Tiger And The Layoff

by Coltrane

The front page headline on Sports Illustrated [dot] com today states that “The Dominance Is Over” for Tiger Woods.  “THE STORY” links to Joe Posnanski’s excellent piece, “Writing Off Tiger.”  Posnanski argues that we shouldn’t expect Tiger to be dominant again.  Among Posnanski’s points:

First, he will turn 35 at the end of the year. There has been talk that this means Woods will still be in his golfing prime for the next few years, but history tells a different story. Since 1970, the average age of major championship winners is 32, and things tumble off for golfers after age 35. Fewer than a quarter of the major championship winners have been 36 or older. The only players since 1970 to win multiple majors after 35 are: Jack Nicklaus (4), Gary Player (4), Ray Floyd (2), Nick Price (2), Vijay Singh (2), Mark O’Meara (2), Angel Cabrera (2), Padraig Harrington (2).

More to the point, Woods has been dominant for a dozen years — which is a long time to dominate in golf. The greatest golfers have had a fairly short window of time when they dominate, and when that window closes, they stop winning major championships.

• Ben Hogan won all his majors from 1946 through 1953 and though he contended for years (finishing second four times in the next three years), he never won another one.

• Arnold Palmer won all his majors from 1958 through 1964.

• Tom Watson (more on him in a minute) won all his majors from 1975 through 1983.

• Sam Snead won all his majors from 1946 through 1954.

• Nick Faldo won all his majors from 1987 through 1996.

• Bobby Jones won all his majors from 1923 through 1930.

And so on. There are two notable exceptions — they are the two best old golfers of the last 50 years. Gary Player spread out his major championship victories over two decades — 1959-78. His endurance is a marvel, what makes him one of the greatest who ever lived. The other, of course, is Nicklaus, who won his first major in 1962 and his last at Augusta in 1986 when he was 46 years old. Nicklaus’ ability to overcome disappointment — from 1976 through ’83 he finished second a staggering SEVEN times — and continue to maintain his will and enthusiasm for winning is part of what makes him one of the great sportsmen of the 20th Century.

I’ve been thinking about Tiger’s layoff for a while.  I remembered reading something Bill James wrote about Home Run Baker in his original Historical Baseball Abstract (published 1985.)  To paraphrase:  Home Run Baker was a .700+ Offensive Winning Percentage player from 1911 to 1914.  (In other words, a team of Home Run Bakers would be expected to win 70%+ of their games.)  Baker took the year off in 1915 due to a dispute with Philadelphia Atheltics owner Connie Mack —  Baker decided playing semi-pro ball was preferable to playing for Mack.  Baker returned in 1916 as a .600+  Winning Percentage player.  He held that value through 1919.  Baker retired for a year following the 1919 season.  Upon his return to baseball in 1920 he was a .500+ Winning Percentage player.

James’ point, and I think there’s something to this idea, is that when world-class performers voluntarily take time off it’s incredibly difficult for them to recapture what made them great in the first place.

I believe we may be looking at that now with Tiger Woods.

—————–

Home Run Baker’s OPS+ By Year, 100 is league average: