Where the Money Is
Sports Illustrated World Golf Rankings
A guy on the other side of the world thinks he is better at golf than I am. I think I am the better player. Unfortunately, due to travel complications, we can never play against one another or travel to each other’s country. How can we determine which of us is the better player?
We should involve his brother. His brother plays against him every day, and it is always an exciting match because they are equally skilled. Sometimes my nemesis wins; sometimes his brother beats him. They’ve each won ~50% of the time and they tend to shoot approximately the same score.
His brother is coming to Austin, Texas, so I am going to play against him every day for a month on a few different golf courses. After I’ve recorded thirty rounds against the brother, who is of the same skill of my nemesis, I should know whether I am better or worse than my enemy on the other side of the world. This will work. Since each of us has now played a sufficient number of times against a common opponent, we can understand who is the better golfer.
Congratulations, you understand how the Official World Golf Rankings (OWGR) works. A central goal of the Official World Golf Rankings, or any proper golf rankings system, is to standardize performance across golf tours. If every golfer around the globe played the same golf courses on the same days, ranking players would be easy. We could just rank them based on something like their average score.
But golfers play different courses at different times all over the world. Thus, we cannot rank players based purely on their scoring average. We know that shooting 71 has totally different meanings depending upon which golf course a player is playing and the conditions. Sure, my nemesis shot 80 last Tuesday at a random golf course and I shot 79 at a different golf course. Am I better than he is? Absolutely not. We cannot conclude who is better based on such limited information.
To rank players, the OWGR leverages the overlap among competitors throughout the world. World No. 1 Jon Rahm competes all over the globe against hundreds of other golfers. Based on his performances against hundreds of opponents, the OWGR assigns Jon Rahm a skill rating. Each time Rahm enters a tournament, his skill rating (and the sum of every other competitors’ skill ratings) determines how many points will be distributed at the tournament. Points are then delegated based on where players finish in the tournament, and these point totals determine players’ Official World Golf Ranking.
It’s all a bit confusing, but the skill rating is an important input into the system that decides the ranking. The OWGR uses a Fixed Effects Model to determine players’ skill ratings. You do not need to understand what that means. You just need to understand that it is important because it provides a standardized baseline for each player around the world. You also need to understand that this standardized baseline influences strengths of field and thus, is fundamental to calculating the Official World Golf Rankings.
Note: If you’re interested in learning more about the OWGR, Garrett Morrison and I talked about it at length on the Fried Egg Golf Podcast in December (Apple, Spotify).
Is the OWGR perfect? No, but it’s what we have. Well, until last week. Thanks to Sports Illustrated, we now have an alternative methodology. And it…is a doozy.
The Sports Illustrated World Golf Rankings (SIWGR) is different from the OWGR in a few ways, but only one of the differences really matters. The key difference is in how SIWGR determines a player’s skill rating. In other words, the key difference is in how SIWGR attaches a standardized baseline to each golfer, which in turn determines the strength of the field at each tournament.
To find each player’s standardized baseline, SIWGR relies upon a new statistic, Distance per Shot (DPS). The calculation is Total Distance Played divided by Total Shots Taken. For example, if a golf course is 7,400 yards long and you shoot 74, your DPS is 100. To calculate the strength of the field at a tournament, Sports Illustrated simply aggregates all of the competitors’ DPSes.
The underlying assumption is that distance alone is a suitable proxy for difficulty. Yes, distance is correlated with difficulty, but equating distance with difficulty is reductive. SIWGR basically claims that all you need to ascertain a player’s skill rating are her scores and the total distance of holes she’s played.
I should note that Sports Illustrated includes a Course Adjustment factor, though the explanation is light on details. The article says that if Course A has a DPS of 100 and Course B has a DPS of 105, “then it is easy to see the stroke differential between Course A and Course B.” This is, of course, not true. You need to understand the underlying skill level of the golfers on each course. If one course on the PGA Tour produces a DPS of 102 and another produces a DPS of 103, you cannot assume that the 102 is harder. The 102 may just have had less talented golfers playing the tournament; the course might be much easier than the 103!
See? The key is quantifying the underlying skill level of each player, which can be accomplished by analyzing performance across common opponents. This is how the OWGR works.
You might be wondering why SIWGR does not use a “common opponent approach.” You might also be wondering why a seemingly-legitimate outlet like Sports Illustrated produced an elementary-level ranking system. You will not be disappointed by what I believe is the answer.
