Response to Comments on "The Top 50"
I'll start by thanking everybody who commented. It pleases me to no end that others take this endeavor as seriously as I do. All points made were good ones and deserve to be acknowledged. So I'll give them my best shot but first I have to ask YOU a question. Nobody had any problems with Mickey Wright being #7? I spent several days agonizing over whether I could defend not placing her #1, much less leaving her out of the top three. Oh well. Note: When I mention a player's POY awards or Top 5 and Top 10 finishes below, I'm referencing how many times they finished in that position in my yearly retro-rankings.
I said in my preface to the list that I'm measuring the player's career. More specifically, I'm measuring the breadth of her career as well as the height. No, my system doesn't favor longevity above all else but it does favor success over a long span to a larger degree than slightly better success over a shorter span. Had they both played the same number of seasons, Annika Sorenstam would probably have edged out Kathy Whitworth for #1. They both were POY (in my rankings) eight times and Annika did this against tougher competition. But Kathy edged her 14-13 in seasonal Top 5 finishes and dominated 21-13 in Top 10s, and her cumulative point total is so far ahead (despite the lesser points awarded for those honors in the seasons she played) that I have no qualms about naming hers as the best career in LPGA history.
Ayako Okamoto is a member of the WORLD Golf Hall of Fame, not of the LPGA Hall of Fame. Lorena Ochoa hasn't completed her ten-season requirement but I felt like I would be snubbing her unnecessarily if I didn't designate her as a HOFer.
Tatkins gets the Kerr/Kim battle exactly right. Peanut has finished in my Top 10 seven times while Cristie has only done it five times, the last five in a row. Over those last five seasons however, Kerr has closed the gap considerably. If the results of 2008 repeat themselves in 2009, she will pass Kim easily. BTW TC, Kerr's hot streak over the last five seasons is why she leads Kim in career money, after you factor in the larger purses.
As for the additional players requested - Sherri Steinhauer is #52, Pat Hurst is #58, Susie Berning Maxwell is #62, Christa Johnson is #63 and Rachel Hetherington is #70. Keep in mind while you are making comparisons that while there might be noticeable gaps between players near the top of the list (like between Suggs-Alcott), down at this level the point-differentials are very slim. Any tweaks to the method (and I expect to make some) could rearrange these ladies significantly.
Shirley Englehorn rates higher than Creed and Berning primarily because she was my Player of the Year in 1970. She also was a Top 10 player seven more times during the ‘60s. Creed made the Top 10 six times during that same era with a third-place finish in 1965 as her best season. Berning's career topped out with fifth-place finishes in 1969 and 1973 but she only made the Top 10 two other years.
Since I brought up Mickey Wright, I'll explain her ranking now. Only Whitworth and Sorenstam collected more POYs than Wright's six. Mickey's 11 Top 5 finishes were only exceeded by four players (the top two plus Sandra Haynie's 14 and Louise Suggs' 12). Given those facts, how do six players rate better than her? Wright's ranking is hurt by two factors - her career is shorter than anyone's above her besides arguably Sorenstam, and four of her six POYs came before 1963. It is entirely possible that I've excessively devalued those early seasons but I'll be honest with you - I originally wanted to penalize those years by 30% instead of the 20% I wound up choosing. If I restructure this method to use the yearly point totals instead of assigning a set point structure for first place on down, Mickey might improve a little bit. But the era she competed in coupled with the relatively short period that she was a full-time player conspires to keep her out of the top five.
This is as good a time as any to list all of the players who have won my Player of the Year award. 27 different players have won at least once in the 59 years I have documented.
|
8 Annika Sorenstam (95, 97, 98, 01, 02, 03, 04, 05) Kathy Whitworth (65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 71, 72, 73) 6 Mickey Wright (58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64) 3 Nancy Lopez (78, 79, 85) Lorena Ochoa (06, 07, 08) Babe Zaharias (50, 51, 54) 2 Patty Berg (55, 57) Pat Bradley (86, 91) Laura Davies (94, 96) Judy Rankin (76, 77) Betsy Rawls (52, 59) Patty Sheehan (83, 84) Karrie Webb (99, 00) 1 Amy Alcott (80) Brandie Burton (93) Donna Caponi (81) JoAnne Carner (82) Beth Daniel (90) Shirley Englehorn (70) Jane Geddes (87) Marlene Hagge (56) Sandra Haynie (74) Betsy King (89) Carol Mann (75) Dottie Pepper (92) Louise Suggs (53) Sherri Turner (88) |
0 recs |
10 comments
|
Comments
Rating The Best LPGA Players
I am working on my own rating system and the results are different as far as the order goes, but most of the same players make my top 50. I am still collecting data and have the same problem as you. How much do I discount the early records. I start discounting before 1975 and the further back I go, the more the discount, because there were fewer and fewer players as you go back to 1950. I have enough completed to know that in my system the top three players are Mickey Wright, Annika Sorenstam, and Kathy Whitworth. Right now I refuse to speculate who will be the top player when I finish. My system is totally performance comparison based, no added values for Player of the Year or Vare Trophy. There are 728 players on the career money list on LPGA.com. My goal is to have a yearly rating and career rating for each player that I can find enough data to calculate the values. Currently I have data on around 500 players. I am currently working on the ratings of players from the 1950’s and 1960’s as well as adding more players to the database. Most of the players I have to add are in the less than $100,000 career money, so not the best of players. All of the players that I have heard or read about who saw Mickey Wright and Kathy Whitworth play, say Mickey Wright was the best player. I saw an interview with Betsy Rawls once. She said the best players of each era were comparable, the biggest difference is that there are so many more really good players today.
