Opinion & Analysis
The stats say Spieth’s collapse at The Masters was no fluke
Before the 2016 Masters, I published my annual column, The 20 Players Who Can Win the Masters, which did not include Jordan Spieth. That drew the ire of a lot of fans, and through 65 holes it looked like I was ready to eat some crow on that prediction.
I originally filtered Spieth out of the top-20 due to his struggles on straight-away par-4s, since there is a correlation between that stat and a player’s performance at Augusta. But just as importantly, his performance from 150-225 yards had dropped, as well. Shots from 150-225 yards are absolutely critical to performance at Augusta, and Spieth’s disastrous 12th hole was due to hitting a 150-yard tee shot into the water.
Spieth didn’t hit the ball particularly well by his standards throughout the 2016 Masters. In fact, Bryson DeChambeau said he felt he outplayed Spieth in Round 1, but Spieth was able to score better than DeChambeau. And throughout the first three rounds, Spieth had quite a few hiccups and was on pace to have the most double bogeys of any eventual Masters winner in the history of the event. But the victory was not to be his.
Here’s a look at Spieth’s current rankings in the key metrics of golf.
Spieth did not drive the ball well at Augusta despite driving it well so far this season. But what we can see this season is a large decline in his iron play. In fact, he ranks 119th in shots from 75-225 yards from the fairway/tee box.
Before I go on, I do need to clear up a couple of the biggest myths in golf.
- Jordan Spieth isn’t great at anything; he’s just not bad at anything.
- Spieth plays so well because of his short game, and his putting bails him out.
Here’s a look at Spieth’s key metrics in his first three seasons on Tour that should dispel both of those myths.
The decline in his Yellow Zone (125-175 yards) performance and his performance on approach shots from the short grass is what stands out the most.
We know that Spieth started making some changes to his swing last year, so here’s a look at his performances from all of last season to today.
To read the charts: 0 percent is the average for the field in the event. Therefore, anything better than 0 percent is better than the average. Anything less than 0 percent is worse than the average. The dotted line is the trend line to show how Jordan’s performance is trending.
Spieth’s Driving Effectiveness has sustained a flat trend over time. However, his iron play from each of the zones is on a significant decline over time. And it appears to have started right around the 2015 John Deere Classic.
I should remind you, however, that we are talking about the No. 2-ranked golfer in the world who has won two of the past five majors with a worst finish of T4 during that timeframe. And he had held the lead in Masters for 137 consecutive holes before he came to hole No. 12 on Sunday at Augusta National.
I would imagine the swing changes he has been working on were done to help out with his driving, which could be sporadic and have the rightward miss. It just appears that those swing changes have come at the expense of his iron play, however, and that is why I did not have Spieth in my 20 Players That Can Win the Masters list. And that will be what he needs to improve in order to get back to his old ball-striking form.
As the editor-in-chief of this website and an observer of the GolfWRX forums and other online golf equipment discourse for over a decade, I’m pretty well attuned to the grunts and grumbles of a significant portion of the golf equipment purchasing spectrum. And before you accuse me of lording above all in some digital ivory tower, I’d like to offer that I worked at golf courses (public and private) for years prior to picking up my pen, so I’m well-versed in the non-degenerate golf equipment consumers out there. I touched (green)grass (retail)!
Complaints about the ills of and related to the OEMs usually follow some version of: Product cycles are too short for real innovation, tour equipment isn’t the same as retail (which is largely not true, by the way), too much is invested in marketing and not enough in R&D, top staffer X hasn’t even put the new driver in play, so it’s obviously not superior to the previous generation, prices are too high, and on and on.
Without digging into the merits of any of these claims, which I believe are mostly red herrings, I’d like to bring into view of our rangefinder what I believe to be the two primary difficulties golf equipment companies face.
