My take on coronavirus and sports shutdowns

As everybody is aware right now, there's a vast dead zone on parts of your teevee, and a website often known in these parts as Red Satan is scrambling for filler items.

That's because all sorts of sporting events have either been postponed or cancelled.

In some cases I agree almost totally. In some cases, I agree in part. In some cases I disagree.

So, as part of a series, following on posts about coronavirus and American exceptionalism, then coronavirus and science and math literacy, I offer this up.

The NBA and NHL postponements? I agree in part. I would have preferred doing the "play without fans" first. But, when we found out Rudy Gobert had it, and then discovered he'd apparently infected Donovan Mitchell, that wasn't a live option for the Association any more. Pistons center Christian Wood has tested positive now, too. (The Pistons played the Jazz in the game before the Jazz played the Raptors, and contra some Pistons-stanners, we don't know which way the infection vector went; it could have been Wood first.) I do know that Adam Silver will talk to top players, like LeBron and Chris Paul, as well as owners, before lifting the postponements.

For the NHL? They probably could have toughed it out. Since the Jazz were able to test all players quickly after word first broke, why not do the same for the icemen? Anyway, I'm not a big hockey fan, so that's that.

OK, next, on national sports, we go to MLB. Disagree entirely with cancelling spring training. OK with postponing the start of the regular season IF COVID-related rescheduling is done as part of that.

First, health experts have generally said they think, though admitting they don't know for sure, that COVID-19, like other respiratory viruses, will diminish with the start of spring in the Northern Hemisphere, especially with temps 75 degrees and above. Well, Florida and Arizona spring training sites are at those temps on a regular basis as we speak. Plus, although they're crowd-related, they are also outdoors. Close off spring training games at a minimum? Sure. Limit activities to intrasquad scrimmages as a next step? OK. Cancel? No.

Yes, Mike Trout has to be protected. (Maybe we could force George Springer, Jose Altuve and all other 2017 #CheatingAstros into scrimmaging against each other.) Or, speaking of Springer:

$100,000 from George Springer IS nice. But ... that's less than a 2017 World Series share for a #CheatingAstros player. So, there you go. 2017 Astros? Donate ALL your World Series money to sports workers affected by the #coronavirus. https://t.co/Q024uCrq57

— American Exceptionalism, meet coronavirus 🚩🌻 (@AFCC_Esq) March 14, 2020

Extend spring training a week or two. Then, per what I said about weather and respiratory viruses? Scramble the schedule so no games are played north of, say, the old Mason-Dixon Line before May 1.

And, yes, I'd be OK with waiting until May 1 to see Paul Goldschmidt, Tommy Edman, Jack Flaherty, Yadier Molina and other Birds on Bats in home unis at Busch Stadium. That said, due to Mo's lack of offseason activity, I'm kind of meh about the Cardinals anyway.

I am kind of sad about how this will possibly affect Albert Pujols' chase of some career milestones and records. On the other hand, maybe the extra rest will have him in the BSOHL for post-35 years. (Or post-40, if he's shaved a year or two off his true age, as I believe is possible.)

OK, weather and outdoors? We're at golf next.

Tail end of the Florida swing, then the Texas events before The Masters, get cancelled. Then The Masters postpones.

First, see above re MLB.

Second, I thought Augusta National would stand firm.

Third, with its independence, will it try to bigfoot the PGA whenever it decides it's ready to play?

Fourth, I thought one of those pimento cheese sammiches would kill about anything.

Fifth, with the postponement, enjoy A Tradition of Bullshit Unlike Any Other.

So, disagree with most the tournament cancellations. Definitely disagree with postponing The Masters.

OK, collegiate sports.

For the relative lack of disruption, I would have preferred the NCAA carry on with a fans-free March Madness rather than postpone. These disruptions have economic impact, after all. And for many people who are sports vendors and such, the lack of income, despite pledges by athletes to help out, that may only go so far. Oh, speaking of? Notice how, other than Mavs owner Mark Cuban, the ownership class is pretty silent on offering such help? That said, athletes have guaranteed contracts; owners don't have guaranteed ticket revenue. So, Cuban gets an extra salute.

I don't know how, speaking of Red Satan, broadcast contracts are structured for eventualities like this, but, per the Wall Street Journal, it appears that broadcasters are required to keep making payments to the sports leagues with whom they have broadcast contracts. And, I would think it's highly unlikely that any of the networks have insurance, or even that such insurance exists. CNBC notes that this could also accelerate cable cord-cutting.

The NC-DoubleA reportedly considered a 16-team tournament. Top 16 teams, meaning not all conference winners get in. But after Gobert and the Jazz, it punted.

And overreacted. Already now killing college baseball and softball title tournaments? Ridiculous, IMO.

Again, as I said on my second post, about science and math literacy, this is not Trumpism (if you're a regular reader, you know that) or other denialism. Rather, it's my educated layperson's realism.

High school sports? Here in Texas, the UIL has delayed, but not killed, the boys basketball tournament, and scrubbed regular baseball and softball games, along with UIL academic competitions, until March 29. I think that's "just right."

High school kids aren't paid, or even compensated with scholarships. At the same time, high school sports in general is drawing lower attendance than collegiate, let alone professional sports. And baseball and softball are (see above) outdoors. Unless there is good reason otherwise, I think the suspensions should be lifted when they run out.

Speaking of academics? A number of Texas school districts are petitioning Greg Abbott and TEA Commish Mike Morath to kill the STAAR for this year.

Ain't.Gonna.Happen. MIGHT be delayed a week or something, but killed?

Ain't.Gonna.Happen.

OK, so I was wrong! (I thought a postponement was quite possible, but didn't expect a cancellation.)

Top blogging of 2019

It was an interesting year this year. No heavy thread of refuting conspiracy theories, unlike my top blogging of 2018. And, several of the top posts, including two baseball-themed ones, came from the last few months of the year.

One post was a repeat from a previous year, and one was a "throwaway" from a decade ago.

Let's start with that.

The most read blog post here in 2019 was "Could an Iranian bomb LOWER tensions?" As a generally erratic President Donald Trump listens to his neocons and tightens the screws ever more on the Islamic Republic, and as our Saudi allies and other Gulf Arab states descend into further butchery in Yemen, and as Trump panders to Zionists ever more while also encouraging antisemitism more (to those who know the history of Zionism, and know early Zionists themselves did that, that should be no shock) it seems that a lot of people wonder if a Tehran with a nuke or two, as much as proliferation is a no-no, might be better than the current situation.

No. 2, speaking of Zionism and antisemitism? That was me defending Ilhan Omar from charges of antisemitism — even as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, no less, shoved her halfway under the bus. (As I also noted there, it wasn't the first time — nor was it the last — for AOC's reality to fall several steps short of her rhetoric.)

