[Jim Nugent]

Craig Sweet,

I don't give a damn what Michelle Wie does, but as a sportswriter I really appreciate the broad brush you're painting all of us with.

That's right. We're all idiots. We're all assholes. We all don't know a damn thing about anything.

I think Matt makes some good points. As someone who covers a lot of college basketball, I'm going to make an analogy. Michelle Wie is a top 10 basketball program trying to put together a schedule. Playing LPGA events is like playing other ranked teams: If you win, great. If not, no one really thinks less of you. Playing in the women's am is like playing six games against Gonzaga, Creighton, Kent State, Old Dominion, St. Joseph's and Wisconsin-Milwaukee. People who know basketball realize that all of those teams are pretty good and it is certainly possible all of them could beat a ranked team. But the general public doesn't know that. If a ranked team would lose to any of them, they would think the ranked team isn't any good.

For our SEC football guys, let's put it like this: A year ago, did your school want any part of Boise State? Or Louisville? Wie is USC or Oklahoma. Morgan Pressel is Boise State. And losing to Boise State costs the big-name programs money.

From my perspective, Wie is "playing up" and isn't in the position where she has to win. If she does, great. If not, it's no big deal. She is the "it girl" of golf right now when she might not be even the best teenager in the sport. Give her and her family credit because everybody knows who Wie is while a very small percentage of the population knows who Paula Craemer is.

I think Wie is an unbelievable talent and has an amazing amount of potential. I'm not convinced, however, that she is the only teenager who can be described in that way. I think there is certainly a significant amount of image creation going on here. I think she is playing in events where she has the most gain and the least to lose. I understand why it's happening.

Jeff, analogies suffer as a way to analyze anything -- and yours seems especially tortured -- but let me carry on with the hoops comparison in a different way.  

Wie is more like a high school JV team, that already is as good as the very best WNBA teams, and can even beat nearly half the NBA teams on any given Sunday.  Who does this team play to become as good as it can?  That is their dilemma/challenge.

Other high school teams are a complete waste.  Womenīs college teams?  Maybe on occasional exhibitions.  Playing lesser competition on any regular basis does not build their game much.      

WNBA puts them more with their peers.  It makes sense to play there, and they do, with great success.  But they also should compete against NBA teams when they get the chance -- if their goal is to become the best team they can.  

In hoops this could never happen.  Any team that can play with the NBA will murder every womanīs team that ever existed.  That is why the Wie story is so amazing.  She already has beaten nearly half the field in PGA events.  Not once but twice.  She beat up most of the players in an elite menīs USGA event, losing only to the eventual champion.  

No woman in history has ever achieved these results.  No woman has had these options.  Wie does.  She does not take the easy way: she plays the very best competition she can find.  Itīs working.  She keeps getting better and better.  

The clincher -- and this really is a critical part of the Wie phenomenon -- is that she is only 15.  Golfers typically donīt peak till they are much older.  So the world, golfing and otherwise, wonders where this might lead to.  

That is why so much attention is piled on her.  Wie is forcing the world to re-think a basic assumption almost everyone held: that women cannot compete straight up with men in sport.  There was good reason to believe this -- until now.  Wie is giving tantalizing hints that may not be so.  The implications could go way beyond golf.  People recognize this, hence all the attention and speculation.  Wherever it leads, weīre seeing history made.    

If Creamer had won the WAPL at 13 while bombing the ball 300+ yards, beat about half the field at two PGA tour events and become the 2nd-best player statistically on the LPGA by 15, she too would have world-wide attention outside golf.  Instead, Creamer is another LPGA pro: gifted, accomplished at a younger age than usual, but not a gender/history maker.  We can appreciate her, but that is pretty much it.  With Wie we can dream.    

[PThomas]

Matt-  you might be right re it's a marketing plan, but pretty smart if you ask me

I hope her not winning the AM and other events doesn't hurt her confidence/game in the long long run, the old winning breeds winning thing -- which Jack has always been a proponent of , btw

I hope she's happy and best wishes to her!

[Matt_Ward]

Chris B:

How is the amateur competitiopn so inferior as you claim? Geeze Chris -- the last time Michelle played in the Girls' Junior she got beat and beat decisively. I think you fail to grasp the fact that IMG and her dad know full well that avoding such events is one sure way to avoid Michelle getting tipped up by some 4 foot 10 inch phenom who's just looking to take down some serious lumber in an upset.

