Comments on: Nicklaus a Most Interested Spectator

By: BD

BD — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 21:45:43 +0000

Phil: I don’t follow. How do we know Trevino would have finished ahead of Tiger in this hypothetical scenario?

Anyway, your response seems to miss the point I was addressing, which focuses on the identity of the player to whom the player in question (Jack or Tiger) finishes second. If Jack and Tiger each had the same number of 2d place finishes, does it tell us anything useful about their skills relative to each other that one of them finished second to just 2-3 different guys while the other one finished second to 10 different guys? There seems to be a suggestion afoot that finishing runner-up to just 2-3 different guys is somehow better than finishing second to a larger sample of champions, but why that is completely escapes me. My gut tells me that, whereas Tiger and Jack did not contend in majors against any common opponents (who were also in contention), there are no useful conclusions to be drawn regarding Tiger’s and Jack’s relative merits based on who they finished second TO.

By: Phil

Phil — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 18:18:56 +0000

Interesting argument. But the idea is that Trevino was there, causing a second that wouldn’t have happened otherwise. Another way to look at it - a player (Woods) with 14 wins would have 4 fewer if a Trevino was in the field.

By: BD

BD — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 17:10:32 +0000

I’ve gone over this ground many times in my head, and I’m still on the fence about it. Ultimately, I just can’t get my mind around the idea that if Player A has a dozen 2d place finishes behind a dozen different guys, he is for that reason not as good a player as Player B, who has a dozen 2d place finishes, but all behind the SAME guy. That’s the claim, isn’t it? We’re saying that four second-place finishes behind Trevino, a multiple-major winner, are better than four second-place finishes behind four different, SINGLE-major winners, and it’s irrelevant to this analysis whether the four no-name guys were better than Trevino on the particular week in question??

By: Phil

Phil — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 20:49:13 +0000

Mike

In the Nicklaus Era, less was more. Who cares about players 5-70 on Sunday. The guys he had to beat in the top four didn’t choke. Tiger’s main competition might fold (Mickelson, Els) if they could only get themselves into position to be in the final group with Woods. In the Tiger Era, I think the percentages is 85-90%, maybe more!

By: MikeZ

MikeZ — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 16:34:46 +0000

I always thought the second-place statistic was a double-edged sword. That is, you could argue that it gives Jack an edge because he was in contention more often. Or you could argue that it’s advantage Tiger because when he is in contention, he (almost) always wins — that is, that he’s a better closer than Jack was.

On the whole, however, I think it’s advantage Jack — mostly because of the guys he finished second to. Nicklaus was beaten 1-2 by Trevino four times and I believe by Watson, as well. (And isn’t Player responsible for a few of his seconds as well?) While it’s true that the depth of the field is greater now, I don’t think the other top players are as strong in the Tiger era as they were in Jack’s. Who are the players who have won when Tiger was in second? It’s kind of a mish-mash of guys, right? (Phil, can you shed some light here? I’m at work and can’t/shouldn’t look it up right now!)

Nicklaus has said that it’s “easier” (for him) to win a major because half the field is defeated before they even tee it up — they don’t have the nerve to win. In the Tiger era, is it three-quarters?

By: rexfordbuzzsaw

rexfordbuzzsaw — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 22:03:11 +0000

Re 2nd place finishes:

Tiger plays against a much deeper field where more players have a chance to win because of factors like technology, more access to the game and increased fitness.

By: Edson

Edson — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 20:59:36 +0000

Help me understand this fascination with Nicklaus’ second place finishes. Yes he had many and Tiger has “some”. But if you take the second place finishes of each and divide by the total majors played by each, the percentage is pretty close. I’d day Tiger is on pace to match that as well, if he plays as many majors.