No. 3? On to actual racism. And other things of the past at Augusta National Country Club. I called The Masters "A tradition of bullshit unlike any other."

No. 4? After making the Top 10 of 2017, but missing the cut last year, my ever growing biography of Twitter guru in the mind of himself, when alive, and his cultists still today, "Who Is Alan Smithee, aka Actual Flatticus?" (answer: misogynist, possibly racist, abusive Florida lawyer Chris Chopin) is back in the Top 10 this year.

No. 5? Yeah, everybody else doing political blogging wrote about it too. But! My "What's next for Trump after the Mueller Report?" was written from a position that clearly rejected twosiderism. That became more and more of a theme here the second half of 2019, with allegedly outside the box journos, but actually stenos to a certain form of twosiderism, like Aaron Maté, Matt Taibbi, Max Blumenthal, Mark Ames, Ben Norton, Yasha Levine et al repeatedly engaged in.

No. 6? For the first time in years, Texas news cracked an annual Top 10 list. The tragic fall shooting in Greenville, an arrest of someone eventually cleared de facto if not de jure, the omerta that leaves the case still unsolved, and cultural issues surrounding that all drew my attention.

No. 7? Texas news a second time, and in my backyard. I called out the Dallas Observer (which hasn't responded for months, and is one of several things that has led me to look at it with a more jaundiced eye than before) for doing a hit job on a planned wind farm. The site is on the Fort Worth half of the Metromess so why was the Observer writing? The reporter clearly understands nothing about the oil and gas world, and gas motives behind some opposition, to boot. (A follow-up post is coming shortly.)

No. 8? The first of two baseball posts. This was about who the Veterans Committee should and should not vote into the Hall of Fame. Veterans got it wrong, IMO, on not admitting Lou Whitaker and Thurman Munson. They got it OK on Ted Simmons, though Munson should have gone in first. And they definitely got it right on not selecting Dale Murphy.

Skipping a bit, No. 10 was paired. Comparing his career to Dave Parker, Juan Gonzales, Roger Maris and others, I explained in more detail why Murphy is not a HOFer.

No. 9? Connected to Jeffrey Epstein. I looked at some of the various Epstein-related sleaze that is connected to John Brockman, creator of The Edge Foundation and, until this year, its annual "the big question."

The Masters: A tradition of bullshit unlike any other

I'm a fairly ardent fan of golf, and focus in during the four majors.

But, golf is a rich conservative man's sport. Mainly white, with occasional exceptions.

And, the Masters, until relatively recently, was the worst of the four.

Cue up histories of Lee Trevino. Or worse, Lee Elder. Or worse yet, Calvin Peete.

Or look at pictures from 1950s-60s Masters, just unearthed by Golf Digest. The fans (fuck that "patrons" shit) ... well, they might have liked golf, but ... to go one better on the GD cutline on this:

Masters galleries of the 1950s and 60s resembled people who, if not waiting for a Klan rally,

were waiting for the next meeting of the local Concerned Citizens Council.

So, no ... the British and US Opens didn't have galleries like that.

And, for the snootiness of the toonyment otherwise, as you look through those old pics?

Before the mid-60s, at earliest, the course itself looked frayed. Scuffed, Like a cheap small-town Southern motel with beyond-its-wearout-date carpet, to extend the theme.

No. 12 with no azaleas behind it looks almost bleah. But, even worse, look at the holes in the cheap apartment
carpet that's called the fairway.

That's not today's Masters. And, though the pix are black and white, I assume the water had no blue dye in it at that time.

I would divide the Masters into four not-quite-equal quarters.

The first is 1935-62. The first one-third of this, before World War II intervened, was just Cliff Roberts, Bobby Jones and a list of swells and golfers playing around. After the war, it picked up more, but as the picture of No. 12 shows ... it still wasn't The.Masters.™

1963 starts are second quarter. "Fat Jack," as he was known then, won for the first time. 1986, with his last win, is a good transition.

This split into roughly a two-thirds front and a one-third back. Tom Watson's first win in 1977 followed by Gary Player's last in 1978, is the break. Or, go back a couple of years earlier. 1975 is the first Masters I remember and still possibly the greatest ever — with Jack beating Tom Weiskopf and Johnny Miller by a stroke.

From there? We're going to 1997, right?

No. 1987-2005 is my next stretch. It's shorter than the first two, but it breaks just about in half. The first half was the rise of Greg Norman and the greater rise of Nick Faldo, with lesser lights and the last years of Tom Watson part of the scene. The second half covers Tiger Woods' four wins.

And now, we're in the post-Tiger era. The course was Tiger-proofed in multiple installments. And, apparently lefty-enhanced, a sentiment of Hank Haney and other coaches and players.

Mike Weir won his only major in 2003 here. Phil Mickelson took three Masters, starting in 2004. Bubba Watson has won two, and no other majors. That's six victories for lefties in 16 years.

Phil's win at Muirfield in the Open is the only other win by a lefty in a major in the last 20 years. Bob Charles of the 1963 Open is the only other lefty to win a major. But, Weir is golf detritus now, Phil is nearly 40 and Bubba is 40, and no top-notch lefties are on the golf horizon.

The reality of Augusta National is that a tournament with a history of changing invitational standards, resetting pairings between first and second rounds in the past, going with non-traditional send-out order for the final two rounds in the more distant past and similar capricious whims, arguably isn't a major. Or, at least, it certainly wasn't in the first segment of its history and not in the first half of the second segment.

Besides, as Josh Sens notes, a lot of modern traditions and legends are also overrated.

ESPN's Ian O'Connor has the temerity to suggest Augusta not invite amateur women but instead host a pro tournament. Sean Zak explains why that won't happen any time soon.

And, I went beyond Sean on Twitter:

.@TheMasters ain't doing a pro women's gig, Ian. Per a piece from The Independent a few yrs ago, first, they can't create instant memories in today's online world. Second, there's already a passel of women's majors and #TheMasters and Augusta National won't play second fiddle.

— reallyDonaldTrump 🚩🌻 (@AFCC_Esq) April 10, 2019

Teh bottom line.

Per that piece from The Independent I reference, Cliff Roberts' toonyment is full of "faked, instant traditions Americans love."

Speaking of fake instant real traditions, probably the best way to divide The Masters is into pre- and post Roberts eras. Roberts, around whom a whole cultus has grown, stepped down as chairman in 1976. That's just about midway in the current timeline, and the tournament started modernizing, in fits and starts.

