Tiger Woods (4 Viewers)

[dhockster]

Based on your original post, you seemed to be indicating that Tigers Career is going downhill, that he was incredible when he went 7/11, he was still great when he went 6/14, and that he hasn't done anything lately when he went 0/13 with 5 missed majors. Maybe you didn't mean to indicate that Tiger's career was going downhill, in which case I don't know what the point of your original post was. Tiger's career looks a little different if you show all results:-Won '97 masters-0/10 streak - 1997 to 1999-7/11 streak - 1999 to 2002-0/10 streak - 2002 to 2004-6/14 streak - 2005 to 2008-0/13 streak - 2008 to presentTwice in his career Tiger went through Major droughts and then came back with a hot period. Now he is going through a 3rd drought. While it is not assured that he will go through another hot period, it is certainly possible especially in light of the way he is playing now.Sorry if I confused you, but I guess I didn't understand your point with your original post. Any clarification would be appreciated.

Tiger changed his swing in 1998, 2003/4, and 2010/11.

This shows that once Tiger gets used to a new swing and can duplicate it over a sustained period, he has a major hot streak. It has happened twice already andappears to be about to start a third time. I see a cause and effect here to the hot streak that you may not see in a pitcher having varying results over the course of five starts

 

[BobbyLayne]

5 starts for an MLB pitcher would be about 15% of a season. Over a career, that would be 2% of Justin Verlander's starts, roughly 0.007% of Roger Clemens career. By any measure, a statistically insignificant sample size.

25 golf majors (11 + 14 if didn't follow where I got that from) is 40% of Tiger Woods career. Hot streaks that span 3 and 4 seasons is not a small sample size.

The size of the sample isn't the point. The point was that if you deliberately use successful efforts (wins, innings/quarters, games, months, seasons, whatever) as the start and end point for any data, you end up with a sensationalized result. It's a results-based analysis. I used an extreme example to make the point clearer, or so I thought.

The level 2 analysis is understood. I'm a CPA and a CFO, so it's not like I don't get statistics (or how to manipulate them to my advantage). I was into Sabermetrics before Bill James gave it a name and popularized it to the masses. The starting and ending points for TW are explainable (swing changes, injury, personal scandal). It's not like we're looking at a .285 hitter who hit .450 over a 15 game hitting streak. We're talking about a guy who had not one but two sustained periods of excellence, a never before seen dominance, far greater than anything Jones or Nelson or Hogan or Nicklaus accomplished over similar 4 year spans.

I would reject the notion that the two 0-10 streaks or current 0-13 drought is a regression to the mean. The hot streaks are not cherry picked to make it seem like he might be one of the best ever. The two long periods of sustained excellence over several seasons (which included record setting performance in which he lapped the field by 12, 15 and 8 strokes) are convincing evidence he is indeed the most dominant golfer of all-time.

The cumulative total isn't finished for anyone who requires further proof.

 

[mr roboto]

Based on your original post, you seemed to be indicating that Tigers Career is going downhill, that he was incredible when he went 7/11, he was still great when he went 6/14, and that he hasn't done anything lately when he went 0/13 with 5 missed majors. Maybe you didn't mean to indicate that Tiger's career was going downhill, in which case I don't know what the point of your original post was. Tiger's career looks a little different if you show all results:-Won '97 masters-0/10 streak - 1997 to 1999-7/11 streak - 1999 to 2002-0/10 streak - 2002 to 2004-6/14 streak - 2005 to 2008-0/13 streak - 2008 to presentTwice in his career Tiger went through Major droughts and then came back with a hot period. Now he is going through a 3rd drought. While it is not assured that he will go through another hot period, it is certainly possible especially in light of the way he is playing now.Sorry if I confused you, but I guess I didn't understand your point with your original post. Any clarification would be appreciated.

Tiger changed his swing in 1998, 2003/4, and 2010/11.

This shows that once Tiger gets used to a new swing and can duplicate it over a sustained period, he has a major hot streak. It has happened twice already andappears to be about to start a third time. I see a cause and effect here to the hot streak that you may not see in a pitcher having varying results over the course of five starts

This is what I've been saying for 3 years. We aren't talking about a ceteris paribus situation. He had mitigating factors that directly contributed to his decline.

 

[TobiasFunke]

5 starts for an MLB pitcher would be about 15% of a season. Over a career, that would be 2% of Justin Verlander's starts, roughly 0.007% of Roger Clemens career. By any measure, a statistically insignificant sample size.

