THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

Sure it’s true that she generates so much animosity solely because she is a woman, and that is simply detestable.  You must also admit though that the only reason she is getting the sponsor’s exemptions is because she is a woman.  It’s not like the cavemen (of which sadly there are many) were the first to dispense with the gender blindness.

I hope she does well and shuts all those idiots up.  I have one major problem with the whole sponsor’s exemptions thing, and this has nothing to do with Wie in particular.  The reason I love sports so much is that it is essentially a meritocracy where the level of subjectivity is very low.  I realize that sports is entertainment, but most would admit that giving a sponsor’s exemption to Bill Murray would be going too far.  So Wie is a great golfer and will eventually win on the tour.  I don’t know much about qualifying, but is it that hard for her (considering how good she is) to qualify the way everyone else does?

What I’m saying is basically very simple: when money and entertainment start to replace pure competition I start to lose interest.  I find it satisfying when travelling gets called for Jordan the same way it does for the rank and file, when Maddux doesn’t get the strike call simply on reputation.  This environment where the famous personalities get all the advantages severely cuts into my enjoyment of the competition.

Golfers, like any person in any profession, are attracted to the money.  The more money in the pot, the more you will have kids become pro golfers.  Therefore, it is a necessity that there is as huge a purse as possible to attract the best golfers now, and, for the future, to entice young people to become golfers.

John Deere puts in all that money because of all the extra attention it gets for the novelty of a 16-year old girl.  A girl that will not win any money of that purse.  In the end, the current players should be overjoyed that Wie is not winning right now, because there’s more money for them.

Once she starts winning alot, it’s debatable if she’ll be able to generate extra purse money, beyond what she will win and if she’ll be still novel an act.

In essence, Wie is putting up thousands of dollars (indirectly via sponsors) to play with the big boys.

Once she starts winning alot, it’s debatable if she’ll be able to generate extra purse money, beyond what she will win and if she’ll be still novel an act.

Perhaps, but having a women win a couple of tour events will sure generate a lot of publicity—and you can’t see her winning that consistently on the PGA tour ... but who knows.

Next up: Michelle Wie, or Why Some Women Are Jealous Princesses

Next up: GEICO Jealous Princesses ads. 

Or is this type of juvenile comments inappropriate?

I think that if Wie does begin to win and win, it will certainly generate higher purses.  When Tiger Woods began to take the world by the neck (through winning, not by missing cuts), purses went through the roof (of course it helped that the economy happened to be going great guns at the time too...).

But thinking strictly of Wie, I think it is time she forgets about the PGA Tour and sticks to the LPGA tour where she can learn to win.  She is going to take the world by storm someday, but she has to learn to win sometime, and right now, she is just wasting time on the PGA Tour.

Everytime she misses a cut on the men’s tour, it is a missed chance to make history on the women’s tour.

Basically, 16-year old Wie on the men’s tour:  bad idea.  25-year old Wie on the men’s tour: great idea.

Here we go again

She’s just not ready for it. She’s certainly not proving anything except that she can’t play with the men at her level right now. There’s no doubt she’s going to improve dramatically as a player and mature as a person, but right now, it’s just the wrong time.

Is this person talking about the worst golfer on the PGA tour, Craig Perks, who made 1 cut in his last 28 PGA tournaments?  Nope, nobody talks about him.  They let him keep trying and trying.  I’m guessing rules have it so he didn’t qualify for the tour in 2007.  But, no one in 2006 said he should leave.

Nope, this person is talking about Michelle Wie, who has the same sexist attitudes as Nancy Lopez:

“If I had a 16-year-old who could play the way Michelle does, I would never encourage her to play the men’s tour,” LPGA great Nancy Lopez said last summer. “When I was a girl I wanted to win, and I think it’s impossible for Michelle to win on the men’s tour.

“Plus, most PGA Tour players probably don’t want her on their tour. They won’t say that, but I’m speaking for them. We need Michelle to bring people in the gates. The LPGA has great young players with personality, and Michelle is one of them. Michelle is a woman and should support the women’s tour.”