#Masters2018 thoughts and semi-predictions

No, Red Shirt won't cover his apparel with a 5th green jacket. (Mono P/Flickr)

First off, straight out of the chute? I'd like Rory to win. Would be great for him to get that career Grand Slam and to put his 2011 collapse out of mind. Would also be great for a game of golf where casual fans either have to eventually let go of Tiger Woods Red Shirt or else stop being even casual fans. If Rory gets his slam (and assuming Philly Mick doesn't get "revenge" at this year's US Open at Shinnecock or wins any US Open) you then have the "rivalry" of Jordan Speith needing the PGA for his slam. And other young guns like Thomas and Koepka to at least add a second Slam win to their games.

That said, bearing in mind what Hank Haney and several others have said about how it's a lefties course today? (There's over 390K hits for that on Google; one piece even notes lefties have a specific advantage at the nerve-rattling 12th. Many people, including triple winner Nick Faldo, say that modern equipment makes a cut easier to hit than a draw. In that same piece, Phil agrees that 12, especially, is better for lefties.) Phil has won again, but I don't think he has the length to contend there. Bubba Watson, on the other hand, has gotten hot and straight himself recently. He might be my No. 1 as far as likelihood, Justin Rose 2, Rory 3, Jason Day 4 .... 

Tiger ... 10th? 15th? He's got the length, and earlier this year has been OK with the putter. But, driving accuracy sucks. Driving is indeed for dough at Augusta National. But, what if accuracy offsets that? Or a small putting sample size goes awry? Or that Augusta's walking length, with hills ... well, if not injures a back, at least tires it a bit? Phil? 15th?

Out of the full field, I don't see too, too many other serious contenders. Speith appears too far away yet from being a contender, even though this course seems to like him. Rain is in the forecast for Saturday, along with winds approaching 20mph, though removed for today. But it did rain fairly hard Wednesday morning. That and a cool start Sunday could hurt a short player like him. OTOH, Zach Johnson won in 2007 when Sunday was almost frigid. And, don't forget that Rory's had a good record on majors with rainy tracks.

It's a small field, once you remove older champs like Olazabel, Langer, Singh, Immelman, Lyle and Woosnam who won't make the cut. Faldo, interestingly, is firmly retired. Maybe in a few years, he'll be added to Nicklaus and Player as an honorary starter.

Hideki Matsuyama, Jon Rahm and Thomas Pieters are the few others that jump out at me for this year. Henrik Stenson and Paul Casey as sleeper picks do nothing for me.

And speaking of lefties, will Li Yuxin take top amateur honors?

My 2017 preview for The Masters

OK, we're at the start of real golf season.

1. Fans called "patrons"?
2. CBS pumping in fake bird sounds on the broadcast?
3. Augusta National Country Club with blue-dyed fake water?
4. Overrated, overhyped (but not overpriced) pimiento cheese sammiches?

Check, check, check and check.

We're at the home of The Masters Toyynement. Golf Digest ranks 10 traditions, including partially riffing on 2 and 4.

So, who wins? The hot Dustin Johnson? Rory McElroy completing his Grand Slam? Jon Rahm or some other hot up-and-comer? Jordan Speith with his second in three years, overcoming last year's final-round demons? Someone else?

My heart hopes that Rory gets some green clothing — and in the process, before, during and after, relaxes. Think Aaron Rodgers, Rory!

My mind puts him at second on the odds, behind DJ, but ahead of Jordan, Jon and the field.

Meanwhile, the snakebitten (definitely with his putter last year) Ernie Els will bid a likely farewell here.

I assume Gary Player and Jack Nicklaus will do the honorary starting by themselves, with some tribute to Arnold Palmer.

(I'd like to see Tom Watson and/or Nick Faldo worked in there next, and maybe they'll take over from Jack and Gary in a few years. I'm sure both of them still want to regularly play, and have hopes for the weekend, for a few more years, though.)

Per ESPN, plus Golf Digest, here's a few opening-rounds pairings to watch:

• No. 1-ranked Dustin Johnson is in the final starting time at 2:03 p.m. along with PGA champion Jimmy Walker and two-time Masters winner Bubba Watson.
• Jordan Spieth, runner-up to Willett a year ago after winning the Masters in 2015, begins play at 10:34 a.m. along with Martin Kaymer and Matthew Fitzpatrick.
• Three-time Masters champion Phil Mickelson follows at 10:45, with Rafael Cabrera Bello and Si Woo Kim.
• Second-ranked Rory McIlroy tees off at 1:41 p.m. along with Jon Rahm and Hideto Tanihara.
• Third-ranked Jason Day plays with Brandt Snedeker and Justin Rose at 10:56 a.m.
• Sergio Garcia, Shane Lowry and Lee Westwood at 1:19 p.m.

Now, it’s a mug’s game (which is why Vegas makes big money on golf bets) to bet one player against the field, but, given DJ’s hotness, Spieth’s Master’s history to date, Rory’s lust to complete the Grand Slam, and Bubba’s own history, I’ll bet those pairings against the field. And contra Jason Sobel, I will NOT bet Rickie Fowler.

Full list of tee times is here. To caveat my bet of the above groups vs. the field, Hideki Matsuyama at 10:12 on Thursday and Branden Grace at 10:23. Just for fun, the 12:46, with Pato and Stenson together, would be a good watch, maybe?

Finally, about halfway down this longform from Golf Digest about advantages and disadvantages at Augusta, the majority of anonymous commenters agree with Hank Haney that in Tiger-proofing Augusta National, the Masters folks also largely righty-proofed it. Going back to 2003, when the Tiger-proofing arguably had started, past champions of the lefty bent include short-hitting Mike Weir, all three of Philly Mick's, and both of Bubba Watson's. That's seven lefty wins in 14 tries.

That said, it's a very interesting assessment of who could win or not, and who's more likely to win or not; top individual golfers are discussed in detail halfway down. A fair amount don't like Rory's chances, and several of them think, in no uncertain terms, that he needs to ditch his caddie.

Interesting.

That said, would Tiger have won all of his 13 non-Fluff Cowan majors without Steve Williams on his bag? I bet not.

And, that's another bit of testimony to Jack Nicklaus, who had several different bagmen for his 18 majors — and that's not taking into account that most of his Masters wins were when players still had to use club caddies.

Weather update, noon Wednesday: Rain today and Thursday, with cool and windy conditions Thursday and somewhat on Friday make for a long track before the cut.

My 2016 Masters predictions

I'm not going to go through some elaborate ritual of crossing off some candidates, like ESPN does before every golfing major, confusing statistical and causal correlation.

Instead, let's just throw some names out, from the whole list.

Bubba Watson: Two-time winner, plus lost out to Martin Kaymer on playoff in the 2010 PGA. I think Hank Haney was probably partially right, even if not totally so, that the last "Tiger-proofing" of Augusta made it favor lefties.