One: As Terry Koehler, back when he was the CEO of Ben Hogan, told me at the time of the Ft Worth irons launch, if you can’t regularly hit the golf ball in a coin-sized area in the middle of the face, there’s not a ton that iron technology can do for you. Now, this is less true now with respect to irons than when he said it, and is less and less true by degrees as the clubs get larger (utilities, fairways, hybrids, drivers), but there remains a great deal of golf equipment truth in that statement. Think about it — which is to say, in TL;DR fashion, get lessons from a qualified instructor who will teach you about the fundamentals of repeatable impact and how the golf swing works, not just offer band-aid fixes. If you can’t repeatably deliver the golf club to the golf ball in something resembling the manner it was designed for, how can you expect to be getting the most out of the club — put another way, the maximum value from your investment?
Similarly, game improvement equipment can only improve your game if you game it. In other words, get fit for the clubs you ought to be playing rather than filling the bag with the ones you wish you could hit or used to be able to hit. Of course, don’t do this if you don’t care about performance and just want to hit a forged blade while playing off an 18 handicap. That’s absolutely fine. There were plenty of members in clubs back in the day playing Hogan Apex or Mizuno MP-32 irons who had no business doing so from a ballstriking standpoint, but they enjoyed their look, feel, and complementary qualities to their Gatsby hats and cashmere sweaters. Do what brings you a measure of joy in this maddening game.
Now, the second issue. This is not a plea for non-conforming equipment; rather, it is a statement of fact. USGA/R&A limits on every facet of golf equipment are detrimental to golf equipment manufacturers. Sure, you know this, but do you think about it as it applies to almost every element of equipment? A 500cc driver would be inherently more forgiving than a 460cc, as one with a COR measurement in excess of 0.83. 50-inch shafts. Box grooves. And on and on.
Would fewer regulations be objectively bad for the game? Would this erode its soul? Fortunately, that’s beside the point of this exercise, which is merely to point out the facts. The fact, in this case, is that equipment restrictions and regulations are the slaughterbench of an abundance of innovation in the golf equipment space. Is this for the best? Well, now I’ve asked the question twice and might as well give a partial response, I guess my answer to that would be, “It depends on what type of golf you’re playing and who you’re playing it with.”
For my part, I don’t mind embarrassing myself with vintage blades and persimmons chasing after the quasi-spiritual elevation of a well-struck shot, but that’s just me. Plenty of folks don’t give a damn if their grooves are conforming. Plenty of folks think the folks in Liberty Corner ought to add a prison to the museum for such offences. And those are just a few of the considerations for the amateur game — which doesn’t get inside the gallery ropes of the pro game…
Different strokes in the game of golf, in my humble opinion.
Anyway, I believe equipment company engineers are genuinely trying to build better equipment year over year. The marketing departments are trying to find ways to make this equipment appeal to the broadest segment of the golf market possible. All of this against (1) the backdrop of — at least for now — firm product cycles. And golfers who, with their ~15 average handicap (men), for the most part, are not striping the golf ball like Tiger in his prime and seem to have less and less time year over year to practice and improve. (2) Regulations that massively restrict what they’re able to do…
That’s the landscape as I see it and the real headwinds for golf equipment companies. No doubt, there’s more I haven’t considered, but I think the previous is a better — and better faith — point of departure when formulating any serious commentary on the golf equipment world than some of the more cynical and conspiratorial takes I hear.
Agree? Disagree? Think I’m worthy of an Adam Hadwin-esque security guard tackle? Let me know in the comments.
@golfoncbs The infamous Adam Hadwin tackle ? #golf #fyp #canada #pgatour #adamhadwin ? Ghibli-style nostalgic waltz – MaSssuguMusic
Episode #16 brings us Cliff McKinney. Cliff is the founder of Old Charlie Golf Club, a new club, and concept, to be built in the Florida panhandle. The model is quite interesting and aims to make great, private golf more affordable. We hope you enjoy the show!
Last week, I came across a reel from BBC Sport on Instagram featuring Scottie Scheffler speaking to the media ahead of The Open at Royal Portrush. In it, he shared that he often wonders what the point is of wanting to win tournaments so badly — especially when he knows, deep down, that it doesn’t lead to a truly fulfilling life.