25 golf majors (11 + 14 if didn't follow where I got that from) is 40% of Tiger Woods career. Hot streaks that span 3 and 4 seasons is not a small sample size.

The size of the sample isn't the point. The point was that if you deliberately use successful efforts (wins, innings/quarters, games, months, seasons, whatever) as the start and end point for any data, you end up with a sensationalized result. It's a results-based analysis. I used an extreme example to make the point clearer, or so I thought.

The level 2 analysis is understood. I'm a CPA and a CFO, so it's not like I don't get statistics (or how to manipulate them to my advantage). I was into Sabermetrics before Bill James gave it a name and popularized it to the masses. The starting and ending points for TW are explainable (swing changes, injury, personal scandal). It's not like we're looking at a .285 hitter who hit .450 over a 15 game hitting streak. We're talking about a guy who had not one but two sustained periods of excellence, a never before seen dominance, far greater than anything Jones or Nelson or Hogan or Nicklaus accomplished over similar 4 year spans.

I would reject the notion that the two 0-10 streaks or current 0-13 drought is a regression to the mean. The hot streaks are not cherry picked to make it seem like he might be one of the best ever. The two long periods of sustained excellence over several seasons (which included record setting performance in which he lapped the field by 12, 15 and 8 strokes) are convincing evidence he is indeed the most dominant golfer of all-time.

The cumulative total isn't finished for anyone who requires further proof.

Agree with all of this.

This was my single point: if you want to argue about whether Tiger, now or at some point in the future, is playing as well relative to his peers as he generally did before his injuries and skank-banging revelations, it's misleading to use the 7 out of 11 or 6 out of 14 samples as the basis for comparison, because they're cherry-picked. After all, the 7 for 11 stretch was also at least a 7 for 13 stretch and the 6 for 14 stretch likewise was at least a 6 for 16 stretch. You seem to get what I was going for. Sorry you thought I was a "wall"- I've got a lot of faults, but I don't think being close-minded and difficult is one of them.

 

[BobbyLayne]

5 starts for an MLB pitcher would be about 15% of a season. Over a career, that would be 2% of Justin Verlander's starts, roughly 0.007% of Roger Clemens career. By any measure, a statistically insignificant sample size.

25 golf majors (11 + 14 if didn't follow where I got that from) is 40% of Tiger Woods career. Hot streaks that span 3 and 4 seasons is not a small sample size.

The size of the sample isn't the point. The point was that if you deliberately use successful efforts (wins, innings/quarters, games, months, seasons, whatever) as the start and end point for any data, you end up with a sensationalized result. It's a results-based analysis. I used an extreme example to make the point clearer, or so I thought.

The level 2 analysis is understood. I'm a CPA and a CFO, so it's not like I don't get statistics (or how to manipulate them to my advantage). I was into Sabermetrics before Bill James gave it a name and popularized it to the masses. The starting and ending points for TW are explainable (swing changes, injury, personal scandal). It's not like we're looking at a .285 hitter who hit .450 over a 15 game hitting streak. We're talking about a guy who had not one but two sustained periods of excellence, a never before seen dominance, far greater than anything Jones or Nelson or Hogan or Nicklaus accomplished over similar 4 year spans.

I would reject the notion that the two 0-10 streaks or current 0-13 drought is a regression to the mean. The hot streaks are not cherry picked to make it seem like he might be one of the best ever. The two long periods of sustained excellence over several seasons (which included record setting performance in which he lapped the field by 12, 15 and 8 strokes) are convincing evidence he is indeed the most dominant golfer of all-time.

The cumulative total isn't finished for anyone who requires further proof.

Agree with all of this.

This was my single point: if you want to argue about whether Tiger, now or at some point in the future, is playing as well relative to his peers as he generally did before his injuries and skank-banging revelations, it's misleading to use the 7 out of 11 or 6 out of 14 samples as the basis for comparison, because they're cherry-picked. After all, the 7 for 11 stretch was also at least a 7 for 13 stretch and the 6 for 14 stretch likewise was at least a 6 for 16 stretch. You seem to get what I was going for. Sorry you thought I was a "wall"- I've got a lot of faults, but I don't think being close-minded and difficult is one of them.

For my part, sorry for being dismissive of you. I have on numerous occasions in the past found you to be pedantic and tedious, which makes me loathsome to engage. But perhaps that speaks more to my own inability to get my point across succinctly than any failing on your part.