If you have too many defeats against "inferior competition" how does that effect the marketing calculations? Simple -- it lowers the return.

The best "marketing" tactics is what Team Wie is following. Stay away and keep plugging with the professional events. Doesn't matter what she shoots -- she is in front of the masses and the "I'm 15" excuse still gets played whenever necessary.

However, I am suggesting that knowing how to win and to win in a decisive manner is something that all champions need to learn. I'd just like to see Wie at her age NOW take on the so-called "inferior" competition and handle the dicey elements of match play and emerge victorious. Does it fly in the face of the carefull devised strategy of marketing that IMG and her Dad have concocted? Sure. But, it would build the kind of "winning mentality" that I see would benefit Michelle immensely.

Doug S:

Thanks for your inane post -- the issue with Hogan rested on other factors -- his recovery from a near death accident and the inability (for physical reasons) that kept him away from anything near his prior schedule before the accident.

Craig Sweet:

Do yourself a favor partner -- you've got blinders on -- the Wie folks know this better than you -- why risk her losing to some 4 foot 10 inch up and coming player who is looking to get Wie on an off day. Better to duck and run rather than feel the sting in losing and have to explain how'd it happen.

You have this baskwards -- I really enjoy Wie and want her to fulfill what you and everyone else believes will happen automatically -- show me the wins and I'll show the deference. Play in the Women's Amateur and other events of that type where the hype / reputation are on the line and you stand and deliver. If it's so easy why the constant ducking?

I know the answer and you Wie lovers also know it but won't admit it.

Shivas:

Wake up man -- she's the favorite in the Women's AM -- if you don't believe that then say good night Gracie.

I don't know the situation with Feller to comment upon but plenty of people have come into the NBA as high school kids. Guess what they are doing now Shivas. Managing 7-11's at best.

[John_Conley]

I don't know the situation with Feller to comment upon but plenty of people have come into the NBA as high school kids. Guess what they are doing now Shivas. Managing 7-11's at best.

Matt:

Wrong comment read by the wrong guy.  I've statistically analyzed the last 15 NBA Drafts forward and backward and your comment is flat out wrong.  The truth is that the "success rate" of high schoolers drafted by the NBA is higher than college early-entrants and college players who have used up eligibility.

Who are the "7-11 managers"?  Ousmanne Cisse, Korleone Young, and a couple more.  It is not fair to include guys picked in the 2nd Round like Cisse, Deangelo Collins, Louis Williams, etc... because they chose to go to the NBA before the NBA was ready for them.  If you or I graduated HS and chose not to go to college it wouldn't be news.  A kid like Cisse (came to America from Africa for the express purpose of playing basketball and wasn't interested in college) isn't relevant.

Wie, like NBA 1st Rounders, is ready for whatever level you want.  This year's All-Star game will likely include:

O'Neal
Garnett
Bryant
Stoudemire
McGrady
James
Lewis

and probably one or two more players that jumped to the NBA straight from HS.  Yeah, these guys are really doing poorly.

Even a player like Diop will get a second contract after their rookie deal runs out.  The "busts" (Kwame Brown) still have jobs in a professional league where a starter makes $5,000,000 annually and reserves make a minimum of $1,000,000 with any experience.  Marquis Daniels makes $39 million over 6 years, an "ordinary" contract in their world.

Who are these guys managing 7-11s?

[George Pazin]

Matt, the difference between you and the "Wie lovers" who won't admit it is that we see Wie's choices as challenging, but you see them as weak.

We also believe that her choices are hers, whereas you seem to feel their yours.

[johnk]

It's impressive to see Matt hang in against this swarm.

Yes, Wie is great, and right now she's one of the top 5 women players in the world.  

But I wonder what exactly it is that "she can do that no other women can?"  Length? She's not longer than Annika or Laura Davies.  Perhaps it's her gift for almost doing something great:

 - Almost winning the US Women's Am.
 - Almost making the cut at 2 PGA events
 - Almost winning the US Women's Open
 - Almost qualifying for the Master's by the APL.
 
In several of these cases, she looked poised to accomplish her goal, and somehow faltered.

