Updated Year To Date Player Ratings

1   Cristie Kerr            5.88      (1)           16  Brittany Lincicome     3.48       (1*)

2   Lorena Ochoa       5.69      (2)           17  Lindsey Wright           3.27       (0)

3  Jiyai Shin                 5.59      (2)           18  Brittany Lang              3.11       (0)

4  Ai Miyazato               5.17      (1)           19  Kristy McPherson      3.06       (0)

5  In-Kyung Kim          5.01       (1)           20  Ji Young Oh               2.92       (1)

6  Yani Tseng              4.91       (1)          21  Hee-Won Han           2.74        (0)

7  Angela Stanford      4.76       (1)          22  Sun Young Yoo         2.54        (0)

8  Paula Creamer       4.71       (0)          23  Catrriona Matthew    2.53        (1*)

9  Eun-Hee Ji              4.57       (1*)          24  Natalie Gulbis          2.52        (0)

10 Anna Nordqvist     4.42       (1*)          25  Jee Young Lee         2.47        (0)

11 Karrie Webb          4.40        (1)           26  Morgan Pressel       2.45        (0)

12 Michelle Wie          4.05        (0)           27  Seon Hwa Lee         2.37        (0)

13 Na Yeon Choi        3.99       (0)           28  Katherine Hull          2.35         (0)

14 Suzann Pettersen 3.98       (0)           29  Hee Young Park      2.34         (0)

15 Song-Hee Kim      3.86       (0)            30  Se Ri Pak                  2.33        (0)

 This is the current rankng after the Women's British Open. The number in () is the number of wins this year. The * indicates the majors.

After my last post on this subject 'dianemarie' asked what the numbers mean in my analysis. Up till now, I only used the values to rank the players from first to worst. After her question, I decided I should look at the numbers on a historical basis to see what trends the numbers show. Looking at the ratings for the years from 2000 through 2008, gives indications as to the value of the numbers.

A value of 10.00 was basically set as the 15 year average of the best player for each criteria used in the rating. So a value of above 10.00 marks a very very good year. A rating above 9.00 marks a dominate performance by a player for the year. There have been 2 years during the period when 3 players scored above 9.00. There was one year that 2 players scored above 10.00. The best individual year was 2002 when Annika won 11 times and scored 16.345.

On average about 25 players per year score a rating above 3.00.  On average 12 players per year score a rating above 4.00. Of those 12 players, 10 win tournaments and 2 players play very well but do not win. An average of 4 players per year win and score between 3.00 and 4.00. An average of 3 players per year win and score less than 3.00.  

A lot of people apparently think that unless a player wins a tournament, then they had a worse year than any player that did. In 2000 Laurel Kean won a tournament, but was rated at 1.34 and was the 73rd ranked player. In 2001 Tina Fischer won a tournament and was rated at 1.82  and was the 65th ranked player. In 2003 Hilary Lunke won a major tournament  and was rated 2.57 and the 30th ranked player. In 2003 Birdie Kim won a major tournament and with a rating at 3.16 was the 27th ranked player. Basically, those players had one great week when they won their tournament, but played poorly the rest of the year. To me any reasonable evaluation of the season a player had, has to be much more than just winning. Every rating system currently used agrees with that position.

There has been a lot of discussion on web sites related to Wie deserving or not of a Solheim Cup Captain's pick. I guess my rating of Wie at 4.05 tells me she does. However, without a doubt she is the most overrated, over-hyped, and over-paid woman golfer ever.