No one works harder crunching golf’s numbers than Sal Johnson, the editor of GolfObserver.com. As if more proof than his web site were needed, he and Dave Seanor compiled the recently published The USA Today Golfers Encyclopedia. In it you will find the record of every pro who has played in 25 or more tournaments since 1958.
Bill Fields of Golf Digest innocently began his review of the book with some of the essentials before he decided to crunch some numbers. There was nothing objectionable about his conclusions until he offered a statistical comparison between Jack Nicklaus and Tiger Woods. According to Fields, Woods has finished in the top 10 in 64% of his starts to Nicklaus’ comparatively weak total of 49%.
Woods’ big advantage in such a key stat gives his backers more ammunition for the pro Tiger case. The problem is that this comparison unfairly pits Tiger’s prime against Nicklaus entire career, which lasted through the phase when he was a ceremonial golfer.
From age 47 on, Nicklaus played in 192 events, but finished in the top 10 only nine times, and yet these post prime numbers are included in Field’s calculations. If we omit these starts, Nicklaus’ top 10 average soars to 60.9%.
To make the stats fair and relevant, I eliminated their starts as amateurs in pro events and compared their first 12 years as pros. Using this metric, Nicklaus now leads Tiger in top 10s at 68.1% to 67.4%. Tiger no longer dominates this stat, and yet the Nicklaus case gets even better.
In his first dozen years, Nicklaus played in only nine small field events (the Tournament of Champions). He finished in the top 10 eight times in this event. In comparison, Tiger has played in 46 small field events (80 players or less) thanks to the new look tour, and has finished in the top 10 in 41 of these. If we subtract these small field events and compare their top 10 percentage just in full field events, Nicklaus leads with 67.3% to Tiger’s 61.5%!.
The lesson: statistics in the hands of some writers are a dangerous thing because they could lead readers into thinking that Woods is better than he really is – as if he needs any more help from the heavily pro Woods media.
RSS
1 response so far ↓
1 BD // Apr 1, 2009 at 6:08 am
What stands out, I think, is how similar their records really are. Even adjusting the stats to take out the small field events, we’re left with (rounded) 62% for Tiger and 67% for Jack. That’s not a big difference, and I trust both numbers are far ahead of anyone else’s over the same period.
One thing, however: Since Tiger seems to play, on average, several (two? three?) fewer tournaments per year than Jack did during his first 12 years on Tour, it would seem that a relatively higher proportion of his tournament rounds have been in majors and other highly competitive events.
Leave a Comment