She hasn't really "Almost" won a LPGA event (other than the '05 Women's Open) yet, even though she's finished 2nd/3rd a bunch - she's never really been in contention.

Once you stipulate that she's a top 5 women player, you might look at her record and see a pattern of not being able to close the deal.  I'm sure that will change, but I think the criticism is worth considering.

[Kirk Gill]

Clearly GCA.COM needs to step up and separate Discussion Group OT threads or weed them out..

There's an easy way to separate the threads. Read the subject line. If it says something like "The Wie Marketing Plan," then it probably has little to do with GCA. Just G.

There are clearly two sides to big-time sports - the performance of the athletes, and the MONEY. The first tends to have a huge impact on the other. Sometimes, the second has an influence, either positive or negative, on the first.

One can believe that Wie's "handlers," or perhaps even the young lady herself, chose to compete in the British and not in the US Am for reasons that have to do with her performance (either there was more benefit to her game performing against the pros in a major or less to gain from playing against the best in amateur golf) OR that it was a decision based on future revenue (choose to believe Mr. Ward's original supposition or not).

But if it WAS a decision based more on marketing than on what is good for her game, exactly how detrimental is missing this one tournament to her playing ability? Was there harm in playing in the British? Did her performance there crush her emotionally? She looked ok in the interviews I saw.

And why shouldn't the young lady cash in? Every women's event she's participated in, if advertised on television, has featured her picture. Has she benefitted financially from their use of her image in advertising?

We can highly and mightily proclaim that she's ruining herself competitively for the future, but something tells me that she's going to be signing marketing contracts very soon that will set her up financially for the rest of her life.

Not bad. But I haven't noticed that she's been taking steroids, or smoking dope, or filling her time with appearances and movies and music videos..........perhaps she really IS about playing golf, and letting the other chips fall where they may.

[John_Conley]

But I wonder what exactly it is that "she can do that no other women can?"  Length? She's not longer than Annika or Laura Davies.  

Huh?  Did you just merge those two golfers?

Wie hits it as far as Davies ever did, under control instead of with a reckless lash.

Annika matches, even surpasses, the control of Wie and lacks the power.  She doesn't drive the ball as far as Wie can and hits a 5-wood to par 3s where Michelle swings a smooth 4-iron.

I'm not so sure I follow.

[Matt_Ward]

George:

Please, please -- I could frankly care less where Wie plays but I'm entitled to my opinion -- no less than you -- that would like her to play in an event where the "I'm 15 years old" excuse isn't held in the back pocket in the event it needs to be used.

George -- why do you duck the obvious -- The Wie Team understands that playing in match play allows little or no wiggle "excuse" room than playing in a much larger stroke play events. You argue again and again that that decision is theirs to make. Sure -- agreed. However, I reserve the right to disagree with it no less than you agree with it.

John C:

Hello John -- anybody home. I'm so impressed by your analysis of the last 15 years. Guess what John -- go back and analyze it all over.

Get a read on what most NBA coaches / GM's are saying and they to a man say the same thing -- high school kids, minus the likes of a Garnett or Kobe, belong in college or JUCO level getting ready for the day they are drafted. Just because kids are drafted doesn't mean they stay for any serious amount of time in the NBA. Many teams are taking the kids on a speculative positioning because it will cost them less now than to wait later.

Even the Lakers know full well the speculative reasoning they followed in taking the kid from Jersey. He may develop into something of consequence or likely he will be looking for some other line of work if it dioesn't pan out. Might be in line for the 7-11 management program.

Shivas:

If the thread isn't worth your time then do the noble thing and avoid it. You say there are multiple ways to get to the brass ring. No doubt that's true.

All I said -- repeat after me -- all I said -- was I would like to see Wie play in an event like the Women's Amateur and see how she fares as the #1 favorite without question. I'd like to see Wie battle the bulls-eye that's on her back the minute she lands at the event and has to handle a myriad of matches through to the title. I'd also like to see her camp realize that the "I'm 15 excuse book" needs to be thrown aside for that particular week.

Shivas -- you are an intelligent fellow and can easily grasp this point. Playing and winning when you are the favorite requires a good deal more discipline and skill than simply having a high finish when little pressure is on your back in some huge stroke play event.

Gents:

One other thing for those who argue that Wie's development is far superior to Tiger's at the same age. I agree. But that has to do with the fact that girls advance more physically and mentally than boys do. You can see the same situation in gymnastics and tennis, to name just two sports.

