Opinion & Analysis
The 22 golfers who can actually win The Masters
Editor’s Note: Rich Hunt is a statistician whose clients include PGA Tour players, their caddies and their instructors.
Each year, I create a filter to help predict the golfers who are most likely to win the Masters. I usually get the list down to roughly 23 or 24 players that meet the criterion. In last year’s event, I predicted Bubba Watson would win the event — which he did at 25/1 odds.
Before I discuss my picks of this year’s Masters, which this year includes 22 players, I want to go over what I call the “critical holes” for Augusta National. The critical holes in any tournament are the ones where the top finishers typically gain the most strokes on the field, as well as where the greatest deviation in scores exist. One of the interesting aspects about critical holes is that they often change over time due to changes in the course conditions, course design or a change in player strategy, and that creates a smaller deviation in scores.
How No. 17 looks from the tee without the Eisenhower tree (Photo Credit: Andrew Redington/Getty Images).
In 2013 for instance, the critical holes were Nos. 7, 12, 13, 17 and 18. But the removal of the Eisenhower Tree on No. 17 created a smaller deviation in scores, so No. 17 was no longer a critical hole for participants. The par-5 13th hole has also seen a trend in more similar scores, so it has been replaced by the par-5 15th hole as a critical hole. The critical holes to watch out for at the 2015 Masters are Nos. 7, 12, 15 and 18.
Moving on to the tournament, I filtered out the past champions who are well past their time being competitive and the amateurs. Those 18 players include:
- Antonio Murdaca (1000/1)
- Ben Crenshaw (2500/1)
- Bernhard Langer (300/1)
- Bradley Neil (1000/1)
- Byron Meth (2000/1)
- Corey Conners (1000/1)
- Fred Couples (150/1)
- Gunn Yang (1000/1)
- Ian Woosnam (2500/1)
- Jose Maria Olazabal (1000/1)
- Larry Mize (2500/1)
- Mark O’Meara (2500/1)
- Matias Dominguez (1000/1)
- Mike Weir (1000/1)
- Sandy Lyle (2500/1)
- Scott Harvey (750/1)
- Tom Watson (1000/1)
- Trevor Immelman (500/1)
I also eliminated any first-time invitees, as the only first time invitee to ever win at Augusta was Fuzzy Zoeller in 1979. Those 13 players include:
- Anirban Lahiri (300/1)
- Bernd Wiesberger (250/1)
- Brendon Todd (250/1)
- Brian Harman (500/1)
- Brooks Koepka (80/1)
- Cameron Tringale (300/1)
- Danny Willett (150/1)
- Erik Compton (500/1)
- James Hahn (200/1)
- Morgan Hoffmann (250/1)
- Robert Streb (300/1)
- Seung-Yul Noh (300/1)
- Shane Lowry (150/1)
Out of the group of first-time invitees, I would pay close attention to Shane Lowry, as he has a game that is a very good fit for Augusta because of the strong Red Zone Play (shots from 175-225 yards) that he has shown off this season. And of course, if Brooks Koepka is healthy, I expect him to have a good showing, as Augusta fits his game as well.
Unfortunately, I have to eliminate five international players because I do not have enough statistical information on their playing performance in the past four months. Last year, I eliminated five international players that I had insufficient data on as well. Only one of them made a minor run at winning — Thomas Bjorn, who finished T8.
The four players include:
- Thomas Bjorn (300/1)
- Darren Clarke (1000/1)
- Stephen Gallacher (300/1)
- Braden Grace (200/1)
- Mikko Ilonen (500/1)
I will also eliminate these four American players, who have not played a sufficient amount of tournaments this season for me to statistically measure their key performance metrics:
- Kevin Stadler (500/1)
- Steve Stricker (200/1)
- Tiger Woods (20/1)
- Ben Crane (500/1)
Moving on with the list, I eliminated players who I think are too short to play well at Augusta National. They include:
- Jim Furyk (70/1)
- Zach Johnson (60/1)
Last year I had five players in the “too short to win at Augusta” list, and the 3 of the 5 made the cut with a best finish going to Jim Furyk, who tied for 14th.
