Subscribe now!
.svg){kind=spacer}
Edition No. 71 | April 7, 2024
My name is Kyle Porter. Welcome to anyone receiving this newsletter for the first time. I cover golf for CBS Sports and write my own bizarre books every year, which is where this newsletter started.
You probably signed up for this newsletter because …
1. You follow me on Twitter or
2. A friend passed it along or maybe
3. You’re hungry for some Masters merchandise (more on that at the bottom of this page).Anyway, welcome. We keep it pretty weird, informal and fun around here. Sometimes we even talk about the golf.
Hey,
This time next week, somebody is going to wake up, look in a mirror at their rental house in Augusta, Georgia and wonder what Scottie Scheffler wondered in 2022 in that same town and what Shane Lowry wondered three years before that in a town several thousand miles to the east of Augusta …
"I suppose I woke up this morning,” said Lowry after winning the Open at Royal Portrush in 2019, “not sure if I had what it takes to win a major."
Major weeks are interesting historically and they’re interesting because you get answers to the following questions.
Who will win?
How will they win?
What will this change?
In what ways will I view golf differently?
But the question I’m most interested in finding out — and if you’ve been reading this newsletter for any length of time, you already know this to be true — is as follows.
Who am I?
That’s the good stuff. That’s the stuff I love. The existential stuff that only major championships can start to move around.
Scottie Scheffler, slayer of Jon Rahm, winner of everything he looked at in 2022, wept on that Sunday morning with the lead because so rarely in life do you have to stand face to face with who you truly are.
That’s such an unusual thing in sport. Most of it is rote. Some of it is not. Next Sunday will be the part that’s not. It’s the best. Enjoy it all.
Onto the news.
This feels like an “Andy and Brendan saying this will be a short one, and then 84 minutes in they’re getting steep on, like, the 2011 Challenge Tour order of merit or something” moment, BUT this will be a shorter one.
I also plan on writing two of these newsletters next week and doing a Masters AMA on Twitter on Monday. Follow along if you aren’t.
1. The term “highest common denominator” is one I’ve been thinking about recently. So much of the internet is a race to the bottom. To appeal to the lowest common denominator (in other words, the most eyeballs). This feels good in the short term but is foolish in the long term. Instead, a better strategy is to appeal to the smartest, most interested people. Everything else will take care of itself.
This is not to say that every company or small business will have insane profit margins or wealth. Only that you will maximize the profit available to you if you appeal to the highest common denominator and focus on slow growth.
Example: I’ve been yelling about the LeBron-JJ Redick podcast. It’s stunning. Outrageously good. Two sickos talking about the sickest stuff. I don’t understand most of it, but I’m not the intended audience. And here’s the magic: Even though I’m not the intended audience, I still tune in because they’re pulling the total available audience up instead of lowering themselves to the lowest common denominator.
Another example: The PGA Tour makes super groups at its tournaments. Rory, Tiger, JT, things of that nature. It wants the “my only golf is Top Golf” crowd to tune in. Conversely, the Masters doesn’t care about super groups. It trusts that that by catering to its intended audience (mostly you and me) with proper talent diversity, it will experience plaudits and growth.
Voila.
I’m being reductive — that’s not the only reason the Masters thrives (or even a primary one), but it’s the one I was thinking about recently and it’s yet another example of a business in golf pandering to the highest common denominator instead of the lowest.
2. If you’ve never interacted with this Data Golf chart, you should.
It’s a fascinating one that I always go back to around the majors. It essentially shows who plays better in majors than they do in regular events (Koepka) and also the opposite (Homa).
I already posted these elsewhere, but here are some of my thoughts.
Brooks is incredibly confusing, but I kinda love it? There’s really nobody like him.
Zalatoris .... he’s either Brooks 2.0 or he’s going to drop way off at majors. We have enough regular data to determine there’s no real in between there.
A prediction: Scottie, Rory and Rahm are eventually going to end up in basically the same place.
Max 🫣
Phil, Spieth, Seve, Watson, Faldo, DJ, Crenshaw -- all awesome champions. I love seeing who brings it at majors.
How about Finau having better SG than Seve at majors?! I know this includes Seve as an older champion where his SG fell off, but boy do we think about those guys differently.
3. Ahead of the women’s title game tonight … this was a great interaction. I also think Caitlin Clark is a better passer than she is a shooter.
4. With the first major of the year upcoming, it’s worth revisiting this thread on xWins (expected wins based on strokes gained) at majors since 2010. xWins matters because you can’t control what other players do, and — as discussed below — it should (should but doesn’t always) be pretty close to your actual major total over time.
Your top five in xWins at majors since 2010.