My point was that Tiger had everything to lose by his continually playing the US Amateur after winning it the first time. He still entered and the fanfare tied to his name became of legendary proportiions because despite all the people shooting at him he still emerged as the champion.

The Wie Team seeks to place Michelle in events where little is at risk financially. The marketing plan is a crafty play on their part but I have to wonder if Michelle really understands how she may be shortchanging her long run potential by this slick end run for the $$$.

[johnk]

Where are the stats and proof?

How do you know she flys it 10-20 yards farther than Annika?
In tournaments when they've played together, Wie and Annika have had nearly identical drives.  Did you watch the final round of the McDonald's?  I did. Their shots with drivers were consistently within 10yds of each other.

At best, Wie is 1 club longer than Annika.  Generally, Annika hits 7 wood to the same greens Wie is hitting 4 iron.

MW's driving average at the John Deere was 274.  Basically last in the field.

You can find the driving stats from the USWO '05 below.  Wie averaged 250.  Brittany Linnicome averaged 281. Clearly Wie wasn't hitting driver much, but on TV they compared her length with driver to Annika and Davies.  Wie was 3rd.
http://www.uswomensopen.com/2005/scores/amateur.html#

Here's the LPGA driving leaders:
1   Brittany Lincicome   269.9   44
2   Sophie Gustafson   268.9   55
3   Annika Sorenstam   266.8   46
4   Laura Davies   264.2   51

The simple fact is that during tournaments, Wie does NOT blow it by any of these ladies.  Maybe she can hit it farther on the range, but she doesn't on the course.  

[Dave_Miller]

Matt-  you might be right re it's a marketing plan, but pretty smart if you ask me

 I hope she's happy and best wishes to her!

Word from inside the USGA has Wie turning pro in October with the suspicion that a $10 -$12 Million Dollar deal with Nike is fait accompli.
Best
Dave

[rgkeller]

The plain fact is that after losing to fellow teen age girls in her last three women's/girls' USGA match play events, Ms. Wie has never played in those three tournaments again.

[Brent Hutto]

And after losing his last 20 or so US Opens, Jack Nicklaus never played in that tournament again. What's the phrase...post hoc ergo propter hoc or something like that.

[John_Conley]

The simple fact is that during tournaments, Wie does NOT blow it by any of these ladies.  Maybe she can hit it farther on the range, but she doesn't on the course.  

Gee, no kidding.  When they set up courses differently she will hit it way past them.

Annika was outdriven by SIXTY YARDS on one hole in the Colonial by Cliff Kresge (average Tour length) according to the PGA Tour's charting.  On most holes she was it the same zip code because of the course's twisty nature.  Statistics are very deceiving.

Wie carries it within 10 yards of the Tour players.  Annika does not.  Compare the average of Sophie Gustafson and whoever to the Nationwide numbers and you'll see that men and women are far, far apart in their driving distance.

To say Annika can hit it as far as Wie is not true.  Michelle reached a par 5 in two at the Deere.  Annika can't do that.  Remember what happened at Colonial, a course where Tour length isn't even helpful.  She was unable to get many short clubs into greens and didn't have many realistic birdie opportunities.  That does not happen to Wie anywhere.  The difference is length and power.  One has it in spades, Annika only has a power game relative to the Powder Puff crowd.

[John_Conley]

John C:

Hello John -- anybody home. I'm so impressed by your analysis of the last 15 years. Guess what John -- go back and analyze it all over.

Get a read on what most NBA coaches / GM's are saying and they to a man say the same thing -- high school kids, minus the likes of a Garnett or Kobe, belong in college or JUCO level getting ready for the day they are drafted. Just because kids are drafted doesn't mean they stay for any serious amount of time in the NBA. Many teams are taking the kids on a speculative positioning because it will cost them less now than to wait later.

Even the Lakers know full well the speculative reasoning they followed in taking the kid from Jersey. He may develop into something of consequence or likely he will be looking for some other line of work if it dioesn't pan out. Might be in line for the 7-11 management program.

Matt:  NBA players and general managers might say that.  Pat Riley told me that he wasn't really interested in HS players and that it would take a "special one" for the Heat to select one over a more proven college player.  Ooops, three months later the Heat selected J.R. Smith.  You care what the NBA brass says, I'm merely looking at what they do.