View this post on Instagram
“Is it great to be able to win tournaments and to accomplish the things I have in the game of golf? Yeah, it brings tears to my eyes just to think about it because I’ve literally worked my entire life to be good at this sport,” Scheffler said. “To have that kind of sense of accomplishment, I think, is a pretty cool feeling. To get to live out your dreams is very special, but at the end of the day, I’m not out here to inspire the next generation of golfers. I’m not out here to inspire someone to be the best player in the world, because what’s the point?”
Ironically — or perhaps perfectly — he went on to win the claret jug.
That question — what’s the point of winning? — cuts straight to the heart of the human journey.
As someone who’s spent over two decades in the trenches of professional golf, and in deep study of the mental, emotional, and spiritual dimensions of the game, I see Scottie’s inner conflict as a sign of soul evolution in motion.
I came to golf late. I wasn’t a junior standout or college All-American. At 27, I left a steady corporate job to see if I could be on the PGA Tour starting as a 14-handicap, average-length hitter. Over the years, my journey has been defined less by trophies and more by the relentless effort to navigate the deeply inequitable and gated system of professional golf — an effort that ultimately turned inward and helped me evolve as both a golfer and a person.
One perspective that helped me make sense of this inner dissonance around competition and our culture’s tendency to overvalue winning is the idea of soul evolution.
The University of Virginia’s Division of Perceptual Studies has done extensive research on reincarnation, and Netflix’s Surviving Death (Episode 6) explores the topic, too. Whether you take it literally or metaphorically, the idea that we’re on a long arc of growth — from beginner to sage elder — offers a profound perspective.
If you accept the premise literally, then terms like “young soul” and “old soul” start to hold meaning. However, even if we set the word “soul” aside, it’s easy to see that different levels of life experience produce different worldviews.
Newer souls — or people in earlier stages of their development — may be curious and kind but still lack discernment or depth. There is a naivety, and they don’t yet question as deeply, tending to see things in black and white, partly because certainty feels safer than confronting the unknown.
As we gain more experience, we begin to experiment. We test limits. We chase extreme external goals — sometimes at the expense of health, relationships, or inner peace — still operating from hunger, ambition, and the fragility of the ego.
It’s a necessary stage, but often a turbulent and unfulfilling one.
David Duval fell off the map after reaching World No. 1. Bubba Watson had his own “Is this it?” moment with his caddie, Ted Scott, after winning the Masters.
In Aaron Rodgers: Enigma, reflecting on his 2011 Super Bowl win, Rodgers said:
“Now I’ve accomplished the only thing that I really, really wanted to do in my life. Now what? I was like, ‘Did I aim at the wrong thing? Did I spend too much time thinking about stuff that ultimately doesn’t give you true happiness?’”
Jim Carrey once said, “I think everybody should get rich and famous and do everything they ever dreamed of so they can see that it’s not the answer.”
Eventually, though, something shifts.
We begin to see in shades of gray. Winning, dominating, accumulating—these pursuits lose their shine. The rewards feel more fleeting. Living in a constant state of fight-or-flight makes us feel alive, yes, but not happy and joyful.
Compassion begins to replace ambition. Love, presence, and gratitude become more fulfilling than status, profits, or trophies. We crave balance over burnout. Collaboration over competition. Meaning over metrics.
Interestingly, if we zoom out, we can apply this same model to nations and cultures. Countries, like people, have a collective “soul stage” made up of the individuals within them.
Take the United States, for example. I’d place it as a mid-level soul: highly competitive and deeply driven, but still learning emotional maturity. Still uncomfortable with nuance. Still believing that more is always better. Despite its global wins, the U.S. currently ranks just 23rd in happiness (as of 2025). You might liken it to a gifted teenager—bold, eager, and ambitious, but angsty and still figuring out how to live well and in balance. As much as a parent wants to protect their child, sometimes the child has to make their own mistakes to truly grow.