Is it true? Well, per ESPN, Tiger-proofing started after his second title in 2001. It finished, pretty much, by 2006.

And, who's won since then? Lefty Mike Weir was the first lefty — in 2003. Philly Mick took the first of his three titles in 2004. The other two have come in 2006 and 2010, after the Tiger-proofing was theoretically completed.

And, Bubba twice.

So, again, if Haney is even half right, you can't count Bubba out of the mix. Indeed, Bob Charles in the 1963 Open was the ONLY lefty winner of a major — any major — before Weir. Others agree, saying modern club technology — much of which came along after the start of Tiger-proofing — has added to this.

Besides, like the San Francisco Giants of well-known lefty Madison Bumgarner and manager Bruce Bochy, it's an even numbered year, right?

And, maybe not Philly Mick? For all things considered, he's playing relatively well lately.

But, "all things considered" is that he'll be 46 this June. Jack's the only older Masters winner. Throwing out Old Tom Morris from the haze of golf yore, Julius Boros is the only other majors winner to do so at an older age.

Besides, if I want to root for an older player, I'll root for my man Vijay.

And, while we're on this line, Bubba is 37. And, 35 and younger wins three-quarters of majors. And, he was 35 two years ago.

Louis Oosthuizen: Don't sleep on Shrek, especially if he's sleeping on a good mattress. And, at 33, not too old, but moving toward the edge more.

Jason Day: The hot hand of recent. Doesn't mean everything, but he does seem to have his confidence groove back.

Rory McIlroy: Focused enough to skip the Par-3. But, all that really matters is can he putt.

Adam Scott: Seems OK with not anchoring the putter. And, he's done it before. Pushing the age window at 35.

Jordan Speith: Not rounded into full mental shape, perhaps, with a sophomore slump.

Players not to bet against from the field would include Branden Grace. Just Rose, at 35, is pushing the age edge. And, I like Henrik Stenson's game, but at 40, he's definitely outside the prime age window.

Not a fan of Rickie Fowler. Definitely not of Dustin Johnson. Win one first to make me less skeptical of you in other majors.

So, per the above?

Without any odds being offered, Day's my first choice.

Don't get me wrong; I'd love Rory to wrap up the Slam. But, the scores of his so far this year have been very yo-yo, and I'm doubting he's got the new putting stroke fully in hand yet.

And, there's another reason to worry about that stroke.

Winds are predicted to be at least 15-20mph, possibly up to 30mph, on Friday and Saturday. By Saturday afternoon, those greens are going to be even slicker than Gary McCord's infamous bikini wax. Not good for someone adjusting to a new putter grip.

Meanwhile, the same winds, and some chilly early morning temps, may produce the highest winning score since Zach Johnson's +1 in 2007. And may open the door to unlikely winners.

Updates after the first round: Speith looks like the man to beat now, eh? Day really slumped off near the end of his round and Rory gave away a shot at 16 and then another at 18. Well, Sergio's close enough to the lead to provide heartbreak possibilities. Tom Watson outshot Bubba. And Bernhard Langer looks almost ageless.

For the challengers, their hope has to start with the weather being at least as bad as predicted for tomorrow — starting in the afternoon, since Speith goes out late on Friday.

And the loser of the 2014 #Masters is? #538 might shoot a #FiveThirtyEight (updated)

Neil Paine duffs a chip shot from off the green with his piece on possible winners of this year's Masters.

First, he states the obvious, that length is key at Augusta National. However, he also says greens in regulation is important. While it's true that a golfer can be both short and inaccurate, or long and accurate, in general, there's some correlation between length and inaccuracy.

And, while being closer to a green means the use of shorter irons, with more likelihood of staying on a green, the flip side is that hitting irons out of even lighter rough affects control a bit.

(Update, April 15: Paine now stands somewhat refudiated by Golf Digest. Greens in regulation may not be sabermetric, but it was the top commonality for this year's subpar finishers? Driving distance? Not so much.)

He then follows:

And for all of the breathless reverence given to Augusta’s trademark slippery greens, putting skill isn’t a significant predictor of those who will stray from expectations, either.

I suspect this is because putts per round is one of the least consistent performance indicators from season to season, ranking only above sand save percentage.

Which is true, but only in a trivial sense.

The PGA actually has a sabermetric-type stat for putting called "Strokes Gained-Putting," described here. Paine does note elsewhere (on Twitter, but not in an updated story) that putts per round has a 75 percent correlation with strokes-gained putting.

He then says he wanted long-term data. Well, now you're trying to slice your bread and make it both white and whole wheat, because he goes on to dismiss SG-P as only being around a couple of years. But, if that's the case, how "firm," then, is that 75 percent correlation? Maybe 2-3 more years of study lower it to 70 percent?

By the same token, I'll admit that, because of dramatic images, we may overrate the value of putting at Augusta. But, the 75 percent leaves enough room to wonder whether Paine shouldn't recrunch his story in a few years.

Because, as Zach Johnson showed in 2007, a short hitter with strategery in mind can still win at Augusta. (And Haney said the Tiger-proofing had worked with T. Woods more for how the course now shaped up rather than distance per se.) Beyond Johnson, shorter but not minuscule drivers but good putters with a chance to win would include Ian Poulter, Ryan Moore and Jason Dufner. At the same time, Paine rules out Henrik Stenson based on past performance, but maybe that was due to his putting as much as anything else. (ESPN doesn't have full stats for the European tour, so I don't know; he is fifth on driving distance, though, so it's not a length issue.)

I appreciate Paine's attempt to be a contrarian about "received logic" at Augusta. At least, that's how I'm diagnosing it. However, if not wrong, I think he's a bit early. (That said, I do agree with Paine that both scrambling and sand saves aren't important at Augusta.)

And, there's something else.

Greens in regulation itself is perhaps outdated. I could go across the pond and hit every green in regulation at an Open course with the classic double-hole greens yet face all 50-foot putts. This isn't a fault of Paine's. To riff on Don Rumsfeld, you go to Big Data with the data you have.

To address my issue, we need a standard distance, not just "greens." I think that as an occasional duffer in the past, 20 feet away, even for the pros, involves too much luck. Ten feet, though, might not be far enough away to separate the men from the boys in putting. So, maybe "greens inside 15 feet in regulation" is what we need?

Paine does expect there to be more "sabermetric" stats for golf coming in the future, per a Twitter exchange. However, they're not here yet. And, per Don Rumsfeld again, we're at "known unknowns" right now. We know that our current golf stats are lacking in rigor and revelation, but we're still not sure how much they're lacking and how.

This then leads to a larger-yet issue, part of what several people, far beyond those named Paul Krugman, have said about the FiveThirtyEight brand so far. And that's that it doesn't actually do that much analysis for all the Big Data it crunches. Go here for my previous critique of the FiveThirtyEight "brand."