Even more damning is the players who hit the ball too low. This is based on the Apex Height measurement, determined with Trackman on the PGA Tour. Last year, I had 10 players in the “too low of a trajectory to win at Augusta,” and 9 of the 10 players missed the cut. The only player who did make the cut was “The Mechanic,” Miguel Jimenez, who finished in 4th place. But if you don’t hit it high at Augusta, your odds of winning are not very good. That’s why I’ve eliminated these six players:
- Camilo Villegas (250/1)
- Graeme McDowell (150/1)
- Jason Dufner (125/1)
- Kevin Na (100/1)
- Patrick Reed (25/1)
- Thongchai Jaidee (500/1)
The player who stands out in this group is Patrick Reed. He’s currently 183rd in Apex Height. Typically, he has been better than the average in Apex Height, but for whatever reason he is hitting the ball quite low this season. I think, like Jimenez, Reed has the ability to alter his ball flight. But given how critical Apex Height is to success at Augusta, the numbers suggest that his odds are not that great this season.
Furthermore, since the inauguration of the event, there have only been two winners of the Masters who had never previously made the cut: Fuzzy Zoeller in 1979, and Gene Sarazen in 1936. Reed has never made the cut at the Masters and neither have the three players below. Let’s rule them out as well. They are:
- Victor Dubuisson (100/1)
- Ben Martin (300/1)
- Sang-Moon Bae (250/1)
I will say that if anybody could break that mold it would be Reed, whose fiery behavior and competitiveness reminds me of John McEnroe. But for now, I’ll stick with the numbers and the odds.
I also eliminated the players who missed the cut at the Shell Houston Open this week, because historically the odds of a player missing the cut the previous week and winning the next week are extremely slim. Furthermore, the Golf Club of Houston plays similarly to Augusta. Last year there were nine players who were not previously filtered out that missed the cut at Houston. Of those nine players, only five of them made the cut and the best finish was a T20 by Ian Poulter.
If a player did not play well at Houston, the odds are that they will not play well at a similar style of course like Augusta National. Those five players include:
- Angel Cabrera (80/1)
- Joost Luiten (205/1)
- Lee Westwood (45/1)
- Louis Oosthuizen (50/1)
- Martin Kaymer (65/1)
Another key metric at Augusta is long approach shots, which I call “Red Zone” play. The Red Zone are approach shots from 175-225 yards. Last year, there were nine players on my list of weak Red Zone performers. The best finish came from John Huh, who finished T11. Let’s rule out these 15 players because of their poor Red Zone play, which again, is critical at Augusta:
- Bill Haas (80/1)
- Charl Schwartzel (80/1)
- Charley Hoffman (250/1)
- Geoff Ogilvy (300/1)
- Hunter Mahan (100/1)
- Ian Poulter (80/1)
- Jamie Donaldson (125/1)
- John Senden (250/1)
- Jonas Blixt (150/1)
- Luke Donald (100/1)
- Marc Leishman (200/1)
- Matt Every (250/1)
- Phil Mickelson (20/1)
- Russell Henley (125/1)
- Sergio Garcia (40/1)
There are some big surprises involved with that list of players. This includes former winners Charl Schwartzel and Phil Mickelson, who currently rank 194th and 134th (out of 206 players) respectively from the Red Zone. Typically good approach shot player Luke Donald ranks 198th, and Sergio Garcia currently ranks 205th out of 206 from the Red Zone. While those rankings can change dramatically when the season is finished, it is clear that these players are currently having major issues on those long approach shots.
