2025 Masters Tournament predictions: Three long shots picks to win in Augusta

New York Post - Apr 9th, 2025

The Masters golf tournament has recently been dominated by favorites like Scottie Scheffler and Jon Rahm, who have claimed the last three green jackets with relatively low odds. This trend of predictable outcomes contrasts with the unpredictability seen in previous years, where long shots like Hideki Matsuyama, Danny Willett, and Charl Schwarzel defied the odds to win. As the 2025 Masters approaches, the field appears more open than in recent years, with Scheffler not dominating the PGA Tour and Rahm switching to LIV, leaving room for potential upsets.

Several players are highlighted as potential surprise winners, reflecting a return to the days when the Masters was known for unexpected outcomes. Min Woo Lee, with impressive recent performances and favorable odds, is a strong contender. Keegan Bradley and Sungjae Im, both with substantial experience and past success at Augusta, are also significant dark horse candidates. Nick Taylor, despite limited experience at the Masters, is noted for his clutch performances and could offer excitement if he contends over the weekend. This year, the tournament may once again embody the unpredictability and excitement that fans have come to love.

Pga Tour Liv Golf Scottie Scheffler Augusta National Masters Tournament Jon Rahm Min Woo Lee Keegan Bradley Sungjae Im Nick Taylor

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.8

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article provides a well-rounded analysis of recent Masters trends, focusing on the predictability of winners and the potential for long-shot victories. Its strengths lie in its clarity, timeliness, and engagement with a niche audience interested in golf and sports betting. However, it could improve in transparency and source quality by citing authoritative sources and explaining the basis for its claims. While the article is unlikely to provoke controversy or significantly impact public opinion, it serves as an informative piece for golf enthusiasts and bettors. Overall, it effectively balances factual information with speculative analysis, providing readers with insights into the dynamics of the Masters tournament.

Accuracy

The story provides a detailed account of past Masters winners and their odds, which generally aligns with historical records. For instance, it accurately mentions Scottie Scheffler and Jon Rahm as recent winners and notes the odds for Hideki Matsuyama's 2021 win. However, it requires verification of specific odds and the exact years of wins to ensure precision. The narrative about past long-shot winners like Danny Willett and Charl Schwartzel is consistent with historical data, adding credibility to the claims. The discussion about the current field and potential long-shot winners is speculative but grounded in recent performance trends, which adds to its verifiability.

Balance

The article maintains a reasonable balance by presenting both the dominance of favorites in recent Masters tournaments and the potential for long-shot winners. It highlights the unpredictability of past tournaments while acknowledging the recent trend of top-ranked players winning. However, it could benefit from more perspectives, such as insights from sports analysts or players themselves, to provide a deeper understanding of the dynamics at play.

Clarity

The article is well-structured and uses clear, concise language, making it easy to follow. The narrative logically flows from discussing recent trends to highlighting potential long-shot winners. The tone remains neutral, focusing on factual information without unnecessary embellishments. However, some readers might require additional context about the significance of odds in sports betting to fully understand the implications.

Source quality

The story lacks explicit attribution to sources, which affects its reliability. While the information seems credible based on historical knowledge, citing authoritative sources such as official PGA Tour records or expert analyses would enhance its credibility. The absence of direct quotes or references to expert opinions limits the depth of the narrative.

Transparency

The article does not disclose its sources or methodology for determining odds and player performance, which reduces transparency. It would benefit from explaining how the odds were calculated or where the data on player performances was sourced. Additionally, any potential conflicts of interest, such as affiliations with betting companies, should be disclosed to maintain impartiality.