The problem with your argument about HS players aren't ready to contribute right away is that is ignores the simple fact that college players aren't either.  Chris Wilcox (2 years Maryland), Jared Jeffries (2 years Indiana), Rafael Araujo (23 years old with experience in Brazil, Junior Colleges and BYU), and just about anyone else you can name AREN'T ready either!!  There is a fool's argument perpetuated by the media that basketball players "need" college.  No matter what the measure, it can't be demonstrated.  Poor Amare, he never took enough Economics courses to understand that the Rookie Wage Scale is an oppressive construct of the NBA oligopoly that forces below-market compensation to the detriment of its young players.  

I want names of the busts.  Korleone Young, Kwame Brown, Deangelo Collins, Ndudu Ebi, Travis Outlaw, Al Harrington, whoever.  Then analyze their contribution in the NBA.  It does NOT pale compared to the older players that are drafted.  It doesn't.  You can't say it does when it doesn't.

I watched Bynum last summer at Disney.  Obviously a young player that may or may not be a quality NBA Center.  GUESS WHAT!!?  The NBA makes just as many mistakes with 22 years olds!  That isn't debatable.  Kirk Haston, Brian Evans, Brooks Thompson, Bobby Hurley, and on and on and on...

Matt, you cannot be serious.

[Matt_Ward]

Shivas:

The former MO for Wie was to play in amateur events. She now avoids them -- that's my point Shivas. Better yet -- allow me to use the word 'DUCKING" because that's plain to see from my vantage point. The Wie marketing plan is a simple one -- play in nothing that will undercut the $$$ involved -- no matter if Wie's overall development to win events is backtracked or skipped over entirely (see Tiger's original comments on the subject).

Like I said for all those who are Wie fans and I count myself as one -- how bout she play in an event like the Women's Amateur -- throw out the silly "I'm 15 excuse" and let me see Wie look down the barrel of several match play contests where the bulls eye is on her back 24/7 and then emerge victoriously -- Tiger did it and that's one of the reasons he has earned his rightful place as the game's greatest playing now -- his 3 straight wins in the Junior & Amateur are simply out of sight. If Michelle could do that I'd be the first to salute her grit to take on situations that have little immediate return, but earn her valuable long term respect for laying it on the line and winning when SHE IS SUPPOSED TO.  

John:

Glad you could name drop the Riley tag -- geeze -- how many NBA titles does he have since he left LA? The facts of HS players coming to the NBA is more disappoitment than celebration. You have guys who I concede have pure athletic talent but where's the NBA b-ball skills -- you know -- the passing, cutting, defense, team mentality. It's all post-up / isolation BS and me, me me 24/7.

John -- wake up partner -- I never said college is a must. But, if one were to tackle the percentages it's hard to argue against players getting four more years of experience against like-minded players versus those who leap immediately to the NBA. Yes, you have Kobe, Garnett and the dude from Indiana but the bulk of them are nothing more than speculation choices with the heavy number of them disappearing fairly quickly -- hence the 7-11 management school option.

Another point you breezed right by -- college allows players to make mistakes -- to grow -- to learn. The NBA game doesn't allow for much wiggle room -- you'd better be able to contribute fairly quickly because of roster limitations and the salary caps each team faces. NBA teams aren't laboratories in losing forever -- the pressure to win is greater than all but the very elite colleges.

John -- college players have the better overall percentages in succeeding. There's no 100% foolproof way in securing an NBA position and you know it so stop with the lecturing on what I'm missing. But, take the average HS kid who's lucky to have traveled outside their immediate town and then throw forward huge sums of cash and all the other distractions and the investment NBA teams make in such fool's gold is more closer related to success in the overall lottery than any real thought out process for long term success.

[Scott Coan]

Matt,

You make valid point regarding young Ms. Wie's developement vis a vis Tiger.  Tiger's accomplishment of winning 6 USGA amateur events in a row is absolutely incredible and is proof positive of his other-worldly killer instinct.

Looking at his track record it can certainly be said that his experience as an amateur has potentially led him to his remarkable record as a professional.  Either that or he's just plain good.

As I recall Tiger's track record in professional Major's was not so great when he was an amateur.  I don't think he even sniffed the top10 ever in a major while still an amateur.