The SIWGR is presented by LA Golf, which prominently boasts Dustin Johnson and Bryson DeChambeau as board members. Johnson and DeChambeau are both members of the LIV Golf tour. Also, Authentic Brands Group owns Sports Illustrated and is partnered with Greg Norman’s brand. Greg Norman is the CEO of LIV Golf, a tour that remains unaccredited by the Official World Golf Rankings until it complies with OWGR standards.
OWGR standards exist for a reason. OWGR’s rules enable accurate ranking of players across tours worldwide. For instance, compliant tours must have open qualification so that new players can earn their way onto the tour. OWGR also requires average field sizes of at least 75 players. Each of these criteria facilitates cross-pollination; players travel throughout the accredited tour ecosystem. The OWGR can figure out how Polish golfer Adrian Meronk’s performance at the Genesis Invitational on the PGA Tour stacks up against his performances at recent DP World Tour events because many DP World Tour players and PGA Tour players have competed against one another.
The LIV Golf tour, on the other hand, is an isolated tour with only 48 players. The same 48 players compete in each tournament. Cross-pollination does not occur on the LIV tour.
By rating players according to Distance per Shot, Sports Illustrated invented a way to remove the inter-connectedness of golf tours from the ranking formula. If you just rate players based on their scores and the total length of the golf course, you can rank LIV golfers just as easily as ranking players on any tour. The methodology removes the need for cross-pollination.
Important note: Sports Illustrated mentions that they are using Distance per Shot (DPS) because a more sophisticated statistic like Strokes Gained is not available on every tour. This is categorically false:
Sports Illustrated, presented by LA Golf, is either truly ignorant to the definition of Strokes Gained or they are lying about their understanding of a basic golf statistic. I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt and suggest that they are just completely ignorant about their area of expertise.
To be fair, Sports Illustrated is not the only entity that dabbles in conflicts of interest (*cough*, the way Golf Digest rates golf courses, *cough*). But this situation is particularly egregious in that SI is shamelessly promoting an obviously-flawed methodology.
If you list your golf skills for sale, I really don’t have much of a problem with it. But when you put your integrity on sale, there’s plenty of real estate in the newsletter for you.
Thomas Pieters
The 37th ranked golfer in the world, Thomas Pieters, signed with LIV Golf last week. I have a couple quick thoughts on his signing and how LIV should strategize future signings.
First, I understand Pieters’ decision to sign with LIV. He plays primarily on the DP World Tour, a tour that has been significantly diminished over the last decade, and he does not have access to the top events on the PGA Tour.
He is 31 years old, LIV offered him a large check, and he took it. It makes sense. It’s fine.
The more interesting angle is why LIV should want Thomas Pieters.
LIV golf events command very little viewership. Nobody is watching LIV events because nobody views LIV as a competitive tour. The most effective way for LIV to shift the narrative is for their players to be relevant at tournaments people are watching, like the major championships. LIV’s goal should be to sign as many major championship participants as possible in 2023. It gets harder for people to dismiss LIV as a non-competitive tour if five LIV players are in the Top 10 at Augusta.
Thomas Pieters ranked inside the Top 50 in the Official World Golf Rankings at the end of 2022 and is therefore qualified for the Masters.
I wouldn’t be surprised if LIV makes some attractive offers to players who earn their way into the Top 50 of the OWGR the week before the Masters. Signing Danny Lee to a LIV contract doesn’t move the needle for LIV. Signing Thomas Pieters and other major championship qualifiers has much more potential.
That’s probably the best strategy.
Feedback/Contact
Email: Joseph.LaMagnaGolf@gmail.com
Twitter: @JosephLaMagna
Other Recent Content
I went on The Fried Egg Golf Podcast (Apple, Spotify) with Andy Johnson to discuss the PGA Tour season so far. We talked about the schedule, players to watch entering the Masters, and short Par 4s on Tour. Also the recent TFE episode with Andrew Putnam is excellent.
Greg Norman on the People I (Mostly) Admire podcast was an interesting listen
Informative thread on the contracts into which LIV golfers have entered:
A true winner:
The NBA is amazing right now. If you have not watched the Nuggets this season, you’re missing out:
Charles Barkley is the best. Apologies to my Utah readers:
Some market research. I found the results interesting:
After I tweeted this, multiple people texted me to ask if I am a Fed.
I’m not a Fed. But if I were, I wouldn’t go after your silly little parlays. I’d go after true threats to our democracy, like the Player Impact Program.