So when Scottie Scheffler wonders what the point of winning is, I don’t see someone losing strength.
I see someone evolving.
He’s beginning to look beyond the leaderboard. Beyond metrics of success that carry a lower vibration. And yet, in a poetic twist, Scheffler did go on to win The Open. But that only reinforces the point: even at the pinnacle, the question remains. And if more of us in the golf and sports world — and in U.S. culture at large — started asking similar questions, we might discover that the more meaningful trophy isn’t about accumulating or beating others at all costs.
It’s about awakening and evolving to something more than winning could ever promise.
‘Why would anybody want to change that swing?’ – Brandel Chamblee says PGA Tour star was wrong to change his swing
‘The stupidest freaking thing I’ve ever heard’ – Billy Horschel slams Open idea suggested by Padraig Harrington
WITB Time Machine: Brandt Snedeker’s winning WITB, 2018 Wyndham Championship
Golfer proudly posts photo of ball mark on iron, receives immediate roasting
WITB Time Machine: Matthew Wolff’s winning WITB, 2019 3M Open
Oakmont Country Club bans Wyndham Clark over locker incident; Reveals specific conditions to earn reinstatement
Adam Scott puts Callaway blades in the bag at Wyndham Championship
Report: LIV star fires caddie and coach in shock shake up
Rickie Fowler makes equipment change to ‘something that’s a little easier on the body’
The championship formula: How 3 key stats separate winners from the field
Peter Malnati WITB 2025 (August)
Peter Malnati what’s in the bag accurate as of the Wyndham Championship. More photos from the event here. Driver: Titleist...
Cameron Young’s winning WITB: 2025 Wyndham Championship
Driver: Titleist GT2 (9 degrees, A1 SureFit setting) Buy here. Shaft: Mitsubishi Tensei 1K Pro Orange 70 TX 3-wood: Titleist...
Camilo Villegas WITB 2025 (July)
Camilo Villegas WITB accurate as of the Wyndham Championship. Villegas was undecided on a 3-wood when we shot his bag. ...
WITB Time Machine: Brandt Snedeker’s winning WITB, 2018 Wyndham Championship
Brandt Snedeker fired a final-round 65 at the 2018 Wyndham Championship to outlast Webb Simpson and C.T. Pan. His 5-under...
Freddy
Apr 22, 2016 at 1:27 pm
Your point would be more convincing if Spieth had never gotten into contention due to his iron play.
Brendan
Apr 21, 2016 at 6:27 pm
In my opinion, (which doesn’t carry much weight), Rich did a great job of analyzing Spieth’s issues over the past three years from a statistical standpoint. However golf isn’t a game played between numbers, it is a game played between human players. I think the reason Spieth has been so successful so far is simply due to his mental strength and attitude and the style of his play. He can poke his drives out there relatively consistently and when his irons can do him more good than harm, he really stands out. In reality, his short game is what keeps him relevant, while his mental ability and attitude sets him apart in big spots when others seem to let the moment get to the best of them. He’s a grinder in the fullest sense of the term and I feel that sometimes viewers forget that. Rory, Jason, and other big names are most likely statistically better in most of the areas listed above, but that isn’t what wins tournaments sometimes. Nobody (maybe Rory) comes close to outplaying other great players on Sundays.
Nick Coleman
Apr 21, 2016 at 9:16 am
Richie, do you have stats on scrambling or recovery? Jordan recovered from so many terrible situations during the Masters. And are there any stats available on where shots took place (right rough, left rough, etc)? I’m guessing that information isn’t recorded. Although it seems like it wouldn’t be too hard for the PGA to do it, given you can track shots live in the iPad app. I noticed that feature wasn’t available during the Masters, and I missed being able to see just how far offline a shot had gone. My gut is that the “missing” stats to explain Jordan’s inexplicable second place finish is related to A) play in the wind (he’s from Texas, where there’s a lot), B) recovery shots from bad lies, C) mental toughness. He’s great at all three of those. A lot of players start playing badly and never recover. Jordan bounces back quickly from a bad hole.