If a statistic is inadequate, and there's none better to replace it, then let's propose a new one, like I just did. To go back to Don Rumsfeld, other people, unlike him, didn't stay in the fog of war. When Bradleys got hit by IEDs, we improvised, then replaced most of them with MRAPs. And, in a note to Neil's boss, you lose some of the hubris that kept you in the fog of war in the first place.

And, Big Data still can't tell us everything. It couldn't tell us in advance that Billy Beane was afraid of failure, assuming that was part of his problem as a baseball player. (I think it was, and also wonder if that's why he turned down the offer to run the Red Sox.) Back in the golf world, it can't explain why, per an old witticism, "Scott Hoch rhymes with 'choke'."

And, you can overcrunch data, too. Some baseball sabermetric stats, like how much value to give steals and how much to detract for being thrown out stealing, are subjective to a degree themselves.

In case anybody is wondering, here's my look at possibilities to win this year.

And, the winner of the 2014 Masters is?

Semi-regular and regular readers here know that I'm somewhat of a golf fan. I definitely follow the four majors, keep 3/4 of an eye on the FedEx and Ryder cups, and have been for decades.

The first major I remember was the 1975 Masters, where Jack Nicklaus held off Johnny Miller and Tom Weiskopf (possibly the best 1-major winner ever) by a stroke. Dan Jenkins (who else) had a great piece for Sports Illustrated. It's so good there's even a book about it.

We do know one thing — Tiger Woods won't be winning this one.

And, not only does his back injury and surgery lengthen the odds of him catching Nicklaus' 18 majors, his shot at another Jack record is also in trouble.

Nicklaus finished in the top 10 in at least one major a year for 22 straight. Tiger's been doing it himself since 1997, but obviously, in a worse-case scenario, he's out of both Opens and has only the PGA to try.

So, who will win it?

I think Phil Mickelson is still iffy, due to his own back concerns. Scratch him.

Almost nobody repeats at Augusta; besides Tiger and Jack, Nick Faldo's the only one to do it, so scratch Adam Scott.

I'm looking for somebody with experience, too, so scratch the young guns.

I'm looking for a European to do it this year.

Maybe a Spaniard.

No, not you, Miguel Angel Jimenez.

As much for drama as for possibility ...

Step on down, Sergio Garcia!

Seriously, he's vastly stepped up his putter work the last 18 months. That's key to Augusta.

Second, his head seems to be in at least a halfway good place.

And, third, beyond those realities, it would make a great story. It's a good story for him, and he would be the first Spaniard to win a major since the death of Seve Ballesteros.

If you give me two other options, both for story lines as well as realities, I'll take Henrik Stenson and Ernie Els.

Stenson winning puts Swedish men's golf on the map, and puts Swedish golf in general back on the map, where it's been missing since the retirement of Annika Sörenstam.

Els? Gets his fifth major, his coveted green jacket, and his third leg of the career Grand Slam, all to keep pace with Phil after the Mick won the Open last year.

I'm ruling out Jason Day for reasons similar to Mickelson. I don't think that thumb is 100 percent yet.

Could a golf major come to Dallas?

First, it's interesting that the long-proposed idea of a championship-level golf course near Loop 12 and I-45 may finally come to fruition. Could help broader development issues in the area.

It's even more interesting that the Byron Nelson could move there from Los Colinas, starting in 2019. Will there be a bidding war?

More interesting yet is that AT&T is touting the idea of the course hosting a major championship at some point. Well, The Masters ain't leaving Augusta, Ga., and The Open will stay across the pond.

So, that leaves the U.S. Open, in June, or the PGA, in August.

Yeah, I know both have been played as far south as Southern Hills, in Tulsa, but, I'm kind of thinking the PGA and USGA ain't really looking fondly at the idea of golf in the potential summer sweatbox of Dallas.

Usually, the humidity has cut down in August; there, you're just facing the potential of an ongoing heat wave. So, the PGA is a bit more likely.

The U.S. Open? If the spring rainy season carries into early June, then gets followed by a heat wave right near solstice time, I'm sure golfers don't really want that.

Does USGA golf have a "Tiger rules" ethics problem? Golf fraud?

Don't agree w/NY Post politics, but love its headers!
That said, the Masters and USGA misplaced theirs, too.
When Jim Nantz has more cojones ...

For true golf fans, you all know about Tiger Woods' questionable drop on the 15th hole, Round 2 of the Masters, the failure for it to originally be "caught" and the initial lack of enforcement fallout on that.

Well, at the time, when I blogged about it, I speculated it was some sort of pro golfer and NOT "Joe Fan" who caught it.

And, I was right; David Eger, a Champions Tour golfer, and a tournament director with both the USGA and PGA, flagged the violation and reported it.

And, from there, the story gets ... well, ultimately, it gets kind of ugly. Because, it looks like Augusta National, on a dark interpretation, was playing with "Tiger Rules." On the darkest interpretation, it was approaching attempted golf fraud. Whether for TV ratings or whatever.  Which would be funny, given Billy Payne's bluenosed, or brown-nosed, claim that it doesn't worry about TV.

Let's start with this quote:

It is a quirk of golf that anybody may report a possible rules infraction. It helps ensure accurate scorecards. Without the public's faith in the posted scores, tournament golf as we know it would not be possible. Eger and many people like him have an intuitive and deep understanding of that underlying principle.

So, therefore, the issue of TV watchers phoning in violations? Pro golfers need to deal with it. Rule 33, whether rightly or wrongly applied at Augusta, covers the general issue of a fan calling in something that either the individual or a rules official didn't catch immediately, even after a scorecard has been signed.

However, here's where it gets more sticky.

It looks like Masters rules officials planned on doing nothing, even after Eger's phone call AND text message to an official he personally knows, and who was at Augusta. That is, until Tiger's press room statements forced the issue.

Eger said he did not have a phone number for (Fred Ridley, the tournament's competition committee chairman), but he did have one for Mickey Bradley, a veteran PGA Tour official who he knew was working the Masters. ...

Eger described the drop to Bradley. Their call ended, and Eger sent Bradley a text message about it as well. ...

Bradley immediately called Ridley and Russell, the veteran PGA Tour administrator who is on the three-man Masters competition committee that is chaired by Ridley, a former U.S. Amateur champion and USGA president. Bradley also forwarded Eger's text to Russell and Ridley. In his text, Eger wrote that Woods "didn't appear to play by Rule 26-1-a." He wrote that he "appeared to be 3-4 feet back" from his divot mark. 

Bradley forwarded Eger's text message at 6:59 p.m. ...

In a telephone interview on (April 28), Russell said the video of the drop was reviewed before Woods finished his round. Russell said he did not review the tape because he was on the course. He also said there were roving rules officials on the 15th hole and others stationed by the green, but they were too far away to see precisely where the ball was dropped. Woods did not request any help with the drop, neither from his playing partners nor from rules officials. That's not surprising. Golf has many complicated rules, but dropping under 26-1-a is not one of them.

That's all "set-up," but important enough.

Here's the nut graf related to my headline:

At 7:30 p.m., 10 minutes after Woods completed his round, Ridley responded by text to Bradley. Regarding Eger's estimate of three to four feet, Ridley wrote that Woods "was closer than that." To look at it closer, he wrote, would be "splitting hairs." Ridley determined that Woods had done nothing wrong, so there was no point in asking him about the drop.

Sure sounds like "Tiger Woods rules," doesn't it?

That is, until more golf fans, and media (even Jim Nantz has balls!) started pushing back:

At about 10:15 on Friday night, nearly three hours after his return text to Bradley, Ridley was informed of Woods's comments to ESPN, by way of a call from Jim Nantz of CBS. The network was taping its 11:30 p.m. Masters recap show when producers saw Twitter chatter questioning the legality of Woods's drop, on the basis of the ESPN interview, during which Woods essentially incriminated himself, unknowingly indicating he made an incorrect drop when he moved back those two yards.

Nantz asked Ridley if he was aware of the internet rumblings. He was not. On the recap show, David Feherty outlined the options Woods had available to play his fifth shot on 15 and questioned whether the drop was made correctly.

After the call from Nantz, Ridley contacted Woods's agent, Mark Steinberg, who was having dinner at jam-packed T-Bonz Steakhouse on Washington Road late on Friday. Steinberg forwarded Ridley's message to Woods, and Woods met with Ridley on Saturday morning. At that time, Woods was assessed the two-shot penalty.

In other words, Masters officials were ... prepared to commit golf fraud until called out about it. Period.

But wait, that's only the first half of the ugliness.

Because behind and beyond actual or attempted frauds, there's always the cover-up.

Per ESPN, the USGA and the R&A are now saying "we think this was handled fine." Boy, butt-kissing, "Tiger rules" squared and more.

For a sport that touts self-policing on ethics, etc., this really doesn't look so good. Really doesn't look so good.

Given what we now know, per the top link, IMO, maybe 33-7 should NOT have applied. And, if we need a DQ, Fred Ridley should DQ himself from running the Masters rules committee or having any part of it.

As part of that, per the story about Eger, let's reference the old proverb — "The guilty flee when no one pursues them." Then why is Ripley "fleeing"? As he is:

Last Friday, (April 26), Eger spoke about the drop. The next day, Mickey Bradley did. On Sunday, Mark Russell did. On Monday, Steve Ethun, an Augusta National spokesman, responded to an interview request sent to Fred Ridley by e-mail. Ethun said Ridley was traveling and would be unavailable.

Yeah, "traveling." Bullshit.

Beyond that, another ESPN column reminds us that "intentionality" isn't even an issue. Theoretically, not even with the new 33-7 overlay rule. It's a basic rule, that Tiger should know. He blew it. The "Tiger rules" folks at Augusta should have disqualified him. If not, he should have DQ-ed himself.

But wait, we're not done with the black eyes yet. Go below the fold.

Vijay Singh, Mr. Deer Antler (Spray) got a pass from PGA Commissioner Tim Finchen. Finchen says that because the WADA has removed the spray from its list, even though it was on the list at the time Singh used it, there's no penalty. That said, there was an initial sanction, but that was appealed. ESPN puts that in the passive, but you know who was appealing.

Several thoughts here. Golf, as an individual sport, has no union. So, Vijay may have threatened legal action as part of that appeal. Means good luck for the USGA and the R&A on trying to ban anchored putters as that issue heats up.

Second, per Bob Harig, it doesn't look good for the WADA and its vaunted hard line on doping. Why did it remove the spray from the list? If it doesn't offer a benefit, why was it on there? And, don't just ask Vijay Singh this one. Mr. Deer Antler Felon, Ray Lewis, when not becoming a football retirement punch line, might have more to say.

Third, per Fox Sports, here's how screwed up the WADA is:

PGA Tour Commissioner Tim Finchem said Tuesday that while admission is tantamount to a failed drug test, WADA informed the tour late last week that it no longer considers the use of deer antler spray to be prohibited except for a positive test result.

So, WADA is saying, in a Kafkaesque way ... "take it, and take your chances, depending in part on the thoroughness of your sport's testing program."

Oh, loverly.

#Tiger Woods, #Masters cheater

Don't agree w/NY Post politics, but love its headers!

Update, May 1: As I predicted, it was NOT Joe Fan, but a golf pro, who originally phoned in about Tiger Woods bad drop at the 15th hole of Round 2 at the Masters. It was a golf pro, still unidentified. More here, in which Augusta National looks more goofy. Again. And, possibly deeper into playing favorites.

Tiger Woods didn't get an "unlucky break" by how his ball bounced after hitting the flagstick on the 15th green in Friday's second round.

Instead, he got a lucky break by not being disqualified for cheating on where he took his drop after his ball bounced in the water.

Per Dan Wetzel's column (and Dan, for someone who could take on the "mighty" Bowl Championship System, you're an awful suck-up to Tiger and the Masters) Woods acknowledged deliberately improving his lie by not taking a drop allowed by golf rule standards. (Update: Wetzel has doubled down on the Tiger suck-up hypocrisy in a second column.)

And, per ESPN, the rule is pretty damned clear.

Therefore, a two-shot penalty, instead of disqualification, is clearly "Tiger favoratism."

The man knows the rules of golf. He deliberately broke this one.

Beyond that, another ESPN column reminds us that "intentionality" isn't even an issue. Theoretically, not even with the new 33-7 overlay rule. It's a basic rule, that Tiger should know. He blew it. The "Tiger rules" folks at Augusta should have disqualified him. If not, he should have DQ-ed himself.

Update, May 1. Given what we now know, per the top link, IMO, maybe 33-7 should NOT have applied. And, if we need a DQ, Fred Ridley should DQ himself from running the Masters rules committee or having any part of it. And worse, the USGA and the R&A are now "getting the back" of Ridley and Augusta National. A sport that has a lot of self-proclaimed ethics has got a bunch of issues with that now.

And, if a Chinese youth can get a bogus stroke penalty for delay, and if 45 years ago, Roberto de Vicenzo can get penalized for his playing partner's mistake at Augusta, then a cheater can get disqualified. Or a semi-cheater. Or somebody for whom ignorance is not an excuse and shouldn't be.

