I think a weekly feature has been thrust upon me.
At the Fields Open, Seon Hwa Lee finished T47. She dropped two spots in this week’s Rolex rankings to #20, falling behind Yuri Fudoh and Sakura Yokomine. I’ll waive the complaint on Fudoh and focus on Yokomine, who MISSED THE CUT at Fields yet still jumped over the 2006 LPGA Rookie of the Year.
This beats all of the examples I posted last week, hands down.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
HD,
I think I know why Seon Hwa dropped in the Rolex. Two years ago she lost the Fields in a playoff to Meena Lee. So her finish last week was a signifigant dropoff from then.
The Rolex rankings are just a lot of BS. That doesn't keep some people in golf media from using them to rank people. Cough...cough...Ron Sirak for one.
Bill
But that's normal for any kind of rolling rankings!!!
If you do worse than on the same week two years ago (1 year ago in some other sports) you are going to fall. The other girl missing the cut is irrelevant since she probably did the same thing two years ago.
I understand that Lee's playoff loss two years ago was just rolled out of the Rolex data set. But that miniscule subtraction from her record (an event 104 weeks ago gets the smallest multiplier Rolex uses) shouldn't come anywhere near the subtraction that Yokomine should have gotten from missing the cut.
HD, if you like a system that punishes missed cuts you must like Sagarin. I don't know how much Yokomine fell because Sagarin doesn't seem to keep archives, but I'd bet she fell a bit.
Annoying how Sagarin doesn't keep archives, isn't it? But then you might be able to reverse engineer their system, I suppose. Maybe there's a reason that ascribes less paranoia to them. Since the Rolex is so-gaining points based, I could see why a T1 in 2006, even reduced by far by their formula, could still have earned her more points than her disappointing finish on the back 9 got her in the Fields.
I think with the Rolex you need to look at the average points and not just minute changes in the rankings. It might work decently to separate out the top 10 from the rest and make it hard to break into the top 30-40, but it doesn't seem to me all that good at distinguishing between #11-#29, let's say.
As you can see from my effort to combine the rankings, I used my own judgment in ranking players who are ranked quite differently by Rolex and Sagarin. Sagarin is useful to tell who's been hotter the past year, for instance. But Sarah Lee #7 in the world? I'm not sure about that one!
Post a Comment