Lastly, I have started a new metric this season, as I have noticed that there is some correlation between performance on straight-away par-4’s and the Masters performance. Essentially, I have measured a scoring average for players on the straight-away par-4’s and adjusted that scoring average based on the hole’s difficulty. The five players left on the list who have struggled on straight-away par-4’s this season are:
- Ernie Els (150/1)
- Padraig Harrington (150/1)
- Justin Rose (40/1)
- Webb Simpson (150/1)
- Gary Woodland (125/1)
Finally, we are down to the 22 players that the numbers show can win at Augusta. They include:
- Adam Scott (20/1)
- Bill Horschel (70/1)
- Brandt Snedeker (40/1)
- Bubba Watson (10/1)
- Chris Kirk (150/1)
- Dustin Johnson (12/1)
- Henrik Stenson (20/1)
- Hideki Matsuyama (60/1)
- Jason Day (12/1)
- J.B. Holmes (35/1)
- Jimmy Walker (18/1)
- Jordan Spieth (8/1)
- Keegan Bradley (60/1)
- Kevin Streelman (150/1)
- Matt Kuchar (30/1)
- Miguel Angel Jimenez (150/1)
- Paul Casey (70/1)
- Rickie Fowler (30/1)
- Rory McIlroy (8/1)
- Ryan Moore (60/1)
- Ryan Palmer (80/1)
- Vijay Singh (125/1)
Of those 22 players, here are my top-10 picks to win the Masters:
- Rory McIlroy (8/1)
- Jordan Spieth (8/1)
- Bubba Watson (10/1)
- Jason Day (12/1)
- Dustin Johnson (12/1)
- Adam Scott (20/1)
- Jimmy Walker (18/1)
- J.B. Holmes (35/1)
- Hideki Matsuyama (60/1)
- Paul Casey (70/1)
*Odds from VegasInsider.com. For a list of updated Masters Odds, click here.
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...
Jimmy W
Mar 29, 2016 at 3:27 pm
When do you plan on releasing the 2016 version of this? Always love your write up.
Brian
Apr 13, 2015 at 3:17 pm
Well, thank you sir. With your information I won my masters pool at work. Brilliant! Please do this again next year!
John
Apr 10, 2015 at 9:29 pm
Which two do you like over the weekend out of this group: Woods, Haas, Moore, Matsuyama, Blixt, Sergio?
Stormy
Apr 8, 2015 at 4:40 pm
Thanks much for the article Rich, very interesting and compelling. Do you have any clue how nagging Hideki Matsuyama’s wrist injury is?
Rich Hunt
Apr 9, 2015 at 9:34 am
Not sure. His ballstriking is still really great. I have him ranked 2nd in Driving Effectiveness right now and 7th in Red Zone play. Last year his biggest woes was his Short Game play around the green, but this year he’s 34th. I don’t know when the wrist injury occurred, but it doesn’t appear to be bothering him too much. Phenomenal talent.
Jordan
Apr 8, 2015 at 4:26 pm
Rich that was one of the best articles I’ve ever read and great insight behind the numbers, I understand your top 10, Casey being your dark horse, and Rory your pick to win. But who’s the other 3 that make your top 5?
Rich Hunt
Apr 9, 2015 at 9:36 am
I still like Bubba, Jason Day and Spieth.
Andrew
Apr 8, 2015 at 12:39 pm
Richie- What do you think of Lee Westwood this week. He’s been a top-10 machine at ANGC. I know he missed the cut last week but -2 in tough conditions (close to the cut) but that doesn’t seem to indicate he really struggled. If you hadn’t cut him for missing the cut, how would he have performed in the other metrics you use to predict this week?
Rich Hunt
Apr 8, 2015 at 2:50 pm
I really liked Westwood, although his data is limited this year. He performed well from the Red Zone and straight-away par-4’s. But, he missed the cut at Houston which is too problematic to overcome. Wouldn’t be surprised if he records a top-10 finish, but winning isn’t very likely.
gpo613
Apr 8, 2015 at 12:02 pm
I love the analysis. I am a huge math guy myself. One interesting stat I found this week is that only 2 players have finished in the Top 20 in the last 5 Masters. Adam Scott and Fred Couples.
Doesn’t mean much but interesting.
Even though it goes against the stats the guy I don’t believe in this week is Holmes.