Good going forward.

 

[dhockster]

Based on your original post, you seemed to be indicating that Tigers Career is going downhill, that he was incredible when he went 7/11, he was still great when he went 6/14, and that he hasn't done anything lately when he went 0/13 with 5 missed majors. Maybe you didn't mean to indicate that Tiger's career was going downhill, in which case I don't know what the point of your original post was. Tiger's career looks a little different if you show all results:-Won '97 masters-0/10 streak - 1997 to 1999-7/11 streak - 1999 to 2002-0/10 streak - 2002 to 2004-6/14 streak - 2005 to 2008-0/13 streak - 2008 to presentTwice in his career Tiger went through Major droughts and then came back with a hot period. Now he is going through a 3rd drought. While it is not assured that he will go through another hot period, it is certainly possible especially in light of the way he is playing now.Sorry if I confused you, but I guess I didn't understand your point with your original post. Any clarification would be appreciated.

Tiger changed his swing in 1998, 2003/4, and 2010/11.

This shows that once Tiger gets used to a new swing and can duplicate it over a sustained period, he has a major hot streak. It has happened twice already andappears to be about to start a third time. I see a cause and effect here to the hot streak that you may not see in a pitcher having varying results over the course of five starts

This is what I've been saying for 3 years. We aren't talking about a ceteris paribus situation. He had mitigating factors that directly contributed to his decline.

You lost me at celery parasite.

 

[mr roboto]

Based on your original post, you seemed to be indicating that Tigers Career is going downhill, that he was incredible when he went 7/11, he was still great when he went 6/14, and that he hasn't done anything lately when he went 0/13 with 5 missed majors. Maybe you didn't mean to indicate that Tiger's career was going downhill, in which case I don't know what the point of your original post was. Tiger's career looks a little different if you show all results:-Won '97 masters-0/10 streak - 1997 to 1999-7/11 streak - 1999 to 2002-0/10 streak - 2002 to 2004-6/14 streak - 2005 to 2008-0/13 streak - 2008 to presentTwice in his career Tiger went through Major droughts and then came back with a hot period. Now he is going through a 3rd drought. While it is not assured that he will go through another hot period, it is certainly possible especially in light of the way he is playing now.Sorry if I confused you, but I guess I didn't understand your point with your original post. Any clarification would be appreciated.

Tiger changed his swing in 1998, 2003/4, and 2010/11.

This shows that once Tiger gets used to a new swing and can duplicate it over a sustained period, he has a major hot streak. It has happened twice already andappears to be about to start a third time. I see a cause and effect here to the hot streak that you may not see in a pitcher having varying results over the course of five starts

This is what I've been saying for 3 years. We aren't talking about a ceteris paribus situation. He had mitigating factors that directly contributed to his decline.

You lost me at celery parasite.

It's a term used in economics - basically, holding all other variables constant. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceteris_paribus

 

[James Daulton]

There is one important variables you eggheads are leaving out.

How old was Tiger during his 1st run of majors? How old was he during his second?

How old is he now?

 

[sho nuff]

There is one important variables you eggheads are leaving out.How old was Tiger during his 1st run of majors? How old was he during his second?How old is he now?

He is a golfer...not an nfl running back

 

[Apple Jack]

There is one important variables you eggheads are leaving out.How old was Tiger during his 1st run of majors? How old was he during his second?How old is he now?

He is a golfer...not an nfl running back

Wonder if he heard about Tom Watson at the Brit a couple years ago.

 

[JuniorNB]

There is one important variables you eggheads are leaving out.How old was Tiger during his 1st run of majors? How old was he during his second?How old is he now?

That stuff only matters in sports

 

[AAABatteries]

I hope he wins every non-major event he plays for the next 4 years but wins no majors. Will make this thread very entertaining for the rest of us.

I'm giving myself a good posting because Tiger hasn't even teed it up again and people are losing their minds in here.