Rory McIlroy: xWins — 4.3 (4 actual major wins)
Brooks Koepka: xWins — 3.8 (5)
Phil Mickelson: xWins — 3.3 (3)
Jordan Spieth: xWins — 3.1 (3)
Dustin Johnson: xWins — 2.4 (2)
Here are some notes I wrote last summer that I think hold up.
• It's very difficult to stray from your xWins. If you put up great performances in majors over a long period of time, it usually all evens out. Ex: Rory probably had a bit of luck early and a lack of luck late, but his numbers are basically what they should be.
• Brooks has gotten a bit of luck so far. Not a ton, but a little. He and Rahm have capitalized on opportunity (Rahm has fewer major xWins than Brian Harman). Closing is a skill.
• Phil won a major where his xWins was .08 and lost one where it was 1.0, which is perfect.
• Wolff > JT AND Bubba is wild.
• Rickie has been the best major player without a win, which checks out. Has to be tough to see those numbers next to ZJ and Webb.
• Tiger’s xWins in the 2019 major he won was .04 (!!), which is the point of putting yourself near the top over and over again. Sometimes you’re going to get extremely lucky.
5. Everyone involved in this tweet (including anyone who laughed at it or found themselves nodding along) needs to seek help.
6. Remember when there was a big debate about whether Scottie Scheffler should be on the 2021 Ryder Cup team? I was thinking about that the other day. It’s pretty amusing in retrospect. Players know.
7. This thread on becoming a content creator in the sports space in 2024 is excellent. I agree with pretty much all of it but especially this point …
Also, I don’t know Arif and don’t follow a ton of NFL media, but his humility in saying “Yeah, I worked hard but let’s not kid ourselves, I got extremely lucky” is something I’m not only impressed by but would also echo in my own journey.
Do I wake up every day excited to do the work? Absolutely? Were the breaks I got along the way impossible to replicate, fortuitous and maybe even providential? Also yes. There are plenty of people who could do these jobs well (probably even better!). Which leaves me very, very grateful — especially with Masters week on deck — that I’m one of the ones who gets to.
8. A hedge fund that’s also a newspaper is certainly something that caught my attention last week. Is it something I would ever want to participate in? Absolutely not. Does it seem like you need about $100M worth of attorneys on retainers? Yes. But I appreciate the creativity required to think, “Hmm … the current business model of writing online is not necessarily working, let’s think outside the box and try to do things differently.” You could (and probably should) argue that this is a hedge fund first and not a media company, but I’m always into any business that uses media in ways that are both sustainable and interesting. This definitely qualifies.
9. It’s the Sunday before Masters week, and I legitimately have no idea who I’m picking. Send help.
10. If you’re new and have never seen our Masters family draft, here’s the 2024 edition. The broad outline: We pick names out of a hat, throw the Data Golf rankings on the TV and draft five rounds in snake order. It feels a bit unfair that I’m literally on Shane Lowry’s Data Golf page three times a week and my 7-year-old is worried about when we’ll allow him to watch the Mandalorian and where he left his receiver gloves on Thursday, but it is what it is.
Here’s how we determine the winner: You get each player’s total score for the week — we’re not soft like LIV and throw scores out. If one of your players WDs or misses the cut, you get that day’s scoring average plus three shots. So if Hovland misses the cut and the scoring average on Saturday is 74, he’s +5 for that day (74 plus three shots).
Here’s how this year’s draft went …
Some thoughts.
In retrospect, it does looked rigged.
I got four of the top eight favorites plus somebody who’s finished in the top six twice in two starts at ANGC.
This also does not mean I will automatically win.
What do you want me to do?! Kick away pints of ice cream (what the winner gets) for the sake of my kids’ self-esteem?
Is Sadie an agent of chaos? She is. Rickie in the third?! Tiger in the fifth? Russ Henley is low key a sweet fourth round pick though.
She also only knows about four guys and would just take Rory all five rounds if given the opportunity.
Is Jack a sharp? Who can say. I love Sahith, Ludvig and Cam Young this week but I’m not so sure on JT. Sadie definitely got her chaotic tendencies from him.
Last year, my wife purposely took five LIV players. We’re down to three this year. Progress.
Also: I think LIV has broken me …
11. I always try to read fiction around major weeks just to flip my mind to something that’s not golf at night or when I’m traveling.
This year’s Masters week choice …
It’s predictably wonderful so far.
Thanks for reading until the end.
You’re a sicko, and I’m grateful for it.
Next week we will give away four boxes of Masters gear. If you are already subscribed (and if you’re getting this, you are!) then you will get two raffle tickets into the drawing instead of the one all the new folks who sign up for the newsletter next week will get.
I’m grateful you’re an early adopter of driving range pool noodles and golf gutter balls.