A golfer
Apr 21, 2016 at 1:05 am
Only one stat matters in majors and that is what goes on between the ears. In the last two years Jordan has been the best at it and is the only golfer I have seen since Tiger that can keep it for many years to come. He lost it on one hole, and it remains to be seen how he does from here on out, but I would not be surprised if he wins another major this year …..and more in the coming years.
Brendan
Apr 21, 2016 at 6:25 pm
Couldn’t possibly agree more. After reading this article I immediatly thought that to myself even before reading one user comment. In my opinion, (which doesn’t carry much weight), Rich did a great job of analyzing Spieth’s issues over the past three years from a statistical standpoint. However golf isn’t a game played between numbers, it is a game played between human players. I think the reason Spieth has been so successful so far is simply due to his mental strength and attitude and the style of his play. He can poke his drives out there relatively consistently and when his irons can do him more good than harm, he really stands out. In reality, his short game is what keeps him relevant, while his mental ability and attitude sets him apart in big spots when others seem to let the moment get to the best of them. He’s a grinder in the fullest sense of the term and I feel that sometimes viewers forget that. Rory, Jason, and other big names are most likely statistically better in most of the areas listed above, but that isn’t what wins tournaments sometimes. Nobody (maybe Rory) comes close to outplaying other great players on Sundays.
theaveragepunter
Apr 20, 2016 at 4:01 pm
Nice work Rich. Your top 20 for the masters made me some $$. Other posters are right – most readers don’t understand your info and think Sugar Diabetes is a Greek boxer.
mlecuni
Apr 21, 2016 at 1:59 pm
: )
Patrick
Apr 20, 2016 at 1:35 pm
Rich every time you write an article I sincerely believe that 90% of the posters either don’t comprehend statistics or haven’t read the article.
It’s pretty clear that your a statistician interpreting PGA tour stats.
You then clearly show the numbers and what strengths / weaknesses they identify.
And it’s clear, bias or emotion are not statistically measurable. Except by most of the commenters on this board.
Another substantive, relevant article. No argument here. I love stats and what they represent. I took three units of stats in university. Still don’t think you need that level of knowledge to get your articles. Maybe I’m wrong. Apparently.
N.
Apr 20, 2016 at 7:16 am
A lot of you seem to be missing the point of these stats, calling spieths 12th hole a fluke so it was irrelevant and so on.
If you’re statistically bad from 150yrds and you then dump it in the water on a 150yrd par 3 then this only serves to further prove the statistic.
Had he been statistically good from that distance then maybe he would have been less likely to be nervous or choke on that tee shot. If you’re ranked 1st on tour from say 150-200yrds id say the chances on you dumping it in the water are much slimmer.
CallawayLefty
Apr 20, 2016 at 8:05 am
A lot of you seem to be missing the point that the whole argument is that a guy who was #2 in the OWGR and had finished 2nd and 1st in his prior two trips to Augusta should probably have been in the top 20 picks to win the tournament, as proved by the fact that he almost did as such and finished in 2nd. I get it – statistics are cool. But I could probably find a statistical deficiency with every single person in the top 20 of the OWGR. But they appear to overcome them regularly, and a good list of the top-10 to win the Masters would be #1 through #10 of the OWGR. Omitting #2 from your top-20 is just being a sensationalist, and then acting like it was so easy to see his loss coming and that we’re all just idiots/fanboys after what happened at the Masters is just hilarious. I don’t mind the statistical analysis. I mind the over the top gloating in the face of reality.
N.
Apr 20, 2016 at 11:04 am
In my opinion from a betting stand point, if you are picking a group as large as 20 different people that have a chance of winning you’re just saying that you don’t really have any idea who will. And to be honest with golf, its very hard week in week out to pick winners.