 

[dhockster]

Based on your original post, you seemed to be indicating that Tigers Career is going downhill, that he was incredible when he went 7/11, he was still great when he went 6/14, and that he hasn't done anything lately when he went 0/13 with 5 missed majors. Maybe you didn't mean to indicate that Tiger's career was going downhill, in which case I don't know what the point of your original post was. Tiger's career looks a little different if you show all results:-Won '97 masters-0/10 streak - 1997 to 1999-7/11 streak - 1999 to 2002-0/10 streak - 2002 to 2004-6/14 streak - 2005 to 2008-0/13 streak - 2008 to presentTwice in his career Tiger went through Major droughts and then came back with a hot period. Now he is going through a 3rd drought. While it is not assured that he will go through another hot period, it is certainly possible especially in light of the way he is playing now.Sorry if I confused you, but I guess I didn't understand your point with your original post. Any clarification would be appreciated.

Tiger changed his swing in 1998, 2003/4, and 2010/11.

This shows that once Tiger gets used to a new swing and can duplicate it over a sustained period, he has a major hot streak. It has happened twice already andappears to be about to start a third time. I see a cause and effect here to the hot streak that you may not see in a pitcher having varying results over the course of five starts

This is what I've been saying for 3 years. We aren't talking about a ceteris paribus situation. He had mitigating factors that directly contributed to his decline.

You lost me at celery parasite.

It's a term used in economics - basically, holding all other variables constant. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceteris_paribus

Thank you. My brain just grew a little.

 

[Binky The Doormat]

5 starts for an MLB pitcher would be about 15% of a season. Over a career, that would be 2% of Justin Verlander's starts, roughly 0.007% of Roger Clemens career. By any measure, a statistically insignificant sample size.

25 golf majors (11 + 14 if didn't follow where I got that from) is 40% of Tiger Woods career. Hot streaks that span 3 and 4 seasons is not a small sample size.

The size of the sample isn't the point. The point was that if you deliberately use successful efforts (wins, innings/quarters, games, months, seasons, whatever) as the start and end point for any data, you end up with a sensationalized result. It's a results-based analysis. I used an extreme example to make the point clearer, or so I thought.

The level 2 analysis is understood. I'm a CPA and a CFO, so it's not like I don't get statistics (or how to manipulate them to my advantage). I was into Sabermetrics before Bill James gave it a name and popularized it to the masses. The starting and ending points for TW are explainable (swing changes, injury, personal scandal). It's not like we're looking at a .285 hitter who hit .450 over a 15 game hitting streak. We're talking about a guy who had not one but two sustained periods of excellence, a never before seen dominance, far greater than anything Jones or Nelson or Hogan or Nicklaus accomplished over similar 4 year spans.

I would reject the notion that the two 0-10 streaks or current 0-13 drought is a regression to the mean. The hot streaks are not cherry picked to make it seem like he might be one of the best ever. The two long periods of sustained excellence over several seasons (which included record setting performance in which he lapped the field by 12, 15 and 8 strokes) are convincing evidence he is indeed the most dominant golfer of all-time.

The cumulative total isn't finished for anyone who requires further proof.

I'm a CPA and a CFO, so it's not like I don't get statistics (or how to manipulate them to my advantage). I was into Sabermetrics before Bill James gave it a name and popularized it to the masses.

Oh Bobby you just made my day.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Here strictly to entertain, pard.

 

[flapgreen]

This thread has really went off the rails.

 

[Fennis]

5 starts for an MLB pitcher would be about 15% of a season. Over a career, that would be 2% of Justin Verlander's starts, roughly 0.007% of Roger Clemens career. By any measure, a statistically insignificant sample size.

25 golf majors (11 + 14 if didn't follow where I got that from) is 40% of Tiger Woods career. Hot streaks that span 3 and 4 seasons is not a small sample size.

The size of the sample isn't the point. The point was that if you deliberately use successful efforts (wins, innings/quarters, games, months, seasons, whatever) as the start and end point for any data, you end up with a sensationalized result. It's a results-based analysis. I used an extreme example to make the point clearer, or so I thought.

The level 2 analysis is understood. I'm a CPA and a CFO, so it's not like I don't get statistics (or how to manipulate them to my advantage). I was into Sabermetrics before Bill James gave it a name and popularized it to the masses. The starting and ending points for TW are explainable (swing changes, injury, personal scandal). It's not like we're looking at a .285 hitter who hit .450 over a 15 game hitting streak. We're talking about a guy who had not one but two sustained periods of excellence, a never before seen dominance, far greater than anything Jones or Nelson or Hogan or Nicklaus accomplished over similar 4 year spans.

I would reject the notion that the two 0-10 streaks or current 0-13 drought is a regression to the mean. The hot streaks are not cherry picked to make it seem like he might be one of the best ever. The two long periods of sustained excellence over several seasons (which included record setting performance in which he lapped the field by 12, 15 and 8 strokes) are convincing evidence he is indeed the most dominant golfer of all-time.

The cumulative total isn't finished for anyone who requires further proof.

I'm a CPA and a CFO, so it's not like I don't get statistics (or how to manipulate them to my advantage). I was into Sabermetrics before Bill James gave it a name and popularized it to the masses.

Oh Bobby you just made my day.

sometimes arguments in these threads become a who has the biggest **** contest. glad to see this one became who has the nerdiest ****.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

5 starts for an MLB pitcher would be about 15% of a season. Over a career, that would be 2% of Justin Verlander's starts, roughly 0.007% of Roger Clemens career. By any measure, a statistically insignificant sample size.

25 golf majors (11 + 14 if didn't follow where I got that from) is 40% of Tiger Woods career. Hot streaks that span 3 and 4 seasons is not a small sample size.

The size of the sample isn't the point. The point was that if you deliberately use successful efforts (wins, innings/quarters, games, months, seasons, whatever) as the start and end point for any data, you end up with a sensationalized result. It's a results-based analysis. I used an extreme example to make the point clearer, or so I thought.

The level 2 analysis is understood. I'm a CPA and a CFO, so it's not like I don't get statistics (or how to manipulate them to my advantage). I was into Sabermetrics before Bill James gave it a name and popularized it to the masses. The starting and ending points for TW are explainable (swing changes, injury, personal scandal). It's not like we're looking at a .285 hitter who hit .450 over a 15 game hitting streak. We're talking about a guy who had not one but two sustained periods of excellence, a never before seen dominance, far greater than anything Jones or Nelson or Hogan or Nicklaus accomplished over similar 4 year spans.

I would reject the notion that the two 0-10 streaks or current 0-13 drought is a regression to the mean. The hot streaks are not cherry picked to make it seem like he might be one of the best ever. The two long periods of sustained excellence over several seasons (which included record setting performance in which he lapped the field by 12, 15 and 8 strokes) are convincing evidence he is indeed the most dominant golfer of all-time.

The cumulative total isn't finished for anyone who requires further proof.

I'm a CPA and a CFO, so it's not like I don't get statistics (or how to manipulate them to my advantage). I was into Sabermetrics before Bill James gave it a name and popularized it to the masses.

Oh Bobby you just made my day.

My link

 

[BRONG]

 

[Worm]

Projected Cut: E

T88 88 Rory McIlroy +1 E 1 73 - - - 73

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Suck it, Rors.

 

[Rohn Jambo]

Current ranking: 1 - 1,605 points - 5 events - 3 wins - $3,787,600.

 

[Otis]

Projected Cut: ET88 88 Rory McIlroy +1 E 1 73 - - - 73

T48 and ready for his big moment...

 

[Otis]

Current ranking: 1 - 1,605 points - 5 events - 3 wins - $3,787,600.

Done.

 

[Rohn Jambo]

There is one important variables you eggheads are leaving out.How old was Tiger during his 1st run of majors? How old was he during his second?How old is he now?

That stuff only matters in sports

One gets better at golf as one get older, that is, unless you're Otis.

 

[Raider Nation]

Are we still having Turkish coffee in here?

 

[flapgreen]

Bump

 

[Apple Jack]

After one round, still the favorite.

 

[Abraham]

Yup. Takes a share of the lead tomorrow on hole 15

 

[Apple Jack]

Yup. Takes a share of the lead tomorrow on hole 15

It's supposed to rain, so I think it'll still be a birdie fest for a bit. My guess is that if he wins that he doesn't take the lead til late Saturday, until after they have a chance to make the course difficult.

 

[dparker713]

Tied for lead thru 9

Yup. Takes a share of the lead tomorrow on hole 15

 

[Abraham]

Tied for lead thru 9

Yup. Takes a share of the lead tomorrow on hole 15

A little surprised to be off that much. Should have said "on his own, for good"...

 

[flapgreen]

Bump

 

[Judge Smails]

Robbery

 

[Otis]

Robbery

This. Still, three stoke lead on him with two days to go at the Masters aint nearly enough.

 

[Reginald Cornsilks]

 

[Ghost Rider]

Here is a retweet from Trey Wingo:

Tiger Woods has never won a major when outside the top-5 after 36 holes. Bogey on 18 moved him to T-7th.