Let’s have a week.
Edition No. 71 | April 7, 2024
My name is Kyle Porter. Welcome to anyone receiving this newsletter for the first time. I cover golf for CBS Sports and write my own bizarre books every year, which is where this newsletter started.
You probably signed up for this newsletter because …
1. You follow me on Twitter or
2. A friend passed it along or maybe
3. You’re hungry for some Masters merchandise (more on that at the bottom of this page).
Anyway, welcome. We keep it pretty weird, informal and fun around here. Sometimes we even talk about the golf.
Hey,
This time next week, somebody is going to wake up, look in a mirror at their rental house in Augusta, Georgia and wonder what Scottie Scheffler wondered in 2022 in that same town and what Shane Lowry wondered three years before that in a town several thousand miles to the east of Augusta …
"I suppose I woke up this morning,” said Lowry after winning the Open at Royal Portrush in 2019, “not sure if I had what it takes to win a major."
Major weeks are interesting historically and they’re interesting because you get answers to the following questions.
Who will win?
How will they win?
What will this change?
In what ways will I view golf differently?
But the question I’m most interested in finding out — and if you’ve been reading this newsletter for any length of time, you already know this to be true — is as follows.
Who am I?
That’s the good stuff. That’s the stuff I love. The existential stuff that only major championships can start to move around.
Scottie Scheffler, slayer of Jon Rahm, winner of everything he looked at in 2022, wept on that Sunday morning with the lead because so rarely in life do you have to stand face to face with who you truly are.
That’s such an unusual thing in sport. Most of it is rote. Some of it is not. Next Sunday will be the part that’s not. It’s the best. Enjoy it all.
Onto the news.
This feels like an “Andy and Brendan saying this will be a short one, and then 84 minutes in they’re getting steep on, like, the 2011 Challenge Tour order of merit or something” moment, BUT this will be a shorter one.
I also plan on writing two of these newsletters next week and doing a Masters AMA on Twitter on Monday. Follow along if you aren’t.
1. The term “highest common denominator” is one I’ve been thinking about recently. So much of the internet is a race to the bottom. To appeal to the lowest common denominator (in other words, the most eyeballs). This feels good in the short term but is foolish in the long term. Instead, a better strategy is to appeal to the smartest, most interested people. Everything else will take care of itself.
This is not to say that every company or small business will have insane profit margins or wealth. Only that you will maximize the profit available to you if you appeal to the highest common denominator and focus on slow growth.
Example: I’ve been yelling about the LeBron-JJ Redick podcast. It’s stunning. Outrageously good. Two sickos talking about the sickest stuff. I don’t understand most of it, but I’m not the intended audience. And here’s the magic: Even though I’m not the intended audience, I still tune in because they’re pulling the total available audience up instead of lowering themselves to the lowest common denominator.
Another example: The PGA Tour makes super groups at its tournaments. Rory, Tiger, JT, things of that nature. It wants the “my only golf is Top Golf” crowd to tune in. Conversely, the Masters doesn’t care about super groups. It trusts that that by catering to its intended audience (mostly you and me) with proper talent diversity, it will experience plaudits and growth.
Voila.
I’m being reductive — that’s not the only reason the Masters thrives (or even a primary one), but it’s the one I was thinking about recently and it’s yet another example of a business in golf pandering to the highest common denominator instead of the lowest.
2. If you’ve never interacted with this Data Golf chart, you should.
It’s a fascinating one that I always go back to around the majors. It essentially shows who plays better in majors than they do in regular events (Koepka) and also the opposite (Homa).
I already posted these elsewhere, but here are some of my thoughts.
Brooks is incredibly confusing, but I kinda love it? There’s really nobody like him.
Zalatoris .... he’s either Brooks 2.0 or he’s going to drop way off at majors. We have enough regular data to determine there’s no real in between there.
A prediction: Scottie, Rory and Rahm are eventually going to end up in basically the same place.
Max 🫣
Phil, Spieth, Seve, Watson, Faldo, DJ, Crenshaw -- all awesome champions. I love seeing who brings it at majors.
How about Finau having better SG than Seve at majors?! I know this includes Seve as an older champion where his SG fell off, but boy do we think about those guys differently.
3. Ahead of the women’s title game tonight … this was a great interaction. I also think Caitlin Clark is a better passer than she is a shooter.
4. With the first major of the year upcoming, it’s worth revisiting this thread on xWins (expected wins based on strokes gained) at majors since 2010. xWins matters because you can’t control what other players do, and — as discussed below — it should (should but doesn’t always) be pretty close to your actual major total over time.
Your top five in xWins at majors since 2010.