Yet Ms. Wie has now finished SECOND, T3, T3 in her last three professional majors at the age of 15.  Nothing like this has been seen since the days of RTJ.

It will be quite interesting to track Ms. Wie's major victories alongside those of Tiger's.  Only then will we be able to say if her developement path has been faulty (or simply engineered to make marketing money, which really is a silly thought).

I'm willing to bet that Ms. Wie will have at least 1 major under her belt before the age of 21, and there most likely will be dozens after that.  Let's just sit back and enjoy the ride!

[Matt_Ward]

Scott:

You must have missed my post when I said the development of girls to women is a bit different than boys to men. You can see this clearly in a range of sports from gymnastics to tennis, to name just two.

Wie has progressed because of her God-given talent but the question remains -- has she reached a certain level and will go no further. That -- only time will say for sure.

I'd like her to show that whatever marketing plans her Dad and IMG have cooked up she prefers to win in any type of event.

Look, there's no doubt she's avoiding amateur events and I have to ascribe something to that strategy -- whether directly or indirectly.

Everyone who takes The Wie Team knows best game plan can't escape the clincher argument -- playing in events when you are the favorite is a whole different issue than when you are one of the contenders but not the favorite. Ask Annika or Tiger what that's like and they can tell you. Both of done it and done it convincingly when needed. Wie is still a work in progress -- I would have just hoped she would have opted for the so-called "easy" wins against "inferior" competition to demonstrate her capacity to do such things when no excuses or out there -- either by her camp or supporters here.

Excuse me Scott -- what's so silly about the marketing argument? If you don't see it then frankly you need to open your eyes not to the Wie situation but to most, if not all, in sports.

Shivas:

The "only 15" excuse comes from all the Wie apologsists on this site and elsewhere who frankly would rather have her play stroke play events and finish "high" instead of dealing with the bulls-eye in being the overwhelming favorite and show she can play with the 800-pound gorilla on her back in match play events.

I never said Wie has said it but those within her camp clearly like the idea that any discussion can be spun with that in mind. As a journalist I know of a number of instances when people didn't have to say something directly but still leave the calling card there for you to find it.

Shivas -- you did what you do best -- you avoided my rebuttal to your post prior to your last comments. The Wie team has certainly ducked playing any amateur events. They know the score -- maybe it's you and others who can't follow the bounce of the ball. The Wie team saw what happened when Wie got bounced in the Girl's Junior -- the luster of the "legend in waiting" got taken down a few pegs. They made sure that wasn't going to happen again. Ditto the Women's Amateur and other similar type events. You can tap dance / dodge ball it anyway you like but I admire people when they have the tag "favorite" next to their name and go out there and demonstrate they have the stomach to handle what comes with that sort of tag.

Shivas -- like I said before -- your a smart guy although I'm beginning to wonder -- but The Wie Team is a carefully orchestrated campaign to keep the momentum going forward and limit any exposure that shows a different side to things.

P.S. Shivas -- for every Bob Feller there were plenty of wannabees in the Midwest still pumping gas when Big Bob was in the majors. The exception doesn't prove the rule.

[johnk]

JC:

Here's your quote:
"Wie carries it within 10 yards of the Tour players.  Annika does not."

Here are some facts:
Wie averaged 271 yds / drive at the John Deere.
Larry Mize: 287
Scott Simpson: 303
Joey Sinderlar 286
Blaine McCallister 282

There was no one who made the cut at the Deere with whom Wie was within 10 yards.  She was last in driving average.

I mean, the list above is the really short hitters all above 40 years old at a second tier event PGA Tour event, and they all easily poop it out well past her.  I had to look hard to find Blaine McCallister who short at even for 47 to find someone even close.

Fred Funk is longer than Wie.  I heard that from Funk's caddy after he saw her hit and it's backed up by data.

As for Annika, I already said I watched the whole round of the McDonald's where they played together, and on the long par 5s they hit drivers.  I'm telling you that Wie didn't out drive Annika.  They were within 10 yards of each other.

Wie doesn't have some big power advantage.  The data backs me up.  Wave your arms and say it's because of the LPGA setup or whatever, but I still will point to the PGA tour events.  She hits it in the 270s.
 