Rich Hunt
Apr 9, 2015 at 9:39 am
Holmes has played this year in interesting style. His Red Zone performance is poor 146th, but he’s rarely in the Red Zone except on the par-3’s. He just hits it too far to be in the Red Zone on the par-4’s. I was going to filter him out, but his performance at Houston changed that. Still, I think he could have issues on the par-3’s and #13 and #15 if his drive ends up with 175-225 yards to the hole. But, I’ve talked to some of the Vegas odds makers and in golf, the hot hand is very important.
Kevin
Apr 8, 2015 at 11:05 am
If you have watched much golf on TV this season, the players in the final list of favorites are the ones who would have passed the eye ball test for having a great chance this week as well. Barring some anomaly, whoever putts the best of the favorites will probably win.
Martin
Apr 8, 2015 at 7:39 am
I think the analysis is pretty good, I picked Day in my pool.
Ian
Apr 8, 2015 at 6:05 am
PSA: the year Zach Johnson won was windy and cold (eliminating the distance advantage of the bombers). Or you can waste your time and read all 50+ posts below saying the same thing.
T
Apr 7, 2015 at 10:39 pm
It’s cute when you guys point to Zach or Weir as a way to disprove logic. The article is based on statistics and trends, not the anomalies. Those of you trolling should write your own article with your top 20, based on the seat of your pants then narrow it to a top 10 picks based on past winners and long shots, I’m sure you will get lucky once every 5-10 years.
I’ll stick to statistics which have worked 2 years in a row and have something more than an opinion to back them up.
Thanks for the well written article Rich.
devlin
Apr 9, 2015 at 8:59 am
This is really good statistical research. However these statistics do not take into account other variables such as weather, player emotional and physical state, players preparation, tee off selection, player partner selection.
I will state I am not surprised at how the list was achieved.
With the exception of Hunter Mahan and Phil Mickelson not being part of the top 22.
I am surprised at some of the people on that list though; Jimmy Walker, and Henrik Stenson don’t appear to have the belief that they can win at Augusta, from the sound bites and interviews that i’ve heard. Miguel and Vijay do not have the finishing ability or conditioning to win. Kevin Streelman, Ryan Moore and Ryan Palmer shouldn’t even be on the top 22 list, regardless of the stats., in my opinion. Hedeki is injured and he’s too new to the Masters he might need a few more years but should not be on this list this year.
But that’s the interesting thing about statistics, they can be used to prove or disprove anything.
Good Read though!
Jeff
Apr 7, 2015 at 5:08 pm
Zach Johnson definitely too short to finish well at Augusta.
Pulley
Apr 7, 2015 at 12:31 pm
Excellent article Rich! However Victor Dubuisson will finish in the top 5 and probably win it all.
Kevin
Apr 7, 2015 at 11:50 am
really fun article, well-written, and the stat approach was interesting! you mention you picked Bubba last year, so who is your top pick this year based on all information you have gathered?
jedidiahs mom
Apr 7, 2015 at 8:54 am
richie what are the odds of you looking your cutest on Thursday?
Rich Hunt
Apr 7, 2015 at 9:36 am
Vegas has removed them from the odds line.
James
Apr 7, 2015 at 7:50 am
A great read with some interesting points. In my humble opinion, I’m surprised there was no metric mentioned regarding chipping or putting, particularly as we’re talking about Augusta, but nevertheless an enjoyable read!
Rich Hunt
Apr 7, 2015 at 9:19 am
James – ANGC is a course about hitting GIR. 9 of the last 10 winners hit at least 50 GIR’s and the one that didn’t, Charl Schwartzel, hit 49 GIR in his victory. This is not typical of a lot of courses where there may be a wide range of GIR by the winners over the years. Usually the courses where hitting a lot of GIR’s is needed is usually low scoring events like Las Vegas or Palm Springs. But the Masters is not a low scoring event and since you have to hit a ton of GIR’s to win, it shows that putting has far less effect than people think. That’s how guys that are typically below average putters like Bubba, Adam Scott, Cabrera, etc play well at ANGC.
