It also announced that David Lingmerth, Jordan Spieth, Russell Henley, and Derek Ernst are up for rookie of the year honors.
According to PGATour.com both awards "are determined by a member vote, with PGA Tour members who played in at least 12 official money events in 2013 eligible to vote." The awards will be announced this Friday.
The rookie of the year award is little more than a foregone conclusion as Spieth should get every single vote on the table, but the player of the year award is a little more complicated.
The problem, as I see it, is that there are no clear-cut parameters for voting. You could argue each of the five golfers based on five different criteria.
Jamie Kennedy wrote an excellent post today on each of the five guys and why each is deserving of the award (ok, maybe not Kuchar) -- it's a great read.
His basic argument was this:
Kuchar was the most consistent, Scott had the biggest win, Mickelson had the most memorable win, Stenson was the best statistically, and Tiger had the most wins (though none of them majors).
So how do you choose?
I think as golf fans we sort of overvalue majors when it comest to player of the year -- especially compared to the players voting on this award.
Bill Haas noted this at The Barclays a few weeks ago.
"His lack of winning a major is the only thing talked about, which I think is sad," Haas said. "I think it's ignorant. There's five wins this year ... but (not winning a major) is what we're basing his year on."
I'm pretty sure Woods is going to get Haas' vote.
"He's not winning the smaller events. He's winning the WGCs and Bay Hill, and yes, it makes what he's doing that much more impressive."
So yes, I also think Woods will walk away with the hardware and it'll be hard to argue if he does.
And I'm not sure people totally appreciate the things Woods is doing on Tour right now. Kennedy's excellent chart showing that this is the sixth time Woods has broken the "$2,000 per shot hit" mark is evidence of that.
Friday's trophy will be more.