I'm stipulating that she's a top 5 women player, but I don't see the evidence that she's a dominating winner who "can do things no other woman can".  Not yet at least....

[Scott Coan]

Excuse me Scott -- what's so silly about the marketing argument? If you don't see it then frankly you need to open your eyes not to the Wie situation but to most, if not all, in sports.

Matt,

I say that your marketing argument is silly because you propose that there is a strategy by the Wie team to arrange her schedule so as no maximize her $$.  The reason I say it's silly is because they are dealing with a prodigal talent, the likes of which the world witnesses perhaps once in hundreds of millions of births.  Like all prodigies, M Wie is forging her own path and is attempting to acheive her vision of greatness on her own terms.  Mere mortals like you and I and all the competitors in the US Womens AM cannot even fathom what it is like to be in Michelle Wie's shoes.  

It is far more likely that her schedule is based upon her becoming the greatest female golfer on the planet, a goal she is getting very close to realizing.   She will never have to worry about one red cent and her "team" is well aware of that.  

As for me "opening my eyes not to the Wie situation but to most, if not all, in sports" I point out the Williams sisters in tennis.  Their  father recognized their prodigal talents and prevented them from competing in any amateur tennis at all while growing up.  Instead he had them bashing balls against each other until he felt it was their time to take on the very best in the world.  How many majors have they won now?

When you are dealing with talent like this then money, marketing, and all the other hoo-haa you can think of is so far down the the list of priorities for these athletes that it is inconsequential.

Michelle Wie is already the "richest" female athlete on the planet, she just hasn't cashed the check yet!

[Jim Nugent]

JC:

Here's your quote:
"Wie carries it within 10 yards of the Tour players.  Annika does not."

Here are some facts:
Wie averaged 271 yds / drive at the John Deere.
Larry Mize: 287
Scott Simpson: 303
Joey Sinderlar 286
Blaine McCallister 282

There was no one who made the cut at the Deere with whom Wie was within 10 yards.  She was last in driving average.

I mean, the list above is the really short hitters all above 40 years old at a second tier event PGA Tour event, and they all easily poop it out well past her.  I had to look hard to find Blaine McCallister who short at even for 47 to find someone even close.

Fred Funk is longer than Wie.  I heard that from Funk's caddy after he saw her hit and it's backed up by data.

As for Annika, I already said I watched the whole round of the McDonald's where they played together, and on the long par 5s they hit drivers.  I'm telling you that Wie didn't out drive Annika.  They were within 10 yards of each other.

Wie doesn't have some big power advantage.  The data backs me up.  Wave your arms and say it's because of the LPGA setup or whatever, but I still will point to the PGA tour events.  She hits it in the 270s.
 
I'm stipulating that she's a top 5 women player, but I don't see the evidence that she's a dominating winner who "can do things no other woman can".  Not yet at least....

John, in that same tournament she also hit a 575 yard par five in two with a 260 yard 3 wood for her second.  Putted from ten feet for an eagle.  Whatever the stats show on the holes they measured, she clearly can hit the ball quite a bit further than 270īs.  

[John_Conley]

John:

That 270 is off of FOUR measured drives.  Hit one a little necky and it blows the whole average.

How does someone hitting it 270 make any par 5s in two shots?

Annika hits it great, no doubt.  Your own post concedes that there is 10 yards difference (or less).  How much of it is carry?

Scott Simpson is a very short hitter by Tour standards.  Wie is a bit short.  Any 30 yard advantage favoring Scott is obviously a statistical anomaly.

Fred Funk longer than Wie?  Probably.  He's not a short hitter, contrary to what the telecast guys proffer.

I'll have to look for other numbers for Wie at the Sony or including more than 4 drives at the Deere.  Over a season these things balance out but in one event they can be misleading.

I've seen Wie overpower a golf course.  Haven't seen Annika do that, although she does hit it beautifully.

We'll never have exact data since they won't ever be measured side-by-side at sea level for carry distances.  As Shivas agrees, THAT'S how you compare power players.  Roll is a variable dependent on conditions.  Carry is always there.

[Brent Hutto]

If you think winning the hacker flight of your club medal championship is better than coming in second or third in the championship flight, then I guess it makes sense to criticise Michelle Wie for playing in professional majors instead of junior amateur events. Otherwise, it doesn't make sense at all.