Will he break that trend?

 

[Judge Smails]

Here is a retweet from Trey Wingo:

Tiger Woods has never won a major when outside the top-5 after 36 holes. Bogey on 18 moved him to T-7th.

Will he break that trend?

Man, the stars were aligned for a Tiger win. Tied at the top of the leaderboard at 15 towards the end of round 2. This was how he normally wins. Bad break. It will be important for him to get within 1 or so tomorrow so he doesn't have to press and take chances on Sunday. Day will not go away. He has shown he can play well at the Masters and looks very confident. Tiger needs a -4 or -5 day tomorrow.

 

[JAMES!]

Here is a retweet from Trey Wingo:

Tiger Woods has never won a major when outside the top-5 after 36 holes. Bogey on 18 moved him to T-7th.

Will he break that trend?

Man, the stars were aligned for a Tiger win. Tied at the top of the leaderboard at 15 towards the end of round 2. This was how he normally wins. Bad break. It will be important for him to get within 1 or so tomorrow so he doesn't have to press and take chances on Sunday. Day will not go away. He has shown he can play well at the Masters and looks very confident. Tiger needs a -4 or -5 day tomorrow.

I'd be surprised if he plays tomorrow.

 

[Otis]

Here is a retweet from Trey Wingo:

Tiger Woods has never won a major when outside the top-5 after 36 holes. Bogey on 18 moved him to T-7th.

Will he break that trend?

Man, the stars were aligned for a Tiger win. Tied at the top of the leaderboard at 15 towards the end of round 2. This was how he normally wins. Bad break. It will be important for him to get within 1 or so tomorrow so he doesn't have to press and take chances on Sunday. Day will not go away. He has shown he can play well at the Masters and looks very confident. Tiger needs a -4 or -5 day tomorrow.

I'd be surprised if he plays tomorrow.

Lmao. You're ridiculous.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Tied for lead thru 9

Yup. Takes a share of the lead tomorrow on hole 15

A little surprised to be off that much. Should have said "on his own, for good"...

Well at least you predicted something important would happen on #15.

 

[jon_mx]

Here is a retweet from Trey Wingo: Tiger Woods has never won a major when outside the top-5 after 36 holes. Bogey on 18 moved him to T-7th. Will he break that trend?

Man, the stars were aligned for a Tiger win. Tied at the top of the leaderboard at 15 towards the end of round 2. This was how he normally wins. Bad break. It will be important for him to get within 1 or so tomorrow so he doesn't have to press and take chances on Sunday. Day will not go away. He has shown he can play well at the Masters and looks very confident. Tiger needs a -4 or -5 day tomorrow.

I'd be surprised if he plays tomorrow.

Lmao. You're ridiculous.

It is quite possible. Golf tends to harshly apply rules, witness the stroke penalty on the 14 year old kid. The possibility of a DQ is real.

 

[jon_mx]

A 2 shot penalty for Tiger. They went the lenient route, but still a blow to Tigers chances.

 

[Ghost Rider]

http://espn.go.com/golf/blog/_/name/golf/id/9166946/tiger-woods-taken-illegal-drop-15th-hole-augusta-national-golf

 

[Reginald Cornsilks]

Here is a retweet from Trey Wingo:

Tiger Woods has never won a major when outside the top-5 after 36 holes. Bogey on 18 moved him to T-7th.

Will he break that trend?

Man, the stars were aligned for a Tiger win. Tied at the top of the leaderboard at 15 towards the end of round 2. This was how he normally wins. Bad break. It will be important for him to get within 1 or so tomorrow so he doesn't have to press and take chances on Sunday. Day will not go away. He has shown he can play well at the Masters and looks very confident. Tiger needs a -4 or -5 day tomorrow.

I'd be surprised if he plays tomorrow.

Lmao. You're ridiculous.

Not really.

 

[Pumpnick]

cheater

 

[Abraham]

Rick Reilly is a moron.

 

[Apple Jack]

Rick Reilly is a moron.

What did he say?

 

[flapgreen]

Oof

 

[Abraham]

Rick Reilly is a moron.

What did he say?

Talking about how tiger should have withdrawn and on and on until SVP reminded him of the new reassessment rule. At that point "well that's what I meant. Without the rule change he should have withdrawn." North and Strange are sitting there quietly burning holes in him with dirty looks (they both think its a fair penalty).