Sunday: How Will POY Jordan Spieth do in 2016?

Jordan Spieth had arguably the best season in golf history — and he did it at age 21!  So how will Jordan do next year?  Let’s let history be our guide.

Here’s a chart showing the followup years for Players of the Year going back to 2010 for all players who have won at least one major in their career.  With the exception of golfers named Rory McIlroy, you can see POYs have not had much success the following year.

2015  Jordan Spieth    ???      ???
2014  Rory McIlroy   3 wins, 9 top tens
2013  Tiger Woods    0 wins, 0 top tens
2012  Rory McIlroy   1 win,  9 top tens
2010  Jim Furyk      0 wins, 5 top tens
2009  Tiger Woods    0 wins, 5 top tens

One thing this chart shows us is just how dominating Rory McIlroy was.  Will Jordan be able to follow in Rory’s footprints?


Thongchai!  The New York Times (or the AP, really) has a super article about Thongchai Jaidee and the other Asian players on the Presidents Cup team.  An enjoyable read and I learned a few things.  Old school journalism — an endangered species in this world of 150 insipid bloggers posting the same stupidstics and trick shot videos each and every day.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Sunday: How Will POY Jordan Spieth do in 2016?

  1. Kris says:

    I’m glad the AP is showing Thongchai Jaidee some love. I’ve been a fan from the first time I saw him, and I think you’d be hard pressed to find any tour pro who dislikes him. “Four and a half Asians, If I was to count Danny Lee” That cracked me up. Definitely think the internationals have a solid chance to pull off a win this time.

    I see why you threw in the “with at least one career major” caveat to eliminate Luke Donald. He had a win and 8 top tens in 2012 which would undercut your Rory propaganda. 😛

    • lannyh says:

      About Luke, exactly! I chose the cutoff year and the “with at least one career major” caveat to show the ridiculousness of the recent Shane Bacon article and ESPN chart regarding multiple-major-winning followup years, where they both arbitrarily chose 1980 as the cutoff — which made Watson and Nicklaus look inferior. It’s dishonest, which was, of course, my point.

      I like the Asian team better, or certainly no less. That said, I will be cheering for the Americans, so that there will be no doubt that Jordan Spieth is Player of the Year. I wonder if the captain will position Spieth so that he can “clinch” on the final day. Couples invariably did that with Woods.

      • Kris says:

        Jay Haas seems to be making some bad decisions so far. Brooks Koepka getting the shaft twice? He’ll probably put Phil in the clincher spot to try and revitalize his career. Jordan Spieth did a fantastic job of carving out a name for himself when the golf media was trying their hardest to ignore him. I’ll be disappointed if the outcome of the Presidents Cup changes how his year is viewed or reopens the Jason vs Jordan debate.

        You’re good at playing the media’s game. If you were willing to abandon your integrity you’d make a great sports writer.

      • TruthTeller says:

        I guess I took it differently than you did. I forget where I read it, but from what I did read, 1980 was arbitrarily chosen as it was kind of a distinct era change. Palmer/Nicklaus was coming to a close and the next era was getting ready to begin.

        As I’ve said many times, it’s next to impossible to accurately compare different era’s due to all of the variables that can and do change substantially over time.

      • lannyh says:

        If that’s your take, why include Watson at all? Why make it look like Watson did it only once when he did it many other times (including the three years prior to the one shown)?

        If you can’t accept the manipulation, you are not being honest with yourself.

      • TruthTeller says:

        Watson is an unfortunate casualty as his career occurred during both “eras”. But overall, it’s a pretty solid break point. At the end of the day, any break point is going to have it’s flaws anyway.

      • lannyh says:

        Dude, give it up. (I know the reason they use 1980, but it’s lazy and deceptive, and it has absolutely nothing to do with “eras.”) They should not put Watson and Nicklaus on the list if they are going to do it in a deceptive manner. I don’t understand why you would even pretend to support that practice; it just makes you look like an airhead.

      • lannyh says:

        Actually, I don’t know why they used 1980. I thought I saw when I investigated that the PGA or OWGR stats only went back that far, but when I doublechecked just now, you could easily go back farther. So, the numbers were cherrypicked to deliberately play down Nicklaus and Watson’s accomplishments.

        By the way, Palmer won his last major in 1964, Nicklaus in 1986. If you don’t want to use ’86, Nicklaus won two in ’80. The point being the Palmer era ended well before the Nicklaus era did.

      • lannyh says:

        “unfortunate casualty” — that just sank (sunk?) in. Funny. The TRUTH is the unfortunate casualty. Only it wasn’t unfortunate; it was planned. I mean, it’s not like they went, “Gosh, Watson’s record is really distorted, but, golly, there’s nothing I can do about it. I can’t simply show Watson’s full career. That would be physically impossible. We must not disturb the gods of my completely arbitrary 1980 cutoff!”

      • TruthTeller says:

        I feel sorry for you.

  2. DanishDude says:

    Thorbjørn Olesen wins in St. Andrews… Great stuff..

  3. DanishDude says:

    Obviously I’m quite biased in the matter..

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s