Rolex world rankings are more realistic when it comes to Michelle Wie
When she moved up to second, most people other than Wie fanatics agreed that was absurd. They still aren’t perfect, but they’re better. Annika Sorenstam would still be first if the new rankings were released today, and Wie would be seventh. I’d say that’s about right.
Wie sometimes vanished altogether from the rankings, as she barely qualified for the minimum number of required tournaments, but she did so well when she did play, she deserved to be ranked – just not so high.
What’s a little weird is the rankings did away with the minimum requirement. They use a “divisor” that tries to reflect the average number of tournaments over a two-year period by a full-time professional.
Baseball figured this out a long time ago. How many ballplayers are hitting .400 in April? Are they hailed as saviors?
How would Wie be ranked if she were a full-time LPGA member? Impossible to say, because she isn’t facing the week-in, week-out grind others do. She can really get psyched up for the few tournaments she does play.
|« Long-awaited column on LPGA Commissioner Carolyn Bivens now available!||Myrtle Beach golf courses re-open with new greens »|
Tim: Absolutely agree with new ROLEX rating system...certainly better than the predecessor. I've read a few of the comments on Dot's blog, and I find it interesting that MW fans are now very negative about the rankings and the new formula. For some, it’s a dark anti-Wie conspiracy to knock their girl from the top...unfairly. For others, they now feel the ROLEX rankings are really nothing special and should not be taken seriously...even MW really doesn’t care about it. Well, old Albert E was right ...all things are relative, aren’t they. How can any even-handed person not look at the new rankings and say...yeah...that makes better sense. If the ranking were based on marketability, gallery draw, sensationalism...OK, MW has a lock on #1, but those are the least important variables when you rank based on competitive results. No doubt MW will be right up there in time, but for now, 7th place is probably about the right spot for MW. Finally, I like your observation that MW may not fair as well if she were faced with the same tour grind schedule as the ladies she competes against. Now for the past several weeks, she’s been out there on a more regular basis since the U’S Open qualifier. I notice she posted a 3-over in today’s first round of the WBO...I wonder if the grind is beginning to show??? Maybe too early, but I think she may well miss the cut this time around. EEEEKKKK! Sacrilege to the Wie faithful, I know...but something in my gut tells me that after this disappointing first round this young lady may just say...man. I’m tired....take me home to Hawaii.
While I am a fan of MW, her position at number 2 was pretty difficult to justify with nothing in the wins column.
First - sorry to disappoint you, but, actually NO ONE (other than maybe your children) listens to you - especially not the lpga or rolex! man! talk about an ego - wow!
next - wot 'bout the RWR on Morgan? Oop, sorry, I didn't "hear" you.
Still, seven is probably a bit high for MW at this point. maybe they could "tweak" the rankings, without making it too obvious that the whole point of the tweak is MW, to make MW's divisor 50 - to match most of the other players - that would put her into double digits and squash the frenzy of anti-RWR.
But, seriously, why no comment on Morgan?
However, something important should be noted. It is a ranking system that is used to measure performances of full time golfers, who play a minimum of 35 events in a 2 year period.
For anyone else, their ranking is skewed. For Wie having played in 16 events, they take her 16 events, and then they pretend that she missed the cut in a further 19 events that she did not even play in.
There is nothing wrong with the new ranking system. However there is something wrong with anyone who tries to claim that it makes Wie the 7th best golfer. What ranking she would have when she would play the 35 events is the only accurate ranking.
"next - wot 'bout the RWR on Morgan? Oop, sorry, I didn't "hear" you."
Again, I guess I'm a little slow...what did you mean here?
The new system is basically designed to guarantee that no part time golfer will be ranked number one--no matter how well she does.
How can Tim say it will be more realistic to pretend that in the next rankings Michelle played in 35 events during the ranking period--when she actually will have played in only 17?
I have a question for Tim.
Under the current system, if Michelle Wie wins her next 16 events over a two year period, she would be number one. Under the new system, I believe a player with 35 seconds and no wins over the same period could be ranked ahead of Wie. Are you saying it would be more realistic for Michelle Wie with nothing but wins to be ranked behind a player with no wins?
I'm saying it would be more realistic to talk about pigs flying then to talk about Michelle Wie with nothing but wins.
Rephrase the question.
Should a part time player who plays in 16 events and wins them all be ranked behind a full time player who plays in 35 events and finishes second in all of them? This would be possible in the new system but not the old.
1) How should the system have been designed in the first place?
2) Should the system be changed midyear to protect the number one ranking of a particular player?