The numbers suggest that inside 20-feet at ANGC there are a lot of putts to be made. The issue is outside 20-feet as there are likely a lot of 3-putts to be made. So the better ballstrikers tend to win here and if you’re missing greens, it’s likely going to be a difficult up-and-down from any position due to it being difficult to get close to the hole.
I think the greens have a large impact on 1st time invitees given Zoeller is the only person to win there and that was nearly 35 years ago. But for the rest of the field that gets to experience the greens there probably is not a great deviation in putting performance and the greater deviation results from getting the approach shot close to the hole.
Ev
Apr 7, 2015 at 5:29 am
Love the article, I don’t like to pick winners in the Masters. I’ve gone for Jimmy Walker finishing in top 20 at evens
Simz
Apr 7, 2015 at 4:49 am
Brilliant! Thanks for this. I feel this is a well structured and articulated piece, and although most of your final picks fall into the “common” pool, the stats justify it. But a question Rich
1) Given the weather forecast (rainy, storms predicted for Thurs – Sat) – How does this affect the picks? Maybe a chance for the shorter hitters / good scramblers
2) No putting metric to help with more filtering?
Thanks again
Rich Hunt
Apr 7, 2015 at 9:35 am
a) Wind tends to help the shorter players with good wedge games in general. Zach Johnson won at ANGC in a terribly cold and windy 4-days. I have done research on players that perform better (with regards to where they rank in an event) when the wind is up and typically good wedge players with slightly downward attack angles with the driver and a little more conservative off the tee tend to do better. As far as rain goes, I have yet to do research on that. I would think that would favor the long hitter (think Daly at Crooked Stick) and the short hitter that is excellent from the Red Zone (i.e. Weir when he won). So screwy weather conditions may favor a player more like Chris Kirk or Ryan Moore.
b)
Gary Gutful
Apr 7, 2015 at 3:57 am
Bet large and bet often.
I’m going to put a shyteload on Day.
Jake Anderson
Apr 7, 2015 at 3:10 am
Very interesting – great article! Just one question out of curiosity: How did you determine that Vijay Singh was not well past his competitive prime so that you did not rule him out initially? Is this due to his stats on the PGA-Tour this season? For example approach play from the Red Zone?
Rich Hunt
Apr 7, 2015 at 9:22 am
Yes. Vijay is 6th in Red Zone play so far this year. He also played well at Riviera (t-12th) which has a moderate correlation to performance at ANGC. I believe the Red Zone shots at Riviera are similar to the type of Red Zone shots at ANGC and that’s why there is a correlation between performance there earlier in the year and performance at the Masters.
AC930
Apr 7, 2015 at 1:51 am
Great article and insight….. but I’m not going to write off Tiger like so many are doing right now. Does anyone remember the 14 majors? He may have looked like he was trying to play left handed a few months ago, but he will wake up and intimidate again.
Rich
Apr 7, 2015 at 9:20 am
I think you need to wake up dude…………
RG
Apr 6, 2015 at 10:45 pm
To all the mouth breathers-It’s called math. Yes Rich used numbers and, OMG, formulas to give what is called a “statistical analysis.” Now I know many of you don’t “believe” in scientific mumbo jumbo, so this article is not for you.
To Rich,
Don’t worry about comments you see in this forum. People on here are convinced that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west and there’s no scientific gobbly goop that can change it.
Rich
Apr 7, 2015 at 9:21 am
But it does so what’s your point?
JHM
Apr 6, 2015 at 10:28 pm
great article – hope you are right – I got 3 of your top 21 and 2 of your top 10 with pretty good odds from Ceasars
marcel
Apr 6, 2015 at 10:16 pm
if Bubba does not win then the other guy can be whoever!
michael
Apr 6, 2015 at 9:16 pm
Before reading the article i had Keegan and Kuchar penciled in as my picks. I think at 60 to 1 Bradley is good odds for a wager.
KT
Apr 6, 2015 at 8:26 pm
Rich – so who’s your pick to win it?