Rory McIlroy: xWins — 4.3 (4 actual major wins)
Brooks Koepka: xWins — 3.8 (5)
Phil Mickelson: xWins — 3.3 (3)
Jordan Spieth: xWins — 3.1 (3)
Dustin Johnson: xWins — 2.4 (2)
Here are some notes I wrote last summer that I think hold up.
• It's very difficult to stray from your xWins. If you put up great performances in majors over a long period of time, it usually all evens out. Ex: Rory probably had a bit of luck early and a lack of luck late, but his numbers are basically what they should be.
• Brooks has gotten a bit of luck so far. Not a ton, but a little. He and Rahm have capitalized on opportunity (Rahm has fewer major xWins than Brian Harman). Closing is a skill.
• Phil won a major where his xWins was .08 and lost one where it was 1.0, which is perfect.
• Wolff > JT AND Bubba is wild.
• Rickie has been the best major player without a win, which checks out. Has to be tough to see those numbers next to ZJ and Webb.
• Tiger’s xWins in the 2019 major he won was .04 (!!), which is the point of putting yourself near the top over and over again. Sometimes you’re going to get extremely lucky.
5. Everyone involved in this tweet (including anyone who laughed at it or found themselves nodding along) needs to seek help.
6. Remember when there was a big debate about whether Scottie Scheffler should be on the 2021 Ryder Cup team? I was thinking about that the other day. It’s pretty amusing in retrospect. Players know.
7. This thread on becoming a content creator in the sports space in 2024 is excellent. I agree with pretty much all of it but especially this point …
Also, I don’t know Arif and don’t follow a ton of NFL media, but his humility in saying “Yeah, I worked hard but let’s not kid ourselves, I got extremely lucky” is something I’m not only impressed by but would also echo in my own journey.
Do I wake up every day excited to do the work? Absolutely? Were the breaks I got along the way impossible to replicate, fortuitous and maybe even providential? Also yes. There are plenty of people who could do these jobs well (probably even better!). Which leaves me very, very grateful — especially with Masters week on deck — that I’m one of the ones who gets to.
8. A hedge fund that’s also a newspaper is certainly something that caught my attention last week. Is it something I would ever want to participate in? Absolutely not. Does it seem like you need about $100M worth of attorneys on retainers? Yes. But I appreciate the creativity required to think, “Hmm … the current business model of writing online is not necessarily working, let’s think outside the box and try to do things differently.” You could (and probably should) argue that this is a hedge fund first and not a media company, but I’m always into any business that uses media in ways that are both sustainable and interesting. This definitely qualifies.
9. It’s the Sunday before Masters week, and I legitimately have no idea who I’m picking. Send help.
10. If you’re new and have never seen our Masters family draft, here’s the 2024 edition. The broad outline: We pick names out of a hat, throw the Data Golf rankings on the TV and draft five rounds in snake order. It feels a bit unfair that I’m literally on Shane Lowry’s Data Golf page three times a week and my 7-year-old is worried about when we’ll allow him to watch the Mandalorian and where he left his receiver gloves on Thursday, but it is what it is.
Here’s how we determine the winner: You get each player’s total score for the week — we’re not soft like LIV and throw scores out. If one of your players WDs or misses the cut, you get that day’s scoring average plus three shots. So if Hovland misses the cut and the scoring average on Saturday is 74, he’s +5 for that day (74 plus three shots).
Here’s how this year’s draft went …
Some thoughts.
In retrospect, it does looked rigged.
I got four of the top eight favorites plus somebody who’s finished in the top six twice in two starts at ANGC.
This also does not mean I will automatically win.
What do you want me to do?! Kick away pints of ice cream (what the winner gets) for the sake of my kids’ self-esteem?
Is Sadie an agent of chaos? She is. Rickie in the third?! Tiger in the fifth? Russ Henley is low key a sweet fourth round pick though.
She also only knows about four guys and would just take Rory all five rounds if given the opportunity.
Is Jack a sharp? Who can say. I love Sahith, Ludvig and Cam Young this week but I’m not so sure on JT. Sadie definitely got her chaotic tendencies from him.
Last year, my wife purposely took five LIV players. We’re down to three this year. Progress.
Also: I think LIV has broken me …
11. I always try to read fiction around major weeks just to flip my mind to something that’s not golf at night or when I’m traveling.
This year’s Masters week choice …
It’s predictably wonderful so far.
Thanks for reading until the end.
You’re a sicko, and I’m grateful for it.
Next week we will give away four boxes of Masters gear. If you are already subscribed (and if you’re getting this, you are!) then you will get two raffle tickets into the drawing instead of the one all the new folks who sign up for the newsletter next week will get.
I’m grateful you’re an early adopter of driving range pool noodles and golf gutter balls.
Let’s have a week.