If there were no divisor there would be pressure on players to play a lot of events if they want a high rating. In tennis, Pete Samprass may have burned himself out playing a lot of events each year to retain the number one ranking.
The divisor relieves this pressure--and for the men the minimum divisor was set at 40, or more precisely 20 in each of the one year periods. But the divisor system is flawed. As long as Tiger's rating is more than 12.5, a win in a Major between 1.75 and 2 years old actually brings down Tiger's average.
As long as weighted points are given, the divisors should also be weighted numbers.
This issue also exist for the women, but it is less extreme. For the women, the winner of a Major seems to start at 100 points(with points later declining)--but for the equally competitive Evian I believe the winner got 60.
Under the old system Michelle Wie would have had a higher proportion of Majors than Annika so that after the WB a divisor of 20 might have been a resonable way to take this factor into accuont. Wie also has a higher proportion of recent events at this time of year--although it is lower at other times.
I came up with an approximate formula to take this into account. Use the actual divisor for Wie--but then reduce her average by (10+2.5R) per cent where R is the number of events in the last 13 weeks. I am making some guesses about the decline in values after 13 weeks which may not be correct. I have assumed a loss of 1/3 value.
In any case with this her current rank would be reduced from 14.63 to 11.70. Annika's number one would not be in jeopardy this week--but Wie would still be number two by a comfortable margin.
Unfortunately the divisor is too crude to do its job properly.
Who will capture their maiden LPGA stroke-play victory 1st? (It's alpha, so don't bitch about Michelle's placement)
Next, here's a shocker: Coulthard is actually right about something: It is unfair to change the rules in the middle.
Probably to generate some hype for whomever and themselves, the suits created something at the beginning of the year and they should stick with it, to praise or ridicule.
The simple solution. In baseball, there's a reason that somebody who got a base hit in their first at-bat and then never batted again never wins the batting average championship. You need a certain number of at-bats to qualify. You need a certain number of innings pitched to qualify for the ERA crown.
Obviously, one should have a certain number of tournament starts to qualify for the rankings. They are meant to rank people with a common level of exposure to the LPGA.
Originally they used Michelle Wie and the number 15 as an excuse to entirely exclude almost every amateur by not even listing anyone with less than 15 events in the two year period.
But Michelle Wie did well enough that a lot of people wanted to use a PGA style divisor to make it virtually impossible for a player to place high in the rankings with very few events. The trade off is to actually list everyone so we can actually see what the ranking would be if they used the actual number as the divisor.
They explain the reason as having nothing to do with Michelle Wie--they found most of the top 200 had at least 35 events. But please tell me that they didn't have this info 6 months ago.
No Ranking system would be perfect. Even as a Michelle Wie fan, I'd say the currently one ranks Wie just a bit high. Top 5? Yes. Second? Not quite yet, Ochoa deserves second. But then again, like Jim said, it would be unfair for a player to finish high consistently and be ranked under one who's mediocre, but has more events. My solution is just to set the minimum events higher to 20-25. The way I see it, it's better off if Michelle is not included in the rankings. Not because she doesn't deserve to be in it. Her inclusion can cause a lot of controversy, no matter where she is ranked. I've gotten used the idea of her being high up, but others don't. It seems like the Rankings are trying too hard to balance having Wie in the standings and silencing critics (of the Rankings). But what's the Rankings worth, if you don't have Michelle Wie included?
Top 25 + 1 Rolex World Rankings (Updated August 7 2006):
1 Annika Sorenstam SWE 17.41
2 Lorena Ochoa MEX 9.87
3 Karrie Webb AUS 9.39
4 Paula Creamer USA 8.13
5 Cristie Kerr USA 8.04
6 Juli Inkster USA 7.75
7 Michelle Wie USA 6.83
8 Jeong Jang KOR 6.09
9 Yuri Fudoh JPN 5.98
10 Ai Miyazato JPN 5.79
11 Mi Hyun Kim KOR 5.75
12 Hee-Won Han KOR 5.65
13 Se-Ri Pak KOR 5.60
14 Pat Hurst USA 5.23
15 Shiho Ohyama JPN 5.09
16 Natalie Gulbis USA 4.61
17 Seon-Hwa Lee KOR 4.57
18 Sakura Yokomine JPN 4.11
19 Sophie Gustafson SWE 3.94
20 Sherri Steinhauer USA 3.90
21 Ji-Hee Lee KOR 3.86
22 Brittany Lincicome USA 3.74
23 Meena Lee KOR 3.49
24 Akiko Fukushima JPN 3.20
25 Julieta Granada PRY 3.19
26 Morgan Pressel USA 3.16
Comments are closed for this post.