One of the benefits of the statistical revolution in golf is that we now have the capacity to test this concept. We want to mention here that the credit for inspiring this piece goes to Jason Sobel at the Action Network, who undertook the task of determining which golfers play best—and worst—at majors in comparison to their own average standard. It's a fun article, with interesting results. Yet if there’s one place where we disagree with Sobel, it’s that he used the metric of “average finish by position” as a comparison tool. That may be useful in a general way, but it’s also pretty unscientific. There are large clumps of ties in any given tournament, there are differences in field size and strength (50th at the PGA Championship is better than 50th at the Masters, and both are way better than 50th at a non-major), and Sobel’s method of dealing with cuts—counting them all as an 80th place finish—struck us as overly generous, considering there are often 150-plus players in a tournament.