I would agree with you that not picking speith in the 20 was bold, but he wasn’t in my top 3 picks at the start of the week, although i didnt do much better!
birly-shirly
Apr 20, 2016 at 6:27 am
Wow. I think any prediction, including anyone’s top 20 picks for the Masters, needs cut a little slack.
But to try and argue, with the benefit of hindsight, that you were RIGHT to exclude the chances of the guy who finished second (especially in those circumstances) just seems a little reckless with your credibility.
Mlecuni
Apr 20, 2016 at 4:55 am
So Rich, Jordan had one good 2014/15 year with an average yellow zone and good putter. But now is being less efficient in several area (yellow, red and green) and the putter can’t save him anymore / nobody can win only by putting well ?
Richie Hunt
Apr 20, 2016 at 9:23 am
Jordan had great years in 2013, and 2013-2014. He was a great ballstriker in his first 3 seasons. He can still perform well and win with his current metrics, but essentially his Short Game and Putting will have to bail him out because at this rate, he’s going to miss GIR and/or have longer birdie putts. As I wrote in this article, one of the myths of Spieth was that the ‘putter bails him out’, but as you can see in his first 3 seasons he was a great ballstriker who putted well and thus why it is a myth.
mlecuni
Apr 21, 2016 at 1:57 pm
thank you
:-p
Apr 20, 2016 at 2:41 am
Them SM6 wedges suck. Totally over-rated. He never should’ve switched from the SM5.
Desmond
Apr 20, 2016 at 2:05 am
By his own assessment, Jordan played his B- game at Augusta. Watching him play, most had to think that he was on the verge of collapse most of the week. That it took 66 holes is a testament to Spieth.
Richie Hunt
Apr 20, 2016 at 9:27 am
I agree. I thought it was one of the grittiest performances I’ve seen in recent memory. He hit a lot of bad shots and started to have a 2-way miss. And it was one of those things where he would hit some great shots and then an awful shot would show up. A situation where you’re about to go off the rails, but are trying to get the round in before that happens. And even after the 12th hole, he came back fairly strong with birdies at #13, #15 and then stuck it close on #16, but couldn’t convert.
This article isn’t a knock on Spieth. It’s is to show that his ballstriking has regressed from last year and it was trending downward at a pretty good rate leading into the Masters.
8thehardway
Apr 19, 2016 at 11:11 pm
a branch of mathematics dealing with the collection, analysis, interpretation, and presentation of masses of numerical data
Statistics would have missed a 59-year-old Watson leading after 71 holes at the British Open in 2009 and Jack winning the 1986 Masters.
Yes, he was almost wrong so let’s get him. He was SO CLOSE to being wrong I can’t stand it; if only I had bet on Spieth I would have been so happy for so many holes – how could he not pick him?
So here’s the best part of what Richie Hunt gave you, and I know all you ingrates used them – great reasons to trash your buddies’ picks… “You went with Kevin Na? But he hits the low ball… that’s death at Augusta.” Yes, your buddies taunted you for 3+ rounds for going off Spieth but before it started, when they were most vulnerable, you skewered them good and, in the end, Spieth lost and you were right again. Now THAT’s entertainment.
CallawayLefty
Apr 19, 2016 at 9:42 pm
It’s incredible. You have to be the least sincere statistician I’ve ever read. JUST ADMIT IT – YOU WERE COMPLETELY WRONG ABOUT JORDAN SPIETH THIS YEAR AT THE MASTERS. You’re gloating about the fact that you basically picked the field against one guy and it proved to be correct (by the skin of your a$$). Yes, you’re right. The guy you said had no chance to win did not in fact win. He just held the lead for 65 holes and finished in 2nd place due to one fluke hole that a player like him will see about 1 time in his career.
Let me ask you this – is your argument proved because Jordan Spieth finished in 2nd place, or is it disproved by the fact that Rickie Fowler, Marc Leishmann, and Phil Mickelson (all in your top 10) missed the cut? If you’re ok with picking one example to prove your argument is correct, shouldn’t we all be ok with picking one contrary example (or in this case three) to prove your argument is wrong?