This isn't about Tiger's mistresses, etc. This is inside the gallery ropes. Let's see how many Tiger homers continue to defend him.

The fact that Tiger is taking to Twitter to defend himself shows he knows th score. And, in Wetzel's column, Ernie Els' shrug of the shoulders with his comment indicating "Yeah, it's Tiger," shows he knows it's another score.

And, it's not just Tiger. Any "ordinary" tournament, a favor like this would attract less scrutiny.

But, because the Masters puts itself on a pedestal, it's invited second-guessing.

I mean, for years, NBA writers talked about the "Jordan Rules" in basketball. We've now got evidence of similar.

I mean, this was phoned in yesterday, or emailed in, or whatever, by a fan. Masters officials claimed video evidence yesterday was inconclusive, but they reverse themselves today? On what grounds, other than Tiger's words? And, since those words indicate deliberation, then why no DQ?

And, if Bob Costas, yesterday, on Dan Patrick's radio show, could chide CBS and The Masters for not talking about racism and other issues? Bob, let's hear you now.

Update, 5:15 p.m. Saturday: Well, Nick Faldo had no problem weighing in from the CBS side. He just talked about "old rules" and "new rules" of golf, and said that, per his own thought and discussion with fellow pros of his age, that, under the "old rules," a golfer in Tiger's position would have DQ-ed himself.

Let's have somebody interview Jack Nicklaus on this!

And, as of April 25, he's now weighed in. He says he thinks the penalty was appropriate. OK, but then, his logic goes fuzzy. He says that if Tiger had DQ-ed himself, THAT would have been a statement by Tiger that he was above the rules.

Meanwhile, Masters rules officials screwed up on how they handled this. Tiger should immediately have been met by them, or as soon as they heard, with full review of video, instead of what actually happened.

Meanwhile, if not in a major, golfers have voluntarily withdrawn from other tournaments in similar situations, as John Feinstein notes. So, it's not rule 33-7, designed for TV viewers phoning in more iffy rules violations, that's at issue with "new rules" vs "old rules." Because this wasn't a call made by a viewer of Woods' drop, but of Woods' statement after his round. Maybe Sir Nick was referencing that, but the reality is this is Tiger rule vs. rules for others.

And, per Golf Channel, it sounds like Masters officials are either kind of clueless, or were taking the lead in perpetuating Tiger rules. Maybe the unnamed caller threatened to go more public. And, had a name big enough that, if he did so, this would have been a hand grenade exploding.

That said, whether Tiger actually DID gain an advantage or not, I can't believe that he doesn't know that rule better. I'd like to also have his current caddy, Joe LaCava, talk (fat chance). I'd also like to hear his outspoken long-term former caddie, Stevie Williams, weigh in on if he, as Tiger's caddie in the past, knew the rules that clearly, and what he would have said to Tiger if he saw him trying to do something like that.

And, I got my wish for Adam Scott to win. Now, Stevie, even if nobody sticks a mic in your face, speak out anyway.

And, speaking once more of Williams, don't forget it was his read, based on his experience, of the putt Scott faced at No. 10 in the playoff that let Adam win.

Almost to a man, even the ones who think Tiger should have gotten a DQ, or else withdrawn, still think it wasn't deliberate, in the sense of trying to get a deliberate edge.

WTF? That's not what the unnamed caller thought, I think.

I'm not sure, overall, who has more egg on the face, Tiger or Augusta National. It's awfully damned close between a golfer thinking he's privileged and an alleged "major championship" that got busted in preferential treatment as well as second-rate management.

Meanwhile, you Tiger fellators who call people like me Tiger haters? Look in the mirror; your slobbering over him leads to disdainful reactions like this.

Steve Williams on #TW at #Masters: Tiger should have DQed

Adam Scott and Steve Williams. Getty Images via ESPN

Hah! What I've been waiting for, and said so since Sunday evening, when Adam Scott won the Masters with his dramatic playoff putt.

Scott's looper, who helped him with the dramatic putt, Steve Williams, was on Tiger Woods' bag for all but the first of his 14 majors, as golf fans know.

Well, he's now spoken about Woods' infamous, ultimately penalized, drop on the 15th hole on Friday.

Williams says he doesn't think Woods was trying to get a competitive advantage, but that he should have been disqualified, not just penalized two shots.

"From what I can gather, he took an illegal drop, signed a scorecard and left the course," Williams told the television station. "Under most circumstances that would result in disqualification. ... If the rules of golf are upheld, I believe he should have been disqualified."

Sounds pretty simple, doesn't it?

Williams also says he doesn't like viewers phoning in about Player X knocking a leaf off a tree or whatever.

I agree. And, so do officials, and the PGA, who ameliorated that, at least, with Rule 33-7. However, that rule didn't apply to this situation.

Don't agree w/NY Post politics, but love its headers!

Rather, Tiger tattled on himself after the round, in the presser. That's why I agree with Williams that Tiger wasn't trying to gain an advantage. Nonetheless, it was clearly illegal. And, yes, he should have been DQ-ed.

But, what if there were a second phone call? Not a Joe Fan. Say, either a former player, or another currently active one. I'm betting the former. Somebody with a certain amount of game himself. Somebody appalled that nothing was being done when Woods admitted he had broke a rule.

Maybe it was Jack Nicklaus! I'm 3/4 joking, but 1/4 serious.

Or ... calling from another golf network ... Johnny Miller! That one is only 50 percent joking.

In that original post, I said somebody should interview Jack. I wasn't joking then, and I'm even less joking now.

Let's have him weigh in on viewer call-ins in general, and this issue in particular. Or let's have Sir Nick Faldo expand on the comments he made on the issue.

Or, if it was Miller, damn, let's have him say something during NBC's next golf broadcast of a tournament that has Woods in it.

It's better than having Tiger-fellating writers like Dan Wetzel continue to give him a pass.

Per ESPN, the rule is pretty damned clear. Meanwhile, if not in a major, golfers have voluntarily withdrawn from other tournaments in similar situations, as John Feinstein notes.

Meanwhile, this all shows the value of a good caddie. Other caddies wouldn't have had the same degree of skill in helping Scott line up his putt. Williams might have helped Tiger avoid a bad drop on Friday. He still might not have won, but he would have been closer, at the start of Sunday's round.

Will Philly Mick hit World No. 1?

Phil Mickelson's moving to the world's No. 1 golf ranking is all in his control. (It is for Lee Westwood, too.)

I will hate having to eat my hat if he pulls it off, but maybe he can. But, I doubt it. He's eight strokes off the pace, with good golfers a-plenty ahead of him.

There's other Masters scenarios, too. Geoff Ogilvy is in good position to exorcise the ghosts of Greg Norman and become the first Aussie to win at Augusta.