Richie Hunt
Apr 6, 2015 at 8:56 pm
I like Rory.
Gubment Cheez
Apr 6, 2015 at 6:53 pm
It’s a limited field with a bunch of over the hill former winners and a lot of amateurs that couldn’t shoot in the 60s at the John Deere.
Augusta thinks it’s too good for golf
It’s a cool looking course but by far it’s the worst tournament of the year
Why anyone really cares about this is beyond me.
Richie Hunt
Apr 6, 2015 at 8:55 pm
Gubment — Have you ever been to Augusta?
Gubment Cheez
Apr 7, 2015 at 1:13 pm
Yea once when I first got into golf
Joey.
Apr 6, 2015 at 6:27 pm
Richie also thinks that the greens at Augusta are easier to putt than other courses on tour. I’d say that’s enough to discredit any of his opinions/ “statistical analyses”
Richie Hunt
Apr 6, 2015 at 8:54 pm
What can be discredited is you have completely misrepresented what I’ve said in a desperate move to make yourself sound correct. The data shows that the make percentages inside 20-feet at ANGC are fairly high and that the 3-putt %’s are also high. Faster greens on Tour by and large have the highest make %’s and depending on the size of the greens…have the highest 3-putt %’s. I was told that this could not possibly be true and I showed example after example of this where the slower greens (i.e. Pebble, Riviera, Torrey Pines, etc) had low make %’s while the faster greens like Congressional, TPC Boston, and Valhalla had some of the higher make %’s. Until you provide any actual evidence suggesting otherwise, it’s hard to take your claims with more than a grain of salt.
Joey.
Apr 6, 2015 at 9:12 pm
You mad bro?
Rich Hunt
Apr 7, 2015 at 9:26 am
Not mad at all. I love to clarify people that make purposely inaccurate statements. Exposing people and their agendas comes with the territory.
Duncan Castles
Apr 7, 2015 at 2:35 pm
Hunt wins 10 & 8.
Joakim
Apr 6, 2015 at 5:57 pm
Henrik Stenson should be in top 10
Rich Hunt
Apr 7, 2015 at 9:29 am
I thought about it, but Stenson’s game is really about driving (typically). Last season he was excellent from the Red Zone (5th), this year he’s been very good. The issue I see for him is that ANGC isn’t a course where you’re going to gain a lot of strokes on the field by hitting 300 yard drives down the middle. It won’t hurt, but you have to worry about guys like Bubba, DJ, Holmes, etc. that can simply bomb it out there as far as they can and still end up with a shot at the green from a closer distance. I wouldn’t scoff at anybody picking Stenson, I just think that there are players that fit into ANGC better than he does.
Jadon
Apr 6, 2015 at 4:58 pm
Yes Mike Weir has a green jacket but his play on tour has been less than stellar for the past 3 years.
Matt
Apr 6, 2015 at 4:50 pm
Haha sorry but I laughed when I saw Paul Casey…dude’s driving accuracy is 110th.
All things considered Bubba’s in the 140’s but we’ve all seen the filthy shots he can hit from the rough!
Sam
Apr 6, 2015 at 1:28 pm
In reply to Ed,
When Zach won in ’07 the weather was less than ideal. The course was playing soft and so the longer hitters couldn’t take advantage of the par 5s. So a great wedge player like Zach had no disadvantage laying up on par 5s. Unless the course plays soft it’s unlikely for a short player to prevail
Ross
Apr 6, 2015 at 1:23 pm
This is a Par 5 championship, the golfer with the least stokes taken on the 16 par 5s will be triumphant.
Jafar
Apr 6, 2015 at 1:23 pm
Sorry but your stats are a horrible way to pick the winner. Just because you said Bubba Watson would win doesn’t mean your formula worked.
Brooks Koepka, Zach Johnson,Angel Cabrera, Jonas Blixt, are all very capable of winning.
The only pick I like of yours is JB Holmes, but the rest is just a list of the Top 10 in the world, nothing too bold there, any of those guys can win any tournament.