Really – you picked a list of people that included a substantial majority of the top players in the world (omitting the guy who is arguably the best of all of them), and then one of them won. That’s awesome, but in no way overrides the fact that you’re just trying to grab headlines by saying Spieth had no chance. If a guy who was such a statistical outlier was ONE bad shot away from winning, what does that say about the statistics?
Nath
Apr 20, 2016 at 4:33 am
Whatever, its all in the numbers, moneyball my friend
CallawayLefty
Apr 20, 2016 at 6:24 am
Check me if I’m wrong, but didn’t the A’s end up losing to the teams that valued the more traditional subject analysis? The point was that they had to use numbers to find diamonds in the rough. But their only goal was to be competitive with the front runners, not to prove that Derrek Jeeter was all smoke and mirrors. In sports there are people who do things that defy objective analysis. Or maybe statisticians overlook the real statistics that determine what makes a winner. But I will stand by that it’s disengenous to say that a guy who has now finished 2, 1, 2 in three tries at Augusta doesn’t statistically show what it takes to win there. There’s always two sides to the story – including in statistics. And if Richie’s statistics show what a poor choice he is, maybe his performance merits another look at what statistics really are most important. So he sucks from the yellow zone – well he’s finished 2, 1, 2, so perhaps yellow zone scoring is less meaningful, statically speaking, than Richie argues.
Richie Hunt
Apr 20, 2016 at 9:36 am
The core of Moneyball was to help the Oakland A’s find undervalued players because they were a team with a very small budget. A team like the Yankees or Red Sox (at that particular time) didn’t use advanced analytics, but most of their players would have looked favorable according to the statistics. If you look at the all-time greats like Ted Williams, Babe Ruth, Sandy Koufax, etc…their stats would line right up with what Moneyball values. The same with many top players from that Moneyball era like Albert Pujols, A-Rod, etc. It’s just that the A’s ownership simply would not pay for those players. So instead they got players for say $250K that were more accurately valued at $2-3 million.
Advanced analytics is becoming a growing trend in almost all sports. Two teams that use it the most out of any teams in any sports leagues are…Golden State Warriors and San Antonio Spurs.
CallawayLefty
Apr 20, 2016 at 10:30 am
I understand and am obviously puffing a little. I actually find the statistical analysis fascinating and instructive for sure. I just think that you have to OVERLOOK facts to rule Jordan out. I haven’t done statistical research on the Masters in particular. But my guess is there is one or more categories that Jordan did very well in that back up his 2nd place finish (and near win) this year. The problem with a statistical analysis, except one that is very objective, is that it tends to start with a desired result and then find statistics that support it rather than objectively investigating those that do not. I question whether you truly picked apart all objective factors, or whether you just settled on Jordan Spieth being omitted because of the road you were already headed down. I don’t mean that to sound accusatory – I’m actually interested…if Jordan is so bad at something that is so important at Augusta, then what makes him so good at Augusta? Really, there must be numbers to support it.
Richie Hunt
Apr 20, 2016 at 12:10 pm
Historically the winners at the Masters have hit 50+ GIR. This year was a little different because of the wind (which I mentioned with Zach Johnson as being able to change the outcome of the event). Willett hit 48 GIR, Westwood hit 51 GIR. Spieth? 43 GIR.
I think Spieth was playing with fire for those first 65 holes of the event and again, would have had the most double bogeys of any Masters winner in the history of the event. I think it’s safe to say that his short game and putting really helped propel him at ANGC for those first 3 rounds. The wind also helped because it took away the bombers ability to easily hit an iron into #13 and #15.
Spieth mentioned during the event that he didn’t feel comfortable with his irons and the metrics show that has been a problem for him going into the Masters.
Calling b.s.