Women’s tours don’t exist to give women a place to play.  The exist to give women an additional place to play.

If the tour organizers think that Michelle Wie is not embarrassing them, and it brings in the money to pay the sexist men, then what’s the harm here?  While she is a novelty because she is a teenager, as well as being a female, she’s also a player at least as good as Craig Perks. 

Let he who has cast a stone against Craig Perks be the one to cast the next stone.

Until then, this is the 21st century.  Why is gender an issue?  Let people decide for themselves what they should do with their own lives.  If you don’t like it, there’s plenty of other things to entertain you.

I still don’t understand your logic, Tango, and it seems especially ridiculous now.

Michelle Wie has only experienced every benefit due to her age and gender.  I understand that this is not true for most women, but it certainly is true for her.

Also, Craig Perks had to qualify somehow for the PGA tour.  Do you think there was ever a time that Michelle Wie could have?  If she had taken the time to qualify, I can assure you the animosity towards her would have been far, far less.

I have absolutely no problem with any woman competing with men at any competition whatsoever so long as they have earned their position there, and not been given it for the sake of enriching sponsors (or anyone else for that matter) at the cost of true competition.

The sponsor’s exemption is there.  If the issue is with that, that’s fine.  The issue from most people however was that “she should learn to win with the ladies first”.  I never hear any issue with men being granted a sponsor’s exemption, regardless of the quality of that player.

The issue seems to be either that:
- she’s a woman being given a sponsor’s exemption
- she’s a woman who hasn’t merited to play with the best

If she were a man, and had the same qualities and experience as a golfer as she has, there’d be no issue.

Tango.  I understand your discomfort with the “caveman"-like comments of some of the male pros (and others).  However, I believe that many people have a legitimate problem with one person being singled out for exemption after exemption without having proven he OR she is worthy of the honor in any way except popularity. 

I have no problem with a woman being given a sponsor’s exemption.  Indeed I was intrigued by Annika’s attempt against the men and rooted for her enthusiastically.  I do however sincerely believe that Wie has never demonstrated the ability to compete against the men nor do I think she would have been able to qualify for the men’s tour via Q-school.

Furthermore, I also do NOT believe that if her age and skill level and golfing experience were exactly the same, only she were male, that she would have received the number of sponsor’s exemptions that she has.  This is my point, the fans and sponsors are enthusiastic about seeing a woman (girl) compete because it makes a great story.  They would be less enthusiastic if she were male.

The appearance of fairness and having earned your place is actually far more important to people than you are giving credit for.  As for not hearing about players or others having issues with men being given exemptions, my guess is that part of the reason is that Wie is such a hot-button issue that everyone is asked about it, so everyone’s opinion gets heard.  Probably there are some issues with other exemptions that nobody else really cares about.

Incidentally, if you take the 1000th best male golfer in the world, how many tries do you think it would take before he made the cut on a PGA tour event?

It just seems awfully unfair of you to label every claim against whether Wie should play against men as sexist or backward, especially now that those who claimed there would be the issue of her psyche (which I actually thought was WAY overblown) seem to have been remarkably prescient.

btw.  Craig Perks won the Player’s Champinoship in 2002 and so has been able to keep his tour card for the last five years even though he is now a terrible (for a pro… far worse than number 1000) golfer.  But those rules were in place before he won the championship, and so he has not received any preferential treatment.

Let’s presume then that the real issue then is that it’s the multiple exemptions that a person (male or female) gets.

The response should be: can we stop giving this person multiple exemptions?  One a year is enough.

But, the response is: send her back to the ladies tour, and wait until she wins something there. A man telling a woman to, essentially, stay in the kitchen, is deplorable.  Don’t tell a woman where her place is.  They could have told her to go play where all the other 16 to 18yr male players play.  They didn’t do that.  They told her to stick with women.

The issue should be with the exemptor and not the exemptee.

Tango.  Thanks for your reasonable discussion in this matter.  As always you are a true gentleman.