The questions is can you pick someone that no one expects?
If I had to pick 4 people that not many would expect, they’d be: Jamie Donaldson, Victor Dubuisson , Patrick Reed, Cameron Tringale.
Rich Hunt
Apr 6, 2015 at 1:57 pm
My list in the previous year (I’ve only done it for the past 2 years) had Adam Scott who won it that year as well. Correlation does not imply causation, but we are trying to determine the *likelihood* of winning an event based on past data. There has only been one 1st time invitee to win at ANGC which shows a relationship between experience of playing Augusta and winning. The odds of winning at ANGC despite missing the cut the week before are extremely unlikely which eliminates Cabrera. I don’t believe Blixt is a good fit for ANGC given his weak ballstriking. And as far as one ‘nobody expects’, I did list Paul Casey who would be in my top-5 picks. The numbers really like Casey this year.
Jafar
Apr 8, 2015 at 10:52 am
Yah I saw your Paul Casey pick as being someone who know ones expects to win.
I will keep my eye out for his name on the leaderboard.
AllBOdoesisgolf
Apr 6, 2015 at 1:21 pm
the fact that Tiger is 20/1 is laughable
Dan
Apr 6, 2015 at 12:52 pm
I wonder what odds the bookies would give to take the field against your 21 players?
I personally like your list but you’d have to agree that the stats don’t show everything!
Rich Hunt
Apr 6, 2015 at 2:07 pm
I agree, statistics do not show everything. But, statisticians do not create statistics with the goal in mind of showing everything because they know that more often than not it is impossible to do so. So their goal is to use historical data, trends, correlations, variances, etc. to help provide a more accurate understanding instead of a *perfect* understanding.
For ANGC, unless the weather conditions change dramatically, hitting it high, hitting it long, hitting it well from 175-225 yards and having experience playing ANGC fall right in line with the players most likely to play well.
Matt
Apr 6, 2015 at 12:50 pm
too short to play well at Augusta?? Zach Johnson won the event?? Very confused
Ed
Apr 6, 2015 at 12:55 pm
I kind of thought the same thing when I read that as Zach J was going to be one of my picks
Jm
Apr 6, 2015 at 1:07 pm
The year z johnson won was a year when weather and conditions played a big factor and eliminated some of the advantages that players who hit it long and high typically have at Augusta National
Matt
Apr 6, 2015 at 1:21 pm
If I recall correctly, ZJ won in ’07 during a very windy weekend. Plus he can’t putt for sheeeeeit.
Rich Hunt
Apr 6, 2015 at 1:52 pm
It was not only a windy weekend, it was record low temps. At the time I was living in Atlanta and the temps were in the 40’s with the wind. This made it extremely difficult to reach #13 and #15 in two shots and thus players had to lay-up on those holes and get into a wedge contest with Zach.
Keith
Apr 7, 2015 at 12:09 pm
That was my one and only Masters. I did not pack appropriately and had to buy a long sleeve pullover so I didn’t freeze to death! Ian Poulter wore really pink pants and patent leather pink shoes on Sunday…not sure why I remember that.
Jason
Apr 6, 2015 at 1:27 pm
He did win it once but overall his average finish is 37, with 5 missed cuts in 11 starts I can see how he missed the top 21.
Guantanemo
Apr 6, 2015 at 1:28 pm
The thing you have to realize is, the year Zach Johnson won, temperatures at Augusta were at historic lows, so the longer hitters weren’t able to take advantage of their length to reach the greens in two in par 5s. That’s why Zach, who was so deadly accurate with his wedges, was able to take advantage of the longer hitters’ disadvantage and score low on those holes. You have to realize that Augusta is a course that absolutely favors longer hitters under normal conditions, so the “too short to play well” is in fact a crucial metric.
SJ
Apr 6, 2015 at 1:31 pm
Pretty sure Mike Weir is even shorter than Zach, and misses more fairways. Last time I checked I he has a green jacket in his closet as well.