Apr 21, 2016 at 10:21 am
If I understand this argument correctly, Richie is saying he didn’t pick Spieth as having a chance to win the masters because his stats from 125-175 are bad, and his shot from 150 on the 12th hole validates his argument. I’ll call b.s. on that. It wasn’t the tee shot that cost spieth the victory. It was the embarrassingly fat flip wedge he hit after the drop. We all agree that spieth has an amazing short game. But it was the short game that failed him. That was mental. His loss had absolutely nothing to do with his play from 125-175 yards. Stats are fun. But don’t try to make it out like you predicted spieth’s failure to win with your analysis. You didn’t.
ZQ
Apr 19, 2016 at 8:48 pm
Please fire this guy.
Brad
Apr 20, 2016 at 1:19 pm
Amen. Richie, just admit your omission of Spieth was inflammatory. Just because he didn’t win doesn’t mean your failure to include him in the TOP 20 was correct. Stats can make any conclusion you want them to make, which is what you’re doing here IMO…..lies, damn lies, and statistics.
Gubment Cheeze
Apr 19, 2016 at 7:48 pm
Jordan gave a good show and didn’t quit get the winners check. Golfs a tough game and some days you just ain’t got it.
MarkB A
Apr 20, 2016 at 8:33 am
+1
Seems the haters are gonna just hate. Jordan had a few major mistakes and it is Augusta on Sunday on the back 9. Danny Willet played well and it was a nice win. Last year Jordan was pretty astonishing because he had a real good shot at winning all the majors. I am not a fan boy. I enjoy golf and let the best man that week with the lowest score win.
Roger
Apr 19, 2016 at 7:31 pm
Jordan began seriously having issues at the world match play, then in Houston…….he looked good through three rounds but darn he seemed to be jumpy and nervous on Sunday.
Cronos
Apr 19, 2016 at 7:18 pm
I can only assume you’re a troll.
Spieth was T2, 1, and T2 in his three years at the masters. I’m sure it was all because of a “weak” field all 3 years.
/s
Gubment Cheeze
Apr 19, 2016 at 7:50 pm
Not to mention the other 3 majors last year and the FEC.
:-p
Apr 20, 2016 at 2:43 am
Good riddance!
Joe
Apr 19, 2016 at 5:19 pm
I hope Jordan doesn’t read this. Thanks for the article, it is a good read and interesting. But to my thinking all these stats mean very little, Jordan’s failure was the result of 1 hole, not an accumulation of stats over many holes.
Stats are just numbers and don’t always give the correct picture. The story here is that he choked/or made a bad swing, it happens. Get over it and move on.
Richie Hunt
Apr 20, 2016 at 9:42 am
I disagree. In golf, you are what you are. I don’t believe it’s just one hole. Like I said, he was on pace to have the most double bogeys as a winner in the history of the Masters before the 12th hole on Sunday. If he had not doubled all of those holes, he would have had a larger margin going into 12 and could have still won with that 12th hole.
Jordan only hit 59.2% of his GIR for the event. Willett hit 67% and Westwood hit 70%. Traditionally, GIR% plays a large role in who wins the Masters and typically the winner hits at least 50 GIR for the event. This year was a little different due to the winds, but I think Spieth was playing with fire.
RoGar
Apr 19, 2016 at 5:10 pm
Are you serious? Trends, tendencies, and plain old bad luck, are things that just happen. What about weather, stress, and pressure? Really!!! Speith lead almost the whole way, and even after 12 still almost made an epic comeback. If he had won, imagine the headlines then!!! Speith is great for the game, he’s very close to being human…
Johnny
Apr 19, 2016 at 4:41 pm
Jordan’s quadruple bogey on #12 in the 4th round was a total fluke. As was his 4 putt at #5 (forget what round).
Jay
Apr 19, 2016 at 6:29 pm
thats a lot of flukes for the #2 in the world….
CallawayLefty
Apr 20, 2016 at 6:45 am
Doesn’t that turn the statistical analysis on its head? If a guy who has no chance to win at Augusta has finished 2, 1, 2 in three tries, are we sure that the statistics Richie is focusing on are the ones that matter?