“The issue should be with the exemptor and not the exemptee”.—I think this cuts to the heart of the matter re: Wie.  It is my contention that sponsors and the media and whoever else have been (perhaps innocently) complicit in foisting upon us the idea that Wie was destined for unique “once-in-a-generation” greatness, and therefore deserved all the fame and money (and exemptions) that came her way.  In retrospect there were some excellent reasons for skepticism in this regard, including ones that have been heavily discussed in the media and don’t need repeating here.

There are a few more reasons for skepticism that to me seem underreported or merely hinted at:
1)Much of Wie’s extreme advantage at a young age came from her height.  She essentially stopped growing upwards at age 13.
2)Women in most sports generally seem to reach their peak at an earlier age than men.  Extrapolating Wie’s career path by comparing it to boy’s her age may have been inappropriate.

and perhaps most importantly:
3)As far as I can tell, we have just passed through a “generational gap” in women’s golf.  Not too many years ago the best female golfers were older and stronger and far less athletic, seemingly relying on experience and size/strength to excel, and eschewing (to some degree) athleticism and “natural ability”.  The landscape of women’s golf has changed dramatically and Wie seems to have been one of the first of the new generation.  In other words, Wie is not nearly so unique as we were led to believe, but merely is/was one of the very best of a new generation of golfers, the majority of whom are very significantly better than the previous generation.

Ironically, the more Wie struggles, and the more young and younger good female golfers keep coming through the pipeline, the more I believe that Wie and her family made the right decision to grab as much fame and money as they could before the illusion of her uniqueness was shattered.

Do I blame Wie herself for all this?  No.  But I do weary of the attention she gathers at all times, as it seems to detract from the action on the course, as well as offends my concept of fairness.  Perhaps some of the male “caveman” pros feel this way too and just express it very poorly.

It’s very possible that the reason that the caveman were upset was the meritocracy of it.  And, in true caveman spirit, rather than discuss the merits of their own objections, decided to throw it away and focus on her gender.  The equivalent of “I can’t define it, but I know it when I see it”.

Your objections are with merit, and would have made for a better discussion, if less ESPN air play. As for whether she “peaked early”, it would have been hard to say, but your points are certainly worthy. 

It is after all Tom Lehman himself who named her the Big Wiesy when she was 12, comparing her, essentially, to Ernie Els.  Els, when she was 14:

When he watches her, Els can see the comparison. “Yeah,” he says. “She’s got beautiful rhythm. She’s got it all. The rhythm is probably the most impressive thing of all.”

And so Els is playing a practice round, yesterday, a warmup for tomorrow’s opening round of the Sony Open. And he’s paired with the one golfer in the field perhaps more famous than he.

“I had a really exciting morning,” he would say. “Normally a practice round on tour is pretty boring stuff.”

After yesterday’s round, Els says everything anyone has ever said about Wie. And then he keeps going. He compares her to Tiger. Says she might play with the best of the men.

“As I said earlier, Michelle is 14,” he says. “Give her another couple of years to get stronger. I mean, she can play on this tour.

“If she keeps working, keeps doing the right things, there’s no reason why she shouldn’t be out here.”

You had star players excited about her.  They wanted to be with her. 

I really don’t see anything wrong.  She didn’t bypass the rules.  And the exemption was given to someone that other star players would have wanted to give it to, and had the basic tools to compete, and was a drawing card.  This is not Garth Brooks playing in Spring Training.  This is more like Michael Jordan playing minor league baseball.  Wie was more likely to make the cut than for Jordan to be called up.

Tango. I want to point you to this article written today on the Wall Street Journal online.

wsj article.

With all due respect to Els and other golfing experts, his statement “give her a couple of years… she can play on this tour” (at age 16!) is the kind of hyperbole that those with any perspective on youth prodigies in sport and the normal difference in male vs female ability at the highest level ought to have cautioned against.

Another example is Freddy Adu, over whom sponsors and (American) “experts” gushed while those with more experience in these matters (mostly British analysts who had seen multiple flameouts) took a “let’s wait and see” attitude.  He is no longer the top prospect in USA soccer.

