Top 100 LPGA Players - Year To Date
by tatkins on Apr 21, 2011 3:09 PM PDT
Email
Print
Since Hound Dog has put up his Top 70 players with a combination of last years plus this years ratings and Tony Jesselli at "Mostly Harmless" has posted his Top 61 ranking for this years tournaments, I will post my Top 100 based only on this years tournaments. My ranking is based on my full rating system with a small modification. I give full value to wins and money, but only partial value for the other factors in my system. For partial years the other factors gain 10% for each tournament played until a players has played 10 tournaments. The full points are awarded after 10 tournaments. The current number is 162 players rated and includes professionals from other tours that have played in LPGA events. The amateurs are not rated.
1) Karrie Webb - 2) Yani Tseng - 3) Stacy Lewis - 4) Sandra Gal - 5) In-Kyung Kim - 6) Morgan Pressel - 7) Paula Creamer - 8) Michelle Wie - 9) Cristi Kerr - 10) Angela Stanford
11) Ji-Yai Shin - 12) Sun Young Yoo - 13) Brittany Lincicome - 14) Julie Inkster - 15) Amy Yang - 16) Na Yeon Choi - 17) Suzann Pettersen - 18) Mika Miyazato - 19) Chie Arimura - 20) Anna Nordqvist
21) Katie Futcher - 22) Maria Hjorth - 23) Stacy Prammanasudh - 24) Shanshan Feng - 25) Song-Hee Kim - 26) Mindy Kim - 27) Jimin Kang - 28) Sophie Gustafson - 29) Catriona Matthew - 30) Kyeong Bae
31) M.J. Hur - 32) Ai Miyazato - 33) Pornanong Phatlum - 34) Seon Hwa Lee - 35) Inbee Park - 36) Momoko Ueda - 37) Beatriz Recari - 38) Karine Icher - 39) Candie Kung - 40) Kristy McPherson
41) Vicki Hurst - 42) Meaghan Francella - 43) Natalie Gulbis - 44) Sarah Jane Smith - 45) Amy Hung - 46) Amanda Blumenherst - 47) Se Ri Pak - 48) Katherine Hull - 49) Hee Young Park - 50) Wendy Ward
51) Azahara Munoz - 52) Paige Mackenzie - 53) Christina Kim - 54) Leta Lindley - 55) Jane Park - 56) Brittany Lang - 57) Becky Morgan - 58) Hee Kyung Seo - 59) Eun-Hee Ji - 60) Marcy Hart
61) Pat Hurst - 62) Lee-Anne Pace - 63) Lindsey Wright - 64) Stephanie Louden - 65) Karen Stupples - 66) Alena Sharp - 67) Dana Ford Bordner - 68) Aree Song - 69) Lorie Kane - 70) Christel Boeljon
71) Chella Choi - 72) Mina Harigae - 73) Sarah Lee - 74) Pernilla Lindberg - 75) Reilley Rankin - 76) Nicole Castrale - 77) Stephanie Sherlock - 78) Jean Reynolds - 79) Jennifer Song - 80) Mi Hyun Kim
81) Laura Davies - 82) Amelia Lewis - 83) Jenny Suh - 84) Heather Bowie Young - 85) Jennifer Johnson - 86) Julieta Granada - 87) Melissa Reid - 88) Jessica Shepley - 89) So Yeon Ryu - 90) Nannett Hill
91) Meena Lee - 92) Marijo Uribe - 93) Slvia Cavalleri - 94) Shi Hyun Ahn - 95) Gwladys Nocera - 96) Samantha Richdale - 97) Yukari Baba - 98) Mollie Fankhauser - 99) Jenny Shin -100) Gerina Piller
8 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Your system
How does your system reward majors as compared to a non major?
My system rewards winning a major (twice the value as other tournaments).
My system was designed to numerically rate and then rank the LPGA players from the start of the LPGA in 1950. So I must use the same data for each player. It is easy to find the winners of the major tournaments. To date I have not found a source to find those that played well in the major tournaments for players in tournaments before 1963. So there is no extra value for any finish in a major other than winning. I would like to have the full scoreboard for each major and build into the system some added value for high finishes in majors but that is not possible with the data I have. Ideally I would like to have a full scoreboard for all of the more than 1800 LPGA tournaments. With that data I could improve my system. The LPGA web site in the past had more data on the early players (pre 1963) than it does now. I have spent weeks and weeks gathering data on over 1000 LPGA players and will bet that my system is better than anyone else’s system. As a retired engineer this rating system is just mental exercise. I must again say thanks to Hound Dog as his system was the basis for my more elaborate system.
tonyj5 - your system
The problem I have with your system is that is is a total insult to any player not in the Top 50 of the Rolex Ranking. In other words, most of the field are not accounted for at all in your strength of field. Stength of field = (100 – number of top 50 players not playing ) would be a better measurement.
Just wanted to point out that my Field Score method only cares about the Top 40 LPGA players so it too ignores most of the field. I think “insult” is a harsh word – we all understand those other 100 players in the field are pretty good golfers but Field Score (as I believe Tony’s method does) tries to measure the effect of having fewer elite players in an event.
Now, I don’t use Field Score to adjust my ratings like Tony does and I understand why Tatkins might think his method needs adjusting in that respect. What if none of the Top 50 show up for an LPGA event (not likely, I admit)? Would the final results get completely ignored in your system, Tony?
Sorry - My Bad
Let me put my comment in proper context. In Hound Dog’s April 13 post titled “Overcoming The Elite” he shows that 19 of the 90 events played since the beginning of 2008 have been won by players in outside the Top 40 of both his ranking and the Rolex Ranking. If you look at his table you see as I did when I read the post, that 12 of the 90 events have been won by someone outside the Top 50 in the Rolex Ranking, with 7 rated 100 or higher. Hound Dog’s post was the catalyst for my “insult remark”. I should have pointed out the connection made in my mind between the post and ’tonyj5’s system.
Your system
I was never implying that my system, or anyone elses for that matter, was better than yours. I think they are all unique and interesting to follow. I asked that question about majors just to better understand your system.
tonyj5
I did not take your question as anything other than a request for more information. I hope the answer was sufficient. If not I can supply more information. There is a more detailed description in several previous posts. The Dec 16 post “LPGA Best Of All Time Ratings – Where Does Your Favorite Rank” was the last post with a fuller description. The touting of my system was just an expression of pride in my system, not a reaction to a pecieved slight. I also find it interesting to follow other systems and I am willing to incorporate other things into my system if I find another system that has ideas that will improve mine. My suggestion about your system above is just something for your consideration not an implied insult. I just think your system overrates the strength of the top 50 in the Rolex Ranking in relationship to the strength of the total field.
My system
I think as time goes by we always find ways to improve our sysytems. As I have started the year using the top 50 RR as my field strength I will keep it that way. If the consensus of opinion is that using 100 would be better I am certainly willing to make adjustments next year. By the way I am always looking for ways to make things better and certainly respect all opinions. I also think that the fact that we all do things a little bit different is what makes these numbers more fun.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
