LPGA 2011 - Predictions

I do not do predictions, but I enjoy reading the predictions of those who like to make them. This post has historical data to help those who do make predictions. I have distilled my database to show trends for players that start their careers in each decade and some 10 year victory  trends. The table shows the number of LPGA players in each decade, the number who won tournaments, the number who won Major Tournaments, the number that played at least 10 tournaments for at least 10 years, and the number that played at least 100 tournaments in years they played at least 10 tournaments (Players Rated). Also I calculated the percentage of players that fit each catagory. I also calculated the number of tournaments won and the number of Major Tournaments by each decades players and calculated the average number of tournaments and Major Tournaments per player that actually won a tournament. Totals do not include 2010 decade numbers. I excluded official victories that were won by players before the LPGA started in 1950. Non-member wins and amateur wins are not included unless the players were members at some point in their career.

For those who wish to predict the winners of the four Major Tournaments, my advice is to pedict mostly repeat winners of Major Tournaments. The average number of Major Winners in each decade is 15, with the most being 17. There are already 15 players from the 2000-2009 decade that are major winners.The fifteen players average 1.2 majors per player and that is half the overall average of 2.4.

For rookie of the year, there is no real clear cut way to predict who will win. There are three basic themes, 1) a player who had an excellent amateur career, 2) a player who was a winner on another tour and won on the LPGA as a non-member, or 3) the best player from another tour - the Futures Tour or a foreign tour. From what I know about the rookies for this year, those themes narrow the field to very few players. For 5 of the last 6 years a rookie has won a tournament. The most rookies to win in any year for the last 6 years was 4 in 2009.  A total of 11 rookies have won in the last 6 years, almost 2 per year. So will there be a winner or winners among the rookies this year.

Additionally, over the last 6 years and 7 of the last 10 years there has been a non-member winner of a LPGA sponsored  or co-sponsored event. So who might win as a non-member during 2011.  Over the last 10 years there have been 65 first time winners - 6.5 per year. Over the past 5 years there have been 33 first time winners - 6.6 per year. The high was 11 and the low was 3 first time winners. The non-member winners are counted here but not as official first time winners by the LPGA as they only count member first time winners. For the 2000-2009 decade there have been 50 players that have won at least one tournament. If 1 in 4 players that started in the 2000 decade win at least one tournament, an additional 20 players must become first time winners. So who might be a first time winner from the 2000 decade. Over the last 10 years there have been 52 players who have won multiple tournaments, 5.2 per year, that includes 28 different players with multiple wins in a season and those that have repeated multiple win seasons. Over the last 5 years there has been 25 players who have won multiple tournaments, 5 per year and 15 different players. The high is 7 and the low is 3 multiple winners in any one year.

In the past when there was a group of players battling for the number one position from 1980 through 1996 the players winning the most varied from 3 to 5 wins in a year, except for 2 years. In that 17 year period there was only one winner of Player of the Year (POY) two years in a row and there were 10 different winners of the POY. Also, there were 10 different winners of the Vare Trophy during that time period and 11 different winners of the Annual Money List Title (ML). So unless one or more of the current players becomes a dominate player, those year end titles (POY, Vare, ML) could be traded around among a bunch of players. Looking at the top 11 LPGA players based on Rolex Ranking gives the following list.

Song Hee Kim - RR#9 - 0 wins - improved every year - unable to win when in contention - must learn to win to be contender for awards

Inbee Park - RR#12 - 1 win (Major) - inconsistant performance but performed well last year - must win more - not yet a contender for awards unless she makes a big step up

Michelle Wie - RR#10 - 2 wins - most overrated, over hyped by golf media - injuries may be problem - part time student, part time player - not a contender for awards until full time player and more consistant

In Kyung Kim - RR#7 - 3 wins - one win per year last three years - improved every year - possible contender for awards with a step up

Na Yeon Choi - RR#4 - 4 wins - two wins per year last two years - improved every year - should contend for all the awards

Yani Tseng - RR#5 - 5 wins (3 Majors) - 3 win (2 Majors) last year - lots of success in majors - should contend for all the awards

Ai Miyazato - RR#6 - 6 wins - breakout year with 5 wins - history suggest winners of 5 tournaments in one year have trouble winning multiple times the next , does not fit profile of those that do - not a contender this year if history rules, otherwise could be a contender 

Suzann Petersen - RR#3 - 6 wins (Major) - unable to close the deal yields 6 seconds but did have 5 wins in 2007 - injuries & past surgery - has the power game to contend if can win early during year and get over all the seconds

Jiyai Shin - RR#1 - 8 wins (Major) - 3 wins most in one year - slowed by surgery - consistant player - good putter - should contend for all the awards

Paula Creamer - RR#11 - 9 wins (Major) - 4 wins in 2008 before illness, injury, surgery - US Womens Open showed her to be mentally tough - has the game to contend for all the awards if repaired thumb allows enough practice time for keeping game sharp 

Cristie Kerr - RR#2 - 14 wins (2 Majors) - oldest player in mix but not yet too old - never more than 3 wins in any year - good putter - should contend for all the awards

             Players    Winners  Majors    10 yr     Rated

1950          33          23           17           13          22

                            69.70      51.52     39.39     66.67

1960          68         26            12          31           47

                            38.24      17.65     45.59     69.12

1970        155        50            14          61           84

                           32.26          9.03     39.35     54.19

1980        229        66            17          94         131

                           28.82          7.42      41.05    57.21

1990        213        53            13          70         102

                           24.88         6.10       32.86    47.89

2000        279        50            15            9           63

                           17.92         5.38         3.23     22.58

2010          56         2

Total        977       270           88         278        449

                           27.43        9.01        28.45    45.96

                          Wins       M wins      win/player   M wins/Player

1950                  494              60            21.48             3.53

1960                  260              25            10.00             2.08

1970                  344              37              6.88             2.64

1980                  319              37              4.83             2.18

1990                  269              34              5.08             2.62

2000                  148              18              2.96             1.20

2010                     2                0

Total                  1834         211               6.79             2.40

The number of wins per winning player and the number of players per decade in the tables above show another look at why the very high number of wins by the early players must be heavily discounted versus later players who faced more competition to determine  who the best players really are.

Maybe I should make some predictions based on the above data.