Fred Couples could be the oldster who finally defies Father Time at a major. That said, I wouldn't hold my breath on it, sadly.

As for the finale?

Phil paired with Tiger Woods in the last pairing on Sunday could be great. So could Tiger vs. Y.E. Yang in a reply of the 2009 PGA. And, so could Phil and Lee.

I'd love to see Rory win. Or Luke Donald, just to put yet another, and unexpected, name and face atop the world rankings.

Lighten up, Augusta National

Top pro golf Tweeters Ian Poulter and Graeme McDowell Tweeted some pics from the allegedly more sacrosanct areas of Augusta National Golf Course, home of The Masters.

And, Augusta got bent out of shape.

And, Devil Ball Golf on Yahoo defends the course.

I say, instead of Poults Tweeting a pic, though, let's sneak Gary McCord in there on a hunt for Masters bikini wax.

Seriously, are members of the country club going to start policing the grounds? The players? Will Poulter or someone else put a spy camera in a pimento cheese sandwich?

Early thoughts on The Masters

I agree with Bob Harig; it's clear that Tiger-proofing Augusta hasn't just hurt Tiger. But, that was Tiger post-2006, not Tiger post-2009. (Oh, and you other golfers? Stop whining so much. The idea of anybody, in general, hitting wedges into hole after hole on par-4? Bleech.) The current Tiger Woods, Vegas odds possibilities aside, can't be the favorite this year. No matter the naive casual golf fan's puppy-dog love for TW. Nor can the struggling Phil Mickelson, with his variety of issues.

That includes the fact that Mickelson still can't get past Tiger in world ranking.

So, who is a "possibility"?

Despite a bit of relative mediocreness the last couple of weeks, Martin Kaymer has to be ranked high. Dustin Johnson, despite his issue in last year's majors. Graeme McDowell might bounce back from his recent struggles.

Three weeks ago, I would have said Vijay Singh could represent the old-timers' brigade, but not any more.

I'll throw out Bubba Watson and Hunter Mahan as two other "names."

And, there's a good interactive on Augusta here.

Premature to jump to Tiger conclusions?

Bob Harig's story title says that, but, he does anyway.

Between "max-size" baseball Hall of Fame writers and Tiger whores, ESPN sure has "favorite suck-up" writers in abundance.

Anyway, back to Tiger. The fact that he's changing putters again says the title's right and Harig's wrong. Meanwhile, another ESPN writer, Gene Wojciechowski, is touting that Tiger could be peaking for The Masters.

Puhleeze. If Tiger's struggling enough with the flatstick to again make a mid-tourney change, he's not putting well enough for Augusta's greens.

Can we officially call Tiger Woods "mediocre"?

Why not? AP's Tim Dahlberg just did.

Tiger still has a distressing new ability, post-fire hydrant, of not being able to close out when in the hunt.

Of course, part of that goes back to Y.E. Yang at the 2009 PGA Championship. But, given that was one of Tiger's last events before his ex-wife "rescued" him from that late-night wreck, it had to incubate in his mind a bit.

But, the "mediocre"? Dahlberg says it's in style points, intimidation, the whole nine yards:

He’s not all that interesting to watch anymore, unless you’re the type who likes hearing a loud swear word or enjoys watching someone spit on the green as Woods did in Dubai. He no longer hits the ball past everyone, and there is a gaggle of talented kids who not only aren’t afraid of Woods, but can’t wait to take him on.

Now, Dahlberg isn't writing Tiger off, of course.

I don’t doubt Woods will win again. He’s got so much talent it could happen just by accident.

But I don’t see him winning the way he used to win, and I don’t think there’s any way he wins five more majors to break the record held by Nicklaus.

But, here's the bottom line:

(T)he greatest player of his era will have to adjust to a new normalcy.

For Woods, that may be even tougher than figuring out his new swing.

While Dahlberg doesn't go into too many details about Tiger's play, the biggest difference is his putting. I even saw a commenter on a Yahoo blog raise the name of Ian Baker-Finch.

Now, Tiger doesn't have actual "yips," but, since last summer, he's been struggling with the flatstick.

And, if that continues, Augusta National won't be too friendly this April.

That's especially true if Robert Lusetich is right, that Tiger lacks self-confidence above all else right now. If true, that would certainly explain the putting issues.

Masters mystique kills Tiger booing

A few fans have already said they're worried about Masters Nazis bouncing them if they get negatively vocal about Tiger Woods.

Well, I'll do it for you.

Eff you, Tiger!

And, eff you, Augusta National.

You can thank me later, folks.

Wrong, Tiger, on Masters return

Tiger Woods says he'll return to golf at The Masters. I think Steve Stricker had this right in an ESPN interview. He should have come back earlier, at the Arnold Palmer or something, rather than inflict the media zoo on one of the four majors as his first tournament back.

And, that said, Bill Simmons also had it right; this shows that Tiger is still playing by his own rules. Not necessarily inside the confines of Augusta National, but on the streets, say, I hope Tiger gets a few boos.

Dan Wetzel has a take on that, and more, at Yahoo. First, he notes booing inside the galleries is VERY unlikely, due to Augusta's sense of decorum, the fact that passes are for the full event, not just one day, and have been passed down for years. Nobody will want to get a pass revoked, not just banned from the remainder of this year's event.

The scene outside the gates on the strip malls of Washington Road will be another thing, of course. That will be opportunist central. Television executives are predicting record viewership. And the throng of people following him will be enormous, even by Tiger standards.

That said, I still hope he does get booed outside the gates.

More interestingly, and insightfully, though, Wetzel compares Tiger to Kobe Bryant and the Colorado rape allegations for which he was tried. He notes Kobe never missed a Lakers game the whole time, and wonders if Tiger will have a more fragile psyche.

Tiger coming back at Bay Hill - or not

Tiger Woods reportedly will return to golfing at Arnold Palmer's event. And Ari Fleischer will advise him on media strategy.

Now other sources say he's not coming back until The Masters, if then. Looks like Ari has flunked his first media management assignment, or else Tiger's agent, Mark Steinberg, whiffed again.

In either case on a return date, Tiger better hope that Ari learned something from how he mishandled Mark McGwire. Or, how he lied for Bush.

That said, Tiger is more genial than McGwire, and less of a bullheaded whatever than Bush.

At ESPN, Gene Wojciechowski is of the same mindset as I am about the hiring of Fleischer. He also has 10 questions for Tiger. One of them:

Did you suffer injuries in the November 2009 car crash near your home and if so, did they require surgery (cosmetic or otherwise) and will they affect your ability to play golf?

The other nine are good, too. The include three about Tiger's exact relationship with Dr. Anthony Galea.