totally revamp things. (like #3 and #5 above)

IN that respect I do agree that O'Grady and the ET has been following and not leading. First with a R2D final... and now a playoff. But now they should do something different. Don't just reactively scramble to replace some lost events... THINK OUT OF THE BOX and make some BIG moves if you have to. MAKE the world pay attention to the BMW PGA by putting it in a spot where the worlds best WON'T miss it would seem to be a logical step. And forget talking about WGC's in South Africa or Australia... or wherever. EUROPE 1st... but don't make the mistake of the past Euro based WGC's... They MUST be scheduled in a way that will attract the Americans. "If you build it they will come" is a joke... but "Build it in a way they can't resist" works every time.

Another thing is appearance fees... I'm NOT a fan of them... but since the ET has them, at least figure out a way to use them more effectively. It doesn't have to be all about Tiger and Rory... Why not take ONE events worth of Tiger level appearance money and do a THREE event appearance Fee deal with two or three different PGAT guys like Keegan or a DJ (or other high profile Americans). Maybe contract them to play 1 in the Middle East, The BMW and the Scottish. Now after their WGC's and Majors, you have a couple of high profile Americans that are only 2 or 3 playoff events away from being fully official dual members... and the ET can benefit from them for years to come. And it might "demonstrate the path" for other Americans to follow. Now THAT would be money better spent than one week of Tiger mania.

"...How many owgr points/strength the top Europeans are bringing to the table on the PGA Tour. ..."

PD, you got to dig a couple of layers deeper than the Europeans in PGAT fields.

The Euros who play the Euro tour all get benefit from the many subsidized tournaments that is played on the Euro Tour which help the events that do not need subsidies.

Robo:

You and I have debated the Sum(OWGR avgs) many times. I am a big proponent of every player adds something to value to the strength of field. As it stands right now, GPB adds as much value to the SoF as Patrick Cantlay. And I can assure you that Cantlay is much much better golfer than a crippled GPB.

But I can foresee problem with the Sum(OWGRavg) formula. If there is a dominant player, his average can skew a tournaments rating just by showing up.

Right now as it stand

I think a better formula would be based close to something like this:

SOF =Sum(Reciprocals of rankings) * C + (#Players)*K

C and K are constants to be determined.

GPB wrote:"...How many owgr points/strength the top Europeans are bringing to the table on the PGA Tour. ..."

PD, you got to dig a couple of layers deeper than the Europeans in PGAT fields.

The Euros who play the Euro tour all get benefit from the many subsidized tournaments that is played on the Euro Tour which help the events that do not need subsidies.

Robo:

You and I have debated the Sum(OWGR avgs) many times. I am a big proponent of every player adds something to value to the strength of field. As it stands right now, GPB adds as much value to the SoF as Patrick Cantlay. And I can assure you that Cantlay is much much better golfer than a crippled GPB.

But I can foresee problem with the Sum(OWGRavg) formula. If there is a dominant player, his average can skew a tournaments rating just by showing up.

Right now as it stand

I think a better formula would be based close to something like this:

SOF =Sum(Reciprocals of rankings) * C + (#Players)*K

C and K are constants to be determined.

As I think we've both agreed... Sum of Averages (SoA) has it's issues as well, but ANYTHING has got to be better than just using the top-200 only. By using top-200 only, World Values are rendered basically meaningless on many of the smaller tour's events. And while I see what your are saying about a dominant player greatly skewing the rating of tournaments using SoA... but maybe a that's the way it SHOULD work? I dunno think about it... if #1 has a 30 OWGR avg... and #2 has a 15 avg. and #3 has a 10 avg..... maybe #1 should add twice as much field value as #2 and 3 times that of #3.

And actually I "think" I like your suggestion of SOF =Sum(Reciprocals of rankings) * C + (#Players)*K. I'd have to think on it some more, but IMO the approach has merit. Give me an example of the constants you think might work... and maybe a 10 player field for example purposes

But then again... look at the alternative to SOA I mentioned earlier. That get's value to at least #800 in a field (and could be extended to include all players).. and addresses some of the small field issues. It would also eliminate your concern on a dominant #1 overly skewing field strengths.

But regardless of how it's done... I think we're in complete agreement depth of fields should be better accounted for then they are in the current system. We also seem to agree there are "issues" on smaller fields being over valued, even though we might have differences on what's there worst of those issues and how they should be corrected. Could be that a revamped World ERV formula that gives PROPER credit for all (or at least most) of the players in a field takes care of the small field problems and Home Value problems with one broad sweep of the brush. That was one of the main things that initially attracted me to the SoA as possible direction to begin with.

robo,
Great stuff and good questions.
Won't try and consider all of them, especially those I agree with.

One of the most relevant is the issue of holding tournaments where there's a spectating base, like Wentworth. Even Celtic Manor fails to attract anything approaching the crowds at most PGA Tour events.
The Tour has even found a way to exclude Valderama from its schedule this year.
So there needs to be some sort of reinvention, providing an opportunity for young players to come into the game, and have them play on top class courses that are not a million miles away from the spectating base. Bulgaria for example.
Some great courses in Europe and time to use them.

Continental Europe can't sustain top class golf for more than six months of the year, though I still favour locations like the emirates for tournaments. So make those six months be the best they can, financially subsidise events in appropriate locations if that's possible - to lose more than a month's worth of tournaments in Spain is ludicrous.

Yada yada yada.

Finchem has done a fantastic job of using his war chest and infrastructure to create a virtual monopoly and good for him. Europe can't compete with that, but that can create something pretty good that (apologies Charles Osgood) IS "good enough", at least unique.

It's time to set a path for where "Europe " should be in five years, and how it's going to get there.

PS: One of the pluses for tennis of course, is that few of the tournaments are held at remote resorts, they're usually staged in centres of population, Hamburg and Rome, Madrid and Barcelona. Once again, a lesson for golf there.

kwinigolfer wrote:Finchem has done a fantastic job of using his war chest and infrastructure to create a virtual monopoly and good for him. Europe can't compete with that, but that can create something pretty good that (apologies Charles Osgood) IS "good enough", at least unique.

It's time to set a path for where "Europe " should be in five years, and how it's going to get there.

Your last line nails it. I don't know the answer... and maybe it'll take 10 years... but it seems to me the end result "should be" a strong schedule in Europe from after the Masters through maybe September. What's missing now is that solid core of 20-24 weeks of consistent good money events in Europe. Obviously there's would be a few trips to America in that period for Europe's top players, and maybe a few "shoulder weeks" around majors and WGC's that aren't as strong as the others... but still somehow, some way ET has to get their top players playing in solid events IN Europe at least as often as they play here... Pre Masters and post September... fine... work in everything else, everywhere else... no problem with that.

So Matteo jumps from #57 to ~#28.

pedro wrote:So Matteo jumps from #57 to ~#28.

Correct... Matteo will be #28... barely holding off Zach Johnson (If Kuchar doesn't make his putt on 72nd hole at Colonial to finish solo 2nd, Zach Johnson would have moved to #26 and Matteo would be #29)