Jaime Nostradamus - The Wither Jordan Edition

The great Jaime Diaz is now posting at The Loop, which simply can't be a bad thing.  Today's item thoughtfully explores what the future might hold for a certain prematurely balding Texan, and you're really going to want to read the whole thing.  I mean unless the warden just arrived with your last meal....

Fair-use be damned, I'm going to excerpt liberally, but work backwards from his conclusions:

Golf is better for Spieth’s special qualities, but he’s got to be of careful of where they

can take him. Unlike power, a strength that makes for tour longevity, Spieth’s talents are those that tend to have a shorter shelf life. 

Magical periods of putting among the game’s very best tend not to last beyond a few seasons, as Arnold Palmer, Lee Trevino and Tom Watson can attest. Even Woods, who made more bombs over a longer stretch than anyone, has seen his putting decline.

His basic point here is one that I've tried to make several times, that length provides a margin of error for a player.  A shorter player like Jordan needs to be on in other area of the game, and when he's not he'll miss cuts as opposed to finishing T15.  

Though I must say that I don't think Jaime is well served by the examples he chose, as most of those are among the greatest ball-strikers in golf history.  Trevino might be the best comparison, a relatively short player of his error who went decades without missing the sweet spot.   Compare him to Jordan:

Spieth’s way of going consistently low suggests sleight of hand. He’s not long (ranked 78th in driving distance with an average of 291.8 yards), nor particularly straight (80th in hitting fairways), and doesn’t hit a ton greens (49th). But Spieth still managed to finish fourth in strokes gained tee to green, which was even better than his rank (8th) in strokes gained putting.

That's a condition I've previously dubbed Luke Donald Disease, and there's no known cure.  Joking aside, here's the conclusion that Jaime draws:

How? Well, for example, Spieth was first in proximity on approaches from the rough. In part, that speaks to Spieth’s technique from taller grass, but what it really shows is that he has an innate sense of where to miss. It’s the trait of the born competitor, the athlete who truly understands what’s important to win the game. 

To me, Spieth’s best qualities evoke athletes from other sports. At the moment, his putting is eerily good. He led in several putting categories, but the stat that resonates most is his conversion rate of better than 25 percent on putts between 15 and 25 feet -- first on tour by a lot. It’s an ability that currently separates him from his peers in the same way NBA MVP Stephen Curry has separated from his.

 I get it, the equivalent of dropping treys in hoops.... but I look at that combination of statistics and can't help but wonder are we looking at anomalies that won't sustain over the long term.  Do we really think that Spieth has a superior technique from the rough?  Or that he's that much in control of his misses off the tee?  

And Steph Curry isn't the only world-cl;ass athlete that Jaime invokes: 

While some are bothered by Spieth’s tendency to react vocally to his shots, I find it a signal of a player immersed in the moment and determined to never let up. Take away the profanity and churlishness (perhaps a big ask), and Spieth reminds me of John McEnroe. Like the tennis bad boy, Spieth uses exasperation, self-castigation and body language to rid himself completely of an unsatisfying shot, so that when it’s time for the next one his mind is clear. People forget that for as tortured as his self-talk seemed, McEnroe almost always played better after venting.

Really?  I completely agree with his premise that Jordan lets it out and is in the moment by the time he reaches his ball.  But you know who also had that skill?  Yeah, that Woods guy... the problem was that Tiger couldn't do it without dropping F-bombs, whereas Jordan is G-rated, suitable for the widest range of audiences.

But I think the McEnroe example is a bad detour for Jaime, as it evokes his unseemly upbraiding of linesmen and referees and ignores the effect of his tirades on his opponents.  Jordan talks to his ball a lot, I don't think there any profound conclusions to be drawn from that.

But doesn't this seem like quite the stretch?

Spieth has already established himself as one of golf’s best post-round interviewees ever. He unfailingly provides clear, detailed, thoughtful, and considerate answers. My favorite such “explainer” was Hall of Famer pitcher Jim Palmer, who shared his thinking behind what he threw in a way that raised the baseball IQ of everyone listening.

Intensity is tricky. Those who burn the hottest tend to burn out the soonest. Curtis Strange won with ferocity, but it aged him prematurely as a player. Johnny Miller, always a close student of the strengths and weaknesses of extraordinary players, noted at the Tour Championship that Speith “is kind of twitchy for a 22 year old.” 

And while giving quality interviews creates goodwill with sportswriters and fans, the cumulative effect from the volume of questions demanded of a top player is inevitably draining. The adjustment is usually shorter, safer responses (see Phil Mickelson). But those wired to give fuller answers can become resentful of the process, even to the point of losing their zest for tournament golf.

Again with the inapt examples, Jaime, as Palmer had a nineteen-year Hall-of-Fame career, so his detailed answers to sportswriters doesn't seem to have, you know, hurt him.

I love this kind of thought-provoking writing because it makes us challenge our assumptions about the game we love.  But ultimately I find his assessments of Jordan's temperament unsatisfying, at least in using them as predictive tools.  I also don't think Jaime would disagree to much with my reactions, as per his concluding 'graph.

 I do very much share his interest in assessing how Jordan's skill set is likely to evolve over time.  I'd add one point, though, that's not touched upon.  We're all acutely aware of the effect of modern golf equipment on distance, but the lesser-discussed effect is the greater parity in the game from tee-to-green.  The modern golf ball spins far less, and it's far more difficult to separate yourself from the pack as a ball-striker these days, and it may be that young Jordan has exactly those skills that suit his era.

Or not...