Thanks for pointing this out, Tangotiger, this has been bothering me for a while too.

I think that one missing aspect here is that Wie was knocking out around 300 yards with her drives when she was 13 years old.  That would put her in the top 10 in average drive FOR THE PGA today.  So if she wanted to give the PGA a try, why not, she’s hitting the ball farther than most of them. 

I think economics is what is pushing the reaction of most golfers.  The ones who feel the most threatened by Wie (those struggling like Perks) are the ones complaining, it seems, and the best players are not bothered because they benefit economically FROM her being around and driving up interest in the tournament and driving up the winnings for that tournament but don’t fear her.  And the woman complain because the money Wie is drawing to men’s events could be enriching their purses instead.

Gender aside, why doesn’t anyone focus on the fact that she has come as close as she has to making the men’s cut when she was in her mid-teens?  I have found that amazing, that a mid-teen youngster could come that close to qualifying.  Plus, as I noted first, her 300 yard drives.

Besides, the big money is in endorsements anyhow, not winning tournaments, and Team Wie appears to have maximized that for her.  When she feels like winning will help her marketability, then she will probably concentrate on winning the LPGA events as well as playing the PGA. 

That’s not ideal in a pure sense of competition, but if you want pure competition, make everyone amateur like Bobby Jones’s era and have no prizes at all.  See what that does for the sport.

And her playing in men’s tournaments is entertaining to most people, except for the golfers who are embarrassed by being beat out by a mid-teen young lady.  I would feel pretty bummed out if I were them too, but as Tango notes, then perhaps they shouldn’t be playing anymore.

I think if she exhibits the ability to hit drives as far as any grown man, she should be allowed the exemption.  And the tournament is allowed to give anyone they feel like that exemption, so it is within the rules that she gets into these tournaments, the sponsor could have given it to another person but chose not to. 

So let it be, everything is within the rules existing, if anyone has problems with it, change the rules, but I don’t see what’s so wrong with her playing if she is exhibiting skills that most men do not show.  If she has the skills and don’t embarrass herself, which she didn’t until recently with her antics, what’s wrong with that?

I think that one missing aspect here is that Wie was knocking out around 300 yards with her drives when she was 13 years old.  That would put her in the top 10 in average drive FOR THE PGA today.  So if she wanted to give the PGA a try, why not, she’s hitting the ball farther than most of them.

I’m sorry, but this is just nonsense.  Take a closer look behind the curtain of the hype machine.  Wie has always consistently hit it significantly shorter than the men who compete.  see this link

Still don’t believe me? There are now a multitude of stories regarding her coach Ledbetter’s attempts to lengthen her swing (with arguably disastrous results) so that she could compete at PGA events.  From Leadbetter himself (a for-Wie biased observer):

Michelle hits the ball 280 yards under normal conditions, so she is only average length on the men’s tour. She knows she has to get longer and stronger to compete--and she’s definitely up for the challenge. Michelle’s turning 16 on Oct. 11, and we’ve only seen the tip of the iceberg as far as her potential is concerned.

Remember, Leadbetter is talking here about the most impressive aspect of Wie’s game, not the weakest.

Furthermore, Wie wouldn’t even be the longest hitter on the LPGA tour were she even a member, and never, even at the top of her game, would have been the longest hitter.  see here

The hype surrounding Wie has always been that of POTENTIAL not present ability, a potential that unfortunately has not (yet) been fulfilled.  The only debate really should be “how much does potential greatness justify present preferential treatment.  As Wie’s female competitors get younger, longer, and better, we are beginning to see the answer.

Bea, interesting link.

Assuming you have 3 par3, 3 par5, and 12 par4, her overall average score (as a 16yr old) is 72.6, vs 70.2 for the average player making the cut.  That puts her at the cusp of the cut level I’d imagine.

***

In any case, I look forward to the sponsor exemption being applied to more women.

In any case, I look forward to the sponsor exemption being applied to more women.

Tango, I couldn’t agree more.  Let’s just hope the next phenom is Canadian.  That oughta keep the hype here in the states a little more under wraps.