There are dozens of women who can make it to the stroke play portion of the US Women's Amateur in any given year who could not make a cut in an LPGA Tour event. The players who finish in the top five week in and week out on the LPGA Tour and who contend at majors are the best female golfers in the world by any rational measure. When a golfer reaches that level, she doesn't bemoan the fact that she can't also be back at the lower levels winning regularly.

The fact that some amateur wins several match play rounds in a row and takes a national amateur title (which is a great accomplishment to be sure) does not by virtue of having "Winner" by her name suddenly mean she's the best player in the world. Is Paula Creamer a better golfer than Annika Sorenstam just because she's won a couple times lately and Annika has not? Of course not, Annika has won multiple major championships. Is some guy who has cleaned up on the Nationwide Tour with two or three wins this season a better player than Chris DiMarco who after all hasn't won a darned thing this year? Don't be silly.

It takes a better player to finish with a 2nd, 3rd, 14th and 23rd in the major championships than to win the US Amateur. There's nothing magic about winning in the minor leagues that trumps playing well in the bigs. Greg Maddux has trouble winning in MLB nowadays but he wouldn't suddenly become a better pitcher if he decided to go play in triple-A and rack up a couple more 20-win seasons.

[John_Conley]

Glad you could name drop the Riley tag -- geeze -- how many NBA titles does he have since he left LA? The facts of HS players coming to the NBA is more disappoitment than celebration. You have guys who I concede have pure athletic talent but where's the NBA b-ball skills -- you know -- the passing, cutting, defense, team mentality. It's all post-up / isolation BS and me, me me 24/7.

John -- wake up partner -- I never said college is a must. But, if one were to tackle the percentages it's hard to argue against players getting four more years of experience against like-minded players versus those who leap immediately to the NBA. Yes, you have Kobe, Garnett and the dude from Indiana but the bulk of them are nothing more than speculation choices with the heavy number of them disappearing fairly quickly -- hence the 7-11 management school option.

John -- college players have the better overall percentages in succeeding. There's no 100% foolproof way in securing an NBA position and you know it so stop with the lecturing on what I'm missing. But, take the average HS kid who's lucky to have traveled outside their immediate town and then throw forward huge sums of cash and all the other distractions and the investment NBA teams make in such fool's gold is more closer related to success in the overall lottery than any real thought out process for long term success.

Matt:  (Riley) None.

I don't know anyone who says a person WOULDN'T be better with four years of college.  However, the willingness of the NBA to select high schoolers in their Draft and idiotic pay scale (no credit for "time served" in college) leaves us with the present day reality that top players have bypassed college.  (This is changing.)  Did you confuse something?  I never, ever implied that Garnett, McGrady, O'Neal, Bryant, and Stoudemire would be WORSE players if they played at an NCAA school.

"bulk of them...speculation choices...disappearing quickly"


Wrong.  
It is just plain wrong.  
Far more college players are cut and paid before the guaranteed three years are up.  In fact, I can't name a HS 1st Rounder that saw this happen.  Can you?  MAYBE the one kid from Chicago that went loony.  He played for the Mavs for a spell.  But I can name a few college players without even thinking.  Jeryl Sasser and Will Avery.  The "bulk of" ALL players picked past 10 are "speculation choices", as detailed by Orlando Sentinel writer Tim Povtak (discussing 11th choice Fran Vazquez) who pointed out not one of the last 10 11th picks have averaged as much as 7 ppg as a rook.  It has nothing to do with a HS kid, it has to do with the NBA being a veteran's league.

It really is alarming, the success rate of HS draftees in basketball.  It is better than older players, better than baseball's record, and better than hockey's.  There is no substance to back up the point you are trying to make.  When asked, you've even failed to tell me which HS kids you are talking about.  (Sagana Diop might not be a superstar, but he's still in the League.  Curry and Chandler are actually valuable players.  Livingston and Telfair are considered future stars.  Josh Smith is one of the few players in the League with an instantly recognizable nickname, and on and on and on.)  I'm curious because I don't know any.  Have you already given up on Robert Swift?

Please review the last 10 NBA Drafts since Garnett and find the First Rounders that are out of the league.  There aren't many that were HS kids.  I'm even wondering if it is just one - and his problems are realted to mental illness and not anything related to basketball skills.

[rgkeller]

O'Neal played at LSU.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()