In addition to ranking Mickey Wright higher, my system also shows Karrie Webb higher than yours. I was pleased that you showed Paula Creamer at 42, because I was convinced that after only 4 years and 22 years of age she had to be ranked in the top 50.
Rosie Jones and Ayako Okamoto on my ranking show to be switched on yours.
by tatkins on Jan 9, 2009 10:39 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Your five-stat system for ranking the top 30 in a given year is fine. Only about 15 will have any wins, so you need stats other than wins in order to separate non-winners from each other, as well as from those who get a fluke win. But for rating careers, it should be all about who wins the most and the best (i.e. 2 points for a major a la the HOF point system.)
I can understand a desire to use some non-winning performances to separate Donna Andrews from Hee-Won Han, both of whom have 6 wins. However, there has to be entirely too much emphasis on the value of non-wins when Sandra Haynie (42 wins) is ahead of Mickey Wright (82 wins). If you want to adjust Wright’s total downward by 20%, I’m actually cool with that, but that still leaves a difference in adjusted win total of 23 (42 to 65). What did Haynie accomplish in her non-wins that would more than counterbalance 23 wins?
Another head-scratching example is Lorie Kane and her 4 wins being four spots ahead of Sally Little and her 15 wins. Say what?
It’s a fun topic and as always I appreciate all your efforts, so please don’t take offense when I say that any system that puts Wright outside the top 3 needs some further adjustment.
by sag on Jan 10, 2009 4:32 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
no offense taken, sag
I didn’t intend this to be a one-sided debate. If you say it’s “all about who wins the most”, then you just have to look at the wins list to find out who the best players have been. I’m just not satisfied with that. I know today’s game is much more competitive (and I can’t find anybody to disagree with me on that) so when I see those eye-popping win totals of the 50s and early 60s, my first question becomes “how much easier was it to win a tournament back then?”
We both agree my system needs adjustment but I won’t be “fixing it” just to make it fall more in line with the career wins list.
by hound dog on Jan 11, 2009 6:28 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Brent Kelley's top 50
HD, had you seen about.com’s top 50 list before you decided on your top 50?
http://golf.about.com/od/golferswomen/ss/top_50_women.htm
I haven’t had time to look at Brent’s list, myself.
by The Constructivist on Jan 12, 2009 4:18 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I'm pretty sure I've seen that
I believe he posted that last year sometime. When I saw it, I was working on how much to weigh each season’s results. I remember thinking “there’s no way Grace Park belongs in the Top 50” when I read it. As you can see, I didn’t put her on my list.
by hound dog on Jan 12, 2009 5:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
yeah, that seemed a fandom thing
Like me keeping Ai Miyazato in my preseason top 30 this season….
by The Constructivist on Jan 13, 2009 4:11 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
looked more closely at his list
He does look at careers and takes peaks into account, so there’s some evidence of Moneyball influence, plus he recognizes differences in eras of women’s golf, but he tries to include great amateurs, so it ends up being different than yours in its aims. And in the end his method is more like mine—group players in roughly comparable achievement level clusters, then rank the individuals within each cluster—than yours, which is mroe purely quantitative.
by The Constructivist on Jan 13, 2009 4:10 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
not to make a big deal out of it...
But why does having a great amateur career have much to do with ranking players from say, 1960 onwards. If you’re talking about a teenager who racked up several titles before turning pro around age 18-22 (Inkster or Pressel, for example), fine – give them a little extra credit. But any 20/30-something who kept on playing in the amateur ranks when 99% of the best players were on the LPGA Tour didn’t do her legacy any favors by beating up on the lesser competition. I’m sure JoAnne Carner would have won some more tournaments had she turned pro before 30, but praising the amateur titles she won in her twenties means almost zero to me.
by hound dog on Jan 14, 2009 11:06 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Brent Kelley's Top 50
Trying to rate top amateurs with very few tournaments against the best pro players and coming up with a Top 50 with a number of amateurs in the Top 50 is a joke. He would be much better served by two lists, one for professionals and another for amateurs. I find his list not helpful or meaningful at all.
There is another list at whosbest.blogspot.com by Alex Gary. He has lists for a number of sports. For women’s golf he lists 54 players. His calculation is only done on the major tournaments, ignoring about 90% of the tournaments. Also, his calculation is weighted toward short term results when golf careers are long. Betsy King won 6 majors and does not make his list. Again a list that is not helpful or meaningful in a true search for the best players.
by tatkins on Jan 14, 2009 1:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I didn't check...
…but I recall all his amateurs were pre-1960 and some were even pre-WW II.
by The Constructivist on Jan 17, 2009 9:27 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

by 









